Verbatim report of proceedings of 23 November 2022
Date: 2022-11-23
Institutions: European Parliament
Subjects: European Parliament, parliamentary debate




C_2023240EN.01019901.xml










6.7.2023   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 240/199






23 November 2022VERBATIM REPORT OF PROCEEDINGS OF 23 NOVEMBER 2022
(2023/C 240/03)
Contents







1.

Opening of the sitting
201










2.

The need for a European solution on asylum and migration including search and rescue (debate)
201










3.

Resumption of the sitting
235










4.

Voting time
235










4.1.

Draft amending budget 5/2022: Additional measures to address the consequences of the Russian war in Ukraine - Union Civil Protection Mechanism reinforcement - Reduction in payment appropriations and update of revenues - Other adjustments and technical updates (A9-0280/2022 - Karlo Ressler, Damian Boeselager) (vote)
235










4.2.

2023 budgetary procedure: joint text (A9-0278/2022 - Nicolae Ștefănuță, Niclas Herbst) (vote)
235










4.3.

System of own resources of the European Union (A9-0266/2022 - Valérie Hayer, José Manuel Fernandes) (vote)
235










4.4.

Recognising the Russian Federation as a state sponsor of terrorism (RC-B9-0482/2022, B9-0482/2022, B9-0483/2022, B9-0485/2022, B9-0486/2022, B9-0487/2022) (vote)
236










4.5.

New EU strategy for enlargement (Rule 118) (A9-0251/2022 - Tonino Picula) (vote)
236










4.6.

Situation in Libya (Rule 118) (A9-0252/2022 - Giuliano Pisapia) (vote)
236










4.7.

Promoting regional stability and security in the broader Middle East region (A9-0256/2022 - Manu Pineda) (vote)
236










4.8.

Prevention, management and better care of diabetes in the EU on the occasion of World Diabetes Day (B9-0492/2022) (vote)
236










5.

Resumption of the sitting
236










6.

Approval of the minutes of the previous sitting
236










7.

A truly interconnected Energy Single Market to keep bills down and companies competitive (topical debate)
236










8.

Eliminating violence against Women (debate)
253










9.

Amending Council Regulation (EU, Euratom) 2020/2093 of 17 December 2020 laying down the multiannual financial framework for the years 2021 to 2027 — Amending Regulation (EU, Euratom) 2018/1046 as regards the establishment of a diversified funding strategy as a general borrowing method - 'Macro-Financial Assistance+' instrument for providing support to Ukraine for 2023 (debate)
271










10.

A post-2020 Global biodiversity framework and the UN Convention on Biological Diversity COP15 (debate)
283










11.

Legal protection for rainbow families exercising free movement, in particular the Baby Sara case (debate)
292










12.

The future European Financial Architecture for Development (debate)
299










13.

Composition of Parliament
307










14.

Composition of committees and delegations
307










15.

Human rights situation in Egypt (debate)
307










16.

Debates on cases of breaches of human rights, democracy and the rule of law (debate)
312










16.1.

The Human rights situation in Afghanistan especially the deterioration of women's rights and attacks against educational institutions
312










16.2.

The continuing repression of the democratic opposition and civil society in Belarus
318










16.3.

Forced displacement of people as a result of escalating conflict in Eastern Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC)
323










17.

Protection of livestock farming and large carnivores in Europe (debate)
328










18.

Explanations of vote
341










18.1.

System of own resources of the European Union (A9-0266/2022 - Valérie Hayer, José Manuel Fernandes)
341










18.2.

Recognising the Russian Federation as a state sponsor of terrorism (RC-B9-0482/2022, B9-0482/2022, B9-0483/2022, B9-0485/2022, B9-0486/2022, B9-0487/2022)
341










18.3.

New EU strategy for enlargement (A9-0251/2022 - Tonino Picula)
343










18.4.

Situation in Libya (A9-0252/2022 - Giuliano Pisapia)
343










18.5.

Promoting regional stability and security in the broader Middle East region (A9-0256/2022 - Manu Pineda)
344










18.6.

Prevention, management and better care of diabetes in the EU on the occasion of World Diabetes Day (B9-0492/2022)
344










19.

Agenda of the next sitting
345










20.

Approval of the minutes of the sitting
345










21.

Closure of the sitting
345




Verbatim report of proceedings of 23 November 2022


VORSITZ: OTHMAR KARAS


Vizepräsident

1.   Opening of the sitting

(Die Sitzung wird um 9.02 Uhr eröffnet)

2.   The need for a European solution on asylum and migration including search and rescue (debate)

Der Präsident. – Als nächster Punkt der Tagesordnung folgt die Aussprache über die Erklärungen des Rates und der Kommission zur Notwendigkeit einer europäischen Lösung für Asyl und Migration einschließlich Suche und Rettung (2022/2950(RSP)) – ein Thema, das uns alle in allen Mitgliedstaaten bewegt, und ich darf die Vertreter der Kommission, Vizepräsident Schinas und Frau Kommissarin Johansson, und den Vertreter des Rates, Herrn Minister Bek, ganz herzlich in unserer Mitte willkommen heißen und darf Sie, Herr Minister, bitten, Ihre Ausführungen zu beginnen.

Mikuláš Bek,
President-in-Office of the Council. – Mr President, honourable Members, Commissioners, dear Minister Roswall, first of all let me begin by stressing that any loss of life on the irregular migration routes to Europe is not acceptable. Recent developments in the central Mediterranean have brought this issue again to the forefront. Providing assistance to people in distress at sea is a humanitarian imperative and a duty of all states and shipmasters under international law. It is crucial that all actors respect applicable international and European rules and that the nearest safe port for disembarkation is provided without delay.
We are putting all our efforts in implementing the Solidarity Declaration agreed upon in June. This mechanism was designed precisely to relieve the pressure on the frontline Member States. While it has taken some time to get the mechanism up and running, we are confident that further progress can be made soon. It is also important to underline in this context that the increased number of arrivals, whether by sea, air or land, affect our reception and asylum systems and we need to address them jointly.
Reception and asylum systems in many Member States are already stretched to the maximum as a consequence of the almost 4 million persons that have fled Ukraine. Given the above and increasing migratory pressure on all EU Member States, the Presidency has decided to organise an extraordinary meeting of the home affairs ministers that will be held on 25 November. The ministers will discuss the situation along all migratory routes and a joint way forward.
We also look forward to the discussion on the Commission's action plan presented this week, which proposes concrete measures to be taken to accelerate the Union's collective work along the central Mediterranean route.
Besides the short-term, urgent actions which the ministers will discuss on Friday, we also need to continue focusing on a long-term solution providing a robust and well-functioning EU asylum and migration policy to be agreed and implemented by all Member States.
The Pact on Migration and Asylum is the European solution to these challenges. Therefore we need to continue our legislative work, which we have advanced under our Presidency. The agreement on the roadmap that was signed with the Parliament is an important step in this direction. It is a clear demonstration of the political willingness of both co-legislators to work on all asylum files with a view to their adoption at the latest by the end of the term of this Parliament. We look forward to starting negotiations with the European Parliament on the Eurodac and on the screening regulations, and to resuming work on other asylum files.
Discussions on the solidarity concept developed since the beginning of our Presidency will continue until the December Justice and Home Affairs Council and should then be quickly pursued in the form of legislative work on the Asylum and Migration Management Regulation and the Crisis Regulation.
We will also continue to support and work with all our partners in third countries of origin and departure to build their capacities to ensure prevention of irregular migration and disruption of smugglers' networks and overall work towards sustainable migration management in a safe and orderly manner, and in accordance with fundamental rights.
Thank you very much for your attention.

Margaritis Schinas,
Vice-President of the Commission. – Mr President, honourable Members, in recent weeks, of course, the spotlight has been on the Central Mediterranean route, where over 90 000 migrants and refugees arrived only this year. These were departures mainly from Libya and Tunisia, and they were originating primarily from Egypt, Tunisia and Bangladesh. The increase on the Central Med route was over 50% compared to last year, and most of these arrivals reached the European Union after hazardous journeys, search and rescue operations at sea under difficult conditions.
At the same time, other routes such as the Turkey-Eastern Mediterranean route and the Western Mediterranean-Atlantic route also continue to face ongoing pressure – and in particular the Western Balkans route, which has seen a dramatic increase in numbers this year. Only yesterday, 500 people were rescued from a small fishing boat near Crete by the combined operation of a Greek navy frigate, coast guard ships of the Hellenic Coast Guard, a tanker, two cargo ships and two Italian fishing boats, all working together.
Honourable Members, all this shows that there will always be challenges and why our responses must not be ad hoc. We cannot continue working event by event, crisis by crisis, ship by ship. The time has now come for a sustainable, comprehensive, holistic European asylum and migration framework. Since two years ago, since September 2020, with my colleague, Commissioner Johansson, we have put on the table a comprehensive set of proposal that provides a response to these challenges: the EU Pact on Migration and Asylum.
It is ironic that we have everything we need at our fingertips, but just seemingly out of reach. It is like having a parachute but choosing to jump out of the plane without it. It is the Pact that will improve our Member States' ability to manage migration on a system based on EU law and the Community method – and if we have learned anything in recent years and this succession of crises, it is that flying solo is not an option. We now need a European agreement on the Pact.
This debate is therefore a great occasion to renew our call, on Parliament as well as on the Council, to advance on the roadmap towards the adoption of all the pending proposals of the Pact, starting most urgently with the Qualifications and Resettlement Framework Regulations and Reception Conditions Directive, where we already have political compromises as well as the screening and Eurodac proposals, where we already have Council mandates and where trilogues should now begin in earnest.
But in the meantime we cannot afford to wait to address the difficult situation at sea. Assistance to people in distress at sea is a legal obligation for EU Member States under international and EU law, regardless of how people ended in that situation. Everybody needs to work together on a common response, with saving lives being priority number one.
This Monday, we proposed an action plan with 20 specific actions to address the immediate challenges in the Central Mediterranean. First of all, we need to work with partner countries and international organisations who will never be able to sustain an EU migration policy in isolation. We will support Tunisia, Egypt and Libya to ensure better border management and migration management. We will boost the fight against migrant smuggling, step up our diplomatic engagement on returns and improve legal pathways to the EU. We will maximise the impact of all these actions by launching a Team Europe initiative before the end of this year. Other than working with partners, we also need a more coordinated approach on search and rescue, with stronger cooperation between our Member States and all actors involved.
Precisely in our Pact, we have put in place a European Contact Group on search and rescue. Let's use it. We have also asked Frontex to assess the situation and to see whether we need to devote more resources and assets at Community level, and we will keep working closely with the UNHCR and the IOM on potential regional approaches while at the same time promoting discussions with the International Maritime Organisation.
Last, but certainly not least in this chapter, we need to make full use of the voluntary solidarity mechanism that we agreed under the French Presidency. We agreed a solidarity declaration in June. That was a big success of our French friends, and thousands of relocation places are already available. Of course, this is a temporary mechanism, but it is also possible bridge to the future permanent system grounded on EU law that we want to see under the Pact.
Frankly, we do not need to reinvent the wheel here. We have the tools, Member States have to use them. The Commission will continue to fully support. Honourable Members, history does not repeat itself often, but it often rhymes. We have to learn the lessons of the past when it comes to migration. We have first to enact immediate operational and practical measures to address the situation along all migratory routes, and the Extraordinary Home Affairs Council on Friday will allow Member States to achieve fast results. However, it will not remove the need for long-term binding solutions.
We are in much stronger position now to cope with migration challenges than in 2015-2016. We have a strong European Border and Coast Guard and a fully-functioning asylum agency. We have resources, we have instruments and we have the political will, and we cannot wait any longer to equip ourselves with a future-proof migration framework.
This is not a debate about one ship, one route or one part of the sea. It is a debate about our ability as Europeans to manage migration in a spirit of trust and solidarity. We will inform the Ministers on Friday of the latest developments and we will give them the necessary tools for solutions and we will call on them, like we call on you today, to secure an agreement on the Pact. Action plans, emergency meetings and emergency debates are useful but not sufficient, when we have the permanent solutions. The solutions are here at our fingertips. We can do it and we shall do it.

Manfred Weber,
im Namen der PPE-Fraktion. – Sehr geehrter Herr Präsident, sehr geehrter Herr Vizepräsident, Frau Kommissarin, liebe Ratsvertreter, liebe Kolleginnen und Kollegen! Wir schlafwandeln in eine nächste große Migrationskrise hinein. 280 000 illegale Migranten sind dieses Jahr angekommen. Wir stehen mitten in der nächsten Migrationskrise Europas. Die Zahlen sind auf Rekordhöhe wie 2015 und 2016. Speziell der westliche Balkan mit 42 000 ist eine Hauptroute. Die bestehende Migrationspolitik –das ist der Startpunkt dieser heutigen Debatte –, die bestehende Migrationspolitik Europas hat versagt, und wir sind bisher nicht in der Lage, eine Antwort zu geben. Europa schaut sogar weg.
Deshalb ist die Diskussion heute so notwendig, ist die Diskussion heute so wichtig. Und ich bedanke mich bei allen Kolleginnen und Kollegen, dass sie den EVP-Vorschlag, diese Debatte zu führen, aufgegriffen haben.
Was sind die Teile, die uns jetzt umtreiben? Der erste Teil ist, dass wir Grenzen sichern müssen. So, wie ich in meiner privaten Wohnung entscheide, wen ich reinlasse, wenn ich die Tür öffne, hat auch der Staat das Recht, an der Außengrenze zu sagen: Wen lasse ich rein und wen lasse ich nicht rein? Wir stehen deshalb als EVP hinter unseren Beamten an der Grenze, den Grenzschutzbeamten, auch den Frontex-Beamten, die einen schwierigen Job machen, die jeden Tag versuchen, die Balance zu finden und Recht durchzusetzen. Der Staat entscheidet, wer nach Europa kommt, und nicht die Mafia entscheidet, wer nach Europa kommt.
Und im Süden, speziell über die Südrouten, haben wir über 50 % von Menschen, die eben kein Bleiberecht haben, die illegale Immigranten sind. Da muss auch sichergestellt werden, dass wir an der Außengrenze schnell entscheiden, wer darf bleiben, und es muss auch schnell wieder rückgeführt werden.
Das wäre meine erste Bitte an die Kommission: Wir brauchen bessere Rückführungsabkommen. Wir sind die letzten Jahre in dieser Situation nicht vorangekommen, dass wir mit afrikanischen und asiatischen Staaten wirklich besser geworden wären.
Ich möchte ausdrücklich auch noch einmal sagen, dass wir für die Beamten Klarheit brauchen. Die Beamten an der Außengrenze werden immer wieder mit den Pushback-Vorwürfen konfrontiert. Und Recht muss durchgesetzt werden – keine Frage. Pushbacks sind verboten – keine Frage. Aber wir haben an der Landgrenze sehr klare Definitionen von Pushbacks, aber an der Seegrenze ist es nicht so klar. Wir hatten die Vorfälle im Juni 22 in Melilla beispielsweise, wo 17 Flüchtlinge umgekommen sind, an der spanisch-marokkanischen Grenze. Dort fand die Grenzsicherung auf der See statt. Die Grenzsicherung dort ist deutlich schwieriger als auf der Landgrenze. Deshalb brauchen wir Rechtsklarheit, was einen Pushback darstellt, damit die Beamten nicht in Unsicherheit arbeiten.
Und wir dürfen uns nicht erpressen lassen. Die Türkei, auch Lukaschenko, Weißrussland, hat Migration zur politischen Waffe erklärt. Da muss Europa geeint sagen: Nein, wir erlauben nicht, dass Migranten als politische Waffe eingesetzt werden. Ich möchte, liebe Iratxe, durchaus auch Vorschläge aus dem sozialistischen Camp aufgreifen: Die dänische Regierung hat beispielsweise vorgeschlagen – die sozialistische Regierung in Dänemark –, dass wir Aufnahmezentren in Afrika einrichten; zu überlegen, wie wir es denen, die wirklich Flüchtlingsstatus bekommen können, ermöglichen, dass sie schon in Afrika einen Antrag stellen; dass wir es nicht erzwingen, dass sie dann den mühsamen Weg über das Mittelmeer gehen wollen. Nach wie vor ist das Abkommen zwischen der Türkei und der Europäischen Union das Rohmodell, an dem wir arbeiten können.
Der zweite Pfeiler – neben der Entschiedenheit an der Grenze – ist die Solidarität im Inneren und die Hilfe für die wirklich Bedürftigen. Und wir haben es doch bewiesen, die Ukraine hat uns doch gezeigt: Es ist machbar. Wir haben die Türen geöffnet. Wir haben den Menschen, die Hilfe brauchen, großzügig Hilfe angeboten. Ganz Europa hat Hilfe angeboten, und es funktioniert. Deshalb ist doch das ein Beweis dafür, dass der zweite Pfeiler – Europa – genauso stark praktiziert werden kann.
Ich möchte ausdrücklich sagen:
For Italy, for the southern dimension, and they are having this year 100 000 arrivals, then it is clear that it is not an Italian problem, it is a European challenge and that is why solidarity is so urgently needed. We need now actions and not words like the Vice-President and all the Council representatives told us. The newspapers are full now with the French-Italian dispute, and that was the reason for the debate also on the extraordinary Home Affairs Council meeting next Friday.
But it is not about one NGO boat. It is part of a systematic challenge like Margaritis Schinas told us. The reality is that we had promise from France and Germany for 8 000 places about voluntary relocation, and finally they delivered 117, in reality. That's Europe today. So all promises didn't work. That's why Italy, Malta, Cyprus – socialist government in Malta, EPP government in Cyprus – sent a letter: ‘Please help us. Please let us not alone. We need solidarity on European level’.
And the last point I want to mention is that Europe needs an Africa and Middle East strategy, because the reason, the background why people are fleeing, why people are leaving their home, is fundamental, it is our interest to solve it. The European Union as a whole is the biggest donor in all these areas, and we have to use it in an effective way to really help people. That is what we need now, solutions, and that's why we fully support the idea that we need a migration pact. We need a migration pact now, dear friends.

Iratxe García Pérez,
en nombre del Grupo S&D. – Señor presidente, ‘necesidad de una solución europea para el asilo y la migración, incluida la búsqueda y salvamento’: es un título muy necesario. Podríamos ser incluso más precisos y audaces y hablar de la necesidad de solidaridad y responsabilidad compartida, en particular en lo que se refiere a las llegadas de personas en operaciones de búsqueda y salvamento desde el prisma de los derechos humanos y el Derecho internacional.
Los hechos que vienen sucediendo en los últimos años en el canal de la Mancha, en el Mediterráneo, así como en Lesbos, Lampedusa o Lanzarote, por citar algunos ejemplos trágicos, dan testimonio de la magnitud de lo que aquí estamos hablando. No es la primera vez que debatimos este asunto en esta Cámara y que lo debatimos, además, sin resultados concretos.
Según las cifras de este año, nueve de cada diez inmigrantes llegan a las costas europeas sin la ayuda de las ONG y no tengamos ninguna duda de que, sin su ayuda, estas personas también habrían llegado, de una forma o de otra. Y por eso el mensaje es tan claro: basta de criminalizar a quienes salvan vidas.
A los grupos de esta Cámara que comparten la necesidad de una política europea les tiendo la mano. Se la tiendo con generosidad, pero, también, sin intentar hacer un uso de ello o provocando la división en este sentido. Seamos generosos todos, señor Weber. No intentemos utilizar algunas palabras y algunas frases para provocar también lo que pueden ser grietas en la necesidad de ese acuerdo. Tiendo la mano a todos los grupos de esta Cámara que consideran importante una política europea en este sentido, para emprender acciones que den resultados concretos, sostenibles y sin tener en cuenta cuáles son las cuestiones que algunos se están planteando desde el punto de vista nacionalista o intergubernamental.
No nos equivoquemos, la inmigración puede contribuir decisivamente a resolver algunos de los retos más importantes que tenemos en Europa: un continente envejecido, un continente que en estos momentos tiene grandes retos. Y, por ello, insisto en que la inmigración no puede ser un problema; hay que tratarlo como un reto y como una oportunidad.
El tiempo apremia y las muertes no cesan. La dignidad de la vida de las personas debe ser nuestra guía para adoptar un Nuevo Pacto sobre Migración y Asilo. Este es el espíritu de la Convención de Ginebra, pero tenemos que hacer que sea una realidad. No puede ser solo una responsabilidad de los países del sur. Pretender que el fenómeno migratorio sea exclusividad, responsabilidad del país al que llegan es negar la existencia de una frontera común europea. Creemos en el principio de responsabilidad compartida.
Los recientes sucesos apelan a que avancemos, sobre todo, en el pilar solidario del Nuevo Pacto, precisamente con más solidaridad europea. No solo en momentos de mayor presión migratoria, sino también para hacer frente a situaciones de crisis como las que nos hemos encontrado con la guerra de Ucrania o con Afganistán.
Para conseguir nuestros objetivos debemos también reforzar la cooperación con los países de origen y de tránsito. Sin embargo, esta cooperación debe estar basada en el respeto mutuo. No podemos externalizar de ninguna manera las políticas migratorias. De igual a igual, solamente así lograremos que el Mediterráneo se convierta en un puente de cooperación, ayuda al desarrollo y entendimiento.
Nuestra propuesta es clara. Búsqueda y salvamento es una responsabilidad europea común, es una constante, sobre todo en un mundo tan globalizado que necesita de una categoría específica común europea, en línea con el Derecho internacional. Tengamos en cuenta una cosa: ¡cada vida cuenta!
Señorías, en esta legislatura hemos demostrado estar a la altura de las circunstancias y que somos capaces de responder a grandes desafíos. Demostremos que también somos capaces de hacerlo con el fenómeno de la migración antes del final de este mandato. Es una demanda y casi una súplica: trabajemos sin descanso para avanzar unidos y conseguir una respuesta a la altura del reto. Para ello, ¡cuenten con nosotros!

Stéphane Séjourné,
au nom du groupe Renew. – Monsieur le Président, Madame la Commissaire, Monsieur le Commissaire, le pacte sur la migration et l'asile est malheureusement le grand oublié des débats nationaux sur l'asile et l'immigration en ce moment dans nos États membres respectifs. Nos concitoyens ignorent largement le travail titanesque que fait actuellement ce Parlement européen pour arriver à une solution européenne. L'échec de la précédente mandature y est pour beaucoup, mais c'est le rôle de ce débat de remettre ce thème au cœur des discussions, Monsieur le Commissaire. L'objectif de tout le monde ici est d'aboutir à un consensus, à une réforme sur ce sujet.
Mon groupe y prendra toute sa part. Nous proposons d'ailleurs une réforme qui allie les deux principes que chacun d'entre vous, au PPE et au S&D, avez également évoqués qui sont la solidarité et la responsabilité. Mais autant savoir ce qu'on met derrière la responsabilité et la solidarité. La solidarité: les pays d'arrivée doivent pouvoir compter sur l'ensemble de l'Union européenne. Nous sommes favorables à une solidarité financière, mais également à une solidarité humaine entre les États membres. La responsabilité: oui, il y a trop de migrants en situation irrégulière et il faut pouvoir raccompagner rapidement ceux qui ne remplissent pas aujourd'hui les critères relatifs à l'asile et à l'immigration. Pour cela, mon groupe demande des données harmonisées: vérifications essentielles et procédures identiques basées sur des critères communs. Tout cela évidemment dans le respect absolu des droits de l'homme. Nous irons évidemment dans ce sens pour avoir des critères de vérification qui le permettent. Mais cela ne suffira pas.
Il faut aller plus loin en intensifiant nos efforts, notamment avec les pays tiers et une bonne coordination du sauvetage en mer, cela a été dit par la présidente Iratxe García Pérez. La politique d'asile et d'immigration est et sera tributaire de nos efforts sur le climat, sur la politique de développement, sur nos actions à l'international. Limiter les causes de l'exil reste la meilleure solution pour éviter cette crise.
Alors, chers collègues, je ne me cache pas derrière les chiffres. D'ailleurs, vous avez tous les deux, que ce soit au PPE ou au S&D, évoqué une augmentation significative de 70 % du nombre de demandes d'asile par rapport à l'année dernière. Nous approchons des chiffres de la crise migratoire de 2015. Notre diagnostic commun et nos solutions doivent être mises en avant, mais mon groupe demande une dynamique positive, discrète et réelle pour arriver à un accord sur cette réforme. J'appelle donc les groupes pro-européens à discuter de nos propositions pour aboutir rapidement. Ne laissons pas les hommes et les femmes être otages des calculs électoraux et des contingences nationales. Et oui, il nous faudra établir des règles pour qui peut vivre en Europe et qui ne peut pas vivre en Europe, mais ces règles doivent être européennes, justes et fidèles à nos valeurs.
Nous savons déjà que nous ne pouvons pas compter sur les députés de l'extrême droite de l'hémicycle pour nous aider. Ils brillent par leur absence dans le travail parlementaire du quotidien. Ils préfèrent les tribunes aux solutions et ils savent très bien, chers collègues, que si nous arrivons à relever ce défi de la migration, ils perdent le principal carburant électoral pour leurs futures élections. Je doute également de la volonté des députés de l'extrême gauche de jouer collectif. Pour eux, la question même de l'évocation d'un garde-frontière est un problème. Et on n'arrivera pas à une solution commune en partant de cette logique et de cette affirmation. Nous arriverons en Européens à trouver probablement un chemin, en tout cas je l'espère, pour mettre la pression également sur le Conseil, pour mettre la pression sur le capital. Chacun doit pouvoir comprendre qu'il faut faire un pas vers l'autre dans les partis pro-européens pour arriver à un accord.
J'espère d'ailleurs que Varsovie et Budapest se souviendront que nous avons agi ensemble pour l'accueil des réfugiés ukrainiens. Le seul accord à 27 que nous ayons obtenu depuis 20 ans sur l'asile et la migration. J'espère que Rome et Mme Meloni arrêteront également une position – que je ne connais pas aujourd'hui – sur ce texte.
Alors, assez de spectacle, assez de polémiques pour deux ou trois points de sondage. Au travail. C'est notre devoir de colégislateur et un devoir politique et humanitaire.

Philippe Lamberts,
au nom du groupe Verts/ALE. – Monsieur le Président, chers collègues, depuis 2015, les chefs d'État et de gouvernement de l'Union se montrent incapables de s'accorder sur une réponse commune à ces humains qui cherchent refuge sur notre territoire. Cette absence d'accord cache de plus en plus mal un accord de fait qui consiste à faire de l'Union européenne une forteresse impénétrable.
Nos gouvernements ont, délibérément ou par inaction, choisi la politique du refoulement et de la violence, de préférence à distance et à huis clos. Et ce, au mépris des engagements juridiques auxquels ils ont librement souscrit, notamment au titre de la Convention de Genève relative au statut des réfugiés et du droit maritime international. Et, comble d'indignité, alors même qu'ils bafouent le droit, ils choisissent de jeter l'opprobre, voire de criminaliser les ONG qui, envers et contre tout, tentent de sauver l'honneur de l'Union européenne.
Sans la moindre preuve, certains gouvernements accusent ces ONG de complicité avec les trafiquants d'êtres humains. Au contraire, ce sont l'Union et ses États membres qui financent un système prédateur et mortifère. Car en donnant les clefs de notre politique d'asile et de migration à des pays comme la Libye, nous nous rendons complices de la violence, de la torture, des viols et des rançons. La Libye est un État failli et ses soi-disant garde-côtes sont des gangs armés en uniforme, des uniformes payés par l'Union européenne.
Face à ce déni des valeurs sur lesquelles est construite l'Union européenne, nous attendrions de la Commission qu'elle rappelle aux États membres leurs responsabilités. Madame Johansson, Monsieur Schinas, nous voudrions vous entendre dire aux États membres: combien de temps encore allez-vous reléguer votre responsabilité humanitaire à des bateaux de commerce et à des ONG? Quand respecterez-vous la loi en ouvrant le port le plus proche pour sauver des vies en danger à leur bord? Quand comprendrez-vous que la seule solution réside dans l'organisation de voies sûres et dans une répartition solidaire de l'accueil entre les États membres?
Et plutôt que d'en faire la complice de fait de cette politique de refoulement – je vois que ça vous intéresse, Madame Johansson –, nous attendrions de votre part de mettre au pas votre propre agence Frontex et faire en sorte qu'elle respecte le droit européen et international. Au lieu de cela, que propose la Commission en réalité? More of the same. Autrement dit, un accompagnement timoré de cette démission collective.
Pendant ce temps, le sinistre compteur des morts à nos frontières n'arrête pas de tourner. Et à ce jour, 29 000 personnes ont payé le prix ultime de la lâcheté européenne. Alors, chers collègues, ceux qui ont fait de l'Europe forteresse leur fond de commerce électoral, Monsieur Bardella, affirment vouloir défendre ainsi la civilisation européenne. La réalité, c'est que vous en êtes les fossoyeurs. Car en traitant des êtres humains de la sorte, l'Union européenne en saborde les fondements, à commencer par la défense de la dignité humaine comme valeur cardinale.
L'agression de l'Ukraine par Vladimir Poutine a permis à l'Union européenne de démontrer qu'elle était capable de prendre toute sa part dans l'accueil de nos voisins en détresse. Ce qui fait donc défaut en Méditerranée, dans les Balkans ou en mer du Nord, ce n'est pas la capacité, c'est la volonté.

Jordan Bardella,
au nom du groupe ID. – Monsieur le Président, mes chers collègues, bon, je vous préviens, ça va trancher un peu avec les discours des orateurs précédents.
L'Europe ne peut se laisser dicter sa politique d'immigration depuis la mer par des trafiquants d'êtres humains, qu'ils portent le nom d'ONG ou de mafias de passeurs. L'Europe ne peut non plus s'en remettre à une solidarité qui consisterait à répartir les populations du monde sur notre sol, en violation de la volonté exprimée par nos concitoyens. Nous devons considérer que notre politique migratoire commence sur la mer, que nos frontières sont aussi maritimes, que nul ne peut donc prétendre accoster sur notre sol sans y être autorisé.
Votre projet consiste à accueillir et répartir. Le nôtre consiste à secourir et reconduire. Pour dissuader les tentations de départ, les demandes d'asile doivent s'effectuer dans les ambassades et consulats des pays de départ. Pour protéger les réfugiés de guerres réelles, s'il y en a, des camps humanitaires sécurisés doivent être mis en place dans les régions de départ sous l'égide du Haut-Commissariat et sous l'égide des Nations Unies.
Parce qu'elle dissuade de risquer sa vie pour un eldorado fantasmé, cette fermeté est probablement la politique la plus humaine qui soit. La politique qui sauve des vies est celle qui dissuade de venir. Voici les clefs d'une protection de nos frontières. Cette volonté, la Commission européenne ne l'a pas. Le président Emmanuel Macron non plus. Les idéologies les en empêchent, mais la naïveté également, celle de croire que les flux migratoires vont se tarir d'eux-mêmes et qu'il ne s'agit que d'une crise temporaire.
Les lois de la démographie sont pourtant implacables. Sans reprise en main de notre destin, sans prise de conscience générale, la ruée vers l'Europe nous attend. Lampedusa, Ceuta ou la Porte de la Chapelle pourrait être notre futur.

Assita Kanko,
on behalf of the ECR Group. – Mr President, dear Commissioner, dear colleagues, we have all kind of opinions about each other in this Parliament, but at the end of the day we are all good people with good intentions and just different ideas. We must remember this when we speak about difficult topics, we must recognise together that until now none of our actions solved the migration crisis. Instead, they have allowed more and more people to die in the sea. They have allowed human smugglers to get richer. They have fed false hope and led innocent people to cursed roads.
I am ashamed when I see these results. We have abandoned the real refugees. We have given power to human smugglers. We have turned our shores into silent cemeteries of people's children, mothers or fathers and their dreams. This must change. False compassion and actions that actually lead to a worse situation are not enough. The open borders and the current chaos are a threat to Schengen and an invitation to die. The question is not how to save a boat in Italy, the question is why could this boat even depart from the first harbour? The question is also why some NGOs act like ferries for the human smugglers in the Mediterranean Sea.
We must be clear, we must be firm and we must be fair. We must be strict with illegal migrants with no need of protection and fair to actual victims. Only then can we implement true solidarity with migration policy that is aligned with our sense of humanity. To achieve this, we must face reality. We need partnerships with neighbouring countries, even if we sometimes hold our nose. We need to go back to the idea of external processing of asylum requests. We need an information campaign that shows the truth to young people, we need to address the problem of returns, and we need to help Italy and Greece. We can do this if we leave ideology and face reality, speak frankly with each other.

Manon Aubry,
au nom du groupe The Left. – Monsieur le Président, ‘Qu'il retourne en Afrique’, au singulier comme au pluriel, que l'on s'adresse à un député ou aux exilés, le problème reste le même. Cette phrase, elle a fait polémique en France, mais ce qui se dit ici plus poliment au Parlement européen ne vaut pas mieux. Qui aurait osé dire aux réfugiés de Boutcha fuyant les crimes de guerre de Poutine qu'ils retournent en Ukraine?
Dans cet hémicycle, j'ai pourtant entendu parler, à l'instant encore, d'invasion pour évoquer le drame humanitaire de l'Ocean Viking. Des mots que je n'ai heureusement pas entendus au moment de l'arrivée de millions d'Ukrainiens que nous devions accueillir. Mais de quoi parle-t-on en réalité avec l'Ocean Viking? De l'accueil de 234 êtres humains pris au piège pendant trois semaines dans des conditions catastrophiques, 234 naufragés dont la vie était en péril et qui ont été présentés comme une menace vitale pour notre Union européenne qui compte 450 millions d'habitants.
Alors je voulais vous lire les témoignages de ceux que l'extrême droite nous présente comme des envahisseurs sanguinaires: ‘Notre embarcation a chaviré, neuf personnes sont mortes devant nous. Ma fille se réveille encore la nuit, effrayée. Nous essayons de l'aider à oublier’. Un autre témoignage: ‘Nous sommes des êtres vivants qui voulons être libres. Il y a des gens qui sont malades, des femmes, des enfants. Nous sommes dans l'eau. Fini! Fini! Aidez-nous, s'il vous plaît, aidez-nous. Nous sommes en train de mourir. Nous sommes dans la mer. Dedans. Dedans. Il fait froid’. Alors, l'extrême droite et Monsieur Bardella, j'ai envie de vous poser une question: qu'auriez-vous fait? Auriez-vous fermé les yeux? Les auriez-vous laisser périr en mer?
Je voulais aussi vous partager les récits glaçants des sauveteurs qui les ont secourus: les naufragés montrent des signes d'épuisement, de déshydratation et souffrent de multiples brûlures dues au carburant. Certains présentent des traces évidentes de tortures et de violences subies en Libye.
L'accueil des naufragés de l'Ocean Viking aurait pu être notre fierté collective. Leur abandon pendant trois semaines au gré de jeux diplomatiques sordides restera notre honte, tout comme notre incapacité à sauver les 25 000 personnes disparues en mer depuis 2014. Alors cessons de céder aux intimidations de l'extrême droite. Faisons un choix simple, durable, évident: accueillons.

Κώστας Παπαδάκης (NI). – Κύριε Πρόεδρε, δεν συμβιβαζόμαστε με τα ναυάγια-τραγωδίες ξεριζωμένων στο Αιγαίο και τη Μεσόγειο, με τα πλοιάρια τους να γίνονται άθλιο μπαλάκι μεταξύ κυβερνήσεων. Άλλη μια ‘βέλτιστη’ πρακτική της Ευρωπαϊκής Ένωσης…
Δεν συνηθίζουμε με τη βάρβαρη καταστολή σε βάρος τους, τον πολύμηνο εγκλωβισμό τους σε υπερδομές-φυλακές και απαράδεκτες συνθήκες στα νύχια κυκλωμάτων. Καταδικάζουμε την εργαλειοποίηση από την πλευρά της αστικής τάξης της Τουρκίας για να προωθήσει τις διεκδικήσεις της στον ανταγωνισμό με την ελληνική αστική τάξη και με κοινό παρονομαστή την απαράδεκτη δήλωση Ευρωπαϊκής Ένωσης-Τουρκίας. Για την Ευρωπαϊκή Ένωση όλοι πλην των Ουκρανών προσφύγων είναι παράτυποι μετανάστες. Όμως, η πλειοψηφία των αιτούντων άσυλο είναι από το Αφγανιστάν και τη Συρία, χώρες εξίσου ιμπεριαλιστικών πολέμων και επεμβάσεων. Το ευρωενωσιακό κεφάλαιο επιδιώκει να έχει πάμφθηνο εργατικό δυναμικό. Να γιατί μόνο αυτό βαφτίζεται νόμιμη μετανάστευση.
Απέναντι στη σύμπνοιά σας για ένταση καταστολής, απελάσεων, επαναπροωθήσεων με ρόλο χωροφύλακα στον αμαρτωλό Frontex, απαιτούμε υπηρεσίες ασύλου στην Τουρκία με ευθύνη Ευρωπαϊκής Ένωσης και ο ΟΗΕ με ανθρώπινη φιλοξενία και πλήρη δικαιώματα για να πάνε οι κατατρεγμένοι των δικών σας πολέμων στις χώρες πραγματικού προορισμού τους.

Paulo Rangel (PPE). – Senhor Presidente, Senhor Ministro, Senhor Vice-Presidente, Senhor Comissário, os valores fundamentais da democracia europeia implicam sempre, em qualquer circunstância, o respeito pelos direitos humanos. Cada pessoa, independentemente da sua origem, etnia ou religião, merece proteção.
Não há dúvida que essa proteção exige soluções equilibradas. E que o desafio das migrações e dos refugiados não é feito com demagogia nem com populismo. São precisas soluções responsáveis, com apoio aos Estados de onde vêm os migrantes no sentido de fixar o máximo número de pessoas, combater completamente o tráfico de seres humanos, não incentivar esse tráfico através de medidas populistas, mas, ao mesmo tempo, ser capaz de salvar todas as pessoas que chegam às nossas costas e de ter um mecanismo de partilha e de solidariedade entre todos os Estados. Não pode ser Chipre, ou a Grécia, ou a Itália, ou a Espanha ou Malta a terem todo o peso desta política humanitária de abertura e de responsabilidade sobre os seus ombros. Todos os outros Estados têm de cooperar.
And I would like now to say that it was very good to see that today both S&D and Renew and also EPP leaders were so constructive today. What I would like to ask you is that when we are drafting legislation, we are capable of this same spirit of cooperation, and then we can deliver and give to the Council also the sign that we have a responsibility and humanitarian policy towards these migration costs.

Birgit Sippel (S&D). – Herr Präsident! Gemeinsame solidarische Lösungen für Asyl und Seenotrettung – lassen Sie mich aus der Allgemeinen Erklärung der Menschenrechte zitieren: ‘Jeder hat das Recht, in anderen Ländern vor Verfolgung Asyl zu suchen und zu genießen.’ Dieses Prinzip sollte Leitgedanke unserer Debatten sein.
Auch Grenzkontrollen im Einklang mit Grund- und Menschenrechten sind sowohl Bestandteil eines funktionierenden Schengenraums als auch verpflichtend für die Mitgliedstaaten. Unsere Verträge sind da eindeutig. Die Politik im Bereich Grenzkontrollen, Asyl und Einwanderung muss dem Grundsatz der Solidarität und der gerechten Aufteilung von Verantwortungen folgen. Für mich heißt das konkret: Insbesondere bei Seenotrettung brauchen wir einen verlässlichen Verteilmechanismus, klare Regeln, mit denen sich die Mitgliedstaaten unterstützen, anstatt sich gegenseitig anzuklagen.
Eine freiwillige Solidaritätsbekundung erreicht das offensichtlich nicht. Es braucht Gesetzgebung, deren Umsetzung von einer starken Kommission eingefordert und kontrolliert wird. Die Ratspräsidentschaft versichert, dass sie an einem Solidaritätskonzept arbeitet. Der Rat kann nun zeigen, dass er die Grund- und Menschenrechte nicht nur respektiert, sondern positiv fortschreibt. Und ich hoffe, dies wird die Grundlage für gemeinsame solidarische Entscheidungen für Asyl und Seenotrettung.

Malik Azmani (Renew). – Mr President, dear Commissioners, dear representatives of the Council and colleagues, Frontex estimates the number of illegal entries into the EU this year already at more than 280 000. This is up by 77% from last year and the highest figure since 2016. This high number is posing fast challenges for the EU and some Member States in particular.
In the Netherlands, Belgium and Austria we have seen severe consequences, with overburdened asylum systems forcing asylum seekers to spend the night outside. There is a real risk the citizens lose faith in the EU's ability to control migration. And I repeat again: our citizens expect that we are in control. The Commission's focus on the benefits of legal migration in the State of the Union in September is therefore also out of place.
Colleagues, as standards are becoming lower, we risk facing an immigration policy doom loop. We can break the cycle by focusing on the external dimension. Pressure on external borders should be alleviated by engaging with third countries to counter irregular migration.
Colleagues, migration should be the top of our mind. First, a Commission Vice-President should be fully dedicated to address the external dimension of migration on a day-to-day basis and by using also all relevant policy areas needed. Second, we need to break the race to the bottom among Member States because no solidarity can be expected when secondary movements remain unaddressed. That means also enforcement of the current legislation. And third, we should be pragmatic in our negotiations and adopt new legislative files, including also the Screening Regulation, Eurodac and a revision of the Schengen Borders Code. This is how we must make progress.
We cannot let another parliamentary mandate pass without having real results to show our citizens. No new plans or fancy words, but actions and results are what our citizens expect from us.

Jordi Solé (Verts/ALE). – Señor presidente, el debate sobre mecanismos de búsqueda y salvamento de personas en el mar —de personas— es un tanto paradójico porque no acierta el enfoque. En vez de exigir a los Gobiernos que dejen de poner en riesgo vidas humanas, poniendo trabas absurdas al desembarque y no cumpliendo con sus obligaciones que derivan, sobre todo, del Derecho internacional marítimo, culpamos a ONG por hacer lo que otros deberían hacer, que es rescatar migrantes y demandantes de asilo en alta mar y conducirlos a puerto seguro.
Y, además, algunos se dedican a desprestigiarlas y, en algunos casos, hasta les ponen querellas, normalizando el discurso irresponsable e inmoral de la derecha extrema y de la extrema derecha en temas de migración y asilo.
Estas ONG estarían encantadas de dejar de hacer su trabajo en alta mar si hubiera una política pública para salvar vidas de migrantes y refugiados que respetara el derecho al asilo y principios básicos como el de no devolución. Pero, desgraciadamente, esto no solo no es así, sino que vemos como algunos Gobiernos, como el italiano, pretenden implantar un selectivismo a la hora de decidir quién puede desembarcar en sus costas y quién no, contraviniendo clarísimamente sus obligaciones legales.
Estamos ante un estrepitoso fracaso de la solidaridad europea: solidaridad externa, pero también interna entre Estados. Necesitamos un mecanismo europeo de búsqueda y salvamento, una operación civil europea con implicación proactiva de los Estados para que salgan a rescatar, con un mandato bien definido y alineado con la legislación europea e internacional vigente.

Annalisa Tardino (ID). – Signor Presidente, onorevoli colleghi, signori Commissari, nella generale vacuità delle parole spese sul tema, ve ne sono alcune inaspettate, dense invece di significato, quelle del capogruppo del PPE, il collega Weber, che cito: ‘Se non si riesce a distinguere tra migranti illegali, richiedenti asilo e rifugiati, allora non si riesce ad aiutare chi ha davvero bisogno’. E ancora: ‘Penso che sia necessario proteggere le frontiere e uno Stato deve poter decidere chi arriva e chi non è il benvenuto nell'Unione europea’. Le ha pronunciate Weber, tedesco, del Partito popolare europeo, avrei potuto dirle io.
Ma per aiutare davvero chi ha bisogno e difendere i confini c'è un'unica soluzione, che il PPE però non sostiene: creare dei centri di identificazione in Africa, con gestione e personale dell'Unione europea. Ciò consentirebbe di rispettare il diritto internazionale e comunitario, eliminare i fattori di attrazione alla migrazione illegale e aprire le porte a una definizione veramente condivisa del problema. Troppi i fallimenti europei finora e la richiesta congiunta di Malta, Cipro, Grecia e Italia ne sono una testimonianza. Numeri spaventosi di arrivi, quando riescono ad arrivare, in assenza di tragedie.
Siate, per una volta, determinati, riempite di significato le parole politiche del capogruppo del PPE, se non le nostre. Andiamo a fondo e rendiamo certi i rimpatri, definiamo normativamente il modus operandi delle ONG, in troppi casi conniventi con i trafficanti, secondo Frontex. Trasparenza e responsabilità dello Stato battente bandiera devono essere le parole d'ordine.
Per trovare una soluzione europea sull'immigrazione, come chiedete, dovreste solo ascoltarci, perché noi che viviamo il problema sulla nostra pelle abbiamo le idee molto chiare.

Vincenzo Sofo (ECR). – Signor Presidente, onorevoli colleghi, l'Africa è un continente da un miliardo e 200 mila persone, mezzo miliardo delle quali vivono sotto la soglia di povertà.
Parliamo di metà degli affamati di tutto il mondo, gente che, non avendo futuro nella propria terra, progetta di cercare fortuna in Europa, convinta dalla propaganda dei trafficanti di uomini di poter trovare l'eldorado. Solo che noi l'eldorado non lo siamo affatto, abbiamo una povertà in continua crescita e un cittadino su cinque che fatica ad arrivare a fine mese. Immaginare dunque di essere meta potenziale per mezzo miliardo di poveri africani, quanto l'intera popolazione europea, è utopia folle e inumana.
Ecco perché non possiamo permetterci di appaltare le nostre politiche migratorie a ONG che fanno dell'‘accogliamoli tutti’ il loro core business. Ecco perché gli Stati che concedono loro bandiera e finanziamenti devono assumersi la responsabilità del loro operato. Ecco perché non si può prescindere da accordi con paesi di partenza per la creazione di hotspot esterni, ma anche per politiche serie di sviluppo, che consentano a questa gente di vivere dignitosamente nella propria terra.
È assurdo, infatti, pensare che la soluzione sia semplicemente la redistribuzione, perché il problema non è quale paese debba accogliere gli immigrati che giungono in Europa illegalmente, ma impedire a questi di arrivare in un posto che non potrà offrire loro il benessere che sperano di trovare.
Grazie alla determinazione del governo Meloni e il piano di azione per il Mediterraneo centrale appena annunciato, la Commissione europea sembra forse iniziare a recepire quanto noi ripetiamo da anni, cioè che l'Unione europea inizia a operare come comunità unita nella difesa delle sue frontiere e non più come agenzia di collocamento per chi le oltrepassa illegalmente.

Miguel Urbán Crespo (The Left). – Señor presidente, un nuevo Gobierno de extrema derecha en Italia y nuevo cierre de puertos ilegal en Italia. Un Gobierno que aplica las mismas políticas neoliberales de Draghi y que parece que lo único que le queda para diferenciarse es la xenofobia. La xenofobia del cierre de puertos ilegal.
¿Y qué? ¿Cómo responde la Unión Europea? Pidiendo nuevas normas para las ONG de búsqueda y rescate en el Mediterráneo. Miren, las ONG cumplen el Derecho internacional marítimo, que es la norma a la que se tienen que someter. Lo que necesitan las ONG de búsqueda y rescate es que se las escuche.
Señores comisarios, los tienen ahí arriba, pueden hablar con ellos y pueden ver justamente el trabajo que están haciendo.
Necesitan que no se les criminalice ni se les estigmatice por salvar vidas. Porque salvar vidas nunca puede ser un delito. Y lo tenemos que repetir más porque nuestra política migratoria está convirtiendo el Mediterráneo en una gran fosa común y lo que necesitamos es cambiar justamente eso. Necesitamos pasajes seguros. Necesitamos normas vinculantes de acogida. No necesitamos solidaridad. Necesitamos derechos. Derechos que se puedan exigir y cumplir. Y menos hipocresía.
¿Alguien piensa que si el barco que ha tenido que desembarcar en Francia, y al que no se dejó desembarcar en Italia, llevara refugiados ucranianos, alguien le hubiera puesto algún problema? No. Eso se llama xenofobia. Se ha mirado el color de piel y no la necesidad de estas personas.
Y yo creo que Ucrania ha sido un gran ejemplo. Un gran ejemplo de que se pueden hacer las cosas de una forma diferente. Que hay capacidad de acogida, que no hay problemas técnicos, que lo que falta es justamente voluntad política para poder acoger y dejar de convertir el Mediterráneo en esa gran fosa común. Lo que se necesita aquí —como han dicho muchos— es menos palabras y más voluntad política.

Nicolas Bay (NI). – Monsieur le Président, l'Ocean Viking, ce sont 234 clandestins, dont seulement 23 femmes, hébergés dans un hôtel aux frais des Français. 123 se sont déjà vu refuser le droit d'asile, mais presque tous sont aujourd'hui en liberté car le gouvernement français est incapable de les expulser. 26 des 44 prétendus mineurs isolés, qui ne sont le plus souvent ni l'un ni l'autre, se sont également évanouis dans la nature. Et maintenant, combien d'entre eux vont commettre des délits ou des crimes dans le pays qui les a accueillis généreusement? Vous me direz que 234, c'est une goutte d'eau. Oui, mais une goutte en plus des 6 400 000 migrants venus en Europe depuis 2014. Plus que le Danemark tout entier. Sans parler de ceux qui sont entrés clandestinement.
Macron n'a pas seulement trahi la France, il a trahi toute l'Europe. Il est devenu le relais des ONG, elles-mêmes étant le relais, parfois les complices, des trafiquants d'êtres humains. Alors que l'Italie et Malte tiennent bon, Macron donne un signal terrible: l'Europe cède toujours et s'ouvre à l'invasion migratoire.
Il n'y a qu'une seule façon d'arrêter les flux et donc les noyades, c'est la méthode australienne. Faire pression sur les pays de départ, refouler les migrants, obliger les ports africains à respecter le droit de la mer, se donner les moyens d'expulser tous les clandestins, faire la guerre aux mafias de passeurs et sanctionner les ONG complices. C'est ainsi, collectivement, par une volonté politique réelle et assumée, que nous pourrons relever ce défi de civilisation.

Jeroen Lenaers (PPE). – Voorzitter, we waarschuwen al maanden dat we richting een nieuwe migratiecrisis aan het slaapwandelen zijn. Bijna 300 000 mensen zijn dit jaar al illegaal onze buitengrenzen overgestoken. Dat is het hoogste aantal sinds 2016, het crisisjaar. Maar het erge is dat ook ons Europees asielbeleid nog steeds in 2016 zit, ondanks alle goede voorstellen van de Europese Commissie. Maar het werkt nog steeds niet. Daarom moeten deze getallen een wake-upcall zijn, zeker voor de migratieministers die vrijdag bijeenkomen voor crisisberaad.
Alleen door irreguliere migratie effectief aan te pakken, houden we ruimte en draagvlak om echte vluchtelingen op te vangen. Dat is een Europees vraagstuk, want migratie is al lang geen nationaal vraagstuk meer. Het is keiharde geopolitiek. In Oekraïne is het aanjagen van vluchtelingenstromen naar Europa onderdeel van Poetins strategie. Ook vanuit Belarus en Turkije worden migranten actief de grens over geduwd. Als we geen speelbal willen zijn van autoritaire machthebbers, moeten we zelf kunnen bepalen wie toegang krijgt tot ons grondgebied. Dan moeten we vanuit Europa serieus zijn over het beschermen van onze buitengrenzen, inclusief het financieren van fysieke infrastructuur aan die grenzen. Dan moeten we Frontex echt uitrusten om zijn taak te doen, Eurodac eindelijk op orde brengen en het Europees migratiepact, inclusief screening aan de buitengrenzen, eindelijk afronden. Eenduidig en effectief Europees asielbeleid is nodig, want het kan niet zo zijn dat in een land als Nederland het inwilligingspercentage van asielverzoeken onverklaarbaar veel hoger is dan in andere landen. Grip op migratie vraagt om daadkracht en het wordt hoog tijd die eindelijk te tonen.

Juan Fernando López Aguilar (S&D). – Señor presidente, vicepresidente Schinas, comisaria Johansson, migración, asilo, salvamento y rescate tienen un denominador común. Son, efectivamente, una cuestión europea que requiere una respuesta europea y solo cabe una respuesta europea, una solución europea, como sugiere el título de este debate. Está a nuestro alcance dársela. Al Nuevo Pacto sobre Migración y Asilo —cinco Reglamentos—: estamos trabajando y podemos conseguir completarlos en esta legislatura. Para eso hemos establecido la hoja de ruta.
Pero este Parlamento ha suscrito una y otra vez una visión completa, holística —la llamamos—, comprehensiva del problema, que incluye salvamento y rescate y legal pathways, vías legales y seguras.
Salvamento y rescate es una obligación del Derecho internacional, no solamente del Derecho internacional humanitario, que por supuesto, sino del Derecho internacional del mar codificado en Montego Bay en 1982. Y, por tanto, no puede ser pasado por alto que un Estado miembro incumpla sus obligaciones de Derecho internacional, que son fuente del Derecho europeo, porque eso va contra el Derecho europeo, incluido el desembarco en puerto seguro.
Pero dicho esto, hay, además, por supuesto, que asegurar vías legales porque es la mejor manera de salvar vidas en el mar. Es cierto que el Mediterráneo y el Atlántico son, efectivamente, fosas comunes, pero también lo es el desierto del Sáhara y, por tanto, la apertura de vías seguras es una forma de desmantelar el modelo de negocio de los traficantes de seres humanos. Es una forma, también, de salvar la visión negativa que ha caracterizado hasta ahora a la Unión Europea.
Y este es el último punto que me gustaría compartir con ustedes. Hay que cambiar la mirada. Este Parlamento lo ha exigido. A la Unión Europea se la llama viejo continente. La amenaza no es la migración. La amenaza es ser un continente viejo. La migración puede ser parte de la solución si somos capaces de cambiar la mirada y tener una actitud más positiva, que es lo que exige una y otra vez este Parlamento Europeo.

Sophia in 't Veld (Renew). – Mr President, colleagues, the joint Parliament and Council roadmap gives reason for cautious optimism. It gives us a chance to move forward together. And this Parliament, as always, will do everything within its power to deliver before the end of term. But it can only fly if the Council takes its responsibility and agrees on an instrument for a truly common European policy.
But colleagues it's not only about policies, it's also about language. Can we please, when we talk about migration, have a bit more temperate and less apocalyptic language, because xenophobic rhetoric has not brought the solution any closer. Dehumanising migrants has done nothing to deflect migration flows. It has mainly served to sow division in society and it has created tragedies unworthy of our common values.
Migration has always existed and it will always exist, and there is a degree of irony in this debate because many of us here in this room, and other colleagues who are elsewhere in the building, have a family history of migration. Their parents or grandparents migrated within, to or from Europe. Let's keep that in mind.
The Ukraine refugee crisis has shown that Europe is capable of managing big challenges. So let's draw the lessons from that. Be pragmatic. Adopt real solutions. Because Europe can do it.

Erik Marquardt (Verts/ALE). – Herr Präsident! Herr Weber, ich wollte am Anfang kurz auf Sie eingehen, weil Sie gesagt haben, dass Sie ja auch an Ihrer Haustür entscheiden, wer reinkommt, und genauso muss das an den europäischen Außengrenzen passieren. Ich glaube ehrlicherweise, dass solche Sprachbilder auch ein Ausdruck von Wohlstandsverwahrlosung sind, die wir uns in diesem Haus eigentlich nicht erlauben können. Ich glaube – und ich hoffe –, dass vor Ihrer Haustür niemand nachts erfriert, und ich hoffe, dass vor Ihrer Haustür auch nicht tausende Menschen im Jahr ertrinken. Und ich glaube, wenn wir uns klarmachen, wie die Realität aussieht und dass es natürlich an Ihrer Haustür nicht um Rechtsstaatlichkeit geht, die uns ausmacht als Europäische Union – sondern natürlich ist es Ihre Entscheidung, zu Hause, wer reinkommt und wer nicht –, aber an den Außengrenzen, da gelten doch ganz andere Regeln, das können Sie doch nicht einfach verkennen.
Ich glaube, dass wir aufhören müssen, mit seltsamen Reden die grausame Realität unserer Asylpolitik zu verkennen. Ich sage Ihnen mal, wie die Realität aussieht: Wenn man auf dem Mittelmeer in Seenot ist, gerade aus Libyen kommt und man ruft in Malta in der Seenotrettungsleitstelle an, dann geht dort wahrscheinlich niemand ran; und wenn jemand rangeht, dann schickt die Person keine Boote. Und wenn Frontex über dem Mittelmeer fliegt und ein Boot in Seenot sieht, dann informiert Frontex nicht etwa die Boote im Umfeld und sagt: ‘Dort ist ein Boot in Seenot’ – nein, man informiert libysche Milizen, islamistische Milizen, die dann dafür sorgen, dass die Menschen wieder zurück nach Libyen kommen, wo die Frauen – und zwar alle Frauen auf diesen Booten – vergewaltigt werden und Männer misshandelt werden.
Ich glaube, wenn wir uns klarmachen, dass so eine Realität nicht Teil der Lösung sein kann, sondern etwas ist, was wir lösen müssen – und da kann man neue Gesetze machen, aber die braucht man gar nicht, wenn man ein bisschen Anstand hat –, da kann man sich einfach klarmachen, dass es am Ende nicht darum geht, die NGOs dafür zu kritisieren, dass sie das machen, was eigentlich unsere Aufgabe wäre, sondern dass wir jetzt endlich dafür sorgen müssen, dass man Geld in Seenotrettung steckt, dass man eine ordentliche Verteilung hinbekommt und dass man den Anstand, der Europa ausmachen sollte, so nutzt, dass wir ein Europa bauen, das auch in der Migrationspolitik nicht peinlich gegenüber allem ist, was uns eigentlich ausmachen sollte.

Nicolaus Fest (ID). – Herr Präsident, Herr Kommissar! Herr Weber! Herr Marquardt mochte Ihre Rede offensichtlich nicht so – ich fand sie gut. Es sind nämlich genau die Vorschläge, die die AfD seit Jahren macht. Und mir ist auch klar, warum Sie diese Rede gehalten haben – lassen Sie mich ausreden.
Sie kommen aus Bayern, und in Bayern ist es so wie in allen Bundesländern jetzt: Die Asylzentren sind voll, die Städte und Gemeinden bitten um Hilfe. Sie sagen: Wir können nicht mehr, unsere Containerdörfer sind voll, wir wissen nicht mehr, wohin mit den Migranten. Und genauso geht es ja auch in NRW und in anderen Ländern. In NRW haben gerade die Bürgermeister – viele sozialdemokratische Bürgermeister – einen Appell an die Bundesregierung gerichtet, ihnen zu helfen, weil sie nicht mehr wissen, wohin. Und deshalb sind auch alle Appelle an Solidarität sinnlos: Wenn die Leute keine Möglichkeiten mehr haben und die Kosten auch durch die Decke gehen, können Sie nicht noch weiter Solidarität einfordern. Das geht nicht.
Und hier im Raum steht ja ein großer rosa Elefant, den vor allem die Sozialdemokraten nicht ansprechen wollen; Sie haben das schon getan – das ist nämlich die dänische Asyl- und Migrationspolitik. Die dänischen Sozialdemokraten haben sehr klar gesagt, sie wollen keine Einwanderung mehr; ihr klares Ziel ist die Remigration, Asyl gibt es nur noch in Ausnahmefällen, und Asylcamps sollen im Ausland gegründet werden, wo jeder Asylantrag zuerst geprüft wird, bevor man nach Europa einreisen kann. Das haben Sie im Grunde genommen auch schon angeregt, und das ist der richtige Weg.
Dass die Sozialdemokraten, wie Frau Bischoff hier, diese dänische Lösung seit Monaten oder seit Jahren totschweigen, hat natürlich Gründe. Aber dennoch sollte dieses Haus sich mit diesem politischen Handeln der Dänen mehr befassen.

Charlie Weimers (ECR). – Mr President, Commissioner, Mr Bek, Commissioner Schinas, I agree that the EU right now operates as firefighters. As illegal migration decreases in the western Med, it soars in the central Med: almost 300 000 illegal entries into the EU this year alone. As the Commissioner pointed out, right now we see economic migrants from Bangladesh, Egypt and Tunisia. But Commissioner, do you honestly believe that the migration pact will solve the problem?
The UN predicts Africa's population will triple from 1.4 billion to 4 billion within this century. From 2000 to 2050 the Middle East population is estimated to increase by 329 million. The current migratory pressure fades in comparison to what will come. The migration pact is not designed for migration of that magnitude. Why? Because the EU will be overwhelmed by economic migrants using asylum as a means to enter our territory. And relocation won't solve that.
Commissioner, strict measures are a necessity. Illegal entry must mean forfeiture of the right to asylum. The EU must start financing border barriers. The Danish asylum plan must be recognised as a serious attempt to safeguard social cohesion – our European way of life.

Sira Rego (The Left). – Señor presidente, cada seis horas muere un ser humano en el mar tratando de llegar a Europa. Miles de personas, sin haber cometido ningún delito, viven retenidas y hacinadas en campos de refugiadas con sus derechos suspendidos. Frontex ha perpetrado sistemáticamente devoluciones en caliente en el mar. Regalamos miles de millones de euros a regímenes antidemocráticos para custodiar nuestras fronteras. Hay kilómetros y kilómetros de frontera exterior de la UE sin un solo punto físico donde pedir asilo. La tragedia de Melilla ha ocasionado decenas de muertos.
Todo esto y más es la política migratoria de la UE. No es un plan arbitrario ni fruto de la improvisación. Es una decisión colectiva y consciente de incumplir con leyes internacionales y europeas que, de aplicarse, evitarían muertes y dolor. Es un inmoral juego de equilibrios entre Macron, lavándose las manos, Meloni, dejando a personas a la deriva en el mar, y la propuesta de la Comisión de convertir el relato de la extrema derecha en ley. Si los derechos humanos son un problema, cambiemos la ley para que dejen de serlo.
Por eso, desde la izquierda, creemos que hay que acabar ya con el negocio de la política migratoria, que es un negocio de muerte, y poner el dinero europeo a defender la vida y los derechos.
En Lesbos, en Melilla, en Canarias, etcétera, menos Frontex y menos militarización y más recursos para impulsar programas de acogida y servicios públicos de calidad y empleo para los que están y para los que llegan.
Debemos dotarnos de una unidad de salvamento civil pública y europea para el rescate en el mar, habilitar vías legales y seguras para que nadie se juegue la vida buscando un futuro digno, llevar a cabo un reparto vinculante y solidario de las personas que migran entre todos los países de la UE para evitarnos la vergüenza de esos campos de detención, y, en definitiva, erradicar el racismo de la política migratoria europea.

Laura Ferrara (NI). – Signor Presidente, onorevoli colleghi, l'Europa si trova ad affrontare una crisi migratoria dopo l'altra, senza riuscire a trovare una soluzione perché manca la volontà politica.
Sebbene si invochi un approccio europeo, ogni paese continua infatti a ragionare in termini intergovernativi, concentrandosi sugli interessi strettamente nazionali. Da sempre chiediamo che la questione migratoria sia governata dal principio di solidarietà ed equa ripartizione delle responsabilità, così come previsto dall'articolo 80 del trattato.
È indispensabile una revisione del regolamento di Dublino e l'introduzione di un meccanismo di ricollocamento che sia obbligatorio e permanente, così come è necessaria l'istituzione di un'operazione europea di ricerca e salvataggio, perché il mero coordinamento lasciato alla volontarietà degli Stati membri non sempre funziona.
Chi, come Giorgia Meloni, ha invocato il blocco navale definendo il ricollocamento dei migranti tra tutti i porti europei un'invasione, ha dimostrato di fare solo propaganda, oltre che una grande incompetenza.
Per risolvere la questione migratoria serve un diritto d'asilo europeo e un sistema centralizzato, in grado di non far ricadere oneri sproporzionati su pochi paesi europei e tutelare i diritti fondamentali dei migranti.

Dolors Montserrat (PPE). – Señor presidente, la defensa de nuestras fronteras, la defensa de nuestra seguridad no se entendería y no sería posible sin el duro y sacrificado trabajo de nuestras fuerzas y cuerpos de seguridad del Estado.
Los agentes merecen nuestro apoyo, pero también refuerzo con más personal, recursos y mejores materiales de protección, como ellos mismos reclaman. Nuestros cuerpos de seguridad no pueden verse desbordados por falta de agentes frente a entradas masivas.
Hay que aumentar la coordinación europea, evitar efectos llamada, perseguir con planes específicos, tanto nacionales como europeos, a las mafias que usan el drama de la inmigración y, también, continuar con el apoyo en cooperación y desarrollo a los terceros países.
La frontera de España es la frontera de Europa. Defender Ceuta y Melilla es defender no solo a España, sino también defender la Unión Europea. Por eso exigimos al Gobierno de España que sea transparente y diga la verdad sobre lo ocurrido en la valla de Melilla el 24 de junio. ¿Qué oculta el ministro del Interior de Pedro Sánchez? Es inadmisible que el ministro se niegue a acudir al Parlamento Europeo para dar explicaciones por la tragedia de la valla de Melilla. Ni transparencia ni ejemplaridad. Estamos ante el Gobierno de la opacidad. El que calla, oculta. Los ciudadanos merecemos conocer siempre la verdad y no merecemos un Gobierno que nos mienta.
Estamos ante otra crisis migratoria. Se puede desbordar la capacidad de acogida de las ciudades autónomas de Ceuta y Melilla. Nuestros cuerpos de seguridad pueden sufrir más agresiones. La Unión Europea no puede mirar hacia otro lado. Ante las avalanchas migratorias, todos estamos obligados a llegar a un acuerdo en el Nuevo Pacto sobre Migración y Asilo, poniendo siempre en valor los principios de solidaridad y responsabilidad. Si no actuamos ya, fracasaremos.

Gabriele Bischoff (S&D). – Herr Präsident! Ich glaube, angesichts der Debatte hier ist es gut, dass wir uns noch einmal daran erinnern, was uns die Bürgerinnen und Bürger der Zukunftskonferenz zum Bereich Migration ins Stammbuch geschrieben haben.
Die haben gesagt, wir sollen entschiedener handeln und endlich eine gemeinsame Migrationspolitik hinkriegen, und ich glaube, der Migrationspakt, das ist das Beweisstück, was wir schaffen müssen, um dem zu folgen. Und die haben uns noch mal gesagt, sie wollen eine Reform des europäischen Asylrechts auf der Grundlage der Grundsätze der Solidarität und der gerechten Verteilung der Verantwortlichkeiten, und sie empfehlen uns, gemeinsame EU-Vorschriften für die Verfahren zur Prüfung von Anträgen auf internationalen Schutz sicherzustellen, die einheitlich auf alle Asylbewerber anzuwenden sind, und dass diese den Verfahren der Menschenwürde und dem Völkerrecht Rechnung tragen müssen.
Sie wollen auch, dass wir das Dublin-System überprüfen – Solidarität und eine gerechte Verteilung der Verantwortlichkeiten in den Mitgliedstaaten. Und wenn sich grundlegend nichts ändert, dann werden weiter populistische Aktionen wie in Italien Europa spalten, das Klima vergiften und die Bürgerinnen und Bürger zweifeln lassen; und auch hier: handeln statt populistischer Spielchen.

Nicola Danti (Renew). – Signor Presidente, onorevoli colleghi, Signor Commissario, se dovessimo fare un bilancio tra le parole spese a discutere di migrazione in quest'Aula dal 2015 a oggi, e i risultati ottenuti, non potremmo che certificare il fallimento dell'Europa o meglio il fallimento degli Stati nazionali, che hanno scelto gli interessi elettorali e l'ideologia e non la razionalità e i valori europei.
Eppure, Presidente, le soluzioni le conosciamo tutti: servono canali di migrazione legale che tolgano ai trafficanti di uomini il monopolio nel Mediterraneo; serve rafforzare il coordinamento delle operazioni di ricerca e soccorso, così come delle procedure di gestione delle richieste di asilo; serve una vera politica di rimpatri e di cooperazione con gli Stati nordafricani, oggi più che mai vista la crisi alimentare causata dalla Russia, e serve, soprattutto, un meccanismo di ricollocazione dei migranti vincolante e solidale.
La tabella di marcia per l'adozione del Patto europeo sulla migrazione e il meccanismo di solidarietà volontaria sono piccoli faticosi passi avanti, che rischiano però di essere resi vani da quel populismo sovranista al quale il governo italiano sembra rispondere. Passa la linea Salvini, insomma, di chi urla e sbatte i pugni sul tavolo, abbandonando la politica e scegliendo la demagogia, senza ottenere alcun risultato.
Una strada che non possiamo permetterci di intraprendere, cari colleghi. Chiudere gli occhi, accecati dalla propaganda, significa perdere la capacità di gestire un fenomeno strutturale insito nella nostra natura e con essa perdere anche la nostra umanità.

Damien Carême (Verts/ALE). – Monsieur le Président, Monsieur le Commissaire, Monsieur le représentant du Conseil, hier, nous avons célébré ici même en grande pompe les 70 ans de ce Parlement européen. Il a été largement rappelé que ce qui a fondé notre communauté, ce sont des valeurs européennes, mais en réalité, en Méditerranée, dans la Manche, à toutes nos frontières, ces valeurs sont piétinées.
Face à la détresse de 234 exilés, la France et l'Italie ont fait honte à ces valeurs. Les vies humaines valent pourtant beaucoup mieux que ces postures politiciennes. Les gouvernements dits républicains en Europe ne doivent pas emboîter le pas de l'extrême droite, mais bien au contraire, ils doivent s'unir, forts et sûrs de nos valeurs, pour combattre ses idées, ses procédés ignobles et certainement pas en utilisant sa rhétorique, Monsieur Weber.
Je vous rappelle les chiffres de l'Office international des migrations: 87 % des migrations dans le monde se font dans le pays voisin de celui qui est fui. Nous ne devons accueillir collectivement qu'une infime partie de ces personnes. Or, depuis des années, l'Union européenne a traité les questions migratoires principalement par une surenchère sécuritaire. Et c'est une défaite totale. Pire, une défaite morale.
Et, sommet de l'indignation: certains irresponsables politiques accusent aujourd'hui les ONG qui effectuent le sauvetage en mer, parce que nous ne sommes pas capables de l'organiser, de complicité avec les passeurs. Cessons de criminaliser l'action des ONG, des bénévoles. Il est vraiment temps de se ressaisir et de proposer des solutions, un pacte à la hauteur de l'exigence humanitaire.

Jaak Madison (ID). – Mr President, Commissioner, in your speech, you mentioned that we need a long-term solution and sustainable framework for migration policy. And in some ways I agree with that. Absolutely. But now is the question about solutions and the ways how we can go.
The first point, what we haven't done is how to guarantee the external borders of the third countries in the Middle East and northern Africa to guarantee that there will be zero boats that will sink and there will be zero deaths on the Mediterranean Sea. That's the first thing. And to take away the resources for the human traffickers.
The second thing, European taxpayers are paying millions of euros every year for Frontex to guarantee the external borders of the EU, and that's their work to do, to guarantee that our borders are protected.
And the third point is how to help the people who need international protection, who are really refugees, who are escaping from the war. And in this case, I would never say, but I agree with the Social Democrats from Denmark: very good solution. To screen and to have a background. Amazing idea. And if you need a good example of the migration policy, and I think you know it very well, how in Lithuania and Poland we're dealing with illegal migration. And last year in December, where they had thousands of migrants from Iraq who had just both the tickets to Belarus and tried to enter the EU. And they said, no, the border is closed. You are not refugees, you're illegal migrants who are tried to enter the EU and there is no right for that. And in three weeks the problem was solved. Absolutely solved.
And of course, if we really need solidarity and if you're so open minded and with open hearts, please open your doors. You can how many migrants you want in your own home. Please show really good solidarity for the European nations.

Nicola Procaccini (ECR). – Signor Presidente, onorevoli colleghi, sull'immigrazione, fino ad oggi, si è fatto ciò che ha preteso la sinistra.
Il risultato qual è stato? Traffico di esseri umani, migliaia di morti in mare, migliaia di immigrati illegali sui nostri territori, lavoro in nero con salari da fame e nessun diritto garantito, manodopera a disposizione della criminalità organizzata, perdita di sicurezza nelle nostre città, uno squallido e politicizzato business dell'accoglienza alimentato dai soldi europei.
A fronte di questo fallimento, il centrodestra europeo, finalmente unito, propone un altro modello. Vogliamo contrastare le partenze illegali, realizzare centri di accoglienza nei paesi di origine e transito dove esaminare le domande di ingresso in Europa e dove stabilire chi ha diritto alla protezione internazionale perché fugge da guerre e persecuzioni, e chi invece no.
In questo modo diventerebbe possibile anche stabilire dei flussi legali e contenuti di migranti economici, funzionali allo sviluppo delle nostre città. Ai migranti legali dobbiamo garantire un viaggio sicuro e di potersi integrare con le nostre popolazioni. Nei confronti di tutti gli altri possiamo solo impegnarci nel favorire lo sviluppo delle nazioni da cui si origina la migrazione.
La nostra proposta è impregnata di buon senso e vera solidarietà, ma già so che verrà avversata dalla parte sinistra di questo Parlamento con le solite parole furiosamente ideologiche.
Ciò che alcuni qui dentro chiamano sprezzantemente fortezza Europa, noi chiamiamo, semplicemente, Europa.

