Verbatim report of proceedings of 14 September 2021
Date: 2021-09-14
Institutions: European Parliament
Subjects: European Parliament, parliamentary debate








C_202405359EN.000101.fmx.xml












Official Journal of the European Union


EN
C series














3.9.2024







            14 September 2021
            VERBATIM REPORT OF PROCEEDINGS OF 14 SEPTEMBER 2021
            
         
(C/2024/5359)

Contents







1.

Opening of the sitting
3










2.

Announcement of voting results: see Minutes
3










3.

Presentation of the Fit for 55 package after the publication of the IPCC report (debate)
3










4.

Natural disasters during the summer of 2021 — Impacts of natural disasters in Europe due to climate change (debate)
28










5.

Presentation by the Council of its position on the draft general budget - 2022 financial year (debate)
45










6.

Voting session
49










7.

Resumption of the sitting
50










8.

Situation in Afghanistan (debate)
50










9.

Situation in Lebanon (debate)
78










10.

Direction of EU-Russia political relations (debate)
87










11.

Announcement of voting results
97










12.

Direction of EU-Russia political relations (continuation of debate)
97










13.

A new EU-China strategy (debate)
100










14.

Resumption of the sitting
109










15.

EU Blue Card Directive (debate)
109










16.

Documents received: see Minutes
119










17.

Instrument for pre-accession assistance (IPA III) 2021-2027 (debate)
119










18.

Brexit Adjustment Reserve – Draft amending budget No 1/2021: Brexit Adjustment Reserve (debate)
125










19.

Explanations of vote: see Minutes
136










20.

Corrections to votes and voting intentions: see Minutes
137










21.

Agenda of the next sitting
137










22.

Closure of the sitting
137




Verbatim report of proceedings of 14 September 2021
                  


VORSITZ: RAINER WIELAND


Vizepräsident

1.   Opening of the sitting

(Die Sitzung wird um 9.00 Uhr eröffnet.)

2.   Announcement of voting results: see Minutes
3.   Presentation of the Fit for 55 package after the publication of the IPCC report (debate)

Der Präsident. – Als nächster Punkt der Tagesordnung folgt die Aussprache über die Erklärung des Rates und der Kommission zur Vorstellung des Pakets ‘Fit für 55’ nach der Veröffentlichung des Berichts des Weltklimarates [2021/2875(RSP)].
               

                  Ich erinnere die Mitglieder daran, dass es bei allen Aussprachen dieser Tagung keine spontanen Wortmeldungen gibt und keine blauen Karten akzeptiert werden. Außerdem sind wie bei den letzten Tagungen Zuschaltungen aus den Verbindungsbüros des Parlaments in den Mitgliedstaaten vorgesehen.
               

Anže Logar,
President-in-Office of the Council. – Mr President, dear Members of the European Parliament, before addressing the important topic that is today on the agenda, let me please remind you that September is the month of raising awareness of childhood cancer.
I recently received a group of Slovenian children that have to go through this disease, and they gave me this golden ribbon. As there is a COVID restriction they couldn't bring those golden ribbons to you here so they asked me to bring them to you in order to send support for them, a good message for them, and we will distribute these to you. And they will be very glad and very happy if they see you on your social media or any kind as support from you. So I look forward to this support and the Slovenian Presidency will do its utmost to support this fight against cancer.
Mr President, honourable Members, thank you for inviting me to speak on this crucial topic. Recent natural disasters across Europe are a stark reminder to everyone that climate change and its effects are something felt not only in far-away countries, but as well in other continents. According to data from the European Environment Agency, the average temperature in Europe has been 2.2 degrees Celsius higher over the last five years than it was at the end of the 19th century. 2020 was the warmest year ever recorded in Europe.
It is estimated that between 1980 and 2019, over 85 000 people in the EU lost their lives due to extreme weather and climate-related events. The final loss is caused by extreme weather and climate-related events exceeded EUR 419 billion in the EU27 over the last 40 years. This is significantly more than what the EU spent over two years on all its policies and programmes, and this summer we yet again received a report from IPCC reminding us of the global challenge.
The IPCC findings indicate that human activities have altered the environment at an unprecedented pace, with the unavoidable consequence that catastrophic impacts lie ahead unless the world rapidly and dramatically cuts greenhouse gas emissions.
For Europe, the report predicts an increase in the frequency and intensity of extreme weather events. Higher temperatures and intensified weather events will also result in huge costs for the EU's economy and hamper countries' ability to produce food. But faced by dramatic events and figures and equipped with scientific knowledge, I believe the EU is stepping up the challenge.
We have pledged to be the first climate-neutral continent. The climate law adopted this year by Parliament and the Council set us on a firm path to climate neutrality by 2050. Our ambition is firmly anchored in the climate mainstreaming of EU policies and set out in the Green Deal and underpinned by the Multiannual Financial Framework for 2021-2027 and the COVID-19 recovery plans.
The Fit for 55 legislative package presented by the Commission on 14 July this year represents the moment of delivery of our ambition. The discussions in the Council are framed by the principles agreed by the Council in December 2020 and reaffirmed in May 2021. I want to take this opportunity to thank the Commission for the enormous amount of work done to deliver this package. We are only at the beginning of the examination of the many proposals made by the Commission.
It is too early to make statements on how the debate will unfold. However, it is clear that when discussing the package a number of overarching dimensions will have to be considered, including the ability of the package to deliver on our ambitions and be effective in decarbonising our economy and societies.
We also have to consider the package's contribution to future-proofing our economy. Does it deliver on the opportunity to use the green transformation to reinforce the EU's leadership in innovative green technology to create new jobs and strengthen the competitiveness of European industry, while ensuring a level playing field on global markets? Does the package represent the right policy mix in providing the right incentives to decarbonise the economy by stimulating investment and uptake of new technologies that can secure business and jobs?
Well, we should openly discuss that. Furthermore, since increased climate ambition is not without costs, we will need to analyse whether this package ensures a fair distribution of the burden between economic sectors and Member States, but also within the individual Member States themselves.
Here I want to underline the need to take a hard look at the socioeconomic impact of measures and how best to address it. Having said that, ambition, economy and fair burden-sharing are not opposites. They need to go hand in hand.
The Commission has presented a set of interconnected proposals that, as a package, aim to contribute to deliver ambition in a balanced way. In our eagerness to find a solution on individual files, we should not forget to zoom out and look at the overall picture and at whether the package as a whole delivers. Today's debate provides a good occasion for this. Of course Europe alone will not be able to rise effectively to the challenges set in the Paris Agreement. The EU is currently emitting less than 10% of global emissions and, while we have a downward trajectory, other economies are still increasing their emissions, but we have a responsibility to lead by example.
There are some positive developments at international level, such as the recent announcement made by the USA and China to commit to reach climate neutrality respectively by 2050 and 2060. But it is not sufficient. We need to go further. Every country has to draw a credible pathway towards climate neutrality if we want to preserve our collective chances to stay below 1.5%. In this regard, COP26 in Glasgow will be a test of our collective commitment to fulfill the long-term temperature goal of the Paris Agreement. We are actively preparing for this major event where we intend to emphasise the extreme urgency to act to keep the 1.5-degrees Celsius goal within reach.
Mr President, honourable Members, for the Slovenian Presidency, the proposals in the Fit for 55 legislative package are top priority, and we have embarked on an ambitious work programme aiming to make as much progress as possible, thereby laying a solid foundation on the way towards finding agreement on the proposal within the Council.
Delivering on the EU 2030 target and the Fit for 55 package will be crucial. It will be Europe's contribution to meet the global challenges of climate change and it will be our opportunity to lead by example while future-proofing our own economy and ensuring prosperity for European citizens, leaving no one behind.
It is our joint responsibility to get it right. Let us, Parliament and Council, as co-legislators, roll up our sleeves and get to work. Thank you for your attention.

Frans Timmermans,
Executive Vice-President of the Commission. – Mr President, ‘The time is out of joint; oh cursed spite that ever I was born to set it right’. This is a quote from Hamlet that keeps coming back to me in this whole process of finding solutions to what is an existential threat to humanity, the combination of the climate crisis and the serious risk of ecocide. There is a huge responsibility on our shoulders because, if we fail to act now – and I mean immediately – then our children will never forgive us because things will get out of hand. That is the essence of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) report, that if we don't act now, tipping points will be reached quite soon and one might even fear sooner than even the IPCC report describes.
So we have no choice. We have to act. And the one thing I hope we can avoid is that we are paralysed by the fear of change, paralysed by the consequence of what we need to do. The Fit for 55 package proposes a holistic approach to the problem, and we will have ample time to discuss the individual measures that we propose. The Commission is open to discuss these and look for alternatives, but we have to be very clear on one thing, whatever measure you take. All these measures have a price effect, and the art of politics will be to ensure that the price effect does not affect the most vulnerable and that we use the age-old political instrument of redistribution to make sure that the burden is evenly spread in society and that people can see clearly, beyond any doubt, that we have taken measures that will assure an equal burden-sharing across society.
The one thing we cannot afford is for the social side to be opposed to the climate side. I see this threat very clearly now that we have a discussion about the price hike in the energy sector. Only about one fifth of the price increase can be attributed to CO2 prices rising. The others are simply a consequence of shortage in the market, and the irony is that, had we had the Green Deal five years earlier, we would not be in this position because then we would have less dependency on fossil fuels and on natural gas. Along the way in this energy price crisis, we have seen that the prices for renewables have stayed low and stable. So, instead of being paralysed or slowing things down because of the price hike now in the energy sector, we should speed things up in the transition to renewable energy so that affordable renewable energy becomes available for everyone. That is, I think, the lesson we should draw from the present situation.
Of course, if you follow the reasoning we have put in Fit for 55, for instance on the introduction of the EU Emissions Trading System (ETS) in transport and buildings, in combination with the Social Climate Fund, you will give Member States the opportunity to make their own choices, for instance reducing the VAT, reducing duties on energy, and giving direct support to households. Direct support can be given. It's a choice Member States can make. It's the choice we have made because we believe that, in the analysis of the fact that emissions and transport are still going up and they need to be going down, and that the energy efficiency of buildings is not increasing at the rate that we need to get to the -55% emission reduction in 2030, we have to do something. We cannot just say, ‘OK, it's too tricky, let it be’. Then the emissions will continue to rise in transport and we will never, ever reach the target we set into law.
So my offer to Parliament and Council is: let's look at the Fit for 55 package in its totality. If there are elements you would like to change, then help us find alternatives that reach the same goal in a way that ensures fair burden-sharing across society, across Member States, between regions. That is, I think, the ultimate goal of what we should do.
Now, of course, everything we do at home has an effect on our position abroad and I have sensed, in my travels and negotiations in the preparation of COP26 in Glasgow, that the fact that we have a plan and the fact that there is a concrete proposal, has enormously boosted our position, also in the international arena. I spoke last week both with John Kerry and Alok Sharma in the preparation of the COP, and I will see John Kerry again next week. I spoke with the Minister from Bhutan, who is Chair of the Least Developed Countries (LDC) Group in the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). I will also be speaking with the Chairman of the Small Island States Group next week. I will be talking to the Turks later this week. I will be travelling to Egypt to talk to the countries in the Mediterranean in early October. I will also be travelling to Moscow to talk to the Russians. So you see that there is an active interest in Europe's role in all of this. I'm in constant dialogue with the Chinese and their negotiator, Xie Zhenhua, to also try and convince the Chinese to come on board with more ambition.
So that's how we try to prepare Glasgow in the best possible way, and I would really welcome your support in these efforts because I believe – and I want to conclude on this – we can still fix it. I believe we can still make a success of Glasgow but, more than that, I believe we can prevent the climate crisis from getting out of hand and out of control. I believe we can offer to the next generations a humanity that knows how to live within planetary boundaries. I believe it can be done, but only if we act now.

Peter Liese,
im Namen der PPE-Fraktion. – (Beginn des Redebeitrags bei ausgeschaltetem Mikro) … dieses Sommers und der IPCC-Bericht waren ein Weckruf. Wir müssen den Klimaschutz-Turbo in Europa und weltweit anschalten. Wir als EVP sagen ja zu den Vorschlägen der Europäischen Kommission. Und wir sagen auch nicht: ja, aber – wir sagen ja, und wir sehen Potenzial, sie noch besser zu machen. Wir sehen zum Beispiel die Möglichkeit, auch für PKW, die mit synthetischen Kraftstoffen fahren, einen Weg zu eröffnen, damit wir alle Möglichkeiten nutzen, um wirklich klimaneutral zu werden.
               

                  Und wir unterstützen die Kommission vor allen Dingen dabei, dass sie einen marktwirtschaftlichen Ansatz wählt und gleichzeitig den sozialen Ausgleich vorlegt. Ich möchte mich eindeutig für diesen Vorschlag der Europäischen Kommission aussprechen, für das neue ETS und für den Klima-Sozialfonds. Der Sinn ist nämlich, dass jeder profitiert, der sich klimafreundlich verhält. Jeder Privatmensch, jede Firma, die eine gute Idee hat, soll das verwirklichen, und nicht nur die, die in ein irgendwie geartetes bürokratisches Schema von Brüssel passen. Glückwunsch, Herr Timmermans, für diese Kombination! Und Sie haben einen sozialen Ausgleich vorgelegt. Das ist das erste Mal, und da spreche ich Grüne und Sozialdemokraten an: Wo war denn der soziale Ausgleich beim bestehenden ETS? Wo ist denn der soziale Ausgleich für das EEG, das in Deutschland zum Beispiel eingeführt wurde, um Ziele im Bereich der erneuerbaren Energien zu erreichen?
               

                  Kinderreiche Familien und sozial Schwache werden auch durch hohe Strompreise belastet, und nicht erst durch Überlegungen für ein neues ETS. Deswegen suchen wir doch den sozialen Ausgleich. Und mäkeln wir nicht an dem Prinzip herum, dass wir ein Preissignal brauchen, damit wir alle Technologien nutzen! Wir sollten nicht herummäkeln, wir sollten anpacken und gemeinsam dieses Paket auf den Weg bringen und es noch besser machen.
               

Mohammed Chahim,
on behalf of the S&D Group. – Mr President, I will not surprise you and say that we at S&D welcome the Fit for climate package. This is proof that we have passed the stage of pledges. With this package, we have entered the stage of action.
But now I hear political groups from the left to the right expressing their concerns about parts of the package, and that reminds me of a famous cartoon. When someone asks a group of people ‘who wants change?’ everyone cheers and raises their hands. But then he asks them ‘who wants to change?’ and the room remains silent. If everyone that's worried about parts of this package being too ambitious wants them taken out of this package, what will remain? Nothing.
We, as S&D, are ready to deliver. However, we need to talk about the severe revision of the ETS, including a revision of the free allowances. We need to talk about progressive energy taxation. We need to talk about the just transition. We need to talk about whether we are willing to directly support consumers to become more sustainable, and of course about the Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism, about effort-sharing, etc., etc.
We are willing to talk about every single point in this package on the two conditions that the total is balanced and that we meet our objectives – and, of course, that the gains and burdens are shared in a fair and just way.

Pascal Canfin,
au nom du groupe Renew. – Monsieur le Président, chers collègues, Monsieur le Vice-Président de la Commission, nous vivons un moment passionnant et inédit. Inédit, parce que c'est la première fois que nous, au Parlement européen, avons la possibilité de dire oui à la proposition de la Commission de mettre fin à la commercialisation des voitures essence et diesel, des voitures à énergie fossile, pour passer à une nouvelle génération, notamment les voitures électriques.
               

                  C'est la première fois que nous avons la possibilité de dire oui à un mécanisme d'ajustement carbone aux frontières qui va mettre le climat, le carbone, dans les règles du jeu du commerce international, et nous serons les premiers au monde à le faire.
               

                  Nous avons la possibilité de dire oui à l'extension du secteur maritime dans le marché du carbone. Là aussi, c'est la première fois au monde qu'une entité politique décide d'intégrer le secteur maritime pour lui faire payer le juste prix du carbone. Et tout ça, le groupe Renew le soutient pleinement, totalement.
               

                  Vous le savez, Monsieur Timmermans, nous sommes très sceptiques sur une des parties du grand plan climat que vous proposez, à savoir l'extension du marché du carbone aux bâtiments et aux transports, parce que nous considérons que le coût politique est très élevé et l'impact climatique est très faible. Nous ferons donc des propositions alternatives, les équipes du groupe Renew sont déjà au travail pour faire ces propositions alternatives et restructurer cette proposition qui vient de la Commission et qui ne nous convient pas.
               

                  Mais je voulais aussi vous demander, Monsieur Timmermans: dans la loi climat, nous avons d'un commun accord donné la possibilité à la Commission européenne de dire au Conseil et au Parlement, à chaque étape du processus législatif, si nous sommes toujours en ligne avec l'objectif des moins 57 %. Car, vous le savez, nous avons négocié plus que moins 55 %, à savoir moins 57 %. Comment allez-vous procéder? Comment allez-vous faire, dès demain, dès les prochaines discussions en commission de l'environnement, lors des votes en commission environnement et dans les autres comités associés? Lors des votes en plénière et au Conseil? Comment allez-vous nous guider, en quelque sorte, pour assurer que nous n'allons pas dérailler sous le poids de certains lobbies?
               

                  J'entendais Peter Liese qui, déjà, défendait la non-fin des véhicules thermiques en 2035 pour aller vers de nouvelles technologies fossiles. Nous allons avoir des dizaines et des dizaines de propositions qui risquent d'affaiblir le paquet climat. Nous avons besoin de vous pour activer la loi climat et nous garantir que nous sommes sur le droit chemin.
               

Ska Keller,
on behalf of the Verts/ALE Group. – Mr President, this summer the UN Panel on Climate Change gave us a dramatic reminder of what's at stake. They tell us the global surface temperature is increasing faster than ever in the past 2 000 years. They tell us that if we don't drastically limit our emissions, every single region on our planet will suffer the immediate consequences of climate change. They tell us we only have until 2030 maximum to do everything in our power to act against the climate and biodiversity crisis.
The decisions that we are taking today have to deliver on the global promise to keep the temperature rise well below two degrees, and it's the industrialised countries that have built their wealth on greenhouse gas emissions that are now threatening the lives and livelihoods of millions of people around the globe. We, as Europeans, have a special responsibility, and all of this makes the Fit for 55 package so important. A 55% reduction is, anyway, not very ambitious given the challenge ahead. Therefore, it will be even more important that this package is filled with concrete measures that are correctly and honestly calculated and measures that start today and not just only after 2030. And unfortunately, that is a test that this package does not pass, at least not in all aspects.
Phasing out free allowances in the emission trade, a kerosene tax and an end to the combustion engine cannot be postponed for another 10 years, or even more. Not only are we losing out in the fight to keep the climate conditions liveable, but also in the race for who provides the tools and technology for the transition.
The time to act is now if we don't want to drown in the consequences of our own inaction. Rather, we need to end public subsidies for fossil fuel, get rid of free pollution certificates, complement the renovation phase with the solar phase and accelerate the switch to renewables. We know what to do. We just need to do it, and we have no time to lose.

Paolo Borchia,
a nome del gruppo ID. – Signor Presidente, onorevoli colleghi, fare nei prossimi dieci anni quello che è stato fatto negli ultimi trenta, niente male, direi, per un contesto post-pandemico, quindi penso che serva come minimo porsi delle domande.
               

                  Ad esempio stamattina non ho sentito riflessioni adeguate per quanto riguarda l'andamento delle bollette per imprese e consumatori. Non una parola sull'aumento della richiesta d'acqua, visto che l'estrazione delle terre rare e l'aumento dei metalli che questa rivoluzione verde abbisogna avranno necessità di drenare maggiori risorse idriche. Non una parola sulle emissioni di CO2 in Europa negli ultimi trent'anni, che sono state vanificate dall'andamento delle emissioni nel resto del mondo. Quindi gli altri inquinano, mentre in Europa imponente legislazioni più restrittive.
               

                  È un ambientalismo che giudico poco lungimirante, che segue molto la moda e strizza l'occhio ai ricchi, visto che non so fra 13 anni quanti saranno in grado di dotarsi di auto completamente elettriche.
               

                  Svariati sono i miliardi del Recovery fund che andranno a finire in Cina, paese dal quale siamo sempre più dipendenti tecnologicamente, visto che il 60 % delle materie prime di questa rivoluzione le importeremo da questo paese. Quindi questo è un disegno che andrà, alla fine dei conti, a sostituire la dipendenza europea dal petrolio mediorientale con quello dalla tecnologia cinese, per la gioia della concorrenza internazionale, altro che buon esempio.
               

                  Quindi, onorevoli colleghi, stiamo attenti perché questo non è più europeismo, ma diventa collaborazionismo.
               

Anna Zalewska,
w imieniu grupy ECR. – Panie Przewodniczący! Panie Komisarzu! Koleżanki i Koledzy! Myślę, że grudzień 2020 r. to grudzień historyczny, kiedy cała Unia Europejska zgodziła się na zeroemisyjność do 2050 roku na poziomie Unii Europejskiej z uwzględnieniem pochłaniaczy, w sposób solidarny, odpowiedzialny, pokazujący różne drogi dochodzenia do celu w poszczególnych krajach Unii Europejskiej. Niestety, i mówię to z przykrością – mam nadzieję, że będziemy nad tym pracować i to zmieniać – pakiet Fit for 55 zapomina o tych uzgodnieniach.
               

                  Rządy liczą, obywatele zaczęli się tym interesować i również pytają. Pytają przede wszystkim o wzrost cen, wzrost cen wszystkiego. To oni poniosą największy koszt i to oni będą dźwigać ciężar ambicji Unii Europejskiej. W związku z tym musimy zadbać, by to nie oni byli w ubóstwie energetycznym. Już 50 milionów obywateli Unii Europejskiej to ludzie żyjący w ubóstwie energetycznym. Pierwsze szacunki wskazują, że będzie ich co najmniej dwukrotnie więcej. W związku z tym musimy ograniczyć nowe podatki, nakazy, zakazy, musimy po prostu liczyć pieniądze. Bez ludzi tego nie zrobimy, odwrócą się od nas i żadne ambicje, żadne zachęty nie pomogą.
               

                  Jednocześnie mam nadzieję, że będziemy pracować nad ETS-em i tym, który będziemy rewidować, i tym nowym dla budynków i samochodów. Dlatego, że ETS, proszę Państwa, jest po pierwsze niesprawiedliwy, po drugie wynaturzył się, funkcjonuje na rynku spekulacyjnym. Frans Timmermans, odpowiadając mi na pytanie, wyraził swoją radość, że tak rosną ceny ETS-u, a one przekładają się bezpośrednio na ceny energii. Przypominam, że podczas pandemii wzrosły trzykrotnie. Jednocześnie, kiedy zgodziliśmy się i w prawie klimatycznym zapisaliśmy, że będziemy pochłaniać, prawie wyeliminowaliśmy pochłaniacze sztuczne, one są w prawie klimatycznym wymienione tylko w motywie. Przypilnujmy – zgodnie ze sprawozdaniem IPCC, gdzie w pkt D.1.4 i D.1.5 ewidentnie mówi się o ważności sztucznych pochłaniaczy – żeby one znalazły się w poszczególnych w zapisach, by firmy chciały pochłaniać. Wydaje się, że to najszybszy, najsprawiedliwszy sposób osiągnięcia zeroemisyjności.
               

Manon Aubry,
au nom du groupe The Left. – Monsieur le Président, inondations meurtrières, feux apocalyptiques, record absolu de chaleur: les catastrophes climatiques étaient le scénario de films comme ‘Le jour d'après’. Mais cet été, la fiction est devenue réalité en Europe.
               

                  Nous ne sommes plus les spectateurs passifs d'un film catastrophe, mais nous la vivons. Le dérèglement climatique est déjà là. Il est irréversible. Il est brutal. Et au cas où cette alerte grandeur nature ne vous suffirait pas, le rapport du GIEC clôt la discussion. Nous devons tout changer, maintenant, radicalement si l'on veut éviter le chaos. Le compte à rebours est lancé, mais vous continuez à faire l'autruche. Ça commence déjà mal avec votre objectif de réduction de 55 % des émissions de gaz à effet de serre d'ici 2030, alors qu'il faudrait au moins 65 % pour respecter les accords de Paris. Autant éteindre l'incendie avec un arrosoir de jardin.
               

                  Sur la méthode, ensuite, vous vous êtes surpassé. Quelle est votre solution miracle? Laisser faire le marché. Eurêka! Personne n'y avait pensé. On a pourtant vu le triomphe du marché carbone que les entreprises ont utilisé comme un permis de polluer. Résultat, les émissions industrielles ont baissé de seulement 1 % en dix ans. Mais vous en reprendrez bien encore un peu en l'étendant aux transports et aux bâtiments?
               

                  Et puis, tant qu'on y est, pas touche non plus à l'agriculture productiviste et aux accords de libre échange climaticides. Pas de surprise, enfin, sur qui va payer la note? Ah non, pas la finance folle ou les pauvres multinationales qui sont le cœur du problème. Mais non, ce que vous proposez, c'est les classes populaires, bien sûr, qui vont voir leur facture exploser. Plus 370 euros par an d'essence et 420 euros de chauffage pour ces ménages qui sont déjà les premières victimes du chaos climatique. L'alerte lancée par les gilets jaunes en France? Manifestement, vous n'en avez pas entendu parler.
               

                  Alors, Monsieur Timmermans, vous nous dites: ‘Nous devons agir maintenant’. Mais vous restez désespérément prisonnier de votre logiciel néolibéral. Et puisque vous vous dites ouvert à des alternatives, nous continuerons de notre côté à proposer le seul chemin sérieux: un ‘Green New Deal’ social et écologique qui rompe avec ce système économique prédateur qui détruit tout.
               

Κώστας Παπαδάκης (NI). – Κύριε Πρόεδρε, το ευρωενωσιακό πακέτο της Ευρωπαϊκής Ένωσης ‘Fit for 55’ σημαίνει απευθείας επιβάρυνση των εργατικών λαϊκών στρωμάτων, εξαιτίας των λεγόμενων ‘πράσινων μπίζνες’ των ομίλων, από τους πράσινους νέους φόρους για εκπομπές άνθρακα στην ηλεκτρική ενέργεια, που καταλήγουν αυτούσιοι στα τιμολόγια, ως το ακριβότερο εισαγόμενο φυσικό αέριο και την πανάκριβη και ασταθή μονοκαλλιέργεια των ανανεώσιμων πηγών ενέργειας. Με πρόσχημα την κλιματική αλλαγή, γενικεύονται η απελευθέρωση της ενέργειας, το εμπόριο ρύπων, η απολιγνιτοποίηση, που οδηγούν σε ανατιμήσεις στο ρεύμα, σε ‘πράσινα’ προϊόντα και σε υπηρεσίες που έρχονται είτε με το μαστίγιο της υπερφορολόγησης των παλιών καυσίμων, είτε με το καρότο της επιδότησης για την αγορά απλησίαστων ηλεκτροκίνητων αυτοκινήτων. Τα δήθεν αντισταθμιστικά, σαν αυτά της κυβέρνησης της Νέας Δημοκρατίας στην Ελλάδα, πάλι θα τα πληρώσει ο λαός αποπληρώνοντας το αβάστακτο ‘υπερμνημόνιο’ του Ταμείου Ανάκαμψης. Μόνο αν απαλλαγεί ο λαός από τους νόμους της αγοράς και του καπιταλιστικού κέρδους, με τα μέσα παραγωγής, τις ενεργειακές πηγές και τα δίκτυα να γίνονται κοινωνική ιδιοκτησία του, μόνο τότε ο ενεργειακός σχεδιασμός θα υπηρετεί τα συμφέροντα του.
               

Cristian-Silviu Bușoi (PPE). – Mr President, in the Committee on Industry, Research and Energy (ITRE) that I chair we are of course very much interested in the Fit for 55 package, as ITRE competence on energy, industrial policies, new technologies and innovation and ENVI competence on climate policy are very much interlinked. The 55% emission reduction target for 2030 has already been set. The Fit for 55 package will pave the way to reach this target.
The Commission is very ambitious indeed. The proposal is already ambitious. The reality sometimes is far from ready for this transformation. Consequently, we in the European Parliament need to find the proper balance in this debate. We need to ensure consistency across policies, streamline our climate ambitions with a feasible transition leaving no region behind, with no industrial sector being negotiated, ensuring further the resilience both in the energy and industrial sectors and in particular of the energy system ensuring the security of energy supply. All of this while striving for energy autonomy in the Union, and keeping costs affordable for end users.
In securing our lead in tackling climate change we need to work towards climate innovation and digitalisation, remaining competitive and ensuring growth in all our industrial sectors, and in particular in the heavy ones. As chair of the ITRE committee, I can say that the long-term commitment of this committee is to achieve the ambitious targets on climate policies, but with a coherent industrial policy with a just and inclusive transition, while maintaining the security of energy supply in the Union.

Jytte Guteland (S&D). – Herr talman! Även för oss som dagligen följer klimatutvecklingen var sommarens IPCC-rapport en riktig skräckläsning. Issmältningen går fortare och fortare. Före 2050 kan vi förvänta oss minst en isfri sommar vid Nordpolen. Havsnivån stiger fortare. I värsta scenariot kan vi få upp till två meters havshöjning vid slutet av århundradet. Vi väntar oss alltmer aggressiva naturkatastrofer, fler översvämningar och mer intensiva skogsbränder.
               

                  Det är därför mycket positivt att vi på EU-nivå nu kraftigt skruvar upp ambitionerna. Kommissionens klimatpaket innebär en ordentlig upprustning av utsläppshandeln. För varje år kommer vi att minska rätten att släppa ut, bland annat inom industri och energiproduktion, med 4 procent i stället för 2 procent. Både flyget och sjöfarten ska börja betala för sig ordentligt, vilket är på tiden. Dessutom föreslås ett slutdatum för fossila bilar i hela EU till 2035.
               

                  Det visar tydligt att klimatlagen redan gör skillnad på riktigt. Samtidigt visar IPCC:s skräckrapport från sommaren att vi behöver göra betydligt mer. Inget stoppar oss från att i kommande förhandlingar överträffa ambitionerna i klimatlagen, och det måste vara vår ambition. Vi kan inte lämna ödet i händerna på klimatkonservativa regeringar som inte tar ansvar. Det krävs skarpa åtgärder på EU-nivå.
               

Nils Torvalds (Renew). – Arvoisa puhemies, IPCC:n raportti oli vakava muistutus siitä, millä polulla meidän maapallomme on. Vaikka Euroopan unioni nyt tekisi kaikkensa, tavoite pysyä yhdessä ja puolessa asteessa on karkaamassa maailmanyhteisön käsistä.
               

                  Juuri tästä syystä COP26-kokous Glasgow'ssa on nyt tehtävien päätösten keskiössä. Vaikka EU olisi nyt eturintamassa, kaikki riippuu nyt siitä, miten EU:n esimerkki vaikuttaa kokouksen dynamiikkaan. Kokemukset COP25-kokouksesta Madridissa on tästä hyvä varoitus.
               

                  Mutta vielä yksi varoitus lisää, joka koskee meitä kaikkia. Puolalainen tutkija Jan Zielonka kirjoitti vähän kipeän ja kirpeän kirjan Europe as Empire. Siinä hän varoittaa menetelmästä, jossa päätökset tulevat ylhäältä komission suuresta viisaudesta, kaiken suhteellisuuden yläpuolelta. Kansalaisten ja jäsenvaltioiden tulee tukea ja olla mukana. Muuten tämä ei onnistu.
               

Bas Eickhout (Verts/ALE). – Mr President, first of all, I would like to thank the Commission for the package that they released on 14 July. We would of course have loved to see a fit for 65 package, but let's start with the Fit for 55 package. It's also great to hear that in this Parliament there's a lot of support for climate action. So let's see how much is left of that when we really get into the details of the negotiations because usually the Parliament is good at speeches, but then doesn't deliver on the ground.
We need to step up. We need to step up again on renewables. We need to step up on energy efficiency, and be assured that we will fight for that. But also, when we are talking about a fair transition, it cannot be that the industry keeps on having free allowances and, at the same time, we are expanding the EU Emissions Trading System (ETS) to sectors where the citizens will have to pay, and, also there, if you look at the revenues of that system, we just give 50% back to the Member States without any demands. I think that we will ensure that it will be strengthened, just like on taxation where the kerosene tax really should be implemented much faster than is now in the proposal.
We will all do that, but what is also important is that there are still plans ahead of us – and this is also my plea to the European Commission. By the end of this year, you will also look at State aid guidelines, and this is going to be crucial. A green deal will not deliver only through regulation. We will have to put the money there where it should be, and that means we really should stop financing fossil fuels. The State aid guidelines are the place to really make a start on that, and I hope the Commission will deliver there as well. The work is only just beginning.

Roman Haider (ID). – Herr Präsident! Dieses Klimapaket ‘Fit for 55’ ist der in Worte und Zahlen gegossene Irrsinn dieser EU-Kommission. Dieses Klimapaket ist nicht einfach nur schlecht durchdacht, es zeigt die völlige Abgehobenheit der EU-Eliten – und das Ganze unter der Kommissionspräsidentin von der Leyen. Und um diesen Wahnsinn zu kaschieren, werden die Bürger Europas von der Kommission ganz bewusst falsch informiert. Die blühenden Landschaften, die wunderbare Zukunft, die sie versprechen – nichts als Fake News!
               

                  Die Wahrheit ist, dass für die Europäer in Zukunft alles teurer werden wird: Wohnen wird teurer, Mobilität wird teurer, Heizen wird teurer, Essen wird teurer. Und darüber hinaus werden auch noch die Arbeitsplätze der europäischen Industrie nach Asien abwandern, wo viel schmutziger produziert wird.
               

                  Hunderttausende, wenn nicht Millionen Arbeitsplätze werden in Europa vernichtet. Der Wohlstand Europas wird vernichtet, die Innovationskraft Europas wird vernichtet, die wirtschaftliche Existenz Europas wird vernichtet. Und wofür das Ganze? Für gar nichts. Sie erreichen damit nämlich gar nichts. Der Klimawandel wird nicht einmal um ein halbes Grad gestoppt. Und die Umweltverschmutzung, die wird sogar noch schlimmer!
               

                  In den Geschichtsbüchern wird einmal stehen: Die EU-Kommission unter Präsidentin von der Leyen hat die erfolgreichste, innovativste, umweltfreundlichste Industrie der Welt vernichtet – vorsätzlich. Not und Armut – das wird ihr Erbe sein.
               

Robert Roos (ECR). – Voorzitter, het ‘Klaar voor 55’-pakket is een onverantwoord experiment met onze economie. De voorstellen gaan volgens de Commissie dertienhonderd miljard euro kosten, maar dit zal volgens realistischere schattingen oplopen tot vier- à vijfduizend miljard euro. Welk resultaat behalen we daarmee? Slechts 0,004 graden Celsius minder opwarming, vier duizendste graad. Een onmeetbaar klein resultaat.
               

                  Wat het pakket duidelijk maakt, is dat de Europese Commissie haar vertrouwen in de vrije markt definitief heeft verloren. ‘Klaar voor 55’ is de volgende stap naar een planeconomie. Ons verdiende vermogen en onze koopkracht worden in de waagschaal gesteld met stijgende kosten en nog meer regelgeving.
               

                  Europa is reeds een koploper in de wereld op het gebied van de verbetering van de leefomgeving en het milieu. We investeren al decennia met succes in een betere toekomst en daar moeten we zonder idealisme mee doorgaan. De politiek moet realistische en technologisch neutrale doelen stellen. Laat de uitvoering aan de markt over. Alleen dan zal er innovatie en vooruitgang zijn.
               

Enikő Győri (NI). – Tisztelt Elnök Úr! Nem kérdés, hogy át kell állnunk a környezetkímélő termelésre és életvitelre. Ugyanakkor ezt nem ideológia alapon kell tenni, hanem racionálisan, úgy, hogy közben nem rontjuk le az Unió versenyképességét, nem építjük le az ipart és nem drágítjuk az exportot. Nem hozhatjuk nehezebb helyzetbe a polgárokat és az európai cégeket. Az átállás költségét nem nekik, hanem a nagy szennyezőknek kell viselniük. Ha nem így járunk el, az egész zöldpolitikát hosszú időre diszkreditáljuk.
               

                  Így azt kérem a Bizottságtól, hogy végre készítsen tagállamokra lebontott hatástanulmányt a terhekről, ne vezessen be egységes karbonárat a lakossági szektorban és a közúti közlekedésben annak rezsiár-felhajtó hatása miatt. A karbonadót a WTO szabályaival összeegyeztethető módon alakítsa át és találja meg a nehéz helyzetbe kerülő cégeink, különösen a kkv-k kompenzálásának módját. Végezetül a Bizottság álljon ellen a politikai nyomásnak, részesítse tisztességes és egyenlő elbánásban a tagállamokat, politikai-ideológiai okból ne tartsa vissza a magyar és a lengyel helyreállítási terv jóváhagyását. Tudniuk kell: Magyarország minden vállalását teljesíti, akár saját forrásból is.
               

Jessica Polfjärd (PPE). – Herr talman! För två månader sedan röstade Europaparlamentet för att godkänna den nya europeiska klimatlagen. Genom att göra det sände vi en stark signal och ett viktigt budskap, nämligen att vi tycker att klimatet och miljön är frågor där det europeiska samarbetet kan och måste göra skillnad på riktigt.
               

                  Målet om klimatneutralitet är viktigare än någonsin. Det kan inte minst den gångna sommaren vittna om, där vi har sett extremväder och nya utmaningar som vi står inför – något som IPCC:s senaste rapport också visade och förtydligade.
               

                  Det nya klimatpolitiska ramverket, som vi diskuterar, ger oss en möjlighet att göra det, och de beslut som vi fattar framöver måste helt enkelt bli rätt. Vi måste ställa om den europeiska ekonomin på ett sätt som kan kombinera höga ambitioner med garanterad tillväxt. Vi behöver en omställning som säkrar jobben, som säkrar välståndet, med särskilt fokus på de marknadsbaserade lösningarna. Annars kommer vi aldrig att få legitimitet och stöd av våra europeiska medborgare.
               

                  Det låter som om många är nöjda med att bara ha väldigt höga ambitioner, men det räcker faktiskt inte. Vi behöver genomförbara ambitioner, höga mål där företag och människor måste hjälpas åt och ha samförstånd, för att vi ska kunna nå detta tillsammans. Vi måste respektera medlemsländernas traditioner och skapa rätt förutsättningar för hela samhället att ställa om. Det är bara så vi kan klara klimatutmaningen.
               

Johan Danielsson (S&D). – Herr talman! Klimatutmaningen är vår tids stora ödesfråga. Om vi ska lyckas, är det bråttom att ställa om transportsektorn. Det är därför välkommet med ambitiösa förslag när det gäller hållbara bränslen för flyget och sjöfarten. Att vi får bindande och ambitiösa mål för utbyggnad av infrastrukturen för alternativa bränslen kommer att vara en central del i arbetet. Förutom tekniska lösningar kommer vi emellertid att behöva folkligt stöd för klimatomställningen, och därför måste vi fördela kostnaderna för omställningen på ett rättvist sätt. Den som har mest släpper ut mest och måste därför också betala mest.
               

                  Klimatomställningen kan inte finansieras av bilberoende arbetare i glesbygd eller undersköterskans elräkning. Alla dessa människor som lever på små marginaler, arbetande fattiga, fattigpensionärer, de som behöver bilen i sitt dagliga arbete, kan inte bära den stora kostnaden. Utan folkligt stöd, med en rättvis omställning som ledstjärna i utformningen av lagförslagen, kommer vi nämligen aldrig att klara av att bli en klimatneutral union.
               

Emma Wiesner (Renew). – Herr talman! Kära kolleger! IPCC:s rapport är en påminnelse om att vi har väntat alldeles för länge och att vi fortfarande har sektorer, där utsläppen ökar. Det är en påminnelse om vad vi hade behövt göra för 20 till 30 år sedan. Som lagstiftare måste vi ha mod. Vi måste göra det som krävs för att hålla oss under 1,5 grads uppvärmning. Jag har sagt det förut, och jag kommer att säga det igen: EU:s handelssystem med utsläppsrätter är Europas viktigaste verktyg för att minska utsläppen. Det är ett effektivt marknadsverktyg för att ta oss hela vägen.
               

                  Som ansvarig förhandlare för Renew Europe lovar jag att göra allt vad jag kan för att vi ska få ett så effektivt verktyg som möjligt. Jag vet dock att det finns personer härinne som säger att de vill klimatets bästa, men som samtidigt säger att de vill skjuta upp tidsplanen, som samtidigt säger att det blir för dyrt, som samtidigt säger att det blir för riskabelt och som samtidigt säger att utsläppsminskningar ska ske någon annanstans. Kolleger, vi måste vara modiga och göra vad som krävs!
               

Ville Niinistö (Verts/ALE). – Arvoisa puhemies, arvoisa komissaari, ilmastokriisi tapahtuu nyt eikä aikaa ole yhtään hukattavaksi, olemme hukanneet sitä jo liikaa. Fit for 55 tarkoittaa, että EU sitoutuu vähentämään päästöjään 55 prosenttia vuoteen 2030 mennessä. Se voi kuulostaa hienolta, mutta tosiasiassa tämä on se vuosikymmen, kun Euroopassa ja muualla maailmassa pitää tapahtua systeemitason muutos kohti hiilineutraalisuutta.
               

                  EU:n tulee olla ilmastojohtaja. Ottamalla tarvittavat askeleet nyt voimme tehdä muutokset hallitummin. Euroopan talous ja teollisuus kiittävät sääntelyn ollessa ennustettavaa. Tulevien vuosikymmenien menestys rakentuu edelläkävijyyteen, ei perässä laahaamiseen.
               

                  Kesän IPCC:n raportti antoi jälleen selkeän viestin. Toimia tarvitaan nyt ja tavoitteena ei pidä olla vain hiilineutraalisuus vaan myös eteneminen kohti hiilinegatiivisuutta. Näin ollen maankäyttösektorin hiilinielujen kasvattamisen pitää olla meidän agendallamme jo nyt myös maataloudessa ja metsätaloudessa. Ruoantuotantoa on muutettava päästöttömäksi, sähköntuotannon tulee edetä kohti päästöttömyyttä ja uusien investointien pitää jo nyt olla päästöttömiä ja uusien polttomoottoriautojen myyminen tulee kieltää nopeammin. Tämän eteen vihreät tekee töitä.
               

Sylvia Limmer (ID). – Herr Präsident! Wann sagt man den Bürgern, dass das Verbot der Verbrennungsmotoren ab 2035 das Ende der individuellen Mobilität einläuten wird? Man hat nicht vor – könnte es auch nicht –, alle PKWs durch E-Mobile zu ersetzen. Allein für den zusätzlichen Strom in Deutschland bräuchte man zwölf Kernkraftwerke, die es nie geben wird – von dem Ressourcenverbrauch einmal abgesehen.
               

                  Wann sagt man dem Bürger, dass ein angebotsorientierter Strommarkt und die sogenannten smart meter bedeuten, dass Strom abgeschaltet werden wird, wenn er nicht verfügbar ist? Was ohne Speicher mit den sogenannten Erneuerbaren keine Seltenheit sein wird. Wann gesteht man den Bürgern, dass die massive CO2-Bepreisung ausnahmslos alles, alles, weil es produziert, verarbeitet und transportiert wird, verteuern wird?
               

                  Energiearmut, Ihr Begriff, wird der Regel- und nicht der Ausnahmefall sein. Wann, Herr Timmermans, sagen Sie den Bürgern, dass die von Ihnen geplante Zukunft eine des Verzichts, der Verbote, des Mangels, der Unfreiheit und der Besitzlosigkeit sein wird? Planwirtschaft und Sozialismus, auch mit der Vorsilbe Öko-, sind Rückschritt und Zerstörung der Freiheit, des Wohlstands, der Umwelt und der menschlichen Gemeinschaft!
               

Beata Szydło (ECR). – Panie Przewodniczący! Panie Komisarzu! Projekt przygotowany przez pana komisarza Timmermansa jest mocno kontrowersyjny i wybrzmiewa to na tej sali właściwie w każdej wypowiedzi. Bo z jednej strony mamy szczytny cel: ochrona klimatu, przyszłość naszej planety (to jest na pewno jedno z najważniejszych wyzwań, które przed nami stoją), ale z drugiej strony ten szczytny cel ma być osiągnięty poprzez degradację europejskiej gospodarki, poprzez utratę miejsc pracy, poprzez niebotyczny wzrost ubóstwa milionów Europejczyków i degradację całych regionów. Jeżeli takim kosztem cel Fit for 55 zostanie osiągnięty, to nie tylko nie poprawi on losu Europejczyków i nie zapewni dobrej przyszłości dla mieszkańców naszego regionu i całego świata, ale wręcz odwrotnie – przyczyni się do ich pogorszenia. Jeżeli nie wiadomo, o co chodzi, to z reguły chodzi o pieniądze. A więc zadajmy sobie pytanie: kto na tym skorzysta, a kto na tym straci.
               

Antoni Comín i Oliveres (NI). – Signor Presidente, onorevoli colleghi, l'ultimo rapporto dell'IPCC dello scorso agosto rende molto chiaro che per porre fine al riscaldamento globale dobbiamo smettere di emettere carbonio urgentemente. Siamo a un punto di non ritorno, c'è margine ma è un margine concreto e senza ambiguità.
               

                  I trent'anni che ci siamo dati fino al 2050 non possono essere di prova, la sfida è enorme perché riguarda tutto: agricoltura, industria, trasporti, elettricità e settore energetico in generale.
               

                  Abbiamo una prima scadenza, il 2030, in cui i governi e l'Unione al timone devono specificare cosa faranno: i piani e gli obiettivi attuali sono insufficienti se non vogliamo superare l'aumento concordato a Parigi.
               

                  Celebriamo l'adozione del Fit for 55 ma siamo consapevoli che i cambiamenti da promuovere sono radicali e che è necessaria una trasformazione totale e giusta. Per questo lotteremo affinché i cambiamenti che dobbiamo intraprendere non danneggino cittadini e regioni più vulnerabili. Seguiremo da vicino l'istituzione del Fondo sociale.
               

                  Inoltre le risorse che otterremo dall'implementazione del CBAM dovrebbero essere dedicate a questi settori più fragili della popolazione.
               

Christophe Hansen (PPE). – Monsieur le Président, Monsieur le Vice-Président, un des éléments clés du paquet ‘Fit for 55’ est sans aucun doute le mécanisme d'ajustement carbone à nos frontières. Cette pièce maîtresse de notre politique climatique a un but bien noble, que je soutiens évidemment: exporter nos ambitions climatiques tout en maintenant la compétitivité de nos industries. Elle éviterait ainsi leur délocalisation.
               

                  Mais à ce stade, Monsieur le Vice-Président, je dois vous dire clairement que j'ai de sérieuses réserves quant au fait que le projet du CBAM, tel que présenté le 14 juillet, puisse effectivement répondre à ces objectifs. Avec la fin programmée des allocations gratuites, ce qui est évidemment inévitable, ce seront nos entreprises qui perdront en compétitivité sur les marchés tiers. Ce seront nos entreprises domestiques qui subiront une charge administrative supplémentaire, relative au CBAM, et ce seront nos entreprises manufacturières qui devront payer le prix du CO2 de tous ceux qui produiront avec un prix du carbone moindre ou inexistant.
               

                  Pour moi, il est inconcevable et inacceptable que nos entreprises doivent maintenant payer pour le manque d'ambition des autres. Ne serait-il pas plus logique, Monsieur le Vice-Président, que ce soit le pollueur lui-même qui paie?
               

Simona Bonafè (S&D). – Signor Presidente, onorevoli colleghi, il pacchetto Fit for 55 è lo strumento fondamentale per concretizzare il nuovo obiettivo di riduzione di CO2 entro il 2030.
               

                  Il Parlamento aveva chiesto una riduzione del 60 % ma siamo pronti a rimboccarci le maniche per contribuire a rispondere alla sfida principale del nostro secolo, che è quella di accompagnare la ripresa verso un nuovo modello di sviluppo sostenibile a zero emissioni.
               

                  Deve essere però ben chiaro che questo cambiamento deve essere accompagnato da una transizione giusta e che non lasci indietro nessuno. Non si potrà mai avere una sostenibilità ambientale senza una sostenibilità sociale; è evidente infatti che la transizione verde non può essere solo per chi se la può permettere e i costi non possono ricadere sulle fasce di popolazione più vulnerabili economicamente.
               

                  Ecco perché pensiamo che si debba prestare grande attenzione all'impatto e ai costi sociali dell'estensione del sistema dell'ETS a trasporto pubblico ed edilizia ed ecco perché crediamo, invece, che il nuovo Fondo sociale per il clima vada nella giusta direzione, che accompagna la transizione con equità perché sia per tutti.
               

                  Insomma il lavoro sul pacchetto che avremo di fronte nei prossimi mesi sarà sicuramente impegnativo, ma questo non può essere un alibi per rimanere fermi e lasciare tutto com'è.
               

                  Gli ultimi dati dell'IPCC hanno dimostrato una volta di più che è essenziale dare una risposta veloce e chiara per evitare di passare da un'emergenza…
               

(Il Presidente ritira la parola all'oratrice)


Jan Huitema (Renew). – Voorzitter, ik vind het ontzettend belangrijk dat we politieke beslissingen nemen op basis van wetenschappelijke feiten. Ik vind het dan ook een zeer goede zaak dat er een internationale werkgroep van klimaatwetenschappers bestaat die ons adviseert. Het is duidelijk dat de klimaatverandering door mensen wordt veroorzaakt en een grote bedreiging vormt voor mens, dier en milieu.
               

                  In het laatste verslag wordt aangegeven dat het broeikasgas methaan na twaalf jaar oplost in de atmosfeer. Dit in tegenstelling tot CO2. Bij een constante uitstoot van methaan wordt de methaandeken in de atmosfeer niet dikker of dunner. In het verslag van de Intergouvernementele Werkgroep inzake klimaatverandering (IPCC) wordt tevens aangegeven dat de invloed van de constante methaanuitstoot op de klimaatverandering met drie à vier keer wordt overschat.
               

                  Mijn vraag aan de Commissie luidt: wat voor invloed heeft dit op de klimaatwetgeving voor bijvoorbeeld de landbouw? Moet de landbouw niet juist als een onderdeel van de oplossing worden beschouwd in plaats van als een probleem?
               

Margrete Auken (Verts/ALE). – Hr. formand! I går talte vi om Coronakrisen. Vi har vist, at vi kan tage drastisk og omgående affære, hvis vi virkelig vil. Vi ventede for eksempel ikke til vi havde vaccinerne. Med klimaet står vi over for en langt værre fare. Men her satser vi mestendels på, at der bliver fundet løsninger, der ikke griber ind i vores livsstil. Vi har kendt truslen i 31 år. Den sidste IPPC-rapport fra august var alarmerende læsning. Kloden brænder. Nu er det alle mand til pumperne. Der er gode initiativer i ‘Fit for 55’, men alt for lidt handling her og nu. Vi sidder stadig og håber på, at fuglene på taget vil flyve ned i hænderne på os. Jeg er otte børns bedstemor og politisk mentalt også Greta Thunbergs. Børn og unge i hele Europa – ja i hele verden – vil elske os, hvis vi omsider tager det her alvorligt, og det samme vil vi gamle, skulle jeg hilse at sige. Jeg håber, at Kommissionen vil være ligeså seriøs og handlekraftig som kommissær Timmermans lød lige før. Jeg håber det.
               

Isabella Tovaglieri (ID). – Signor Presidente, onorevoli colleghi, la Commissione europea ha deciso che fra soli 14 anni in Europa non si potranno più produrre automobili a combustione interna.
               

                  Noi della Lega non siamo pregiudizialmente contrari al Green Deal ma crediamo che la transizione energetica debba avvenire in modo praticabile e soprattutto progressivo.
               

                  Non si possono convertire, infatti, dall'oggi al domani eserciti di operai in tecnici informatici capaci di programmare un'auto elettrica e anche la vasta filiera che produce componenti per motori a combustione – 100 imprese con 7 000 addetti solo nella provincia di Varese, leader in Italia in questo settore – non può svegliarsi un mattino e cominciare a produrre software.
               

                  Il rischio concreto è la chiusura di moltissime aziende, centinaia di migliaia di disoccupati, con il paradosso che la maggior parte dei consumatori non potrà permettersi un costoso veicolo elettrico.
               

                  La Commissione allora rallenti questa folle corsa verso la neutralità climatica e rimetta al centro delle sue politiche green misura e buon senso.
               

Izabela-Helena Kloc (ECR). – Panie Przewodniczący! Mobilizacja polityczna, gospodarcza i technologiczna w celu osiągnięcia celów klimatycznych jest bezprecedensowa w naszej historii. Dzięki pakietowi Fit for 55 Komisja Europejska wskazała sposób, w jaki Unia Europejska powinna osiągnąć neutralność klimatyczną. Muszę jednak głośno wyrazić podzielone przez wielu obawy, które wciąż towarzyszą zielonej rewolucji. Naukowcy sugerują, że nawet przy wysiłkach takich jak aktualnie podejmowane w Europie, ludzkość po prostu nie jest w stanie spowolnić zmian klimatycznych. Nie zaprzeczam, że zmiany te istnieją, ale mam poważne wątpliwości, czy miliardy euro, które pożyczamy od przyszłych pokoleń, rzeczywiście sprawią, że świat stanie się lepszy.
               

                  Po drugie, Panie Przewodniczący, proszę, by zwrócił Pan uwagę na to, co polityka klimatyczna już teraz robi z gospodarką. Rekordowe ceny emisji dwutlenku węgla prowadzące do wzrostu cen na rynku energii, do niedoborów energii elektrycznej i przerw w dostawach prądu. A to dopiero początek. Czy taki jest Pana cel? Proszę Państwa, w imieniu małych przedsiębiorstw, proszę w imieniu rodzin o średnich dochodach, proszę w imieniu zadłużonych gospodarstw domowych, które nie mogą sobie pozwolić na kolejną falę … (Przewodniczący odebrał mówczyni głos.)


Maria da Graça Carvalho (PPE). – Mr President, Fit for 55 is a much needed package. The current status quo is not enough for Europe to reach climate neutrality by 2050. If we want to achieve what we pledged, we need to go further.
With this proposal the EU addresses climate change in several sectors. Previous interventions focused mainly on energy production and industry. This is a step in the right direction. On the other hand, there is room for improvement. We need a better connection between the climate agenda and research and development.
Fit for 55 is comprehensive when it comes to regulation, standards, taxation and carbon pricing, but it falls short when it comes to the development of clean, affordable technologies. Horizon Europe partnerships are just an example of an initiative that could help us to develop the technological resources that we need to achieve our goals. We want a package linked to the real world, one that ensures a fair distribution of the burden we will put on different sectors of society, paying special attention to our citizens, counting on existing and emerging technologies, and contributing to the creation of wealth and jobs.

Jonás Fernández (S&D). – Señor presidente, señor comisario, cada día leemos, vemos, nuevas noticias sobre los efectos presentes del cambio climático: inundaciones este verano, incendios, efectos climáticos inusuales, que nos recuerdan la necesidad de actuar y de actuar ya.
               

                  Yo creo que el paquete que ha presentado la Comisión está muy bien orientado y necesitamos de alguna manera ejemplificar ante la ciudadanía que esos efectos adversos del cambio climático —que no es algo futuro, no es algo que va a ocurrir en un futuro indeterminado, sino que está ocurriendo ya— tienen respuesta en el paquete.
               

                  Yo creo que para ello necesitamos fortalecer al menos dos iniciativas: el Mecanismo de Ajuste en Frontera no puede estar, en mi opinión, dos años en fase de prueba; necesitamos acelerarlo para demostrar que esa transición es justa. Y para que esa transición sea justa, necesitamos también fortalecer el Fondo Social a favor del cambio climático.
               

Linea Søgaard-Lidell (Renew). – Hr. formand! For et par dage siden talte jeg med en mand fra skibsbranchen. Han skulle købe nye skibe. Men han var i tvivl: Hvilken teknologi skulle han satse på? Kan han regne med, at der vil være nok grønt brændstof? Hvornår skal han betale for skibenes forurening, og hvad vil det egentlig koste? Han var usikker, og jeg kan godt forstå det. Rigtig mange europæiske virksomheder står i præcis samme overvejelser lige nu. Der er nemlig mange ubekendte i klimapolitikken, som det er lige nu. Det ændrer vi, når vi lykkes med at lande en ambitiøs klimapakke. Jeg ved, at vi kan, men jeg er oprigtigt bange for, at politisk nøl og alle mulige nationale hensyn vil trække tingene i langdrag. Men tid, det er ikke en luksus, vi har. Hvis ikke vi skynder os, så risikerer vi at bremse omstillingen i de virksomheder, som er klar. Vi risikerer, at vi går glip af de grønne investeringer, som vi kunne have fået, og værst af alt, vi risikerer, at vi ikke løser klimaudfordringen i tide. Så lad os komme i gang!
               

Michael Bloss (Verts/ALE). – Herr Präsident, liebe Kolleginnen! Vor nicht einmal zwei Jahren haben wir hier alle gemeinsam den Klimanotstand ausgerufen. Dass der Klimanotstand eine Realität ist, das hat leider dieser Sommer gezeigt. Wir trauern um hunderte Tote in der EU, durch Fluten und Waldbrände, durch extreme Hitze. Der Bericht des Weltklimarats hat aufgezeigt, in welcher dramatischen Situation wir sind. Schon im Jahr 2030 kann die 1,5-Grad-Grenze überschritten werden. 1,5 Grad – dazu bekennen wir uns doch, dazu bekennen Sie sich doch auch, Herr Timmermans.
               

                  Aber da frage ich Sie: Wie kann es sein, dass Sie vorschlagen, dass bis zum Jahr 2030 nur 40 Prozent der Energie erneuerbar ist? Warum wollen Sie noch bis zum Jahr 2032 Steuervergünstigungen für Flugkerosin zulassen? Und warum wollen Sie jetzt noch Steuergelder in fossiles Erdgas investieren?
               

                  Spätestens der Bericht des Weltklimarats hat gezeigt, dass die Vorschläge nicht ausreichen, um das Versprechen des Pariser Klimaabkommens zu erfüllen – das Versprechen, dass unsere Kinder die gleiche Freiheit genießen können wie wir. Deswegen appelliere ich an Sie: Lassen Sie uns mutiger sein! Lassen Sie uns den Kohleausstieg … (Der Präsident entzieht dem Redner das Wort.)


Catherine Griset (ID). – Monsieur le Président, chers collègues, ce véritable tsunami législatif est un pur produit de l'écologisme bureaucratique. Ce qui est en jeu à travers ce coup de force, c'est le renversement de la législation européenne, la baisse de compétitivité de notre industrie, l'augmentation des taxes et de la facture énergétique et le renforcement du pouvoir dans les mains de la Commission.
               

                  Et tout cela prend forme dans le sillage des annonces toujours plus catastrophiques du GIEC, dont le but assumé est de faire peur aux décideurs politiques et aux citoyens. On peine à imaginer que tous les bouleversements socioéconomiques attendus aient été pris en compte, voire calculés, quand la Commission propose, par exemple, un système d'échange de quotas d'émissions pour le transport routier et le chauffage des bâtiments. La révolte des gilets jaunes en France et le rejet de la loi climat en Suisse auraient pourtant dû servir d'exemple. Quant à faire du mécanisme d'ajustement carbone aux frontières une ressource propre, c'est détourner la seule bonne mesure de ce paquet, pour peu qu'entre-temps l'Union européenne ne se couche pas devant l'OMC.
               

Jessica Stegrud (ECR). – Herr talman! Kommissionär! EU är i dag redan världens klimateffektivaste region. Trots att vår andel, på bara 9 procent av utsläppen, minskar och stora delar av övriga världens ökar, införs nu myriader av regleringar. Om våra ansträngningar kommer att ha någon effekt på det globala klimatet vet vi inte, men det vi vet är att EU:s dyra klimatpolitik kommer att försämra vår levnadsstandard, öka energifattigdomen och göra vardagen dyrare för vanligt folk. Vi vet också att den europeiska industrin kommer att få oerhört svårt att konkurrera globalt.
               

                  Sanningen är att EU nu skapar en protektionistisk handelsborg, medan resten av världen, inte minst Kina, kommer att kunna fortsätta konsumera billig olja och gas. Bara för att vi väljer att avstå, kommer inte omvärlden att göra det. Vi har aldrig haft större möjligheter att fatta rätt beslut, både för klimatet och för välståndet, men i stället satsar vi på en irrationell och marknadsfientlig modell som övriga världen inte kommer att efterlikna.
               

Angelika Niebler (PPE). – Herr Präsident, Herr Vizepräsident der Europäischen Kommission, Herr Ratsvertreter, liebe Kolleginnen, liebe Kollegen! Ich denke, es ist gut, dass das ‘Fit-for-55’-Paket jetzt endlich auf dem Tisch liegt und wir hierüber beraten können. Die schlimmen Flutkatastrophen in der Sommerzeit, gerade auch in meiner Heimat, in meinem Heimatland, in Belgien, in den Niederlanden, haben den dringenden Handlungsbedarf aufgezeigt.
               

                  Ich möchte zwei Anmerkungen zum vorliegenden Paket machen. Zum einen: Den Klimaschutz gibt es nicht zum Nulltarif. Aber Energie muss natürlich bezahlbar bleiben und zwar zum einen für unsere Bürgerinnen und Bürger. Ich denke da insbesondere ans Heizen und ans Autofahren. Das muss bezahlbar bleiben. Aber auch für unsere Industrie muss der Industriestrompreis wettbewerbsfähig sein. Sonst werden wir nur unsere Unternehmen aus Europa in andere Regionen der Welt vertreiben.
               

                  Zweitens: Ich denke, wir müssen auf den Markt und wir müssen auf Innovationen setzen. Wir dürfen nicht Verbote aussprechen. Verbote als Innovationstreiber zu bezeichnen, halte ich für völlig daneben.
               

                  Liebe Kolleginnen, liebe Kollegen! Ich war erst letzte Woche auf der IAA Mobility in München, einer der großen Mobilitätsmessen, und habe mich überzeugen können, wieviel Innovationskraft in unseren Mittelständlern, in unseren Start-ups, in unseren Unternehmen ist. Darauf müssen wir setzen: dass innovative Lösungen, innovative neue Technologien auf den Markt kommen, mit denen wir auch anderen Regionen in der Welt zeigen, dass wir den Klimawandel bewältigen können.
               

Kathleen Van Brempt (S&D). – Voorzitter, het ‘Klaar voor 55’-pakket is het eerste, daadwerkelijk concrete voorstel dat naar aanleiding van de Green Deal en de klimaatwet tot stand is gekomen. In dit voorstel wordt een duidelijk, samenhangend pakket voorgesteld met het oog op de verwezenlijking van de doelstelling. Ik wil de Commissie hier dan ook uitdrukkelijk voor bedanken.
               

                  Voorts wil ik beklemtonen dat het Parlement een verpletterende verantwoordelijkheid heeft om dit pakket te steunen, waar mogelijk te versterken en vooral het daarin aanwezige evenwicht tussen de verschillende sectoren en de rechtvaardige verdeling ervan te waarborgen. Ik zal dan ook met ontzettend veel enthousiasme aan dit pakket meewerken.
               

                  Eén van de uitdagingen is dat de regels voor onze producten voor alle producten moeten gelden, of deze nu op onze markt gemaakt zijn of geïmporteerd worden. Daarom zijn de uitbreidingen in verband met het ETS, het maritieme verhaal en uiteraard het mechanisme voor koolstofgrenscorrectie cruciaal.
               

                  Hierbij moeten we ook onze internationale verantwoordelijkheid in acht nemen. We moeten extra aandacht schenken aan onze kwetsbare partners, zoals Afrika, en zullen op dat gebied meer inspanningen moeten leveren.
               

Martin Hojsík (Renew). – Vážený pán predsedajúci, pán komisár, klimatická kríza sa mení na klimatickú katastrofu. Tridsať miliárd EUR a množstvo ľudských životov. To je cena iba letných záplav v Nemecku. Treba konať, a to dostatočne radikálne. Ale máme problém. Slovensko a Európa čelia zvyšovaniu cien energií, a to opäť ohrozuje tých najzraniteľnejších a najchudobnejších. Prečo? Pre rastúcu závislosť na klimaticky škodlivom fosílnom plyne a jeho dovoze z diktátorských režimov, ako je Putinovo Rusko. Áno, hovorím o Nord Streame 2, ktorým sme dali Putinovi do ruky ďalšie eso. Vďaka Schröderovi a Merkelovej. Ako z toho von? Optimalizáciou spotreby, efektivitou a lokálnou zelenou energiou, pretože tieto riešia nielen klimatickú krízu, ale aj našu energetickú a strategickú závislosť od východných diktátorov a výkyvov cien fosílnych palív na svetových trhoch. A pomôžu ľuďom ohrozených energetickou chudobou. Musí skončiť stav, keď znečisťovatelia dostávajú povolenky zadarmo a občania majú platiť. Peniaze za emisie majú ísť na dve veci: podporu zelených inovácií a riešení a naspäť ľuďom ako uhlíková dividenda.
               

Sara Matthieu (Verts/ALE). – Voorzitter, dit is het moment van de waarheid. Er ligt vandaag een klimaatpakket voor ons dat we eigenlijk tien jaar geleden al hadden moeten hebben. U kunt dan ook op de Groenen rekenen om er samen een succes van te maken. De ingrediënten liggen er immers al: we hebben een klimaatwet, een grote pot geld om te investeren en dit pakket van klimaatwetgeving. Dit is zeker de verdienste van de Commissie, maar vooral van de honderdduizenden jongeren die hiervoor de straat op zijn gegaan.
               

                  Ik denk dat we die jongeren opnieuw nodig hebben, commissaris Timmermans. Willen we namelijk echt tot 2032 wachten met de invoering van een volwaardige belasting op kerosine en tot 2035 met het uitfaseren van auto's die op fossiele brandstoffen lopen? Willen we multinationals tot 2035 gratis het klimaat laten vervuilen?
               

                  De sociaal zwakkeren mogen niet de rekening gepresenteerd krijgen terwijl bedrijven, grote multinationals, gratis kunnen blijven vervuilen. Niet met ons, commissaris.
               

Jadwiga Wiśniewska (ECR). – Panie Przewodniczący! Panie Komisarzu! Unia Europejska jest liderem, jeśli chodzi o politykę klimatyczną. Przedstawiona propozycja, pakiet Fit for 55, niestety jest propozycją, która wymaga bardzo głębokiej modyfikacji, ponieważ w niewystarczający sposób bierze pod uwagę zróżnicowane miksy energetyczne państw członkowskich, i dokładnie już w tej Izbie wiemy, że zaproponowana wcześniej przez Komisję sprawiedliwa transformacja jest niestety sprawiedliwą transformacją tylko i wyłącznie z nazwy.
               

                  Dlatego musimy zmodyfikować ten pakiet w taki sposób, by nie stracił on społecznego poparcia. Dlatego musimy zrobić wszystko, żeby regulacje, które zaproponujemy, były zrozumiałe dla obywateli i do uniesienia dla obywateli. Czy wyobrażają sobie Państwo, że wrócicie do swoich krajów i powiecie rolnikom prowadzącym małe gospodarstwa rolne, że nie będzie ich stać na instalacje wyłapujące metan? A co z budownictwem, energetyką? Tak więc przed nami ciężka praca i mierzmy siły na…
               

Traian Băsescu (PPE). – Domnule președinte, domnule comisar, ‘carbonul trebuie să aibă prețul său, deoarece natura nu mai poate plăti prețul’, a declarat Ursula von der Leyen. O afirmație corectă, dar incompletă. Marea problemă este cât din prețul carbonului poate fi suportat de categoriile vulnerabile de cetățeni.
               

                  În cadrul pachetului Fit for 55, prin reforma sistemului certificatelor de emisie și aplicarea noilor măsuri în sectorul clădirilor și transporturilor, cetățenii sunt principalii plătitori. Vom asista la o creștere a prețurilor care va genera o adâncire a sărăciei energetice, decalaje fără precedent între mediul rural și urban, o vulnerabilitate crescută a populației din categoriile sociale sărace. Convingerea mea este că fără subvenții corecte, adresate direct cetățenilor vulnerabili și IMM-urilor, nu vom face decât să sărăcim și să ostilizăm o mare parte a oamenilor, iar programul Green Deal, pentru a reuși, are nevoie de o acceptare și o susținere generalizată din partea populației.
               

                  Din acest motiv, solicit Comisiei o evaluare de impact specifică a acestui fond care să estimeze cum și cu cât vor crește prețurile, în ce măsură va putea acest fond social să atenueze efectele sărăciei energetice, care se prefigurează, și acordarea de ajutoare-subvenții pentru a sprijini cu adevărat consumatorii vulnerabili.
               

Tiemo Wölken (S&D). – Herr Präsident, liebe Kolleginnen und Kollegen! Seit dem aktuellen Bericht des Weltklimarates wissen wir, wie viel Treibhausgas der Welt noch zur Verfügung steht. Wir alle wissen, was wir an Treibhausgasbudget haben, und wir alle wissen, dass wir zum Erreichen der Klimaneutralität neue Verpflichtungen brauchen. Wir alle in diesem Haus sind für unsere Handlungen verantwortlich – vor uns selbst, aber auch vor den Wählerinnen und Wählern.
               

                  Wir können – wie die AfD – vorschlagen, nichts zu tun. Wir können so tun, als würden wir etwas tun, indem wir sagen, wir brauchen Innovationen und Marktmechanismen, wie das die Union und die FDP tun. Oder aber wir können endlich anfangen, klare Regeln zu setzen. Dafür wurden wir gewählt. Dafür sind wir verantwortlich. Und für das Gelingen der sozialökologischen Transformation brauchen wir vor allem viel mehr erneuerbaren Strom.
               

                  Sehr geehrter Herr Kommissar, lieber Franz, wir als Sozialdemokratinnen und Sozialdemokraten werden dafür Sorge tragen, dass in dieser Europäischen Union viel mehr erneuerbare Energien produziert werden. Das ist gut fürs Klima, das ist günstiger für die Bürgerinnen und Bürger. Und das ist unsere Verantwortung, gerade für die jungen Europäerinnen und Europäer. Die Europäische Union muss klimaneutral sein. Wir machen uns mit Dir und ihnen auf den Weg!
               

Frédérique Ries (Renew). – Monsieur le Président, Monsieur le Vice-Président, plus qu'une évolution, pas encore, en revanche, une révolution, ‘Fit for 55’ est tout de même un paquet de mesures sans précédent, inédites, pour faire de l'Europe le premier continent à atteindre la neutralité carbone en 2050. Je cite, mais en vrac seulement, la réforme du marché carbone, la suppression progressive des permis gratuits pour les industries émettrices, l'établissement d'un mécanisme d'ajustement carbone aux frontières pour lutter contre le dumping climatique, le nouvel objectif de 40 % d'énergies renouvelables d'ici à 2030 et la fin des exemptions fiscales pour les carburants des secteurs aérien et maritime.
               

                  Alors oui, l'Europe fait beaucoup contre le changement climatique et oui, elle doit faire plus encore, de toute évidence, en réponse à ces phénomènes météo extrêmes qui se multiplient et aux cris d'alarme lancés par les experts du GIEC. Cette ambition, nous l'avons à l'esprit, en mémoire aussi, toujours, des 216 victimes des inondations meurtrières de cet été en Belgique et en Allemagne. Une ambition pour susciter l'espoir. Parce que oui, Monsieur le Vice-Président, nous n'avons plus le choix.
               

