Interim Partnership Agreement between the EC and the Pacific States - Interim Partnership Agreement between the EC and the Pacific States (debate)
The next item is the joint debate on
the report by David Martin, on behalf of the Committee on International Trade, on the recommendation on the draft Council decision on the conclusion of the Interim Partnership Agreement between the European Community, of the one part, and the Pacific States, of the other part (05078/2010 - C7-0036/2010 - 2008/0250(NLE)),
the oral question to the Commission on the Interim Partnership Agreement between the European Community, of the one part, and the Pacific States, of the other part, by Vital Moreira, David Martin, on behalf of the Committee on International Trade - B7-0807/2010).
rapporteur. - Madam President, firstly, I would like to say that I know that, for good reasons, Commissioner De Gucht cannot be with us this evening. I would like to thank him for taking the trouble to call me last week and explain why he is unable to be here, and I would like to thank him and his team at DG Trade for their cooperation and, in particular, Martin Dihm for all his assistance.
I have tried, in my role as rapporteur, to follow on from the good work of the previous rapporteur, my former colleague Glyn Ford. I am fortunate that the adoption of Glyn's resolution in 2009 meant that Parliament already had a clear position on the EC-Pacific Interim Economic Partnership Agreement. Parliament's formal position then is the one that I have tried to follow in my report and question today.
I would like to thank Donatella Pribaz, who was the committee administrator responsible. This turned out to be her last report for the committee before her promotion, so I would like to wish her well in her new job and thank her for making my task here easier. Finally, in terms of acknowledgements, I would also like to welcome the presence here of the Ambassador for Papua New Guinea and to thank him and his staff for their close collaboration. The insights they provided allowed me to make specific input to the report.
Firstly, I would like to make a few general remarks on the agreement and the regional context. Secondly, I plan to discuss three specific aspects of the EPA which I believe it is important to highlight: namely, Aid for Trade, the Fijian political situation and fisheries. Thirdly, I will comment on the future of EC-Pacific trading relations.
In terms of the background and regional integration, this interim - or goods only - EPA has been negotiated with two Pacific states - Papua New Guinea and Fiji. These are the two Pacific island states that have the highest levels of trade with the EU and have key exports destined for the EU market: tuna and sugar respectively.
The EPA gives Papua New Guinea and Fiji duty-free and quota-free access to the EU market in return for the gradual liberalisation of their markets over a 15-year period. Papua New Guinea has committed to liberalising 88% of EU imports on the date of application of this agreement, and Fiji will liberalise 87% over a 15-year period.
The remaining 12 Pacific states either enjoy duty-free and quota-free access through the Everything But Arms scheme or, because of their low level of trade with the EU, have very little interest in an interim EPA. Nevertheless, I believe it is important that, as we move towards a full EPA, we should pursue our objective of regional integration and continue to press for a full EPA involving all the Pacific states.
In terms of the content of the resolution, Parliament has to consent to this agreement before it can be ratified. We will vote on Wednesday - as you have indicated, Madam President - on two different reports, firstly, on consent, which I am recommending that we give, and secondly on the accompanying motion for a resolution. There are other issues in the motion for a resolution but, as I have said, I want to comment particularly on three.
First, regarding Aid for Trade, funding for implementation is crucial to achieving the agreement's objectives of economic diversification and poverty alleviation. It is important that a fair and equitable share of the EUR 2 billion set aside in the 2007 Aid for Trade strategy is directed towards the Pacific region. It is also important to highlight that this interim EPA was conceived as a short-term measure to safeguard the Pacific's trade preferences following the World Trade Organisation (WTO) ruling.
Bearing that in mind, it should not be seen as a sign of EU acceptance of the political regime in Fiji. I would urge the Fijian Government to make moves towards democracy. I hope that the necessary reforms can take place to allow financial support for the Fijian sugar industry to be allocated.
On fishing, the fisheries sector plays a key role in Papua New Guinea's economy and - importantly - provides employment and income to its citizens. In the three tuna processing plants which export to the EU, there are 5 700 employees, the majority of whom are women. This is a country where it is sometimes difficult to find good employment for women.
I support the purpose of the flexible rules of origin in this agreement, namely, to develop the processing industry, but it is essential that the industry develops in a sustainable manner. Environmental considerations are paramount and I have asked, in my report, for the Commission to monitor this aspect and to report back regularly to Parliament on compliance with the regulation on illegal, unreported, and unregulated fishing.
I appreciate that there are some concerns in this House - and specifically in the Committee on Fisheries - about the potential impact of Papua New Guinea's tuna imports on the EU industry. However, when we look at the latest figures, we can see that during the period 2003-2009, imports made up around only 2% of total preserved and prepared fish imports and around only 3% of preserved and prepared tuna imports. I do not believe that this low level of imports will threaten the domestic EU industry, especially if we take into account the limited capacity of the Pacific states' fishing fleets and the limited on-land processing capacity.
Nevertheless, it is, of course, right that we should continue to monitor the situation and that, if there are any unexpected increases in fishing products coming from Papua New Guinea, the Commission should take appropriate action. As I mentioned earlier, I hope that the Pacific states can agree a comprehensive regional EPA.
In my report, I have recommended the inclusion of several points of substance in future negotiations, which I hope the Commission will take into account. These include intellectual property. Too often, we talk about intellectual property from one side only, but I hope that we will look at intellectual property in terms of including traditional knowledge. I also hope we will add transparency in government procurement as well as provision for issuing working visas of up to 24 months.
As we move towards a full EPA, I hope the Commission will involve all the Pacific states but, in the meantime, let us press ahead and get the interim EPA with PNG and Fiji on the books and working as a demonstration of what we can achieve in the future.