Κωνσταντίνος Αρβανίτης (The Left). – Κύριε Πρόεδρε, για μία ακόμη φορά σήμερα μιλάμε για χιλιάδες ζωές που έχουν χαθεί στη Μεσόγειο —για αυτούς που γνωρίζουμε, γιατί είναι και κάποιοι χιλιάδες αγνοούμενοι που δεν γνωρίζουμε. Και ενώ μαίνεται η εγκληματική επίθεση της Τουρκίας στην Ουκρανία, πριν μερικές ημέρες είχαμε τη στρατιωτική επίθεση της Τουρκίας στη Συρία.
Η Πρόεδρος κυρία Metsola μίλησε για αυτοσυγκράτηση. Ποιων; Της Τουρκίας, των νεκρών, των αγνοουμένων ή των νέων προσφύγων; Τα αίτια, λοιπόν, είναι το πρώτο θέμα. Το δεύτερο είναι το δικό μας αφήγημα. Ευρώπη-φρούριο και προώθηση του ευρωπαϊκού τρόπου ζωής. Πόσο νόμιμο είναι αυτό; Πόσο δίκαιο και πόσο ρεαλιστικό; Η ποινικοποίηση, λοιπόν, της βασικής αρχής διάσωσης, της θεμελιώδους αρχής της προστασίας της ζωής σε κατάσταση ανάγκης; Όπως ανακοίνωσαν οι τέσσερις Υπουργοί;
Και εδώ υπάρχει ένα θέμα που δεν το βλέπουμε πρώτη φορά. Εθνικές πολιτικές ή κατά μόνας ή διακρατικές, που προσπερνούν την κοινή ευρωπαϊκή θέση και στάση. Είμαστε σίγουροι, λοιπόν, ότι σε λίγο δεν θα ποινικοποιηθεί και το δικαίωμα αίτησης στο άσυλο; Νομίζω, λοιπόν, ότι όσο δεν γίνεται απεμπλοκή της Ένωσης από τη δημιουργία αιτιών που προανέφερα, όσο δεν υπάρχουν νόμιμες και ασφαλείς οδοί για να μπορέσουν αυτοί οι άνθρωποι να αιτηθούν άσυλο και προστασία, αυτό το έγκλημα θα συνεχίζεται.

Dino Giarrusso (NI). – Signor Presidente, onorevoli colleghi, la parola che dovrebbe risuonare oggi in questo palazzo parlando di immigrazione è una sola: vergogna.
Vergogna, shame, honte, vergüenza.
Perché è vergognoso che ancora oggi sia il paese di primo approdo, l'Italia, a dover affrontare da solo un fenomeno epocale che riguarda tutta l'Europa. Il Canale di Sicilia è il confine fra Africa ed Europa, non un confine italiano. Eppure l'Italia da sola impegna navi, uomini, soldi, mezzi.
I sindacati di polizia, SEAP in testa, denunciano da anni come molti dei nostri agenti migliori siano costretti a lasciare sguarnite le nostre città, perché l'Italia da sola deve gestire decine di migliaia di arrivi. Parlare di ricollocamenti è un modo ipocrita per sviare l'attenzione, è prima che servono soldi, mezzi e uomini di tutti i paesi europei.
Presidente von der Leyen, Le abbiamo dato fiducia perché ha promesso di cancellare gli accordi di Dublino. Dopo tre anni e mezzo non è stato fatto nulla. Bisogna combattere i trafficanti di uomini, salvare le vite umane, ma va fatto come Europa, non scaricando tutto sull'Italia.
Parlare di Europa unita sarà una vergognosa ipocrisia finché non sarà unita nell'affrontare l'immigrazione di massa. E fino ad allora la parola da dire sarà solo una: vergogna.

Tomas Tobé (PPE). – Mr President, Commission and the Council, Europe is at a crossroads. Either Member States continue to act more and more independently when it comes to migration or we find a common European approach. That is basically the choice that we have to make.
And for me, it is clear that, yes, we need a system that provides control of the external borders. Yes, we need a system that will provide protection to refugees and, yes, that is firm to those who are not. That is why we urgently need the migration pact. And the EPP Group is committed to having the pact in place before the end of this mandate. And this is possible, but it will require pragmatism and constructiveness from all of us.
We must also do more to address the root causes and the drivers of migration. For this reason, we must deepen our cooperation also with third countries. The events of last week have highlighted the urgency of a predictable, operational and truly common approach to asylum and migration.
This House has been waiting for the Council to get ready. The Council is finally now actually coming more and more together. It is time also for this House to make sure that we now come together and take this opportunity, because we have a choice to make and that is to have a European approach to migration.

Pietro Bartolo (S&D). – Signor Presidente, signor Commissario, nel mio paese, in Italia, continua la campagna di criminalizzazione contro le ONG impegnate in attività di soccorso e salvataggio in mare, accusate di agire come fattori di attrazione, accusate di fare il gioco degli scafisti, accusate anche quando cercano riparo in un porto sicuro.
Questa strumentalizzazione dell'obbligo del soccorso in mare e, sottolineo, dell'obbligo giuridico e morale di prestare assistenza in mare è vergognosa e deve finire. Così come dobbiamo superare lo stallo della solidarietà su base volontaria, che non funziona, l'abbiamo visto. La politica migratoria necessita di strategie condivise e risposte comuni, come abbiamo fatto con l'Ucraina.
Non possiamo accontentarci di un piano di azione sostanzialmente incentrato sulla prevenzione della migrazione a tutti i costi. Abbiamo bisogno di aprire canali regolari di immigrazione legale, combattendo la retorica dell'invasione. Abbiamo bisogno di una riforma del sistema di asilo che venga incontro ai bisogni dei paesi di primo ingresso. Abbiamo bisogno di risposte europee che non ci rendano corresponsabili delle continue tragedie, non solo nel Mediterraneo, ma anche in tutte le altre rotte migratorie.
Abbiamo sentito qualcuno che ha detto che l'Africa è un continente con più di un miliardo di persone, ma che abbiamo scambiato per un ipermercato dove prendere tutto gratis e poi ci chiediamo perché queste persone partono. Dobbiamo renderci conto di quello che noi facciamo e le nostre responsabilità di quello che si fa in Africa.

PREDSEDÁ: MICHAL ŠIMEČKA


podpredseda


Jan-Christoph Oetjen (Renew). – Herr Präsident, liebe Vertreter der Kommission und des Rates, verehrte Kolleginnen und Kollegen! Eigentlich bin ich es leid, diese Debatten zu führen; ich sage das hier mal an dieser Stelle ganz deutlich. Wir haben nichts Neues, über das wir hier debattieren. Der Rat trägt uns eine lauwarme Rede vor, die nicht einmal die Redezeit ausnutzt, weil Sie nichts zu sagen haben. Die Kommission präsentiert uns ein 20-Punkte-Programm – das ist aber eigentlich nur alter Wein in neuen Schläuchen.
Verehrte Kolleginnen und Kollegen, wir haben kein Erkenntnisproblem; wir haben ein Handlungsproblem, und das ist doch das, was wir hier an dieser Stelle mal ansprechen müssen. Dann gibt es den Antrag von der EVP, hier die Debatte zu führen, und der Rat ist ganz weinerlich und sagt: Ja, wir müssen endlich mal Fortschritte machen beim Migrationsrat. Ja, natürlich brauchen wir Fortschritt beim Migrationspakt, natürlich brauchen wir den Pakt.
Aber es liegt doch nicht an diesem Europäischen Parlament, dass wir im Bereich der Migration, des Asyls überhaupt nicht weiterkommen, sondern es liegt daran, dass im Rat keine Mehrheiten dafür sind, dass konstruktive Politik gemacht wird. Das ist doch das Problem. Und Sie könnten doch handeln. Warum haben wir denn Nichtregierungsorganisationen, die im Mittelmeer Seenotrettung machen? Das liegt daran, dass wir keine staatliche Seenotrettung im Mittelmeer machen. Und die Malta-Seenotrettungszone funktioniert nicht mal richtig; da ersaufen die Leute, während wir hier diskutieren.
Ich bin es leid, diese Debatten zu führen. Ich bin es leid, darauf zu warten, dass es im Rat endlich Fortschritt gibt. Und, verehrte Kolleginnen und Kollegen, Sie können handeln im Rat. Sie können Fortschritte machen, denn wir haben sogar Punkte, wo wir uns einig sind. Setzen Sie sie endlich in Kraft! Setzen Sie sie endlich in Kraft, dann haben wir Fortschritt.
Und eins zum Abschluss: Wenn wir es nicht schaffen, wenn der Rat es nicht schafft, einen Solidaritätsmechanismus zu finden und dafür im Rat Mehrheiten zu organisieren, dann werden wir beim Migrationspakt überhaupt keine Fortschritte machen.

Alice Kuhnke (Verts/ALE). – Mr President. Why? Why are you discussing how to criminalise people and organizations that save lives; instead of putting the pressure on the EU governments that shy away from their responsibilities? And how dare so many of you define yourself as Christians and repeat that you are defending Christian values when your ideas and your actions are proof of the opposite. There is no doubt about responsibility when it comes to saving lives at risk at sea. Thank God for the ones that do what needs to be done. We need to discuss how we shall do what they are doing.

Filip De Man (ID). – Voorzitter, de asielcrisis is terug van nooit weggeweest. In België komen er tegenwoordig 40 000 asielzoekers per jaar binnen, in heel Europa om en nabij één miljoen. Dat is onhoudbaar en ik heb dus een resolutie ingediend, een resolutie die ertoe strekt om de zaak definitief op te lossen. Het voorstel is om het Protocol van New York uit 1967 op te zeggen. Daarmee zouden wij nog uitsluitend vluchtelingen uit Europa opvangen, wat we trouwens nu doen met de talloze Oekraïense vluchtelingen. Dat was trouwens de bedoeling van het Vluchtelingenverdrag in 1951 na de Tweede Wereldoorlog: de vele miljoenen Europese vluchtelingen een veilige haven bieden. Maar in 1967 heeft men dus met dat protocol die begrenzing opgegeven en worden wij nu geacht de hele wereld hier te verwelkomen. Dat moet stoppen. Het toelaten van miljoenen migranten zal onze samenleving ontwrichten en onze sociale zekerheid doen imploderen. Ik vraag dus uw steun voor deze resolutie.

Jorge Buxadé Villalba (ECR). – Señor presidente, señores comisarios, mientras Frontex alerta de que más de 280 000 personas han entrado ilegalmente en el territorio de la Unión, ustedes miran a otro lado. Mientras todos los días tenemos noticia de una nueva agresión, violación, tiroteo o asesinato a manos de inmigrantes ilegales, ustedes miran a otro lado.
Todos ustedes saben que la solución pasa por blindar las fronteras exteriores y acabar con el modelo de negocio de las mafias de tráfico de seres humanos, pero miran a otro lado. No es ignorancia, es complicidad y encubrimiento. Complicidad, porque siguen apoyando a esas ONG que colaboran con las mafias y echan pulsos a los Gobiernos legítimos como el de Georgia Meloni. Y encubrimiento, porque tratan de perpetuar un sistema que permite a los ilegales eludir la acción de la justicia con su doctrina de las fronteras abiertas y su inventado concepto de los rescatados.
Ni siquiera las evidencias de los contactos entre esas organizaciones y las mafias para recoger a los inmigrantes en las aguas de terceros países como Libia y traerlos a Europa o sus opacas fuentes de financiación sirven para que este Parlamento ponga un poco de sentido común y deje de atacar a quienes defienden la frontera.
Lo repito: fronteras seguras, calles seguras; fronteras abiertas, sociedades indefensas.
Si ustedes no saben, dejen paso. Nosotros estamos preparados y dispuestos.

Márton Gyöngyösi (NI). – Mr President, dear colleagues, dear Commissioner, migration is the EU's greatest challenge and the gravest social crisis of all times. It is shocking to see thousands of people dying on the sea and outrageous to see smuggler networks benefiting and profiting from migration.
The Commission's proposal is far from ground-breaking, but it does help us to focus our conversations – guidelines for NGO boats, coordination with African and Asian countries to return migrants, and the push to implement voluntary relocation within the bloc are the right priorities. However, the EU should also make it very clear that it will sanction and not provide any aid or funds to any government that openly or tacitly cooperates with smugglers or is unwilling to interrupt their activities. Smugglers conduct slave trade. They are terrorists and they should be treated as such.
Also, Frontex should be developed into a classic border policing and border protection organ under a united command, financed from a common budget. Without a common border protection mechanism, the EU will not be able to tackle migration.

Βαγγέλης Μεϊμαράκης (PPE). – Κύριε Πρόεδρε, τι άλλο πρέπει να ακούσουμε για να αφυπνιστούμε τελικά; Πόσους απελπισμένους ανθρώπους που αναζητούν μια ανθρώπινη ζωή και ένα καλύτερο αύριο πρέπει να διασώσει το ελληνικό Λιμενικό από τη θάλασσα για να δράσουμε πιο αποτελεσματικά; Έχει χαθεί πλέον ο αριθμός που μαρτυρά τη σοβαρότητα αυτού του προβλήματος. Στη χώρα μου, την Ελλάδα, μόλις προχθές σημειώθηκε άλλο ένα ναυάγιο ανοικτά της Κρήτης, με περίπου 500 ανθρώπινες ψυχές να παλεύουν με τα κύματα —θύματα των λαθροδιακινητών, οι οποίοι δρουν ανεξέλεγκτα στα ευρωπαϊκά σύνορα, εκμεταλλευόμενοι τους ανθρώπους αυτούς.
Πρέπει να βάλουμε ένα τέλος εδώ. Και αυτό θα γίνει μόνο μέσω στοχευμένων ευρωπαϊκών δράσεων και πρωτοβουλιών. Έχει δίκιο ο Αντιπρόεδρος, ο κύριος Σχοινάς: δεν είναι αντιμετώπιση μεμονωμένων γεγονότων σε διάρκεια χρόνου, αλλά πρέπει να βρεθεί ένα άλλο πλαίσιο αντιμετώπισης του ζητήματος. Τώρα περισσότερο από ποτέ είναι ανάγκη η αλλαγή του υπάρχοντος πλαισίου. Πιο συγκεκριμένα, σαφώς ενίσχυση της φύλαξης των ευρωπαϊκών μας συνόρων, με παράλληλη ενίσχυση του Frontex, του οποίου ο ρόλος, τελικά, είναι να φυλάει τα σύνορα και όχι να υποδέχεται απελπισμένους ανθρώπους που εγκατέλειψαν την τύχη τους στους λαθροδιακινητές.
Στο πλαίσιο αυτό, λοιπόν, η Ευρωπαϊκή Ένωση πρέπει να επιβεβαιώσει την αλληλεγγύη της και όλες οι χώρες να αναλάβουν το μερίδιο που τους αναλογεί χωρίς διακρίσεις. Το θέμα είναι ανθρωπιστικό. Δεν μπορεί κατά κύριο λόγο οι πρώτες χώρες υποδοχής να επωμίζονται όλο το βάρος του μεταναστευτικού και να συζητάμε εδώ τόσα χρόνια χωρίς αποτέλεσμα. Το θέμα ξεπερνά τις κομματικές γραμμές. Πρέπει να βρούμε λύσεις. Πρέπει να υπάρξει σύμφωνο με συνολική λύση —λύση ευρωπαϊκή. Για αυτό και στηρίζουμε την άποψή σας.

Sylvie Guillaume (S&D). – Monsieur le Président, combien de fois nous sommes-nous retrouvés dans cet hémicycle pour évoquer les sauvetages en mer et déplorer leurs drames? Bien trop souvent, pour le peu de changements tangibles.
Ces dernières semaines, nous observons une énième crise diplomatique et, en réaction, la Commission propose un nouveau plan d'action. C'est une tentative louable, mais sa lecture est frappante, car c'est l'empilement de mesures déjà existantes à réactiver. Est-ce à dire qu'elles n'étaient plus mises en œuvre et pour quelle raison alors? Ou alors si elles étaient encore actives, en quoi ce plan va-t-il changer le statu quo actuel où les États membres font valoir leurs divergences politiques pour bloquer le pacte sur l'asile et la migration?
Par ailleurs, le plan se concentre sur la Méditerranée centrale, et c'est nécessaire. Mais avec plus de 42 000 arrivées au Royaume-Uni depuis janvier, combien de personnes ont subi le sort des naufragés et des morts de la Manche en novembre 2021, auxquels les secours français et britanniques n'ont pas porté l'assistance nécessaire?
Il y a urgence. Oui, c'est celle de rétablir un véritable mécanisme de recherche et de sauvetage sous égide européenne, fiable, coordonné, dans toutes les eaux de l'Union.

Fabienne Keller (Renew). – Monsieur le Président, Monsieur le Ministre représentant la présidence tchèque, Monsieur le Commissaire, cher Margaritis Schinas, Madame la Commissaire, chère Ylva Johansson, en refusant le débarquement de l'Ocean Viking quelques semaines après sa nomination, Giorgia Meloni rappelle ce que c'est que l'extrême droite au pouvoir: le mépris des vies humaines, le désordre plutôt que le respect des règles. Face aux responsabilités, les populistes préfèrent les coups de comm' aux solutions réelles.
Or, tout au contraire, la réponse au défi migratoire se trouve dans la coopération européenne. Au Parlement européen, nous travaillons d'arrache-pied pour construire une politique européenne d'asile et de migration équilibrée entre nos valeurs humanistes d'assistance aux plus démunis et un contrôle effectif de nos frontières extérieures; pour bâtir un mécanisme de solidarité efficace et juste entre tous les États membres, en particulier pour aider les pays de première entrée comme l'Italie; pour réformer et simplifier nos procédures d'asile et accélérer les procédures pour les demandes des personnes manifestement non éligibles; enfin, pour offrir une protection et une intégration réussie aux réfugiés sur notre sol.
Dans ces négociations, chers collègues, l'extrême droite est absente. Voilà le bilan des populistes. Ils se nourrissent des tensions, les alimentent, mais ne cherchent pas les solutions. En Européens, nous nous engageons, avec mon groupe Renew Europe, pour une réforme ambitieuse, pour des solutions concrètes et fidèles à nos valeurs.

Tineke Strik (Verts/ALE). – Mr President, dear Council, Commissioners, when persons are in distress at sea, every minute counts. Yet coastal states refuse to fulfil their international obligation to rescue them and disembark them in their ports. They instrumentalise people whose life is at risk in a cynical attempt to push for solidarity.
Yes, we urgently need a fair distribution of asylum seekers, we've called for that for years, but the lack of it can never be an excuse to play with people's lives. And how cynical is it that NGOs filling this gap and saving lives are criminalised, whereas the states violating their obligation enjoy impunity.
The new action plan doesn't change that. It repeats what we already know isn't working. We don't need more migration deals that lead to the containment of people in hell: look at Libya. Instead, we must prioritise saving lives and upholding the right to seek asylum. And I call on the Commission to act as a real guardian of the Treaty: design a common response to end the brutal death zone; fund and coordinate a state-led search-and-rescue mission; and force Member States to take their responsibility.
And none of this, of course, will be successful without fair responsibility-sharing and mandatory relocation. I once again urge Member States to prioritise solidarity and end this deadly race to the bottom.

Teuvo Hakkarainen (ID). – Arvoisa puhemies, loputtomaan laittomaan tulijatulvaan on olemassa vain yksi ratkaisu: rajat kiinni. Se on ainoa ratkaisu siihen asiaan. Luulisi viimein järjen tavoittavan EU-parlamentinkin. Jatkuva jaarittelu tästä asiasta vain kiihdyttää Eurooppaan tulevaa väestönvaihtoa. On ryhdyttävä tekemään eikä vain puhumaan. Väestöräjähdyksen vuoksi valepakolaisten eli nuorten miesten muukalaisvyöry ei koskaan lopu. Siksi väylät on suljettava. Eurooppaan tunkeutuminen ei ole mikään ihmisoikeus.
Välimerestä tulijat on käännytettävä takaisin lähtöpaikkaansa ja alueella päivystävien humanitäärisen avun nimissä toimivien ihmiskauppiaiden alukset takavarikoitava. Kun tieto Euroopan rajojen sulkemisesta leviää, tulijavirta loppuu itsestään. Näin yksinkertainen ja ainoa toimiva on lääke tähän tautiin.

Beata Kempa (ECR). – Panie Przewodniczący! Pani Komisarz! Koleżanki i Koledzy! Dyskusja o migracji jest zawsze pełna emocji, szczególnie tu, na tej sali, bo z jednej strony mamy uciekających przed głodem i biedą ludzi, niczemu i nikomu winnych, ale z drugiej strony musimy też ważyć bezpieczeństwo naszych obywateli.
Szczególnie ważne jest to w kontekście bardzo agresywnej polityki Rosji i Turcji, a także znaczącego wzrostu aktywności organizacji terrorystycznych, a zwłaszcza organizacji, które zajmują się przemytem ludzi. Musimy wiedzieć, że oni nas obserwują i będą czerpać korzyści z naszej naiwności. Całkowite otwarcie granic i ułatwienie migrantom wjazdu do Unii Europejskiej to jest jednak ślepa uliczka i naiwne podejście zagrażające bezpieczeństwu naszej Wspólnoty.
Ale mamy też bardzo dobre działania. To jest właśnie ta alternatywa. To jest stabilizacja makroekonomiczna państw będących źródłem imigracji oraz pomoc humanitarna i rozwojowa, którą jako Unia Europejska świadczymy na miejscu w Afryce, na Bliskim Wschodzie, w wielu, wielu krajach. To jest bardzo realna pomoc, alternatywna wobec naiwnej polityki otwartych granic.
I ostatnie zdanie: nie możemy zapomnieć o instrumentalnym, cynicznym wykorzystywaniu migrantów przez reżimy w Moskwie i na Białorusi. A to w tej chwili dzieje się na granicy Polski i Unii Europejskiej.

Jérôme Rivière (NI). – Monsieur le Président, chers collègues, alors que les peuples des nations européennes ne sont jamais consultés, la Commission et la majorité au sein de ce Parlement poussent à une arrivée massive de migrants – oui, poussent. Il y a dix jours, M. Borrell affirmait sur une télévision française: l'hiver démographique de l'Europe est comblé par les apports du reste du monde. Voilà qui éclaire votre pseudo-réforme de l'asile politique.
Pourquoi prétendre qu'un recul démographique est inéluctable alors qu'une politique nataliste volontariste permet, comme le démontre la Hongrie, un printemps démographique? Qu'il est curieux de vouloir financer ce que pudiquement vous baptisez des ‘apports’ quand il s'agit d'un mouvement massif bien plus semblable par sa composition – des hommes jeunes, mais bien peu de femmes et d'enfants – à une véritable invasion. Financer sa propre submersion est une première dans l'histoire des civilisations.
Ce parti-pris pour l'immigration traduit une volonté de déconstruction systématique de notre civilisation commune et c'est ce à quoi nous nous opposons. Ce faisant, vous brisez tout espoir d'unité européenne tant les réactions des peuples sont divergentes entre ceux qui souffrent, une majorité, et les profiteurs de la mondialisation que vous défendez sans discernement.

François-Xavier Bellamy (PPE). – Monsieur le Président, ce matin, nous parlons de secours en mer et de politique d'asile. Bien sûr, bien sûr, il faut sauver les gens qui se noient. Personne ne le conteste ici. Mais le mieux, c'est encore d'éviter qu'ils risquent leur vie.
Qu'est-ce qui est endeuille aujourd'hui la mer Méditerranée? C'est notre impuissance collective qui fait que si quelqu'un arrive à entrer illégalement en Europe, il est certain d'y rester toujours. C'est la démission de gouvernements, dont le gouvernement français, dont la décision d'accueillir ce bateau est la publicité dont rêvaient les réseaux de passeurs. C'est la complicité de certaines ONG, dont il est avéré qu'elles sont en contact étroit avec ces filières de traite d'êtres humains. C'est le détournement de nos principes par des jurisprudences abusives qui rendent impuissantes nos lois. C'est l'acharnement de ceux qui, à la Commission, parfois, ou au Parlement, ont attaqué sans relâche la direction de Frontex – non parce qu'elle ne faisait pas son travail, mais parce qu'elle faisait son travail. Nous ne faisons même plus semblant de combattre ces réseaux de passeurs, la mafia la plus criminelle du monde, qui gagne des milliards d'euros grâce à notre passivité.
Ce n'est pas d'abord parce qu'ils fuient la guerre ou la misère que les gens se noient en Méditerranée. Ceux qui partent sont ceux qui ont déjà assez de moyens pour payer la traversée. Mais nous, nous n'avons pas le droit, même si nous les comprenons, nous n'avons pas le droit au cynisme caché derrière les beaux discours qui compte sur les forces vives des pays en développement pour faire chez nous le travail que nous ne voulons plus faire ou que nos entreprises ne veulent plus payer comme il faut.
L'Europe est une société vieillissante, avez-vous dit, Madame la Commissaire. L'Europe a besoin de personnes de tous niveaux de qualifications et, je vous cite, l'Union européenne élargira les possibilités de migration. Mais cette logique utilitariste, derrière les grandes leçons de morale qui prétendent s'inquiéter de la souffrance des plus lointains, n'écoute pas la souffrance des plus proches, des plus pauvres, des plus vulnérables dans nos propres pays, ceux qui vivent directement les tensions terribles nées du déni de cette politique migratoire irresponsable. La solidarité européenne doit consister à répondre ensemble à ce défi, non pas en gérant notre impuissance, mais en y mettant enfin fin.

Isabel Santos (S&D). – Senhor Presidente, sete anos volvidos sobre o drama vivido em 2015, e depois de mais de 25 000 vidas perdidas no Mediterrâneo, estamos aqui, mais uma vez, a discutir a necessidade de implementar uma efetiva política de migração e asilo e de criar um mecanismo de busca e salvamento.
Não será, por certo, com a repetição de soluções como a cooperação reforçada com a Líbia, um vasto terreno de violações de direitos humanos, constante do plano de ação apresentado há dois dias, que faremos com que algo mude. Necessitamos, sim, de desenvolver uma abordagem sustentável e holística, assente na solidariedade obrigatória entre todos os Estados-Membros, na partilha das suas responsabilidades à luz do direito internacional, seja, ainda, na matéria de salvamento, seja na matéria de proteção internacional.
E não sejamos ingénuos: o salvamento de vidas, a gestão de movimentos migratórios e o combate ao tráfico só serão efetivamente possíveis com a criação de corredores humanitários e canais legais que permitam movimentos seguros e ordenados, com integral respeito pelos direitos humanos. Não com as soluções que avançamos hoje.

Maite Pagazaurtundúa (Renew). – Señor presidente, señorías, llevamos siete años dejando pudrirse el paquete de asilo y migración. Y en siete años, se ha intoxicado y polarizado nuestra mirada.
Al no resolver un problema común, se han generado problemas sociales que algunos pretenden solucionar a las bravas, contra nuestras propias leyes, mientras otros viven en un mundo de sueños voluntaristas. Y quienes deben ser pragmáticos y liderar —los Gobiernos— no dan la cara, no suficientemente, no lideran, no dicen con claridad hasta dónde pueden llegar juntos. Comisarios, me consta que hacen lo que pueden, pero la voluntad que falta está en el Consejo. La no voluntad.
Y la incoherencia del no sistema, de no tener un sistema, está alimentando división social y frustración. Y sigue muriendo gente. Hemos dado asilo a muchas personas —es cierto—, pero también hemos perdido miles de oportunidades de gestionar mejor, de mejorar muchos de nuestros pueblos y ciudades. Y al no gestionar correctamente, hemos dejado que se equipare a personas que solo quieren una oportunidad y trabajan duro, muy duro muchas de ellas, con quienes están abusando del sistema.
Quiero pensar que el plan para el Mediterráneo puede ayudar a que el Consejo piense, pero tengo mis dudas.

Damian Boeselager (Verts/ALE). – Mr President, Commissioner, Minister, Maite has just said it has been seven years since we started with the first proposal – since you started with the first proposal on the common European asylum system. And since then, year by year we have been discussing and not much has happened. We have failed more or less to come up with such a system. And every day the right-wingers in this House are very, very happy about this because they can instrumentalise this to grow.
And we have seen this. How did Lega get big? How did the AfD get big? How did Marine Le Pen get big? It's all by capitalising on the fears of migration. This, for me, was one of the reasons of founding a European movement, because I feel that we have not found a system to actually take decisions to solve this issue. And what happens instead is that we have a system of basically deterrence by suffering. We fund Libyan coastguards, we fund billions for border controls, we criminalise NGOs, but we have not found a solution yet.
So I would urge you once again, please set up a European search-and-rescue mission. Please ensure that we have mechanisms to embark asylum seekers and please make sure that maritime law is upheld and NGOs are safeguarded.

Harald Vilimsky (ID). – Herr Präsident! Meine Damen und Herren, ich kann das Klagen der politisch Grünen und Linken gar nicht mehr hören, die seit vielen Jahren als Lobbyisten für Massenmigration tätig sind und die Probleme, mit denen Europa heute konfrontiert ist, erst so richtig verursachen. Ich bin seit 2014 Mitglied dieses Hauses, und 2015 haben wir das bislang stärkste Jahr an Migrationsproblemen erlebt, und von Jahr zu Jahr ist es schlimmer geworden.
Heute, 2022, stehen wir vor der Situation, dass es die schlimmste Situation überhaupt ist – mehr als 2015. Seit 2015 haben sechs Millionen Menschen hier den Weg nach Europa gesucht, und zwei Drittel davon haben nicht den Status als Konventionsflüchtling und drei Viertel davon sind weder subsidiär noch humanitär schutzberechtigt. Sie bleiben aber alle hier in Europa, und genau das macht das Problem aus. Hier versagt Europa; es versagt das Schengen-Abkommen, es versagt das Dublin-Abkommen.
Was wir benötigen, ist ein effektiver Außengrenzschutz. Was wir benötigen, ist, Schengen zu sistieren, bis die Probleme gelöst sind. Und wir brauchen Hilfe für die Menschen vor Ort, ihnen in der Region zu helfen, anstatt sie alle nach Europa zu bringen.

Robert Roos (ECR). – Voorzitter, de illegale immigratie naar Europa bereikt recordhoogtes. Dit verandert het karakter van ons continent en niet per se ten goede. We moeten het nu een halt toeroepen. Deze drie dingen kan de EU vanaf vandaag al doen:






1.


Frontex moet immigranten niet naar Europa meenemen, maar ze terugbrengen naar het land vanwaar ze zijn vertrokken. Pushbacks moeten EU-beleid worden.










2.


Net als Denemarken moeten we akkoorden sluiten met derde landen zoals Rwanda. Asielzoekers die in Europa aankomen, sturen we naar die derde landen. Daar wachten ze hun asielprocedure af. Wie Europa toch illegaal betreedt, is nooit meer welkom. Dit zal de toestroom sterk doen afnemen.










3.


Help lidstaten die de immigratie willen bestrijden. Ik denk bijvoorbeeld aan de moedige Italiaanse regering van premier Meloni. Dit kan vandaag al. Ga ermee aan de slag.




En tot slot omdat sommigen het nog in de oren moeten knopen: de illegale immigratie witwassen door dezelfde mensen voortaan legaal te laten komen, is geen oplossing van het probleem.

Balázs Hidvéghi (NI). – Monsieur le Président. Monsieur le Ministre, Madame et Monsieur les Commissaires, chers collègues, sur les 234 migrants qui sont arrivés en France à bord du navire de l'ONG Ocean Viking, seules six personnes sont encore sous le contrôle des autorités françaises, ou peut-être quatre aujourd'hui. Les autres ont été libérées et – quelle surprise! – ont immédiatement disparu en France. Voilà le résultat terrifiant d'une politique d'ouverture des frontières: des centaines de personnes sans papiers, errant librement en Europe, représentant on ne sait quelle menace pour la sécurité des citoyens européens.
Le message envoyé par cette affaire est désastreux pour l'Europe. Plus nous autorisons de navires à accoster, plus les navires suivront. Viktor Orbán et Matteo Salvini ont prouvé il y a des années que les frontières peuvent être défendues – sur terre et sur la mer aussi – s'il y a une volonté politique de le faire. La Première ministre italienne, Giorgia Meloni, a raison: la seule solution commune est la défense des frontières de l'Union européenne, le blocage des départs des bateaux de migrants et l'ouverture des hotspots en dehors de l'Europe.
Soyons clairs: les portes de l'Europe ne sont pas ouvertes pour tout le monde et pour n'importe qui. Il faut rétablir l'ordre et la sécurité.

Salvatore De Meo (PPE). – Signor Presidente, onorevoli colleghi, il dibattito di questa mattina conferma ancora una volta che quando si parla di immigrazione si rischia di essere fraintesi.
E purtroppo c'è una diffusa percezione distorta che vede da una parte i buoni, coloro che integrano e accolgono vite umane, e dall'altra i cattivi, quelli che stanno solo cercando di governare i processi migratori. Io credo che non può esserci una visione così semplicistica e categorica, ma devono esserci un approccio e una risposta comuni, ma soprattutto europei.
Tutti, anche in quest'Aula, rivendichiamo e siamo fieri dei valori europei, tra cui la solidarietà, ma a quanto pare la interpretiamo verso l'esterno, ma non la applichiamo verso l'interno. Non posso ignorare come questa tematica tocchi in modo particolare il mio paese e pochi altri e non posso non sottolineare le difficoltà e l'impegno che stiamo mettendo per gestire al meglio questa difficoltà.
Non esiste una questione migranti per l'Italia, né per ogni singolo Stato, esiste una questione migranti per l'Europa. Le coste italiane, così come altre frontiere, sono una parte dei confini dell'Unione europea, ma l'Italia non può farcela da sola, così come non può farcela nessun altro da solo. C'è bisogno di una strategia europea che coinvolga tutti e in cui ognuno faccia la propria parte.
Abbiamo bisogno di una proposta che impedisca l'immigrazione illegale e il traffico di esseri umani, bisogna attivare i corridoi umanitari, bisogna prevedere una ricollocazione obbligatoria e non volontaria, ma soprattutto un piano straordinario economico per l'Africa e per tutti quei paesi dove il problema va affrontato alla radice, per evitare che si creino le condizioni per non far scappare queste persone.
Le migliaia di morti nel Mediterraneo sono una sconfitta e un fardello per tutti noi, nessuno escluso. E allora non possiamo tornare indietro, dobbiamo soltanto andare avanti per evitare di appesantire ulteriormente questo fardello.

Elena Yoncheva (S&D). – Monsieur le Président, Monsieur le Commissaire Schinas, Madame la Commissaire Johansson, il y a près de dix ans, l'Europe a été témoin de la tragédie de Lampedusa. C'était un signal d'alarme pour nous tous. C'était un signal d'alarme pour la solidarité et pour une meilleure coordination. Près de 5 000 personnes ont trouvé la mort en Méditerranée depuis 2014 et nous continuons à compter, nous enregistrons des tragédies et nous nous cachons derrière des excuses. Nous débattons, mais nous ne changeons rien.
Nous devons gérer collectivement les opérations de recherche et de sauvetage. Nous ne pouvons pas laisser certains États membres seuls et les punir pour leur situation géographique. Nous ne pouvons pas effacer, bien sûr, les tragédies, mais nous pouvons les arrêter à l'avenir. Et la réponse est très simple: faire passer l'unité européenne avant la politique nationale. Notre politique migratoire et d'asile ne peut plus être otage des populistes et nous devrons cesser de compter constamment sur les solutions ad hoc, mais toujours réagir à une tragédie. Nous devrons empêcher tout cela de se produire, arrêter de débattre et commencer à travailler.

Ilhan Kyuchyuk (Renew). – Mr President, dear Commissioners, Dear representative of the Council, Dear colleagues, we have been discussing the need for a European solution on an asylum and migration for years now. The need for a common solution has, meanwhile, become an imperative. First and foremost, we need to find a clear system of rules that corresponds to the current realities. This is why the commitment of the European Parliament and upcoming Council Presidencies to finalise the reform of legislation on asylum and migration is pivotal. Secondly, as corresponds to our values, we need to ensure that saving human lives is a primary consideration. The legal obligation of sea rescue is a clear and unequivocal. A step forward is the – agreed under the French Presidency – Voluntary Solidarity Mechanism, taking up commitments for relocation from the countries confronted with disembarkment and heavy migration flows. But here too, we need a permanent system applied to all. it is time for solidarity. it is time for action.

Rosa D'Amato (Verts/ALE). – Signor Presidente, onorevoli colleghi, signor Commissario, l'11 novembre una motovedetta della Guardia costiera tunisina ha speronato una barca con dei migranti a bordo: sono morti 3 bambini, annegati.
Nel 2020, uno dei capi della Guardia costiera libica è stato arrestato dalle autorità di Tripoli: era uno dei boss del traffico di esseri umani. E sono solo due casi.
Ed è con i soldi dei contribuenti europei che finanziamo le guardie costiere del Nord Africa: in Tunisia, in Libia, in Egitto. E con che risultati: sale il numero dei morti.
Cari colleghi, questo è un nostro fallimento: finanziamo noi i trafficanti di esseri umani o le famigerate carceri libiche. Ma non discutiamo di questo fallimento, no, noi discutiamo delle navi delle ONG. Qualcuno ritira fuori la fantomatica teoria del pull factor. Dov'è questo pull factor? Dov'è questo falso report di Frontex che conosce il ministro Tajani in Italia, ma che noi non conosciamo e che non abbiamo diritto di vedere?
Si mette in dubbio la legalità delle attività delle ONG. Ma sono tutte accuse smentite dal diritto internazionale e nei fatti. Le ONG operano nel pieno rispetto del diritto marittimo internazionale. Chi non lo fa sono i governi che respingono i barconi, che li lasciano alla deriva in mare per settimane, come il mio governo in Italia.
Le ONG fanno l'unica cosa possibile in coerenza con i valori europei: salvare vite umane.

Jean-Paul Garraud (ID). – Monsieur le Président, selon Frontex, le nombre d'entrées illégales dans l'Union européenne a augmenté de 73 % entre janvier et novembre 2022 par rapport à l'année précédente, atteignant le niveau le plus élevé depuis 2016. Des ONG, en lien avec des passeurs, organisent ce trafic en armant des bateaux-taxis de clandestins directement depuis les côtes nord-africaines. Des ONG qui sont parfois subventionnées par l'Europe, certains États et des collectivités territoriales comme la Ville de Paris.
Pourtant, la Commission européenne a annoncé lundi dernier qu'il fallait accentuer la coopération avec ces ONG et procéder à une meilleure répartition des migrants dans les États membres. Ce plan est parfaitement relayé en France, où M. Macron se prépare à accueillir ces migrants sur tout le territoire. En faisant cela, vous encouragez le phénomène migratoire et vous envoyez à la mort des milliers de malheureux qui périssent en Méditerranée. Il faut bien au contraire reconduire ces bateaux dans leur port de départ, les confisquer s'ils arrivent sur nos côtes et supprimer toute subvention en leur faveur. Vous voulez accueillir et répartir les migrants partout en Europe. Nous voulons les secourir et les reconduire chez eux.

Ангел Джамбазки (ECR). – Г-н Председател, колеги, преминаване на държавна граница e престъпление. Това престъпление трябва да бъде разследвано, преследвано, обвинено, съдено и осъдено.
Вместо да се случва това обаче, тази зала подкрепя такива престъпления. Много често в нея се говори за върховенство на закона. Какво върховенство на закона, когато подкрепяш нарушаването на закона и престъпленията? Окупираната от крайната левица – екстремистката левица – зала на този Европейски парламент е съучастник в трафика на хора, е съучастник в редица престъпления, свързани с този трафик на хора. Работите заедно с трафикантски организации, подпомагате трафикантски организации, които продават хора като стока и вие ги подкрепяте и трябва да се срамувате за това.
Подкрепящите нелегалната миграция са пряко отговорни и виновни за смъртта на български гранични и полицейски служители, които загинаха и продължават да страдат и да търпят щети, престрелки с нелегални имигранти и турски контрабандисти. Говорите за солидарност – някой от вас обади ли се на семействата на тези хора, за да изрази пред тях солидарност? Не, разбира се, че не сте и не би трябвало, защото трябва да се срамувате. Решението е едно и то трябва да бъде едно европейско: единна твърда позиция, защита на външните граници, екстрадиция на нелегалните мигранти, съд и затвор за контрабандистите и позор за тези, които ги подкрепят.

(Ораторът приема да отговори на изказване ‘синя карта’)


Rosa D'Amato (Verts/ALE),
intervento ‘cartellino blu’. – Lei sta accusando noi progressisti di essere complici e degli scafisti. Allora aspettiamo una Sua denuncia. Se Lei accusa noi di essere complici degli scafisti, ci aspettiamo una Sua denuncia presso qualche Corte di giustizia, Corte europea, nazionale, italiana.
Ci deve accusare con degli atti e con dei fatti ben precisi. Deve anche dirci se ci sono delle ONG che sono state condannate da qualche Corte europea di giustizia, da qualche giudice, perché complici degli scafisti e complici delle morti in mare. Ha questa contezza? Ha dei dati? Sa se ci sono delle condanne penali per le navi delle ONG? Altrimenti sta facendo soltanto propaganda e accuse inutili.

Ангел Джамбазки (ECR),
отговор на изказване ‘синя карта’. – Разбира се, уважаема колега, всеки, който подкрепя и насърчава преминаването незаконно на държавна граница, е политически съучастник на тези, които правят трафика на хора.
Има организации, които насърчават трафика на хора, които организират трафика на хора, които получават пари за трафика на хора, а тук, в тази зала, има хора, които адвокатстват на трафика на хора. И аз се учудвам, но всъщност не се учудвам, защото когато окупираната от залата и доминираната в залата левица подкрепя нелегалната миграция, тя го прави по своите политически причини. Но всеки от вас, който подкрепя незаконното преминаване на държавна граница, би трябвало да се срамува от това, защото по същество става съучастник в престъпни деяния. Точно толкова е просто.

Angelika Winzig (PPE). – Sehr geehrter Herr Präsident, geschätzte Damen und Herren! Die Europäische Union steht abermals vor einer Migrationskrise. Das kleine Land Österreich hat in diesem Jahr schon mit 100 000 Asylanträgen mehr als im Rekordjahr 2015. Und obwohl wir ein Binnenland sind, wurden 75 % unserer Flüchtlinge in keinem anderen EU- bzw. Schengen-Land registriert.
Daher ist es höchste Zeit für eine gemeinsame Migrationspolitik, die eine klare Unterscheidung zwischen Migranten und Wirtschaftsflüchtlingen vornimmt, die eine effektive Grenzkontrolle der Außengrenzen gewährleistet, die mit voller Härte gegen Schlepper und deren Milliardengeschäft vorgeht, und, last but not least, die auch die Verteilung von Flüchtlingen ohne Pull-Faktor auf die Reihe bekommt.
Rat und Parlament haben sich verpflichtet, die Vorschläge des Asyl- und Migrationspaktes der Kommission umzusetzen. Das sollte jetzt oberste Priorität bei uns sein, denn unsere Bürgerinnen und Bürger sind ohnedies aufgrund der vielen Krisen verängstigt. Und ich glaube, wir wollen alle nicht, dass diese leeren Reihen voller werden – dort in der rechten Seite.

Javier Moreno Sánchez (S&D). – Señor presidente, quería decirle a la señora Monserrat, pero se ha ido, que utilizar la tragedia de Nador para atacar desde esta Cámara al Gobierno de España me parece patético y lamentable —patético y lamentable—, y espero que se lo traslade.
Dicho esto, señorías, hace unos meses hemos activado en un tiempo récord una Directiva europea que llevaba veinte años durmiendo para acoger y proteger a los ciudadanos y las ciudadanas que huían de la guerra de Putin, algo que no hicimos ni en 2015 con la guerra de Siria, ni en 2021 con la crisis afgana. Quiero decir con esto que cuando hay voluntad y valentía política somos capaces de dar respuestas europeas eficaces a los grandes desafíos.
Si hemos sido capaces de acoger a cuatro millones y medio de personas en pocos meses, ¿por qué no somos capaces de gestionar con dignidad los 200 000 migrantes que tratan de llegar por mar y por tierra cada año?
Por eso necesitamos la voluntad política, la solidaridad y la confianza entre los Estados miembros para llevar a cabo definitivamente el Pacto sobre Migración y Asilo con una reubicación obligatoria, canales humanitarios y un mecanismo europeo de salvamento marítimo que llevamos reclamando desde hace años y que las fuerzas de derecha europea rechazan. Y, al mismo tiempo necesitamos, señora comisaria, señor comisario, desarrollar todos los instrumentos de inmigración legal.

Róża Thun und Hohenstein (Renew). – Mr President, not a long time ago, someone who moved on our continent from country to country was a migrant, a stranger. But even someone who moved, say, from Hessen to Bavaria and had a different accent, wore different clothes, ate Handkäse mit Musik and not white sausage with sweet mustard, was a migrant, was a stranger. This has changed. Today, migrants we call those who come on our continent from different continents. But also this will change.
I'm sorry that we heard so many times in this debate words like smugglers, invasion, danger, costs, mafias, etc. Dear colleagues, led by fears and xenophobia we will never cope well with migrations. And the question: is a person who is drowning in the sea illegal? A person who is freezing to death in the forests and swamps between Poland and Belarus: is this person illegal? Nobody should die at our European borders. This is the most important.

Lena Düpont (PPE). – Herr Präsident, liebe Kollegen! Die Debatte heute hat vieles noch einmal auf den Punkt gebracht. Erstens: Wir streiten leidenschaftlich, mit Emotionen, mit guten und weniger guten Argumenten.
Zweitens: Wir haben kein Erkenntnisproblem – wir haben ein Umsetzungsproblem. Wir alle kennen die Positionen der nationalen Delegationen, wir kennen die Positionen der Fraktionen, wir kennen die Positionen der Institutionen.
Drittens: Zur Wahrheit gehört auch: Vereinbarungen haben bisher wenig Bestand gehabt, weil sich Mitgliedstaaten untereinander nicht mehr vertrauen, weil Zusagen nicht verlässlich waren, weil nationale Entscheidungen getroffen werden, die nicht zuerst das eigene Land, sondern die ohnehin schon belasteten Mitgliedstaaten an der Außengrenze treffen.
Viertens: Wir können es uns schlicht und ergreifend nicht mehr leisten, uns von Notlösung zu Notlösung zu hangeln. Wir brauchen ein logisches, ein effizientes, ein krisensicheres System, keine formschönen Lösungen, sondern Verbesserungen in der Realität.
Wir hier, insbesondere hier im Haus, haben es in der Hand, den Deadlock ein für alle Mal zu durchbrechen. Bisher war es für das Parlament relativ leicht – der Rat hat blockiert. Ich möchte nicht, dass die Erzählung in der nächsten Legislaturperiode heißt: Das Parlament hat blockiert.
Wir haben gestern hier 70 Jahre Europäisches Parlament gefeiert, und vielleicht sollten wir uns das Video öfter vor Augen halten. Nichts davon wäre ohne Mut, ohne Politiker, die Verantwortung großschreiben, möglich gewesen, und ich weigere mich zu akzeptieren, dass wir das für den Bereich Asyl und Migration nicht auch schaffen können. Deswegen ist die Entscheidung heute hier eigentlich eine ziemlich einfache: Gehören wir zum Team Verantwortung oder gehören wir zum Team Mutlosigkeit? Und meine Position dabei ist vollkommen klar.

Matjaž Nemec (S&D). – Gospod predsednik. Dovolite mi, da bo moje sporočilo jasno in glasno.
Kot je bilo danes že rečeno, je v Sredozemlju od leta 2014 umrlo čez 25 000 ljudi, od tega samo letos 2 000. Reševanje življenj torej ni zločin. Pri tem vprašanju se začne in konča naša človečnost. Evropa si pred tem izzivom ne more več zatiskati oči. Sprejem nesrečnih prebežnikov v varni pristan ne more biti odvisen od vsakokratne milosti te ali one države.
Res je, da Evropa ne more sprejeti vseh beguncev tega sveta, a mora prevzeti svoj del odgovornosti. Gordijski vozel nedelujočega migracijskega sistema moramo nujno presekati. Zato pa potrebujemo učinkovito migracijsko in azilno politiko. Ta mora temeljiti na solidarnosti in pravičnem deljenju bremen. Prav tako mora biti pravična in dostojanstvena. Potrebujemo – nujno – migracijski dogovor in to zdaj. Hvala lepa.

Karlo Ressler (PPE). – Poštovani predsjedavajući, u vrijeme brutalnog rata na europskom kontinentu Europa pruža sigurno utočište za milijune ukrajinskih izbjeglica od ruskih razaranja i granata i još jednom pokazuje našu zajedničku ljudskost.
Istodobno svjedočimo drastičnom i perfidnom povećanju ilegalnih prelazaka granice od gotovo 300 000 kroz ovu godinu, osobito na takozvanoj zapadnobalkanskoj ruti. Prihvatni centri diljem Europe su prepuni, a vanjske granice opet su pod pritiskom stihijskih migracija i tisuća i tisuća nepoznatih ljudi koji pod okriljem noći, bez službenih identifikacijskih dokumenata i izvan graničnih prijelaza pokušavaju ilegalno prijeći naše europske granice. Tome doprinosi i Srbija koja beskrupuloznom zloupotrebom viznog režima nagrađuje zemlje koje ne priznaju Kosovo i tako povećava pritisak.
Pod hitno nam je potrebno zajedničko, sustavno europsko rješenje koje počinje od učinkovite stroge zaštite vanjskih granica te odlučnog instrumentaliziranja migranata u geopolitičkim igricama koje ne smiju postojati.
Sve to također pokazuje da nam je potreban i još snažniji Schengen, a ne njegovo podrivanje u ovim osjetljivim geopolitičkim trenucima. Jasno, s uključenom Hrvatskom koja je dokazala da može učinkovito štititi europsku granicu i tako pružiti dodatnu sigurnost svim državama članicama i svim europskim građanima.

Cyrus Engerer (S&D). – X'ipokresija, Sur President, illi dawk il-pajjiżi li stagħnew bil-kolonizzazzjoni ta' diversi pajjiżi Afrikani, illum jittrattaw liċ-ċittadini ta' dawn il-pajjiżi bħala nies li totalment jistgħu jinsewhom, totalment jarmuhom. X'ipokresija, Sur President, illi dawk il-pajjiżi illi qegħdin igawdu minn fondi ta' solidarjetà, fondi Ewropej illi qegħdin igawdu minnhom huma, m'għandhom l-ebda solidarjetà mal-pajjiżi tal-Mediterran li qegħdin jaffaċċjaw kriżi kbira fis-salvar ta' numru ta' immigranti li qegħdin jaslu fl-Ewropa tagħna. X'ipokresija wkoll, Sur President, illi għandek numru ta' pajjiżi, illi ma jridux jaċċettaw illi jsalvaw nies illi ġejjin mill-Afrika, illi fl-istess ħin qegħdin ibigħu l-armamenti lil dittaturi Afrikani.
Din hi r-realtà tal-Unjoni Ewropea llum. U Sur President, hawnhekk għandna Parlament Ewropew illi għandu pożizzjoni b'saħħitha dwar is-solidarjetà, pożizzjoni b'saħħitha dwar x'għandu jsir mill-immigranti irregolari li jidħlu fl-Ewropa tagħna.
Imma l-Kunsill fejn qiegħed? Meta ħa jqum mir-raqda, il-Kunsill?

Ελισσάβετ Βόζεμπεργκ-Βρυωνίδη (PPE). – Κύριε Πρόεδρε, κύριε Αντιπρόεδρε, κυρία Επίτροπε, η σημερινή συζήτηση είναι μια καλή ευκαιρία να δούμε πού βρισκόμαστε σε σχέση με το μεταναστευτικό. Το 2022 διαπιστώθηκε πάλι αύξηση των παράνομων εισόδων στην Ένωση μετά την πανδημία. Μεταξύ άλλων, καλούμαστε να διαχειριστούμε τις υβριδικές απειλές της Τουρκίας με την εργαλειοποίηση απελπισμένων ψυχών ως μέσο πίεσης στην Ευρωπαϊκή Ένωση.
Ως Ελληνίδα, επικεντρώνομαι στις προκλήσεις που εξακολουθεί να αντιμετωπίζει η χώρα μου, παρά την αξιοσημείωτη πρόοδο που έχει καταφέρει στο πρόβλημα η ελληνική κυβέρνηση την τελευταία τριετία. Η Τουρκία συνεχίζει τις προκλήσεις στο Αιγαίο περιφρονώντας κάθε έννοια δικαίου, και όχι μόνο δεν ελέγχει τα δίκτυα των διακινητών ως οφείλει από το 2016, αλλά αντιθέτως τους παρέχει άμεση ή έμμεση στήριξη, ενώ εξακολουθεί να αρνείται αναιτιολόγητα επιστροφές από τα ελληνικά νησιά στο έδαφός της.
Συνάδελφοι, η Ελλάδα έχει καταφέρει να φυλάσσει αποτελεσματικά τα εξωτερικά ευρωπαϊκά σύνορα, να αντιμετωπίζει τις απειλές του Προέδρου Erdoğan και να διασώζει σχεδόν καθημερινά ανθρώπινες ζωές που ωθούνται από εγκληματίες στον θάνατο. Ωστόσο, ζητούμενο παραμένει ακόμα η ευρωπαϊκή αλληλεγγύη, για αυτό πρέπει να οριστεί ως υποχρεωτική.
Σε περιόδους κρίσης, ειδικότερα, πιστεύω ότι είναι μονόδρομος ένας μηχανισμός υποχρεωτικής μετεγκατάστασης αιτούντων άσυλο σε όλη την Ευρωπαϊκή Ένωση, καθώς και η δίκαιη κατανομή της ευθύνης για τη διάσωση ανθρώπων στη θάλασσα, όπως ζητεί, σήμερα κιόλας, με κατεπείγουσα επιστολή του ο Έλληνας Υπουργός Μεταναστευτικής Πολιτικής, κύριος Μηταράκης.

Łukasz Kohut (S&D). – Panie Przewodniczący! Pani Komisarz! Tydzień temu rosyjscy zbrodniarze przeprowadzili największy od początku agresji atak rakietowy na Ukrainę, atak na infrastrukturę krytyczną. Cel terrorysty z Kremla jest jasny: złamać ducha dzielnych ludzi broniących swojej ziemi, złamać ducha ich rodzin.
Wkrótce wiele Ukrainek stanie przed wyborem: ponowna tułaczka z dziećmi albo pozostanie w zimnych domach. Jako Unia, musimy być gotowi na każdy scenariusz. Musimy odrobić lekcję z przeszłości. Musimy zarówno być gotowi zapewniać wsparcie na miejscu, jak i być gotowi na ponowne przyjęcie uchodźców.
Ponad pół roku temu mieszkańcy Polski pokazali, czym są wartości europejskie, czym jest solidarność w praktyce. Przyjęli uchodźców. Dali im jeść. Odziali ich. Ogromną rolę odegrali samorząd, organizacje pozarządowe i obywatele. Dlatego sami widzicie, jak ważny jest szeroki mechanizm wsparcia, wsparcia bezpośredniego, tak aby pomoc trafiała jak najbliżej ludzi, tak abyśmy zawsze byli przygotowani.

Michaela Šojdrová (PPE). – Pane předsedající, slyšíme zde velké odhodlání dohodnout se na azylové legislativě. Já očekávám, že tato dohoda zohlední realitu a postaví bezpečnost na první místo. Bezpečnost, odpovědnost a solidarita je přece přístup, který se jasně osvědčuje i v pomoci Ukrajině. Pomáháme Ukrajině ubránit se agresorovi, a tedy bezpečnost a mír dáváme na první místo a pomáháme solidárně i ukrajinským uprchlíkům. Nechceme, aby lidé prchali ze svých domovů a umírali na moři. To přece nechce nikdo. Ale vidíme jasné příčiny. Diktátorům, jako je Bašár al-Asad a další, na Blízkém východě a v Africe vůbec nevadí, že jejich občané musí prchat před násilím a hladem. Putin a Lukašenko toho využívají jako nástroj v boji proti jednotě EU. A proto musíme tuto situaci řešit nyní, teď a s nástroji, které máme k dispozici, a nemůžeme čekat. Dohody se třetími zeměmi, konec pašeráckých mafií a především ochrana vnější hranice před nelegální migrací musí být naši prioritou, to je úkol pro členské státy i pro Evropskou komisi.
Není možné kritizovat Českou republiku za to, že na svých hranicích zavedla posílené kontroly a uprchlíky ze třetích zemí zadržuje a vrací. Pokud nebude vnější hranice stoprocentně chráněna, pokud nebudou uprchlíci zadrženi v registračních centrech okamžitě po vstupu do EU, budeme muset střežit tuto vnější hranici. Frontex je nástrojem, který má pomáhat. A já chci ještě na závěr poděkovat všem, kteří si tuto svoji roli plní, tisícům policistů i dobrovolníků, kteří lidem prchajícím na útěku pomáhají.

Brando Benifei (S&D). – Signor Presidente, onorevoli colleghi, in Italia il nuovo governo di destra di Giorgia Meloni è in carica da un mese e invece di occuparsi dei problemi reali del paese si è già accanito contro le navi umanitarie Geo Barents, Humanity, Ocean Viking, un'azione vergognosa, con il solo obiettivo di lanciare un messaggio a parte dell'elettorato sulla pelle degli esseri umani. Tutto ciò è controproducente.
Oggi serve invece una soluzione condivisa a livello europeo. Il piano d'azione per il Mediterraneo è una proposta importante, ma si deve fare di più per coordinare le operazioni di ricerca e salvataggio. Occorre eliminare il criterio del primo paese d'arrivo e rafforzare la solidarietà e la responsabilità degli Stati membri, non puntando soltanto sui rimpatri. Il collega italiano Bartolo sta facendo un grande lavoro in questo senso, anche a nome del nostro gruppo politico.
La migrazione è un fenomeno globale e come tale deve essere affrontata. I paesi dell'Unione otterranno risultati solo se sapranno cooperare, con soluzioni condivise, a partire da quelli che sono più pronti a portarle avanti. Dobbiamo andare avanti in questa direzione insieme.

Stanislav Polčák (PPE). – Pane předsedající, Evropská unie čelí v posledních letech řadě výzev a zvýšená migrace patří k těm nejvýraznějším. Současný systém přitom nefunguje, ovšem členské státy nejsou schopny již po léta najít dohodu, jak by měla být reformována migrační a azylová politika. Některé státy nesou obrovské břemeno a ruská agrese ukázala, že uprchlický nápor může postihnout v krátkém čase skutečně každou zemi EU. I má země hostí statisíce ukrajinských uprchlíků. Co bylo dříve pro východoevropské země nepředstavitelné, miliony uprchlíků na jejich územích, se stalo realitou ze dne na den. I já jsem hlasoval pro dočasná opatření v minulém období ve prospěch Itálie a Řecka, a to s nadějí, že se podaří najít vyvážené celounijní řešení. To se však až doposud skutečně nestalo.
Naším cílem by mělo být upustit od provizorních řešení a zavést předvídatelný systém, díky kterému bude možné řízení migrace. Samozřejmě chránit schengenský prostor, ale také zvýšit diplomatické úsilí a uzavírat readmisní dohody, zřizovat hotspoty i mimo naše území. Co prožíváme v současnosti, může být nic ve srovnání s pohybem stovek milionů klimatických uprchlíků v půlce tohoto století. Ti lidé se již narodili a budou muset opouštět své domovy kvůli extrémnímu počasí, přírodním katastrofám. Už teď je jejich počet srovnatelný s počtem běženců, kteří prchají před válkami. Migrační vlny zasáhnou celou planetu. Naše jediná šance je si to uvědomit co nejdříve a využít čas k reálné přípravě. Snad si to uvědomuje i Rada. A také doufám, že dohoda bude uzavřena co nejdříve.

Theresa Muigg (S&D). – Herr Präsident! In der Debatte rund um Asyl reden wir viel zu selten darüber, worum es wirklich geht: nämlich um Menschen, die Schreckliches erlebt haben, Menschen, die vor Krieg flüchten, die vor Verfolgung flüchten, die auf dem Weg in die Sicherheit ihr Leben lassen.
Und nicht nur, dass dies in der Debatte meist fehlt, sondern aus Gründen des Populismus werden diese Menschen dann auch noch als Bedrohung dargestellt, werden als illegal bezeichnet, obwohl das Menschenrecht eindeutig ist: Jeder Mensch hat das Recht, einen Asylantrag zu stellen. Jeder Mensch hat das Recht, dass dieser nach rechtsstaatlichen Kriterien geprüft wird.
Als europäischer Gesetzgeber haben wir die Verantwortung, ein Regelwerk zu schaffen, in dem Menschenrechte respektiert und eingehalten werden. Und dies darf nicht scheitern an nationalstaatlicher Kleingeisterei; das darf nicht scheitern an der Hetze auf dem Rücken der Schwächsten. Wir können das Sterben im Mittelmeer beenden, wir können die Pushbacks an den Außengrenzen beenden, wir können die Menschen aus den Elendslagern holen.
Sorgen wir durch gemeinsame europäische Lösungen, durch Solidarität und Humanität dafür, dass wir als Europäische Union unserer Verpflichtung nachkommen! An den Rat geht unsere Botschaft: Boykottieren Sie das nicht!

Delara Burkhardt (S&D). – Herr Präsident, liebe Kolleginnen und Kollegen! Wenn man über Suchen und Retten spricht, muss man eigentlich nicht das Problem suchen, denn es geschieht ja direkt vor unseren Augen – gut dokumentiert von der Küstenwache, von der Zivilgesellschaft, ja sogar von Frontex. Wir schreiben uns in Europa Freiheit und Menschenrechte zwar auf die Fahne, hissen sie aber auf See nicht. Menschenrechte muss man sich nicht verdienen, wir besitzen sie alle von Geburt an.
In welcher Realität – das müssen wir uns doch fragen – leben wir eigentlich, in der regelmäßig Menschen ertrinken und wir dann sogar noch die bestrafen, die versuchen, sie zu retten? Das ist eine Realität, in der Neofaschos diktieren, wie unsere Solidarität aussieht. Und wir müssen uns dann eben auch fragen: Wie sieht unsere Antwort darauf aus? Und das ist etwas, was ich nicht verstehe, weil wieder keine eigene Search-and-Rescue-Mission zur Debatte steht, sondern wir darüber diskutieren, die Kapazitäten der libyschen Küstenwache zu stärken – einer Bande aus verschiedenen Milizen, die mit Menschenschmugglern und Menschenhändlern zusammenarbeiten. Und es muss uns doch eigentlich klar sein, dass kein Hafen in Libyen sicher ist.
Wenn wir dort Menschen wissentlich im Stich lassen und dahin zurückbringen, dann können wir lange nach unseren Werten suchen – dann sind diese nämlich nicht mehr zu retten.

Carina Ohlsson (S&D). – Herr talman! Det märks att kommissionen arbetar hårt för att komma framåt med en europeisk lösning för asyl och migration. Att vi inte har kommit längre i förhandlingarna sedan flyktingkrisen 2015 är ett underbetyg för medlemsstaterna. Vi behöver säkerställa ett värdigt och humant mottagande för människor som söker asyl i Europa.
Alla som söker asyl och söker sig till Europa har inte rätt till asyl, men vi har ändå en skyldighet att organisera ett ordnat mottagande, att få till ett solidariskt mottagande mellan medlemsstaterna, och att behandla asylansökningarna i enlighet med Genèvekonventionen.
Vi vet att kvinnor och barn på flykt är särskilt utsatta när de befinner sig i klorna på människosmugglare och även kan vara utsatta för människohandel. Detsamma gäller de livsfarliga resorna över Medelhavet. Därför behöver vi enas i EU om en gemensam migrationspolitik för att förhindra att detta sker. Det är dags nu.

Vystúpenia podľa postupu prihlásenia sa o slovo zdvihnutím ruky


Tomislav Sokol (PPE). – Poštovani predsjedavajući, svjedoci smo činjenice da migranti učestalo zloupotrebljavaju pravo na azil kako bi zaobišli redovitu proceduru i tako se domogli teritorija Europske unije. Učinkovita je i sigurna europska migracijska politika, stoga mora osigurati praktično razlikovanje međunarodnog statusa izbjeglice od statusa migranta.
Europska unija ne može i ne treba primiti na svoj teritorij svakoga tko to želi samo zato što je u Europi viša kvaliteta života nego u zemlji iz koje dolazi. U ovakvim okolnostima ključno je zaustaviti nezakonite migracije i ojačati zaštitu schengenskog prostora.
Vezano uz to, želim pohvaliti hrvatsku policiju koja u skladu s europskim i međunarodnim pravom čuva najdulju kopnenu granicu Europske unije. Hrvatska je ispunila najstrože kriterije i njezin ulazak u Schengen jamac je zaštite vanjskih granica EU-a i učinkovite borbe protiv ilegalnih migracija. Zato pozivam Vijeće da u prosincu donese političku odluku o ulasku Hrvatske u schengenski prostor. Ona je to zaslužila!

Maria Grapini (S&D). – Domnule președinte, stimate domnule comisar, stimată doamnă comisar, dezbatem de șapte ani această problemă legată de o soluție unică în Uniunea Europeană pe problema migrației.
Eu sunt sceptică și am motive să fiu. S-a vorbit aici despre Europa unită, solidaritate, umanitate, drepturi, dar avem un blocator de serviciu care este Consiliul.
Și dau un exemplu pentru a fi bine înțeleasă. Dacă țara mea de 11 ani este ținută la porțile spațiului Schengen, despre ce unitate, despre ce solidaritate vorbim? Dacă avem un regulament votat de Parlament, votat de Comisie și nu este aplicat pentru că blocator este Consiliul.
Pentru că un stat membru sau două, pe interese meschine, naționale, invocă diverse motive care nu au legătură cu regulamentul. Cum să cred că vom avea un pact pe migrație agreat de toate statele membre?
Și da, cred foarte bine că țara mea, cetățenii mei, au acumulat frustrare, supărare, pierdere economică. Da, Uniunea Europeană crește în scepticism. Și de aici cer Consiliului să facă intrarea în Schengen a României.

Ana Miranda (Verts/ALE). – Señor presidente, cuánto cinismo y, sobre todo, cuánta hipocresía en esta Cámara. Cuando yo me fui, en el año 2019, pensé que se había mejorado algo, y tres años después seguimos igual o quizás peor. No existe un protocolo europeo de desembarco, no existen vías legales y seguras, se sigue criminalizando a las ONG y, sobre todo, no se ha eliminado el criterio del primer puerto de desembarque. Eso es totalmente inmoral.
Yo he tenido la suerte de haber estado en un barco de rescate. Y digo la suerte, porque he visto la tragedia en primera línea. He visto cómo la guardia de costas de Libia disuadía al barco Open Arms cuando nosotros estuvimos vagando durante diez días, hasta que el Estado español dio la autorización para entrar en el puerto de Barcelona después de haber sido negada en los puertos de Malta y en los puertos de Italia, con un Gobierno populista en Italia, y todavía más populista es el de ahora.
Por lo tanto, estos discursos que tiene esta gente de la extrema derecha son inmorales y tenemos que decirlo así, señor comisario. No se puede permitir que, tanto la Comisión como el Consejo, fracasen en este nuevo intento y que se siga criminalizando a quien salva vidas, un trabajo digno y que merece nuestro respeto.

Kinga Gál (NI). – Tisztelt Elnök Úr! A migrációs válságot nem kezelni, hanem megelőzni kell. Magyarország déli határa gyakorlatilag migrációs ostrom alatt áll. Csak ebben az évben mintegy 250 ezer illegális határátlépési kísérletet akadályoztak meg a hatóságok. Az illegális migránsok és az embercsempészek sokszor erőszakosan támadnak a határvédőkre. 2015 óta Magyarország 650 milliárd forintot fordított a déli határ védelmére. Ennek mindössze két százalékát biztosította az Európai Unió. Mindeközben olyan nem kormányzati szervezeteket támogat, amelyek elősegítik a tengeren vagy szárazföldön történő illegális migrációt. Azért, hogy a migránsok ne a szerb-magyar határon torlódjanak fel, Ausztria és Magyarország további intézkedésekről állapodott meg Szerbiával a nyugat-balkáni útvonalon az Unióba irányuló illegális migráció megfékezéséről, mert az EU menekültügyi rendszere láthatóan megbukott.

(Ukončenie vystúpení podľa postupu prihlásenia sa o slovo zdvihnutím ruky)


Ylva Johansson,
Member of the Commission. – Mr President, Minister Bek, honourable Members of this House, together with Vice-President Schinas I have been listening to this long and intense debate. Of course, there's been a lot of emotions, and that is very understandable because we see men, women, children in very dangerous situations, also losing their lives in the Mediterranean or in a sealed lorry along the Western Balkan routes. So it's understandable that we are emotional, because saving life is always our first responsibility.
There's also been a lot of focus on the problems and challenges that we have. I'm dealing with this on a daily basis. We have huge challenges. We have seen an increase of irregular arrivals along both the Western Balkan routes and the Central Med route. We have seen also that in nationalities this increase is not caused by more people that are fleeing prosecutions or in need of international protection.
We see an increase of nationalities that are probably not in need of international protection. We have seen an increase along the Western Balkan routes of Pakistanis, Cubans, Indians, Turks. We have seen an increase on the West Med route of Bangladeshis, Tunisians, Egyptians.
Of course this needs to be addressed. That's why I was in Bangladesh, in Pakistan last week, to discuss with them the swift return of those not eligible to stay, but also legal pathways and help for the returnees. That's why we are presenting and launched a new anti-smuggling partnership with all the Western Balkan partners. That's why we presented last Monday a 20-point action plan to counter the Western Balkan route. That's why we will have an extraordinary Council on Friday to discuss this.
So the challenges are huge, and of course irregular arrivals has to be addressed. This is not a proper way to come to the European Union. But I would like to use this opportunity to talk about some other issues, actually, that some of you, many of you, have been calling for – a European solution on asylum and migration.
We are so strong when we work together. When we are united and tackle challenges together we can do a lot. Let me just remind you that we managed the situation where Lukashenko tried to sell tickets, instrumentalising migrants into the European Union. We managed that together and, together with third countries, we have managed to decrease the irregular arrivals through the Western Mediterranean route and Atlantic route, thanks to good cooperation also with our African partners.
We managed last year to give humanitarian admission for 35 000 Afghans fleeing the situation in Afghanistan. We are managing right now a situation with more than 4 million Ukrainian refugees by activating the temporary protection directive.
We can do so much more when we work together. I heard somebody call that it's time to stop debating and start working. The good news is that work is ongoing. The negotiations on the new pact on migration and asylum that we presented two years ago is really taking big steps forward. There is a very good momentum in the Council. Thanks to the Czech Presidency, but also thanks to the previous French Presidency, we are working intensively together with the Member States and are reaching new steps almost while we are speaking.
Also here in Parliament, good progress has been made on all the files and Parliament and Council has agreed on a roadmap, and I think this is a unique situation. There is a real good opportunity that we can make the decision on the whole pact on migration and asylum during this mandate.
But time is running so we have to start the real negotiations and trilogues now to be able to finalise all the files during this mandate, to show everybody that migration is not a threat. Migration is something that we need, but we need to manage migration and we need to welcome people on legal ways, but we need to prevent irregular arrivals and the risk of people's lives.

Mikuláš Bek,
President-in-Office of the Council. – Mr President, Vice-President Skinner, Commissioner Johansson, Honourable Members, I wish to thank you for this very timely and important debate today. These discussions are not easy, but they contribute to finding appropriate responses to the current challenges. There is no doubt that the situation in the Mediterranean and at our external land borders must be addressed in an effective and timely manner, in accordance with European and international law. And we need to avoid at all costs loss of lives. As I have already stressed, both improved cooperation with third countries and progress on the negotiations on the Migration and Asylum Pact remain the only sustainable way to achieve a better and more robust migration and asylum system that will serve all Member States well. The Presidency and the Council remain committed to work intensively with our partners, both to address urgent short term measures, as well as to advance to work on a systemic solution in line with the roadmap on migration and asylum that combines responsibility and solidarity, as a number of you have recalled here today. This requires a positive political environment, which will allow our institutions to move forward together.

President. – That concludes the debate.


Written statements (Rule 171)



Milan Brglez (S&D),
pisno. – Vse od leta 2015 dosledno opozarjam na nujnost evropske rešitve na področju azila ter migracij. Sedem let od vrhunca begunske in migrantske krize v Evropi smo žal še vedno priča političnim blokadam rešitev, ki bi zagotovile resnično solidarnost med državami pri upravljanju z migracijami namesto ohranjanja mejnih nadzorov na notranjih mejah schengenskega prostora, medsebojnega obtoževanja ter prelaganja bremen med najbolj obremenjenimi državami članicami, še posebej na južni in jugovzhodni zunanji meji EU.
Pomanjkanje politične volje koristi zgolj organiziranemu kriminalu, ki se okorišča s tihotapljenjem ter preprodajanjem ljudi v nadaljnjo verigo zlorab na evropskem kontinentu. Nedopustno je, da si države članice zatiskajo oči pred tovrstnimi zlorabami in še naprej dopuščajo, da ljudje umirajo na pragu EU ter pri nezakonitem prestopanju državnih meja, ker jih v to sili odsotnost urejenih migracijskih poti.
Evropska in nacionalna politika nosi soodgovornost za številna prezgodaj izgubljena življenja, kakor je ta teden tragično preminula enaindvajsetletna Nepalka, ki je onemogla na Primorskem.
Pozdravljam akcijski načrt Evropske komisije za upravljanje migracij na območju osrednjega Sredozemlja, vendar pa ta ne more nadomestiti reforme dublinskega sistema EU, ki bi zagotovila bolj solidarno porazdelitev bremen ter kolektivno odgovornost držav članic, evropskih institucij ter pristojnih agencij za dosledno spoštovanje vseh človekovih pravic.

Λουκάς Φουρλάς (PPE),
γραπτώς. – Η συμμαχία των προθύμων δεν γίνεται να δίνει λύσει προσωρινά στο ευρωπαϊκό αδιέξοδο. Στη χώρα μου, την Κύπρο, αυτή τη στιγμή 6,5% του πληθυσμού είναι αιτητές ασύλου. Δεν μιλάμε για πολιτικούς πρόσφυγες. Πολλές φορές, μιλάμε για παράνομους μετανάστες οι οποίοι εισβάλλουν ανεξέλεγκτα στις ελεύθερές περιοχές από τα κατεχόμενα. Η ΕΕ δεν μπορεί να ακούει απλά και να επεξεργάζεται λύσεις. Με έναν ευρωπαϊκό πληθυσμό να βράζει, μια ολιστική προσέγγιση είναι αναγκαία για την αντιμετώπιση του προβλήματος.