Damien Carême (Verts/ALE). – Monsieur le Président, Monsieur le Vice-Président, Monsieur le Ministre, cela a déjà été dit par mes collègues: ce paquet législatif pour le climat est un pas dans la bonne direction, mais il manque tragiquement d'ambition. De plus, ce plan date de mai dernier. Or, le dernier rapport du GIEC augure d'un avenir dévastateur si l'on continue la politique des petits pas lâches ou du ‘en même temps’. Sans compter le rapport de la Banque mondiale d'hier, qui prévoit 200 millions de réfugiés climatiques en 2050.
               

                  Sur le déploiement des énergies renouvelables, l'investissement dans l'hydrogène cent pour cent vert, la fin des subventions aux énergies fossiles, l'arrêt des quotas gratuits à polluer, une politique agricole vraiment respectueuse de l'environnement, sur tout et partout, il faut aller bien plus vite et beaucoup plus fort que ce qui nous est proposé.
               

                  L'inaction climatique risque de pulvériser notre avenir. C'est pour cette raison que j'ai porté plainte contre l'État français il y a trois ans, alors que j'étais maire, rejoint par l'affaire du siècle et ses deux millions de concitoyennes et concitoyens. La ville que je gérais risque la submersion marine et la justice française m'a donné raison: le 1er juillet, le Conseil d'État a obligé la France à agir dans les neuf mois pour baisser ses émissions sous peine de sanction.
               

                  Alors, l'Europe va-t-elle attendre d'être contrainte par la justice pour agir par manque de courage et d'ambition? Ou serons-nous à la hauteur de ce formidable défi et pourrons-nous nous enorgueillir d'avoir pris les décisions qui s'imposent en écoutant humblement les Européennes, les Européens et les experts?
               

(Le Président retire la parole à l'orateur)


Pernille Weiss (PPE). – Hr. formand! Der findes ikke nogen vigtige opgave for EU end klimaet. Sådan var det før Coronakrisen, sådan er det stadigvæk, og FN's seneste klimarapport understreger det med et stadigt kortere metermål. EU fik i foråret sin første klimalov. Nu skal værktøjerne slibes, og nye skal designes. Vi undgår nok ikke brok fra venstre side i salen. Det er sådan set også okay, bare I ikke ødelægger værktøjerne og trækker tiden unødvendigt ud, for der findes ikke nogen vigtigere opgave for EU end klimaet. Det er også vigtigt for resten af verden, som ser til EU for at finde løsninger på både teknologier, nye måder at indrette samfund på, så enhver kan leve det liv, han eller hun ønsker sig, og ikke mindst, hvordan omstillingen kan foregå uden social slagside og ødelæggelse af konkurrencekraft. Det sidste er vigtigt. Det er afgørende for at få råd til omstillingen, for uden penge, så kommer det til at gøre ondt, eller også bliver det helt umuligt. Vi skal give virksomheder i alle brancher og i alle størrelser de instrumenter, de har brug for, for at bidrage til den grønne omstilling. Vi skal undgå at skabe unødige benspænd, og vi skal skabe effektive incitamenter og sikre et forudsigeligt regulatorisk landskab de kommende år. Det skal vi altså! Nu! Lad os komme i gang nu!
               

Javi López (S&D). – Señor presidente, señor vicepresidente de la Comisión, sabemos que el planeta se encuentra al borde del punto de no retorno por lo que hace al cambio climático. La transición verde no solo es necesaria; es urgente, es inevitable.
               

                  El paquete presentado hoy, aquí, en el Parlamento Europeo, el paquete ‘Objetivo 55’, hace referencia a los objetivos ya pactados por la Unión mediante el Pacto Verde, objetivos legales y vinculantes, que, además, se van a convertir en una hoja de ruta para la descarbonización referencia en el resto del mundo.
               

                  Quiero agradecer a la Comisión Europea un esfuerzo titánico para, hoy, presentar este paquete, pero me gustaría hacer algunos comentarios.
               

                  En primer lugar, en cuanto a la extensión del régimen de comercio de derechos de emisión al transporte y los edificios: tenemos que ser cuidadosos para que no tenga un impacto social sobre los más vulnerables. En segundo lugar, necesitamos mecanismos de compensación suficientes; por eso, el Fondo Social para el Clima es una herramienta tan importante. En tercer lugar, necesitamos un reglamento de reparto de esfuerzos, de objetivos proporcionados y realistas para los Estados miembros.
               

                  En definitiva, hemos de poner a los ciudadanos en el centro de nuestras preocupaciones ahora que tenemos que negociar el paquete, para mantener de forma sostenible su apoyo a este proceso.
               

Morten Petersen (Renew). – Hr. formand! IPCC-rapporten er faktisk rystende læsning. Selv i det mest optimistiske scenarie, hvor vi opnår nuludledning i 2050, ja så kan opvarmningen faktisk have katastrofale følger for menneskeheden, og det må og skal vi reagere på. Vi oplever jo allerede nu de her ekstreme vejrforandringer. Hvert år bringer mere ekstremt vejr end året før: flere oversvømmelser, skovbrande, tørker, langvarige hedebølger, og der er brug for radikale forandringer. Og Kommissionens grønne pagt og ‘Fit for 55’ er gode og rigtige skridt, og det er faktisk det mindste, vi kan gøre. Jeg synes, det hører med i en debat, som den vi har i dag, at minde os selv om, hvor store krav det her stiller for at få det gennemført: store krav til Rådet, til Kommissionen og til os selv i det her hus. Så lad os have den handling i hu, når det nu er, at vi virkelig skal i gang med arbejdet, for der er altså brug for handling her og nu. Det er det mindste, vi kan gøre.
               

Adam Jarubas (PPE). – Panie Przewodniczący! Panie Komisarzu! Omawiamy dzisiaj bardzo ambitny pakiet rozwiązań, które mają doprowadzić Unię Europejską do osiągnięcia neutralności klimatycznej i znaczących redukcji emisji do roku 2030. Jako Europejczycy możemy być dumni z tego, co już zrobiliśmy dla ochrony klimatu, jak i z tych planów, które mamy. Nie mamy wielkiego wyboru i musimy przebudować gospodarkę Unii Europejskiej po to, aby chronić klimat i żeby po kryzysie spowodowanym przez pandemię przywrócić konkurencyjność naszej gospodarce.
               

                  Razem z EPP ostrzegaliśmy, że 55% redukcji będzie wymagać bardzo dużego wysiłku i wyrzeczeń. Widać to po przedstawionych propozycjach legislacyjnych. Powiem wprost: jest wiele czynników ekonomicznych i społecznych, które mogą doprowadzić do wykolejenia tego projektu. Począwszy od potencjalnych podwyżek cen spowodowanych ETS-em w budownictwie i w transporcie, a skończywszy na braku materiałów budowlanych i wykwalifikowanych instalatorów, którzy będą potrzebni do zrealizowania fali renowacji.
               

                  Zgadzam się z Panem Komisarzem, że jeszcze nie jest za późno, że możemy zbudować niskoemisyjną, konkurencyjną gospodarkę. Ale zgadzam się również, że będzie to bardzo trudne. Dlatego kluczowe jest, żebyśmy przyjęli takie rozwiązania, które osłonią naszych obywateli. Konieczne są fundusze wsparcia na odpowiednio wysokim poziomie oraz mechanizmy, które udrożnią naszą gospodarkę w kluczowych dla zielonego ładu obszarach. Alternatywą jest rezygnacja z niektórych ambicji, bo tylko wtedy możemy osiągnąć sukces.
               

Delara Burkhardt (S&D). – Herr Präsident, liebe Kolleginnen und Kollegen! Mit dem ‘Fit for 55’-Paket können wir fit für Paris werden. Wir können auch das ‘mindestens’ in ‘mindestens 55 Prozent bis 2030’ mit Leben füllen, denn es sind deutlich größere und schnellere Schritte bis 2030 notwendig.
               

                  Unsere Böden und Wälder besser zu schützen und wieder in einen guten Zustand zu bringen, wird dabei entscheidend sein. Die Klimaleistung von Mooren, Wäldern und Wiesen ist aber kein Allheilmittel. Der Forst- und Landnutzungssektor darf nicht nur so eine Art eierlegende Wollmilchsau werden, um verfehlte Treibhausgasreduktionen in anderen Sektoren verkommen zu lassen. Wir brauchen beides: schnelle Dekarbonisierung aller Sektoren und mehr natürliche CO2-Senken.
               

                  Unsere Verantwortung endet aber auch nicht an unseren Grenzen, wir müssen unseren Fußabdruck weltweit reduzieren. Wir brauchen deshalb auch so schnell wie möglich ein EU-Gesetz gegen importierte Entwaldung. Wir als Sozialdemokratinnen und Sozialdemokraten sind bereit, Tempo zu machen und Verantwortung zu übernehmen.
               

Claudia Gamon (Renew). –
(Beginn des Redebeitrags bei ausgeschaltetem Mikro) … es wirklich um das Eingemachte, um die Umsetzung der Klimaziele. Aber mit halbgaren Statements werden wir da überhaupt nicht hinkommen, und was man zum Beispiel von den Kollegen der Konservativen gehört hat, waren wirklich fast aggressiv ignorante, vermeintliche Warnungen vor Kosten – ein Kollege hat sogar behauptet, es würde zu Verarmung kommen. Aber was ist mit den Kosten für die nächste Generation, wenn wir den grünen Wandel vollkommen verschlafen? Was ist mit den Kosten für stetig immer wiederkehrende Naturkatastrophen? Das ist die drohende Verarmung des Europas der Zukunft.
               

                  Und wir müssen jetzt einfach anerkennen: Die Wahrheit ist den Menschen zumutbar, und wir werden sie brauchen. Denn die Wahrheit ist auch das, was der Erfolg der europäischen Wirtschaft der Zukunft letztendlich bedeutet. Und die Wahrheit ist für uns alle mittlerweile auch einfach nur noch lebensnotwendig geworden. Und deshalb müssen wir hier beim ‘Fit-for-55’—Paket wirklich klare Ansagen machen und den Bürgerinnen und Bürgern der Union auch wirklich reinen Wein einschenken, was auf sie zukommen wird und was unser gemeinsames Ziel ist.
               

Seán Kelly (PPE). – Mr President, with the ‘Fit for 55’ package, we now stand over the largest single batch of legislation to tackle climate change proposed by any government anywhere. After years of discussing climate change as a problem for the future, it has now slowly crept upon us with increases in devastating wildfires, floods and storms, as well as severe consequences to the natural world and the flora and fauna it houses.
I firmly believe that an orderly transition across the energy sector is pivotal for the cohesiveness of the EU, especially in the medium term. This includes ensuring the security of fuel and electricity supplies, minimising stranded assets and making sure ambition is married with practicality and sustainable economic viability. This will require an innovation-centric approach, promoting and developing and, most importantly, investing in the technologies that bring us closer towards a decarbonised economy. The creation of a more circular economy will reduce pressure on natural resources and would create sustainable growth and jobs.
As rapporteur for the Implementation Report on the Energy Performance of Buildings Directive, it has been made abundantly clear to me that reaching our climate targets without decarbonising our living and working spaces is frankly impossible. Buildings are responsible for 36% of greenhouse gas emissions and 40% of the energy consumption in the EU. We cannot reach our targets without tackling this as well.

Nicolás González Casares (S&D). – Señor presidente, cada nuevo informe del IPCC es rotundo: la alteración climática es alarmante. Tras la Ley del Clima tenemos un paquete legislativo ambicioso en el camino hacia 2030. Gracias a la Comisión y al vicepresidente Timmermans por presentarlo.
               

                  Pero centrémonos en lo fundamental: el 75 % de las emisiones tiene que ver con el sector de la energía, que, en buena medida, es fósil e importada. Tenemos que avanzar en renovables de una manera sostenible y con un despliegue respetuoso, y ser eficientes. La energía mejor gastada es la que no consumimos.
               

                  Pero no olvidemos que habrá costes y que ese esfuerzo hay que transformarlo en una economía más limpia y autónoma. Lo que no podemos permitir es que esos costes aumenten la brecha de la desigualdad. La alarmante evolución de los precios mayoristas es un recordatorio que nos llama a concentrar esfuerzos para enganchar a la ciudadanía, acompañarla para no abrir paso al populismo y descarbonizar nuestra economía.
               

                  Ahora, los que estamos aquí tenemos que legislar. Hago un llamamiento a que nos centremos en la gente y en la salud del planeta. Es un gran desafío.
               

María Soraya Rodríguez Ramos (Renew). – Señor presidente, efectivamente, este verano se ha publicado un nuevo informe de los expertos del cambio climático, que acumula evidencias científicas. Pero también, lamentablemente, hemos sufrido catástrofes naturales que ya no suceden lejos de nuestros hogares, sino en nuestros hogares: inundaciones en Alemania, en Bélgica, incendios terribles de tercera generación en mi país.
               

                  Por lo tanto, no cabe otra opción, no hay ‘plan B’: tenemos que actuar para descarbonizar nuestra sociedad, nuestra economía. En ese sentido, este paquete que nos presenta la Comisión es un buen paquete, es una buena guía.
               

                  Pero quiero reiterar: no podemos permitir que el coste de esta transición ecológica recaiga sobre el consumidor final y sobre los más pobres, los trabajadores, porque, además, están pagando una doble factura —la factura de nuestra incapacidad política por no haber actuado antes está también presente en esas tarifas eléctricas inasumibles para los más vulnerables— y no pueden pagar el coste de una transición ecológica necesaria.
               

                  Por eso, el cambio social para el clima es fundamental, señor comisario.
               

Ljudmila Novak (PPE). – Gospod predsednik, gospod komisar, gospod minister, lepo pozdravljeni.
               

                  Podnebne spremembe so realnost. Ukrepi pa so seveda nujno potrebni. Tega se vsi zavedamo. Opozarjam pa na to, da morajo biti ti ukrepi realni, razumni in takšni, ki bodo državljane spodbudili k ukrepanju.
               

                  Navedla bom en primer: živim na podeželju, kjer imamo lasten gozd. Skrbno ga čistimo. Zaradi neurij, žleda je veliko podrtega lesa. Seveda ta les pokurimo, se z njim ogrevamo. Uporabljamo nove tehnologije: boljšo peč, izolacije in tako naprej. In se sprašujem: ali bom v prihodnosti za to kaznovana, ker bom ta les še uporabljala kot gorivo?
               

                  To je samo eden izmed primerov. Takih je verjetno še veliko, življenjskih. Zato morajo biti ti ukrepi takšni, da bodo dejansko spodbudili in motivirali državljane, da nas ne bodo imenovali bruseljske birokrate, ampak tiste, ki sprejemajo razumne ukrepe.
               

Sara Cerdas (S&D). – Senhor Presidente, Senhor Vice-Presidente, Senhor Ministro, a ciência diz-nos que, se não atuarmos já, não conseguiremos limitar o aumento da temperatura deste planeta aos limites do Acordo de Paris. O ‘Fit for 55’ assegurará a transição climática e o alcance dos objetivos da Lei do Clima. Esta transição será transversal e afetará todos os setores. Hoje, gostaria de destacar o setor dos transportes.
               

                  A proposta legislativa sobre as normas de desempenho de CO2 em novos veículos ligeiros será fundamental para a descarbonização deste setor. Porém, precisamos de mais ação para garantir que o setor faz a sua parte para alcançar a meta de 2030. Mudaremos para carros com zero emissões, mas no caminho não podemos esquecer-nos de assegurar a acessibilidade aos nossos cidadãos e a todas as regiões, incluindo aquelas mais remotas como as regiões ultraperiféricas.
               

                  Apenas com todos a bordo conseguiremos transitar para uma mobilidade mais sustentável.
               

Nicola Danti (Renew). – Signor Presidente, signor Vicepresidente Timmermans, onorevoli colleghi, i cittadini europei sono testimoni quotidiani del riscaldamento globale e sempre più avvertono l'urgenza di agire.
               

                  Questo pacchetto legislativo ha il merito di adottare un approccio d'insieme, dalle emissioni all'efficientamento energetico, alle rinnovabili, e ci impegna a prendere decisioni concrete declinando in opportunità la sfida del cambiamento climatico.
               

                  Ecco perché credo che serva visione e non approcci ideologici: non possiamo permetterci di perdere interi settori industriali e i posti di lavoro ad essi connessi, che rischiano una concorrenza sleale da parte di paesi extraeuropei. Serve scommettere sulle energie pulite, ma serve anche avere costi e meccanismi, come l'adeguamento del prezzo del carbonio alle frontiere, che permettano di garantire la competitività del sistema industriale.
               

                  Vinceremo la scommessa solo con una transizione equilibrata e concreta, che metta al centro la ricerca, l'innovazione e lo sviluppo di tecnologie che rendano l'Europa leader nel panorama globale.
               

                  Governare una transizione è complesso, fare in fretta, bene e senza lasciare indietro nessuno è un dovere.
               

Петър Витанов (S&D). – Г-н Председател, г-н Заместник председател на Комисията, колеги, климатът се променя и ние трябва да се променим, за да можем да смекчим щетите и да гарантираме оцеляването на собствените си деца.
               

                  Предложението ‘Подготвени за цел 55’ поставя началото на радикална икономическа трансформация. Икономическа, защото основният виновник за състоянието на климата е пазарът, такъв какъвто познаваме днес, а именно свръхпроизводство, свръхпотребление, свръхпредлагане, които доведоха до фатални последици, а доказателство за тях е провалът на настоящия икономически модел и за съжаление, цената на този провал я плаща обикновеният човек.
               

                  В Германия наводненията струваха 30 млрд. евро, в Гърция пожарите 500 млн. евро, а десетки хора платиха цената с живота си. В тази зала трябва да подкрепим Комисията в усилията ѝ да се намалят вредните емисии, но трябва да се обърнем и към собствените си правителства, особено към онези, които нямат никакво желание и стратегия за промяна, защото иначе …. приключвам, неравенството ще ни смаже.
               

Mauri Pekkarinen (Renew). – Arvoisa puhemies, IPCC:kin todistaa, että liikenteen päästöjen vähentämisellä on todella kiire ja että sähkö- ja vetyautot tulevatkin. Komissio edistää asiaa ihan kiitettävällä tavalla.
               

                  Kuitenkin vielä vuonna 2030 Euroopan teillä huristelee yli kaksisataa miljoonaa polttomoottoriautoa. Näiden autojen päästöjen vähentämisellä on nyt kova kiire. Asiaan tarvitaan mieluummin porkkanaa kuin keppiä. Komission tulisikin mielestäni edistää entistä voimakkaammin toimenpitein synteettisten polttoaineiden ja uusiutuvien liikennepolttoaineiden käyttöä. Toivon näin.
               

                  Toivon myös, että RED II -direktiivin uudistaminen osaltaan vauhdittaa edellytyksiä uusiutuvien päästöttömien liikennepolttoaineiden käyttöönoton lisäämiseksi.
               

Josianne Cutajar (S&D). – Sur President, nirien kbar li affettwaw lill-pajjiżi Mediterranji, għargħar fin-naħa ta' fuq tal-Ewropa u temperaturi għoljin immens li ġew reġistrati fl-aħħar xhur. Dak li ġara dan is-sajf huwa l-aħħar eżempju ċar kristall li diġà ninsabu tard fil-ġlieda tagħna kontra t-tibdil fil-klima. M'hemmx dubju dwar dan, irridu naġixxu issa u l-miżuri ambjentali inklużi fil-Pakket ‘Fit for 55’ qed ifasslu orizzont ambizzjuż. Madankollu bħala persuna li għandi għal qalbi d-drittijiet soċjali Ewropej, ma nistax ma nirrepetix; ejjew ma nabbandunawx l-aktar ċittadini vulnerabbli li diġà qed isibuha diffiċli biex jaslu bil-kontijiet tad-dawl u l-ilma jew jivvjaġġaw. Ejjew ma nkabbrux l-inugwaljanza bejn iż-żoni urbani u dawk rurali u tal-periferija tal-Unjoni, jiġifieri dawk iż-żoni li l-konnettività tagħhom diġà hija sfida.
               

                  Ilkoll nafu li din it-tranżizzjoni mhux se tkun faċli iżda ejja niżguraw ukoll li tkun waħda ġusta. Huwa biss b'kunsens pubbliku b'saħħtu li nistgħu nirnexxu f'dan ir-rigward.
               

Frans Timmermans,
Executive Vice-President of the Commission. – Mr President, I want to thank all honourable Members for their contribution to this debate. I want to particularly thank those who have said they want to engage with the Commission and the Council to swiftly start negotiating on the Fit for 55 package, to find common solutions on the basis of a legal obligation to reach a reduction of at least 55% of emissions by 2030 and climate neutrality by 2050. I also want to raise a more profound issue today. If you look at the challenges humanity faces: the COVID crisis, which is not over yet by a long stretch; the climate crisis; the risk of ecocide, which is real; and we're in the middle of an industrial revolution and quickly shifting geopolitical relations. We see it all around us.
Now we have a couple of traps. We as politicians who have the responsibility today because we were elected to do this, or appointed to do this, we have a couple of traps we need to avoid. The first trap to avoid is to underestimate the size of the challenge. As I've said before, before you, I repeat it, it's going to be bloody hard and nobody should have any illusions that this is going to be easy. The second trap to avoid is to talk all the time about the cost of the transition and avoiding to talk about the cost of non-transition. The costs of non-transition not just in economic terms – just look at what the floods are doing, just look at what the wildfires are doing, etc. – but especially the cost in human terms. Our children will be waging wars over water and food if we do not act now. And the migration crisis we've seen so far will be child's play if you compare it to the migration flows that will result from the climate crisis getting completely out of hand. Do we. do those of you who criticise the Fit for 55, who criticise climate policy, do they really look at that aspect of non-action? I hope so. I hope so.
Secondly, another trap we need to avoid is falling back into what happens at any time in our history when there are paradigm shifts, when there are fundamental changes, falling into the trap of what I would like to call obscurantism. It's all around us – denying science, denying facts, believing in the most idiotic conspiracy theories. We don't have the luxury as politicians to let that pass. We need to react to this. We need to stand up for science. We need to stand up for facts. And we need to be honest about the consequences of science and of facts even if that poses all of us very complicated issues and challenges.
The next trap I want to mention is linked to the previous one. Because there is such a lack of optimism in our society, even a dominating fear of regress, a fear of loss, democratic politics risk being caught in what I would like to call short-termism, that the only objective we have is to get re-elected in three or four years from now, and that we avoid any proposition to our citizens that might make that re-election more difficult. We cannot afford to do that. As in this generation, we have to take the responsibility for next generations. We have to take the responsibility for measures that might be painful in the first couple of years but will result in a more just society, with humanity being able to live within the boundaries the planet sets us.
This is not just a domestic agenda, it is an international agenda. We have to convince the international community to follow the European Union's lead in working towards a mutual society by the middle of this century, a society where the world lives well within planetary boundaries. The bad news is it's bloody hard. The good news is it's absolutely possible. It's absolutely possible to get us there. And I want to tell you that I have more confidence in the understanding of our population that this will be necessary and that there will be a cost involved than some of the politicians I've heard here today. The thing is, our population will support this even if, for individuals, this means a sacrifice. If we can manifestly show that the sacrifice leads to results and that the burden is shared in an equitable and solidarity-based way, that is going to be the big challenge because, and let me end on that, the final trap, the most immediate trap, and I heard it here today, we need to avoid at all costs, is that we oppose social equity and solidarity to tackling the climate crisis, that we pretend as though tackling the climate crisis would lead to social inequality, whereas it is evident on the basis of science that not tackling the climate crisis will lead to the most horrible social inequality, because rich people can always find a way out and a place to live. Poor people, middle classes, cannot, and will suffer if we don't act now.

Anže Logar,
predsedujoči Svetu. – Gospod predsednik, spoštovane poslanke in poslanci, komisar.
               

                  Zahvaljujem se za zelo odprto in odkrito razpravo, ki je osvetlila praktično vse zorne kote razprave, ki bo spremljala paket Fit for 55 v prihodnjih mesecih in morda tudi letih. Naj vam še enkrat zagotovim, da bo predsedstvo usmerilo vse napore za doseganje soglasja, da bo predsedstvo aktivno delovalo na tem dosjeju, da je že do sedaj sklicalo šestdeset sestankov na različnih sestavah delovnih skupin Sveta in da – ko bo, če bo – nastopil čas za trialoge, se že veseli sestajanja in usklajevanja predlogov z Evropskim parlamentom.
               

                  Hvala za pozornost in za današnjo razpravo.
               

PRESIDÊNCIA: PEDRO SILVA PEREIRA


Vice-Presidente


Presidente. – O debate está encerrado.
                  

                     Agradeço a presença da Comissão e do Conselho no nosso debate.
                  


Declarações escritas (artigo 171.o)



Clara Aguilera (S&D),
por escrito. – El paquete ‘Objetivo 55’ presentado por la Comisión Europea es indispensable para que la UE alcance su objetivo de reducir las emisiones netas de la UE en al menos un 55 % de aquí a 2030 con respecto a 1990 y convertirse en el primer continente climáticamente neutro de aquí a 2050, objetivos vinculantes tras la aprobación de la Ley Europea del Clima.
                  

                     Los socialistas españoles defendemos la necesidad de una transición verde, pero es imprescindible que esta sea justa, sin dejar a nadie atrás. El proceso de descarbonización europeo ha de tener en cuenta el impacto social que pueda tener en las personas más vulnerables, por eso reclamamos el establecimiento de mecanismos de compensación suficientes.
                  

                     Además, el Grupo socialista cree que el mecanismo de ajuste en frontera debe desempeñar un papel fundamental en la transición verde, con una implementación rápida.
                  

                     Por otro lado, los socialistas españoles destacamos la necesidad de avanzar en el despliegue de energías renovables, de una manera sostenible y eficiente.
                  

Pablo Arias Echeverría (PPE),
por escrito. – En el contexto de la puesta en práctica del Pacto Verde, la Comisión presentó el 14 de julio de 2021 el paquete ‘Objetivo 55’, con trece medidas legislativas cuyo objetivo principal es alcanzar la neutralidad climática para el 2050. Así, con la revisión del marco climático y energético de la UE que plantea, este programa aspira a reducir las emisiones de gases a efecto invernadero en un 55 % de aquí a 2030, en comparación con los niveles de 1990.
                  

                     Ciertas propuestas legislativas presentadas se basan en la adaptación y reestructuración de herramientas ya existentes como el sistema de comercio de emisiones de la UE (ETS), la revisión de legislación sobre el reparto del esfuerzo, la energía renovable o la eficiencia energética.
                  

                     Los objetivos climáticos y las medidas de reducción de las emisiones de gases a efecto invernadero son prioritarias, es innegable. Tenemos que encontrar el equilibrio entre una economía fuerte y competitiva que a la vez sea respetuosa con el medio ambiente. Sin embargo, insisto en que la transición hacia una economía sostenible tiene que hacerse siempre sin menoscabar la competitividad empresarial de nuestro mercado único.
                  

Estrella Durá Ferrandis (S&D),
por escrito. – El paquete ‘Objetivo 55’ presentado por la Comisión Europea es indispensable para que la UE alcance su objetivo de reducir las emisiones netas de la UE en al menos un 55 % de aquí a 2030 con respecto a 1990 y convertirse en el primer continente climáticamente neutro de aquí a 2050, objetivos vinculantes tras la aprobación de la Ley Europea del Clima.
                  

                     Los socialistas españoles defendemos la necesidad de una transición verde, pero es imprescindible que esta sea justa, sin dejar a nadie atrás. El proceso de descarbonización europeo ha de tener en cuenta el impacto social que pueda tener en las personas más vulnerables, por eso reclamamos el establecimiento de mecanismos de compensación suficientes.
                  

                     Además, el Grupo socialista cree que el mecanismo de ajuste en frontera debe desempeñar un papel fundamental en la transición verde, con una implementación rápida.
                  

                     Por otro lado, los socialistas españoles destacamos la necesidad de avanzar en el despliegue de energías renovables, de una manera sostenible y eficiente.
                  

Lina Gálvez Muñoz (S&D),
por escrito. – El paquete ‘Objetivo 55’ presentado por la Comisión Europea es indispensable para que la UE alcance su objetivo de reducir las emisiones netas de la UE en al menos un 55 % de aquí a 2030 con respecto a 1990 y convertirse en el primer continente climáticamente neutro de aquí a 2050, objetivos vinculantes tras la aprobación de la Ley Europea del Clima.
                  

                     Los socialistas españoles defendemos la necesidad de una transición verde, pero es imprescindible que esta sea justa, sin dejar a nadie atrás. El proceso de descarbonización europeo ha de tener en cuenta el impacto social que pueda tener en las personas más vulnerables, por eso reclamamos el establecimiento de mecanismos de compensación suficientes.
                  

                     Además, el Grupo socialista cree que el mecanismo de ajuste en frontera debe desempeñar un papel fundamental en la transición verde, con una implementación rápida.
                  

                     Por otro lado, los socialistas españoles destacamos la necesidad de avanzar en el despliegue de energías renovables, de una manera sostenible y eficiente.
                  

Ibán García Del Blanco (S&D),
por escrito. – El paquete ‘Objetivo 55’ presentado por la Comisión Europea es indispensable para que la UE alcance su objetivo de reducir las emisiones netas de la UE en al menos un 55 % de aquí a 2030 con respecto a 1990 y convertirse en el primer continente climáticamente neutro de aquí a 2050, objetivos vinculantes tras la aprobación de la Ley Europea del Clima.
                  

                     Los socialistas españoles defendemos la necesidad de una transición verde, pero es imprescindible que esta sea justa, sin dejar a nadie atrás. El proceso de descarbonización europeo ha de tener en cuenta el impacto social que pueda tener en las personas más vulnerables, por eso reclamamos el establecimiento de mecanismos de compensación suficientes.
                  

                     Además, el Grupo socialista cree que el mecanismo de ajuste en frontera debe desempeñar un papel fundamental en la transición verde, con una implementación rápida.
                  

                     Por otro lado, los socialistas españoles destacamos la necesidad de avanzar en el despliegue de energías renovables, de una manera sostenible y eficiente.
                  

Isabel García Muñoz (S&D),
por escrito. – El paquete ‘Objetivo 55’ presentado por la Comisión Europea es indispensable para que la UE alcance su objetivo de reducir las emisiones netas de la UE en al menos un 55 % de aquí a 2030 con respecto a 1990 y convertirse en el primer continente climáticamente neutro de aquí a 2050, objetivos vinculantes tras la aprobación de la Ley Europea del Clima.
                  

                     Los socialistas españoles defendemos la necesidad de una transición verde, pero es imprescindible que esta sea justa, sin dejar a nadie atrás. El proceso de descarbonización europeo ha de tener en cuenta el impacto social que pueda tener en las personas más vulnerables, por eso reclamamos el establecimiento de mecanismos de compensación suficientes.
                  

                     Además, el Grupo socialista cree que el mecanismo de ajuste en frontera debe desempeñar un papel fundamental en la transición verde, con una implementación rápida.
                  

                     Por otro lado, los socialistas españoles destacamos la necesidad de avanzar en el despliegue de energías renovables, de una manera sostenible y eficiente.
                  

András Gyürk (NI),
írásban. – Az uniós klímarendelet júliusi elfogadása a szimbolikus viták lezárását és a felelős cselekvés lehetőségét jelentette az éghajlatváltozás elleni küzdelemben. Utóbbi különösen sürgetővé vált, hiszen az elmúlt hónapokban az európai polgároknak a koronavírus-járvány mellett pusztító időjárási anomáliákkal és rekordmagas energiaárakkal kellett szembesülnie. A földgáz világpiaci ára egy év alatt 400%-kal, míg a háztartások rezsiszámlája egyes tagállamokban másfélszeresére nőtt.
                  

                     Az Európai Bizottság ebben a helyzetben mutatta be az ‘Irány az 55%!’ javaslatcsomagját. A megfogalmazott klímavédelmi célok nemesek, azonban elfogadhatatlan, hogy Brüsszel az emberekkel fizettesse meg a zöld átállás költségeit. A megújuló energia arányának javasolt mértékű növelése ugrásszerű áremelkedést fog eredményezni a fűtésben, távfűtésben és a közlekedési üzemanyagok terén. A kötelező éves energiamegtakarítás szintjének emeléséből származó költségeket is a fogyasztók viselhetik a jövőben. A Bizottság által javasolt intézkedések emellett nem veszik figyelembe a tagállamok eltérő kiinduló helyzetét és a nemzeti sajátosságokat. Tagállami szintű hatástanulmányok sem készültek, ami megkérdőjelezi a Brüsszel által javasolt intézkedések hitelességét, megfelelőségét és költséghatékonyságát. Egy történelmi mértékű gazdasági átalakulással járó csomag esetében ez kifejezetten kockázatos.
                  

                     Összességében a Bizottság javaslatai nélkülözik a racionalitást, helyenként figyelmen kívül hagyják a tagállamok szuverenitását és teljes mértékben szembemennek a méltányosság elvével. Ez veszélyes – az európai emberek ennél jobb klíma és energiapolitikát érdemelnek.
                  

Robert Hajšel (S&D),
písomne. – Balík návrhov, známy pod názvom Fit for 55, je dobrým výkopom zo strany Európskej komisie do veľmi ťažkých rokovaní, ktoré nás teraz v Európskom parlamente a medzi členskými štátmi čakajú s cieľom dohodnúť sa na účinných opatreniach na zníženie emisií skleníkových plynov a dosiahnutie našich klimatických cieľov. Niektoré navrhované opatrenia sú síce veľmi ambiciózne, ale narazia na silný odpor vo viacerých členských štátoch, ako aj tu v Európskom parlamente. Ide najmä o navrhované rozšírenie obchodovania s emisnými povolenkami aj na budovy a do oblasti cestnej dopravy. Mnohí pochybujú, či je to vôbec vhodný nástroj ako prispieť k znižovaniu skleníkových emisií a či jeho dôsledky nevyvolajú ešte horšie sociálne nepokoje, ako to bolo v nedávnej minulosti v prípade protestného hnutia žltých viest vo Francúzsku. Bez dobre premyslených a načas aplikovaných sprievodných opatrení budú mať totiž takéto opatrenia negatívny vplyv na účty, ktoré platia občania za energie, ako aj za ceny palív do svojich aut. Zničujúcim spôsobom sa to môže dotknúť najmä ľudí z najzraniteľnejších sociálnych vrstiev. Obávam sa, že iba klimatický sociálny fond a najmä jeho rozpočet v navrhovanej podobe nepostačí na kompenzovanie týchto sociálnych dôsledkov. Nezabúdajme, že už dnes čelíme výraznému zvýšenie cien energie aj keď z iných príčin.
                  

Adriana Maldonado López (S&D),
por escrito. – El paquete ‘Objetivo 55’ presentado por la Comisión Europea es indispensable para que la UE alcance su objetivo de reducir las emisiones netas de la UE en al menos un 55 % de aquí a 2030 con respecto a 1990 y convertirse en el primer continente climáticamente neutro de aquí a 2050, objetivos vinculantes tras la aprobación de la Ley Europea del Clima.
                  

                     Los socialistas españoles defendemos la necesidad de una transición verde, pero es imprescindible que esta sea justa, sin dejar a nadie atrás. El proceso de descarbonización europeo ha de tener en cuenta el impacto social que pueda tener en las personas más vulnerables, por eso reclamamos el establecimiento de mecanismos de compensación suficientes.
                  

                     Además, el Grupo socialista cree que el mecanismo de ajuste en frontera debe desempeñar un papel fundamental en la transición verde, con una implementación rápida.
                  

                     Por otro lado, los socialistas españoles destacamos la necesidad de avanzar en el despliegue de energías renovables, de una manera sostenible y eficiente.
                  

Marcos Ros Sempere (S&D),
por escrito. – El paquete ‘Objetivo 55’ presentado por la Comisión Europea es indispensable para que la UE alcance su objetivo de reducir las emisiones netas de la UE en al menos un 55 % de aquí a 2030 con respecto a 1990 y convertirse en el primer continente climáticamente neutro de aquí a 2050, objetivos vinculantes tras la aprobación de la Ley Europea del Clima.
                  

                     Los socialistas españoles defendemos la necesidad de una transición verde, pero es imprescindible que esta sea justa, sin dejar a nadie atrás. El proceso de descarbonización europeo ha de tener en cuenta el impacto social que pueda tener en las personas más vulnerables, por eso reclamamos el establecimiento de mecanismos de compensación suficientes.
                  

                     Además, el Grupo socialista cree que el mecanismo de ajuste en frontera debe desempeñar un papel fundamental en la transición verde, con una implementación rápida.
                  

                     Por otro lado, los socialistas españoles destacamos la necesidad de avanzar en el despliegue de energías renovables, de una manera sostenible y eficiente.
                  

Nacho Sánchez Amor (S&D),
por escrito. – El paquete ‘Objetivo 55’ presentado por la Comisión Europea es indispensable para que la UE alcance su objetivo de reducir las emisiones netas de la UE en al menos un 55 % de aquí a 2030 con respecto a 1990 y convertirse en el primer continente climáticamente neutro de aquí a 2050, objetivos vinculantes tras la aprobación de la Ley Europea del Clima.
                  

                     Los socialistas españoles defendemos la necesidad de una transición verde, pero es imprescindible que esta sea justa, sin dejar a nadie atrás. El proceso de descarbonización europeo ha de tener en cuenta el impacto social que pueda tener en las personas más vulnerables, por eso reclamamos el establecimiento de mecanismos de compensación suficientes.
                  

                     Además, el Grupo socialista cree que el mecanismo de ajuste en frontera debe desempeñar un papel fundamental en la transición verde, con una implementación rápida.
                  

                     Por otro lado, los socialistas españoles destacamos la necesidad de avanzar en el despliegue de energías renovables, de una manera sostenible y eficiente.
                  

Christine Schneider (PPE),
schriftlich. – Ich unterstütze das Paket ‘Fit for 55’. Es ist notwendig, auf dem Weg zur Klimaneutralität der EU für 2030 noch ehrgeizigere Klimaziele zu formulieren. Daher begrüße ich die Verpflichtung, die Emissionen bis 2030 um mindestens 55 % zu reduzieren. Dabei muss aus meiner Sicht der Schwerpunkt der angekündigten Maßnahmen eindeutig auf marktwirtschaftlichen Maßnahmen liegen, denn nur mit Anreizen statt Verboten werden wir das Ziel der Klimaneutralität 2050 erreichen. Jeder kann seinen Beitrag zum Klimaschutz leisten, aber nicht jedes Detail darf von der Europäischen Union vorgeschrieben werden.
                  

Sylwia Spurek (Verts/ALE),
na piśmie. – Ostatni raport IPCC przypomniał o tym, że stoimy na skraju przepaści i że to my, ludzie, jesteśmy za to odpowiedzialni. Tylko szybkie systemowe zmiany mogą zapobiec pogłębianiu się kryzysu klimatycznego. Nie uda się to, jeśli prawodawcy i prawodawczynie nie potraktują poważnie wpływu sektora hodowli zwierząt na klimat i środowisko.
                  

                     Hodowla zwierząt niszczy bioróżnorodność, środowisko naturalne i powoduje katastrofę klimatyczną. Sektor ten odpowiada za ok. 12-17 % całkowitych emisji gazów cieplarnianych w UE. Emisje samego dwutlenku węgla są wyższe niż suma rocznych emisji CO2 wydzielanych przez cztery państwa: Polskę, Węgry, Czechy i Słowację. Z Ziemi zrobiliśmy stołówkę, a apetyt globalnej Północy powoduje, że globalne Południe doświadcza głodu. Mimo to Komisja nie zaproponowała działań w celu realnych zmian w odniesieniu do hodowli. Komisja nie ma problemu, żeby rozmawiać o reformie sektora energetycznego i transportowego, ale nie ma odwagi, żeby zaproponować konieczne zmiany w sektorze rolnictwa.
                  

                     Brak jest także rozwiązań, które zapewniłyby konieczną redukcję emisji gazów cieplarnianych z hodowli zwierząt w ramach pakietu ‘Gotowi na 55’. To jasno pokazuje, że Komisja nie traktuje poważnie alarmu podnoszonego przez naukowców i naukowczynie. Ignoruje nawet dane, na które sama się powołuje. A nasze szanse na zatrzymanie katastrofy klimatycznej maleją z dnia na dzień.
                  

Marco Zanni (ID),
per iscritto. – La presentazione della Commissione di oggi sul Fit for 55 prevede un'accelerazione eccessiva della transizione ecologica, che creerà impatti negativi sulle imprese e sui lavoratori di molti settori.
                  

                     Purtroppo, a mio avviso, vi sono state diverse lacune durante la presentazione. In questi giorni stiamo assistendo all'aumento eccessivo dei costi delle bollette energetiche e da tempo vi è una crisi sui prezzi delle materie prime e sull'approvvigionamento dei semiconduttori. Su questi punti la Commissione non si rende conto dell'impatto economico negativo delle proprie politiche ambientali, come ad esempio l'aumento di prezzo delle quote di emissione e sta perdendo tempo senza proporre soluzioni adeguate, a discapito di imprese e cittadini europei.
                  

                     Inoltre, se guardiamo i dati relativi alle emissioni di CO2 in Europa degli ultimi anni, ci possiamo rendere conto di quanto poco effettivamente il nostro continente influisca sull'inquinamento globale.
                  

                     La Commissione, invece di porre obiettivi ‘green’ irrealizzabili sul piano pratico, dovrebbe concentrarsi ad incentivare la ripresa delle imprese europee colpite dalla pandemia.
                  

                     Il piano presentato quest'oggi porterà a una transizione ecologica costosa, che si potranno permettere solo i più ricchi, e che ricadrà sulle spalle di molte imprese e cittadini europei. Quindi, visto che siamo ancora in tempo, cerchiamo di essere più realisti e di concentrare tempo e risorse su progetti meno ideologici e più utili alla ripresa e alla crescita.
                  

Carlos Zorrinho (S&D),
por escrito. – O relatório do sexto ciclo de avaliação do Painel Intergovernamental de Mudanças Climáticas publicado em agosto, tornou ainda mais premente a ação efetiva para reduzir a emissão de gases com efeitos de estufa, sob pena de se ultrapassar o ponto de não retorno em termos de sustentabilidade do planeta. É neste contexto, e no quadro da preparação da Conferência das Nações Unidas sobre Alterações Climáticas (COP26) que se realizará em Glasgow, em outubro e novembro deste ano, que é fundamental um reforço institucional do compromisso com as metas europeias, através da aplicação do pacote ‘FIT for 55’, que visa a redução de 55% das emissões até 2030. Precisamos de uma mudança disruptiva de paradigma. Uma mudança na qual a velocidade da transição não pode ser separada da sua justiça, a pobreza energética não pode continuar a atingir valores intoleráveis e não podem ser os mais pobres, no mundo ou na Europa, a pagar o seu preço. A emergência climática e o aprofundamento das desigualdades são dois problemas sistémicos que só são resolúveis em simultâneo. São desafios existenciais, sociais e políticos de primeira grandeza em que a UE não pode ser menos do que exemplar.
                  
4.   Natural disasters during the summer of 2021 — Impacts of natural disasters in Europe due to climate change (debate)

Presidente. – Segue-se o debate conjunto sobre catástrofes naturais na Europa, determinado pela pergunta oral à Comissão sobre catástrofes naturais durante o verão de 2021 (O-000059/2021 - B9-0035/2021) (2021/2867(RSP)) e pela Declaração da Comissão sobre impactos das catástrofes naturais na Europa decorrentes das alterações climáticas (2021/2876(RSP)).
               

                  Aproveito para dar as boas-vindas em nome de todos à Comissária Elisa Ferreira.
               

Younous Omarjee,
auteur. – Monsieur le Président, Madame la Commissaire, mes chers collègues, cet été fut un été meurtrier et catastrophique. Des centaines de personnes ont perdu la vie et des régions ont été dévastées dans les inondations et les incendies qui ont ravagé l'Europe. Et nos pensées vont, ce matin, vers les victimes de ces catastrophes, vers les familles éprouvées, mais aussi vers les autorités régionales et communales qui ont porté secours et qui, depuis, continuent de panser les plaies. Notre solidarité est totale. Elle s'est exprimée et doit continuer à s'exprimer et je remercie l'ensemble des groupes politiques et le Président du Parlement européen d'avoir inscrit ce débat à notre ordre du jour ce matin.
               

                  Rappelons qu'en juillet, les inondations et les crues ont d'abord frappé l'Allemagne, la Belgique, les Pays-Bas, la France, le Luxembourg, l'Italie, l'Autriche, la Roumanie et ont fait plus de 300 morts et des milliards de dégâts. Nous gardons tous en mémoire ces images absolument impensables, où la terre s'est littéralement effondrée au cœur d'un village allemand de la région de Rhein-Erft, près de Cologne. À ces inondations inouïes se sont ensuite ajoutés les vagues de chaleur et les incendies de forêt qui ont ravagé de vastes régions du sud, notamment en Grèce, en Italie et en France.
               

                  Le choc pour nous est immense et nous découvrons notre fragilité, celle des régions européennes, devant les catastrophes climatiques. Les pays pauvres du monde ne sont plus les seuls fragiles devant les conséquences du déchaînement de la nature. Car ici comme ailleurs, nous ne sommes pas préparés en réalité pour faire face aux impacts toujours plus dévastateurs du changement climatique en cours. Comme nous l'avons souligné dans notre dernier rapport sur le FSUE, nous devons dorénavant considérer que ces catastrophes autrefois exceptionnelles deviennent, avec le changement climatique, une donne permanente, comme le rappelle le récent rapport du GIEC, et nous devons en tirer toutes les conséquences, dans toutes les politiques européennes.
               

                  Dans l'urgence, il est essentiel que l'Union utilise tous ses instruments de solidarité pour aider au redressement des régions et des localités touchées. Mais le budget du FSUE pour 2021 a déjà été, semble-t-il, bien consommé. Et cela, Madame la Commissaire, nous inquiète beaucoup. Dans ce contexte, comment la Commission envisage-t-elle de fournir les ressources budgétaires le plus rapidement possible? Car partout, les aides sont attendues. Et comment la Commission compte-t-elle garantir aussi un financement suffisant pour les catastrophes à venir?
               

                  Mais au-delà des urgences, se pose aussi la question centrale, à mon avis, de l'adaptation au changement climatique. C'est un véritable défi pour toute la politique de cohésion, car les changements climatiques vont entraîner une déstabilisation du développement régional, avec des conséquences dans tous les secteurs du développement – tous les secteurs seront impactés.
               

                  Nous avons eu ce matin un débat fort intéressant sur le paquet climat. Mais je note que toutes les mesures qui sont envisagées visent la réduction des émissions de gaz à effet de serre, alors que nous passons à côté du défi de l'adaptation au changement climatique. C'est pourquoi j'appelle, avec mes collègues, à la création d'un Fonds régional d'adaptation au changement climatique pour engager les travaux nécessaires sur les infrastructures afin de les rendre pérennes, ainsi que pour limiter les conséquences des catastrophes. Et comme vient de le dire le commissaire Timmermans, les milliards d'investissements nécessaires pour cela seront toujours inférieurs au coût de l'inaction devant le changement climatique. Nous le voyons d'ailleurs d'ores et déjà avec ce que représentera le coût de la reconstruction dans les villes et les régions dévastées.
               

                  Nous devons aussi, Madame la Commissaire, avoir une idée très précise des conséquences des impacts région par région et disposer d'une véritable cartographie, afin de pouvoir faire les bons choix pour les investissements et les stratégies de développement.
               

                  Pour conclure, je pense que vous serez tous d'accord avec moi pour considérer qu'il vaut mieux toujours bien construire que réparer.
               

Elisa Ferreira,
Member of the Commission. – Mr President, Mr Younous Omarjee – the very active chair of the Committee on Regional Development (REGI Committee) -, honourable Members, ladies and gentlemen, during the last week we discussed this topic in several parliamentary committees, but it is most appropriate to do it also in the plenary as the frequency of disasters is increasing and we all have to address this issue.
Climate change brings more extreme weather events, heatwaves, floods and forest fires. It seems that every year breaks a new record. The events are bigger, they come more often and they have greater and more disastrous impacts on the people of Europe.
First, let me just express our thoughts to the people that were recently hit by these events and in particular for those that lost their loved ones and lost their livelihoods. It's floods, it's forest fires, it's a complete list of terrible disasters.
But of course, our sympathy is not enough. There must be a European response. And as Europeans, one of our key values is active and practical solidarity. In a crisis we stand together. Let me outline very briefly how Europe helped in the first hours and days of the disasters.
Belgium, for instance, requested help through the European Union Civil Protection Mechanism and within a few hours, seven Member States had offered their assistance. In particular, France, Italy and Austria deployed more than 150 rescue workers, more than 30 rescue boats and two helicopters through the European Union Civil Protection Mechanism.
For forest fires, Greece, Italy and Cyprus also requested support via the Civil Protection Mechanism, and Greece alone received help from 11 other Member States. Nine aerial first fighting assets, 250 vehicles and 1100 firefighters as first responders.
In both floods and fires the first responders received vital intelligence from, and here in part the reason I said to your question, Copernicus Emergency Management Service. It is an instrument that produces satellite maps in real time to support the damage assessment and to guide the emergency response. Mapping, for instance, 460 000 hectares burned by fires.
This was what we can call the immediate response. So where are we now? We in the Commission stand ready to mobilise the European Union Solidarity Fund. Cyprus has already submitted an application and we are aware that other Member States plan to do the same.
However, over the last two years, the number and scale of disasters means there have been many calls on this solidarity fund, including for earthquakes and for COVID. This has put a severe strain on resources. We in the Commission, Parliament and Council must consider all possible options within our instruments to allow the solidarity fund to continue to deliver European support to those affected by natural disasters.
It is also clear that we must invest in long-term prevention and already in the 2014 cohesion programmes, 17 Member States invested in flood prevention. Nine invested in coastal protection. Six in preventing forest fires. And there were various other instruments and investments to tackle earthquakes, landslides and drought.
We must do even more in the programmes currently under preparation to keep people safe. Climate change induced risks must be taken very, very seriously. You cannot reply afterwards, so ex-post is not the solution and adaptation becomes not an option. Adaptation and prevention are a necessity.
This means preventive infrastructures such as dikes, flood walls, stormwater collectors and water basins. This means greener land management, managing flood plains and fire risk more naturally, for example, by reducing soil sealing and the concretisation of flood plains.
It also means investing in crisis management, including of course, rescue vehicles, fire engines, helicopters. It also means more territorial cohesion, as most of the time, the negative impact of these disasters is exacerbated by social and spatial inequalities.
I count on your support to ensure that cohesion programmes in your country, as well as other European Union programmes, including, and I underline, the Recovery and Resilience Facility, include appropriate measures for mitigating the risk of natural disasters.
These are my three points: first, the immediate response under the Civil Protection Mechanism; second, the need for adequate resources for the EU solidarity fund and; third, the need to put preparation and mitigation and adaptation measures into the European Union programmes, including the new cohesion programmes and the Recovery and Resilience Facility.
So now I look forward to our discussion. Thank you once again.

Pascal Arimont,
im Namen der PPE-Fraktion. – Herr Präsident, sehr geehrte Frau Kommissarin! Die Menschen im belgischen Eupen, in Pepinster, in Trooz, im deutschen Erftstadt, Schuld oder Bad Neuenahr oder auch im niederländischen Venlo, um nur einige wenige zu nennen, werden den 14. und 15. Juli nicht vergessen können. Die Flut kam über Nacht und riss alles mit. Sie war verheerend. Menschen sind gestorben, Familien haben teilweise alles verloren – ohne Ankündigung, ohne Mitleid.
               

                  Menschen, die alles völlig unverschuldet verlieren, brauchen Hilfe, schnelle und flexible Hilfe – auch von der Europäischen Union. Sehr positiv war bereits die Aktivierung des EU-Katastrophenschutzverfahrens: Innerhalb weniger Stunden kamen Rettungswagen und Hubschrauber aus Frankreich, Italien und Österreich zu Hilfe.
               

                  Doch auch bei der Beseitigung der Schäden und dem Wiederaufbau brauchen wir die Kraft der gesamten Europäischen Union. Genau zu diesem Zweck wurde im Jahr 2002 der Solidaritätsfonds geschaffen. Wenn Schäden so gewaltig sind, dass Regionen oder ein Land den Wiederaufbau nicht alleine schaffen können, sollten ihm die anderen Länder helfen. Ein einfaches und sehr richtiges Prinzip. Die Schäden in der Wallonie alleine werden auf bis zu 3 Milliarden Euro geschätzt.
               

                  Noch liegen die Anträge der Mitgliedstaaten nicht vor. Noch wird der Schaden berechnet, um sich ein etwaiges Bild machen zu können. Frau von der Leyen hat bei ihrem Besuch in Pepinster am 17. Juli gesagt, dass europäische Mittel zur Verfügung stehen und es wichtig sei, diese sehr schnell einzusetzen.
               

                  Wir haben diese mündliche Frage für die heutige Plenarsitzung eingereicht, um erstens zu wissen, ob die betroffenen Regionen mit Geld aus diesem Solidaritätsfonds rechnen können – dies auch vor dem Hintergrund, dass dieser Fonds dieses Jahr auch benutzt worden ist, um gegen die Folgen der COVID-19-Pandemie zu kämpfen. Ich möchte zweitens wissen, Frau Kommissarin, wie schnell Hilfsmittel an die Regionen ausgezahlt werden können. Und ich möchte drittens wissen, ob Sie auch der Meinung sind, dass angesichts der deutlichen Zunahme an naturbedingten Katastrophen dieser Fonds noch ein geeignetes Instrument ist, oder ob wir diesen Fonds weiterentwickeln müssen.
               

                  Die Solidarität kurz nach der Katastrophe zwischen den Menschen war enorm, war beispielhaft. Sie war spürbar. Wir sollten diese Menschen daher auch hier und an dieser Stelle nicht vergessen. Wir sollten diese Menschen nicht im Stich lassen.
               

Jytte Guteland,
för S&D-gruppen. – Herr talman! Jag vill börja med att sända en tanke till alla er som har drabbats av sommarens kraftiga skogsbränder, värmeböljor och översvämningar, till alla de hundratals som har mist livet – jag tänker på era anhöriga. Jag tänker också på alla er som har förlorat hem, skog eller kanske ett kärt husdjur. Ända upp till Sverige har den globala upphettningen visat sin kraft detta år, med just kraftiga översvämningar.
               

                  När atmosfären värms upp så intensifieras vattencykeln, vilket ger torka där det redan är torrt och mer regn där det redan är blött. När Nordpolen värms och smälter, bromsas dessutom Golfströmmen. Det saktar också ned lågtrycken – regnmolnen stannar längre och ger regn under längre tid.
               

                  Det råder inget tvivel om att dessa extremväder hade varit mycket osannolika om det inte hade varit för den globala upphettningen. Just det slår IPCC fast i sommarens omtalade klimatrapport, nämligen att det är människans förbränning av fossila bränslen som gör att dessa extremväder nu inträffar nästan varje år – det som förr kanske hände vart hundrade år.
               

                  Även om det blev tydligt att klimatkrisen också slår mot oss här och nu, är det de som lever i de fattigare länderna och de fattigare delarna av världen som kommer att drabbas allra värst och redan gör så. Om inte ens vi i EU, i länder som Tyskland, Belgien och Sverige, kan skydda oss mot dessa extremväder, hur ska världens fattigare länder då kunna stå emot något alls?
               

                  Det är dags att vi lever upp till våra internationella åtaganden och säkrar Parisavtalets överenskomna finansiering av klimatanpassning. Men vi måste också ta tjuren vid hornen och öka takten för den rättvisa, gröna omställningen.
               

Nicolae Ștefănuță,
în numele grupului Renew. – Doamnule președinte, doamnă comisară, vara lui 2021 ne-a dat o lecție importantă tuturor: nicio țară din Europa nu este imună la dezastrele naturale; fie că este vorba de un incendiu, de o inundație, nu putem lăsa astfel de evenimente să devină o normalitate pentru noi. Pasivitatea aceasta ne va costa vieți. Ne costă timp, recuperare, reconstrucție și, cel mai important, ne costă viitorul copiilor noștri și vă dau un exemplu: fetița mea are un an și jumătate. Pentru ea, anul 2050 nu este o abstracție, nici 2100 nu este o abstracție, este cât se poate de real acest an și acest viitor.
               

                  Anul acesta și în România, de unde vin eu, am avut, în premieră, mai multe evenimente climatice, România a fost lovită de un ciclon și la est și la vest. Deșertificarea continuă să se extindă în sudul țării, iar furtunile de nisip ajung tot mai aproape de București. Sunt hectare care au ars în urma incendiilor de vegetație. În cazul unei tragedii similare cu cea din Grecia, România nu ar fi avut pe ce să se bazeze, pentru că nu are avioane cisternă și nu are avioane amfibii.
               

                  Trebuie, astfel, să fim cu toții mai bine pregătiți pentru astfel de situații, inclusiv pentru că solidaritatea este necesară. Așa că haideți să alegem mai bine tabăra: alegem pentru natură sau împotriva naturii, suntem pentru copiii noștri sau împotriva lor. Mulțumesc foarte mult.
               

Rosa D'Amato,
a nome del gruppo Verts/ALE. – Signor Presidente, signora Commissaria, onorevoli colleghi, io ho un minuto e lo userò per farvi delle proposte.
               

                  Alla luce dei tempi lunghi degli Stati membri per quantificare i danni dei disastri, delle alluvioni e degli incendi, vi riproponiamo quanto meno di aumentare la percentuale dell'anticipo del Fondo di solidarietà europeo almeno del 30 %.
               

                  Alla luce del rapporto IPCC, chiedo alla Commissaria di stilare delle ulteriori raccomandazioni, delle linee guida che reindirizzino le risorse dell'RRF, dei Fondi strutturali europei sulla prevenzione soprattutto per i paesi più a rischio.
               

                  Siamo in una fase fondamentale di varo dei programmi operativi del Fondo di coesione, ed è possibile ancora farlo. Perché se paesi come l'Italia stanziano solo 2 miliardi per il dissesto idrogeologico, a fronte di un fabbisogno di ben 26 miliardi, vuol dire che bisogna esercitare una maggiore pressione sui governi a un uso efficace dei fondi nel contrasto dei cambiamenti climatici.
               

Rosanna Conte,
a nome del gruppo ID. – Signor Presidente, onorevoli colleghi, le catastrofi naturali dell'estate 2021 sono solo la punta dell'iceberg, perché già da diverso tempo riceviamo segnali allarmanti in tutta Europa.
               

                  L'Italia è stata colpita da una serie di incendi che costeranno circa un miliardo di euro, oltre all'incalcolabile impatto sull'intero ecosistema e sulla vita dei cittadini.
               

                  Pensate che la mia regione, il Veneto, è sistematicamente tra le più colpite a livello economico dalle calamità naturali: le forti grandinate distruggono le colture e le frequenti alluvioni e inondazioni impattano negativamente sui nostri produttori. Lo spettro di un'altra tempesta Vaia, che ha devastato il Veneto nel 2018, spaventa tutti noi.
               

                  Se è vero che i recenti fenomeni rappresentano un problema a livello sistemico, allora abbiamo il dovere di attrezzare le imprese di adeguati strumenti di sostegno e di reazione, ma soprattutto di prevenzione di tali fenomeni. Per questo bisogna rafforzare la solidarietà e il meccanismo unionale di protezione civile.
               

                  E poi dobbiamo rendere le nostre piccole e medie imprese resilienti e meno vulnerabili al cambiamento climatico, attraverso un percorso di accompagnamento graduale, che non aggiunga oneri e costi alle imprese.
               

                  Le parole chiave sono gradualità e adattamento: solo così sarà possibile far fronte alle avversità climatiche e permettere alle nostre imprese di essere pronte a reagire.
               

Raffaele Fitto,
a nome del gruppo ECR. – Signor Presidente, onorevoli colleghi, la stagione estiva appena trascorsa è stata senza dubbio difficile: le inondazioni e gli incendi che hanno colpito l'Europa hanno avuto conseguenze drammatiche, causando vittime, oltre che ingenti danni economici e paesaggistici.
               

                  Il rischio di fenomeni disastrosi e catastrofici è purtroppo sempre più frequente per molteplici cause e questo credo richieda da parte nostra un approccio pragmatico e realista, innanzitutto migliorando e consolidando gli strumenti esistenti.
               

                  La vastità e la gravità degli incendi – penso in modo particolare anche al mio paese, l'Italia – ha fatto sì che la strategia europea funzionasse solo in parte: la flotta istituita nell'ambito del sistema rescEU ha palesato i suoi limiti e le sue difficoltà, soprattutto quando più Stati membri si sono trovati ad affrontare contemporaneamente lo stesso tipo di catastrofe, come è accaduto per gli incendi nei paesi del Mediterraneo.
               

                  Il Fondo di solidarietà e il meccanismo di protezione civile vanno consolidati e resi più efficaci, non solo in termini di risorse, ma soprattutto dal punto di vista della gestione delle catastrofi, della valutazione dei danni e della semplificazione delle procedure, del miglioramento dei meccanismi di individuazione e quantificazione dei danni.
               

                  Occorre rafforzare il sistema europeo di informazione degli incendi boschivi di Copernicus, in modo da migliorare le azioni di prevenzione e di risposta. Molti di questi eventi infatti sarebbero potuti essere evitati se ci fosse stata, negli ultimi anni, una vera e propria azione di prevenzione.
               

                  Tutelare e proteggere da disastri e catastrofi i centri urbani, i beni architettonici e le bellezze naturali e paesaggistiche è la vera sfida del presente e del futuro, una sfida che potremo affrontare nel migliore dei modi solo se saremo in grado di fare scelte coraggiose dal punto di vista delle politiche di bilancio e se, attraverso gli strumenti esistenti partendo dai fondi della politica di coesione, ma anche da quelli del PNRR, rafforzeremo – come Lei ha giustamente sollecitato – la sinergia e la cooperazione tra tutti gli attori coinvolti.
               

                  È questo lo spirito con il quale noi vogliamo dare un contributo come commissione REGI ed esprimo un giudizio molto positivo nei confronti del presidente e del lavoro che la REGI ha messo in campo.
               

Martina Michels,
im Namen der The Left-Fraktion. – Herr Präsident, liebe Frau Kommissarin Ferreira! Nachher ist man immer schlauer. Ja, der EU-Solidaritätsfonds muss wieder aufgestockt werden, ein Klimaanpassungsfonds wird nötig. Ja, die EU-weite Koordinierung der Katastrophenhilfe muss grenzüberschreitend besser werden. Und natürlich hätten wir mehr Geld zur Vorbereitung ausgeben müssen.
               

                  Aber, was auch stimmt, es gab gravierende Mängel in der Krisenbewältigung vor Ort in den Mitgliedsländern. In Deutschland zum Beispiel hat das Frühwarnsystem total versagt. Dort funktionierten nicht einmal die Sirenen richtig. Von digitaler Warnung der Leute rede ich gar nicht. Auch in Deutschland wurde am Hochwasserschutz, am Klimaschutz und am Katastrophenschutz gespart. Ja, nachher ist man immer schlauer.
               

                  Deshalb, da hat die Frau Kommissarin völlig recht, müssen wir insgesamt auf drei Ebenen gleichzeitig besser agieren: mehr Soforthilfe, mehr Prävention, mehr Klimaschutz. Das muss ab sofort das Prinzip sein, denn niemand kann angesichts der verheerenden Naturkatastrophen dieses Sommers noch daran zweifeln, dass der Klimawandel auch in Europa angekommen ist.
               

Chiara Gemma (NI). – Signor Presidente, signora Commissaria, onorevoli colleghi, le inondazioni e il caldo torrido che questa estate hanno colpito l'Europa sono l'ennesima prova delle conseguenze devastanti del cambiamento climatico in atto.
               

                  Quello che oggi sembra un fenomeno eccezionale rischia, ahimè, di diventare una realtà permanente se non invertiamo la rotta.
               

                  Solo in Italia sono divampati oltre 500 incendi, con costi enormi per le operazioni di spegnimento a cui seguiranno quelli per ricostruire flora, fauna e attività agricole, oltre alle operazioni di bonifica delle aree colpite.
               

                  Per questo motivo l'Unione europea deve mostrarsi all'altezza della sfida, utilizzando tutti gli strumenti di cui dispone per far fronte all'emergenza, rifinanziando il fondo di solidarietà e sviluppando strategie regionali di adattamento al cambiamento climatico.
               

                  È assolutamente indispensabile che queste spese straordinarie vengano scorporate dal patto di stabilità, affinché non gravino sui bilanci degli Stati membri.
               

Ralf Seekatz (PPE). – Herr Präsident, verehrte Kolleginnen und Kollegen! In meiner Heimatstadt, in meinem Heimatbundesland Rheinland-Pfalz in Deutschland wütete das Unwetter im Juli in der Eifel, an der Mosel, und am schlimmsten betroffen war das Ahrtal. Wir haben 133 Tote zu beklagen. Drei Menschen werden immer noch vermisst. Im Ahrtal wurden 62 Brücken, 40 Schulen, 55 Kindergärten und fünf Krankenhäuser zerstört. Über 3 000 Unternehmen sind von der Katastrophe betroffen.
               

                  Das Ausmaß kann man nur beurteilen, wenn man es sich vor Ort angesehen hat. Ich bin vor Ort gewesen. Die Fernsehbilder waren bedrückend, aber ich sage es Ihnen: Vor Ort macht es noch einmal einen ganz anderen, tiefergehenden Eindruck. 14 Tage nach der Katastrophe habe ich dort meinen Freund besucht, und obwohl schon viele Schäden beseitigt waren, sah es immer noch so aus wie nach einem Bombenangriff. Mein Freund und andere Betroffene schilderten mir die Flutnacht und sprachen auch über die Todesängste, die die Menschen dort ausgestanden haben.
               

                  Aus Respekt gegenüber diesen Menschen und den vielen Toten verbietet es sich daher, die Flutkatastrophe politisch zu missbrauchen. Dies wäre schäbig und würde der Sache nicht gerecht. Vielmehr ist es unsere Aufgabe, den Menschen beim Aufbau zu helfen. Daher ist es wichtig, dass die Hilfsgelder aus dem EU-Solidaritätsfonds rasch freigegeben werden, sobald die Anträge vorliegen.
               

                  Sollte der Topf leer sein, wie man es heute aus verschiedenen Medien erfahren hat, muss im Haushalt umgeschichtet werden. Die Kommission muss hier flexibler reagieren und auch reagieren können, meine Damen und Herren, das sind wir den betroffenen Menschen vor Ort schuldig. Der Aufbau wird viele Jahre dauern. Die Aufarbeitung und die Ursachenforschung müssen dabei in Europa ebenfalls rasch und auch zentral erfolgen.
               

Νίκος Ανδρουλάκης (S&D). – Κύριε Πρόεδρε, το περασμένο καλοκαίρι σημαδεύτηκε από φονικές πλημμύρες στην Κεντρική Ευρώπη αλλά και από καταστροφικές δασικές πυρκαγιές στις χώρες της Μεσογείου. Στην Ελλάδα ήταν τουλάχιστον εννεαπλάσιες οι εκτάσεις που καταστράφηκαν σε σχέση με πέρυσι. Τα καμένα στρέμματα ξεπέρασαν κατά πολύ το ένα εκατομμύριο και ολόκληρη η περιοχή της Βόρειας Εύβοιας κινδυνεύει από εγκατάλειψη. Γι' αυτό χρειάζεται ένα ολοκληρωμένο σχέδιο αποκατάστασης με αναπτυξιακά έργα, όπως ένας σύγχρονος οδικός άξονας για την ευκολότερη πρόσβαση στην περιοχή. Λόγω της κλιματικής αλλαγής, τα επικίνδυνα καιρικά φαινόμενα θα είναι ισχυρότερα και συχνότερα, με τις φυσικές καταστροφές να μας απειλούν πλέον σε μόνιμη βάση. Η κινητοποίηση του Ευρωπαϊκού Μηχανισμού Πολιτικής Προστασίας βοήθησε στη μείωση των συνεπειών. Χιλιάδες πυροσβέστες κινητοποιήθηκαν από πολλές χώρες της Ευρώπης, δίνοντας ουσιαστικό περιεχόμενο στη λέξη ‘αλληλεγγύη’, που τόσο έχουμε ανάγκη αυτή την εποχή. Ας κοιτάξουμε στο μέλλον· έχουν γίνει πάρα πολλά τα τελευταία χρόνια αλλά πρέπει να αγωνιστούμε για να γίνουν ακόμα περισσότερα. Πρώτον, απαιτείται να προχωρήσουμε άμεσα στην κοινή παραγγελία πυροσβεστικών αεροπλάνων Canadair, ώστε να ξεκινήσει η γραμμή παραγωγής και να ενισχύσουμε ουσιαστικά τα μέσα που διαθέτουμε σε ευρωπαϊκό και εθνικό επίπεδο. Δεύτερον, θα πρέπει να δώσουμε μεγαλύτερη έμφαση στην πρόληψη, ώστε τα κράτη μέλη να είναι καλύτερα προετοιμασμένα, αξιοποιώντας βεβαίως τη δυνατότητα και τη χρηματοδότηση που υπάρχει για την αναβάθμιση των εθνικών σχεδίων πολιτικής προστασίας. Τρίτον, δεδομένου ότι οι περιορισμοί του Ταμείου Αλληλεγγύης ως προς τις προϋποθέσεις ενεργοποίησης του, το ποσό στήριξης, αλλά και το είδος καταστροφών που καλύπτονται μειώνουν την αποτελεσματικότητά του, είναι ανάγκη να προχωρήσουμε στη δημιουργία ενός νέου ταμείου επιφορτισμένου με την αποκατάσταση των συνεπειών της κλιματικής αλλαγής.
               

Andreas Glück (Renew). – Sehr geehrter Herr Präsident, werte Kolleginnen und Kollegen! Auch Deutschland hat in den vergangenen Jahren immer wieder von dem European Solidarity Fund profitiert – das möchte ich deutlich sagen in Richtung der Europakritiker hier in diesem Raum.
               

                  In diesem Sommer hatte Europa nicht nur mehrere Feuerkatastrophen zu verzeichnen, auch eine schlimme Flutkatastrophe hat hart zugeschlagen. In einer der am schwersten betroffenen Gegenden der Flutkatastrophe, im Ahrtal, habe ich selbst über drei Wochen hinweg als Facharzt für Chirurgie gearbeitet und hatte viel zu tun. Übrigens undercover, ohne groß an den Nagel zu hängen, was ich sonst beruflich mache. Mein Dank gilt an dieser Stelle allen Freunden und Freundinnen, die dort geholfen haben, der Blaulichtfraktion, der Bundeswehr, aber auch den vielen, vielen freiwilligen Helferinnen und Helfern des Helfer-Shuttles.
               

                  Wenn du den Glauben an die Menschheit verloren hast, geh ins Ahrtal, dort wirst du ihn wiederfinden. Und das ist gut, denn der Aufbau dort wird noch lange dauern, und er wird sehr teuer werden. Das Problem bei den diesjährigen Katastrophen ist: Der Topf des Solidaritätsfonds ist leer. Hier muss Europa besser werden. Und hier verlange ich von Kommissionspräsidentin von der Leyen und der Kommission, Gelder zu beschaffen.
               

                  Wir brauchen nicht überall ein bisschen Europa. Wir brauchen ein starkes Europa an den richtigen Stellen.
               

                  When we have to fight the damage of natural catastrophes, Europe has to show up and we have to be visible.
               

