18. European Judicial Network in civil and commercial matters (


3. Industrial emissions (integrated pollution prevention and control) (recast) (


Petitions: see Minutes


Dates for next sittings: see Minutes


Closure of the sitting
(The sitting was closed at 11.20 p.m.)


Protection of pedestrians and other vulnerable road users (debate)
The next item is the report by Francesco Ferrari, on behalf of the Committee on Transport and Tourism, on the proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on the protection of pedestrians and other vulnerable road users - C6-0331/2007 -.
Vice-President of the Commission. - (DE) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, according to the statistics before the Commission, more than 8 000 people are killed each year on the roads in the European Union and 300 000 are injured. This is an intolerable situation and that is the reason why we have spent the last few years working hard to ensure greater safety on the roads.
Several years ago, the European Parliament accepted a proposal for a Directive relating to the protection of pedestrians, which was then adopted in 2003. This was one of the first regulations in the world that related specifically to pedestrian protection. This legislation required manufacturers to ensure that new vehicles were less dangerous to pedestrians and to prove this in relevant tests. Since then, due not least to pressure from the European Parliament, legal provisions have been issued to counteract the hazard to road users by frontal protection systems on motor vehicles. The existing legal provisions on pedestrian protection acknowledge that, in certain circumstances, it can be difficult to fulfil the requirements laid down in them.
The Commission has taken on the task of examining the extent to which it is possible to satisfy these requirements and the possibility of using new, active safety systems. The Commission has commissioned a study, the results of which you are aware, and this study confirms the assumption that, indeed, not all of the requirements can be met and that, on the other hand, active security systems are suited to improving pedestrian protection. Based on this information, the Commission has presented the proposal that is before you today - a combination of passive safety systems and a Brake Assist system, the installation of which will be made mandatory. This will achieve an even higher level of safety.
The Commission estimates that this proposal will lead to approximately 1 000 fewer deaths on our roads every year. Naturally, the Commission will continue to work towards implementing similar regulations at international level, even after the proposal is accepted. Allow me to mention some of the key elements of the proposal: the regulation proposed by the Commission lays down requirements for passive safety that can indeed be met and makes it obligatory for vehicles to be equipped with an active safety system, known as the Brake Assist system. In addition, provisions on pedestrian protection will now also apply to off-road vehicles, also known as SUVs. This combination will improve the safety of vulnerable road users considerably.
The regulation brings together the tests required to prove adequate pedestrian protection by vehicles and frontal protection systems. The requirements to be met in the tests are laid down in this regulation as implementing measures. Essential aspects of the proposal include the use of active systems which, in the Commission's view, can provide considerable safety gains both now and in the future, and the abolition of the weight restriction for passenger cars and light commercial vehicles, to which the regulation will also apply.
At this point I would like to convey my special thanks to your rapporteur, Mr Ferrari, for his efforts to achieve mutual agreement on the review and acceptance of the proposal. That is what made it possible to achieve consensus on this proposal. Mr Ferrari's report supports the Commission proposal, for which I am very thankful, and the amendments he suggested will indeed assist in further clarifying certain points. Mr Ferrari, you propose continuing to observe and monitor the use and improvement of passive safety systems and the potential use of new active safety systems and then, if necessary, suggesting amendments to existing legal provisions. The Commission is more than willing to do this, and will indeed do so. Other amendments are designed to ensure that, on the one hand, the requirements of the regulation apply to the relevant vehicles as soon as possible and, on the other hand, to allow manufacturers sufficient time to implement the necessary changes to construction methods. For a large number of European vehicle manufacturers, the new provisions mean that significant changes must be made to the design of their vehicles, necessitating major construction changes.
I am delighted to be able to tell you that the Commission finds all the amendments proposed in Mr Ferrari's report acceptable. As far as the significance of the regulation for improving road safety and the planned schedule for the introduction of the tests specified in the regulation are concerned, the Commission is sure that the proposal can now be adopted at first reading.
Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, we have reached the end point of this Regulation on the protection of pedestrians and other vulnerable road users. The aim of the Regulation is to change the safety requirements for pedestrians and other vulnerable road users in the event of injuries resulting from a collision with a motor vehicle.
The scope of the Regulation is significant because it has incorporated two previous directives, one from 2003 and the other from 2005. The first directive set out the safety requirements that cars had to have, to be implemented in two phases. The first phase was launched in 2005, while it turned out that the requirements of phase two were not fully feasible from the technical viewpoint for all vehicles. The second directive relates to the use of frontal protection systems on vehicles and indicates various levels of protection for vulnerable road users in the event of a collision with vehicles equipped with such systems. Among the most sensitive points, I would like to mention ABS, the brake assist system: this is a system that will make it possible to reduce deaths on the roads by 35%.
The greatest victory, though, has probably been succeeding in making the instrument applicable within 24 months of the Regulation's entry into force to all categories of car, from small cars to SUVs and to vehicles of a larger size which often, because of their large weights, are the ones that cause the most physical damage to citizens. It was not easy at first, partly because the car industry needs time, in industrial and physiological terms, to apply certain measures. I am, however, happy that all the parties understood the issue and its delicacy and I appreciate the efforts made to put this system into practice.
A second aspect of the Regulation was frontal protection systems. The 2005 Directive, in fact, will be incorporated through this regulation, and thus cars that decide to install 'bull bars' will not obtain approval if the safety requirements for frontal protection systems do not provide the same level of safety as that laid down for vehicles without frontal protection systems.
I realise, in any event, that while we have certainly accomplished a significant amount, there is still much more that could be done, and in particular research will always go further in the direction of increasing safety for pedestrians and vulnerable road users. I have also felt the need to leave a door open for improvements to this text. I am referring particularly to collision avoidance systems. Currently there are no effective structural systems for pedestrian safety on the market, but some years hence they may be developed. This is why the text stipulates that if, five years following entry into force of this Regulation - as the Commissioner said - the industry were able to present passive safety systems of a type that could guarantee pedestrian safety, the Commission would have to put forward a new text to Parliament and the Council, taking technical developments into account.