Janina Ochojska (PPE),
na piśmie. – Jako obywatele Unii Europejskiej jesteśmy zobowiązani do przestrzegania zasady humanitaryzmu i praw człowieka wobec osób poszukujących bezpieczeństwa na terenie Europy – ofiar konfliktów zbrojnych, prześladowań, przemocy, ubóstwa i zmian klimatycznych. W Parlamencie Europejskim pracujemy nad stworzeniem sprawiedliwszej europejskiej polityki azylowej, opartej na solidarności i dzieleniu się odpowiedzialnością. Państwa członkowskie, będąc sygnatariuszami Konwencji Genewskiej, Europejskiej Konwencji Praw Człowieka, Europejskiej Karty Praw Podstawowych, Konwencji o prawie morza oraz innych instrumentów ochrony praw człowieka, są zobowiązane do udzielenia pomocy osobom w niebezpieczeństwie, do ratowania życia, prowadzenia akcji poszukiwawczych i ratunkowych oraz do przestrzegania zasady zakazu stosowania push-backów wobec osób składających wniosek o ochronę międzynarodową, a także do indywidualnego rozpatrzenia każdego wniosku. Niestety Morze Śródziemne, a szczególnie szlak z Libii do Europy nadal pozostaje szlakiem migracyjnym z największą na świecie liczbą ofiar śmiertelnych, a masowe push-backi to dramat tysięcy uchodźców na morskich i lądowych granicach UE. Państwa członkowskie nie ponoszą żadnych konsekwencji łamania praw człowieka mimo tego, że przepisy wymagają od nich wypełniania zobowiązań w zakresie ochrony życia osób, które znalazły się w ich jurysdykcji. Jednocześnie, w przypadku uchodźców z Ukrainy, widzimy, że Unia Europejska potrafi działać solidarnie, koordynować pomoc, dzielić się odpowiedzialnością i właśnie w tym kierunku powinna zmierzać wspólna europejska polityka migracyjna.

Christian Sagartz (PPE),
schriftlich. – Die momentane Asylkrise lässt niemanden kalt. Insgesamt wurden heuer über 280.000 Personen in Europa aufgegriffen. Davon zwei Drittel der Personen in Österreich, die meisten davon im Burgenland. Man kann sich daher vorstellen, welcher Druck hier auf der Bevölkerung lastet. Unfälle in Grenzgemeinden als Resultat von wilden Verfolgungsjagden der Polizei und der Schlepper stehen mittlerweile auf der Tagesordnung. Es kam auch schon zu Schießereien. Soldaten und Polizisten riskieren im Einsatz an der Grenze ihr Leben, und das mitten in Europa. Flüchtlinge sterben beim Versuch, nach Österreich zu kommen. Ich möchte nur an das Jahr 2015 erinnern, wo über 70 Menschen in einem LKW in Parndorf entdeckt wurden. Erst letztes Jahr starben wieder 2 unter ähnlichen Umständen in Siegendorf. Und fasst man die Schlepper, kommt es zum kaltblütigen Mord im Ausland bevor der Gerichtstermin überhaupt startet. Kein Wunder, dass mittlerweile viele Einwohner im Burgenland Angst haben, alleine das Haus zu verlassen und am Feldweg spazieren zu gehen. Hier müssen wir endlich tätig werden. Das geht nur durch einen lückenlosen Schutz der EU-Außengrenzen und Hilfe vor Ort. So schaffen wir die Grundlage für Perspektiven in den Ausreiseländern.

Alfred Sant (S&D),
in writing. – The root difficulty in implementing a viable policy on asylum and migration is that we proclaim the values of human rights and solidarity, while not delivering the crucial elements that would make them operational and fair to Member States where irregular migration occurs. There has been little progress on relocation and in the fight against people smuggling. This week's EU action plan for the Central Mediterranean by the Commission illustrates the problem: it has nothing ‘new’ to say about relocation and even less about people smugglers who thrive. Yet the document says a lot about search and rescue, admittedly an important topic. However, it must be pointed out that S&R operations, organised by largely unsupervised and unregulated NGOs, are increasingly being perceived by electorates in border countries as a pull factor for irregular migration and as allies of people smugglers. Such views cannot just be brushed aside until majorities emerge in favour of ‘populist’ policies. Voters have noted that rightly, there were no relocation problems with regard to refugees and immigrants from the Ukraine. Until a real relocation policy is in place, those who stay on the side-lines have little right to throw stones at governments of border states which are left alone to handle dangerous and delicate crises.

(The sitting was suspended at 11.48)


PRESIDENZA: ROBERTA METSOLA


President

3.   Resumption of the sitting

(The sitting resumed at 12.01)

4.   Voting time

President. – The next item is the vote.

(For the results and other details on the vote: see Minutes)

4.1.   Draft amending budget 5/2022: Additional measures to address the consequences of the Russian war in Ukraine - Union Civil Protection Mechanism reinforcement - Reduction in payment appropriations and update of revenues - Other adjustments and technical updates (A9-0280/2022 - Karlo Ressler, Damian Boeselager) (vote)
4.2.   2023 budgetary procedure: joint text (A9-0278/2022 - Nicolae Ștefănuță, Niclas Herbst) (vote)

— After the vote:


Mikuláš Bek,
President-in-Office of the Council. – Madam President, there was some debate whether it is appropriate for me to step in, but well, I congratulate you for concluding your vote on the budget of the European Union for the financial year 2023. I note with satisfaction that the European Parliament confirmed the agreement reached at the Conciliation Committee meeting on 14 November.
I take this opportunity to thank once again the Chair of the Committee on Budgets, Johan Van Overtveldt, and the rapporteurs Nicolae Ștefănuță and Niclas Herbst, as well as all other Members of the European Parliament who participated in the budgetary procedure for their constructive approach.

President. – Thank you very much, Minister Bek.
The joint text agreed by the Conciliation Committee on 14 November 2022 has now been approved by both Parliament and the Council. The budgetary procedure for the financial year 2023 can thus be deemed to have been completed. The Union's general budget for the financial year 2023 is definitively adopted and we will now sign the budget, as happens every year.

(The President of Parliament signed the general budget of the European Union for the financial year 2023.)

4.3.   System of own resources of the European Union (A9-0266/2022 - Valérie Hayer, José Manuel Fernandes) (vote)
4.4.   Recognising the Russian Federation as a state sponsor of terrorism (RC-B9-0482/2022, B9-0482/2022, B9-0483/2022, B9-0485/2022, B9-0486/2022, B9-0487/2022) (vote)
4.5.   New EU strategy for enlargement (Rule 118) (A9-0251/2022 - Tonino Picula) (vote)
4.6.   Situation in Libya (Rule 118) (A9-0252/2022 - Giuliano Pisapia) (vote)
4.7.   Promoting regional stability and security in the broader Middle East region (A9-0256/2022 - Manu Pineda) (vote)
4.8.   Prevention, management and better care of diabetes in the EU on the occasion of World Diabetes Day (B9-0492/2022) (vote)

President. – That concludes the vote.

(The sitting was suspended for a few moments)


VORSITZ: EVELYN REGNER


Vizepräsidentin

5.   Resumption of the sitting

(Die Sitzung wird um 12.33 Uhr wieder aufgenommen)

6.   Approval of the minutes of the previous sitting

Die Präsidentin. – Das Protokoll der gestrigen Sitzung und die angenommenen Texte sind verfügbar. Gibt es Einwände? Das sehe ich nicht. Damit ist das Protokoll genehmigt.
7.   A truly interconnected Energy Single Market to keep bills down and companies competitive (topical debate)

Die Präsidentin. – Als nächster Punkt der Tagesordnung folgt die Aussprache über ein aktuelles Thema (Artikel 162 GO) – Ein wirklich verflochtener Energiebinnenmarkt, damit die Preise niedrig und die Unternehmen wettbewerbsfähig bleiben (2022/2961(RSP)).
Ich weise die Mitglieder darauf hin, dass es bei dieser Aussprache keine spontanen Wortmeldungen gibt und dass keine blauen Karten akzeptiert werden.

Maria da Graça Carvalho,
author. – Madam President, dear Commissioner, dear colleagues, we are discussing here the status of energy and the solutions for the energy crisis. For the EPP, a strong internal energy market is one of the solutions. We need to complete our interconnections inside the EU and the links between the EU and neighbouring countries.
We really need to look at the interconnections – gas and electricity – that connect the Iberian Peninsula and France, but also the South and East of Europe. We need the floating storage regasification unit involving Finland, Estonia and Latvia. We need a second LNG terminal in Poland. Gas infrastructure reinforcement to increase export capacity from Belgium to Germany. Additional LNG terminals in Germany. Expansion of the capacity of an LNG terminal combined with the Croatian transmission grid towards Slovenia and Hungary. Expansion of the interconnector for Greece and Bulgaria.
As you can see, it is also a question of investment. We really need to make sure that we are the proper continent to invest, and to invest in energy. Our crisis is also a crisis of energy supply, and we solve that by giving better conditions for investment, both for the private sector and also the public sector.
And we need fast-track procedures for our projects – both the interconnections, but also the renewable projects. We cannot afford it to take years still to have all the licences for projects to start. That is something that is of utmost importance: to have a speedy way for our projects to start, so investment and the directives and the regulations in place that will allow a speedy start for our projects.
Second point: if we want a hydrogen society, and I think we all do, as an important vector for Europe, we really need to have a plan: a plan for infrastructure, for the production of the clean energy, for the transmission, for the transport of this hydrogen, for the delivery of the hydrogen, and all that to cover Europe. It cannot be concentrated only in some regions in the centre of Europe. We need to have coverage for all the regions of Europe.
And again, we need a plan. We need the investment plan. We need a calendar. Also for mobility – again to fulfil our Fit for 55 – to have supplies for mobility and hydrogen for our mobility between 60 kilometres and 150 kilometres. It is the case for mobility and for hydrogen. We really need the huge investment that we need to plan. So we need to have all these conditions for the private sector and the public sector, and to start immediately.
On the question of the energy market, we are of the opinion in the EPP that we should intervene as little as possible in the market. We should allow the market to work, and all the intervention should be temporary and very well justified. And we are in certain times where we probably need interference for a short time and temporarily on the market.
But having said that, we also need to have more general governance for our energy – a multilevel, multisector level that links the gas market, the electricity market, hydrogen, heating and cooling that also takes into consideration the decentralisation and the digitalisation of the energy system that is going on. We need to connect all that. But that needs to be very well studied and we need to look carefully at the consequences. We look forward to the proposal from the Commission on this topic.

Mikuláš Bek,
President-in-Office of the Council. – Madam President, honourable Members, Commissioner, let me begin by thanking the European Parliament for the interest it takes on this particular issue and for the contribution to the debate which brought the Hemicycle to adopt an important resolution in October.
As many of you know, 20 years ago the European energy market was characterised by fragmentation and monopolistic national models. Energy import, production, storage, distribution and trade was often in one hand. Monopolies charged their prices individually, and sometimes they were unjustifiably high, with direct repercussions on the whole economy.
Progressively, the EU changed its picture by unbundling monopolies and moving towards market integration. Three legislation packages were introduced, followed more recently by the Clean Energy Package. Greater integration of the gas and electricity markets produced important benefits in terms of prices and increased security of supply.
This year, another factor added complexity to the challenges of setting up an integrated market, respecting the environmental commitments of the Union: Russia's war of aggression against Ukraine and its dramatic impact on energy markets. The surge in energy prices jeopardised the EU's economic development already at risk because of the COVID-19 pandemic, with severe repercussions for the most vulnerable components of our societies.
The EU and its Member States reacted to this new situation by seeking solutions to address the current crisis, while at the same time advancing the integration of our energy sectors in the long run. This has been a major objective for the Council – one that we share with the Commission and the European Parliament.
A platform for joint purchases has been set up to buy energy from EU trusted partners, and measures to contain energy demand and enhance energy efficiency in consumption were introduced. To act swiftly and effectively, the Czech Presidency has already convened three extraordinary Energy Councils in addition to the regular one in October.
Tomorrow, during the fourth extraordinary Energy Council, the Ministers should agree on legislation that will make the energy platform operational, strengthen solidarity among Member States in the field of energy, tame price volatility and speed up deployment of renewables. We are also planning to start discussing the most recent proposal on the market correction mechanism that has been delivered by the Commission on request from the October European Council.
So far, the EU has proved to be able to act swiftly and with a common political vision. However, much remains to be done. As we can read in the latest ACER report, national authorities need to fully transpose the Electricity Directive, defining proper national legal frameworks for new and small players.
We also need to act to harmonise the features of the capacity mechanisms and speed up the rollout of smart meters and, lastly, to design new measures for further energy policy integration. Let me recall the 2020 EU strategy for energy system integration to optimise and modernise the EU's energy system as a whole. This strategy links the various energy sectors and carriers for electricity, heat, cold, gas, and solid and liquid fuels with each other and with the end-use sectors, reducing inefficiencies to achieve an optimal use of energy.
The crucial moment in this effort will be the proposal to reform the electricity market design announced by the Commission for the beginning of next year.
Let me conclude by saying that, in spite of the current crisis, the EU needs to keep a long-term vision for developing offshore renewable energy, hydrogen, carbon capture and storage, energy research and development. These are key areas to ensure the long-lasting prosperity and development of our societies and respect for the environment.
Thank you very much for your attention.

Kadri Simson,
Member of the Commission. – Madam President, honourable Members, thank you for inviting me to today's debate.
Just yesterday, the Commission adopted the emergency temporary intervention proposal. The best way to explain why we need such a proposal is to offer a very frank assessment of where we are in this energy crisis.
We are now many months since Russia has begun using energy supplies as a weapon. Our effort of disengaging from Russia as our main gas supplier has worked better than we expected. We have replaced entirely the gas no longer delivered from Russia with LNG or additional pipeline gas from reliable sources. Diversification, demand reduction, a common storage policy and our REPowerEU actions are making a difference.
We are in a broadly adequate security of supply situation for this Winter. But this is coming at a cost. Prices remain high. Yesterday's proposal therefore is an intervention to protect the EU markets against significant price spikes.
Several Member States in the Energy Council called on us to present a legal proposal on a price correction mechanism as swiftly as possible. Yesterday, that proposal came to life. We turned the elements we set out in Article 23 of the October proposal into a self-standing legal initiative.
The proposed market correction mechanism combines static and dynamic elements: we set a maximum upper ceiling to the value of the month-ahead TTF, that we propose to set at EUR 275, and we set a minimum divergence of the TTF prices from the LNG prices in Europe at EUR 58. Both thresholds need to be met for a certain period of time.
I believe the trigger levels we propose are high enough to minimise risks, and they are consistent with our intention to have an instrument that deters episodes of very high price spikes.
But, of course, many argue that we are creating an instrument outside the classic market economy toolbox. We have always recognised the risks this entails, and their importance. That's why in the proposal we follow closely all the safeguards that we have listed in our October proposal and are repeated in the European Council conclusions. Gas demand reduction across the Union is an integral part of our approach to reduce risks.
Moving on, I would also like to touch on permitting today. As you know, the Commission has also been working to address the short-term bottlenecks of the energy transition and to speed up the permitting process.
On 9 November the Commission adopted a regulation to accelerate the deployment of renewable energy. The proposal simply includes the least controversial parts of the REPowerEU that can lead to a meaningful acceleration of renewable power generation. This regulation is therefore aimed to act as a bridge until the Renewable Energy Directive is agreed by the co-legislators and implemented in the national legal systems.
Forward-looking proposals such as these on permitting and market correction must be matched by other efforts to create safe, secure infrastructure across the EU.
A decade into implementing our European infrastructure policy, Member States' energy grids are now better interconnected thanks to projects of common interest in gas and electricity.
In electricity, key interconnectors ended Member states' isolation, strengthening their grids and allowing for the expected scale-up in offshore and onshore renewables.
In the South-West of Europe, the Biscay Bay project will connect the Iberia Peninsula and France.
In the Northern Seas region, the Celtic Interconnector will provide a first connection between Ireland with the rest of the EU. The North Sea Wind Power Hub will help develop hybrid offshore wind capacity and related offshore and onshore infrastructure.
In the Baltic Sea region, the commissioning of electricity interconnections between the Baltic Region and its European neighbours and in particular Finland, Sweden and Poland has already allowed ending the isolation of the Baltic region and the coupling of the Baltic and Nordic electricity markets. The synchronisation of the electricity grids of Baltic States, with financing of over EUR 1.2 billion from the EU remains the priority.
Let us also not forget the interconnectors between Malta and Italy and the EuroAsia interconnector which links Cyprus with the rest of Europe. These are all important projects that will enhance the security of supply.
In gas, only this year, key diversification projects like the gas interconnection between Poland and Lithuania, the Poland-Slovakia interconnector, the Baltic Pipe between Poland and Denmark and Norway and the Greece-Bulgaria pipeline will be adding significant gas transmission capacity.
All these projects combined simply mean that we are better prepared for any possible disruption, and Member States can rely on each other to enhance the security of supply.
Honourable Members, this is the broad overview from my side. I am looking forward to the debate.

Andreas Schwab,
im Namen der PPE-Fraktion. – Frau Präsidentin, Frau Kommissarin, liebe Kolleginnen und Kollegen! Wir haben heute das Thema eines einheitlichen Energiebinnenmarkts auf die Tagesordnung gebracht, weil wir glauben, dass das, was wir bisher haben, nicht ausreicht, um unsere Mitgliedstaaten gemeinsam stärker, resilienter für Herausforderungen zu machen, wie wir sie in den vergangenen Monaten gesehen haben.
Das bedeutet: Das, was wir in den 90er Jahren in Europa begonnen haben, was wir Energiebinnenmarkt genannt haben, ist de facto ein unvollständiger Binnenmarkt, denn es bleiben eben die Mitgliedstaaten dafür zuständig, grenzüberschreitende Interkonnektoren zu bauen. Auch wenn sie notwendig sind, können Mitgliedstaaten bestimmte Verbindungen nicht bauen; auch wenn die Europäische Kommission bis zu 70 % Zuschüsse gibt für derartige für das Gesamtsystem wichtige Verbindungen, können Mitgliedstaaten sich entscheiden, nicht zu bauen. Und das kann auf Dauer nicht gut gehen, und deswegen brauchen wir mehr Vollgas im Binnenmarkt, wir brauchen mehr Druck, dass wir tatsächlich das Gesamte in den Mittelpunkt stellen und nicht die Individualinteressen.
Das zweite Argument: Ich glaube – und es ist ja schon deutlich geworden, Frau Kommissarin, da brauchen wir auch von Ihrer Seite mehr Leadership –, ein europäischer Energiebinnenmarkt kann in den nächsten zehn Jahren bis zu 300 Milliarden Euro sparen, weil wir eben auf Synergieeffekte zwischen den Mitgliedstaaten setzen. Darauf wird es ankommen, weil wir, wenn wir nicht handeln bei den Mitgliedstaaten, dringend mehr europäische Initiative von der Europäischen Kommission brauchen.
Das ist nicht ganz einfach. Aber wenn wir es gemeinsam versuchen, dann, glaube ich, haben wir auch eine Chance. Deswegen freue ich mich, dass wir darüber heute sprechen können.

Dan Nica,
în numele grupului S&D. – Doamnă președintă, Doamnă comisară, domnule ministru, scopul acestei comunicări a Comisiei ar trebui să fie unul foarte clar, și anume să țină facturile pentru cetățenii europeni la un nivel acceptabil, suportabil și firmele din Uniunea Europeană să poată să traverseze iarna asta și să producă ceva.
Măsura principală care este plasa de siguranță sau declanșarea mecanismului de siguranță se face doar dacă prețurile TTF pentru două săptămâni vor avea o creștere mai mare de 275 de euro și, deci cumulativ, dacă prețul LNG pe 10 zile față de prețul de referință are o creștere mai mare de 58 de euro.
Doamnă comisară, ori cei care fac speculații au scris această chestiune, idee, ori e o greșeală de dactilografie. Pentru că dacă e cu ‘și’ ce înțelegem: că dacă e 1000 de euro la gaze și doar 57 de euro creșterea în lege rămâne așa, nu avem plasă de siguranță. Probabil că această chestiune trebuie să o luați ca fiind o avertizare extrem de serioasă.
Nu pot să nu să existe măsuri de siguranță care să nu fie puse sau să poată să fie aplicate niciodată. Pe de altă parte, dacă e urgență, cine a pus 1 ianuarie? 1 decembrie e peste două săptămâni; nu începe iarna? sau poate la Bruxelles se face frig după 1 ianuarie, dar în toată Uniunea Europeană iarna începe la 1 decembrie.
Și această chestiune arată că nu vom avea și nu vom putea atinge obiectivul nostru: oamenii să aibă facturi suportabile, firmele să poată să supraviețuiască, brutarii să facă pâine.
Astăzi, când vorbim, sute și sute și mii de firme din Uniunea Europeană își închid porțile și sute de mii de oameni intră în șomaj. Acestea nu sunt măsuri de siguranță și nu sunt măsuri urgente.
Și vă cer să-i transmiteți doamnei Ursula von der Leyen că aceste măsuri de corectare trebuie luate imediat și să avem măsuri care să poată să intre în funcțiune acum, până nu este prea târziu.

Morten Petersen,
for Renew-Gruppen. – Fru formand! Energikrisen, som vi er midt i, viser med al ønskelig tydelighed, hvor stort et behov vi har for et ægte indre marked for energi, netop for at kunne reducere vores afhængighed og for at forøge vores energisikkerhed. Og Europa er jo allerede i dag måske det største forbundene marked med mere end 400 interconnectorer. Men medlemslandene har altså meget mere at gøre for at kunne nå frem til den 70 procentsmålsætning, som vi vedtog i fællesskab i sidste mandatperiode. Må jeg minde om, at vi vedtog elektricitetsmarkedsforordningen i sidste mandatperiode, hvor ambitionen var, at 70 procent af den eksisterende kapacitet skulle kunne udnyttes til at udveksle energi over grænser. Og der har vi altså lang vej at gå endnu, før vi er, hvor vi skal være. Må jeg minde om, at Det Europæiske Energiagentur, ACER, som vi også valgte at styrke i sidste mandatperiode, jo netop gerne skulle have muskler til at håndhæve denne her målsætning. Og deres rapporter viser med al ønskelig tydelighed, at medlemslandene er tilbageholdende med at åbne grænserne med hensyn til at udveksle elektricitet. Og det er skidt. Vi skal have mere håndhævelse af de regler, vi sådan set allerede har vedtaget. Ud over det åbenlyse behov, der er for at investere store summer i forhold til at få flere interconnectorer etc. Tilbage står, at vi kun kan gøre det her sammen. Vi er nødt til at hæve samarbejdet og øge samarbejdet på tværs af grænser for at få et indre marked. Vi er nødt til at have mere gang i offshore-energi, som kommissæren også siger. Vi er nødt til at få fat i det her med tilladelser, fordi det alt sammen vil give os lavere priser og større sikkerhed og dermed også integration af vedvarende energi. Det er kun om at komme i gang.

Ciarán Cuffe,
on behalf of the Verts/ALE Group. – Madam President, the energy crisis is pushing millions into energy poverty around Europe. And instead of writing blank checks to energy companies that are making billions out of this crisis, we need to help the most vulnerable. More targeted social support is needed for those who are suffering in this crisis. And on top of this, there's so much we can do to smooth out the price volatility and protect people from price shocks. Our first response during this crisis should be to increase the connectivity between the energy markets. I know it's not rocket science. You know, Commissioner, it is very challenging, though, to do this. And we need a truly interconnected energy market in Europe. And this can deliver cheaper electricity prices. It can help increase the amount of renewables on the grid. And it can increase and support better welfare for all. And that's what the experts at ACER are telling us. So in practice, this means building huge interconnectors between our national energy grids and increasing cross-border energy trade. And in 2021, this trade delivered EUR 34 billion in benefits. So with more interconnectors, we could see solar energy from Spain powering the energy grid in Ireland. We could see wind energy from Ireland powering homes in France. We can see geothermal energy from Central Europe helping everyone in the entire European Union. So an integrated union increases competition between providers. It lowers energy bills and allow us and allows us to transition to a renewables based economy. It smoothens out the price volatility and leaves us less vulnerable to price shocks. So we need a truly integrated energy union to protect consumers and the vulnerable.

Gerolf Annemans,
namens de ID-Fractie. – Voorzitter, als het niet zo ernstig was, dan zou ik het belachelijk kunnen noemen: de manier waarop u hier, dames en heren van de politiek correcte meerderheid in het Europees Parlement, bij iedere crisis allemaal collectief op het toneel springt om te roepen dat de enige oplossing voor de crisis meer macht voor de Europese Unie is. We zien dit nu in feite al sinds het begin van de eeuw. Hebben we een bankencrisis of financiële crisis? Hopla, de Capital Market Union. Hebben we een migratiecrisis? Hopla, het migratiepact met de open grenzen van de Europese Unie. Hebben we een coronacrisis? Hopla, een eengemaakte bevoegdheid voor volksgezondheid.
Zelfs de verdragen en de afspraken tellen niet meer. En altijd maar meer en meer. Nooit eens minder. Nooit een terugkeer van macht naar de lidstaten. Het is in uw hoofden een religieus dogma geworden. Zelfs vandaag, bij een energieprijzencrisis die u grotendeels door groene dogma's en naïviteit inzake Rusland zelf hebt veroorzaakt, moet die crisis dienen voor de truly interconnected Energy Single Market. Ik zeg het nog eens: als uw machtshonger niet zo dramatisch was voor de vrijheid van onze lidstaten en het welzijn van onze burgers, zouden we die belachelijk noemen. Stop daarmee.

Zdzisław Krasnodębski,
w imieniu grupy ECR. – Pani Przewodnicząca! Wszyscy się zgadzamy, że połączenia wzajemne na rynku energii przyczyniają się z założenia do większego bezpieczeństwa, niższych cen i mniejszych emisji. Długo pracowaliśmy też z panią komisarz nad TEN-E, wytycznymi dotyczącymi transgranicznych sieci energetycznych, więc jako sprawozdawca tego projektu w Parlamencie z pewnością nie będę przeczył, że ten cel jest niezwykle ważny.
Niemniej jednak dopiero dzisiaj, w sytuacji głębokiego kryzysu, którego nie przewidywała żadna europejska strategia, widać, jak ważna jest również samowystarczalność poszczególnych państw. Jest oczywiste, że w sytuacjach kryzysowych każdy operator sieci będzie przede wszystkim dbał o bezpieczeństwo odbiorców krajowych. I musimy się pogodzić z rzeczywistością, realizm nakazuje, żebyśmy to uznawali.
W związku z tym, w obliczu kryzysu energetycznego musimy sobie zdawać sprawę, że dotychczasowe priorytety unijnej polityki energetycznej są w dużej mierze nieadekwatne. Będziemy musieli się zmierzyć z sytuacją niedoboru i wysokich cen przez dłuższy okres czasu. No i są bardzo negatywne przykłady polityki, np. Francja, która ufając zintegrowanemu rynkowi, ostatnio z eksportera stała się importerem energii elektrycznej.
Ale chciałbym powiedzieć jeszcze o jednej rzeczy. Otóż jednolity rynek to przede wszystkim wspólne reguły i pewne zasady równego traktowania wewnątrz Unii, czego strażnikiem ma być Komisja. Jednak wczorajsza propozycja w sprawie pułapu cenowego na rynku gazu, to sytuacja, w której jesteśmy kolejny raz świadkiem decyzji wymuszanej przez najsilniejsze państwo członkowskie, wbrew ukonstytuowanej w Radzie większości państw, domagającej się od Komisji ograniczenia spekulacji i windowania cen w warunkach prowadzonej w Europie wojny. I myślę, że ta wczorajsza decyzja naprawdę spowodowała wielkie oburzenie i zaniepokojenie wśród naszych obywateli, ale też w think tankach.

Marina Mesure,
au nom du groupe The Left. – Madame la Présidente, chers collègues, ce matin, j'entendais à la radio qu'Enedis, le gestionnaire de réseau électrique français, se prépare à des délestages. Autrement dit, nous devrions faire face cet hiver à des coupures d'électricité, faute d'avoir assez d'énergie pour répondre à la demande. Ainsi, en cas de grand froid, le chauffage des foyers et l'alimentation électrique des entreprises devraient être interrompus. Ce sont aussi nos services publics, comme les écoles et les centres de soins, qui pourraient être privés d'électricité. Ce constat est dramatique et le fait de mauvais choix politiques.
Alors oui, il est évident qu'une meilleure connexion entre les réseaux électriques européens permettra de mieux faire face à la crise énergétique. C'est le principe même de la solidarité européenne dont nous avons besoin. Néanmoins, encore faut-il avoir les capacités d'alimenter ces réseaux, car la libéralisation du secteur de l'énergie a entravé les investissements nécessaires dans notre capacité de production électrique. Il y a donc urgence à sortir du marché européen de l'énergie et à retrouver le contrôle de nos production et distribution énergétiques afin de protéger les ménages, les collectivités et les entreprises européennes de la pénurie comme de la flambée des prix.
Madame la Présidente, seule la sortie de ce marché nous permettra une planification à long terme du secteur de l'énergie pour assurer une sécurité d'approvisionnement, des tarifs régulés et notre pleine souveraineté énergétique.

Viktor Uspaskich (NI). – Gerbiama pirmininkaujanti, gerbiami kolegos, prieš neeilinį energetikos vadovų susitikimą, noriu atkreipti kolegų dėmesį. Mes smarkiai vėluojame. Jau neseniai atšventėme septyniasdešimt metų Europos Sąjungos parlamentarizmo. Todėl tema šitą nėra nauja, nes dar dvidešimtais metais aš teikiau rezoliuciją anksčiau, iš nacionalinės tribūnos ir taip toliau. Mes turim kuo skubiau padaryti, kad būtų vieninga Europos Sąjungos energetinė sistema. Nesvarbu, iš kokių šaltinių tai būtų. Pirma, tai užtikrintų energetinį saugumą, nepriklausomybę ir atsparumą nuo įtakos. Antra, ženkliai sumažintų kainas. Skaičiavimai rodo, kad jeigu sujungti tik elektros tinklus į vieną sistemą, Europos Sąjunga sutaupytų per metus 40 milijardų eurų. Prie dabartinių kainų būtų dar daugiau. Trečia, reikia paspartinti leidimų išdavimą energetikos projektams iš atsinaujinančių šaltinių ir prisijungimą prie tinklų, supaprastinti procedūras bei sumažinti biurokratines kliūtis. Raginu Komisiją, vadovus ir visą Parlamentą užtikrinti centralizuotą, net, galima pasakyti, įvesti išskirtinę federalinę tvarką, kontrolę šiuo klausimu pasiekti ir negailėti tam pinigų.

Jerzy Buzek (PPE). – Pani Przewodnicząca! Pani Komisarz! Dokładnie dziesięć lat temu Komisja Europejska przedstawiła komunikat w sprawie uruchomienia wewnętrznego rynku energii. Byłem wtedy sprawozdawcą w tej sprawie. Sprawozdanie przyjęliśmy ogromną większością. Wezwaliśmy kraje Unii do pilnego wdrożenia rynku, również poprzez inwestycje w infrastrukturę, zwłaszcza połączenia transgraniczne dla gazu, np. połączenia zwrotne, których wcześniej nie było. Dziś, dekadę później, mamy największy w historii kryzys energetyczny wywołany rosyjską wojną i spadek dostaw z tego kierunku z 40 do dziewięciu procent. Mimo to mamy pełne magazyny gazu w Unii Europejskiej. Gdyby jeszcze nie to, że brak nam połączeń transgranicznych, np. Hiszpania, Francja, nasi obywatele mogliby być jeszcze bezpieczniejsi, bo ci wrażliwi odbiorcy są bardzo zabezpieczeni w Unii.
Wnioski na przyszłość – w kontekście moich obecnych prac nad rozszerzeniem unijnego rynku energii na zielone gazy, a także wodór. Po pierwsze bezpieczeństwo dostaw i dywersyfikacja są kluczowe. Bez tego załamują się ceny. Konieczny jest więc wiążący cel dywersyfikacji dostaw energii z państw trzecich. I drugi wniosek, nie będzie dywersyfikacji bez infrastruktury. Ważne jest zatem zdefiniowanie tu jasnych celów, by uchronić główne korytarze wodorowe i uruchomić je w Unii Europejskiej, określone w planie REPowerEU. Bez takich korytarzy nie będzie rozwoju nowego pola energetycznego i bezpieczeństwa energetycznego w Europie.

Pedro Marques (S&D). – Madam President, Commissioner, Members of the Council, let me start by thanking EPP colleagues for raising this important point. It has got the attention from the Parliament for months now, demanding concrete action. And also let me also kindly thank EPP for the free publicity for our S&D ‘Bring the Bills Down’ plan. By the way, since we are talking about it, you could even consult bringthebillsdown.eu, which is the website of our campaign with our proposals – I would say Commissioner-friendly, it could even inspire you, I hope. And Commissioner, I say so because we are waiting for concrete action for too long; concrete results are not to be seen yet. Finally, the Commission proposed a long-awaited price cap. We recognise it is a step in the right direction for the sheer fact that we have a proposal, but we need it to be fine-tuned and I would say quite a bit. Experts are telling us that the chances for this price cap proposal to be triggered anytime are almost the same of a tree being hit by a lightning bolt in the middle of the ocean. And the speculation on the TTF market is not even addressed, Commissioner. And the decoupling of gas and electricity prices is also not to be found yet. In the Iberian Peninsula, as you well know, it is already saving around 15% on electric electricity prices to consumers. What are we waiting for in the rest of Europe? Commissioner, being this a debate on keeping the bills down, I would say that the Commission is still missing a central piece of action. We need direct support to the families most affected by energy poverty. The S&D leader will present a long-awaited plan before the next Council – a proposal for a fund of EUR 100 billion to support European families for the winter. A true winter solidarity package. We can do it with the resources we have and the proceeds of a strong windfall-profits tax. We can do it. It's just fair that we do it.

Christophe Grudler (Renew). – Madame la Présidente, il y a 70 ans, la première assemblée de la CECA se tenait ici à Strasbourg, autour d'un désir commun de paix, pour unir nos forces autour de l'acier et du charbon. Car oui, sans énergie et sans industrie, une société démocratique moderne ne peut pas prospérer.
C'est historique, face à la crise, il nous faut repenser notre système énergétique, qui doit être interconnecté, intégré et décarboné. Pour cela, utilisons notre argent public européen à bon escient. Finançons de l'énergie renouvelable et non fossile, produite aux niveaux local et régional, accompagnée d'infrastructures qui nous permettront de la transporter à travers l'Europe.
J'appelle la Commission à reconsidérer son idée d'utiliser la nouvelle banque de l'hydrogène pour financer l'importation d'hydrogène. Ne sponsorisons pas la production d'hydrogène à l'autre bout du monde, concentrons nos efforts sur notre propre potentiel d'abord.

Jutta Paulus (Verts/ALE). – Frau Präsidentin, Frau Kommissarin, meine Damen und Herren! Ganz Europa spürt gerade schmerzlich, was Abhängigkeit von fossilen Importen bedeutet. Und während unsere Bürgerinnen und Bürger, unsere Industrie, unsere Handwerksbetriebe unter den hohen Preisen leiden, beklagen ausgerechnet diejenigen, die gerne alles und jedes dem Markt überlassen würden, ein Marktversagen. Dabei folgt der Markt genau den Modellen. Er bildet nämlich Knappheiten ab, und zwar unerbittlich.
Ich bin durchaus der Ansicht, dass wir das Marktdesign ändern müssen. Wir brauchen eine viel stärkere Verknüpfung aller Arten der Energienutzung: Strom, Wärme, Mobilität; es muss bessere Anreize geben für Sektorkopplung und für Speicher; und es braucht eine einheitlichere Bepreisung der Netze in den Mitgliedstaaten.
Die aktuelle Studie der Netzbetreiber zeigt ganz deutlich, dass die Netzentgelte so unterschiedlich sind, dass von einem echten Binnenmarkt im Strombereich keine Rede sein kann. Und es ist absurd, wenn die Stromkunden im Exportland die Kosten tragen müssen für den Stromtransport ins Importland. Deswegen freue ich mich auf die gemeinsame Arbeit an einem neuen Marktdesign.

Isabella Tovaglieri (ID). – Signora Presidente, signora Commissaria, onorevoli colleghi, è finito il tempo in cui l'Europa poteva sbandierare unità e solidarietà senza doverlo dimostrare nei fatti. Oggi la crisi energetica, vero banco di prova per l'Unione europea, richiede iniziative concrete e condivise, che però tardano ad arrivare, lasciando invece spazio a divisioni ed egoismi, che ci fanno perdere la faccia sul piano internazionale e che minano i capisaldi del mercato unico.
Bruxelles non può consentire che la Germania falsi la competizione interna e globale con uno scudo di 200 miliardi contro il caro bollette. Tutta la manifattura europea deve essere salvata perché è la sola che potrà portarci fuori da questa crisi, ripagando con gli interessi il sostegno economico delle istituzioni europee.
L'Europa non può fare piccole guerre di bottega di fronte a un crocevia della storia. Abbiamo competitor che scommettono sulle nostre divisioni e sulle nostre debolezze e per questo dobbiamo dimostrarci più forti e più grandi per dare un segnale al mondo che l'Europa è pronta a raccogliere le sfide di questo tempo.

Alexandr Vondra (ECR). – Paní předsedající, dámy a pánové, ano, zaznělo tu mnoho dobrého. České předsednictví ve dne v noci pracuje, už třetí mimořádná energetická rada tak, aby tady byl alespoň nějaký krátký relief. Dobře, Evropská komise podporuje interkonektory, ale ten hlavní problém je cena plynu teď a tady. A jasně, ano, přišli jste se stropem, konečně, když po tom voláme už celé měsíce. Ale ten strop je stále ještě pět a půl krát vyšší, než byla cena před dvěma lety, a pětkrát vyšší než je dnešní cena ve Spojených státech. Čili řešení jsou dlouhodobé kontrakty na plyn, které ovšem některé státy bohužel odmítají, protože nechtějí levnou cenu plynu. Prostě s Amerikou, s Katarem, s Ázerbájdžánem, ne samozřejmě s Ruskem. To by bylo řešení, protože investoři budou mít jistotu v danou chvíli. Čína uzavřela na 27 let kontrakt s Katarem, tak proč my neděláme totéž? Když to neuděláme, tak se ty velké energeticky náročné firmy všechny odstěhují do Číny nebo do Ameriky. A to přeci nechceme.

Sabrina Pignedoli (NI). – Signora Presidente, onorevoli colleghi, nel mese di settembre il prezzo medio del gas americano venduto in Europa era di 57,8 dollari, negli Stati Uniti di appena 8 dollari.
Le imprese europee pagano il prezzo dell'energia fino a sette volte in più dei loro diretti competitor americani e asiatici. Che cosa stanno facendo in concreto le istituzioni europee per difendere le nostre imprese e la nostra economia? Niente.
Dopo mesi di discussioni infinite, vertici, tavoli di lavoro sul tetto al prezzo del gas, sull'Energy Recovery Fund, sul decoupling del mercato energetico, sugli acquisti comuni per lo stoccaggio europeo, sulla tassa sugli extraprofitti delle compagnie energetiche, bene, dopo mesi di discussione non è stato fatto nulla.
Per il Movimento 5 Stelle bisogna seguire due strade: un tetto al prezzo del gas che sia reale e non fittizio, come quello proposto dalla Commissione, e investimenti massicci nelle energie pulite e rinnovabili. Grazie al sole e al vento le nostre aziende, le nostre famiglie possono pagare meno l'energia. Facciamolo.

Seán Kelly (PPE). – Madam President, the crisis we find ourselves in is mainly driven by our overreliance on imported fossil fuels and exacerbated by the terrible situation in Ukraine caused by the terrorist state of Russia. I believe our upcoming work on market design should focus on targeted improvements as opposed to widespread changes. We can provide investor certainty and protect consumers by incentivising long-term contracts such as contracts for difference and power purchase agreements. This both removes the risk for investments and also protects consumers from price hikes. We should ensure that markets incentivise the development and roll out of energy storage technologies and green hydrogen to provide the backup to the system currently provided by fossil fuels. Targeted measures to support the growing number of vulnerable consumers is absolutely vital, and these will grow in number – and next winter, because next winter is probably going to be much worse than this winter. In the meantime, I welcome what Commissioner Simson made reference to – the development of interconnectors. I welcome the construction of the Celtic interconnector between Ireland and France. Interconnectors like these across the EU will shield us from crises in the future and make renewable energy more reliable and cheaper for consumers. In the meantime, we must act now to help those vulnerable consumers.

Elisabetta Gualmini (S&D). – Signora Presidente, signora Commissaria, onorevoli colleghi, il dramma di oggi sono i costi dell'energia e l'inflazione.
Mi spiace, ma la Commissione europea ci prende in giro mettendo un tetto al prezzo del gas di 275 euro per megawattora che non si è mai visto, mai, neanche nei momenti peggiori. Abbiamo ritrovato l'anima dell'Europa con NextGenerationEU e ora la stiamo perdendo con misure tardive e del tutto illusorie. Serve uno SURE 2.0, un REPowerEU molto più potente.
D'altro canto, anche i governi nazionali deludono, vedi la destra italiana che non ha fatto nulla per le bollette se non copiare e incollare le misure del governo Draghi e, più che una manovra, ha pensato di inaugurare una guerra tra poveri, abolire il reddito di cittadinanza perché la povertà è una colpa e, come nell'Inghilterra vittoriana, chi non lavora non deve mangiare e chi se ne frega.
È la destra che fa bonus e taglia le accise invisibili, che pensa di aumentare il contante fino a 5 000 euro e appiattisce le tasse a favore di chi sta meglio. La destra che spende moltissimo per le pensioni e zero per i giovani, forte con i deboli e debole con i forti, la nuova ricetta, ma noi non staremo certo zitti.

Nicola Danti (Renew). – Signora Presidente, signora Commissaria Simson, onorevoli colleghi, dopo mesi e mesi di richieste, ieri la Commissione ha finalmente proposto il meccanismo di correzione del mercato del gas, ma quello sforzo straordinario a cui gli Stati europei erano chiamati, come molte volte Mario Draghi aveva ribadito, non sembra essere stato tradotto in pratica. Che la proposta sarebbe arrivata fuori tempo massimo lo sapevamo, ma che fosse così debole, quasi da essere inutile, è stata una sorpresa.
Il meccanismo, infatti, se effettivamente adottato, potrebbe essere applicabile di fatto solo a condizioni molto peggiori di quelle vissute nei mesi scorsi, e ovviamente questo non ce lo auguriamo. Attendiamo ora la discussione dei ministri dell'Energia di domani, ci auguriamo che la proposta venga modificata in maniera sostanziale, in modo che possa avere davvero un effetto deterrente sui comportamenti speculativi.
Quando l'Europa è poco coraggiosa dobbiamo dirlo e in questo caso l'Europa sono gli Stati membri; è a loro e alla Commissione, forse troppo timida, che dobbiamo chiedere conto delle mancate risposte.

Jean-Lin Lacapelle (ID). – Madame la Présidente, en septembre ici, à cette même place, j'osais alerter sur les conséquences dramatiques de la situation énergétique de l'Union européenne. Rien n'a changé. Les rationnements se multiplient, les pénuries s'installent. On maltraite nos enfants en bloquant les températures à 19 degrés dans leurs écoles. Et le Premier ministre français ne peut plus cacher que les coupures de courant auront inévitablement lieu.
Dans ce contexte, quelles solutions nous recommandez-vous? Le marché unique de l'énergie. Quelle incompétence! Car c'est précisément à cause de ce marché que l'électricité est si chère. Un marché qui harmonise les prix de l'énergie augmente les plus bas et abaisse les plus hauts. L'Union européenne n'a eu de cesse de saboter la source d'électricité la plus abordable, le nucléaire, en imposant la libéralisation de l'électricité et le démantèlement d'EDF. Sans oublier la responsabilité de Macron, qui a fermé Fessenheim et mis à l'arrêt la moitié du parc nucléaire français. Mais aussi parce que les sanctions européennes suicidaires ont fait crever le plafond des prix du fioul et du gaz.
Ce marché européen de l'énergie n'est pas une solution, mais une cause de la catastrophe. Il faut en sortir d'urgence, comme l'ont déjà fait sagement plusieurs pays européens. Je vous avais prédit que nous terminerions dans le froid et dans le noir. Cette prédiction est en train de devenir réalité. Si nous n'abandonnons pas l'idéologie à laquelle nous sacrifions nos conditions de vie élémentaires, nous allons revenir à un Moyen Âge énergétique, tous éclairés par un petit objet. Ce petit objet, ça s'appelle une bougie.

Beata Szydło (ECR). – Pani Przewodnicząca! Szanowna Pani Komisarz! Szanowni Państwo! Każda nasza decyzja, którą podejmujemy w tej Izbie, i każda decyzja, którą podejmuje Komisja Europejska, musi być uwarunkowana świadomością tego, dla kogo pracujemy i w czyim imieniu pracujemy. My reprezentujemy interesy obywateli Europy, my reprezentujemy interesy tych, którzy powierzyli nam mandat, aby w Parlamencie Europejskim i Komisji Europejskiej zajmować się ich sprawami, żebyśmy zabezpieczali interesy Europejczyków.
Dlatego każda decyzja, która jest podejmowana w tej chwili w kontekście bezpieczeństwa energetycznego, musi uwzględniać przede wszystkim interes obywateli państw członkowskich. Musimy myśleć o infrastrukturze, o dostawach źródeł energii, musimy myśleć o przyszłości. Ale dzisiaj musimy myśleć o tym, co jest najistotniejsze, o cenach gazu, o cenach energii. To jest najważniejszy priorytet i dlatego, Pani Komisarz, Szanowni Państwo, trzeba w tych decyzjach uwzględniać uwarunkowania poszczególnych państw członkowskich.

Tom Berendsen (PPE). – Voorzitter, beste commissaris, beste collega's, in een veranderende wereld zijn mensen op zoek naar zekerheid. Het is onze verantwoordelijkheid als politici om die zekerheid daar waar mogelijk te bieden. Ook op het gebied van energie is die zekerheid belangrijk. Energie is een publiek belang dat we de afgelopen jaren veel te veel aan de markt hebben overgelaten. Voor mij zijn er daarom nu drie dingen belangrijk.
Ten eerste: laten we alleen maatregelen nemen die die zekerheid ook vergroten. Een Europees prijsplafond op gasinkoop is daarom ook een slecht idee, want het brengt onze leveringszekerheid in gevaar. We zien dan ook in het voorstel van de Commissie tussen de regels door dat de Commissie daar zelf ook huiverig voor is.
Ten tweede: laten we betere Europese samenwerking zoeken bij de productie van energie en bij de inkoop. Laten we betere onderlinge verbindingen maken. En laten we ook duidelijk maken dat de eigen keuze in het ene land om bijvoorbeeld een kerncentrale te sluiten effect heeft op de energiezekerheid in een ander land. Er kan geen solidariteit zijn zonder dat ieder land ook zijn eigen verantwoordelijkheid neemt in het gemeenschappelijk belang.
En ten derde: laten we ervoor zorgen dat we niet van de ene afhankelijkheid in de andere rollen. Rusland gebruikt energie als wapen tegen ons. Laten we ervoor zorgen dat dat wapen van die afhankelijkheid nooit meer in handen komt van een ander.

Jens Geier (S&D). – Frau Präsidentin, Frau Kommissarin, Herr Minister Bek, verehrte Kolleginnen und Kollegen! Seit Russland die Energieversorgung als Waffe einsetzt, stellt sich eine Frage neu: Wie funktioniert die Energieversorgung vor allem mit Erdgas für die wenigen Jahre, bis ausreichend erneuerbare Energie zur Verfügung stehen wird?
Ja, es wird kurzfristig zusätzliche Gasinfrastruktur geben müssen, und unerledigte Aufgaben fallen uns in der EU jetzt vor die Füße. Kommissarin Simson, Sie haben auf eine Reihe neu entstandener Interkonnektoren hingewiesen, und Sie haben ganz leise hinzugefügt, dass Mitgliedstaaten jetzt die Abschottung ihrer Energiemärkte aufgeben.
Das ist gut so, und das war lange überfällig, denn jetzt sind die Aufgaben größer und drängender als der Schutz der eigenen Märkte. Die Mitgliedstaaten müssen sich gegenseitig versorgen und unterstützen können, wenn es zu Energieengpässen kommen sollte. Aber wichtig ist, dass die neue Gasinfrastruktur, die entsteht, bereit sein muss für den Transport von Wasserstoff, denn sonst werden diese Investitionen in wenigen Jahren obsolet sein. Daher sollte es nur dann öffentliche Mittel geben, wenn die neue Infrastruktur auch für Wasserstoff geeignet ist.

Claudia Gamon (Renew). – Madam President, dear Commissioner, tomorrow we will be able to observe a jubilee, because I counted and our Energy Ministers will meet for the 10th time since the start of Russia's invasion of Ukraine. In February, views were exchanged, and there was a discussion in June at some point – the energy crisis wasn't even on the agenda. At another meeting REPowerEU was welcomed, and at some point there was at least a commitment to reduce gas demand. In September and October, at multiple meetings, we again had lots of discussions and proposals.
I'm sorry, but it is bloody November and some people might even be wondering: ‘what are they actually doing for a living?’ Our citizens and our businesses demand more. They want solutions. They want actions. So obviously, I guess we all wonder what will happen tomorrow – proposing to propose another proposal by the proposing entity? At this point, I don't think we can even afford any more to have a debate about pros and cons in certain models, but the best model would probably be the one that we can agree on to finally move on, for actions that our citizens and businesses desperately need.

Angelo Ciocca (ID). – Signora Presidente, signora Commissaria, onorevoli colleghi, il titolo dell'ordine del giorno è ‘Un mercato unico dell'energia realmente interconnesso per contenere i costi delle bollette’, chi legge questo titolo legge un titolone, quasi da premio Oscar.
Però nel titolone da premio Oscar ci sono la realtà e i fatti concreti che mancano purtroppo all'istituzione europea, un'istituzione europea che non perde occasione per non essere rispettosa, per non essere seria, per non essere concreta davanti alla preoccupazione, al dramma del caro bollette delle nostre famiglie e delle nostre imprese.
Se pensiamo che in Italia ben cinque milioni di persone hanno almeno una bolletta arretrata, possiamo renderci conto di un dramma reale. Se pensiamo che la bolletta del gas media di una famiglia a ottobre, novembre e dicembre 2022 sarà il doppio rispetto all'anno precedente, possiamo capire quanto è importante che l'Europa dia risposte concrete. E purtroppo le risposte non arrivano, mentre arriva la speculazione, le risposte non arrivano neanche sul tetto del gas che, come ben sapete, è una presa in giro, sui tempi e sulle dimensioni di applicazione.
Penso davvero che, ancora una volta, l'Europa abbia perso una grande occasione di tendere la mano ai cittadini.

Geert Bourgeois (ECR). – Voorzitter, collega's, het is eigenlijk triest dat we vandaag dit debat moeten voeren. Mijn partij dringt al jaren aan op het voltooien van de interne markt, met inbegrip van de energiemarkt. Dat dit niet gebeurd is, komt tegen een heel hoge prijs. Onze bedrijven lijden eronder. De Europese Unie de-industrialiseert. Er is een exodus naar de Verenigde Staten en de EU antwoordt altijd maar met meer regels, met meer administratieve lasten, in plaats van in te zetten op groei en nog eens groei. Die kan komen van de voltooiing van de interne markt met een groei van 9 %. We zien vandaag ook de gevolgen van het ontbreken van de energiecorridors. Koortsachtig moeten terminals en pijpleidingen gebouwd worden, terwijl groene stroom al heel lang van zuid naar noord en van oost naar west had kunnen stromen. Tot slot wil ik beklemtonen dat het onaanvaardbaar is dat wij stoppen met de stabiele energievorm die kernenergie is.

Pernille Weiss (PPE). – Fru formand! Vi har opfundet så mange dybe tallerkner i EU. Også mange nye energiteknologier, som er bedre for klimaet og miljøet. Vi har bare ikke nok af dem. Af mange årsager. Alt for mange årsager. For vi roder rundt med enkeltstående projekter, der ikke hænger sammen med resten af energisektoren. Både i medlemslandene, men også på tværs af dem. Vi roder med alt for lav hastighed på godkendelse af kritisk infrastruktur, og vi roder med politiske signaler, lovgivningsmæssig ustabilitet og størrelserne af de mulige investeringsprojekter i en sådan grad, at selv europæiske investorer hellere lægger deres penge uden for EU, når det gælder grønne investeringsprojekter. Det gør helt ondt at sige det!
Så kære Kommission og Råd gør nu som min kollega, Maria Carvalho, sagde i begyndelsen af debatten: ‘Lav en plan og kom i gang!’ For hvad nytter det at have store parker af kæmpe vindmøller, anlægge grupper af energiøer, bygge store Power-to-X-anlæg osv., hvis den rene og den vedvarende energi, der kan produceres, ikke kan komme ud på markedet i hele EU via rigeligt med rørlægninger, læringsmuligheder, havne og andre transportveje? På den måde får vi jo aldrig energipriserne ned og forsyningssikkerheden op.
Det er så banalt. Altså, ryd op, sæt tempoet op og sæt i gang nu!

Nicolás González Casares (S&D). – Señora presidenta, señora comisaria, parece que el mercado único de la energía es un edificio en construcción en el que poner cada ladrillo cuesta una barbaridad. La falta de interconexiones es el mejor ejemplo y vamos muy por detrás de los objetivos marcados. Y eso hace difícil compartir los beneficios que pueden producir las renovables en términos de precio y descarbonización.
En esta crisis, por ejemplo, a España y Portugal nos ha protegido la excepción ibérica. Pero desde luego preferiríamos estar interconectados a continuar siendo una isla energética. Queremos ayudar. Por ejemplo, el acuerdo sobre el BarMar, ese gasoducto que pretende transportar hidrógeno verde de la península ibérica al resto Europa, nos parece un paso adelante.
Pero no nos olvidemos de los ciudadanos, que son los que están sufriendo los altos precios de las facturas. Creo que la propuesta de la Comisión va a ser inaplicable. No tiene la más mínima ambición, ese tope al precio del gas no es realista, no es real, y no va a servir absolutamente para nada. Por lo tanto, para este viaje no hacían falta estas alforjas, como decimos en España. Estamos esperando que esta propuesta mejore, pero no debemos seguir por este camino.

Dita Charanzová (Renew). – Madam President, I think the message from all of us here is very simple: time is running out. The last time when I spoke on this same issue here in the Chamber, my message was very simple: speed up! Since then, what we have seen is just a ping-pong – ping-pong between the Commission and the Council, without any result. The Commission is still stuck on the gas price cap. The Council has not yet agreed on the joint purchasing of gas. There are no clear rules on state aid either. Companies in one state will have a competitive advantage over others, threatening the key principle of the single market.
We need to have a European solution so that we urgently help the citizens struggling with high bills and at the same time have a fair level playing field for all companies in the European internal market.

Nicola Procaccini (ECR). – Signora Presidente, onorevoli colleghi, questo dibattito sulla crisi energetica rischia di essere uguale a tutti quelli già fatti finora e rischia di avere lo stesso risultato dei dibattiti precedenti: il nulla.
Sappiamo che se fosse stato introdotto il tetto al prezzo del gas, su cui si forma il prezzo di tutta l'energia elettrica, quando lo chiese la maggioranza degli Stati europei, ci saremmo risparmiati una sanguinosa emorragia economica per le famiglie e le imprese dell'Unione, oltre che per i 27 bilanci nazionali.
Soltanto ieri la Commissione si è degnata di prendere una posizione, proponendo un tetto assurdo a 275 euro per megawatt/ora, che scatta solo in condizioni impossibili da verificarsi, che non sarebbe entrato in vigore neppure nell'agosto scorso quando il prezzo del gas era arrivato a 350 euro. Non è un caso che gli speculatori ad Amsterdam ieri abbiano festeggiato con un rialzo improvviso.
Mi spiace dirlo, ma questa proposta della Commissione è offensiva, per quanto è stupida e irrealistica. Francamente, potevate risparmiarvela.

Hildegard Bentele (PPE). – Frau Präsidentin, meine sehr verehrten Damen und Herren, liebe Kolleginnen und Kollegen! Wie können wir mit einem tatsächlich integrierten europäischen Energiebinnenmarkt erreichen, dass Energierechnungen bezahlbar und unsere Unternehmen wettbewerbsfähig bleiben?
Drei kurze Antworten darauf: Es müssen schnellstens, das heißt durch schnelle Genehmigungsverfahren, alle noch notwendigen grenzüberschreitenden Verbindungen gebaut werden. Die Krise hat gezeigt, zu welchen Beschleunigungen wir in der Lage sind, wenn wir müssen. Ich fordere die Mitgliedstaaten auf, die zur Verfügung stehenden EU-Mittel schnellstens abzurufen und umzusetzen und sie insbesondere auch in die Energieinfrastruktur der Zukunft zu investieren, in die für Elektrizität und für Wasserstoff.
Zweitens können wir die Energiepreise herunterbekommen, wenn wir als EU auf dem Weltmarkt auftreten und gemeinsam einkaufen. Mit geballter Konsumentenmacht und langfristigen Verträgen könnten wir bessere Konditionen und mehr Sicherheit erzielen. Insofern, sehr geehrte Kommissions- und Ratsvertreter, überwinden Sie die Egos, werden Sie strategisch! Wir brauchen eine echte europäische Energiediplomatie.
Und drittens: Wir diskutieren aktuell verständlicherweise eine Gaspreisbremse. Ganz entscheidend für den Industriestandort Europa wird vor allem aber der Strompreis sein – für diesen brauchen wir eine echte Lösung, damit Unternehmen eine Zukunftsperspektive in Europa sehen.

Цветелина Пенкова (S&D). – Г-жо Председател, комисар Симпсън, министър Бек, за да се справим с множеството кризи има само едно решение. Трябва да действаме единно и бързо. Трябва да действаме като едно цяло, за да защитим най-уязвимите в нашите общества сега и веднага. Нужни са конкретни мерки, за да се справим с предизвикателствата на енергийната криза: в краткосрочен план – промяна на ценообразуването на електроенергията, за да намалим сметките на гражданите и индустрията. Пестене на енергия и ясна дефиниция за енергийно бедните домакинства, за да може да насочим публичните ресурси и усилия именно към тях; в средносрочен план – работа за общи доставки на енергийни суровини и инвестиции в енергийна ефективност; в дългосрочен план – трябва да продължим да развиваме новите технологии и инфраструктура, за да изградим един истински свързан европейски енергиен пазар.
Трябва да инвестираме повече във възобновяеми източници на енергия и базови енергийни мощности като ядрената енергетика. Само така ще гарантираме трайно намаляване на сметките на домакинствата и индустрията.

Susana Solís Pérez (Renew). – Señora presidenta, señora comisaria, la confianza empresarial se ha desplomado y un tercio de las mayores empresas en Europa prevén detener o reducir su producción por los altos precios de la energía.
Avanzar hacia un mercado único de la energía es ahora más necesario que nunca. Y para ello necesitamos dos cosas: una reforma del mercado e interconexiones.
Las intervenciones del mercado son indeseables, pero lo es más dejar a los ciudadanos desamparados y a empresas paradas. Hoy en día se están perdiendo las señales de precio y, además, tenemos el inmenso reto de crear una red eléctrica que absorba toda la potencia renovable que instalaremos en la próxima década. Seamos valientes para cambiar lo que no funciona.
Respecto a las interconexiones, vamos tarde, por detrás de los objetivos que teníamos y, además, parece que no hemos aprendido. Acabamos de abandonar el MidCat y ahora lo sustituimos por un proyecto mucho más costoso y que no permitirá que transportemos ni gas ni hidrógeno renovable hasta 2030, lo que no nos sirve para la crisis actual.
Señora comisaria, la tarea que tenemos por delante es enorme. Es urgente tomar medidas. Pongámonos a la obra, porque nuestros ciudadanos y nuestras empresas no pueden esperar más.

Anna Zalewska (ECR). – Pani Przewodnicząca! Pani Komisarz! W Europie jest wojna, kryzys energetyczny i gospodarczy, a ludzie żyją w ubóstwie energetycznym. Dlatego jesteśmy winni Europejczykom uczciwość i informację, że działania, które podejmuje Komisja Europejska, są niestety pozorowane, gdyż nie zmniejszymy cen energii, jeżeli nie zatrzymamy ETS-u. A my nie robimy nic innego, jak rozszerzamy ETS, sięgając głęboko do kieszeni Europejczyków.
Jednocześnie Komisja Europejska nie ma odwagi powiedzieć, że zamroziła do marca dyrektywę o opodatkowaniu energii, gdzie ceny energii z węgla mają wzrosnąć jeszcze od 100% do 300%, a ceny ciepła i ceny energii z gazu od 300% do 500%. Jednocześnie blokuje się możliwość obniżania VAT-u w poszczególnych krajach członkowskich. Polska musi z tego zrezygnować, bo są to przecież środki własne Komisji Europejskiej. Przestrzegam przed platformami. Już mieliśmy wspólne zakupy, m.in. szczepionek. Do dzisiaj Komisja Europejska nie wytłumaczyła się z kontraktów, które zawarła z firmami farmaceutycznymi.

Ivan Štefanec (PPE). – Vážená pani predsedajúca, situácia na trhu s energiami nám ukazuje, že dôsledky ruskej zločineckej agresie znášame všetci v Európskej únii, najmä cez vyššie ceny energií a tovarov. O to viac musíme držať spolu, o to viac sú dôležité spoločné európske riešenia, o to viac je dôležitý fungujúci európsky energetický trh. Je to dôležité aj pre lepšiu energetickú bezpečnosť a lepšie ceny energií.
Dnes viac ako inokedy potrebujeme pre zníženie cien znižovať dopyt. Uvedomme si, že všetky úsporné opatrenia, všetky úsporné opatrenia majú význam a každým šetrením prispievame k zníženiu ceny. Na druhej strane potrebujeme zvyšovať dopyt. Je potrebné uvoľniť ceny energií aj tak, že sa uvoľnia pravidlá pre tých, ktorí tvoria energiu, malých výrobcov energie, osobitne z obnoviteľných zdrojov. Platí to pre malé firmy, osobitne pre domácnosti pri inštalácii fotovoltických panelov.
Dnes potrebujeme viac ako inokedy odstrániť prekážky na spoločnom trhu, investovať do energetickej infraštruktúry a mať aj nové trhové pravidlá pre oddelenie cien plynu od cien elektriny. Spoločné nákupy, samozrejme, môžu pomôcť. Tá situácia sa rýchlo mení. Závislosť od ruských fosílnych palív sa zmenšuje, čo je dobrá správa, a je potrebné dnešné časy využiť naozaj na zmenu v prospech občanov, konkurencieschopnosti firiem aj lepšej ochrany prírody.

Carmen Avram (S&D). – Doamnă președintă, domnule comisar, în anii 80, care au fost cei mai crunți ai comunismului, 23 de milioane de români, inclusiv eu, am trăit în umilință zilnică din cauza lipsurilor elementare de hrană, căldură și electricitate.
Ne erau date puțin și rar, cât să vedem că ele există, dar noi nu aveam dreptul să le avem. Patru decenii mai târziu, deși trăiesc în inima democrației, milioane de europeni riscă să experimenteze aceleași umilințe. Acești oameni au dreptul fundamental la o viață decentă, dar nu și-o mai pot permite.
În pandemie, Comisia s-a mobilizat rapid și miliarde de euro au plecat spre mari companii ca să le ajute să supraviețuiască. Azi însă, cumva, Comisia nu reușește să convingă mari companii că și cetățenii au dreptul să supraviețuiască, deși ele au făcut profituri gigant (istorice) pe spatele europenilor. E nevoie de sprijin direct pentru consumatori, acum, iarna e aici.
Comisia ne oferă un mecanism nerealist, care vine târziu, are doar efecte pe termen lung și e foarte neclar. E pentru oameni, pentru IMM-uri sau pentru speculanți? Poate mai studiază comisia Campania PSD ‘Jos facturile!’ pentru că pare că s-a inspirat din ea, dar nu suficient.

Izabela-Helena Kloc (ECR). – Pani Przewodnicząca! Szanowni Państwo! Wszyscy jesteśmy zaniepokojeni rachunkami za prąd i słabnącą konkurencyjnością unijnych firm. Żyjemy wręcz w przededniu wielkiego buntu społecznego. Ale kto jest winny tej sytuacji? Pomijam w tej chwili wojnę. Większość z nas jest zwolennikami agresywnej polityki klimatycznej, która jest główną przyczyną chaosu na dzisiejszym rynku energetycznym w Europie.
Pani Komisarz! Panie i Panowie! Powiem bez ogródek: Europa potrzebuje taniej i stabilnej energii. Same odnawialne źródła energii absolutnie tutaj nie wystarczą. Nigdy nam nie zapewnią stabilności.
Jeśli ktoś myśli inaczej, ten popełnia fatalny i brzemienny w konsekwencje błąd. Nie walczcie z tym, co podpowiada logika i zdrowy rozsądek. Nie ma żadnych racjonalnych powodów dzisiaj, aby rezygnować z gazu, atomu i węgla. Jeśli naprawdę chcemy obniżyć rachunki za prąd i zwiększyć konkurencyjność unijnej gospodarki, zróbmy to, co jest oczywiste. Uznajmy, że paliwa kopalne i jądrowe muszą być częścią planów energetycznych i klimatycznych na następne 30, a nawet 50 lat. Nie łudźmy się, że będziemy klimatycznymi zbawcami świata.

Massimiliano Salini (PPE). – Signora Presidente, onorevoli colleghi, nella crisi energetica abbiamo avuto due strategie a confronto: da un lato chi ha proposto di imporre un tetto al prezzo del gas, e mi pare che questa soluzione non sia sostanzialmente stata accolta dalla Commissione, dall'altro c'è chi adotta una strategia differente, a mio modo di vedere altrettanto complessa e probabilmente ancora più pericolosa per il mercato, cioè puntare sulla riduzione della domanda di energia e sovvenzionare, con le risorse disponibili all'interno del paese, per compensare questa riduzione della domanda di energia. Questo secondo modello sta producendo delocalizzazioni industriali.
Purtroppo la riduzione della domanda di gas e di energia in questo momento non è determinata da un efficientamento, ma dal fatto che si decide di spostare la produzione altrove. E su questo la Commissione, io credo, dovrà essere molto vigile e non sostenere questo modello.
Dall'altro c'è il tema delle infrastrutture. L'integrazione va garantita, i flussi tradizionali erano da est verso ovest e da nord verso sud, in futuro saranno da sud verso nord e da ovest verso est, e questo è un elemento di novità che nell'integrazione infrastrutturale dovrà diventare un punto di riferimento per la Commissione europea.

Marek Paweł Balt (S&D). – Pani Przewodnicząca! Pani Komisarz! Reakcja na obecny kryzys energetyczny musi być kompleksowa i pokazywać, jak zjednoczona jest cała Europa w obliczu rosyjskiego ataku poprzez wykorzystanie surowców energetycznych.
W tej wojnie mamy trzy równie ważne bitwy, które jako Europa musimy wygrać. Musimy przede wszystkim zapewnić Unii Europejskiej zaspokojenie potrzeb energetycznych na tę i następną zimę, która będzie jeszcze trudniejsza. Nie możemy też zapomnieć o naszych europejskich sojusznikach, takich jak Ukraina czy Mołdawia, które są teraz w jeszcze trudniejszej sytuacji niż my.
Druga walka toczy się ze spekulantami na wspólnym rynku. Wspólne zakupy są ważne nie tylko po to, aby zapewnić nam energię, ale także po to, aby cena nie była zawyżona przez walczące ze sobą o dostęp do paliw nasze własne kraje i nasze własne firmy. Taka wewnętrzna konkurencja jest niszcząca. Wszyscy w Unii Europejskiej muszą mieć dostęp do tanich źródeł energii, niezależnie od kraju czy miasta, w którym mieszkają.
Kolejnym kluczowym instrumentem, który musi zostać wdrożony, są akceptowalne społecznie ceny energii i surowców energetycznych. Ostatnim, ale nie mniej ważnym elementem jest dalsza integracja naszych możliwości za pomocą interkonektorów, które muszą równolegle przygotować nas do przyszłych możliwych kryzysów oraz na wykorzystanie przyjaznych dla środowiska źródeł energii, takich jak wodór.

Μαρία Σπυράκη (PPE). – Κυρία Πρόεδρε, αγαπητοί συνάδελφοι, Επίτροπε Simson, η πλήρης ενιαία κοινή αγορά ενέργειας είναι πλέον επείγουσα προϋπόθεση για να συνεχίσει η Ευρωπαϊκή Ένωση να έχει κοινωνίες με συνοχή. Η κοινωνική συνοχή απειλείται και τα μέτρα των κρατών μελών δεν επαρκούν.
Στη χώρα μου, την Ελλάδα, έχουν ήδη διατεθεί περισσότερα από 5 δισεκατομμύρια ευρώ για πολίτες και επιχειρήσεις —συνολικά πάνω από το 3,6% του ΑΕΠ— σε μέτρα στήριξης και δεν επαρκούν. Η ανακοίνωση της πρόθεσης της Ευρωπαϊκής Ένωσης να θέσει ανώτατη τιμή στο υγροποιημένο φυσικό αέριο έφερε μείωση των τιμών στις αγορές, αλλά η ίδια η δημοσιοποίηση του μηχανισμού διόρθωσης, μόλις χθες, εγείρει πολλές αμφιβολίες για την αποτελεσματικότητα και την εφαρμογή της. Οφείλετε, Επίτροπε, να δώσετε συγκεκριμένες διευκρινίσεις προκειμένου το μήνυμα να είναι σαφές: ο μηχανισμός θα εφαρμοστεί προς το συμφέρον των Ευρωπαίων πολιτών. Οι πολίτες μας χρειάζονται έργα διασύνδεσης των υποδομών με συνδυασμό δημοσίων και ιδιωτικών επενδύσεων.
Ο αγωγός Ελλάδας-Βουλγαρίας, το FSRU στην Αλεξανδρούπολη, η ηλεκτρική διασύνδεση της Ελλάδας με την Αίγυπτο είναι έργα πρώτης προτεραιότητας, όπως πρώτη προτεραιότητα είναι και η εγκατάσταση των ανανεώσιμων πηγών ενέργειας, μειώνοντας άμεσα και δραστικά τα εμπόδια. Η Ευρωπαϊκή Ένωση οφείλει να σταθεί άμεσα αλληλέγγυα στους πολίτες μας πριν η ευρωπαϊκή κρίση αποτελέσει βόμβα στα θεμέλια των κοινωνιών μας.

Robert Hajšel (S&D). – Vážená pani predsedajúca, cením si úsilie Komisie prichádzať s návrhmi na zníženie vysokých cien energie, ktoré mnohé podniky a domácnosti nedokážu znášať. Návrhy idú dobrým smerom, ale dnes nestačia.
Treba si uvedomiť, že dôvodom vysokých cien je dnes hlavne nedostatok ponuky, a ten súvisí s výpadkom viacerých stabilných jadrových zdrojov, či už vo Francúzsku alebo v Nemecku, ktoré nevieme vykompenzovať fotovoltikou alebo veternými turbínami. Návrh Komisie na cenový strop 275 EUR/MWh na mesačné kontrakty je kompromis, ktorý, žiaľ, neprinesie želaný efekt. A to, cena plynu dostatočne neklesne a s ňou ani cena elektriny. Pokiaľ bude v Únii dominovať dovoz LNG plynu, tak jeho cena nemá šancu a ani vlastne nemôže klesnúť výrazne, lebo LNG tankery si nájdu zákazníkov v Ázii a Európa ostane bez dostatku plynu.
Obávam sa, že k výraznému zníženiu ceny plynu dôjde, iba ak sa posilní domáca ťažba a zvýšia sa dodávky potrubného plynu najmä z Ruska. Čo si ale dnes vzhľadom na situáciu nevieme predstaviť, a preto teraz potrebujeme najmä priamu kompenzáciu, priamu podporu aspoň pre zraniteľné domácnosti a podniky.

Kadri Simson,
Member of the Commission. – Madam President, honourable Members of Parliament, thank you very much for that very needed and valuable discussion today and I really am happy to have the opportunity to exchange in these difficult times we are facing today.
The Commission has come a long way to address the current energy crisis, starting with the energy prices toolbox already last October: the Gas Storage and Gas Demand Reduction regulations, RePowerEU, the revenue cap on cheap electricity producers and the solidarity contribution of fossil fuel producers. More recently the Commission has also proposed the operationalisation of joint purchasing of gas and a return to gas benchmarks, the emergency regulation on permitting and the latest market correction mechanism.
Cumulatively this work is contributing to the relatively good state of our energy system. Save for exceptional circumstances, we are well prepared for this winter from the energy-security perspective. The question is where do we go from here?
The full focus right now is on the electricity market design. The Commission has committed to deliver the electricity market design in the first quarter of 2023. This entails a public consultation with stakeholders before coming forward with a legislative proposal. In any event the Commission intends to present its ideas before the end of the year to get the feedback on what we would plan to propose, to improve it and to ensure a wider agreement and support, and Parliament's view in this respect will be of course crucial.
In the meantime it is important to continue the work on energy demand reduction. Energy demand reduction works much better when applied in coordination with national partners, therefore the Commission has launched together with the International Energy Agency the ‘playing my part’ initiative. It outlines simple actions that are within everyone's reach but which can make a huge difference.
We also remain committed to work with the Energy Efficiency Hub, a global platform for collaboration on energy efficiency. The energy demand reduction continues to be crucial to keep the energy prices in check and to prepare already for the next winter. We need to ensure that the EU gas storage will not be empty by the end of this heating season.
And my final point to you is that in a crisis like this we need to stand together and mutually support each other in our work. Individually each Member State would be in a very difficult situation, but thanks to the joint work of the European Parliament, the Council and Commission over the years together we have developed a solid legal framework that made our energy markets stronger and more resilient. We are far better interconnected, and today all Member States can rely on each other in the crisis. We need to continue this important work. Only together are we strong enough to face the enemy that is trying to undermine us.