Alexandra Geese (Verts/ALE). – Herr Vorsitzender, verehrte Kolleginnen und Kollegen! Bei der Flutkatastrophe im Juli 2021 haben Hunderte von Menschen ihr Leben verloren, und viele mehr stehen vor den Trümmern ihrer Existenz. Im deutschen Ahrtal sind noch immer Geschäfte und Betriebe geschlossen, die Wirtschaft liegt lahm, Wasser- und Gasleitungen sind zerstört, Autobahnen und Zugstrecken unterbrochen, Schulen und Kitas unbenutzbar. Das ist Klimawandel!
               

                  Und deswegen ist es so dringend, dass wir gerade auch im EU-Haushalt Katastrophenschutz und auch die Anpassung an den Klimawandel ganz oben auf die Agenda setzen. Und dabei müssen ökologische Aspekte Priorität haben: mehr Raum für Flüsse, weniger versiegelte oder durch intensive Landwirtschaft verdichtete Böden, Schwammstädte mit Wasserspeichern und Grünflächen.
               

                  Und vor allem müssen wir eines tun: endlich den Klimaschutz voranbringen. Die Frage ist doch nicht mehr, ob wir Klimaschutz bezahlen können. Die eigentliche Frage ist doch, wer die immensen menschlichen und finanziellen Kosten von mangelndem Klimaschutz trägt. Und das sind heute die Menschen im Ahrtal und morgen unsere Kinder.
               

Sylvia Limmer (ID). – Herr Präsident! Die verheerende Flut in Deutschland, die mehr als 180 Menschen das Leben kostete und immense Schäden in Milliardenhöhe anrichtete, ist sicher ein Extremwetterphänomen. Diese Menschen, die größtenteils noch immer auf die vielfach angekündigten unbürokratischen Hilfen warten, benötigen unser Mitgefühl, aber vor allem unsere tatkräftige und auch finanzielle Unterstützung.
               

                  Extremwetter ist leider so alt wie die Menschheit, und selbst der Sonderbericht des IPCC von 2012 muss statuieren, dass hinsichtlich Überschwemmungen nicht der anthropogene Klimawandel das Problem ist. Zum selben Schluss kommt der Deutsche Wetterdienst, der keine Zunahme von Extremwetterereignissen sieht.
               

                  Menschengemacht sind dagegen die Flächenversiegelung, die Begradigung von Flussläufen, die Bebauung von natürlichen Überschwemmungsgebieten, überhaupt die zunehmende ufernahe Bebauung. Menschengemacht ist das Versagen der deutschen Behörden, die Warnungen nicht rechtzeitig an die Bürger weitergegeben haben.
               

                  Aber all das hat nichts mit dem Wetter zu tun. Dass Sie die Toten, die Flutopfer, die, die alles verloren haben, für Ihre Klimapropaganda missbrauchen, ist erbärmlich.
               

Andżelika Anna Możdżanowska (ECR). – Panie Przewodniczący! Pani Komisarz! Bank Światowy szacuje koszty klęsk żywiołowych w skali globalnej na 440 mld euro rocznie . Ale to setki tysięcy ludzkich dramatów, bowiem od powodzi i lawin po upały, klęski żywiołowe mogą zniszczyć całe nasze społeczności. Musimy głośno mówić o wspólnej odpowiedzialności Unii Europejskiej, ale i każdego z państw, regionów i miast, by dysponować planami na szczeblach krajowych i lokalnych i strategiami na rzecz zmniejszenia ryzyka związanego z klęskami żywiołowymi i zmniejszenia strat związanych z tymi klęskami.
               

                  W tym zakresie Unia Europejska odgrywa bardzo ważną rolę koordynacji oraz zabezpieczenia niezbędnych środków finansowych na ulepszanie infrastruktury. W Unii Europejskiej nie wystarczą głośne hasła o przeciwdziałaniach zmianie klimatu, o zmniejszaniu ryzyka zagrożeniami naturalnymi. Potrzebne są fundusze z unijnej polityki spójności, fundusze na rzecz regionów, a także dodatkowe środki w funduszu odbudowy gospodarczej, krajowe plany odbudowy gospodarczej, by zabezpieczać prawdziwą politykę odporności, tak by dokonało się przejście do gospodarki niskoemisyjnej, by móc przekształcić swoją infrastrukturę na bardziej odporną na klęski żywiołowe i aby szybko odbudować się po klęsce żywiołowej.
               

                  Dziś walczymy także z ogromnymi skutkami społecznymi pandemii COVID-19 i recesją gospodarczą. Walczymy o bezpieczeństwo żywnościowe, ASE w rolnictwie. A co robi Komisja Europejska? Politycznie ocenia krajowe programy odbudowy i blokuje należne środki dla państwa członkowskiego i opieszale reaguje na wnioski interwencje i państw. Czyny czy tylko hasła łączą Unię Europejską? A więc nie polityka, a odpowiedzialność jest wiarygodnością wspólnoty europejskiej. Europa bezpieczna i silna jest tylko siłą i bezpieczeństwem każdego z państw członkowskich.
               

Marc Botenga (The Left). – Monsieur le Président, Madame la Commissaire européenne, on parle de vrais gens, de désastres et Mme von der Leyen, présidente de la Commission, est venue chez nous. Elle est passée à Rochefort, à Pepinster et face aux gens là-bas, elle a dit qu'elle avait le cœur qui saigne. Elle a dit: ‘J'ai le cœur serré’.
               

                  Je pense qu'elle aurait dû s'excuser, plutôt, parce qu'à cause de l'austérité européenne, appliquée avec beaucoup d'enthousiasme par le gouvernement belge, nous avons, en Belgique, fermé quatre casernes sur les six de la protection civile et nos pompiers manquent terriblement de matériel. Mais non, vous allez continuer cette austérité meurtrière, on peut le dire. Et si, en face des gens, vous avez pleurniché, ici, loin des regards, je trouve que vous êtes en train de les poignarder en proposant cette nouvelle taxe carbone sur le transport.
               

                  Cette taxe, elle va frapper exactement les mêmes travailleurs qui, aujourd'hui, ont subi les inondations, tandis que, on le sait, ce sont les riches qui polluent le plus. Je voudrais vous demander de garder vos larmes de crocodile. Nous avons besoin aujourd'hui de protéger les travailleurs, d'abandonner définitivement l'austérité et de faire payer les milliardaires pour sauver notre planète.
               

Λευτέρης Νικολάου-Αλαβάνος (NI). – Κύριε Πρόεδρε, στην Ελλάδα ο λαός αντιμετώπισε μεγάλες πυρκαγιές και πλημμύρες που έγιναν αιτία να χαθούν ανθρώπινες ζωές και κατέστρεψαν κατοικίες, μικροαγροτικές και κτηνοτροφικές υποδομές και εκατοντάδες χιλιάδες στρέμματα δασικής έκτασης. Είναι σκόπιμη η προσπάθεια αποπροσανατολισμού με πρόσχημα την κλιματική αλλαγή για να ‘βγει λάδι’ η ευρωενωσιακή στρατηγική κόστους-οφέλους που εφάρμοσαν όλες οι κυβερνήσεις, καθώς και η σημερινή της Νέας Δημοκρατίας, μια στρατηγική που απογυμνώνει και εμπορευματοποιεί τις υπηρεσίες πολιτικής προστασίας, που θεωρεί μη επιλέξιμα τα αναγκαία έργα προστασίας και που παραδίδει τα δάση προς εκμετάλλευση στους μονοπωλιακούς ομίλους. Το πολυδιαφημισμένο Rescue EU, που ανακυκλώνει τις ελλείψεις μέσων από χώρα σε χώρα και φτάνει συνήθως κατόπιν τραγωδίας, απέδειξε ότι, τα κρίσιμα εικοσιτετράωρα στο πεδίο της μάχης βρίσκεται ο λαός που με αυτοθυσία υπερασπίζεται τη ζωή και το βιος του, την ίδια στιγμή που οι υποστελεχωμένες κρατικές υπηρεσίες αδυνατούν να ανταποκριθούν. Όσο για το Ταμείο Αλληλεγγύης, αυτό αποδεδειγμένα δεν αποζημιώνει τα πληγέντα λαϊκά νοικοκυριά. Πρέπει ο λαός, οργανωμένα, να παλέψει για άμεση, 100%, αποζημίωση στους πληγέντες, για κάλυψη των τεράστιων ελλείψεων σε προσωπικό, μέσα και υποδομές αλλά και για τα απαραίτητα αντιπυρικά και αντιπλημμυρικά έργα, με ευθύνη του κράτους.
               

Βαγγέλης Μεϊμαράκης (PPE). – Κύριε Πρόεδρε, οι επιπτώσεις από την κλιματική αλλαγή είναι πλέον εμφανείς. Οι φυσικές καταστροφές, οι οποίες αυξάνονται ολοένα και περισσότερο τα τελευταία χρόνια, πλήττουν ανεπανόρθωτα τους φυσικούς πνεύμονες οξυγόνου, καταστρέφουν περιουσίες πολιτών και υποδομές και προκαλούν ανυπολόγιστες επιπτώσεις σε βασικούς παραγωγικούς τομείς της οικονομίας μας, όπως είναι ο αγροτικός και ο κτηνοτροφικός, που αποτελούν βασικό πυρήνα της οικονομικής δραστηριότητας των χωρών της Ευρωπαϊκής Ένωσης. Πιο συγκεκριμένα, η πατρίδα μου η Ελλάδα έχει πληγεί τα τελευταία χρόνια από πρωτοφανείς φονικές πυρκαγιές και πλημμύρες. Για να αντιληφθούμε το μέγεθος της οικολογικής καταστροφής, αρκεί να σας αναφέρω ότι, μόνο από τις πυρκαγιές του περασμένου Αυγούστου, έγιναν στάχτη περισσότερο από ένα εκατομμύριο στρέμματα δασικής έκτασης, εκατοντάδες ζώα κάηκαν και πολλοί άνθρωποι είδαν το βιος τους να χάνεται. Θέλω, από αυτό το βήμα του Ευρωπαϊκού Κοινοβουλίου, να εκφράσω τη συμπαράσταση και την αλληλεγγύη μας προς όλους όσους επλήγησαν και να τους πω ότι είμαστε δίπλα τους. Το φαινόμενο αυτό, όπως καταλαβαίνουμε όλοι, είναι μπροστά μας και δεν μπορεί να αντιμετωπιστεί μεμονωμένα από τις κυβερνήσεις των κρατών μελών. Είναι ευτύχημα το ότι η Ένωση εμπράκτως δείχνει την αλληλεγγύη της αλλά αυτό δεν φτάνει. Η ελληνική κυβέρνηση δίνει μεγάλη σημασία στην αντιμετώπιση της κλιματικής αλλαγής, αναλαμβάνοντας συγκεκριμένες πρωτοβουλίες, αλλά αυτό που χρειάζεται πλέον είναι μια ολιστική και ενιαία ευρωπαϊκή πολιτική για την πρόληψη και άμεση αντιμετώπιση αυτών των ακραίων φαινομένων που αποτελούν απειλή για την ασφάλεια και τη ζωή όλων μας. Σε αυτό θα μας βρείτε συμπαραστάτες και δεσμευόμαστε να βοηθήσουμε την Επιτροπή όσο μπορούμε.
               

Delara Burkhardt (S&D). – Herr Präsident, liebe Kolleginnen und Kollegen! Weil ‘heute so ein Tag ist’, ändere man nicht seine Politik, hörte man am 15.7.2021, kurz nachdem Sturzfluten das Ahrtal, Teile der Eifel, Limburg und Wallonien verwüsteten.
               

                  ‘So ein Tag’, an dem tausende Menschen alles verloren haben. ‘So ein Tag’, an dem über 200 Menschen in Deutschland, Belgien und den Niederlanden ihr Leben ließen.
               

                  ‘Jahrhundertflut’ wurde dieser Tag später genannt. Genauso wie es immer öfter ‘Jahrhunderthitzen’ und ‘Jahrhundertstürme’ gibt.
               

                  ‘Jahrhunderte’ reichen aber schon lange nicht mehr aus zur Bemessung dieser Extremwetter. Sie sind das neue Normal. Mit dieser neuen Normalität wird uns immer schmerzhafter bewusst und deutlich, dass die Klimakrise nichts Abstraktes ist. ‘So ein Tag’ ist mittlerweile Alltag, brutal für viele Menschen.
               

                  Für das Erreichen des Pariser Klimaabkommens zu arbeiten, bedeutet nicht nur, unseren Treibhausgasausstoß drastisch zu senken. Sondern es bedeutet auch, Klimaanpassungsmaßnahmen zu organisieren, die alle Menschen vor den Folgen der Krise schützen. Wir dürfen dabei keine Zeit mehr verlieren, wir dürfen uns nicht auf dem Erreichten ausruhen – es gibt viel zu viel zu tun. Es ist nicht ausreichend, und wir müssen jetzt handeln. Das haben viele Kolleginnen und Kollegen heute auch schon gesagt. Denn morgen könnte wieder ‘so ein Tag’ sein, und weil viele, viele solcher weiteren Tage kommen können, muss man Politik verändern.
               

Hilde Vautmans (Renew). – Voorzitter, Joseph en Annie verdronken in hun eigen huis toen hun bungalow volledig onderliep. Paulette en Arlette vochten samen tegen de waterstromen in huis en kwamen om toen het huis het door het beukende water begaf. Yannick probeerde zijn dochter te redden, maar werd meegesleurd door het kolkende water. Dit zijn slechts enkele van de vele horrorverhalen die zich in de afgelopen zomer in mijn eigen land hebben afgespeeld.
               

                  Deze natuurrampen in onze eigen achtertuin zijn ongekend. Het gaat niet langer over smeltende ijsbergen een paar duizend kilometer van hier. De klimaatverandering is een realiteit en haalt ons razendsnel in. Europa mag niet twijfelen aan zijn klimaatambities. We hebben met de Green Deal en het ‘Klaar voor 55’-pakket grootse plannen.
               

                  We moeten er nu dringend voor zorgen dat de begroting van het solidariteitsfonds toereikend is en snel kan worden uitbetaald.
               

Pär Holmgren (Verts/ALE). – Herr talman! Fru kommissionär! Skogsbränder, översvämningar, för lite vatten eller för mycket vatten. Klimatrelaterade naturkatastrofer har blivit fem gånger vanligare under de senaste 50 åren, enligt Världsmeteorologorganisationen.
               

                  För mig och andra som har följt klimatfrågan länge är detta inte någon överraskning. Vi har länge vetat att en fortsatt global uppvärmning leder till allt fler och värre extrema väderhändelser. Det kommer att bli mycket värre – redan nästa årtionde – när vi passerar 1,5 grad, och sedan ytterligare värre när och om vi passerar 2 grader.
               

                  Trots det diskuterar vi här i parlamentet klimatpolitik som inte ens är i linje med 2-gradersmålet. Det här är grunden till varför ambitionerna i klimatlagen och vår klimatpolitik är otillräckliga och varför vi måste ta flera stora steg nu, höja våra ambitioner, inte minst inför och under klimattoppmötet i Glasgow i november, för att därigenom också kunna sätta press på USA och Kina.
               

Alessandro Panza (ID). – Signor Presidente, signora Commissaria, onorevoli colleghi, innanzitutto permettetemi di esprimere ancora una volta il cordoglio per le vittime delle inondazioni in Germania e per gli incendi nel sud Europa.
               

                  L'Italia negli ultimi vent'anni ha registrato poco meno di 20 000 morti per le catastrofi naturali ed è sesta nel mondo per numero di vittime, mentre a livello economico si registra una perdita di circa 28 miliardi di euro come diretta conseguenza dei disastri. In montagna, in particolare, oltre agli incendi abbiamo sempre più numerose alluvioni che causano allagamenti e frane, spesso dovuti all'incuria e all'abbandono del territorio.
               

                  Per tornare a tutelare queste aree serve incentivare un utilizzo più esteso e consapevole, permettendo ad agricoltura e pastorizia di strutturarsi e poter tornare ad essere i guardiani di quelle terre che oggi, troppo spesso, vengono abbandonate.
               

                  Però se vogliamo salvare la montagna e le zone rurali e chi ci abita dobbiamo tutelare l'attività rurale: non può esserci vita senza lavoro. Troppo spesso l'Europa è accecata dalla sua ideologia ambientalista, impone leggi e vincoli che, dati alla mano, non servono né a preservare l'ambiente né tantomeno a garantirne la sostenibilità.
               

                  Chiudo ringraziando tutti i vigili del fuoco e tutti i volontari che hanno messo a rischio la propria vita per tutelare i nostri amati territori.
               

Anja Hazekamp (The Left). – Voorzitter, deze zomer werd Europa getroffen door overstromingen en natuurbranden. Hulpverleners deden alles wat ze konden om te voorkomen dat mensen en dieren gewond raakten of verdronken, maar tevergeefs. Talloze mensen raakten gewond en meer dan tweehonderd doden zijn te betreuren. Bovendien moesten tienduizenden mensen huis en haard verlaten.
               

                  Wij leven enorm mee met de slachtoffers en vinden dat zij zo goed mogelijk moeten worden geholpen. Het is daarom belangrijk te weten of de Europese respons in noodsituaties nog altijd geschikt is voor grote klimaatrampen. Belangrijker nog zijn de vragen over het klimaatbeleid. Volgens Europese weerexperts moeten we namelijk alles op alles zetten om de klimaatverandering te stoppen, opdat wat we nu extreem vinden niet normaal wordt.
               

                  Is de Commissie voornemens aanvullende klimaatmaatregelen te treffen of dringt het nog steeds niet door dat we het niet gaan redden met halfslachtig klimaatbeleid en landbouwbeleid dat deze klimaatactie tenietdoet?
               

                  Mede daarom ben ik van mening dat de Europese landbouwsubsidies moeten worden afgeschaft.
               

Ádám Kósa (NI). – Tisztelt Elnök Úr! Megdöbbentő felvételeket láthattunk júliusban az árvizek pusztításáról. Még alig ocsúdtunk fel ebből, máris az erdőtüzek féktelen pusztításának lehettünk tanúi. A németországi Sinzig településen az árvíz 12 fogyatékossággal élőt ölt meg egy otthonban, mert a segítség későn érkezett. Ezen túlmenően azonban nincsenek pontos statisztikai adataink erről. Ami biztos, az eddigi statisztikák szerint az idős emberek és a fogyatékossággal élő személyek kétszer nagyobb eséllyel esnek áldozatául a természeti katasztrófáknak.
               

                  A természeti katasztrófák kockázatának csökkentése mellett a veszélyről való értesítésre, ennek rendszerére és fejlesztésére folyamatosan figyelni kell Európában és a legújabb technológiai újításokat is alkalmaznunk kell. Magyarországon a VÉSZ, azaz a vészhelyzeti értesítési szolgáltatás egy okostelefonokra és táblagépekre fejlesztett ingyenes alkalmazás. Az itt megjelenő információk, figyelmeztetések, riasztások hiteles és pontos tájékoztatást segítenek elő és biztosítják a felhasználók biztonságát. Ezt az utat kell követnünk!
               

Tom Berendsen (PPE). – Voorzitter, lotsverbondenheid is een van de fundamenten van de Europese Unie. Wij zijn als Europeanen met elkaar verbonden, al is het maar simpelweg omdat wij ons op hetzelfde plekje op deze aardbol bevinden. Dit geldt niet alleen voor onze vrede en stabiliteit, maar ook voor de gevolgen van de klimaatverandering.
               

                  Dat is deze zomer pijnlijk duidelijk geworden. Terwijl onder meer de Nederlandse provincie Limburg, delen van Duitsland en delen van België kampten met zware overstromingen, stonden delen van Zuid-Europa letterlijk in brand. De menselijke en economische schade was immens.
               

                  Die lotsverbondenheid betekent ook dat we samen moeten werken om de klimaatverandering tegen te gaan en ons aan de veranderende realiteit, bijvoorbeeld aan extreme weersomstandigheden, aan te passen. Op deze manier kunnen we en moeten we onze burgers beter beschermen. Hoe belangrijk en goed het ook is dat we na rampen solidair en snel reageren, het is beter om vooraf te investeren dan achteraf compenseren. Daarmee kunnen we veel menselijk leed voorkomen.
               

                  Wat de reactie op natuurrampen betreft, wil ik de Commissie oproepen actief met de lidstaten te kijken hoe zij zo snel mogelijk aanspraak kunnen maken op dit geld, de kwestie snel af te handelen en ervoor te zorgen dat het geld ook snel terechtkomt waar het nodig is.
               

Vera Tax (S&D). – Voorzitter, de verwoestende kracht van het water heeft veel slachtoffers gemaakt en een enorme ravage aangericht. De provincie Limburg werd zwaar getroffen, waaronder Valkenburg. De schade wordt er ingeschat op vierhonderd miljoen euro. Ook in Venlo steeg het water in de Maas snel en gevaarlijk en moesten familieleden en vrienden geëvacueerd worden. Het waren spannende dagen, waarin met man en macht getracht werd de Maas achter de dijken te houden en waarin desondanks veel persoonlijk leed en schade is geleden.
               

                  De overstromingen van juli zijn slechts een van de vele natuurrampen van het afgelopen jaar. De bosbranden in Griekenland en op de Balkan staan scherp op ons netvlies. Naast de emotionele pijn en het verlies is er veel materiële schade geleden. Wegen, bruggen en straten zijn kapot. Inwoners zijn hun huizen, bedrijven en scholen kwijtgeraakt. Mensen hebben behoefte aan ondersteuning, duidelijkheid en Europese solidariteit. Dankzij de Commissie kunnen landen hulp krijgen uit het Solidariteitsfonds.
               

                  Tot mijn verbazing heeft Nederland echter nog steeds geen beroep gedaan op het Solidariteitsfonds. Nederland is een klein land, maar de regio lijkt steeds verder weg te liggen van Den Haag. Ik wil het demissionair kabinet in Nederland daarom oproepen de regio niet in de steek te laten zoals Groningen en Zeeland. Kom uw plichten na en help Limburg met de wederopbouw.
               

Saskia Bricmont (Verts/ALE). – Monsieur le Président, les inondations et les incendies ont fait de nombreuses victimes cet été, des dizaines de milliers d'euros de dégâts et laisseront des traces indélébiles. Alors que la crise climatique creuse la fracture nord-sud depuis des années, elle marque désormais aussi la fracture sociale au sein de nos pays. À Pepinster, les inondations ont touché en premier lieu les familles les plus pauvres. L'impact social de la crise climatique est frontal.
               

                  Les victimes, les milliers de bénévoles toujours à pied d'œuvre, deux mois plus tard, les citoyens et citoyennes européens pour lesquels le climat et l'environnement font partie des préoccupations premières, mais aussi le dernier rapport des scientifiques du GIEC, demandent des réponses d'urgence. L'humanité est en code rouge.
               

                  L'aide d'urgence et les Fonds de solidarité ainsi que la disponibilité des fonds sont essentiels pour faire face à des situations de cette ampleur. Mais des mesures structurelles sont nécessaires également. Investir dans les services publics, dans la protection civile, les pompiers, les services d'urgence et de santé, adapter les politiques et adopter des politiques d'atténuation et d'adaptation au changement climatique qui renforcent la cohésion sociale: là est la réelle urgence.
               

VORSITZ: OTHMAR KARAS


Vizepräsident


Georg Mayer (ID). – Herr Präsident! Katastrophenhilfe und Solidaritätsfonds sind wichtig, denke ich, das können wir außer Streit stellen, um den Opfern vor Ort zu helfen und unser Mitgefühl auszudrücken. Aber Wetterextreme und Naturkatastrophen, geschätzte Kollegen, hat es immer schon in der Menschheitsgeschichte gegeben und wird es auch immer geben. Das Klima auf unserer Mutter Erde wandelt sich – und das seit Milliarden Jahren.
                  

                     Und die Frage ist nun, wo spielt dabei der Mensch eine wichtige Rolle? Und ich kann sie Ihnen beantworten: nämlich bei dem Green Deal, der jetzt von der EU-Kommission vorgeschlagen wird. Da wird doch glatt die Atomkraft als Teil des Green Deals gesehen. Da wird Atomkraft als klimaneutrale Energie definiert, und da wird Atomkraft in Zukunft auch gefördert werden. Da wird Atomkraft etwa in Polen die Kohlekraftwerke ersetzen.
                  

                     Und da kommen wir dazu, wo der Mensch eine Rolle spielt – da spielt er nämlich eine Rolle. Da beschwört der Mensch nämlich Katastrophen herauf, wie wir sie alle erlebt haben, wie etwa 1986 in Tschernobyl oder in Fukushima. Das sind Dinge, die wir nicht wollen. Das ist eine Kernenergie, wo es veraltete Reaktoren mitten in Europa gibt, wo Geister heraufbeschworen werden, dass wieder Atomkatastrophen in Europa geschehen.
                  

Petros Kokkalis (The Left). – Mr President, we all experienced a summer of social, economic and environmental devastation, even in countries with state-of-the-art public infrastructure and civic protection capabilities. As the IPCC report makes crystal clear, these disasters are not natural. They are not acts of God. They are the acts, or rather the inaction, of our governments to follow science and act to adapt and mitigate.
The climate can no longer be called force majeure. It must be seen as force insuffisante of politicians and our governments to perform our basic duty to protect the lives, the health and the property of our citizens, of our people.
In my country, 150 000 acres burned. We have our first climate refugees. Or should we call them migrants? What does ‘just transition’ mean for them? The just transition mechanism guarantees that no one would be left behind, that the energy transition is guided by climate justice. The same must hold true for the people whose lives are destroyed by anthropogenic climate disasters.
We must urgently redesign the Solidarity Fund, both in structure and in volume to be up to the task. We cannot stand in solidarity with the victims of our own acts and inaction.

Андрей Новаков (PPE). – Г-н Председател, г-жо Комисар, на първо място, искам да започна речта си, отдавайки почит на всички мъже и жени, които се борят с природните стихии и рискуват живота си, за да спасят чуждите животи.
                  

                     За съжаление, през последните 20 години почти всяка една държава на Европейския съюз е изпадала в ситуация да потърси помощ от Европейския съюз, дали след земетресение, дали след пожар, дали след свлачище или след наводнение, и за съжаление, не изглежда нещата да се подобряват с времето. 5 млрд. от фонд ‘Солидарност’ са отишли за такива бедствия. Само че във фонд ‘Солидарност’ има много повече надежда отколкото пари. И трябва да си кажем, че преди да се погрижим за опазването на околната среда трябва да се погрижим за опазването на хората.
                  

                     Има няколко неща, с които трябва да сме честни между нас и с хората, които ни гледат отвън. Фонд ‘Солидарност’ има нужда от повече пари и от по-бързото им отпускане. Хората очакват от нас незабавни реакции и тогава, когато се случи бедствието, Европейският съюз да бъде до тях. В противен случай ще са склонни да вярват на всякакви фалшиви новини и дезинформации, че някой на хиляди километри им помага повече отколкото тяхната собствена държава благодарение на Съюза. Повече пари във фонд ‘Солидарност’, по-бързо отпускане и по-добра комуникация, за да бъдем до хората тогава, когато имат нужда от нас.
                  

César Luena (S&D). – Señor presidente, señora comisaria, como estamos viendo en este debate, yo creo que hace un lustro pocos pensábamos que iban a morir cientos de personas por incendios en Portugal o en Grecia o que lluvias torrenciales iban a provocar la muerte de doscientas personas en Alemania o en Bélgica este verano.
                  

                     Ahora mismo, en mi país, en el sur de España, está ardiendo —ya está afortunadamente controlado— un paraje natural único, Sierra Bermeja. Es el primer incendio de sexta generación que tenemos en España.
                  

                     Señorías, lo que más debiera preocuparnos es comprobar lo mal preparados que estamos como sociedad para hacer frente al calentamiento global. Estamos mal preparados. Por eso, ante este panorama, tenemos que plantear propuestas. Debemos mejorar nuestras capacidades de adaptación al cambio climático, fortaleciendo nuestras herramientas de preparación, de planificación y de respuesta. Tenemos que dotar de más recursos al Mecanismo de Protección Civil y al Fondo de Solidaridad. Por cierto, la Capacidad Europea de Respuesta a Emergencias que creó este Mecanismo debería ser obligatoria y no voluntaria para los Estados miembros.
                  

                     Europa necesita un organismo de preparación de respuesta especializado ante catástrofes naturales provocadas por el cambio climático. Me da igual, señorías, que lo llamemos agencia, organismo, departamento, unidad. El caso es que necesitamos ese espacio único para predecir, para prevenir, para prepararnos, para responder mejor ante estos fenómenos con recursos técnicos, humanos, económicos suficientes, porque ya estamos llegando tarde.
                  

Jutta Paulus (Verts/ALE). – Herr Präsident, sehr geehrte Kolleginnen und Kollegen! Hunderte Tote durch die Flutkatastrophe im Juli, Hunderttausende Hektar Wald durch Brände dieses Sommers verloren, Milliardenschäden an der Infrastruktur, das ist die Realität in einer 1,1oC-Welt. Mit den derzeitigen Plänen der Staaten zum Klimaschutz steuern wir auf deutlich über 3oC zu. Die Wahrscheinlichkeit, die 1,5oC-Grenze einzuhalten, liegt bei einem Prozent. Der IPCC-Bericht lässt gar keinen Zweifel: Diese Extremwetter werden zunehmen.
                  

                     Das heißt: Wir brauchen nicht nur mehr Tempo beim Klimaschutz, sondern wir müssen gleichzeitig Maßnahmen zur Klimaanpassung treffen. Frau Ferreira, wir Grüne werden Sie nach Kräften unterstützen. Die Studie der Generaldirektion Katastrophenschutz und humanitäre Hilfe zeigt nämlich: Jeder Euro, den wir in die Renaturierung von Bächen und Flüssen oder in die Wiedervernässung von Mooren stecken, vermeidet Schäden in Höhe von 18 Euro.
                  

                     Die Natur ist unsere Verbündete, und ihre Zerstörung gefährdet unsere Lebensgrundlage. Und an die Kolleginnen und Kollegen, die hier moderates Vorgehen fordern beim Klimaschutz: Die Physik verhandelt nicht, dass ist knallharte Naturwissenschaft.
                  

Marco Dreosto (ID). – Signor Presidente, onorevoli colleghi, permettetemi di ringraziare in questa occasione qualcuno il cui lavoro è troppo spesso dato per scontato: mi riferisco in particolare ai volontari della Protezione civile italiana, che anche in questa estate di incendi e di disastri naturali si sono messi a disposizione e, con spirito di servizio, hanno servito il paese anche a rischio della propria vita.
                  

                     In particolare però vorrei citare la gloriosa Protezione civile del Friuli Venezia Giulia, la regione da cui provengo, che ad agosto anziché andarsene in vacanza tranquillamente ha deciso con coraggio di partire e supportare gli altri volontari che stavano spegnendo gli incendi in Sicilia, in Sardegna e in altre regioni d'Italia.
                  

                     Volontari che, in precedenza, non hanno esitato un attimo raccogliere la chiamata del meccanismo unionale di protezione civile per andare ad aiutare i nostri vicini croati a seguito dei terremoti che hanno sconvolto i loro territori. Senza dimenticare, nel momento più buio della pandemia, l'organizzazione per distribuire alla popolazione le prime mascherine per proteggersi dai virus.
                  

                     Ecco, a tutti loro, a tutti i volontari, vorrei dire grazie, siete l'onore dell'Italia e dell'Europa.
                  

Kateřina Konečná (The Left). – Vážený pane předsedající, vážená paní komisařko, dámy a pánové, pokud se zde bavíme o přírodních katastrofách, chtěla bych se s vámi podělit také o jednu, kterou zažila má země, Česká republika. Na jižní Moravě na konci června udeřilo tornádo, které za sebou nechalo škody v řádech miliard korun, a co je horší, i oběti na životech. Dalo by se kolem toho samozřejmě dlouho diskutovat, ale ráda bych podtrhla dvě věci. První z nich je nutnost kvalitní meteorologické předpovědi a systému včasného varování občanů, což evidentně nejen zde nezafungovalo. A druhá z nich souvisí s obrovskou solidaritou lidí. Chtěla bych, aby na tomto místě zaznělo poděkování všem, kdo pomohli jižní Moravě, a možná ještě o trochu více dobrovolníkům a dobrovolným hasičům. Hasiči jsou totiž ti, kteří nepláčou každý rok, že potřebují nakoupit novou vojenskou techniku za miliardy, a přesto na místě byli nejdříve a zůstali nejdéle. Díky jim za to.
                  

Benoît Lutgen (PPE). – Monsieur le Président, Madame la Commissaire, je voudrais d'abord remercier nos amis italiens, autrichiens, français qui sont intervenus en urgence dans notre région, en Wallonie, en Allemagne également, pour venir donner secours, porter secours aux sinistrés.
                  

                     J'entends ce matin tous les débats que nous pouvons avoir sur le réchauffement climatique. Je ne doute pas qu'il peut y avoir effectivement un lien entre ce que nous avons connu en Wallonie ou en Allemagne et le réchauffement climatique. Cela étant, aujourd'hui, les dizaines de milliers de familles sinistrées attendent une réponse forte et solidaire de l'Europe, pour demain reconstruire leur région, construire tout simplement leurs maisons, apporter des solutions en matière de transports, en matière notamment de rivières, de cours d'eau, mais d'abord, pour faire face tout simplement aux besoins de première nécessité.
                  

                     On peut aussi entamer un énième débat sur le réchauffement climatique, mais l'urgence est ailleurs. À partir du moment où la présidente de la Commission, Madame la Commissaire, s'est engagée sur place à intervenir, à dégager des fonds et des moyens budgétaires pour que la solidarité européenne soit au rendez-vous, nous devons, vous devez dégager les moyens le plus rapidement possible pour donner non seulement de l'espoir, mais, très concrètement, une aide aux sinistrés, que ce soit en Wallonie, que ce soit en Allemagne.
                  

                     Ce serait assez dévastateur, sur le plan démocratique, qu'un tel engagement ne soit pas suivi de faits concrets de la part de la Commission pour soutenir ces sinistrés et pour montrer que l'Europe est au rendez-vous de la solidarité. Elle l'est dans les moments d'urgence. Elle doit l'être aussi dans ces moments essentiels de reconstruction pour chacune et pour chacun.
                  

Hannes Heide (S&D). – Herr Präsident, Frau Kommissarin! Am Tag nach den verheerenden Überschwemmungen in Belgien und Deutschland habe ich im Radio den Bürgermeister einer betroffenen Gemeinde reden gehört. Und er hat gesagt: ‘Der höchste jemals gemessene Pegel bei uns war 5,05 Meter. Heute sind wir bei 7,70 Meter’. Das zeigt ganz eindrucksvoll und ist eindringlich: Solche Katastrophen wie in diesem Jahr – seien es schwere Überflutungen, Dürre, Waldbrände, Tornados oder eine Hitzewelle – sind nicht etwas, was es so immer schon gegeben hat – das ist etwas, das es so noch nie gegeben hat.
                  

                     Die Folgen dieser fürchterlichen Katastrophen: Schäden in Milliardenhöhe, aber vor allem forderten sie unzählige Menschenleben. In dieser Notsituation zeigte sich aber auch der europäische Zusammenhalt durch Zivilschutzmaßnahmen, bei denen Einsatzkräfte aus europäischen Ländern gemeinsam Katastrophenhilfe geleistet haben. Auch Österreich entsandte Feuerwehrleute sowie Soldatinnen und Soldaten in Katastrophengebiete. Das ist gelebte europäische Solidarität, die wir uns auch auf politischer Ebene zum Vorbild nehmen müssen. Ich möchte daher ein herzliches Dankeschön aussprechen, insbesondere an die freiwilligen Helferinnen und Helfer, die unbezahlt professionelle Arbeit leisten.
                  

                     Solche Naturkatastrophen werden immer intensiver und treten in kürzeren Abständen auf. Es ist allerhöchste Zeit, benötigte Mittel für Präventionsmaßnahmen bereitzustellen: Geld für Risikomanagement, Gefahrenzonen und Notfallpläne, Hochwasserschutz, Frühwarnsysteme, die Anschaffung notwendiger Ausrüstung. Es darf nicht sein, dass ein Hochwasserschutzprojekt aufgrund seiner Kosten nicht umgesetzt wird. Es kann nicht sein, dass ein Feuerwehrfahrzeug aufgrund seiner Kosten nicht angeschafft werden kann. Wir brauchen vor allem Prävention durch Klimaschutz. Nur durch die Verringerung des CO2-Ausstoßes können wir noch schlimmeren Katastrophen entgegentreten.
                  

Markus Buchheit (ID). – Herr Präsident, meine sehr verehrten Damen und Herren! Die Kommission hat vorhin gesagt: Aktive und praktische Solidarität sei kennzeichnend für Europa. Dieser Satz, der wird dann zum leeren Versprechen, wenn man hört, dass die finanziellen Mittel zur gegenseitigen Hilfe bereits jetzt aufgebraucht seien. Was nun für Forderungen kommen würden, das war schon beim Lesen der entsprechenden Artikel klar: den gesamten Haushalt der EU nun wiederum aufzublähen aufgrund des Klimawandels.
                  

                     Meine Damen und Herren, diese Forderung ist falsch. Erstens ist für viele eingetretene Schäden eben nicht nur der anonyme Klimawandel verantwortlich, sondern sehr konkrete persönliche Ignoranz einzelner Entscheider. Zweitens sollten wir den bestehenden Solidaritätsfonds im Rahmen des bestehenden Haushalts weiter stärken, indem beispielsweise Gelder aus umweltschädlichen Programmen wie der Förderung der E-Mobilität dorthin umgeleitet werden, wo sie tatsächlich einen aktiven und praktischen Nutzen haben. Sollte uns das nicht gelingen, sollten wir keine ausreichenden Mittel zur Verfügung haben, um den Bürgern vor Ort zu helfen, dann riskiert die EU damit die vollständige Demaskierung. Dann heißt es nicht mehr nur too little too late, sondern too little and never.
                  

Γιώργος Γεωργίου (The Left). – Κύριε Πρόεδρε, δυστυχώς και φέτος, μέσα στην πανδημία, ζήσαμε εικόνες βιβλικής καταστροφής σε όλη την Ευρώπη. Οι επικίνδυνες παρενέργειες της κλιματικής κρίσης αλλά και των πολιτικών της λιτότητας δεν μπορούν πια να αγνοηθούν. Αποδείχτηκε στην πράξη ότι ο μηχανισμός Rescue EU δεν μπορεί να ανταποκριθεί επαρκώς και ότι διαιωνίζει ελλείψεις ανάμεσα στα κράτη, ανακυκλώνοντας τα λειψά μέσα. Στην πατρίδα μου την Κύπρο, που επλήγη και αυτή από φονικές πυρκαγιές, δεν υπήρξε ταχεία ανταπόκριση. Δυστυχώς, τα ευρωπαϊκά αεροπλάνα έφτασαν όταν οι φωτιές είχαν σβήσει. Μπροστά λοιπόν στις μεγάλες φυσικές καταστροφές που αυξάνονται με δραματικό τρόπο, η Ευρωπαϊκή Ένωση οφείλει να ενισχύσει τις πολιτικές της αλληλεγγύης για την αντιμετώπιση αυτών των φαινομένων. Προς αυτή την κατεύθυνση, θέλουμε να τονίσουμε ότι ζητούμε να δημιουργηθεί στην Κύπρο Ευρωπαϊκή Βάση Αεροπυρόσβεσης. Η Επιτροπή πρέπει να στηρίξει αποτελεσματικά τους πληγέντες και πρέπει επιπλέον να διασφαλίσει επαρκείς όρους για τη βιωσιμότητα του Ταμείου Αλληλεγγύης. Κυρία Επίτροπε, οι φωτιές δεν καίνε μόνον τα δάση. Οι φωτιές απειλούν να κάψουν και την αξιοπιστία των πολιτικών της Ευρωπαϊκής Ένωσης.
                  

Λευτέρης Χριστοφόρου (PPE). – Κύριε Πρόεδρε, η κλιματική αλλαγή και η κλιματική κρίση είναι εδώ και πλήττουν ανεπανόρθωτα και ανελέητα ολόκληρη την Ευρώπη. Μετρούμε τις πληγές μας και δυστυχώς μετρούμε και ανθρώπινες απώλειες, καθημερινά. Φέτος, αφενός μεν ζήσαμε τις καταστροφικές πλημμύρες, αφετέρου δε βιώσαμε – και ιδιαίτερα όσοι ζούμε στις περιοχές του Νότου ιδίοις όμμασι – τις καταστροφικές πυρκαγιές. Η πατρίδα μου η Κύπρος υπέστη ανεπανόρθωτη ζημιά από τις καταστροφικές πυρκαγιές, δοκιμάστηκε σκληρά και προσβλέπει στη μοναδική στήριξη και ελπίδα που της απομένει, τη στήριξη του Ταμείου Αλληλεγγύης. Θέλω βεβαίως ταυτόχρονα να εκφράσω τη συμπάθειά μου, τη συμπαράσταση και τη στήριξή μου σε όλες τις χώρες και σε όλους τους ανθρώπους της Ευρώπης που επλήγησαν από αυτά τα ακραία κλιματικά φαινόμενα. Όμως, η Ευρωπαϊκή Ένωση οφείλει να θέσει το δάχτυλο επί τον τύπον των ήλων και να αναλάβει δράση. Ήρθε η ώρα, πιστεύω, να δημιουργηθεί μια Ειδική Μονάδα Άμεσης Πυροσβεστικής Επέμβασης, η οποία θα μπορεί να παρεμβαίνει άμεσα για να κατασβήνει τις πυρκαγιές σε ολόκληρη την Ευρώπη. Η Κύπρος ως χώρα προσφέρεται για να φιλοξενήσει στο έδαφός της τη Βάση αυτής της Πυροσβεστικής Δύναμης Άμεσης και Ταχείας Επέμβασης από την Ευρωπαϊκή Ένωση. Καλώ ταυτόχρονα την Ευρωπαϊκή Ένωση να ενισχύσει το Ταμείο Αλληλεγγύης για την κλιματική αλλαγή για να μπορέσει αυτό να στηρίξει όλους τους πληγέντες και να αποκαταστήσει τις καταστροφές.
                  

Peter Liese (PPE). – Herr Präsident, liebe Kolleginnen und Kollegen! Vor einigen Wochen hatte ich Gelegenheit, mit dem Bürgermeister von Altenahr, das liegt in meinem Wahlkreis, die Stelle zu besichtigen, wo der erste Mensch am 14. Juli ums Leben gekommen ist: Ein Feuerwehrmann, der gerade jemand anders gerettet hat und dann durch einen Unfall selber in den Fluten ums Leben gekommen ist. Und ich habe Menschen gesehen, die alles verloren haben, die ihr Haus versucht haben zu renovieren, ohne zu wissen, ob die Bausubstanz das überhaupt noch trägt. Und dort sitzt der Kollege Ralf Seekatz, der hat in seinem Wahlkreis das Ganze noch sehr viel schlimmer: Altenahr, ein Toter, Altenahr, das Ahrtal, viele, über 100 Tote. Und deswegen ist uns das so wichtig, dass Europa jetzt solidarisch ist.
                  

                     Wir sind sehr besorgt über die Meldungen, dass das Geld nicht ausreicht. Ich glaube, wir müssen uns da wirklich etwas überlegen, Frau Kommissarin. Ich bin sicher, die Unterstützung des Europäischen Parlaments haben Sie, und den Rat müssen wir entsprechend herausfordern.
                  

                     Wir müssen unbürokratisch helfen, auch noch mal bitte klarstellen, dass öffentliche Ausschreibungen, Beihilferegeln hier jetzt außer Kraft gesetzt werden, damit man anpacken kann. Aber wir müssen dann eben auch aus dem Europäischen Solidaritätsfonds Mittel investieren. Allein in der einen Stadt, die ich besichtigt habe, in meinem Wahlkreis, betragen die Schäden an der öffentlichen Infrastruktur 60 Millionen. Und wenn wir das deutschlandweit, europaweit sehen, ist es sehr viel mehr. Also anpacken und helfen.
                  

Elisa Ferreira,
Member of the Commission. – Mr President, it was a really important debate, and I thank you very much for all the examples and vivid stories that we shared with each other. All of us have lived through these types of dramatic situations. In fact, I think there is a convergence here around a set of messages.
First, climate change and its impact and its devastating effect is here. It's not something in books or of the future. Second, we have got to act. Thirdly, we have a lot of expressions of gratitude to be shared in relation to all those that helped in these circumstances.
Now we go to what we can do in relation to it, and, in fact, I go back to my three points. First, the important thing is to distinguish what is emergency support from the Union and what is the reconstruction after the crisis. In terms of the emergency support, what we saw was a substantial number of positive examples. We have to work on when things apparently didn't work so well, combining the EU Civil Protection Mechanism with the Copernicus Emergency Management Service (CEMS). This is something on which we have got to build and have got to work.
Second, we have the EU Solidarity Fund. We know that crises and natural disasters are only going to increase, and of course, we have got to make sure that the fund has adequate resources in relation to the size of the damages and the frequency of the damages.
But let me recall that, for the time being, the situation that we have is not that the fund is being blocked by anything. There are 12 weeks during which Member States calculate the damage, and we are only talking about the costs of the emergency and recovery operations by public authorities. This is the structure of the fund.
For the time being, we have only received the adding-up of these costs from Cyprus, but we know that other countries, including the Netherlands and Germany, are making their calculations of what the damage was. So this is 12 weeks. They are not exhausted yet. This will of course have an impact not only on the budget of 2021, but also of 2022. The budget of 2021 takes six weeks so we'll see when it comes.
The Commission is also giving support, help and technical support to the Member States in the preparation of these portfolios, this collection of bills, in which they are asking for – or they will be asking for – support. There are of course thresholds and these thresholds try to give a proxy for supporting more those for which the damage is sufficiently big. So there are thresholds and these thresholds to activate the Solidarity Fund are of either 0.6% of the gross national income of the country or 1.5% of the average gross domestic product of the affected regions. These are the thresholds from where the solidarity is considered to be needed and Member States are making exactly this preparation.
But, third, we have got to bear in mind that what we are talking about with our Fit for 55 and our climate law is to embody these objectives and this need for preventive measures, and not only repair measures, when we are preparing our plans. Now we have a huge financial support to build back better, and the content of building back better has got to include a substantial amount of these preventive climate-related projects.
So, at this moment, we have the recovery plans of all the Member States, we have REACT-EU that is already in operation and can be used for repairing, and we have the Cohesion Funds 2021-2027 that are being prepared by Member States.
So I also call on you, as representatives of citizens, to make sure that, when we are preparing – and we have funds like never before – to recover from the pandemic, we recover with a better and a more robust resilience for our economy and for our citizens. In fact, everything that we are talking about is core to the plans that we'll be receiving from Member States. Only one of these plans has already been approved. That is the Greek one. All the others are in preparation, so it's the right moment, in fact and in practice, to build back better.
Thank you very much. We'll take very seriously on board, in the future and in our immediate discussions, everything that you had suggested, including, as the Chair of the Committee on Regional Development (REGI) has suggested, to have a special fund. Let's see how we can organise ourselves with the available instruments in order to reach the best in the answer and preparation for a climate that is more and more aggressive.

Der Präsident. – Die gemeinsame Aussprache ist damit geschlossen.
                  


Schriftliche Erklärungen (Artikel 171)



Vlad Gheorghe (Renew),
in writing. – The summer of 2021 was full of disasters, with floods and fires all over Europe. But sometimes fires are not just fires, they are arsons. Sometimes floods are not just floods, they are consequences of landslides provoked by illegal deforestation. And these we call green crime! Such disasters lead not only to economic damages, but also to deaths. This year there was a cyclone in Romania, with devastating storms causing destruction. Climate change is a reality causing natural disasters five times more frequently than in previous years. Therefore, we need to adapt our solidarity mechanisms and provide for the damaged regions solid rehabilitation plans, accompanied by financial resources. We need to strengthen the EU civil protection mechanism and improve the infrastructure to be more resilient to natural disasters. We also need to provide to the population early warning tools, like alert systems, in order to save lives. Sometimes natural disasters are the consequence of environmental crimes, others aren't. This means we need to invest in both: crisis preparedness and fighting green crimes. And by doing so, we invest in the safety of our families.

Έλενα Κουντουρά (The Left),
γραπτώς. – Οι φονικές πλημμύρες στη βόρεια Ευρώπη και οι ανεξέλεγκτες πυρκαγιές στη νότια Ευρώπη δεν αφήνουν κανένα περιθώριο παρερμηνείας των συνεπειών της κλιματικής αλλαγής που γίνονται κάθε χρόνο πιο καταστροφικές. Στην Ελλάδα, οι φετινές πυρκαγιές προκάλεσαν τεράστια οικολογική ζημιά, καίγοντας 1,5 εκατομμύριο στρέμματα και εγκλωβίζοντας τις πυρόπληκτες περιοχές σε ένα οικονομικό και κοινωνικό αδιέξοδο. Αγρότες, κτηνοτρόφοι, μελισσοκόμοι και ρητινοσυλλέκτες υπέστησαν ολοκληρωτική καταστροφή και, αν δεν λάβουν ουσιαστική στήριξη, θα αναγκαστούν να εγκαταλείψουν τον τόπο τους που θα οδηγηθεί έτσι σε ερήμωση. Αντίστοιχα, πρέπει να στηριχθούν οι επαγγελματίες του τουρισμού σε εκείνες τις πληγείσες περιοχές που έχουν έντονη τουριστική δραστηριότητα. Χρειάζεται λοιπόν επειγόντως ένα αξιόπιστο σχέδιο για την ανασυγκρότηση του παραγωγικού ιστού των πυρόπληκτων περιοχών, για την επαρκή οικονομική στήριξη των επαγγελματιών και όλων των κατοίκων αλλά και για την αποκατάσταση των υποδομών. Επιβάλλεται να κινητοποιηθούν άμεσα όλοι οι διαθέσιμοι ευρωπαϊκοί και εθνικοί πόροι και να αναθεωρηθεί το εθνικό σχέδιο ανάκαμψης και ανθεκτικότητας, ώστε να προσαρμοστεί στις επείγουσες ανάγκες των πυρόπληκτων περιοχών. Μακροπρόθεσμα, στο πλαίσιο της προσαρμογής στην κλιματική κρίση, πρέπει να δημιουργηθούν νέα ευρωπαϊκά εργαλεία και να εξασφαλισθούν πόροι, τόσο για την πρόληψη των φυσικών καταστροφών, όσο και για την αποκατάσταση των περιοχών που θα πληγούν και την στήριξη των τοπικών κοινωνιών.
                  

Cristina Maestre Martín De Almagro (S&D),
por escrito. – La comunidad científica alerta de que los fenómenos meteorológicos extremos relacionados con el cambio climático serán más frecuentes y virulentos, afectarán a todas las regiones del planeta y resultarán cada vez más difíciles de predecir. Los cientos de fallecimientos a causa de inundaciones e incendios en países avanzados demuestran lo mal preparada que está la sociedad para hacer frente al calentamiento global, a las consecuentes catástrofes naturales y a los numerosos daños personales y materiales que estas traen consigo.
                  

                     La Unión Europea debe intensificar sus mecanismos para reparar los daños y las pérdidas en las regiones afectadas, a la vez que se desarrollan estrategias más efectivas de adaptación al cambio climático. En este sentido, además de abrir la puerta a potenciales nuevos instrumentos, se deben reforzar el Fondo Europeo de Solidaridad y el Mecanismo de Protección Civil.
                  

                     Las catástrofes de este verano ponen de relieve que Europa necesita un organismo de preparación y respuesta especializado en catástrofes naturales que trabaje en la predicción, prevención, preparación y planificación, así como en la respuesta rápida y más efectiva ante las catástrofes naturales, dotado con suficientes recursos técnicos, humanos y económicos.
                  

Domènec Ruiz Devesa (S&D),
por escrito. – La comunidad científica alerta de que los fenómenos meteorológicos extremos relacionados con el cambio climático serán más frecuentes y virulentos, afectarán a todas las regiones del planeta y resultarán cada vez más difíciles de predecir. Los cientos de fallecimientos a causa de inundaciones e incendios en países avanzados demuestran lo mal preparada que está la sociedad para hacer frente al calentamiento global, a las consecuentes catástrofes naturales y a los numerosos daños personales y materiales que estas traen consigo.
                  

                     La Unión Europea debe intensificar sus mecanismos para reparar los daños y las pérdidas en las regiones afectadas, a la vez que se desarrollan estrategias más efectivas de adaptación al cambio climático. En este sentido, además de abrir la puerta a potenciales nuevos instrumentos, se deben reforzar el Fondo Europeo de Solidaridad y el Mecanismo de Protección Civil.
                  

                     Las catástrofes de este verano ponen de relieve que Europa necesita un organismo de preparación y respuesta especializado en catástrofes naturales que trabaje en la predicción, prevención, preparación y planificación, así como en la respuesta rápida y más efectiva ante las catástrofes naturales, dotado con suficientes recursos técnicos, humanos y económicos.
                  
5.   Presentation by the Council of its position on the draft general budget - 2022 financial year (debate)

Der Präsident. – Als nächster Punkt der Tagesordnung folgt die Erläuterung des Standpunkts des Rates zum Entwurf des Gesamthaushaltsplans für das Haushaltsjahr 2022 durch den Rat [2021/2762(RSP)].
               

Irena Drmaž,
President-in-Office of the Council. – Mr President, I am honoured to present today the Council position on the draft budget for the European Union for the financial year 2022. Firstly, I have to recall the challenges of the COVID-19 situation that has imposed issues on all of us as well as on the preparation of the budget. The pandemic has had a significant impact on the everyday life of European citizens and also on the way European institutions work.
We have seen over the summer the changing situation that can occur at any time through natural or other disasters, and the recent international events will surely generate future uncertainties in many areas such as border management, humanitarian aid and migration. It is therefore very important for the Council to foresee sufficient margins in the budget to face the challenges and risks that may await us also next year.
Let me emphasise that in these challenging and dynamic times, we are fully aware of the responsibility as budgetary authority to fulfil the expectations of EU citizens to bring forward a balanced and forward-looking budget for 2022. As always, the Council will call for prudence and financial discipline. In the current situation we need to be careful about how the EU taxpayers' contributions are spent. The Presidency will do its utmost to conclude a budget for next year that will take the EU forward, focusing on the main objectives of the Union and benefits for the citizens.
We have worked on the Commission's proposal since its presentation on 8 June. I am pleased to say that after careful reflection, the Council has reached a well-balanced position adopted with unanimity on 6 September. The Council position foresees an amount of EUR 167.6 billion in commitment appropriations and EUR 169.9 billion in payments appropriations. They correspond, respectively, to 1.12% and 1.14% of the EU GNI – gross national income – and ensure a quick and substantial progression of the main beneficiary programmes.
On operational expenditure: for Headings 1-6 the Council proposes some adjustments in the commitment appropriations to take into account the delays in the adoption of legal bases and to guarantee a balanced evolution of expenditure until 2027. This is in particular relevant for the programmes that benefit from top-ups from Article 5 of the MFF Regulation and significant additional appropriation from the assigned revenues that come from the Next Generation EU (NGEU).
Based on a realistic view on the absorption capacity of beneficiaries and national and European administrations, we expect the implementation of several programmes in 2022 to be lower, as foreseen by the Commission. We therefore propose to backload the financing of some programmes to the second part of the MFF period. In addition, we advocate not using Article 15(3) of the Financial Regulation in 2022, but to backload the proposed amounts to the second part of the MFF period. We should ensure appropriate funding of Horizon also after the top-ups from NGEU.
I would like to stress the fact that a large number of key programmes across all headings have been accepted at the level of the Commission's draft budget. This is the case, for instance, for programmes under economic, social and territorial cohesion, as well as for agriculture, which represent the largest budget shares.
Concerning Heading 6, the Council intends to adjust the NDICI by reducing the cushion and ring-fencing the Commission's margins for manoeuvre for next year and by adjusting the appropriations of the Common Provisioning Fund, yet allowing for a prudent provisioning or related compartment.
As regards payment appropriations, most of the proposed savings are due to the repayment costs of the funds borrowed in the capital markets in the framework of the European Recovery Instrument to take into account the lower interest rates, both current and expected. The Council does not propose any changes to the complexion lines to ensure smooth payments from previous years.
On administrative expenditure: following the guidance given by our leaders, the Council has consistently advocated strict discipline on both staffing levels and non-salary related expenditure for all institutions. Therefore, we have reduced Heading 7. In this context, I would like to draw your attention to the issue that raised great concern in all Member States, the proposal of the European Parliament to increase significantly its establishment plan and the number of its external staff for the next year. The Council reserves its position on these proposals. We would like to better understand the rationale behind such an important increase.
Concerning the decentralised agencies, we propose to adjust lines for expenditure for some of those agencies as cruising speed when their increase is higher than 2%. However, we did not propose any adjustments to the decentralised agencies with new tasks, with the only exception of the European Border and Coast Guard Agency, Frontex, for which certain appropriations are backloaded to the financial years 2023-2027 and a certain amount is put to a reserve.
On special instruments: the Council proposes to maintain the appropriations entered into draft budgets for 2022 for the Solidarity and Emergency Aid Reserve, the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund and the Flexibility Instrument. It also proposes to introduce in the Brexit Adjustment Reserve line the amount agreed by the co-legislators for both commitment and payment appropriations for 2022.
It is also worth noting that two Council statements are attached to our position, one of them being the traditional one concerning sufficient payment appropriations in the area of agriculture and cohesion, while the other refers to Next Generation EU repayments. The Council will reassess its position once the Commission presents all the missing elements in its letter of amendment to the draft budget which is expected during the month of October.
Let me conclude by saying that I hope today is the beginning of a series of constructive and open exchanges which will allow us to reach a balanced and meaningful compromise on the budget for 2022. Without deviating from our common goals we will have to prioritise and demonstrate our strong commitment to Europe, and I am convinced we will be able to find a common position within agreed timeframe.

Johannes Hahn,
Member of the Commission. – Mr President, first, I would like to welcome the agreement found by the Slovenian Presidency and Ms Drmaž on the Council position for the draft budget 2022, and I would also like to thank you, Ms Drmaž, for the clear presentation of the Council position, but let me also make some remarks.
The Commission has presented a draft budget for 2022 which is in line with the multiannual financial framework (MFF) agreement reached nine months ago. The margins left in our proposal – I'm talking about EUR 1.2 billion in commitments and EUR 1.4 billion in payments – are adequate to cover unforeseen needs. The Commission regrets the Council proposal to increase margins by cutting by EUR 722 million the commitments of the draft budget of EUR 1.4 billion in payments. These cuts are not accompanied by adequate justification.
Some remarks concerning the different headings: in particular Heading 1, Single market, Innovation and Digital, which accounts for 12.9% of the budget in commitments, suffers 30% of the Council's proposed reductions. These disproportionate cuts are at odds with the priority given to this heading by many Member States. The proposed cuts would mean that programmes may be hampered and delayed. Specifically, for Horizon Europe you have proposed cuts of EUR 316 million, which I find difficult to understand given the excellent absorption capacity of the programme and the importance of research for the competitiveness and sustainability of our economy.
The same applies for the Digital Europe Programme and Invest EU. I invite the Council to be open and reconsider its position regarding the very large cut – I'm talking about EUR 300 million – on the interest line for the European recovery instrument NGEU in Heading 2b, Resilience and Values. It is true that the first borrowing rates for NGEU have been very favourable; however, it would be prudent to wait until later this year to have a clearer view of the outlook for next year. I would propose to come back to this issue at the time of the conciliation.
For Heading 6, Neighbourhood and the World, the large reduction proposed to the NDICI cushion – we are talking here about EUR 400 million – not only jeopardises the implementation of the recently adopted legal base, but also the financing for Syrian refugees in Turkey and beyond. I would urge, therefore, the Council to reconsider this position, also in view of the upcoming amending letter.
We take note of the position of the Council regarding the EP budget and the increase in staff requested mainly by Parliament. I would just like to recall that while stable staffing in all the institutions is not explicitly provided for in the Interinstitutional Agreement, the MFF ceilings for Heading 7 were established on that assumption and were agreed by both Parliament and the Council. And I have to say that I think we should also look at this issue in view of the potential development of the inflation rate.
The Commission has made a balanced proposal in line with the Union's political priorities to get Europe back on track by stimulating the recovery and facilitating the green and digital transitions, while always ensuring EU added value, impact and results. The proposal was based on thorough analyses of the level of appropriations required. Providing adequate financing for successful programmes is a necessity and therefore the cuts proposed by the Council raise serious concerns.
As regards the next steps, we will present, as usual, the amending letter in October to update agricultural expenditure and some new elements which will have been proposed or updated since the adoption of the statement of estimates on 8 June. For example, the impact for 2022 of the proposed package for the Syrian refugees as presented in June.
Following the DB reading, I will send you the usual executability letter just before the start of the conciliation. I believe that the budgetary negotiations on the 2022 draft budget can be concluded according to the calendar agreed. I think last year should and could be a good example. I and my team stand ready to work with your rapporteurs and the Presidency during the procedure to facilitate an agreement between Parliament and the Council.

Karlo Ressler,
rapporteur. – Mr President, we are entering the peak of the budgetary procedure for the next annual budget of the EU. There is still a lot of uncertainties in front of us, so we will have to remain level-headed and adaptable, but the Parliament will firmly insist on our priorities.
Expectations of citizens, reflected also here in the Parliament, are understandably high. The next budget has to be a recovery budget, tailored to support all regions, all sectors and all generations.
With this in mind, cuts proposed by the Council are, in our opinion, wrong and unacceptable. They include a number of cuts in programmes with excellent absorption capacities. Some of them were already mentioned by the Commissioner, such as Horizon Europe, InvestEU or the Life Programme. This clearly goes against the political declarations, not only of this House but also of the Council. The cuts are therefore impossible to justify, and they are hardly in line also with the priorities of the Council Presidency.
It is especially crucial to use additional appropriations in certain key areas: support the driving force of the European recovery and economy, small and medium enterprises. Secondly, reinforce future-oriented programmes in research, innovation and education, with a special focus on youth. Thirdly, to strengthen the European Health Union and fourthly, to boost our efforts towards a digital, green and secure Europe.
With these aims, we propose to fully reuse the decommitments in the field of research as there is an unexpected amount of decommitments in 2020, which was not part of the MFF agreement. This amount must not be lost, and the Parliament really sees no good reason to waste this opportunity, which is clearly provided by the financial regulation.
Finally, the events in Afghanistan will obviously largely shape our discussions on the budget, similarly as the discussions with the Facility for Refugees, and we will need to reinforce humanitarian aid, and this should not be done at the expense of other, especially external, priorities.
It is evident that there is the need for additional financing following the recent events, and this is something that will be high on the Parliament's priorities.
Commissioner, Minister Delegate, in the recent Eurobarometer survey our citizens welcomed Europe's recovery path in responding to the economic effects of the pandemic. Let us now meet the expectations and continue to build a strong and resilient Europe.

Damian Boeselager,
rapporteur. – Mr President, our European institutions are in a delicate situation. On the one hand, the economic consequences of the COVID crisis necessitate prudence in spending and planning. On the other, the crisis itself and our responses to it force us to do things differently, to invest and to recover.
Minister, let me tell you that I have sympathy for your prudent approach and I myself and the shadows have applied that prudence in developing our position on the budget. We have spoken extensively to all institutions, we have looked at each budgetary line and we have tried to understand clearly where the needs lie. We made clear that this is not a time for unreasonable budgetary increases. But it seems to me that the Council and Parliament still fundamentally diverge in their approach to the budget. Whereas the Council is applying horizontal cuts, the Parliament's reading is based on a detailed analysis of the needs of each European institution, which supervise, execute and implement EU law and policy.
It is one of those needs that I want to especially highlight in this context. As you know, the recovery fund leads to an unprecedented flow of EU money to our economies. I have negotiated this law and I am immensely proud of what we have achieved. However, the Council completely ignores that additional money also requires additional supervision. In this context, it seems bizarre to me that the Council cuts posts and budget for the Court of Auditors and, by the way, also for the European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF). We should be increasing these budgets because European citizens demand that funds are not being wasted or defrauded. I also cannot understand why you would like to cut many other institutions like the Court of Justice or the European External Action Service (EEAS). All of those posts are, in our view, fully justified and based on the reality on the ground.
Finally, I want to remind you of the incredibly important need to reform and update our European institutions at all times to meet the challenges of our time. We owe it to citizens to constantly rejuvenate and reform from within. That's why I'm incredibly proud that, with COVID, our Parliament has risen to this task and has started a process of internal rejuvenation and reform, which is actually ongoing as we speak. In open process, we have looked at ways in which to be better at scrutiny, we want to improve the committee culture and the hearings in the way they work and we want to strengthen the plenary debates to be more engaging and representative of our issues. I invite all institutions to undergo a similar process of rejuvenation and internal reform.
In the same spirit, I invite you, Minister, to push the Council to actually actively engage in the Conference on the Future of Europe, where these debates are taking place on a grander scale. It's our shared responsibility to ensure that our institutions are ready for the 21st century and that we can actually work for the well-being and interests of our citizens. I can only hope that the Council and Commission join us in the spirit of responsibility, reform and rejuvenation.

Johan Van Overtveldt,
Chair of the Committee on Budgets. – Mr President, I think it's an understatement to say that a lot has changed in the past year. We kicked off a new budgetary cycle with the adoption of the new MFF a little bit more than six months ago, and we also reached an historic agreement on the recovery instrument.
However, it is clear that at this point in time the signs of improvement of the economic scene remain very fragile. We cannot ignore the ongoing struggle with the pandemic, and also the fact that we are seeing the new Delta variant, we are seeing possibly a new wave.
But there are some things that do not seem to change. The Council appears for us the guardian of an outdated ‘business as usual’ approach, still following the logic of top-down cuts to reach a pre-determined overall reduction target. Concretely this means cutting across Union programmes and instruments no matter the added value, no matter the absorption capacity or the political relevance.
A striking example is Horizon Europe. We all know this programme. It has proven its success and ability to support health, digital, green and other objectives. This programme was cut by the Council already in the MFF negotiations, and from Parliament's side we succeeded in getting back EUR 4 billion into it, but now the Council is proposing to downsize it once more, for 2020. This is not serious.
Also, how can the Council reduce the digital dimension, when achieving digital sovereignty is a clear and across-the-board shared objective? And how can it justify the cuts in the EU4Health programme? At the moment we are hearing that probably tomorrow we will hear about a new initiative, the Health Emergency Response Authority, with a budget of EUR 6 billion. So we are looking forward to seeing how that fits in with what is already on the table and what should come on the table.
It's time for Parliament to define its position. We will be ready to enter into negotiations, as the rapporteur has already indicated, as soon as Parliament has adopted its reading in mid-October, with a clear objective that the 2020 budget is fit to face the challenges ahead of us. However, it is already clear for us that we need to revise the MFF in order to take into account the impact of, for example, the new Health Initiative, the consequences of the situation in Syria, and then of course also the recent developments in Afghanistan. There will be a lot on our plate.

Irena Drmaž,
predsedujoča Svetu. – Gospod predsednik, komisar, poročevalci, gospe in gospodje. Zahvaljujem se vam za to zanimivo in plodno izmenjavo mnenj.
               

                  Današnja razprava je pokazala, da imamo kljub različnim stališčem o posameznih točkah proračuna skupen cilj – vzpostaviti stabilen proračun Evropske unije za leto 2022. Morda se razlikujemo le na način in vrstni red prioritet, kako doseči te skupne cilje. Želim opozoriti morda le na to, da Svet ni znižal proračuna nobene od evropskih institucij, le znižal je rast izdatkov.
               

                  Zdaj zato še bolj z zanimanjem pričakujemo stališče Evropskega parlamenta o proračunu za leto 2022, ki bo podlaga za oblikovanje stališč, o katerih se bomo pogajali, da bi v novembru dosegli končni dogovor. Vemo, da se lahko zanesemo na Komisijo, da bo delovala kot nepristranska posrednica pri premoščanju vrzeli med našimi stališči in predlagala uravnotežene kompromisne rešitve.
               

                  Unija kot celota potrebuje proračun, ki bo izpolnjeval potrebe njenih državljank in državljanov v obdobju po pandemiji. To pomeni, da moramo poiskati pravo ravnovesje med učinkovitimi in ciljanimi izdatki ter omejiti preveliko davčno obremenitev gospodarstva in prebivalstva Evropske unije. Prepričana sem, da bomo s predanimi prizadevanji vseh lahko pravočasno dosegli ta dogovor. Ponovno se vam zahvaljujem za vašo pozornost in hvala lepa.
               

Der Präsident. – Danke, Frau Drmaž. Das Ziel ist ein Haushalt, der den Herausforderungen unserer Zeit gerecht wird und die Erwartungshaltung der Bürgerinnen und Bürger in die Handlungsfähigkeit der Europäischen Union erfüllt.
               

                  Die Aussprache zu diesem Tagesordnungspunkt ist damit geschlossen.
               


Schriftliche Erklärungen (Artikel 171)



Victor Negrescu (S&D),
in writing. – The European Council has presented an unambitious budget proposal containing several important cuts. 2022 has to be a full implementation year for EU programmes with important priorities for the social recovery, sustainable future, solidarity and EU values. Investing more in healthcare and education, and developing our economies and social infrastructure – while leaving no one behind – are key priorities. We have to make sure that the EU's budget delivers on all EU priorities, relaunches our economies, ensures the protection of our citizens and invests in our future. We call for more ambition from the Council and Member States in reaching our common targets, managing the pandemic and preparing for future challenges linked with the digital and green transformations.
6.   Voting session

Der Präsident. – Und nachdem es 20 Sekunden vor 13.00 Uhr ist, möchte ich die Sitzung nicht unterbrechen, sondern gleich fortfahren, indem ich die heutige Abstimmungsrunde eröffne.
               

                  Die Dossiers, über die wir abstimmen, sind der Tagesordnung zu entnehmen. Die Abstimmungsrunde ist von jetzt, 13.00 Uhr, bis 14.15 Uhr geöffnet. Es kommt dasselbe Abstimmungsverfahren zur Anwendung wie in den vorangegangenen Runden. Alle Abstimmungen sind namentlich. Ich erkläre die Abstimmungsrunde damit für eröffnet.
               

                  Die Ergebnisse der Abstimmungsrunde werden um 19.00 Uhr bekanntgegeben.
               

(Die Sitzung wird um 13.01 Uhr unterbrochen)


PRESIDENZA: ROBERTA METSOLA


Viċi President

7.   Resumption of the sitting

(Ħin tal-ftuħ tas-seduta: 15.00)

8.   Situation in Afghanistan (debate)

Il-President. – Il-punt li jmiss fuq l-aġenda huwa d-dikjarazzjoni tal-Viċi President tal-Kummissjoni u r-Rappreżentant Għoli tal-Unjoni għall-Affarijiet Barranin u l-Politika ta' Sigurtà dwar Is-sitwazzjoni fl-Afganistan (2021/2877(RSP)).
               