Member of the Commission. - Mr President, I would like to thank the rapporteur for his report and particularly for his positive attitude on consent to the interim Economic Partnership Agreement with the Pacific states of Papua New Guinea and Fiji. I hope that this House will follow his advice.
Consent by the European Parliament - for the first time on a trade agreement under the Lisbon Treaty - has important political significance because this is a trade agreement with a long-term development focus and because of the momentum it will provide to ongoing negotiations on the comprehensive EPA with the Pacific region.
Back in 2007, the immediate purpose of the interim agreement was to secure continued access to the EU market for those countries in the Pacific region which most depend on it, given the impending expiry of the Cotonou trade regime. The Commission's commitment to concluding negotiations on a comprehensive EPA with the Pacific region as a whole remains unchanged and we are currently engaged in negotiations with our Pacific partners.
We can go forward only if we accept the special nature of the Pacific region and tailor the EPA accordingly. We are talking about small and remote island states which differ greatly in their economic situation, development needs and relations with the EU. Some countries have 'least developed country' status and are therefore covered by the EU's Everything But Arms trade regime; some have little, if any, trade with the Union. We are therefore open to entering into the trade relationships that best suit the Pacific region as a whole, and the ongoing negotiations will inform the ultimate choices.
Whatever approach we opt for, it is absolutely crucial to ensure that any agreement will indeed contribute to the development of the countries concerned. That is why there is also financial assistance to enhance trade capacity. That is why we will allow partner countries in the developing world to exclude more sensitive products from the trade agreements: something that we would not allow other countries to do. In this context, I have duly taken note of the concerns expressed about the derogation in the interim EPA from the standard rules of origin for fisheries products.
It is precisely for development reasons that we granted this derogation and we did so on the basis of our informed judgment that Papua New Guinea's small market share makes it unlikely that its tuna exports could damage the interests of the EU industry. The European Union and Papua New Guinea have applied these rules provisionally since 2008 and, whereas export figures have fluctuated, no upward trend has been detected. Let me also reassure you that the Commission does not intend to offer similar arrangements to any other region.
The Commission will, in any event, closely monitor the implementation of the derogation and will report to Parliament on the basis of a study which will be prepared before the end of 2011.
Some of you were also present in September last year when the current elected Prime Minister addressed the INTA Committee. He expressed the readiness of his government to grant EU vessels and investors access to Papua New Guinea's waters. We take this oral declaration very seriously and we will continue to engage with our partners till it comes to fruition.
Parliament's consent will allow us to launch the implementation mechanisms provided for the agreement; one of these is the Trade Committee, which could be convened this spring and which provides a platform for raising all the issues relating to mutual obligations under the interim EPA. Your vote is therefore crucial to helping us move forward on this and other important issues.
With regard to Fiji, the country did sign the interim EPA but it does not apply it provisionally. This makes Papua New Guinea currently the only country provisionally applying the EU-Pacific interim EPA. Fiji continues, for the time being, to have access to the EU market under the Market Access Regulation, since the Council has not adopted trade sanctions. As you are aware, the EU decided to suspend development aid to Fiji because of the political situation in the country. Resumption of aid would presuppose progress in governance in Fiji and, in particular, a return to democratic principles of government, but at the moment, there is no tangible progress in Fiji in this regard.
The EPA we have discussed today is only an interim arrangement to ensure that access to the EU market is not lost. The Commission is fully committed to continue negotiations on a comprehensive EPA with the Pacific region.
Mr President, Commissioner, exemption from the rules of origin is based on a very serious calculation error by the Commission regarding its impact, not only on the EU tuna sector, which is very serious, but also on the Pacific region, which we are seeking to help. Meanwhile, the real beneficiaries are almost exclusively the greedy fleets from China and South-East Asia and their processing industries.
The Directorate-General for Trade established this exemption based on the fact that Papua New Guinea does not have the fishing capacity to exploit its resources. However, according to the most recent data from the Western and Central Pacific Fisheries Commission, there are 41 seiners under Papua New Guinea flags operating in the area, which, in 2009, had a catch total of almost 500 000 tonnes. Out of this catch, more than 75 000 tonnes ended up in the European Union (semi-processed and processed), which makes Papua New Guinea one of the six main exporters to the European Union. It is not, therefore, true, as you say, that in order to develop Papua New Guinea's fishing sector, other fleets needed to be given free entry.
Under no circumstances can the European Union shirk its commitment to sustainable development. However, we are seeing that, under the protection of this exemption, and in order to bring in Asian investors, Papua New Guinea has amended its legislation so that it is not possible to make complaints about environmental damage, and has implemented investment rules that allow local workers and cheap labour from Asia to be hired, along with the worst imaginable labour standards.
If we add to this the fact that, in the regional fisheries organisation that I mentioned, Papua New Guinea is leading other countries in flatly refusing to sign up to any international rules to manage and control fisheries, the result is that, while the Directorate-General for Maritime Affairs and Fisheries is going the whole hog to combat illegal fishing, others are opening their doors to it. Commissioner, I have just come back from the Western and Central Pacific Fisheries Commission, and I am well aware of the position that Papua New Guinea has taken. I therefore maintain the position of the Committee on Fisheries of asking for the exemption to be suspended in the review of the agreement that we are discussing.
on behalf of the PPE Group. - Mr President, as shadow rapporteur for the PPE Group, I would like to start by saying that we welcome the increasing role of the EU as a trading power in every region of the world, including the Pacific region.
The agreement, as it is now, is not a perfect one, not least because it is not a comprehensive EPA, but only an interim one. We hope that the Commission will be in a position to negotiate, in due time, a comprehensive EPA including a larger number of countries in the region.