The issue of safety is a very important one to the people of Europe and I have personally undertaken to send a strong message to all the citizens of the European Union. It is the delicacy of the issue that has led me to ensure that the Regulation will be adopted at first reading, to avoid a second reading with the Council, the only effect of which would have been an excessive delay in the date of entry into force of the regulation. This position was shared by my colleagues on the Committee on Transport and Tourism. All the amendments tabled were designed, first and foremost, to protect pedestrians and vulnerable road users. I therefore hope that this Regulation will be the first strong signal from the European Parliament of an increasingly rigorous approach to safety regulation on Europe's roads, demonstrating that Europe is united, alive to the issues and in tune with the concerns of its citizens.
on behalf of the PPE-DE Group. - (CS) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on the protection of pedestrians aims to minimise the effects of collisions between pedestrians and motor vehicles. In my opinion, the Regulation goes too far. It sets requirements for the construction and functioning of motor vehicles, including frontal protection systems. Requirements for manufacturers are nearing the limits established by the laws of physics, the construction of the human body, a sensible compromise between the protection of vehicle passengers and pedestrians, and by other motor vehicle construction parameters. This puts motor vehicle manufacturers under enormous pressure. We must remember that compliance with the requirements as defined in the Regulation will result in high costs for the manufacturers and logically will then be reflected in car prices. It will have a negative impact on the vehicle mass, on vehicles' aerodynamic properties and, consequently, on fuel consumption and ipso facto on the environment. On the other hand it will lessen the consequences of collisions between pedestrians and motor vehicles.
Introducing intelligent systems that prevent collisions and minimise their consequences has the greatest potential for improving pedestrian safety. Improving road infrastructure and, where possible, separating pedestrians from road traffic also seem to be effective solutions. We can rightly assume that money spent in this way will be more effective than imposing yet stricter requirements on cars.
on behalf of the PSE Group. - (NL) Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I should like to start by thanking the rapporteur, Mr Ferrari, on behalf of my group for his excellent, constructive cooperation, including with my colleague Mrs Ayala Sender, who was unable to join us here this evening. I wish to thank him in particular for having succeeded in bringing the Commission and Council together and ensuring that we have been able to incorporate a set of amendments by Parliament at first reading that further improves the text. This is an important dossier that, being very technical, may not make the headlines, but will help prevent the loss of a great many human lives and the resulting family tragedies. Last year, a staggering 43 000 people lost their lives on Europe's roads and, as the Commissioner has already said, 8 000 of them were pedestrians, vulnerable road users.
As we all know, preventing this requires a combination of a great many measures. Changes in driver behaviour are needed - that goes without saying - but it has also been proven that technical innovations and all manner of rules also have an important role to play in preventing major accidents. The vehicle's design can make a big difference in the event of an accident: the bumpers, the whole design of the vehicle front end, the bonnet and so on. Under this regulation, design engineers will have to comply with stricter standards and to prove this compliance through various crash tests.
The main innovation of the proposal is that, besides the choice of materials and the rules governing this, it also works on active safety, namely by making Brake Assist systems compulsory from next year or thereabouts. This is another important innovation.
One thing that is essential as far as our group is concerned is that this also be applied to vans, that it be phased in. We think that this is a good deal, therefore. We are not yet at the end of the road - we expect to see even more rules in the coming years to the benefit of human safety, and for these, too, you can count on our support.
on behalf of the ALDE Group. - Mr President, congratulations to the rapporteur on his excellent report. As already mentioned, many thousands of pedestrians and cyclists are killed or injured every year on the roads of the EU. Our aim as MEPs is to help reduce these numbers as much as possible.
One way of trying to do so is to alter the technical specifications of motor vehicles. Some of these - for example, frontal protection and brake assist systems - have been considered in this report, but one of the most important of all life-saving vehicle specifications is not given attention: this is a speed limiter. Such a system would limit the maximum speed of a car to the maximum permissible speed in any given country. This limit, in most EU Member States, is 100 km/h on the motorway, and 50 km/h in built-up areas.
Through relatively simple and cheap electronic gadgetry, it would be a straightforward matter to fit vehicles with a device which would ensure that these limits are not exceeded on the motorway or in town. Such speed limitation would probably prevent a third of all deaths of pedestrians and cyclists. Such a speed limiter could also be adjusted to control the rate of acceleration of vehicles, and this would save even more lives.
We must ask ourselves how necessary and wise it is for our vehicles to be able to accelerate from 0 to 100 km/h in five or six seconds, and how important and legal it is for our vehicles to be capable of doing more than 200 km/h, if the relevant speed limit is only 100 km/h?
I can understand how a rapporteur with the name 'Ferrari' would find it difficult to agree with me on car speed reductions, but the real truth is that speed kills road users in excessive numbers, and at some point we, as law-makers, will have to make up our minds on the following. What is most important: fancy fast cars and speed-enthused drivers, or saving thousands of human lives?
Mr President, I do not think that Mr Ferrari has been the worst in this connection. As a matter of fact, my experience has been one of very constructive cooperation with someone who did not give the impression of being under the thumb of the automobile industry. We should of course have preferred to see a report that went even further in its endeavours to protect pedestrians and other vulnerable road users against cars, and the ideal scenario would have been to get many more drivers using public transport or bicycles. Nevertheless, since this goal lies so far in the future, we are pleased to have done something about car equipment. As many have mentioned, it is to be welcomed in this respect that the legislation is now to cover heavier vehicles, so that stricter requirements on car equipment will counter the trend towards ever larger cars.
I should also like to commend the rapporteur on pressing for BAS - Break Assist systems - to be made standard in cars without delay, to help drivers stop in time. It is also to be welcomed that requirements on the design of car front ends have been imposed, so that any collision with a vulnerable living human being does as little harm as possible to the unlucky person. However, we need to go down to 40 km/h for this to make sense. The requirements on this should have been even stricter, as should the time limit. After all, there are already products on the market that offer significantly better protection for pedestrians without jeopardising the safety of drivers or passengers.
It is not the rapporteur's fault that this has been progressing so slowly. There is much to indicate that there has been another case of lobbying by the German automobile industry, in particular, which these days is at the most reactionary end of the scale compared with the rest of European industry. It is depressing if this is the reason why we have again ended up with a proposal that falls short of our wishes, by which I mean the wish for fewer deaths and injuries on the roads. Why are we simply taking the automobile industry's word for it - and we have just heard this again - that the technology is not yet sufficiently advanced? It is! I very much hope that my fellow Members will now at least vote in favour of Amendment 25.
on behalf of the UEN Group. - (GA) Mr President, road deaths are reported in the media on a daily basis. Car accidents, pedestrians struck by cars on the roads - each death a tragedy in its own right, then at the end of the year these deaths become statistics. It is our responsibility, both Member States and the Union, to try to reduce those statistics and to protect our citizens from such tragedies.