Josep Borrell Fontelles,
Vice-President of the Commission / High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy. – Madam President, honourable Members of the European Parliament, this has been the Afghan summer. During 20 days of August, we were engaged in the Afghanistan tragedy because what we have seen in Afghanistan is certainly a tragedy for the Afghan people, a setback for the West and a potential game-changer for international relations.
If we want to look at Afghanistan after the end of August, we have to look at it from these three points of view: as the Afghan people's tragedy, as a Western setback and, for the whole world, a change in international relations.
We have all seen the collapse of the Afghan army and the government and the takeover by the Taliban in less than ten days. Since the Taliban announced their interim government, which is neither inclusive nor representative and includes people who are on the United Nations sanctions list, we know what we can expect from them.
Our initial focus was on evacuations. The European Union's efforts to provide protection for Afghans most in need was important, but insufficient, and it has to continue. The Afghan crisis is not over. The European Union's Foreign and Defence Ministers have discussed how to operate in the months ahead.
They have charged me and the External Action Service to try to coordinate their efforts in order to evacuate some European Union nationals who are still there, some members of our former staff who are still there, and many other Afghans who have been engaging in building a democratic and free Afghanistan, according to our values and with our support. And now we have to give them as much protection as we can.
So the question now is how to deal with the new Government and what we can do in the wider region, but we also have to look, with an important self-criticism, at the lessons that we can learn on state-building efforts elsewhere in the world. Because what has happened in Afghanistan should teach us a lot about this exercise of state-building, which is much more difficult than what President Bush could have imagined before the invasion of Iraq.
What does it mean for our relations with the US? What does it mean for the development of a European strategic autonomy, for our security and for our defence policy, and Afghanistan itself? A dramatic humanitarian situation in the country lies ahead. Food prices are rising. The financial system is in freefall. The Commission has decided to multiply by four our help from EUR 50 to EUR 200 million, four times more, but still a drop in the ocean. Commissioner Lenarčič confirmed that the meeting with United Nations Secretary-General Guterres convened yesterday, was a success from the point of view of the financial resources raised, and we will try to stay and deliver.
We also know that many people at risk want to leave the country. We have to help them. To have any chance of influencing events, we have no other option but to engage with the Taliban. Engaging doesn't mean recognition – no – but engaging means talking, discussing and agreeing when possible.
With the Ministers and the Council, we agreed that the level and nature of this engagement will depend on the actions of the new government on the following five benchmarks, benchmarks that have to be used in order to calibrate how the new government behaves and, according to their behaviour, how we engage with them. Nothing original. You know very well what I am talking about. We haven't invented anything extraordinarily new, but we have to have some benchmark.
The first benchmark is for Afghanistan not to be a base for the export of terrorism to other countries. The second is respect for human rights, in particular for women's rights, the rule of law and freedom of the media. Maybe you believe that I am mentioning a kind of oxymoron because to talk about human rights from the Taliban side may be a pure oxymoron, but this is what we have to ask them.
The establishment of an inclusive and representative transitional government, which, by the first sign, has not been fulfilled at all. Free access for humanitarian aid and allowing the departure of foreign nationals and Afghans at risk who wish to leave the country, as already decided by the United Nations and in line with the commitments made by the Taliban themselves.
This last benchmark was strongly discussed among the ministers because nobody wants our offer to provide protection to the Afghans at risk to be considered a kind of ‘call effect’, as some ministers understand happened in 2015-2016 during the Syrian crisis. No, we don't want to create a call effect, but we want to protect a lot of Afghan people that deserve our protection, and there are many of them. We have to discuss with the Taliban how we can offer and make effective these protections.
In order to implement these benchmarks, we agreed to coordinate our contact with the Taliban, and we are considering a European Union presence in Kabul coordinated by the External Action Service. In fact, our delegation there has never been closed. The embassies of the Member States have been closed and are not going to reopen, but we still have a delegation, which is not an embassy – since we are not a state – and can be used as an anthem if the security conditions are met in order to discuss with the government in a closer way than through videoconference or messages.
It's clear that we need to engage more with Afghanistan's neighbours and regional actors. So we therefore agreed in the Council to task the External Action Service to coordinate the efforts of the European Union in strengthening our regional outreach and trying to convene a regional political platform for cooperation among Afghanistan's neighbours at ministerial level.
We will do that during the next UN General Assembly (UNGA) week. Certainly, all Ministers of the European Union are doing their duty and travelling to the region, to the neighbours, but I think we need that kind of coordination among us. It would be much easier if, instead of 27, we could speak with one voice. We will never substitute the efforts of the ministers of the Member States, but we should try to coordinate them.
The regional context is highly complex with competing agendas among the main players but, amid the rivalries, there are also joint interests and there is a compelling need for more regional approaches to work in front of the population flows that will be happening. It will happen. Nobody knows how big they will be – not as big as in the Syrian war – but it will depend on the evolution of the situation in the country.
We have to prevent the increase of terrorism and fight against organised crime, including drug trafficking and people trafficking. We are already working for a resettlement forum. My colleague, the Commissioner in charge of Home Affairs, is working hard to organise a resettlement forum in order to share these people when they are on the move – and they will be on the move if the Taliban allows them to be.
So these are the action tracks. This is the action that I will be in charge of developing in the coming months together – Team Europe, the External Action Service, the Commission and Member States. It will be difficult, but I think that all together we can do better than each one on their side. Later, we have to continue discussing the lessons that we can learn, and I think that an evaluation has to be done, not just to talk about it, but to engage seriously on an evaluation.
We talk a lot about public policy evaluation. Well, this is a case for public policy evaluation. What has gone wrong? Not in the last 20 days, but in the last 20 years, since the beginning of the occupation. Because I am sure that a lot can be learned for future actions in other parts of the world where we are engaged.
I hope that this discussion today will help to understand better what is happening and to engage positively on the answer that the Afghans are waiting for from us.

Michael Gahler,
im Namen der PPE-Fraktion. – Frau Präsidentin, lieber Hoher Beauftragter! Welche Lektionen wir aus Afghanistan gelernt haben und welche Konsequenzen wir im Hinblick auf andere Konflikte, aber auch allgemein, daraus ziehen, welche Instrumente wir künftig in der Außen-, Sicherheits- und Verteidigungspolitik einsetzen oder uns neu schaffen, das wird an anderer Stelle ausführlich zu diskutieren sein.
               

                  Kurzfristig sind wir uns, denke ich, alle einig, dass wir auch unmittelbar die humanitäre Hilfe, vor allen Dingen über die Kanäle der Vereinten Nationen, in das Land bringen müssen, um die voraussichtliche Hungersnot abzuwenden. Wir sind uns weiter alle einig, dass wir die gefährdeten Gruppen, die für uns gearbeitet haben, oder auch die, die im Fokus der Taliban sind, ob es Journalisten sind oder Aktive der Zivilgesellschaft, vor allem Frauenrechtlerinnen oder auch Lehrerinnen oder öffentliche Bedienstete in exponierter Stellung – da müssen wir dafür sorgen, dass die zu uns kommen können. Dafür müssen wir mit den Taliban reden – richtig –, aber ohne sie in der Form formell anzuerkennen.
               

                  Ich denke, wir haben auf der einen Seite jetzt die Entwicklungshilfe erstmals gestoppt. Da müssen wir schauen, denke ich, projektweise oder sektorweise zum Beispiel im Bereich der Landwirtschaft, ob es denn möglich ist, mit den dort verbliebenen Kooperationspartnern vor Ort dazu zu kommen, dass man diese Projekte doch weiterführen kann. Das muss aber einer weitergehenden Beurteilung überlassen bleiben.
               

                  Und darüber hinaus müssen wir uns darum kümmern, dass die Nachbarländer unmittelbar unterstützt werden, wenn es darum geht, möglicherweise flüchtende Menschen dort menschenwürdig unterzubringen.
               

Iratxe García Pérez,
en nombre del Grupo S&D. – Señora presidenta, ‘me rompe el corazón ver cómo los talibanes han destruido nuestro país en un día’. Estas palabras son de Nilofar Bayat, deportista paralímpica afgana que fue evacuada desde Afganistán a España el pasado mes de agosto, pero son también las palabras de miles de mujeres y niñas afganas que no recuerdan lo que es vivir sometidas.
               

                  La primera lección que debe extraerse es aceptar que no se puede transformar un país sin contar con el firme apoyo de la población local. La intervención militar —reconozcámoslo— ha sido un fracaso, pero todavía hay tiempo para la respuesta humanitaria y para que no sea un fracaso.
               

                  No es momento de buscar culpables ahora entre aliados, sino de trabajar juntos por la estabilidad del país y de la región y por la protección de los derechos de la población afgana.
               

                  La puesta en marcha de un centro de acogida en Madrid, por parte del Gobierno de Pedro Sánchez, para los colaboradores afganos de la Unión Europea y sus familias es un encomiable gesto de solidaridad. Ahora corresponde reforzar un corredor humanitario, coordinado por el Servicio Europeo de Acción Exterior, para repatriar a los miles de personas que han quedado atrás, y que todos los gobiernos puedan conceder visados humanitarios y den refugio a las personas que huyen del terror talibán.
               

                  No podemos proclamar al aire el respeto a los derechos humanos mientras millones de personas se hunden en la desesperanza ante nuestros ojos. Abandonemos ya el doble lenguaje, convirtamos las palabras en hechos y alcancemos un acuerdo sobre migraciones en la Unión Europea, un pacto dotado con medios materiales suficientes y basado en los principios de solidaridad y humanidad. Nunca olvidemos que los europeos y europeas somos hijos y nietos de refugiados que también huyeron de la persecución en busca de un futuro mejor.
               

                  El esfuerzo realizado en Afganistán durante los veinte años pasados no puede convertirse en un recuerdo nostálgico. Además de la construcción de escuelas y hospitales, florecieron también la libertad y la igualdad, en particular para una nueva generación de afganas. Los talibanes no han cambiado: siguen considerando a las mujeres seres inferiores y siguen considerando que tienen menos derechos que los hombres.
               

                  Mujeres del mundo: unámonos para ayudar con toda nuestra fuerza a las mujeres y a las niñas afganas; las valientes protestas en las calles demuestran que están llenas de energía, de esperanza y de sueños.
               

                  Los talibanes podrán conquistar los territorios, pero nunca van a conquistar los corazones y las mentes. Pido el apoyo de esta Cámara para que las mujeres afganas sean galardonadas con el Premio Sájarov 2021.
               

                  El regreso de los talibanes también marca el inicio de una nueva realidad geoestratégica en la que la Unión Europea tiene que empezar a valerse por sí misma. El tiempo de discusiones bizantinas sobre si necesitamos una autonomía estratégica debe llegar a su fin.
               

                  Desarrollemos una verdadera política exterior y de seguridad común que nos permita dotarnos, cuanto antes, de los instrumentos necesarios para garantizar la soberanía de la Unión. La creación de una fuerza operativa internacional que sortee la trampa de la unanimidad evitaría que nadie vuelva a dar lecciones a la Unión Europea.
               

                  La caída de Kabul ha sido una dura derrota para quienes creemos en el progreso de la humanidad. En un mundo que todavía se debate entre la civilización y la barbarie, es el momento de demostrar que nuestro sueño europeo no solo ha hecho realidad el mayor período de paz y de prosperidad en nuestro continente, sino que, también, debe ser un gran legado para dar respuesta humana a los desafíos globales de hoy y del mañana.
               

Petras Auštrevičius,
on behalf of the Renew Group. – Madam President, Mr High Representative, dear colleagues, after 20 years of fighting international and domestic terrorist groups in Afghanistan, the immense efforts to build a state with education and healthcare to everyone were left with prevailing uncertainty and a lasting hope to sustain the achievements so cherished by the Afghan people.
Complete withdrawal of NATO and partner countries' forces, followed by the collapse of Afghan national forces, widespread demoralisation and paralysis of public institutions, left us observing a departing train. We are experiencing the worst-case scenario, which we strongly rejected just two months ago. A high price still to be paid, firstly, by the Afghan people and their vanished prospects of a better future.
Despite all this, multiple voices advocating for a different future for Afghanistan remain. They speak as women, courageously protesting in different cities around the country, journalists continuing work despite arrests and violence, resistance fighters in the Panjshir Valley determined to sacrifice their lives.
We have to admit that the peace talks only led towards institutionalisation and strengthening of the Taliban. It did not bring long-awaited stability and security for the Afghan people at large.
Today, our strategy for Afghanistan is to protect Afghans and our joint achievements. We have to secure lives of Afghan change-makers and civil activists, and to save millions facing poverty and famine. We must demand that the Taliban ensure the basic rights, in particular of women and girls, and we need to build solidarity among the Member States to welcome the Afghan asylum seekers.
Just like you, I am convinced that Afghanistan should not be led by radical mullahs but by educated, open-minded Afghans, who are oriented towards a common good.

Tineke Strik,
on behalf of the Verts/ALE Group. – Madam President, High Representative, as the dust settles from the rapid Taliban takeover of Afghanistan and the departure of the Western presence over summer, we should seize this moment to reflect, to learn from this debacle because we need to create a more strong and effective foreign policy to protect and strengthen human rights.
But we also must urgently act now because it is heart breaking to see how Afghan citizens are exposed to the brutal violence of the Taliban, with summary executions, arbitrary decision and the severe and violent oppression of women and girls.
The Afghan people face an enormous humanitarian disaster with shortages of food, water and other basic needs. And those Afghan people were counting on us. So let us do whatever we can to protect them against the Taliban terror.
So let us take our responsibility with a strong EU coordination on evacuations of people who worked for us or at imminent danger of Taliban persecution, on a humanitarian visa for those arriving in neighbouring countries, on increasing and ensuring access to humanitarian aid to Afghan people. Redirect developing assistance to non-governmental actors or international organisations to help the people but prevent any type of recognition to the Taliban as long as human rights are at risk.
And on taking our responsibility for refugees, it is time to step up resettlement, facilitate family unification and prepare for the arrival of Afghan refugees at our border. They must receive immediate protection even if their request was already rejected before. The Temporary Protection Directive was designed to equally divide refugees between Member States and the Commission and Council must now fully make use of it.
The Justice and Home Affairs Council gave a wrong and selfish message. Let the Parliament give the right direction. Dear colleagues, I look forward to a strong parliamentary resolution reflecting courage and solidarity that the Afghan population so much needs and deserves in these difficult times.

Jérôme Rivière,
au nom du groupe ID. – Madame la Présidente, mes chers collègues, le départ des États-Unis de Joe Biden, en forme de débâcle, de l'Afghanistan lors de la prise du pouvoir par les talibans sonne le glas d'une politique messianique engagée par George Bush il y a vingt ans, plaçant tout l'Occident en difficulté. La première leçon à en tirer est bien celle de la fin de l'universalisme interventionniste qui, depuis vingt ans, a accumulé les catastrophes, de la Syrie à l'Irak en passant par la Libye. Les ingérences au nom des droits de l'homme et du ‘nation-building’ ont conduit au chaos sans lendemain. Ces régions du Proche-Orient sont durablement déstabilisées.
               

                  Le deuxième constat, c'est l'absence totale de toute voix européenne dans ce conflit. Le suivisme des États membres dans cette guerre qui ne les concernait pas leur coûte maintenant d'être réduits au silence à propos de l'Afghanistan. Une nouvelle fois, ce sont la Russie et la Chine qui vont profiter de ce manque de cohérence occidental pour avancer leurs intérêts dans le concert des nations.
               

                  Enfin, et c'est sans doute le sujet essentiel sur lequel nous pouvons encore agir, les États membres de l'Union européenne doivent maintenant se protéger et protéger leurs populations. Les peuples suffoqués d'Europe ne doivent pas subir une nouvelle déferlante migratoire comme celle qui a suivi le conflit en Syrie. Comme vous, je suis inquiet pour le sort des femmes et des civils en Afghanistan. Comme tous, je déplore le retour des islamistes au pouvoir et, parce que je me soucie d'abord du bien des Européens et des Français, je refuse une nouvelle fois une vague migratoire venue d'Afghanistan.
               

                  Les pays d'Europe, et la France en premier lieu, s'exposeraient en accueillant de nouveaux réfugiés. Aucun peuple en Europe ne souhaite plus de migrants, surtout lorsqu'en leur sein se glisse des terroristes. C'est déjà le cas en France, moins d'une semaine après les premières arrivées.
               

                  L'Europe, à la lumière des enseignements du passé, a le devoir de se protéger.
               

Anna Fotyga,
on behalf of the ECR Group. – Madam President, yes, the moment is sad and full of dissatisfaction, yet allow me to remind you that nations decided to engage in Afghanistan upon a task given by UN Security Council resolutions adopted unanimously to combat a threat to international peace and security by all means.
Allow me to repeat the words of Jens Stoltenberg, that certainly throughout 20 years Afghanistan was not the root place for a terrorist attack on our territory, our Euro-Atlantic territory, yet we have to learn this lesson and once more engage broadly. I think that multilateralism is proper once more to solve this problem. Not all UN members supported our efforts, and now we have to have efforts as broad as possible and a concise strategy for Afghanistan.
I am afraid that the EU is not enough to fulfil this task. Once more we have to have international community probably with a different strategy, but certainly let us do this.

Mick Wallace,
on behalf of the The Left Group. – Madam President, this debate about Afghanistan is only worth having if we agree that those responsible for this illegal 20- year invasion, occupation, and the deaths of close to a quarter of a million people are held to account for their crimes, and Mr Borrell, you think the lesson from it all is that we need more European defence? We learned nothing from Afghanistan if we do not call what happened by its name: it was war by the imperialist core to advance its geostrategic interest. NATO has to be held to account for its crimes against humanity.
We were told by the External Action Service last week that NATO were fighting terrorism, fighting migrants, migration, and fighting the drug trade. Fighting terrorism. You are killing innocent people, women and children. You are creating terrorists. Fighting migration. You are destroying the place. You are creating migrants. Fighting the drug trade. It went from 185 tonnes in 2001 to 9 000 tonnes in 2017. Look at the Sahel. The same thing has been repeated. Phantom soldiers getting phantom training, puppet governments that don't have the support of their people, the enrichment of corrupt elites and the arms industry. Last year, the EU-trained forces in the Sahel killed more civilians than terrorists.
When are we going to stop feeding the arms industry? Stop supporting US imperialism? Stop killing people with arms? Stop killing people with sanctions? Instead, Europe now needs to provide sustainable refuge for those who have fled the mess we helped to create.

Kinga Gál (NI). – Tisztelt Elnök Asszony! Afganisztán nem válhat ismét a nemzetközi terrorizmus melegágyává! Nem ismétlődhet meg soha többé 2001. szeptember 11! Az afganisztáni helyzet tragikus. Ezért Magyarország megtette, ami erkölcsi kötelessége volt: kimenekített magyarokat és más NATO-s állampolgárokat és a magyar kontingens munkáját segítő afgánokat.
               

                  Az afganisztáni kudarc mellett most egy újabb kudarcot kell elkerülni: a 2015-öshöz hasonló migránsválság megismétlődését. Vigyük oda a humanitárius segítséget ahelyett, hogy újabb hamis illúziókat keltve szorgalmazzuk felelőtlenül afgánok millióinak kimenekülését, szétosztását, hiszen tömegesen indulnának olyanok is, akik biztonsági ellenőrzéseinken nyilvánvalóan nem mennek át. Ugyanakkor támogatnunk kell Törökország és a Nyugat-Balkán határvédelmét is. Minél távolabb állítjuk meg az illegális migrációt Európától, annál jobb. Ezért kell a segítséget a térségbe vinnünk.
               

David McAllister (PPE). – Madam President, the recent developments in Afghanistan must be a wake-up call for us to reflect about our Common Foreign and Security Policy. It is clear that we have to go beyond just expressing our concerns.
First, of course it is about providing immediate humanitarian assistance for all those people in need in Afghanistan in order to stabilise the whole region and to prevent a migration crisis. Second, we need to identify a coherent strategy and develop a united approach at EU level, together with our international partners, on how to deal with the de facto rulers in Kabul, the Taliban. Third, international cooperation with our allies and partners is necessary to ensure regional stability and global security. The risk of resurgence of radical Islamist forces in Afghanistan is real.
As Europeans, I strongly believe we have to draw serious lessons learned for the nature and mandate of future military interventions. We need to strengthen our own defence cooperation and military capabilities, such as our intelligence and strategic airlift capacities. Doing this should always go hand-in-hand with close transatlantic cooperation. In this regard, I welcome the recent initiative of the High Representative and Vice-President.

Pedro Marques (S&D). – Madam President, 20 years after September 11 we eloped from Afghanistan, committing yet another set of mistakes like we did throughout these years. The US changed the situation on the ground in terms of security for two decades, but now everything has fallen apart.
We can only hope that the terrorists don't find safe haven in Afghanistan yet again. But nobody is truly certain of that, because state building was a disaster. The social and economic conditions on the ground are dire. Corruption was the norm for many of these years. And we, as Europeans, as Europe, were always on the weak side of the international coalition, since we always lacked the capacity to determine ourselves, particularly in what relates to security.
Now, we have a nation destroyed and radicalism back in power. We fear the most for those in Afghanistan, particularly women, and the least we can do is pledge that we will do all in our power for this not to be a story of despair for all of them. We need to provide them with some hope.
Therefore, we must do more; we need to start building the conditions for safe humanitarian aid in Afghanistan again, and the conditions for development and equal rights to go back to those people's lives, to those women's lives.
At the same time we need to reflect on the many mistakes of this 20 years, and on the selfishness of many European authorities and political parties that showed no solidarity towards those refugees that have left that country in despair these last weeks or months.
Europe must be a land of opportunities, a safe haven for dignity, for human rights, for international law. Europe cannot become more and more the land of closed borders and closed hearts. We owe that to the Afghans now, and we certainly owe that to ourselves and to the world.

Nathalie Loiseau (Renew). – Madame la Présidente, défaite, déroute, débandade; pour une fois, face à une crise – celle du retrait américain d'Afghanistan et de la victoire des talibans –, ce ne sont pas les mots qui manquent. Mais comme toujours face à une crise, ce sont toujours les mêmes états d'âme. D'abord la sidération, ensuite, la colère, et puis vient le déni.
               

                  Le déni, c'est refuser de voir que l'OTAN a échoué dans sa mission la plus ambitieuse. C'est refuser d'entendre les États-Unis, qui nous disent depuis trois présidents qu'ils sont fatigués d'être le gendarme du monde. Et c'est refuser d'admettre qu'il nous faut bâtir sans délai une véritable défense européenne. Nous n'avons pas pris part à la décision de retrait américaine ni à sa mise en œuvre. Nous n'avons pas pu mettre en place de manière autonome un pont aérien pour l'évacuation de nos ressortissants et des Afghans les plus menacés. Nous n'avons pas pu imposer une zone humanitaire sûre à Kaboul. Que nous faut-il de plus pour réagir et pour agir?
               

                  S'il est vrai que l'Europe avance grâce aux crises, alors gageons que la défense européenne a aujourd'hui toutes les raisons d'avancer.
               

Hannah Neumann (Verts/ALE). – Madam President, we made mistakes in Afghanistan in the last 20 years, but what we are doing right now is much worse. Two weeks ago, it was our ministers of home affairs who met and they didn't pledge a single, a single resettlement place because they were afraid of bad opinion polls back home.
Bad opinion polls, while the women are marching in the streets of Afghanistan, although they know they will be beaten up by Taliban. While our local partners are stuck in refugee camps in Pakistan, although we promised them safe passage. What we are doing right now is betraying the foundations on which our foreign policy is based: the trust of our local partners and our commitment to human rights.
But there is a chance to get things right. Commissioner Johansson announced another resettlement conference and we need pledges in the tens of thousands. So every one of you who spoke about the protection of human rights and of activists today: as you walk out this room, pick up your phones, call your colleagues in the governments and make sure there will be substantial pledges. This one, it's not about political power games and party politics. This one, it's about responsibility.

Susanna Ceccardi (ID). – Signora Presidente, onorevoli colleghi,
               
‘
j'accuse, io accuso gli occidentali di non avere passione. Voi che siete nati dalla passione, voi che siete diventati un popolo grazie alla passione della vostra rivoluzione. Così non capite cos'è che muove i vostri nemici, i nostri nemici. Non capite cos'è che gli permette di combattere in modo tanto globale e spietato questa guerra contro l'Occidente.


È la passione. La forza della passione, cari miei!


È la fede che viene dalla passione.


È l'odio che viene dalla passione. Allah-Akbar, Allah-Akbar! Jihad-Jihad! Quelli son pronti a morire, a saltare in aria, per ammazzarci. Per distruggerci. E i loro leader, (veri leader), lo stesso.


Io l'ho conosciuto, Khomeini. Ci ho parlato, ci ho litigato, per oltre sei ore in due giorni diversi. E vi dico che quello era un uomo di passione. Che a muoverlo era la fede, la passione. Bin Laden non l'ho conosciuto. Peccato… Però l'ho guardato bene quando appariva in tv.


L'ho guardato negli occhi, ho ascoltato la sua voce, e vi dico che quello è un uomo di passione. Che a muoverlo è la fede, l'odio che viene dalla passione. Per combattere la loro passione, per difendere la nostra cultura cioè la nostra identità e la nostra civiltà, non bastano gli eserciti. Non servono i carri armati, le bombe atomiche, i bombardieri. Ci vuole la passione. La forza della passione. E se questa non la tirate fuori, non la tiriamo fuori, io vi dico che verrete sconfitti. Che verremo sconfitti. Vi dico che torneremo alle tende del deserto, che finiremo come pozzi senz'acqua. Wake up, then! Sveglia, wake up
’

                  Oriana Fallaci, 26 ottobre 2002.
               

Witold Jan Waszczykowski (ECR). – Pani Przewodnicząca! Wysoki Przedstawicielu! Chciałbym zaapelować o realizm i realistyczne cele naszej polityki. Przez dwadzieścia lat byliśmy tam, aby oni nie byli tu, aby 11 września nie powtórzył się na taką skalę w naszej części świata. Dlatego też walczyliśmy z talibami i walczyliśmy z ISIS. Zatem bezpieczeństwo powinno być priorytetem. Wymaga to sojuszu ze Stanami i z NATO, a nie autonomii strategicznej, przynajmniej w tym obszarze działań. Wymaga to współpracy z koalicją willing and able, chętnych, zainteresowanych państw, wymaga to polityki containment of Taliban.
               

                  Powinniśmy też bronić zdobyczy cywilizacyjnych, społecznych, cywilnych praw człowieka. Mamy ograniczone instrumenty. Nie ma nas tam. Pomoc humanitarna powinna być bardzo uwarunkowana. Powinniśmy starać się obarczać państwa wspierające talibów odpowiedzialnością za ich zachowanie. Migracja nie jest rozwiązaniem. Powinniśmy zachęcać do powrotu tych, którzy mogą przeciwstawić się też talibom.
               

Özlem Demirel (The Left). – Frau Präsidentin! Herr Borrell! Der eigentlichen Lehre aus Afghanistan weichen Sie aus. Warum? Eigentlich zeigt Afghanistan ganz klar: Krieg ist keine Lösung, und die Kriegspolitik des Westens ist gescheitert! Demokratien werden nicht militärisch exportiert, denn Krieg ist die brutale Fortführung einer gescheiterten Politik.
               

                  Kürzlich forderten aber Sie persönlich als Lehre aus Afghanistan, die EU müsse aufrüsten und eine flexible Armee haben. Aber warum? Ist das nicht genau das Falsche, was Sie fortsetzen wollen? Am Hindukusch wurde doch nicht unsere Freiheit verteidigt und auch nicht die der afghanischen Frau. Sondern für geopolitische Interessen wurde Krieg geführt, Geld in den Rachen einer korrupten Regierung und in den Rachen von westlichen Unternehmen geschüttet.
               

                  Das gleiche Desaster droht nun in Mali, wo nicht die USA, sondern Frankreich die treibende Kraft ist. Nachdem Sie hunderttausende tote Zivilisten in Kauf genommen haben, verhandeln Sie nun mit den Taliban sogar über mögliche Entwicklungszusammenarbeit. Warum? Um etwa geopolitischen Interessen aus China und Russland nicht das Feld zu überlassen? Ihre Geopolitik ist genauso – das sage ich offen –widerlich wie die von Russland und China.
               

                  Und die Innenminister stellen sich jetzt hin und sagen: 2015 darf sich nicht wiederholen. Ich sage: 2001, wo Sie in den Krieg in Afghanistan gezogen sind, darf sich nicht wiederholen. Die EU-Länder sind nicht bereit, Menschen aufzunehmen. Sie schieben nach Afghanistan ab und verhandeln erneut mit dem Erdoğan-Regime, dass es Geflüchtete aus der EU fernhält. Liebe Kolleginnen und Kollegen! Geht es Ihnen ernsthaft um Menschenrechte? Nach Afghanistan sieht es für mich absolut nicht danach aus!
               

Fabio Massimo Castaldo (NI). – Signora Presidente, gentile Alto rappresentante, onorevoli colleghi, i talebani cercano le persone casa per casa, puntando a esecuzioni mirate, la gente a Kabul è terrorizzata, tutti cercano di scappare. Questo il grido di allarme dell'Ambasciatore afghano all'ONU Ghulam Isaczai, all'indomani della presa della capitale da parte delle milizie talebane.
               

                  È passato solo un mese da allora, ma i riflettori sembrano già cominciare a spegnersi su una catastrofe umanitaria con pochi precedenti.
               

                  Caro Alto rappresentante, insieme a 76 colleghi che siedono oggi in quest'Aula, Le abbiamo inviato una lettera per chiedere che l'Unione apra dei corridoi umanitari con l'Afghanistan, applicando la direttiva 2001/55/CE sulla protezione temporanea in caso di afflusso massiccio di sfollati.
               

                  Se non vogliamo che le nostre ambizioni di divenire un attore internazionale credibile, che basa il suo operato sul rispetto dei diritti umani, restino solo un concetto astratto, se non vogliamo che il prezzo più alto lo paghi chi ha collaborato con il nostro personale occidentale, le donne, i bambini, ogni soggetto fragile, serve coerenza, serve coraggio e serve ora perché il tempo scorre veloce e scorre contro di noi. Corridoi umanitari subito!
               

Arnaud Danjean (PPE). – Madame la Présidente, nous avons tous légitimement ressenti beaucoup d'émotion en voyant les images de la tragédie de Kaboul ces dernières semaines, et encore plus d'émotion, évidemment, en pensant aux victimes civiles afghanes, mais aussi à tous les jeunes soldats occidentaux, notamment européens, qui sont tombés par milliers pendant 20 ans en Afghanistan pour essayer de rendre ce pays plus démocratique, plus libre.
               

                  Mais l'émotion est une chose, il nous faut aujourd'hui tirer des leçons. J'entends beaucoup de concours de mauvaise conscience sur nos erreurs, sur nos lâchetés, sur ce que nous n'avons pas fait, sur ce que nous devrions faire. Il nous faut surtout, évidemment, lister ces erreurs. Il y en a beaucoup, beaucoup trop pour être énoncées ici en une minute, la plus grande ayant sans doute été d'ailleurs l'illusion de pouvoir transformer un pays aussi différent en si peu de temps et avec un effort quasi exclusivement militaire.
               

                  Mais une autre erreur a été plus concrète et doit nous amener à trouver des solutions aujourd'hui; ça a été l'erreur de croire que dès lors qu'il y avait un retrait américain d'annoncé et dès lors qu'il y avait un accord politique pour que les talibans reviennent au pouvoir, même partiellement, tout n'allait pas retomber dans les mains des talibans. Ça s'est fait sans doute plus vite que prévu, mais enfin, l'effet de sidération et de surprise sont quand même de bonnes excuses pour refuser de voir que nous n'avons pas été assez lucides, vigilants et clairvoyants dans ces dernières semaines.
               

                  Et il n'y a pas eu non plus de consultation entre alliés, pas suffisamment. Donc, Monsieur le Haut représentant, je vous entends aujourd'hui proposer des choses pour améliorer l'autonomie européenne, qui n'est pas un gros mot. Vous avez sans doute raison sur les ambitions. Je pense que concrètement, il nous faut d'abord pouvoir analyser les situations, estimer les situations avant d'agir en autonomie. Aujourd'hui, nous n'en sommes pas capables.
               

                  Les progrès doivent donc intervenir, mais ils doivent intervenir de façon réaliste pour que le ‘wake-up call’ dont tout le monde parle ne reste pas un énième événement sans réponse de la part de l'Union européenne.
               

Elena Yoncheva (S&D). – Madame la Présidente, après vingt ans de guerre en Afghanistan, nous faisons face à de nombreuses fautes que nous avons commises. Nous devons avoir une politique étrangère de l'Union européenne efficace.
               

                  Premièrement, nous ne devons pas laisser l'Afghanistan servir de base à toutes sortes d'organisations terroristes ciblant l'Europe. Nous devons surveiller nous-mêmes les menaces et avoir nos propres sources d'information. Aussi, nous devrons renforcer notre collaboration avec des pays de la région et les partenaires présents sur le terrain, dont la Russie et la Chine, pour avoir une influence beaucoup plus grande sur les talibans.
               

                  Deuxièmement, les talibans disposent de sources de financement telles que la production et le commerce d'opium et nous devons trouver un moyen pour les réduire. L'impact négatif de l'opium est connu en Europe. Le nombre de personnes qui meurent chaque année d'overdose d'héroïne dans les pays de l'OTAN est dix fois plus élevé que le nombre total de soldats de l'OTAN tués en Afghanistan – dix fois plus élevé!
               

                  Enfin et surtout, nous devons veiller à ce que le retour des talibans ne conduise pas à un mouvement migratoire à grande échelle vers l'Europe. Nous avons besoin de couloirs humanitaires, de visas humanitaires. Nos systèmes d'asile doivent être prêts. Mon État membre, la Bulgarie, sera l'un des premiers à être confronté aux nouveaux arrivants et j'exhorte le Conseil à commencer à se concentrer sur la manière de travailler ensemble en tant qu'Union, sur la base des valeurs partagées et de la solidarité.
               

Hilde Vautmans (Renew). – Madam President, the scenes of the Taliban carrying around coffins covered in American and NATO flags were devastating. And the fact that after 20 years, women are not allowed to work alongside men and do not dare to go into the streets without a burka, is heart breaking. The most horrible consequence of the withdrawal is the imminent danger Afghans are in.
But this crisis also concerns us. Let us now finally draw lessons. To Mr Borrell I would say: we need a real European defence union with a real European army. If this is not the moment, when will it be?
Citizens are in favour. French President Macron, who I saw last week, is in favour. Commission President Ursula von der Leyen, as a former German defence minister, must be in favour. And with the German elections coming up, I really hope there will be support for this EU army.
We can no longer wait, not another year, not another crisis. It should happen now.

Jordi Solé (Verts/ALE). – Madam President, the Taliban takeover has certainly been a blow for the West but, after our chaotic withdrawal, what cannot be further defeated are the values we stand for, and solidarity is one of them. This means providing humanitarian assistance, keeping up efforts for evacuation, and using our levers and instruments to help protect human rights as much as we can, but this also means not turning our back on those Afghan citizens most at risk of persecution by the new regime, especially women.
We need safe and legal pathways for vulnerable people to find protection in Europe. Resettlement pledges must be part of the EU's efforts, not just shifting the responsibility for the protection of refugees to neighbouring countries yet again. We must uphold our international legal obligations, including on the right to seek asylum, if we want to be taken seriously as a reliable player in a rules-based international order.

Bernhard Zimniok (ID). – Frau Präsidentin, werte Kollegen! Die Bilanz nach 20 Jahren Afghanistan ist erschreckend. Das Komplettversagen zeugt einmal mehr davon, dass unser Werteimperialismus krachend gescheitert ist. Ein Scheitern mit Ansage. Weder haben wir das Recht, unsere Werte anderen Ländern und Kulturen überzustülpen, noch ist es ganz offensichtlich gewünscht. 99 Prozent der Afghanen wollen die Scharia, also unter anderem die Todesstrafe für Homosexuelle. Frauenrechte passé.
               

                  Diese archaischen Ansichten transportieren wir derzeit zu Zehntausenden in die EU. Werte Kollegen, wundern Sie sich dann nicht über den nächsten Anschlag, die nächste Gruppenvergewaltigung, den nächsten Mord. Hier tragen wir Politiker die volle Verantwortung gegenüber unseren Bürgern. Sie alle, auch Sie, werden Sie dem gerecht! Stoppen wir diese Einwanderung! Gespräche mit den Taliban – ja, aber keine offizielle Anerkennung. Vorbedingung muss dazu zwingend die bedingungslose Rücknahme aller Abgelehnten und vor allem aller Kriminellen sein.
               

                  Was immer wir tun, das sage ich aus meiner langjährigen Erfahrung aus dieser Region, von der Sie offensichtlich keine Ahnung haben: Wir müssen endlich aufhören mit unserem Werteexport, es sei denn, wir wollen wieder einmal krachend scheitern. (Die Präsidentin entzieht dem Redner das Wort.)


President. – Dear colleague, I am going to have to cut you off. You no longer have the right to speak.

Assita Kanko (ECR). – Madam President, I'm glad that this debate is chaired by a woman standing proudly. This is not something that currently is happening in Afghanistan, where women have to stay home, hide their bodies, and I've seen photos of women and men in a university separated by a curtain, and besides, women have to leave the class much earlier so that they don't see or meet men, which means they are losing part of their education.
I am very worried, just like all of us in here about what is happening in Afghanistan and the EU and its Member States must provide, of course, adequate humanitarian support and focus on women and girls. But at the same time, we must be careful not to legitimise this provisional government, full of macho men, who don't know that women have a potential that the country could use.
However, I'm also hearing that a deal is in the works with Iran on hosting Afghan refugees. So I'm asking you, who in this room is feeling comfortable about sending a woman or a girl who is running away from the Taliban straight to the place where the ayatollahs are sitting?
This will not be with my support because it's bringing someone from hell to hell, and we cannot be complicit in that.

President. – Thank you, Ms Kanko. We will be asking for a transcript of the previous colleague's intervention for us to see what was said and read it.

Manu Pineda (The Left). – Señora presidenta, señor Borrell, los Estados Unidos y la OTAN nos han llevado a veinte años de guerra en Afganistán. Veinte años que finalizan con los talibanes de nuevo en el poder, ahora armados con el arsenal que Washington y su comparsa han dejado en su huida. La población queda a merced del terror de este grupo creado por los Estados Unidos en plena Guerra Fría.
               

                  Las mujeres y las niñas van a ser quienes más sufran esta situación, y esperamos que la Unión Europea asuma su responsabilidad y facilite la acogida de quienes huyen del país.
               

                  Pero no debemos perder de vista que los problemas de Afganistán no empiezan ahora. Señor Borrell, usted lo apuntaba en su intervención inicial: los Estados Unidos iban a liberar y a democratizar el país. No solo no han hecho eso, sino que dejan más de 76 000 civiles asesinados por sus bombas humanitarias. El propio Biden ha reconocido que lo único que buscaban era defender los intereses de los Estados Unidos y no la vida de los afganos y afganas. No sé qué más hace falta para que reflexionemos y nos demos cuenta de dónde nos lleva esta política de subordinación a los intereses del Pentágono y de los Estados Unidos.
               

                  Señor Borrell, en nuestra opinión, la solución no es más ejércitos. La solución es un sistema de defensa que sea de defensa y no de intervención militar… (la presidenta retira la palabra al orador).


Márton Gyöngyösi (NI). – Madam President, after the tragedy of 9/11, the invasion of Afghanistan was initiated with two main objectives: a military objective of liquidating terrorists and a political objective of constructing a democratic society. After two decades of war, the sad reality is that neither were accomplished.
And why? Because the West failed to understand the complex reality of Afghanistan. In a decentralised, ethnically and tribally based society, centralised governance is doomed to failure. Apart from dealing with the immediate challenges of a humanitarian crisis and the security challenges of neighbouring states, the most daunting task we face today is defending western values globally.
After such a debacle, how can we possibly expect anyone in Afghanistan, or indeed elsewhere, to make sacrifices, let alone fight for democracy and freedom?

Lena Düpont (PPE). – Madam President, the situation in Afghanistan is serious and the repercussions go far beyond a single regime change. The progress made, especially on women's and girls' rights, their participation in society and political life, and their access to education and health care vanished in a shockingly short time. Already now we see women and girls disappearing from public life, forced to fully cover themselves when entering universities, and threatened when standing up for their rights. That's why we need to be vocal on their behalf. Respecting and protecting their rights has to be at the heart of our humanitarian aid and prerequisite to development policies within that country. This is what we owe to them.
But Afghanistan is not solely a European issue. Our support will only have an impact when embedded in a broader global approach. An increased European budget is good, but international actors have to fulfil their pledges as well. The same applies to the support for neighbouring countries hosting the largest amount of migrants and refugees. We will step up our financial help, but also our support in asylum capacity building and the fight against criminal networks exploiting the most vulnerable.
This is only one reason why we need to have a full picture of those arriving in Europe. Reinforced border protection, sound registration and security checks on those being evacuated from the region are of the utmost importance for our internal security. Our agencies like Europol and Frontex stand ready to support, and security will be served best when combined with an increased information exchange between the national level European agencies and international partners.
This is what we owe to our citizens and to those fleeing war and persecution: that they are not threatened anew by criminal networks and terrorists.

Simona Bonafè (S&D). – Signora Presidente, onorevoli colleghi, noi non possiamo in questa sede non dire con chiarezza che il ritiro militare dall'Afghanistan delle forze della coalizione internazionale è stato un fallimento.
               

                  Questo però non significa mettere in discussione venti anni di missione occidentale, in cui abbiamo provato a costruire un contesto più democratico e a combattere il terrorismo. E proprio per questo, adesso, non possiamo lasciare solo quel popolo, non possiamo lasciare sole quelle donne a cui per venti anni abbiamo detto: avete diritto a una vita diversa, dove potete lavorare, studiare, uscire di casa da sole.
               

                  Abbiamo il dovere morale di occuparci sia di chi oggi vuole lasciare il paese perché è minacciato per aver collaborato con la coalizione internazionale o perché impegnato nella difesa dei diritti civili, così come dobbiamo continuare a lavorare insieme ai nostri alleati per migliorare le condizioni di chi decide di rimanere invece in Afghanistan.
               

                  L'Europa insomma non può girarsi dall'altra parte e in questo senso le conclusioni dell'ultimo Consiglio sono state a mio parere molto deludenti.
               

                  Oggi servono impegni precisi subito, sull'attivazione dei corridoi umanitari, sui visti umanitari, sul supporto ai rifugiati e serve una strategia per l'accoglienza in Europa, nel rispetto della Convenzione di Ginevra.
               

                  Resta però, infine, una dura lezione che dobbiamo imparare tutti da questa situazione: serve una vera politica estera e di difesa europea unica, senza la quale l'Europa non sarà mai protagonista sugli scenari globali, ma rischierà sempre di continuare a trovarsi a subire solo gli effetti delle crisi internazionali.
               

Malik Azmani (Renew). – Madam President, a lot went wrong over the summer in Afghanistan, with tragic and unfortunate consequences for the Afghan people, especially for the brave Afghan women. And it is important that we draw our lessons from what happened.
While I realise that we have very different values from the Taliban, I also believe it is important for Europe to engage with Afghanistan. We have to talk with the Taliban in order to get our own citizens home safely. We also have to engage to help the Afghan people and provide humanitarian aid. And we have to prevent a total collapse of the economy and a mass exodus from Afghanistan.
But Europe is not the only actor. The future of Afghanistan also depends on what others in the region will do. We need to engage the international community to work together to achieve these goals. In an imperfect world, we also have to talk with people who do not share our norms and values and I call on the High Representative to understand that in order for us to achieve our goals.

Heidi Hautala (Verts/ALE). – Madam President, we have for over a month now heard that we will judge the Taliban on the grounds of their deeds, not on the grounds of their words. But I think we have seen enough, that the real face is not really new. It's the old Taliban. However, it's very important that the channels will somehow be kept open because there's an urgent and overwhelming need of humanitarian assistance.
And I would also like to say that we need in some part to continue development cooperation with the people of Afghanistan and I'm sure that the Commission will find ways to do that. We cannot leave the people of Afghanistan on their own. We cannot leave the women and the children; we cannot leave the people living in the rural realities of the countryside. There's a huge drought also in the country.
I very much believe that the time will also be soon when we have to judge the 20 years of the war against terrorism. We still have terrorism, also in the government of Afghanistan in the form of the Taliban, so it has not been a success story and we have to understand why this all went so.

Peter Kofod (ID). – Fru formand! Fælles udenrigspolitik, ret til asyl for masser af mennesker, der måtte have lyst til det, eller en decideret EU-hær. Det er blandt de kreative forslag, som medlemmer af Europa-Parlamentet i den her debat blandt andet har fremlagt som det, der skulle være læren på 20 års krig i Afghanistan. Jeg er nødt til at sige det. Det er hamrende naivt. Tænk, at man virkelig tror i det her hus, at EU er i stand til at løse hele verdens problemer. EU, der ikke engang er i stand til at løse sine egne problemer. Min konklusion og mit budskab i dag skal være meget klart: Vi må aldrig gentage 2015. Aldrig må vi se en situation, hvor en kæmpestor menneskestrøm søger direkte igennem Europa, blokerer vores motorveje og gør europæerne bekymrede og skræmte – og med rette. Den situation må aldrig forekomme igen. Vi skal gøre kontinentet klar. Vi skal bygge hegn. Vi skal bygge mure. Vi skal sikre vores grænser. Vi skal beskytte vores befolkninger. Vi skal passe på Europa. Lad os bygge Fort Europa.
               

Ангел Джамбазки (ECR). – Г-жо Председател, уважаеми колеги, обсъждаме ситуацията в Афганистан, а тя без всякакво съмнение е провал, тежък политически провал и позорно бягство. Една война, която беше водена без знание, без идея какво се случва в Афганистан, без грам понятие как стои ситуацията там, и една война, която завърши с позорно бягство.
               

                  Чух тук преди малко някой да казва от колегите, че не можели да изоставят народа и жените на Афганистан. Ами уважаеми, вие ги изоставихте. Вие ги подлъгахте, водихте някаква война там, след това избягахте със самолетите и те падаха от тях, когато се опитваха да се спасят. И това беше позорно бягство, за което може би би трябвало да ви е срам, но се съмнявам някой да се замисли за това.
               

                  Сега чувам, че трябвало да дойдат нелегалните имигранти в Европа. Ами който иска да ги взима, няма проблем, взимайте ги, аз проблеми с това нямам. Който иска, вместо да преговаря със Саудитска Арабия, с която се търгува за милиарди оръжия за петрол, да ги приема, няма нищо лошо.
               

                  Аз обаче знам какво искат моите съграждани и сънародници и знам техните притеснения. Затова ние ще се борим и ще настояваме за нулева имиграция в България и за опазване на нашата държавна граница. Който е поръчал тази музика, нека бъде така добър да плати сметката.
               

Idoia Villanueva Ruiz (The Left). – Señora presidenta, el colapso de Afganistán indica la catástrofe del seguidismo de las intervenciones militares estadounidenses, invasiones en nombre de los derechos humanos que el propio Biden reconoció como excusas. Ni se atajaron las causas del terrorismo ni se trabajó en el empoderamiento social ni en el fortalecimiento de la democracia —hoy en manos de talibanes—. Más grupos terroristas, más desolación…
               

                  Y nadie cree a los Estados Unidos ni a Europa. Dejar atrás el sistema multilateral de las Naciones Unidas para invadir Afganistán e Irak, apoyándose en los Blair, en los Aznar, en los Barroso…
               

                  El colapso de Afganistán es el fin de una ficción: la ficción de que las guerras pueden ser humanitarias; la ficción de que se puede reconstruir un país sin sus personas.
               

                  Algunos países actuaron rápido, pero no es suficiente.
               

                  Necesitamos una respuesta europea coordinada: garantizar que no haya deportaciones desde los campos de refugiados europeos; corredores humanitarios; reagrupación familiar; la Directiva sobre protección temporal; pedir asilo a embajadas de terceros países y siguientes planes de acogida…
               

                  Además de la necesaria revisión de una política exterior fallida, hoy tenemos que actuar con urgencia. Hoy tenemos una responsabilidad.
               

Λευτέρης Νικολάου-Αλαβάνος (NI). – Κυρία Πρόεδρε, τα κροκοδείλια δάκρυα για την κατάσταση του αφγανικού λαού και ιδιαίτερα των γυναικών, μετά την ανάληψη της διακυβέρνησης από τους Ταλιμπάν, δεν φτάνουν για να σβήσουν τις ιστορικές ευθύνες της Ευρωπαϊκής Ένωσης, του ΝΑΤΟ, των Ηνωμένων Πολιτειών Αμερικής. Στη δεκαετία του 1980, η τότε ΕΟΚ και τα κράτη μέλη της στήριξαν και χρηματοδότησαν τους προγόνους των σκοταδιστών Ταλιμπάν για να ανατρέψουν τη λαϊκή κυβέρνηση που έκανε πράξη τα ίσα δικαιώματα και τις ίσες ελευθερίες ανδρών και γυναικών. Με διάφορα προσχήματα δικαιολόγησε η Ευρωπαϊκή Ένωση και το 2001 την ιμπεριαλιστική επέμβαση και τον στρατό κατοχής, με αποτέλεσμα χιλιάδες νεκρούς, ξεριζωμένους, φτώχεια και εξαθλίωση για τον αφγανικό λαό. Προκλητικά επανέρχεται σήμερα το ζήτημα δημιουργίας στρατιωτικής δύναμης της Ευρωπαϊκής Ένωσης, για νέες αντίστοιχες επεμβάσεις σε όλο τον κόσμο. Ταυτόχρονα, η Ευρωπαϊκή Ένωση θεωρεί τους Ταλιμπάν, αυτούς που οι Ηνωμένες Πολιτείες προίκισαν με εξοπλισμό ύψους δεκάδων δισεκατομμυρίων, εν δυνάμει εταίρους προκειμένου να προχωρήσουν τα σχέδια των ευρωπαϊκών μονοπωλίων σε μια χώρα κομβικής γεωπολιτικής σημασίας, στο πλαίσιο της αντιπαράθεσης με ΗΠΑ, Κίνα και Ρωσία. Είναι ανάγκη να δυναμώσει σήμερα η πάλη για τα δικαιώματα των Αφγανών προσφύγων για άσυλο, διεθνή προστασία, υγεία, στέγαση, εργασία στις χώρες τελικού προορισμού τους, κόντρα στα συμφέροντα των επιχειρηματικών ομίλων και σε ρήξη με το καπιταλιστικό σύστημα που δημιουργεί πολέμους, επεμβάσεις, φτώχεια και προσφυγιά!
               

György Hölvényi (PPE). – Tisztelt Elnök Asszony! A tálibok hatalomátvétele nagyléptékű humanitárius válság lehetőségét hordozza magában. Már most 18 millió ember szorul humanitárius támogatásra, egyszerűen hitelességi kérdés, hogy ne hagyjuk ezeket az embereket magukra. Felelőtlenség a helyben való segítségnyújtás helyett az Európába való kontroll nélküli befogadással hitegetni a rászorulókat. Az Uniónak fel kell mérnie saját képességeit, fellépésünknek a helyi lakosok érdekeit, stabilizálódását kell szolgálnia.
               

                  Elsődleges prioritásnak kell lenni, hogy a régión belül, a szomszédos országokban segítsük a rászorulókat. Ehhez elengedhetetlen a humanitárius szakemberek biztonságának szavatolása, az uniós fejlesztéspolitika támogatásának tervezésekor pedig messzemenőleg figyelembe kell venni az afganisztáni menekülteket befogadó országok, Pakisztán, Irán, Törökország szükségleteit. Az EU-nak józanságra, kapacitásának, képességének megfelelő válaszlépésekre van szüksége, csak így kerülhető el, hogy megismétlődjenek a 2015-ös események. Az Európai Uniónak komoly áldozatot kell hoznia azért, hogy a menekültek segítsége a régión belül maradjon.
               

Tonino Picula (S&D). – Madam President, the speedy collapse of the Afghan Government and seizure of power by the Taliban sent shockwaves throughout Europe. It prompted intense debates on the future of rules-based international order, transatlantic relations, European strategic autonomy and relations with adversarial states. Humanitarian assistance, human rights protection, especially of women and girls, assistance to NGOs on the ground, must be our absolute priority. This unfortunate situation should also be an impetus to finally agree on the new pact on migration and asylum.
As the European Parliament, we should establish a formal mechanism in this House on the scrutiny of the EU policy on Afghanistan since 2001. The task at hand would be not just to establish what went wrong, but crucially to draw lessons for present and future EU missions. Following the recent events in Afghanistan, it became evident that EU strategic autonomy becomes a necessity, not a choice.

Engin Eroglu (Renew). – Frau Präsidentin, sehr geehrter Herr Borrell! Nach dem Attentat mit über 3 000 Toten aus 87 Ländern war es richtig und wichtig, dass wir uns verteidigen, dass wir die Terrorzellen aufgespürt und zerstört haben, um eventuell weitere und schlimmere Attentate zu verhindern. In den 20 Jahren des Einsatzes sind über 3 500 Soldaten und über 85 000 Afghanen gestorben. Die Geschichte in Afghanistan wird jetzt von den Siegern geschrieben. Ob das Land noch einmal zu einer internationalen Bedrohung wird, wird sich in der Zukunft erweisen.
               

                  Aus dem dilettantischen Rückzug und dem Versagen der Regierung, Herr Borrell, müssen wir jetzt aber in der Europäischen Union konkrete Reformen ziehen. Erstens: die Vertiefung der Gemeinsamen Sicherheits- und Verteidigungspolitik. Zweitens: Nicht mehr jedes Land der Europäischen Union muss jegliche militärische Offensive und Verteidigung bereitstellen. Und drittens, Herr Borrell, müssen wir das Verhältnis zwischen der NATO und den europäischen Battlegroups koordinieren, klarstellen und schauen, dass unsere Battlegroups einsatzfähig werden. Wenn wir das geschafft haben, müssen wir schauen, ob vielleicht in den nächsten Jahrzehnten auch eine europäische Armee möglich ist.
               

Reinhard Bütikofer (Verts/ALE). – Madam President, Mr Borrell, colleagues, extremists from the left and from the right have argued that going to Afghanistan was illegal or selfish or imperialist. I disagree.
It was in self-defence against international terrorism, but soon our involvement went astray. We must also confess that. In overshooting self-confidence instead of helping nation-building, we try to impose nation-building, and that did not succeed.
And then the second major mistake was that we grew tired of the burden without thinking about our strategy. And after the West had invested trillions, we were too short-sighted to make the small additional investment that would have been necessary to keep the situation relatively stable. I think the withdrawal was a mistake.
Of course we should be able as Europeans to hold an airport for a humanitarian evacuation, but that's not the core problem. The tools and the means are not the core problem. The perspective and the will, that's the core problem.

Tom Vandendriessche (ID). – Voorzitter, uit onderzoek blijkt dat 99 procent van de Afghanen voor de invoering van de sharia is. Is het dan verwonderlijk dat het Afghaanse leger in rook opging en de Taliban het land bliksemsnel weer overnamen? De Afghanen willen helemaal niet vechten voor westerse mensenrechten en democratie, omdat ze er gewoonweg niet in geloven.
               

                  Waarom zouden de honderdduizenden Afghanen die ondertussen in Europa wonen dat dan wel willen doen en onze manier van leven wel willen overnemen en verdedigen? Sterker nog, deze asielzoekers blijken midden in een oorlog gewoon op vakantie te gaan naar Afghanistan. Hoeveel duidelijker kan asielbedrog worden?
               

                  Er dreigen nu miljoenen Afghanen naar Europa te komen. Onze mensen willen dat helemaal niet. Sluit daarom de grenzen. Deze asielzoekers moeten in hun eigen regio worden opgevangen. Stop met de naïviteit: onze mensen hebben er schoon genoeg van en willen geen nieuw 
                        ‘Wir schaffen das’
                     .
               

Charlie Weimers (ECR). – Fru talman! Höga representant Borrell! Varför hjälper du oss inte att utvisa kriminella afghaner? Varför vill du inte hjälpa svenska folket att bli av med den serievåldtäktsman som i våras våldtog en funktionshindrad kvinna i Upplands Väsby, eller de afghaner som gruppvåldtog en svensk småbarnsmamma en hel natt på ett asylboende i Mariannelund?
               

                  Talibanerna har nämligen signalerat vilja att ta emot dessa kriminella afghaner. Men återvändande av afghaner finns över huvud taget inte med i dina fem krav för talibankontakt. Jag ger dig chansen här och nu: Lova nu offrens familjer att EU gör allt i sin makt för att serievåldtäktsmän och andra förbrytare som inte har i Europa att göra ska skickas hem.
               

Nikolaj Villumsen (The Left). – Fru formand! Tæsk af kvinder på åben gade. Vold mod journalister. Politiske modstandere, der forsvinder i hænderne på Taleban. Det er billederne, vi ser fra Afghanistan. Talebans formørkede mullah-regime har sænket sig over landet. Krigen i Afghanistan har ikke alene kostet tusinder af milliarder, men også betydet død, ødelæggelse og ar på sjælen for soldater, deres familier og ikke mindst den civile afghanske befolkning. Demokrati skabes ikke med bomber. Krigen i Afghanistan var forfejlet. EU's svar bør ikke være militarisering, men en styrket indsats for fred og international lov. Lige nu har de modige afghanske kvinder, journalister og menneskerettighedsforkæmpere akut brug for vores solidaritet. Afghanske flygtninge skal ikke mødes med pigtråd og mure, men med beskyttelse og en solidarisk fordeling af flygtningene, der kommer til Europa.
               

Dorien Rookmaker (NI). – Voorzitter, mijnheer Borrell, jarenlang is de Afghaanse corruptie gesteund in de hoop op democratische ontwikkeling. Men dacht met een hoop geld het gebrek aan democratie te kunnen oplossen, maar het ontaardde in een kleptocratie. Dit was een dure les. Democratie is een bijzonder plantje en het groeit niet overal.
               

                  Nu staan we voor een probleem dat de EU deels zelf tot stand heeft gebracht: een vluchtelingenprobleem dat vergelijkbaar is met dat van 2015. De dringende vraag is of en hoeveel vluchtelingen we willen opnemen. Daar gaat de EU echter niet over; dat moet elke lidstaat voor zichzelf bepalen.
               

                  De bewaking van de buitengrenzen van de EU is een gemeenschappelijk probleem waar de EU zich nu op moet richten. De tijd en de middelen die de EU kan inzetten zijn beperkt. Laten we er daarom verstandig en zuinig mee omgaan. De EU kan zich niet overal mee bemoeien en moet dat ook niet willen. Het is tijd voor een praktische en professionele benadering.
               

Isabel Wiseler-Lima (PPE). – Madame la Présidente, l'Afghanistan a connu, ces 20 dernières années, des progrès formidables en matière de droits des femmes et des filles: éducation, santé, participation à la vie civique et politique. Jamais je n'accepterai l'affirmation de certains selon laquelle ces efforts ont été en vain. Il faut aujourd'hui faire dépendre l'aide au développement, entre autres, des droits des femmes et des filles. Les actions des talibans disent autre chose que leur discours officiel. Or, seules les actions comptent.
               

                  L'Afghanistan était et reste un pays dépendant de l'aide humanitaire. Cela doit être une préoccupation. C'est pourquoi un lien avec le régime en place est indispensable. De même, ce lien est nécessaire pour permettre d'évacuer ceux que nous voulions évacuer et qui sont encore bloqués en Afghanistan. L'Union européenne n'a pas été à même de faire ce qu'elle aurait voulu, de faire ce qui était son devoir, faute de moyens.
               

                  Face à cette impuissance, il est grand temps que l'Union européenne se réveille et se donne les moyens de défense de ses ambitions. Quand on est dépendant, on n'est pas souverain. Aucune nation européenne isolée n'a les moyens de jouer un rôle vraiment déterminant sur cette scène mondiale. Seule une politique extérieure commune et des forces de défense communes prêtes à intervenir nous rendront aptes à décider et à agir et nous redonneront notre crédibilité.
               

Maria Arena (S&D). – Madame la Présidente, Monsieur le Haut représentant, si nous sommes sincères avec ce que nous prétendons défendre aujourd'hui, à savoir les valeurs européennes des droits de l'homme, je pense qu'une seule priorité s'impose: la solidarité. La solidarité avec les femmes et les hommes afghans menacés par le régime des talibans aujourd'hui.
               

                  Protéger ceux qui demandent l'asile en Europe par un plan coordonné de l'accueil. Protéger celles et ceux qui resteront en Afghanistan, la plupart d'entre eux, par la création de couloirs humanitaires, mais aussi par du soutien aux opérateurs qui seront sur place. Mais aussi la création d'un mécanisme de suivi des droits de l'homme comme aide à la décision d'octroi de l'aide. Et enfin protéger celles et ceux qui déjà sont partis et qui sont accueillis dans des pays voisins. Mais ces pays voisins devront eux aussi garantir les standards internationaux en matière d'accueil s'ils souhaitent obtenir l'aide de l'Union européenne.
               

María Soraya Rodríguez Ramos (Renew). – Señora presidenta, señor alto representante, efectivamente, tenemos que sacar lecciones de este despropósito de retirada y de errores cometidos durante veinte años, pero, sobre todo, también del seguidismo de la Unión Europea de la política estadounidense. Necesitamos una política exterior común, autonomía estratégica. Si no hacemos política exterior, otros la harán por nosotros. Rusia y China están dispuestas.
               

                  Pero ahora, sobre todo, necesitamos no cometer más errores con el pueblo afgano. Necesitamos cumplir nuestra palabra y evacuar a todos los colaboradores de la comunidad internacional, especialmente a las mujeres, buscadas casa por casa. Necesitamos y exigimos corredores seguros para que todos los que quieran abandonar el país puedan hacerlo con visados humanitarios y, sobre todo, hemos de repartir ayuda internamente, porque los desplazados internos se cuentan por miles.
               

                  Este debe ser el único diálogo operacional y estratégico con este Gobierno formado por terroristas buscados por la comunidad internacional.
               

                  Señor alto representante, Negar Masumi, mujer, policía afgana, embarazada de ocho meses, asesinada este fin de semana en su casa por el Gobierno talibán: este es el diálogo de los derechos humanos que entiende este Gobierno. No podemos reconocerles ni blanquearles.
               

Alice Kuhnke (Verts/ALE). – Fru talman! Alla vet att livet för flickor och kvinnor i Afghanistan blev en mardröm den dagen talibanerna tog över makten – ett liv utan mänskliga rättigheter, utan möjligheten att få röra sig fritt på gator och torg, ett liv utan att själva få välja hur de vill leva. Alla vi som har lyssnat till kvinnor i och från Afghanistan under de senaste veckorna har hört desperationen. Vi kan alla ta del av de vittnesmål och det bevismaterial som visar hur de som protesterar mot talibanernas galna tvång misshandlas och dödas.
               

                  Alla vet att vi nu står inför ett vägval. Ska vi svika de afghanska flickorna och kvinnorna och de som kämpat för mänskliga rättigheter, hbtqi-personer och journalister? Eller ska vi visa dem och resten av världen att EU:s utrikespolitik bygger på värderingar som är mer än vackra ord?
               

Jordan Bardella (ID). – Madame la Présidente, en France s'est ouvert le procès des attentats de Paris du 13 novembre 2015, qui ont coûté la vie à 130 de nos compatriotes, blessé 400 autres Français et plongé des centaines de familles dans un deuil impossible. Nous savons aujourd'hui que plusieurs des terroristes ont pu semer la terreur en se dissimulant dans la vague migratoire qui a submergé l'Europe et que nos dirigeants ont encouragée. Cette politique inconsciente et meurtrière doit être enterrée à jamais.
               

                  Les premiers Afghans évacués de Kaboul arrivaient à peine sur le sol français que cinq d'entre eux faisaient l'objet d'une surveillance pour risque terroriste par les services de renseignement français. Kaboul est par ailleurs le théâtre d'une réactivation des djihadistes de l'État islamique.
               

                  Nous ne savons rien de tous ceux que nous avons évacués et que nous installons chez nous par centaines, voire par milliers. Après tout ce que nous avons vécu dans notre pays, aucun risque ne doit être pris. L'effort d'accueil des réfugiés doit se porter tout entier sur les États voisins par l'instauration de camps humanitaires sécurisés dans les pays voisins, avec lesquels le choc culturel est par ailleurs bien moindre. Les lois de l'hospitalité ont chez nous été bafouées, saturées, utilisées par nos ennemis. Il est temps de dire que nous affichons complet pour préférer la sécurité des nôtres.
               

Radosław Sikorski (PPE). – Madam President, let us have no illusions. The Taliban are religious fanatics and they have not fought us for 20 years in order now to protect a liberal way of life. No. Revenge killings, stonings, the war on women have already started. A night of barbarism is descending on Afghanistan, and it will be retrograde, bloody and long. I fear for my Afghan friends and I'm sorry that we created an illusion for a generation of Afghans that they could develop in security. The fault is that of Afghan administrations, too, which are corrupt and inept.
Of course the High Representative should speak to whoever is in charge in Kabul but, Mr Borrell, you should speak about our core interests, which are negative – that Afghanistan should not be the source of drugs, terrorism and refugees. And we should draw two lessons from this sorry fiasco. Number one, that countries, also in this Union, should be allowed to develop at their own pace. Imported revolutions don't work. And number two, that we must get serious about European defence. If we'd been able to replace the Americans at Bagram this collapse might not have happened. We should be good allies of the United States, but we should not be at their mercy.

Nacho Sánchez Amor (S&D). – Señora presidenta, señor Borrell, aun a riesgo de parecer pesado, insistiré en una idea: no seremos un actor global si no tenemos unos servicios de inteligencia propios. Y comprendo que es muy difícil pensar en ello cuando Dinamarca espía a la canciller alemana por encargo de los Estados Unidos.
               

                  Pero lo que me extraña es que nadie haya reaccionado a su anuncio de hoy, muy importante. ¿Cómo vamos a examinar la situación sobre el terreno? Usted lo ha despejado hoy: vamos a volver a poner en marcha nuestra representación. Y es políticamente muy importante porque evita tener que descansar, para esa tarea, en las embajadas por ejemplo de Qatar, de Pakistán o de Turquía, dándoles de nuevo una capacidad de influencia sobre la Unión Europea, que yo creo que es bueno que evitemos.
               

                  Yo creo que hay un clima muy pasional y muy de shock por las imágenes que hemos visto del aeropuerto de Kabul, pero el análisis y la revisión de nuestro modelo de promoción de la democracia no puede hacerse en este clima tan caliente: nuestro análisis sobre el papel de lo militar, nuestro papel de construcción institucional fuera y el papel de las élites locales —muchas veces corruptas— y nuestro modelo de promoción de la democracia tienen que revisarse, pero yo creo que no tiene que hacerse como una reacción pavloviana a las imágenes, desgraciadas, del aeropuerto de Kabul.
               

PRZEWODNICTWO: EWA KOPACZ


Wiceprzewodnicząca


Klemen Grošelj (Renew). – Gospa predsednica! Afganistanska tragedija je na neki način bila pravzaprav neizbežna. Morda je presenetila hitrost razvoja dogodkov, a ne glede na vse, kar se je zgodilo, je pred nami ključna odločitev: ali bomo sprejeli to izkušnjo kot gibalo novih spoznanj ali obžalovanja?
                  

                     Sam menim, da mora to postati predvsem priložnost za skupno zunanjo in varnostno politiko, da predvsem jasno postavi okvir odnosov s talibanske oblastjo, v osrčju katere morajo biti naše demokratične vrednote, človekove pravice in še posebej pravice žensk. Od tega ne smemo odstopiti, razen z izjemo nekaterih dejavnosti v dobrobit afganistanskemu ljudstvu. Potrebujemo tudi načrt ukrepov za podporo upornikom in vsem tistim, ki ne bodo sprejemali talibanske oblasti, ter jasen načrt, kako ravnati – predvsem načrt pomoči, kako pomagati vsem tistim, ki bodo zapustili Afganistan in se zatekli v sosednje države.
                  

                     Predvsem pa je ključno spoznanje, da Evropska unija potrebuje lastne vojaške zmogljivosti. Če je kaj Afganistan poudaril, je poudaril to, da EU potrebuje te zmogljivosti, ki bodo podpirale evropsko strateško avtonomijo, a hkrati ne bodo konkurenca Natu niti ne bodo ogrozile evropsko evroatlantsko strateško zavezništvo. Te zmogljivosti bodo predvsem prispevale tako h krepitvi Evropske unije, njenemu globalnemu položaju, na drugi strani pa tudi h krepitvi Nata in Severnoatlantskega zavezništva.
                  

Ernest Urtasun (Verts/ALE). – Señora presidenta, señor alto representante, el desastre de Afganistán, desde luego, va a obligarnos a reflexionar sobre el papel de Europa en el mundo, con unos Estados Unidos que ya no desempeñarán el papel que han desempeñado en el último siglo, como bien sabemos.
                  

                     Pero ahora estamos en la urgencia. Y la urgencia son fundamentalmente tres cosas: la primera es ayudar a salir a los colaboradores de los países europeos en el terreno. Para ello deberemos tener probablemente contactos técnicos con los talibanes, a pesar de que, evidentemente, eso no debe significar su reconocimiento.
                  

                     La segunda es asumir nuestras responsabilidades con el éxodo afgano. Y eso significa visados humanitarios. Eso significa canales de reasentamiento. Y, por qué no, también activar la Directiva sobre protección temporal, lo que podría llevarse a cabo con una propuesta de la Comisión y aprobándose en el Consejo, ni siquiera por unanimidad, sino por mayoría cualificada. Es una Directiva que no hemos usado en veinte años, desde que se adoptó en 2001. Si no es ahora, con el éxodo afgano que se va a producir, ¿cuándo?
                  

                     En tercer lugar, el desarrollo de la asistencia humanitaria a través de organizaciones internacionales que estén sobre el terreno. Porque el gran riesgo ahora es el colapso del Estado afgano, de su sanidad, de su administración, y eso lo van a sufrir, además de la persecución por parte de los talibanes, sus ciudadanos y ciudadanas.
                  

Francisco José Millán Mon (PPE). – Señora presidenta, entre otras enseñanzas, los tristes e inesperados acontecimientos en Afganistán ponen de manifiesto la necesidad de que la Unión Europea avance en su política exterior y particularmente de defensa. Nos hace falta más capacidad de actuación autónoma.
                  

                     A la luz de los últimos hechos y declaraciones, está claro que los Estados Unidos van a limitar su acción militar exterior. El contexto ha cambiado: hay un repliegue de los Estados Unidos.
                  

                     Nos encontramos en un mundo globalizado, multipolar y también muy conflictivo. La Unión Europea necesitará proyectar poder en el exterior, también en aquellos casos en que los Estados Unidos no quieran o no puedan. Debemos ser conscientes de los numerosos conflictos existentes o potenciales, por ejemplo, en nuestra propia vecindad, tanto oriental como meridional. No podemos depender siempre de nuestros aliados.
                  

                     Los tristes sucesos de Afganistán deben ser un punto de inflexión que desbloquee los necesarios progresos en el ámbito de la política exterior y de defensa. Pero, para ello, es imprescindible no solo que las instituciones europeas actúen, sino también que todos los Estados miembros —y digo ‘todos’— tomen conciencia de que estos avances son imprescindibles.
                  

Birgit Sippel (S&D). – Frau Präsidentin! Die Lage in Afghanistan ist dramatisch. Wir haben den Menschen Hoffnung gemacht auf ein demokratisches Afghanistan. Und jetzt fürchten viele um ihr Leben. Und daraus ergibt sich eine besondere Verantwortung. Doch aus dem Rat kommt nur ein ‘best of’ der Abschottungspolitik: illegaler Migration vorbeugen, keine Anreize schaffen, Abschiebung in Transitländer. Und es hilft auch nicht, wenn immerhin anerkannt wird, dem Asylrecht verpflichtet zu sein oder dass freiwillige Neuansiedlung eine Maßnahme sein könnte.
                  