Secondly, the current agreement concerns only a small part of EU trade, since the share of EU trade accounted for by the whole of the Pacific region is just 0.06%, and yet some areas have caused us concern, most notably on the issue of the derogation from the rules of origin for fishery products.
In our resolution, we raise our concern that a number of countries, such as the Philippines, Thailand, China, the United States, Australia and others, will be able to take advantage of this derogation and potentially export large quantities of processed fisheries products to the EU, potentially harming the interests of the EU fish processing and canning industry.
We therefore encourage the Commission to act on Parliament's request for it to conduct an impact assessment study and, in the event that the assessment demonstrates a destabilising effect on the EU's fish processing and canning industry, for it to initiate the procedure leading to suspension of the exceptional arrangements in this agreement regarding rules of origin.
Mr President, the current Interim Partnership Agreement signed in November 2007 by the European Commission and the states of Papua New Guinea and Fiji was heavily criticised by civil society and politicians in the Pacific region. They highlighted the adverse impact the agreement has had on the level of regional solidarity and the political desire for economic integration in the region.
The region was split into groupings which negotiated on an individual basis and under pressure to reach an interim agreement with the European Commission. At the same time, granting originating product status and an exemption from EU customs duties for fish products originating from Papua New Guinea and Fiji is believed to have led to a processing centre for these products, including some non-originating products, being set up by companies from neighbouring countries with the aim of enjoying the benefits of the exemption.
This process would have an adverse impact on the industry, workers and local incomes, given that the fishing industry is one of the most important creators of jobs in these countries. It would also mean unfair competition for EU products. As a result, the agreement may have had the opposite to the desired effect.
Therefore, the European Commission must ensure that the future partnership agreement will make a contribution both to the development of a sustainable local fishing industry which creates jobs and to closer regional integration, for instance, through negotiating the future agreement with the entire Pacific region.
on behalf of the Verts/ALE Group. - Mr President, one of the objectives of the EPAs is to promote regional integration. What we have seen so far is that this is not happening. On the contrary, in the case of the Pacific, the EU is undermining unity by offering interim agreements to some ACP countries, with special conditions attached.
The derogation from the rules of origin for fish processed in Papua New Guinea and Fiji is an example of this. I believe that this derogation is potentially hazardous and that it must be thoroughly evaluated in 2011, as already agreed.
I say this because it is important to have facts when discussing this matter. What are the effects on global fish stocks, on employment and on the environment in Papua New Guinea? What are the social conditions of the workers? All this must be fully and transparently assessed, and then the derogation may or may not be abolished on that basis, and not on the basis of complaints from the Spanish fishing industry which, itself, fishes in Papua New Guinea but never lands fish there - and, by the way, does not pay customs duty when it sells the fish as European on the European market.
Mr President, Commissioner, I think that it is a slight exaggeration to call the Interim Economic Partnership Agreements 'Pacific Agreements', since, of the 15 ACP States in the area, only two are signatories to them.
Obviously, these agreements more often take the form of bilateral agreements than of genuine regional agreements, bilateral agreements which deviate from the much vaunted objective of the EPAs, namely, regional integration. It is hard not to see in this an illustration of what members of civil society are complaining about, in the Pacific as well as in Africa, namely, the fact that a number of ACP countries have been forced to sign individual agreements because the Commission has not managed to turn the EPAs into a genuine instrument of development partnership.
The strong pressures exerted on the ACP States by the European negotiators were criticised by the ACP countries themselves during the 92nd Session of the ACP Council of Ministers, which took place in Brussels from 8 to 12 November 2010. The reality of the EPAs negotiated by the European Commission is so tragic that they failed even before they came into force. They were such a failure that a number of ACP countries are asking the Member States of the European Union to examine the possibility of revising the negotiating mandate given to the European Commission in June 2002.
(DE) Mr President, in conjunction with the current market situation, the reform of the EU sugar market regime will result in the EU sugar price falling below the international price.
With this price situation, the long-term supply commitments with the sugar cane producers in Africa, the Caribbean and the Pacific will probably be very difficult to maintain. The fact that farmers in the ACP countries would prefer to sell their goods at higher prices on the world market instead of selling them cheaply in the EU may have contributed to the difficulties experienced in connection with the new ACP agreements. If this incentive is now being removed and, at the same time, they have to accept a most favoured nation clause, coupled with the fact that the state revenue will fall as a result of the loss of revenue from duties, it is no wonder that the ACP countries were so hesitant.
In this regard, attention surely needs to be paid to fisheries, and not only whether Papua New Guinea and Fiji have granted other trade partners access to their fishing waters. Perhaps we should also investigate whether the accusations are correct that, for example, on account of the EU restrictions and catch quotas, the Spanish fishing fleet has relocated to the Pacific and is fishing there under a foreign flag.
(ES) Mr President, I would also like to express my concern regarding the impact of this agreement on the canned tuna fishing sector, which is very important in Spain and particularly in Galicia, my constituency.
This negative impact is, as has been said, due to an unprecedented and ill-founded concession: the exemption from the rules of origin for processed fish products, when requested, due to not having sufficient indigenous raw materials.
That was the first thing that Papua New Guinea did, and the exemption is being applied. Papua New Guinea is thus becoming a major platform for the processing and export of tuna from the European industry's major competitors: the Philippines, Thailand, China and the United States. It is really they who are the major beneficiaries of the agreement.
It is estimated that this tuna production will ultimately amount to 400 000 tonnes per year, destined for the European market, which currently consumes a total of around 710 000 tonnes. The impact will be very serious, as the prices of the tuna from Papua New Guinea are one third lower than the price of European tuna, due to the country's low wages and non-existent environmental standards.