Deaths on the road can be prevented, and I would like to congratulate Mr Ferrari on his excellent report and commend the cooperation that exists between the Council, Parliament and the Commission on this issue.
The title of the proposal refers to vulnerable road users and those who suffer the most. First of all, pedestrians are often the innocent parties in accidents involving vehicles, yet they end up suffering most. In my own country, Ireland, it was shown recently that it is more likely for an elderly person to die from a road accident than it is for those who are under the age of 65. Ireland, of course, is no exception. More than 8,000 people die from accidents on European roads each year.
Proposals to protect the vulnerable have been made in recent years and although the situation has improved, it is worth noting that tragic consequences will ensue from policymakers shirking their responsibilities.
I mentioned the invaluable cooperation between the European institutions in drawing up this report. For this cooperation to blossom Member States will have to work hand in hand and the national authorities must engage with road users. The responsibility lies with us, as legislators, and we must stand together if we are to achieve our target.
on behalf of the GUE/NGL Group. - (NL) Mr President, the car has of course been steadily gaining ground for a long time now. In towns and cities, areas that used to be the domain of pedestrians, children playing, trees, parks, gardens or free-standing tram tracks were converted into space for cars between 1950 and 1980. Even country roads have been widened or supplemented with wide transit motorways. Public transport, on the other hand, has become more expensive, whilst routes and frequencies have been cut. Even the construction of underground rail networks has by no means always been aimed at faster public transport with more room for large numbers of passengers; it has been more a case of making room for cars on the roads above the underground rail tunnels.
The location of their workplace and the lack of alternative modes of transport means that many people are now condemned to travel by car. This takes up a great deal of space and energy, harms air quality and causes an unnecessary amount of noise. Primarily, however, it is a danger to pedestrians and cyclists, who have to share scarce public space with cars.
When we in this Parliament talk about measures to protect pedestrians and other vulnerable road users, for the most part we are not referring to alternatives to cars, sadly, but rather how to design these so as to limit the harm caused in the event of a collision. For years we have been focusing our discussions here on headlights, brake systems and vehicle front ends capable of injuring pedestrians. The European Commission is now proposing to replace the 2003 and 2005 Directives, which required Member States to incorporate better safety measures into national legislation, with a regulation by means of which the European Union directly imposes its own legislation. The choice of a regulation is a quick way of offering the most safety and uniformity for automotive engineering companies, but is not without disadvantages. For example, we are pushing democratic considerations within Member States further into the background. In addition, this regulation would not enter into force until 2014, and in the case of phase II would be more moderate than the provisions of the existing Directive.
I support the aim of the rapporteur, Mr Ferrari, to introduce safety measures as quickly as possible. My group can endorse this modest improvement, as every little helps, but more is required to bring about genuine safety. Combating a further increase in the number of cars and reducing the number if possible would be the best contribution to safety.
on behalf of the IND/DEM Group. - (NL) Mr President, the report by Mr Ferrari concerns the protection of pedestrians and other vulnerable road users. I am pleased that Mr Ferrari has succeeded in reaching an agreement with the Council at first reading. I wish to thank him for his work and compliment him on his sound report.
I should like to make a couple of comments, however. Let me begin by saying that the protection of pedestrians and other vulnerable road users is a matter close to my heart. As you know, in my country, the Netherlands, the more vulnerable road users constitute a large proportion of the total number of road users; this proportion is particularly large in commuter and school traffic. Recreational walking and cycling is also growing in importance. These walkers and cyclists are very valuable to our society. This is because walking and cycling are extremely environmentally friendly modes of transport and, in addition, cycling and walking are very beneficial to the health of citizens, provided that the air quality is good.
Many of the car journeys undertaken in European towns and cities are shorter than five kilometres. It is important, therefore, to encourage citizens to opt for clean, healthy modes of transport where they, as more vulnerable road users, would enjoy sufficient protection. After all, even though I have just praised the Netherlands because so many of its citizens cycle and walk, increasing numbers of its citizens also no longer dare let their children cycle and walk a short distance to school for fear of accidents.
However, the measures that have been included in the compromise will help reduce the frequency of accidents and the harm caused by any that do occur. For this reason, I welcome this compromise. I hope that, in any case, citizens increasingly opt to travel by bicycle and on foot in their own conurbation instead of by car.
On the other hand, we must beware of slipping into a situation in which we attempt to reduce road risks to zero, as it is impossible to exclude all risks. It is also very important to make drivers aware of their own responsibility. For all the measures that are being taken in this policy area, it should be emphasised that road users themselves remain primarily responsible for their own safety and that of their fellow road users.
I should like to conclude by saying a few words about the legislation actually proposed. I welcome the choice of a regulation instead of a directive. This makes the application of this important legislation unambiguous, which prevents differences arising between Member States once more with regard to the protection of pedestrians and other more vulnerable road users. I am also pleased that this new proposal devotes more attention than the 2003 and 2005 Directives to active safety systems. Active solutions, such as 'Brake Assist', have the advantage over passive safety systems that they also prevent a great deal of additional adverse effects of accidents, such as hold-ups, traffic jams and non-material harm, that cannot be limited by applying passive safety systems.
I wish to add as my last point that I also welcome two procedural aspects of this regulation. I support bringing forward the dates for stepping up the type-approval requirements. The safety of pedestrians and other vulnerable road users is not a subject on which we can afford to lose time. In addition, I welcome the fact that amendments to Article 11 are to be made via the codecision procedure. It is not desirable for essential amendments to be made via the comitology procedure.
(DE) Mr President, human beings do not have crumple zones. Things can happen very quickly and lead to serious injuries, as we saw just recently, in the France-Italy football match where it was immediately apparent that Franck Ribéry's leg had been broken.
Because people do not have crumple zones, we must ensure that road users with less metal are protected from those who have more. We have to equip vehicles technically in such a way that pedestrians have a chance. The present text calls for a package of passive and active safety systems. Quite rightly, we are calling for permanent updating. In fact, we also want to provide appropriate deadlines for manufacturers, so that everything can be achieved within a reasonable time.