Mikuláš Bek,
President-in-Office of the Council. – Madam President, honourable Members, Commissioner, thank you for this timely and pertinent exchange. I think many of us agree that while much has already been done both at the EU and national levels, considering the current situation much more effort is needed. The amplitude of the challenges ahead of us is clear: climate change; the need to boost our economy at a time of high inflation and potential stagnation; a difficult geopolitical scenery and the necessity to cut our dependence on Russia.
Many, if not all of you, have emphasised once again the importance of a coordinated European solution both in terms of short-term emergency measures and medium- and long-term adjustments to the market framework.
The Council for its part will keep the situation on the energy markets under constant review and react swiftly. Let me assure you the Czech Presidency is determined to do its utmost to provide effective responses to people and businesses.
Ladies and gentlemen, the EU has always shown great resilience and political unity when facing difficult situations. I think that this time it will not be any different. We put in place a set of tools that already proved successful, lowering significantly the volatility of energy prices and enhancing security of supply. A further integrated energy market will prove efficient and stronger when undergoing shocks, and will be a useful tool in the fight against climate change.

Die Präsidentin. – Die Aussprache ist damit geschlossen.


Schriftliche Erklärungen (Artikel 171)



András Gyürk (NI),
írásban. – Európa az elviselhetetlen energiaárak miatt súlyos válságba jutott – tönkremenő iparágak, recesszió felé tartó gazdaság, csökkenő életszínvonal. Az ok egyértelmű: a baloldal és a brüsszeli bürokraták által követelt, rosszul megalkotott szankciós politika. Ennek a felárát fizetik minden nap az emberek. A megoldás első lépése a szankciók gyökeres átalakítása kell, hogy legyen. Nem veszélyeztethetjük a családok megélhetését, nem hagyhatjuk sorsukra vállalatainkat. Olyan politikát kell folytatnunk, ami megvédi a munkahelyeket és az európai ipar versenyképességét. Az egyre súlyosabb válságból ugyanis csak egy stabil lábakon álló erős európai gazdaság tud kilábalni.
Ezért is elfogadhatatlan, hogy ebben a súlyos helyzetben a baloldal újabb és újabb szankciókat követel. Itt az idő, hogy az érintettek beismerjék – a szankciós politika kudarcot vallott, most az emberek és vállalatok segítésére van szükség.

Valdemar Tomaševski (ECR),
raštu. – Vienas iš pagrindinių Europos Sąjungos energetikos politikos tikslų dabartinės ekonominės krizės, kurią sukelia vykstantis karas, metu, turėtų būti bendros elektros vidaus rinkos sukūrimas. Be to, pagrindinis šios politikos tikslas turėtų būti neigiamo elektros kainų poveikio paprastiems žmonėms ir namų ūkiams, kuriuos labiausiai veikia kainų augimas, apribojimas. Taip pat svarbu užtikrinti energijos tiekimo saugumą, kas šiandien kamuoja daugelį Europos šalių. Bendros elektros vidaus rinkos sukūrimas ES yra svarbus visų pirma dėl galimybės sumažinti elektros kainas, kurios sudaro didelę kintamųjų sąnaudų dalį daugelyje pramonės šakų. Todėl veiksmai, kurių imamasi kuriant šią rinką, turėtų padėti ginti ES ekonomikos poziciją, su kuria vis sunkiau konkuruoti ekonomikai iš ne ES šalių. Europos Komisija įvertino, kad ES elektros rinkos integracijos laipsnis yra nepakankamas. Europos Komisijos nuomone, tai daugiausia lėmė du veiksniai – žemas tarpvalstybinės elektros prekybos lygis ir išlikę dideli elektros kainų skirtumai tarp ES valstybių narių rinkų. Todėl Komisija turėtų sutelkti dėmesį į tarpvalstybinės elektros prekybos palengvinimą ir stabilaus energijos tiekimo visose šalyse užtikrinimą.

Edina Tóth (NI),
írásban. – Az orosz–ukrán háború kitörése utáni napokban az Oroszország elleni első szankciós csomag előkészítésekor Brüsszelben arról beszéltek, hogy ennek két eredménye is lehet: egyrészt térdre kényszeríti az orosz gazdaságot, másrészt gyorsan véget vet a háborúnak. Azonban a konfliktus már nyolc hónapja tart, és erőteljesebb, mint bármikor, az európai gazdaság pedig nehézségekkel küzd, a szankciós infláció miatt egyre kevesebbet ér az emberek pénze. Európa az elviselhetetlen energiaárak miatt súlyos válságba jutott – tönkremenő iparágak, recesszió felé tartó gazdaság, csökkenő életszínvonal jellemzik ma az Uniót. Az ok egyértelmű: a baloldal és a brüsszeli bürokraták által követelt, rosszul megalkotott szankciós politika.
Ennek a felárát fizetik most minden nap az emberek. A válságkezelés első lépése a szankciók gyökeres átalakítása kell, hogy legyen. Nem veszélyeztethetjük a családok megélhetését, nem hagyhatjuk sorsukra vállalatainkat. Olyan politikát kell folytatnunk, ami megvédi a munkahelyeket és az európai ipar versenyképességét. Az egyre súlyosabb válságból ugyanis csak egy erős európai gazdaság tud kilábalni. Ezért is elfogadhatatlan, hogy ebben a súlyos helyzetben a baloldal újabb és újabb szankciókat követel. Itt az idő, hogy beismerjék – a szankciós politika kudarcot vallott, most az emberek és vállalatok segítésére van szükség!

Carlos Zorrinho (S&D),
por escrito. – A União Europeia não tem hesitado no seu apoio ao povo ucraniano cuja soberania e segurança têm vindo a ser barbaramente agredidas pela Federação da Rússia. Não há guerra sem custos, mas estes não devem ser imputados aos mais vulneráveis. Várias medidas de caráter solidário e colaborativo têm vindo a ser aplicadas, mas é preciso ir mais longe.
Numa tomada de posição pública, que subscrevi e subscrevo, o Grupo dos Socialistas e Democratas propôs linhas de intervenção para que o mercado único da energia seja mais interconectado e transparente, permitindo controlar melhor os preços e assegurar a competitividade das empresas. Deve ser aplicado um limite máximo para o preço de importação de gás e o preço do gás deve ser desligado da formação do preço da eletricidade, permitindo regular esse preço até à revisão das regras do mercado. É também proposto um modelo de procura conjunta, para conseguir melhores preços e maior diversificação de fornecedores, e defendida a aposta no investimento no reforço das interconexões elétricas e dos corredores verdes. Estas medidas abrem caminho para continuar a poder apoiar o povo ucraniano, sem esquecer nunca a justiça social e a competitividade empresarial no espaço da União.

PRESIDENZA: ROBERTA METSOLA


President

8.   Eliminating violence against Women (debate)

President. – Dear colleagues, I wanted to come in at this stage because I know how personal this debate is to so many of us here and around our Member States.
I just want to say: stop killing women, stop beating women, stop abusing women.
Ilbieraħ f'Malta, Bernice Cassar, mara ta' 40 sena, omm ta' żewġt itfal żgħar, inqatlet b'tiri li għaddew minn windscreen tal-karozza tagħha. Dan huwa eżempju wieħed biss tal-abbuż u l-qtil ta' nisa fl-Ewropa, sempliċiment għaliex huma nisa. Għal xhur sħaħ, Bernice talbet l-għajnuna, talbet għall-protezzjoni, imma la għajnuna u lanqas il-protezzjoni, qatt ma waslu.
Tħalliet weħidha.
Stop killing women. No more excuses. Protect women. We need action now. We need proper protection frameworks. We need more convictions of those who prey on females. And we need to end the remaining institutional blindness to the endemic violence against women. We need the urgent ratification of the Istanbul Convention in all Member States.
Bernice should have arrived at work yesterday. She should have been able to go home and play with her children. She should not have been forced to live in fear. She should have been safe. She should have been free from torment. She should not have been killed.
None of the horrific examples of violence against women we are forced to endure should take place in our Europe. We are not talking about victims: these are our fallen warriors. Women deserve to live free from fear everywhere. Stop killing women.

VORSITZ: EVELYN REGNER


Vizepräsidentin


Die Präsidentin. – Damit kommen wir nun zu der Aussprache über die Erklärungen des Rates und der Kommission zur Beseitigung der Gewalt gegen Frauen (2022/2951(RSP)).

Mikuláš Bek,
President-in-Office of the Council. – Madam President, honourable Members, Commissioner, thank you very much for this opportunity on the occasion of the soon coming International Day for the Elimination of Violence against Women to discuss progress made at EU level on different initiatives.
Violence has no place in a civilised society in the 21st century, yet the problem persists in Europe. Indeed, we know that in some cases domestic violence even increased during the COVID pandemic when people were confined to their homes. Meanwhile, new forms of violence, including online violence, have created a need for effective responses.
But not only in Europe: across the world women and girls suffer from sexual and gender-based violence including conflict-related sexual violence offline and online. Armed conflicts continue to have a disproportionate effect on women and girls worldwide, including in Afghanistan, Colombia, Ethiopia, Myanmar, Sudan, Syria, Ukraine and Yemen.
The ongoing violent crackdown in Iran against protesters, including women and children, is yet another reminder of the urgency of our work for the cause of gender equality and human rights.
Coming back to our work, let me refer to the most recent steps taken in the Council in this regard.
In the first place this regards the Istanbul Convention. Following the recent Court of Justice Opinion 1/19, the Council has been working on the amendments needed to reflect the appropriate legal basis as decided by the Court.
Secondly, the Council is currently analysing the proposal for a directive on combating violence against women and domestic violence, which aims to reinforce the protection of women and step up the fight against violence against women by criminalising a series of behaviours and strengthening the rights of the victims. During both the French and Czech presidencies, intensive work has taken place which enabled the completion of the first reading of the proposal. The work on the proposal will continue during the terms of the incoming Presidency with a view to the swiftest possible progress.
Thirdly, our debate today is also an opportunity to recall the long-standing cooperation between the European Parliament and the Council in the field of gender equality more generally. Following the agreement on the directive on improving the gender balance among directors of listed companies reached between the Council and the Parliament in June, we can now finally proceed with the formal signature of this important instrument. All aspects of gender equality are inter-related. By making sure that board members are selected through a procedure that is transparent and fair, we have decisive action against the problem of vertical segregation. This is part of our long campaign to empower women and to ensure real equality.
Finally, for many years the EU has been actively engaged with its partners to advance and implement the United Nation's women, peace and security agenda. The pillars of this agenda – participation, protection, prevention, and relief and recovery – are intrinsically linked. This was also reflected in the Council conclusions on women, peace and security, adopted in a timely manner on 14 November 2022.
Let me say once more that the European Parliament and the Council share the same concern about the persistent violence against women and are close allies in this struggle.

Helena Dalli,
Member of the Commission. – Madam President, Minister, honourable Members, we mark the International Day for the Elimination of Violence against Women on 25 November annually, as violence against women and girls remains a pervasive violation of human rights around the world. It would have been good had there been more men in this Chamber, because here it seems I will be speaking to the converted.
Yesterday in my home country, as you heard from the President earlier, Bernice Cassar was killed in broad daylight on her way to work as a result of three gunshots hitting her face and her chest. At this stage, the only suspect in this murder is her estranged husband. And we all know about tragedies like this one, as they are happening daily across Europe and around the world. Despite their frequency, however, they remain one of the least prosecuted forms of crime, and citizens can become desensitised unless we speak up and make sure that women stop being murdered in silence.
Addressing this matter with due attention is a prerequisite to tackle gender-based discrimination, make progress on women's rights and equality, and safeguard the common values of the Union, as well as to advance our democracy.
I thank this House for being a strong ally in keeping the eradication of violence against women and girls high on the EU political agenda. Since the adoption of the gender equality strategy, we have been working to transform our political commitments into concrete and meaningful action. All our measures have been driven by the aim of making a difference in the lives of diverse women and girls, in particular of those facing gender-based violence and domestic violence.
In March, the Commission adopted a legislative proposal to combat all forms of violence against women and domestic violence. The proposal covers the criminalisation of certain offences amounting to violence against women, the protection of support and access to justice for victims of violence against women and domestic violence and the prevention of such forms of violence. It is modelled on the Council of Europe's Istanbul Convention, which has proven to be a comprehensive legal instrument in this domain, but which sadly has not been ratified yet by the European Union.
The proposal calls on strengthening the work of and support for the different services and practitioners who are devoting their professional lives to supporting victims. In this spirit, I will mark the International Day for the Elimination of Violence against Women by standing together with victims and survivors while calling for a bigger push to end this violation of human rights. I will visit the care centre for sexual violence in Brussels, which addresses gender-based violence and provides services ranging from medical and psychological care to help from the judicial and police department, as well as support and follow-up brought together in one place. I will meet different stakeholders involved in the process, all of whom are specifically trained to work with and offer specialised support to victims.
In the context of this day, the Commission is adopting and implementing a decision to set up a European uniform number for a dedicated helpline for victims of violence against women and domestic violence, as announced in the proposal. Looking further ahead and complementing our legislative proposal, we will present in the coming months a recommendation to prevent and combat harmful practices against women and girls. We will encourage Member States to take a number of actions to address in an effective way female genital mutilation, forced and child marriages, honour-related violence, forced abortion and forced sterilisation and other harmful practices that affect mainly women and girls.
We cannot achieve the aim of eliminating violence against women alone. We are therefore also cooperating with key stakeholders beyond our borders. In the G7 setting, the EU contributed to the strengthening of the accountability of the leaders' political commitment and to ensure gender-mainstreaming is a cross-sectoral principle in the G7 activities.
We also continue to be fully engaged as co-leaders of the Generation Equality Forum Action Coalition on Gender-based Violence and UN Women. In this framework we are working with organisations from every part of society to catalyse progress, advocate for change and take action together.
Let us continue to stay together to fight violence against women and domestic violence.

President. – Thank you very much, Commissioner, for your clear words and for your work.

Ελισσάβετ Βόζεμπεργκ-Βρυωνίδη,
εξ ονόματος της ομάδας PPE. – Κυρία Πρόεδρε, κάθε χρόνο, με αφορμή την Παγκόσμια Ημέρα για την Εξάλειψη της Βίας κατά των Γυναικών, εξετάζουμε την εικόνα του φαινομένου στην Ευρωπαϊκή Ένωση και σε ολόκληρο τον κόσμο.
Η έμφυλη βία εντός και εκτός διαδικτύου είναι βαθιά ριζωμένη στις διαρθρωτικές ανισότητες της κοινωνίας και παραμένει αθόρυβη, αποτελώντας βάναυση παραβίαση των ανθρωπίνων δικαιωμάτων. Στη σημερινή ψηφιακή εποχή, η επικοινωνία των πολιτών, οι συναλλαγές και αλληλεπιδράσεις στους ψηφιακούς αγνώστους χώρους έχουν αναδείξει το έγκλημα της διαδικτυακής έμφυλης βίας, που συνεχώς λαμβάνει ανεξέλεγκτες διαστάσεις, αν αναλογιστεί κανείς ότι, ενδεικτικά, μία στις δέκα γυναίκες έχουν βιώσει παρενόχληση μέχρι τα δεκαπέντε χρόνια τους, ενώ μία στις πέντε νεαρές γυναίκες στην Ένωση δεκαοκτώ ως δεκαεννέα ετών αναφέρουν διαδικτυακή σεξουαλική παρενόχληση.
Εννοείται ότι δεν αναφέρομαι στις συχνές γυναικοκτονίες που αποτελούν —νομίζω, όλοι συμφωνείτε— τη σύγχρονη μάστιγα της ανθρωπότητας.
Η Επιτροπή Δικαιωμάτων των Γυναικών και Ισότητας των Φύλων και προσωπικά ως αντιπρόεδρος προτρέψαμε την Ευρωπαϊκή Επιτροπή να εντάξει την έμφυλη βία στα μείζονα εγκλήματα βάσει της νομοθεσίας της Ένωσης και να εκπονήσει πρωτόκολλο στήριξης των θυμάτων, ιδιαίτερα σε περιόδους κρίσης.
Αγαπητοί συνάδελφοι, έχουμε ήδη καθυστερήσει. Η Επιτροπή παρουσίασε νέα πρόταση για νομοθεσία και πρέπει άμεσα να ολοκληρωθεί. Οφείλουμε να ανταποκριθούμε στο αίτημα όλων των Ευρωπαίων πολιτών. Πιστεύω ότι όλοι συμφωνούμε πως η έμφυλη βία δεν προσβάλλει μόνο τις αρχές και τις αξίες της Ευρωπαϊκής Ένωσης, αλλά αποτελεί κορυφαίο θέμα ανθρωπίνων δικαιωμάτων και πολιτισμού.

María Soraya Rodríguez Ramos,
en nombre del Grupo Renew. – Señora presidenta, estamos aquí de nuevo, un 25 de noviembre más, para conmemorar el Día Internacional de la Eliminación de la Violencia contra la Mujer. Tenemos que señalar que, un año más, las víctimas han aumentado. Y aquellos que niegan la existencia de la violencia de género también aumentan.
Hoy es necesario decir que la violencia de género existe porque se funda en causas de discriminación estructurales contra las mujeres. Las víctimas tienen género. Las víctimas tienen nombre.
En mi país, desde el anterior debate en esta tribuna, precisamente sobre la violencia de género, hay cuatro víctimas más. Permítanme que las nombre: Irina, 38 años, asesinada junto a su hija Mariya, de 6 años; Leslie, 69 años, asesinada con más de veinte puñaladas; Imane, 30 años, asesinada delante de uno de sus hijos; Adoración, 27 años, degollada.
Permítanme que le diga al Consejo que ante este drama es una vergüenza que ustedes no hayan ratificado el Convenio de Estambul. Permítanme que les diga que necesitamos la modificación de los Tratados para introducir la violencia de género como un eurodelito.
A todas las mujeres este Parlamento hoy les tiene que hacer llegar un mensaje. Estamos con ellas. Podéis salir de la violencia.

Iratxe García Pérez,
en nombre del Grupo S&D. – Señora presidenta, celebramos hoy el debate sobre las mujeres víctimas de violencia de género y me van a permitir en esta ocasión que haga una intervención quizá diferente a las que solemos hacer en este hemiciclo y que me permitan poner nombre a las cifras.
Teresa Rodríguez era una joven de 23 años, con muchos sueños, con ilusiones y con proyectos. Teresa vivía en mi ciudad, Valladolid. Y viajó a Bélgica. Viajó a Bruselas para trabajar como enfermera, con muchos proyectos, con muchas ilusiones, con muchos sueños. Proyectos, sueños e ilusiones que se han visto truncados cuando su expareja, un asesino machista, viajó a Bélgica y asesinó a Teresa. Esta es una realidad.
La violencia de género no tiene fronteras. Los machistas asesinos no encuentran ninguna barrera. Y hay mujeres en Europa y en el mundo que son asesinadas por el mero hecho de ser mujeres.
Teresa no es un número más. Teresa vio truncada su vida y ha dejado a unos padres, a un hermano, a una familia y a unos amigos devastados por esta tremenda realidad. Y esa familia quería que hoy, aquí, habláramos de Teresa Rodríguez, y por eso el compromiso de todas y todos los que estamos aquí tiene que ser acompañar y seguir la petición de la familia de Teresa, que nos dice: no dejéis de trabajar en esto. Hagamos y pongamos fin a la violencia de género, acabemos con el machismo que asesina y no permitamos que haya más Teresas en Europa.
Es indispensable tener una legislación europea que pueda determinar qué es víctima de violencia de género, porque Teresa es igual de víctima en España que en Bélgica o que en Polonia. Y necesitamos una legislación europea que pueda proteger a todas las mujeres, vivan donde vivan, estén donde estén: una directiva europea contra la violencia de género que pueda prevenir estas situaciones. Es necesario que podamos trabajar en el ámbito de la formación, de la educación, de la prevención…
No permitamos que se siga de brazos cruzados. No podemos resignarnos y pensar que esta es una realidad que no podemos cambiar, porque en nuestras manos está cambiarla. Tenemos una gran responsabilidad.
Y permítanme que termine diciendo que hoy tenemos una gran obligación moral de poner nombre a esos números; de entender que detrás de cada una de esas mujeres hay trágicas realidades, que no podemos permitir que esas vidas, que esos sueños, que esos proyectos se vean truncados.
Teresa merece que sigamos trabajando para que no haya más mujeres jóvenes como ella. Tenemos una gran responsabilidad. No nos resignemos. Trabajemos. Está en nuestras manos.

Terry Reintke,
on behalf of the Verts/ALE Group. – Madam President, colleagues, in patriarchal societies, violence against women has always been widespread. It is not only based on the belief that women matter less, it is actually based on the assumption that women are not fully equal and self-determined human beings, that they somehow need to be disciplined to be controlled. We are battered. We are raped. We are abused. Our choices are being restricted because we do not matter enough. But also because patriarchy tells us that we had to, that we have to be kept in check. That includes also the denial of our right to choose over our own bodies.
Forcing a woman to go through with a pregnancy against her own will is a form of violence against women. That is true for the ten-year-old rape victim who had to travel from Ohio to Indiana to get an abortion. That is true for the 31-year-old Savita, who died in Ireland in 2012 after being denied abortion care when she was miscarrying. And that is also true for already six women who died in Poland after not receiving very much needed abortion care because of the inhumane de facto abortion ban.
Whenever a woman dies because she did not receive the abortion care she needed to be saved, society sends a message to all of us that even in moments of absolute vulnerability, they will not help us because our lives do not matter enough. They will actually let us die. They will let us die because a fundamentalist ideology matters more than our lives.
Honestly, I do not want to live in a society like this, and definitely I do not want to get pregnant in a society like this. So, colleagues, let us end all forms of violence against women. Let us end these inhumane abortion bans.

Stefania Zambelli,
a nome del gruppo ID. – Signora Presidente, signora Commissaria, onorevoli colleghi, il tema sulla violenza contro le donne mi sta particolarmente a cuore.
In questi anni, in prima persona mi sono attivata in una serie di iniziative per cercare di aiutare le donne che denunciano il proprio carnefice, il proprio aggressore. Purtroppo i dati in Europa sulla violenza contro le donne sono a dir poco allarmanti. Si stima infatti che una donna su tre abbia subito violenza fisica o sessuale.
Anche in Italia i numeri ci dimostrano una situazione molto negativa. Pensate che nel 2021 le donne uccise sono state 116, una ogni tre giorni. Gli aggressori troppo spesso si nascondono dietro la perizia psichiatrica, molto spesso quando escono dal carcere per buona condotta, poi commettono lo stesso reato. C'è bisogno di pene esemplari.
L'Europa deve dare segnali precisi, ma soprattutto aiuti concreti a queste famiglie distrutte, famiglie che molto spesso si trovano con la mamma uccisa e il padre in carcere. Ai figli di queste famiglie dobbiamo garantire un futuro e non solo tante belle parole.

Margarita de la Pisa Carrión,
en nombre del Grupo ECR. – Señora presidente, señora comisaria, Consejo, señorías, la violencia es un drama con el que todos querríamos acabar, por supuesto. Las leyes penales deben ser eficaces para perseguir el delito y proteger a la sociedad.
El pasado 7 de octubre entró en vigor en España la llamada ley de ‘solo sí es sí’, que borra la distinción entre violación y abuso sexual, alterando el rango de las penas y disminuyendo la duración de las mismas. Esto responde a la mentalidad de ser muy duros con el hombre en general, pero muy blandos con los criminales más peligrosos para las mujeres.
No es la primera vez que sufrimos las injustas consecuencias de las leyes ideológicas. Si quieren protegernos, deberían procurar que los verdaderos agresores estén lejos de sus víctimas.
Pido a los grupos políticos que colaboran con la ideología de género que despierten y vean la perversidad del concepto ‘violencia de género’ y sus consecuencias al contaminar las leyes. Nos enfrentan al hombre y a la mujer y no combaten la delincuencia. Vistos están los resultados. Cambiemos de estrategia.

Eugenia Rodríguez Palop,
en nombre del Grupo The Left. – Señora presidenta, señora comisaria, hace cuarenta años, el movimiento feminista latinoamericano eligió el 25 de noviembre para recordar el asesinato de las hermanas Mirabal. Y, desde entonces, cada año recordamos las múltiples violencias que sufren las mujeres en todo el mundo.
En Polonia, Justyna, víctima de violencia institucional, condenada por auxiliar a quienes necesitaban interrumpir su embarazo de forma segura. En El Salvador, Lesly Ramírez, condenada a cincuenta años de cárcel por un aborto espontáneo. En España, María Sevilla, víctima de violencia vicaria, una de las madres protectoras condenada por denunciar la violencia sexual que sufren o sufrían sus hijos e hijas, o Beatriz Zimmermann, madre de Olivia y Anna, asesinadas por su padre y arrojadas al mar. En la República Checa, Elena Gorolavá, una de las mujeres gitanas que en distintos países de Europa han sufrido esterilizaciones forzadas. En México, Debanhi Escobar, feminicidio, desaparecida durante meses, a la que se encontró finalmente asesinada en una cisterna. En Afganistán, Helena Hofiany, jueza, hoy refugiada, que arriesgó su vida combatiendo el fundamentalismo misógino. En Irán, Mahsa Amini, torturada hasta la muerte por no llevar el velo adecuadamente.
Por todas ellas, por todas las mujeres y las niñas torturadas, violadas, masacradas, asesinadas en cualquier rincón del mundo, siempre en pie, siempre en lucha.

Laura Ferrara (NI). – Signora Presidente, signora Commissaria, onorevoli colleghi, il 25 novembre ci ricorda come le forme di violenza visibile e invisibile contro le donne rimangano tra le più diffuse violazioni dei diritti umani nel mondo.
Le storie drammatiche riportate dalla cronaca quotidiana risvegliano le nostre coscienze sui comportamenti violenti e discriminatori che hanno conseguenze fisiche, psicologiche ed economiche, pregiudicando la piena ed equa partecipazione nella società.
L'Unione europea deve perseguire ogni azione legislativa, sociale e culturale per consentire alle donne di difendersi, di superare la paura di denunciare, di essere giudicate e soprattutto di rimanere sole. È intollerabile che alcuni Stati membri si rifiutino ancora oggi di ratificare e attuare la Convenzione di Istanbul.
Rafforzare la protezione e l'assistenza delle vittime perseguendo i colpevoli è solo un aspetto della battaglia da combattere. Dobbiamo fermare la violenza prima che si verifichi, con politiche di prevenzione in grado di affrontare le cause strutturali del fenomeno e promuovere un'effettiva uguaglianza di genere.

PRZEWODNICTWO: EWA KOPACZ


Wiceprzewodnicząca


Frances Fitzgerald (PPE). – Madam President, this is such an upsetting and disturbing debate when the President of this Parliament has to come in and say, ‘stop killing women’. And yet this is the reality, as we've heard from the personal stories here. Why do we allow it to continue? Because we are in the midst of a shadow pandemic where domestic violence, sexual assault and FGM are commonplace in all our societies across Europe.
We absolutely have to have a unified and comprehensive response, just like we did with the COVID crisis. Some 850 000 women's lives are lost every 10 years. Cities the size of Marseille, Amsterdam or Zagreb disappear from this Earth. Just imagine that. Just think about those cities disappearing. That's the number of women that are murdered every 10 years, that die. The Council has to think about this, they have to take action. If the Member States had ratified the Istanbul Convention 10 years ago, think about how many lives could have been saved.
Some of you will remember Ashling Murphy, a young Irish woman who was out jogging. She was brutally murdered in broad daylight in January of this year. She represents the thousands of victims we're speaking about here this morning.
As co-rapporteur on the directive on violence against women, I am working to ensure women with you across the Union are fully protected, working with my colleague Evin Incir. This will protect many, many women. We have to do this. We need male champions. We desperately need male champions to eliminate violence against women, to work with us, as this is a human rights issue.
As International Day for the Elimination of Violence against Women is marked this week, I am calling on all political leaders, all in society, to fight for protection for women like Ashley and the millions of victims of violence against women that she represents.

Evin Incir (S&D). – Madam President, all across Europe and beyond women and girls are victims of gender-based violence. Still, in the year 2022, it seems to be a crime to be born female, because otherwise why would our freedom be violated and why would we need to pay the ultimate price, with our lives?
Frankly, I am tired of us women and girls needing, year after year, to demand an end to the deadly violence. In the home, even in politics, at schools, in the streets and squares, in war but also in peace, women and girls are subjected to violence – sexual, physical, psychological, financial and digital.
In our modern Europe, a feminist Europe should not be a dream. It should be a reality. However, the patriarchy should be confined to the dustbin of history. As a co-rapporteur for the directive on combating violence against women and domestic violence, together with my colleague Frances Fitzgerald we are doing our best in order to strengthen the directive presented by the Commission, which we welcome very much.
The ongoing pandemic which is gender-based violence has been going on for years and years, for decades and decades. Colleagues, I must say that I am ashamed that we even have six EU Member States refusing to ratify the Istanbul Convention until now – namely Bulgaria, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Slovakia and, unfortunately, even the Presidency itself, the Czech Republic.
I'm not standing here to beg anyone to understand. I'm standing here to demand that everyone acts. Human rights are not only for men and boys to enjoy, human rights are also for women and girls. It is our duty to women and girls to end this heinous violence!

Sylvie Brunet (Renew). – Madame la Présidente, Madame la Commissaire, Monsieur le Ministre, mes chers collègues, je voulais vraiment saluer une nouvelle fois le travail accompli, Madame la Commissaire, sur cette proposition de directive extrêmement importante pour nous toutes et nous tous.
En France, depuis le début de l'année, 118 femmes sont décédées sous les coups de leur conjoint ou de leur compagnon. C'est une situation absolument atroce. Je voulais vous dire aussi que je vais particulièrement insister sur le sujet des violences faites aux femmes sur les lieux de travail, puisque nous allons travailler à ce sujet en commission de l'emploi et des affaires sociales. Cela me semble un point majeur, car comment les femmes peuvent-elles briser le plafond de verre si elles ne sont pas en sécurité sur leur lieu de travail, où elles passent des heures?
Enfin, je voulais vous dire que j'ai eu la chance la semaine dernière de rencontrer la directrice des programmes aux Nations unies, à l'ONU Femmes, sur l'égalité des genres et que le monde attend beaucoup de nous, de l'Europe, de nos propositions en matière de lutte contre les violences faites aux femmes. Et, Monsieur le Ministre, on attend aussi beaucoup de votre présidence pour faire avancer le sujet.

Diana Riba i Giner (Verts/ALE). – Señora presidenta, piensen en tres mujeres de entre sus madres, tías, hijas o compañeras de trabajo. Una de ellas ha sido o será agredida física o sexualmente. La imagen es escalofriante.
Apenas hace un año en esta Cámara, una mayoría votaba a favor de incorporar las violencias de género en la lista de eurodelitos. Aun así, seguimos esperando.
La intención de avanzar es clara por parte del Parlamento. Pero necesitamos, o más bien exigimos, que la Comisión y el Consejo hagan su parte. Sin una estrategia compartida entre las distintas instituciones, no conseguiremos avanzar con la urgencia que la situación requiere.
Ponemos en valor la propuesta de Directiva de la Comisión, pero debemos ser más ambiciosos. Porque, si queremos combatir todas las violencias —la física, la sexual, la económica, la emocional, la obstétrica, la psicológica…—, tenemos que ir un poco más allá.
El reto es mayúsculo y el tiempo es escaso porque lo que está en juego son nuestras vidas. No tenemos alternativa, hay que avanzar a pasos de gigante.

Guido Reil (ID). – Frau Präsidentin, liebe Kolleginnen und Kollegen! Wir reden heute über den Internationalen Tag zur Bekämpfung der Gewalt gegen Frauen. Und wie immer – es ist alles viel schlimmer geworden. Und wie immer wollen wir nicht über die echten Ursachen dieser Probleme reden.
Zur Situation in Deutschland: Die häusliche Gewalt hat 2013 um 50 % zugenommen. Die Frauenhäuser sind völlig überfüllt, und 70 % der Frauen in den Frauenhäusern sind keine Deutschen. Sie kommen aus Syrien, der Türkei, Afghanistan und dem Irak.
Genitalverstümmelung – ein besonders widerwärtiges Verbrechen. Auch hier gab es eine Steigerung seit 2017 von 40 %. Die Opfer kommen aus Eritrea, Somalia und dem Irak.
Gruppenvergewaltigung – eigentlich ein Phänomen, das wir vor 2015 überhaupt nicht kannten. Alleine 2020 gab es 704 Fälle von Gruppenvergewaltigung, und die Täter kommen aus Afghanistan, Syrien und dem Irak.
Das sind nur Beispiele. Ich könnte noch die Zahlen nennen für die Tötungsdelikte, für Zwangsehen, für Zwangsprostitution – immer die gleichen Täter. Und jetzt sagt dazu die ehemalige SPD-Familienministerin Giffey: Wir wissen, dass wir durch Zuwanderung mit einem Frauenbild konfrontiert werden, das nichts mit gleichwertiger Behandlung und gewaltfreien Beziehungen zu tun hat. Das sagt die SPD-Familienministerin.
Und wenn wir das denn alles wissen, warum handeln wir nicht? Wenn wir Frauen schützen wollen, müssen wir endlich konsequent abschieben, und wir müssen die illegale Masseneinwanderung von jungen Männern aus der frauenfeindlichsten Kultur dieser Erde endlich beenden.

(Der Redner ist damit einverstanden, eine Wortmeldung nach dem Verfahren der ‘blauen Karte’ zu beantworten.)


Karen Melchior (Renew),
blue-card speech. – Thank you very much for your intervention.
I think it's important that we look at the facts, and the European Agency for Fundamental Rights had a 2012 survey that showed that 33% of all women have experienced violence against them based on their gender. Do you claim that this is only from refugees, or should we look at where the violence against women comes from – that it is an integral part, unfortunately, of all parts of our society?

Guido Reil (ID),
Antwort auf eine Wortmeldung nach dem Verfahren der ‘blauen Karte’. – Es ist ganz überwiegender Bestandteil der Kulturen aus den Ländern der Menschen, die hier zu uns gekommen sind. Und das ist der Irak, Nigeria, Afghanistan, das ist Eritrea, Somalia; und immer wieder Syrien – immer wieder die Länder, aus denen die Menschen herkommen, die bei uns Schutz suchen.
Diese Menschen fallen immer wieder auf mit unglaublich abscheulichen Gräueltaten gegenüber Frauen. Und damit muss endlich Schluss sein. Und das sind Zahlen des Statistischen Kriminalamts.

Jadwiga Wiśniewska (ECR). – Pani Przewodnicząca! Szanowni Państwo! Każda forma przemocy jest przestępstwem. Czy to jest przemoc fizyczna, czy to jest przemoc psychiczna, czy to jest wykorzystywanie seksualnie, czy to jest przemoc ekonomiczna, czy też ta przemoc, której doświadczamy najczęściej, cyberprzemoc.
Przymusowe małżeństwa małych dziewczynek w Unii Europejskiej są ciągle normą. Czy od ostatniej debaty w ubiegłym roku, Pani Komisarz, coś w tej kwestii zostało zrobione? Okazuje się, że nie. Dochodzi do takich sytuacji. Nie chronimy nawet małych dziewczynek. Czy zrobiliśmy znaczący progres, jeśli chodzi o zakaz przymusowego okaleczania narządów płciowych kobiet? Również nie. Oprócz wzniosłych haseł i głośnych deklaracji dzieje się niewiele.
A tymczasem chciałabym Państwu powiedzieć, że ta dyskusja powinna być formą wymiany dobrych praktyk. Otóż chcę Państwu powiedzieć, że w Polsce, którą się tak Państwo interesujecie, jest obowiązek natychmiastowego odseparowania ofiary od sprawcy przemocy. Myślę, że to polskie rozwiązanie, powinno być stosowane w każdym państwie członkowskim.

Malin Björk (The Left). – Madam President, there are many forms of violence against women and girls, and there is too little being done to stop it. One cruel form of violence is to deny a woman the right to decide freely over our bodies and our sexuality. Forced pregnancies and a lack of access to abortion care are still a reality in Europe in 2022.
We have countries here like Poland, where we have an abortion ban and where women can die even when they are in hospital, like Izabela Sajbor. And we have Malta, which also has a total abortion ban. And in both countries, of course, those who help women to get access, to get the right to decide over their bodies, those people that help, they are persecuted and criminalised. Shame on you! Shame on you, patriarchal, inhuman politicians that persecute those who help.
It is time to step up our action. It is time to end forced pregnancies. Every woman in Europe and beyond, of course, must have the right to decide over her body, over her sexuality. It is time for every woman to have the right to free and legal abortion care.

Maria Angela Danzì (NI). – Signora Presidente, signora Commissaria, signor Ministro, onorevoli colleghi, in Europa ogni sei ore una donna viene uccisa e questo avviene spesso per mano del suo partner.
Questo fenomeno, che non si arresta, è stato affrontato con misure giudiziarie repressive non sufficienti. Secondo l'OMS molti autori di questi delitti sono persone malate, affette dal disturbo narcisistico della personalità e spesso a loro volta vittime di abusi nella loro infanzia. La Commissione affronti un piano che contenga obiettivi di riduzione della violenza di genere. Serve una ricerca su questa patologia e cure appropriate per un problema che è anche sanitario.
Le vittime vanno aiutate con misure di sicurezza, di supporto psicoterapeutico e devono essere messe nella condizione di andare via di casa senza perdere la custodia dei loro figli. Devono poter riconoscere la patologia del partner, la tossicità di quella relazione e i segnali dell'escalation violenta.
Aiutiamo le donne a combattere i meccanismi di manipolazione e ad essere consapevoli che le cause delle violenze risiedono nella personalità del partner e non in loro stesse.

Angelika Winzig (PPE). – Sehr geehrte Frau Präsidentin, Frau Kommissarin, geschätzte Kolleginnen und Kollegen! Es ist wirklich traurig, dass wir im 21. Jahrhundert noch das Thema Gewalt gegen Frauen diskutieren müssen.
Gewalt an Frauen ist in erster Linie eine schreckliche Schwäche, die eine nicht unbeträchtliche Gruppe von Männern aufweist. Daran gibt es nichts zu beschönigen. Das ist mit Sicherheit kein Kavaliersdelikt, das ist einfach nur kriminell. Das gehört bestraft, psychologisch aufgearbeitet. Aber auch die Gefährder müssen eigenverantwortlich gegen ihr Versagen ankämpfen.
Jetzt gilt es, die Gesetzeslücken beim Rechtsschutz zu schließen. Aber es müssen auch noch einige Länder die Istanbul-Konvention unterzeichnen.
Ich wünsche mir auch auf europäischer Ebene eine Kampagne, um das Bewusstsein in der Bevölkerung zu stärken und um die Zivilcourage zu erhöhen. Nur schwache Männer schlagen Frauen; starke stehen gleichberechtigt an ihrer Seite.

Pina Picierno (S&D). – Signora Presidente, signora Commissaria, onorevoli colleghe e colleghi, è stato appena ricordato: ogni 6 ore in Europa una donna è vittima di violenza.
Una donna ogni 6 ore. Questi numeri, queste storie parlano di ognuna di noi perché ognuna di noi, direttamente o indirettamente, ha avuto esperienza di questa violenza. Ma quello che dobbiamo ricordare qui è che non si tratta di una tragedia naturale, non si tratta di un'alluvione, di un terremoto, di qualcosa che avviene indipendentemente dalle nostre volontà: le donne muoiono ammazzate e muoiono ammazzate perché ci sono dei criminali che le uccidono.
Però questo crimine dobbiamo ricordarlo, anche qua, ancora una volta, ha qualcosa di particolare: le vittime sono tutte donne e gli assassini sono tutti uomini. E allora questi uomini violenti vanno fermati, certo, anche con l'aiuto, e da quest'Aula chiediamo ancora una volta aiuto agli uomini che violenti non sono. Va fermata la radice di questa violenza che l'alimenta e che ha un nome preciso: si chiama patriarcato.
E allora le ferite, le lacrime delle nostre sorelle che abbiamo portato qui, in quest'Aula, attraverso i nostri interventi, attraverso il nostro lavoro quotidiano, devono essere un monito, devono essere un monito a non abbassare la guardia. Noi continueremo a farlo tutte insieme, tutti insieme, perché non ci sarà un'Europa giusta ed equa finché la violenza non sarà eradicata.

Samira Rafaela (Renew). – Voorzitter, het is onbeschrijflijk dat wereldwijd één op de drie vrouwen te maken heeft met fysiek, psychisch of seksueel geweld. In Nederland, in mijn eigen lidstaat, sterven er elke dag acht vrouwen door geweld. Dat zijn niet alleen statistieken, dat zijn mensenlevens. Denk aan de 16-jarige Humeyra die is doodgeschoten op school. 28 keer belde zij samen met haar zussen de politie in de laatste zeven maanden van haar leven. Clarinda, een 34-jarige vrouw die in Den Bosch doodgestoken is door haar ex-partner. Een 45-jarige vrouw, Debora uit Mijdrecht, die meermalig aangifte heeft gedaan tegen haar ex en uiteindelijk is vermoord door hem thuis.
We hebben het hier over een epidemie van femicide, en vrouwen die aan de bel trekken worden niet geholpen of in ieder geval niet tijdig. Het is klaar met die onzichtbare strijd. Het is echt onacceptabel. Er moet nu een voorstel komen waardoor vrouwen daadwerkelijk worden beschermd. Het kan niet meer zo zijn dat ze geen melding durven te doen of dat als ze een melding doen, dat er dan niet direct wordt opgetreden. Zoiets kan gewoon nooit meer gebeuren als ik het heb over de voorbeelden die ik net genoemd heb. Ik hoop dat we ons hier samen bewust van zijn dat vrouwen dit elke dag en elke seconde nog meemaken. Het is nu de tijd om in te grijpen.

Sandra Pereira (The Left). – Senhora Presidente, é imperativo combater todas as formas de violência contra as mulheres. Não pode haver mais desculpas. Diariamente, e em todo o mundo, milhões de mulheres e raparigas são sujeitas a alguma forma de ofensas e violência física, psicológica, moral ou sexual, em casa, no trabalho, em público.
O tráfico de seres humanos e a prostituição continuam a atingir níveis alarmantes nesta União Europeia. Exigem-se outras políticas económico-sociais, serviços públicos de qualidade e medidas eficazes que resolvam os problemas da pobreza e da exclusão social.
O combate às violências contra as mulheres exige a aposta em medidas de efetiva autonomia e emancipação das mulheres e é, por isso, inseparável da melhoria das condições de trabalho e de vida.
Reafirmamos o nosso compromisso de não ceder um milímetro no combate em defesa dos direitos das mulheres, na luta pela igualdade entre mulheres e homens, no mundo do trabalho, na sociedade, no combate diário contra todas as formas de violência e discriminação contra as mulheres.
Não pode haver mais desculpas.

Rosa Estaràs Ferragut (PPE). – Señora presidenta, la violación contra la mujer es una violación atroz de los derechos humanos. El 25 de noviembre tendrá lugar el Día Internacional de la Eliminación de la Violencia contra la Mujer.
El Gobierno de España aprobó una ley, la ley del ‘solo sí es sí’, que entró en vigor el 7 de octubre. Las consecuencias son las siguientes: Madrid, hombre condenado por obligar a una mujer con 65 % de discapacidad a realizar sexo oral, en libertad; hombre condenado por abuso sexual hacia su sobrina de cuatro años, en libertad; profesor condenado por abusos sexuales a cuatro alumnos, en libertad.
Baleares, dos hombres condenados por agresión sexual, en libertad. La víctima está humillada, está hundida, ha explicado que ha revivido con esa libertad todo el proceso.
Galicia, hombre condenado por agresión sexual con acceso carnal, en libertad; hombre condenado por penetrar a su hijastra de trece años, rebaja de condena; hombre condenado por violar a una amiga en su casa, rebaja de condena.
La Audiencia de Barcelona acaba de dictar, en relación con una violación, una sentencia en la que reconoce que tiene que rebajar la pena para ajustarse a la nueva ley.
Esa norma desprotege a los más vulnerables: a las mujeres, a las niñas y a los niños, a la infancia. Se está cometiendo un daño irreparable. Fueron avisados, advertidos por los jueces de España, advertidos por innumerables dictámenes. No escucharon. La respuesta ha sido atacar a los jueces: no es el camino. La Asociación Europea de Jueces también ha criticado este tema.
Hace dos años tuvimos aquí el debate de La Manada. Ese sí que se podía tener y era un debate español. Este no se ha querido tener. Hoy las mujeres españolas están en una situación muy complicada. Dijeron ustedes que no estamos solas. Demostrémoslo. Por favor, solicito a la Comisión, solicito al Consejo y a las mujeres y hombres de este Parlamento que hagan un llamamiento al Gobierno de España para cambiar esa ley.

Łukasz Kohut (S&D). – Pani Przewodnicząca! Pani Komisarz! Kilka dni temu polska posłanka Katarzyna Kotula dała świadectwo. Powiedziała swoją historię, historię o drapieżcy, który miał ją krzywdzić. Polityczka dała odwagę innym ofiarom. My, jako mężczyźni w polityce, musimy także mieć odwagę – odwagę występowania przeciwko tym, którzy kobietami poniewierają, przeciwko tym, którzy je szkalują. Ale także musimy mieć odwagę do stanowienia prawa, prawa antyprzemocowego i prawa wspierającego ofiary. Taka jest nasza rola.
Jednym z instrumentów chroniących kobiety jest konwencja stambulska. Przygotowałem na ten temat sprawozdanie wraz z europosłanką Arbą Kokalari. Walczyłem, by w projekcie znalazło się wezwanie do zapewnienia wsparcia finansowego wszelkim organizacjom, które zajmują się przeciwdziałaniem przemocy ze względu na płeć. Bo wiemy, jakie pisowcy mają priorytety. Wiemy, że wydają z naszych podatków na inwigilację opozycji, na podsłuchiwanie Krzysztofa Brejzy zamiast na wsparcie ofiar przemocy domowej. Dosyć tego! Odwagi, Europo!

Karen Melchior (Renew). – Madam President, Commissioner, we need a policy based on facts. We need a policy based on science and we need a policy of prevention. The European Council of Fundamental Rights had a survey in 2012 that showed that 33% of European women have experienced violence – 52% of Danish women. Now we are filling the gaps of knowledge, but only with a survey in eight countries. We need more facts on violence against women. We also need prevention.
There are seven steps, which can warn us before the murder of women, before the final step of a murder of a woman. We also need to recognise the problem. The Danish general public, in 2014, refused the facts because they didn't believe that we had such violence against women in Denmark. And we need concrete action from Member States, from our authorities, to protect women so that we can prevent murders.
Finally, we need to talk about the violence that we experience. Warriors in the fight against violence against women walk between us. I am one of these warriors. In 2009, I managed to leave an abusive relationship. We must stop romanticising psychological violence. We must stop the killing of women.

Luisa Regimenti (PPE). – Signora Presidente, signora Commissaria, onorevoli colleghi, circa una donna su tre in Europa è vittima di violenza fisica o psicologica, è quindi evidente che le leggi che abbiamo non bastano.
Prevenire la violenza e proteggere le vittime è quanto abbiamo chiesto a gran voce in questo Parlamento con la relazione sull'impatto della violenza domestica, di cui sono stata correlatrice, e la relazione per inserire la violenza di genere tra gli eurocrimini. Oggi possiamo finalmente lavorare alla prima direttiva europea in tema di violenza sulle donne e non possiamo perdere questa occasione.
La violenza di genere non potrà mai essere sconfitta se non si mette la donna in condizione di denunciare e ciò significa mettere al sicuro se stessa e i propri figli e avere tutela legale e avere indipendenza economica. Non potremo prevenire la violenza se le sentenze non saranno effettive e rapide, le pene certe e i tribunali preparati ad affrontare questo fenomeno con personale specializzato e interscambio tra il giudice penale e il giudice civile e finché in tutte le scuole non si lavorerà alla cultura del rispetto, a partire dalle prime classi.
Le donne non potranno mai sentirsi al sicuro se i punti di prima accoglienza, le forze dell'ordine e il personale di pronto soccorso non saranno pronti a proteggerle. Questa lotta non deve avere sosta, ma deve vederci tutti uniti verso l'unico obiettivo.

Robert Biedroń (S&D). – Pani Przewodnicząca! Ofiary przemocy, kobiety, mają swoje imiona i nazwiska. Dzisiaj kilka z tych imion usłyszeliśmy po raz kolejny z tej mównicy. Ja powiem o kolejnej, o Izabeli z Pszczyny, 30-letniej Polce, która straciła życie tylko dlatego, że grupa barbarzyńskich polityków w Polsce doprowadziła do tego, że Izabela nie mogła dokonać bezpiecznej, legalnej aborcji.
Takich kobiet jak Izabela z Polski czy Teresa z Hiszpanii, o której dzisiaj tutaj słyszeliśmy, są w Europie setki tysięcy, jeśli nie miliony. Każdego dnia słyszymy o nich w mediach. I co my, jako Unia Europejska, zrobiliśmy? Niewiele. Nadal w przypadku praw kobiet nie mamy jednego standardu. Polki dzisiaj mają mniej praw, niż kiedy Polska wstępowała do Unii Europejskiej.
Standaryzujemy wszystko, co się da. Standaryzujemy banany, marchewki. Ba! Będziemy mieli jeden standard, jeśli chodzi o ładowarkę. A jeśli chodzi o ochronę kobiet przed przemocą, nadal nie mamy jednego standardu. Taka jest rzeczywistość. I to jest wstyd.
Dlatego z tego miejsca, Panie Ministrze, Pani Komisarz, dzisiaj musi paść jedna podstawowa deklaracja: nigdy, przenigdy nie będziecie szły same. Unia Europejska zawsze będzie po Waszej stronie. I tę deklarację kobiety muszą z tego miejsca dzisiaj usłyszeć.

Izaskun Bilbao Barandica (Renew). – Señora presidenta, señora comisaria, artículo 36 del Convenio de Estambul: ‘Las Partes adoptarán las medidas legislativas o de otro tipo necesarias para tipificar como delito, cuando se cometa intencionadamente: a) la penetración vaginal, anal u oral no consentida, con carácter sexual del cuerpo de otra persona, con cualquier parte del cuerpo o con un objeto; b) los demás actos de carácter sexual no consentidos sobre otra persona; c) el hecho de obligar a otra persona a prestarse a actos de carácter sexual no consentido con un tercero. El consentimiento debe prestarse voluntariamente como manifestación del libre arbitrio de la persona considerado en el contexto de las condiciones circundantes’. Solo sí es sí.
Pongamos la máxima diligencia para conseguir que estos principios se recojan en los códigos penales de todos los Estados miembros. Porque en algunos se llegó a escribir en una sentencia que se observaba jolgorio y regocijo en la víctima de una violación grupal, un contexto, como cualquiera puede imaginar, idóneo para la expresión del libre arbitrio.
Y asumamos que, por mucho que se legisle, mientras estereotipos y prejuicios campen a sus anchas en las conciencias de muchos, estos seguirán creyendo que, a su sí, no hay un no.
Desarmar estos esquemas mentales es la primera prioridad para acabar con la violencia contra las mujeres.

Theresa Muigg (S&D). – Sehr geehrte Frau Präsidentin, sehr geehrte Frau Kommissarin! Jede dritte Frau in der Europäischen Union erfährt in ihrem Leben Gewalt. Ich bin eine davon, eine von 62 Millionen Frauen in der Europäischen Union – und da haben wir noch nicht auf den Rest der Welt geschaut. Der Unterschied ist, dass 62 Millionen Frauen heute nicht die Möglichkeit haben, hier vor diesem Parlament zu sprechen und für Maßnahmen gegen Gewalt an Frauen hier an dieser Stelle zu kämpfen. Deshalb seien wir uns dieser Verantwortung heute hier bewusst.
Gewalt gegen Frauen ist ein strukturelles Problem; es ist ein Problem des Patriarchats; es sind keine Einzelfälle, es sind keine unglücklichen Umstände, es sind keine Eifersuchts- oder Beziehungstaten. Wissen Sie, wie vielen Frauen nach Erlebnissen von Gewalt nicht geglaubt wird? Wie oft es an Ernsthaftigkeit, Empathie oder am rechtlichen Rahmen fehlt? Ich bin es leid, dass wir uns bemühen, gegen Gewalt an Frauen zu kämpfen. Ich bin es leid, dass wir mit Lippenbekenntnissen abgespeist werden.
Gegen Gewalt an Frauen zu kämpfen bedeutet, rechtliche Grundlagen zu schaffen, die keine Diskussion zulassen; bedeutet, das Problem in seiner gesamtgesellschaftlichen Dimension anzuerkennen; bedeutet, gegen das Patriarchat aufzustehen und für ein feministisches Europa – jeden einzelnen Tag und in jeder einzelnen Situation.

Nathalie Colin-Oesterlé (PPE). – Madame la Présidente, Madame la Commissaire, Monsieur le Ministre, en Europe, sept femmes meurent chaque jour sous les coups de leur partenaire ou de leur ex-partenaire. C'est un véritable fléau. Pour l'éradiquer, nous devons nous inspirer du modèle espagnol de lutte contre les violences faites aux femmes.
La future directive européenne sur laquelle nous travaillons doit être exclusivement centrée sur la protection des femmes et des enfants victimes. Ne nous éparpillons pas. Évitons les positions idéologiques et travaillons ensemble sur quatre axes essentiels: la prévention, avec des campagnes de sensibilisation à grande échelle, particulièrement à l'égard des plus jeunes; l'accompagnement, avec la création partout en Europe d'un numéro d'appel unique et de guichets uniques pour une prise en charge globale des victimes avec du personnel formé, des policiers, des magistrats spécialisés; la protection des femmes et des enfants victimes, avec partout en Europe la délivrance rapide d'ordonnances de protection, de téléphones ‘grave danger’ et de bracelets anti-rapprochement; enfin, des sanctions harmonisées. Ce qui est considéré comme un viol ou un mariage forcé dans un État membre doit également l'être dans l'État voisin et sanctionné sur des bases communes.
Mobilisons-nous, car il y a urgence.

Carina Ohlsson (S&D). – Fru talman! Mäns våld mot kvinnor är den yttersta konsekvensen av ett ojämställt samhälle. Det drabbar flickor, kvinnor och barn varje dag, överallt i hela världen. Kvinnor mördas för att de är kvinnor. Dödsorsak: kvinna. Alltför många barn växer upp med våldet som sin vardag. Jag har mött många av dessa barn som aktiv i en kvinnojour. Våld, det går att förebygga, men det krävs politisk vilja.
Det är bra att EU-kommissionen nu presenterar förslag till direktiv om att bekämpa mäns våld mot kvinnor. Nu måste vi se till att få direktivet på plats och kräva att det efterlevs. Vi har också Istanbulkonventionen som alla länder borde ratificera. Vi socialdemokrater kommer inte att ge oss förrän mäns våld mot kvinnor har upphört. Tillsammans måste vi ta kampen för att kvinnor och män ska ha samma makt att forma samhället och sina egna liv.

Magdalena Adamowicz (PPE). – Pani Przewodnicząca! Pani Komisarz! Przemoc, której doświadczają kobiety, jest naruszeniem podstawowych praw i wolności człowieka. Światowa Organizacja Zdrowia alarmuje, że 30% kobiet na świecie doświadcza przemocy fizycznej i seksualnej. To nie są pojedyncze przypadki. To jest pandemia przemocy. Jeden, dwa, trzy, jeden, dwa, trzy… To co trzecia z nas, tylko dlatego, że jest kobietą. Tego nie mówię ja, to mówi WHO. Pamiętajmy o grupach kobiet szczególnie narażonych i wrażliwych: kobiet z niepełnosprawnościami, które są bardziej narażone niż kobiety pełnosprawne, kobiet uchodźczyń z Ukrainy, kobiet na granicy polsko-białoruskiej i kobiet z innych krajów, kobiet młodych, dziewczynek. Z przemocą wobec kobiet nie radzimy sobie ani systemowo, ani mentalnie. Konsekwencje przemocy wykraczają poza ból i cierpienie. Mają często wymiar ekonomiczny. Prowadzą do utraty dochodu. Dobrze, że głośno mówimy o przemocy wobec kobiet. Dobrze, że coraz wyraźniej na nią reagujemy. Dzielmy się swoimi doświadczeniami, by skończyć z wyciszeniem i bezkarnością wobec przemocy. Nie zwlekajmy, by na reakcję nie było za późno. Stwórzmy ramy prawne, które ochronią nas, kobiety, dziewczynki.

Camilla Laureti (S&D). – Signora Presidente, signora Commissaria, signor Ministro, onorevoli colleghi, per me è un onore prendere per la prima volta in quest'Aula oggi la parola a pochi giorni dal 25 novembre, la giornata internazionale contro la violenza sulle donne.
La violenza nei confronti delle donne, alla cui base sono radicati sessismo e discriminazione, è legata a doppio filo a un'insostenibile divario in termini sociali, lavorativi, salariali e culturali e, cari colleghi, è una tra le più gravi violazioni dei diritti umani.
Dalle proteste delle donne iraniane e afghane e di tutte quelle donne che si ribellano a regimi illiberali e situazioni di conflitto per i loro diritti ci arriva una lezione di coraggio. Ora sta a noi, dobbiamo lavorare da qui, dall'Europa, dalla casa della democrazia, per eliminare barriere e ostacoli e vincere la sfida della parità di genere, fondamentale per contrastare la violenza sulle donne.
Ogni giorno, ogni minuto, ogni secondo in cui noi rimanderemo il nostro impegno contro la violenza sarà comunque troppo lungo perché potrà incidere negativamente su migliaia di donne nel mondo e spesso, purtroppo, costare loro la stessa vita. Non dimentichiamolo.

Arba Kokalari (PPE). – Madam President, one of the greatest rights of freedom is to live a life free from violence. But still every third woman is affected by it. In a world like this, the EU must lead the way to stop violence against women, to stop the oppression.
For far too long, violence against women has been neglected in the Member States. This has to change now. I believe that we now have the great opportunity to make a real impact for freedom of women in Europe by criminalising violence against women. As the rapporteur for the Istanbul Convention, I know that we have the right toolbox to implement the Istanbul Convention. Together with a new law on gender-based violence, we will be able to deliver. This is the international gold standard to protect women from violence.
So what are we waiting for? The Parliament is ready. Where is the Council? It's time to deliver for women, for freedom, for the whole security and freedom of Europe.

Zgłoszenia z sali


Isabella Adinolfi (PPE). – Signora Presidente, onorevoli colleghi, i casi di violenza sulle donne non accennano a diminuire.
Nella mia città negli ultimi giorni una donna è stata uccisa a coltellate dal marito e un'altra è stata ferita gravemente perché sempre il marito le ha dato fuoco. Queste notizie sono all'ordine del giorno in tutti i paesi dell'Unione europea, questo perché l'odio e la violenza non conoscono confini, non hanno differenza di età, non hanno differenza di estrazione sociale, hanno solo delle vittime.
Ora, per la prima volta nella storia della Repubblica italiana, abbiamo un presidente del Consiglio donna. E che cosa è successo? Che dopo pochi giorni che era stata nominata è dovuta volare al G20 ed è stata molto attaccata. Perché è stata attaccata? Per le sue idee politiche? Per le parole che ha detto? No, semplicemente perché aveva portato con sé la figlia di sei anni. Un gesto banale, ma che evidentemente nel mio paese è ancora rivoluzionario. Quello che mi dispiace è che mi sarei aspettata dalle altre colleghe degli altri partiti dei cenni di solidarietà, dei messaggi di solidarietà, e invece questo non è accaduto.
Ora, Presidente, io voglio soltanto dire che noi dobbiamo essere unite. Se non cominciamo noi a essere unite, niente cambierà.

Milan Brglez (S&D). – Gospa predsednica. Ta teden je Evropski parlament storil tudi en dober korak pri enakosti spolov in pravicah žensk. Zato moram čestitati kolegicama Evelyn, Lari in drugim pri sprejemu direktive o uravnotežene zastopanosti spolov med neizvršnimi direktorji družb, ki kotirajo na borzi.
Toda to nikakor ne pomeni, da smo naredili vse, kar je treba. In ravno tema ničelne tolerance pri nasilju nad ženskami, otroci je nekaj, kjer bi se morali oglasiti vsi. Oglasiti se moramo vsi poslanci in poslanke, tako pri tem, da bomo ratificirali Istanbulsko konvencijo tudi na ravni Evropske unije. Pri tem, da bomo podprli Komisijo pri tem, da bo tudi evropsko zakonodajo uskladila s to Istanbulsko konvencijo. Zlasti pa se moramo oglasiti zato, da bodo žrtve vedele, da niso same. In da jim lahko pomagamo. Mi smo zato tukaj, da naredimo vse, kar je v naši moči. Hvala.

Sylwia Spurek (Verts/ALE). – Pani Przewodnicząca! Chcę zwrócić się do przewodniczącej Komisji. Od objęcia przez Panią stanowiska polska policja zarejestrowała zgłoszenia 185 318 kobiet, które padły ofiarą przemocy w rodzinie. Ale kobiety bardzo często nie zgłaszają przemocy, bo nie ufają instytucjom państwowym. Według szacunków organizacji pozarządowych podczas Pani kadencji przemoc w rodzinie dotknęła ponad dwa miliony Polek.
Co Pani zrobiła jako przewodnicząca Komisji, żeby temu zapobiec? Od razu powiem: nie wystarczy dyrektywa antyprzemocowa. Potrzebujemy całościowego systemu przeciwdziałania przemocy wobec kobiet, którego fundamentem jest konwencja stambulska. Zresztą 16 lipca 2019 r. sama mówiła Pani, że ratyfikacja konwencji stambulskiej jest dla Komisji priorytetem. Ile jeszcze kobiet musi być bitych, gwałconych, ile musi zostać zamordowanych? Ile musi na co dzień doświadczać przemocy psychicznej i ekonomicznej, żeby podjęła Pani bardziej stanowcze działania?

Katrin Langensiepen (Verts/ALE). – Frau Präsidentin! Ich möchte heute auf die Situation der Mädchen und der Frauen mit Behinderungen aufmerksam machen. Sie sind eine Gruppe, die nicht sichtbar ist – vielleicht eine Schattengruppe in der Europäischen Union.
In Deutschland ist es so: Jede zweite Frau/Mädchen ist Opfer von Gewalt – Mädchen mit Behinderung, Frauen mit Behinderung. Und da reden wir über eine sehr vielfältige Form von Gewalt; da geht es um psychische Gewalt, körperliche Gewalt, sexualisierte Gewalt. Und häufig wird diesen Frauen, den Mädchen nicht geglaubt. Aussagen sind häufig: Sei froh, dass dich überhaupt jemand anfasst. Willst du dich von deinem Mann trennen? Wo willst du denn hin?
Wenn man den Frauen und den Mädchen mit Behinderungen von Anfang an in Sonderwelten, in Sondereinrichtungen, in der Familie erzählt: Du bist nichts, du kannst nichts, du kannst dankbar sein, dass jemand dich heiratet, dass du versorgt wirst – und das ist der Urgedanke, der so tief in dieser Gesellschaft in der Europäischen Union sitzt: der des Versorgtseins.
Was wir brauchen, ist ein Auslaufenlassen von Einrichtungen für Menschen mit Behinderungen. Wir brauchen einen klaren Plan für den Schutz von Frauen und Mädchen mit Behinderung: Aufklärung, Barrierefreiheit, barrierefreier Zugang für Arztpraxen, Polizei. Polizei und die entsprechenden Einrichtungen müssen geschult werden, damit man den Frauen und den Mädchen mit Behinderungen glaubt.

Έλενα Κουντουρά (The Left). – Κυρία Πρόεδρε, η έμφυλη βία κατά των γυναικών και των κοριτσιών είναι παγκόσμια μάστιγα. Είναι μια ηθική προσβολή για όλες τις γυναίκες. Είναι σημάδι ντροπής και αποτυχίας για όλες τις κοινωνίες και ένα σημαντικό εμπόδιο για την ανάπτυξη της Ευρωπαϊκής Ένωσης. Μία στις τρεις γυναίκες έχει βιώσει τον εφιάλτη της έμφυλης βίας και μία στις είκοσι έχει πέσει θύμα βιασμού, συχνά χωρίς δικαίωση, στήριξη ή προστασία.
Στον πυρήνα της, η έμφυλη βία είναι η εκδήλωση έλλειψης σεβασμού, υποτίμησης, απαξίωσης και υπονόμευσης της γυναίκας από τους άντρες που δεν αναγνωρίζουν την εγγενή τους ισότητα και πιστεύουν ότι η ζωή της γυναίκας δεν έχει την ίδια αξία με τη δική τους. Αντανακλά και αναπαράγει πατριαρχικά πρότυπα και στερεότυπα που κυριαρχούν ακόμα και σήμερα στην Ευρώπη και πρέπει να εξαλειφθούν.
Πρέπει να συμπεριλάβουμε την έμφυλη βία ως έγκλημα στο άρθρο 83 της Συνθήκης και πρέπει ως ύψιστη πολιτική και κοινωνική προτεραιότητα να τη χτυπήσουμε στη ρίζα της. Οι γυναίκες και οι άνδρες, ναι, είναι διαφορετικοί, αλλά είναι ίσοι. Η οδηγία που θα υιοθετηθεί θα πρέπει να είναι ολιστική και φιλόδοξη.

(Koniec zgłoszeń z sali)


Helena Dalli,
Member of the Commission. – Madam President, Minister, this International Day is, of course, an important occasion to take stock of what has been done to end such violence against women and domestic violence. But more importantly, it gives us the opportunity to assess what still needs to be done.
Now more than ever, we need the support of all stakeholders to ensure the smooth adoption of our two main proposals – the Directive on combating violence against women and domestic violence and the EU's accession to the Istanbul Convention. Of course, the latter would be the ideal road to take, but we also know that some Member States continue to refuse this ratification.
We also need your continued support to raise awareness of the disproportionate impact of gender-based violence on society at large. So while legislation and policy are necessary, so I would say is a change in attitudes. So, also importantly, as Katrin pointed out, is the training for stakeholders such as the police, such as the judiciary, all those involved, because many Member States have strong legislation in place and still we continue to see this tragedy of women being killed every day.
So really, we must also work a lot on this patriarchal culture, on the attitudes of how women are treated for the simple reason that we are women. So, immediate and long-term physical, sexual and mental consequences for women and girls are, of course, devastating and can limit women's and girls' participation in society and on the labour market. So women and girls can only lead and thrive if they are free from violence.
So, let us continue to work together to achieve a Union of equality, free from any kind of violence, but in this case, especially of gender-based violence.

Mikuláš Bek,
President-in-Office of the Council. – Madam President, honourable Members, Commissioner, I wish to thank you for this important debate today. First of all, let me apologise for not having been able to follow it in its entirety as I had a duty to sign several legislative acts, together with President Metsola.
This debate is important and timely in the most unfortunate sense of the word, in light of yesterday's tragic killing of Bernice Cassar in Malta, as evoked by President Metsola and Commissioner Dalli in their opening remarks. Sadly, we see these events occurring every day.
Let me be absolutely clear. The prevention and elimination of violence against women and girls is a must that requires joint, constant and unwavering efforts from all of us, including the co-legislators. I will repeat it again. We are allies. That also means that we are stronger together and we can achieve more together.
I am sure I speak for us all when I say we will not give up this struggle until we see violence against women and girls eradicated from Europe and the world. Thank you very much once again for your attention.

Przewodnicząca. – Zamykam debatę.


Oświadczenia pisemne (art. 171)



Атидже Алиева-Вели (Renew),
в писмена форма. – Въпреки че е постигнат значителен напредък в борбата за равенство между половете, насилието, основано на пола, продължава да бъде основен проблем за гарантирането на човешките права. Независимо от расовата, етническата и религиозната принадлежност, нито от възрастта, това насилие засяга една от всеки три жени и момичета в Европа.
Проблемът има и друго измерение, което засяга най-невинните – децата. Заради своята уязвимост децата, които са свидетели на насилието над жени или на домашно насилие, са изложени на преки емоционални вреди, които се отразяват на развитието им. Поради това такива деца следва да се считат за жертви и да се ползват от целеви мерки за защита.
Искам за пореден път да подчертая, че насилието няма място в Съюза. Когато става въпрос за равенството между половете и насилието срещу жените, съм сигурна, че всички ние сме един отбор и че всеки може да допринесе за пълното премахване на този феномен.
Ключово в този аспект е образованието – както за жените, така и за мъжете. Заедно с това държавите членки следва да гарантират, че се предприемат превантивни мерки, като например кампании за повишаване на осведомеността. Ще продължа да подкрепям политиките в тази посока, докато нито една жена не се свени да застане срещу насилника си и да даде гласност на тормоза, на който е подложена.

Bartosz Arłukowicz (PPE),
na piśmie. – Za dwa dni obchodzić będziemy światowy dzień eliminowania przemocy wobec kobiet i młodych dziewcząt. Fakt, że w trzeciej dekadzie XXI w. wciąż takie dni musimy obchodzić, to oczywiście porażka nas wszystkich. Bo to niestety oznacza, że do tej pory świat nie uporał się z tym problemem, nie znaleźliśmy wspólnych mechanizmów, by skończyć z barbarzyństwem minionych wieków. Jako politycy bardzo często spotykamy się z przypadkami niesprawiedliwości, z przypadkami całkowitej bierności służb państwowych wobec przemocy domowej, przemocy wobec kobiet. A przecież ochrona obywateli to ich, zdawałoby się, główne powołanie. To prawda, że istnieją mechanizmy wsparcia i reagowania, brak jest natomiast wrażliwości, zrozumienia i zaufania dla osób pokrzywdzonych. Musimy wspólnie położyć kres bezkarności sprawców przemocy domowej, przemocy wobec kobiet. W komisjach LIBE i FEMM powstaje sprawozdanie w sprawie przystąpienia UE do konwencji stambulskiej, którego jestem sprawozdawcą cieniem z ramienia PPE. Mamy bardzo dobry projekt tego sprawozdania i zrobimy wszystko, żeby UE stała się częścią konwencji. Ubolewam, że w Polsce rząd rozważa wyjście z tej umowy międzynarodowej. To kolejny dowód na ignorowanie przez rząd oczekiwań polskich obywateli.

Josianne Cutajar (S&D),
in writing. – Estimates published by WHO indicate that about 1 in 3 women in the world have been subjected to either physical or sexual intimate partner violence or non-partner violence, including inter-generationally between parents and children, in their lifetime. The femicides we are assisting are also the direct result of the inequalities we are still tolerating, from the gender pay gap, to women traditionally being caretakers, to the insensitivity certain law enforcement authorities still show towards domestic violence complaints. While we focusing our efforts on the crises we face, we must keep in mind the increasing inequalities, including those hidden from the public eye and attracting stigmatisation. We must strive to empower women to leave abusive environments through adequate support, such as safe shelters and access to help services through diverse channels including the digital ones, easily accessible for all. At the same time, we must strengthen the training and resources for the judiciary, law enforcement officers, and healthcare and social service providers. Moreover, the stereotypes and misogyny women face must be addressed at societal level through better educational programmes.

Estrella Durá Ferrandis (S&D),
por escrito. – Para los y las socialistas, es indispensable una ley europea contra la violencia de género, una legislación europea homogénea que permita avanzar en la erradicación de la lacra que es la violencia de género, que abarque desde la prevención y la protección de las mujeres hasta la punición de los agresores. Es imprescindible disponer de una definición común y datos sobre la violencia ejercida contra las mujeres, con la que sea posible dimensionarla y combatirla.
La igualdad y la lucha contra la violencia de género es un compromiso que se lleva a la practica con voluntad, políticas y presupuestos.
se lleva a la practica con voluntad, políticas y presupuestos.

Lina Gálvez Muñoz (S&D),
por escrito. – Para los y las socialistas, es indispensable una ley europea contra la violencia de género, una legislación europea homogénea que permita avanzar en la erradicación de la lacra que es la violencia de género, que abarque desde la prevención y la protección de las mujeres hasta la punición de los agresores. Es imprescindible disponer de una definición común y datos sobre la violencia ejercida contra las mujeres, con la que sea posible dimensionarla y combatirla.
La igualdad y la lucha contra la violencia de género es un compromiso que se lleva a la practica con voluntad, políticas y presupuestos.

Isabel García Muñoz (S&D),
por escrito. – Para los y las socialistas, es indispensable una ley europea contra la violencia de género, una legislación europea homogénea que permita avanzar en la erradicación de la lacra que es la violencia de género, que abarque desde la prevención y la protección de las mujeres hasta la punición de los agresores. Es imprescindible disponer de una definición común y datos sobre la violencia ejercida contra las mujeres, con la que sea posible dimensionarla y combatirla.
La igualdad y la lucha contra la violencia de género es un compromiso que se lleva a la practica con voluntad, políticas y presupuestos.

Javi López (S&D),
por escrito. – Para los y las socialistas, es indispensable una ley europea contra la violencia de género, una legislación europea homogénea que permita avanzar en la erradicación de la lacra que es la violencia de género, que abarque desde la prevención y la protección de las mujeres hasta la punición de los agresores. Es imprescindible disponer de una definición común y datos sobre la violencia ejercida contra las mujeres, con la que sea posible dimensionarla y combatirla.
La igualdad y la lucha contra la violencia de género es un compromiso que se lleva a la practica con voluntad, políticas y presupuestos.

César Luena (S&D),
por escrito. – Para los y las socialistas, es indispensable una ley europea contra la violencia de género, una legislación europea homogénea que permita avanzar en la erradicación de la lacra que es la violencia de género, que abarque desde la prevención y la protección de las mujeres hasta la punición de los agresores. Es imprescindible disponer de una definición común y datos sobre la violencia ejercida contra las mujeres, con la que sea posible dimensionarla y combatirla.
La igualdad y la lucha contra la violencia de género es un compromiso que se lleva a la practica con voluntad, políticas y presupuestos.

Adriana Maldonado López (S&D),
por escrito. – Para los y las socialistas, es indispensable una ley europea contra la violencia de género, una legislación europea homogénea que permita avanzar en la erradicación de la lacra que es la violencia de género, que abarque desde la prevención y la protección de las mujeres hasta la punición de los agresores. Es imprescindible disponer de una definición común y datos sobre la violencia ejercida contra las mujeres, con la que sea posible dimensionarla y combatirla.
La igualdad y la lucha contra la violencia de género es un compromiso que se lleva a la practica con voluntad, políticas y presupuestos.