                     Die Mitgliedstaaten müssen jetzt Verantwortung übernehmen. Und neben humanitärer Hilfe in Afghanistan bei Evakuierungen und Kooperation mit Nachbarstaaten müssen sie Aufnahme und Integration auch in Europa ermöglichen, sichere Wege schaffen, resettlement nutzen. Unsere Gesellschaft ist durchaus bereit, schutzsuchende Menschen aufzunehmen. Konkrete Angebote dafür gibt es, und die sollten wir nutzen.
                  

Dragoș Tudorache (Renew). – Madam President, dear colleagues, I will not dwell on how big of a disaster we left behind, but it will be even bigger if we learned nothing from it. We said it will be geopolitical, so let's be geopolitical on the short, medium and long-term.
First, we must aim to secure some form of presence and leverage on the ground, and we have little choice but to work within the UN Security Council for that. Just as we need the UNHCR and the WFP to bring help to refugees in the impoverished Afghan communities.
We need to reinvest politically in the UN system and the upcoming UNGA is a good place to start. Secondly, we need to be ready for the migration situation that will reach Europe soon. We cannot afford the spectacle of 2015. We need to act united and coherent, and we must start preparing now.
And then we need to get serious about our defence policy and to reform our foreign policy decision-making and the strategic foresight capabilities underlying it. The world is in turmoil. Every crisis is an opportunity for us to own up to our role in global affairs. But without credible defence capacities and an efficient decision-making process, we can stay here and debate all day about geopolitics or sovereignty or autonomy. So let's walk.

Salima Yenbou (Verts/ALE). – Madame la Présidente, Monsieur le Haut représentant, ‘Retour à la normale en Afghanistan’, peut-on lire dans les journaux. L'ONU serait déçue par le manque de femmes dans le gouvernement des talibans… Je crois rêver.
                  

                     Sommes-nous à ce point naïfs? Pour les étudiantes et étudiants qui n'ont pas le droit d'apprendre ensemble, est-ce un retour à la normale? Pour les jeunes filles forcées au mariage et violées, est-ce un retour à la normale? Pour les artistes assassinés, est-ce un retour à la normale? Pour toutes ces personnes et bien d'autres, il n'y a pas de retour à la normale à l'horizon. Donc rien ni personne ne les empêchera de fuir pour sauver leur famille d'un non-avenir.
                  

                     Nous devons inciter les États membres à adopter une approche européenne coordonnée. L'Union européenne doit tout mettre en œuvre pour évacuer celles et ceux que nous avons abandonnés et leur délivrer des visas humanitaires. Débloquer aussi des fonds d'aide à leur installation, mettre en œuvre la directive sur la protection temporaire en Europe et garantir le partage équitable des responsabilités entre les États membres. Faisons honneur à nos valeurs européennes.
                  

Traian Băsescu (PPE). – Doamnă președintă, domnule Înalt Reprezentant, mulți caută vinovați pentru eșecul țărilor occidentale în Afganistan. Trebuie să ne asumăm cu toții acest eșec. Un lucru important este să înțelegem să învățăm pentru viitor că democrația și valorile occidentale nu sunt ușor de exportat oriunde în lume. Afganistanul aparține islamului și cultura islamică nu este o cultură a democrației. Primăvara arabă ne-a arătat și ea același lucru. Prioritățile momentului sunt să ne asigurăm că ajutorul umanitar este cât mai bine posibil distribuit către oamenii care au nevoie. Eforturile Uniunii trebuie coordonate cu ONU, cu NATO și SUA și trebuie să se orienteze spre sprijinirea stabilității și a bunei guvernări pentru a putea răspunde provocărilor umanitare și de securitate.
                  

Sven Mikser (S&D). – Madam President, there's no denying that the results of our 20 year engagement in Afghanistan were not what we would have liked to see. There have been missed opportunities. There's been wishful thinking and erroneous assumptions. But in the situation we find ourselves in today, our efforts will have to focus mainly on two things.
First, averting the pending humanitarian catastrophe, which, if we allow it to happen, will have profoundly negative implications for European security, but first of all, for the lives of millions of Afghans.
And second, when it comes to the access of women and girls to healthcare and education, the gains made over the past 20 years have been significant and we have to do what we can so these gains are not completely erased.
We know our means and our access are limited, so we have to use them smartly. And finally, we have to do the lessons learned and bolster European capabilities, including military capabilities, so as to be able to respond more swiftly, more resolutely and more robustly to similar crises in the future.

Samira Rafaela (Renew). – Madam President, with our military withdrawal from Afghanistan, what was built has been broken down in just a matter of days. Female students went home and the first thing they did was hide their IDs, diplomas and certificates. Women are reporting threats of violence from Taliban fighters for simply playing sports, but many more women fear honour killings, child marriages, harassment and psychological abuse.
I am urging the Commission and Member States to create a special fast-track EU asylum procedure for Afghan women and girls specifically, and to broaden the scope of Erasmus to include Afghan women because if education is the key, access to school is the lock. And my Islam has not taught me that women should be submissive; my Muslim father taught his three daughters that we as women can make our own choices. So do not believe the version of the Islam of the Taliban and do not recognise them. Afghan women deserve the right to make their own choices – to work, to love, to study and to be secure.

Damian Boeselager (Verts/ALE). – Madam President, to anyone who feels empathy, these images from Afghanistan are heartbreaking and shocking to witness. For years, European countries tried to work together towards a more resilient Afghanistan and in this endeavour relied heavily on locals to support this.
Amongst these locals are journalists, activists, human rights defenders, women and young people. They knew they took a risk but they still did it, and they were brave enough to support with us and to work with us for a better future for their country. Now they ask for our help, they ask to be saved, but we hear European leaders fostering this narrative of defence and trying to score political gains by playing into nationalistic fears. This is disgraceful.
With our resolution today we ask all European leaders to be courageous and compassionate. We ask them ambitiously to step up resettlement pledges at the September Resettlement Forum. We are talking about tens of thousands of pledges that we would need.
Second, we ask for safe and legal pathways to be established. We heard about humanitarian visas and we ask for deportations to Afghanistan to be halted, and lastly, to cooperate with all involved actors to ensure that no lives are lost.

Paulo Rangel (PPE). – Senhora Presidente, todos os dias nos chegam do Afeganistão notícias, imagens e depoimentos que nos indignam e nos revoltam. Assistimos ao atropelamento dos mais elementares direitos humanos, em particular das mulheres, mas, eu diria, de todos os cidadãos. É o oposto do que gostaríamos de ter visto, e de ver, após 20 anos de luta e de sacrifício no sentido de tentar estabilizar a região e dar aos afegãos o futuro a que têm direito.
                  

                     Mas a responsabilidade não é nossa, é dos talibans e isto não deve ser esquecido. Cabe agora à União Europeia e à comunidade internacional ter um papel decisivo. Lamento que o Conselho Europeu ainda não tenha tido uma reunião para avaliar o impacto geopolítico e para delinear uma estratégia com que possamos ajudar todos os refugiados e todos os cidadãos que, não sendo refugiados, vivem hoje perante o risco de opressão e de ataque aos seus direitos mais elementares dentro do Afeganistão. Temos de ser solidários com as mulheres afegãs ‘…’(A Presidente retira a palavra ao orador)


Juan Fernando López Aguilar (S&D). – Señora presidenta, señor alto representante Borrell, subrayo desde esta tribuna dos aportaciones de la Comisión de Libertades Civiles, Justicia y Asuntos de Interior a esta Resolución, ante el desafío global abruptamente planteado por el regreso de los talibanes a un poder absoluto, despótico y brutalmente discriminatorio contra las mujeres.
                  

                     La primera es la exigencia de la activación de la Directiva sobre protección temporal, desusada durante veinte años, y que esos corredores humanitarios aéreos que se han probado tan eficaces para la evacuación de las personas del país —como las que se han recibido en Torrejón, España, en ese esfuerzo que ha sido saludado y reconocido por la Unión Europea y sus instituciones— se acompañen ahora de visados humanitarios conforme al mandato de este Parlamento Europeo, todavía hoy incumplido.
                  

                     La segunda es el rechazo frontal al tono y a los contenidos de las conclusiones del Consejo de Ministros de Justicia y Asuntos de Interior bajo la Presidencia eslovena, obsesionado con el control de fronteras y con mantener fuera de las fronteras de la Unión un supuesto y alegado flujo masivo de migrantes y demandantes de asilo. No solamente porque no ha tenido lugar y es falso, sino, en segundo lugar, porque es injusto para con las niñas y mujeres afganas, para con los activistas de derechos que se identifican con las libertades… (la presidenta retira la palabra al orador).


Barry Andrews (Renew). – Madam President, the limited objectives achieved in the last 20 years in Afghanistan were all development objectives, normally achieved by development professionals. So when we suspend development aid, we must remember that we are suspending the salaries of the doctors and the nurses and the teachers that have achieved those objectives. But we must not end humanitarian aid. It must continue based on the humanitarian principles of impartiality, independence, neutrality and transparency.
I would call on the Commission to exercise the flexibility that is required so that the thousands of development workers that are able to deliver humanitarian aid are allowed to continue to do that, perhaps under the rapid response pillar of the Global Europe Instrument. I would also call on the Commission to work on the flexibility required to make sure that we don't fall foul unnecessarily of anti-money laundering and counter-terrorist financing objectives, in order to guarantee humanitarian access based on risk analysis and derogations.
Finally, I call on the Commission to acknowledge that it is not an absolute requirement of international humanitarian law that a request for humanitarian assistance be made by the Afghan Government.

Alviina Alametsä (Verts/ALE). – Madam President, what is happening in Afghanistan makes many people fear for their lives. One of them is the wife of my friend, Rahima who is in Kabul struggling right now. We have to make family reunification possible, extend the use of humanitarian visas and legal pathways from Afghanistan, and help those who are in immediate danger, such as journalists, human rights defenders and activists. We need to ensure that the non-governmental organisations, such as Doctors Without Borders, that assist the people with basic needs such as health care at this time, get all the help that they need from the EU.
What we also need is a long-term strategy on Afghanistan, and this can only arise from a shared foreign policy. How can we try to keep the country open and prevent future humanitarian crises without legitimising the Taliban? I call for the EU and experts to find a way to protect the lives of millions of Afghan civilians.

Hildegard Bentele (PPE). – Frau Präsidentin, sehr geehrter Herr Hoher Beauftragter, liebe Frau Kommissarin Urpilainen, die leider nicht mehr da ist. Die westlichen Truppen sind aus Afghanistan abgezogen. Die Taliban sind zurück an der Macht, und das verändert die Zusammenarbeit der Europäischen Union mit Afghanistan fundamental. Afghanistan war bisher das Land, in das die meiste Entwicklungshilfe geflossen ist. Jetzt ist sie zu Recht ausgesetzt, und es wird nur humanitäre Hilfe geleistet. Aber natürlich müssen wir die Frage, ob und wie wir mit der Entwicklungshilfe in Afghanistan weitermachen, bald beantworten.
                  

                     Ich bin dafür, die Entwicklungshilfe an Afghanistan an drei klare Bedingungen zu knüpfen: Erstens: Sicherheitsgarantien für die ausländischen Entwicklungshelfer und ihre afghanischen Mitarbeiter. Zweitens: gleichberechtigte Teilhabe von Frauen und Mädchen. Drittens: effektive Maßnahmen gegen Korruption.
                  

                     Liebe Kolleginnen und Kollegen, wenn wir das in den Gesprächen mit der Taliban-Regierung nicht einfordern und in der Praxis nicht einhalten, dann verraten wir nicht nur unsere Werte, sondern wir tragen dazu bei, dass sich die Taliban festsetzen, dass noch mehr Menschen fliehen werden wollen, dass Afghanistan wieder leichter von islamistischen Terroristen als Rückzugsort genutzt werden oder sogar in ihre Hände fallen kann.
                  

                     Also: Wir brauchen die europäische Entwicklungszusammenarbeit für die afghanische Bevölkerung, aber nicht für die Machthaber. Wir brauchen sie als politischen Hebel in unseren Gesprächen mit den Taliban und als Stachel in ihrem Fleisch, aber nicht als ihr Stabilisator oder sogar Helfer. Die Hoffnung auf ein Afghanistan ohne Unterdrückung und Armut dürfen wir nicht aufgeben, um der Afghaninnen und Afghanen willen, die in ihrem Land in Sicherheit und Würde leben wollen.
                  

Evelyn Regner (S&D). – Madam President, women and girls in Afghanistan need our full attention. They need to be heard and they really need help. The situation is worrying. The little progress made over the past 20 years – especially when it comes to the education of girls – is in danger. But even more worryingly, so many women are in danger. Their lives and future is looking very dark, because ‘Taliban’ means systematic, brutal oppression; it means hating women.
It is against this backdrop that we, the European Union, have to re-evaluate the past in order to avoid mistakes in the future. This means we need strategic autonomy. (Our most important partners are the UN and the NGOs on the ground.) And we need to make all money and help contingent on clear conditions like the respect of human rights, especially the respect for girls' and women's rights.

José Ramón Bauzá Díaz (Renew). – Señora presidenta, señor Borrell, desde febrero de 2020 sabíamos que los Estados Unidos se iban a retirar de Afganistán. Sabíamos también que se podía producir un colapso del Gobierno afgano y también sabíamos que se podía producir la llegada de los talibanes precisamente a ese gobierno que ahora ostentan.
                  

                     Y, precisamente, como eso tenía una gran posibilidad de que se produjera, hemos tenido, desde la Unión Europea, más de un año y medio para hacer una previsión de esas circunstancias y para no improvisar. Y, precisamente, señor Borrell, usted, que ocupa esa responsabilidad de ser el alto representante, es a quien le correspondía también hacer una previsión de una estrategia, precisamente para anticiparnos a esos hechos que ya sabíamos, un año antes, que se iban a producir.
                  

                     Y es por eso, señor Borrell, que le quiero preguntar muy rápidamente: ¿por qué no se anticipó la Unión Europea? ¿Por qué no definió una estrategia común precisamente para evitar lo que ya conocemos y sabemos?
                  

                     Si algo nos ha enseñado esta situación de crisis en Afganistán es que la Unión Europea necesita coordinarse mejor, coordinarse con los Estados Unidos, coordinarse con la OTAN y coordinarse —lo más importante— entre los propios Estados miembros que la componen.
                  

                     Precisamente, señor Borrell, esa es una de sus responsabilidades. Y aquí estamos para jugar en ese sentido.
                  

Grace O'Sullivan (Verts/ALE). – Madam President, Afghanistan. The pictures have all but disappeared from our TV screens but in Afghanistan the horror continues for vulnerable women, children, minority populations, human rights defenders and those falling through the cracks. To ensure safety I can't disclose the painful, direct stories Afghan families have shared with me, their stories of people hiding in fear, driven to despair with grief and terror.
I need to be able to tell these people the EU is doing something. We need more comprehensive action around providing visas and safe passage to Europe for those fleeing for their lives; more work with bordering countries to negotiate a deal for Afghans to enter the EU safely; a broadening of the scope of family reunification to include vulnerable family members under threat; and we must, we must uphold our 2030 UN Agenda commitment to leave no one behind.

Peter van Dalen (PPE). – Voorzitter, nu de Taliban terug zijn, heerst er grote angst onder alle Afghanen die de afgelopen jaren met en voor de westerse troepen hebben gewerkt. Denk daarbij bijvoorbeeld aan tolken, chauffeurs en koks. Wij mogen deze mensen niet in de steek laten. De Europese lidstaten moeten de mensen die nog niet hier zijn, evacueren en fatsoenlijk opvangen.
                  

                     De Europese Unie moet zich bovendien niet door buurland Pakistan laten inpakken omdat het land momenteel Afghaanse vluchtelingen opvangt. De eisen van het SAP+-stelsel blijven voor Pakistan gelden. De resolutie die het Parlement op 21 april heeft aangenomen, blijft overeind staan, mijnheer Borrell.
                  

                     Daarnaast vrees ik voor de godsdienstvrijheid in Afghanistan. Voor christenen en andere gelovigen breekt in Afghanistan namelijk een diepzwarte tijd aan. Wij mogen hen vanuit de Europese Unie niet uit het oog verliezen. Reden te meer om met spoed een speciale gezant voor de godsdienstvrijheid te benoemen.
                  

Udo Bullmann (S&D). – Frau Präsidentin, werte Kolleginnen und Kollegen! Die Lehre aus dem Desaster in Afghanistan kann nur eines sein: Wir brauchen eine selbstbewusste, eine eigenständige Außen-, Sicherheits- und Entwicklungspolitik in der Europäischen Union. Eine globale Politik, die sich nicht am Säbelrasseln orientiert und an einseitigen nationalen Interessen, sondern die danach schaut, wie Menschen frei in ihrer eigenen Selbstbestimmung leben können, wie wir die Nachhaltigkeitsziele der Vereinten Nationen stärken und auf welche Weise wir die wirklichen Krisenursachen bekämpfen können.
                  

                     Das, Herr Borrell, muss die Debatte in diesem Haus in den nächsten Wochen und Monaten sein. Jetzt natürlich gibt es nichts anderes, als kurzfristig die Menschen nicht in ihrem Elend verkommen zu lassen, Soforthilfe zu leisten, dafür zu sorgen, dass die Menschenrechtsorganisationen und Hilfsorganisationen frei arbeiten können und dass wir die Korridore der Menschenwürde aufrechterhalten mit vereinter Kraft, so gut wir können.
                  

Bart Groothuis (Renew). – Madam President, some 20 years ago the great Ahmed Shah Masood visited this House, the European Parliament, and he was warmly welcomed. Now Commander Massoud led the heroic fight against both the Communist occupation and later against the Taliban in search of a better future, and he would have fought the Taliban regime today if it wasn't for Osama bin Laden's henchmen who killed Masood just two days before 9/11.
But, dear colleagues, fortunately today, 20 years later, his son, Ahmed Masood Junior is leading the resistance against the Taliban regime, fighting for a better future. Now let us again invite Ahmed Shah Masood to this House, welcome him like we welcomed him 20 years ago, and work together with him on that better future in Afghanistan.

Tom Vandenkendelaere (PPE). – Voorzitter, enkele dagen geleden hebben we 11 september herdacht. De herinnering aan deze gebeurtenis geeft mij nog altijd een immens gevoel van solidariteit met de slachtoffers. Deze solidariteit heeft ons als bondgenoten van de Verenigde Staten naar Afghanistan gebracht, hetgeen eindigde in een debacle. We moeten er echter lessen uit trekken.
                  

                     Sinds 11 september zijn de dreigingen in de wereld opvallend sterk toegenomen. Dit heeft echter nog niet tot de nodige vooruitgang geleid op het vlak van de militaire zelfredzaamheid van de Europese Unie. Onze solidariteit met de VS is en blijft cruciaal voor ons veiligheidsbeleid en is een onmisbare hefboom voor onze gemeenschappelijke waarden en het multiculturalisme.
                  

                     Solidariteit staat echter niet gelijk aan blinde volgzaamheid. We moeten daarom dringend werk maken van een volwaardige eigen defensie. Tegelijkertijd moeten we blijven inzetten op onze NAVO-samenwerking en daar, als het tijd is voor nieuwe afspraken, als bondgenoten prioriteit aan geven.
                  

Abir Al-Sahlani (Renew). – Fru talman! Att terroristerna talibanerna har tagit över Afghanistan är ett misslyckande för den fria och demokratiska världen. Att kalla det internationella tillbakadragandet med USA i spetsen för ett misslyckande vore århundradets underdrift. Terroristorganisationen talibanerna har redan på ett systematiskt och beräknande sätt börjat montera ner de mänskliga rättigheterna, sudda bort kvinnorna från det offentliga rummet, ge sig på journalister och tortera dem. På tur står minoritetsgrupperna, som utgör Afghanistans historiska och sociala väv.
                  

                     Många år av engagemang och arbete av det internationella samfundet, afghanska organisationer och medborgare har totalt demolerats. Vi måste ta tid för eftertanke och ställa oss frågorna: Var svek vid det afghanska folket? Vad gjorde vi för fel? Vi har möjligheten att som union kämpa för de mest utsatta i Afghanistan, men vi måste säkra att inga pengar går till talibanernas blodiga händer. Vi måste ha en tydlig strategi och en plan som håller långsiktigt för det humanitära biståndet. Det går inte att lagstifta bort talibanerna eller ta bort dem med ett pressmeddelande från kommissionen … (Talmannen avbröt talaren.)


Στέλιος Κυμπουρόπουλος (PPE). – Κυρία Πρόεδρε, αναρωτιέμαι αν η κατάσταση στο Αφγανιστάν θα καταγραφεί από την Ιστορία ως ο διωγμός του γυναικείου φύλου. Γιατί πράγματι αυτό ακριβώς είναι και ως διωγμός θα πρέπει να αντιμετωπιστεί από τον υπόλοιπο κόσμο. Δεν επιτρέπεται πλέον στις Αφγανές να ζήσουν σαν άνθρωποι, δεν τους επιτρέπεται ούτε καν να ονειρεύονται. Για όλες αυτές τις γυναίκες και τα παιδιά τους, θα πρέπει να επιμείνουμε ώστε ο σεβασμός των δικαιωμάτων τους να αποτελέσει βασική προϋπόθεση των επαφών με τους Ταλιμπάν. Θα πρέπει όμως να την αντιμετωπίζουμε ως μια πολυεπίπεδη κρίση και να εξετάσουμε όλες τις διαθέσιμες επιλογές παροχής ανθρωπιστικής βοήθειας καθώς και να συμβάλλουμε προς την κατεύθυνση σταθεροποίησης της περιοχής. Αγαπητέ Ύπατε Εκπρόσωπε, τελειώνοντας, θέλω να κάνω μια ευχή μόνο: σε αυτή την κρίση η Ευρωπαϊκή Ένωση να δράσει με συνοχή, έχοντας ενιαία εξωτερική πολιτική και να μην αφεθεί η κατάσταση να γίνει αντικείμενο διαχείρισης κάθε κράτους μέλους ξεχωριστά.
                  

Chrysoula Zacharopoulou (Renew). – Madame la Présidente, Monsieur le Haut représentant, chers collègues, l'aide humanitaire n'est ni un outil de gestion migratoire ni un levier politique vis-à-vis des talibans. Il faut alors faire attention à ne pas se tromper de débat dans cet hémicycle. Avant de parler des possibles afflux de réfugiés afghans vers l'Europe, parlons de ceux qui sont bloqués là-bas, en Afghanistan, dans des conditions catastrophiques et inhumaines. Parlons de ces femmes afghanes, qui ont le courage de se confronter aux talibans pour sauvegarder leurs droits et leur accès à la santé, à l'éducation et au travail.
                  

                     Je voudrais aujourd'hui attirer votre attention sur les femmes travailleurs humanitaires, qui jouent un rôle essentiel pour acheminer l'aide vers les femmes et les filles afghanes. L'urgence et notre devoir sont de les protéger pour qu'elles puissent continuer leur travail librement et sans peur des représailles.
                  

                     Monsieur le Haut représentant, notre aide humanitaire doit être continue et, surtout, rester inconditionnelle.
                  

Othmar Karas (PPE). – Frau Präsidentin, meine Damen und Herren! Wie viele Weckrufe brauchen wir denn noch, um zu begreifen: Nur, wenn wir mit einer Stimme sprechen und gemeinsam handeln, kann Europa auf der Weltbühne eine Rolle spielen. Dafür braucht es aber politischen Willen und qualifizierte demokratische Mehrheitsentscheidungen anstelle des lähmenden Dogmas der Einstimmigkeit. Und es braucht eine entschlossene gemeinsame Außen-, Sicherheits-, Verteidigungs- und Entwicklungspolitik.
                  

                     Der Fall Afghanistan zeigt uns aber auch wieder einmal deutlich: Es kann und darf in der europäischen Flüchtlingsdebatte kein Entweder-oder geben. Wir brauchen selbstredend die Hilfe vor Ort und einen sicheren Außengrenzschutz. Wir müssen aber auch das Recht auf Asyl für jene Menschen gewährleisten, die vor Verfolgung und Terror flüchten.
                  

                     Ja, es ist richtig und wichtig, dass wir die Nachbarländer bei der Aufnahme und Betreuung von Afghanistan-Flüchtlingen unterstützen. Ja, es ist aber genauso richtig und wichtig, dass wir legale Fluchtwege schaffen und für einen Korridor der Humanität nach Europa sorgen.
                  

Jan-Christoph Oetjen (Renew). – Frau Präsidentin, sehr geehrter Hoher Vertreter, verehrte Kolleginnen und Kollegen! Ich höre Staats- und Regierungschefs und auch Kollegen, hier im Saal übrigens, sagen, dass man Europa vor Flüchtlingen schützen müsse. Verehrte Kolleginnen und Kollegen, was wir schützen müssen, sind europäische Werte. Und europäische Werte schützen wir, indem wir Menschen, die an unserer Seite für Demokratie und Menschenrechte in Afghanistan gekämpft haben, humanitäre Korridore zur Verfügung stellen, sie da rausholen aus diesem Land und zu uns nach Europa holen. Das ist unsere europäische Verantwortung, verehrte Kolleginnen und Kollegen.
                  

                     Und wir brauchen Resettlement für Flüchtlinge, die jetzt in anderen Ländern gestrandet sind – ich bin dankbar für das, was der Kollege Karas gerade gesagt hat. Die Staats- und Regierungschefs der europäischen Länder müssen deutlich machen, dass sie bereit sind, Flüchtlinge aufzunehmen. Und wir müssen die Temporary-Protection-Directive endlich aktivieren.
                  

                     Afghanistan hat aber auch gezeigt, dass wir als Europäer in der Verteidigungspolitik nicht handlungsfähig sind. Und ich glaube deswegen, dass wir uns darüber Gedanken machen müssen, wie wir die Europäische Verteidigungsunion schneller auf den Weg bringen und wie wir sie vertiefen können. Und, Herr Kollege Bullmann, das hat erst mal nichts mit Säbelrasseln zu tun, sondern es hat damit zu tun, dass wir als Europäer Einsatzfähigkeit zeigen und dass wir in militärischen Fragen von den USA unabhängig sind.
                  

Rasa Juknevičienė (PPE). – Madam President, I was among those who believed that the brutal fanaticism in Afghanistan would recede. But it came back. Perhaps, this is the specific path of this country – long and turbulent. I am also mostly concerned about the Afghan women, many of whom I had a chance to meet.
But my message today is about us. We have to learn lessons, but I reject angry forecasts about the ultimate defeat of the West and of the role of the US. I do not believe that the EU should part with the US and start building full autonomy in EU defence. We need a smart EU strategy to be able to act as the EU where we are able to act – on hybrid attacks against us and on helping our neighbourhood countries ensure their security. But, today, preserving a strong Euro-Atlantic bond is more important than ever. It is crucial. Democracy versus dictatorship. This is the big battle that we have to fight together with our partners in the US.

Massimiliano Salini (PPE). – Signora Presidente, signor Alto rappresentante, onorevoli colleghi, noi vent'anni fa decidemmo giustamente di intervenire sulla base dell'articolo 5 del trattato NATO a sostegno degli Stati Uniti attaccati in patria.
                  

                     Dopo vent'anni questa decisione collegiale avvenuta per iniziare si interrompe sulla base di una valutazione di fatto poco più che unilaterale degli Stati Uniti.
                  

                     In questi vent'anni cosa è accaduto? È accaduto qualcosa di preciso in quel paese: è nata una speranza, ed è oggettivo: non solo il dato del raddoppio del numero dei cittadini afghani deve colpire, il dato che impressiona di più è che quando arrivammo vent'anni fa c'erano 800 000 studenti solo maschi in Afghanistan, oggi ci sono 12 milioni di studenti, di cui la metà donne.
                  

                     Quando nasce una speranza il compito della politica è tenerne conto, ed è un punto non solo politico e umanitario, non è un affare da organizzazioni non governative, questo è il pilastro della strategia geopolitica.
                  

                     Gli Stati Uniti hanno deciso di non guardarlo. L'Europa dimostri di voler guardare questo pilastro per tornare a essere grande potenza protagonista.
                  

Λουκάς Φουρλάς (PPE). – Κυρία Πρόεδρε, κύριε Borrell, ξέρω ότι είστε κουρασμένος, είμαι ο τελευταίος ομιλητής, μας είπατε ότι θα κάνουμε αυτοκριτική και αυτό θα κάνω. Ως Ευρώπη, δεν γίνεται να μην προβλέπουμε και πάντα να τρέχουμε, ουραγοί, πίσω από τις εξελίξεις. Δεν γίνεται να μην έχουμε μια συντονισμένη κοινή πολιτική αντιμετώπισης σοβαρών καταστάσεων. Είναι σήμερα περισσότερο εμφανής παρά ποτέ η ανάγκη για κοινή εξωτερική πολιτική και κοινό στρατό. Αφήσαμε και πάλι πεδίο δόξης λαμπρό στην Τουρκία, να αναλάβει δράση και να βγει μπροστά, ρυθμιστής της κατάστασης. Σας υπενθυμίζω ότι η Τουρκία χρησιμοποίησε το προσφυγικό για να ζητήσει δισεκατομμύρια, απειλώντας μας όλους. Σήμερα ζητά να αναλάβει την ασφάλεια του αεροδρομίου της Καμπούλ. Ω, τι κατάντια! Ας αποφασίσουμε τουλάχιστον, έστω και την υστάτη, ότι αυτή τη φορά θα αντιμετωπίσουμε από κοινού το νέο προσφυγικό κύμα, ότι αυτή τη φορά δεν θα επιλέξουμε την εύκολη λύση, δεν θα το φορτώσουμε στις ευρωπαϊκές χώρες της πρώτης γραμμής.
                  

Josep Borrell Fontelles,
vicepresidente de la Comisión / alto representante de la Unión para Asuntos Exteriores y Política de Seguridad. – Señora presidenta, yo he sido presidente de este Parlamento y, por lo tanto, estoy plenamente convencido de su autonomía y su capacidad de autoorganizarse, pero me pregunto seriamente si setenta y siete intervenciones de un minuto cada una son la mejor forma de llevar a cabo este debate.
                  

                     Ahora me dan ustedes cinco minutos para que intente contestar a las setenta y siete intervenciones, lo cual es materialmente imposible. Y bien que lo lamento, porque muchas de ellas —casi todas— han sido muy interesantes y controvertidas, porque hemos escuchado desde un extremo al otro posiciones muy diferentes, a veces inevitablemente repetitivas. Créanme, me siento un poco frustrado, señora presidenta, porque ahora no puedo continuar el debate que ustedes han empezado.
                  

                     Pero creo que hay cosas interesantes que señalar sobre la acción que tenemos que seguir y las lecciones que hemos aprendido o debemos aprender. Cuando usted lo considere oportuno, me interrumpe, porque creo que voy a rebasar los cinco minutos, o al menos me gustaría poder hacerlo.
                  

                     Los talibanes no han puesto un gobierno que cumpla ninguno de nuestros wishful thinking —porque expectativas no se puede decir—. Es un Gobierno del ala dura de los talibanes; es un Gobierno algunos de cuyos hombres fuertes simplemente están en la lista negra de las Naciones Unidas, y con un ministro de Educación que se ha estrenado diciendo ‘lo que cuenta no es estar educado, lo que cuenta es ser piadoso’. Pues, con estos planteamientos, vamos bien.
                  

                     Eso es lo que tenemos por delante. Además, tenemos que saber también que lo primero que tenemos que hacer es ayudar al pueblo de Afganistán, porque hay cinco millones de afganos en el norte —cinco millones— que están amenazados por una hambruna excepcional. Hay que salvarles, o intentarlo, pero por razones humanitarias, no porque tengamos miedo de que, si no lo hacemos, van a emigrar y van a provocarnos un problema en casa. Por razones humanitarias. Cinco millones de personas en riesgo de morir de hambre.
                  

                     Además, ellos no son los que van a emigrar. Están muy lejos, viven en las montañas, no tienen fuerzas para emigrar. Hay que ayudarles antes del invierno porque, si no, la ayuda será bloqueada por la nieve y no podremos hacérsela llegar.
                  

                     Sí, hay que ayudar a las poblaciones desplazadas y no creo, frente al temor expresado por muchos, que haya que esperar un gran movimiento migratorio hacia Europa, salvo que se produzca una guerra civil, lo cual tampoco parece probable en lo inmediato. Los emigrantes que querrían emigrar son las clases medias de las ciudades que se han desarrollado durante los últimos veinte años y que, probablemente, querrán ir antes a los Estados Unidos, a Canadá o a Australia que a Europa.
                  

                     ¿Tenemos que hacer un diálogo político con los talibanes? Depende de lo que entiendan ustedes por diálogo político. Pero dialogar, sí, tenemos que dialogar. Quiero insistir en ello, porque el poder que está en Afganistán no es un poder estable. Los talibanes no son una única realidad política. También hay fricciones y conflictos entre ellos, pero hemos de abrir rápidamente un canal de discusión para poder distribuir la ayuda y para intentar evacuar a las personas vulnerables a las que debemos protección.
                  

                     Hay que intensificar también los contactos con Pakistán, con Qatar, con Rusia, con China, con Tayikistán, con Turquía y con Uzbekistán. Son actores clave en esta región. Por eso, nuestra Delegación en Arabia Saudí va a enviar a Qatar a dos personas y, desde Qatar, intentaremos poner pie en Kabul.
                  

                     La prioridad, insisto, debe ser evitar quedar excluidos. La retirada de los Estados Unidos no debería significar ipso facto nuestra exclusión geoestratégica. Primero, la ayuda humanitaria, pero a continuación una presencia que nos permita seguir de cerca lo que ocurre en el país.
                  

                     Afganistán se va a hundir financieramente si no hacemos algo para evitarlo, y su hundimiento financiero tendrá consecuencias políticas. Es absolutamente necesario que lo que llaman el ‘bazar’, el dinero exiliado, pueda, como ha ocurrido en otras ocasiones, desempeñar un papel en la estabilización del país.
                  

                     Debo reconocer que los Estados Unidos han tomado buenas iniciativas desde el punto de vista humanitario. Han acordado que las ONG estén exentas de las autorizaciones para poder transferir dinero sin caer bajo las sanciones estadounidenses. Eso es una muy buena noticia. Han autorizado los pagos swift, lo que puede permitir transferir fondos a Afganistán, pero, mientras los bancos no estén autorizados a efectuar retiradas importantes de recursos, las ONG van a ser reticentes a comprometerse en una acción decidida en la región.
                  

                     La primera prueba que tendremos de cómo actúa el Gobierno de Afganistán es su capacidad para dar una respuesta a la ayuda que les tenemos que prestar desde el punto de vista humanitario.
                  

                     Señorías, voy a acabar ahora porque no quiero abusar de la presidencia y de su paciencia, pero estoy de acuerdo y, a la vez, en desacuerdo con muchas de las cosas que se han dicho.
                  

                     Estoy completamente de acuerdo en que lo que ha pasado en Afganistán nos demuestra que la solución a muchos problemas no es militar. No es militar. La mayor potencia militar del mundo, después de veinte años gastando 300 millones de dólares al día, no ha conseguido ganar una guerra frente al país más pobre de la tierra.
                  

                     La solución no es militar, es básicamente de acción civil, pero no llevemos demasiado lejos el argumento y no creamos que detrás de cualquier acción diplomática no tiene que haber también una capacidad militar de intervención, porque a veces las cosas se ponen feas y la palabra no basta. Aunque solo sea por el carácter disuasivo, una capacidad militar la tiene que tener cualquier actor que se quiera llamar a sí mismo geopolítico.
                  

                     Por lo tanto, sí, la solución a los grandes problemas del mundo no es la guerra, pero eso no nos exime a los europeos de tener una capacidad de acción propia —propia—. Quiero reivindicar aquí la necesidad de una autonomía estratégica para Europa, para poderla utilizar cuando sea necesario.
                  

                     Este debate debe continuar, señorías. Debe continuar. No podemos quedarnos simplemente en setenta y siete intervenciones de un minuto de duración. Hay que extraer consecuencias operativas y prácticas para evitar que lo que ha ocurrido en Afganistán se reproduzca en otros puntos del planeta donde estamos muy presentes y donde nuestra retirada significaría, como ha significado la retirada de Afganistán, un retroceso en la historia para millones de seres humanos que aspiran a vivir como vivimos nosotros: en libertad.
                  

Przewodnicząca. – Zamykam debatę.
                  

                     Głosowanie odbędzie się w czwartek 16 września 2021 r.
                  


Oświadczenia pisemne (art. 171)



Dominique Bilde (ID),
par écrit. – Le retour des talibans aux affaires était largement prévisible. Ces derniers étaient engagés dans les négociations de Doha et le retrait des troupes américaines avait été annoncé de longue date. C'est pour cette raison que j'ai, à de nombreuses reprises, interrogé la Commission sur le devenir de l'aide européenne à ce pays.
                  

                     L'Afghanistan aurait en effet reçu ‘plus de quatre milliards d'euros’ d'aide au développement depuis 2002, dont il serait ainsi le premier bénéficiaire. L'aide humanitaire s'élèverait à un milliard d'euros depuis 1994. L'annonce de la Commission concernant un quadruplement de l'aide humanitaire est irresponsable, au regard des risques de détournements et des questions éthiques, tenant notamment à l'accès effectif des femmes aux programmes dont elles sont censées bénéficier.
                  

                     Reste l'immigration, question qui n'a pas été résolue malgré un accord conclu avec l'Afghanistan en 2016 et renouvelé en avril. Il est évident que les renvois de migrants seront encore plus difficiles lorsque ce pays se trouvera sous gouvernement taliban. Au regard des tendances actuelles – les Afghans constitueraient le deuxième contingent de demandeurs de protection internationale et la moitié des ‘mineurs isolés’ –, des mesures décisives s'imposent.
                  

Eva Maydell (PPE),
in writing. – Europe is in need of a vision, but also of security and stability, until it is able to come out of the various crises in which we find ourselves. Crises have always been our biggest allies because they force us to develop – they give us a signal where we can improve and do better. This is how we have created many of our institutions, which today make our Union even stronger.
Today, looking at the ambitious green transition we are about to undertake and the situation we are witnessing in Afghanistan, we need to make sure we have learned our lessons from previous crises. Europe must avoid the creation of a Green Iron Curtain and we must find a more unified harmonised approach to migration. We need to be careful not to fuel the far-right or far-left populists. We cannot allow ourselves to be divided.

Janina Ochojska (PPE),
na piśmie. – Wielu moich przedmówców wypowiadało się o sytuacji w Afganistanie w kontekście porażki polityki Stanów Zjednoczonych. Nie ulega jednak wątpliwości, że jest to przede wszystkim kryzys humanitarny i kryzys praw człowieka, w związku z czym bezpieczeństwo, ochrona i prawa Afgańczyków muszą być traktowane priorytetowo.
                  

                     Docierają do nas informacje o egzekucjach cywilów, tłumieniu pokojowych protestów oraz ograniczaniu praw człowieka, zwłaszcza kobiet i dziewcząt, obrońców praw człowieka, osób LGBTI+, mniejszości religijnych i etnicznych, dziennikarzy, pracowników akademickich i artystów.
                  

                     Zgadzam się, że powinniśmy szukać sposobów nawiązania współpracy z talibami ograniczającej się tylko do zapewnienia ochrony i pomocy humanitarnej dla ludności cywilnej, gdyż nie możemy ufać reżimowi. W obawie o swoje życie, wielu Afgańczyków nadal czeka na możliwość opuszczenia kraju. Na miejscu zaczyna brakować pożywienia i podstawowych produktów. Naszym obowiązkiem jest stworzenie bezpiecznych korytarzy humanitarnych i objęcie Afgańczyków ochroną międzynarodową. Jest to dla UE kolejna próba solidarności w zakresie polityki migracyjnej.
                  

                     Od miesięcy pracujemy nad legislacją w kwestii zapewnienia skoordynowanych działań europejskich na rzecz prowadzenia humanitarnej polityki azylowej, pozwalającej UE wziąć moralną odpowiedzialność za przyjmowanie i integrację uchodźców! Dlatego wstyd mi za podejście rządu mojego kraju, który odmawia Afgańczykom możliwości złożenia wniosków o wizę humanitarną. Apeluję o jedność w działaniach humanitarnych UE.
                  

Urmas Paet (Renew),
kirjalikult. – NATO ja liitlasvägede viibimine Afganistanis lõppes pärast 20 aastat ning on äärmiselt häiriv ja kurb, et Taliban hõivas niivõrd kiiresti seni valitsuse kontrolli all olnud territooriumi. Koheselt alustas Taliban inimeste tagakiusamisega, kasutades vägivalda ja kättemaksumõrvu. Inimõiguste olukord halveneb kiiresti. Vaba meedia on maha surutud, naiste õigused on kaotatud. Laieneb humanitaarkatastroof, kus alalist abi vajab pool elanikkonnast ja toiduga kindlustamata on kolmandik.
                  

                     Kuigi Afganistani kriis on tragöödia Afganistani rahva jaoks, seab see muu hulgas ohtu ka ELi julgeoleku, näiteks terrorismiohu, aga ka rände suurenemise tõttu. EL peab leidma viisid, kuidas mõjutada Talibani nii, et riigis oleks ikkagi tagatud inimõiguste kaitse. Tuleb tagada edasine turvaline evakueerimine, humanitaarabi jõudmine abivajajateni. EL peab tihendama koostööd naaberriikidega ning kavandama ka lisatoetuse andmist Afganistani naabruses asuvatele pagulasi vastu võtvatele riikidele.
                  

Емил Радев (PPE),
в писмена форма. – Ситуацията в Афганистан непрекъснато се изостря и има потенциал да създаде много сериозна криза, подобна на тази от 2015 г. Много е важно Европа да обърне поглед на изток, по протежение на външните европейски граници, които трябва да укрепим и подсилим. Наша пряка отговорност са сигурността и безопасността на милиони европейски граждани и трябва да направим всичко необходимо, така че на наша територия да не преминат джихадисти, които да бъдат пряка заплаха за сигурността на европейците.
                  

                     Призовавам Frontex да окаже пълно съдействие чрез хора, техника и финансиране по външните граници на ЕС, каквато се явява и България. Към момента се наблюдава засилен мигрантски натиск именно там и ако той продължи със сегашните си темпове, има опасност позабравеният вече ‘Балкански миграционен път’, неизползван от години, да се съживи отново. Много е важно да засилим дипломацията и външната политика на ЕС. Особено внимание трябва да се обърне на отношенията с Турция и спазване на споразумението за обратно приемане на незаконно пребиваващи лица от 2016 г. Важно е да работим със съседните на Афганистан държави, като хората, вместо да предприемат дълги, опасни и незаконни пътувания, остават по-близо до своята държава, така че да могат бързо и лесно да се завърнат по домовете си.
                  

Rob Rooken (ECR),
schriftelijk. – De Europese Commissie kijkt met een roze bril naar de wereld. Timmermans' groene aardverschuiving leidt tot onbetaalbare energieprijzen, het ultralage rentebeleid van de ECB zorgt voor onbetaalbare woningen en de buitensporige coronamaatregelen veroorzaken verdere polarisatie van de samenleving. Mijn grootste zorg is echter de aankomende migrantenstroom vanuit Afghanistan. We moeten pertinent voorkomen dat dit een herhaling wordt van 2015. In plaats van geld te geven aan een vijandelijk regime, dat illegale migratie zal gebruiken als chantagemiddel, zou de EU een voorbeeld moeten nemen aan Denemarken, het land dat over een opt-out beschikt voor het Europese beleid op het vlak van asiel en migratie. Ook wij moeten aansturen op tijdelijke noodopvang van asielzoekers in de regio van herkomst. Asielaanvragen dienen buiten Europa te worden ingediend, zodat niemand meer de gevaarlijke reis onderneemt. Bovendien dient de EU een effectief terugkeerbeleid te hanteren om de reeds aanwezige illegale migranten terug te brengen naar het land van herkomst. Denemarken toont aan dat dit wel succesvol kan zijn, in tegenstelling tot de pogingen van de EU. Een rechtvaardig en kordaat migratiebeleid. Alleen met zo een aanpak kunnen we migratie naar de EU afremmen.
                  

Ελισσάβετ Βόζεμπεργκ-Βρυωνίδη (PPE),
γραπτώς. – Μετά τη βίαιη κατάληψη της εξουσίας τον περασμένο μήνα από τους Ταλιμπάν, έχουμε γίνει όλοι μάρτυρες μιας τεράστιας ανθρωπιστικής κρίσης στο Αφγανιστάν. Εκατοντάδες χιλιάδες Αφγανοί πολίτες εγκαταλείπουν τη χώρα φοβούμενοι για την ασφάλειά τους, καταφεύγοντας ως πρόσφυγες σε γειτονικές χώρες. Η Ευρώπη δεν μπορεί να σταθεί με σταυρωμένα τα χέρια μπροστά στις σοκαριστικές εικόνες από το αεροδρόμιο της Καμπούλ, όπου μητέρες προσπαθούσαν να περάσουν τα παιδιά τους μέσα από τα συρματοπλέγματα, εκλιπαρώντας τους στρατιώτες να τα πάρουν μακριά από τη χώρα. Η ανάγκη για παροχή ανθρωπιστικής βοήθειας είναι άμεση αλλά οι ραγδαίες εξελίξεις στο Αφγανιστάν καταμαρτυρούν επίσης ότι βρισκόμαστε στη σκιά ενός νέου μαζικού μεταναστευτικού κύματος, με απρόβλεπτες κοινωνικές και ανθρωπιστικές συνέπειες. Η Ευρωπαϊκή Ένωση πρέπει να διδαχθεί από τα λάθη του παρελθόντος και να εκμεταλλευτεί την ευκαιρία απέναντι στις νέες αυτές προκλήσεις, ώστε να συμφωνήσει το συντομότερο δυνατό σε ένα νέο, δικαιότερο, κοινό σύστημα ασύλου, βασισμένο στην υποχρεωτική αλληλεγγύη μεταξύ όλων των κρατών μελών. Η χώρα μου, η Ελλάδα, δεν μπορεί να αντέξει ξανά το βάρος μιας ανεξέλεγκτης προσφυγικής κρίσης, όπως το 2015. Παράλληλα, πρέπει να είμαστε σαφείς προς τον Πρόεδρο Erdoğan ότι δεν θα του επιτρέψουμε, για κανένα λόγο, την εργαλειοποίηση απελπισμένων ανθρώπων ως μοχλό πίεσης προς την Ευρώπη.
                  

Stefania Zambelli (ID),
per iscritto. – Le immagini provenienti dall'Afghanistan in queste ultime settimane ci hanno lasciato tutti sgomenti. In pochi giorni, l'avvento al potere dei Talebani ha cancellato vent'anni di progressi economici e sociali e ha spazzato via ogni speranza di un paese in cui ogni donna e ogni bambina potesse ricevere un'educazione adeguata e potesse realizzarsi dal punto di vista professionale.
                  

                     Giorno dopo giorno la situazione umanitaria si sta facendo sempre più grave, e, al contrario degli annunci del governo talebano, i diritti delle donne cominciano a venire meno. Una cosa deve essere chiara: non ci sarà mai collaborazione o riconoscimento di un governo che sistematicamente calpesta ogni tipologia di diritto umano.
                  

                     Ora serve un'azione congiunta a livello europeo ed internazionale, per dare sollievo ad una popolazione allo stremo, per creare specifici corridoi umanitari dedicati a donne e bambini e per prevenire un'ondata migratoria incontrollata, dal momento che potrebbero annidarsi tra i profughi cellule fondamentaliste e terroristiche. A tal fine, sarà indispensabile impegnarsi per prevenire che l'Afghanistan si trasformi, ancora una volta, in un nuovo baluardo di organizzazioni terroristiche islamiche.
                  
9.   Situation in Lebanon (debate)

Przewodnicząca. – Kolejnym punktem porządku dziennego jest oświadczenie wiceprzewodniczącego Komisji / wysokiego przedstawiciela Unii do spraw zagranicznych i bezpieczeństwa w sprawie sytuacji w Libanie (2021/2878(RSP)).
               

Josep Borrell Fontelles,
Vice-Président de la Commission / Haut représentant de l'Union pour les affaires étrangères et la politique de sécurité. – Madame la Présidente, Mesdames et Messieurs les députés, pour parler du Liban, je voudrais bien parler français, parce que le Liban est un pays avec une forte tradition française, mais je vais revenir à l'anglais.
               

                  Thank you for including Lebanon on this agenda. It is particularly important at this moment. One year ago, the devastating explosion in Beirut highlighted the acute economic, financial, social and political crisis that was engulfing Lebanon, and still is engulfing Lebanon.
               

                  We provided substantial assistance to address immediate needs and support the recovery, but at the same time, we have been calling on the Lebanese authorities – I myself travelled to Lebanon in order to call on them face to face – for the results of the investigation into the causes of this explosion and most importantly, to encourage the Lebanese political leaders to set their differences aside and to form a government, urgently, with a strong mandate to attend to the victims and address the country's needs before a financial explosion occurs.
               

                  During my visit to Lebanon last June I was very clear with all my interlocutors that we will keep doing our best to help those in need in Lebanon, but that this was a self-inflicted crisis and they had to take responsibility immediately – even threatening them with the possibility of sanctions if they were unable or unwilling to face the situation in their country.
               

                  I insisted that they agree on a government, that they implement urgent reforms and reach an agreement with the International Monetary Fund; without it, it was not possible to continue providing financial assistance.
               

                  I also insisted on preparations for the 2022 elections – parliamentary, presidential and municipal – and to ensure that they were free, transparent, fair and of course, according to the schedules.
               

                  Lebanon has changed. President Macron has said that, many times. The Lebanese model is broken. Now that more than half of the population lives in poverty it cannot be a surprise that migration is on the rise. Fuel and power shortages are so severe now that in some places in Lebanon, there is no more than one hour of electricity per day. One hour of electricity per day in Lebanon! No bread, no water, no hospitals. Empty shelves in the pharmacies and in the stores.
               

                  We have been discussing Lebanon in every meeting of the Foreign Affairs Council since March, and now I am happy that the announcement last Friday that President Aoun and Prime Minister Mikati have signed a decree to form a new government is good news, an indispensable step in the right direction. We are encouraging Prime Minister Mikati to resume negotiations with the IMF – the only way to avoid a financial collapse, which it is on the edge of. We're standing ready to continue assisting further if the new government gets critical measures and reforms underway.
               

                  So it's good news that we have a government, but we should have had it one year before, six months before. I hope that it's not too late. I hope this government will be able to face the crises in the country. I hope that this new government will confirm this endeavour and certainly I wish every success to Prime Minister Mikati.
               

                  But this is also a good moment for Parliament to express, to address to the new Lebanese authorities, our commitment to support, but also our requirement for them to act. Because Lebanon's problems can only be solved by the Lebanese people and by the Lebanese Government and by the Lebanese political classes, which for a long time, too much time, have not been not fulfilling their commitments to their population.
               

                  Thank you for the debate that's going to come. I'm sure it will help us to address the situation in Lebanon.
               

Tom Vandenkendelaere,
namens de PPE-Fractie. – Voorzitter, de crisis in Libanon is een diepgewortelde, gevaarlijke crisis met nefaste gevolgen voor de samenleving en risico's voor de stabiliteit in de regio. Libanon is een cruciale partner in ons zuidelijk nabuurschap en verdient meer aandacht en concrete inzet van de EU.
               

                  Onze inzet moet voelbaar zijn als humanitaire bijstand voor de noodlijdende bevolking. Onze hulp om de stabiliteit, veiligheid en soevereiniteit van het land te waarborgen moet concreet zijn. Alleen zo kunnen we bijdragen aan het herstel van de democratie, de rechtsstaat en het politieke bestuur en daarmee de bevolking helpen.
               

                  De vorming van een nieuwe regering is een eerste zinvolle stap. We moeten er nu voor zorgen dat de parlementsverkiezingen van mei 2022 daadwerkelijk doorgaan en naar behoren verlopen.
               

                  We hebben veel lessen getrokken uit onze ervaringen in Afghanistan. Eén daarvan is dat een evacuatie van mensen geen evacuatie van verantwoordelijkheden mag zijn. Dit geldt niet alleen voor Afghanistan, maar ook voor andere regio's waar wij veel kunnen betekenen als we echt een mondiale actor willen zijn.
               

                  Ons zuidelijk-nabuurschapsbeleid beoogt hervormingen tot stand te brengen die het land en de regio meer stabiliteit en welvaart moeten geven. Het is daarom cruciaal dat het land zoveel mogelijk wordt bevrijd van buitenlandse invloeden die de fragiele stabiliteit en vrede in de hele regio bedreigen.
               

Evin Incir,
för S&D-gruppen. – Fru talman! Libanon befinner sig just nu i en av världens, en av århundradets, värsta ekonomiska kriser. Avsaknaden av politik för vanligt folk genom socioekonomiska förbättringar var tydlig när jag befann mig i Beirut i förra veckan, tillsammans med mina socialdemokratiska kolleger. Brist på förnödenheter såsom mat, rent vatten och grundläggande läkemedel är det libanesiska folkets vardag. Folket lider av konsekvenserna av ett genomkorrupt politiskt system som måste förändras från topp till tå.
               

                  Den tragiska explosionen förra året förvärrade situationen ytterligare. Systemet i landet visade sig från sin värsta sida, och än i dag har ingen hållits ansvarig. Explosionen förkroppsligar den rådande situationen: en kaosartad situation, där folket faller offer, med hittills brist på politisk vilja att lösa den.
               

                  Det är bra att en ny regering är på plats, men den måste nu också leverera: bekämpa fattigdomen och ojämlikheten, eliminera korruptionen, säkerställa att fria och rättvisa val kan hållas enligt plan och att de ansvariga för explosionen i Beirut hålls ansvariga.
               

                  Ett land som välkomnar flest flyktingar per capita i världen måste få stöd. Därför gör det mig förbannad att höra hur en del i detta parlament vill stoppa stödet till FN-organet UNRWA.
               

                  Samtidigt välkomnar jag arbetet med att sanktionera de aktörer som inte tar sitt ansvar för folkets bästa.
               

                  Vänner, jag menar att det är dags för oss att ansluta oss till det libanesiska folkets krav på stabilitet, rättvisa och en säker framtid.
               

                  And to the people of Lebanon I want to say: (the speaker uses a non-official language).


Christophe Grudler,
au nom du groupe Renew. – Madame la Présidente, ‘Je suis toujours là. Je vais continuer à vous défier. Ma cause, je la défendrai jusqu'au bout. Je n'ai pas peur. Ils n'ont pas gagné’. Ainsi parlait la journaliste libanaise May Chidiac pour la sortie de son livre, Le ciel m'attendra, deux ans après un attentat à la voiture piégée qui a failli lui coûter la vie en 2005, pour avoir critiqué le régime syrien dans ses émissions de télé. Elle y a perdu un bras et une jambe. Et 15 ans après, qu'en est-il? Le Liban est au bord du gouffre, de l'implosion. Son peuple doit faire face à des pénuries en chaîne: électricité, essence, céréales. La corruption de sa classe politique n'est même plus dissimulée. Je n'ai jamais vu un peuple aussi résilient que celui du Liban, mais l'engagement des Libanais s'essouffle face à la souffrance, à la pauvreté et à la faim.
               

                  Je me réjouis de la formation du nouveau gouvernement libanais et, devant mes pairs, j'appelle de mes vœux ses représentants à faire preuve d'écoute et de respect à l'égard de leur peuple. Je me réjouis aussi de la résolution que nous préparons ensemble pour améliorer les conditions de vie des Libanais, pour mettre fin aux actes de corruption, aux ingérences étrangères, pour relancer le pays ou encore l'aider à trouver une solution durable pour le million de réfugiés présents sur son territoire. Je suis certain que l'Europe saura faire passer le bon message aux autorités libanaises avec le soutien indispensable de toutes les instances nationales et européennes.
               

Salima Yenbou,
au nom du groupe Verts/ALE. – Madame la Présidente, le Liban, que l'on nommait hier la Suisse du Moyen-Orient, poursuit sa descente aux enfers. Cet été, un régime de sanctions a été mis en place par le Conseil pour viser de manière ciblée les responsables libanais qui ont pillé le pays. C'est une première étape, mais ce n'est pas encore suffisant. Mettre en place un cadre de sanctions, c'est bien. Le mettre en application, c'est bien mieux.
               

                  Il y a deux semaines, un représentant du SEAE nous avouait en commission parlementaire AFET que la discussion sur les noms des personnes à sanctionner n'avait même pas encore eu lieu. Mais quand est-ce qu'une décision sur cette liste de noms va être prise? Quand va-t-on sanctionner les responsables de l'explosion à Beyrouth en août 2020? Et ces dirigeants qui ont perdu le sens du peuple, ces élites qui se sont enrichies sur le dos du pays et ces détenteurs des biens mal acquis, ces fortunes dues à la corruption, aux magouilles et aux enrichissements personnels? Tout cet argent volé qui dort en grande partie en Europe: quand va-t-il être gelé et rendu au peuple libanais?
               

                  Monsieur Borrell, les Libanaises et les Libanais nous le demandent régulièrement avec insistance: quand est-ce que l'Union européenne va enfin utiliser ce régime de sanctions? J'en ai assez de devoir leur répondre que nous ne savons pas, qu'il faut encore attendre. J'ai honte de notre lenteur à réagir, à nous coordonner. Je pense surtout aux 80 % de Libanaises et Libanais qui n'ont rien à manger, pas d'électricité ni d'eau potable et qui réclament seulement la justice et la reconstruction de leur pays. L'Union européenne doit accélérer le rythme de ses actions.
               

Bernhard Zimniok,
im Namen der ID-Fraktion. – Frau Präsidentin, werte Kollegen! Seit der verheerenden Explosion in Beirut vor einem Jahr und dem folgenden Rücktritt der Regierung befindet sich der Libanon in einer katastrophalen Lage. Das wurde ja bereits mehrfach gesagt. Die Wirtschaft liegt am Boden. Es mangelt an Benzin, Strom, Medikamenten, Nahrungsmitteln, an allem. Der Iran bzw. die Hisbollah nutzen die Lage, um mit Treibstofflieferungen Sympathien im Volk des Libanons zu sammeln. Das hatte die USA auf den Plan gerufen, die sogar eine Ausnahmegenehmigung für Geschäftsbeziehungen mit Assad erteilt haben, um eine Gaslieferung über Syrien in den Libanon zu ermöglichen.
               

                  Auch die EU sollte hier aktiv werden und neue Wege gehen und sich nicht durch eine andauernde Verweigerungshaltung gegenüber Assad selbst im Wege stehen. Deshalb: Rückgabe der Ölfelder in Nordsyrien, die offensichtlich immer noch unter Kontrolle der Amerikaner stehen. Und zum anderen müssen die Sanktionen gegen Syrien endlich aufgehoben werden. Syrien könnte Öl an den Libanon liefern und die dortige Lage massiv entschärfen. Wie schon gesagt, das Gespräch mit Assad ist notwendig und darf nicht verweigert werden. Wir sprechen doch auch mit den Taliban. Warum nicht mit Assad?
               

                  Mit Assad könnte die Rückkehr der syrischen Flüchtlinge aus der EU, der Türkei, Jordanien und auch aus dem Libanon – Gastgeber immerhin von 1,5 Millionen Syrern – gelöst und damit auch das Land und die Region erheblich entlastet werden. Auch den Syrern wäre geholfen, denn sie könnten wieder in ihre angestammte Heimat zurückkehren. Eine Win-win-Situation für alle. Es wird Zeit, die Region zu stabilisieren und zu befrieden, bevor das Problem weiter – wie bereits mit den Palästinensern geschehen – zementiert wird. Die EU ist jetzt gefordert, ihren Teil dazu beizutragen.
               

Beata Kempa,
w imieniu grupy ECR. – Pani Przewodnicząca! W dniu jutrzejszym z Polski wyruszy kolejny konwój – tym razem mostem powietrznym – z pomocą humanitarną dla Libańczyków. To głównie 10 ton mleka w proszku, paczki żywnościowe, mleko dla dzieci i przede wszystkim środki czystości.
               

                  Przede wszystkim, Szanowni Państwo, dostaliśmy informację poprzez Pomoc Kościołowi w Potrzebie, stowarzyszenie, któremu bardzo dziękuję za tą działalność, otrzymaliśmy również informację od ambasadora, że przeprowadza się już zabiegi medyczne bez znieczulenia, ponieważ brakuje środków medycznych, brakuje leków.
               

                  Myślę, że to na czym w tej chwili powinniśmy się skupić, to przede wszystkim pomoc humanitarna. Kraj nie może dźwignąć się z zapaści gospodarczej, zdarzają się braki w dostawach, prądu, wody i gazu. Gospodarka libańska skurczyła się w 2020 roku o 24% i myślę, że wobec tego, że przebywa tam tysiące, by nie powiedzieć miliony uchodźców syryjskich, także uchodźców palestyńskich, sytuacja jest dramatyczna. Przede wszystkim musimy się w tej chwili skupić na pomocy humanitarnej. Dziękuję wszystkim, którzy tę pomoc Libańczykom niosą.
               

Fabio Massimo Castaldo (NI). – Signora Presidente, signor Alto rappresentante, onorevoli colleghi, la vita a Beirut come in tutto il Libano si è ridotta, per una popolazione in ginocchio fisicamente, mentalmente ed emotivamente, a una mera logica di sopravvivenza.
               

                  I danni alla città e all'economia del paese causati dall'esplosione al porto di Beirut restano oggi incalcolabili; la situazione sanitaria, economica e sociale seguita a peggiorare, mentre la classe politica e dirigente del paese rimane fin troppo impegnata in una endemica lotta per la spartizione del potere.
               

                  No, il popolo libanese, da sempre un grande esempio di solidarietà e lo abbiamo visto anche nella crisi siriana, davvero non lo merita.
               

                  E se l'Unione vuole avere un ruolo rilevante nella costruzione del futuro, dobbiamo farci portavoce delle legittime richieste della popolazione, trovare un sistema per controllare il flusso degli aiuti ed accertarci che gli impegni presi da questo nuovo governo vengano pienamente attuati e anche, qualora gli attori responsabili continuino a fare ostruzionismo sulle riforme e sulla lotta alla corruzione, adottare le sanzioni nel quadro recentemente approvato, a partire dai responsabili dell'esplosione del porto.
               

                  Sarà fondamentale evitare protagonismi dei singoli Stati membri, seguire una linea comune, svolgere un ruolo costruttivo nel raggiungimento della stabilità e dell'unità del paese per sostenere quel desiderio legittimo di giustizia sociale ed economica che spinge migliaia di persone a scendere oggi in piazza per garantire un futuro a se stessi e ai propri figli.
               

Andrey Kovatchev (PPE). – Madam President, first of all, it is very sad to see that the Lebanese people in this beautiful country are in this terrible situation. Lebanon is of strategic importance for the European Union. The current crisis could turn into a full-scale catastrophe with an impact on the whole region, and we don't need another failed state in the Mediterranean, like we have around Libya, Syria and Afghanistan, with another refugee crisis.
To avoid this, Mr Borrell, you mentioned what we need to do, but we need to do it now. I also request that the European External Action Service come forward with a list of individuals and entities which should be on this sanction list of people who are responsible for undermining democracy and the rule of law, and are involved in corruption, etc. This is what the Lebanese people also expect from us.
The second thing is what you mentioned. It is very clear that timely and transparent elections need to be held next year. This is an opportunity for the Lebanese people to hold political accountability for their future and for the political representatives which they would like to choose. We need to insist that an international fact-finding commission investigates the Beirut port explosion, and we need to show full solidarity with the Lebanese people, providing additional financial assistance in agreement with the International Monetary Fund. I also think we should send a special administrative advisory mission to support the Lebanese state building there with administrative advice. Thank you very much. Mr Borrell, please, let's act now.

Pedro Marques (S&D). – Madam President, Mr High Representative, colleagues, but also to the Lebanese people we spoke to on the ground and want to listen to the voice of this European Parliament.
Lebanon faces one of the three worst economic and social crisis of the last century in the whole world. Shortage of water, electricity, fuel, decent and affordable food. Three out of four people fell into poverty in one year. The world's highest number of refugees per capita. A default in international payments, a dramatic drop in purchasing power and in salaries. We have seen images of garbage on the streets. Hospitals are failing, schools maybe not reopening. This is how bad the situation is on the ground.
On top of all of that, a year ago the blast at the port in Beirut killed hundreds and displaced thousands. A tragic symbol of the country's tragedy, of the country's situation. The perception of corruption and political blockage is everywhere.
The situation must change now! Humanitarian aid to the population must be a priority of the new government, as well as reforms! Long awaited reforms of the political system, of the financial system, of the energy sector, of the judiciary. Corruption must stop, inaction must end.
The new government has an opportunity if it understands that business as usual is not an option. Citizens deserve a government that finally decides, and that works with people's interests in mind.
People cannot wait! We need action now from the new government and the international partners must step-up if that doesn't happen and sanctions must remain as a possibility if that doesn't happen.
We won't leave you alone. That's what we say to the Lebanese people. We were there, we saw your despair with our own eyes, and we will not forget.

Jan-Christoph Oetjen (Renew). – Frau Präsidentin, geehrter Hoher Vertreter! Wir haben vor einem Jahr hier das letzte Mal debattiert, das war kurz nach der Explosion im Hafen von Beirut. Seitdem hat sich die Situation nur verschlechtert, um es ganz klar zu sagen. Ich glaube, dass wir aber jetzt eine Chance haben. Ich habe zumindest Hoffnung. Als ich gehört habe, dass sich eine neue Regierung bildet im Libanon, habe ich gesagt: Okay, diese Chance müssen wir jetzt nutzen.
               

                  Diese Chance muss aber vor allen Dingen diese neue libanesische Regierung nutzen. Denn in einer Situation, wo wir eine galoppierende Inflation haben, Nahrungsmittelknappheit, keinen Treibstoff, hohe Arbeitslosigkeit, eine wirtschaftliche Krise, die sich zur sozialen Krise auswächst, muss diese neue Regierung jetzt Vertrauen zurückgewinnen bei ihrer Bevölkerung.
               

                  Ich glaube, dass wir als Europäische Union diese Regierung dabei unterstützen müssen, die notwendigen Reformen im Libanon auf den Weg zu bringen. Und gleichzeitig müssen wir für die Bevölkerung humanitäre Hilfe leisten. Denn das libanesische Volk ist ein Volk, das nicht nur stolz ist und viel leistet, sondern das vor allen Dingen unseren Respekt und unsere Unterstützung braucht.
               

Jakop G. Dalunde (Verts/ALE). – Madam President, for anyone following Lebanese politics, the last year has been a series of disappointments and deepening frustration – frustration at how endemic corruption hinders peace, prosperity and stability, and at how political elites have abandoned the people and are refusing to take responsibility after a national tragedy and a worsening economic situation.
Holding free and fair elections is the first step that we need to take to manage and remedy the crisis. The EU must continue to support the Lebanese people, but we must not become accomplices in worsening corruption and instability. Any EU support must be conditional on reform and on credible commitments that elections will be held in 2022.
We cannot afford to lose another generation in Lebanon. They deserve our support.

Marco Campomenosi (ID). – Signora Presidente, onorevoli colleghi, ho ascoltato l'Alto rappresentante con attenzione e devo dire che non posso che condividere le sue parole, ma è chiaro che la situazione è sotto gli occhi di tutti, da tanti anni.
               

                  Dall'omicidio di Hariri, probabilmente anche prima si poteva intervenire in quella che è una situazione di instabilità politica dovuta a una situazione che forse non esiste nel resto del mondo, a livello di complicazione religiosa, etnica o di appartenenza politica. Insomma non è semplice quel campo, e non lo è a maggior ragione per noi, che magari proprio come europei – non voglio dire solo come istituzioni europee – abbiamo una particolare a volte irrilevanza rispetto alle dinamiche mondiali. Forse è perché dobbiamo fare tutti di più e probabilmente, anzi assolutamente, mi ci metto anche io e la mia parte politica.
               

                  Lo hanno già detto, c'è una capacità incredibile delle popolazioni libanesi a resistere a una situazione incredibile. Aggiungo, rispetto a quello che ha detto Lei, le ingerenze esterne rendono tutto assolutamente più complesso: il ruolo di Hezbollah, i finanziamenti dall'Iran, la questione dei rifugiati in una quantità immensa che vengono accolti in un paese così debole e così in difficoltà.
               

                  Ecco, magari impariamo dai francesi tutti, quelli di governo e anche quelli di opposizione, che hanno un'attenzione storica e politica forte, perché non vorrei che l'attenzione degli altri Stati membri dell'Unione e delle istituzioni europee venga meno. Vediamo un po' quindi questo governo nuovo che lavoro può fare.
               

Λουκάς Φουρλάς (PPE). – Κυρία Πρόεδρε, κύριε Borrell, η περσινή έκρηξη στον Λίβανο ακούστηκε μέχρι την πατρίδα μου την Κύπρο και πραγματικά μας συγκλόνισε. Οι γείτονες και οι φίλοι από τον Λίβανο υποφέρουν και αυτό μας πονά. Είναι ένας λαός που πέρασε πάρα πολλά και δικαιούται να ζήσει καλύτερες μέρες. Ένα χρόνο μετά, η χώρα βρίσκεται σε κατάσταση εκτάκτου ανάγκης. Οι ελλείψεις σε τρόφιμα και είδη πρώτης ανάγκης είναι τεράστιες. Τα φάρμακα είναι σπάνια και κυκλοφορούν κυρίως στη μαύρη αγορά. Ούτε οι καρκινοπαθείς δεν μπορούν να έχουν τα φάρμακά τους και αυτό είναι τραγικό. Η Ευρωπαϊκή Ένωση θα πρέπει να σταθεί μεγάλος αρωγός και να βοηθήσει τη χώρα. Εκτός από οικονομική βοήθεια, η Ευρωπαϊκή Ένωση θα πρέπει να αναλάβει ουσιαστικό ρόλο υπέρ της πολιτικής σταθερότητας στον Λίβανο. Ελπίζουμε πραγματικά η νέα κυβέρνηση που ανακοινώθηκε προ τεσσάρων ημερών να μακροημερεύσει. Αυτή είναι η μεγάλη ευθύνη των πολιτικών ηγετών της χώρας, οι οποίοι πρέπει τώρα να δείξουν ομοψυχία. Κύριοι συνάδελφοι, αξιότιμε κύριε Εκπρόσωπε, ο Λίβανος μάς χρειάζεται και πρέπει ως Ευρωπαίοι να σταθούμε στο πλευρό του.
               

Isabel Santos (S&D). – Senhora Presidente, a explosão do porto de Beirute, em 2020, foi também a explosão de um sistema político intrincado onde se misturam histórias de clãs e heranças de tragédias, o público e o privado, o nacional e o familiar. Um sistema marcado pela corrupção e impunidade a que urge pôr um fim e que conduziu o país ao abismo da hiperinflação, do desemprego, da falta de água, eletricidade, combustível e medicamentos e, pior que tudo, da descrença.
               

                  A formação de um novo governo após 13 meses de impasse cria condições para implementar uma agenda de reformas começando pelo acordo com o FMI e a realização de eleições legislativas municipais e presidenciais sem adiamentos. Eleições justas, transparentes e inclusivas. Uma última oportunidade para todos.
               

                  Só ao povo libanês cabe escolher o seu futuro. É obrigação da União Europeia apoiar neste momento crucial. Desejo que a Beirute que Nadia Tuéni descreveu ‘mil vezes morta mil vezes ressuscitada’ volte a reerguer-se dos escombros.
               

Sandro Gozi (Renew). – Madame la Présidente, depuis vendredi, le Liban a un gouvernement. Ce petit pas était l'une des conditions pour l'octroi d'aide internationale, mais nous devons être très prudents; ce n'est pas parce que le Liban a un gouvernement que l'Union européenne doit s'empêcher de sanctionner certains de ses dirigeants corrompus et coupables de la non-stabilité du pays. Notre politique de sanctions à l'égard des dirigeants libanais, même avec un gouvernement, doit être mise en œuvre ces prochaines semaines avec le vote d'une première liste de noms, puisque nous avons désormais un cadre politique et juridique très clair, voté en juillet dernier.
               