There is one thing we must not forget, however, which does not necessarily belong in this regulation, although it relates to it, and that is psychology. We must not lead drivers and pedestrians to believe that they are safer than they really are. From this aspect, I make the case for establishing accompanying measures in other areas too. We need a comprehensive overall package, and the various legislators at both European and national level would be well advised to ensure that this feeling of safety does not ultimately come at the expense of more safety than it provides.
One final point: like others before me, I would like to thank the rapporteur, Mr Ferrari, for his excellent work. In the Committee on Transport and Tourism we reached an agreement on his proposals after a good discussion - and not only us, but apparently also the Council. All credit to Mr Ferrari, on this point at least. We have consensus at first reading, and that is a good sign. Thank you very much!
(RO) In 2007, approximately 43,000 people died in the Union and approximately 1.7 million people were injured in road accidents. Therefore, every year, the population of a small-sized European town disappears from Europe and the economic costs of these accidents amount to 200 billion Euros, which represents 2% of the Community GDP. Every year, 8,000 participants in road traffic as pedestrians or cyclists die in road accidents. Every year, other approximately 300,000 people, pedestrians or cyclists, are injured in road traffic. For this reason, I ask you to take action for the protection of these categories of participants in road traffic.
Europe must invest in research in the automotive industry, in new materials and the designing of safer vehicles, equipped with frontal protection systems and collision avoidance systems. The introduction of brake assist systems and other active safety technologies allow an improvement of the protection of vulnerable road users. Nevertheless, Europe must improve its road infrastructure as well.
This regulation has major implications because, 6 years after its coming into force, the registration, sale or entry into service of new vehicles of category N1, which do not meet the technical requirements regarding the protection of pedestrians, shall be prohibited. I consider that this regulation depends on the specific approval systems used in the Member States. I also draw attention to the importance of the education of pedestrians and cyclists. They must know and respect the traffic rules, respect the markings, and cyclists must wear protective equipment.
(PL) Mr President, Commissioner, I would like to begin by thanking Mr Ferrari and congratulating him on this report. The way this report is so broadly imbued with compromise shows that this is something the European Parliament can be proud of.
We are talking about matters that can genuinely bring people relief. We speak of statistics. How unreliable statistics are. It is not just a matter of more than a thousand human beings being lost each year, people who die in various kinds of accident. It is also a matter of tens of thousands of human beings being injured in accidents like this that happen to pedestrians and cyclists.
With our regulations we are obviously taking small steps forward, and all the time we have to bear in mind that this report is neither solving nor redeeming the problem in general. Clearly we must look for various instruments; we must look for instruments relating to the highway code, for instruments relating to driving speeds, for instruments relating to traffic lanes, to make them as safe as possible. I want to make it very clear, however, that Mr Ferrari's report is not only heading in the right direction, but is a very significant achievement that we shall be able to present in our Member States; we shall be able to present it to our voters as something concrete to which the European Parliament is giving its attention and in which reality is being changed for the better and for people's benefit.
Naturally, I understand and am in a position to share arguments concerning industry, concerning impositions, but let us not forget that our European Union is such a large body that we must set a certain standard, a standard that from an economic aspect we set against the size of the market, against the fact that this market is so receptive and so large.
Finally, I would like to make it clear that the matter of protecting pedestrians and cyclists is one that is important not just for urban areas. In very many countries, like Poland, this is also a matter for rural areas, where each day there are a great many movements of individuals in areas next to highways. Mr Ferrari's report is very good in this regard, too, and marks further progress along the road.
(DE) Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, mobility is a fundamental right of every individual. It is also the foundation of economic, cultural, social and ecological dynamism in a society. However, it does not become a blessing until it minimises danger to life and health for all road users. Better protection of pedestrians and other vulnerable road users has not lost anything in topicality in the last decade. Traffic density has increased appreciably, but the number of accidents and the seriousness of injuries to pedestrians and other vulnerable road users in collisions with the front section of vehicles both with and without frontal protection systems decreased over the same period, albeit not to the desired extent.
I very much welcome a regulation to extend the efforts of vehicle manufacturers to improve passive measures for pedestrian protection - for which, my particular thanks - by using active vehicle components. Brake Assist systems are capable of resolving conflicts in connection with goals relating to energy, the environment and safety. The Brake Assist systems currently available will bring with them a major boost to accident prevention. Developing them further technically and combining them with information and communications technologies will open up even further potential. It seems the 'intelligent car' is just around the corner.
Be warned, however: we can call for as many good safety measures for vehicles as we like, but if Joe and Josephine Citizen cannot afford a new, safe vehicle, then we have achieved nothing, absolutely nothing! Already the average age of our vehicles is more than 10 years old. Young people in particular are finding that new, safe vehicles are further and further out of reach. Yet that is what we want, is it not?
(HU) Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, as responsible decision-makers we must be aware that every measure has an effect that goes beyond the area it was intended to target and may even be contradictory to what it was supposed to achieve. In the interests of protecting the environment, we have popularised cycling and the use of public transport, but have we given any thought to ourselves, the people? Pedestrians and cyclists are defenceless and often threatened by vehicles. In Europe every year some 8 000 vulnerable road users die, and another 300 000 are injured. I would therefore like to thank my fellow Member Mr Ferrari for his work. His report is clearly aimed at decisively reinforcing the Commission proposal. It is my conviction that efforts to reduce traffic accidents would be enhanced by reducing the time allocated for preparing for the introduction of the package of measures contained in the proposed regulation to strengthen active safety systems. Development of effective collision avoidance systems could also help to further enhance protection of pedestrians. I agree with Mr Koch that such systems would of course also have to be suitably inexpensive and affordable. In addition to continuously improving active safety technologies, manufacturers must also devote ongoing attention to developing passive safety measures, since both are needed in order to achieve the goals that have been set out. I believe it is important to ensure that we are constantly able to assess changes in the technology options we apply against changes in technology. Thank you very much.
(BG) Mr. President, Mr. Commissioner, colleagues, I welcome the efforts of European institutions to reduce road accidents and casualties.
The number of those killed or injured is a huge humanitarian, health, financial, social and demographic issue, and the cost involved in this tragedy has a variety of negative implications for quality of life, sustainable development and, last but not least, global warming. That is why I take the liberty to encourage you in initiating more stringent measures and legislation to extend the scope of existing standards and implement best European practices so that they become binding on all Member States. I suggest a standard approach to monitoring, control and sanctions throughout the European Union, and above all a targeted policy to encourage Member States to contain the level of accident casualties so that it would not significantly exceed the EU average. I am confident that in the future our common policy concerning roads in the European Union will improve the quality of road control and monitoring.