Cristina Maestre Martín De Almagro (S&D),
por escrito. – Para los y las socialistas, es indispensable una ley europea contra la violencia de género, una legislación europea homogénea que permita avanzar en la erradicación de la lacra que es la violencia de género, que abarque desde la prevención y la protección de las mujeres hasta la punición de los agresores. Es imprescindible disponer de una definición común y datos sobre la violencia ejercida contra las mujeres, con la que sea posible dimensionarla y combatirla.
La igualdad y la lucha contra la violencia de género es un compromiso que se lleva a la practica con voluntad, políticas y presupuestos.

Sirpa Pietikäinen (PPE),
kirjallinen. –Vietämme perjantaina naisiin kohdistuvan väkivallan lopettamisen päivää. Naisiin ja tyttöihin kohdistuvaa väkivaltaa esiintyy systemaattisesti edelleen järkyttävän isossa mittakaavassa. Se on vakava ihmisoikeusrikkomus, ja tämä on saatava loppumaan. Naisiin ja tyttöihin kohdistuu fyysistä, seksuaalista, henkistä, taloudellista, digitaalista ja rakenteellista väkivaltaa. Matkamme on pitkä naisiin kohdistuvan väkivallan poistamiseen. Ratkaisuja kuitenkin on. On sanomattakin selvää, että jokaisen EU-maan on ratifioitava Istanbulin sopimus viipymättä, ja EU:n pitää vaatia sitä jäsenmailtaan. EU-tasolla vain 21 jäsenmaata on ratifioinut sopimuksen. Me parlamentissa olemme toistuvasti vaatineet EU:ta liittymään täysimääräisesti Istanbulin sopimukseen, ja nyt on aika sille, että näin myös tapahtuu. Istanbulin sopimus määrittelee naisiin kohdistuvan väkivallan laajasti. Sen mukaan naisiin kohdistuva väkivalta on naisiin kohdistuva ihmisoikeusloukkaus ja syrjinnän muoto, ja se käsittää kaikki sellaiset sukupuoleen perustuvat väkivallanteot, jotka aiheuttavat tai voivat aiheuttaa naisille ruumiillista, seksuaalista, henkistä tai taloudellista haittaa tai kärsimystä, mukaan lukien tällaisilla teoilla uhkaaminen, pakottaminen tai mielivaltainen vapaudenriisto joko julkisessa tai yksityiselämässä.
Tarvitsemme unionissa myös vahvan direktiivin naisiin kohdistuvan väkivallan torjuntaan. Komissio on antanut esityksensä direktiiviksi, ja odotan parlamentilta vahvaa kantaa, jota puolustamme myöhemmin jäsenmaiden kanssa käytävissä neuvotteluissa. Tämä direktiivi on yksi tärkeimmistä lainsäädäntöhankkeista, jotka on saatava loppuun ennen vaalikauden loppua, ja siihen on sisällyttävä myös Istanbulin sopimuksen mukainen laaja määritelmä naisiin kohdistuvasta väkivallasta.

Marcos Ros Sempere (S&D),
por escrito. – Para los y las socialistas, es indispensable una ley europea contra la violencia de género, una legislación europea homogénea que permita avanzar en la erradicación de la lacra que es la violencia de género, que abarque desde la prevención y la protección de las mujeres hasta la punición de los agresores. Es imprescindible disponer de una definición común y datos sobre la violencia ejercida contra las mujeres, con la que sea posible dimensionarla y combatirla.
La igualdad y la lucha contra la violencia de género es un compromiso que se lleva a la practica con voluntad, políticas y presupuestos.
9.   Amending Council Regulation (EU, Euratom) 2020/2093 of 17 December 2020 laying down the multiannual financial framework for the years 2021 to 2027 — Amending Regulation (EU, Euratom) 2018/1046 as regards the establishment of a diversified funding strategy as a general borrowing method - 'Macro-Financial Assistance+' instrument for providing support to Ukraine for 2023 (debate)

Przewodnicząca. – Kolejnym punktem porządku dziennego jest debata łączna na temat oświadczenia Rady i Komisji w sprawie pomocy finansowej UE dla Ukrainy: zalecenia dotyczące zmiany rozporządzenia Rady (UE, Euratom) 2020/2093 z 17 grudnia 2020 r. określającego wieloletnie ramy finansowe na lata 2021-2027 (COM(2022)0595 - 14471/2022 — C9-0386/2022 - 2022/0369(APP)) oraz sprawozdanie dotyczące zmiany rozporządzenia (UE, Euratom) 2018/1046 w odniesieniu do ustanowienia zróżnicowanej strategii finansowania jako ogólnej metody zaciągania pożyczek (COM(2022)0596 - C9-0374/2022 - 2022/0370(COD)), oraz sprawozdanie dotyczące instrumentu wsparcia dla Ukrainy na 2023 r. (pomoc makrofinansowa +) (COM(2022)0597 - C9-0373/2022 - 2022/0371(COD)).

Mikuláš Bek,
President-in-Office of the Council. – Madam President, honourable Members, Commissioner, I am pleased to be here today and to be working with this Parliament and with the Commission towards finding a structural solution to help the brave people of Ukraine in 2023.
Delivering financial support to Ukraine in 2022 has proven an exercise more difficult than originally foreseen. With the EU budget lacking the resources to provide the full guarantees for the loans to Ukraine, we required national guarantees, and this presented operational and financial drawbacks.
I am happy that, with this package, the EU shows it is united and strongly committed to supporting Ukraine. So today, you will be discussing the method to offer Ukraine the remaining EUR 3 billion from 2022 and a further EUR 15 billion in loans for 2023. These loans will have a grace period of ten years, and the Member States will cover the interest costs. This makes the loans highly concessional and will not put any burden on Ukraine.
Ukraine will therefore be able to concentrate on fighting off the invader, as well as on repairing its energy and other crucial infrastructure that the invader has been destroying on purpose, with the sole objective of inflicting further hardships on the people of Ukraine as winter approaches.
I can only imagine that this Parliament would have liked more time to discuss, negotiate and amend the two legislative files for which you are co-legislators, and also to scrutinise further the amendment to the Multiannual Financial Framework, for which the Council is requesting your consent.
Let me reassure you in the Council we felt the same, but I trust that the Parliament will rise to the challenge. I hope that the votes you will be casting tomorrow on the package will allow us to proceed with a speedy delivery of support to Ukraine. Thank you very much for your attention.

Virginijus Sinkevičius,
Member of the Commission. – Madam President, Minister, honourable Members, I would like to start this debate by reaffirming the EU's solidarity with Ukraine. While Russia continues its brutal war, killing Ukraine's citizens and destroying infrastructure, the EU stands with Ukraine as long as it takes. The EU remains steadfast in its support for Ukraine's independence, sovereignty and territorial integrity and its inherent right of self-defence against Russia's aggression, as enshrined in the UN Charter. Russia must stop its illegal war of aggression, which has taken a heavy human toll and deeply damaged Ukraine's society and economic potential.
The destruction of physical capital and infrastructure is immense. By the end of May, it is estimated to have cost reconstruction and recovery costs of USD 349 billion; almost 14 million people have been forced to leave their homes. It is an extremely challenging context. Ukraine's funding needs will continue to be acute in 2023.
The EU, its Member States and the European financial institutions under the Team Europe approach are fulfilling their promise to provide sizeable support to Ukraine. In total, almost EUR 20 billion have been mobilised in 2022, in addition to military assistance. And I would like to thank the European Parliament for its unwavering support for Ukraine and its continuous cooperation. This includes the Parliament's support under the urgency procedure for the legislative proposal made by the Commission.
Yesterday we disbursed another EUR 2.5 billion of exceptional macro-financial assistance to Ukraine. This brings the Union's macro-financial assistance to Ukraine since the beginning of the war to EUR 6.7 billion: emergency MFA of EUR 1.2 billion disbursed in March, exceptional MFA of EUR 1 billion disbursed in August and an exceptional MFA of EUR 4.5 billion disbursed in October and November. We expect to disburse another EUR 500 million of exceptional MFA to Ukraine in December, once the authorities have shown that they have met the conditionality agreed in the related memorandum of understanding. So far there has been satisfactory progress with implementation and we are confident that the Ukrainian authorities will meet their commitments.
Based on the enhanced reporting requirements linked to the exceptional MFA designed to ensure the transparency and efficiency of the use of funds, Ukraine has reported that the funds have been used to repay maturing domestic liabilities. In that sense, the Union's support has effectively contributed to limit Ukraine's recourse monetary financing of its government. That way, the Union's MFA has achieved its goal of maintaining macro-financial stability and preserving the stock of official international reserves of Ukraine, which stabilised at above USD 25 billion since September. Estimates of Ukraine's funding gap in 2023 are exceptionally uncertain, ranging from EUR 3 to 4 billion per month, notably depending on the length of the war and the inflicted damage.
To help Ukraine cover its sizable funding gap in 2023, on 9 November the Commission presented a proposal for a new instrument: Macro-Financial Assistance Plus. It aims to channel up to EUR 18 billion in highly concessional loans to Ukraine in 2023 in a predictable, continuous, orderly and timely manner. Such an unprecedented amount will allow Ukraine to ensure macroeconomic stability and restore critical infrastructure destroyed by Russia.
To ensure maximum concessionality, the loans provided under the MFA+ instrument should have long maturities and there will be no repayment of principal before 2033. To secure the funds for the loans, the Commission proposes to borrow on capital markets using the diversified funding strategy via a targeted amendment of the Financial Regulation and this would enable the Commission to use the full portfolio of funding instruments to secure market funding on the most advantageous terms.
To guarantee this borrowing for Ukraine, the Commission proposes to use the headroom of the 2021-2027 EU budget in a targeted manner for Ukraine, limited in time, and this will be done via a targeted amendment of the MFF Regulation. The headroom is the difference between the own reserve ceilings – so the maximum amount of resources that the Commission can ask Member States to contribute in a given year – and the funds that it actually needs to cover the expenses envisioned in the budget. The EU will also cover the interest-rate costs of Ukraine to be financed by voluntary contributions from Member States in the form of external assigned revenue, and the scale of the required interest payments under the proposed MFA+ funding will depend on the rate at which the Commission raises the funds on the capital markets within its diversified funding strategy.
Current market extrapolations point to estimated interest-rate costs of less than EUR 600 million per year. These costs will only come into effect from 2024 onwards because there will be no interest payments related to these funds in 2023. Allocation of the costs across Member States will be done on the basis of the GNI key. Financial support for Ukraine in 2023 will entail conditionality to be negotiated with Ukraine in a memorandum of understanding. Obviously, implementing a structural reform agenda in a country at war is not an easy task and it puts a premium on relevance and feasibility. This conditionality will feature reforms to further enhance the rule of law, good governance, anti-fraud and anti-corruption measures. And this is essential for the country's future reconstruction and for supporting Ukraine on its path to EU accession, as well as ensuring the financial interests of the Union.
The Commission intends to negotiate the memorandum of understanding without delay once the MFA+ instrument is legally in place, and we are confident that this will allow us a swift disbursement to be made in January 2023. It is important that the emergency financial assistance for Ukraine from all other international partners, both bilateral and multilateral, should continue in 2023 as it was in 2022. The Commission is in regular contact with the international financial institutions and also in the G7 framework to ensure cooperation and coordination.
But honourable Members, macro-financial assistance is only one element of the Union's support for Ukraine. Since the beginning of the Russian invasion, the overall Team Europe assistance pledged to Ukraine amounts close to EUR 20 billion. This combines the support enabled by the European Union budget. In addition to the financial assistance, the Union has also made military equipment available through the European Peace Facility, plus over EUR 100 million of CSDP support for training missions, as well as in-kind assistance under the Union's civil protection mechanism.
On humanitarian assistance, the EU, together with its Member States, have mobilised more than EUR 1.5 billion, of which about EUR 500 million comes from the EU budget. The EU's comprehensive humanitarian and civil-protection assistance is far from being a short term deal. The EU is with Ukraine for the long haul.
Honourable Members, once again, I would like to thank the European Parliament for the urgency and priority that it has given to this file. It is vital for our Ukrainian friends that this entire package goes through quickly. It is also vital for Europe's credibility as a whole.

Jan Olbrycht,
w imieniu grupy PPE. – Pani Przewodnicząca! Panie Komisarzu! Dyskusja nad pomocą makroekonomiczną przebiega tak naprawdę w dwóch płaszczyznach. Pierwsza płaszczyzna to oczywiście niezbędna pomoc Ukrainie w utrzymaniu stabilności makroekonomicznej, w podtrzymaniu funkcjonowania państwa we wszystkich jego funkcjach. To nie są pieniądze na odbudowę Ukrainy. To są pieniądze na podtrzymanie stabilności funkcjonowania państwa. To ważne, żebyśmy ten element podkreślali, bo oczekiwania są bardzo duże.
Zgodnie z wyliczeniami propozycja, którą dzisiaj mamy na stole, mówi o tym, żeby przekazywać w formie pożyczek półtora miliarda euro co miesiąc, przez cały rok 2023, począwszy od stycznia. W sumie razem 18 miliardów euro. To wymagało zmian, jeżeli chodzi o kwestie legislacyjne. I to ten drugi wymiar. Jesteśmy w Unii Europejskiej w zupełnie innej sytuacji. Pewien przełom nastąpił w sytuacji funduszu odbudowy. Jest zgoda na zaciągnięcie kredytów na rynku kapitałowym. To, że fundusz został pozyskany z sukcesem, otwiera drogę również dla tego typu działania. Ważne, żebyśmy o tym pamiętali, bo to jest zupełnie inny typ funkcjonowania Unii Europejskiej. I dla nas jako Parlamentu jest ważne, że my w trybie nagłym zgadzamy się na przeprowadzenie zmian legislacyjnych po to, żeby ułatwić ten typ działania na rynkach kapitałowych. Jest to niezbędnie potrzebne. Ale to jest również element wskazujący na przyszłe działania budżetu europejskiego.

Margarida Marques,
em nome do Grupo S&D. – Senhora Presidente, Senhor Ministro, Senhor Comissário, estamos hoje prontos para discutir, em urgência, o pacote de apoio financeiro à Ucrânia já para 2023, a um mês do início do ano…
Apoio financeiro este que está a vencer dois habituais ‘tabus’ nestas lides: a alteração ao Quadro Financeiro Plurianual e a contração de dívida em nome da União.
Este pacote passa por uma alteração ao Regulamento QFP! Decisão que requer unanimidade no Conselho e a aprovação do Parlamento Europeu. O que é a prova provada do ditado ‘if there is a will there is a way’. É esta alteração ao Regulamento QFP que permitirá à Comissão emprestar à Ucrânia, também através de um novo acordo de assistência macrofinanceira, o MFA PLUS, 18 mil milhões de euros em 2023. Exatamente nos mesmos moldes em que empresta já aos Estados-Membros da União Europeia.
E isto só é possível porque antes vencemos o tabu e criámos um instrumento, o Fundo NextGenerationEU, ancorado no orçamento da União Europeia. Com este novo MFA PLUS, continuamos totalmente comprometidos com a estabilidade de longo prazo da Ucrânia, incluindo a financeira. Este MFA PLUS permitirá a continuação dos serviços públicos e ajudará na reconstrução e em projetos de infraestruturas, mas serve, também, para impulsionar reformas democráticas. Por isso é essencial assegurar o controlo democrático por parte do Parlamento Europeu.
Por fim, Senhor Comissário, deixe-me concluir que esta alteração ao QFP sublinha, mais do que nunca, a óbvia necessidade de revisão do QFP 21-27 já no próximo ano.
Precisamos de um orçamento da União Europeia revisto, mais forte, mais ágil e precisamos de um instrumento permanente que nos permita responder a crises, como agora estamos a fazer. E podemos fazê-lo, como disse, só porque existe o NextGenerationEU.

Valérie Hayer,
au nom du groupe Renew. – Madame la Présidente, Monsieur le Commissaire, Monsieur le Ministre, chers collègues, l'appel du président Zelensky est sans équivoque. Pour ne pas s'effondrer, l'Ukraine a besoin de 3 à 4 milliards d'euros par mois. Sans cet argent, ce sont tous les services publics, des hôpitaux aux écoles, qui risquent de disparaître. Ce sont les infrastructures détruites par les bombes russes – les ponts, les routes, le réseau électrique, les stations d'épuration – qui ne pourront pas être réparées faute de moyens. Bref, c'est tout le pays qui serait en black-out, les vies humaines en danger, la vie économique et administrative bloquée.
Chers collègues, si les Ukrainiens ne sont pas soutenus, les conséquences seront graves. Elles seront graves non seulement et avant tout pour les Ukrainiens, mais aussi pour le reste de l'Europe. Car une Ukraine abandonnée, c'est une Russie renforcée, c'est une Union européenne affaiblie. Alors je me tourne ici vers l'extrême droite, vers le Rassemblement national et ses amis pro-Poutine. Si vous votez contre ou si même vous vous abstenez sur cette aide de 18 milliards d'euros, ne dites plus jamais que vous êtes pour la liberté des nations.

Rasmus Andresen,
im Namen der Verts/ALE-Fraktion. – Frau Präsidentin! ‘Sie wollen uns erfrieren lassen und unsere Strom- und Wärmeversorgung zerstören.’ Mit diesen Worten beschreibt Kiews Bürgermeister Klitschko Putins brutale Strategie für diesen Winter. Er beschreibt exemplarisch die Befürchtungen vieler Menschen in der Ukraine, mit denen wir neun grüne Abgeordnete am Wochenende in Kiew Gespräche geführt haben.
Der ukrainische Winter wird hart. Wir Grüne unterstützen deshalb uneingeschränkt die 18 Milliarden Euro Finanzhilfe, über die wir hier morgen abstimmen. Die ukrainische Kriegswirtschaft steht vor enormen Herausforderungen. Das Bruttoinlandsprodukt ist mit 37 % eingebrochen, die Inflation liegt bei 27 %. Während eines brutalen Kriegs kann sich ein Land ökonomisch nicht erholen.
Die Finanzhilfe ist wichtig, um die Ukraine am Laufen zu halten. Aber es geht jetzt auch darum, die Grundlagen für den Wiederaufbau zu legen. Der Wiederaufbau muss nachhaltig werden, die Zivilgesellschaft einbeziehen und alle Demokratie- und Antikorruptionsbestimmungen erfüllen. Die Ukraine kann sich auf uns verlassen: Solidarität mit der Ukraine.

Joachim Kuhs,
im Namen der ID-Fraktion. – Frau Präsidentin, Herr Minister, Herr Kommissar, werte Kollegen! Ich möchte eigentlich zu diesem Punkt drei Fragen stellen. Die erste Frage betrifft den Europäischen Rechnungshof. Der Europäische Rechnungshof hat seine Stellungnahme abgegeben, aber er schreibt darin, er habe nur zwölf Tage Zeit gehabt, diese Stellungnahme abzugeben. Was ist da passiert? Und wieso konnten wir sie erst gestern bekommen und können jetzt nicht mehr darüber debattieren, über die guten und sinnvollen Vorschläge, die er gemacht hat? Ich verstehe das nicht.
Eine zweite Frage betrifft diese direkte Finanzierung des Haushaltes der Ukraine. Wenn wir im CONT-Ausschuss, wo ich auch bin, so was sehen, dass Geld direkt in den Haushalt eines Staates fließt, dann sind wir immer sehr hellhörig und sehr wachsam und versuchen, rauszubekommen: Was passiert hier, was läuft hier ab? Und ich habe große Bedenken, dass dieses Geld, wenn es hier in die Ukraine fließt, in den korruptesten Staat unseres Kontinents – das ist nun mal ein Fakt –; wenn dieses Geld jetzt in diese Kriegswirtschaft fließt, ist das wirklich gut angelegt, ist das wirklich richtig? Wird dann wirklich den Menschen in der Ukraine geholfen? Das ist die Frage.
Und die dritte Frage ist die: Wissen wir eigentlich, wissen Sie eigentlich, wie viel Geld wir diesen Menschen dort hinschicken? Ich habe hier 50-Euro-Scheine, zusammen ist das einen halben Zentimeter hoch. Und dieses Geld, wenn man das mal hochrechnet auf einen Turm, dann sind die 18 Milliarden ein Turm von 40 Kilometer Geld. Wollen wir das wirklich?

Johan Van Overtveldt,
namens de ECR-Fractie. – Voorzitter, commissaris, beste collega's, de Europese Unie moet er alles aan doen om Oekraïne en zijn burgers te steunen. Dat zijn we hen en onszelf verschuldigd in het belang van onze gemeenschappelijke waarden en normen. Alhoewel ik niet de minste twijfel heb over de toekenning van deze middelen, wil ik er toch voor pleiten om een goede opvolging van de effectieve besteding van deze middelen zeker niet uit het oog te verliezen. Volgende stap is natuurlijk de nodige financiën mobiliseren voor de wederopbouw. Hier moet volgens mij in eerste instantie gekeken worden in de richting van de op dit moment naar schatting 80 miljard aan geblokkeerde Russische tegoeden. Als de Russische elite niet in staat is om de verantwoordelijkheid te nemen voor wat er wordt aangericht, dan moeten we hen daarbij op een krachtige manier helpen. Ik ben me ervan bewust dat dit juridisch een complexe operatie kan en zal zijn, maar ik vertrouw erop dat de Commissie het nodige zal doen om dit grondig te analyseren en ook uit te voeren.

Ivan Vilibor Sinčić (NI). – Poštovana predsjedavajuća, na početku pozvat ću još jednom na prekid vatre i zaključenje mira u Ukrajini. Moj interes je onaj hrvatskih građana i zanima me gdje završava ta pomoć koja ide prema vladi Zelenskog.
I prije ovog rata brojna sredstva su otišla tamo, ali prema nalazima Revizorskog suda ne znamo za što su točno potrošena. Ove godine, 2022. Zapad je dao 90 do 100 milijardi dolara pomoći Ukrajini, što je jedan do dva godišnja vojna proračuna države Rusije.
Unatoč velikoj pomoći, situacija u Ukrajini je jako loša i sve gora. Oko 50 % energetske infrastrukture je uništeno, uključujući brojne elektrane. Prema WHO-u, još 2-3 milijuna ljudi će napustiti Ukrajinu zbog velikih hladnoća koje dolaze. 60 % ukrajinskog proračuna za 2022. dolazi iz stranih donacija. Čemu se narod Ukrajine u takvoj situaciji uopće može nadati? Vrijeme je da Ukrajina počne razgovarati o miru, a na to ih je pred par dana pozvao čak i Pentagon.
I na sve ovo, sada imamo ovaj prijedlog zaduženja na međunarodnom tržištu naših građana za još 18 milijardi eura, ili jednu i pol milijardu mjesečno, za krpanje proračuna Ukrajine. Kako to objasniti, recimo našim hrvatskim građanima, kada Hrvatska pogođena s dva potresa nije obnovila niti tri kuće svojim građanima, koje još uz sve to muči i inflacija?

Michael Gahler (PPE). – Frau Präsidentin, liebe Kolleginnen und Kollegen! Herr Kollege Kuhs, Sie arbeiten sich ja an der Ukraine ab als angeblich dem korruptesten Staat der Welt. Wir könnten schon eine Ecke weiter sein in der Bekämpfung dieser Korruption, hätten wir nicht hier mit Russland den verbrecherischsten Staat Europas, der seinen Krieg gegen die Ukraine hier durchführt.
Today we have with a huge majority labelled Russia as what it is: a state sponsor of terrorism and a state that uses means of terrorism. We have illustrated in detail the amount of destruction and suffering that this inhuman, criminal regime has caused and continues to inflict on its peaceful neighbour and its innocent citizens. That is why, as standing rapporteur on Ukraine, I am deeply grateful to all EU institutions and Member States that we continue to stand firm also in our financial support. And I wouldn't like to forget all those other bodies and civil society that are firmly supporting Ukraine, also financially. EUR 18 billion – that is EUR 1.5 billion per month – is only part of the dire needs to keep the country running, to pay the salaries and so on.
And I think – and that has been alluded to also by my colleague Van Overtveldt – given the amount of money and given war-related problems in the amount of transparency and all that, it requires a better role for the Parliament. We need to set up a working group together with the Commission from the Budget Committee and Foreign Affairs to supervise and to accompany the payments of what is going to Ukraine.
So that is my suggestion to the Commission: to accept this idea, to involve us closely as a Parliament in administering this huge amount of money.

Slava Ukraini!


Victor Negrescu (S&D). – Madam President, dear Commissioner, dear minister, dear colleagues, the war in Ukraine cannot be won and people's lives cannot be saved without European support and commitment. This implies providing Ukrainians with the necessary resources to protect their population, resist during the winter, keep schools open, help the reconstruction, and maintain the activity of their public services and institutions. That is why the European Parliament is in favour of the proposal of the Commission for a support package for Ukraine of up to EUR 18 billion through concessional loans to be repaid in the course of maximum 35 years, starting in 2033.
In a further expression of solidarity, the EU will cover the interest-rate costs, and of course Member States can also contribute with additional funds. This instrument will imply reforms to help Ukraine advance on its European path. But also, of course, we have to mention anti-corruption and judicial reforms, respect for the rule of law, good governance and modernisation of the national and local institutions. I also hope that EU minorities' rights will also be included there, in particular referring to Romanian minorities.
Ukraine is fighting for its freedom and its independence, but is also fighting for our values. This is why we need to show solidarity and approve this proposal and of course make sure that reforms are put into place.

Petras Auštrevičius (Renew). – Madam President, Commissioner, Minister, dear colleagues, who may deny that our excellent decision – I mean to call on Russia as a state-sponsor of terrorism. Our IT systems are down. I think it's a very clear message. Moscow is watching us, following and making some conclusions. Good luck for you. You will be down, not us.
Today, colleagues, more than ever, Ukraine is facing a greater need for extensive support from its partners. Russia's war of aggression is destroying Ukraine's economy and pushing its population into energy and social poverty, terrorising its people, with more than 25% being internally displaced and 7 million fleeing abroad. Ukraine has mobilised all its financial resources to fight for its survival and the protection of its population.
I congratulate the European Union and its Member States, as well as the outstanding commitment of civil society to help Ukraine through this difficult time. We must realise that by supporting Ukraine and its people we are reaffirming the meaning of European solidarity.

Slava Ukraini!


Alexandra Geese (Verts/ALE). – Madam President, we stand with Ukraine, with our hearts, our minds, and EUR 18 billion. We stand with Ukrainian people, who will never give up fighting because they have seen how Putin's troops have raped, tortured and murdered innocent civilians. We stand with the Ukrainian teachers, the nurses, the mayors, the technicians and the construction workers who are rebuilding their country every day after every attack. And we stand with the Ukrainian soldiers who save human lives by stopping bombs and retaking occupied territories. We stand with the families, with the children who are in the cold, without heating, without electricity, without water, because Russian bombs target civilian energy infrastructure. And this is happening right now, while we are speaking, in Kyiv.
We stand with the Ukrainian people who are fighting every day to protect not only their own country, but our democracy and freedom. And I can tell you, EUR 18 billion is not a high price because the really high price is paid by the Ukrainian people. We stand with Ukraine.

Matteo Gazzini (ID). – Signora Presidente, signor Commissario, onorevoli colleghi, a seguito dello scoppio della guerra in Ucraina, l'Unione europea, gli Stati membri e le istituzioni finanziarie europee hanno fornito fino a questo momento un sostegno pari a 19,7 miliardi di euro. Adesso il nuovo strumento prevedrà un'erogazione di ulteriori 18 miliardi di euro.
Ritengo giusto sostenere l'Ucraina, ovviamente, ma ritengo altrettanto importante vigilare in maniera rigorosa su come questi denari verranno spesi e da chi verranno spesi. In questo momento di oggettiva difficoltà nella gestione delle problematiche interne da parte del governo ucraino, si corre il rischio che una parte di questi aiuti possa essere intercettata da organizzazioni o singoli aventi finalità diverse rispetto all'esclusivo e doveroso sostegno al popolo ucraino colpito dalla catastrofe della guerra.
Questo nuovo strumento consente che le condizioni politiche e le modalità di erogazione siano meno dettagliate, oltre a prevedere un preoccupante ruolo minore del Parlamento per quanto riguarda la sua funzione di controllo di bilancio. Ma siamo sicuri che le istituzioni europee dispongano di mezzi adeguati per controllare in maniera effettiva questi finanziamenti? Siamo sicuri di non correre il rischio che questo nuovo strumento sia solo il primo di una lunga serie di prestiti?
Mi auguro che questi aiuti possano fungere da leva per arrivare finalmente alla pace e porre fine ad una guerra che ha devastato l'Ucraina e danneggiato gravemente l'Europa intera.

Dominik Tarczyński (ECR). – Madam President, this debate is not about money. It's not about EUR 18 billion. It's not about USD 350 billion. This debate is about our humanity, Mr Commissioner. It's about our responsibility. It's about history. Because history will judge us, just like history judged those who decided to fight against Hitler. I can't see many differences between Putin and Hitler.
I just came back from Izium in Ukraine. I could see graves – holes, actually – where over 400 bodies were found. It's completely different when you smelled the air there. When you see these holes. When you talk to the people who are starving to death. So I would like to encourage you, if you feel strong enough, to visit Ukraine and see Izium, Bucha, Mariupol and other places. Because it's worth to go and see. Because history will judge us.
So remember, it's not about money. It's not about euros. It's about our humanity.

Tamás Deutsch (NI). – Tisztelt Elnök Asszony! Magyarország határozottan elítéli az orosz agressziót. Kiállunk Ukrajna függetlensége és területi épsége mellett. Segítjük az ukránokat. A magyar humanitárius segélyprogram keretében egymillió háborús menekültet fogadtunk be, és 31 milliárd forintot fordítottunk Ukrajna támogatására.
A mi álláspontunk elvi álláspont: nem támogatunk semmilyen újabb uniós közös hitelfelvételt, ezért nem fogadjuk el, hogy az EU közös hitelfelvételből finanszírozza Ukrajnát. 2020-ban kizárólag a mediterrán országok kérésére, precedenst nem teremtő egyszeri és rendkívüli kivételként fogadtuk csak el a közös hitelfelvételt. Tragikus tapasztalataink vannak ugyanis. Előbb a kommunisták adósították el Magyarországot, 2002 után pedig a baloldali kormányok vertek újra adósságba minket.
Mi nem akarjuk gyermekeink jövőjét eladósítani, nem akarjuk, hogy az EU egy adósságközösséggé változzon. Nem a közös eladósodás jelenti a közös európai jövőt. Magyarország kész segíteni Ukrajna újjáépítését az ukránokkal kötött kétoldalú megállapodás alapján, a nemzeti költségvetésből biztosítani a ránk eső pénzt.

José Manuel Fernandes (PPE). – Senhora Presidente, caras e caros Colegas, não basta anunciar a solidariedade ou pregá-la. São necessárias ações concretas, que traduzam a solidariedade referida por Schuman, a solidariedade da verdade, a solidariedade que nós temos de concretizar.
E, por isso, aquilo que eu tenho aqui a referir é que nós praticámo-la com estas ações concretas e esta aprovação rápida, urgente, para possibilitarmos que a Ucrânia use 18 mil milhões de euros em termos de empréstimos cedidos pela União Europeia, pela garantia do orçamento.
Mas eu queria pedir ao Conselho para que não tenha dúvidas, para que não se aceite que líderes que estão no Conselho usem a Ucrânia, e por vezes até a enganem, quando aceitam a sua adesão como país candidato, e depois começam a dizer que não há as melhores condições ou não há condições para poder aceitá-la. Líderes que não têm o nome de líderes, e que deviam ter o nome de governantes, porque, no fundo, o que eles têm é medo de perder os fundos agrícolas e os fundos da coesão.
Para além disso, eu espero que não se use a chantagem da unanimidade em relação à Ucrânia para se ter ganhos noutros dossiês, como é o caso do dossiê Rule of law. Será inaceitável no Conselho que se utilize a regra da unanimidade que é necessária para se fazer chantagem noutros dossiês.

PREDSEDÁ: MICHAL ŠIMEČKA


podpredseda


Bogusław Liberadzki (S&D). – Panie Przewodniczący! Panie Komisarzu! Panie Ministrze! Debatujemy o państwie, które jest kandydatem do Unii Europejskiej. Tak jak pan minister Bek był uprzejmy powiedzieć, debatujemy o państwie, które broni się, broni się nadzwyczaj dzielnie – i należy bardzo wyraźnie to podkreślić.
Mamy trzy obszary pomocy finansowej, o których musimy mówić. Pierwszy, to jest funkcjonowanie państwa. Przecież Ukraina musi zapewnić służbę zdrowia, musi zapewnić edukację, musi zapewnić funkcjonowanie podstawowego aparatu państwowego, a także musi zapewnić sprawność infrastruktury w powszechnym użytkowaniu. Drugi obszar to jest naprawa wyrządzonych szkód wojennych, zwłaszcza infrastruktury krytycznej. A potem będziemy rozmawiać o planie odbudowy.
Mamy następujący dylemat, moim zdaniem – mianowicie pytanie: co się da zrobić za 18 mld euro, to to zrobimy i koniec, i niewiele nas więcej interesuje albo – jeżeli chcemy wygrać tę wojnę wraz z Ukrainą – to jest pytanie: a może należy skumulować te środki, wesprzeć intensywniej po to, żeby wcześniej zakończyć? I mamy zatem strategię możliwą: rozkładać systematycznie półtora miliarda euro co miesiąc albo skumulować środki, pomóc Ukrainie, szybciej zakończyć tę wojnę. Pamiętajmy, że celem zasadniczym jest minimalizacja szkód, wyzwolenie Ukrainy, a nie kontrolowanie każdego euro.

Vlad Gheorghe (Renew). – Domnule președinte, când ajutăm Ucraina, de fapt ne ajutăm pe noi. Poate că din Olanda sau din Austria războiul pare ceva departe.
Poate că anumiți politicieni nu văd lucrurile așa cum sunt, că de fapt războiul este la granița noastră, la granița Europei Unite și nu există cetățean european care să nu simtă la buzunar urmările șantajului energetic al lui Putin sau care să nu fi simțit vreodată campaniile lui de fake news, fie că sunt cetățeni din Olanda sau Austria, fie că sunt cetățeni din România.
Doar să trecem iarna nu este de ajuns și nu poate să fie de ajuns. Rusia este un stat terorist. Tocmai am votat chestia asta. Nu mai putem permite excepții de la sancțiuni care ne pun în postura de a face business cu acest stat terorist. Nu mai putem avea guverne prietene sau care fac chiar lobby aici, în Parlamentul European, pentru un stat terorist.
Ajutorul dat Ucrainei și pe viitor reconstrucției acestei țări, candidate la aderare și care apără acum granițele Europei, trebuie să vină din banii oligarhilor și trebuie să vină din banii lui Putin.

Markéta Gregorová (Verts/ALE). – Mr President, dear colleagues, Minister, Commissioner, I welcome this proposal, and especially now that we are discussing – or we already discussed – Russia as a state sponsor of terrorism, and this package for Ukraine. We are being cyber-attacked by a pro-Russian hacker group – they already admitted it – so I think we do not really have to discuss here very thoroughly why we are doing it and why it is important that we continue our swift and efficient support to Ukraine.
But also I do have some concerns about this proposal and I would like to voice the criticism. Firstly, I think it would be really better to also support Ukraine in the form of some grants, not only loans. So we help them ultimately to alleviate the debt burden they have. Additionally, I also encourage the Commission to focus on internal structural reforms in Ukraine to their objectively capable extent.
And lastly, I urge the Commission to at least inform the European Parliament, the co-legislator, ahead of time, notably given the limited time to consider the proposal.

Kosma Złotowski (ECR). – Panie Przewodniczący! Szanowni Państwo! Ukraina potrzebuje naszego wsparcia z wielu powodów: jako sąsiad, ofiara agresji oraz partner, który powinien w najbliższej przyszłości stać się członkiem Unii Europejskiej. Rozpętana przez Rosję wojna generuje ogromne koszty ekonomiczne, które odczuwamy wszyscy. Ale to ofiara tej barbarzyńskiej agresji ponosi najwyższe straty.
Nie możemy dopuścić do tego, żeby plan Putina się powiódł, a u naszych granic pozostanie państwo zrujnowane gospodarczo i niestabilne politycznie. Powinniśmy nadal być arsenałem demokracji i pokoju, wspierając funkcjonowanie ukraińskich instytucji publicznych, które mierzą się z coraz większym kryzysem humanitarnym. Rosja z premedytacją niszczy i dewastuje infrastrukturę, szkoły czy szpitale, licząc, że kolejna fala uchodźców osłabi naszą determinację. Wsparcie finansowe dla Kijowa będzie najlepszym dowodem na to, że taki scenariusz nigdy nie stanie się realny.

Márton Gyöngyösi (NI). – Mr President, dear colleagues, Hungary is a neighbour of Ukraine, and while the battle front is far, we see thousands of refugees fleeing their country every day. Throughout its history, Hungarians experienced what it's like to be exposed to the aggression of mighty empires. For 150 years our ancestors defended Europe from the Ottoman Empire, determined to conquer Europe. Now it's Ukraine defending our civilisation from yet another aggressor.
Ukraine needs our support and solidarity. Hungarians understand this and stand by Ukraine. The Orbán regime, the representatives of which do not hold Russia to be a state sponsor of terrorism, as we found out from their voting attitude earlier today, like to speak on behalf of our nation. But they are not representative of our entire people. Our nation stands on the side of democracy and freedom, as in 1956, and as we ultimately won against the aggressor, so will Ukraine.

Andrius Kubilius (PPE). – Mr President, dear colleagues, we in the European Union need to understand we also are at the war, that is why we need to move from ad hoc decisions to systemic decisions. You cannot win the war without weapons and without war finances, properly and systemically established.
We are still not able to deliver finances what we promised at the beginning of this year and that is shameful for the European Union. In the EU we cannot finance war finance from the regular normal multiannual budget. We need special arrangements, including on EUR 18 billion for 2023.
Today it is important for to push for, first of all, a significant first disbursement in January. Second, to fix EUR 18 billion as our clear promise, not just ‘up to EUR 18 billion’. Third, we need to ask the Commission to coordinate with international partners to cover the rest, as fiscal deficit of Ukraine for 2023 is 38 billion.
And the last point, on reconstruction, the EU has to establish its own resource similar to Next Generation 2.0 for Ukraine and to push for Russian assets confiscation to cover the increasing needs for Ukraine's recovery, which are approaching one trillion euros.

Catharina Rinzema (Renew). – Mr President, Commissioner, dear colleagues, let me start by saying that the brave Ukrainian men, women and children are the victims of this brutal war waged by President Putin. The number of people killed, the millions of women and children fleeing and the level of destruction in the country are devastating. As the cold winter season has now started, many are left in the cold, including many children. That is why it's important that we as the EU give this financial support to Ukraine. We must help rebuild Ukraine.
The Dutch Government proposed to see whether it can adopt the city of Kherson; how great it would be if every EU Member State adopted one city, town or region of Ukraine. Step by step, Europe would be rebuilding Ukraine. War has been raging for nine months now. I want to make one thing clear by quoting the first verse of the Ukrainian anthem: ‘Ukraine has not yet perished, nor her glory, nor her freedom’. Nor will it perish, because our common values of freedom and democracy are stronger than any despicable act of aggression by Russia.
Ukraine, Europe is with you until this end of this war, and Europe will be with you once the war will be over.

Francesca Donato (NI). – Mr President, the EU has taken too many financial risks on Ukraine. That is what the European Court of Auditors has stated in its last report on European Union budget. In 2022 the Union has committed EUR 7.2 billion of loans to Ukraine. European borrowing operations funding this support involve serious risks: Ukraine's default first, fraud and misuse of money as the second.
Nobody knows how the war in Ukraine will end, and if in the future the country will be able to repay its long-term loans. The IMF predictions for Ukrainian economy are baleful. In case of default there is not enough room in the budget of EU to absorb losses if Member States refuse to step in. In such a case, massive cuts to all EU programmes will be unavoidable.
Nevertheless, the Commission now is proposing an MFA+ instrument to provide Ukraine for 2023 with up to EUR 18 billion in loans in 12 months. If the Commission wants to gamble, let us not forget that is handling taxpayers' money, and in case of losses, we all will be held accountable, not the Commission.

Angelika Winzig (PPE). – Sehr geehrter Herr Präsident, geschätzte Damen und Herren! Die russische Invasion in der Ukraine stellt eine Zäsur in der europäischen Geschichte dar und verursacht unvorstellbares menschliches Leid. Daher ist die Europäische Union gefordert, neue Lösungswege zu beschreiten.
Ich unterstütze daher den Vorschlag der Kommission, der Ukraine Darlehen in der Höhe von 18 Milliarden Euro zu gewähren. Ich möchte aber auf zwei Themen der Haushaltskontrolle eingehen.
Erstens: Die Idee der diversifizierten Finanzierungsstrategie ist sehr sinnvoll; allerdings fehlen dem Parlament noch Informationen zu Transparenz, Steuerung, Risikomanagement und Methodologie. Ein delegierter Rechtsakt würde eventuell hier Abhilfe schaffen.
Zweitens: Wer wird die Zinsbelastung nach 2027 tragen, falls Mitgliedstaaten nicht mehr zahlen können oder wollen?
Natürlich stimme ich für den Vorschlag der Kommission, aber ich bin überzeugt, intern haben wir noch einige Dinge zu klären.

Seán Kelly (PPE). –
A Uachtaráin, despite recent victories in Kherson, Ukrainians are facing a bleak and bitterly cold winter. Russia is hammering Ukraine with missile fire, targeting critical infrastructure with one of its heaviest waves of attacks since Putin launched his brutal invasion nearly nine months ago.
We in the EU are providing financial, military and humanitarian support to Ukraine. But it is also Ukraine that is supporting us. We see the tremendous resilience and bravery of the Ukrainian people as they fight every day to defend our shared European values. It is for this reason that I welcome the Commission's proposal for an 18-billion-euro Ukraine support package for 2023.
It is essential that we streamline our financial assistance to Ukraine and ensure that we are providing the economic support needed in an effective and responsive manner. The next months and years are unpredictable and I welcome the flexibility this proposal provides. We must do everything we can to support Ukraine.

Slava Ukraini!


Eugen Tomac (PPE). – Domnule președinte, doamnă comisară, exact în acestă clipă observăm cum saitul Parlamentului European nu mai funcționează. La doar câteva ore după ce am votat această rezoluție prin care am declarat Rusia drept stat sponsor al terorismului.
Nu cred în coincidențe, sper să fie așa, însă este extrem de grav dacă nu înțelegem că ceea ce face Putin astăzi, dacă nu-l oprim la momentul potrivit și nu-i susținem până la capăt pe ucraineni, poate însemna o pierdere mult mai mare, mai târziu.
Acești oameni au omorât în ultimele luni cel puțin 22.000 de cetățeni la Mariupol, oraș cu peste jumătate de milion de cetățeni, unde au distrus totul în proporție de 95%. La această oră, când noi dezbatem în Parlament, Ucraina este atacată, toată infrastructura energetică este atacată.
Cred că nu avem nevoie de mai multe argumente pentru a merge până la capăt și pentru a-i susține și, evident, sprijini reconstrucția acestei țări afectate de un stat care susține terorismul.

Liudas Mažylis (PPE). – Gerbiamas Pirmininke, Komisijos nary, kolegos, Rusijai tęsiant agresyvų karą Ukrainoje, nebeliko abejojančių, kad Ukrainoje ilgai bus reikalinga didelė ir nuolatinė finansinė parama. Juolab, kad Rusijai ir toliau barbariškai ir kryptingai naikinant Ukrainos kritinę infrastruktūrą, dar net neprieiname prie šalies atstatymo klausimo, o tik prie bent jau minimalių gyvybinių poreikių palaikymo. Todėl manau, kad makrofinansinės paramos priemonė yra sveikintina, reikalinga. Tikiuosi, kad visi būtini žingsniai ne tik bus atlikti skubiai, o to dabar labiausiai reikia, bet bus rasta tęstinė struktūra stabiliai finansinei paramai užtikrinti. Žinoma, parama turėtų būti neatsiejama nuo skaidrumo vertinimo, kuris ne tik padėtų Ukrainai toliau stiprinti teisinę valstybę, gerą valdyseną, bet dar ir paskatintų prie paramos prisidėti kuo daugiau tarptautinių partnerių. Turime išlaikyti savo vienybę ir nestabdyti paramos – tiek finansinės, tiek humanitarinės, nepamirštant ir karinės, nes tik taip galėsime pasipriešinti Rusijos vykdomam terorui.

Helmut Scholz (The Left). – Herr Präsident, Herr Kommissar, Ratsvorsitz! Die Ukraine wurde auf Befehl von Wladimir Putin in einen furchtbaren Krieg gezwungen. Die Zerstörungen sind katastrophal. Das Leid der Bevölkerung nimmt mit jedem Tag des beginnenden Winters zu. Eine politisch-diplomatische Lösung und Beendigung des Krieges ist nicht in Sicht.
Vor diesem Hintergrund ist es vollkommen klar, dass sich die Fraktion der Linken im Europäischen Parlament an die Seite der Bevölkerung stellt und sich nicht gegen die Bewilligung von 18 Milliarden Euro zur Unterstützung der Menschen wenden wird.
Warum ist das aber keine echte Hilfe, sondern eine Reihe von Darlehen, für die Zinsen anfallen, die sich zu einem gewaltigen, kaum rückzahlbaren Schuldenberg auftürmen werden? Und landet das Geld tatsächlich bei den Menschen, für die es gedacht ist?
In Friedenszeiten haben wir präzise Kriterien hinsichtlich der Gewährung von Makrofinanzhilfen formuliert. Meine Fraktion hat dabei immer ausdrücklich auf sozialen und demokratischen, rechtsstaatlichen Fortschritt einschließlich des Schutzes von Gewerkschaften und Arbeitsrechten gedrungen. Ist die Kommission nun willens, diese Prinzipien auch so zu stützen mit diesem neuen Package? Ist die regelmäßige parlamentarische Kontrolle dieser Maßstäbe gewährleistet?
Gerade mit der Perspektive des EU-Kandidatenstatus der Ukraine: Der Krieg darf nicht als Grund herhalten, weshalb die Regierung Selenskyj nun schon die gewerkschaftlichen Rechte und weitere Rechte von Beschäftigten und Unternehmen beschneidet, Journalismus darf nicht eingeschüchtert werden, und auch im Notstand muss weiter gelten, Oppositionsparteien nicht einfach zu verbieten. Erinnern Sie die Partner in Kiew daran!

Vystúpenia podľa postupu prihlásenia sa o slovo zdvihnutím ruky


Billy Kelleher (Renew). –
(start of speech off mic) shrank by 35%. It is running a budget deficit of about 4 to 5 billion per month. So we do welcome this MFA+ to try and ensure that the very state and the functions of the state of Ukraine survive during this particular war. This particular fund will assist in keeping hospitals going, keeping the infrastructure going, paying basic salaries. But let us be very clear: Ukraine is on financial life support and we will need an awful lot more in the short and medium term to ensure that the state itself can function while it is fighting the war against Russia.
There is no doubt: we all want to see an outcome that is peaceful, that there is a settlement. But until such time as Russia withdraws from Ukrainian territory, accepts the integrity of Ukraine as a country, well then we will have a situation where the war will continue. And Europe has to support Ukraine in every way it can, both in terms of the immediate financial package that's here before us, but also into the medium term and the longer term with regard to construction.
We have to say confidently that we will stand with Ukraine for as long as it takes for Russia to withdraw and for us to rebuild Ukraine.

Clare Daly (The Left). – Mr President, billions in EU assistance going to Ukraine are not free; they are loans which Ukraine will default on, and they come with neoliberal strings attached. If you listen to the economists, Ukraine is marked for a nightmare round of shock therapy, a sell off of public land, deregulation of labour, sale of public assets, and on it goes. The country's future is being sold to finance a proxy war that's tearing it apart.
Of course, the loans have preconditions that Ukraine must uphold democracy and rule of law, but since the tap was turned on, Zelenskyy has banned most opposition parties, shut out the media, printed kill lists of dissidents, and attacked trade unions and workers' rights. Yet, the billions keep flowing. Our Court of Auditors has said that this is a country accused of grand corruption, and on it goes, while the EU policy seems designed to prevent peace and keep the war going at all costs, as long as ordinary people pay. Between Russian tanks and European banks, there will be little left of Ukraine when this is over. Don't forget: war is a racket, and there's going to be hell to pay for this one.

(Ukončenie vystúpení podľa postupu prihlásenia sa o slovo zdvihnutím ruky)


Virginijus Sinkevičius,
Member of the Commission. – Mr President, Minister, honourable Members, let me first of all sincerely thank you once again for your support for Ukraine, for Parliament's solidarity and for the urgency and priority that Parliament has given to this file. I would also like to thank you for your interventions and comments, to which I have listened very carefully. I would like to reply just to a couple of questions which require a very clear answer.
One Member has asked whether we really want to send all this money to Ukraine. Our clear answer is ‘yes’. Because, as many of you have said today, it's about solidarity, it's about humanity and about standing on the right side of history.
I also heard questions as to whether we know where all this money goes. Again, I can reply with a clear ‘yes’. This money goes to the budget for immediate needs – pensions, salary, rebuilding critical infrastructure, which we have seen destroyed by Russian bombs, and actually it's being destroyed right now while we are discussing it. Ukrainians, they are left without water, electricity, heating, hospitals.
Finally, some of you have seen a risk and point to corruption and the need to scrutinise well the money spent. So let me stress again that we are ready to work with Ukraine on a memorandum of understanding to include areas for conditions to strengthen the rule of law and fight against corruption. We aim to sign this memorandum of understanding as soon as we get approval for our proposal by the European Parliament and Council.
Dear Members of the Parliament, once again thank you. Thank you for the overwhelming majority of Members who supported our proposal in today's debate. It's vital for our Ukrainian friends that the entire package goes through quickly, and we will of course keep this House duly informed about future developments.

Slava Ukraini!


Mikuláš Bek,
President-in-Office of the Council. – Mr President, honourable Members, Commissioner, I wish to thank you for this very useful debate today. I have listened with interest to your arguments, and let me confess that in the Council we have heard several of the technical questions you presented as regards the legislative proposals on the table. But as many of you made clear in your interventions, what is at stake is far greater than changes in the way the Union will borrow for Ukraine from now on, or then how we guarantee the borrowing. It is about humanity, as Mr Tarczyński said.
I said earlier in my intervention that I trust this Parliament is ready to rise to the historic challenge before us. The Presidency will strive to ensure that the Council will also live up to its responsibilities. If you give a positive vote on the package tomorrow, we will do our utmost to green-light the legislative package at the Ecofin Council of 6 December. In this way, the legislation would apply as of 9 December, allowing to make the first disbursement to Ukraine at the beginning of January. Thank you very much once again for your attention.

Predsedajúci. – Rozprava sa skončila.
Hlasovanie sa uskutoční vo štvrtok [24.11.2022].


Písomné vyhlásenia (článok 171)



Joachim Stanisław Brudziński (ECR),
na piśmie. – Ukraina, państwo bezpośrednio sąsiadujące z Unią Europejską, kraj kandydujący do przystąpienia do tej wspólnoty został zbrodniczo napadnięty przez Rosję. Działania zbrojne szybko przerodziły się w akty terroru, wymierzone w szczególności w ludność cywilną i krytyczną infrastrukturę Ukrainy. Od wielu już miesięcy Ukraina cierpi w sposób niewyobrażalny. Naszym moralnym obowiązkiem jest wspierać to państwo w każdy możliwy sposób. Polska niezmiennie i w pełni popiera działania pomocowe UE na rzecz Ukrainy realizowane w ramach instrumentów polityki zewnętrznej UE, w tym w formie pomocy makrofinansowej. Opowiadamy się za szybkim przyjęciem pakietu pożyczek makrofinansowych na 2023 r. Popieramy propozycję szerszego, strukturalnego instrumentu wsparcia finansowego dla Ukrainy na cały 2023 r. W miarę kontynuowania wojny jesteśmy przekonani, że niezbędne jest przewidywalne i stałe wsparcie UE. Z niepokojem odnotowujemy, że nie zostały wypełnione zobowiązania Rady Europejskiej dotyczące wypłaty 9 mld EUR w 2022 r. Uznajemy, że rozwiązaniem tej sytuacji będzie wypłata zwiększonej kwoty w styczniu 2023 r. To tylko kilka propozycji pomocy narodowi i państwu ukraińskiemu. Historia potwierdza, że warto słuchać Polski. Bardzo blisko nas giną ludzie, cywile, czekając na realne i przemyślane wsparcie. Dajmy im w realny sposób odczuć, że mogą liczyć na naszą pomoc.

Benoît Lutgen (PPE),
par écrit. – L'aide macro-financière dont nous discutons aujourd'hui et un symbole de la solidarité indéfectible que nous témoignons à nos amis et futurs concitoyens ukrainiens. L'invasion barbare de la Russie détruit des infrastructures et des habitations. Elle a vu des atrocités innommables envers les populations civiles.
Mais elle a aussi des effets destructeurs sur la viabilité financière de l'État ukrainien: les recettes ont chuté et les dépenses explosé. Nous ne pouvons permettre la faillite de l'Ukraine. Nous donnons ainsi une aide de 18 milliards pour l'ensemble de l'année 2023, en parallèle avec le soutien accordé par nos alliés américains. Pour nos amis ukrainiens, ce soutien international donne une perspective leur permettant d'établir leur budget 2023 dans de meilleures conditions.
Enfin, les conditions accompagnant ce soutien , notamment en matière de lutte contre la corruption, de réforme judiciaire, ainsi que de respect de l'État de droit, de bonne gouvernance et de modernisation des institutions, permettront de garantir une bonne utilisation de ces montants malgré les circonstances difficiles de cette guerre atroce. Chers collègues, je vous invite à tous soutenir cette assistance macro-financière. Pour le peuple Ukrainien. Pour la paix de notre continent.
10.   A post-2020 Global biodiversity framework and the UN Convention on Biological Diversity COP15 (debate)

Predsedajúci. – Ďalším bodom programu je vyhlásenie Rady a Komisie o Globálnom rámci pre biodiverzitu po roku 2020 a Dohovore OSN o biologickej diverzite COP15 (2022/2959(RSP)).

Mikuláš Bek,
President-in-Office of the Council. – Mr President, honourable Members, Commissioner, let me start by thanking you for this opportunity to discuss such an important topic ahead of a very crucial conference for the conservation and sustainable use of biodiversity for the next decade and beyond.
As you very well know, the race to protect the natural world and its biodiversity reaches a critical milestone this December. The upcoming COP in Montreal is extremely timely. We are now living in an age of extinction, with biodiversity loss ranked as one of the biggest threats facing humanity. The Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services showed that, unless action is taken, around 1 million species are threatened with extinction.
We are thankful to the European Parliament for consistently supporting stronger measures for biodiversity protection. Biodiversity and climate change are inseparably linked and need to be addressed together. We must step up our efforts to limit global warming to below two degrees and mitigate climate change, as well as to develop strategies and set targets to halt biodiversity loss.
The Council expects the following at the upcoming COP15: the parties will adopt an ambitious and comprehensive framework, which is matched by the resources needed for its implementation; clear and measurable targets to address overexploitation, pollution, fragmentation and unsustainable agricultural practices; a plan that safeguards the rights of indigenous peoples and recognises their contributions as stewards of nature; finance for biodiversity, and the alignment of financial flows with nature to drive finances towards sustainable investment.
Just a month ago, the Council adopted conclusions setting the general political framework of the EU negotiating position. In these conclusions, the Council stressed the need to include in the global biodiversity framework: the effective conservation of at least 30% of global land and at least 30% of oceans; the restoration of 3 billion hectares of degraded land and freshwater ecosystems and 3 billion hectares of ocean ecosystems; the elimination of all illegal, unsustainable or unsafe harvest, trade and use of wild species; the halting of human induced extinctions of known threatened species; the harnessing of the full potential of nature-based solutions; the reduction of the levels and risk of pollution from all sources; the prevention of the introduction and establishment of all priority invasive alien species; the implementation of practices for the sustainable use of biodiversity, and the need to address land and sea use change negatively affecting biodiversity in all ecosystems.
As you can see, the list of actions is long and the task ahead challenging. Let me assure you about the Presidency's commitment and determination, together with the Commission and the Member States, to make COP15 a success.

Virginijus Sinkevičius,
Member of the Commission. – Mr President, Minister, honourable members, the UN biodiversity COP – COP 15 – is almost upon us. A successful COP, one that adopts an ambitious post-2020 global biodiversity framework, is a key priority for the Commission and for me personally. Protecting the health of people and the planet are central elements of the European Green Deal, and we must reverse the trend of biodiversity loss and we must do this urgently. One million species are at risk of extinction. We need nature for food security, disaster risk reduction, sustainable jobs, poverty, education and health. We need a framework that credibly addresses the biodiversity crisis. And let me remind you, we will never solve the climate crisis if we do not help nature, our best ally, offering us so many nature-based solutions.
The finishing line is approaching and a huge number of issues are still to be resolved. There are large divides on key issues. Last week in Sharm El Sheikh I had several meetings with ministers, including a high-level event organised by China and Canada. Many of the discussions at COP 27 were important stepping stones towards COP 15. They reaffirmed the importance of tackling the nature crisis. COP 27 confirmed loud and clear that there is no way to limit global warming to 1.5oC without taking action to protect and restore nature, including a first-ever mention in the cover text of tipping points and nature-based solutions.
As I'm sure you recall, we have several key priorities for the post-2020 global biodiversity framework. Let me start with targets to ensure sustainable use of biodiversity. We need strong targets to eradicate illegal, unsustainable and unsafe exploitation of species, targets to ensure that all areas under agriculture, forestry and fisheries are managed sustainably. Integrating biodiversity across policies and sector is a key priority for Europe. We also need ambitious targets to address the direct drivers of loss, not only for the sake of nature, but also for sustainable livelihoods and poverty eradication. This is because pollution is also a health issue. Invasive alien species threaten food security, and so on.
We need nature for so many different reasons. We need to restore 3 billion hectares of terrestrial and 3 billion hectares of marine ecosystems. This corresponds to roughly 30% of degraded terrestrial ecosystems and 10% of degraded marine ecosystems. This target is best expressed in hectares because parties have diverging views on how many areas are degraded. The 3 + 3 billion hectares may seem ambitious, but let us keep in mind that this target focuses on bringing areas under restoration and not about completed restoration.
We need to protect 30% of land and oceans – the 30 by 30 target. In our engagement with other parties, we should underline that protection goes well together with economic activities that don't jeopardise the conservation objectives. Moreover, the target can be achieved by establishing protected areas and other effective conservation measures if they offer the same level of protection. And these other measures can, for example, be land-managed by indigenous people. This creates flexibility for implementation.
Similarly, not all marine protected areas have to be no-take zones, or not all the time. Some fisheries activities are compatible with conservation objectives. When we implement this target, it will be crucial to respect and safeguard the rights of indigenous peoples and local communities. They are essential stewards of biodiversity. We are aware that some of them fear being expelled from their lands and indeed there have been terrible examples of this in the past. But the 30-by-30 target can and must be achieved while safeguarding the rights. In fact, we expect the 30-by-30 target to bring them significant benefits. Lastly, 30-by-30 target should focus not only on protecting a percentage of lands and oceans, but also on qualitative aspects. We must protect the areas most important for biodiversity and ecosystem services. We also need to ensure effective management and connectivity. We do not want paper parks.
But we also have other priorities which are equally important. We must ensure solid biodiversity outcomes by the middle of the century. That includes halting human-induced extinction, increasing ecological integrity and connectivity, and increasing the area of natural ecosystems by 20%. We need a significant reduction of our ecological footprint by 2030 to bring it within planetary boundaries by 2050. We want clear and operational provisions on financing of implementation. This is absolutely essential and without it, there will be simply no agreement.
We must align all financial flows with biodiversity objectives and eliminate or repurpose harmful subsidies. The ECB estimates that those subsidies are around USD 800 billion. For each dollar that we spend on biodiversity funding, we currently spend 8 dollars harming biodiversity. It will not be possible to achieve our goals when taking one step forward, we then take eight steps back. We need to mobilise resources from all sources. That starts with domestic sources and we need to involve the private sector. However, we also know that a significant increase of international public biodiversity financing will be needed. President von der Leyen has pledged a doubling of our international biodiversity funding to EUR 7 billion over the period of 2021-2027. This money is targeted primarily at the most vulnerable countries. Germany and France have pledged similar increases. And let me underline we need all EU Member States, as well as other public and private donors, to contribute.
In addition, we are fully committed to the third objective of the Convention on Biological Diversity on access and benefit-sharing. We constructively engage in the discussions on this matter and are ready to contribute to a positive solution. And we should not repeat the mistakes we found with the Aichi framework. The global biodiversity framework will only make a difference if it includes both a strong monitoring framework and much stronger mechanisms for review of implementation. And this should include a regular reviewing cycle. All parties should report national targets within one year from COP 15 as a basis for a global analysis of collective ambition. And this is kind of global gap report to see where the collective ambition stands. All parties should use the same headline indicators so we can measure collective progress.
National reports and scientific evidence would feed into a stocktake, and this would assess progress towards the global goals and targets based on an assessment of national reports and the relevant scientific evidence. And this stocktake should be followed by a transparent process during which parties indicate where they step up ambitions or implementations. This monitoring framework should be adopted at COP 15, together with the first set of indicators. We cannot postpone this if we want the parties to start reporting and it is not necessary to postpone this. There has been good progress on identifying the indicators. Of course, the work will continue towards COP 16, where additional indicators should be adopted.
Our policies will not succeed without sound science. The EU provides funding for a significant research programme on nature and nature-based solutions. We are also putting in place a global knowledge centre for biodiversity, a science service for all to be launched at COP 15. This knowledge centre aims to help developing countries to build capacity for monitoring and reporting and to make data collection easier.
The EU and Member States' preparations are in full swing. In October, the Council adopted conclusions setting out the key elements of our positions. The details are being finalised and I am really grateful to the Czech Presidency for the effective steering of our preparations.
Dear Members of the Parliament, I am also very happy that a sizeable delegation from the Parliament will join the EU delegation in Montreal because your support will be very welcome, and I look forward to meeting you there and to staying in close touch with you during the negotiations. Thank you for your attention.

Stanislav Polčák,
za skupinu PPE. – Pane předsedající, vážený pane ministře, vážený pane komisaři, náš osud je neoddělitelně spjat s osudem zbytku přírody. Mezivládní vědecký panel pro biologickou rozmanitost a ekosystémové služby již v roce 2019 varoval, že ztráta přírody se zrychluje bezprecedentním tempem s vážnými dopady na kvalitu života na Zemi a že milion druhů čelí vyhynutí. Proto je mimořádně důležité, aby se nadcházející jednání uskutečnilo a aby proběhlo úspěšně. Jeho cílem je mimo jiné přijmout nový plán na záchranu života na Zemi. A tento nejnovější plán obsahuje čtyři dlouhodobé cíle pro rok 2050 a 22 cílů již pro rok 2030. Ty čtyři cíle se zaměřují na ochranu, udržitelné využívání biodiverzity a také rozšiřování např. chráněných oblastí, snižování znečištění a také i zajištění udržitelné produkce potravin a postupné zrušení veřejných dotací v řádu miliard dolarů v případech, kdy poškozují přírodu.
Někteří rovněž navrhují, aby byla vrcholovým cílem stanovena otázka udržení 1,5o C podle Pařížské dohody. Tento cíl já považuji za jeden z těch možných, ale myslím si, že by mohl být doplněn o např. posouzení celkového stavu biologické rozmanitosti anebo globální míry vymírání, tzn. stanovit si i další cíle. Jedním z dalších témat, kterým by se měli vyjednavači na COP 15 věnovat, je také digitální ukládání informací o genetických sekvencích. A předmětem jednání by měla být rovněž mobilizace zdrojů, jinými slovy, jak financovat aktivity spojené s implementací globálního rámce. Egyptské neporozumění mezi klíčovými zeměmi by se nemělo opakovat. Doufám, že COP bude úspěšný.

César Luena,
en nombre del Grupo S&D. – Señor presidente, ministro Bek, comisario Sinkevičius, a mí me gusta siempre aclarar que no solo vivimos una crisis climática, sino que también vivimos una crisis de biodiversidad, es decir, de extinciones, de desaparición de especies. El planeta se calienta, pero no solo; además, las especies desaparecen.
Me ha gustado escuchar al comisario Sinkevičius en su intervención. Porque le iba a hacer una pregunta, pero en parte la ha respondido. ¿Para qué vamos a Montreal? ¿Para que vamos dentro de dos o tres semanas a Montreal? Y es verdad, vamos porque queremos conseguir un acuerdo que sea dos cosas a la vez: vinculante y ambicioso. Con objetivos de recuperación de protección de al menos el 30 % para 2030, que también incluya metas concretas, indicadores, plazos para que podamos cumplir. Por tanto, debemos liderar en la Conferencia un acuerdo global vinculante para la biodiversidad.
En relación con este tema me voy a referir rápidamente a la ley de restauración de la naturaleza: a la vez debemos conservar y restaurar, para 2030, al menos el 30 % de la tierra, de los océanos, de los ecosistemas. Por tanto, señorías —para los que estamos aquí esta tarde—, este Parlamento tiene que ayudar, no tiene que entorpecer. Así que dicho queda, porque es un Reglamento muy importante.
Y unas últimas palabras para el fundamento de todo —como decía el marqués de la Ensenada, ‘el fundamento de todo es el dinero’, y es verdad—. Me gusta escuchar aquí a la Comisión Europea, también al ministro Bek, pero sobre todo a la Comisión Europea, hablar de financiación, porque necesitamos un mecanismo concreto de financiación para proteger y para conservar la biodiversidad.
Por tanto, creo que, si queremos asegurar unos niveles ambiciosos de restauración de la naturaleza, necesitamos financiación. Por tanto, señorías, ambición, un acuerdo global y financiación.

María Soraya Rodríguez Ramos,
en nombre del Grupo Renew. – Señor presidente, señor comisario, tras la decepcionante cumbre de la COP27, ahora la mirada está puesta en esta COP15. Esperemos que nos salga un poco mejor. Creo que nos podemos encontrar ante un momento histórico si convertimos esta cumbre en el ‘París’ para la naturaleza.
Y la razón es clara. La crisis de la biodiversidad es una emergencia planetaria. Y ninguno de los objetivos de la Cumbre de París, sobre el calentamiento del planeta, puede ser conseguido si no somos capaces de restaurar nuestros sumideros naturales.
Ya se ha dicho, un millón de especies se enfrentan a la extinción. Están en riesgo de extinción. Más del 40 % de la población ya, ahora, se está viendo afectada en su salud, en su desarrollo económico, en su alimentación, por el deterioro del planeta. Y tenemos, por lo tanto, que actuar con ambición. 2030: protección del 30 % de nuestro territorio.
Pero, para ello, usted lo ha dicho, tenemos que tener un seguimiento claro, una evaluación eficaz, un monitoreo exigente, y tenemos que movilizar recursos. Todas las fuentes de recursos. Pero, por favor, tenemos que eliminar los incentivos perjudiciales para la biodiversidad, reduciéndolos, al menos, en 500 000 millones anuales.
Espero verle en la cumbre y creo que la presentación de la ley de restauración de la naturaleza es una buena carta de presentación de la Unión Europea en esta cumbre.

Jutta Paulus,
im Namen der Verts/ALE-Fraktion. – Herr Präsident, Herr Kommissar, meine Damen und Herren! 69 %: Um 69 % sind die Populationen wild lebender Vögel, Fische, Amphibien und Reptilien weltweit in den letzten 50 Jahren zurückgegangen. Diese Zahlen sind dramatisch, und das Artensterben ist noch bedrohlicher als die Klimakrise, denn die Biodiversität auf unserem Planeten sichert uns trinkbares Wasser, saubere Luft und fruchtbare Böden.
Die anstehende Weltbiodiversitätskonferenz muss einen Wendepunkt markieren. So wie das Pariser Abkommen 2015 endlich die Notwendigkeit des globalen Klimaschutzes festgeschrieben hat, brauchen wir ein Montrealer Abkommen für den Schutz der biologischen Vielfalt.
Die wichtigste Ursache für das Artensterben ist aber der Verlust von Lebensräumen. Es gilt nicht nur, Schutzgebiete einzurichten, es gilt nicht nur, zu renaturieren, sondern wir müssen die Hauptursache angehen: die Umwandlung von Feuchtgebieten, von Urwäldern, von Grasland in Ackerland, um den stetig wachsenden Fleischkonsum zu füttern.
Herr Sinkevičius, Herr Minister Bek, werden Sie sich nicht nur für Maßnahmen zum Schutz von mindestens 30 % der Land- und Meeresfläche einsetzen, sondern auch für die Regulierung von Tätigkeiten, die den Verlust der biologischen Vielfalt weiter befeuern?

Aurélia Beigneux,
au nom du groupe ID. – Monsieur le Président, après l'échec de la COP 27 sur le climat, principalement lié aux demandes exorbitantes et hors-sol de l'Union européenne, les grands dirigeants se retrouveront au Canada pour la COP 15 sur la biodiversité. Alors que les gouvernants nous rabâchent les efforts nécessaires pour freiner la détérioration rapide de notre biodiversité, on apprend qu'une grande partie des chefs d'État ne sera pas présente à Montréal. La protection de notre environnement s'arrête donc aux querelles géopolitiques. Mais ne nous inquiétons pas, car les lobbies, eux, seront bien présents, comme Greenpeace par exemple, financé par le lobby des éoliennes, dont on connaît pourtant l'absence d'efficacité et les répercussions sur notre environnement.
L'Union européenne considère que nos citoyens doivent porter seuls le fardeau du changement climatique. Outre-Atlantique, les puissances américaines font primer leurs économies, tandis que la Chine et la Russie ont clairement d'autres priorités. Rajoutons à cela un refus absolu de remettre en cause les néfastes traités de libre-échange et les dogmes de la mondialisation. Comme pour la COP 27, les millions investis pour cette conférence auraient été beaucoup plus utiles aux professionnels sur notre territoire.

Alexandr Vondra,
za skupinu ECR. – Pane předsedající, dámy a pánové, COP 15 v Montrealu je důležité jednání. Všichni chceme chránit přírodu a biodiverzitu. Všem nám leží na srdci budoucnost pralesů, čistota vod a ochrana půdy. Planeta je jenom jedna a svět musí v této věci spolupracovat a Evropa má jít příkladem. Ale varuji Evropskou unii, aby neopakovala chybu, které se dopustila na COP 27. Prosím, nereprezentujme navenek jako závazné cíle ty, které nemáme doma ještě vůbec schválené. Mnohé oblasti, např. využívání půdy nebo územní plánování, jsou stále ve výlučné kompetenci členských států. Stejné je to i s jejich financováním. Evropská komise zatím předložila pouze návrh, pouze plán a nic víc. Přijímání jakýchkoli závazků jménem Evropské unie je proto předčasné, v tomto smyslu nerozumné a právně i nepřijatelné.

Silvia Modig,
The Left -ryhmän puolesta. – Arvoisa puhemies, luonnon monimuotoisuus on paitsi itseisarvo myös välttämätön elementti, jotta selviämme ilmastonmuutoksen edetessä. Mitä vahvempi luonnon monimuotoisuus on, sitä parempi on planeettamme sopeutumiskyky väistämättä edessä olevan lämpenemisen edessä. Käynnissä on kuudes sukupuuttoaalto ja lajeja menetetään nyt ennennäkemättömän nopeasti. Sillä on negatiivinen vaikutus niin ruoantuotantoon kuin ihmisten terveyteen. Suunnanmuutos on siis välttämätön.
EU:lla oli tavoite lopettaa luontokato vuoteen 2020 mennessä. Epäonnistuimme täysin. Lajikato vain kiihtyy. Onkin aika hyväksyä, että vapaaehtoiset toimet eivät riitä, vaan me tarvitsemme sitovia ja mitattavia tavoitteita. On täysin välttämätöntä, että me saamme aikaan sitovan kansainvälisen sopimuksen lopettaa biodiversiteetin heikkeneminen Pariisin sopimuksen hengessä.
Hyvät kollegat, me käymme nyt kilpajuoksua aikaa vastaan. Maailman on vihdoin herättävä siihen, että luontokato on samanlainen kriisi ja hätätila kuin mitä ilmaston lämpeneminen meille on.

Pierre Karleskind (Renew). – Monsieur le Président, Monsieur le Ministre, Monsieur le Commissaire, nous sommes donc maintenant rentrés dans ce qu'il est convenu d'appeler la sixième extinction massive d'espèces sur Terre. La cinquième, la précédente, c'est celle qui a conduit à l'extinction des dinosaures.
Pendant plusieurs années, la crise du changement climatique a couvert – si je puis m'exprimer ainsi – la prise de conscience de la crise de biodiversité qui est en cours. Au fond, d'ailleurs, ces deux crises sont liées, vous l'avez rappelé, Monsieur le Commissaire. Ces deux crises, celle du changement climatique et celle de la biodiversité, s'autoalimentent, s'alimentent entre elles. Autant sur le changement climatique, j'allais dire que ce n'est pas compliqué. Quand on voit les difficultés que nous avons à avancer, en fait, c'est compliqué. Mais au fond, on connaît bien les causes, on connaît bien les conséquences. Nous pouvons agir sur la biodiversité. C'est très compliqué et cela nécessite que nous nous mobilisions d'autant plus.
Il y a quelques années, à l'invitation de la Commission européenne, j'avais participé à une conférence qui s'appelait HOPE. J'aime bien le rappeler parce qu'elle dit tout: ‘Healthy Oceans – Productive Ecosystems’. Eh bien, je me dis qu'en pensant de cette façon, en nous mettant dans une situation gagnant-gagnant, en comprenant que le développement de nos activités, le développement de l'humanité peut et doit se faire dans un environnement sain, nous comprenons que nous sommes dans une situation où il faut avancer sur cette question de la biodiversité.
Vous l'avez rappelé, Monsieur le Commissaire, il convient aussi de nous assurer que les populations autochtones, qui seront les premières à gagner si nous faisons des efforts, doivent être incluses. C'est la convention d'Aarhus à laquelle nous sommes attachés. Nous avons fait, à travers Mme von der Leyen, le pari justement que l'Union européenne serait le territoire du monde le plus en avance sur ce sujet-là. Eh bien, Monsieur le Commissaire, nous comptons sur vous à Montréal pour porter ce message et nous avons pleine confiance en vous.