In my region, Galicia, this is considered to be unbeatable competition, which will have serious consequences for employment. I want the impact assessment announced by the European Commission to be as rigorous as possible and to take into account the short and medium-term consequences of this exemption from the rules of origin.
I hope that it will put an end to the application of this exemption as soon as possible. It is an exceptional and temporary measure, but it appears that in Papua New Guinea, they consider it to be a permanent one: otherwise, the investments would not be made. I also hope that this exemption is not included in other agreements or in the final agreement. Currently, however, there is a problem with the provisional agreement, and it must be rectified.
(ES) Mr President, as is being said here, the partnership agreement with Papua New Guinea and Fiji includes an exemption from the rules of origin. As the rapporteur said, it particularly affects tuna. What do we want from this agreement? We want the fisheries sector to develop and poverty to be overcome in these archipelagos: in other words, we want development aid.
However, what negative effects are there due to third countries benefiting from this preferential treatment?
Here, we are hearing the complaints that are being made. We want a balanced situation. The Commission has just told us that there is clear research, but the opinion being expressed here is that this is not the case. In 2008, it was said that there was no distortion of any kind, and we were told that there would be an impact assessment.
We want a balanced situation. We want a review, consultation and checks. We want to know whether this agreement is aiding development in this archipelago. We also want to know whether health measures - which are very important for imported products - are being complied with, along with sustainable fisheries management, and combating illegal fishing, which is essential. Another very important element that would show us how the third countries that may be based in Papua New Guinea work is compliance with international employment rules.
We want to maintain this agreement and help it to be fulfilled, but we also want this agreement to be used to benefit the development of Papua New Guinea and Fiji and not to damage the Spanish industry.
(FR) Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I wish to draw your attention to the derogation from the rules of origin granted to Papua New Guinea concerning processed fishery products, especially canned tuna. I believe that the derogation is extremely dangerous.
This ACP country benefits from preferential access to the European market; that is, from a total exemption from all customs duties on the canned tuna that it exports to our market. I am not questioning the development policy implemented by the agreement. However, the derogation from the rules of origin on canned tuna is totally unacceptable.
This derogation allows external operators to set themselves up in Papua New Guinea, and so it benefits jobs and the local population only to a very limited extent. We must allow development aid, but fair and effective aid which benefits the regions concerned.
Community imports of tuna increased from 9 200 to 16 200 tonnes between 2008 and 2009. They doubled in just one year. This phenomenon can only get worse if this derogation is maintained. What is more, these products do not respect the same social, health and preservation standards for resources that are imposed on European products. In particular, it is impossible to verify the origin of catches.
Ladies and gentlemen, has the European Commission not taken the time to read my report on the origin of imports of fishery and aquaculture products in the European Union?
If not, the situation is hopeless. We cannot sacrifice European jobs and the quality of the products sold on the European market in this way. I do not want a situation which will have a destructive effect on the European processing industry to be introduced indefinitely.
(DE) Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, as coordinator for the Committee on Fisheries, I find the fisheries aspect of this interim agreement particularly interesting. In this regard, there were a few controversial issues at the start with regard to the relaxation of the rules of origin for Papua New Guinea. I support the Commission's idea of using this relaxation to stimulate the economy of one of the poorest countries in the world. I am convinced that this is also something that should be of concern to those of us involved in fisheries policy. At the same time, I can understand the concerns of the European industry, but I cannot honestly imagine that the relaxations granted will lead to Papua New Guinea becoming a serious competitor of our canning industry.
However, we need to be vigilant, because it will clearly not help anyone if we relocate half our canning industry to the Pacific region. In this regard, I have to say, however, that during the debate on this agreement, we have been presented with very contradictory information regarding the question of the extent to which investments are being made in Papua New Guinea and which states are profiting indirectly from the relaxation of the rules of origin. I would therefore urgently call on the Commission to closely monitor the application of this derogation and to submit a report to Parliament in a timely manner on the impact on Papua New Guinea's development and on the European canning industry. If this arrangement does not have the desired effect in Papua New Guinea and entails unacceptable losses for European companies, we will have to make a different decision when we come to negotiate the final agreement. Please keep us informed of developments.
(ES) Mr President, I would first like to clarify that I am in favour of strengthening trade links between the European Union and Papua New Guinea that promote the development of the region, but it must be sustainable development.
I sincerely believe that this agreement, as it currently stands, is not a good one. I am entirely against one clause of the agreement, which I consider to be unfair: the exemption from the rules of origin, because not only does it endanger the sustainable development of Papua New Guinea, but, as we have heard here today, it endangers a whole European industry: the canning industry. This concession should have been absolutely exceptional, and it should not have been applied in the case of Papua New Guinea. Moreover, let us not forget the serious precedent that this measure is setting, and will set, for future European Union negotiations.
In my opinion, there needed to be a much clearer and firmer resolution in this respect, stating categorically that, at the next review of the Interim Partnership Agreement, the exemption from the rules of origin will be permanently suspended. I therefore want to ask the Commission to take into account the dramatic consequences that this concession is going to have, firstly, for the European canning industry, and secondly, for the sustainability of the environment and natural resources of Papua New Guinea, and the very negative precedent being set for future negotiations. However much the Commission has said that it will not be a precedent, the pressure will be there. I therefore ask the Commission to decide to put an end to the exemption from the rules of origin as soon as possible.
Mr President, I actually came down to participate in the next debate but I have been watching this debate from my office and I am concerned, like others who have spoken in the debate here, about the idea of flexibility on rules of origin.