(SK) Statistics show that every year as many as 8 000 pedestrians and cyclists are killed and 300 000 are injured on our roads. These alarming numbers show how important it is to implement a more effective and strict regulation in order to lower the number of deaths of, and injuries to, pedestrians and other road users.
I endorse the rapporteur's requirement for the timetable for the implementation of the new regulation to be shorter than that proposed by the Commission. There is, for example, the estimated 33 months lead-time for the implementation of BAS (Brake Assist System) for cars, although the implementation process is really fairly simple.
I also agree with the view that it is important to monitor constantly the technical possibilities in the area of safety, with the aim of further increasing the safety of pedestrians and especially cyclists. Last but not least, I am convinced that limiting car traffic in town centres and the use of public transport and bicycles are important indirect ways in which each of us can contribute towards the safety of pedestrians on our roads.
(NL) Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, this may be a very technical affair, but it is a very important one. It really puts the Union on the map. It makes it clear that the EU is truly important. I very much welcome the combination of the 2005 Directive on frontal protection systems and the 2003 Directive on the protection of pedestrians and other vulnerable road users into a single regulation. In that sense, I do not understand the comment by Mr Meijer of the Confederal Group of the European United Left/Nordic Green Left.
I must say that I have taken the floor here in this debate because this subject is very close to my heart: in 2003 I was draftsman of the opinion of the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Food Safety on the 2003 Directive, for which Mr Vermeer was rapporteur. I am delighted with the report and with Mr Ferrari's proposals. I am also particularly pleased with the choice of active systems, with the choice of ABS. I endorse Mr El Khadraoui's remark that this must also apply to vans. Let us be fair: this legislation will mean we can soon ensure a substantial reduction in the number of tragedies befalling European families.
Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, firstly, just to clarify, sadly, many more than 8 000 people die each year on our roads. The figure of 8 000 relates to road fatalities in the most vulnerable group: pedestrians and cyclists. Furthermore, it relates to the year 2004 and applies to the EU-25. Therefore, the real number is higher.
Secondly, I agree with those who say that a lot more could be done to protect this most vulnerable group, by taking measures in the area of traffic management, road safety, road infrastructure and road rules. The Commission agrees wholeheartedly and supports this too. However, at this point we are talking about the technical possibilities offered by the vehicles themselves.
Thirdly, therefore, in the high-level 'CARS 21' group (Competitive Automotive Regulatory System for the 21st century), which discussed the future of the European automotive industry and made recommendations, there was complete clarity regarding the fact that, in the long term, the European automotive industry can be successful only if it offers not only the best and cleanest cars in the world in technical terms, but also the safest cars. Therefore, the measures that we are agreeing on today have the support of European vehicle manufacturers.
Finally, I agree with those who say that this is not the last word on the matter. We must keep a close eye on technical possibilities. I myself have already seen the technology of the future in development and have even been able to test it in some vehicles. These new technical possibilities such as automatic distance control and automatic obstacle recognition are already available in some top-of-the-range vehicles. However, they are not available to the majority.
Nevertheless, we can already see where this is all leading and that we will be able to talk about the next steps in a few years' time. Thank you for the broad support that the Commission proposal has found in this Chamber. I believe we are truly making a very useful and important contribution to road safety in Europe.
Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, first of all I would like to thank the speakers, partly because I believe that this is a job that we have accomplished together and I think that it demonstrates the validity that both Parliament and, in particular, the Commission, have together been able to impart to a proposal that is, in my view, in the current times, quite significant and important.
This is also because the major problem - I wanted to reply to the first speaker - is not an increase in the weight of cars, as improvements are made to them. In fact, for years cars have been becoming less heavy, and this is partly because technology, science and research have brought us this system.
I also believe that the most important point is that 80% of fatal accidents occur in towns and cities, that is to say, at 35, 40 or 50 kilometres per hour. This means that the problem is not only on the motorways with vehicles travelling at high speed, the problem is that so many deaths of vulnerable people actually occur in towns and cities, at 40 kilometres per hour. This means that we need to find technical systems that will allow us, in the event of an accident, to cause as little damage as possible. That is why the second aspect is, in my view, important and so I must thank the Commissioner and the Commission for the political will that they have shown in creating a system of that type in this Regulation.
As for the other basic concept, I wonder: how much do 300 000 accidents cost the coffers of the mutual funds or the hospitals, and the health services of each individual Member State? How much does it cost? That is why, here too, if there are fewer accidents there are also fewer systems with payment deficits, particularly for hospitals and particularly for assistance.
Furthermore, there is the fact that if someone suffers injuries to 70% or 80% of their body, that means that there is a pension to be paid etc. That is why I believe that both the European Parliament and in particular the Commission have considered it appropriate to create this Regulation, because it will be in force in all the Member States and it pays special attention to the search for suitable technology by giving a period of five years after which the Council will be able to consider whether technology has made further progress, and can see whether the system can also be modified.
I would therefore like to thank all those who have spoken, as well as the President, and I believe that tomorrow the vote in favour will be an achievement for the European Parliament and especially for those who have worked over this period.
The debate is closed.
The vote will take place on Wednesday 18 June 2008.
Written statements (Rule 142)
in writing. - Pedestrians need to be protected to the utmost. The number of accidents involving pedestrians continues to rise. This may be due to a number of factors. The worst is reckless or drunken driving.
Drivers who cause fatal accidents have to carry the responsibility for their actions. Unfortunately I feel that in my country there are three main factors why pedestrian accidents occur.
First: a large number of drivers have managed to obtain their licence to drive through illicit activities. The Government did not respond adequately when this was uncovered.
Second: the state of many pavements in Malta and Gozo is in a shambles. Even in the twin capitals of Valletta and Victoria the Government has not been able to provide decent pavements. This is shameful.
Third: the courts in Malta are too lenient when sentencing drivers who have caused fatal accidents. It is about time that magistrates sent to prison drivers who have caused the death of third parties through reckless or drunken driving - rather than imposing suspended sentences, which is unheard of in many European countries.


Approval of Minutes of previous sitting: see Minutes


16. Circulation of compound feedingstuffs (vote)


Voting time
The next item is voting time.