                  Nous attendons aussi que ce nouveau gouvernement garantisse la tenue, le bon déroulement et la transparence des élections en 2022, avec pour horizon les législatives du 8 mai, suivies par les municipales et la présidentielle. Mes chers collègues, pour les Libanais, nous, les Européens, nous devons être au rendez-vous.
               

Tonino Picula (S&D). – Madam President, the catastrophic blast in the port of Beirut has only speeded up the deep and widespread crisis that has been crushing Lebanon's political and economic life for years. During our visit last week, we witnessed dramatic images from across the country with thousands of people forced to live in dire conditions with shortages of fuel and energy supplies and terrible consequences for the national health care system.
We need to reformulate the strategy and the recovery plan for Lebanon in the framework of the EU-Lebanon partnership priorities under the new Global Europe Instrument. We also still expect the new Government to address the macroeconomic and fiscal crisis and take credible anti-corruption actions for the immediate benefit of the Lebanese people. The measures implemented in recent years were not even close to matching the purpose. In this kind of social, economic and political meltdown, no one must be left behind, especially the most vulnerable in society.

Paulo Rangel (PPE). – Madam President, Lebanon has been facing a severe social, financial, economic and political crisis and now faces some challenges that seem to form a humanitarian crisis. After one year of political impasse, a new government has been formed.
It is now time to be positive, to focus on the reforms required to steer the country, to fight corruption with determination, to grant stability and a sustainable recovery. For that, we have to congregate all the stakeholders: religious and political forces must be involved, as well as some hugely influential neighbour states. Fair and transparent elections, EU assistance and EU commitment must be ready.
A stable and prosperous Lebanon is possible if we want it, if we help the Lebanese people.

Nora Mebarek (S&D). – Madame la Présidente, Monsieur le Haut représentant, chers collègues, j'étais à Beyrouth la semaine dernière et chaque jour, le Liban s'effondre au risque de disparaître. La situation au Liban est d'une extrême urgence humanitaire, politique et démocratique. La misère grandissante, les menaces internationales, la corruption ont durablement affaibli le pays. La formation d'un nouveau gouvernement après de longs mois d'attente ne doit pas nous abuser, comme l'illustrent les manœuvres de sabotage de l'enquête sur les circonstances de l'explosion du port de Beyrouth.
               

                  Si nous voulons répondre au désespoir des Libanais, nous devons être d'une exigence extrême, en étant durs avec ces mêmes dirigeants et bienveillants avec la population. Cette exigence doit s'exercer avec des sanctions individuelles sur les responsables corrompus, l'obligation d'un encadrement extérieur des futures élections et la mise en place d'une autorité internationale indépendante, qui veillera à la bonne utilisation des aides accordées au Liban.
               

                  Nous ne laisserons pas tomber le peuple libanais. C'est ce que nous devons au Liban et à l'Union européenne.
               

Marisa Matias (The Left). – Senhora Presidente, Senhor Vice-Presidente, já foram identificadas muitas vezes as dificuldades internas que vive a sociedade libanesa, dificuldades internas que foram agravadas por uma crise económica muito forte, à qual a explosão do porto de Beirute não veio ajudar. Afetou, além do mais, o acesso a bens dos mais essenciais, uma vez que o porto de Beirute era a entrada de cerca de 70% das importações.
               

                  Assistimos também ao longo destes anos a muitas tentativas de ajuda que mais não foram do que criar dificuldades ao povo libanês. Vários pacotes de ajuda financeira carregados de austeridade, com reformas que impuseram austeridade e agravaram as dificuldades das pessoas que aí vivem. Assistimos também a um povo que soube receber com muita solidariedade refugiados palestinianos e sírios e assistimos agora às dificuldades com as quais vive as Nações Unidas, nomeadamente no que diz respeito à manutenção das condições mínimas para os refugiados palestinianos.
               

                  Precisamos, por isso, de continuar a apoiar a UNRWA e não deixar que esta perca os fundos e que deixe de apoiar aqueles que mais precisam e essa é uma responsabilidade que temos e que devemos cumprir.
               

                  Por último, uma palavra sobre as sanções. Já fiz esta pergunta várias vezes, mas quero repeti-la. Nós precisamos de garantir e proteger a capacidade do povo libanês de decidir o seu futuro sem nenhuma interferência externa e, nesse sentido, gostaria de perguntar, mais uma vez, critérios que não sejam discricionários porque, se as sanções são aplicadas, podemos estar mais uma vez a cumprir um papel de ingerência e a interferir diretamente naquilo que é a sociedade e a escolha dos libaneses.
               

                  Eu gostava muito de ter a garantia que não usamos ingerência nem nenhuma forma de intervenção.
               

Josep Borrell Fontelles,
vicepresidente de la Comisión / alto representante de la Unión para Asuntos Exteriores y Política de Seguridad. – Señora presidenta, he escuchado con atención todas sus intervenciones y muchas de ellas se han referido a sanciones.
               

                  Las sanciones que habíamos preparado —habíamos preparado un marco legal para aplicarlas— se referían fundamentalmente a la obstrucción a la formación de un gobierno. Ahora que ya hay un gobierno, aunque sea tarde, creo que los Estados miembros no van a imponer sanciones. Francamente, creo que el momento de hacerlo ha pasado ya, porque si el objetivo era empujar hacia la formación de un gobierno, ese gobierno ya está formado.
               

                  Sí, algunos de ustedes han dicho: ‘Son los mismos de siempre, es la misma clase política de siempre’. Es la que hay. Cuando yo he estado en el Líbano me he encontrado con gente que por la calle me decía ‘no convoquen elecciones; envíennos administradores’, lo cual no deja de ser impresionante, cuando en un país te pide su gente que no convoques elecciones, sino que, poco menos, te pide que convoques un concurso público para escoger a un buen administrador. Es ciertamente decepcionante que esto ocurra, pero ocurre porque la decepción por el comportamiento de la clase política es lo que ha llevado a esta situación.
               

                  Ahora lo que hemos de hacer es exigir al nuevo gobierno que afronte los problemas que tiene el país, que los afronte de una manera creíble, transparente e independiente de los intereses creados, y que nos dé razones y argumentos para seguir con nuestra asistencia financiera. Piensen que desde el año 2011, en los últimos 10 años, hemos asignado al Líbano casi tres mil millones de euros —¡tres mil millones de euros!—. Dos mil ochocientos y pico millones de euros en diez años, de los cuales, es cierto, dos mil millones eran ayuda para que hicieran frente a la crisis de Siria.
               

                  Todo hay que decirlo: el Líbano es un país que ha tenido que acoger a un millón y medio de refugiados sirios, y no todos ellos están registrados. Por lo tanto, la cifra real debe de ser mayor. Hemos de reconocer al pueblo del Líbano, el enorme esfuerzo que ha hecho para acoger a los refugiados sirios. Simplemente piensen ustedes cómo reaccionarían muchos países europeos de la talla del Líbano si tuviesen que acoger a un millón y medio de refugiados. Piensen cuál sería nuestra respuesta para valorar lo que ha sido la suya.
               

                  No, no vamos a reducir la ayuda al Líbano. Al contrario, vamos a intentar incrementarla.
               

                  Vamos a facilitar el acuerdo con el Fondo Monetario Internacional y vamos a ver si es posible que despleguemos una misión de observación electoral para las próximas elecciones, que deben ser en mayo de 2022.
               

                  Yo comparto todas sus preocupaciones, sus críticas, las hago mías. Como pueden ver, la absoluta necesidad en la que se encuentra una parte muy importante de la población libanesa quiere decir que a veces no son solamente los regímenes políticos, sino los gestores de los sistemas los que provocan situaciones como esta.
               

                  El Líbano es un país democrático; el Líbano no es un país bajo una dictadura comunista, pero los gestores del sistema no han estado a la altura y, por eso, estábamos pensando en imponer sanciones. Ahora lo que tenemos que hacer es mirar hacia delante y apoyar a este Gobierno: un apoyo crítico, exigente desde el principio.
               

                  Seguiremos con atención su andadura. Yo iba a recibir esta semana a la que era ministra de Asuntos Exteriores ad interim del Gobierno provisional o del Gobierno gestor, y ya no podrá ser. Tendré que recibir al próximo ministro de Asuntos Exteriores, pero el mensaje será el mismo.
               

                  El Líbano está al borde del precipicio y ahora corresponde a ese Gobierno intentar evitar que caiga por él. Pueden contar con la ayuda de la Unión Europea y el apoyo de este Parlamento, pero tienen que ser responsables y cumplir con lo que todo pueblo está en derecho de exigir a sus gobiernos: que se preocupen por el bien común, que dejen de lado sus rivalidades y sus intereses y que trabajen para sacar al país de la profunda crisis en la que está hundido.
               

                  Muchas gracias, señorías. Colaboraremos con ellos para conseguirlo.
               

ΠΡΟΕΔΡΙΑ: ΔΗΜΗΤΡΙΟΣ ΠΑΠΑΔΗΜΟΥΛΗΣ


Αντιπρόεδρος


Πρόεδρος. – Η συζήτηση έληξε.
                  

                     Η ψηφοφορία θα διεξαχθεί την Πέμπτη.
                  


Γραπτές δηλώσεις (άρθρο 171 του Κανονισμού)



György Hölvényi (PPE),
írásban. – A libanoni politikai és humanitárius helyzet az elmúlt egy év folyamán tovább romlott. Az országnak egyszerre kell megküzdenie az 1,5 millió szíriai menekült jelentette kihívással, élelmiszerhiánnyal, a gazdasági válság nehézségeivel és a politikai instabilitással. Az egy évvel ezelőtti bejrúti robbanás körülményei továbbra is tisztázatlanok, nem történt meg a felelősök számonkérése, ami jelentős társadalmi feszültségeket okoz. Ahogy erre al-Raï maronita pátriárka is felhívta a figyelmet: a korrupció taszította a jelenlegi válságba az országot. Ennek leküzdésében támogatnunk kell Libanont.
                  

                     A polgárháborút követően Libanonban a muszlimok és keresztények képesek voltak konfliktusaikat egymás között rendezni. Ma egy gyökeresen megváltozott helyzettel állunk szemben. Figyelembe kell vennünk, hogy Libanon a Közel-Kelet gazdasági és bank szektorának központja, így a mostani válság beláthatatlan következményekkel járó regionális krízissé szélesedhet. A jelenlegi bizonytalan politikai helyzetben nagy a veszélye, hogy a szélsőségek táptalajra lelnek. Ezt minden eszközzel meg kell akadályozni! Az EU-nak elemi érdeke és történelmi felelőssége a Libanon melletti kiállás. Az ország lakosai számára létkérdés, hogy az uniós támogatások a Madad Alap megszűnését követően is hatékonyan és célzottan érhessék el a rászoruló közösségeket. Ezt biztosítani kell a fejlesztéspolitikai támogatások tervezése során!
                  

László Trócsányi (NI),
írásban. – Örülök, hogy a plenáris ülés napirendjén láthatom Libanont, főleg ilyen fontos napok után, hiszen egy régóta várt, teljes felhatalmazással rendelkező kormány felállításáról döntés született. Sok jelentős feladat áll az új kabinet előtt, hiszen a politikai válság mellett a gazdasági, pénzügyi válság egyre súlyosabb. Áramkimaradások, üzemanyag- és élelmiszerhiány, a kórházakra nehezedő egyre nagyobb nyomás, hatalmas munkanélküliség a fiatalok körében és növekvő számú menekült lakosság jellemzik a mindennapokat egy olyan országban, amelynek sürgős humanitárius segítségre lenne szüksége.
                  

                     Alig egy évvel a tavalyi bejrúti robbanás után az országot idén augusztusban újabb megrázó tragédia érte, ám az Akkarban felrobbant üzemanyagtartály immár a mélyülő válság egy borzalmas következménye. Az országban élő keresztény közösségek mellett is kötelességünk kiállni. A politikai alkudozások idejének vége, most a tetteknek kell következnie! Egyetértek abban, hogy a reformok nélkülözhetetlenek az ország hosszútávú fejlődéséhez, azonban a humanitárius segítségnyújtást nem lehet tovább halogatni. Az Európai Unió akkor tudna segíteni Libanonnak, ha közvetítői szerepében aktívabb lenne és nem szankciós mechanizmusokkal fenyegetne. Az EU akkor tud igazán déli szomszédjainak partnereként cselekedni, ha a megoldások megtalálásában nyújt segítséget. Sok sikert és kitartást kívánok Najib Mikati miniszterelnök úrnak és kormányának.
                  
10.   Direction of EU-Russia political relations (debate)

Πρόεδρος. – Το επόμενο σημείο στην ημερήσια διάταξη είναι η έκθεση του Andrius Kubilius, εξ ονόματος της Επιτροπής Εξωτερικών Υποθέσεων, που αφορά την κατεύθυνση των πολιτικών σχέσεων ΕΕ-Ρωσίας (2021/2042(INI)) (Α9-0259/2021)
               

Andrius Kubilius,
rapporteur. – Mr President, this report on the European Parliament recommendations on the direction of EU-Russia political relations is a report on a really important topic. Russia is an important country which has a big influence on all the developments in the Eastern part of the European continent and the EU needs to have a clear long-term strategy with clear goals and clear instruments for our policy towards Russia.
Our report is based on several clear principles. First of all, we want to have good relations with Russia, but it depends on Russia. With Russia, led by the authoritarian, kleptocratic and aggressive, both domestically and externally, Putin regime, it is impossible to have good relations. The Russia of today is the greatest threat to European security.
Second principle. We are making a clear difference in our attitude towards the Kremlin regime and towards Russian people and Russian society who are the first victims of such a regime. We are very critical of the Kremlin regime and very positive and optimistic about the future of Russian society.
Third principle. We are absolutely sure that, in the future, Russian people will live with a European-type democratic system of governance. If Ukrainians can do it, if Belarusians are striving for it, there is no reason why Russian people cannot go the same way. And we are absolutely sure that in the future the EU will have good and pragmatic relations with democratic Russia.
The report gives several clear recommendations to EU institutions on EU future policy towards Russia. First of all, to concentrate our efforts on a very clear long-term goal and how to assist the Russian people to transform their country back to democratic, European-type development. This is the first time the European Parliament has given such a clear direction on the major goal of EU political relations with Russia.
The report elaborates that the Strategy of EU political relations with Russia should have three major pillars: push back, contain and engage. It sounds in a very similar way like it was first declared by Vice-President Borrell, but in the report maybe we are bringing more precise and concrete content to those three pillars.
The first pillar, ‘Push back’. Push back against the Kremlin's aggressive policies of today, both external and internal policies. Clear non-recognition policy of occupations and annexations in Crimea, South Ossetia, Donbas; more effective type sanctions which should be better coordinated with transatlantic partners, including sanctions against oligarchs; possibility of non-recognition of legitimacy of elections, if they are stolen; effective implementation of the Green Deal as an instrument to cut EU dependency on Russian gas, and so on.
Second pillar. Containment pillar. Sets out how to contain Kremlin hybrid influences and how to make EU clean and safe of Russia hybrid threats and corruption practices inside of the EU. If we want to help democrats in Russia to transform their country and to get rid of Kremlin autocracy, we need to make ourselves clean of Kremlin influences.
And the third pillar ‘Engage’. Engage not only with Kremlin, but engage strategically with civil society in Russia. Let us offer the Russian people a clear vision of what kind of relationship we're going to establish between the EU and Democratic Russia – visa free, free-trade agreements, EU-Russia real modernisation partnerships, and so on and so forth. That is what we can do in the future. The Russian people need to know that transformation of their country will be beneficial to all of them who now are the first victims of their authoritarian and corrupt regime.
What else can we offer? Let us offer Russian people also inspiration and an example to follow. Much more ambitious EU support to make a success of the Eastern Partnership region, especially Association Trio countries: Ukraine, Moldova and Georgia. Their success, built with more ambitious EU integration policy, could bring a real inspiration to the Russian people to follow a similar democratic way of development.
And the last point. As you know this weekend there will be elections to the State Duma in Russia, so-called elections. Lukashenko last year stole the election results after the elections. Putin is trying to steal them even before the elections have taken place. More than 100 of the most important opposition or independent candidates were not allowed to participate in the elections. Navalny is in prison, No OSCE observers are allowed to come. Our report recommends not recognising the Parliament of Russia as the legitimate parliament if the elections are recognised as being fraudulent and having been conducted in violation of democratic principles and international law.
That is why next week will be a test for all of us, and the EU institutions, not to be afraid to say that elections were organised in violation of democratic principles and international law, since even now there is a lot of evidence that this is the case.
Our report is a message to the Russian people: we are together with them. We need Russia as a good neighbour, with whom we can have good relations. We want the Russian people to enjoy the same human rights, the same rule of law and democracy privileges as we have and we enjoy. We want the Russian people to enjoy a modern and prosperous country. Such a development of Russia would be beneficial for Russian people and for the whole of Europe.
And the EU can do a lot to assist Russian people in such a transformation of their country. The EU needs to understand and accept its exceptional role and responsibility in such a transformation. And first of all the EU needs to overcome it's ‘Westlessness’ as was diagnosed by the Munich Security Conference and Wolfgang Ischinger. Our report provides recommendations on how to overcome this ‘Westlessness’ in political relations with Russia.
The report was supported by a large majority and consensus among major political groups in the Committee on Foreign Affairs (AFET). Such unity is also a strong signal to the Kremlin. I hope that we will be able to keep the same unity here in the plenary. I would like to thank all the shadow reporters with whom it was a real pleasure to elaborate this important report.

Josep Borrell Fontelles,
Vice-President of the Commission / High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy. – Mr President, allow me to congratulate the rapporteur, Mr Kubilius, and all the Members who have been working on this draft report, adopted by a large majority in the Committee on Foreign Affairs (AFET).
I think that the report describes accurately where we stand in our relations with Russia, which are more difficult than ever, building on the Joint Communication and the June conclusions of the European Council, although the debate in the European Council was mostly about ‘summit yes or summit no’ in the relationship with Russia.
I think that the deliberate policy choices of the Russian Government over the last years have been creating a negative spiral in our relations. The list of provocative actions by Russia is long and continues feeding a dynamic of escalation, which I regret because I have always been in favour of talking with everybody when we need to talk. It has become difficult and I have experienced that directly. Our discussion today is very timely because next week we are going to have next week the UN General Assembly (UNGA) in New York, and it may be an occasion to engage again in talks with the Russian representative.
There is also the issue of the crackdown on Russian civil society and opposition. Ahead of this month's Duma election, some of the priority actions that you identified in your report – support for civil society and their relentless efforts to defend democracy – remain as important as ever. The Russian regime is one thing but the Russian people are another thing, and we have to be with the Russian people, supporting their civil society.
On that, allow me to say that our unity should be our biggest asset in our relations with Russia because it's clear that Russia wants to divide us. They say that clearly, they don't care about European Union. They prefer to avoid it. They want to talk with a Member State directly and not with all of them, only with the ones that matter. So yes, certainly Russia wants to divide us and, in the face of any attempt to divide us, what we have to do is try to remain united, which is, believe me, not always easy.
In any case, Russia remains our largest neighbour and it remains an important global actor, although not from the economic point of view. Russia's economy is more or less the same size as Italy's, much bigger in surface area, but economically speaking, it is a medium-sized state. They have a lot of gas – and gas is becoming more and more expensive, which is good news for them and bad news for us – they have atomic weapons and they have an important army, and they use it when they need it. But, in any case, Russia will not disappear. It will be there and it's not going to change overnight. So we should explore a path that helps us gradually to change the current dynamics into a less conflictual, more predictable and stable relationship. This is the work of diplomacy – with whoever – to try to work for a less conflictual, more predictable and stable relationship on the issues in which we are interested.
Let's talk about Mr Navalny. I know that I went to Russia to express directly, in front of the Russian leadership, our concern about the situation of Aleksei Navalny when he was in front of the tribunal that condemned him, and since the assassination attempt on Mr Navalny we have held a number of discussions in the European Parliament, the Foreign Affairs Council and the European Council, but Mr Navalny remains in jail. So our collective ambition is not only to have a less conflictual relationship, but also to continue defending people like Navalny. Don't forget him. Don't forget the people who have been supporting him.
This has to be done by building on the implementation of the five principles which have given us purpose, an approach in which our interests and values can be defended. I want to remark here that the June conclusions of the Council are very clear, including the full implementation of the Minsk Agreement. In some days, we will go to Kiev to have the Association Agreement Council with Ukraine.
I would like to think of a new partnership with Russia but today it's a distant prospect. Under the present circumstances, to take the full potential of a close cooperation with Russia is not on the radar screen. It's a distant prospect. We must therefore look at the state of EU-Russia relations in all their complexities and at a realistic way forward. With this in mind, the European Council tasked me, as High Representative, and the Commission to prepare concrete proposals on how to take forward this multifaceted relationship, and we try to resume that with these verbs – three verbs that were mentioned by the rapporteur – to push back, to constrain and to engage.
I think these three verbs summarise well how we have to develop our relationship with Russia. To present options for additional restrictive measures, to develop options for engagement on areas such as climate, environment, selected issues of foreign and security policy, and multilateral issues like the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), where I have to recognise that Russia is playing a constructive role on Syria and Libya.
The Russians are very much present in Libya and more and more in the Central African Republic, which is worrisome.
To this list we should add Afghanistan, where there is a need for increased cooperation, including as regards the regional approach after the takeover by the Taliban and its consequences for regional and international security allies. Russia will also be affected by the new situation in Afghanistan and is not going to be in a safe land with respect to the risk of widespread terrorism in the area.
Finally, we have to put forward people-to-people contacts and support civil society, human rights organisations and independent media. Such a thing exists in Russia, and we need to support them.
As you also rightly point out in your report, our reinforced cooperation with our Eastern partners and support for democracy remains at the top of the European Union's interests. We cannot be an island of democracy in a world of autocracies. We cannot survive as a democracy if we are surrounded and in the middle of a world that has a different political system. It is in our interests that our system be shared by as many people and as many countries as possible. That's what my services are trying to put forward. We are working on that and we stand ready to brief the European Parliament, the committees of the European Parliament, on all these issues.
So thank you very much for your work. Thank you very much for this report. This is a complementary work with one that we are doing. I thank the rapporteur and all the Members that have been working with you on it.

Sandra Kalniete,
on behalf of the PPE Group. – Mr President, I would like to praise the excellent, relevant and incisive report done by Andrius Kubilius, as well as share his faith in the principle of democracy first, which must be the core of any EU strategy on Russia. At the same time, we must be realistic about the relationship we can have with Moscow in the near future.
In the span from my own 2019 report on EU-Russia relations until the report by Mr Kubilius, the Kremlin has only added more dark episodes to an extensive track record. To make it perfectly clear, there is no reason for optimism regarding the direction of the current Russian regime and of EU-Russia relations. European leaders must not fall again into naive delusions about resets or dialogues with Putin's regime, which clearly shows that its disregard for international law, human rights and peaceful conflict resolution is not the exception, but the rule.
And finally, it is time for Europe to invest in reinforcing our commitment to the Eastern Partnership countries, strengthen our own resilience to Russian hybrid warfare and continue engaging with Russian civil society.

Marek Belka,
w imieniu grupy S&D. – Panie Przewodniczący! Unia Europejska w relacjach z Rosją potrzebuje nowego impulsu i zdecydowanych działań. Pięć lat po przyjęciu strategii wobec Rosji wydaje się, że nadal stoimy w tym samym miejscu. Rosja destabilizuje nasze bliskie sąsiedztwo, wpływa na procesy demokratyczne wewnątrz Unii, prowadzi wrogą propagandę, finansowo wspiera siły antyeuropejskie, fundamentalistów religijnych i ruchy anty szczepionkowe, znajdując przy tym niestety sprzymierzeńców w Unii. Ponadto hamuje pokojowe rozwiązanie konfliktu z Ukrainą i rozpala kolejne konflikty wokół naszych granic.
               

                  Powiedzmy otwarcie, Rosja nigdy nie traktowała Unii poważnie, raczej jako postmodernistyczny kaprys historii. Stara się nas dzielić, aby tym łatwiej realizować swoją politykę. Musimy się temu przeciwstawić razem, broniąc polityki Unii Europejskiej w zakresie obronności, energetyki, cyberbezpieczeństwa oraz broniąc naszych wartości. Jeżeli Rosja nie zrezygnuje z łamania prawa międzynarodowego, podminowywania naszej Unii, prześladowania mniejszości oraz sił demokratycznych w naszym najbliższym sąsiedztwie, musimy być gotowi sięgnąć po mocniejsze argumenty, takie jak wykluczenie Rosji z systemu rozliczeń Swift bądź zamrożenie europejskich aktywów osób związanych z Kremlem. Zawsze będziemy stali po stronie Rosji demokratycznej, wobec Rosji autokratycznej nie możemy być słabi i podzieleni.
               

Bernard Guetta,
au nom du groupe Renew. – Monsieur le Président, mes chers collègues, pourquoi sommes-nous si fiers de ce rapport? Pourquoi devons-nous en remercier Andrius Kubilius? Pour deux raisons – et une troisième.
               

                  La première est la fermeté avec laquelle ce rapport condamne les agissements, les méfaits du régime Poutine, aussi bien à l'extérieur des frontières de la Fédération de Russie qu'à l'intérieur.
               

                  La deuxième est la chaleur avec laquelle ce rapport tend la main de l'amitié et de l'espoir au peuple de la Fédération de Russie. Ce rapport a ajouté quelque chose de neuf à notre condamnation du régime Poutine. Ce rapport dit qu'au delà de ce régime, nous aspirons évidemment aux meilleures relations possibles et à la plus grande coopération imaginable avec un peuple qui partage le même continent que nous, la même culture et la même civilisation que nous.
               

                  Ce deuxième point est évidemment le plus important des deux points du rapport Kubilius. Parce que le premier, mon Dieu, nous le savions tous. Cela n'est pas nouveau dans notre conception et dans notre vision de la situation. Mais dire, comme le fait ce rapport avec cette force, qu'au delà du moment présent, un jour nous rebâtirons ce continent ensemble: là, il y a une nouveauté. Et là, surtout, il y a la certitude que M. Poutine et son régime ne sont pas éternels.
               

Sergey Lagodinsky,
im Namen der Verts/ALE-Fraktion. – Herr Präsident, heute beschließen wir den Russland-Bericht des Parlaments. Es ist nicht bloß ein Dokument unter vielen. Am Umgang mit Moskau entscheidet sich unsere europäische Politikfähigkeit.
               

                  Denn bisher gelingt es der Regierung im Kreml allzu gut, uns gegeneinander auszuspielen. Meine eigene Regierung in Berlin ist dafür das beste Beispiel: Die neueste Einigung mit den Amerikanern zu Nord Stream 2 – über die Köpfe der Ukrainer hinweg. Der letzte gescheiterte Versuch von Merkel und Macron, sich mit Putin zusammenzusetzen – über die Köpfe der Europäer hinweg. Es wird ständig etwas über die Köpfe anderer hinweg entschieden. Es geht ständig darum, eigene Interessen zu bedienen – aber nicht selbstbewusst und strategisch, sondern unterwürfig und kurzsichtig: Gas, Marktzugang, ein freundliches Lächeln aus Moskau.
               

                  Aber es geht auch anders. Und ja, es geht besser. Wir in Berlin müssen lernen, die deutschen außenpolitischen Interessen aus der europäischen Interessenlage abzuleiten. Wir müssen lernen, europäischer Politik-Treiber statt egoistischer Politik-Bremser zu sein: weniger Gasgeschäfte, mehr europäische Solidarität.
               

                  Und diese Solidarität, die haben wir jetzt so nötig. Denn die anstehenden Dumawahlen zeigen doch deutlich, dass der Kreml endgültig mit der Demokratie gebrochen hat. Das ist uns nicht bloß ein Ärgernis. Das ist ein gemeinsames strategisches Risiko. Und diesem Risiko müssen wir unaufgeregt, aber selbstbewusst entgegentreten.
               

Jaak Madison,
on behalf of the ID Group. – Mr President, I would like to thank Mr Kubilius for this really interesting report. This is a very important topic, as we saw with Mr Borrell, who left the chamber just before this debate.
First of all, I agree with many, many things in this report. I agree that Russia is a security threat to the neighbourhood countries. It's a threat to Ukraine and Georgia, as well as the Baltic States – I'm from Estonia, so I know this very well. However, there are many things with which I just do not agree.
Firstly, this report says that we should give more power to the European Union to conduct relations with Russia. That would mean that Mr Borrell, as the High Representative for Foreign Affairs, should talk directly with Russia and represent the 27 Member States. We saw this a few months ago and it was embarrassing. So I would prefer Mr Borrell to not speak with Russia over our heads, over the Estonian head.
Secondly, I would like to ask how we are to go about organising the regime change mentioned in the report? How? At the same time as we are letting Russia raise its influence over our energy policy through Nord Stream 2, where there are deals made between Germany and Russia, at the same time as the economical impact is rising because we are trying to solve problems with Fit for 55 and climate change, we are just trying to organise regime change. Now when we are weak, when we are not supporting our defence systems. We are not paying for our defence and we don't want to have more sovereignty over our energy and climate policy.
It's a bit weird. So that's why I have to abstain from tomorrow's vote. I can't vote against it, but I can't support it either.

Anna Fotyga,
on behalf of the ECR Group. – Mr President, allow me to start with thanking Andrius Kubilius for his very important work. Certainly it is an important report and very important that we take this debate, and eventually, I hope, adopt this report, just a few days before elections in the Russian Federation, very questionable ones. I think that in this document we are going to send a very positive message of hope to our friends, the Russian opposition, people like the members of Memorial, long-standing supporters of values, like many imprisoned dissidents, just to name Mr Navalny, but others as well.
The High Representative / Vice President is right in saying that it is extremely important to keep our unity in the relationship to Russia, to resolve unity and lack of naivety in the assessment of, in particular, new methods used by the very vicious regime in the relationship to all of us. Hybrid methods are a kind of novelty and in this respect we have to collaborate very closely with organisations like NATO in the assessment of all threats that come from the Kremlin regime.

Clare Daly,
on behalf of The Left Group. – Mr President, EU-Russia relations are at their lowest ebb ever, and Parliament's response is more, much more, of exactly the same thing – prevent Russia from developing relations with EU countries individually, ratchet up NATO, strengthen EU defences to deter Russia, sanctions and international investigations and so on.
This isn't a serious, credible document. It's actually a xenophobic rant. Much of the information is false, misleading and one-sided. We surround Russia with NATO bases and we call them the aggressor. We support opposition groups and we accuse them of foreign interference. The European project is not being undermined and divided by Russia, but by the rank hypocrisy that is characterised in this report, and the only beneficiaries of this nonsense are the arms industry made fat on the profits of its hysteria.
So would people ever calm down and cop on. We need to work diplomatically with our neighbours for a peaceful resolution of differences. Would you back off the Russia phobia. The last thing we need is a cold war turning into a hot one. We absolutely reject the report in its entirety.

Milan Uhrík (NI). – Vážený pán predsedajúci. Európske sankcie proti Ruskej federácii trvajú už sedem rokov. Chcem sa vás tu na rovinu všetkých spýtať. Čo tieto sankcie reálne vyriešili? K čomu reálne pomohli? Okrem toho, že poškodili európskym firmám, okrem toho, že viedli k zvýšeniu cien energií, tak nevyriešili absolútne nič. Vážený pán eurokomisár, ktorý tu nie je, vážení kolegovia, vážení predstavitelia vlád. Podľa môjho názoru je najvyšší čas povedať to jasne. Už toho protiruského besnenia stačilo. Už naozaj stačilo. Je čas vydať sa cestou dialógu s Ruskou federáciou. Jej čas prestať počúvať Američanov. Európa je náš kontinent. Európa má právo rozhodnúť sa. Európa má právo rozhodnúť sa pre dobré vzťahy s Ruskou federáciou. V mene Slovenska apelujem a vyzývam, vydajme sa, prosím, cestou mieru a spolupráce. Nie cestou konfrontácie a zvyšovania napätia.
               

Włodzimierz Cimoszewicz (S&D). – Panie Przewodniczący! Od ponad 20 lat polityka wewnętrzna i zagraniczna Rosji stawała się coraz bardziej brutalna i oparta na użyciu siły, początkowo wobec własnych obywateli, jak w Czeczenii, stopniowo także wobec innych państw. Próby odpowiedzi na pytanie o przyczyny takiego zachowania wskazywały na to, że poza siłą zbrojną Rosja ma bardzo ograniczone środki oddziaływania na zagranicę, że pan Putin robi to dla zdyscyplinowania społeczeństwa rosyjskiego i dla wzmocnienia osobistej popularności lub poparcia jego partii.
               

                  Nie odrzucając tych interpretacji, chcę wskazać na inną, chyba najważniejszą przyczynę. Rosja odbudowuje tradycyjne imperium i dąży do odtworzenia w maksymalnym stopniu dawnego ZSRR. Tam, gdzie można przy niskim ryzyku użyć siły, robi to – jak w przypadku Krymu. Tam, gdzie może osiągnąć swój cel bez użycia siły, robi to np. przez uzależnienie gospodarcze i polityczne jak w przypadku Białorusi.
               

                  Rosja jest zainteresowana osłabieniem otoczenia i zahamowaniem lub zablokowaniem zbliżenia dawnych swoich terytoriów z Zachodem. Utrzymanie licznych zamrożonych konfliktów służy temu celowi. Agresja dezinformacyjna przeciwko nam ma osłabić Zachód, podobnie jak korumpowanie państw, partii i polityków. To, co było tylko możliwością, jest rzeczywistością. Jest to bardzo groźne działanie, długotrwale destabilizujące sytuację wokół Rosji, zwiększające ryzyko konfliktów, także zbrojnych. Zrozumienie tego faktu jest konieczne również po to, by nasze koncepcje stosunków z tym krajem były pozbawione naiwności.
               

Urmas Paet (Renew). – Mr President, when we speak about EU-Russia relations we cannot forget the conflicts and the Russian military presence in Ukraine, Georgia and Moldova. For example it has been now 13 years since the Russian invasion of Georgia, where the Russian occupation forces have engaged in an illegal military build-up and so-called borderisation; undertaken kidnappings and illegal detentions; continued closure of the occupation line.
The Russian Federation needs to cease its illegal actions directed against the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Georgia, but also Ukraine and Moldova, and implement international obligations and withdraw its military forces from the territory of these countries. It is up to the European Union to give a clear signal that our policy will not change until Russia starts to respect international law, and the territorial integrity of Georgia, Moldova and Ukraine is restored within their internationally recognised borders.

Markéta Gregorová (Verts/ALE). – Mr President, ever since Mr Borrell's unfortunate visit to Moscow, a clear, strong stance on EU's relations with Russia and Mr Putin has been awaited. In today's ever-changing security environment, the EU either needs to talk with a unified voice or to cross out the word ‘common’ from its foreign and security policy.
Russia has increased its interference via disinformation campaigns that seek to undermine our society. Crimea and Georgia are still stripped of their territorial integrity. We see an abuse of surveillance tech, and we stay silent while Putin silences opposition, as in the case of Aleksei Navalny.
Such acts go against EU values. If we want to uphold our values – let alone our security – it is essential to set out clear conditions for any future engagement with Moscow in trade, in sanctions, in human rights.
I hope we can agree on this report today, as our credibility lies in our unity.

Anna Bonfrisco (ID). – Signor Presidente, signor Alto rappresentante Borrell, onorevoli colleghi, questa proposta è un buon esempio di come possiamo costruire l'autonomia strategica aperta.
               

                  Pertanto La invito a costruire ponti di diplomazia. L'Unione europea, l'Unione economica euroasiatica e l'Organizzazione per la cooperazione di Shanghai condividono una vasta area di sviluppo: l'Eurasia. E non dimentichiamo il Forum economico orientale, che connette l'Artico al Pacifico.
               

                  Consapevoli di un tale interesse strategico per l'Europa, non ci stanchiamo di cercare il dialogo e di persuadere la Russia che promuovere la pace, la giustizia e i diritti fondamentali è la strada giusta ed è soprattutto la pietra su cui poggia da secoli la gloria russa: la cristianità.
               

                  Convincere la Russia che le sfide poste dalla Cina sono più pericolose rispetto a quelle poste dall'Occidente sarà la nostra linea di azione politica.
               

Witold Jan Waszczykowski (ECR). – Mr President, once again today, I would like to appeal for realism in our policy, not to be naive. Russia is not part of the solution, it's in most cases part of the problem. The Russian Federation creates problems and plays the role of honest mediator, honest broker.
It's also an illusion to think that we can change and democratise Russian society. This nation was built in the last three centuries, towards imperialistic direction and goals. One generation is not enough to reverse the process. We have to try, and I thank Mr Kubilius for trying. However, the more pending question is to slow down and stop Russian imperialists, to press Russia to cease its illegal action against Georgia and Ukraine, influence Russia to stop supporting Lukashenko's hybrid action against our part of Europe.
It is not an appeal to solve the abovementioned problems together with Russia, it is to force Russia to stop harming these countries.

Antonio López-Istúriz White (PPE). – Señor presidente, considero excelente este informe de mi amigo y compañero Andrius Kubilius.
               

                  Estamos, claramente, con el régimen de Putin, ante un régimen autoritario y represivo. Tenemos un vecino incómodo, que se comporta a la vez como socio comercial, competidor agresivo y, a menudo, como enemigo de la paz, la estabilidad y la unidad de nuestra Unión. Seguridad energética, refuerzo de nuestras capacidades de defensa y sanciones selectivas contra el entorno de Putin y sus colaboradores son clave. El Kremlin solo respeta a los fuertes.
               

                  En cuanto a las injerencias rusas y la guerra híbrida, el texto incluye numerosas referencias a las injerencias en asuntos domésticos, y los españoles no somos ajenos. Recientemente, The New York Times denunciaba un documento explicando cómo colaboradores del señor Puigdemont, diputado de esta Asamblea, buscaron en el Gobierno ruso apoyo para sus proyectos de ruptura de la unidad de España.
               

                  Seamos conscientes de que los enemigos de la democracia en Europa, en España —en este caso, Rusia—, buscan constantemente socios y aliados entre nosotros para destruir este proyecto europeo, y se apoyan en movimientos y partidos que quieren la división de nuestros Estados miembros.
               

                  Me gustaría, finalmente, expresar mi apoyo a la enmienda 31 del Grupo socialista y mi deseo de que en España el Gobierno socialista mantenga ese mismo sentido de Estado y defensa de la unidad.
               

Fabio Massimo Castaldo (NI). – Signor Presidente, signora Commissaria, onorevoli colleghi, c'è una crescente tensione tra quello che è la Russia di Putin di oggi, una Russia obbligata a politiche sempre più autoritarie per mantenere il controllo, e il paese reale che invece sembra sempre più pronto a voltare pagina.
               

                  I giovani russi oggi osservano i loro coetanei nel resto d'Europa e non riescono a capacitarsi delle limitazioni a cui invece devono sottostare, delle repressioni verso la società civile, della mancanza di libertà di parola e dei media, della censura di Internet e, ancora, della crescente e dilagante corruzione. È a loro che dobbiamo parlare, perché il presente di oggi non è il futuro della Russia e, anche se a qualcuno piacerebbe pensare diversamente, non lo sarà mai.
               

                  Onorevoli colleghi, anche lo scoglio più imponente è consumato dalle onde incessanti del mare. Il tempo e la Storia sono dalla nostra parte, i nostri valori di libertà, democrazia e rispetto dei diritti umani parlano per noi. Dobbiamo continuare a mettere in campo tutti gli strumenti disponibili per interfacciarci e per sostenere la società civile della Russia, con i giovani, con le donne e con gli uomini che sognano un futuro diverso, mostrando loro che c'è un'alternativa e deve esistere un'alternativa.
               

                  Alienando la propria popolazione, togliendo la libertà a cui ogni essere umano anela, il regime di Putin ha già perso, solo che non se ne è ancora reso conto.
               

Tonino Picula (S&D). –Mr President, it's nothing new if we say that our relations with Russia are at a very low point, in short: energy over-dependence, divergent policies of the Member States', direct interference in political processes and Russia's very active role in disinformation campaigns. So we need to increase the resilience of the EU and its partners in the Eastern Neighbourhood against Russian disinformation and interference; ensure that Russia is implementing the Minsk Agreement; engage with Russian civil society more strategically, despite the regime's evermore determined efforts to undermine any such engagement; besides carefully used selective engagement on urgent global challenges to generate progress on the other objectives.
But we also must be realistic in our ambitions of democratising Russia as implied in this document. We should rather not keep falling into a political trap, further narrowing space for our political actions. Instead, we need a new, comprehensive, more strategic EU joint strategy towards Russia that will finally enable us for a more proactive approach.

Michal Šimečka (Renew). – Vážený pán predsedajúci. To, čo európska politika voči Rusku dnes potrebuje asi najviac, je realizmus. Je jasná predstava o tom, kde sú v tom vzťahu naše záujmy, kde sú hrozby a čo vieme realisticky dosiahnuť dialógom s Moskvou, alebo čo nevieme dosiahnuť. A nemá naozaj zmysel postaviť európsku politiku voči Rusku na démonizácii Putina alebo Rusov. Ale rovnako nemá zmysel postaviť ju na naivnej viere, že Moskve dnes záleží a má úprimný záujem na dobrých vzťahoch s Európskou úniou a rešpekt medzinárodnému právu, lebo nemá. A realizmus nám hovorí, že Rusko robí a naďalej bude robiť kroky na oslabenie našich demokracií, našej jednoty, našej bezpečnosti a suverenity našich partnerov. A preto našou základnou povinnosťou je brániť sa. Brániť naše záujmy, naše demokratické inštitúcie proti štátnemu terorizmu, proti politickej destabilizácii, špinavým peniazom alebo proti kyberútokom. Tými nástrojmi, ktoré dobre popisuje táto správa. Samozrejme, hľadajme oblasti, kde môžeme s Rusmi spolupracovať. Pripravujme sa na postputinovu éru, ale stratégiu musíme postaviť na realite, ktorá sa tak skoro nezmení.
               

Filip De Man (ID). – Voorzitter, in deze aanbeveling staat dat Rusland integraal deel uitmaakt van het Europees continent, dat er sterke historische banden bestaan en dat Rusland een van onze grootste handelspartners is. Redenen genoeg dus om zo'n buurland diplomatisch te benaderen. In plaats daarvan dreigt men echter met bergen sancties. Rusland wil zich niet plooien naar de links-liberale dogma's – zo ook Polen en Hongarije – en daarom worden alle duivels losgelaten.
               

                  Europa zou er beter aan doen een goede verstandhouding na te streven. Het gaat om een reusachtig land met enorme voorraden grondstoffen. Met een verstandige aanpak zouden we met onze technologie en onze financiële middelen een formidabele economische samenwerking kunnen opzetten die beide partijen ten goede zou komen. Men doet echter liever zaken met bijvoorbeeld fundamentalistische golfstaten of het communistisch regime in Peking. Wat een hypocrisie en domheid!
               

Hermann Tertsch (ECR). – Señor presidente, es difícil decir si es posible para la Unión Europea tener unas relaciones normalizadas con la Rusia de Vladimir Putin y, sin embargo, tenemos que intentarlo.
               

                  Este informe dice muchas cosas y muy duras y muy ciertas. Llevamos 20 años demostrando que Putin no es fiable. No respeta el Derecho internacional ni las convenciones ni, por supuesto, los derechos humanos, ni dentro ni fuera de Rusia: desde los asesinatos de miembros de la oposición o el encarcelamiento de Navalny a la invasión y anexión de Crimea; desde las operaciones de desinformación con Puigdemont y separatistas catalanes a las agresiones a Ucrania o provocaciones al Báltico.
               

                  Son muchos los obstáculos, hoy por hoy insalvables, que ponen al presidente Putin en unas relaciones que podrían ser y deberían ser mucho más intensas y beneficiosas para ambas partes.
               

                  La Unión Europea ha de ser firme y estar unida frente a la Rusia de Putin. Por eso, son condenables iniciativas que dividen, como la egoísta aventura alemana del North Stream II.
               

                  A un tiempo, la Unión Europea debe insistir en esa cooperación con Rusia, porque Rusia seguirá ahí cuando Putin acabe, esa Rusia cuyo futuro no puede ser convertirse en la reserva de materias primas para China. Necesitamos en Rusia un cooperador para el futuro y de alguna forma tenemos que hacerlo.
               

Traian Băsescu (PPE). – Domnule președinte, de acord cu nevoia de cooperare cu Rusia, subliniată în raport. Dar până la cooperare trebuie să constatăm că Rusia a ocupat prin forță teritorii a trei state asociate Uniunii Europene. Rusia desfășoară campanii virulente de dezinformare în toate statele Parteneriatului estic, dar și în state membre UE. De pe teritoriul Rusiei, se lansează frecvent atacuri cibernetice împotriva obiectivelor din state membre UE și NATO. Prin concentrarea de resurse militare în Crimeea și Kaliningrad, Rusia este o amenințare directă și explicită la securitatea Uniunii.
               

                  Adesea, Rusia utilizează gazele exportate în Uniune ca pârghie de influențare a deciziei politice. Strategia noastră de reducere a dependenței energetice față de Rusia este o hârtie fără valoare, atâta timp cât North Stream devine o realitate. Rezultatul dependenței noastre de importurile de gaze din Rusia este că Rusia face ce vrea la frontiera estică a Uniunii și atunci care sunt pilonii politicii noastre externe unitare față de Rusia? Eu nu știu.
               

Sven Mikser (S&D). – Mr President, we must not abandon hope and we must seek cooperation with those in Russia who share our core values, so that one day we can have a constructive partner in Moscow. In the meantime, we must admit that there are certain key differences between our world outlook and value system and those of the current Russian regime. This sets limits on how trusting our relationship can be.
Let's work our way, so to say, from inside out. First, the way Russia treats its own people – Russia's human rights record – is ugly. It's treatment of dissidents and political opposition is truly horrible.
Second, the way Russia disrespects the sovereignty and territorial integrity of its closest neighbours is in contravention of international law and contrary to the EU's special security interest.
Third, and most importantly, we must consider the way Russia keeps interfering in our internal affairs, be it by supporting radical populist parties, be it under the guise of protecting the so-called traditional values, or be it by promoting conspiracy theories aimed at undermining Europeans' trust in our democratically elected institutions.
So yes, we need to work with Russia on common challenges, but we must always remain sober, alert and situationally aware.

Maximilian Krah (ID). – Herr Präsident, liebe Kollegen! Herr Kollege, dieser Bericht, den wir hier vorliegen haben, ist eine Kriegserklärung eines Kalten Krieges. Er ist in Tonfall und Inhalt aggressiv, und er lässt keine Möglichkeit einer konstruktiven Kooperation mit Russland zu.
               

                  Das mag die Mehrheit hier so wünschen, aber Sie haben nicht die Mehrheit der Bürgerinnen und Bürger hinter sich. In Deutschland haben drei Viertel der Wahlberechtigten in einer Umfrage erklärt, dass sie hinter Nord Stream 2 stehen. Und das ist in den anderen Ländern nicht anders.
               

                  Diese Russophobie, die hier gepflegt wird, hat keine Wurzeln in den Bevölkerungen, und sie ist darüber hinaus auch von Doppelstandards geprägt. Wir reden über Herrn Nawalny, einen hochproblematischen Rassisten. Aber wieso redet niemand über Herrn Medwedtschuk, den Oppositionsführer in Kiew, der unter Hausarrest steht? Der eine darf eingeknastet werden, der gewählte Parlamentarier, und der andere, mit Wirtschaftsstraftaten, nicht. Das können Sie nicht erklären, genauso wenig, wie Sie Ihre Russophobie erklären können.
               

                  Und deshalb werden wir weiter daran arbeiten, Frieden durch Verständigung, durch Verständnis und durch Diplomatie zu erreichen – auch wenn wir damit in der Minderheit sind. Klares Nein zum Bericht.
               

Dace Melbārde (ECR). – Priekšsēdētāja kungs! Es Eiropas Parlamentā pārstāvu Latviju, kas atrodas Krievijas tiešā ģeopolitiskā tuvumā. Un mūsu vēsture mums diemžēl māca nelolot naivas ilūzijas attiecībās ar Krievijas autoritāriem režīmiem.
               

                  Izmantojot dezinformāciju un citas hibrīdiejaukšanās formas, arī šobrīd Krievija — Kremlis — pastāvīgi iejaucas mūsu valsts iekšpolitikā un cenšas šķelt mūsu sabiedrību, tajā skaitā Putins aktīvi atbalsta Baltkrievijas diktatoru Lukašenko, tostarp tā īstenoto hibrīduzbrukumu, kas šobrīd ciniski organizē migrantu plūsmas uz Latviju, Lietuvu un Poliju.
               

                  Neatkarīgu mediju stiprināšana ir viena no atbildēm Kremļa manipulācijām. Eiropas Savienība ir spērusi pirmos soļus visaptverošas mediju politikas izveidē, un es esmu pārliecināta, ka tās ietvaros mums ir jāizveido spēcīgs Eiropas Mediju fonds. Pienācīgs atbalsts neatkarīgajiem medijiem ir nepieciešams gan Eiropas Savienības iekšienē, īpašu uzmanību pievēršot tām valstīm, kas robežojas ar Krieviju, gan arī Austrumu partnerības valstu un Krievijas brīvajiem medijiem, jo šādi ir iespējams atmaskot Putina autoritāro režīmu un stiprināt cerību Krievijas un arī Baltkrievijas tautās, ka pārmaiņas ir iespējamas.
               

Александър Александров Йорданов (PPE). – Г-н Председател, колеги, поздравявам колегата Кобилюс за неговия доклад. Той представя дългосрочна стратегия за отношенията ни с Руската федерация. Особено важно е, че в него се прави разграничение между режима в Кремъл и руските граждани. Важни са и направените в доклада препоръки към Комисията и Съвета.
               

                  Днес няма по-голяма заплаха за европейската сигурност и ценности от режима на Путин. Моята България, например, отдавна е обект на руска хибридна атака. Затова и в момента страната е в политическа криза, в дестабилизация и хаос. Президентът и неговото служебно правителство налагат методи на управление, характерни за режима в Кремъл. Предстоят трети поред, само за половин година, парламентарни избори. Колеги, призовавам ви да подкрепим доклада, за да докажем, че сме отговорни към нашия Съюз, към днешните и бъдещи поколения на Европа и Русия.
               

Pierfrancesco Majorino (S&D). – Signor Presidente, onorevoli colleghi, il pessimo livello dello stato delle relazioni politiche tra l'Unione europea e la Russia è un dato eclatante che non possiamo negare e con cui bisogna evidentemente fare i conti, affrontando con la dovuta nettezza anche le conseguenze.
               

                  Da tempo l'Unione, i suoi processi democratici e quelli dei suoi Stati membri sono sotto attacco con più o meno evidenti tentativi di interferenze da parte di potenze straniere: la Russia è una di queste, forse la più esplicita, e ha trovato anche in Europa complici politici disposti a sostenerla, complici che siedono pure in quest'Aula.
               

                  Stiamo giustamente maturando consapevolezza rispetto a ciò, occorre però anche mettere in campo tutti gli strumenti necessari a difesa dei nostri valori e della nostra democrazia.
               

                  Ora dobbiamo fare di più, dobbiamo rafforzare decisamente il rapporto con quella società civile russa che, tra mille difficoltà, prova oggi a costruire spazi di alternativa e di democrazia, promuove la libera informazione e i diritti civili, lotta contro ogni discriminazione. Essa, questa parte di Russia, deve essere il nostro alleato.
               

Gunnar Beck (ID). – Herr Präsident! Dieser Bericht wirft Russland vor, die eigene Einflusssphäre auszubauen, die westliche liberale Demokratie zu diskreditieren, Völkerrecht und LGBT-Rechte zu missachten und, man horche, die eigenen nationalen Interessen zu verfolgen. Vielleicht ist es Teil der EU-Klimapolitik, politisch neue Eiszeiten auf den Weg zu bringen. Eine Rezeptur für bessere Beziehungen zu Russland ist der Bericht kaum.
               

                  Bedenken Sie bitte: Wer assistierte der NATO seit 20 Jahren bei ihren postliberalen Kreuzzügen vom Atlantik bis zum Hindukusch? Wer finanziert westliche NGOs in Russland? Und wer intervenierte völkerrechtswidrig im Irak und in Libyen? Wer anders als die EU und ihre Mitglieder? Verglichen mit Russland allerdings ziemlich erfolglos. Afghanistan lehrt: Russland lernt aus Fehlern – die EU nimmermehr.
               

Puhetta johti HEIDI HAUTALA


varapuhemies


President. – Good evening, dear colleagues. Before continuing with the debate, I will now move to the results of today's voting session.
11.   Announcement of voting results

President. –
(After the announcement of voting results) Before continuing with the debates, I would like to give the floor, pursuant to Rule 59(4), to Ms Trillet-Lenoir on the referral back to the committee responsible for interinstitutional negotiations of the report by Ms Kopcińska on the European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control and her own report on the serious cross-border threats to health.
I give the floor to Ms Trillet-Lenoir for one minute. These requests will then be put to the vote after the vote on the Commission's proposals.

Véronique Trillet-Lenoir (Renew). – Madam President, following the votes that have just taken place, I would like to request that the serious cross-border threats to health report, as well as the ECDC file, on behalf of Ms Kopcińska, be referred back to the committee responsible for interinstitutional negotiations pursuant to Rule 59(4).
12.   Direction of EU-Russia political relations (continuation of debate)

Puhemies. – Jatkamme nyt keskustelua Andrius Kubiliusin mietinnöstä (A9-0259/2021).
               

Peter van Dalen (PPE). – Voorzitter, ze liegen, we weten dat ze liegen en zij weten dat wij weten dat ze liegen. Deze historische woorden uit de Goelag Archipel gelden nog altijd voor het schrikbewind in Moskou. Rusland, waar wetteloosheid en willekeur heersen en waar in de rechtszaal toneelstukjes worden opgevoerd met een officier van justitie in een uniform en een rechter in een ambtsgewaad.
               

                  ‘Wanneer de grondslagen zijn vernield, wat kan de rechtvaardige dan nog doen?’ aldus psalm 11. Gelukkig zijn er mensen die opstaan en opstonden voor een beter en ander Rusland: Solzjenitsyn, Politkovskaja, Nemtsov en Navalny. Navalny ontving onlangs vanuit Genève de prijs voor morele moed van het Forum voor Mensenrechten en Democratie. Laten wij achter hem en de Russische oppositie gaan staan door aan hem de Sacharovprijs van dit Parlement uit te reiken.
               

Jytte Guteland (S&D). – Fru talman! Klimatförändringar utgör vårt enskilt största säkerhetspolitiska hot. Utfasningen av fossila bränslen kommer att förändra den geopolitiska dynamiken i världen – var så säker! Det ligger i Rysslands eget intresse att inte halka efter i klimatomställningen. Därför behöver EU, tillsammans med USA, öka ansträngningarna inför COP 26 i syfte att främja dialog och samverkan med Ryssland, för att gemensamt tackla de globala klimatförändringarna. EU:s förbindelser med Ryssland måste klimatsäkras.
               

                  Samtidigt måste också EU bredda och utveckla stödet för demokrati, mänskliga rättigheter, jämställdhet, miljö och klimat. Stödet bör strategiskt främja en demokratisk utveckling och bidra till stärkt yttrandefrihet, ökad respekt för mänskliga rättigheter och rättsstatens principer. EU bör fortsatt stötta det civila samhället och främja det mellanfolkliga utbytet.
               

                  Den politiska utvecklingen i Ryssland är synnerligen oroande, men medborgarna strävar likt alla folk efter en demokratisk framtid. Vi bör tålmodigt, långsiktigt och varaktigt stötta en demokratisk framtid i Ryssland.
               

Francisco José Millán Mon (PPE). – Señora presidenta, gracias al ponente, señor Kubilius, por su informe tan detallado y ambicioso.
               

                  Rusia está habitualmente en nuestros debates. Es un país europeo vecino con el que tenemos numerosos vínculos y es un importante actor internacional. Rusia no puede sernos indiferente.
               

                  Pero, desgraciadamente, nuestras relaciones con Rusia pasan por una etapa muy negativa. La guerra de Georgia en 2008, la anexión ilegal de Crimea en 2014 y el conflicto en las regiones orientales de Ucrania son la causa principal, junto con la deriva autoritaria en la política interna rusa. Estamos en una línea de alejamiento creciente.
               

                  Moscú tiene intereses diferentes de los de la Unión Europea, a menudo contrapuestos, y una visión distinta del orden internacional desde una posición revisionista y anacrónica. Además, es muy preocupante su actitud intervencionista, ayudando y promoviendo maniobras desestabilizadoras en Estados miembros. Recientemente, los medios de comunicación han revelado sus conexiones con los secesionistas catalanes.
               

                  Veo muy difícil que la relación con Rusia, con la Rusia actual, pueda mejorar. En materia de valores y principios democráticos, Putin también busca diferenciarse claramente de la Unión Europea.
               

Radosław Sikorski (PPE). – Madam President, Politkovskaya, Litvinenko, Skripal, Nemtsov, Navalny. These names speak for themselves. Just in the last few days, we have the consummation of the Union of Russia and Belarus. We have the completion of the Nord Stream 2 pipeline and we have the aggressive military exercises called the Zapad.
Let's remember that Russia was welcomed into collaboration with the West. This organisation offered it Partnership and Cooperation Agreement 1, and we were due to have a partnership and cooperation agreement 2, which was an association agreement in everything but name.
We were supposed to be on a converging trajectory, but Mr Putin, who had a chance to modernise his society and his institutions, instead went for the traditional way – foreign expansion and foreign policy swagger at the expense of the interests of the Russian people. He now finds what dictators always find: that if you've stolen too much and killed too many people, you can't go back. His interest is in the alliance of autocracies. The interests of Russian people is modernisation. I believe he will go down in history as someone who prepared Russia badly for the challenge of rising China.
In the meantime, we need to deter him, therefore, I support the Kubilius report.

Helmut Geuking (PPE). – Frau Präsidentin! Als erstes möchte ich Herrn Kubilius danken für diesen Bericht. Der Bericht spricht genau das aus, was ich beim letzten Entschließungsantrag schon gesagt habe: Wir müssen über den Tellerrand hinausschauen, denn es gibt auch ein Russland nach Putin, und Putin ist nicht gleich Russland. Und das spiegelt der Bericht wunderbar wider – erstmalig, dass er das widerspiegelt. Dafür, Herr Kubilius, dass Sie das aufgegriffen haben, meinen herzlichen Dank!
               

                  Ja, der Bericht ist in seiner Klarheit und Wahrheit ganz eindeutig, und er spricht eine deutliche Sprache. Aber jetzt liegt es an uns, auch entsprechend nachzusetzen, indem wir sagen: Wir müssen jetzt ein Signal geben, dass wir es nicht nur bei diesen Reden belassen, sondern wir müssen jetzt ein Signal geben, indem wir die Länder Georgien, Ukraine, Moldawien mehr einbinden und unter das Dach Europa holen.
               

                  Georgien ist schon längst soweit, Georgien gehört unter das Dach Europa – und die Ukraine: Ich bin erst am Freitag aus der Ukraine zurückgekommen, den Menschen, die so herzig sind, die zu Europa streben und nach Europa möchten, müssen wir hilfreich zur Seite stehen, dass sie das auch schnellstens verwirklichen können. Wir müssen da eine gewisse Dynamik hineinbringen, damit wir hier Zeichen setzen.
               

                  Allerdings müssen wir auch Zeichen setzen – und da stimme ich übrigens zu: Wir dürfen die EU nicht mit der NATO gleichsetzen. Das heißt, diese Länder sollten darauf verzichten, NATO-Mitglied zu werden, aber dafür unter das Dach der EU kommen, und das schnellstens. Und wenn wir das beherzigen, dann werden wir auch einen Weg finden, um Russland zu demokratisieren. Aber das wird, da gebe ich Ihnen Recht, erst nach Putin der Fall sein.
               

Rasa Juknevičienė (PPE). – Madam President, I want to congratulate Andrius. He worked hard and from his heart, because he sincerely believes that there is a possible future for a different Russia.
The Kremlin likes to call many of us ‘Russophobes’, but we are exactly the opposite. Putin is the biggest Russophobe of all. He is afraid of Russians. He is afraid of the upcoming elections. That is why he has already eliminated all possible competition. It is clear that the upcoming Duma elections will not be real elections, but another Kremlin manipulation. They have already lost their legitimacy. It is good that the report addresses this.
This report is significant. We can see that from the reaction of the Kremlin and its proxies. Now they monitor and react to every related development.
I invite all those whose hands are not tied by the Kremlin to vote in favour and to unite towards a clear and effective strategy to address the authoritarian regimes around us.

Jutta Urpilainen,
Member of the Commission, on behalf of the Vice-President of the Commission / High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy. – Madam President, we share broadly the analysis and ideas presented in the report that this Parliament will adopt this week.
The basic assumption as defined in the report, namely that the EU should differentiate between Putin's regime and Russian society, is already an integral part of the five guiding principles which we will continue to implement in a balanced way.
We will continue to maintain a firm stance against human rights violations and breaches of international law. The flexing of muscles by Russia abroad, together with increased repression at home, raises concerns. Democratisation should originate from within society. The role of the EU here is support, independent media and pluralism.
When it comes to any attempts to undermine EU interests, the Union itself must become more robust and resilient. We must keep developing the EU's cyber security and defence capacity, as well as the strategic communication capabilities by stepping up work on foreign information, manipulation and disinformation. A strengthened cooperation with the Eastern neighbourhood and our support to democratic reforms as the backbone of our policy remain our utmost interest.
At the same time, Russia will not go away. We need to move from a more reactive position to a proactive one to defend our values and interests at EU, regional and global levels. The European Union remains engaged in this endeavour with realism and determination.

Puhemies. – Keskustelu on päättynyt.
               

                  Äänestys toimitetaan keskiviikkona 15.9.2021.
               


Kirjalliset lausumat (171 artikla)



Pedro Marques (S&D),
por escrito. – Uma cleptocracia autoritária, estagnada, liderada por um presidente vitalício, rodeado por um círculo de oligarcas. Um dia, talvez a Rússia venha a ser uma democracia. Mas, neste momento, a frase com que inicio esta intervenção, é a utilizada pelo PE para caraterizar a realidade russa.
               

                  Nessa caminhada rumo à democracia, a UE tem um papel a desempenhar. A maioria de nós entende que o Conselho deve adotar uma estratégia de incentivos às tendências democráticas da Rússia. E a maioria de nós faz questão de distinguir a Rússia dos russos.
               

                  Temos de contrabalançar a escalada da Rússia e da China para enfraquecer a democracia em todo o mundo. Temos de diminuir a dependência do gás, do petróleo e de outras matérias-primas russas. Temos de endurecer sanções de diversa ordem: políticas e de combate a fluxos financeiros ilícitos. Temos de apoiar os ativistas de direitos humanos russos.
               

                  Se o fizermos, talvez um dia a Rússia venha a ser uma democracia.
               

Roberts Zīle (ECR),
rakstiski. – Godātais prezidenta kungs un Parlamenta kolēģi! Es priecājos atbalstīt ziņojumu par Eiropas Savienības politiskajām attiecībām ar Krieviju. Tajā ietvertas visas pastāvošās problēmas, ar kurām mēs saskaramies gan reģionāli, gan arī individuāli dalībvalstīs. Nesenie notikumi saistībā ar Lukašenko režīma rīcību saistībā ar nelegālo imigrantu plūsmas veicināšanu pāri Eiropas Savienības robežai ir nepieņemami. Mums ir jābūt skaidrībai par to, kā mēs nodrošināsim Eiropas Savienības robežu stiprināšanu un koordinēti risināsim arī citus nopietnus problēmjautājumus. Es mudinu savus kolēģus atbalstīt šo ziņojumu un iestāties pret Krievijas režīmu.
               
13.   A new EU-China strategy (debate)

Puhemies. – Esityslistalla on seuraavana Hilde Vautmansin ulkoasiainvaliokunnan puolesta laatima mietintö EU:n uudesta Kiina-strategiasta (2021/2037(INI)) (A9-0252/2021).
               

Hilde Vautmans,
rapporteur. – Madam President, let me first thank my colleagues for their good cooperation on the report. We stand here as a united parliament. United in our belief that we must put our naivety aside when dealing with China. A united parliament that is very clear in its rejection of the investment agreement, as long as our colleagues are sanctioned and human rights violations are ongoing in China.
In our report, we recognise that the rise of China will have an enormous impact on our way of life and Europe's role in the world. We also warn that Europe is not prepared for this change because, until now, we have defined our relationship with China in terms of trade.
Don't get me wrong, China is indeed a very interesting trading partner, and it's great for European business that many Chinese are now able to afford German cars, French wines and Italian fashion. But economic gains should not make us blind to the challenges that the Chinese Communist Party is posing to the liberal world order.
The EU must be determined to defend our key values, and this requires a new and more assertive strategy.
First, we must realise that China is too big to ignore. We cannot deal with climate change, terrorism and global security without working together with China. If you want to save our planet, China must be our partner in this field. That is why I fully disagree with those who plead for a complete decoupling between the West and China.
But let's not be naive. China's cherry-picking of the rules of the United Nations and the World Trade Organization must end. And China has to show that it means business on climate change; otherwise, the EU must introduce a border tax to offset the higher carbon emissions of Chinese products.
Second, the EU must step up its defence of human rights and the rule of law. The Communist regime tries to wipe out Uyghur heritage from Chinese soil. Hong Kong has been subject to one of the most brutal crackdowns we have seen in recent history.
This repression is not limited to China. Chinese ‘Belt and Road’ money is pouring into Africa, the Western Balkans and Latin America. It is financing regimes and companies that trample on human rights. Reports of labour exploitation, land-grabbing, pollution and health issues are frequent. I call on our leaders to finally come up with a credible European alternative to the Belt and Road Initiative. We must support sustainable investments which do not exploit workers, which respect the environment and enhance good governance.
And let us increase the pressure on China to stop its crackdown on Hong Kong. And, as I have already said a lot of times, and I will repeat it again, we need to stop importing cotton from the Xinjiang area because products from slave labour have no place in the European Union.
Third, the EU will clearly never be a match for China or the other world powers unless we get our act together. The disaster in Afghanistan has shown that we need a European army, a real foreign policy without national vetoes. It is also very clear to me that we need a European FBI and CIA to counter foreign threats.
China's rise has only just begun. Some say Europe's decline started a long time ago. Let's prove them wrong and step up our ambitions. Let's show that the time for naivety is over. Let's make Europe fit for the future with a new strategy to deal with the rising dragon, combined with a strategy to make a fist on the world stage.

Jutta Urpilainen,
Member of the Commission, on behalf of the Vice-President of the Commission / High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy. – Madam President, today's debate is a timely opportunity to discuss our common approach to China. As reflected in your report, a lot has changed in the past months when it comes to this important relationship and not necessarily for the better. Relations have become increasingly challenging. Until the end of 2020 we saw positive steps in developing EU-China relations, rebalancing our economic relations and developing our international toolbox to address challenges brought along by China.
This increased leverage and credibility allowed us to conclude the negotiations of the Comprehensive Agreement on Investment in December, but also to agree on human rights sanctions over Chinese individuals under the EU Global Human Rights Sanctions regime. Since then, the situation has changed. The Chinese decision to impose counter measures, including on Members of this Parliament simply for having expressed their opinions, has led to a worsening of relations. China will remain an increasingly assertive global power that does not shy away from applying economic pressure on countries and actors whose policies it disagrees with. Our values gap is growing, so is the need for EU solidarity and for signalling that certain actions are unacceptable. This plenary debate and the report on a new EU-China strategy testify to this.
I believe that our overall approach towards EU China relations, our multifaceted approach that treats China as a partner, competitor and rival, remains valid. We need to engage with China as a key economic partner and political player without whom we cannot address global challenges effectively. At the same time, the EU must continue to speak its mind, stand its ground and push back in areas where fundamental disagreement with China exists, first and foremost on human rights.
Our current framework to handle relations with China fits closely with the recommendations of this report. Our overall approach encompasses key foreign policy aims that are not actor-specific, such as strategic autonomy. We aim at international cooperation which preserves our values and a rule-based multilateral system. We foster partnerships with the like-minded, as you will see in the Indo-Pacific Strategy. All of this, taken together, reflects the recommendations put forward in the report.
I thank Ms Vautmans and the shadow rapporteurs for the recommendations and the general support for our policies in this report. Our unity remains our strength. I am looking forward to continuing our exchange.

Radosław Sikorski,
on behalf of the PPE Group. – Madam President, China is, of course, a communist dictatorship with everything that concerns human rights. But its communism is native born and, under communism, China has modernised. In fact, the rise has been awesome. It contains a quarter of humanity and has an ancient culture worthy of respect.
China has committed grave errors and crimes such as the Cultural Revolution. Abandoning the Deng doctrine of hiding your strength and playing for time is also, I believe, a mistake. There's also a looming debt crisis. Europe and the United States should act together, even though our interests are not identical. The challenge for us is how to trade with China while remaining a good ally of the United States. I therefore welcome the creation of the Trade and Technology Council. We should collaborate on everything with the United States except the military field, while, of course, maintaining the arms embargo.
I commend this report, which tries to put forward the following doctrine: collaborate with China where possible, compete where needed and confront where necessary. Madam President, just before coming into this Chamber, I learned that the British House of Commons and House of Lords have jointly decided to exclude the new Ambassador of China from the premises as long as some Members of the UK Parliament remain subject to Chinese sanctions. I see colleagues here in this Chamber who have also been sanctioned. In solidarity with them, I propose that we adopt a similar principle.

Pedro Marques,
em nome do Grupo S&D. – Senhora Presidente, a China é, ou pode ser, ao mesmo tempo, um parceiro comercial e de negociação, mas também um rival económico e competidor sistémico no plano global. A relação da União Europeia com a China tem, por isso, de considerar tudo isto, mas tem de ter no seu coração o respeito pelos direitos humanos. É nesse quadro que, quando vemos a confrontação sistémica da China com a Europa, nomeadamente com um processo de sanções contra colegas nossos ou a sistemática violação dos direitos humanos e do Estado de direito, temos que dizer claramente a partir daqui que não compactuamos com isso.
               

                  Essas ações da China têm, por isso, de ter consequências. Ainda há dois dias houve eleições em Macau. Se, na maioria dos países, a realização de eleições é a expressão maior da democracia, fique bem claro que as eleições em Macau não o foram. Violando abertamente o acordo com Portugal na altura da entrega de Macau, as autoridades chinesas excluíram das eleições todos os candidatos que representavam abertura política e independência relativamente ao governo de Pequim.
               

                  É inaceitável! A entrega do território foi feita com a garantia de que a democracia seria respeitada naquela região. Se a China não respeita acordos como este, assinado ao mais alto nível com um Estado-Membro da União Europeia e depositado nas Nações Unidas, como podemos acreditar que respeitará outros?
               

                  Queremos cooperar e negociar com a China, mas não o podemos fazer sem muito exigentes as condições.
               

Nathalie Loiseau,
au nom du groupe Renew. – Madame la Présidente, une minute pour parler de la Chine, l'organisation de nos débats frise le surréalisme – Joseph Borrell l'a noté tout à l'heure et il a raison. Je vais donc éviter les propos généraux et me concentrer sur un point précis, celui de la présence de la Chine dans les universités et la recherche européenne.
               