Bas Eickhout (Verts/ALE). – Mr President, thank you to all my colleagues, to the Commissioner and to the Minister for all these warm words about the importance of biodiversity and protection of our biodiversity. But people, colleagues, we are not here only in words, we really need to act on it. There it quite often goes wrong, to be very honest. For example, we need to make sure we have our House in order on the protection of biodiversity and to halt the loss of biodiversity, which we promised for 2010, which we promised for 2020, and which we are probably now promising for 2030. We are still losing biodiversity on a daily basis. That's what is at stake at this COP.
We should also learn then from what happened in Sharm El Sheikh. You said that you were there, so you also know that the only way for success if it's Europe not only pushing for ambition, but also reaching out to the hand of developing countries, because they are suffering the most, most of the time from Western companies encroaching on their biodiversity.
We need to make sure that we are not only helping them financially, but that we are also making sure that there is a fair mechanism for the sharing of the benefits of digital sequence information. These are the things that need to be tackled, and I maybe also look at the Council. The good words are there, but really, if I look at the mandate of the Council, it needs to be improved. Don't do it on the last day, as you did in Sharm El Sheikh.

Sylvia Limmer (ID). – Herr Präsident! Es ist schon erstaunlich: Man predigt Biodiversität, beschimpft Landwirte wegen angeblicher Umweltverschmutzungen und will Schutzgebiete ausweiten, die am Ende keinen Pfifferling wert sind, weil man fröhlich eine ‘grüne’ Wende mit massenhaftem Zubau von Windenergie propagiert, auch in den Schutzgebieten.
Gerade erst hat die Kommission eine Dringlichkeitsverordnung vorgeschlagen, die den Umweltschutz samt Vogelschutz-Richtlinie vollends aussetzt, wenn es um die ‘Erneuerbaren’ geht. Bodenversiegelung mit Tausenden Tonnen Stahlbeton ist dann plötzlich kein Thema mehr. Für einen einzigen läppischen Vogel- und Insektenschredder werden 0,5 Hektar vollversiegelt. Macht allein in Deutschland 15 000 Hektar mit Betonpfeilern, die mehr als 60 Meter tief reichen – Tendenz steigend. Im Reinhardswald müssen 195 Jahre alte Bäume Windrädern weichen.
Ihr Möchtegern-Biodiversitätsschutz ist nicht nur verlogen, sondern findet in einem kollektiven Anfall von Klima-Schizophrenie schlicht nicht statt.

Krzysztof Jurgiel (ECR). – Panie Przewodniczący! Panie Komisarzu! Ochrona różnorodności biologicznej jest konieczna dla zapewnienia możliwości życia ludzi na Ziemi, dla zapewnienia bezpieczeństwa żywnościowego. Szereg działań Unii Europejskiej w tym zakresie budzi niepokój, ponieważ brak jest jasno wypracowanych definicji. W unijnych dokumentach brakuje informacji o źródłach finansowania tych ambitnych planów, jak również analiz społeczno-ekonomicznych skutków proponowanych zmian. Największe wyzwania ochrona bioróżnorodności stawia przed sektorem rolnym i obszarami wiejskimi. Występują na nich liczne zależności międzysektorowe.
Apeluję zatem do wszystkich stron grudniowej konferencji w Montrealu, aby przyjmowane rozwiązania miały na uwadze stabilność ekonomiczną naszych gospodarstw rolnych, aby nie prowadziły do obniżania konkurencyjności europejskiego rolnictwa na zewnątrz, ale przeciwnie, aby zwiększały ambicje i standardy przede wszystkim w państwach trzecich, które obecnie mają nad naszymi rolnikami nieuczciwą przewagę konkurencyjną.

Luke Ming Flanagan (The Left). – Mr President, in the new CAP Strategic Plan Regulation, the production of public goods is now recognised as an agricultural activity. Now you can get paid for producing not just meat, dairy, grains and greens, but also butterflies, bees, bugs, clean water and carbon sequestration. When it comes to funding for biodiversity, CAP offers many opportunities. But are they being taken? I don't think they are, because the old idea still persists that producing bugs, butterflies, doing something for carbon sequestration isn't real and producing beef is real.
In Ireland's CAP Strategic Plan, we proved that even though you don't have to have a stocking rate, our country is insisting that you do. The reason why is that they still don't believe it's as important to produce biodiversity as it is to produce meat.

Grace O'Sullivan (Verts/ALE). – Mr President, colleagues, in Irish mythology, the wild Irish salmon was an ancient symbol of knowledge and wisdom. Unfortunately, its wisdom has not been enough to save it from people. Latest figures show Irish Atlantic salmon populations are in dire condition due to overfishing, ocean warming and the destruction of our rivers. The stark reality is that we have lost 70% of all wildlife since 1970. So since my childhood, we are witnessing a complete ecological breakdown.
So it's high time to act. We need urgent leadership at the COP15 Conference in Montreal in December. We need a global ocean treaty; marine protected areas to cover a third of the world's seas, and an ambitious restoration law backed by all EU governments. This is our last chance. Otherwise, in a few years from now, many creatures, such as the wild Irish salmon, will be nothing but the stuff of legend.

Marie Toussaint (Verts/ALE). – Monsieur le Président, Monsieur le Commissaire, chers collègues, un million d'espèces à risque de disparition, 70 % des animaux sauvages déjà disparus depuis 1970. Il faut comprendre que nous ne faisons qu'un avec le vivant et que le détruire, c'est aussi nous détruire nous-mêmes. Dès lors, il est effectivement impératif que nous ratifiions enfin un accord sur la biodiversité.
Mais je veux attirer l'attention sur deux points. D'abord, on n'a jamais protégé la nature en bafouant les droits humains. L'histoire européenne est jalonnée de pillages et d'asservissement des peuples, qui ont parfois pris hypocritement comme prétexte la protection de la nature. Cela ne doit plus jamais se reproduire. Ensuite, il y a urgence à protéger le vivant de l'accaparement, de la financiarisation et donc, in fine, de la destruction. Or, les termes de nature-based solutions, de solutions fondées sur la nature, sont aujourd'hui utilisés afin même de poursuivre cette logique d'accaparement et de maintenir ouverte la possibilité de détruire, à travers un marché de titrisation. Nous devons résister à ces logiques libérales.
Protéger la nature, c'est d'abord reconnaître ses droits et les devoirs qui sont les nôtres à son égard. Prenons donc enfin ce chemin.

João Albuquerque (S&D). – Senhor Presidente, como afirmou António Guterres, Secretário-Geral das Nações Unidas, o mundo está numa autoestrada em direção ao inferno climático e com o pé bem a fundo no acelerador.
Apesar dos inúmeros esforços em curso, a biodiversidade continua em declínio global, com o incumprimento de vários objetivos definidos no Plano Estratégico para a Biodiversidade 2010-2020, e é mais do que certo que o cenário será de agravamento desta situação nos próximos anos. O tempo é cada vez mais curto e os olhos estarão, uma vez mais, colocados nos decisores políticos em dezembro em Montreal na próxima COP15.
À semelhança do que conseguimos alcançar, à tangente, na COP27, é fundamental que sejamos audazes e asseguremos a proteção efetiva das terras e dos oceanos, onde espero que o Brasil, com Lula da Silva, possa voltar a ser um parceiro essencial para a preservação da Amazónia. Um uso sustentável dos recursos e uma partilha equitativa dos benefícios e dos custos, sendo para isso essencial envolver as comunidades de primeira linha, que dependem de e estão em sintonia com os seus ecossistemas, bem como aceitar as suas exigências e preocupações. Ir além da proteção dos ecossistemas e avançar também na sua restauração, cumprindo a meta dois do acordo preliminar existente e, por fim, assegurar a adoção de um acordo de ação.
A COP15 tem de servir para concluir as negociações em curso e adotar um novo quadro inclusivo pós-2020. A Humanidade não compreenderia se falhássemos esses objetivos e é por ela que nos devemos bater.

Anna Deparnay-Grunenberg (Verts/ALE). – Mr President, dear colleagues, we are facing a serious problem. At the climate COP 27, the global community failed to make concrete steps to stay within the 1.5 degree pathway. Allowing the climate crisis and the biodiversity loss to continue is not an option. Allowing the climate crisis and biodiversity loss to go further and further is not a solution. Insurance to compensate loss and damages were an important first step at the COP, but it will not be sufficient.
Speaking of insurance, saving biodiversity is our best insurance to combat climate change. The greater the biodiversity of our ecosystems, the more options for adaptation are left for our future. In the EU, we already practice ecological forestry methods in only one third of our forests. We must transform our entire forest management towards more biodiversity.
Commissioner Sinkevičius, Minister Bek, will you ensure that the EU pushes for the best possible result at the COP15 and at the same time take serious steps for sustainable ecological forestry at home? Let's keep the birds in forests singing today and tomorrow.

Vystúpenia podľa postupu prihlásenia sa o slovo zdvihnutím ruky


Sara Cerdas (S&D). – Senhor Presidente, a emergência climática não pode ser separada da crise da biodiversidade, em que verificamos a degradação de ecossistemas e a extinção acelerada das espécies.
Para uma cimeira que tem sido continuamente adiada é a hora de a comunidade internacional demonstrar compromisso com o nosso planeta e a sua proteção, ao contrário da COP27, que ficou além do que era necessário.
Precisamos, assim, de um acordo que seja vinculativo contra a degradação e a favor da restauração, reconhecendo o valor de áreas de intensa biodiversidade, como são na União Europeia as regiões ultraperiféricas e cuja biodiversidade se liga a setores como o turismo, a agricultura e as pescas, entre outros.
Daí a importância em garantirmos uma estratégia e financiamento que promova o desenvolvimento sustentável destas regiões e o reconhecimento de um dos seus maiores ativos: a biodiversidade.

Mick Wallace (The Left). – Mr President, at COP15 in Montreal we will hopefully come up with a global agreement to effectively protect at least 30% of global land and oceans. Some people find this a bit too much. How can we ever allow nature to thrive in 30% of the planet? Well, there's a simple answer: it's called de-growth.
Economic growth contributes to biodiversity loss, but doesn't necessarily contribute to our well-being. If we got smart about it, we'd be able to drastically reduce resource use and lift a massive amount of pressure off the planet. De-growth is nothing to be scared of unless you're a billionaire capitalist engaged in an economic activity that has no social benefit. It's about de-scaling unnecessary production and consumption in a way that actually increases our well-being and enhances ecological conditions. In such an unequal world, surely this is something that we should all want.
Capitalism is based on perpetual growth, and capitalism has done untold damage to the planet. How long more before we realise that we cannot fix the climate crisis with capitalism?

(Ukončenie vystúpení podľa postupu prihlásenia sa o slovo zdvihnutím ruky)


Virginijus Sinkevičius,
Member of the Commission. – Mr President, Minister, honourable Members, thank you very much for this rich debate and for your comments and interventions, of which I took good note, and thank you very much for your great support. Let me come back just to a couple of points that some of you raised.
First of all, of course, resource mobilisation. Yes, this will be a key point in the negotiations. The package must cover the means of implementation in the broad sense. We need to scale up financing from all sources, and in particular domestic finances. We also need to remove, redirect or repurpose environmentally harmful subsidies and incentives, and we need to increase positive incentives and align all financial flows with biodiversity objectives.
We want clear and operational provisions on mobilising resources from all sources. Without this, the framework would be a dead letter. Because I have also heard some of you drawing parallels to what have happened in Sharm el-Sheikh, let me also mention that without any significant increase in official development assistance, it will be very difficult, if not impossible, to strike an ambitious deal. Combined efforts by EU Member States, as well as from a wider range of donors, will be necessary to achieve full impact.
At COP11, the parties agreed on doubling biodiversity-related international financial resource flows to developing countries. The EU has delivered on this commitment, and the Commission will double again its financing over the period 2021-2027. France and Germany also made significant pledges. We are pushing other donors to come up with similar increases.
We will need a very practical and pragmatic conversation if we want to identify solutions that can work for all. The EU and Member States certainly want to avoid to agree on a pledge that at the end of the day cannot be delivered. We should avoid a situation, as for climate, where perceived lack of financing becomes a political stumbling block for full implementation.
Last, Ms Paulus, let me say that based on assessment by the IUCN, we have a clear list of species that are at risk of extinction. We need urgent action by 2030 to save these species. However, the vast majority of species is unknown to us, and yet the IPPS global assessment in 2019 estimated that one million species is at risk of extinction. The 2050 goal should be to save all the species, bringing the rate of extinction back to the natural background level.
Dear colleagues, Members of the Parliament, let me use very clear words. Our biodiversity life on Earth is in danger. We are part of that biodiversity. We too are in danger. So we must stop biodiversity loss and restore nature. Therefore, our key priority is a successful COP. The negotiations in Montreal are our chance to adopt a framework that credibly addresses biodiversity crisis.

Mikuláš Bek,
President-in-Office of the Council. – Mr President, honourable Members, Commissioner, I would like to thank all Members for their interventions. They confirm the strong and continued interest of this Assembly in the protection of biodiversity and the desire for the EU to play a leading role at the UN Biodiversity Conference.
The Council adopted its conclusions on 24 October. We are now working on fine-tuning our positions on the issues on the agenda of the conference, with the aim to provide the negotiators with a solid, but at the same time flexible mandate. Please allow me to conclude by reaffirming the Presidency's commitment to do its utmost to defend the EU's ambitions in Canada to adopt an ambitious, comprehensive and transformative post-2020 global biodiversity framework that includes the long-term 2050 goals, 2030 intermediate outcomes and action-oriented 2030 targets, to effectively and simultaneously address the direct and indirect drivers of biodiversity loss.

Predsedajúci. – Rozprava sa skončila.


Písomné vyhlásenia (článok 171)



Rovana Plumb (S&D),
în scris. – Consider că a 15-a Conferință a Organizației Națiunilor Unite privind biodiversitatea va fi o conferință menită să schimbe paradigma. Liderii lumii se vor reuni pentru a conveni asupra protecției la nivel mondial a biodiversității noastre.
PE a solicitat adoptarea unui cadru global post-2020 pentru biodiversitate ambițios, cuprinzător și transformator, care să includă obiective pe termen lung pentru 2050, rezultate intermediare și obiective orientate spre acțiune pentru 2030, care să combată cu eficiență și în mod simultan, atât factorii direcți, cât și pe cei indirecți ai declinului biodiversității.Acest cadru global trebuie finanțat.
De aceea consider imperios necesar și susțin alocarea a 10 % din fondurile europene pentru conservarea naturii. Susțin crearea unei coaliții a părților interesate, atât din sectorul privat, cât și din cel public, pentru a realiza cadrul global pentru biodiversitate post-2020. În acest sens, subliniez utilitatea ‘Agendei soluțiilor’ dezvoltate în cadrul Acordului de la Paris pentru elaborarea unei agende pozitive destinate tuturor părților interesate care prezintă interes pentru Convenția-cadru a Națiunilor Unite asupra schimbărilor climatice și solicit includerea unor acțiuni similare în cadrul post-2020 pentru biodiversitate.

Nacho Sánchez Amor (S&D),
por escrito. – El último informe de la plataforma IPBES advierte que la biodiversidad está disminuyendo a un ritmo sin precedentes a nivel mundial, y la tasa de extinción de especies se está acelerando, así como de las probabilidades de graves impactos en las personas de todo el mundo.
En ese marco, el acuerdo global por la naturaleza que se adopte en la COP15 del Convenio sobre la Diversidad Biológica en Montreal es la oportunidad que tenemos de cambiar el rumbo para conseguir un futuro justo y equitativo y unos ecosistemas sanos y resilientes.
Por ello, pedimos que ese marco global para la biodiversidad sea vinculante, como lo es el Acuerdo de París, con metas e indicadores específicos, con plazos de cumplimiento, con un mecanismo de implementación sólido y un mecanismo de revisión, y con objetivos vinculantes mundiales de recuperación y protección de al menos el 30 % de nuestras tierras y océanos para 2030.
A su vez, consideramos que la ambición del acuerdo debe ir acompañada de financiación suficiente para su implementación, por lo que pedimos que la restauración de los ecosistemas degradados y la protección de la biodiversidad cuenten con el suficiente respaldo presupuestario.
11.   Legal protection for rainbow families exercising free movement, in particular the Baby Sara case (debate)

Predsedajúci. – Ďalším bodom programu je rozprava o otázke na ústne zodpovedanie pre Komisiu o Právnej ochrane dúhových rodín uplatňujúcich právo na voľný pohyb, najmä prípad malej Sáry, ktorú predkladajú Marc Angel, Terry Reintke, Pierre Karleskind, Malin Björk, Maria Walsh, Fabio Massimo Castaldo, Matjaž Nemec, Olivier Chastel, Diana Riba i Giner, Gabriele Bischoff, Tilly Metz, Irène Tolleret, Dietmar Köster, Frances Fitzgerald, Karen Melchior, Sophia in 't Veld, Marianne Vind, Karima Delli, Hilde Vautmans, Magdalena Adamowicz, Sylwia Spurek, Francisco Guerreiro, Karin Karlsbro, Vera Tax, Sandro Gozi, Malte Gallée, René Repasi, Robert Biedroń, Radka Maxová, Giuliano Pisapia, Aurore Lalucq, Marisa Matias, José Gusmão, Anna Deparnay-Grunenberg, Rosa D'Amato, Andreas Schieder, Catharina Rinzema, Chris MacManus, Alice Kuhnke, Saskia Bricmont, Silvia Modig, Sirpa Pietikäinen, Michal Šimečka a Grace O'Sullivan (O-000045/2022 – B9-0031/22) (2022/2954(RSP)).

Marc Angel,
author. – Mr President, first the Coman-Hamilton case in 2019, and now the Baby Sara case. How many European Court of Justice cases do we need to guarantee the mutual recognition of administrative documents and parenthood between Member States? How many court decisions will be needed for children's rights to be respected in Europe?
This is not merely another LGBTIQ question, but concerns the rights of children and European citizens, which are openly flouted by some of our governments. And despite the adversarial stance of these nationalist and populist governments, the reaction of the European Commission, which is responsible for protecting the core values of the EU, has been rather weak.
‘Human rights apply to all EU citizens in all their diversity’, this is, in short, the tenet that the Commission has promised to defend since the beginning of this mandate. These words must be translated into legislative texts and into sanctions against those who choose to undermine them.
And when I see the relentless fight of rainbow families for the respect of their rights, I am both inspired and I am mad. Inspired for the fortitude for these families who persevere through their struggle, even though their struggle often looks like a battle between David and Goliath. And mad because our institutions do not adequately support them in the fight for their rights.
When I entered politics, I made a pledge to myself: I will always stand by the most vulnerable groups, no matter how much time and energy I will have to expend for their causes. In this battle, you can count on me. I'm happy to see that, as a co-chair of the LGBTI Intergroup, but also as an S&D member of this House, I am not alone. I can count on the Queer community, but also on our allies in the Parliament and beyond.
Here are my questions: is the Commission ready to use legal tools to ensure enforcement of free movement law? What actions will the Commission take to ensure that a national measure does not preclude implementation of judgments and to make sure EU law is not violated?
Dear Council and Commission, on which side of the fight do you want to be? Recognising diverse families benefits everyone, and it takes no one's existing rights away. Europe must guarantee all children to see their family acknowledged and validated by law. By the way, baby Sara is not a baby any more – she will turn three years old, and is still undocumented.

Helena Dalli,
Member of the Commission. – Mr President, honourable Members, I thank you for your questions on the legal protection for rainbow families exercising free movement.
I start by recalling that, in recent years, the Court of Justice of the EU has issued three landmark decisions on the rights of rainbow families exercising free movement, namely Coman, V.M.A. or the Baby Sara case, and K.S. In this context, the Court delivered major clarifications.
It held that while Member States are allowed not to provide in their national legislation for marriages and parenthood of same sex couples, this situation cannot justify a refusal to accept for the purpose of the exercise of rights, derived from EU law, marriages and parenthood established in another Member State, regardless of sexual orientation.
You have inquired about the Commission's action to ensure that EU free movement law is enforced, and that this case law is respected. The implementation of EU law, as interpreted by the Court of Justice, is a Commission's priority. As stated in the LGBTIQ Equality Strategy, the Commission will continue to ensure the correct application of free movement law, including to address specific difficulties preventing LGBTIQ people and their families from enjoying their rights.
The Commission is monitoring the implementation of the Court's judgment on rainbow families in free movement, and is in dialogue with Member States in this regard. If necessary, the Commission will take legal action. Nonetheless, legal action is neither the only nor the fastest way to achieve results.
Furthermore, in the 2020 Citizenship Report, the Commission announced the review of its 2009 guideline guidance for better transposition and application of the Free Movement Directive. The updated Guidance, the drafting of which is at an advanced stage, will take into account the diversity of families and, therefore, help all families exercise their free-movement-related rights.
More particularly, the Commission intends to integrate in the updated Guidance relevant elements of the case law on rainbow families in free movement. For instance, that the term ‘spouse’ is gender neutral and includes all spouses and marriages and registered partnerships without exception.
As regards children of same-gender parents, exercising free movement rights, where one parent is an EU citizen, all Member States have to recognise the parent-child relationship as established on the birth certificate drawn up by a Member State for purposes related to EU law, regardless of the status of such a relationship in the other Member States.
So a Member State must accept certificates attesting to a family relationship issued by the competent authorities of the other Member States. For the purpose of the Free Movement Directive and the exercise of the rights derived from EU law, this acceptance does not require, and cannot be made conditional to, formal recognition by the other Member.
As regards the specific situation in Bulgaria, the Commission is monitoring the implementation of the V.M.A. judgment, and is in contact with the Bulgarian authorities, both regarding the individual national proceedings concerning the Baby Sara case, and more generally, the relevant Bulgarian legislation and practice.
When it comes to the issues of registration and receipt of a personal identification number, the Commission is analysing the situation in Bulgaria and will ensure any appropriate follow-up.
In relation to your question on the issue of mandatory transcription, the Court has made it clear that the Member State of nationality of the child must issue an identity card or a passport, regardless of whether the birth certificate issued by another Member State for the child has been transcribed into the National Register of civil status.
In general, national requirements cannot be relied upon to impede the exercise of the rights derived from EU law by same-gender couples and their children.
Additionally, it should be stressed that the Commission has already made use of its available tools, from dialogue to infringement, where its attention has been drawn to national requirements creating difficulties for EU citizens in having their marriage certificates accepted in the context of the exercise of their free movement rights.
Finally, it must be clarified that under the existing EU acquis, Member States are not required to recognise the parenthood of a child as established in another Member State for purposes other than the rights derived from EU law in the context of free movement.
On that aspect, as announced in the LGBTIQ Equality Strategy, as well as in the 2021 EU strategy on the Rights of the Child, the Commission will present in the coming weeks a proposal for a regulation harmonising the Member States' rules for the establishment of parenthood in cross-border situations, and for the recognition in a Member State of the parenthood established in another Member State. This will further improve the rights of rainbow families, without taking away the rights that the child already enjoys under Union law, in particular on free movement, including the Directive and the case law which I have referred to earlier.

Maria Walsh,
on behalf of the PPE Group. – Mr President, Commissioner, colleagues, the love of a family knows no borders. In her State of the Union address in 2020, our Commission President, Ursula von der Leyen, affirmed to us all: if you are a parent in one country, you are a parent in every country. But sadly, the freedom of movement of rainbow families is not guaranteed. It is a time now that the Commission and the Council act to ensure the legal protection for rainbow families exercising their fundamental right to free movement, and that the Baby Sara judgment is implemented. Any Member State that infringes on the values of human dignity, human rights, freedom and equality should be held accountable.
In my own Member State of Ireland, despite the legalisation of same-sex marriage in 2015, rainbow families still face a variety of struggles, especially concerning the legal parenthood of children. The choice of donors affects same sex parents' legal relationship to their children. In particular, the system leaves gay men and our trans-community and others having children in legal limbo. Every child deserves to have their parents' name on their birth certificate, and as my colleague Marc Angel shared, no child deserves to be stateless.
In striving to build a Union of equality, let us make sure that all rainbow families can enjoy the rights that every other family in the EU holds dear.

Maria-Manuel Leitão-Marques,
em nome do Grupo S&D. – Senhor Presidente, Cara Comissária, a liberdade de circulação de pessoas na União Europeia é um direito de todas as crianças, incluindo aquelas que são filhas de famílias arco-íris. Mas como se demonstra no caso da bebé Sara, já decidido pelo Tribunal de Justiça, as autoridades de certos países recusam-se a reconhecer a relação parental de filhos de casais do mesmo sexo, mesmo quando esta já foi reconhecida em outro Estado-Membro.
Isto cria enormes problemas à vida destas famílias e afeta gravemente estas crianças. Pais ou mães podem, por exemplo, estar impedidos de acompanhar os seus filhos a um hospital ou até de os autorizar a ir numa simples excursão da escola.
Em casos extremos, se um dos membros do casal morre num Estado-Membro que não reconhece a relação parental, a criança pode perder não uma, mas as duas figuras parentais.
A proposta legislativa sobre o reconhecimento transfronteiriço da parentalidade, que espero a Comissão apresente rapidamente, deve garantir a proteção da liberdade de circulação das crianças destas famílias, assegurando que as relações parentais e os direitos a elas associados são reconhecidos para todos e respeitados em toda a União.
Na União Europeia, nenhuma criança pode perder os seus direitos apenas por mudar de um Estado-Membro para outro.

Pierre Karleskind,
au nom du groupe Renew. – Monsieur le Président, Madame la Commissaire, chers collègues, il faut le dire, la famille est en danger. Elle est attaquée de toutes parts par ceux qui souhaitent nous imposer leur vision idéologique. Les droits de l'enfant sont en danger, bafoués par les caprices de ces mêmes idéologues qui veulent priver les enfants de leurs origines, quitte même à les nier.
Chers collègues, évidemment, ici je veux parler de Sarah, cet enfant dont nous parlons, et de sa famille. Sarah est née en Espagne. Elle a une maman de Gibraltar et une maman de Bulgarie. La Bulgarie, justement, qui lui refuse la transcription de son acte de naissance depuis plusieurs années, malgré un arrêt de la Cour de justice de l'Union européenne. Sarah a trois ans. Elle n'a pas de nationalité. Elle n'a jamais pu quitter le pays où elle est née et elle n'a jamais pu voir ses grands-parents, qui sont trop âgés pour pouvoir voyager. Sarah est la victime d'un acharnement d'idéologues autoproclamés défenseurs de la famille.
Alors ici, il ne va pas falloir se tromper. La preuve est faite que les véritables défenseurs de la famille, c'est nous. Les véritables défenseurs des droits de l'enfant, c'est nous. Alors, Madame la Commissaire, nous comptons sur vous. Ne nous décevez pas. Faites-nous cette proposition de loi de reconnaissance mutuelle des liens de filiation. Soyez du côté de la famille, soyez du côté des enfants.

Kim Van Sparrentak,
on behalf of the Verts/ALE Group. – Mr President, what we want as the LGBTI community is equality: to be treated as equals in our society and to be equal by law. Whilst this may be portrayed by some conservatives as the end of the world, for us these are lifesaving laws. Imagine your child needs a lifesaving operation, but you as a parent are not allowed to give consent for this operation, because you travelled to another country that doesn't recognise your parenthood.
Today, the LGBTI Intergroup had the honour to hear first-hand a horror story of two mothers who can't make their baby girls meet their grandfathers because of discriminatory administrative hurdles. And the European Court of Justice has already ruled that Bulgarian authorities have to give baby Sara a birth certificate. But now, while she's almost three, it still hasn't happened.
That's why we urge the European Commission to take action. We need to make sure national authorities listen to these rulings of the European Court of Justice and get children out of this administrative limbo, but we also need to move fast on new legislation for the baby Saras of this world and all our rainbow families, because what we want is equality.

Ангел Джамбазки,
от името на групата ECR. – Г-н Председател, чета Конституция на Република България, член 46, алинея първа: ‘Бракът е доброволен съюз между мъж и жена. Законен е гражданският брак.’ Няколко реда по-надолу в следваща алинея: ‘Децата, родени извън брака, имат равни права на родените в брака.’ Това, колеги, доказва всичко, което сега тук обсъждате, заблуждавате се сами едни други и се опитвате да правите политическа пропаганда.
Да, може би ви изненадваме, но ние българите в България чрез нашата Конституция сме приели брака за съюз между мъж и жена. Ако детето е родено извън такъв брак, то има равни права и няма проблем да му бъде издаден документ на името на майката. Единен граждански номер веднага може да се издаде на името на майката. Така че няма никакъв проблем с това нещо.
Това, което правите вие обаче тук е пропаганда, с която се опитвате да промените нашето общество и нашия начин на живот. И ние не сме съгласни с него. Ние не казваме да разрешавате или да забранявате или да приемате форма на брака във вашите държави. Не ви казваме как да поддържате вашите общества. Ние ви казваме, че няма да допуснем да променяте нашето, защото за разлика от вас ние мислим, че бракът е между мъж и жена биологични родители. И мисля, че трябва да се съобразите с тази наша воля, защото това е демокрацията.

VORSITZ: RAINER WIELAND


Vizepräsident


Malin Björk,
on behalf of the The Left Group. – Mr President, my two children have two mothers. We belong together as a family, with love, of course, but also legally speaking. It took some years, some painful judicial and administrative procedures, but we are lucky to be recognised as a family with two legal parents, two mothers.
This is not the case for Baby Sara. She's turning three this December, and she's stateless in Europe in 2022. So why is she deprived of a nationality? Because she has two mothers. And Bulgaria, despite being convicted in the European Court of Justice, has not corrected this. And this is not an isolated case. Rainbow families all over Europe are having to deal with a patchwork of legislation and administrative procedures in order to get our families recognised, safe – safe for parents and safe for children.
It is time for the EU to recognise all children's rights, all families' rights, and adopt laws that will make us safe. Our families belong together not only in love, but also legally speaking.

Tiziana Beghin (NI). – Signor Presidente, onorevoli colleghi, il 16 settembre 2020, in quest'Aula, la Presidente della Commissione Ursula von der Leyen affermava ‘Se sei genitore in un paese europeo, sei ovviamente genitore in un altro paese europeo’ e annunciava un'iniziativa sul riconoscimento dei figli delle coppie omosessuali nell'Unione europea.
Sono passati due anni e questa promessa non è ancora stata mantenuta. Deve intervenire la Corte di giustizia per riconoscere i diritti delle famiglie arcobaleno in Europa.
In Italia viviamo una situazione analoga: il decreto Salvini impone, nei documenti e nei moduli riferiti ai minori, delle diciture che escludono e discriminano le famiglie omogenitoriali. Questo decreto può rallentare o addirittura impedire il rilascio di un passaporto e pertanto viola il diritto alla libertà di movimento sancito nei trattati.
Presidente, nei giorni scorsi ho ricevuto la lettera di una donna che è mamma insieme alla sua compagna, mi scriveva: ‘'Madre' è la parola più bella del mondo, a meno che non sia ripetuta due volte’.
Basta discriminazioni, facciamo vincere il diritto e l'amore.

Petar Vitanov (S&D). – Mr President, Commissioner, LGBTI people living together and creating families raise a number of situations that our juridical system is not prepared for, from the right to free movement across different EU countries, taxation, social policies, the right to inheritance of your parents' property and so on. And very often we forget about the juridical aspect of the debate. It's not just about whether we like it or not, whether you approve it or not. We are talking about a real-life situation involving real people, and these situations are happening right now, not at some undefined moment in the future. The conservatives like to present the debate as a normal status quo versus the unknown new future.
But the truth is that this status quo, as we have, it's not stable, it's not perfect; there are so many gaps in the current juridical system. People getting married in one country, they may be moving to another or having a child together, and they're separating. These are trivial things happening to millions of people in the EU every day. Yet when we talk about LGBTI people in this situation, we really realise how incomplete and discriminatory our current juridical system is. It's not about granting privileges, it's about safeguarding children's rights: the right to live in a loving family, to travel and the ability to see your relatives. So please, stop discrimination.

Sophia in 't Veld (Renew). – Mr President, Madam Commissioner, I don't think that we are here today to try and convince you of the rights of LGBTI people and rainbow families, because we know that you are convinced. However, we are talking here about applying the law. And I have to say, I find that the Commission is too timid in enforcing case-law. The von der Leyen Commission generally, but certainly in these kinds of cases, puts the burden of litigating on the shoulders of individuals and civil society.
There are two rulings by the European Court of Justice, the baby Sara case and the Coman case. The Coman case is four and a half years old. I mean, you say the Commission is monitoring, the Commission may start infringement proceedings if necessary, but how much longer will the Commission wait? Because, you know, there isn't limitless time. Baby Sara is growing up. Will she be 18 before this is settled? Will she have voting rights by then?
So I really, really urge the European Commission to start an infringement proceeding and impose sanctions on those countries and make sure that citizens can count on the Commission.

Sergey Lagodinsky (Verts/ALE). – Mr President, I wonder if anyone from Bulgarian authorities ever looked into the child's eyes – into child Sara's eyes or into eyes of other children who are affected like the one we've heard the story today as well, who is risking to end up as orphan because one parent is terminally ill and the other parent is not even recognised as a parent across the EU just because they are of same sex.
Have you ever looked into children's eyes? If you did, you would see children stripped of their rights, of their origin, of their childhood, of their families; parents discriminated beyond imaginable because they're stripped of the most natural – of the ability and right to raise their children.
It's not just LGBTIQ community rights, it's children's rights and it's parents' rights. The European Court of Justice said this on multiple occasions, and I urge the Commission to start acting now and to be ambitious in the law that it will propose to the Parliament. We in the Legal Affairs Committee are waiting for this law and we will be ambitious ourselves.

Vincenzo Sofo (ECR). – Signor Presidente, onorevoli colleghi, due donne, una bulgara e una inglese, decidono di avere un figlio con fecondazione assistita in Spagna, dove la legge consente di riconoscerle come genitrici.
Poi vanno in Bulgaria per far trascrivere anche lì l'atto di nascita, scontrandosi però con la legislazione nazionale che non riconosce le due donne come genitori della bambina. Ecco allora la sinistra agitare subito il vessillo del diritto alla libertà di circolazione, mostrando per l'ennesima volta quanto sia capace di essere subdola nello storpiare principi apparentemente lapalissiani, come appunto la libera circolazione dei cittadini europei, per scardinare normative nazionali, non avendo il consenso per cambiarle democraticamente.
L'obiettivo, infatti, è far sì che una legislazione favorevole di qualche Stato membro riguardo a temi cari all'agenda LGBT, come adozioni gay, utero in affitto, cambi di identità di genere senza operazioni e via dicendo, possa essere imposta automaticamente con la scusa dell'area Schengen ad altri Stati con legislazioni non gradite alla sinistra, disconoscendone la sovranità normativa.
Insomma, una vera e propria truffa giuridica alle nostre democrazie, che mi chiedo come possa essere accettata da un Parlamento che della democrazia fa una bandiera. Ad ogni modo, di sicuro non saremo noi ad accettarla.

Mario Furore (NI). – Signor Presidente, onorevoli colleghi, siamo di fronte a una tragica situazione, dove la burocrazia non riconosce la realtà nella nostra società.
È paradossale che, nonostante i diritti riconosciuti nei trattati, in Unione europea non si riesca ancora a intervenire in modo efficace per tutelare i cittadini, incluse le famiglie arcobaleno.
La vita, la famiglia e l'amore nascono e si creano al di là degli schemi ideologici che certi politici vogliono imporre ed è nostro dovere che abusi e discriminazioni come quelli avvenuti in Bulgaria e in Polonia non avvengano mai più. E attenzione, in Italia non andiamo meglio, perché con i decreti Salvini abbiamo esattamente gli stessi problemi e ci troviamo nella situazione in cui i tribunali devono intervenire per riconoscere i diritti delle famiglie arcobaleno.
È ora che l'Unione europea si doti di regole comuni sul riconoscimento delle unioni e della genitorialità, non possiamo permetterci che esistano cittadini discriminati, a cui viene impedito il diritto di viaggiare, di avere una copertura sanitaria comune o, addirittura, la cittadinanza europea.
Viviamo in un'Europa libera dove i diritti di ciascuno contano, facciamolo davvero e in fretta.

Cyrus Engerer (S&D). – Mr President, dear Sara, to us you have two mothers whose parenthood we see, recognise and value; two mothers who have fought for their place in this world and for yours in this Union. You might find it contradictory to call this place a Union when parts of it have refused to recognise a union as beautiful as your family. And so this is why we are here today, to remind not only this House but all Member States that this Union and what it is aspires to be a Europe that leaves children stateless three years after their birth because the family they are born into is not one we want to form part of.
Dear Sara, you are one of us. You are European. We welcome you into this European family, and we promise you to tirelessly work so that those who have sat idle for far too long will welcome you too. Because these are our values. We value equality. We value freedom of movement of all families within our Union. And above all, we value love: the love your family has given you, and the love that the majority of this Parliament gives you and all other children born within and outside our Union.

Catharina Rinzema (Renew). – Voorzitter, nog nooit je opa en oma hebben gezien omdat ze in een ander land wonen. Geen paspoort. Een valse start. Dit is de huidige realiteit voor het bijna driejarige meisje Sara, dat geen geboortecertificaat krijgt van de Bulgaarse autoriteiten en feitelijk stateloos is. Alleen omdat ze twee moeders heeft. Iets wat andere kinderen simpelweg krijgen bij hun geboorte is Sara ontnomen. Wat de VVD betreft, kan dit in 2022 niet meer. Een kind mag nooit de dupe worden. Ik roep dan ook de Commissie en u, commissaris Dalli, op om snel met een goed wetsvoorstel te komen. Regenboogfamilies verdienen het ook om gewoon een familie te zijn. Want een ouder in het ene land blijft een ouder in het andere land.

Moritz Körner (Renew). – Herr Präsident, Frau Kommissarin, liebe Kolleginnen und Kollegen! Gerade in der Debatte hat man die ganze Absurdität gemerkt. Die Rechten und Konservativen, die sonst immer von der Familie reden, die geschützt werden muss, von der Keimzelle der Gesellschaft – die Kinder müssen geschützt werden. Orbán hat sogar ein Gesetz zum Schutz der Kinder vorgelegt.
Es geht immer um die Kinder, es geht um die Familie. Und hier sehen wir die ganze Absurdität: Was hat es mit dem Schutz von Familie, mit dem besonderen Schutz für Kinder zu tun, wenn man ein Kind staatenlos macht? Was bringt es dem Schutz der Familie, wenn man Eltern dazu zwingt, vor Behörden mit Bürokratie zu kämpfen, sogar vor Gerichte ziehen zu müssen, statt Zeit mit der Erziehung ihres Kinds zu verbringen? Nichts. Gesamte absurde Ideologie, weil Sie der Meinung sind, dass nicht sein darf, was nicht sein darf.
Das wird an dieser Stelle deutlich. Familie ist da, wo Kinder sind, wo Menschen füreinander Verantwortung übernehmen. Und Eltern in einem Land sind auch Eltern im anderen Land.

Spontane Wortmeldungen


François-Xavier Bellamy (PPE). – Monsieur le Président, en fait, à travers cette réglementation, la Commission veut simplement imposer à tous les États membres un changement qui ne relève en rien de sa compétence: décider de la définition de la famille, de la reconnaissance de la filiation. Aucun traité n'a donné cette responsabilité, aucun traité n'a confié ce pouvoir aux institutions européennes. Respecter l'état de droit, c'est peut-être d'abord respecter nos démocraties et nos propres traités.
Ce projet reviendrait dans les faits à obliger tous nos pays à reconnaître la gestation pour autrui. Parce que oui, chers collègues, derrière toutes les belles paroles échangées ce soir, il y a en fait une industrie qui fait du profit en exploitant les femmes les plus vulnérables. Quel étrange progressisme que celui qui justifie la pire des régressions, celle qui consiste à faire de nouveau d'une vie humaine l'objet d'un contrat marchand?
Oui, derrière tout cela, vous l'avez dit, il y a des enfants. Et moi je suis très étonné, chers collègues, que vous ayez tous ici plaint Sarah de ne pas avoir de passeport. Moi, je plains Sarah d'abord de ne pas avoir de papa.

Juan Fernando López Aguilar (S&D). – Señor presidente, comisaria Dalli, ¿de qué hablamos cuando pedimos que la Comisión adopte una iniciativa para proteger jurídicamente a las familias arcoíris? De que adopte un reglamento de filiación y un reglamento de reconocimiento de familias fundadas por personas del mismo sexo.
Porque estamos hablando de derechos fundamentales. El primero, libre circulación y elección de residencia —artículo 45 de la Carta de los Derechos Fundamentales de la Unión Europea—, pero sin discriminación, prohibida por razón de sexo, orientación sexual o identidad de género en los artículos 20 y 21 de la misma Carta de los Derechos Fundamentales de la Unión Europea. Prohibición especialmente exigente cuando se trata de derechos de los niños, que en ningún caso pueden ser discriminados por su origen ni por su filiación.
Por tanto, es urgente reclamar que todos los Estados miembros protejan a los niños sin discriminación en su Derecho interno y les garanticen, por tanto, el acceso a una identidad y acaten las sentencias del Tribunal de Justicia, que son terminantes: 2018, reconocimiento de los matrimonios del mismo sexo y su derecho a circular libremente sin discriminación, y 2021, derecho a la filiación de los menores sin ninguna discriminación.

(Ende der spontanen Wortmeldungen)


Helena Dalli,
Member of the Commission. – Mr President, honourable Members, I want to reassure you that it is a Commission priority to ensure that the rights of rainbow families and free movement are respected and that we are monitoring the implementation of the EU free movement acquis as interpreted by the European Court of Justice, including in relation to the rights of rainbow families. And the Commission is also in dialogue with Member States in this regard.
I understand, Sophie, totally the impatience, but the Commission has asked every single Member State through dedicated questionnaires whether any legislative or administrative changes would be needed following both the Coman and the V.M.A. judgment. Where necessary the Commission has engaged in a dialogue with relevant Member States to further discuss their implementation of these judgments, and some of these dialogues are still ongoing, and in some cases I can say that positive developments can be expected in the mid-term.
The Commission's focus includes careful analysis of the Member States' legislation and practices, in particular in the fields covered by recent court judgments. And in addition, the updated guidance intends to integrate the relevant elements of the case-law, reflecting the diversity of families, and this will facilitate Member States in implementing EU law and therefore help avoid situations where an infringement procedure becomes necessary.
But that said, rest assured that the Commission will not shy away from legal action should it be deemed to be the most efficient way to ensure the protection of the rights of rainbow families and free movement. And the parenthood initiative will address the recognition of the parenthood of a child as established in another Member State for purposes other than the rights derived from EU law. It will further improve the rights of rainbow family members without taking away the rights that a child already enjoys under Union law on free movement, including the directive of 2004 and the relevant case-law.

Sophia in 't Veld (Renew). – Mr President, just very briefly, in this Hemicycle we do not tolerate racist statements, anti-Semitic statements, sexist statements. And I would just like to say for the record that we should not tolerate homophobic statements either. The remark made just now by our French EPP colleague is profoundly homophobic. I find it regrettable to hear that kind of language in this Hemicycle. And I would really like the leadership of this House to take its distance. And we're also going to ask for clarification whether our colleague here represents the views of the EPP Group.

Der Präsident. – Frau Kollegin in 't Veld, ich habe in der ganzen Aussprache jedem zugehört, und ich persönlich habe entschieden, dass ich den Kollegen dafür nicht zur Ordnung rufe, weil ich das nicht für eine homophobe Äußerung gehalten habe. Nachdem Ihre Beurteilung eine andere ist, legen wir das gerne der Präsidentin vor.
Die Aussprache ist damit geschlossen.
12.   The future European Financial Architecture for Development (debate)

Der Präsident. – Als nächster Punkt der Tagesordnung folgt die Aussprache über den Bericht von Charles Goerens im Namen des Entwicklungsausschusses über die künftige europäische Finanzarchitektur zur Förderung der Entwicklung (2021/2252(INI)) (A9-0270/2022).

Charles Goerens,
rapporteur. – Monsieur le Président, au Niger, un jeune homme veut se lancer dans une entreprise de construction. Il est sans moyens financiers et si un emprunt lui est refusé, il doit abandonner son projet. Dans un autre pays en développement, il est impératif de réduire les inégalités. Créer un système de protection sociale pourrait y remédier. Mais si on manque de tout, il devient impossible de démarrer le projet. Nous voulons améliorer l'accès aux soins de santé en Afrique, où on manque partout d'hôpitaux, de laboratoires, de facultés de médecine.
L'argent n'est pas tout, mais sans argent, beaucoup de projets deviennent illusoires. L'architecture financière du développement tend à y remédier. L'Union européenne, il est vrai, consacre 80 milliards d'euros à ces fins entre 2020 et 2030. Même si l'aide publique au développement européenne représente 46 % des contributions des États membres de toute l'OCDE, on s'aperçoit vite qu'il faut un multiple de ce montant pour réaliser les objectifs du développement durable. Comment faire?
C'est là que l'architecture financière de développement entre en jeu pour permettre au candidat entrepreneur nigérien de réaliser son rêve. Il est perdu si la banque locale ne lui donne rien. Le lancement d'une sécurité sociale à grande échelle ne peut aboutir que si un minimum d'infrastructures administratives et de communications informatiques sont disponibles, pourvu qu'au départ des conditions politiques indispensables à sa réalisation soient remplies.
L'architecture financière de développement se promet d'y remédier, disais-je. Disons-le d'emblée: la plupart des instruments existent. Parmi eux, les ministères de développement, la Commission, les banques et institutions financières du développement. On attend de ces institutions financières qu'elles mobilisent les capitaux privés pour combler les déficits publics en matière de financement. Cet écart est estimé à 4 200 milliards de dollars par an pour réaliser les objectifs du développement durable. Ces institutions financières existent. Sur le plan européen et national, elles s'appellent: Banque européenne d'investissement, Banque européenne pour la reconstruction et le développement, AFD française, KfW allemande, pour n'en citer que quelques-unes, auxquelles s'ajoutent bien entendu les institutions néerlandaise, suédoise, italienne et j'en passe. Bref, une multitude d'acteurs actifs dans le même domaine. Le Parlement européen aimerait les voir s'organiser afin de réduire les doubles emplois, les incohérences en matière de politique de développement, en vue de privilégier la complémentarité des acteurs, en vue d'inscrire leur action dans une démarche globale de l'Union européenne, guidée en cela par le principe du policy first.
L'année 2022 révèle l'urgence de mettre en place cette nouvelle architecture financière. La guerre en Ukraine nous fait perdre un temps précieux et la reconstruction de ce pays, une fois la guerre terminée, va rendre nécessaire la mobilisation de gigantesques montants financiers. D'un côté, il y a déjà un gouffre financier énorme et, d'un autre côté, l'effet combiné de la guerre en Ukraine et l'impact de la crise de la COVID ont augmenté d'un tiers les besoins en capitaux au cours des trois dernières années. Nous n'avons plus le droit de gaspiller un seul euro, tant sont importants les besoins pour réaliser les ODD.
L'architecture financière fait un pari sur l'avenir. Elle se promet de respecter dans son action les droits de l'homme, les droits sociaux, les impératifs de l'accord de Paris sur le climat, les engagements pris à Addis-Abeba dans le cadre du financement de l'aide au développement, les principes de gestion saine, le principe du partenariat, le principe de l'appropriation. Bref, on aura rarement vu autant d'exigences, voire d'engagements réunis en une seule démarche.
Ce rapport est le fruit du travail collectif de la Commission. Il est le fruit du travail et des contributions des rapporteurs fictifs, mais aussi le fruit de l'engagement de mon assistante, Mme Simoes. Je remercie tout le monde d'avoir réussi à faire voter à l'unanimité ce rapport au sein de la commission du développement, et j'espère que nous pourrons également trouver une très large majorité ici au sein de cette assemblée.

Angelika Winzig,
Verfasserin der Stellungnahme des mitberatenden Haushaltsausschusses. – Sehr geehrter Herr Präsident, Herr Kommissar, Kolleginnen und Kollegen! Zunächst einmal vielen Dank an den Berichterstatter Charles Goerens und seine Schattenberichterstatter im Entwicklungsausschuss für die Übernahme wichtiger Punkte aus der Stellungnahme des Haushaltsausschusses zur neuen europäischen Finanzarchitektur zur Förderung der Entwicklung. Gezielte Hilfe und Bekämpfung von Fluchtursachen in den Herkunftsländern sind doch das beste Mittel, die sich anbahnende Migrationskrise unter Kontrolle zu bringen. Durch die Schaffung von wirtschaftlichen Perspektiven vor Ort verringert sich auch der Zustrom von Wirtschaftsflüchtlingen in die Europäische Union. Es ist daher unabdingbar, die Entwicklungshilfe mit ausreichenden Mitteln auszustatten.
Damit jeder Steuer-Euro so effektiv wie möglich eingesetzt wird, liegt es nun an der EBRD, der EIB und den nationalen Entwicklungsbanken, Doppelgleisigkeiten zu vermeiden und gemeinsam an einem Strang für die Erreichung der europäischen Ziele in der Entwicklungshilfe zu ziehen.

Janez Lenarčič,
Member of the Commission. – Mr President, honourable Members, I would like to thank, also on behalf of my colleague, Commissioner Urpilainen, the Rapporteur, and the Committee on Development, for putting forward this very useful report on the European financial architecture for development.
I agree with many of the considerations outlined in this report and its conclusions. European financial architecture for development is an important building block of our more effective and more impactful cooperation with partner countries. We are confronted today with multiple crises – the consequences of COVID-19, the Russian aggression against Ukraine, debt pressure, food insecurity, energy costs and climate change. All of these exacerbate the gap in finances needed to achieve the sustainable development goals.
To make the best possible use of scarce resources and to achieve sustainable impact, we need a joint European response combining all relevant instruments and actors. Following a system-wide review of the European financial architecture for development already in 2019, the Commission adopted its timely roadmap for an improved effort last March.
The roadmap is organised around four different areas. First, providing a strong policy steer to strengthen alignment with EU policy objectives. Two, enhancing coordination and providing incentives to work together. Three, making the architecture more inclusive, and four, raising the visibility of EU actions.
Since then, significant progress has been made in all these four areas. Let me briefly mention some examples.
On strategic steering, all investment operations financed from the EU budget are scrutinised to ensure that they comply with programming documents, that they align with team Europe initiatives and the EU's global policy priorities, such as delivering on the global gateway strategy and the Green Deal, and also mainstreaming gender and environmental aspects.
We aim to make use of our various EU tools and development actors in smart and flexible ways. For instance, the European Investment Bank will benefit from the dedicated guarantee windows, but will also be able to use the private sector guarantees under EFSD+ open architecture. The Commission is currently assessing the outcome of the call for proposals.
I share your views on the importance of inclusiveness. In principle, all EU pillar assessed financial institutions are eligible to use the open architecture guarantee. This includes multilateral institutions and regional development banks, while also relying, whenever possible, on European financial institutions.
Under the EFSD+ open architecture, we received guarantee proposals from 20 potential implementing partners – exceeding expectations. Several new partners submitted proposals for the first time from within the EU and outside. For instance, the Caribbean Development Bank.
We will be able to select those proposals which offer a strong development impact and best fit our strategic policy priorities. I fully agree that efforts should improve the EU's visibility and impact of its development finance. Many EU delegations report that the Team Europe Initiative's design process has significantly increased cooperation with European development finance institutions on the ground.
You also call for effective governance of the global gateway strategy. The Commission and Member States agreed to set up a global gateway board to provide strategic steering, and we propose that the European Parliament is of course involved as observer, and a dedicated business advisory group to exchange with European businesses. This will allow strong strategic guidance on our collective ambitions.

Isabel Santos,
relatora de parecer da Comissão dos Assuntos Externos, dos Direitos Humanos, da Segurança Comum e da Política de Defesa. – Senhor Presidente, caros Colegas, quero começar por saudar o Colega Goerens pela orientação assumida neste relatório.
Como relatora de parecer da Comissão dos Assuntos Externos, quero salientar a importância da revisão agora introduzida na arquitetura financeira europeia para o desenvolvimento, face às múltiplas exigências que o presente nos coloca e àquelas que se vislumbram face ao futuro, abrindo esta arquitetura à participação de todos os Estados-Membros e à junção de esforços do setor público e privado.
Defendemos que a arquitetura financeira europeia para o desenvolvimento assuma um caráter que lhe permita funcionar como um veículo da promoção da visibilidade e dos valores da União Europeia. Mas tal só pode ser atingido através do fortalecimento da orientação das decisões desta arquitetura e da consistência e coerência das mesmas com a atuação política da União Europeia através da Team Europe, utilizando-a na implementação de iniciativas como a Global Gateway ou o Green Deal.
Finalmente, sublinho que consideramos essencial o envolvimento e escrutínio do Parlamento Europeu, como foi sublinhado pelo Senhor Comissário.

György Hölvényi,
a PPE képviselőcsoport nevében. – Tisztelt Elnök Úr! Mindenekelőtt szeretném megköszönni kollégámnak, Charles Goerens képviselőtársamnak a jelentés elkészítéséért végzett, mondjuk úgy, hogy erősen összetett munkát. Az Európai Unió évente 70 milliárd eurót fordít nemzetközi fejlesztésre, mégis egyre nagyobb nehézségekkel nézünk szembe. Közel 700 millió ember él mélyszegénységben, 350 millió éhezik, 31 milliós háborús menekült Afrikában egyetlen év alatt. Látnunk kell, Afrikában a biztonság és az oktatás hiánya aláássa az uniós befektetések egy jó részét, erősíti a migrációs hatást, végső soron akadályozta a fenntartható fejlődést. Az Európai Unió az uniós fejlesztési bankokkal és a magánberuházásokkal együttesen 500 milliárd eurót mozgósít fejlesztési projektek megvalósítására.
Érdemi eredményekhez azonban hatékonyabb koordinációra van szükség az Európai Beruházási Bank, valamint a tagállami nemzetközi fejlesztési szereplők között. A Beruházási Banknak pedig közvetlen, valódi párbeszédet kell folytatnia az afrikai partnereivel. Emellett világos célkitűzésekre van szükség, ezek a biztonság, az oktatás és a munkahely.

Udo Bullmann,
im Namen der S&D-Fraktion. – Herr Präsident, Herr Kommissar, werte Kolleginnen und Kollegen! Hunderte von Millionen Menschen hungern. Um die Nachhaltigkeitsziele der Vereinten Nationen zu erreichen, fehlen 130 Billionen bis 2030. Das ist unsere Aufgabe, das ist unsere Herausforderung.
Ja, es ist richtig – niemand gibt international mehr Geld für Entwicklungspolitik aus als die Europäische Union und ihre Mitgliedstaaten; aber die Zahlen sagen uns: Wir müssen klarer werden, wir müssen überzeugender werden in unserer Strategie. Und wir müssen auch unsere Partnerländer gewinnen – im Englischen sagt man ownership, es zu ihrer eigenen Sache machen.
Und deswegen ist es richtig, was Kollege Goerens sagt. Ich gratuliere ihm zu seinem Bericht, er weist den richtigen Weg: Nachhaltigkeit unterstützen, Menschen gewinnen, dass sie auch ihre eigenen Wege gehen können, um ihre Länder stark zu machen, um eine nachhaltige Zukunft zu bauen.
Ein letzter Satz an alle diejenigen, die aufgerufen sind, an die Finanzakteure, an die Kommission, an die Mitgliedstaaten: Die Richtung der Politik entscheidet dieses Parlament. Das ist auch ein wichtig…

(Der Präsident entzieht dem Redner das Wort.)


Erik Marquardt,
im Namen der Verts/ALE-Fraktion. – Herr Präsident, Herr Kommissar! Auch dem Berichterstatter möchte ich erst mal danken und gratulieren zu diesem Bericht. Ich glaube, es ist ein wichtiger Bericht, und ich glaube auch, dass er genau zum richtigen Zeitpunkt kommt. Wir haben ja eine Situation, in der die Welt, aber auch Europa wirklich mit beispiellosen Krisen konfrontiert ist. Da kann man über die globale Erwärmung reden, man kann über den Angriffskrieg auf die Ukraine reden, man kann über die Ernährungssicherheit auf der Welt reden, aber auch darüber, dass mehr als 100 Millionen Menschen auf der Flucht sind. Und natürlich wollen wir nicht in einer Welt leben, in der Menschen erst nach Europa fliehen müssen, um irgendwo Schutz und Sicherheit, eine Zukunft, eine gute Perspektive zu finden.
Deswegen ist es besonders in diesen Zeiten besonders wichtig, dass wir dafür sorgen, dass Menschen anderswo auch Zukunftsperspektiven haben, und ich glaube, dass die EU auch in dieser Frage eine Führungsrolle übernehmen muss, um der Agenda 2030 und dem Ziel gerecht zu werden, niemanden zurückzulassen, dass aber auch klar ist, dass wir besser zusammenarbeiten müssen, besser zusammenarbeiten zwischen den EU-Institutionen, den Mitgliedstaaten, den Finanzierungsstrukturen der Mitgliedstaaten, und auch mit den Nichtregierungsorganisationen kann man besser zusammenarbeiten.
Nur so werden wir den Bedürfnissen unserer Partner im globalen Süden gerecht, und nur so können wir dann auch neue Partner gewinnen; das ist ja besonders in dieser Zeit auch sehr wichtig. Ich denke deswegen und hoffe auch, dass dieser Bericht als Baustein in der Strategie dienen wird, mehr Harmonie in die Arbeit der EIB, der EBWE, aber auch der nationalen Entwicklungsfinanzierung zu bringen. Ich hoffe auch, dass er dazu beitragen wird, dass wir als Europäisches Parlament eine zentralere Rolle bei der Gestaltung und auch Überprüfung der EU-Ausgaben in der Entwicklungszusammenarbeit haben, und bedanke mich deswegen zum Schluss noch einmal bei Herrn Goerens.

Dominique Bilde,
au nom du groupe ID. – Monsieur le Président, je ne peux pas m'associer à un texte qui fait un énième appel à l'augmentation d'une aide internationale qui est toujours assurée de façon disproportionnée par l'Europe et les États-Unis. De même, toute discussion sur l'endettement devrait, au premier chef, impliquer la Chine, détentrice d'environ 21 % de la dette du continent africain, souvent au travers de prêts adossés à des conditions draconiennes.
Les politiques de développement ne peuvent se résumer à l'aide publique. D'autres ressources doivent être mises à profit. Nous avons tous à l'esprit l'estimation de la CNUCED, qui évaluait à 88,6 milliards de dollars les fuites illicites de capitaux en Afrique, une ressource précieuse qui permettrait d'atteindre les objectifs de développement durable. Les transferts de fonds des particuliers, qui surpassent désormais l'aide publique comme recettes extérieures pour la plupart des pays à revenu faible ou intermédiaire, ne pourraient-ils pas également être mieux exploités?
Une stratégie efficace repose avant tout sur une confiance réciproque entre donateurs et bénéficiaires. À cet égard, la conditionnalité de l'aide, en particulier au retour des migrants, constitue une exigence non négligeable. Notre souhait serait que l'accord post-Cotonou soit l'occasion d'un nouveau départ pour une vraie politique de développement.

João Pimenta Lopes,
em nome do Grupo The Left. – Senhor Presidente, a política de cooperação e desenvolvimento promovida pela União Europeia tem sido expressão dos interesses geoestratégicos das potências europeias e dos lucros do grande capital europeu, mais do que uma abordagem de efetiva cooperação com vista à capacitação e consolidação da independência dos países em desenvolvimento.
A materialização de uma Europa global vem dar robustez a essa instrumentalização da cooperação internacional para o domínio geopolítico e controlo de recursos, insistindo numa abordagem neocolonial.
Assim se plasma neste relatório a crescente financeirização da ajuda pública ao desenvolvimento, oferecendo mais dívida aos Estados visados no quadro de uma crescente condicionalidade política, em aberta confrontação às opções e estratégias soberanas dos países em desenvolvimento com interesses de países terceiros.
A crescente militarização e agressividade de uma política externa ao serviço das potências europeias e dos grandes grupos económicos deixa um rasto de dependência, desigualdades, guerra, ao arrepio dos interesses dos povos. É urgente uma genuína política de cooperação e ajuda ao desenvolvimento dotada dos meios adequados e assente numa efetiva solidariedade.

Ádám Kósa (NI). – Tisztelt Elnök Úr! Az EU és az EU 27 tagállama együttesen a fejlődő országok legnagyobb adományozói a világban. Sajnos tartok attól, hogy miután a szankciós politika negatív hatással van az EU-s tagállamok gazdaságaira, ez a fenntartható fejlesztési célok végrehajtását is veszélyezteti, ezért mindenekelőtt békére van szükség. A jelentés számos helyes megállapítást tartalmaz, ebből egyet szeretnék kiemelni: a segítséget házhoz kell vinni. A helyi közösségek megerősítése és a szülőföldön való boldogulás a legfontosabb cél. Már nem halat adunk a szegényeknek, hanem megtanítjuk őket halászni. Tegyünk még egy lépést, és segítsünk nekik eladni a halat, hogy ne csak egy család lakjon jól, hanem egy egész falu vagy egy város is!

Tomas Tobé (PPE). – Mr President, Commissioner, it is crucial that we improve the impact of European development finance. To do this, we first have to increase our efforts for better coordination and cooperation between European development finance institutions, reduce red tape and make the system more effective and focused on ensuring optimal use for our limited resources.
Secondly, we need a powerful policy direction to ensure that the activities of other development finance institutions are aligned with our values and also our strategic interests.
Finally, we have to also scale up private-sector mobilisation for sustainable development, including support to micro—, small and medium enterprises in partner countries to enable growth.
I therefore very much welcome this report, and I would like to thank our rapporteur and all the DEVE colleagues that have been working on this.

Mónica Silvana González (S&D). – Señor presidente, señor comisario, sabemos que el escenario para el desarrollo cada vez es más difícil y será más difícil cumplir con los objetivos de la Agenda 2030.
Por ello, es urgente crear una arquitectura financiera para el desarrollo efectiva, que tenga mecanismos de seguimiento y evaluación que midan su impacto. Hacemos mucho, pero no conocemos el impacto real, por ejemplo, en Latinoamérica, donde vemos que cada vez China está más presente, también en materia de desarrollo.
Para lograr que el Global Gateway sea una realidad y no solo una declaración europea de intenciones, en esta arquitectura financiera, el Banco Europeo de Inversiones, junto con los bancos nacionales y el Banco Europeo de Reconstrucción y Desarrollo, deben desempeñar un papel clave, pero deben estar coordinados. Por eso le pedimos a usted, comisario, que lidere esta coordinación.
La incorporación del sector privado, regulada y supervisada desde lo público, es cada vez más necesaria, pues no podemos cubrir todo solo desde la ayuda oficial al desarrollo. El apalancamiento puede ser una solución, pero debe contar con mecanismos de seguimiento claros.
Necesitamos financiación innovadora. Tiene el apoyo de este Parlamento, como ya se lo está dando también en materia de ayuda humanitaria, para trabajar en la línea de la financiación innovadora.

Gianna Gancia (ID). – Signor Presidente, onorevoli colleghi, oggi quando parliamo di contesto finanziario nella cooperazione allo sviluppo, siamo costretti a riconoscere un'amara realtà.
Il fatto che in molti Stati membri si rimbalzi sull'immigrazione e ci siano anche delle discussioni così stupide tra Stati credo che derivi proprio dal fatto che non si parte da un'evidenza di fatto e dalla realtà. Gli esseri umani, gli uomini, finché avranno fame e dovranno scappare dalla sete, dalla fame, purtroppo dalla guerra e da qualunque altro bisogno primario, è sicuro che cercheranno la sopravvivenza loro e dei propri figli e quindi anche un porto sicuro in Europa.
Il fatto che ci apprestiamo a votare questo testo, che è una relazione equilibrata e puntuale, approvata all'unanimità in sede di Commissione, è proprio perché siamo consapevoli che occorre un maggiore sviluppo, una maggiore cooperazione proprio…

(Il Presidente ritira la parola all'oratrice)


President. – Colleague, you had one minute, I gave you almost one and a half minutes. I interrupt all colleagues. I have the same judgement to everybody. You do not have the floor anymore, I am sorry. You do not have the floor and the microphone is off.
Ich rufe Sie zur Ordnung, Frau Kollegin. Das geht nicht.

(Der Präsident reagiert auf einen ohne Mikrofon vorgebrachten Zwischenruf von Frau Gancia) Keine Ursache.

Hildegard Bentele (PPE). – Herr Präsident, meine sehr geehrten Damen und Herren! Vor drei Jahren hat die Europäische Union ihre Entwicklungshilfe neu aufgestellt, in der Hoffnung, dass sie flexibler und effizienter wirken kann. Wir als EVP haben darauf hingewirkt, dass wir parallel dazu auch eine Debatte über die Neuausrichtung unserer europäischen Entwicklungsfinanzierungsinstitutionen anstoßen, denn in der Welt gibt es mehr Wettbewerb – denken wir nur an China – und mehr Aufgaben – denken wir nur an den Klimawandel.
Die Entscheidung ist nun nicht für eine Komplettreform gefallen, sondern für einen Status Quo Plus, das heißt, die Europäische Investitionsbank und die Europäische Bank für Wiederaufbau und Entwicklung sollen beide weiter fortbestehen. Vor diesem Hintergrund ist mir die Umsetzung des Plus besonders wichtig: Verbesserung der Präsenz der EIB vor Ort und Ausdehnung auf Subsahara-Afrika.
Ich möchte hinzufügen, dass es elementar sein wird, dass wir unsere Entwicklungsbanken und den Privatsektor viel besser als bisher mit geeigneten Finanzierungs- und Risikoabsicherungsinstrumenten begleiten müssen, denn vor allem über dessen gesteigertes Engagement werden wir echte Perspektiven für die Menschen in unseren Partnerländern erreichen. Wenn wir dazu konsequente politische Flankierung kombinieren, dann könnten unsere geopolitischen Ambitionen tatsächlich Gestalt annehmen. Viel Erfolg nun erstmal der EIB und der EBRD für ihre Neuausrichtung!

Ilan De Basso (S&D). – Herr talman! EU är världens största biståndsgivare, men med dagens politik är både klimatmålen och de globala hållbarhetsmålen utom räckhåll. Samtidigt hopar sig kriserna: krig i Europa, översvämningar i Pakistan och svältkatastrofen på Afrikas horn. Det är viktigt att det här parlamentet tar ställning för en ambitiös biståndspolitik. Vi förstår att mer måste göras. Samtidigt har vi en regering i Sverige som sluter slottsavtal bortkopplade från verkligheten. När världen står i brand väljer man att strypa det svenska biståndet. Det är en regering som sviker sina hållbarhetsmål, som sviker klimatet, som sviker sina vallöften och som nu sviker omvärlden. Jag är glad att EU väljer en annan väg. Vi fortsätter att stå för solidaritet, för att utveckla och effektivisera biståndet.

Spontane Wortmeldungen


Barry Andrews (Renew). – Mr President, I think one of the major problems in this space is that almost nobody in international development understands finance, and very few people in international finance understand development. So there's a major knowledge gap, there's a cultural gap, I would say. And we have to work very hard to address the scepticism. I think people have mentioned already the European Court of Auditors' assessment of EFSD+, which was very negative, and academic papers that were presented to the Development Committee, which were very negative on EFSD+.
So I welcome the focus of this resolution, but I really think we need to have a debate on global gateway, because it's central to everything we're doing around the financial architecture for development. It is supposedly a bolt-on to NDICI, and yet it has none of the safeguards of NDICI in terms of transparency and parliamentary oversight.
And we were also presented, when we had a public consultation on the European financial architecture for development, was that either we set up a European development bank or we expanded the mandate of the existing ones. And EBRD has failed to expand its mandate to sub-Saharan Africa. I understand the reasons why, but it needs to happen at its next annual meeting in 2023.

Mick Wallace (The Left). – Mr President, poverty is not a natural phenomenon that can be fixed with aid. Poverty is a historical and political problem.
Poor countries are poor because of the history of European colonialism and because they are integrated into the global economic system on unequal terms. The aid and development narrative hides the deep patterns of wealth extraction that causes poverty and inequality in the first place: rigged trade deals, tax evasion, land grabs and the offshoring of the impact of excess resource consumption in the global North to the global South.
Aid and development aren't working. Since 1960, the income gap between the North and South has roughly tripled in size. A recent Jason Hickel study revealed that the global North's imperialist financial appropriation from the South is worth over USD 10 trillion a year in Northern prices, and that the South's losses outstrip their aid receipts by a factor of 30.
Poverty is a political problem. Therefore it requires a political solution. Poor countries don't need our aid – they need us to stop plundering them!

(Ende der spontanen Wortmeldungen)


Janez Lenarčič,
Member of the Commission. – Mr President, many thanks for this debate and for the many relevant points raised. Through the European financial architecture for development and with our Team Europe initiatives and the global gateway what we aim to do is to address the world's most pressing challenges in a number of world regions, including sub-Saharan Africa.
And I am pleased to know that we are making good progress across all key areas of the EFAD roadmap. We are attracting an increasing number of national and European development finance institutions who built the fabric of EFAD. Global gateway will itself catalyse effort and incentivise stakeholders to work in the same direction because it requires better alignment of the various sources of EU funding, including notably the funding by the European Investment Bank.
Global gateway also creates a new strategic framework for bringing in more partners and more finances towards development outcomes in our partner countries. This includes the private sector, but it does not imply that funds are re-allocated to the private sector. We rather see it the other way around. We want to ensure that also private-sector investments are aligned with our and partner countries' political priorities in support of the development objectives.
I cannot underline enough the need for stronger collaboration between all relevant European actors, including in particular the European Parliament. So as a next step, dear President, dear rapporteur, dear Members, we will consider the observations and recommendations of this report very carefully, and the Commission progress report on effort, which is due next spring, will provide further information for your consideration. Thank you once again for the interest and your cooperation on this very important issue.

Der Präsident. – Vielen Dank, Herr Kommissar Lenarčič! Gestatten Sie mir, dass ich eine persönliche Bemerkung mache.
Es ärgert mich sehr, auch persönlich, dass ich Kollegen, die viel zu sagen haben, die die Redezeit überschreiten, dann das Wort entziehen muss, weil eben die Redezeit kein Vorschlag ist, sondern eine Regel, diese Kollegen aber von Anfang bis Ende der Debatte da sind, wie der Kollege Bullmann, während andere Kollegen nur für ihre Rede hier reinkommen, anschließend sofort wieder rausgehen und sich auch noch unziemlich verhalten, wenn sie die Redezeit wirklich über Gebühr überschreiten und man ihnen das Wort entzieht.
Das ärgert mich sehr, und es ist der Würde dieses Hauses nicht angemessen.

Charles Goerens,
rapporteur. – Monsieur le Président, le débat en séance plénière a confirmé qu'il y a une large diversité de vues sur les objectifs exposés dans mon rapport. Les objectifs de développement durable sont un objectif pour toute la communauté internationale, y compris pour l'Union européenne. L'accord de Paris est un engagement de toute la communauté internationale, y compris de l'Union européenne. Les promesses faites à Addis-Abeba en 2015 sont un engagement de toute la communauté internationale, y compris de l'Union européenne.
J'admets la critique de ceux qui disent: ‘Mais la Chine doit faire son travail’. Bien entendu, ce n'est pas la Chine ou l'Union européenne. C'est l'Union européenne et la Chine et tous les autres qui ont le devoir d'apporter des réponses à la situation qui est faite par un gouffre financier de plus de 4 000 milliards qui manquent chaque année pour réaliser les objectifs de développement durable.
Alors, à ceux qui critiquent l'accès à l'emprunt, je dirais quand même: mais où allons-nous trouver l'argent si les banques et institutions financières de développement ne sont pas à même de faire la collecte de l'épargne en vue de l'investir à des fins de développement, dans le respect de l'accord de partenariat, dans l'esprit du principe de l'appropriation? Tout cela constitue une énorme liste de charges auxquelles doivent répondre les institutions financières. De mon point de vue, le recours à l'emprunt est tout à fait défendable s'il permet d'investir dans le long terme et si, aussi longtemps que le pays en question doit rembourser, les générations futures peuvent encore en profiter.
Finalement, je dirais à ceux qui disent que le pillage des ressources doit cesser: bien entendu, il doit cesser. M. Wallace l'a dit. Mais ce n'est pas le pillage ou les contributions financières à travers l'aide publique au développement ou les fonds mobilisés par les institutions financières, c'est l'un et l'autre. Ce n'est pas l'un ou l'autre, c'est bien l'un et l'autre.
Finalement, l'Union européenne peut faire beaucoup. Elle ne peut pas tout faire. Comme disait Michel Rocard, nous ne pouvons pas accueillir toute la misère du monde, mais nous devons prendre notre part.

Der Präsident. – Die Aussprache ist geschlossen.
Die Abstimmung findet morgen, Donnerstag, 24. November 2022, statt.
13.   Composition of Parliament

Der Präsident. – Ich habe zunächst zwei Bekanntgaben, bevor wir in der Tagesordnung fortfahren. Die zuständigen Behörden Dänemarks haben die Präsidentin von der Wahl von Herrn Bergur Løkke Rasmussen, von Herrn Erik Poulsen und von Herrn Anders Vistisen zu Mitgliedern des Europäischen Parlaments mit Wirkung vom 22. November 2022 unterrichtet. Sie treten an die Stelle von Herrn Søren Gade, Frau Linea Søgaard-Lidell bzw. Herrn Peter Kofod.
Ich heiße diese neuen Kollegen willkommen und erinnere daran, dass sie nunmehr vorbehaltlich der Prüfung ihrer Mandate mit vollen Rechten an den Sitzungen des Parlaments und seiner Organe teilnehmen.
14.   Composition of committees and delegations

Der Präsident. – Die Fraktion Renew Europe hat der Präsidentin Beschlüsse über die Änderung von Ernennungen in Ausschüsse und Delegationen übermittelt. Diese Beschlüsse werden im Protokoll der heutigen Sitzung aufgeführt und treten am Tag dieser Ankündigung in Kraft.
15.   Human rights situation in Egypt (debate)

Der Präsident. – Als nächster Punkt der Tagesordnung folgt die Aussprache über die Erklärung der Kommission zur Menschenrechtslage in Ägypten (2022/2962(RSP)).