(For results and other details of the votes: see Minutes)


4. Protection of pedestrians and other vulnerable road users (


Obligations of operators who place timber and timber products on the market (debate)
. - The next item is the recommendation for second reading on behalf of the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Food Safety on the common position adopted by the Council at first reading with a view to adopting the European Parliament and Council Regulation setting out the obligations of agents selling wood and products made of wood (rapporteurs: Satu Hassi and Caroline Lucas) (05885/4/2010 - C7-0053/2010 -.
Mrs Hassi is to be thanked for having picked up working on this report, which was already under way, the original rapporteur being Mrs Lucas, who gave up her seat to take up other responsibilities in the British Parliament.
Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I would like to thank the original rapporteur, Mrs Lucas, along with the negotiators from the other political groups, very sincerely for their exceptionally high levels of cooperation. My thanks also go to Spain, which headed the talks in the Council of Ministers, and the Commission. Both the Commission and the Council altered their original views significantly, and the EU will now shut down its market in illegally harvested timber. This breakthrough, which is of global importance, would not have been possible without the support of a strong majority in Parliament for a ban on illegal timber.
Now, a clear ban has been agreed on operators that place timber or timber products on the EU market for the first time. These operators must be aware of the wood's origin. Retailers have an obligation to record where they have purchased the wood or timber product and where they have sold it on. In this way, it is possible to discover, for example, the origin of wood used for furniture.
Parliament would have liked a ban on the entire chain, and not just the first seller. The regulation negotiated, however, contains guidelines requiring subsequent links in the sales chain and monitoring organisations not to act against the aims of the law. All parties must therefore take responsibility for ensuring that no illegal timber is sold in the EU.
I am sorry that the Council did not agree to list this regulation under the directive on the protection of the environment through criminal law. I would appeal strongly to the Commission that it should rework the directive as soon as possible to apply also to the latest environmental legislation. The most blatant breaches of the ban on the sale of illegal timber should be treated as crimes.
Parliament's negotiators were concerned about the concept of negligible risk that came out of the Council's insistence on a statutory text. We examined the sort of contexts in which this concept occurs in current legislation. It seems to mean a risk that is, to all intents and purposes, zero, in laws that concern such issues as genetically modified micro organisms, BSE (mad cow disease), food hygiene, cosmetics, pesticides, etc. Parliament therefore accepts the concept of negligible risk, understanding it to mean a risk that is, to all intents and purposes, zero.
With respect to the shortcomings that remain in the act, I would still like to mention the fact that printed matter is excluded from its scope of application. I fear that this could turn out to be a huge loophole, and one that will grow in size, and an incentive to outsource the printing of books and magazines to countries such as Turkey and China.
A total of 20% of global greenhouse gas emissions are caused by deforestation, and a part of that by illegal harvesting. Illegal harvesting also destroys biodiversity. It is because of this that we are losing, for example, potential medicines before there is even a chance to study them.
For years, the EU has preached against illegal timber, though at the same time hypocritically providing it with it one of the biggest markets there is. Despite the grand speeches, the EU has, through its actions, promoted the destruction of the world's natural forests. The fact that the EU is now to prohibit placing illegally harvested timber on the market is a globally significant breakthrough and an excellent example of how the EU can, again through its own actions, be part of the solution to what is a global problem. This legislation is a way for us to support all those countries that wish to curb illegal harvesting in their own territory.
Member of the Commission. - Mr President, I thank the European Parliament and, in particular, both rapporteurs, Mrs Caroline Lucas and Mrs Satu Hassi, and the shadows for their engagement with the Council and Commission, which has resulted in the compromise text we have before us.
Forests are of vital importance in maintaining biodiversity and in global climate and water cycles. Nowhere are the three pillars of sustainable development clearer than in relation to forests. In addition to their environmental value, the economic and social value of forests is immense, as I know well from my own country in which forests cover almost 60% of our territory. In many developing countries, forests provide not only jobs but also medicines, food and shelter that are critical for the subsistence of millions of rural people.
Your vote should pave the way for a second-reading agreement that will send a clear signal to the world: the EU will not accept illegally harvested timber. The challenge remains as to how we detect illegally harvested timber. By itself, the regulation is not enough to tackle illegal logging as it only covers timber on the EU market. The EU will continue to engage with countries wishing to strengthen forest governance, in particular through FLEGT Voluntary Partnership Agreements. I am glad that the text before us recognises the efforts of countries entering into such agreements with the European Union.
To those who say that this proposal is a burden to European forest owners, I would say that legitimate operators should not face an undue burden - the text has considerable flexibility.
The proposal in front of you deserves your support. It certainly has mine.
Mr President, first of all, I would like to thank Mrs Hassi and the other shadow rapporteurs. We were a long way from an agreement when we started this work, and I believe that we still have different views on certain aspects. However, I must say that we worked well together. I would also like to thank the Spanish Presidency.
I had three things in mind when working on this issue. Firstly, that timber is a wonderful and renewable material that we use too little rather than too much. The legislation that we are now laying down must not create more problems or bureaucracy for those who use, and trade in, timber. We must not impose higher requirements on timber than we do on oil, for example. If this legislation results in someone choosing to produce products from plastic instead of timber, then it will be the environment that will suffer the most.
Secondly, it must be possible to implement the legislation. Many of the proposals that we have seen while we have been working on this, and that we have thrown out, have quite simply been impossible to implement. The legislation must not cover recycled material, nor must it include products that are far too complicated or impose excessive regulations on operators that are far down the product chain. It is not acceptable to demand that a table containing chipboard be labelled with the origin of the individual fibres, or to force a book seller to guarantee workers' rights in connection with the felling of the trees from which the fibres in the books come.
The third point that I had in mind is that the legislation must not become a pretext for a new wave of protectionism. The export of timber and timber products was an important factor in Sweden becoming rich once upon a time. We must not prevent other countries that are currently poor from exporting and trading. Therefore, the requirements that we set for what we import must not be so high that, in practice, we exclude developing countries.
After working for several years on this matter, I have to say that the compromise that we have today is as far as we can go. Many of my objections have been heard, for which I am very grateful. I think the proposal we will vote on tomorrow is very much better than the one I actually voted against last May. I think that we have achieved a great deal.
Finally, I would just like to remind my fellow Members of one thing, and that is that when we talk about illegal trade in timber and timber products, we need to remember the main causes of this and continue to combat them: unclear ownership rights, corruption and poverty. This must not become an excuse to stop the important work of combating corruption, as that is the main problem.