                  Dans ce domaine comme dans d'autres, notre naïveté laisse sans voix. Nous n'avons pas prêté assez attention aux secteurs stratégiques, souvent dans la zone grise entre le civil et le militaire, dans lesquels la coopération scientifique avec la Chine foisonne. Nous avons laissé les instituts Confucius se multiplier et dicter, là où ils s'implantent, les sujets de recherche autorisés et ceux qui sont interdits lorsqu'il s'agit de la Chine. Nous ignorons qui sont les chercheurs européens que Pékin a convaincus de travailler pour la recherche chinoise et les conditions dans lesquelles ils mettent leurs savoirs au service d'un pays et souvent d'une armée, l'Armée populaire de libération, dont les ambitions devraient nous inquiéter.
               

                  En résumé, nous avons accepté sans réagir une dépendance croissante de nos universités aux coopérations avec la Chine, au risque d'un pillage de nos savoirs et d'une censure chinoise dans notre recherche. Il est temps d'imposer la transparence là où règne l'opacité, de ne plus laisser nos universités faire n'importe quoi en ordre dispersé et de construire une véritable stratégie de souveraineté scientifique de l'Europe.
               

Reinhard Bütikofer,
on behalf of the Verts/ALE Group. – Madam President, let me first thank Ms Vautmans for a very good report and for all the efforts at keeping this House united – and indeed we are. We are also self-confident. We don't believe in defeatism and declinism. We think that if Europe mobilises our positive energies, we can well stand up to the Chinese challenge.
But we have to acknowledge – and it's long past time – that we believed that this was just about trade. This is much more about geopolitics and on many fronts increasingly we see that the systemic rivalry is coming to the fore. I would hope we would have more opportunities for cooperation on climate policy, for instance.
But what is it that China tells us? They say we're not willing to be a partner on climate unless you stop criticising our atrocious human rights record with regard to Xinjiang. This is not what we are willing to accept. We are proposing positive European policies to create alternatives, like an alternative to the Belt and Road Initiative. We want to stop the import of slave labour products.
We will continue telling Ms Merkel and all the others that CAI will remain in the freezer until China changes course. We will uphold the solidarity with Lithuania and we are encouraging our leaders not to go to Beijing, not to accept invitations to the Olympics, if the Chinese human rights situation does not change.
For this policy, on which we have been united for quite a while in this House and which is a policy of pride and confidence, we would hope we get support also from the European Commission and the Member States.

Anna Bonfrisco,
a nome del gruppo ID. – (inizio dell'intervento fuori microfono) … esercitare la concorrenza sleale, lo spionaggio della proprietà intellettuale, umiliare le libertà, degradare la dignità umana, disseminare disinformazione, epurare i dissensi e le diversità politiche, filosofiche e religiose? No, non è accettabile!
               

                  Usare le tecnologie emergenti per espandere la coercizione e consolidare l'intrusione, svuotando la privacy individuale non è etico e nemmeno umanocentrico.
               

                  Questi aspetti rendono la Cina una calamità e questo lo ricordiamo specialmente alla Russia.
               

                  Pertanto invitiamo gli Stati membri e il Servizio esterno a investire in una più stretta cooperazione con partner democratici con i quali condividiamo i valori, i valori dell'umanità.
               

Hermann Tertsch,
en nombre del Grupo ECR. – Señora presidenta, estamos aquí ante un gran informe, el informe de la señora Vautmans, que, realmente, por primera vez en esta Cámara —quizá por primera vez en la Unión Europea—, presenta una panorámica general de una gran amenaza para nuestra civilización, una gran amenaza para nuestra seguridad como es en este momento China.
               

                  Estamos al final de un inmenso malentendido que empezó hace cuarenta años, cuando pensamos todos que el acercamiento al capitalismo iba a hacer de China un país lentamente cada vez más tolerante, cada vez más plural y cada vez más abierto. Ha sido lo contrario.
               

                  En este momento, llevamos diez años con un líder que se ha convertido realmente en un dictador como solo Mao lo fue, y con un endurecimiento de la situación dentro de China. Las actitudes de China fuera de allí son cada vez más agresivas y más amenazadoras. La represión interna es inmensa y la actitud frente al resto del mundo es absolutamente arrolladora y existe un matonismo que nos amenaza y nos intenta amedrentar a todos.
               

                  Por eso, tenemos que tener un concepto muy, muy claro de lo que es China en este momento. Tenemos que tener un concepto muy claro de que tenemos que tener una política global y general hacia ella. Y tenemos que tener todo lo contrario de lo que se ha querido con esas tentaciones de nuevos acuerdos de inversiones.
               

                  Tenemos que tener una política de resistencia frente a una agresión inmensa que se nos echa encima.
               

Idoia Villanueva Ruiz,
en nombre del Grupo The Left. – Señora presidenta, la Unión Europea siempre ha tenido una relación hipócrita con China: a nivel comunitario fomentando la tensión, mientras los Estados miembros por separado vemos cómo hacen grandes negocios y malvenden recursos fundamentalmente estratégicos.
               

                  La nueva estrategia de la Unión Europea con China debe abrir una ventana de oportunidad para, de una forma transparente, estabilizar y modernizar una relación basada en el diálogo y la cooperación para poder encontrar soluciones a problemas que suponen un gran reto global.
               

                  El cambio climático y sus consecuencias, el retroceso mundial de los derechos humanos y de las libertades fundamentales, la falta de recursos naturales, la insuficiencia alimentaria en tantos lugares del mundo, entre otras muchas urgencias, nos obligan a dedicar todos nuestros esfuerzos al desarrollo de una política de cooperación basada siempre en principios y derechos fundamentales claros con todos los actores necesarios para lograr de verdad un cambio real.
               

                  Que esta relación que tantos beneficios está generando para unos pocos dentro de la Unión Europea se ponga al servicio de la justicia medioambiental, económica y social en el ámbito internacional. Utilicémosla para avanzar en derechos humanos y justicia global.
               

Christophe Hansen (PPE). – Madam President, the EU needs to steer, once and for all, an independent course with regard to China and the newly-emerged multipolar world. Therefore, we need a unilateral autonomy to be able to enforce our rules for all players on our single market, European or not – for example, by means of an instrument to fight distortive foreign subsidies – especially since the CAI, as Reinhard Bütikofer said, is in the freezer for the moment.
The real litmus test of our strategic autonomy for me would be a deepened economic relation with Taiwan, not as a provocation, but as an affirmation of our agency. We also need bilateral engagement through dialogue before all, but this also means standing up for what's right. An import ban on goods produced with forced labour is long overdue. What is happening in Xinjiang cannot be explained away as a difference of understanding between East and West, as some people are doing here in this House.
Multilateral pressure is, of course, important and this means to uphold a good constructive dialogue with the US and Japan to go ahead and uphold our democratic values. What all these initiatives have in common is the need for coordination. Therefore, we need a China task force that brings together all the Member States so that we sing from the same hymn sheet. This is long overdue, Commissioner.

Sven Mikser (S&D). – Madam President, the minute only allows me to make three brief points.
First, I believe it's a very solid report and it reflects very strong unity among the major political groups in the Parliament when it comes to our approach to China. I would like to congratulate the rapporteur Hilde Vautmans on that.
Secondly, China is no doubt a rising global power, and the higher it rises, the more our relationship with China moves into the realm of strategic rivalry. It's a relationship that is multifaceted and complex. We are looking for a comprehensive approach to China that would cover a variety of different policy areas, and this quest, if it has underscored anything, I think it is the need for greater unity among European Union Member states, but also the need for a greater EU strategic autonomy across a variety of policy areas, from security to trade to industrial and technological development.
And finally, the human rights dialogue has been and will be a part of that complex relationship, and we cannot accept any attempts by China to intimidate us by imposing arbitrary sanctions on Members of this Parliament, and our actions must be guided by solidarity with the colleagues who have been targeted by such sanctions.

Marie-Pierre Vedrenne (Renew). – Madame la Présidente, Madame la Commissaire, si le dialogue avec Pékin peut être nécessaire pour lutter contre le changement climatique, sur les autres champs, nous devons faire preuve de fermeté. La Chine doit notamment s'engager à respecter pleinement les règles fixées par l'OMC et œuvrer à sa réforme.
               

                  Sur l'accord sur les investissements, notre message demeure clair: il est inenvisageable que nous procédions à quelque vote ou étude tant que la Chine maintient ses sanctions contre nos institutions. Et quand bien même cet accord est gelé, la Chine doit honorer ses engagements de ratifier et de mettre en œuvre les conventions de l'OIT sur le travail forcé. Nous ne cautionnerons pas les pratiques inhumaines envers la minorité ouïghoure ou envers les Hongkongais.
               

                  Madame la Commissaire, il est grand temps que l'Europe se dote d'instruments adéquats, notamment un mécanisme pour interdire l'importation de produits issus du travail forcé ou l'instrument visant à contrer les mesures coercitives. Il est grand temps d'assurer le respect de nos valeurs, la promotion de nos ambitions et la cohérence dans notre action.
               

Maximilian Krah (ID). – Frau Präsidentin, meine lieben Kollegen! Es ist ein denkwürdiger Abend: Wir haben uns erst ganz überwältigend klar gegen Russland positioniert, wir positionieren uns jetzt nicht minder klar gegen China – kurzum: gegen jeden, der es irgendwie anders meint als wir. Ich höre in diesem Haus oft etwas von Neokolonialismus, und wie gut es sei, dass wir mit der kolonialen Vergangenheit gebrochen haben.
               

                  Aber wenn der Westen, wenn Europa meint, es müsse die ganze Welt belehren: Ist das kein Neokolonialismus? Der westliche Universalismus und die westliche Weltordnung sind im 21. Jahrhundert nun einmal vorbei. Die alten Entwicklungsländer werden wieder stark, und natürlich werden sie sich nicht nach dem richten, was wir wollen, sondern wir müssen in einen Dialog mit ihnen treten, der zunächst einmal davon ausgeht, dass wir gleichberechtigt sind. Das nennt man Diplomatie.
               

                  Und da, wo wir uns danach richten, haben wir Erfolg. Und auch hier gilt, dass die Menschen draußen klüger sind als wir hier im Haus, mehrheitlich: Bei Nord Stream 2 sind es drei Viertel, die nach den Umfragen für die Fertigstellung waren. Bei China sind es 78 Prozent, die nicht in einen neuen Kalten Krieg gerissen werden können – zumindest in Deutschland.
               

                  Nehmen Sie sich die Wähler zum Vorbild und lassen Sie sich nicht in einen Kalten Krieg treiben!
               

Anna Fotyga (ECR). –Madam President, I congratulate Hilde Vautmans on her report. I also commend the tone and substance of today's debate in comparison to last December's EU-China Summit. It is real progress. We are very realistic in our response to Chinese diplomacy and policies. I stress the necessity to stay in solidarity with countries like Lithuania, Czechia and also with Taiwan – and with our colleagues here in the European Parliament – to counter Chinese coercion.

Helmut Scholz (The Left). – Frau Präsidentin, Frau Kommissarin, liebe Kolleginnen und Kollegen! Im 21. Jahrhundert wird es nicht mehr mit Machtpolitik gelingen, einem Fünftel der Weltbevölkerung unseren Willen aufzuzwingen. Unsere Generation steht vielmehr vor der historischen Aufgabe, den Frieden zu wahren, um globale Aufgaben wie den Klimawandel, die Armutsüberwindung und technologische Umbrüche zu bewältigen.
               

                  Dabei auf Dialog, Kontakte und prinzipielle Debatten zu verzichten, ist keine sinnvolle Alternative. Saubere Mobilität wird gemeinsam konstruiert werden müssen. Menschenrechte, individuelle wie soziale, können und müssen wir entschieden in Kooperation und Dialog verbessern, Verständigung herstellen über Xinjiang, Hongkong, Taiwan, Probleme und Chancen der wirtschaftlichen und handelspolitischen Verflechtungen und Abhängigkeiten – auch über das umfassende Investitionsabkommen zwischen der EU und China. Das heißt, gemeinsam mit den USA, mit weiteren Akteuren und eben insbesondere mit der Volksrepublik China das globale Gefüge auf friedliche Weise neu zu organisieren.
               

Andrius Kubilius (PPE). – Madam President, first of all I would like to thank the rapporteur for a really good report. I will try to spend my minutes on some comments on Chinese policy towards EU Member States – this means Lithuania.
The government of my country, Lithuania, in the spring decided to leave the so-called 17+1 format, which China created for relations with Central Europe in order to split the EU. Also, our government decided to upgrade relations with Taiwan and decided to open a Taiwanese, not Taipei, representation in Vilnius.
Of course, China became very angry over Lithuania, recalled the ambassador, and our business in China experienced different pressures and sanctions. I would like to thank all of you for the support and solidarity which you have shown to us.
We in Lithuania, several years ago, saw the same behaviour against Lithuania, against our business, shown by Russian authorities. We survived and we learnt a lesson. Business with an economy which is led by authoritarian regime is a risky business, very risky.
So today we need to send a clear, simple message. Business with China or in China is a very risky business. Second, China is big, we as Lithuania are small, but we shall not be defeated because we are together.

Maria Arena (S&D). – Madame la Présidente, Madame la Commissaire, tout d'abord, je tiens à remercier Hilde pour le travail exceptionnel, excellent qu'elle a fait dans le cadre de son rapport. Ce rapport fait effectivement la part belle à la question des droits de l'homme dans notre relation Union européenne et Chine.
               

                  Quand on parle de droits humains avec la Chine, on comprend le fossé qui existe entre un modèle européen et un modèle chinois. Travail forcé, camps de rééducation, persécution des différentes minorités, entrave à la liberté d'expression et d'association et à la liberté de la presse, arrestations arbitraires des militants prodémocratie, Hong Kong, Taïwan, Macao, pour ne pas parler du Tibet… Mais ces violations massives des droits de l'homme qui sont vécues en Chine, la Chine essaye de les exporter au travers de ses partenariats avec d'autres pays, au travers du multilatéralisme, dans lesquels elle impose une vision chinoise, mais aussi parfois dans nos entreprises privées, où elle fait pression pour licencier des personnes qui auraient pris des positions en faveur de la démocratie, ou encore au sein même de ce Parlement quand elle nous met sous sanctions.
               

                  Dans ce rapport, nous disons donc comment nous devons travailler avec la Chine, sans naïveté. Bien sûr, la Chine est un acteur mondial, mais nous devons avoir une autonomie stratégique vis-à-vis du modèle chinois.
               

Marco Campomenosi (ID). – Signora Presidente, onorevoli colleghi, il fascicolo Cina lo conosciamo tutti, è molto complesso, e devo dire che la risoluzione, rispetto a un atteggiamento che il Parlamento aveva in passato un po' più timoroso, credo abbia come novità il fatto di essere più ambiziosa.
               

                  Sicuramente è merito della relatrice, di chi ha lavorato su questo fascicolo, ma anche perché la situazione è molto deteriorata: la situazione nel Mar Cinese meridionale; le provocazioni a Taiwan; le ingerenze in aree molto delicate, come l'Afghanistan; l'Africa che è depredata dalla Cina; i paesi che sono anche indebitati.
               

                  Poi nella commissione per il commercio internazionale (INTA) parliamo molto di alcuni aspetti: l'impatto che ha la Cina sul mercato delle materie prime, le restrizioni all'export, la ripartenza delle imprese europee a rischio a causa anche di alcune situazioni. Ecco, tutto questo però non vale più se nei confronti e sui temi dei diritti umani, Hong Kong ma non solo, non siamo abbastanza coraggiosi e forti, per farci rispettare oltre che per difendere cittadini inermi.
               

Assita Kanko (ECR). – Voorzitter, eerst en vooral wil ik de rapporteur, mevrouw Vautmans, bedanken voor haar werk. Dit is een zeer belangrijk dossier. Ik kan mij vinden in de grote lijnen en de kritische ondertoon van dit verslag over een EU-strategie ten aanzien van China, waarin rekening wordt gehouden met het veelzijdige karakter van de betrekkingen van de EU met China. Het is daarom noodzakelijk dat in deze strategie actiemiddelen worden voorgesteld om te reageren op de verschillende rollen van China: samenwerkings- en onderhandelingspartner, economische concurrent en systemische rivaal. Samenwerking mag niet uitsluiten dat er kritische noten worden geplaatst bij de situatie van de mensenrechten in China, de mensenrechten in Hongkong, de behandeling van onze bedrijven, Chinese cyberaanvallen en pogingen tot culturele onderdrukking en de moderne kolonisatie van Afrika.
               

                  Ik denk en ik vrees eigenlijk dat we hier weer heel streng zullen zijn met woorden, maar niet actief genoeg met wat we daarna moeten doen. Daarmee moeten we opletten.
               

Karlo Ressler (PPE). – Poštovana predsjedavajuća, kolegice i kolege, kao drugo najveće svjetsko gospodarstvo Kina je danas globalni akter kojeg je nemoguće zaobići. Kina je ogroman trgovinski partner, a kineske tvrtke investiraju u brojne projekte diljem Europe.
               

                  Međutim, jasno je i da Kina nije dio našeg kulturnog civilizacijskog kruga. I ne samo to, nego je jasno i da imamo radikalno različita poimanja o uređenju društva i zato u našim odnosima moramo inzistirati na poštivanju međunarodnih obveza, na poštivanju ljudskih prava i na pravilima koja vrijede za sve.
               

                  Europske kompanije moraju imati pristup tržištu i natjecati se pod ravnopravnim uvjetima. To će biti ključno u definiranju naših budućih odnosa. No, i više od toga naše odnose, naš važan, a ne i uvijek i jednostavan odnos, odredit će i imperativ principijelne suradnje u ključnim globalnim pitanjima, što svakako uključuje i suočavanje s klimatskim promjenama.
               

Bernd Lange (S&D). – Frau Vorsitzende, Frau Kommissarin! Erst einmal herzlichen Dank an die Berichterstatterin, Frau Vautmans, für den guten Bericht und für die gute Kooperation mit dem Handelsausschuss, weil natürlich in den Beziehungen zu China die Handelspolitik eine ganz entscheidende Rolle spielt.
               

                  Ein chinesisches Sprichwort sagt: ‘Lieber auf einem neuen Weg etwas stolpern, als auf dem alten Weg auf der Stelle treten.’ Und das ist genau das, worum es gehen muss. Wir wissen alle ob der Situation in China. Aber wir wissen auch, dass wir in bestimmten Bereichen kooperieren müssen. Insofern ist es richtig, dass wir hier über die Frage eines Instrumentes zur Absicherung der öffentlichen Beschaffung nachdenken, dass wir klarmachen, dass illegale Subventionen nicht akzeptabel sind auf dem Binnenmarkt, dass wir ein Lieferkettengesetz haben wollen.
               

                  Wir wissen aber auch, dass wir China im Rahmen der WTO und beim Klimaschutz brauchen. Insofern: Beide Elemente sind hier mit drin. Und das ist genau richtig so. Neues Denken – ja, aber auch mit dem klaren Selbstbewusstsein unserer Interessen. Deswegen: klare Kante, aber eben kein engstirniges Denken.
               

Charlie Weimers (ECR). – Madam President, I congratulate rapporteur Vautmans on a good report. Now, the EU funded the Wuhan Institute of Virology. The purpose? A European virus archive, expressly aimed at, and I quote, ‘the production of viruses’. That is a fact. Those EU funds may have contributed to the dangerous gain-of-function research that could be the source of COVID-19.
If the pandemic was indeed caused by a lab leak, ensuring this never ever happens again must be at the heart of our EU-China strategy. No more cover-ups. A full investigation. That is why this House should launch a special committee to examine the origins of COVID-19 and whether any EU funding provided to the Wuhan Institute directly or indirectly contributed to, or enabled, gain-of-function research.

Rasa Juknevičienė (PPE). – Madam President, I will talk about the part of the Chinese nation that is called Taiwan. This country is probably the most important today when we think about China's future, not to mention Hong Kong, whose democracy-preserving leaders are already in jail.
The government of my country has already announced that a Taiwanese Representative Office will be established in Lithuania. Many in the EU support it. The US has already expressed strong support to Lithuania.
I urge the Commission and the Council to support Lithuania and Taiwan in developing cultural, economic and diplomatic relations, and to condemn China's economic sanctions against Lithuania over this issue. Lithuania and Taiwan setting up representative offices did not violate the EU's ‘One China’ policy. I call for a real action to contribute to a safer EU, a safer world. Only by supporting democracies can we contribute to that.

Raphaël Glucksmann (S&D). – Madame la Présidente, Madame la Commissaire, chers collègues, nous sommes le 14 septembre 2021 et des millions de Ouïghours sont toujours parqués dans des camps de concentration en Chine; non pour ce qu'ils font, mais pour ce qu'ils sont. Je vous lasse, sans doute, à sans cesse revenir sur ce crime contre l'humanité, mais cela fait cinq ans que ces camps existent. Cinq ans que des multinationales cupides bénéficient de l'esclavage d'un peuple. Cinq ans que nos dirigeants refusent d'agir pour que cesse l'horreur. Nous savons pourtant les mesures qu'il nous faudrait prendre: bannissement des produits de l'esclavage de nos marchés. Ce n'est toujours pas fait. Alors, faisons-le. Sanctions des plus hauts responsables de la répression, comme Chen Quanguo, l'architecte de la déportation des Ouïgours après avoir été celui de la répression des Tibétains. Ce n'est toujours pas fait. Alors, faisons-le.
               

                  Chers collègues, des centaines de milliers de jeunes partout en Europe se mobilisent pour briser le silence qui entoure la disparition d'un peuple. Je ne suis aujourd'hui que leur écho dans cette enceinte. Écoutez-les. Ils sont l'honneur de l'Europe. Ils nous conjurent d'agir. Alors agissons!
               

Bert-Jan Ruissen (ECR). – Voorzitter, ook van mijn kant dank aan de rapporteur, mevrouw Vautmans, voor haar uitstekende verslag. Ik ben het met haar eens dat we vanavond heel erg duidelijk moeten zijn. Zolang China doorgaat met het schenden van mensenrechten, het opsluiten van Oeigoeren, het vervolgen van christenen en het vernietigen van de democratie in Hongkong, kan van een investeringsovereenkomst met de EU geen sprake zijn.
               

                  China moet ook niet denken dat de problemen wel zijn op te lossen door alleen maar de sancties op te heffen en in de marge wat aan te passen. Nee, er zijn echt fundamentele aanpassingen nodig, zeker op het vlak van de bescherming van christenen en andere religieuze minderheden.
               

                  Wat dan niet helpt – en dan kijk ik naar de vertegenwoordiger van de Commissie –, is dat de EU-gezant voor godsdienstvrijheid, Christos Stylianides, na vier maanden alweer vertrekt. Zo wordt het natuurlijk nooit wat met de broodnodige diplomatie op dit terrein.
               

                  Mijn vraag aan de Commissie is dan ook heel concreet: kunt u garanderen dat er snel een volwaardige opvolger komt die wel bereid is zich langere tijd en met hart en ziel in te zetten voor hen die worden vervolgd?
               

Ivan Štefanec (PPE). – Madam President, first, while recognising the importance of dialogue with China, the EU has every interest in an open and rules-based Indo-Pacific region.
I am looking forward to seeing the Joint Communication on the EU Strategy for Cooperation in this region, because I do hope that this timely initiative will allow us to boost cooperation with other like-minded democracies. Speaking of this, I would like to underline the necessity of focusing our attention on important regional partners willing to work with us, such as Taiwan.
I do believe that Taiwan, being a like-minded partner to the EU, can contribute its experience and expertise in many areas, including on matters relating to trade, technology, critical supplies, or the fight against disinformation, and therefore can be an excellent partner for us.
This is also the moment to urge the Commission and the Council to further demonstrate solidarity with Lithuania over its sovereign decision to conduct cultural, economic and diplomatic relations with Taiwan, and to condemn China's economic sanctions on Lithuania over this issue.

Kathleen Van Brempt (S&D). – Voorzitter, eerst en vooral een dikke proficiat aan Hilde voor dit verslag. Ze is erin geslaagd een duidelijk standpunt te verwoorden met een kamerbrede meerderheid. Dat is fantastisch. Tegelijkertijd moeten we ook toegeven dat we misschien een beetje te laat zijn met dit duidelijke standpunt. Veel te lang zijn we gewoon heel erg naïef geweest. We hebben lang gedacht dat China wel zou democratiseren en volgens de regels zou spelen. Niets is minder waar.
               

                  Daarom, mevrouw de commissaris, wil ik vandaag de nadruk leggen op onze eigen initiatieven en alles wat we doen rond handelsbescherming, buitenlandse investeringen en buitenlandse subsidies. We moeten oneerlijke praktijken heel hard aanpakken en tegelijkertijd de link leggen met de mensenrechten, de Oeigoeren en dwangarbeid. Het moet mij van het hart, mevrouw de commissaris, dat het initiatief inzake zorgvuldigheid te lang op zich laat wachten. We moeten er nu aan beginnen.
               

                  Ten slotte is het ook tijd dat we aan Taiwan een duidelijk signaal geven dat we achter hen staan en dat we willen beginnen met de onderhandelingen over de investeringsovereenkomst.
               

Isabel Santos (S&D). – Senhora Presidente, é impossível discutir uma nova Estratégia UE-China sem falar de Xinjiang, do Tibete, de Hong Kong, mas também sobre Macau e os constantes atropelos à Declaração Conjunta Portugal-China e aos direitos liberdades e garantias aí consagrados.
               

                  Não podemos ficar indiferentes à utilização abusiva da pandemia para suprimir liberdades de reunião e manifestação, aos condicionamentos da imprensa, como as instruções dadas aos jornalistas da TDM para que não fizessem notícias consideradas negativas para a China, à proibição da vigília em memória das vítimas de Tiananmen e não podemos tolerar a desqualificação arbitrária e persecutória dos diversos candidatos pró-democracia nas eleições legislativas de Macau no passado domingo, contrariando o apelo da União Europeia em defesa, cito, dos direitos e liberdades garantidos.
               

                  Os pacíficos cidadãos de Macau responderam com um aumento de 13 % da abstenção e um crescimento exponencial do número de votos brancos e nulos. A União Europeia não pode ficar sem reação. Não haverá qualquer acordo com a China enquanto continuar a violar os acordos estabelecidos com países da União Europeia.
               

Jutta Urpilainen,
Member of the Commission, on behalf of the Vice-President of the Commission / High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy. – Madam President, thank you for the very good debate. I think the debate today is testament to your continued interest and engagement in the content and strategic direction of our EU-China policy. It also conveys a sense of urgency, reflecting an overall downward trend in our relations, but also recognises that we must stand together in our engagement with China at bilateral, regional and multilateral level if we want to bring our points across.
Let me stress once again the need to maintain a multifaceted approach to China. This means remaining open for dialogue and engagement to pursue the ambitions of global public goods and the Sustainable Development Goals, defending our values and citizens in a spirit of unity and solidarity, stepping up our efforts to continue closing loopholes and beefing up our resilience. I trust in the support of this House for the pursuit of this strategy.

Puhemies. – Keskustelu on päättynyt.
               


Kirjalliset lausumat (171 artikla)



Tom Vandenkendelaere (PPE),
schriftelijk. – Net zoals Rusland is China een systemische rivaal van de Unie waarmee onze relaties een geostrategische dimensie hebben. Naar beide landen toe moet onze strategie gebaseerd zijn op beginselvastheid ten bate van onze kernwaarden en de belangen van onze welvaart en veiligheid, maar ook blijven voorzien in ruimte voor kritische dialoog en samenwerking. Vele uitdagingen op wereldschaal – die alleen in multilateraal verband efficiënt kunnen worden aangepakt –, maar ook rivaliteiten in de bilaterale sfeer laten niet toe dat alle bruggen met deze grootmachten worden verbrand. We moeten er dan wel voor zorgen dat we zelf sterk genoeg zijn door eendracht, bereidheid om de nodige budgetten vrij te maken, meer investering in zelfredzaamheid én samenwerking met gelijkgezinde partners in strategische domeinen. In onze relaties met derde landen zoals China wordt economische, technologische en andere samenwerking – met inbegrip van handels- en investeringsakkoorden – door ons geconditioneerd aan de hand van strenge normen die wij aan onszelf maar ook aan anderen willen opleggen in verband met democratie en mensenrechten, klimaatdoestellingen, volksgezondheid… Dit is volkomen gerechtvaardigd uiteraard, maar hoort wel blijk te geven van zin voor evenwicht en het besef dat het uiteindelijke effect van ons beleid niet nadelig mag zijn voor onze eigen welvaart en veiligheid.
               

(Istunto keskeytettiin klo 20.17)


PRESIDENZA DELL'ON. FABIO MASSIMO CASTALDO


Vicepresidente

14.   Resumption of the sitting

(La seduta è ripresa alle 20.40)

15.   EU Blue Card Directive (debate)

Presidente. – L'ordine del giorno reca la relazione di Javier Moreno Sánchez, a nome della commissione per le libertà civili, la giustizia e gli affari interni, sulla proposta di direttiva del Parlamento europeo e del Consiglio sulle condizioni di ingresso e soggiorno dei cittadini di paesi terzi che intendano svolgere lavori altamente specializzati (COM(2016)0378 - C8-0213/2016 - 2016/0176(COD)) (A8-0240/2017).
               

Javier Moreno Sánchez,
ponente. – Señor presidente, señora comisaria, el Consejo, la Presidencia eslovena, una vez más, brilla por su ausencia, pero en fin…
               

                  Señorías, después de tres años de bloqueo hemos alcanzado un acuerdo con el Consejo y la Comisión para llevar a cabo una revisión ambiciosa de la tarjeta azul, que se adoptó en 2009, con el objetivo de atraer a más trabajadoras y trabajadores altamente cualificados, en particular en los sectores con escasez de personal, y hacer más sencillos los procedimientos de contratación de personas no comunitarias por parte del empresariado. Y esta mejora es especialmente importante para nuestras pequeñas y medianas empresas.
               

                  La revisión no hubiera sido posible sin el compromiso y el esfuerzo de todos los protagonistas, a pesar de las complicadas condiciones de negociación provocadas por las restricciones sanitarias de la pandemia. En particular, quiero agradecer el compromiso de la Presidencia alemana y de la Presidencia portuguesa, así como los esfuerzos de nuestra querida comisaria Ylva Johansson y de su equipo para defender las reformas. Y, cómo no, por supuesto, al equipo del Parlamento Europeo formado por los ponentes alternativos y todo el equipo técnico, en particular, Céline, Shane y Matteo, por el excelente trabajo llevado a cabo para dotar a la reforma de un verdadero valor añadido.
               

                  Las normas revisadas de la tarjeta azul armonizarán aún más las condiciones de entrada y de residencia de los y las trabajadoras altamente cualificados, introduciendo criterios más flexibles, ampliando los derechos de los beneficiarios y simplificando la movilidad dentro de la Unión Europea, así como los procedimientos de reunificación familiar. Pero, sobre todo, con este acuerdo trasladamos un mensaje político en la dirección correcta: Europa debe incrementar las formas legales de migración y, sobre todo, facilitar la llegada de trabajadores que puedan contribuir al desarrollo de nuestro continente.
               

                  La nueva revisión establece criterios de admisión más inclusivos. En concreto, hemos ampliado el ámbito de aplicación al incluir a las y los beneficiarios de protección internacional; hemos establecido una horquilla de salario mínimo y máximo que los solicitantes deben alcanzar para conseguir la tarjeta azul, con el objetivo, por un lado, de hacerla más atractiva y, por otro, de evitar el riesgo de dumping social entre nacionales y extranjeros. Este logro, además, permitirá atraer a jóvenes licenciados y licenciadas. Además, hemos disminuido la duración mínima del contrato de trabajo de doce a seis meses y hemos conseguido que, en el caso de los trabajadores del sector de las tecnologías y de la información y comunicación, se pueda considerar también la experiencia profesional y no solo la cualificación académica.
               

                  Como he mencionado anteriormente, la revisión incluye nuevos derechos para los titulares de la tarjeta azul y sus familiares y medidas para facilitar la reagrupación familiar. En concreto, se ofrece al cónyuge o a la pareja del titular un acceso sin restricciones al mercado laboral; se permite que los titulares de la tarjeta azul ejerzan actividades por cuenta propia u otras actividades profesionales auxiliares, y se garantiza una mejor protección en caso de enfermedad o de discapacidad, así como en caso de desempleo.
               

                  Por último, se facilita y se simplifica la movilidad dentro de la Unión Europea, introduciendo un procedimiento acelerado para empleadores reconocido, el ‘procedimiento de fast track’, reduciendo el periodo mínimo de residencia en el primer Estado miembro y permitiendo la acumulación de períodos de residencia para obtener el estatuto de residente de larga duración. Esto ayudará a las empresas, por ejemplo, a la hora de pedir a un trabajador que se traslade a otro Estado miembro.
               

                  Este elemento, el de la movilidad, es el verdadero valor añadido de la revisión de la tarjeta azul europea en comparación con los sistemas nacionales y el que la hace más atractiva al permitir a los trabajadores cualificados acceder al mercado laboral de toda la Unión, pero, para ello, es necesario que los Estados miembros confíen los unos en los otros. Solo así avanzaremos hacia una política europea de migración consolidada.
               

                  Pero, señorías, para no levantar suspicacias, debemos recordar que los Estados miembros podrán mantener su régimen nacional en esta materia en paralelo con el sistema de la tarjeta azul europea. No obstante, es importante resaltar que la nueva Directiva garantiza la igualdad de trato entre ambos sistemas, el europeo y el nacional, de modo que los titulares de la tarjeta azul europea y sus familias no se encuentren en desventaja con respecto a los titulares de los permisos nacionales. Además, hemos facilitado el procedimiento para pasar de los sistemas nacionales hacia el sistema europeo.
               

                  Como he subrayado a lo largo de todas las negociaciones, vuelvo a pedir que los Estados miembros y la Comisión den visibilidad a esta medida difundiendo la información sobre las ventajas de la tarjeta azul aquí en Europa, pero también en el mundo entero.
               

                  Para finalizar, quiero subrayar que con la revisión de esta Directiva hemos dado un paso importante y necesario, pero no suficiente, porque vuelvo a insistir: necesitamos a estas y estos trabajadores cualificados sin importar su procedencia, si no, no tiene sentido esta revisión. Por otro lado, debemos acabar con la fragmentación legislativa en materia de migración legal y plantear un marco normativo simplificado que contemple todas las situaciones y a todos los trabajadores.
               

                  Necesitamos incentivar la migración legal: primero, porque es el mejor instrumento para luchar contra la inmigración irregular; segundo, porque es absolutamente necesario que adoptemos políticas que regulen también la admisión y la residencia de trabajadores con empleos de media y baja remuneración, así como de los temporeros y de aquellos hombres y mujeres que llegan a nuestro continente por motivos de investigación o estudio.
               

                  En un momento en que la gestión de los flujos migratorios, a través de una verdadera política común migratoria, sigue siendo una prioridad para esta Casa y en la agenda política, y en que estamos a la espera de un acuerdo sobre el Pacto de Migración y Asilo, es importante que hagamos todo lo posible para lograr que las personas lleguen a Europa de manera segura, mejorando los cauces de inmigración legal.
               

                  Ojalá pronto celebremos nuevos acuerdos en este sentido, en esta materia.
               

Tatjana Ždanoka,
rapporteur for the opinion of the Committee on Employment and Social Affairs. – Mr President, yes, to be honest, we were hoping for a more ambitious text of this Blue Card Directive, especially in what concerns social protection of card-holders and their families. Nevertheless, the compromise is a compromise, and we have to mention now positive changes in what concerns equal treatment.
Cardholders have equal treatment with nationals as regards working conditions, education, social security and recognition of diplomas. Also, family life is more protected. Family members of card-holders have immediate access to the labour market, and residence permits for family members will be issued at the same time as the Blue Card itself. Regarding the scope of the Directive, it now fully and immediately applies to refugees and no longer excludes seasonal workers. But unfortunately, asylum seekers still remain outside the scope of the directive.
We are also concerned that Member States remain permitted to adopt parallel national schemes. However, several safeguard clauses were introduced to ensure equality between the EU and national schemes.

Ylva Johansson,
Member of the Commission. – Mr President, I welcome the political agreement on the EU Blue Card, and I think now it's time to say congratulations and thanks: congratulations and thanks to the rapporteur, Javier Moreno Sánchez, to the shadows and your teams, and of course also to both the Portuguese and German Presidencies.
This file was blocked for four years, but you unblocked it. You show that Europe can unite on migration. You show that Europe can find compromises on migration. You show that Europe can turn from a blocked situation into a situation with strengthened and better legal pathways to the European Union. This is really something to congratulate.
That's why this is a very important agreement for Europe. Europe needs skilled workers at all levels: low, medium and high. With this agreement, we welcome the highly-skilled workers we need. Nearly 60% of businesses in Europe say they cannot find people with the right IT skills. Our societies also need doctors, engineers, chemists and teachers. We are losing the global race for talent. At the moment, highly-educated migrants prefer North America, Australia and New Zealand to Europe.
With this agreement on the Blue Card, we can catch up in this race. The Blue Card is a residence permit for highly-qualified workers to come to the European Union. With a Blue Card in your pocket, you will have more opportunities in all Member States. With this agreement, it will be easier for people to get a Blue Card thanks to lower entry demands for contract duration and thanks to a more realistic and fair salary threshold. Many more people will be able to apply and will want to apply. It will be easier for Blue Card holders to change jobs between Member States and for their families to be able to join them sooner. And Blue Card holders are better protected with this agreement: if they lose their jobs after two years of work, they may stay in the EU for six months to look for a new job.
The Blue Card, in my view, is much more than an opportunity for a nice job and a good career in Europe. It's a chance for a life here in Europe, with all the history and culture and energy our vibrant European cities and regions and our continent have to offer – and that makes the Blue Card uniquely attractive in the global competition for talent. We won't win that competition if Member States compete among themselves, with national schemes that may offer attractive working conditions but zero labour mobility – as is happening right now, actually. We have brought European added value to the European Blue Card.
The Commission's proposal was to have just one EU Blue Card and abolish national schemes. This was also strongly advocated by the Parliament. But we have had to compromise, and I stay by that compromise. We put in place safeguards that create a level playing field between the Blue Card and national schemes. This will allow the Blue Card to reach its full potential.
The political agreement we are discussing today also allows refugees to apply for a Blue Card, and I'm very happy about that. Never underestimate the skills, talent, energy and ambition that refugees have to offer. Just think of the people now fleeing Afghanistan, who we were actually evacuating in the very last weeks from Afghanistan: judges, lawyers, journalists, interpreters – very highly-skilled people. I will soon host another high-level resettlement forum to help people in need, especially women, to find a safe journey to a welcome home, not least from Afghanistan. This agreement on the Blue Card tells refugees: ‘You are part of us’.
Europe doesn't only need engineers, software programmers and web developers. We also need nurses, cooks, plumbers, truck drivers, welders, bricklayers, electricians, carpenters. This summer, the Commission launched the Talent Partnerships to help people from third countries work, train and study in Europe. We are now developing a skills and talent package: a set of proposals under the New Pact on Migration and Asylum. I want to improve the rights and mobility of migrants who already live here by revising the directive on long-term residence. I want to make it easier for employers to attract low- and medium-skilled workers by revising the Single Permit Directive. We will launch an EU talent pool: a platform to match the skills of migrant workers with the needs of EU employers.
I welcome the draft report on legal migration by rapporteur Abir Al-Sahlani. I will take the Parliament's views into account when preparing those proposals, and I'm sure that we will be able to progress on these proposals too. Because this political agreement on the Blue Card is another important step forward on the Pact, and it shows that we – the Commission, the Parliament, the Council – can move forward on legal migration. Let this agreement inspire us to work together in the same spirit of pragmatism, cooperation and compromises on all proposals under the New Pact on Migration and Asylum.

Seán Kelly,
on behalf of the PPE Group. – Mr President, I thank the Commissioner for her fine speech. While the Blue Card Directive does not unfortunately apply in my home country of Ireland, I'm nevertheless glad to have an opportunity to join the discussion on this proposal and on how we can make the EU a more attractive destination for highly-skilled third-country nationals.
In order to reaffirm and implement our commitment to a green and digital future, we are investing in educating children and upskilling adults in these areas to ensure that we have a competitive workforce. Attracting third-country nationals who are highly-skilled in ICT and other areas, as the Commissioner pointed out, in which we currently have a skills gap, will complement our efforts.
This proposal marks a positive step forward in making the Blue Card scheme more attractive for a number of reasons. An important one is that the criteria for admission and the procedures to follow have been clarified and therefore made much more user-friendly. This makes it easier for third-country nationals to learn about the scheme and for EU employers to recruit through it.
The EU's ageing population poses a risk that skill shortages will increase in the future. Let's act now and ensure that the EU retains its top class workforce so that the EU remains competitive as a great location for talented and ambitious people, male and female, to find exciting and rewarding careers in a continent devoid of warfare and perpetual danger, and richer in diversity than any area in the world.

Sylvie Guillaume,
au nom du groupe S&D. – Monsieur le Président, mes chers collègues, toute initiative qui met l'accent sur le rôle positif de la migration me semble à encourager sans hésitation. En effet, ce sujet est en permanence hystérisé, alors qu'il mériterait un débat politique apaisé. C'est le cas avec la carte bleue européenne, qui va faciliter l'accès au travail dans l'Union européenne pour les travailleurs étrangers hautement qualifiés. Et si on ne peut pas dire que le débat fut apaisé, disons au moins qu'il a été long, si j'en crois la date de démarrage des discussions et leur aboutissement au bout de cinq années.
               

                  Mais cette étape est bienvenue dans la construction d'une politique européenne respectueuse des droits individuels et ouverte aux défis du présent en matière de migrations de travail, vous l'avez rappelé, Madame la Commissaire. Car la migration, bien que combattue violemment, caricaturée et manipulée dans certaines formations politiques, est une réalité démographique, économique et humaine incontestable.
               

                  Nous devons garder également à l'esprit qu'avoir plus de voies légales, c'est casser le business plan des passeurs. Plus tôt cette année, le Parlement européen a adopté mon rapport qui reconnaît qu'ouvrir des voies légales pour les travailleurs migrants contribue à réduire les flux irréguliers et peut aider nos sociétés à aborder le manque d'actifs.
               

                  Chers collègues, j'en appelle à vous pour montrer le même soutien aujourd'hui à cette directive dont les débats ont été conclus avec talent par Javier Moreno Sánchez. C'est une question de bon sens et d'humanité. C'est aussi une question économique et sociale pour protéger tous les travailleurs, européens ou non, moins bien rémunérés et plus exposés aux risques d'exploitation.
               

Ramona Strugariu,
on behalf of the Renew Group. – Mr President, I welcome this agreement reached after a number of years with the collective effort of the European Parliament's negotiating team. Thank you so much, Javier, and all the colleagues, with the efforts of the Portuguese Presidency and obviously with the support of the Commission. Thank you, Commissioner, for all of your effort, I know it wasn't easy.
Yes, the revised Blue Card will bring more harmonised, more attractive and less bureaucratic rules, and it will therefore encourage the access of highly skilled third country workers to the EU labour market. But this will also help lower the skills mismatch within the EU and I believe it is essential for us to understand the benefits of the legal labour migration.
The new instrument will allow access to highly qualified workers, as well as highly skilled workers with proven work experience of at least three years in the IT area and beneficiaries of international protection with an employment contract of only six months. EU Blue Card holders will no longer be subject to a labour market test if they want to change jobs after one year. Even when their family members want to reunite within the Union, they will no longer be restricted from accessing a job. And Member States will also make sure that Blue Card holders and their family members do not enjoy a lower level of procedural safeguards and rights than those holders of national residence permits.
This is not, however, a perfect piece of legislation. I see it as an important step forward, but my wish is that we are more ambitious for the future, a lot more ambitious for the future. This was also clearly expressed in the position of the European Parliament that we defended, and I wish it had been the ambition of the Member States as well.
Let us be clear upon one thing. Illegal migration can be, and should be, countered with safe and legal pathways, and the exchange of valuable human resources is a win for both the Union and the third countries. I'm confident that we will be able to understand and proceed further with this common understanding of a political, but also labour market-related, social and economic reality. It is for the benefit of us all.

Damian Boeselager,
on behalf of the Verts/ALE Group. – Mr President, just yesterday I talked to a young entrepreneur from Berlin, who told me it took him one and a half years to get a visa for the programmer to come to Berlin. One and a half years during which this IT professional could have gone anywhere in the world. In a global competition for talent, that's just not good enough.
If you want to attract talent to Europe, you need to be attractive, and that's why I'm super happy that today we can celebrate the agreement on the new Blue Card with you from the Commission as well, because finally, people can move from one Member State to the next within one month. Finally, people can take with them the years they agglomerated on long-term residence from one country to the next, making it much more attractive to come to Europe in the first place. And finally, IT professionals can apply for the Blue Card even without a university degree, making this Blue Card the ultimate European tech visa.
So today is a day of celebration, and tomorrow we should put our heads together again to ensure that it comes into effect as fast as possible and to tackle, one by one, all pathways for labour migration so that people don't have to wait one and a half years if they have a job offer in Europe.

Nicolaus Fest,
im Namen der ID-Fraktion. – Herr Präsident! Ich glaube, alle hier im Raum halten die Zuwanderung von Hochqualifizierten für sinnvoll. Aber, Herr Sánchez, hier geht es doch gar nicht darum. Das ist wieder eine false flag action, denn Sie wollen ja nicht nur die Einkommensgrenzen absenken, sondern eben auch Saisonarbeiter reinholen. Und Frau Johannson hat ja auch selber gesagt: Wir brauchen auch Köche, Fliesenleger und natürlich vor allem Afghanen. Klar, die sind alle super qualifiziert, und es sollen auch Ehepartner sofort den Zugang zum Arbeitsmarkt haben.
               

                  Aber wenn die Ehepartner eben nicht hochqualifiziert sind, dann verstehe ich nicht, wie Sie behaupten können, es würde dadurch kein Sozialdumping entstehen. Natürlich wird dies den Druck auf die gering qualifizierten europäischen Arbeitnehmer noch erhöhen. Wir haben im Augenblick knapp 15 Millionen Arbeitslose. Die aber sind Ihnen egal, statt etwas für die zu tun, geht es Ihnen nur darum, die Wege der legalen Migration noch auszuweiten und auf jede mögliche Weise die Migration zu fördern. Mit anderen Worten: Die Arbeitnehmer, vor allem die Arbeitslosen Europas, sehr geehrter Herr Sánchez, sind Ihnen, mit Verlaub gesagt, scheißegal, und das ist sehr traurig.
               

Assita Kanko,
on behalf of the ECR Group. – Mr President, I would like to thank the rapporteur, Mr Moreno Sánchez, and all the colleagues from the Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs (LIBE) who have worked on this file for the constructive collaboration, because it has not been an easy file. It has cost some kind of blood, sweat and tears but, finally, we are going to vote for this tomorrow, and I am very proud of all of us. We have got things done.
It's also a balanced agreement so my party is also going to vote for this. It's a good way to enable legal migration and to also show that the EU can be attractive for highly-qualified people who want to work here. Our EU is in danger of missing the boat when it comes to attracting these highly talented and educated people, so we need to be innovative and this European Blue Card can do that. This reform can do that.
I am pleased that the Blue Card will provide faster, easier and more inclusive access for these highly qualified people that, otherwise, the US, Canada and the UK would take away from us. In addition, Member States will still be able to retain their national systems for labour migration, and this is important because it will still allow each Member State to take into account the reality of their own labour market. They will also use mechanisms that ensure that highly skilled non-EU workers are admitted only after the national database has been exhausted.
The EU could not stay behind. The revision was very much needed and, of course, we have to thank our Commissioner for speeding up the process. It has been a huge teamwork. At the beginning of a long road, we never know where we are going to end, but we can say that, when we work together and listen to each other, we can achieve bigger things.

Pernando Barrena Arza,
en nombre del Grupo The Left. –Señor presidente, señora comisaria, en primer lugar, quiero agradecer al ponente, Javier Moreno, y a su equipo el trabajo que han hecho en la revisión de la Directiva sobre la tarjeta azul, al igual que a todos los grupos que han colaborado para llegar a este resultado después de tantos años.
               

                  El objetivo era conseguir una tarjeta azul más atractiva y, aunque los diálogos tripartitos no han sido fáciles, hemos conseguido que se consideren elementos positivos, como procedimientos más rápidos cuando hablamos de movilidad intraunión y reunificación familiar o periodos de desempleo más favorables en cuanto a la residencia de largo plazo, condiciones de hecho más propicias para el solicitante. Estos son los puntos que consideramos que constituyen el valor añadido de la revisión del instrumento.
               

                  Con todo nos hubiese gustado que se consideraran temas como extender el listado de capacidades, que se abrieran más categorías o que los puntos mencionados anteriormente, como la residencia a largo plazo o el período de desempleo, fueran aún más favorables para el solicitante, para de verdad haber conseguido una herramienta todavía más atractiva.
               

                  En resumen, nuestra opinión es que el resultado conseguido es satisfactorio, pero no debemos olvidar que solo incluye a los grupos altamente cualificados, y pensamos que hay que seguir trabajando para que la Unión también propicie vías de entrada para los trabajadores de baja y media cualificación, tal y como ya se propone en el informe sobre inmigración ilegal.
               

                  Para terminar, quiero decir que debemos tener presente que la situación en Afganistán va a ocasionar una nueva corriente migratoria hacia la Unión, que, en nuestra opinión, debería abordar, entre otras medidas urgentes, la creación de vías legales y seguras para los colectivos más vulnerables.
               

                  Hoy damos satisfactoriamente un pequeño paso que debería enmarcarse en el conjunto de una política europea migratoria respetuosa con los derechos humanos. Hay que decir, una vez más, que ese no es el caso del Pacto sobre Migración y Asilo que se nos propone desde la Comisión Europea.
               

Κώστας Παπαδάκης (NI). – Κύριε Πρόεδρε, η Ευρωπαϊκή Ένωση, διεκδικώντας πρωταγωνιστικό ρόλο στους ιμπεριαλιστικούς ανταγωνισμούς, επιστρατεύει το πολυεργαλείο του προσφυγικού μεταναστευτικού και, σαν κυνηγός εξειδικευμένων ταλέντων από τρίτες χώρες της αυστηρής προτίμησής της, προωθεί μπλε κάρτες εισόδου, συμβόλαια ορισμένου χρόνου, περιπλάνηση στο όνομα της κινητικότητας, κυκλική λεγόμενη μετανάστευση και άλλα, δηλαδή άγρια ταξική εκμετάλλευση για να εξυπηρετηθεί η κερδοφορία των ευρωπαϊκών ομίλων. Αυτή η κερδοφορία τους ενισχύεται και από τη διείσδυσή τους, χάρη στις ευρωενωσιακές επιδοτήσεις, σε τρίτες χώρες γεωστρατηγικής σημασίας, όπως είναι το Αφγανιστάν και οι όμορες χώρες του, με πρόσχημα την αποτροπή του προσφυγικού. Όσοι κατατρεγμένοι, όσα θύματα των ιμπεριαλιστικών επεμβάσεων της Ευρωπαϊκής Ένωσης και των συμμάχων της, ΗΠΑ και ΝΑΤΟ, φτάνουν στα σύνορα κρατών μελών της Ευρωπαϊκής Ένωσης αντιμετωπίζουν καταστολή, Frontex, επαναπροωθήσεις, απελάσεις, υπερδομές, φυλακές σε άθλιες συνθήκες, δραστικό περιορισμό των δικαιωμάτων τους για άσυλο. Σε σύγκρουση με τις αποφάσεις της Ευρωπαϊκής Ένωσης και της ελληνικής κυβέρνησης, υπερασπιζόμαστε το δικαίωμα προσφύγων και μεταναστών να πάνε στις χώρες πραγματικού προορισμού τους και να ζητήσουν άσυλο, με πλήρη δικαιώματα σε στέγαση, υγεία, παιδεία και εργασία.
               

Radan Kanev (PPE). – Mr President, we should welcome and support this long-awaited legislation, and I thank all the teams that made it possible. It is paramount for the EU to become, once again, the most attractive labour market in the world. We want to sustain and develop our social model. We want to build the first carbon-neutral economy in the world and to become leaders in new technology and green innovation.
Human capital is the only key to achieve it. The economy of the 21st century is all about people and knowledge. The Blue Card is essential, but not enough for us to be the best labour market and the most competitive economy. We also need to adapt our labour market to the realities of the 21st century in order to become the innovation hub of the next decade, which, by the way, is the only way to fulfil our climate and social objectives.

Cyrus Engerer (S&D). – Sur President, grazzi kbira lil Javier li rnexxielu jagħlaq din id-Direttiva wara żmien twil b'ħafna intoppi.
               

                  Ħames snin. Daqshekk domna, bħala Unjoni Ewropea, biex naslu fi qbil dwar ir-reviżjoni tal-Blue Card Directive, minkejja li numru kbir ta' negozji madwar l-Unjoni Ewropea jinsabu għarkubbtejhom minħabba l-ħtieġa kbira ta' ħaddiema biex ikunu jistgħu jkomplu jikbru u jespandu.
               

                  Kollegi, l-ekonomija għandha bżonn ta' ħaddiema minn pajjiżi terzi u ma nistgħux nibqgħu naħarbu minn din ir-realtà. Tal-lemin estrem jgħidulna li din hija xi idea ‘soċjalista’ jew ‘tax-xellug’. Imma mhijiex. Jien soċjalist, iżda qiegħed nitkellem ukoll f'isem in-negozji li għandhom labour gaps madwar il-kontinent kollu. L-Ewropa qiegħda titlef 74 biljun ewro fis-sena minħabba n-nuqqas ta' toroq legali għat-tħaddim legali ta' dawn in-nies. L-istess lemin estrem li qed jgħid li l-ħaddiema legali minn pajjiżi terzi ma għandhomx jiġu l-Ewropa u li għandhom jibqgħu f'pajjiżhom. Li mhux qed jifhmu li MHUX qed jibqgħu f'pajjiżhom, għaliex xorta waħda qed jiċċaqalqu lejn ir-Renju Unit, l-Amerka u l-Kanada u, intant, l-Unjoni Ewropea qed titlef it-talent, għax ħaddieħor għandu regoli aktar sempliċi, għaliex jagħrfu il-kwalifiki ta' dawn in-nies, li jistgħu jiġġeneraw 37 biljun ewro fis-sena lill-ekonomija tagħna.
               

                  Bħala shadow rapporteur tas-Soċjalisti fuq l-inizjattiva tal-Parlament fuq l-immigrazzjoni legali, il-politika u l-liġi, nirringrazzja lil Javier li għalaq dan ir-rapport minkejja dawn il-forzi populisti li tkellimt dwarhom. Li jekk irridu jitkellmu fuq ideat soċjalisti, infakkarhom fid-drittijiet tal-ħaddiema, inkluż il-ħaddiema Ewropej, li ħafna drabi jinjoraw.
               

Peter Kofod (ID). – Hr. formand! Der findes vel ingen medlemmer af det her parlament, som har noget imod, at Europas lande kan tiltrække højt kvalificeret arbejdskraft, som vi akut måtte have brug for. Det kunne være læger, det kunne være ingeniører. Men man skal ikke have lyttet ret mange minutter til kommissær Johansson for at forstå, hvilken fare der lurer lige under overfladen. Det er ikke mange måneder siden, at det her parlament vedtog en betænkning om nye veje for lovlig arbejdskraftsmigration, hvor Parlamentet ønskede mere indvandring af arbejdskraft fra Afrika, Mellemøsten og Asien, og det var altså ikke læger og ingeniører, det var ufaglært arbejdskraft. Nu står vi så her med en total udvanding af et direktiv, så det nu skal være lettere at få familiesammenføring, så migranter og asylansøgere får flere grunde til at søge mod Europa. Fru kommissær, jeg kommer selvfølgelig til at stemme imod det her. Både fordi jeg er imod forslaget og lempelserne, men sandelig også fordi jeg ved, hvad det er for en politik, du forsøger at trække ned over hovedet på Europas lande. Jeg beklager fru kommissær, men vi har gennemskuet din fejlslagne politik, og det værste ved det hele er, at du forsøger at gentage rædslerne fra Sverige. I Danmark vil vi ikke være Sverige. Vi vil ikke have jeres problemer. Vi vil ikke have din politik.
               

Joachim Stanisław Brudziński (ECR). – Panie Przewodniczący! Polska z satysfakcją odnotowała rezygnację z postulatu rozszerzenia zakresu podmiotowego dyrektywy o osoby ubiegające się o udzielenie ochrony międzynarodowej. Polska, wraz z innymi państwami członkowskimi, stanowczo sprzeciwiała się takim rozwiązaniom. Krytycznie odnosimy się do dołączenia nowych kategorii obywateli państw trzecich do dyrektyw sektorowych, jako że obejmują już one kluczowe kategorie migrantów ekonomicznych. Kwestie te powinny pozostać w kompetencji państw członkowskich, podkreślam, w kompetencji państw członkowskich.
               

                  Podzielamy opinię, że potrzeby unijnego rynku pracy i konkurencyjność w walce o talenty wymagają działań na rzecz przyciągania pracowników wysoko wykwalifikowanych z państw trzecich. W naszej ocenie nie może to się jednak odbywać kosztem destabilizacji systemów legalnej migracji.
               

                  A skoro jesteśmy przy legalnej migracji, to niech mi będzie wolno wyrazić swój najwyższy szacunek funkcjonariuszom straży granicznej, którzy dzisiaj strzegą naszych granic zewnętrznych przed nielegalną migracją. A w sposób szczególny kłaniam się nisko funkcjonariuszkom i funkcjonariuszom polskiej straży granicznej, którzy dzisiaj strzegą granicy polsko-białoruskiej przed prowokacjami białoruskiego i rosyjskiego satrapy.
               

PŘEDSEDNICTVÍ: MARCEL KOLAJA


místopředseda


Ádám Kósa (NI). – Tisztelt Elnök Úr! Az USA által folytatott agyelszívást, vagyis a legképzettebb európai szakembereknek a tengerentúlra csábítását addig ellenezte az EU, ameddig maga is ugyanerre készül. A harmadik országok magasan képzett polgárait hívná meg, hogy az uniós tagállamokon belül szabadon élhessenek és dolgozhassanak. Fejezzük be ezt az álszent magatartást! Tartok attól, hogy ezt az eszközt valójában a migráció felgyorsítására akarja használni. Tudjuk, hogy különösen az európai déli tagállamokban hatalmas a munkanélküliség. Miért nem a saját fiataljainkat képezzük, számukra biztosítunk munkát? Miért nem a saját állampolgárainkkal törődünk?
                  

                     Magyarország a jövőt a fiatalokra építi. Minden eszközzel támogatjuk a tanulmányaikat és a munkába állásukat. Az egyetemi képzés ingyenes és a 25 éves kor alatti pályakezdő fiataloknak személyi jövedelemadót nem kell fizetniük, mert ők a fontosak.
                  

Henna Virkkunen (PPE). – Arvoisa puhemies, Eurooppa tarvitsee lisää osaavaa työvoimaa muualta maailmasta. Tähän tarvitaan nykyistä nopeampia ja sujuvampia väyliä. On hyvä ja tervetullut askel, että nyt sinistä korttia uudistetaan. Tiedämme, että tähän saakka sen kriteerit ovat olleet niin korkeat sekä osaajalta vaadittavan koulutustason, palkkatason että työsuhteen osalta, että sinistä korttia on käytetty todella vähän, ja harva edes tietää sen olemassaolosta.
                  

                     Toivon mukaan nyt uudistettu sininen kortti toimii paremmin ja se on todella sujuva, nopea ja tehokas väylä saapua töihin Euroopan unionin alueelle silloin, kun kyseessä on korkean tason osaaja. Meidän on vähennettävä tähän liittyvää byrokratiaa. Täällä tuli jo esiin, että monissa jäsenvaltioissa kestää tällä hetkellä kuukausia, jopa yli vuoden, ennen kuin saa työluvan maahan. Nyt tässä suhteessa sinistä korttia pitäisi pystyä nopeuttamaan sillä tavalla, että sitoutuisimme jäsenvaltioissa siihen, että muutamassa viikossa sinisellä kortilla tulleet hakijat pääsisivät mukaan työmarkkinoille. Se olisi tehokas tapa uudistaa työhön pääsyä.
                  

Juan Fernando López Aguilar (S&D). – Señor presidente, comisaria Johansson, la Comisión de Libertades Civiles, Justicia y Asuntos de Interior, que tengo el honor de presidir, lleva años denunciando y combatiendo la mirada predominantemente negativa del Consejo contra el hecho migratorio, que impide vías legales y seguras de acceso de los trabajadores que la Unión Europea, en efecto, necesita, y cuyos derechos tiene el deber de respetar.
                  

                     Después de años tensos de pulso con el Consejo, con tres años de bloqueo, ¡por fin un paso en la buena dirección! Nada menos que una directiva, un acto legislativo del Parlamento Europeo, que abre una vía legal de migración regular para trabajadores cualificados. ¡Bien hecho, Javier Moreno y equipo negociador de nuestra comisión y del Parlamento Europeo!
                  

                     Esta Directiva sobre la tarjeta azul no solamente amplía la accesibilidad a ese instrumento de un mayor número de personas, incluidos los beneficiarios de protección internacional, sino que, además, extiende derechos, protección social e igualdad de trato no solamente a sus trabajadores, sino también a sus familias, y refuerza la movilidad de esos trabajadores en la Unión Europea y hacia un segundo Estado miembro.
                  

                     Solo me queda celebrar que esta Directiva vaya a ser aprobada por una extraordinariamente amplia mayoría. Es muy extraordinario también que esa amplia mayoría refuerce, por fin, una vía de migración regular hacia la Unión Europea.
                  

Gilles Lebreton (ID). – Monsieur le Président, chers collègues, d'après les projections officielles, la population active de l'Union européenne devrait perdre 40 millions de travailleurs d'ici 2070. Pour résoudre cette crise démographique, l'Union commet l'erreur de vouloir recourir à l'émigration alors que l'incitation à des politiques natalistes serait bien préférable. La carte bleue européenne est le fer de lance de cette immigration de travail. Créée dès 2009, elle consiste officiellement à faire venir en Europe les travailleurs qualifiés qui nous manquent. Les États européens ont heureusement été réticents à l'utiliser jusqu'ici.
                  

                     Plutôt que de prendre acte de son échec, l'actuel projet de révision tente de lui redonner un second souffle en abaissant les conditions de qualification pour l'obtenir et en facilitant le regroupement familial des travailleurs concernés. La Commission reconnaît que ce projet a pour but, je cite, de normaliser la politique de migration dans le cadre du nouveau pacte migratoire européen. C'est pourquoi je m'y oppose fermement.
                  

Balázs Hidvéghi (NI). – Tisztelt Elnök Úr! Ha van politikai tanulsága az elmúlt hat év migrációs vitáinak, akkor az az, hogy ebben a kérdésben nincs egységes európai álláspont. A bevándorlás jelentős hatással van egy ország kultúrájára és identitására, és az európai társadalmak gyökeres átalakulását hozhatja magával, ezért nem közös európai szabályokra és erősebb brüsszeli jogkörre van szükség itt, hanem arra, hogy a döntés jogát visszaadjuk a tagállamoknak – minden tagállam maga jogosult dönteni a jövőjéről.
                  

                     Világosan ki kell mondani, hogy a tömeges bevándorlás nem az egyetlen lehetséges válasz, ha csökken a népesség vagy éppen munkaerőpiaci gondok adódnak. Van más lehetőség is, például a családok és a gyermekvállalás kiemelt támogatása úgy, ahogy azt mi Magyarországon csináljuk. Végezetül egy morális szempont: ha a szegényebb harmadik országokból a legmagasabban képzetteket elszívja Európa, akkor az ott további gazdasági lemaradást fog okozni, a szegénység pedig újabb és újabb migrációs hullámokat fog gerjeszteni Európa felé. Ez pedig nemcsak erkölcstelen az Európai Unió részéről, hanem súlyosan felelőtlen is.
                  

Eugen Tomac (PPE). – Domnule președinte, doamnă comisară, domnule raportor, felicitări. Este o măsură necesară, este o reformă pe care milioane de cetățeni din lumea întreagă o așteptau. Nu cred că este o măsură nici de stânga, nici de dreapta, ea răspunde unei necesități pentru că Uniunea Europeană este și a devenit casă pentru foarte mulți cetățeni din afara spațiului european. Însă, măsura pe care o adoptăm este un răspuns la o așteptare pe care o au milioane de cetățeni care sunt înalt calificați și doresc să vină să își construiască un viitor aici, iar noi aveam nevoie de acest mesaj politic pe care să îl transmitem tuturor celor care privesc cu încredere și speranță spre continentul nostru. Aveam nevoie de claritate, aveam nevoie de debirocratizare, aveam nevoie de un cadru nou, bine așezat, care să le ofere siguranță și perspective credibile celor care vor să vină să își construiască un viitor aici, în casa noastră, Europa. Felicitări.
                  

Brando Benifei (S&D). – Signor Presidente, onorevoli colleghi, dopo anni di stallo concludiamo la revisione della direttiva ‘Carta blu’, strumento necessario per rendere l'Unione europea attrattiva per talenti e lavoratori altamente qualificati.
                  

                     Sono lieto di aver contribuito a questo fascicolo come relatore per il gruppo S&D nella commissione EMPL.
                  

                     Già dalla scorsa legislatura questo strumento è stato importante per noi come proposta per lavoratori altamente qualificati, per università e imprese che ne avevano bisogno. Abbiamo combattuto rischi di dumping sociale e salariale, abbiamo ampliato il campo di applicazione della direttiva anche agli stagionali e a chi gode di protezione internazionale.
                  

                     Il risultato dei negoziati è però parzialmente soddisfacente, perché bisognava essere più ambiziosi creando uno strumento europeo unico, che sostituisse quelli nazionali – mi rivolgo ai governi – però abbiamo ottenuto molto, grazie al lavoro del nostro relatore Javier Moreno, che voglio ringraziare, uno strumento utile che rilanceremo per poter costruire un'Europa più unita e più aperta al mondo.
                  

Ylva Johansson,
Member of the Commission. – Mr President, the Blue Card will help migrants to get the jobs they want and help European companies to get the skills they need. You have made the EU Blue Card easier to get and more attractive to apply for. The Blue Card will help Europe to catch up in the global race for talent, because it offers opportunities not only for a job and a career, but also for life in Europe, our wonderful continent that this House represents. It's a compromise, but a compromise that will change people's lives and support our economies.
The European Blue Card is also important for other reasons. It's another important step forward on delivering the pact. You have shown that Europe can agree on migration. You have shown that Europe can compromise on migration, and we need that spirit of compromise. We must use this momentum to make progress on the new pact on migration and asylum. The agreement on the Blue Card shows that we can. Again, my congratulations and my warm thanks. This is a great achievement.

President. – The debate is closed.
The vote will take place on Wednesday, 15 September 2021.
16.   Documents received: see Minutes
17.   Instrument for pre-accession assistance (IPA III) 2021-2027 (debate)

President. – The next item is the debate on the recommendation for second reading from the Committee on Foreign Affairs on the instrument for pre-accession assistance (IPA III) 2021-2027 (06604/1/2021 - C9-0352/2021 - 2018/0247(COD)) (Rapporteurs: Tonino Picula and Željana Zovko (A9-0266/2021).

Tonino Picula,
Rapporteur. – Poštovani predsjedavajući, kolegice i kolege, želim prije svega zahvaliti svima uključenima na predanom radu u protekle dvije i pol godine.
               

                  Današnja rasprava zadnji je formalni korak prema implementiranju novog, boljeg financijskog instrumenta za pretpristupne pomoći IPA III. Ukratko, nova generacija IPA-e ojačat će demokratsku, normativnu i društveno-ekonomsku transformaciju zemalja kandidatkinja ili potencijalnih kandidatkinja za članstvo u Europsku uniju. Omogućit će racionalniju, bolje usmjerenu, vidljiviju i održivu podršku zemljama partnerima na njihovom putu prema Europskoj uniji tijekom suočavanja sa zajedničkim izazovima.
               

                  Politika proširenja neraskidivo je povezana s približavanjem vrijednosti liberalne demokracije, poštivanja ljudskih prava i vladavine prava od čega kao Unija ne smijemo odstupati. Zato je dobro da će nova IPA III posebno inzistirati baš na tome.
               

                  Novi, nadograđeni instrument, naglasak stavlja na jačanje uvjetovanosti koja se odnosi na demokraciju, ljudska prava i vladavinu prava, predviđajući čak obustavu pomoći u slučaju nazadovanje u tim područjima. IPA III pojačat će stratešku komunikaciju, boriti se protiv dezinformacija i pridonijeti međusektorskim ciljevima zaštite klime, okoliša, ljudskih prava i ravnopravnosti spolova.
               

                  IPA III je instrument koji gleda u budućnost, uzimajući u obzir inicijative i ciljeve Europske unije poput zelenog plana. Alokacija sredstava temeljit će se na pristupu utemeljenom na djelotvornosti i na principu pravedne raspodjele. To znači da će se pomoć razlikovati po opsegu i intenzitetu prema učinku korisnika i istodobno će se primijeniti načelo pravednog udjela kako bi osigurali da opseg i intenzitet financiranja ne uzima u obzir samo uspješnost korisnika već i njihove stvarne potrebe i kapacitete.
               

                  Želimo izbjeći nesrazmjerno nisku razinu pomoći samo nekima. Treba osigurati napredak svih korisnika. Kao Parlament, mislim da možemo biti zadovoljni postignutim, pogotovo u kontekstu tematskih prioriteta kao institucionalne uloge Europskog parlamenta.
               

                  Tijekom pregovora Parlament je osigurao poboljšano upravljanje instrumentom u okviru proširene uporabe postupka delegiranih akata i unaprijeđenog geopolitičkog dijaloga s Europskom komisijom. Ti mehanizmi omogućit će Parlamentu da definira glavna strateška usmjerenja i odgovorno ispita odluke donesene u sklopu instrumenta.
               

                  Naš je cilj bio primijeniti naučene lekcije iz prethodnog IPA II instrumenta, a naš motiv bio je pružiti pomoć onim zemljama, odnosno njihovim većinski proeuropski orijentiranim građanima. Iako je perspektiva Europske unije članstva dijelom izgubila dio svoje transformacije moći, to je još uvijek najučinkovitiji poticaj za sveobuhvatne političke, gospodarske i socijalne reforme na zapadnom Balkanu s kojima Europska unija raspolaže. A za sve one koji se pitaju zašto izdvajamo ovolika sredstva za pripremu, vjerujem budućih članica Europske unije, volio bih iznijeti nekoliko argumenata.
               

                  Politika proširenja je važna jer daje mogućnost Uniji da promiče i inzistira na važnim reformama u zemljama kandidatkinjama. Važna je jer obje strane imaju koristi od tog procesa. Podaci pokazuju da su zemlje članice zahvaljujući prethodnim proširenjima Europske unije također imale koristi glede gospodarskog rasta i otvaranja novih radnih mjesta.
               

                  Politika proširenja promiče društveno-ekonomsku koheziju već prije pristupanja, čime se rješavaju neke od glavnih briga građana Europske unije u pogledu migracija i socijalnog dampinga.
               

                  Jednako tako, proširenje jamči vodeću ulogu Europske unije u regiji. Trenutno se Rusija, Turska, zaljevske zemlje kao i Kina međusobno i s Europskom unijom natječu za gospodarski i politički utjecaj na zapadnom Balkanu, prečesto s potpuno različitim interesima od naših. Važna je jer pomaže u sprečavanju i upravljanju potencijalnim krizama i sukobima, a možda najvažnija korist se sastoji u tome jer povećava vjerodostojnost Europske unije i šalje pozitivnu poruku za prosperitet i budućnost same Unije.
               