Janez Lenarčič,
Member of the Commission. – Mr President, honourable Members, let me start by stressing that respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms constitutes a key element of EU-Egypt relations.
Our approach is to have a constructive engagement and achieve progress in the EU-Egypt human rights dialogue, as this will help advance our partnership. In this regard, human rights are identified as an area of cooperation in the EU-Egypt Partnership Priorities, which is the political framework of our partnership. The European Parliament resolution in December 2020 and the resolution on the UN Climate Change Conference in Sharm el-Sheikh in October 2022 raised important points that we have sought to address in our work.
We engage continuously with our Egyptian counterparts on the issue of human rights at all levels. The High Representative/Vice-President last discussed human rights with Foreign Minister Shoukry during the 9th EU-Egypt Association Council in June.
Our engagement on human rights has facilitated the first visit of the EU Special Representative for Human Rights to Egypt in April this year. Plans for the effective implementation of Egypt's National Human Rights Strategy were at the centre of all his discussions. The right to political dissent, freedom of speech and freedom of assembly are a particular object of attention.
The EU delegation in Cairo engages with civil society actors and human rights defenders, supports the work of civil society organisations and reaches out to government officials. At the same time, we engage in Brussels with Egyptian human rights activists, Egyptian and international non-governmental organisations, as well as the Egyptian mission.
A year ago, Egypt published its first National Strategy on Human Rights. Its effective implementation and sustained progress are now of the essence. We are looking forward to the first year review to take stock of the progress achieved. In the framework of the EU-Egypt Association Agreement, the Subcommittee on Political Matters and Human Rights, scheduled for December, will be another opportunity to exchange in this regard.
We welcome the personal commitment by President el-Sisi to progress on human rights, even in areas where this is controversial in Egypt.
Meanwhile, we have also taken note of the reinstatement of the presidential pardon committee and the subsequent number of prisoner releases. The EU has called for the release of the remaining detained human rights defenders and journalists. In our engagements, we encourage Egyptian authorities to make sure that the released detainees are fully reintegrated into society at large; this is very important.
In the run up to COP27, we maintained that ensuring a meaningful participation of youth and NGOs was of the utmost importance. We have seen that civil society was given the space to discuss the challenges of climate change and also address human rights issues at COP27. This is something that we need to take positive note of and welcome.
I thank you for your attention and I am looking forward to our exchange.

Andrey Kovatchev,
on behalf of the PPE Group. – Mr President, Commissioner, dear colleagues, the European Union and Egypt are partners and friends and as such, we can share our concerns and engage with goodwill and in good faith for the improvement of the human rights situation in Egypt. We believe that only with such positive engagement can we achieve good results for the benefit of the citizens of Egypt, as well as for the civil society, the free media and all minority groups in the country. We do not believe that we can achieve this goal by pressuring the government with non-constructive resolutions. We need to engage with open minds and at a different level with the Egyptian Government and civil society as the EU and the Commission has already been doing.
Egypt is a key and strategic partner for the EU and an important regional player in a region defined by instability and conflict. The EU-Egypt relations entail a multitude of important areas from energy, trade, science and cultural cooperation to the fight against international terrorism. The EU has supported Egypt in its security, economic and political challenges, and the European Commission has allocated EUR 100 million to Egypt from the mechanism Food and Resilience Facility in order to mitigate the impact of the Russian aggression against Ukraine.
We observe the work of the Egyptian presidential pardon committee, which conducts investigation of cases of prisoners' situations that are not complying with international human rights standards. Up to this moment, we have seen over 1 000 detainees released, which is a step in the right direction. However, we should like to see all people arrested in relation to the protests in Egypt released.
Following the ninth EU-Egypt Association Council meeting this summer it is critical to keep up and reinforce the EU commitment and willingness to cooperate with Egypt in the important area of democracy, fundamental freedoms and human rights, gender equality and equal opportunity, as well to address the root causes of terrorism and extremism.

Javi López,
en nombre del Grupo S&D. – Señor presidente, ahora que ha llegado a su fin la COP27, celebrada en Egipto, en Sharm el Sheij, pero que la pesadilla que viven los activistas y defensores de derechos humanos, periodistas y sociedad civil no ha acabado en el país, es un buen momento para hablar de ello, para arrojar luz sobre los más de 60 000 presos políticos que tiene el país: mujeres y hombres encarcelados de forma arbitraria y que no tienen acceso a un juicio justo.
Yo querría hacer dos pequeños comentarios sobre las intervenciones que me han precedido.
La Comisión Europea ha dicho literalmente que aplaudía el compromiso del presidente Al-Sisi con los derechos humanos: ¿usted diría del presidente de una autocracia brutal que viola sistemáticamente los derechos humanos una calificación como esta?
Al mismo tiempo, hemos escuchado una intervención de otro grupo político sobre su postura y sobre los avances. Yo creo que lo único que deberíamos intentar hacer es tener una exigencia compartida, porque, luego, cuando venimos aquí y hablamos de China, o de Irán, o de Rusia, ¿por qué no utilizamos el mismo lenguaje? ¿por qué hablamos de forma tan diferente? Y luego el resto del mundo nos dice, con razón, que si utilizamos dobles estándares.
Yo lo único que pido es un poco de exigencia. Porque lo que podría parecer una oportunidad como la COP, al final ha sido un espejismo. No ha habido avances reales, se han hecho gestos que no se han convertido en realidad, se vive una situación deplorable en el país… Al final ha sido un escaparate para la represión, que es lo que hemos podido ver la delegación en la COP, con una presencia de fuerzas de seguridad egipcias dentro del recinto absolutamente desproporcionada y sin precedentes.
Cabe recordar los casos de Alaa Abdel Fattah, de Zaki y, obviamente de Giulio Regeni, para el que pedimos justicia, reparación y, sobre todo, verdad.
Hay que continuar colaborando, trabajando, con las autoridades egipcias, pero dejar de hacer aquello que no funciona. Y no están funcionando los trabajos en términos de derechos humanos con el país.

Jan-Christoph Oetjen,
on behalf of the Renew Group. – Mr President, colleagues COP 27 has shed a light on the dire situation of human rights in Egypt, and COP 27 could have been an opportunity to bring a better situation for human rights, for the government to show that Egypt is committed to human rights. But all they're doing is just the contrary. Yes, they have put in place a presidential pardon committee. But let's be honest colleagues, they pardoned people that never should have been detained. They detain arbitrarily people that are against the regime. No opposition is allowed. And so then afterwards, they say, ‘OK, we do a presidential pardon’. Sorry, colleagues, this is not a step forward for human rights. This is just nonsense from my point of view.
And we should be very clear: there are hundreds and thousands of people detained arbitrarily that have no access to fair trials. These are lawyers. These are journalists. These are human rights defenders, bloggers, etc. So all those people, we want them to be free, to be able to speak out loud what's happening in their country at the moment. And I want to name personally Alaa Abd El-Fattah. He is in prison since a long time, and he was close to death only a couple of days ago during COP 27. And I call on the European Commission and the Member States to step up for Alaa Abdel Fattah. I call on the Egyptian Government to free him because he should be free and he should go back to UK, to his family.

Bas Eickhout,
on behalf of the Verts/ALE Group. – Mr President, we are indeed back from Sharm el-Sheikh, from the COP27, where I was last week as a delegation leader of the European Parliament's delegation to COP27. I have to be very honest, if I then hear the Commission say that they are very happy with the room for civil society that was there, then sorry but you were not there. There is a shrinking space for civil society there in Sharm el-Sheikh. People were intimidated, harassed. There is even a complaint by the German Government; they don't do that for nothing.
We, with this badge, were harassed at the entrance, where we were only making the claim that political prisoners should be freed. We were harassed for that. I expect the Commission to speak out on that, and not say that it's all fine, and that indeed we see, as my colleague from Renew said, that some prisoners were freed, because at the same time we know that since then at least 1 953 Egyptians were imprisoned. That should be the focus of our story, that should be the focus of this discussion.
We have left Sharm el-Sheikh. We can go freely back to Europe, but the civil society of Egypt stays in Egypt, and are now under close scrutiny after COP27. That should be our concern and prime focus.
I'm sincerely disappointed by the speech by the European Commission. Because we do know what the political prisoners are ongoing, and that civil society is getting less and less room in Egypt.
We have a standing rapporteur, Mr Mounir Satouri, who will keep on following this situation, but that is the message we should give to the civil society in Egypt: that maybe COP27 moved on, but we will keep on keeping this issue very close. That's also the message that this resolution is giving, and also the message to the UN, that for the next time, the next COPs, there should be room for freedom of expression and for civil society to make their voices heard in any UN conference that is being organised – and that I also expect to hear from the Commission.

Thierry Mariani,
au nom du groupe ID. – Monsieur le Président, l'Égypte vient d'organiser brillamment la COP 27. Évidemment, le contenu des discussions est sujet à de nombreux débats politiques. Toutefois, nous pouvons nous accorder sur une chose: Le Caire a parfaitement fait les choses. Notre Parlement passe son temps à donner des leçons d'écologie à la planète entière. On aurait pu saisir au moins l'occasion de ce débat pour féliciter l'Égypte et son peuple.
Mais l'occasion était trop belle. L'occasion était trop belle de reprendre le discours des associations qui n'ont pas digéré l'éviction des Frères musulmans du pouvoir. L'occasion était trop belle de servir la soupe au réseau Soros, qui attaque la France pour sa relation privilégiée avec Le Caire. Il est d'ailleurs fascinant de constater la différence de traitement qui est faite dans ce Parlement entre l'Égypte et le Qatar.
Le Qatar a participé à la déstabilisation de tout le Moyen-Orient. Il a soutenu des rébellions islamistes parmi les plus sanglantes de l'histoire. Il continue à héberger les prêcheurs les plus fondamentalistes du monde arabe. Le Parlement européen présentera bientôt une résolution qui lui pardonne tout et le félicite sur bien des points.
L'Égypte du président al-Sissi fait des progrès en matière de liberté religieuse, combat l'islamisme sur son sol, influence son voisinage pour résister aux djihadistes. Le Parlement européen présente une résolution aux termes aussi injustes que violents contre elle.
Encore une fois, le monde arabe va lire ces initiatives comme un modèle de la duplicité et de l'hypocrisie de l'Union européenne. Encore une fois, le reste du monde va se demander comment l'Europe peut se tromper à ce point dans le choix de ses partenaires régionaux. Encore une fois, les citoyens des États membres vont se poser une question légitime: pourquoi une telle soumission au Qatar, en Europe, alors que ce pays finance des associations et des médias qui s'ingèrent dans la vie publique?
Bien sûr qu'il faut encourager l'Égypte à continuer ses progrès humains et économiques, à moderniser ses infrastructures et à continuer à s'impliquer dans la lutte contre l'immigration illégale et surtout à avoir une politique courageuse de lutte contre le terrorisme. Nous devons être, pour cela, à ses côtés.

Denis Nesci,
a nome del gruppo ECR. – Signor Presidente, signor Commissario, onorevoli colleghi, l'Egitto rappresenta un paese amico e un partner strategico con il quale abbiamo obiettivi condivisi per costruire un futuro di stabilità, pace e prosperità nel Mediterraneo.
Sarà fondamentale rafforzare la nostra cooperazione riguardo alle politiche commerciali, alla sicurezza energetica, al contrasto dell'immigrazione illegale e al traffico degli esseri umani, nonché al terrorismo e ai fenomeni di radicalizzazione.
Tuttavia, l'Unione europea e i suoi Stati membri devono continuare a svolgere una forte azione diplomatica per spingere l'Egitto a compiere quei progressi nel campo dei diritti umani e della tutela delle minoranze, penso ai soprusi subiti dai copti nel paese.
Ma da italiano ed europeo credo sia giunto il momento di pretendere la verità sul rapimento e la morte di Giulio Regeni, avvenuta nel gennaio 2016, esortando le autorità egiziane a mettere da parte quel clima di ostilità e di scarsa collaborazione avuta finora, a cooperare con le autorità italiane riguardo ai quattro agenti dell'intelligence egiziana sospettati del rapimento e ad assicurare alla giustizia i veri responsabili.
Questo lo dobbiamo innanzitutto alla famiglia di Giulio Regeni, alla nostra credibilità nel contesto internazionale e alla volontà di mettere in campo con l'Egitto delle relazioni bilaterali stabili, leali e credibili.

Mick Wallace,
on behalf of The Left Group. – Mr President, Commissioner, attending the COP last week in Egypt we heard testimony of el-Sisi's brutal crackdown on activists and journalists who live in constant fear for their lives. They face intimidation, harassment and surveillance on a daily basis. The harassment even extended to attendees of the climate summit. While we were there, 400 new ones were arrested and three died from lack of care in prison.
Egypt's US-backed regime has effectively banned the right to peaceful assembly and moved to shut down civil society. An estimated 65 000 political prisoners are unjustly detained. Among them is Alaa Abd el-Fattah, arrested for his opposition to the government and imprisoned for over nine years now. His recent hunger strike was ended by being force fed by the Egyptian authorities.
Sisi's dictatorship not only gets a free pass for its repression, last year Macron decorated Sisi with the Grand Cross of the Legion of Honour, a praise I imagine France gives to all brutal dictators who choose France as their number one weapons dealer.
We never shut up about human rights in here, but we only call for action against enemies of the US. We have zero credibility on human rights as long as the likes of France, Germany and Italy profit from Egypt's oppression and warmongering. As long as we maintain these double standards, the EU will rightly be seen as a joke when moralising on the world stage.
Would it be too much to ask of the EU to ask its US Member States to stop supplying Sisi's dictatorship with weapons until all political prisoners are released?

Spontane Wortmeldungen


Seán Kelly (PPE). –
A Uachtaráin, having attended COP last week in Egypt, obviously the main focus was on climate change, which of course was the primary purpose. And I think we did an awful lot of that. But we did have an opportunity to engage also with human rights activists in Egypt, and their stories certainly were very strong and very compelling. And we did promise that we would bring these to the attention of our colleagues here in the European Parliament, which this debate allows us to do.
Some people would say maybe that events like COP and maybe the World Cup in Qatar shouldn't take place in those countries, but I think if we utilise it to ensure that we aren't mugged, that we bring back the messages and act accordingly, then we can turn that into a benefit, because if you don't go to a lot of countries where there are human rights issues, then the number unfortunately that you'll be going to will be probably very limited.
But definitely it's good that we have the opportunity to bring back the message: Egypt must step up to the plate and reduce a lot of these human rights and human abuses which are too prevalent altogether.

Clare Daly (The Left). – Mr President, I'd just like to really add my comments to the strong words of colleagues that we do ourselves no favours by being geopolitical in which human rights that we condemn. And the testimony of activists in Egypt is really quite frightening. At least 520 websites blocked, 129 of them news sites. The government actively tracking down and targeting those who publish content on social media which is critical of government policies, even as people experience very difficult living conditions. And we've even had a number of women who had used TikTok to present dancing content being imprisoned on the grounds of protecting morals.
So we have to be very clear in calling out that there has to be an end to the internet censorship, including blocking news websites, particularly Mada Masr, Al-Manassa and Darb. We must encourage the government to adopt amendments to the NGO law, which effectively means that the security services decide which NGOs can operate. And we must call and add our call to the call of this Parliament for Alaa Abd El-Fattah to be released and freed from his illegal detention.

(Ende der spontanen Wortmeldungen)


Janez Lenarčič,
Member of the Commission. – Mr President, honourable Members, thank you very much for your interventions. We take a very careful note of them.
I would like to assure you all that respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms is part and parcel of EU-Egypt relations. There are issues that need to be addressed, and this includes the case of Alaa Abd el-Fattah. This includes the Regini case, among others. As for any other country, this is our continuous endeavour. The EU will continue cooperating and engaging on human rights with Egypt, also after COP27.
The European Union has a clear interest to support Egypt in maintaining long-term stability and security. But we at the same time very much believe that this can only be achieved if all aspects of human rights are fully implemented and upheld.
We will further advance and strengthen our engagement with our Egyptian partners, and we look forward to continuing this work, including in the upcoming established dialogue which will take place in December in the Subcommittee on Human Rights.

Der Präsident. – Die Aussprache ist geschlossen.
Die Abstimmung findet morgen, Donnerstag, 24. November 2022, statt.
16.   Debates on cases of breaches of human rights, democracy and the rule of law (debate)
16.1.   The Human rights situation in Afghanistan especially the deterioration of women's rights and attacks against educational institutions

Der Präsident. – Als nächster Punkt der Tagesordnung folgt die Aussprache über sechs Entschließungsanträge zur Menschenrechtslage in Afghanistan, insbesondere mit Blick auf die Verschlechterung der Frauenrechte und die Anschläge auf Bildungseinrichtungen (2022/2955(RSP)) (*1).

Željana Zovko,
author. – Mr President, Commissioner, I deeply deplore the recent attacks against the educational institutions in Afghanistan and call on the authorities to hold those responsible accountable. The deteriorating situation for women and girls in Afghanistan continues to be of grave concern. Since the Taliban took power, they have undone women's position in society, removed them from public life, closed secondary schools for girls, and restricted women's right to freedom of movement, employment and political participation.
I strongly condemn this systematic rollback. With our resolution, we send a strong message of support to all those women and girls that are affected. We demand respect for and protection of their rights. We urge to ensure that broad education is equally accessible for all, for boys and girls, and in line with UNESCO's standards and principles.
In the end, I was in Peshawar five years ago, where they repatriated these women. I still remember the sad eyes of the girl who spoke to me and who said that the only thing she wants in her life is to get an education, but her father doesn't allow her that. She is in Afghanistan somewhere now. I wish her well and I wish that her situation changes.

Evin Incir,
author. – Mr President, since 15 August 2021, when the Taliban stole power in Afghanistan, the situation in the country has deteriorated quickly, in particular the situation for women and girls, and especially for minority groups such as the Hazara. The extremist Taliban group initiated their rule by appointing an all-male cabinet, which they call a government. For me, as a social Democrat and a feminist, it is nothing less than a group of terrorists that destroys the lives of the people and the progress made in Afghanistan.
They decide on what women and girls should wear. They decide on where women and girls should walk. They decide on what women and girls can or cannot say. The Taliban gender apartheid is despicable and it must end now.
Commissioner, you need to expand the list of targeted measures against the Taliban leadership responsible for this, because dismantling human rights must come with a price. The EU must step up its efforts to share information with the International Criminal Court to ensure the end of impunity. Violating international law must have consequences, and EU countries should increase their humanitarian assistance to the UN, and NGOs' unprecedented and urgent needs must be met. Women and girls in Afghanistan are suffering right now.

SĒDI VADA: ROBERTS ZĪLE


Priekšsēdētājas vietnieks


María Soraya Rodríguez Ramos,
autora. – Señor presidente, en Afganistán, más de un año después de la toma del poder de los talibanes, no hay discriminación de género, hay un verdadero apartheid de género: un sistema de segregación sistemática pensado para borrar a las mujeres y niñas del espacio público.
Esta es una demanda de las defensoras de los derechos humanos en Afganistán, de la que hoy nos hacemos eco en este Parlamento, que va a ser la primera institución de la comunidad internacional que va a adoptar este término. Llamemos a las cosas por su nombre. Las niñas y las mujeres en Afganistán viven en un auténtico infierno. 430 días llevan ya las niñas en Afganistán con sus colegios cerrados.
Pero pensemos también que desde aquí tenemos responsabilidad. Podemos hacer más cosas. Tenemos que coordinar nuestros esfuerzos a nivel internacional para la protección de las defensoras, ofreciéndoles opciones de educación y empleo. Tenemos que revisar nuestros puntos de acuerdo para trabajar con Afganistán. Nuestras relaciones no pueden pasar nunca por la legitimación de unas autoridades terroristas que han declarado la guerra a las mujeres. Un verdadero apartheid de género.

Tineke Strik,
author. – Mr President, Commissioner, the situation in Afghanistan continues to be a hell after the Taliban takeover. And since our resolution in April, the lives of Afghans have even turned worse. Women and girls face horrible repression. They are excluded from public life to such an extent that it amounts to gender apartheid. Minorities are brutally attacked. Day by day, flagrant human rights violations take place without any accountability.
The humanitarian situation is equally dramatic. Nearly half of the population faces acute food insecurity, and this will only increase. So I call on the EU and the UN to step up humanitarian aid and make engagement with the Taliban conditional on the respect for human rights, but refrain from legitimising this ruthless criminal gang; hold them accountable and extend the sanctions list.
Mr President, the human rights defenders, journalists, judges – all who are targeted by the Taliban need our help to leave the country. But the opposite is happening: Afghan refugees are stuck in unsafe transit countries. Many arrivals in Europe are left in limbo despite the reality that they cannot return.
So Member States: stop these senseless and inhuman policies. Afghans deserve our help inside and outside the country. Bring them in safety and offer them sustainable protection, don't leave them alone.

Ryszard Czarnecki,
autor. – Panie Przewodniczący! Panie Komisarzu! To bardzo ważna debata, ponieważ ona jest potrzebna zwłaszcza tym spośród nas, także tym z unijnej dyplomacji, którzy chcą prowadzić taką ‘realpolitik’ z Afganistanem, którzy chcą na ołtarzu – no, pewnych relacji, zachowania pewnych relacji, może ich polepszania – poświęcić prawa człowieka, w tym prawa kobiet.
I myślę, że tak naprawdę przesłanie tej debaty, w której – jak widzę, i dobrze – jesteśmy ponad podziałami, ono powinno trafić do tych po naszej stronie, po stronie Unii Europejskiej, którzy tak naprawdę wolą być ślepi na to, co się dzieje w Afganistanie, na to, co się dzieje pod rządami talibów. Oczywiście słyszymy cały czas, że oni są lepsi niż ci talibowie sprzed 20 lat, bardziej wykształceni, bardziej umiarkowani. Ale cały czas chodzi o to samo. Cały czas chodzi o łamanie praw człowieka, w tym praw kobiet. W tej sprawie musimy naprawdę być solidarni i musimy naszych kolegów, którzy chcą być za taką ‘realpolitik’, przekonywać.

Marisa Matias,
Autora. – Senhor Presidente, sabemos que o regime talibã viola sistematicamente os direitos das mulheres e meninas. Sabemos que existe um apartheid de género. Sabemos que 850 000 raparigas foram impedidas de frequentar o ensino secundário durante mais de um ano. Sabemos e condenamos tudo isso.
Exigimos a total responsabilização do regime talibã e congratulamo-nos com o reatamento da investigação do Tribunal Penal Internacional sobre os crimes de guerra contra a Humanidade e crimes de guerra no Afeganistão.
Mas é preciso ir muito mais longe. Precisamos que os ataques crescentes contra os grupos minoritários, como os Hazara, sejam chamados pelo nome, genocídio, conforme declarou o relator especial. Precisamos que os países da União Europeia concedam vistos humanitários aos afegãos que aqui procuram proteção, dando prioridade às mulheres e raparigas. Precisamos que os Estados-Membros apoiem a aplicação da Diretiva relativa à Proteção Temporária aos afegãos.
É insustentável o regime assumido de dois pesos e duas medidas na União Europeia. Precisamos de ajudar os países de acolhimento de refugiados com assistência humanitária, financeira e técnica. Precisamos de rotas legalizadas e viagens seguras para os refugiados afegãos e precisamos, sobretudo e também, de assumir responsabilidades.
20 anos após a intervenção ilegal dos Estados Unidos e da NATO, o conflito causou um grande sofrimento e graves danos ao desenvolvimento económico e social do Afeganistão. Precisamos, por isso e também, de corrigir o legado de abusos de direitos humanos dos últimos 20 anos.

Krzysztof Hetman,
w imieniu grupy PPE. – Panie Przewodniczący! Panie Komisarzu! Szanowne Koleżanki i Koledzy! Powiedzieć, że sytuacja praw człowieka w Afganistanie, a w szczególności sytuacja kobiet i mniejszości religijnych, jest trudna, to jak nie powiedzieć nic. Systemowe eliminowanie kobiet z życia publicznego, zakaz ich wstępu do parków czy obiektów sportowych, ograniczanie wolności przemieszczania się – to tylko niektóre przykłady. Najpoważniejszym z zakazów jest uniemożliwienie młodym dziewczętom kontynuowania edukacji, co będzie miało ogromne negatywne skutki dla kobiet w Afganistanie na lata, spowoduje ich marginalizację, wzrost ryzyka zawierania małżeństw przez dzieci i poważnie obniży perspektywy zawodowe kobiet.
Unia Europejska powinna aktywnie wspierać organizacje i aktywistów działających w obronie praw człowieka, chroniących kobiety i mniejszości w Afganistanie. Ponadto, oprócz wezwania władz w Afganistanie do poszanowania praw człowieka i prawa międzynarodowego, powinniśmy także domagać się utworzenia przy Radzie Praw Człowieka ONZ niezależnego ciała badającego i dokumentującego wszelkie naruszenia prawa międzynarodowego i praw człowieka w tym kraju. Nie możemy dopuścić, aby osoby odpowiedzialne uciekły od jakiejkolwiek odpowiedzialności za te wszystkie czyny.

Karsten Lucke,
im Namen der S&D-Fraktion. – Sehr geehrter Herr Präsident, Herr Kommissar! Wir alle kennen das berühmte Zitat von Nelson Mandela: ‘Bildung ist die mächtigste Waffe, die du verwenden kannst, um die Welt zu verändern.’ Und bei all den Begründungen, die vermeintlich durch die Taliban angeführt werden, warum Mädchen und Frauen in Afghanistan von der Bildung ausgeschlossen werden, ist vielleicht der wirkliche Grund für die Repression durch die Taliban, dass sie Angst vor der Veränderung haben, dass der Verlust des eigenen Machtstatus zur Disposition steht, und die Angst vor der Kraft der Mädchen und jungen Frauen für eine positive Veränderung hin zu einem freien und blühenden Afghanistan.
Ich bin davon überzeugt, am Ende wird der Wunsch nach der Freiheit siegen, und das Verlangen nach den Menschenrechten wird größer und mächtiger sein als das verbrecherische Regime der Taliban.
Das bedeutet allerdings nicht, dass wir abwarten und zuschauen dürfen. Wir müssen als Europäische Union aktiv Unterstützung leisten und den Mädchen und Frauen in Afghanistan auf ihrem Weg zur freien Selbstentfaltung helfen. Dabei ist Bildung ein –wenn nicht vielleicht sogar der zentrale – Baustein.
Ich schließe mit den Worten der 17-jährigen Afghanin Mursal Fasihi, die sagt:
‘I hope that young girls will not give up. It's OK to be scared, it's OK to cry, but giving up is not an option. Our bright morning will come.’

Petras Auštrevičius,
on behalf of the Renew Group. – Mr President, Commissioner, dear colleagues, the return of the Taliban to power in Afghanistan has turned this country, ravaged by decades of conflict and tension, into a radical Islam reserve where entire social groups, primarily minorities and women, have become second-class citizens.
The Taliban's systematic action in restricting women's social and political rights and denying girls access to education is inexcusable. It is a complete waste of the progress of the last 20 years and a reversal of the promise of a better future. The Taliban's actions deserve to be clearly labelled as gender-based apartheid. These are crimes that must be immediately ceased, investigated and punished.
I call on the ICC Prosecutor to immediately undertake an investigation into the Taliban's crimes of discrimination against and attempted erasure of women and girls from public life. I also call for more EU and international efforts to support women's rights defenders and for continued action to empower Afghan women and girls.

Erik Marquardt,
im Namen der Verts/ALE-Fraktion. – Herr Präsident! Herr Kommissar, sehr gut, dass Sie anwesend sind, und auch sehr gut, dass wir diese Debatte führen, dass wir diese Entschließung haben, dass wir zeigen, dass wir das Leid der Menschen in Afghanistan nicht vergessen, und insbesondere auch, dass es uns auch nicht egal ist, wie wir in der Zukunft die Situation verbessern können.
Wir müssen einfach schauen: Wie können wir auf der einen Seite die humanitäre Situation in Afghanistan verbessern? Wie können wir auf der anderen Seite aber auch klarmachen, dass die größte Gefahr für Afghanistan am Ende immer die Taliban bleiben?
Wir sind uns ja einig, dass man den Menschen in Afghanistan helfen muss. Was mich ein bisschen besorgt, ist – in den Debatten der letzten Wochen –, dass wir auf der einen Seite mit den Menschen in Afghanistan fühlen, solange sie in Afghanistan sind; aber sobald sie aus dem Land fliehen, versuchen, auf sehr unsicheren Wegen mit irgendwelchen Schleppernetzwerken, irgendwelchen Mafias – weil es keine legalen Fluchtwege gibt – aus dem Land zu kommen, dann fehlt uns die Empathie, dann sind wir sehr groß darin, zu sagen, dass man die Balkanroute endlich schließen muss; eine der größten Gruppen sind ja Menschen aus Afghanistan.
Ich würde mir wünschen, dass wir die Empathie, die wir in der Entschließung mit den Menschen in Afghanistan zeigen, auch mit den Menschen aus Afghanistan haben, wenn sie nicht mehr weiterwissen und fliehen müssen.

Bernhard Zimniok,
im Namen der ID-Fraktion. – Herr Präsident, Herr Kommissar! Das ist nun gefühlt die einhundertste Debatte zur Lage der Frauen in Afghanistan. Nichts hat sich geändert – 20 Jahre erfolgloser Werteexport.
Wir müssen endlich akzeptieren, dass es andere Kulturen und Wertesysteme gibt. Afghanistan wird euch immer fremd bleiben. So haben 80 % der afghanischen Frauen bei einer Umfrage der Weltbank 2015 ihren Männern das Recht zugesprochen, sie bei Verfehlungen wie zu widersprechen, Sex zu verweigern oder ohne Genehmigung aus dem Haus zu gehen, zu schlagen.
Die Welt da draußen ist kein grün-roter Ponyhof. Wie immer ist unsere Herangehensweise durch unsere westliche Perspektive geprägt und meist völlig kontraproduktiv. So will Deutschland bis zu 1 000 Afghanen monatlich aufnehmen, die aufgrund ihres Kampfes für Demokratie und Menschenrechte besonders gefährdet sind. Mal ganz abgesehen davon, dass unsere Kapazitäten diese Menschen nicht aufnehmen können – diese Menschen können einen Wandel von innen heraus bewirken, den wir nicht können.
Wir müssen endlich aufhören, aus westlicher Arroganz heraus zu entscheiden, was gut für Afghanistan, was gut für den Rest der Welt ist.

Clare Daly,
on behalf of the The Left Group. – Mr President, more than a year after the international community adopted a policy of not dealing with the Taliban. More than a year after the US froze USD 7 billion of Afghan financial resources and continued vicious sanctions against that country, and more than a year after the EU spent a mere EUR 400 million on humanitarian aid for Afghanistan, despite the US spending USD 300 million a day for 20 years during the war, we have got to a place where now women are even banned from public parks. What an absolute unmitigated disaster.
Ignoring Afghanistan is not a solution. Yes, we should open our borders and take in refugees. Daily, I have met with desperate pleas of people, but how many are we going to take? One million, two million? Then what are we going to do with the millions who are left behind?
I'm assuming that nobody here is mad enough to think of invading again. If that's the case, we have to deal with reality. The most basic human right is the right to life. We have to start allowing the economy to function, linking improvements to that. Anything else is condemning Afghan women not just to exclusion, but to death. We have to stop standing idly by.

Seán Kelly (PPE). –
A Uachtaráin, Afghanistan is about to endure its second winter since the Taliban's seizure of power in August 2021. Since then, the rights of women have been trampled on. Conflict, violence and human rights violations have become an inseparable part of the lives of ordinary citizens. The country's economy is in a shambles and a major food crisis is escalating.
Life has become particularly tough for female scholars and students. Thousands have fled to neighbouring Iran and Pakistan and have applied to organisations that help academics to find posts in other countries. However, fewer than 10% have been successful as visa wait-times continue to be a challenge for many. I have encountered the same difficulties as I have tried to help a lady academic and her family escape the clutches of the Taliban.
I urge the EU to take immediate action to secure the lives and careers of Afghanistan's women and scholars, and I call for a more coordinated response to protect those most vulnerable.

Catch-the-eye procedure


Tomislav Sokol (PPE). – Poštovani predsjedavajući, nakon više od godinu dana od ponovnog dolaska talibana na vlast, očito je da se život običnih Afganistanaca jako pogoršao, što je bilo i za očekivati. Militantni islamisti tom zemljom vladaju kroz nasilje i zabrane te progon manjina, posebno Hazara i kršćana.
Talibanski režim masovno krši ljudska prava, osobito prava žena. Mladim djevojkama je zabranjeno srednjoškolsko obrazovanje. Treba otvoreno reći da trenutno stanje u Afganistanu predstavlja katastrofalni vojni i geopolitički poraz Zapada.
U razdoblju nakon 2001. NATO se oslonio uglavnom na potpuno nekompetentne i korumpirane domaće kadrove, što je nužno dovelo do ubrzanog urušavanja vlade s povlačenjem savezničkih snaga. Danas Afganistan predstavlja izvor nestabilnosti, polazišnu točku za ilegalne migracije prema Europi, što predstavlja golemi sigurnosni problem.
Utjecaj Kine i Rusije u središnjoj Aziji je ojačao, ovdje sa zapada oslabio. Europska unija mora jasnije definirati vlastite prioritete u ovom dijelu svijeta i konkretnije se angažirati u stvaranju saveza s državama s kojima dijeli zajednički interes. U suprotnom, ostat će vanjskopolitički patuljak kakav je danas.

Michaela Šojdrová (PPE). – Pane předsedající, dámy a pánové, podporuji tuto rezoluci, protože je důležité, aby Evropský parlament podpořil ty, kteří bojují za lidská práva, v tomto případě zejména za vzdělávání, ženy, které se hlásí o své právo na vzdělání. Je neuvěřitelné, že Afghánistán, který přijal v loňském roce finanční pomoc od EU ve výši jedné miliardy eur, je schopen takovýmto způsobem ponižovat ženy, pronásledovat náboženské menšiny včetně křesťanů. Tálibán zná sílu vzdělání, a o to více si přeji, aby afghánské ženy vytrvaly ve svých protestech a nenechaly se umlčet stejně tak jako vědci, jako novináři. Vyzýváme Evropskou komisi, aby podmínila další čerpání finanční pomoci dodržováním lidských práv včetně práva na vzdělání.

Mick Wallace (The Left). – Mr President, Afghanistan is not a good place to be a woman. While the Taliban government put in place more restrictions on women's rights, Western sanctions slowly starve the country to death. We helped to destroy the place for 20 years. Now we have a responsibility to provide shelter to those who are suffering as a result.
The EU response to the Ukraine refugee crisis shows what is possible when the political will is there. What we were aiming to do with this resolution is stress the need for similar protection for Afghan refugees. But the big groups in here weren't having it. They seem content with the two-tier system we put in place all over Europe for refugees and asylum seekers.
Nowhere is that more obvious than in Ireland, a country long criticised for its cruel Direct Provision system. We have thrown open the doors for Ukrainian refugees while leaving them closed to the rest.
In an interview with The Irish Times, a young Afghan woman talked about the different treatment refugees received, particularly in terms of accommodation, where host families are now paid EUR 100 a month to host Ukrainian refugees but nothing to host refugees from Afghanistan or elsewhere.
She said it's sad that they are seen as less than Ukrainians. It's not just sad, it's racism – and shame on all the politicians who are perpetrating it!

(End of catch-the-eye procedure)


Janez Lenarčič,
Member of the Commission. – Mr President, honourable Members, the European Union has a clear commitment to the Afghan people, and we follow closely the human rights situation in the country and in particular, the rights of women and girls. As it has been said by many in this debate, there is a systematic deterioration of women's rights in Afghanistan since the Taliban took power. They have deprived girls of secondary education, issued restrictions on women's dress, work and movement, even barring them from entering public parks and gyms.
Women have been excluded from most aspects of economic and social life. Shelters and mechanisms to protect women and girls from violence and forced marriages have been dismantled, severely restricting women's ability to seek help, despite reports of an increase in gender-based violence.
In the past year, Afghanistan has also seen repeated attacks on educational institutions, on students eager to learn, with many of these attacks claimed by ISIS. The terrorist attacks also targeted religious and ethnic minorities, particularly the Hazara community.
The European Union condemns all the restrictions on women's rights and continues to call on the de facto authorities to honour Afghanistan's obligations under international law, in particular human rights, refugee and international humanitarian law. They have the obligation to protect all the population, to bring perpetrators to justice, and to ensure respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms of the entire Afghan population.
We will continue to support Afghan human rights activists and civil society as we do worldwide as a fundamental principle of the European Union. This support includes raising individual cases of human rights defenders in our engagement with the de facto authorities, issuing statements on specific cases or developments of acute concern, financial support to civil society organisations and continuation of safe-passage operations for those Afghans that are particularly at risk and that want to leave.
The humanitarian situation in Afghanistan is beyond dramatic. The recent United Nations humanitarian needs overview states that in 2023, over 28 million people out of 34 million Afghan population will need humanitarian assistance. Estimations are that the United Nations will therefore call for USD 4.6 billion for next year for humanitarian aid alone.
There are alarming levels of poverty and food insecurity and limited access to healthcare, particularly for women and children. The European Union has already mobilised EUR 396 million for humanitarian aid in Afghanistan for 2021 and 2022. And this is more than 10 times of what was initially allocated for the country before the Taliban takeover. Where is this funding going? It is going to many things, including financing programmes on protection, financing community-based education for girls who are deprived of their right to school, financing basic healthcare for women and girls. And we have also recently redirected EUR 450 million of development aid for the basic needs of Afghan people; needs like health, nutrition, education, water and sanitation and livelihoods. And also in these fields we have a specific focus on the needs of women and girls. An additional EUR 20 million have been also allocated for crisis response.
We shall continue to do our utmost to alleviate this major humanitarian, social, economic and human rights crisis.

Sēdes vadītājs. – Debates ir slēgtas.
Balsošana notiks rītdien.


Rakstiski paziņojumi (171. pants)



Dominique Bilde (ID),
par écrit. – Plus d'un an après le retour des talibans au pouvoir, que reste-t-il des espoirs de quelques gogos crédules quant à l'avènement d'un gouvernement ‘modéré’? Bien peu de choses, de même, du reste, que s'agissant des droits les plus élémentaires des femmes. De l'éducation à la tenue vestimentaire, en passant par les avanies les plus mesquines, à l'instar des restrictions relatives à la fréquentation des parcs et jardins de Kaboul, rien n'aura été épargné à ces dernières.
Au-delà de l'indignation que suscite cette litanie de persécutions, il faut aussi souligner l'absurdité qu'elles représentent à l'heure où la population afghane crie famine. Car, au travers des femmes, de leur travail et de leur contribution indispensable à leur foyer, ce sont des enfants et des familles entières qui se trouvent réduits à la misère.
Pour nous autres, Occidentaux, il s'agit également de savoir jusqu'à quel point l'impératif humanitaire doit nous conduire à transiger sur nos valeurs fondamentales. Que dire, en effet, lorsque les talibans entravent les femmes œuvrant pour les organisations humanitaires dans l'exercice de leur mission? À l'évidence, dans notre engagement pour la condition féminine dans le monde, il nous appartient de montrer l'exemple.
16.2.   The continuing repression of the democratic opposition and civil society in Belarus

Sēdes vadītājs. – Nākamais darba kārtības punkts ir debates par pieciem rezolūciju priekšlikumiem attiecībā uz pastāvīgajām represijām pret demokrātisko opozīciju un pilsonisko sabiedrību Baltkrievijā (2022/2956(RSP)) (*2).

Miriam Lexmann,
author. – Mr President, colleagues, while Lukashenko's illegitimate regime enables Putin's aggression against Ukraine, it continues to oppress and terrorise its own people. There are now at least 1 450 political prisoners and tens of thousands more who are suffering under the regime's oppression.
In particular, I would like to highlight my brave friend Pavel Seviarynets, who has been held in inhuman conditions for more than two years and has spent more than a decade in and out of Lukashenko's prisons. Pavel and all the political prisoners and their families, those fleeing Lukashenko's oppression and all the people of Belarus deserve our unwavering support and solidarity.
I especially call on the European political parties to provide all necessary assistance to their Belarus member parties. At the same time, let us exert maximum pressure on the illegitimate regime so that Belarus can be free and sovereign and its people enjoy freedom and democracy.
Finally, let me thank colleagues for all the cross-party support in this House, for their support of Belarus, which this House continues to show.

Juozas Olekas,
Autorius. – Gerbiamas Pirmininke, gerbiamas Komisijos nary, gerbiami kolegos. Nusikalstamas Lukašenkos režimas Baltarusijoje toliau stiprina represijas prieš bet kokią valdžios kritiką. Šalyje jau virš tūkstančio keturių šimtų politinių kalinių, virš tūkstančio keturių šimtų žmonių kalėjimuose vien dėl to, kad jie norėjo išreikšti savo nuomonę ir nepabijojo to padaryti. Europos Sąjunga turi likti vieninga ir toliau spausti režimą. Ateinančiame sankcijų pakete reikia suvienodinti Rusijai ir Baltarusijai taikomas sankcijas, kad Rusija negalėtų naudotis Lukašenkos pagalba apeinant esančius ribojimus. Kuriant specialųjį tarptautinį tribunolą, skirtą Rusijos karo nusikaltimams Ukrainoje, į jo jurisdikciją reikia iškarto įtraukti ir pagalbininkus iš kitų šalių, tokius kaip Lukašenka, kurie leido Baltarusijos teritorija naudotis karo nusikaltimams prieš Ukrainą. Europos Sąjunga turi toliau remti Baltarusijos demokratinę opoziciją, didinti sisteminį bendradarbiavimą su ja, skatinti jos stiprėjimą ir vienijimąsi, kad tuomet, kai Baltarusijos diktatorius pagaliau bus nuverstas, opozicinės jėgos galėtų pradėti kurti modernią ir demokratišką Baltarusiją.

Petras Auštrevičius,
author. – Mr President, Commissioner, dear colleagues, Belarus is a hostage of post-Soviet tyranny. The prosecution of critics and political opponents and fierce violence continue to dominate the Lukashenko regime's policies. This year's Nobel Peace Prize for the Belarus human rights organisation ‘Vesna’ is a symbol of the understanding we all have of what is really happening in Belarus and of the support expressed to its democratic opposition and civil society.
We must do everything possible to ensure that political opponents and civil society activists return to freedom from overcrowded Belarusian prisons. It is they, together with the country society, not Lukashenko's gang, who will determine the future of Belarus. I invite you to continue to strengthen our joint action to help the people of Belarus to move away from their dictatorial past. We must continue diplomatic and political pressure, as well as strengthen economic sanctions against the Lukashenko regime. Let us be under no illusions, this is a terrorist policy regime just like the one in the Kremlin.

Viola von Cramon-Taubadel,
Verfasserin. – Herr Präsident, Herr Kommissar, liebe Kolleginnen und Kollegen! Es ist wichtig, dass wir trotz des brutalen Angriffskriegs Russlands in der Ukraine die Situation in Belarus nicht vergessen, denn die Schicksale dieser beiden Länder – Belarus und Ukraine – sind eng miteinander verbunden. Erst wenn Putin besiegt ist, wird auch Lukaschenkos Herrschaft zu einem Ende kommen.
Genauso wie die Menschen in der Ukraine sind die Menschen in Belarus wahre Kämpfer. Sie kämpfen seit langem für Freiheit und Demokratie, für eine bessere Zukunft ihrer Kinder, für eine Zukunft frei von Terror und Unterdrückung. Für diese Grundwerte, die auch unseren entsprechen, zahlen sie einen hohen Preis. Zehntausende wurden von Lukaschenkos Schergen verhaftet, inhaftiert und gefoltert. Über 1400 Belarussen – ganz normale Bürgerinnen und Bürger wie du und ich – werden mittlerweile als politische Häftlinge in Kerkern gehalten.
Ähnlich wie die Ukraine ist auch Belarus durch Russland besetzt. Lukaschenko erlaubte Putin den freien Zugriff von seinem Territorium aus auf die Ukraine. Der Verrat durch Lukaschenkos Regime ist etwas, das die Ukrainerinnen und Ukrainer und der Rest der Welt niemals vergessen werden. Die Welt wird niemals hunderte Raketen und Drohnen, abgefeuert aus Belarus, vergessen, die unendlich viele unschuldige Leben in der Ukraine auf dem Gewissen haben. Aber die Welt wird auch die Namen der Toten in Belarus, wie zum Beispiel Raman Bandarenka, Alexander Taraikowski oder auch Vitold Ashurak und viele andere nicht vergessen.
Die Geschichte lehrt uns: Früher oder später wird das Regime fallen – entweder vor dem Internationalen Gerichtshof oder am Ende durch das eigene Volk. Lukaschenko wird hier keine Ausnahme sein.

Anna Fotyga,
author. – Mr President, Commissioner, terror and repression imposed by the usurper Lukashenko and his regime on Belarusian people, thousands of them imprisoned, including the Nobel Peace Prize laureate Ales Bieletski and Andrzej Poczobut – over 600 days in prison.
Young journalists in cages during court proceedings, de-routing of Poles and Lithuanians, Russifying very actively Belarusians enabling Putin to wage his war of aggression on Ukraine.
Despite all of this, Belarusian people consolidate in opposing the regime. They build structures. They actively fight together with Ukrainians against illegal aggression. Despite all of this!

(The speaker used a slogan in a non-EU language)


Andrzej Halicki,
w imieniu grupy PPE. – Panie Przewodniczący! Reżim Łukaszenki stosuje terror wobec własnego społeczeństwa. Ostatnie wyroki: 25 lat, 20 lat. Tragiczne warunki. To tylko dowód jego słabości. Aleś Bialacki, noblista, także przedstawiciele polskiej mniejszości: wymieniony Andrzej Poczobut, Andżelika Borys, ale także zupełnie niewinni ludzie jak zdolny informatyk Siergiej Korszun, który nigdy nie złamał prawa – oni nie dadzą się zastraszyć. Nie da się zastraszyć białoruskie dzielne społeczeństwo. I Białoruś będzie demokratyczna i wolna. I apelujemy o uwolnienie więźniów politycznych natychmiast. Ale też apeluję o utworzenie tu w Parlamencie, w naszej siedzibie biura dla białoruskiej demokratycznej opozycji, dla przedstawicieli tego dzielnego społeczeństwa, byśmy natychmiast mieli informacje, prawdziwe fakty i mogli je upowszechniać. Dla Aleksandra Łukaszenki mam tylko jedną wiadomość: tyrani kończą marnie.

Thijs Reuten,
on behalf of the S&D Group. – Mr President, Commissioner, a pro-Kremlin group just took down the website of the European Parliament because we called Russia and Lukashenko's regime exactly what they are. Russia is a state sponsor of terrorism and Lukashenko is its eager accomplice. Let me make this very clear. The voices of freedom will not be silenced. Lukashenko can throw 1400 peaceful democracy activists in jail, including even Nobel Prize laureate Ales Bialiatski; he can try to crush any remaining dissent; he can invite Russian occupation troops into Belarus in a desperate attempt to hold on to power, but he will not succeed. His dictatorship will end, and Belarus will be democratic and free.
Our European Union must give the legitimate representatives of the Belarusian people all the assistance they need. I call on you personally, Mr President, to ensure that our Parliament does the same – building solid relationships with the democratic opposition. (The speaker used a slogan in a non-EU language)


Karin Karlsbro,
on behalf of the Renew Group. – Mr President, Commissioner, colleagues, the Nobel Peace Prize winner Ales Bialiatski is one of the courageous human rights activists in Belarus. Since last summer, he has been imprisoned without trial.
A desperate dictator tries to keep the people in fear. It's not only the Belarusian people who suffer from Lukashenko's tyranny. By allowing Russia to use Belarusian territory for attacks against Ukraine, the regime in Minsk continues to enable Russia's unjustified war of aggression against Ukraine.
We cannot let Lukashenko get away with this. He is, together with Putin, responsible for the war crimes in Ukraine and should be held accountable. It is Lukashenko who should be imprisoned while Ales and his 1 449 fellow political prisoners should go free.

(The speaker used a slogan in a non-EU language)


Markéta Gregorová,
on behalf of the Verts/ALE Group. – Mr President, dear colleagues, when I say 1 400 political prisoners in Belarus, do you imagine a face? I do. I will probably never forget Kasia Budzko, now 21 years old. She studied to become a teacher and now, for two years of her still so very brief life, she is in a penal colony because of challenging the authorities.
I have the same activist nature. I can't stand oppression and injustice. If I live one day in dictatorship, I am certain I will end up the same as her, or dead. Maybe then someone will read my name in a room like this. But can it change anything?
I'm trying not to lose hope. With every resolution like this, naming those who suffer under dictators, with every euro we block from the hands of Lukashenko and his sugar daddy, Putin, with support to democrats in an out of Belarus who keep fighting, I believe Kasia will become a great teacher for future generations – maybe with her work, but mainly with her example, attaining freedom. Let's help her get it!

Patricia Chagnon,
au nom du groupe ID. – Monsieur le Président, Monsieur le Commissaire, Mesdames, Messieurs, chers collègues, vous êtes une nouvelle fois ici dans le registre de la morale. Comme une nouvelle église qui veut s'imposer avec des prêtres, des messes et des serments. Le nouveau monde vous regarde avec ironie. Les nations ont leurs histoires, les États ont leurs contraintes, les individus ont leurs affections – territoriales, familiales et biologiques.
L'action politique appelle le réalisme. Ça ne veut pas dire qu'il ne faut pas défendre le droit ou la démocratie. Mais votre logique fait que nos pays décrochent en Afrique, en Asie, même dans des pays amis. Vous ne faites que vous isoler. Et vous faites perdurer un sentiment inapproprié de l'arrogance anachronique de l'Occident.

Ryszard Czarnecki,
w imieniu grupy ECR. – Panie Przewodniczący! Panie Komisarzu! Szanowni Państwo! Białoruś to jest część Europy. Ludzie na Białorusi to Europejczycy. Oni mają nieeuropejskie władze, ale bardzo bym chciał, abyśmy nie odwracali się plecami do Białorusi. A to oznacza, że mamy wspierać tych, którzy myślą tak, jak my: myślą w kategoriach wolności, w kategoriach praw człowieka, w kategoriach wolności mediów.
Musimy także dzisiaj głośno stawać w obronie mniejszości narodowych na Białorusi. Tam największą mniejszością są moi rodacy, Polacy, którzy bardzo jednoznacznie opowiedzieli się za wolnością i dlatego dzisiaj są represjonowani. Dlatego dzisiaj siedzą w więzieniach. Nie tylko oni, rzecz jasna. W moim przekonaniu nasz głos musi być donośny. I dobrze, że jest głosem z różnych części naszego Parlamentu. Nie relatywizujmy polityki, która tam ma miejsce. Nie udawajmy, że Łukaszenko nie jest pomocnikiem Putina – bo jest.

Rasa Juknevičienė (PPE). – Mr President, colleagues, there is the war criminal and usurper Lukashenko, and there are the people of Belarus on the other side. Thousands of them are imprisoned; most of them are silenced in captivity, but it will not always be like this. Belarus will be free because Ukraine will win. That is why the Kastuś Kalinoŭski Regiment is fighting on the Ukrainian front against Russia, and that is why President-elect Sviatlana Tsikhanouskaya and other leaders of the Belarusian people are working actively through diplomatic means.
Both war criminals, Putin and Lukashenko, will be convicted in a special tribunal. I believe that in my lifetime, Belarus, a nation with the honourable European history, will become part of the EU family. However, before that, Lukashenko and Putin have to be completely isolated and the EU has to continue to support the democratically elected leaders of Belarus, who are the real representatives of the people of Belarus. (The speaker used a slogan in a non-EU language)


Isabel Santos (S&D). – Senhor Presidente, as detenções arbitrárias, as buscas, a tortura e o tratamento desumano e degradante são uma constante do regime de Lukashenko.
É extenso o rol de opositores, ativistas e manifestantes que integram a lista negra de mais de 1 500 pessoas afastadas dos mais elementares direitos cívicos. Longa é também a lista de órgãos de comunicação social e organizações não governamentais interditadas.
A intimidação e a imposição de penas de prisão através de julgamentos politicamente motivados, como nos casos de Mikalay Autukhovich e Palina Panasiuk, entre tantos outros, continuam a ser uma constante para quem tem a coragem de contestar a situação no país.
Apelamos, por isso, mais uma vez, à libertação rápida e incondicional de todos quantos se encontram nestas condições. Mas devemos ir mais longe, necessitamos mesmo de ir mais longe, e, por isso, apelamos ao reforço e à rápida e eficaz implementação de sanções contra Lukashenko e os seus apoiantes.
Estas são medidas urgentes que exigimos que sejam implementadas pela União Europeia.

Catch-the-eye procedure


Stanislav Polčák (PPE). – Pane předsedající, běloruský režim ukazuje už po řadu let svoji pravou tvář – mučení, zatýkání, věznění, mrtví, novináři, kteří jsou pronásledováni, zničené rodiny. Jde o teror běloruských občanů. Jde o teror, nevyhlášenou válku vlastní společnosti, kterou vede sám prezident Lukašenko. Ten není prezident, nebyl zvolen legitimní cestou, ale tuto nevyhlášenou válku on vede i vůči Ukrajině. A je třeba říci, že nebude žádné místo, nebude žádná zemljanka, kde by se Lukašenko se svými přisluhovači schoval. Budeme vyšetřovat každý zločin, budeme soudit a myslím, že bude i nalezena spravedlnost pro všechny oběti. Živě Bělarus!

Tomáš Zdechovský (PPE). – Pane předsedající, vážení kolegové, Evropa čelí nájezdu a okolí několika psychopatů. Tím prvním je prezident Putin, tím druhým je prezident Lukašenko. Já myslím, že pro jejich chování není žádná omluva a pro jejich režim není žádná lidská spravedlnost spravedlivá. Já si myslím, že musíme udělat maximum pro to a vyvinout maximální tlak na to, aby jednou se pan prezident Lukašenko zodpovídal ze svých činů nejenom proti opozici, nejenom proti demokracii, nejenom proti řádně zvoleným představitelům, ale i proti tomu, co udělal a dělá systematicky proti Ukrajině. On je součástí toho, co Rusko páchá na Ukrajině. On je největší podporovatel Vladimira Putina. On je stejný zločinec jako Vladimir Putin. Sláva Ukrajině, sláva běloruské opozici!

Clare Daly (The Left). – Mr President, in recent months, we've seen the arrest and imprisonment of trade union representatives in Belarus. Most recently, the Vice-President of the Belarusian Independent Labour Union was sentenced to 30 months in prison. And protests and strikes led by working-class people have highlighted the level of discontent with the Lukashenko government.
As a former trade unionist, I absolutely support the struggles of workers everywhere. But I think it's interesting we have a second plenary in a row where we're discussing the repression of the opposition in Belarus, and we've never once mentioned the repression of the opposition in Ukraine, the banning of opposition parties, the kill-lists of dissidents, the banning of trade unions, the decimation of workers' rights in that state. And the European Union has to stop looking at protests in countries we don't like as an opportunity to have a go at them. The Belarus protests are not guided by neoliberal-inspired policies of the West. They have a right to have their protests without Western interference.
If you're interested in workers' rights and democratic rights, stand by the workers who are being persecuted inside the European Union.

Mick Wallace (The Left). – Mr President, we don't interfere with you when you're talking nonsense. Thanks very much, Mr President. Like most countries, Belarus has a lot of problems, and if I was living in Belarus, I'm sure I'd want rid of Lukashenko too. The treatment of workers and the imprisonment of political prisoners is really sad to see. I would call on Lukashenko to release all political prisoners. However, for the life of me, I don't actually understand how you think that interfering in the place is actually going to help. Can you name one country that you've interfered in in the last 50 years where you have helped? All across Africa, Afghanistan, Iraq and Syria. European countries are pumping arms into Yemen now to help in the Saudi genocide. If you think that Ukraine is going to be a better place after supporting this US-NATO proxy war, with as much money as you can muster, God help us.

(End of catch-the-eye procedure)


Janez Lenarčič,
Member of the Commission. – Mr President, honourable Members, I wish to thank this Parliament for again having the situation in Belarus on the agenda and for your relentless support to the people of Belarus. We addressed the situation in Belarus and its involvement in Russia's war of aggression against Ukraine at the last plenary on 19 October 2022. On that occasion, the High Representative, Josep Borrell, condemned the involvement by Belarus in the strongest possible terms and expressed EU support to Belarussians facing the worsening repression of Lukashenko's regime.
Unfortunately, this repression continues to intensify. There are now more than 1450 political prisoners – a number that increases by the day and that includes Nobel Peace Prize winner, Ales Bialiatski. This is just the tip of the iceberg. Since August 2020, almost 40 000 people have been temporarily arrested, including some 500 journalists, of whom 33 remain in prison.
Political opponents have been sentenced to long prison terms, up to 18 years, and the opposition in exile is criminalised and would face draconian sentences if they were to return to Belarus. Recent amendments to the Criminal Code, which can be used retroactively, open the possibility of the use of the death penalty to punish ‘attempted acts of terrorism’. Most political activists are potentially affected by these amendments.
The EU has led three successful resolutions in the UN Human Rights Council to report on the situation in Belarus and establish a robust accountability mechanism under the High Commissioner for Human Rights. We support, both politically and financially, the International Accountability Platform for Belarus, which collects evidence of the crimes with a view to holding the perpetrators accountable. The EU has clearly declared that the Lukashenko regime lacks any democratic legitimacy, and the EU strongly supports the demand for free and fair elections.
In this context, we continue to support the democratic forces and we strongly encourage them to remain united. We will continue to provide strong support to the civil society and to the people of Belarus, as we have already done with over EUR 100 million in direct support. Also, as you know, the EU has already imposed six rounds of sanctions against the Belarus regime, and work is currently ongoing to adopt more sanctions in the context of human rights violations, for instance, against judges and prosecutors. In the event of further Belarusian involvement in Russia's war against Ukraine, further areas will be identified.
We also regularly engage with the main leader of the Belarussian opposition, Ms Tsikhanouskaya. She has been received by the EU at the highest levels, including by President of the Commission, Ursula von der Leyen, and by President of the European Council, Charles Michel. Most recently, she also had an informal meeting with all EU foreign ministers ahead of the November Foreign Affairs Council.
To conclude, our engagement remains strong. We will continue to support the legitimate quest of Belarussian people for the rule of law, for free and fair elections, and for independence.

Sēdes vadītājs. – Debates ir slēgtas.
Balsošana notiks rītdien.
16.3.   Forced displacement of people as a result of escalating conflict in Eastern Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC)

Sēdes vadītājs. – Nākamais darba kārtības punkts ir debates par pieciem rezolūciju priekšlikumiem attiecībā uz iedzīvotāju piespiedu pārvietošanu saistībā ar konflikta saasināšanos Kongo Demokrātiskās Republikas (KDR) austrumu daļā (2022/2957(RSP)) (*3).

Tomáš Zdechovský,
Autor. – Pane předsedající, vážený pane komisaři, vážené dámy, vážení pánové, v posledních měsících ozbrojené skupiny na východě Konžské demokratické republiky eskalovaly násilí. Můžeme to vidět na povstalecké skupině Hnutí 23. března, která se snaží v současné době vyhnat miliony žen a dětí z jejich území a systematicky se snaží opravdu znásilňovat ženy a dosáhnout tak svého politického postupu v rámci tohoto území. Lidé tam často trpí nedostatkem jídla a vody, a proto se Evropský parlament rozhodl přijmout urgentní rezoluci, ve které vyzývá mezinárodní společenství, aby se snažilo zatlačit na všechny aktéry v této oblasti a vyřešit to. Já musím říct, že na této rezoluci se shodly všechny skupiny od levice po pravici. A já myslím, že tím vysíláme poměrně pevný a jasný signál všem zúčastněným stranám, že chceme tento konflikt vyřešit a záleží nám na tom, aby toto násilí přestalo.

Hannes Heide,
Verfasser. – Herr Präsident, Herr Kommissar! Seitdem sich der bewaffnete Konflikt zwischen der Armee der Demokratischen Republik Kongo und der Miliz ‘23. März’ erneut zugespitzt hat, sind über 262 000 Menschen vertrieben worden – bei weitem die meisten von ihnen sind Frauen und Kinder. 2,4 Millionen Kinder leiden an akuter Unterernährung. 7,5 Millionen Menschen haben aktuell keinen Zugang zu sauberem Trinkwasser und hygienischer Grundversorgung. Die Vereinten Nationen dokumentieren schwere Menschenrechtsverletzungen, sexuelle Gewalt gegen Frauen und Zwangsarbeit von Kindern. Die Zustände in den Flüchtlingslagern sind dramatisch.
Die Gewalt ist kein Zufall – ist doch die Region im östlichen Kongo reich an Bodenschätzen. Die bewaffneten Gruppen finanzieren sich auch durch illegalen Handel mit Mineralien, die für die Rüstungsindustrie bedeutend sind. Die Nachbarländer, besonders die Regierung von Ruanda, sind aufgefordert, den illegalen Mineralhandel durch ihre Länder zu stoppen, jedwede Finanzierung von Rebellengruppen zu beenden.
Die Europäische Kommission muss mit der EU-Strategie für die afrikanischen Großen Seen klare Botschaften aussenden und den von den katastrophalen Umständen betroffenen Menschen in der Demokratischen Republik Kongo humanitäre Hilfe zukommen lassen.

Abir Al-Sahlani,
author. – Mr President, Commissioner, dear colleagues, Twizire and Rebecca are two young Congolese women who are at the moment, as we speak, being treated for horrendous wounds after being raped at the same time as them being pregnant. They are like tens of thousands of Congolese women who are being treated for their wounds, and even more who never got treated. Rape is used as a systematic, strategic weapon of war by landlords who are financed by state actors in the region.
On 20 October, over 180 000 Congolese were forced to be displaced, adding up now to nearly 6 million internally displaced Congolese. This madness has to stop. I call upon you, colleagues, I call upon the Commission and the Council, to keep pushing for peacebuilding in Congo.
But there cannot be peace without justice. That's why I promise tonight that these men, these landlords who are raping are going to be brought to justice. Mark my words: you're all going to be punished.

Malte Gallée,
Verfasser. – Herr Präsident, Herr Kommissar, liebe Kolleginnen und Kollegen! Woher kommen denn unsere Rohstoffe? Die Frage stellen wir uns viel zu selten, und viel zu oft ist die Antwort: aus einem Kriegsgebiet. Aus dem Osten der DR Kongo beziehen wir über 70 % des Kobalts, dort lagern mehr als 60 % des Coltans. Das sind alles Stoffe, die in jedem einzelnen Handy stecken. Und genau dort mussten in den letzten Tagen fast 200 000 Menschen vor bewaffneten Rebellengruppen wie M23, FDLR usw. fliehen.
Im Kongo sind mittlerweile fast 6 Millionen Menschen intern Vertriebene. Das ist die höchste Rate weltweit, aber hier bei uns ist es nur einer von vielen vergessenen Konflikten. Das darf nicht so weitergehen!
Wir tragen verdammt noch mal Verantwortung für diese Menschen, schon allein, weil wir so viele Rohstoffe von dort beziehen. Das heißt, wir müssen jetzt sofort humanitäre Hilfe leisten. Die Nachbarländer müssen den illegalen Import der Konfliktrohstoffe stoppen und unterbinden. Wir müssen aber auch langfristig die Finanzierung dieser Rebellengruppen stoppen und dafür sorgen, dass die Konfliktrohstoffverordnung auch wirklich wirkt.
Aber vor allem müssen alle regionalen Konfliktparteien zusammenkommen und endlich ein für alle Mal ihre geoökonomischen Interessen klären, sonst wird der Krieg und die Vertreibung von Menschen nie ein Ende nehmen.

Marc Botenga,
auteur. – Monsieur le Président, il est avéré maintenant, depuis des années, même par les Nations unies, que le gouvernement rwandais soutient les rebelles du M23 au Rwanda. Des rebelles qui sèment la terreur et la mort en République démocratique du Congo, notamment à l'est, où ce conflit a déjà fait des millions de morts. Nous savons donc toute la responsabilité du gouvernement rwandais.
Et alors, que fait l'Union européenne? Que font les pays européens? On s'attendrait à des sanctions. C'est la réponse que l'Union européenne a souvent quand on voit ce genre d'action de la part d'un pays contre un autre. Mais non, non. Les gouvernements européens décident aujourd'hui de renforcer leur coopération militaire avec le Rwanda. La France, notamment, annonce un renforcement de sa coopération militaire. L'Union européenne va donner 20 millions au Rwanda pour sa participation au Mozambique. Et les États-Unis, vous le savez depuis longtemps, sont un partenaire très important du Rwanda. Tandis que vous savez qu'aujourd'hui, si un État veut vendre des armes à la République démocratique du Congo, il doit le notifier aux Nations unies, ce qui ralentit, voire empêche évidemment la livraison des armes à un pays trop souvent et si souvent agressé.
Cette politique – où on dit en mots, en paroles que nous respectons la souveraineté congolaise, mais en réalité, notre politique l'entrave et la sape – est inacceptable. Il faut cesser ça tout de suite parce que nous avons besoin, et les Congolais ont besoin, de paix aujourd'hui.

Benoît Lutgen,
au nom du groupe PPE. – Monsieur le Président, chers collègues, au regard des atrocités commises – comme des viols, des déplacements de populations, des massacres de différentes familles – toutes, toutes les forces étrangères présentes au Congo sous différentes formes qui occupent illégalement le territoire, notamment le M23 et l'ADF, doivent quitter immédiatement et sans conditions le Congo. Tous ces actes – et cela a été dit par certains auteurs avec beaucoup de force et je les rejoins – qui relèvent clairement de violations des droits de l'homme, de crimes internationaux graves, doivent être sévèrement poursuivis.
L'Union européenne, c'est vrai, a un rôle majeur à jouer face à ces exigences cruciales pour permettre que le Congo retrouve l'apaisement – à l'aube d'élections prévues dans les prochains mois. Il ne peut y avoir de démocratie sans mettre fin à ce conflit cyclique et sans jugement. J'exprime de tout mon cœur que toutes les forces démocratiques se retrouvent rapidement autour de la table et s'entendent pour déterminer le processus électoral. Différents travaux ont déjà été réalisés. On doit aller maintenant plus loin, il y a urgence en la matière.
Un dialogue doit s'installer de manière pérenne. Ce ne sera possible qu'en trouvant une solution au conflit actuel. J'espère bien sûr que les Nations unies entendront notre message et prendront le relais en adoptant une résolution pour apporter l'apaisement et la paix au Congo.

Carlos Zorrinho,
em nome do Grupo S&D. – Senhor Presidente, Senhor Comissário, são já dezenas as resoluções debatidas e votadas neste Parlamento sobre a República Democrática do Congo nos últimos anos, mas a situação continua a deteriorar-se em termos de segurança e a agravar-se em matéria de direitos humanos.
É preciso agir. Mobilizar a comunidade internacional e sensibilizar ativamente as autoridades locais para que sejam condenadas e punidas exemplarmente as agressões a civis pelos grupos armados na parte oriental da República do Congo; para que sejam neutralizados os grupos armados que atuam no país, com o apoio internacional; para que sejam investigadas, denunciadas e criminalizadas as violações de direitos humanos perpetradas no país, muito particularmente os abusos levados a cabo sobre as meninas e mulheres usadas como armas de guerra; para que seja criada uma plataforma de diálogo que envolva todas as partes do conflito, de modo a que, através da negociação, se criem as condições para o retorno de milhares de civis deslocados às suas casas.
A República Democrática do Congo vive num quadro de grande fragilidade democrática, política e social, que gera fortes ameaças à estabilidade nacional e regional, com interferência acrescida de movimentos rebeldes de inspiração terrorista ligados ao Daesh e ao ISIS. A exploração desordenada dos recursos naturais alimenta a conflitualidade e financia os grupos armados, ao mesmo tempo que cria uma situação humanitária intolerável.
Não basta aprovar mais uma resolução. Temos que ser nós, europeus, também parte da solução.

Jan-Christoph Oetjen,
au nom du groupe Renew. – Monsieur le Président, chers collègues, une catastrophe humanitaire est en train de se produire au Congo. Six millions de personnes ont été déplacées à l'intérieur du pays. Deux millions et demi d'enfants sont malnutris. Chers collègues, on ne peut pas fermer les yeux face à cela. Et tout cela parce qu'un conflit armé a lieu au Congo, qui est soutenu parfois par des forces extérieures, ce qui vient d'être dit.
Il faut que cette violence cesse. Il faut que les rebelles, qui sont soutenus par d'autres pays, soient désarmés. Mais surtout, chers collègues, il faut que les atrocités commises dans ce pays – surtout en ce qui concerne la violence sexuelle contre les femmes, qui est utilisée de manière systématique et comme une arme de guerre – il faut que ces atrocités cessent et que tous ceux qui commettent de tels crimes soient traînés devant la justice et qu'ils soient jugés.

Pierrette Herzberger-Fofana,
au nom du groupe Verts/ALE. – Monsieur le Président, chers collègues, la situation humanitaire s'est drastiquement aggravée dans l'est du Congo. Dans le respect des accords de Cotonou, l'Union européenne doit se joindre aux efforts de médiation internationale afin que la paix revienne dans cette partie du territoire.
Actuellement, près de 6 millions de personnes déplacées à l'intérieur de la RDC sont témoins directs de ce conflit caractérisé par une brutalité inouïe. Depuis deux décennies, chaque groupe armé, notamment le M23, est responsable de violations massives de droits humains en toute impunité. Ces violations détruisent des vies humaines ainsi que leurs moyens de subsistance. En effet, des atrocités sont commises envers les populations civiles. Il s'agit surtout de meurtres, de viols et d'enlèvements. Des civils innocents sont pris dans ce tourbillon de violences et de déplacements. Le nombre d'enfants enrôlés au sein des forces rebelles est en croissance exponentielle.
Ainsi, selon le docteur Mukwege, notre lauréat du prix Sakharov 2014, la violence macabre ne connaît aucune limite – je le cite. Cette violence aveugle touche l'ensemble de la population sans distinction ethnique, religieuse ou professionnelle. Les viols comme arme de guerre, les enlèvements et les abus sexuels sont à l'ordre du jour.
Cette recrudescence de violences bloque aussi l'acheminement d'une aide humanitaire substantielle. Il est primordial de protéger les générations actuelles et futures qui seront traumatisées par un environnement d'une telle violence. On ne peut que souhaiter que tous les belligérants puissent entamer des négociations et s'asseoir à la table afin que la paix revienne.

Stanislav Polčák (PPE). – Pane předsedající, humanitární krize se v Demokratické republice Kongo podle posledních zpráv dramaticky prohlubuje. Další desetitisíce lidí prchají ze svých domovů na východě této země uprostřed bojů mezi rebely z tzv. skupiny M23 a vládními silami. Obyvatelé už nevěří, že nová jednání v Keni přinesou mír. Většině uprchlíků chybí základní potřeby, chybí čistá voda nebo dokonce plachty na vybudování úkrytů před častými dešti. V utečeneckých táborech se dokonce objevuje cholera, a to samozřejmě velmi násobí problémy, se kterými se za chvíli může potýkat celý region. Pokusy o obnovení míru ve východní části Konga byly obnoveny teprve před pár dny. Bývalý keňský prezident Kenyatta, který je zprostředkovatelem těchto rozhovorů, apeloval na povstalecké skupiny, aby složily své zbraně, ale zatím se samozřejmě tato snaha míjí účinkem. Mezitím umírají a trpí další lidé. Zítra, myslím si, že musíme zaujmout adekvátní postoj v zájmu těchto desetitisíců, ba statisíců ohrožených lidí.

Maria Arena (S&D). – Monsieur le Président, Monsieur le Commissaire, en octobre, le M23, soutenu par le Rwanda, a lancé une offensive contre l'armée régulière de la République démocratique du Congo qui replonge le pays dans des violences extrêmes.
Ces violences et l'instabilité dans la région, vous le savez, ne datent pas d'aujourd'hui et trouvent leur source essentiellement dans la question des ressources du sous-sol de cette région, ressources qui sont pillées par les voisins au profit d'entreprises et de groupes internationaux qui alimentent la corruption, qui financent des groupes armés pour se garantir l'accès au moindre coût.
Nous devons absolument plaider pour une solution régionale à court terme et à moyen terme. Bien entendu, à court terme, la question humanitaire doit être prise en compte pour les personnes déplacées. Mais si nous ne faisons que du court terme, nous serons toujours à nouveau dans le même cycle de violence. Donc, une résolution régionale du conflit est importante. Nous devons lutter contre la corruption et mettre des sanctions sur des personnes et des entreprises, telles que M. Dan Gertler, qui est un opérateur excessivement puissant aujourd'hui en RDC, sanctionné par les Américains et qui, pourtant, trouve refuge en Europe pour cacher son argent.
Nous devons évaluer la loi sur les minerais des conflits qui aujourd'hui n'est pas d'application sur le territoire et nous devons mettre en place des tribunaux mixtes qui sont des tribunaux qui luttent contre l'impunité en République démocratique du Congo.

Catch-the-eye procedure


Mick Wallace (The Left). – Mr President, as we sit here having this debate about the Democratic Republic of Congo, I think it's important to remember that during the scramble for Africa, the DRC was made King Leopold's personal possession. He oversaw the death of 10 to 15 million Congolese, while enriching himself and Belgium from 1885 to 1906. The genocidal monster is still honoured in Belgium today.
Today, France and TotalEnergies are the ones looking to enrich themselves at the expense of the Congolese lives in order to avoid a Mozambique-like disaster, where Total's reckless activities have created an insurgency. France has been training security forces in the DRC and Uganda in order to secure and speed up the crude oil pipeline projects around Lake Albert. The militarisation has heightened already tense relations between Rwanda and Uganda, and is likely the cause of the revival of the M23 rebel group that is at the heart of the violence in East DRC today.
If the EU really wants to help: stop the colonisation and work for the peace process, bringing everyone to the negotiating table.