In the last seven days, there was a programme on British television, part of a whole Channel Four series about the fishing industry, in which, I am afraid, the European Union's fisheries policy came in for severe criticism, and we are getting lots of e-mails from concerned citizens.
This specific issue did not arise, but I would just like to stand up and support those colleagues who have expressed huge concern about a proposal that is supposed to be positive as a development tool but, in fact, could be quite negative, not just from a European perspective, but also for the very countries we are trying to assist.
Member of the Commission. - Mr President, this was an extremely interesting debate. There is poverty in the world. We need to deal with it. One way would be the transfer of financial resources, but it is much better to give the people the opportunity to make a decent living from the work they do. The three tuna processing facilities in Papua New Guinea which are authorised to export tuna to the EU employ around 5 700 people, most of whom are women. Jobs are at stake in Papua New Guinea, which is one of the most poverty-stricken countries.
When it proposes derogations, the Commission takes due account of the risks involved and looks to create safeguards. The Commission takes the view that it is highly unlikely that Papua New Guinea's exports will cause any serious disruption to the EU's fishing and canning industry given the low volume of trade between Papua New Guinea and the EU, and Papua New Guinea's low market share in the EU tuna market of around 3% in recent years. Provisional application dates from 2008, and we have some experience with figures. It will not cause any disruption to Europe's fishing or canning industries. The development of trade flows will be further analysed in a study on the effect of the implementation of the special rules of origin for fishery products which will be prepared in 2011.
In addition, the Commission will monitor trade with PNG and will not hesitate to take appropriate measures if a serious disturbance of the EU market becomes evident. The Interim Agreement explicitly allows for the application of such measures in its Chapter 2 on trade defence instruments. There is no indication at this stage of any negative impact of Papua New Guinea's exports of fishery products on the canning industry in other ACP or GSP+ countries. This aspect will also be looked at in the study I have just mentioned.
I should like to add that, independently of any special rules of origin or preferential trade agreements, countries and companies exporting fish or fishery products to the EU will always have to comply with the regulation on illegal, unreported and unregulated fishing and with the EU's health and food safety requirements. I believe that the Commission has considered the matter very carefully before bringing this measure forward.
I shall now turn to a broader issue: the EPA in general. Trade is far from simple. As I have said, the only way to eradicate poverty is to allow growth in the developing world. It is true that regional cooperation is rather difficult at the start. It is not just trade agreements that make regional development happen. That is why we have earmarked EUR 45 million for aid for trade in the Oceania region. This is three times more than was provided for under the ninth EDF. It is only by facilitating trade flows that you can expect regional trade to take place. If we look at all developing countries, basically all trade is based on monoculture - one particular export item with a high fluctuation rate. This has a highly disruptive effect in the countries concerned.
When we talk about migratory flows, security, safety and justice in the world, we cannot just say that we do not care about it. We should care about it, and our departments have carried out an extensive study. We are proposing very decent measures which are completely in line with all the European Union's objectives.
I believe that the measure is right and that the necessary safeguards are in place in case anything goes wrong. I believe we have judged this correctly and I therefore lend my support to this agreement.
author. - Mr President, I will be brief. I find myself almost, indeed entirely, in agreement with the Commissioner on this subject.
Firstly, to repeat, it is important that we sign the interim EPA because, if we do not, existing trade preferences for Papua New Guinea and Fiji will disappear, under the WTO ruling. The interim EPA is precisely that: it is an interim arrangement, and I agree with all the colleagues who say that our objective in the long run should be a full, comprehensive EPA with all the Pacific countries, encouraging regional integration in the Pacific. But we have to take this step at the moment to ensure the continuation of preferences for the two largest countries in the Pacific region.
On fishing, the Commission has made it very clear that what we have here is an exception. This will be the only derogation. There are no other parts of the world to which we intend giving such a derogation. Why are we giving a derogation to Papua New Guinea? I will tell you: it is because Papua New Guinea is literally on the other side of the world, and the likelihood of EU fishing fleets exploiting that area extensively is limited, although they are free to do so. There is nothing to stop EU fishing fleets fishing in Papua New Guinea waters and landing their catch and getting their catch canned in Papua New Guinea - and, as has been said earlier, that would be very good for development, and indeed we should encourage it.
But the situation at present is that Chinese boats, Thai boats and boats of other Asian nationalities are fishing in Papua New Guinea's waters and landing their fish back in their own country, giving no opportunity for development in Papua New Guinea.
There is a development opportunity here in terms of providing jobs, particularly for women. We often complain that we do not do enough in our development policy to encourage downstream activity. Here, we are actually doing something positive for downstream activity. As the Commissioner has said, in order to qualify, the fish still needs to meet all the standards under the regulation on illegal, unreported and unregulated fishing. It has to meet all our sanitary and phytosanitary conditions. That is absolutely essential. The three factories in Papua New Guinea meet these standards at the moment and are providing useful jobs. If we have a sudden increase in the number of factories, and a sudden surge in imports from Papua New Guinea, then, of course, we will have to revisit the situation and potentially take action.
At the moment, however, the statistics speak for themselves. This agreement has been in place since 2008. There has been no surge. There is no threat to the European tuna industry. I have met, as rapporteur, with the leaders of the Spanish tuna industry and they themselves have said to me that there is no current threat. What they are worried about is the future. They accept that at the moment, there is no serious threat to the EU industry. So let us not exaggerate the situation. Let us not make a poor developing country pay for our preoccupation with our own self-interest.
I have received one motion for a resolution tabled in accordance with Rule 115(5) of the Rules of Procedure.
The debate is closed.
The vote will take place on Wednesday, 19 January 2011.