                  Ovih dana posebno važnom se čini komponenta jačanja dobrosusjedskih odnosa koju smo u Parlamentu isticali kao jedan od prioriteta, na primjer nedavna događanja u Crnoj Gori najbolji su pokazatelj kako usporavanje reformi i na primjer politiziranje religioznih događaja uz podršku izvana može imati negativan efekt na podijeljenost društva i stanje sigurnosti u zemlji.
               

                  Ono što želim naglasiti je da često u osobito polariziranim društvima bilježimo najvišu podršku Europskoj uniji budući da članstvo u Europskoj uniji kao zajednički nazivnik može imati i te kakav kohezivni faktor.
               

                  IPA instrument je zapravo financiranje dugoročnih interesa i temeljnih vrijednosti Unije. Naša financijska ulaganja moraju odgovarati našim ambicijama da budemo geopolitički relevantni na zapadnom Balkanu i Turskoj. Preko četrnaest milijardi eura značajan je iznos ekonomske pomoći. No, financijska sredstva ne mogu u cijelosti zamijeniti kredibilnu politiku proširenja. Mogu je nadopuniti, ali ne nadomjestiti.
               

                  Sjeverna Makedonija i Albanija čekaju neopravdano dugo na početak pregovora, premda su učinile više nego čak neke od zemalja članica. Kosovo je također odavno ispunilo sve kriterije za ukidanje viza. Vrijeme je da njihove napore konačno verificiramo konkretnim odlukama.
               

Željana Zovko,
rapporteur. – Mr President, dear Commissioner, this week is an important moment for the European enlargement policy. The adoption and signing of the new Regulation on the Instrument for Pre-Accession Assistance (IPA III), is a clear confirmation of the EU's support to the European integration of our partners in south-east Europe. Over the last three years we have been preparing this new generation of funds and I would like to thank you, Commissioner, the Presidency of the Council, all colleagues in Parliament that were involved, and the staff of all three institutions for their great work and determination.
IPA III offers a historic budget of more than EUR 14 billion for the next seven years. The biggest part is foreseen for the economic and investment plan that will create jobs, improve infrastructure, foster connectivity and boost the economy. With the financing of the Western Balkans Guarantee Facility, an additional EUR 20 billion in investment can be expected.
Based on the experience from IPA and IPA II, the design of modernised instruments provides the best assistance possible to the candidate and potential candidate countries. It features a performance-based approach that optimises the efficiency of the funded projects. The switch from country envelopes to the allocation of finances via thematic windows stimulates the beneficiaries to present achievable projects that will have a real impact on the reform track.
I would also like to emphasise that the role of the European Parliament in the programming, the governance and scrutiny of the instrument has significantly increased. For the first time, we will adopt a delegated act that sets our specific key objectives on which the programming of the instrument should be based. I am thinking about the rule of law, education, good neighbourly relations. We will have the chance to discuss the implementation of the instrument with the Commission during the upcoming geostrategic dialogue.
These achievements are a big step forward regarding democratic accountability. The European Union is not safe if peace and security in our immediate neighbourhood is not guaranteed. The European Union will continue to face organised criminal activities, disinformation campaigns and irregular migration flows as long as these issues remains unresolved in south-east Europe.
The European Union is not complete without the accession of the Western Balkan countries. With the adoption of IPA III, the EU has done its homework. We are ready to engage with the Western Balkans and Turkey. The ball is now in the court of the authorities of the beneficiaries. They need to show the willingness and the courage to work on the necessary reforms and to comply with Copenhagen criteria and European standards and values.
We have to acknowledge it. This is a demanding challenge. Political leaders stand for tough decisions and need to make political sacrifices. As a representative of the people of the youngest European Member State, I can assure you that these efforts are wanted by the people, for the countries, for the region and for the European Union. What the leaders in the partner states should understand is that making progress on their reform agenda starts with stabilising the internal situation in their country and finding a solution for pending problems.
For example, Bosnia and Herzegovina urgently needs a breakthrough on the election law. Montenegro faces rising tensions that have resulted in violent protests related to the freedom of belief two weeks ago. Other countries see a strong decline in respect of human rights on the implementation of the rule of law. These are serious problems that can hijack the integration procedures.
We should not allow financial support to countries that claim to be European-minded, but use the funding for other purposes. Therefore, IPA III contains a clear conditionality, including the possibility to suspend assistance in the case of severe political and democratic backsliding.
Today's discussion on Afghanistan dealt with the need for a lessons learned exercise to understand what happened in the last 20 years. Fortunately, due to their transformative processes that started in 1999, the Western Balkans are still holding high hopes for the European integration. But, as I once said, the region is a rollercoaster and everything can change if we do not start the lessons learned exercise here as well. What went wrong? What can we improve? How can we help the people to resolve the unresolved issues? The priority is to prevent turbulence that might have a spill-over effect on EU citizens or on our peace and security. IPA III is the tool, but more important is a high-level engagement to get the Western Balkans on the track to European accession.
I would like to conclude by calling on the authorities of the beneficiaries to use this new positive momentum to prepare ambitious national strategies and to enhance their engagement with the European Union by improving their ownership of the accession reforms.

Olivér Várhelyi,
Member of the Commission. – Mr President, honourable Members of the Parliament, it is with great pleasure that I speak to this plenary debate. Let me first of all thank the European Parliament that we have the instrument for pre-accession for the next financial period 2021-2027 — the IPA III, as it is known – on the agenda of today's meeting with a view to adoption tomorrow. This paved the way for its final adoption after we reached a political agreement on 2 June.
I would also like to thank the Council over several Presidencies, and of course the two co-rapporteurs, Ms Zovko and also Mr Picula, for their commitment, determination and their tireless efforts contributing to this final positive outcome for the entire region: thank you. Together, we shaped an instrument that has a great potential and sends a very strong signal that the European Union is committed to support the enlargement region.
With IPA we are now equipped with an instrument provided with over EUR 14 billion euros to provide assistance to the candidate countries and potential candidates in transforming their societies, legal systems and economies on the path to EU membership. This is a key moment. All leaders that I met have called for a swift kick-off of the pre-accession financial assistance: most importantly, the implementation of the economic and investment plan for the Western Balkans. The plan sets out a substantial investment package, mobilising some EUR 30 billion for the region over the next seven years, amounting to one third of the GDP of the entire region. This is comprised of grant funding and is leveraged by the new Western Balkans Guarantee facility. The IPA III will provide the basis for this plan to happen and to contribute to the long-term recovery, boosting economic growth and convergence as well as supporting reforms needed to move forward in the EU path.
What is new? The IPA III increases steering and ensures better alignment with the EU's priorities faster by having a more thematic focus. The IPA programming framework – our unique strategic document – will be based on needs as put forward by the region and ensure funding for the real needs for a more integrated region and one catching up much faster with the EU.
Due to its structure, the IPA III will also establish more synergy, with a wide range of EU internal policy programmes to maximise impact on key priority sectors such as connectivity, energy, digitalisation, security, migration, research and development and the environment, together with climate action.
The Commission is fully committed to pursue the reforms on the rule of law, human rights, justice and values as a continued priority. Such strong commitment was already fully reflected in the IPA III proposal. The External Action guarantee of up to EUR 53.5 billion set up in the NDICI-Global Europe, ensures that more investments and leverage of funds, crowding in private investments, will benefit the IPA III partners.
The new IPA III will be clearly positioned in the context of the Western Balkans and Enlargement strategies, which signals the Commission's support for the enlargement perspective of the region, and so it is from both co-legislators.
The Commission will also provide the much-needed financial assistance to Turkey and will support actions, boosting people-to-people contacts, support to civil society and the post-COVID socioeconomic recovery across the board, as well as key priorities of the EU. The IPA III is definitely an investment in the future.

David McAllister,
on behalf of the PPE Group. – Mr President, this is an important day for the EU's external action and opens a new chapter in our enlargement policy. The modernised instrument for pre-accession assistance (IPA III) paves the way for improved governance, for coherence and for transparency of our external funding in this crucial period of our enlargement policy.
Commissioner Várhely, I do hope that IPA III can improve our visibility as the European Union in the region and bring a tangible impact on the ground through enhanced conditionality. Allow me to thank and include all the involved staff, the negotiators of the Council, Commissioner Olivér Várhelyi and, of course, our co-rapporteurs, Željana Zovko and Tonino Picula
,
 for their dedication and their tireless work, in particular during the occasionally rather challenging trilogues.
Together, we have achieved a very good outcome. This is a remarkable achievement. Thank you so much.

Isabel Santos,
em nome do Grupo S&D. – Senhor Presidente, o sucesso do Instrumento de Assistência de Pré-adesão é incontestável. Este tem sido uma das principais alavancas da política externa para a nossa vizinhança e tem contribuído muito positivamente para os países em processo de adesão, desde a construção e reabilitação das infraestruturas até à ajuda nos casos de desastres naturais, como por exemplo na reconstrução do parque escolar, na Albânia, após a tragédia do terremoto de 2019, através do programa EU4Schools. Os fundos deste instrumento têm sido utilizados para modernizar e preparar estes países.
               

                  Saúdo o excelente trabalho realizado pelos nossos colegas correlatores Tonino Picula e Željana Zovko para alcançar o acordo sobre o IPA III em junho, especialmente após todas as melhorias introduzidas após as negociações com o Parlamento Europeu.
               

                  Espero que possa ser implementado o mais rapidamente possível e que as melhorias, especialmente nas áreas do Estado de direito dos direitos humanos e da proteção ambiental, possam também continuar a melhorar as condições de vida nestes países candidatos.
               

Klemen Grošelj,
v imenu skupine Renew. – Spoštovani predsednik! Potrditev programa IPA III oziroma predpristopne pomoči državam in ljudem Zahodnega Balkana, v obsegu preko 14 milijard evrov, je dokaz zavezanosti Evropske unije k širitvi na Zahodni Balkan in še posebej zavezanosti k podpori ljudem v regiji.
               

                  Čeprav mnogi govorijo o krizi privrženosti ljudi idejam Evropske unije, celo podpori širitve v sami regiji, pa je to bolj odraz pomanjkljive vidnosti in tudi celo namernega prikrivanja in zanikanja vloge, ki jo imajo evropska sredstva pri razvoju regije in njenemu približevanju Evropski uniji.
               

                  Sredstva IPA pa so tudi priložnost za institucionalno krepitev v regiji, predvsem krepitev neodvisnosti in profesionalnosti institucij, priložnost za demokratično rast držav in družb v regiji, priložnost za gospodarski in socialni razvoj regije glede na potrebe ljudi in za doseganje višjega blagostanja. So tudi priložnost za krepitev vladavine prava, boj proti korupciji in organiziranemu kriminalu, krepitev neodvisnega sodstva, pravosodja, krepitev civilnega in nevladnega sektorja in ne nazadnje neodvisnosti medijev.
               

                  IPA III ponuja tudi priložnosti za okoljsko transformacijo regije, ki se sooča z resnimi okoljskimi izzivi. Je pa tudi obveznost, da sredstva Evropske unije ne postanejo pogonsko gorivo za razmah neliberalnih režimov v regiji in demokratičnega nazadovanja, kateremu smo priča v delih regije. IPA III torej predstavlja priložnost, a hkrati prinaša določene izzive in tveganja.
               

                  Na ljudeh v regiji je, da sredstva izkoristijo, uporabijo za svoj razvoj in za približevanje Evropski uniji. Na nas poslancih pa je odgovornost, da jim na tej poti pomagamo in preprečimo, da bi pri tem zašli na stranpoti, torej stran od ciljev programa predpristopne pomoči, se pravi približevanju Evropski uniji in članstvu v Evropski uniji. Hvala lepa.
               

Thomas Waitz,
on behalf of the Verts/ALE Group. – Mr President, dear Commissioner, dear rapporteurs, we Greens very much welcome that after two years of lengthy negotiations, we finally have an IPA III. And we also welcome that the Green Deal of the Commission has left its footprint in this IPA III, literally amounting to up to 27% of all the funds going to climate and biodiversity and environmental topics.
And if you know the region, if you know how many people suffer from air pollution in the region, if you know how the wild waste deposits look like, the lack of wastewater treatment that is still pouring the wastewater into the rivers, you see an urgent need for these kind of investments. We also have big infrastructure projects and basically a lot of concrete projects that will be put in place. And the more concrete, the more possibilities to also side-line some of the funds and the more possibilities you find for corruption.
So we explicitly welcome the conditionality on the rule of law, on basic fundamental rights, on basic democratic principles that have to be held up in the countries to receive these funds, and if not, we can stop these fundings going to the countries, which is an impactful measure. We very much welcome that also civil society is included into the possible beneficiaries of that money, as they play a key role in the region.
But we need stable institutions and we need rule of law, otherwise private investors will not follow our investments into the Balkan region, and I think this would be urgent for the region as well. And last but not least, through the European Parliament having an impact on Annexes 2 to 4, we in the delegations will have more leverage in our negotiations from parliament to parliament.

Jérôme Rivière,
au nom du groupe ID. – Monsieur le Président, Monsieur le Commissaire, chers collègues, ‘retenir les leçons du passé’, sage formule emplie de bon sens. Et pourtant, l'Union européenne, qui court derrière des élargissements à l'infini, ne s'en inspire pas.
               

                  Ce sont plus de 14 milliards d'euros que vous voulez donner aux pays candidats à l'adhésion pour la période 2021-2027. Après les échecs affligeants de la Commission face aux défis brutaux auxquels nous devons faire face – gestion de la crise sanitaire, déferlante migratoire –, si des pays sont candidats c'est pour nos sous. Et quels pays, puisque les principaux bénéficiaires de cet argent public seront les pays des Balkans occidentaux pour une large part, la Turquie d'autre part.
               

                  Quelle folie de la part de l'Union européenne de vouloir consacrer ces sommes importantes alors qu'il est clair aujourd'hui, aux yeux de tous, que jamais, jamais la Turquie n'adhérera à l'Union européenne. La Turquie comme l'Albanie sont gangrénées par l'islamisme et les autres pays des Balkans, largement instables, sont des points de passage d'une immigration déjà folle pour l'Europe. Assez de cette vision messianique par laquelle vous pensez changer les peuples. Elle conduit systématiquement à des dépenses inutiles et au chaos dans nos nations respectives. Un seul slogan: assez avec les élargissements!
               

Ангел Джамбазки,
от името на групата ECR. – Г-н Председател, колеги, предстои в следващия период да бъдат раздадени повече от 14 милиарда по този инструмент. Вярно, не е толкова голяма сума, колкото разбрахме с лека ръка в Афганистан, за да може после всички да избягат оттам позорно, но близка, от европейските данъкоплатци.
               

                  Тези пари къде ще отидат в Турция, в Западните Балкани. Тази Турция, която нарушава човешките права, която държи семейства, журналисти, деца в затворите, която прави инвазия на територията на чужди държави, тази неоосманистка и нелиберална Турция, която уж всички, на приказка така, порицават, но отново ще се изливат пари там. Втрестяващо лицемерие и необяснимо двуличие.
               

                  Когато говорим за Западните Балкани нищо по-различно. Македония, Северна Македония, държава, която брутално, открито нарушава човешки права и по време на това преброяване в момента нарушава правото на самоопределение, нарушава правото на хората там, на българите там, да се самоопределят като българи, а иначе всички говорят за върховенство на закона. Уважаеми, върховенство на закона е и това да се самоопределяш, като българи имам предвид.
               

                  И не на последно място искам да изразя своето несъгласие с това, че заменихте незаконната имиграция с нерегулирана такава. Игра на думи, която обаче пак нищо не казва, няма как да е нерегулирана, тя си е незаконна.
               

Vladimír Bilčík (PPE). – Mr President, the IPA III is a significant financial instrument designed for future EU Member States. Therefore, it deserves full political attention across Europe. Congratulations to Ms Zovko and Mr Picula for negotiating an agreement which improves governance and increases scrutiny by this House, including through establishing a high-level geopolitical dialogue.
IPA III is much more than a financial transfer. It is a political instrument which binds our partners in the region to put fundamentals first, and to work diligently on rule of law reforms and sound and sustainable public investment.
Money alone, however, will not guarantee that things move forward in the Western Balkans. IPA III must go hand in hand with Europe's political ambition, strategic commitment and geopolitical shrewdness when dealing with countries to which we clearly offered a European perspective as long as two decades ago. It is therefore high time we all – and Member States especially – do much more for a successful European Union enlargement.

Κώστας Μαυρίδης (S&D). – Κύριε Πρόεδρε, ο μηχανισμός αυτός αποτελεί σημαντικό εργαλείο για τις υπό ένταξη χώρες, ώστε να πραγματοποιήσουν τις απαραίτητες μεταρρυθμίσεις για να συμμορφωθούν πλήρως με το ευρωπαϊκό κεκτημένο. Αξίζουν συγχαρητήρια οι συντελεστές αυτού του κειμένου. Προτού όμως φτάσουμε στην πλήρη συμμόρφωση, τίθενται κάποιες θεμελιακές προϋποθέσεις που αφορούν την αρχή της δημοκρατίας, τα ανθρώπινα δικαιώματα, το κράτος δικαίου, τον σεβασμό συμφωνιών με την Ευρωπαϊκή Ένωση και πολλά άλλα. Όλα αυτά τα παραβιάζει ήδη το τουρκικό καθεστώς Erdoğan. Σε ό,τι αφορά τις εξωτερικές σχέσεις του τουρκικού καθεστώτος με την Ευρωπαϊκή Ένωση, αυτό συνεχίζει την παράνομη κατοχή εδάφους της Ευρωπαϊκής Ένωσης στην Κύπρο. Δεν σέβεται καν τις αποφάσεις του Ευρωπαϊκού Δικαστηρίου. Παραβιάζει τις αρχές καλής γειτονίας. Δεν αναγνωρίζει καν την Κυπριακή Δημοκρατία, ενώ υπάρχει ήδη συμφωνία με την Ευρωπαϊκή Ένωση προς τούτο. Διευρύνει το έγκλημα του εποικισμού στα Βαρώσια, στο Αφρίν και αλλού. Εισβάλλει στη διεθνώς αναγνωρισμένη ΑΟΖ της περιοχής. Κύριε Επίτροπε, απευθύνομαι σε σας. Θα ήταν καλό να τα παραδεχτούμε όλα αυτά δημόσια εάν θέλουμε να εφαρμοστεί σωστά αυτός ο κανονισμός.
               

Tineke Strik (Verts/ALE). – Mr President, we welcome the IPA III Regulation, as already said by my colleague Mr Waitz, to support and incentivise the accession process. But we must be honest: the accession process is in a very challenging situation in many countries and sometimes even in a deadlock. In North Macedonia we saw due to external actors, and in some other countries, think of Bosnia Herzegovina, we really see that political leaders are obstructing the process themselves. And in those situations, EU accession is not an effective tool anymore to make progress. And there's a big risk that the process of accession is being misused in order to get access to IPA III funding for the own interest of the political leaders.
So therefore, I really welcome the strengthened conditionality mechanism in IPA III on democracy, human rights and rule of law, and the possibility of suspending assistance in case of severe backsliding. But we need to make it an effective tool. If I look at the current text, it's quite vague on how to trigger it, so we would invite the Commission to specify this part and make it an effective tool for a real integration.

Angelo Ciocca (ID). – Signor Presidente, onorevoli colleghi, cercherò di mantenere la calma, anche se coloro che stanno fuori dal Parlamento e sentono la discussione di 14 miliardi e mezzo di euro per l'IPA III, dopo IPA I e IPA II dove abbiamo messo 22 miliardi, sperano che quei 14 miliardi siano per il lavoro, per i giovani, per i disoccupati, per chi magari tra poche ore non riesce a dormire perché ha il pensiero di trovare un posto di lavoro, per chi magari tra poche ore deve iniziare il turno di lavoro ma non riesce a mandare i propri figli a scuola.
               

                  Qui invece si sta discutendo di dare dei soldi di preadesione per far entrare la Turchia in Europa, follia.
               

                  Al di là del mio giudizio personale che la Turchia con l'Europa non c'entra nulla, che un paese estremista islamico non può avere nulla a che fare con l'Europa, ma resta un elemento essenziale: quello che se l'Europa è così importante e se siamo orgogliosi di aver creato questa Europa, devono entrare pagando loro, non pagandoli noi. Chi è dentro l'Europa paga, i paesi fondatori pagano per stare in Europa e qui oggi si stanno ipotizzando 14 miliardi e mezzo per fare preadesione di altri Stati dentro l'Europa.
               

                  Usiamo queste risorse per i bisogni dei nostri cittadini, dei nostri giovani e delle nostre famiglie.
               

Olivér Várhelyi,
Member of the Commission. – Mr President, many thanks for this interesting debate. It demonstrates your continued deep interest in the instrument and in the region, and reflects the determination that the instrument deliver results.
I warmly welcome today's endorsement by the Parliament and I'm looking ahead to our next step, which is to turn the promise of the new instrument into reality. We will engage fully in the regular geopolitical dialogue – another outcome of our negotiations – and I'm looking forward to the first meeting.
We will also ensure that, with your engagement and commitment, we complete the legal architecture without delay. This should allow the first year of programming to be completed by the end of this year.
I look forward to Parliament's continued efforts to support the region through the instrument of pre-accession and assistance, and I count on you to make the long-awaited projects a common success – their success and our success – for the benefit of the citizens and for the progress of the region. We are stronger together.

President. – The debate is closed.
The vote will take place on Wednesday, 15 September 2021.


Written statements (Rule 171)



Kinga Gál (NI),
írásban. – Az Európai Uniónak be kell tartania a Nyugat-Balkánnak tett ígéreteket és folytatnia kell a bővítést. Szerbiát és Montenegrót mihamarabb fel kell venni az Unióba és meg kell kezdeni a csatlakozási tárgyalásokat Észak-Macedóniával és Albániával. Üdvözlöm ezért az Előcsatlakozási Támogatási (úgynevezett IPA III) Eszköz elfogadását, amely a Nyugat-Balkán EU-s integrációját hivatott gyorsítani. Az Eszköz több mint 14 milliárd euró pénzügyi keretösszeget bocsát majd a régió rendelkezésére, ebből pedig akár 9 milliárd euró is mozgósítható lesz a Várhelyi Olivér szomszédságért felelős biztos által 2020 októberében bemutatott nyugat-balkáni gazdaságélénkítési és beruházási terv végrehajtására. A terv ösztönözni fogja a nyugat-balkáni térség hosszú távú fejlődését, amely reményeink szerint nagy hozzáadott értékkel fog bírni a Nyugat-Balkán uniós integrálásában.
               
18.   Brexit Adjustment Reserve – Draft amending budget No 1/2021: Brexit Adjustment Reserve (debate)

President. – The next item is the joint debate on






—


the report by Pascal Arimont, on behalf of the Committee on Regional Development, on the Brexit Adjustment Reserve (COM(2020)0854 – C9-0433/2020 – 2020/0380(COD)) (A9-0178/2021), and










—


the report by Pierre Larrouturou, on behalf of the Committee on Budgets, on the draft amending budget No 1/2021: Brexit Adjustment Reserve (10945/2021– C9-0348/2021 - 2021/0022(BUD)) (A9-0263/2021).





Pascal Arimont,
Berichterstatter. – Herr Präsident, sehr geehrte Frau Kommissarin! Auch zu später Stunde kann und muss man über wichtige Dinge sprechen. Der Brexit ist nun seit gut acht Monaten gelebte Realität – eine Realität, die für niemanden einen wirklichen Vorteil darstellt. Ich möchte hier gar nicht explizit auf die leeren Kaufhausregale im Vereinigten Königreich oder den Einbruch gewisser Handelsströme eingehen. Auch in ganz bestimmten Regionen in den Mitgliedstaaten der Europäischen Union hat der Brexit sehr konkrete negative Folgen für Unternehmen und staatliche Einrichtungen.
               

                  Die Europäische Union hat genau diesen Regionen, diesen Mitgliedstaaten, kleinen und mittleren Unternehmen versprochen, ihnen durch einen Hilfsfonds zur Seite zu stehen, wenn Großbritannien aus der EU austritt. Und dieses Versprechen haben wir mit der jetzigen Brexit Adjustment Reserve, diesem Hilfsfonds in Höhe von 5,5 Milliarden Euro, gehalten. Ich bedanke mich jetzt schon bei allen Verhandlungspartnern parteiübergreifend hier im Parlament und beim Rat für die sehr konstruktive, flexible und ergebnisorientierte Zusammenarbeit. Wir haben einen gut ausgereiften Kompromiss gefunden, der uns erlaubt, die Hilfen für die vom Brexit am stärksten betroffenen Regionen und Unternehmen schon ab diesem Jahr auszuzahlen.
               

                  Eines möchte ich an dieser Stelle jedoch in aller Deutlichkeit auch sagen: Die 5,5 Milliarden Euro sind zwar ein beachtlicher Betrag, sie können den wirtschaftlichen Gesamtschaden aber nur zu einem Teil auffangen. Wer Geld aus der Reserve erhält, kann dadurch nicht den gesamten Schaden kompensieren. Es ist aber gut und richtig, dass die Europäische Union auch in dieser Frage Solidarität zeigt. Inhaltlich möchte ich nur auf sechs Punkte eingehen, die mir im Laufe der Verhandlungen besonders wichtig waren und die sich nun in diesem Reservefonds auch wiederfinden.
               

                  Erstens: klare und messbare Kriterien für die Auszahlung der Mittel. Wichtig ist, dass wir uns auf klar messbare und aussagekräftige Kriterien für die Auszahlung der Brexit-Hilfen einigen konnten. Die Mittel müssen dort ankommen, wo sie tatsächlich gebraucht werden. Das ist zum einen das Maß oder die Intensität der Handelsbeziehungen der Regionen mit dem Vereinigten Königreich, das in diesem Schlüssel eine bedeutende Rolle gespielt hat. Ebenfalls haben wir die Komponente der Fischerei und der Küstenregionen nochmals hervorgehoben.
               

                  Zweitens: die Bedeutung der Fischerei. Kleine Küstenfischereien sowie lokale und regionale Gemeinschaften, die von Fischereitätigkeiten in britischen Gewässern abhängig sind, sollen mindestens 3,5 und 7 Prozent der nationalen Mittelzuweisung erhalten. Das bedeutet konkret, dass die Mitgliedsländer natürlich auch mehr zuweisen können, aber eben nicht weniger. Dabei handelt es sich um die sechs Staaten, deren Fischer am ehesten vom Brexit und dessen Folgen betroffen sind, und nur um diese sechs. Zudem konnten wir den Anwendungsbereich der Verordnung in dem Sinne erweitern, dass auch diejenigen Fischer von Mitteln aus der Anpassungsreserve profitieren können, die außerhalb der Gewässer des Vereinigten Königreichs fischen und dennoch negative Auswirkungen des Brexits erleiden. Hier haben wir ausdrücklich die südfranzösischen, spanischen und portugiesischen Fischer im Blick gehabt. Und um es hier noch einmal deutlich zu sagen und am Beispiel Spanien deutlich zu machen: Der spanische Staat kann unbegrenzt Mittel aus der Reserve für den Fischereisektor einsetzen, insofern ein tatsächlicher Schaden nachgewiesen wird, also nicht nur die 3 Millionen, die bei der Berechnung des spanischen Teils als sogenannte Fischkomponente aufgeführt wird. Hier gilt: Berechnungskriterium ist eben nicht gleich Verteilungskriterium. Und bei der Verurteilung erhält Spanien, um wieder dieses Beispiel zu nehmen, rund 80 Millionen mehr als ursprünglich vorgesehen. Durch diese flexible Handhabung konnten wir den Forderungen des Sektors auch aus den südlichen Ländern deutlich entgegenkommen. Dies war das ausdrückliche Resultat einer wirklich zähen Verhandlung, und es ist ein deutliches Zeichen für den arg gebeutelten Fischereisektor auf der einen Seite und einer gewissen Flexibilität für die Mitgliedstaaten auf der anderen Seite. Ein Kompromiss ist nicht perfekt, aber die ausgehandelte Lösung war für beide Seiten annehmbar.
               

                  Drittens: die Anpassung des Laufzeitzeitraums für die anfallenden Kosten. Wir haben dafür gesorgt, dass dieser vom 1. Januar 2020 bis zum 31. Dezember 2033 geht.
               

                  Viertens: die Aufteilung der Mittel. Das war the elephant in the room, das war das schwierige Kapitel. Wir haben diesen sogenannten Allokationsschlüssel in vielen Diskussionen so gestaltet, dass der ursprüngliche Vorschlag der Kommission, der eine Verteilung gemäß Kriterien der ersten 4 Milliarden vorsah, und nicht der letzten Milliarde, dahingehend geändert wurde, dass jetzt auch die letzte Milliarde verteilt wurde. In enger Zusammenarbeit zwischen den Fraktionen und den nationalen Delegationen hier im Haus, aber auch mit den Ständigen Vertretungen im Rat, haben wir uns bereits vor dem Trilog auf die nun angewandte Methode geeinigt. Das Resultat hat den Vorteil, dass alle Mitgliedstaaten auch von der letzten Milliarde einen Teil erhalten, sodass am Ende des Tages jedes Mitgliedsland mehr erhält.
               

                  Fünftens: die Schnelligkeit der Auszahlungen. Wir werden in vier Tranchen bezahlen. Erste Tranche, 1,7 Milliarden, schon im Dezember dieses Jahres; 1,3 Milliarden Euro Anfang 2022; 1,3 Milliarden Anfang 2023 und die restlichen 1,1 Milliarden werden 2025 ausgezahlt.
               

                  Wir haben auch in Artikel 5 dieser Kriterien hineingeschrieben, dass kleine und mittlere Unternehmen, selbstständige und lokale Gemeinschaften unterstützt werden, dass Investitionen in die Schaffung von Arbeitsplätzen und die Wiedereingliederung in den Arbeitsmarkt einschließlich Kurzarbeiterprogrammen oder Umschulungen möglich sind. Und wir haben hineingeschrieben, dass Investitionen in den Mitgliedstaaten für die Zollkontrollen und sonstigen Kontrollen, die nach dem Brexit notwendig geworden sind, ebenfalls möglich sind, im Großen und Ganzen.
               

                  Und dann, ich komme zum Schluss, handelt es sich hier um einen in meinen Augen gut gemachten Kompromiss. Ich möchte mich erneut für den Austausch und die sehr konstruktiven Beratungen und Verhandlungen mit all den anderen Verhandlungsführern hier bedanken. Es war eine sehr intensive Zeit. Wir haben viel miteinander um die besten Ideen gefochten, und wir haben diesen Text im REGI einstimmig angenommen – ein starkes Zeichen des Zusammenhalts in einer schwierigen Akte. Der Brexit ist und bleibt ein historischer Fehler, aber wir haben dafür gesorgt, dass die Europäische Union hier mit Solidarität handelt und an der Seite dieser Leute steht. Vielen Dank für Ihre Unterstützung und vielen Dank für Ihre Aufmerksamkeit.
               

President. – Before I give the floor to our next speaker, please allow me to insert the following statement.
It came to my attention that one of the previous speakers, Mr Ciocca, was displaying a banner in such a way that I, as the Chair, couldn't really see it. We all know that displaying banners is forbidden in this Chamber, and I need to say that I find it inappropriate to play and try to circumvent the rules like kids from the kindergarten.

Pierre Larrouturou,
rapporteur. – Monsieur le Président, Madame la Commissaire, chers collègues, chers amis, la commission des budgets a voté à l'unanimité, moins quatre abstentions, le projet de budget rectificatif pour mettre en œuvre effectivement cette réserve d'ajustement post-Brexit. Cette réserve, Pascal vient de l'expliquer, va permettre d'aider très concrètement tous nos citoyens et toutes les petites entreprises qui sont touchés par les conséquences du Brexit. Merci à toutes celles et à tous ceux qui ont négocié cet accord. Ça a été compliqué, mais Pascal a dit l'essentiel, c'est un bon accord. Je ne vais pas ajouter grand-chose et nous n'avons aucun problème pour le soutenir.
               

                  Mais après le Brexit, quels projets pour relancer l'Europe? Quels projets pour rassembler et pour relancer l'Europe? L'Europe va-t-elle se donner les moyens de réussir le post-Brexit, de réussir le pacte vert pour l'Europe? 75 % des jeunes Européens trouvent le futur effrayant. C'est une enquête qui a été publiée aujourd'hui dans plusieurs pays d'Europe. 75 % des jeunes trouvent le futur effrayant. À cause du dérèglement climatique, 56 % estiment que l'humanité est condamnée. 39 % des jeunes de nos pays hésitent à avoir des enfants. Ils ont raison de s'inquiéter. Nous sommes des dirigeants européens, allons-nous enfin répondre à leurs attentes?
               

                  Nous savons qu'il y a des solutions, des solutions concrètes et crédibles et j'y reviendrai. Mais qu'attendons-nous pour les mettre en œuvre? Plus de 700 morts cet été dans les canicules au Canada. Des dizaines de morts dans les inondations à New York et dans sa région. On a tous vu ces scènes d'horreur à New York. Plus de 200 morts en Belgique et en Allemagne à cause des inondations, des feux de forêt monstrueux en Turquie, en Algérie, en Californie, en Grèce. Cet été encore, le dérèglement climatique a fait des centaines et des centaines de morts, des dizaines et des dizaines de milliers de sinistrés. Et le rapport que les climatologues du GIEC viennent de publier montre que ces événements climatiques extrêmes mortifères vont être de plus en plus fréquents, de plus en plus nombreux, de plus en plus graves dans leurs conséquences humaines et économiques.
               

                  Et le GIEC montre que nous n'avons plus que quelques années. Il est encore possible de réussir le pacte vert pour l'Europe. Il est encore possible de gagner la bataille du climat, mais nous n'avons plus que quelques années pour y parvenir.
               

                  Il y a dix jours, avec d'autres députés, j'ai demandé que les responsables du GIEC soient entendus en séance plénière par notre Parlement. Je regrette que pour le moment, aucune date n'ait été fixée pour ce dialogue avec des climatologues du GIEC, qui pourrait être très important. Hier, c'est la Banque mondiale qui annonçait 200 millions de réfugiés climatiques, 200 millions de réfugiés climatiques d'ici 2050. Nous ne sommes pas capables de casser la courbe du CO2 et du méthane. La Banque mondiale, qui annonce ces chiffres terrifiants. Voyons les visages de 200 millions d'hommes et de femmes, de jeunes et de vieux qui devront quitter la région où ils sont nés pour ne pas mourir. Alors, qu'attendons-nous pour agir?
               

                  Pour éviter le chaos, oui, le pacte vert peut être le grand projet pour refonder l'Europe après le Brexit. Mais il faut se donner les moyens de gagner la bataille. Et pour cela, il faut agir de façon beaucoup plus radicale, agir de façon beaucoup plus ambitieuse, au moins dans deux domaines: le domaine de la réglementation et le domaine des financements.
               

                  Sur les enjeux de régulation: vous avez sans doute lu le rapport publié par l'Agence internationale de l'énergie – 400 pages – le 18 mai 2021. L'Agence internationale de l'énergie demande de stopper immédiatement tout nouveau projet d'exploration pétrolière ou gazière. L'Agence internationale de l'énergie demande de stopper immédiatement tout nouveau projet d'exploration pétrolière et gazière. C'est faisable, c'est urgent, c'est l'Agence internationale de l'énergie qui nous le dit.
               

                  Et hélas, dans les dernières propositions de la Commission européenne pour le plan climat, il n'y a pas une ligne sur cette question absolument fondamentale. Pour gagner la bataille du climat et de l'emploi, il faudrait mettre des milliards pour isoler les maisons, faire des transports en commun ou développer les énergies renouvelables. On peut créer 5 millions d'emplois en Europe avec un vrai pacte vert.
               

                  En novembre dernier, notre Parlement a voté des solutions concrètes pour financer le pacte vert pour l'Europe. On ne va pas demander à chaque famille de trouver 40 000 euros pour isoler sa maison. On ne va pas demander à chaque PME de financer les travaux de transformation. Il faut des centaines de milliards d'aides. Le Parlement européen a voté cinq propositions. La plus ambitieuse, la plus rapide à mettre en place, c'est une petite taxe sur la spéculation. Je vous rappelle les chiffres. Malgré le Brexit et malgré la crise économique, la taxe sur la spéculation rapporterait 60 milliards chaque année. Nous avons tous voté ce texte en novembre dernier.
               

                  On peut aussi créer une taxe sur les milliardaires. Le journal Forbes nous dit que le nombre de milliardaires a triplé en dix ans et que, depuis que le virus sévit, en un an, les 20 milliardaires les plus riches ont gagné 600 milliards de plus. On peut sans doute leur demander un effort. Hélas, la semaine dernière, en auditionnant le commissaire européen chargé du budget, nous avons tous compris que toutes ces négociations pour trouver des ressources nouvelles sont complètement au point mort. Tel ou tel chef d'État avait bloqué la négociation pour faire plaisir au lobby bancaire. En France, ce sont les mêmes qui nous ont dit en juillet qu'il n'y avait pas d'argent pour une vraie loi climat et les mêmes qui bloquent au niveau européen la négociation pour taxer la spéculation. Ce double discours devient insupportable.
               

                  Mes amis, je trouve qu'il y a quelque chose d'obscène à nous dire qu'il n'y a pas d'argent pour le climat, pas d'argent pour l'emploi, pas d'argent pour la santé, alors que les marchés financiers n'ont jamais été à des niveaux aussi élevés et qu'une petite taxe rapporterait 60 milliards par an. Il est temps de nous ressaisir. Nous sommes face à une urgence vitale. C'est une urgence vitale. Réussir le plan climat, réussir le pacte vert, ce n'est pas un projet parmi d'autres. Nos enfants vont nous détester si on en reste à des discours creux. Nos enfants ne voudront plus nous parler, nos enfants nous jetteront des cailloux et ils auront raison.
               

                  Mes amis, il est temps de réagir. 56 % des jeunes pensent que l'humanité est condamnée. 75 % des jeunes, de nos jeunes, de nos enfants, voient le futur comme effrayant. Il est temps de leur donner tort. Il est temps de montrer que l'espoir est possible et il est temps de changer la donne. En 1950, il a suffi de deux semaines à Adenauer et à Schuman pour créer l'Union du charbon et de l'acier. Il est temps de créer aujourd'hui une union du climat et de l'emploi. C'est urgent. Allons-y!
               

Valérie Hayer,
rapporteure pour avis de la commission BUDG. – Monsieur le Président, Madame la Commissaire, chers collègues, les étagères vides dans les supermarchés, une pénurie de chauffeurs, une paperasse administrative paralysante, les biens de première nécessité dont les prix s'envolent… Alors que les conséquences du Brexit frappent de plein fouet les Britanniques, Boris Johnson a fait voter la semaine dernière une hausse massive des taxes afin de refinancer le système de santé britannique, le fameux NHS. Ce même NHS que, il y a cinq ans, les brexiters promettaient de refinancer. Grâce à quoi? Grâce à la fin de leur contribution au budget européen.
               

                  Aujourd'hui, le peuple britannique paie pour la folie et pour les mensonges de Nigel Farage, de Boris Johnson et des autres eurosceptiques. Ils leur promettaient monts et merveilles. Ils leur promettaient que grâce au Brexit, le NHS serait renfloué. Mais quel échec! Au lieu de cela, ce sont 12 milliards de taxes qui seront nécessaires pour le maintenir à flot.
               

                  Mais regardons aussi chez nous, car l'aveuglement des eurosceptiques n'a pas que des conséquences pour les Britanniques. Chez nous aussi, nous souffrons de ce choix désastreux. Alors, à l'heure où Boris Johnson est aux abonnés absents pour tous ses concitoyens, nous devons, nous, être au rendez-vous des Européens. Ce fonds Brexit aura pour objectif de venir en aide aux plus touchés: à ceux pour qui les échanges avec le Royaume-Uni sont si essentiels, à nos pêcheurs en première ligne face au Brexit, à nos PME qui abandonnent le marché britannique.
               

                  Je suis heureuse que nous soyons parvenus à un accord sur ces 5 milliards d'aide. Ils sont la démonstration de notre solidarité envers les régions et les secteurs les plus touchés, sans qu'aucun État ne soit mis injustement de côté. Je remercie mes collègues et notamment le rapporteur Pascal Arimont pour ce gros travail accompli en commun.
               

                  Chers collègues, Madame la Commissaire, le Brexit est un échec, au Royaume-Uni où les mensonges ont éclaté aux yeux de tous, tout comme ici, sur le continent. Alors, à la différence des eurosceptiques, nous, cependant, nous répondons présents.
               

François-Xavier Bellamy,
rapporteur pour avis de la commission de la pêche. – Monsieur le Président, nous y sommes arrivés. La négociation a été difficile, mais je crois que nous avons pu améliorer fortement la proposition initiale de la Commission européenne, en particulier en améliorant la répartition des fonds entre nos États membres, mais aussi et surtout, je crois que c'est le plus important, pour garantir que les secteurs les plus touchés – et je pense en particulier aux pêcheurs – se verront offrir le soutien dont ils ont besoin pour pouvoir se reconvertir.
               

                  Nous apportons au secteur de la pêche la lisibilité et la visibilité dont il avait besoin. Nous garantissons la simplicité des procédures administratives. Nous faisons en sorte que les pêcheurs qui seront touchés, même à Jersey, à Guernesey, aux Malouines, seront pris en compte dans la répartition des fonds. C'est fondamental parce que, rappelons-le, ils perdent aujourd'hui 25 % de la capacité de pêche en valeur qu'ils pouvaient opérer dans les eaux britanniques. Et je crois que nous devons nous souvenir que c'est aussi une clé pour l'autonomie stratégique de nos pays: aujourd'hui, nous importons la moitié des produits de la pêche que nous consommons en Europe. Si nous voulons garantir notre souveraineté sur le plan alimentaire, nos pays n'ont pas le droit d'abandonner ceux qui pêchent et c'est, je crois, le message que nous envoyons à travers cette amélioration de la réserve d'ajustement au Brexit.
               

Elisa Ferreira,
Member of the Commission. – Mr President, honourable Members, ladies and gentlemen, we are at the end of a marathon. In the six short months following our proposal on Christmas Day last year for the Brexit Adjustment Reserve, we have had intensive negotiations between the co-legislators, followed by political agreement achieved in record time through just one political trilogue.
My thanks to the European Parliament for your constructive approach throughout this very intense process. My special thanks to Mr Pascal Arimont, to Pierre Larrouturou, to all the shadow rapporteurs. Together, we have created a strong and convincing instrument, and this timely adoption means that the first pre-payments can still go out this year.
Our text today is a balanced compromise, carefully crafted as a concrete expression of European unity and solidarity when it comes to the adverse consequences of Brexit. We are sending a strong signal to European firms and workers who are affected most strongly by Brexit. Europe stands by them.
Our work here is part of our broad commitment that no region should be left behind, that No European shall be feeling forgotten, not because of Brexit, not because of COVID, not because of the green transition, not because of the digital transition. We have got to be careful to bring everybody on board.
There is one area where we must still do better. The Commission is committed to protecting European money against fraud, irregularities and conflicts of interest. This is true for the Brexit Adjustment Reserve, as much as for the cohesion funds or any other support from the European budget. We need appropriate mechanisms to ensure such protection fits for the digital age.
I call for swift adoption of the current compromise text. Equally important is to put money where our mouth is, which is why the approval of the relevant budgetary resources, and Mr Larrouturou's report is so important, so that much needed pre-financing can start flowing to Member States. Member States are already preparing projects to be supported under the reserve and we are working with them.
So there is not a moment to lose in adopting this text. This is our hope and thank you very much once again.

David McAllister,
im Namen der PPE-Fraktion. – Herr Präsident, Frau Kommissarin! Meine sehr verehrten Damen, sehr geehrte Herren! Unser Berichterstatter Pascal Arimont hat es soeben sehr zutreffend auf den Punkt gebracht: Mit dem Brexit gehen viele negative soziale und wirtschaftliche Auswirkungen für die Menschen, für die Unternehmen und auch für die öffentlichen Verwaltungen einher.
               

                  Ich begrüße diese 5 Milliarden Euro schwere Reserve für die Anpassung an den Brexit sehr, weil, das wichtig für die Regionen Europas ist, die besonders von den Folgen des Brexits betroffen sind. Es geht darum, Unternehmen bei der Anpassung an neue Grenz-, Zoll- und Kontrollregelungen zu unterstützen. Und es geht vor allen Dingen um Hilfen für Branchen, die vom Handel mit dem Vereinigten Königreich ganz besonders abhängig sind. Viele Unternehmen mussten hohe, teils unvorhergesehene Einbußen verzeichnen.
               

                  Die Fischerei ist der verhältnismäßig am stärksten betroffene Wirtschaftszweig. Das ist natürlich eine Folge der reduzierten Fangrechte im Ärmelkanal, in der Nordsee und im Nordatlantik. Auch für die Fischwirtschaft und für die Standorte Cuxhaven und Bremerhaven in meiner norddeutschen Heimat ist es nun wichtig, dass diese finanziellen Mittel zügig und unbürokratisch vor Ort ankommen.
               

Tsvetelina Penkova,
on behalf of the S&D Group. – Mr President, dear Commissioner, dear colleagues, I would like to start first by thanking Mr Arimont and all of my fellow shadow colleagues who worked hard on this file.
During the short but tough negotiations, we did experience first-hand just how big an impact Brexit is having on the European economy. We saw that the negative effects and the commercial disruptions are unevenly distributed, even among the Member States. All of us involved in the negotiations knew from the very beginning that the EUR 5 billion would not be sufficient to cover and to compensate for the incurred costs, damages and trade profit losses following the UK's withdrawal.
However, we did manage to find the difficult balance that could help the most severely affected regions and sectors. First, we understood that it was important for the EU citizens to have a longer eligibility period for the funds, and thus we extended it starting from 1 January 2020 to 31 December 2023. Second, I'm glad that we managed to agree on the mechanism for compensating the fisheries sector, which was the first one to experience the new reality of the changed borders.
Finally, the funds of the BAR (Brexit Adjustment Reserve) are intended to support EU SMEs and the self-employed. We managed to include stronger involvement of the local and regional authorities in the management of these funds.
Despite the reached trade agreement, it is now time for the national governments of the Member States to implement support measures locally. We should all adapt to the change with a long-term vision, but the Brexit Adjustment Reserve can provide adequate short-term relief that we all need now.

Irène Tolleret,
au nom du groupe Renew. – Monsieur le Président, Madame la Commissaire, chers collègues, chers collègues rapporteurs et rapporteurs fictifs, le retrait du Royaume-Uni est sans nul doute un des moments les plus sombres de l'histoire du projet européen. Un divorce entraînant des conséquences économiques et sociales dévastatrices. Un choc, aussi, qui appelle l'Union européenne à réagir rapidement et à montrer une nouvelle fois son vrai visage, celui de la solidarité.
               

                  Avec la création de cette réserve d'ajustement au Brexit, l'Europe, à travers toutes ses institutions, a su se montrer unie, soudée et capable d'adopter une réponse commune, à la taille des défis sans précédent que nous avons à relever avec une grande vitesse. Cette aide est urgente, nécessaire et doit être versée rapidement, sans lourdeurs administratives. Toutes les divergences ont été mises de côté au profit d'un accord politique qui nous rend tous gagnants et qui offre un ballon d'oxygène à nos entreprises et à nos emplois les plus touchés, à nos régions et à nos communautés locales, dont la cohésion économique et sociale est fortement menacée par le Brexit.
               

                  L'Union l'a une nouvelle fois emporté face aux divisions; cette énième preuve de solidarité de l'Union européenne est aussi un message adressé à toutes les sortes d'égoïsme national. Et je m'adresse à certains de nos collègues qui siègent dans cet hémicycle: la sortie de l'Union européenne n'est jamais une solution. La solution est plus de coopération, plus de solidarité, plus d'union. Les réponses communes européennes aux défis de la pandémie de COVID-19, de l'approvisionnement des vaccins, du retrait du Royaume-Uni en sont le meilleur exemple. Le projet européen est vivant et il l'est plus que jamais.
               

François Alfonsi,
au nom du groupe Verts/ALE. – Monsieur le Président, ce fonds décidé pour aider les activités et les territoires les plus affectés par les conséquences du Brexit est une bonne chose. Durant les discussions que nous avons eues sous l'autorité de notre rapporteur, M. Pascal Arimont, nous avons fait progresser ce règlement pour arriver à des objectifs essentiels.
               

                  Le premier est de réserver une part conséquente aux activités de pêche. C'est un enjeu important pour les territoires maritimes concernés, y compris sur le plan de la préservation de la ressource et de la défense de l'activité de pêche côtière. Deuxièmement, il a permis de concentrer la solidarité sur les régions maritimes frontalières et sur les activités réellement impactées avec exclusion des activités financières. Enfin, il donne un message d'unité et de solidarité européenne à des territoires qui auront de plus en plus à pâtir du Brexit, à commencer par l'Irlande.
               

                  Les conséquences du Brexit risquent d'aller crescendo au fur et à mesure que les effets négatifs s'accumuleront. Le devoir de solidarité est une exigence pour que les Européens les plus impactés puissent faire face à ses conséquences. La question cruciale du protocole nord-irlandais prévu par le traité doit être résolue. Pour cela, il nous faut démontrer notre solidarité et notre détermination. La mise en place de ce fonds y participe.
               

Joachim Kuhs,
im Namen der ID-Fraktion. – Herr Präsident, Frau Kommissarin, werte Kollegen! Heute vor 700 Jahren verstarb Dante Alighieri, einer der größten Dichter der Welt, und ich würde heute viel lieber über diesen genialen Europäer und seine Göttliche Komödie reden als über den Brexit-Anpassungsfonds und das damit zusammenhängende Geschachere, wer am meisten aus diesem Honigtopf der wohltätigen Kommission erhält.
               

                  Ich habe bereits mehrfach, auch von dieser Stelle aus, meine Ablehnung zu diesem Umverteilungsinstrument bekundet. Meine Kritik brauche ich daher nicht zu wiederholen. Aber wie jetzt um diese Gelder und die Verteilungskriterien gestritten wird, dass Frankreich auf einmal 100 Millionen Euro mehr bekommen soll als der größte Beitragszahler Deutschland, das macht mich traurig. Denn ich bin wahrlich kein Feind Europas, lediglich ein Kritiker der EU und mancher Auswüchse.
               

                  Erlauben Sie daher, werte Kollegen, dass ich auf ein Problem mit den Änderungsanträgen hinweise: Die nachträgliche Bevorzugung Frankreichs wird zwischen die beiden wichtigsten Länder der EU einen Keil treiben. Wollen Sie wegen 100 Millionen Euro die freundschaftliche Beziehung der beiden Länder aufs Spiel setzen? Und Sie, liebe Kommission, wann hören Sie endlich auf, die EU mit immer neuen Umverteilungsaktivitäten zu einem europäischen Superstaat aufzupumpen? Ziehen Sie die Reißleine, bevor Ihnen die überdehnte EU um die Ohren fliegt.
               

Bogdan Rzońca,
on behalf of the ECR Group. – Mr President, I welcome the Brexit Adjustment Reserve, which is a needed support for the many affected by the United Kingdom's withdrawal from the European Union. Coming from Poland, I am pleased we can access funding from the Reserve, which will be of vital support to those facing the challenges I described.
Once adopted this week, our aim must be to quickly implement the programmes of support, benefiting from the Reserve's contributions and pre-financing approach. With this model, I am pleased that we can deliver timely support as companies explore new markets and new opportunities. I am also happy that we can fund resources for our returning citizens who re-enter our domestic labour markets and bring those skills and experience back into our countries and our local economies.
Managing change is not easy, but it is of great importance that we are able to recognise the breadth of the challenges faced in our region and deliver the support needed by our citizens. With this Reserve, we are ensuring difficulties are addressed, and I am pleased to offer my support for this measure.

Martina Michels,
im Namen der The Left-Fraktion. – Herr Präsident, liebe Frau Ferreira, Herr Kuhs! Es ist die Frage, wer hier die Reißleine zu ziehen hat. Ich glaube, das Parlament sieht das anders als Sie. Die Dankesworte von Herrn Arimont und Frau Ferreira möchte ich gern zurückgeben. Es war eine wirklich wunderbare Zusammenarbeit.
               

                  Der Brexit, ja, er hat die Beziehungen zwischen dem Vereinigten Königreich und der EU grundlegend verändert. Ganz besonders in Irland, aber durchaus auch in Deutschland, Belgien, Frankreich, den Niederlanden sind Menschen im Privatleben, am Arbeitsplatz, in KMU, in der Fischerei und Landwirtschaft von großen Umstellungen betroffen. Grenzüberschreitender Handel und Mobilität sind ebenso eingeschränkt wie kulturelle und Bildungszusammenarbeit. Nur noch halb so viele EU-Bürgerinnen und -Bürger wie vorher können oder wollen sich das Studium im Vereinigten Königreich leisten. Politischer Dauerstreit um Zollkontrollen und das Rütteln am Nordirland-Protokoll tragen nicht eben zu größerem Vertrauen bei. Weder in der Politik noch in der Wirtschaft oder bei den Menschen.
               

                  Unser neuer kleiner Brexit-Hilfsfonds ist für die am stärksten direkt vom Brexit Betroffenen in der EU ganz sicher eine wichtige konkrete Hilfe. Ich glaube nicht, dass er ausreichen wird, alle Einkommensausfälle und Mehraufwand zu kompensieren. Es ist klar, dass wir bei der Bewältigung von Klimawandel in der Coronakrise auch hierbei unsere EU-Strukturfonds für langfristige Umstellungen brauchen werden.
               

Chiara Gemma (NI). – Signor Presidente, signora Commissaria, onorevoli colleghi, con la creazione di un fondo di riserva per attenuare le conseguenze della Brexit, l'Unione europea ha cercato di reagire velocemente e in modo solidale.
               

                  Nelle difficili negoziazioni abbiamo vigilato affinché le misure adottate si potessero rivelare sufficienti e opportune, anche inserendo nel testo finale precisi criteri di tutela ambientale.
               

                  Il nostro obiettivo, in questa fase particolarmente delicata, sarà garantire che le imprese europee possano sopportare lo shock economico, anche nel lungo periodo, monitorando costantemente la transizione e intervenendo con prontezza attraverso eventuali futuri aggiustamenti.
               

                  Infine la nostra priorità sarà continuare a sostenere le imprese che si trovano a dover affrontare le nuove modalità di esportazione verso il Regno Unito e tutti i cittadini europei che hanno deciso di rientrare nei loro paesi di origine.
               

José Manuel Fernandes (PPE). – Senhor Presidente, Cara Comissária, Caras e Caros Colegas, o Brexit foi uma má decisão, com repercussões negativas para a União Europeia e muito negativas, péssimas, para o Reino Unido do ponto de vista social, económico e político. Felizmente, a União Europeia aprovou instrumentos em tempo oportuno que estão agora à disposição dos Estados-Membros, nomeadamente o Quadro Financeiro Plurianual, o NextGenerationEU e os planos de recuperação e resiliência que daí derivam. A somar a tudo isto, temos uma reserva de ajustamento ao Brexit adicional com cerca de 5500 milhões de euros.
               

                  Em boa hora, temos esta ajuda extra. Agora, Sra. Comissária, é importante que estes recursos sejam bem utilizados para as regiões mais afetadas e para as pequenas empresas. Melhorámos muito a proposta inicial da Comissão. É agora essencial que os Estados-Membros façam a sua parte, que utilizem bem estes recursos e que a Comissão Europeia monitorize os mesmos.
               

Nora Mebarek (S&D). – Monsieur le Président, Madame la Commissaire, chers collègues, avec ce rapport, l'Union va enfin pouvoir accompagner les territoires, les secteurs d'activité et nos concitoyens les plus exposés aux conséquences socioéconomiques du Brexit.
               

                  La nature même de cet instrument aurait dû nous unir dès le départ. Je note pourtant combien le chemin pour parvenir à l'équité dans l'allocation des fonds fut semé d'embûches. Heureusement, le sens des responsabilités de chacun et de notre équipe de négociation a porté ses fruits. Nous sommes parvenus à exclure les services financiers du soutien de la réserve tout en assurant l'implication des autorités locales et en garantissant une aide pour nos pêcheurs.
               

                  À l'instar du Fonds de transition juste pour les territoires les plus exposés à la neutralité carbone, la réserve d'ajustement au Brexit nous donne aujourd'hui l'opportunité de renouveler la solidarité européenne envers celles et ceux que le départ du Royaume-Uni de l'Union a le plus durement touchés.
               

Billy Kelleher (Renew). – Mr President, I very much welcome the agreement that has been finally reached. There is no doubt it was a long, tough process, but I think most sides can be happy.
Brexit isn't a good idea. It is bringing about economic and social consequences across a lot of Europe, but in my country, it is also bringing about potential political consequences. Beyond that, I do welcome the fact that Europe has showed solidarity in terms of the Brexit Adjustment Reserve.
But I do want to bring a particular emphasis to the fact that the Irish fishing industry has been very badly damaged by Brexit itself. We have to accept that Ireland has 22% of the European waters, yet we catch 3% of the fish. So from that perspective, I do hope, when we have a review of the Common Fisheries Policy, that the Irish Government advocates very strongly for the fishing communities throughout the whole island of Ireland and for ensuring that we have burden-sharing and a concept of solidarity with communities and sectors that have been profoundly damaged because of Brexit.
So, if we do want to talk about solidarity in a real, meaningful way, let us show that commitment when we review the Common Fisheries Policies and, as I said, have that burden-sharing where additional quotas can be made available to communities, and particularly communities in Ireland that have been affected.
So, I call on the Irish Government, I call on the Commission and I call on the Council and other Member States – in showing that solidarity that has been shown very strongly throughout this whole process by my European colleagues – that we now take one step further, review the Common Fisheries Policy and make sure that Irish fishing communities have their fair share of fishing quota in waters.

Rasmus Andresen (Verts/ALE). – Herr Präsident! Der Brexit ist und bleibt der größte failure der Europapolitik in den letzten Jahren. Damit nicht noch mehr Menschen unter den Folgen des Brexits leiden, beschließen wir heute die Brexitreserve. Fünf Milliarden Euro sollen direkt an die am meisten betroffenen Regionen und Sektoren ausgezahlt werden – an Küstenfischerinnen und -fischer an der Nordsee, an kleine und mittlere Unternehmen, an Organisationen zur Beratung von Arbeitnehmerinnen und Arbeitnehmern und auch zur Unterstützung von EU-Bürgerinnen und -Bürgern, die aus Großbritannien jetzt wieder zurück in die Europäische Union ziehen.
               

                  Die Brexitreserve soll dort konkret helfen, wo der Brexit ökonomisch am schmerzhaftesten ist. Uns Grünen ist wichtig, dass die Mittel nicht einfach als Gießkanne ausgezahlt werden, sondern dass sie in klimagerechte und sozial nachhaltige Projekte gehen. Uns schockiert das Verhalten der deutschen Bundesregierung, die offenkundig plant, die Mittel im Bundeshaushalt versickern zu lassen. Wir fordern Finanzminister Olaf Scholz auf: Überweisen Sie die Mittel an die Bundesländer, damit das Geld dort ankommt, wo es am dringendsten benötigt wird! Machen Sie den Weg dafür frei.
               

Elżbieta Kruk (ECR). – Panie Przewodniczący! Nowa specjalna pobrexitowa rezerwa dostosowawcza (Brexit Adjustment Reserve) w wysokości ponad 5 miliardów euro wesprze ludzi, przedsiębiorstwa i kraje dotknięte wystąpieniem Wielkiej Brytanii z Unii. Z końcem 2020 roku zakończył się okres przejściowy po brexicie, a razem z nim swobodny przepływ osób, towarów, usług i kapitału między Unią a Wielką Brytanią. Jednocześnie uwidoczniły się nieuniknione zakłócenia w stosunkach gospodarczych, handlowych i społecznych. Dlatego racjonalnym było utworzenie funduszu, który pozwoli państwom członkowskim na zniwelowanie, a przynajmniej zminimalizowanie skutków brexitu.
               

                  Odnosząc się do zaproponowanych rozwiązań, pozytywnie należy ocenić te służące przewidywalności funduszu, a w szczególności alokowanie całej kwoty na początku, co wzmocni aspekt przewidywalności planowania poniesionych wydatków, dystrybucję przyznanego prefinansowania w trzech rocznych transzach, co pozwoli znacząco odciążyć budżety krajowe płatników netto, oraz wydłużenie okresu kwalifikowalności do 2023 roku.
               

                  Konieczna natomiast będzie współpraca Komisji z państwami członkowskimi, aby główne zasady tego instrumentu mogły zostać w pełni wykorzystane.
               

Younous Omarjee (The Left). – Monsieur le Président, Madame la Commissaire, je le dis parce que je le pense: nous avons un bon accord et je veux, en tant que président de la commission REGI, féliciter notre rapporteur Pascal Arimont pour le travail accompli et l'unité qu'il a su dégager. Je veux aussi vous remercier, Madame la Commissaire, pour votre rôle et votre implication dans les négociations. Je veux également remercier ce soir la présidence portugaise pour son esprit très constructif dans les trilogues.
               

                  Nous avons 5 milliards d'euros qui permettent maintenant d'aider les régions, les entreprises et les secteurs économiques les plus touchés par le Brexit. Nos discussions ont été intenses, parfois très difficiles, mais au final, nous obtenons un fond plus juste avec une méthode d'allocation qui ne fait aucun perdant et qui prend en compte les principales demandes du Parlement européen et en particulier un soutien accru pour les pêcheurs.
               

                  La politique de cohésion démontre une nouvelle fois qu'elle est en capacité de réagir en temps de crise. Nous en avons fait la démonstration dans la crise du COVID-19, nous le faisons également avec le Brexit.
               

Seán Kelly (PPE). – Mr President, I would like to open my remarks by thanking the rapporteur, Pascal Arimont, for the diligent and more importantly balanced and fair approach to this very important file. The objective of the Brexit Adjustment Reserve (BAR) is of course to provide financial support to the most affected Member States, regions and sectors to deal with the adverse consequences of Brexit. It will also help communities and businesses cope with the increased costs of trade and lost income as a result of the United Kingdom's departure from the single market.
Ireland is the most impacted Member State by Brexit and rightly is the largest beneficiary owing to the sense of fairness with which the fund has been managed. Brexit is about barriers and borders, and this is plain to see. As we continue down a strained path with our friends on the other side of the Irish Sea, it is important that we show solidarity with those most affected and to mitigate the economic consequences of Brexit. Solidarity is at the very core of this fund, as Pascal pointed out, and it is also satisfying that payments can begin imminently. BAR is the star of Brexit.

Cristina Maestre Martín De Almagro (S&D). – Señor presidente, han pasado casi seiscientos días desde la materialización del Brexit y todavía miles de ciudadanos y ciudadanas sufren las consecuencias de la salida del Reino Unido de la Unión Europea.
               

                  Algunos sectores económicos se están viendo más perjudicados que otros, como por ejemplo el sector pesquero, que se ve afectado por una importante merma de la cuota pesquera y por importantes pérdidas.
               

                  El mecanismo de Reserva de Adaptación al Brexit, que se idea con la intención de compensar a los sectores más perjudicados, empezó con una ambición limitada. Tenía una asignación mejorable y un reparto que resultaba injusto para algunos países afectados, como es el caso de España.
               

                  La buena noticia es que querer es poder y, frente a los que preferían que nada cambiase, hemos imperado los que consideramos que valía la pena hacer un esfuerzo para ayudar a los más afectados.
               

                  ¿El resultado? Un fondo más ambicioso, más ayudas, pero también un sistema de reparto más justo. Cabe, por lo tanto, felicitar a las partes por el buen trabajo y por la buena disposición.
               

Ciarán Cuffe (Verts/ALE). – Mr President, Commissioner Ferreira, dear colleagues, the peace in Northern Ireland is a fragile peace due to Brexit, and the lesson from Europe is that the major challenges of our time are only solved by cooperation – cross-party, regional and international. The Brexit Adjustment Reserve will help those hardest hit by the UK's departure from the EU.
As the Greens EFA group, we're pleased with some of the additions to the final deal, such as an emphasis on support for sustainable small-scale fishers and the importance of consulting with local partners. And on this note, I am reminded that we must listen to communities in Northern Ireland, to the people of Northern Ireland, to youth and civil society and business owners in implementing the Northern Ireland Protocol.
The Protocol ensures peace. Dialogue and cooperation will ensure its implementation.

Tom Berendsen (PPE). – Voorzitter, de schade van de brexit is enorm. In Nederland is de schatting dat de structurele kosten van de brexit in 2030 opgelopen zijn tot acht miljard euro per jaar. Het is dus goed dat dit brexitfonds er komt, al kan dat natuurlijk nooit alle kosten compenseren. Het laat wel zien dat we in de Europese Unie schouder aan schouder staan als er problemen zijn. Dat doen we op zo'n manier dat die solidariteit ook vormgegeven wordt en dat het geld terechtkomt waar de schade het grootst is. Dat hebben we gedaan bij het Europees Herstelfonds van 750 miljard euro en uiteindelijk gelukkig ook bij dit fonds van 5 miljard euro. Nu is het zaak voor de Commissie en de lidstaten om dit geld zonder belemmeringen zo snel mogelijk beschikbaar te krijgen voor alle vissers, ondernemers en vervoerders die door de brexit zijn getroffen. Ik zou graag willen afsluiten met grote complimenten aan rapporteur Pascal Arimont voor zijn uitstekende werk op dit moeilijke dossier.
               

Francisco José Millán Mon (PPE). – Señor presidente, a mí la Reserva de Adaptación al Brexit siempre me ha parecido un instrumento útil para apoyar al sector pesquero. No obstante, el resultado final me parece decepcionante, al menos desde la perspectiva de la pesca en lo que se refiere a mi país, España.
               

                  Los criterios de reparto de los seiscientos millones de la Reserva consignados al sector pesquero son inadecuados. Lamento que se ignorasen las enmiendas aprobadas por la Comisión de Pesca de esta casa, que proponían una clave de reparto más justa que el llamado ‘criterio de dependencia’.
               

                  España, que cuenta con la flota más grande de la Unión Europea, recibirá tan solo el 0,6 % de los fondos asignados por razón de la pesca, de los seiscientos millones de la pesca. No se ha tenido en cuenta tampoco que, debido al Brexit, la cuota de bacalao de Svalbard para la Unión Europea se ha recortado mucho y que ello perjudica, particularmente, a la flota española.
               

                  Por otra parte, la Comisión de Pesca también pedía más dinero y más tiempo: que se extendiese la vigencia de la Reserva hasta julio del 2026 y también que se hiciera uso de los fondos no consumidos del anterior Fondo Europeo Marítimo y de Pesca. Estas demandas tampoco se han recogido en el texto final del Reglamento, que, como digo, es muy insuficiente en lo que a España se refiere.
               

Tom Vandenkendelaere (PPE). – Voorzitter, commissaris, collega's, vijf jaar na het naïeve referendum van de Britten zijn we nog altijd aan het debatteren over de brexit. En terecht. De impact van de scheiding is niet te overzien. De handel tussen de Europese Unie en het Verenigd Koninkrijk heeft enorme klappen gekregen, zeker in de landen die bijzonder afhankelijk zijn van handel met Verenigd Koninkrijk. Denk aan mijn eigen land, België. Denk aan mijn eigen regio, West-Vlaanderen. De export van Europese agrovoedingsproducten is met zes procent gedaald, waarbij varkensvlees, groenten en fruit de grootste slachtoffers zijn. Omslachtige douaneprocedures, handelstarieven, certificaten, extra kosten en minder omzet, dat is de realiteit vandaag.
               

                  Maar ook Vlaamse vissers zijn erg getroffen door de brexit. De Britse wateren zijn het belangrijkst voor hun visvangst, maar de toegang daartoe is op lange termijn niet meer gegarandeerd. Net daarom stemt het mij heel erg tevreden dat er onder impuls van mijn goede collega Pascal Arimont een duidelijk oormerk gekomen is voor de visserijsector. In Vlaanderen komt dit neer op een bedrag van 27 miljoen euro voor de visserij. Laten we de komende maanden waakzaam zijn en het voor de vissers niet erger maken dan het al is.
               

Elisa Ferreira,
Member of the Commission. – Mr President, today we send a strong signal of solidarity, a message to everybody who is suffering because of Brexit. We didn't want Brexit, but it happened. It's there. And the message ‘Europe stands with you’ is the main outcome of this discussion and of this initiative.
So, my sincere thanks to everybody who has contributed to this success and, in fact, it is true that the European Parliament improved the quality of the text. I would also like to thank all those who participated in this debate. It is my obligation, but it is with a lot of pleasure that I have taken note of your concerns –in particular that we concentrate this support in the communities that were most affected, be it the fishers, be it other communities, and the flexibility of the instrument allows for this.
It is also important – as everyone has mentioned – that we speed up procedures. Now we are ready. There are formalities to translate the text, and so on. But in the meantime, we are already working with Member States in order to help them to prepare the projects using the full flexibility available. It is important that Member States identify the management and control systems and authorities.
For the Commission's part, I can promise you that we'll do our utmost to help you and to help the Member States to make the best of this instrument, so that the purpose for which the instrument was created really is implemented and felt by citizens as soon as possible. And we hope that we have created the conditions for the first transfers to be done this year.
I am sorry to insist, but I think it's important that we all together also address something on which Parliament is very vocal. This is the approach to the control systems, to data-mining, to help to prevent fraud, irregularities, conflicts of interest – not only in this instrument but in all the instruments that we have in our hands and on which we have to present accountability to you, Parliament, and also to the citizens.
But, for the time being, and this is my conclusion for today, I think we can all be proud of what we have achieved. Thank you for the comments that some of you have made. It is true that the Presidency was also very helpful. In all the possible languages, we are saying we have an instrument of solidarity and we have got to make the best possible use of it. We are proud, together, of what we have achieved.
Let's keep you updated on the progress of implementation and let's make this instrument reach the target and the target is to rebuild the confidence, the trust and the life of our citizens, in particular those affected by Brexit. So thank you very much to all of you once again.

President. – Thank you, Madam Commissioner, and especially thank you for staying with us at this rather late hour.
The joint debate is closed.
The vote will take place on Wednesday, 15 September 2021.


Written statements (Rule 171)



Josianne Cutajar (S&D),
in writing. – I welcome the agreement between the European Parliament and the Council on the Brexit Adjustment Reserve. We have worked extensively on this important dossier in the Committee for Regional Development in the past months and I am glad that the EU countries, which have been heavily affected by the exit of the UK from our Union will soon count on financial support to face the most urgent needs. Alleviating the consequences of Brexit is, first and foremost, a matter of social and territorial cohesion. It is about supporting SMEs and jobs in the most affected sectors and regions. Data shows that Malta is one of the European countries with the deepest economic and trade relations with the United Kingdom. I welcome the circa EUR 40 million allocation my country will benefit from. I hope that there will be further support should the long-term effects of Brexit – from those impacting healthcare to those related to logistics – will be more severe than expected.
19.   Explanations of vote: see Minutes
20.   Corrections to votes and voting intentions: see Minutes
21.   Agenda of the next sitting

President. – The sitting is closed and it will resume tomorrow, Wednesday, 15 September 2021 at 9.00 with the statement by the President of the Commission on the State of the Union.
The agenda has been published and is available on the European Parliament website.
22.   Closure of the sitting

(The sitting closed at 23.00)



ELI: 
ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)