Mr President, Commissioner Potočnik, today's debate and tomorrow's vote are truly an emotional moment, an historic moment. I see many friends here who fought hard with us. We have now just about managed to bring the Council round to Parliament's initial positions, and we have before us a piece of legislation which protects both European citizens and European producers.
Until now, European citizens buying timber or timber products had no way of knowing if they were legal or illegal and if, in buying them, they were subsidising bloody civil wars financed through illegal felling or climate change through deforestation. Now, with this legislation and thanks to Parliament's efforts, we have managed to get the Council to agree with the obvious, by which I mean that illegal timber should also be considered illegal in Europe.
We have also managed to centralise, through the European Commission, the control inherent in the terms, approval and authorisation on the part of the operators who will supervise legal timber evaluation systems and approve timber products. We have also managed, when each operator examines if timber is legal, to include legislation on biodiversity and numerous other matters.
Nonetheless, there are two crucial points which the Council did not accept and which, in my opinion, are critical. The Council refused to accept the obvious, that being the first to import illegal timber and timber products on to the European market should be an infringement included in the directive on environmental crime. This is absolutely absurd. As is the fact that the concept of negligible risk has been retained, thereby opening a back door to certain activities which do not need to comply with the procedures provided for in the legislation. However, this legislation protects European citizens and European producers from unfair competition from cheap illegal timber.
Finally, I should like to thank my associates who worked on this issue, such as Alexandros Kandalepas and his staff.
Mr President, you see before you a very happy man, and not only because of the Dutch team's victory against Uruguay in the semi-final. It is also because today we are sending a very strong signal to the rest of the world. Five hundred million Europeans no longer want to use illegally harvested timber, and those who do attempt this practice will be punished. This is a very important signal on the part of the European Union, and should not be underestimated. Deforestation - both legal and, in particular, illegal - remains a major problem in the world. The European Union is now making effective use of one of its strongest powers, the power of 500 million consumers. Fair is fair, however: this signal is actually only effective thanks to the European Parliament. The Council wanted to deter the use of illegally harvested timber, whilst the European Parliament wanted to prohibit it: an important distinction. As far as I am concerned, this is a great victory for democracy.
I should like to thank the Spanish Presidency - regrettably, not even the Belgian Presidency is present - for the work it has done to obtain majority support in the Council for a prohibition on the import of illegally harvested timber. I call on the Council - regrettably absent - to set to work on proper enforcement of this regulation, as that will ultimately be the key to its success. Unfortunately, if it is not enforced effectively, it will be a paper tiger.
Finally, Mr President, I should like to thank Mrs Hassi and her predecessor, Mrs Lucas, most warmly for their excellent cooperation. This also goes for the shadow rapporteurs. In my opinion, Parliament has set an example of how it can operate and express its democratic power.
on behalf of the ECR Group. - Mr President, I would like also to add my congratulations to Satu Hassi who has taken over this dossier so competently. It has been a pleasure working with her. I am very happy to have been part of the successful negotiations to secure an agreement.
The agreement is strict enough to ensure real strides in the protection of forests and biodiversity, but also flexible enough not to be over-burdensome for legal and honest traders. We would do well not to underestimate the success there. It is possible to come to such agreements when we all work together.
I would like to highlight one of the very welcome side effects. It follows on nicely from what Jan was just saying. For me, a very welcome side effect of taking a dossier like this through Parliament is the huge effect on public awareness. Certainly in the UK, it has widened out beyond what I might call the usual suspects, the green environmental groups, and has engaged the wider public. For me, as a very new MEP, it has brought unprecedented contact with the public, all of whom are supporting Parliament and, I think, are impressed that Parliament has been able to move this subject in the direction in which they want to see it going.
Thank you very much to you all and again thank you to Satu - it has been an education working with her.
Mr President, Commissioner, I would also like to begin by thanking the rapporteurs of this excellent work.
As we know, deforestation is one of the planet's main environmental and social problems, and each year we lose 13 million hectares of forest, thereby contributing 20% of global carbon emissions and constituting an enormous threat to biodiversity.
Deforestation's contribution to climate change is undeniable and, as such, is a major cause of extreme weather events and floods, and even of the desertification of vast areas of the planet. The loss of forest puts all humanity at risk, but this risk and this impact is not shared equally by all of us. The communities with the least resources and those that depend most on the forest and nature to survive are those most affected.
Deforestation is linked to our collective existence, the scarcity of natural resources, their distribution, the rights of local and indigenous communities, and social justice. The main cause of deforestation is illegal logging, which accounts for 20 to 40% of the world's industrial timber production. We are therefore also talking about the transfer of wealth from the producer to the countries consuming this timber. This illegal practice places sustainable timber exploitation and the companies involved in it at risk.
Nice sounding words are not enough. Parliament must adopt strong and consistent measures in this fight. This report takes a very important step in this direction by defining prohibitions on timber trading.
Good intentions are not enough either. Effective means are needed, particularly penalties, which could be of three types in this case. Firstly, fines that eliminate any financial benefit from the illegal practice, to be increased for repeat offenders; secondly, the confiscation of the timber and any products in question, and; thirdly, the immediate suspension of authorisation to exercise any commercial activity.
That is why those exploiting or trading a natural resource must be socially responsible, and that is why those importing timber or timber products into the European Union for the first time must be investigated to ensure that the timber has come from legal sources.
That is also why all subsequent operators must supply basic information on this timber, namely its origin and its destination. The public must also have the right - and I am ending here, Mr President - to access information on those in compliance and those who are not.
on behalf of the EFD Group. - (DA) Mr President, my thanks to Mrs Hassi, who has quickly acquainted herself with a complicated subject. I would just like to mention a few of the many areas that the report deals with: the illegal importing of timber into the EU, endangered tree species that are felled illegally in remote parts of the world and the importing of finished products manufactured in countries outside the EU. If we are talking about timber that has been produced in European forests and that has been legally felled, it is not difficult to obtain information on the country in which the timber was felled, the species of tree, the quantities and value in order to be able to place a legal logging mark on a product. However, how far back should we trace timber, and which products is it realistic to check? I am thinking about furniture consisting of MDF and chipboard that is made of recycled wood, for example. We need to produce realistic legislation, otherwise we will only succeed in making European companies unable to compete any more on a global level and causing them to move far away from Europe's well-intentioned standards and controls. I hope that, with this proposal, we will be able to prevent that from happening.