Written statements (Rule 149)
The Interim Partnership Agreement between the European Community and Fiji and Papua New Guinea intercedes in the complicated and complex integration process in the Pacific region. Unfortunately, it provides almost no development support for either of the two states. I would like to remind you that the military coup in Fiji in 2006 was unanimously condemned by the European Parliament, the Council and also by the Commission. With the conclusion of this trade agreement, the dictatorship that has been in place up to now will be recognised as a contracting party of sorts. The efforts of our partners in Australia, New Zealand and other countries of the region to restore democracy in Fiji will be undermined by this agreement. When I criticised the suppression of democracy by the military in Fiji in our meeting of the Committee on International Trade, the response from its representatives was: 'But we are in control!' What I regard as sheer cynicism, seems now to satisfy the demands of the Commission for the legitimacy of its fellow contracting parties. My group will vote against this agreement. I am in favour of suspending the agreement until democracy is restored in Fiji.


Calendar of part-sessions: see Minutes


Judicial training (debate)
The next item is the debate on the oral question to the Commission by Klaus-Heiner Lehne, on behalf of the Committee on Legal Affairs, on judicial training - B7-0306/2010).
Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, we called for this oral question and a parliamentary resolution to make the Commission aware of the vital importance of fostering a common judicial culture throughout Europe as part of the Stockholm Programme.
I would like to say at the outset that this is important but also that, with a view to the communication that the Commission will have to produce on future pilot projects, as already discussed, we would like to clarify some points. First of all, we would like the parliamentary consultations to start soon so that we do not get to the initial phase, when we begin to draw up an idea for these future projects, too late when the projects have already been more or less fully formulated.
I say this because we have some basic observations to make. National judges and prosecutors in individual states are now crucial pawns in the construction of Europe because, by interpreting national rights in a European light, they can lay the ground for settling disputes and regulating the daily lives of citizens. By doing so, they engender a sense of European citizenship; they engender a European sensibility in everyone who inhabits these lands. This comes about because the people are made to feel the tangible benefits of introducing European elements and hence Community law, above all, into all State laws so that our citizens can live better lives. This offers real advantages for overcoming problems that would otherwise remain unresolved.
By saying this, my aim is to turn the whole system slightly on its head. For example, we do not agree that these projects should be along the lines of Erasmus projects because the number of judges and prosecutors involved in Erasmus-style projects would be very low. This could not be otherwise due to the high costs of physical mobility in this field and the numbers would not therefore be very significant within the judiciary as a whole.
The most important question concerns the term 'familiarisation courses', which we introduced in our paper. Judges are not schoolchildren sitting behind their desks waiting to be taught a lesson. They are mature and highly professional people with little time to spare and who cannot therefore easily move around. Despite this, they hold a valuable store of knowledge and should be stimulated to pit their knowledge against the new problems of European law and European culture. This will create fertile ground for exchanges, virtual rather than physical, using technologies, the Internet and the various opportunities such exchanges can create. Their starting point should be not so much a general approach but rather the individual cases, the individual problems that judges and prosecutors have to deal with. The cases and problems are new and must stimulate the professional growth of these legal operators, providing them with the stimulus they need to make an effective contribution, based on autobiographical reflection on their experience and what they have learned, to respond to the challenges represented by Europe in positive terms.
As you see, Mr President, Commissioner, we intend to break with the tradition of the courses that have been held so far and that we feel are not really fit for purpose. We would like to know how much and what funds are available and express our doubts over the idea - as we stated in our communication - of a Central European institution to oversee this process because we are in favour of a bottom-up movement and against centralisation.
This is a new approach. What we wish to point out, however, is that unless we shape a European mentality among judges and prosecutors, who will, in this way, offer their services to justice and the citizens who call for it, we will not make Europe. This is therefore not only an important charter for European justice; it is an important charter for the development of European unity as a whole.
Member of the Commission. - Mr President, on behalf of the Commission, I thank you for the question that has been put to us. I am very pleased to engage in dialogue on this question with the European Parliament. The Commission is working at improving access to European judicial training, not only for judges and prosecutors, but also for all other legal professions. We consider contacts with all networks and representative organisations to be of the utmost importance. Member States are also of major importance since they have the overall responsibility for training of judges, prosecutors and court staff.
The Commission is currently assessing what financial means would be necessary to implement European judicial training and exchanges on a larger scale and some proposals could be presented, or actually are going to be presented, for the new financial perspective.
In the meantime, it is important to do more and better with the available means, with what we have now. We have already taken steps to ensure that European judicial training is better taken into consideration in the 2011 financial programmes.
However, I would like to underline that, for several years, stakeholders have been encouraged to present more training projects in response to calls for proposals, but results have been disappointing: only a limited number of good quality projects on judicial training were received and the Commission regrets, in particular, that very few quality projects have been presented on training of court staff, bailiffs, notaries or legal interpreters.
The Commission services are already working on developing proof of concept projects for exchanges between legal practitioners. We are not developing any pilot project this year under Article 49(6)a of the Financial Regulation.
Feasibility studies are necessary to help the Commission define which features should be common to all legal professions and which ones should take into consideration organisational aspects specific to one particular legal profession.
To develop a common judicial culture, the Commission is keen to encourage European networks, stakeholders and Member States to organise common activities on comparative law and approximation of law, which might eventually come under the umbrella of a European Law Institute, as indicated in the Commission's Action Plan.