Clare Daly (The Left). – Mr President, Eastern Congo is one of the wealthiest regions in the world, home to a variety of natural resources – gold, diamonds, oil – and the largest producer of cobalt, at 70%. And because of this, it's been plagued by fighting with massively over 120 rebel groups in that area for over 25 years, with Rwanda accused of stirring it up in a proxy war to gain access to those resources.
And the consequences for the people of that region have already been tragically articulated in this Chamber. The systemic and deliberate use of mass rapes, designed terror in order to force people to flee from their homes, leading to massive trauma, which will be felt for generations. This absolutely has to be dealt with.
Now, last week, the DRC's National Assembly voted to exclude the option of dialogue with M23. The Supreme Defence Council decided to increase the strike force of defence and security forces against M23. This is lunacy. There cannot be a military solution. There will be no justice without peace. Absolutely everything has to be done to get that, so those responsible can be held to account.

(End of catch-the-eye procedure)


Janez Lenarčič,
Member of the Commission. – Mr President, honourable Members, the news from the eastern part of the Democratic Republic of the Congo is extremely distressing. Renewed fighting has worsened an already dire humanitarian situation and thousands of people have been forced to flee their homes.
How is the EU responding? Firstly, by almost doubling its humanitarian assistance, which now amounts to nearly EUR 80 million for the country, with a very strong focus on the eastern provinces, and in particular on the large-scale food distribution and provision of primary healthcare services. Second, we have responded by dedicating part of our development cooperation to the eastern part of the country in the areas of health, sustainable development and gender equality, among others. Third, we are responding by supporting regional initiatives, addressing the security crisis in the Congo and the Great Lakes region, namely the mediation by the President Lourenço of Angola and the Nairobi Process chaired by former President Kenyatta of Kenya.
The EU is examining how to further strengthen its support to these processes. However, this will not be enough, I'm afraid. Unless the root causes of this recurring insecurity in the Eastern Congo are seriously addressed, the endless cycle of violence will never stop.
Now who is to address these root causes? First and foremost, it's the Congolese authorities with, of course, the support of regional and international partners, including ourselves. These root causes include major governance challenges, the struggle for control over land and natural resources, corruption and impunity for human rights violations.
The European Union will continue to stand by the people of the Democratic Republic of the Congo and the region to tackle these challenges and finally unleash the prosperity potential of this region. The Foreign Affairs Council of 14 November started a reflection on the right policy approach that we will be implementing together with the countries in the region and our international partners.

Sēdes vadītājs. – Debates ir slēgtas.
Balsošana notiks rītdien.


Rakstiski paziņojumi (171. pants)



Beata Kempa (ECR),
na piśmie. – Sytuacja w Demokratycznej Republice Konga pogarsza się z każdym rokiem. Wzrasta napięcie religijne, co skutkuje brutalnymi atakami na chrześcijan, szczególnie w prowincjach Ituria i Północne Kivu. Brutalne i krwawe ataki służą jednemu celowi: wyniszczeniu i wykluczeniu społeczności chrześcijan. Noszą tym samym znamiona czystek religijnych. Unia Europejska musi zacząć aktywnie działać. Rezolucje to za mało. Tylko twarde działanie jest w stanie powstrzymać chaos i krwawe rzezie. Dlatego państwa członkowskie powinny podjąć się misji stabilizacyjnej w regionach szczególnie dotkniętych atakami islamskich bojówek z powiązanej z ISIS organizacji ADF NALU. Grupa ta od dawna realizuje islamską strategię ekspansji w Afryce. W Światowym Indeksie Prześladowań 2022 Demokratyczna Republika Konga zajmuje wysokie 40. miejsce wśród krajów, w których chrześcijanie są najbardziej prześladowani za wiarę. Musimy też jak najszybciej wzmocnić nasze działania w kontekście pomocy humanitarnej dla najbardziej potrzebujących mieszkańców Konga.
17.   Protection of livestock farming and large carnivores in Europe (debate)

Sēdes vadītājs. – Nākamais darba kārtības punkts ir debates par Komisijas paziņojumu par lopkopības aizsardzību un lielajiem plēsējiem Eiropā (2022/2952(RSP)).

Janez Lenarčič,
Member of the Commission. – Mr President, honourable Members, thank you for adding this important debate on today's agenda. Let me start by reassuring this House that the Commission takes this issue very seriously and that we are looking at how best to address it, and I'll try to describe that as thoroughly as I can. I apologise in advance if I go a bit over the time allocated.
Since the beginning of this mandate, we have been in dialogue with stakeholders, with regional authorities and Members of this House to discuss how livestock farming can be better protected from large carnivores, especially where it is particularly exposed. I know that this Parliament shares the commitment to protecting Europe's biodiversity, its habitats and species and that it is fully conscious of the sense of urgency. As regards the wildlife species covered by the Habitats Directive, the 2020 report on the State of Nature in the EU highlighted that favourable conservation status has only been reached in less than one third of the cases – less than one third of cases.
Also, from the Worldwide Fund for Nature's Living Planet Report 2022, we recently learned of a 69% global decline in populations of wild mammals, birds, fish, reptiles and amphibians since 1970. But we also learned that wild nature is resilient and can recover under the right conditions. The new Wildlife Comeback in Europe report, released by Rewilding Europe on 27 September 2022, shows improvements in populations and the distribution of several iconic species, such as the beaver, alpine ibex, grey seal, black stork and wolf.
Let me assure you, the Commission is fully aware that the return of large carnivores such as the wolf, the brown bear and the lynx is, in some regions in Europe, a challenge. While predation by large carnivores may not be considered a key driver of abandonment of livestock farming in European mountain areas, or cannot be blamed for the demographic challenges of rural areas, it is a particular challenge for livestock grazing in areas where these species have long been absent.
It is equally clear that livestock farmers need to be adequately supported. It is essential to address this additional challenge and to implement appropriate livestock protection practices to reduce the risks of predation.
We believe that it is possible to ensure the continuation of sustainable livestock farming systems and the conservation of large carnivores. Both play an important role for the conservation of European ecosystems.
I would like to recall at this point the letter sent by Commissioners Wojciechowski and Sinkevičius to all Agriculture and Environment Ministers in November last year, urging them to make the best use of available EU and national funding opportunities.
Under the new Common Agricultural Policy Strategic Plans, the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development can provide support for preventive actions and investments aimed at mitigating the risk of damage by large carnivores to livestock farming. It also provides for measures on training, advice and cooperation between rural actors aimed at ensuring coexistence. These activities can be funded up to 100% of their costs. Several Member States are already making use of this possibility and have included targeted interventions in their strategic plans.
The Commission can support many of these actions through the LIFE Programme. Examples include the implementation of protection measures for livestock, setting up of emergency teams, the establishment of volunteer and ambassador networks to assist livestock farmers and the promotion of a participatory approach with the active involvement of all the parties concerned.
In addition, EU state aid rules allow Member States to compensate up to 100% of the direct and indirect costs of damage caused by protected species. It is also possible to finance up to 100% of preventive instruments. In order to find the most suitable coexistence solutions, measures should be elaborated and implemented with the involvement of the stakeholders concerned and should be tailored to specific local needs and priorities. I think that this approach is fully in line with the requests expressed by the European Parliament in its resolution on the EU Biodiversity Strategy for 2030. Member States or regions within Member States do have a means to act.
I would like to stress that EU nature legislation includes the possibility for Member States to authorise individual derogations to the strict protection regime. Several Member States make use of this possibility. It nevertheless remains important to recall that this option exists. Responsibility to apply these provisions, including for the removal of specimens of protected species, lie solely with the competent authorities of the Member States.
One year ago, the Commission adopted a new guidance document focusing on the strict protection of the species covered by the Habitats Directive. In it, it clarified the possibilities and conditions for derogations in line with the case law of the EU Court of Justice.
As regards the monitoring of large carnivores and assessment of their conservation status, the wolf and other large carnivores are among the most intensively monitored species in Europe. A comprehensive and harmonised system is already in place to assess and report the conservation status of all protected species at European level. Although monitoring remains a task for the relevant national authorities, the Commission encourages trans-boundary coordination in the monitoring of those species whose populations are shared by several Member States. Member States can make use of available EU funds under the LIFE Programme or under Cohesion Policy to improve their monitoring systems.
The Commission is keeping the legal and policy frameworks under regular review. Current EU environmental and agricultural legislation provides Member States with important instruments, funds and tools to ensure that the conservation of protected large carnivores and the continuation of sustainable farming practices and public safety can go hand-in-hand. Numerous experiences, including in the framework of LIFE projects, have demonstrated that adaptation is feasible and it can work, and that we need to encourage and promote the sharing of good practices.
Honourable Members, I hope you find these clarifications helpful. I can assure you that the Commission is actively monitoring the issue at various levels and that, based on that monitoring, we will assess whether further measures are needed.

Herbert Dorfmann,
im Namen der PPE-Fraktion. – Herr Präsident, Herr Kommissar, Kolleginnen und Kollegen! 1992, als mit der Habitat-Richtlinie der Wolf und andere große Beutegreifer – der Braunbär, der Luchs – in der EU unter Schutz gestellt wurden, waren diese Arten in der Europäischen Union praktisch ausgestorben. Heute, 30 Jahre später, hat diese Richtlinie Erfolg gezeigt. Alle diese Arten sind zurück in den Lebensräumen der Europäischen Union – aber sie schaffen leider auch Probleme.
Die Koexistenz zwischen Weidetieren und großen Beutegreifern ist schwierig und in manchen Räumen, wie zum Beispiel auf alpinen Weiden, wahrscheinlich unmöglich. Und all jene, die immer wieder von diesen schönen Projekten – auch Sie, Herr Kommissar, haben das gerade gesagt – reden und sagen, dass es da tolle Koexistenz gibt, frage ich: Wo sind diese? Ich frage seit Jahren danach, ich habe sie nicht gefunden. Und ich habe den Eindruck, sie existieren einfach mehr in den Köpfen derer, die nicht bei Tag und Nacht auf ihre Tiere aufpassen müssen oder die ein Gemetzel nach einem Angriff aufräumen müssen.
Dem vollkommen geschützten Wolf steht nämlich das vollkommen ungeschützte Schaf oder die Ziege gegenüber. Der heutige Schutzstatus ist in vielen Regionen einfach nicht mehr notwendig. Wir haben inzwischen stabile Populationen, und die werden auch mit einem abgeschwächten Schutz bestehen bleiben – das zeigen die Erfahrungen. Und wir werden eine breite Akzeptanz für diese Arten nur bekommen, wenn wir diesen Tatsachen auch in die Augen schauen und nicht mit ideologischer Träumerei jedes Management verhindern.
Und abschließend: Natürlich braucht es auch einen verstärkten Einsatz für Koexistenz und Herdenschutz. Das kostet, und das kann nicht nur mit der Gemeinsamen Agrarpolitik bezahlt werden. Wenn unsere Bürger Wölfe, Bären und Luchse in unseren Wäldern wollen, dann müssen sie dafür auch bezahlen und nicht den Bauern diese Kosten aufhalsen. Sie müssen dann mit ihrem eigenen Steuergeld für die Kosten und auch für die Schäden geradestehen.

Clara Aguilera,
en nombre del Grupo S&D. – Señor presidente, bienvenido es este debate en nombre de los ganaderos europeos y bienvenida es una Resolución común de seis grupos políticos. Porque eso demuestra unidad y fortaleza para defender la coexistencia necesaria de la ganadería —que está experimentando una coexistencia difícil, como vienen denunciando los ganaderos— en esa protección de los grandes carnívoros y su incremento. Indudablemente son carnívoros y eso tiene una repercusión en la ganadería, en una ganadería como la extensiva, que es la que protege el Pacto Verde Europeo. Y, por tanto, esa es la principal perjudicada.
Por tanto, defendemos, desde mi grupo, la coexistencia pacífica. Pero que pierdan los ganaderos no lo podemos consentir. Es decir, por tanto, hay que articular medidas. Y había que celebrar este debate. Se lo merecen los ganaderos.
Había que celebrar este debate y hay que defender mañana —a todos los grupos se lo pido— que se apoye la Resolución y ninguna de las enmiendas presentadas, porque yo creo que la fuerza está en la unión común. Lo que no se ha sacado en una mesa de negociación… No hay que intentar sacar una estrategia de partido. Por respeto a la ganadería, apoyemos la Resolución de los seis grupos políticos.

Ulrike Müller,
im Namen der Renew-Fraktion. –. Herr Präsident, sehr geehrter Herr Kommissar, liebe Kolleginnen und Kollegen! Die Rückkehr einst ausgestorbener Arten ist ein Erfolg des Artenschutzes. Aber Koexistenz bedeutet, dass beide Seiten ein Recht auf eine Existenz haben.
Die Bauern und vor allem die Tiere leiden massiv unter den Angriffen von Wölfen und mancherorts Bären. Die stetig wachsende Zahl von tödlichen Angriffen auf Schafe, Pferde, Rinder und Kälber darf nicht länger totgeschwiegen werden. Allzu gerne werden die Verantwortlichen und die Naturschützer davor die Augen zumachen. Klar, die Bilder und die Videos sind kein schöner Anblick. Für mich ist aber eines klar: Wenn der Wolf kommt, geht die Weide, und mit ihr gehen viele Pflanzenarten, Insektenarten und auch die Bienen.
Die Bauern fühlen sich seit Jahren alleingelassen. Das darf nicht so weitergehen. Ich appelliere deshalb an Sie: Wir müssen die Unterstützung für die Prävention und die Kompensation verbessern, und das ist keine Aufgabe der Gemeinsamen Agrarpolitik, sondern des Artenschutzbudgets.
Herr Kommissar, überprüfen Sie die Anhänge der Habitat-Richtlinie und überarbeiten Sie die guidelines zur Nutzung der Flexibilitäten, damit es hier endlich weniger Verwirrung und mehr Klarheit gibt!

Thomas Waitz,
im Namen der Verts/ALE-Fraktion. – Herr Präsident, Herr Kommissar! Vorweg: Wölfe fressen nicht Ihre Großmutter, und Wölfe fressen auch nicht Ihre Kinder auf dem Weg zum Schulbus. Das ist Panikmache, die von Teilen der ÖVP kommt, die von Teilen des Bauernbundes kommt. Und was meint der Österreichische Bauernbund mit wolfsfreien Zonen? Wollen wir den Wolf wieder ausrotten in Österreich? Ich denke, diese Beiträge sind keine guten Beiträge zu einer sachlichen Debatte, denn genau die brauchen wir hier.
Die Wiederansiedlung des Wolfs in der EU ist ein Erfolg für den Natur- und Artenschutz – unzweifelhaft. Und zugleich bedeutet der Wolf für Bäuerinnen und Bauern durchaus eine Herausforderung, und zwar insbesondere für jene, die Weidewirtschaft betreiben, die besonders klimafreundliche und besonders naturfreundliche Landwirtschaft betreiben, besonders für jene Bäuerinnen und Bauern, die in den Gebirgszonen leben und dort, wo die Union dünner besiedelt ist.
Wir müssen uns dessen bewusst sein, dass Naturschutz eine gesamtgesellschaftliche Aufgabe ist, und die Gesamtgesellschaft hat auch die Verantwortung dafür zu übernehmen. Wir müssen gemeinsam dafür Sorge tragen, dass unsere Weidetiere gut geschützt sind, und wir müssen gemeinsam dafür Sorge tragen, dass unsere Bäuerinnen und Bauern nicht den Preis zu zahlen haben, sondern höchstmöglich unterstützt werden in der Sicherung ihrer Tiere und in der Sicherung auch ihres Einkommens, denn genau diese Betriebe sind oft jene, die am wenigsten verdienen bei uns.
Naturschutz und Landwirtschaft gehen Hand in Hand. Wir brauchen konkrete Maßnahmen auf beiden Seiten, und um diese konkreten Maßnahmen zu erarbeiten, haben wir uns zu einer gemeinsamen Entschließung zusammengefunden, und da haben wir zu liefern, und ich danke hier für die gute Zusammenarbeit und für den gemeinsamen Sechs-Parteien-Antrag.

Sylvia Limmer,
im Namen der ID-Fraktion. – Herr Präsident! Lassen Sie mich mit einer Klarstellung beginnen: Nur weil der Wolf in Westeuropa ausgerottet war, war er dennoch nie eine gefährdete Spezies oder gar vom Aussterben bedroht. Das Überleben von Canis lupus war also niemals abhängig davon, dass er durch strengste Schutzverordnungen in dichtbesiedelten Landstrichen quasi zwangsangesiedelt wurde.
Inzwischen hat Brandenburg weltweit die höchste Wolfsdichte. 2020 wurden allein 4 000 vom Wolf gerissene Nutztiere in Deutschland erfasst; das waren 40 % mehr als im Vorjahr. Und nun wundert man sich ernsthaft, warum die Akzeptanz dem Wolf gegenüber abnimmt – nicht nur bei landwirtschaftlichen Tierhaltern.
Als Tierärztin empfehle ich allen Schreibstuben-Wolfsliebhabern, sich einmal live die vom Wolf gerissenen und angerichteten Schäden anzusehen. Die Hälfte aller Wolfsattacken erfolgt übrigens auf geschützten Weiden, und Herdenschutzhunde werden immer öfter selbst zur Wolfsbeute.
Die Weidetierhaltung muss unbedingten Vorrang vor dem Wolf haben, denn ohne Weidetiere werden Almen und artenreiche Weidewiesen der Vergangenheit angehören. Daher unterstützen wir die Forderung nach einer Schutzstatusänderung von ‘streng geschützt’ zu ‘bedingt geschützt’. Wir brauchen Gebiete mit Managementmaßnahmen, in denen der Wolfsbestand strikt reguliert wird, aber auch wolfsfreie Gebiete im Sinne der Gefahrenabwehr für Mensch und Tier in urbanen Gebieten und Gebieten mit Weidehaltung.
Ich bin – selbst auf dem Land lebend – es zunehmend leid, dass wir, die Landbevölkerung, die Landwirte, den Rahmen für einen realitätsfernen romantischen Wolfszoo für eine grünwoke Stadtbevölkerung abgeben sollen.

Bert-Jan Ruissen,
namens de ECR-Fractie. – Voorzitter, beste collega's, niets is zo vervelend als te moeten werken met achterhaalde wetgeving. En precies dat is wat er nu aan de hand is rond de wolf. Dertig jaar geleden aangewezen als een beschermde diersoort omdat hij toen op het punt van verdwijnen stond. Maar de situatie is nu volstrekt anders. Europa telt inmiddels ruim 21 000 wolven. Met alle gevolgen van dien. Ook in mijn land Nederland, zoals in Drenthe, zien we vrijwel dagelijks opengereten schapen, kalveren en pony's. Ik voorspel u: doen we niets, dan kijken we over tien jaar naar een leeg platteland. Geen boer durft dan nog zijn vee buiten te laten lopen. Is dat wat we willen? Of een platteland vol met hoge hekken die slimme wolven toch weten te omzeilen?
Laten we de realiteit onder ogen zien. Actief beheer is onontkoombaar. Tot dusver zegt de Europese Commissie steeds dat overheden maar een ontheffing moeten aanvragen of moeten verlenen. Dat is een omweg en geen oplossing. Het wordt tijd om de strikte bescherming van de wolf en de habitatrichtlijn te verlagen. De wolf hoort niet langer thuis in bijlage vier en zolang dat niet geregeld is, roep ik de lidstaten op in ieder geval actief gebruik te maken van de derogatiemogelijkheid in artikel zestien, zodat probleemwolven toch aangepakt kunnen worden. Want niets doen is geen optie.

Anja Hazekamp,
namens de The Left-Fractie. – Voorzitter, ruim 150 jaar nadat wolven in grote delen van Europa waren uitgeroeid met het jachtgeweer en door verlies van hun leefgebied, hebben enkele wolven hun weg teruggevonden naar Nederland. Dat is goed nieuws voor onze natuur. Het zijn ook prachtige dieren. Zo konden we vandaag de eerste beelden bewonderen van spelende welpen in Drenthe. Echt geweldig! Desondanks pleiten enkele boeren, jagers en hun politieke spreekbuizen ervoor om wolven na hun moeizame terugkeer opnieuw de nek om te draaien. Ze spreken over emotionele schade voor boeren als hun schapen gedood worden door een wolf. Wanneer een dier dood wordt aangetroffen, is dat inderdaad vreselijk. Maar waarom slachten we dan ieder jaar 60 miljoen schapen in Europa, vaak onverdoofd? En waarom verslepen we onder hartverscheurende omstandigheden honderdduizenden schapen naar Noord-Afrika en het Midden-Oosten?
Ik zou willen dat diegenen die zeggen dat we schapen moeten beschermen tegen de wolf zich samen met ons hard maken om de schapen te beschermen tegen de mens. De Partij voor de Dieren heet de wolf van harte welkom. Wij maken ons grotere zorgen over het gevaar van de vee-industrie voor het voortbestaan van duizenden dieren- en plantensoorten dan over het gevaar van één enkele diersoort voor de vee-industrie. Juist in tijden dat economische activiteiten de grenzen van de natuur fors overschrijden, is het belangrijk natuurbescherming overeind te houden en te versterken. Voorts ben ik van mening dat de Europese landbouwsubsidies moeten worden afgeschaft.

Daniel Buda (PPE). – Domnule președinte, domnule comisar, doamnelor și domnilor colegi, trăim realități care nu pot fi contestate. Astăzi, fermierii din întreaga Uniune Europeană sunt afectați de prezența marilor prădători.
Regiuni întregi, mai ales din zona montană, sunt pur și simplu abandonate ca urmare a distrugerii fermelor de către animalele sălbatice. Turismul din diverse zone este de asemenea afectat și multe locuri nu mai sunt frecventate de turiști de teama lupilor sau ursilor.
În România trăiesc aproximativ 13.000 de urși, iar incidentele devin din ce în ce mai frecvente. Orașele din zona montană sunt tot mai des vizitate de urși, iar pe terenurile de sport din curtea școlii prezența ursului este o realitate înfricoșătoare.
Directiva privind conservarea habitatelor și-a atins obiectivele în ceea ce privește lupul și ursul, iar Comisia Europeană trebuie să ia în calcul revizuirea imediată în vederea flexibilizării dispozițiilor acesteia.
Pentru cei de la Comisia Europeană și din Parlamentul European, care faceți scut împotriva revizuirii acestei directive, vă cer să mergeți pe pășunile montane să vedeți ce înseamnă atacul lupului sau ursului și să apreciați cu propriile dumneavoastră simțuri ceea ce reprezintă să fiți în proximitatea acestor animale.
Toți cei care astăzi plângeți de mila marilor prădători vă cer să vă uitați în ochii fermierilor și să le explicați că viața animalelor sălbatice este mai importantă ca viața și munca lor. De asemenea, vă invit să vorbiți cu cele 269 de persoane din România mutilate de urs în ultimii patru ani și să vorbiți cu copiii celor 29 de persoane ucise de urs în aceeași perioadă.

César Luena (S&D). – Señor presidente, los carnívoros y en especial el lobo desempeñan un papel ecológico muy importante, pues prestan servicios ecosistémicos clave. Este animal lo ha hecho siempre, hasta que la presión humana lo llevó al borde de la extinción y por eso su protección ha sido fundamental. La Directiva de Hábitats no tiene otra explicación. Es esa.
Pero es verdad: su reintroducción en zonas donde estuvo ausente durante muchos años evidencia los problemas de la coexistencia entre los seres humanos y estos animales en las zonas rurales. Por eso son necesarias mayores medidas de prevención, de mitigación y de compensación para los ganaderos.
En definitiva, tenemos que garantizar una coexistencia equilibrada, sin eludir el impacto que provocan en la ganadería extensiva, pero sin menoscabo nunca, nunca, del estatuto de protección de los grandes carnívoros y también del lobo.
La Resolución común que hemos pactado, tal como está, sin ninguna enmienda ni ningún apaño de última hora, es un buen acuerdo para que esta Cámara pueda resolver este problema.
Creo que además tenemos que afrontar esta realidad con acuerdos y sin introducir elementos divisivos y de polarización.

Róża Thun und Hohenstein (Renew). – Mr President, after those very clear words of Commissioner Lenarčič – thank you very much for them – I would like to address those who want to introduce changes in the Habitats Directive or its annexes. The amendments are not justified from both a conservative and a legal point of view.
The Habitat Directive does not envisage any rule or automatic mechanism according to which as soon as a species achieves favourable conservation status, its protection status would be lowered. Because if you applied that logic, the species would decline rapidly again, and all the effort to protect it and all the public money spent on that would have to start from scratch again. And this doesn't seem very logical.
Some species are subject to a very high level of human-caused mortality, especially because of poaching. So colleagues, as we know, and we just heard it, the existing possibility under Article 16 of the Habitats Directive to manage wolf and bear populations is necessary. The Commission guidelines need to be clarified, Commissioner, and this is also in our resolution, so please vote for it with no amendments. It includes most of our expectations.

Alessandro Panza (ID). – Signor Presidente, onorevoli colleghi, qualche settimana fa in un comune della Valchiavenna è stata rinvenuta la testa di un lupo appesa a un cartello stradale. È stato un atto deprecabile, violento, da condannare, che tuttavia testimonia il grado di conflittualità tra grandi carnivori e popolazioni locali e dimostra il fallimento dei programmi LIFE, con più di 24 milioni di euro spesi.
La realtà è che la popolazione dei lupi in Europa è in costante aumento: sono ormai più di 21 000 le unità accertate, anche se sappiamo essere molte di più. Agricoltori e allevatori, i veri custodi dell'ecosistema montano e della biodiversità, si sentono abbandonati e addirittura presi in giro da quelle istituzioni che invece dovrebbero sostenerli e tutelarli. Solo in Italia in cinque anni si sono registrate 18 000 predazioni, con 44 000 capi abbattuti a causa del lupo. E questi sono solo una minima parte, perché ormai gli allevatori non denunciano nemmeno più.
Si dice che per risolvere un problema il primo passo sia prenderne atto, Commissario, ecco, prendetene atto, noi ormai l'abbiamo fatto da tempo. Voi invece non girate la testa dall'altra parte, permettete che vengano messi in campo tutti gli strumenti possibili per superare questa situazione. La parola d'ordine deve essere gestione, altrimenti lo scontro non potrà che peggiorare.
Esistono proposte condivisibili – penso a quella svizzera – che possono trovare un punto di incontro sostenibile tra le esigenze delle popolazioni locali che, per quanto mi riguarda, avranno sempre la priorità, e le esigenze naturalistiche e di conservazione di biodiversità.
Non vanificate secoli di storia, tradizione e sacrificio nella ricerca di un falso mito nelle nostre montagne, che invece rischia di riportare il lupo ma di far sparire l'uomo.

Mazaly Aguilar (ECR). – Señor presidente, pues no, no es verdad que el lobo sea un animal en peligro de extinción. En Europa, tan solo este año, se han contabilizado 21 500 ejemplares.
Pero lo que sí es verdad es que los ganaderos están desprotegidos y se están arruinando por estos ataques que no paran. Por ello, reclaman protección, más indemnizaciones justas, que cubran tanto los daños directos como indirectos, y, por supuesto, un control poblacional más exhaustivo del lobo. O protegemos a nuestros ganaderos o ellos no podrán seguir con sus explotaciones.
Claro que sabemos que este conflicto es un conflicto social. Pero, ¿saben qué? El ganado tiene que estar a salvo, los lobos, en las reservas, para que los ganaderos puedan estar tranquilos y puedan seguir con sus explotaciones.
Y permítanme insistir. El lobo no está en peligro de extinción, pero, al paso que vamos, los ganaderos sí.

Alexander Bernhuber (PPE). – Sehr geehrter Herr Präsident, sehr geehrter Herr Kommissar! In Österreich wurden im letzten Jahr 680 Tiere vom Wolf gerissen; bis zum November dieses Jahres waren es bereits 730 nachgewiesene Wolfsrisse. Ja, wir können das als Erfolg sehen, dass sich eine vom Aussterben bedrohte Art endlich wieder ausgebreitet hat, aber wir müssen auch die Probleme sehen. Und wenn jetzt meine Kolleginnen und Kollegen hier kommen mit tollen Ideen – wir brauchen Herdenschutzhunde, zwei Meter hohe Zäune oder Hirten –, dann lade ich die alle nächstes Jahr im Sommer ein, auf eine Alm zu kommen auf 1 500, 2 000 Meter Seehöhe im hochalpinen Gebiet und dann einen Zaun aufzustellen oder eine Schafherde zu hirten. Viel Spaß dabei, es wird einfach nicht funktionieren.
Und, lieber Herr Kommissar, Sie dürfen sich hier einfach nicht aus der Verantwortung ziehen. Wir warten seit 2019 auf ganz konkrete Vorschläge, und gekommen ist einfach nichts. Wir brauchen ein vernünftiges europäisches Wolfsmanagement, das an Wissenschaft und Fakten orientiert ist, und wir brauchen endlich eine Neubewertung des Schutzstatus, damit unsere Mitgliedstaaten endlich den nötigen Spielraum bekommen, um ein sinnvolles Wolfsmanagement durchzuführen.

Günther Sidl (S&D). – Sehr geehrter Herr Präsident, Herr Kommissar! Wir erleben wieder einmal eine sehr emotionale Debatte um die Rückkehr des Wolfes in unseren Lebensraum.
Was ich wirklich kritisiere, ist aber die Art und Weise, wie von manchen politischen Kräften in den letzten Jahren eine Debatte hochgezogen wurde, die losgelöst von Fakten und ohne konkrete Handlungsvorschläge und Lösungsvorschläge in erster Linie mit Ängsten agiert und gearbeitet hat. Am Ende bleibt nur hängen: Der Wolf ist für Mensch und Tier eine große Gefahr. Das habe ich schon als Abgeordneter zu einem regionalen Parlament kritisiert, und das tue ich auch heute hier. Und ja, wenn es Problemtiere gibt, dann muss man auch konsequent vorgehen.
Vollkommen klar ist, dass wir die Weide- und Almtierhaltung bei dieser großen Herausforderung unterstützen müssen – für unsere Landschaft, für unser Ökosystem – und dass die Wegefreiheit in der Natur weiterhin gegeben sein muss. Die Landwirtschaft braucht hier jede – auch finanzielle – Unterstützung. Wir verfügen über genügend Fonds und Programme, die dies ermöglichen und sogar zusätzliche Mittel ausschütten können.
Die vorliegende Entschließung – sie wird ja von sechs Fraktionen getragen – ist ein gutes Beispiel für eine sachliche und gute Entschließung, und ich ersuche daher, diese zu unterstützen und jeglichen weiteren Änderungsanträgen eine Absage zu erteilen.

Elsi Katainen (Renew). – Arvoisa puhemies, on hyvä, että parlamentissa keskustellaan suurpedoista, koska useissa jäsenvaltioissa, Suomi mukaan lukien, on jo pitkään kärsitty suurpetojen aiheuttamista vahingoista.
Suurpedot kuuluvat luontoon. Ne ovat osa ekosysteemiä, ja niiden kestävästä kannasta on edelleen pidettävä huolta. Samalla kuitenkin meillä päättäjillä on vastuu ja velvollisuus suojella myös ihmisiä, kotieläimiä ja tuotantoeläimiä suurpetojen aiheuttamilta vahingoilta. Pedot eivät kuulu ihmisten pihoille eivätkä eläinsuojiin. Tasapaino on löydyttävä.
Suurpetopopulaatioiden arvioinnissa onkin tehtävä yhteistyötä Euroopan tasolla ja samalla on seurattava eri maiden vaihtelevia tilanteita. Meidän on myös löydettävä tasapaino eurooppalaisen päätöksenteon ja kansallisten joustojen välille. Esimerkiksi suotuisan suojelun määrää pitää arvioida ja tarvittaessa päivittää aktiivisesti EU:ssa. Toivon todella, että komissio on valmis keskustelemaan tästä jäsenvaltioiden ja parlamentin kanssa.

Roman Haider (ID). – Herr Präsident! Inzwischen gibt es in Europa wieder mehr als 20 000 Wölfe, also ein mehr als günstiger Erhaltungszustand. Die Anzahl der Wolfsrisse hat sich dementsprechend allein in Österreich innerhalb eines Jahres auf fast 700 Risse mehr als verdoppelt. Dagegen sind die EU-Vorschriften aus dem Jahr 1992, als es in ganz Europa noch fast keine Wölfe gegeben hat.
Es ist also jetzt höchst an der Zeit, der geänderten Situation Rechnung zu tragen. Gerade die Alm- und Weidewirtschaft im alpinen Bereich ist ernsthaft bedroht, und deswegen müssen die lokalen Behörden endlich auch flexibel reagieren können. Und dazu muss der Schutzstatus des Wolfs in der Fauna-Flora-Habitat-Richtlinie von Anhang 4 in Anhang 5 verschoben werden. Damit wären rasche, effiziente und vor allem rechtssichere Maßnahmen durch die lokalen Behörden möglich.
Und darum mein Appell an die Kommission: Geben Sie Ihre Blockadehaltung auf! Ermöglichen Sie auch in Zukunft ein positives Zusammenleben von Mensch, Wolf und Nutztier!

Pietro Fiocchi (ECR). – Signor Presidente, signor Commissario, onorevoli colleghi, sono appena tornato da una serie di visite sul territorio alpino a seguito delle centinaia di segnalazioni di predazione da parte di grandi carnivori di pecore, capre, asini, mucche, lo sapete, ma ultimamente anche di cani da compagnia, nelle vicinanze di insediamenti umani.
Ho osservato episodi raccapriccianti, il peggiore dei quali su una predazione di pecore, una decina, alcune delle quali uccise dai lupi con la loro consolidata tecnica di rendere incapace l'animale e di mangiarlo vivo partendo dallo stomaco. Ho ancora in testa gli occhi di questi poveri animali tra la sofferenza e il terrore, come sono morti e quanto tempo ci hanno messo.
Per cui chiedo alla Commissione, ma anche alle delegazioni nazionali, di cui voi siete dei rappresentanti di fatto, che saranno presenti alla riunione della Convenzione di Berna la settimana prossima a Strasburgo, di appoggiare la richiesta del governo svizzero di declassificare il lupo da altamente protetto a solamente protetto, in modo da dare uno strumento di gestione più efficace e in sintonia con i bisogni regionali, richiesta supportata da dati scientifici che classificano il lupo non più come in pericolo critico ma vulnerabili o di minor preoccupazione a seconda della regione.
A oggi se io devo scegliere tra il lupo e la pecora, io sto con la pecora.

VORSITZ: OTHMAR KARAS


Vizepräsident


Juan Ignacio Zoido Álvarez (PPE). – Señor presidente, la situación del lobo en Europa es muy grave. El crecimiento exponencial de este depredador ha incrementado los ataques contra el ganado e incluso contra los humanos.
Y en España la situación es todavía peor. Una decisión puramente ideológica y radical del Gobierno de Sánchez ha restringido la gestión cinegética de la especie al norte del río Duero. La población de los lobos se ha disparado de tal modo que, tan solo en Galicia, que apenas representa el 5 % de la superficie española, hay tres veces más lobos que en toda Francia.
El desastre es triple: económico, porque cada oveja asesinada por un lobo supone una pérdida añadida a la cada vez más mermada renta de los ganaderos; social, porque cada vez más ganaderos están abandonando el pastoreo y, con ello, aumentando la despoblación rural; y medioambiental, porque la despoblación está llevando al abandono de miles de hectáreas forestales, lo que ha disparado el riesgo de incendio.
Si queremos preservar el futuro del mundo rural, debemos poner fin a la ceguera ideológica ecologista en España y en Europa y garantizar una coexistencia equilibrada y consensuada.

Carmen Avram (S&D). – Domnule președinte, cei care cred că această dezbatere e doar despre despăgubiri mai mari pentru fermieri sau despre promovarea vânătorii se înșeală amarnic. Ea este și trebuie să fie despre cum recuperăm echilibrul pierdut între floră, faună și om, căci în țara mea pierderea acestui echilibru costă, ne costă vieți omenești.
Într-un deceniu România a înregistrat cel mai mare număr de victime ale prădătorilor din toată Uniunea. Peste 20 de oameni uciși și 200 răniți, ne costă turme decimate, ferme închise, sate părăsite și tradiții milenare protejate UNESCO pe cale de dispariție. Ne costă pierderea biodiversității, a pășunilor și a peisajelor montane. Ne costă degradarea unui animal, Ursul, care din rege al pădurilor a ajuns un căutător prin gunoaie, cu pădure de patru ori mai puțină decât Suedia, România are de cinci ori mai mulți urși. Nemaigăsind hrană, ies din păduri, traversează șosele, produc accidente și intră în curțile oamenilor, în magazine, școli, blocuri și spitale.
Îi cer deci Comisiei Europene, din respect pentru viața a sute de mii de români care trăiesc zilnic în pericol să găsească o soluție.

Nicolae Ștefănuță (Renew). – Domnule președinte, ‘Atenție, URS !’ - așa sunt protejate animalele sălbatice în zilele noastre, dar așa sunt protejați și oamenii. Un SMS nu rezolvă cu nimic problema, și anume faptul că animalele sălbatice rămân an de an fără habitat din cauza tăierilor ilegale și agresive de copaci.
Pădurile sunt casa lor, habitatul lor și acesta este pierdut an de an. Însă lupta între animal sălbatic și om nu trebuie să existe, nu asta ne învață civilizația. Civilizația ne învață că trebuie să fie loc pentru fiecare.
Guvernele pot face mult mai mult decât un SMS, hai să spunem, pe cea dreaptă. Fermierii afectați trebuie să aștepte luni de zile până își primesc banii pentru daune sau pur și simplu nu știu că au dreptul la ajutor financiar dacă vor să ia măsuri pentru a preveni atacurile animalelor sălbatice.
Directiva Habitat permite toate acestea, permite. Dar trebuie și guvernele să își facă treaba în acest sens. Dragi colegi, în loc să urlăm la lună despre cum ar trebui să eliminăm amenințarea lupilor și urșilor, mai bine hai să ne concentrăm pe prevenție, pe coabitare, pe educație, necesare Europei în care ne pasă de mediu.

Anne Sander (PPE). – Monsieur le Président, Monsieur le Commissaire, chers collègues, je crois qu'il est vraiment urgent d'agir. Jura, Doubs, tout près d'ici. Eh bien, ces dernières semaines, les attaques de loups se sont multipliées. Ici comme ailleurs en France et en Europe. Nous devons donc intervenir rapidement parce que, aujourd'hui, les populations de loups se déplacent et causent des pertes inestimables, des pertes économiques, mais aussi des pertes psychologiques pour nos éleveurs et leurs familles. Et au delà de cela, la préservation du pastoralisme et l'entretien de certaines terres sont clairement en jeu.
Alors oui, il faut clairement repenser le classement du loup dans nos régions, parce que cette espèce n'est définitivement plus menacée aujourd'hui. Il faut aussi un meilleur suivi des meutes de loups, notamment à travers une approche transfrontalière. Il faut une meilleure gestion et on ne peut pas sans arrêt renvoyer la balle aux États membres. Les mesures préventives ne suffisent plus, il faut passer à l'action. C'est aussi le renouvellement de nos générations d'agriculteurs qui est en jeu.

Asger Christensen (Renew). – Hr. formand! Siden 2016 er ulvebestanden vokset med over 30 % i EU. Det betyder, at der er over 20.000 ulve i EU nu. Det er der ikke plads til. Hverken i EU eller i Danmark. Landmændene føler sig magtesløse over gentagne angreb. Desværre spænder habitatdirektivet ben for, at vi kan løse problemet. Det kan ikke passe, at en gammel lov fra 1992 ikke kan komme problemet til livs. Når bestanden af rovdyr udvikler sig ud over beskyttelsesniveauet, ja så må vi handle. Det handler ikke kun om ulven. Også skarven, bramgæs og sæler udgør et større og større problem i habitatdirektivet. Både dyr og mennesker lider under den lovgivning, vi har lige nu. Hverken hegn eller penge løser problemet. Vi skal have genåbnet habitatdirektivet. Habitatdirektivet skal moderniseres, så det passer til situationen i virkeligheden og i dag.

Simone Schmiedtbauer (PPE). – Sehr geehrter Herr Präsident, geschätzte Kolleginnen und Kollegen! Der Schutz unserer ländlichen Regionen, unserer landwirtschaftlichen Familienbetriebe, ist mir ein Herzensanliegen. Für sie bin ich hier im Parlament, und für sie möchte ich mich auch einsetzen.
Ein Almbauer in meinem Heimatland Österreich treibt im Schnitt elf Tiere auf die Alm auf – elf Tiere. Und wenn nur ein einziges dem Wolf zum Opfer fällt, ist es eine Katastrophe; dann reden wir bereits von rund 10 %. Dieses Jahr haben sich solche Katastrophen in Österreich bereits rund 1 200 Mal ereignet. 1 200 Verluste für Landwirtinnen und Landwirte, 1 200 Mal eine große emotionale Belastung und 1 200 Mal großes, vermeidbares Tierleid.
Es ist daher dringendst notwendig, dass sich, so hoffe ich, erstmals in der Geschichte des Europäischen Parlaments eine Mehrheit hier im Plenum für eine vernünftige Entschließung im Sinne der ländlichen Bevölkerung und der heimischen kleinstrukturierten Landwirtschaft, für die Nutztierhaltung und gegen die unkontrollierte Ausbreitung von Wölfen aussprechen wird.
Es geht hier um viel mehr, und das muss die Europäische Kommission auch einsehen. Es geht darum, den Wolf auf einer wissenschaftlichen Basis, den Schutzstatus zu überprüfen. Nicht der Wolf ist vom Aussterben bedroht, sondern unsere ländlichen Regionen.

Michal Wiezik (Renew). – Vážený pán predsedajúci, je to vskutku zvláštna rezolúcia, ktorá žiada to, čo už je dávno legálne možné. Všetky nástroje, ktoré žiadame, majú členské štáty dávno v rukách, vrátane usmrcovania problematických jedincov chránených druhov vlka, medveďa či rysa tam, kde je to skutočne posledná a jediná možnosť.
Treba naozaj povedať jasne, že s touto iniciatívou prišiel výbor AGRI, no pôvodný zámer bol otvoriť smernicu o biotopoch, znížiť ochranu vlka, medveďa a rysa a umožniť ich plošné lovenie. Pre takúto ambíciu nemám porozumenie hlavne z dôvodu obrovského významu týchto druhov pre ekosystémy a biodiverzitu, rovnako ako pre veľkú podporu u verejnosti.
Som preto rád, že máme predložený vyrokovaný text, ktorý plne podporujem, a takisto k tomu vyzývam všetkých vás: zastavme už alebo ukončime túto kapitolu, venujme sa skutočne dôležitým veciam, ako je napríklad hľadanie kompatibility s touto planétou, ktorá však nebude možná bez spolužitia s divokou neregulovanou prírodou.

Franc Bogovič (PPE). – Gospod predsednik, spoštovani gospod komisar, cenjene kolegice. Direktiva o habitatih odlično deluje na primeru divjih zveri, kajti populacija, ki je bila povsem ogrožena, je postala tako številčna, da sedaj ogroža druge v naravi.
V Sloveniji, v državi, od koder prihajava z gospodom komisarjem, je v desetih letih iz 300 volkov nastalo 1200 volkov, iz 20 do 30, pardon, medvedov – od 300 do 400 do 1200. Od 30 volkov je sedaj približno 130 volkov.
Spoštovani komisar, povabim vas, da greva skupaj na Bloke, na Kočevsko, na Gorenjsko in se pogovoriva s kmeti, ki jim dnevno napadajo zveri te živali. In mislim, da bova prišla do zaključka, da je potrebno v statusu zaščite nekaj storiti.
Veseli me, da je končno ta obravnava prišla sem v Evropski parlament, vendar to ne bo dovolj. Moramo ukrepati in spremeniti status zaščite in pomagati regulirati ravnovesje v naravi, ki je danes porušeno.

Benoît Lutgen (PPE). – Monsieur le Président, chers collègues, d'abord une rectification par rapport à ce que j'ai pu entendre: dire que la forêt européenne est en déclin et qu'on perd des hectares chaque année est totalement faux. On voit grand. La forêt européenne a grandi de l'équivalent du Portugal en 25 ans, ce qui n'est pas rien. Ça ne veut pas dire qu'il n'y a pas de problème de biodiversité, bien sûr.
Alors, on doit entendre l'appel des hommes, des femmes, des bergers, des bergères, des éleveurs, qui sont effectivement peut-être encore plus proches de la nature que n'importe qui dans cette assemblée et qui ont besoin effectivement de notre soutien. Qu'on puisse répondre effectivement à cette croissance du nombre de loups au niveau européen en prenant des mesures adaptées dans différentes zones.
Ces mesures adaptées, ce sont aussi les indemnisations. Dans certains États membres, dont le mien, les indemnisations prennent un temps incroyable. Les agriculteurs doivent se battre pour pouvoir faire reconnaître ces attaques de loups. L'indemnisation doit être totale, au niveau de l'ensemble de la couverture des coûts, pour l'ensemble des agriculteurs et il faut avoir les mesures adaptées au niveau de chaque État membre pour que cette régulation puisse se retrouver le plus rapidement possible.

Marlene Mortler (PPE). – Herr Präsident, liebe Kollegen! Der Wolf hat inzwischen alles widerlegt, was man versucht hat, uns einzureden – dass er nicht springt, dass er als Ökopolizei im Wald lebt und sich von den dortigen Tieren ernährt, dass er nicht an Großtiere wie Rinder oder Pferde geht oder dass ihn ein guter Zaun abhält. Herdenschutz und Herdenschutzzäune versagen oft kläglich, wenn ein Wolf oder ein Rudel Weidetiere reißen, weil sie längst Blut geleckt haben.
Immer mehr auffällige Wölfe töten jährlich tausende Tiere. Der Fortbestand der europäischen Weidetiere und ihrer Halter steht auf dem Spiel. Dass beweidetes Grünland zu den artenreichsten Flächen gehört, ist zigfach bewiesen. Diesen Artenreichtum dürfen wir nicht für diese eine Art – den Wolf – opfern.
Stellen wir uns der Realität und fordern die Kommission auf, endlich ihre überfälligen Hausaufgaben zu machen. Der Schutzstatus des Wolfs muss angepasst und damit das Wolfsmanagement erleichtert werden.

Francisco José Millán Mon (PPE). – Señor presidente, la recuperación de las poblaciones de lobos en Europa provoca grandes retos medioambientales y agrícolas, tanto en la fauna silvestre como, sobre todo, en las reses de los ganaderos, que están sufriendo importantes daños. Hace falta una respuesta inmediata por parte de las autoridades nacionales y también de las europeas.
El estado de conservación del lobo justifica ya una revisión de su nivel de protección. Además, tanto la Comisión Europea como los Gobiernos de los Estados miembros deben apoyar a aquellas regiones donde la coexistencia entre lobos y ganaderos es cada vez más difícil.
En mi país, en España, las principales regiones afectadas son Galicia, Castilla y León, Asturias y Cantabria. Lamentablemente, el Gobierno español, lejos de contribuir a la solución, ha prohibido la extracción del lobo de forma indiscriminada en todo el territorio. El Gobierno de España debe rectificar y permitir una gestión activa del lobo. Además, sería intolerable e incomprensible que una región como Galicia, la segunda región española que más lobos alberga, quedase fuera del fondo de 20 millones de euros para mitigar los daños del lobo.

Catch-the-eye procedure


Barbara Thaler (PPE). – Herr Präsident, liebe Kolleginnen und Kollegen! Ich bin wirklich froh, dass wir heute über das Thema diskutieren. Wir haben ein Jahr lang dafür gekämpft, die großen Beutegreifer diese Woche hier auf unserer Tagesordnung zu haben.
Und wir haben in der vergangenen Stunde viele Beispiele aus allen Regionen Europas gehört: dass wachsende Wolfspopulationen zu immer mehr Schäden, aber auch zu immer mehr Leid führen und damit zu einem immer größer werdenden Problem werden. Und deshalb ist es umso besser, dass wir heute endlich darüber diskutieren, weil ich glaube, dass die EU-Institutionen nicht die Augen davor verschließen dürfen, sondern für Lösungen sorgen müssen.
Liebe Kommission, lieber Herr Kommissar, wir werden Sie beim Wort nehmen und mit unserer Abstimmung morgen zur Entschließung Sie ganz konkret auffordern, sich des Problems anzunehmen, nicht nur im Sinne von finanziellen Kompensationszahlungen, sondern auch im Sinne von praktikablen Lösungen für die Regionen der Europäischen Union und vor allem für kleinere Mitgliedstaaten.

Jérémy Decerle (Renew). – Monsieur le Président, pendant que nous pesons avec beaucoup de précaution nos mots pour tenter de concilier l'inconciliable, des éleveurs de plus en plus nombreux dans toute l'Europe se sentent acculés, ignorés, incompris. Je veux leur rendre hommage pour tout le travail qu'ils font et le courage qu'ils ont. Leur détresse profonde devrait nous alerter.
Peut-on à la fois protéger le loup et l'élevage? Peut-être, mais certainement pas partout. Quels que soient les moyens qu'on voudra y mettre, quelles que soient les protections et les indemnisations, il y a des zones où la cohabitation restera impossible. Admettons-le.
Ce débat aujourd'hui en plénière montre au moins que nous ne fermons pas les yeux. Mais nous devons avoir plus de courage politique. Très concrètement, nous devons tout de suite donner plus de flexibilité à la règlementation pour que les États membres puissent agir plus efficacement. Et agir ne veut pas dire compter les carcasses de moutons et de vaches. Agir veut dire abattre de façon ciblée les prédateurs aux comportements dévastateurs.

Caroline Roose (Verts/ALE). – Monsieur le Président, la question de la cohabitation entre le loup et les activités humaines est une question qui est très complexe et multiplier le nombre de loups tués chaque année n'est pas la solution. En France, le gouvernement a autorisé à ce que 174 loups soient tués en 2022. C'est énorme! Et pour quel résultat? La France est le pays qui tue le plus, mais qui a le moins de résultats.
Au lieu de tuer les loups, il faut accompagner les éleveurs. Des expérimentations impliquant des chiens de berger comme le patou ont été menées dans ma région et ont montré des résultats très positifs permettant de diminuer significativement le nombre d'attaques. Les paysans demandent par exemple à ce que les zones où les achats de patous sont subventionnés soient étendues à tout le territoire. Alors sortons de la caricature et agissons vraiment pour vivre avec le loup.

Peter Jahr (PPE). – Herr Präsident, liebe Kolleginnen und Kollegen, liebe Kommission! Betrachten Sie diese Entschließung als einen Hilferuf an Sie: Tut endlich was!
Die Ansiedelung des Wolfes ist eine Erfolgsgeschichte. Wir haben stabile, wachsende Wolfsbestände, das heißt, der Schutzstatus kann gemindert werden; der Bestand kann reguliert werden. Entwickeln Sie europaweite guidelines! Definieren Sie wolfsfreie Zonen! Helfen Sie unseren Bäuerinnen und Bauern, helfen Sie unserer Kulturlandschaft, helfen Sie unserem ländlichen Raum!
Liebe Kommission, tun Sie endlich etwas, und machen Sie die Erfolgsgeschichte Wolf nicht kaputt!

Mick Wallace (The Left). – Mr President, large carnivores, such as wolves and bears, are legally protected species in the EU under the Habitats Directive and the Bern Convention. However, many of these large carnivore species have not yet achieved favourable conservation status.
Of course, coexistence with large carnivores can cause conflict with human socio-economic interests, but hundreds of wolves are already killed each year in the EU using the existing exemptions in the Habitats Directive. The legal protections for large carnivores must be upheld. Instead of decreasing these protections, the EU and Member States need to more rigorously pursue mitigation strategies to achieve greater coexistence and implement measures to quickly and adequately compensate farmers for any losses.
Large carnivores belong to the European biodiversity heritage that the EU has committed to restore and preserve through the adoption of the Habitats Directive and the biodiversity strategy. It is crucial that the Commission and Council reject the concerted and coordinated campaign to reduce protection for these animals.

Stanislav Polčák (PPE). – Pane předsedající, soužití dobytka a velkých šelem zní skoro jako velký protimluv. Přesto úspěchem Evropské komise a myslím, že i nás všech bylo právě to, že tyto šelmy se na evropském kontinentu takto rozmnožily. Možná, že podle některých až příliš. Samozřejmě, že pastva dobytka, kde je vlk, je složitá. To já nebudu vůbec popírat a chápu obavy lidí. Chápu i rozhořčení zemědělců. Myslím si, že je dobré využívat zase osvědčené postupy, o kterých zde bylo hovořeno. Bylo zde hovořeno o kompenzacích, monitoringu. Možná, že to nestačí. Já to nebudu rozhodně zpochybňovat. Každopádně najít řešení koexistence, jak řekl pan komisař, bude velmi obtížné. Já osobně jsem proti unáhleným posunům a změnám. Osobně podpořím návrh této rezoluce, ale myslím si, že biodiverzita by měla být pro nás také velmi významnou hodnotou.

Charlie Weimers (ECR). – Herr talman! Jag kommer från ett av de vargtätaste områdena i norra Europa. För er på vänstersidan som tycker att EU under inga omständigheter ska förändra sin skyddsstatus, tänkte jag berätta någonting från Värmland: ‘Vi kunde se fåren från köksfönstret. Några låg bara ett tjugotal meter från huset. De flesta var döda. Två fick jag skjuta i hagen’, berättar lantbrukaren Mats Eriksson, Brandbols gård, utanför Gräsmark, hemma i mitt Värmland.
Vi har hundägare som inte vågar gå ut med sina hundar längre och föräldrar som inte vågar släppa ut sina barn. Vi har haft en ökning från tiotalet vargar – 17 vargar i Sverige, när den här skyddsstatusen slogs fast – till över 400 vargar i dag. Och ni vill inte röra skyddsstatusen. Det håller inte. Ni undergräver förtroendet för EU genom detta. Det är dags att ändra vargens skyddsstatus.

Janez Lenarčič,
Member of the Commission. – Mr President, honourable Members, thank you very much for this debate. I think it has proven that this is a very important issue.
I would like, first of all, to try and address some of the concerns that have been voiced by some of you.
On the costs of co-existence measures, I would like to give you some perspective about the costs. In the framework of the prioritised action frameworks, the Member States have estimated that the total needs for compensation, prevention and mitigation measures in relation to all protected species would amount to around EUR 180 million per year. At the same time, the common agricultural policy has specifically earmarked for biodiversity EUR 10.7 billion per year. This means that the potential maximum contribution from the common agricultural policy for wolf protection would then be a very, very small amount in comparison to the total biodiversity spending claimed from the common agricultural policy.
On the effectiveness of livestock protection measures, these have been proven effective. They have been proven to prevent, or at least significantly reduce, predation risks – of course when properly implemented and tailored to the specific situation and to the specific context in which they're applied.
Let me share with you just one of many examples of the prevention measures that were implemented under the Life Wolfalps project, which is a project implemented in the Italian Alps. This project led to a reduction of attacks of about 96%. The measures concern both cattle and sheep and were targeted to the different livestock breeders. They included electric fences, night-time enclosures, acoustic devices, livestock guarding dogs and the like. There are also some other examples with similar, or even higher, successful reduction, going up to 100%.
On the level of protection of wolves, it is true that the wolf is no longer at risk of extinction in Europe. That's true. However, in most EU Member States, it has not yet achieved a favourable status, according to national reports. The situation of this species is still fragile and is subject to a high level of human-caused mortality from poaching, from car accidents and from authorised culling.
So we need to act very carefully. We believe that a strict protection status is still necessary in order to be able to achieve and to maintain a favourable conservation status, while I would like to recall that the removal of individual wolves is already permitted under certain conditions.
On the impact of wolves on livestock farming in Europe, it is known that wolves prey primarily on wild animals like red deer, roe deer, wild boar and chamois, and so on. It is also true, of course, that if livestock is not properly protected in wolf areas, the risk of predation can become significant at local level. But according to the study carried out for the European Parliament back in 2018, wolf predation numbers at EU level concern around 20 000 sheep per year. This is a big figure which can be drastically reduced with proper protection measures. But this figure, 20 000, represents 0.06% of the sheep numbers in the concerned countries – 0.06%.
So I do not believe that the crisis of sheep farming or land abandonment are caused by large carnivores, also because this actually occurs in many areas where there is no presence of such carnivores, but where we also have issues of land abandonment and crisis in sheep farming.
Finally, on the impact of large carnivores on public safety, aggressiveness of large carnivores towards humans is considered to be an extremely rare phenomenon. For instance, we know that fatal wolf attacks on humans have been reported in historical times, but none, not one, has been recorded in the 21st century in Europe. Not a single one – even though there have been thousands of documented close encounters between wolves and humans.
Bear attacks are a different matter. They are documented in some cases in Northern Europe and the Southeast Balkans, but they also occur under very specific circumstances, often as a defensive mechanism such as the protection of offspring. But let me just put the whole of this issue in the wider context. It is useful to recall that by far most of the actual risks of animal attacks on humans actually come from domestic animals, primarily dogs.
Honourable Members, It's time to conclude from my side. Nowadays there is a great deal of knowledge and experience on the different conflicts with wildlife species, including large carnivores, and also on the possible ways to address them. I can assure you that we, the European Commission, are actively monitoring the issue at various levels with a view to supporting targeted and suitable solutions to achieve the objectives which we believe we share.
The Commission is committed to protect Europe's biodiversity, its habitats and species. That said, it is the Member States who are responsible for wildlife management and for the implementation of EU nature legislation. The Commission will, of course, contribute to the research, dissemination, promotion and support of good practices aiming at preventing and reducing possible conflicts caused by wildlife protected species.

Der Präsident. – Zum Abschluss der Aussprache wurden sieben Entschließungsanträge eingereicht.
Die Aussprache ist geschlossen.
Die Abstimmung findet am Donnerstag, 24. November 2022, statt.


Schriftliche Erklärungen (Artikel 171)



Tom Vandenkendelaere (PPE),
schriftelijk. – De wetgeving om wolven te beschermen was destijds meer dan nodig en heeft ondertussen ook haar nut bewezen. Tegelijk is de situatie dusdanig veranderd dat er maatregelen nodig zijn. Door de toename van de wolvenpopulatie zien we ook een toename van aanvallen met als gevolg dode of gewonde landbouwdieren. Vooral hun aanwezigheid in dichtbevolkte plattelandsgebieden zoals Vlaanderen heeft een negatieve impact op de landbouw maar ook op het toerisme. De huidige preventiemaatregelen volstaan niet, met oplopende kosten voor onze landbouwers. De schadeloosstellingen dekken immers vaak niet alle kosten van de berokkende schade. Het kan niet de bedoeling zijn dat de aanwezigheid van wolven tot grote economische verliezen voor landbouwbedrijven leiden. We moeten daarom de Europese Commissie oproepen om de schade voor boeren beter te compenseren en samen met de regio's de huidige beheersmaatregelen flexibel toe te passen als preventie niet voldoende is. Als de populatie in bepaalde regio's zodanig is toegenomen dat een verlaging van het beschermingsniveau uit de habitatrichtlijn gerechtvaardigd is, mogen we niet langer twijfelen. Wat mij betreft moet een herplaatsing van de wolven in die situaties zeker tot de mogelijkheden behoren.
18.   Explanations of vote

Der Präsident. – Als nächster Punkt der Tagesordnung folgen die Erklärungen zur Abstimmung.
18.1.   System of own resources of the European Union (A9-0266/2022 - Valérie Hayer, José Manuel Fernandes)

Mündliche Stimmerklärungen


Charlie Weimers (ECR). – Herr talman! När riksdagen godkände EU:s coronafond skulle det vara en temporär engångsföreteelse. Sverigedemokraterna, revisionsrätten i Tyskland och många andra varnade för att ett prejudikat för att flytta kostnaden för framtida kriser till EU-nivå etablerades. Nu är nästa kris här, och ni centralister vägrar förstås att skära i stödfonderna, slöseriet eller byråkratin. Till och med islamistbidragen är heliga.
I stället kräver parlamentet en gemensam upplåning, som ett normalt sätt för att finansiera EU:s utgifter – en massiv maktökning på medlemsstaternas bekostnad. Skuldsättningens syfte är att öka trycket på medlemsstaterna och godkänna införandet av flera nya EU-skatter för att betala tillbaka lånen. SD röstar nej till skulderna och skatterna. Jag hoppas att statsministern i Sverige hörsammar sin föregångares varning – den som är satt i skuld är icke fri – och håller sitt löfte om nej till EU-skatter.

Clare Daly (The Left). – Mr President, I voted in favour of this report. The plan to raise EUR 17 billion a year for the EU budget from a new system of taxation on corporations and levies on emissions has been around for a while and is okay as far as it goes. But I do have some sympathy for people who are concerned about EU overreach.
But a much bigger concern I have is that the EU hasn't exactly been the most reliable guardian of the money that it already collects. We've had EUR 8 billion kicked into a slush fund for the arms industry through the European Defence Fund, EUR 5.7 billion through the sick joke of a European Peace Facility and EUR 1.9 billion to the Internal Security Fund. If that wasn't bad enough, the EU budget now has a bonanza for weapons manufacturing with a staggering EUR 43.9 billion in public money going to security and defence. That's EUR 43.9 billion earmarked for arms surveillance, border control, military R&D, and so on.
You have to ask, will this EUR 17 billion end up being spent on the same stuff? Will it help people heat their homes, house the homeless, or will it pour into the pockets of the arms industry?

Stanislav Polčák (PPE). – Pane předsedající, já jsem tuto zprávu našich kolegů podpořil. Myslím si, že musíme hledat vlastní zdroje EU a reformovat náš rozpočet. Je to zodpovědné vůči budoucnosti Unie, vůči budoucnosti i našich dětí a nepochybně se nesmíme spoléhat pouze na členské státy. Tudíž tuto zprávu jsem podpořil. Stojí před námi velké závazky, velké výzvy i z minulého období, z koronavirového období, splatit dluhy. Jsou před námi nové výdaje v sociálním a klimatickém fondu, výdaje, které budeme směřovat na Ukrajinu, na její obranu i na její obnovu, pevně věřím. A je třeba na všechny tyto nové výzvy pamatovat a mít připravené i odpovídající rozpočtové kapitoly. Evropa musí hledat vlastní zdroje financování a myslím si, že tato zpráva jde správným směrem, proto jsem ji tedy skutečně podpořil.
18.2.   Recognising the Russian Federation as a state sponsor of terrorism (RC-B9-0482/2022, B9-0482/2022, B9-0483/2022, B9-0485/2022, B9-0486/2022, B9-0487/2022)

Mündliche Stimmerklärungen


Charlie Weimers (ECR). – Mr President, today the European Parliament decided to designate the Russian Federation as a state sponsor of terrorism. Now, some Members of this House were trying to water down this resolution and delete this designation. And I'm glad those efforts did not succeed, because right after this vote, two things happened. The Russian Federation started to terror-bomb Ukraine and Russians hacked the European Parliament's IT system, which means that this vote actually made a difference, something that was confirmed by the message by President Zelenskyy.
Now, my message here today to the Member States, to the Council is: take this seriously. Establish a European legal framework to designate Russia a sponsor of terrorism. Do it quickly. It's needed.

Eugen Tomac (PPE). – Domnule președinte, sunt unul dintre inițiatorii acestei rezoluții și mi se pare extrem de important să reținem mesajul pe care l-am primit imediat de la Moscova, de îndată ce s-a adoptat această rezoluție cu o largă majoritate.
Însă pe mine mă uimește că avem aproape 100 de colegi care nu înțeleg că Rusia este un stat care susține formele de exprimare prin acte de terorism. La Mariupol au fost omorâți 22.000 de cetățeni civili, 95% din acest oraș de peste jumătate de milion de cetățeni a fost distrus.
Acest regim susține și acționează prin metode teroriste, iar faptul că au reacționat imediat atacând portalul Parlamentului European este o dovadă cât se poate de clară că s-au simțit vizați și evident că trebuie să mergem mai departe și să susținem Ucraina și Republica Moldova să facă față acestor agresiuni din partea Rusiei.

Elena Yoncheva (S&D). – Monsieur le Président, chers collègues, voulons-nous la guerre en Europe? Car avec cette résolution, nous ne faisons qu'alimenter le conflit et rapprocher l'Europe d'une catastrophe majeure. Déclarer la Russie comme un État promouvant le terrorisme réduit la possibilité de trouver une solution pacifique au conflit, parce qu'on ne négocie pas avec un terroriste. En votant en faveur de ce document honteux, nous laissons tout se décider sur le champ de bataille.
Est-ce que vous comprenez ce que cela signifie? Une guerre avec une force nucléaire majeure ne peut pas être gagnée. Nous condamnons l'Ukraine à une guerre longue, nous condamnons l'Europe à l'épuisement et nous ouvrons la voie à une catastrophe nucléaire mondiale.
Chers députés, nous avons besoin d'une stratégie européenne pour arrêter la guerre. L'Europe doit engager des négociations de paix, insister sur un compromis, raisonnable et acceptable. Au lieu de cela, avec cette résolution, nous faisons un pas de plus vers l'entraînement de l'Europe dans cette guerre.

(Le Président retire la parole à l'oratrice)


Mick Wallace (The Left). – Mr President, there is no legal framework for the EU to recognise a state sponsor of terrorism. You just pulled this antagonistic performance out of thin air. Even the US, who have such a legal mechanism, have refrained from applying the label to Russia. Biden has argued that doing so could impact future efforts to negotiate a peace deal.
The European Parliament, instead of pursuing peace and an end to this bloody war – a war that's killing tens of thousands, decimating European industry and jobs, creating soaring inflation and an unprecedented cost of living crisis – instead of any effort at diplomacy to remedy this disaster, you have voted to call Russia names.
What's worse, NATO is one of the most blood-drenched terrorist groups to curse this earth. It has murdered millions of human beings. The idea that any representative of a NATO member state would label anyone else a sponsor of terrorism before calling out their own state is absurd.

Stanislav Polčák (PPE). – Pane předsedající, já jsem tento návrh rezoluce podpořil. Stejně tak jsem doufal, že tato sněmovna tento návrh rezoluce podpoří, protože Rusko vraždí Ukrajince, Rusko mučí Ukrajince, Rusko znásilňuje ukrajinské ženy a muže, Rusko unáší ukrajinské děti, Rusko loupí a ničí ukrajinský majetek. Řekněte mi: Jak se liší tento způsob jednání od jiného teroristy? Je jednoznačné, že Rusko se nám představuje jako terorista. Jako terorista, který neváhá, neštítí se používat všechny hanebné postupy. A je jednoznačné, že svým dnešním kybernetickým útokem i vůči této sněmovně jenom zvýšilo naše odhodlání vytrvat.

Miriam Lexmann (PPE). – Mr President, I welcome today's resolution recognising the Russian Federation as a state sponsor of terrorism. Putin's Russia is waging a brutal war against the Ukrainian people. It is bombing civilian targets, including homes, hospitals, schools and churches and systematically attacking Ukrainian critical infrastructure. It is breaking all international conventions governing warfare and committing unspeakable crimes.
That is why we must do all in our power to support the brave people of Ukraine and ensure that Putin's regime one day faces international justice for the crimes committed.
18.3.   New EU strategy for enlargement (A9-0251/2022 - Tonino Picula)

Mündliche Stimmerklärungen


Eugen Tomac (PPE). – Domnule președinte, cred că criza de securitate ne-a scos în față noi provocări și Uniunea Europeană întotdeauna a depășit toate obstacolele pe care le-a avut prin două decizii majore: pe de-o parte extindere, pe de altă parte, mai multă integrare.
Iată că statele afectate de agresiunea rusă au primit același răspuns, au fost invitate să adere la Uniunea Europeană. Însă, pentru a ajuta Ucraina și Republica Moldova astăzi mai avem nevoie de un pas extrem de important, și anume ca Austria și Olanda să nu se opună integrării României și Bulgariei în spațiul Schengen.
Moldova și Ucraina pot primi oricât de mulți bani putem oferi, însă nu pot supraviețui economic dacă nu vor avea lângă ei frontiera Schengen pentru a putea să se integreze rapid economic. Întârzierea extinderii spațiului Schengen agravează foarte mult și inclusiv aceste state din punct de vedere economic.

Clare Daly (The Left). – Mr President, I abstained on this report. To the spotless minds in Europe, EU enlargement is about growing our happy family of democratic nations, prospering together in a brotherly paradise of enterprise and free trade. But the truth is, it's a rich boys' club, in which membership hinges upon sweeping neoliberal reforms –the last batch about boosting NATO and a pool of cheap labour for the West.
And for the last 20 years, we've left candidate countries in the Balkans in accession purgatory, while we've lorded it over them through one thing or another. And now we're going in the opposite direction for all the wrong reasons.
The report is infected with megalomania. Enlargement is now explicitly described as part of an EU geographic strategy against Russia. Wow! What a proposition to put to the working people in our neighbourhood. We want your country as a chess piece. You, too, can be like Ukraine.
The world isn't our chessboard and the EU shouldn't have an enlargement strategy. We should welcome those who want to join, respect those who don't and stop ending this meddling.

Miriam Lexmann (PPE). – Mr President, for too long we lacked the vision and political will to utilise the transformative nature of the enlargement process. The consequences of this failure are there for us to see. Non-democratic regimes are challenging European peace and security, threatening the stability of our neighbours and using malign investments to roll back years of democratic reforms. Reclaiming this vision and will is crucial for our society.
However, we must also be creative about the integration process. We need to enhance constructive political dialogue with the candidate, potential candidate and associated countries. Include them as observers in Commission comitology proceedings, Council working groups, as well as specific meetings of the EU ministers and heads of state.
We must work together to pursue our common values and interests and address the many challenges facing us today.
18.4.   Situation in Libya (A9-0252/2022 - Giuliano Pisapia)

Mündliche Stimmerklärungen


Clare Daly (The Left). – Mr President, I voted against this report. Its timing is pretty appropriate coming, as it does, a few short weeks after the 11th anniversary of the day Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi was killed during the NATO assault on Libya: sodomised with a bayonet and shot in the head. The NATO intervention in Libya, carried out in the name of protecting freedom, democracy and human rights, is one we'd do well to remember as NATO plays out its proxy war in Ukraine in the name of, you've guessed it, freedom, democracy and human rights.
Because what happens after NATO intervenes in your country on this basis? Terror, death, lawlessness, rape, poverty, starvation. Libya is a country riven by conflict, its economy shattered, its population – formerly the wealthiest in Africa – ridden and mired in poverty. Migrants are bought and sold in slave markets. A million people rely on humanitarian aid. It's a country of mass graves, of crimes against humanity. This is NATO's legacy. This is NATO's right strategy and democracy.

Mick Wallace (The Left). – Mr President, the report claims the EU is redoubling its diplomatic efforts to promote peace in Libya. France spearheaded the illegal and unprovoked NATO war of aggression on Libya because it saw Gaddafi as a threat to its interests in the region – in particular, France's precious colonial cash-cow, the CFA franc.
In the process of this war, massive quantities of weapons were pumped into the region by NATO and Gulf states. Today, multiple militias fight each other with these weapons and continue to receive military supplies from European states, Gulf states, Turkey and Russia.
Why do these reports always fail to acknowledge our role in the destabilisation we claim to be so worried about? Two years ago, Italy was engaged in a proxy war against France and Russia for control of resources in Libya. How can we square that with the notion that we want to promote peace in Libya? How in God's name can we have any credibility?
18.5.   Promoting regional stability and security in the broader Middle East region (A9-0256/2022 - Manu Pineda)

Mündliche Stimmerklärungen


Mick Wallace (The Left). – Mr President, this report on stability and security in the broader Middle East is incredible for what it manages to ignore and conceal. Apparently in this region, instability and wars just spontaneously happen. It says the underlying causes of instability must be addressed, but there are none in the report. There was No Iraq War, there was no regime change operation in Syria. In this fairy tale, France, Turkey, Saudi Arabia, the UK and the US didn't train, arm and finance al-Qaida and Syria. Saudi Arabia, the UAE, France and the UK have not been bombing the daylights out of Yemen for eight years. Iran, Russia and Turkey are active in Syria, but America and Israelis are nowhere. America and Israelis are not illegally occupying Syria and the Israelis are not bombing Syria every week. And the US and the EU are not sanctioning the Syrian people to death.
If we are incapable of talking honestly about our criminal actions, we are doomed to repeat them.
18.6.   Prevention, management and better care of diabetes in the EU on the occasion of World Diabetes Day (B9-0492/2022)

Mündliche Stimmerklärungen


Stanislav Polčák (PPE). – Pane předsedající, já jsem tento návrh podpořil. Je nezbytně nutné si uvědomit, že diabetes je bohužel nemoc velmi na vzestupu a je stále nebezpečnou nemocí. V evropském prostoru trpí touto nemocí 35 milionů lidí a většinou se jedná o cukrovku 2. typu, tzn. získanou řekněme životním stylem, jistými návyky. A to představuje nepochybně velkou výzvu, ale také zátěž pro náš zdravotní systém. Je důležité, aby si státy stanovily jednoznačné, měřitelné cíle, své plány, jak předcházet vzniku této nemoci. Myslím si, že zpráva byla velmi dobrá, a já jsem ji podporoval a je důležité, aby našla i sluch u těch, kterým je určena, to znamená našim evropským občanům, aby se zamysleli i nad svým životním stylem.

Der Präsident. – Damit ist dieser Tagesordnungspunkt geschlossen.
19.   Agenda of the next sitting

Der Präsident. – Die nächste Sitzung findet morgen, Donnerstag, 24. November 2022, um 9.00 Uhr statt.
Die Tagesordnung wurde veröffentlicht und ist auf der Website des Europäischen Parlaments verfügbar.
20.   Approval of the minutes of the sitting

Der Präsident. – Das Protokoll dieser Sitzung wird dem Parlament morgen zu Beginn der Nachmittagssitzung zur Genehmigung vorgelegt.
21.   Closure of the sitting

(Die Sitzung wird um 21.50 Uhr geschlossen)



(*1)  Siehe Protokoll

(*2)  Sk. protokolu.

(*3)  Sk. protokolu.