Contacts with stakeholders have shown that there is a need to better structure European judicial training and they have framed a number of questions that the Commission is focused on now. Questions like the following: What type of activities are we talking about when we consider European judicial training? What tools do we have to assess the impact training has at European level? How do we assess the level of quality? How can we reuse good practices, and transfer know-how? How can we allow legal practitioners to be trained not only in EU law or comparative law, but also in the skills necessary to work in a European area of justice, such as knowledge of other languages, understanding of cross-border banking and similar issues? How can we achieve a European training scheme which focuses on the needs of our citizens?
We would like to use the feedback from European judicial training activities to assess the quality of EU legislation in our ongoing efforts for better regulation.
These are some of the aspects on which the Commission is working and they will be the basis of the communication the Commission will be presenting in 2011. And in this communication, there will, of course, be a funding proposal and the Commission has a higher level of ambition with regard to funding than we currently have available. We welcome opportunities to further discuss European judicial training and will engage with Parliament on this important matter.
The principle of mutual recognition, which is a fundamental one, requires mutual trust, and trust in the legal systems of other countries. These values can only come from mutual recognition and understanding, which will then give rise to a European judicial culture. Mutual acquaintance and understanding can themselves only come about as a result of activating policy to foster them, including exchange of experience, visits, sharing information, and, above all, training for lawyers and people working in the justice system - especially judges in courts of first instance - and thorough modernisation of university education programmes. In order to continue establishing a European judicial culture, an active role must be played by European networks set up in individual sectors of the judicial system.
In the context of the effectiveness of training for people working in the justice system, it is essential to emphasise the significance of the multilingual e-Justice portal. The portal should have access to legal databases and to judicial and non-judicial electronic means of appeal. It should also give access to smart systems developed as aids to citizens who are seeking ways to resolve legal problems or who are using extensive registers, lists of people working in the justice system and simple guides to the legal system of each Member State.
The European Parliament should participate fully in the development and approval of the principles of training for people working in the justice system, in particular, the pilot projects envisaged in the Commission's Action Plan pursuant to Articles 81 and 82 of the treaty.
It is also very important that the European Commission should consult Parliament on separate plans to open an institute based on existing structures and networks of cooperation, in particular, the European Judicial Training Network and the Academy of European Law. Suitable training for people working in the justice system and establishment of a European judicial culture can accelerate court proceedings in cross-border cases and, in this way, can contribute significantly to improving the function of the internal market, both for businesspeople and for citizens, and to giving citizens easier access to the justice system.
Mr President, I am now working in my second term on the Committee on Legal Affairs of the European Parliament, and am very well aware of the importance of the subject of today's debate. Creating a European legal space, which has been our ambition for years, is not possible without suitably trained lawyers and judges. The role of national judges in ensuring that European law is observed cannot be overestimated. Let us remember that it is the national judges who are able to refer a question to the European Court of Justice requesting interpretation of EU law in cases where there is a suspicion that it has been broken at national level. It is, therefore, obvious that judges must have a perfect knowledge of EU law. It is not always like this, today. EU law, despite its formal precedence over national law, is not well known and is sometimes even seen as a necessary evil.
I fully support the proposals concerning the training of judges, which call for, among other things, strengthening of the structures which are involved in this training, namely the Academy of European Law and the European Judicial Training Network. I also think that such training should enjoy greater financial support from the Union and that this should be taken into consideration during the negotiations on the Financial Framework for 2014-2020 which are just beginning.
on behalf of the ALDE Group. - Mr President, we, the few of us left in this room from the Committee on Legal Affairs, are all very keen on the Stockholm Programme, but there is no point in us sitting in this place or in Brussels and passing new laws if our judges in the Member States do not know that law and are not proficient in interpreting it on behalf of our citizens.
Frankly, the situation at the moment is not good. We ask a lot of our national judges. They have to know their national law, their European law, we expect them to know foreign law - all the laws of our 27 Member States - to know languages, and to have a comparative knowledge of various legal systems. To achieve all that takes time - probably several lifetimes - and money.
It is going to be difficult to achieve this with our current judges, with the best will in the world. They have to find time and space to do this. We can try to do our best through various linkages, exchange programmes and continuing education. But the Member States also have to help us.
But I want to look to the future, because it is the young law students of today who will be the judges of tomorrow, and there we have to concentrate on getting the legal education of today right for the judges of the future in a European judicial space.
The basic precondition for a well-functioning European judicial space is the principle of mutual recognition of judgments, respecting the different legal traditions and methods of the countries, operating on the basis of mutual trust between judges, people in the legal professions and citizens.
Differences between the judicial systems of the various Member States should, in no case, undermine the legal certainty of our citizens or interfere with their right to a fair and competent adjudication of their problems. It is therefore very important to create the best possible conditions for expanding European judicial training.
In the interests of better understanding of the interdependence of the European and national legal environments, the European Union must also put greater effort into creating a network of accredited institutions for the professional training of lawyers, which will be able to provide professional tuition and courses for lawyers and judges on the specifics of domestic, comparative and European law, and on their mutual connections. These investments into improving the quality of the judicial and legal environment of the European Union must be seen as essential costs for achieving the highly important common objective of increasing satisfaction and legal certainty for all our citizens.
(SV) Mr President, our task is to build a Europe of the future together, based on common values, mutual trust and respect for the differences that make up our combined strength. These values cannot be legislated for, decided on or demanded. They can only be developed in reciprocal meetings between people. It is extremely important for the men and women working in the legal profession in our Member States to have the opportunity to meet, discuss and learn from each other. It is in these meetings that understanding and respect for our differences grows and knowledge can be gained that can strengthen our respective traditions.
We need to strengthen the learning and dialogue between European citizens and we will do that by creating arenas that provide the opportunity for development and growth among people who have devoted their lives to the legal systems in our Member States. Like others, I would emphasise the need for forceful action and am expecting a great deal from the Commission when it comes to bringing to the fore this important area for the common good of us all.
Member of the Commission. - The points that have been made here very much align with the intention of the Commission to pursue, as much as possible, networking that would allow the profession to thrive on the skills and capabilities of the best and the brightest within it, but also to provide the platform for training at national, regional and European level in the engagement of active networks such as the Academy of European Law, the European Judicial Training Network and the European Institute of Public Administration.
Secondly, there was a very important point made on focusing on the future. This is something that the Commission very much agrees with. The question is how to implement it, as the training programmes evolve in 2011, but also with the new communication being put in place for the next financial perspective.
Thirdly, if I could just make one very specific point. It is my pleasure to inform Parliament that an EU justice portal will be launched on 16 July, because we should not wait until we have the new communication. We should use the means available to us. After all, it is about better implementation of European law, but it is also about increasing the trust of citizens in the law so they can actually rely on the collective advancements that, in the end, have to benefit them, our citizens.
So let me stop here. Mr President, this is your first time in the Chair in your new position. You are doing extremely well. We started exactly five minutes after nine and we seem to be able to finish five minutes before the end of the session, before 12. Congratulations, and I wish you in your future chairmanship to be as organised as you have been tonight.
I have received one motion for a resolution tabled in accordance with Rule 115(5) of the Rules of Procedure.
The debate is closed.
The vote will take place on Thursday, 17 June 2010.


1. Mobilisation of the EU Solidarity Fund: Portugal - floods; France - Xynthia (storm) (


38. Community framework for nuclear safety (


9. Credit requirements directives: Directives 2006/48/EC and 2006/49/EC (
on behalf of the PSE Group. - (DE) Madam President, this report was strongly disputed in several Groups and, to guarantee the fairness of the vote, I would ask you to give me the floor before the vote on Recital 3 so that I can give my opinion on the voting order.
Madam President, the report presents different ideas on how to regulate core capital and Amendments 91 and 92 go somewhat further in that they present a clearer and more precise definition of core capital, which will make less work for us in future. I therefore request that they be voted on first and that Amendment 89 to Recital 3 is then voted on. I hope that my fellow Members agree and I also ask you to accept that the vote on Amendment 89 to Recital 3 be taken by roll-call vote.
Madam President, I should like to point out that we made it quite clear in the debate that the amendments are clearly taken into account in the compromise in a sufficiently detailed form. I therefore request that we keep to this order. I have no objection to a roll-call vote.


Voting time
The next item is the vote.
(For outcome of the vote and other details: see Minutes)


Composition of committees: see Minutes


Documents received: see Minutes


9. Protocol to the EC/Switzerland Agreement for establishing the State responsible for examining asylum requests (


Membership of Parliament: see Minutes


Transfers of appropriations: see Minutes


Decision on urgent procedure
Amended Proposal for a Decision of the European Parliament and of the Council establishing for the period 2007-2013 the specific programme 'Fight against violence (Daphne) and drugs prevention and information' as part of the General programme 'Fundamental Rights and Justice' - C6 0095/2005 -
Proposal for a Council Decision establishing for the period 2007-2013 the specific programme 'Fundamental rights and citizenship' as part of the general programme 'Fundamental Rights and Justice' - C6-0236/2005 -
Proposal for a Council Decision establishing for the period 2007-2013 the specific programme 'Criminal justice' as part of the general programme 'Fundamental Rights and Justice' - C6-0237/2005 -
Proposal for a Decision of the European Parliament and of the Council establishing for the period 2007-2013 the specific programme 'Civil justice' as part of the general programme 'Fundamental Rights and Justice' - C6-0096/2005 -
Proposal for a Decision of the European Parliament and the Council establishing the European Refugee Fund for the period 2008-2013 as part of the General programme 'Solidarity and Management of Migration Flows' - C6-0124/2005 -
Proposal for a Decision of the European Parliament and the Council establishing the External Borders Fund for the period 2007-2013 as part of the general programme 'Solidarity and Management of Migration Flows' - C6-0125/2005 -
Proposal for a Decision of the European Parliament and the Council establishing the European Refugee Fund for the period 2007-2013 as part of the general programme 'Solidarity and Management of Migration Flows' - C6-0238/2005 -
Proposal for a Decision of the European Parliament and the Council establishing the European Return Fund for the period 2008-2013 as part of the general programme 'Solidarity and Management of Migration Flows' - C6-0126/2005 -
Proposal for a Council Decision establishing the specific Programme 'Prevention, Preparedness and Consequence Management of Terrorism', for the Period 2007-2013 - General Programme 'Security and Safeguarding Liberties' - C6-0241/2005 -
Proposal for a Council Decision establishing the specific programme 'Prevention of and Fight against Crime' for the Period 2007-2013 - General Programme 'Security and Safeguarding Liberties' - C6-0242/2005 -
Mr President, the Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs has already presented to plenary the reports by Mrs Kudrycka, Mrs Segelström and Mr La Russa on the legislative proposals for which the Commission requests use of the urgency procedure. We believe that, from a political point of view, the compromise that we have been able to achieve with the other institutions is acceptable, and we are therefore in favour of plenary adopting these reports during this part-session.
on behalf of the PPE-DE Group. - (DE) Mr President, I would like to say - speaking on behalf of the Group of the European People's Party (Christian Democrats) and European Democrats - that we are in full agreement with that, and I think that the Members belonging to the other groups in this House will be able to give their consent too.
(Parliament adopted the urgent procedure)


Forwarding of texts adopted during the sitting: see Minutes