(FI) Mr President, this is an important step for the responsible use of resources, international responsibility, climate policy, biodiversity and people's lives. It shows that the European Union can be an effective international actor by means of its internal legislation, just as the Ecodesign Directive is also.
The result that has been achieved is a lot better than the disadvantages of the compromise, but I want to point out, as the rapporteur, Mrs Hassi, did, that the major drawback with this is the absence of sanctions, at European level and at a minimal level, and also that at this stage, the regulation is not included in the directive on the protection of the environment through criminal law, either in respect of illegal harvesting or in the trade associated with it. I hope that the Commission will put forward proposals relating to this as soon as possible. In the same way, it will be vitally important to include printed matter in the regulation in the future.
Mr President, it is very late now and I do not think I should distract us from the idea that this relates to one of the most important votes we will have this week in this Parliament. It is important for our citizens, judging by my postbag and the number of e-mails I have received. There is an online petition, which, about four hours ago, had 125 000 signatures - and the number is going up every minute - urging us to stick with this proposal tomorrow.
It is important for the climate, as everyone has mentioned, but I think, as the Commissioner has said, it is most important for the millions of people who live in the world's poorest countries and whose livelihoods are being destroyed by illegal logging. Let us take Madagascar, where 100 000 rosewood trees were illegally chopped down last year, each tree worth more than the average GDP in that country. No wonder illegal logging fuels criminality in Madagascar. The civil war in Liberia, mainly funded through illegal logging, killed 250 000 people. It fuelled the war in Cambodia in the 1990s and it is the enemy of democracy. Global Witness calculates that 15 tonnes of timber crosses from Burma to China every seven minutes, helping to prop up that despicable regime.
Illegal logging deprives millions of people of a better chance in life because billions of dollars are lost in tax revenues to governments. Human Rights Watch says that USD 2 billion have been lost in tax revenues in Indonesia. That is enough to provide basic heath care for 100 million people in that country and is more than the entire health budget of that country.
So what we are doing today is a first step. It is not perfect, as the Commissioner has admitted, but it is a lot better than where we started off with a kind of voluntary code with which we would have due diligence. I would like to thank the Commissioner for going further than his predecessors. I would like to thank the Spanish Presidency for pushing for this agreement and I would like to thank Hilary Benn, the former UK Secretary of State, for sticking his ground in Council and pushing for a more ambitious agreement.
Tomorrow, we will make a start. I think Satu Hassi and the shadows have done a very good job, but we have to maintain consumer pressure and public awareness. I hope the Commission will also play a role in doing that and in getting good enforcement of this very important new law.
Mr President, the world's forests are being destroyed - sometimes with the support of governments, but often through illegal activities. The drugs trade and the timber trade are two activities that can generate such enormous amounts of money that they corrupt governments, which makes enforcement hugely difficult. Five years ago, I took the case to Louis Michel, the Commissioner at the time, and said we needed a measure like this. He was sympathetic, but his services and lawyers said it could not be done. I would say to the Commissioner that there is an important piece of advice there, which is that if the lawyers say it cannot be done, then change the lawyers. It can be done, and here we have proof of it. This is excellent, this is good news and an important measure.
However, this directive requires that Member States introduce enforcement regimes which are effective, proportionate and dissuasive. What does that mean? What if Slovenia says that the penalty for illegally importing wood will be 10 years' imprisonment, and the United Kingdom says it will be a slap on the wrist? How do you ensure that this legislation will be put into effect properly across the whole of the European Union?
Commissioner, I would ask you to write to Member States and tell them that you are going to start publishing details of the penalties they put in place to ensure that this legislation is properly enforced, and that you will name and shame in a way that has never been done before. One sees the words 'effective, proportionate, dissuasive' time and time again. I would like you to be the first Commissioner to actually ensure that those words have proper effect.
(DE) Mr President, I think that we are making good legislation today. It is good and right that we are taking steps to avoid illegal timber being placed on the European internal market.
However, what holds for all environmental laws also holds for this law: we cannot just put in what we want, but we must also always check whether what we put in and prescribe is feasible in the end. Therefore, I think it is right that we have, in the end, come to the compromise that due diligence only needs to take effect at the first instance of placing on the market, and also that only then can the import ban be issued.
It would be much too bureaucratic to provide documentary evidence of origin throughout the entire supply chain within Europe. This was on the table at the beginning of the debate. I think that it is not realistic here to constantly keep new accounts and provide documentary evidence, from the timber yard and the sawmill right up to the furniture factory. This produces bureaucracy which, in case of doubt, produces more paper and thereby may even accelerate legal felling. Therefore, we must be moderate in this area and ensure balance. We have succeeded in doing this.
I am not in favour of the approach that Mrs Hassi has just spoken of, namely that we can bring in a zero-risk policy. This is not only applicable to felling, and it will not work. Zero risk is not feasible. It produces bureaucracy and, above all, produces new risks. We must ensure that the laws remain balanced and feasible. In this sense, this compromise is a good one. I am pleased that we will be able to approve it with a large majority tomorrow.
(FI) Mr President, this illegal harvesting of forests must be stopped and we have to fight against it. We are surely all unanimous on that issue. I cannot, however, support this compromise in all respects, for example, where it concerns each operator in the chain being in a certain way responsible for verifying the origin of the wood. In my view, this is connected with the very considerable fear that this will increase bureaucracy both for forest entrepreneurs and owners. That should not be the purpose at all.
When we implement this regulation, we must also ensure that the very comprehensive certification system already in place in several countries is valid and that we do not start to create an overlapping verification method that again adds to bureaucracy and, in a way, weighs down our competitiveness in the forestry sector. It is also important that we do not accord timber a status that is inferior to other materials. That, too, is now something to make us apprehensive.
(SV) Mr President, the issue that we have before us is a very important one, and it is easy to agree with what has been said here this evening. At the same time, as Mrs Manner just said, in this work we are starting to lose sight of the fact that we have very sustainable forestry production and forestry activity in northern Europe, particularly in the Nordic countries. Unfortunately, we are forgetting this fact in our implementation of the important objectives that we had to prevent the import of illegal timber to the European market. This is an important example of how we should not work.
I am grateful that Mrs Hassi and others worked well in the trialogues, and therefore I, too, will be able to vote in favour of this tomorrow. At the same time, we need to learn from this, that when we do something important, as we are about to do here, and as we are also doing now, and finally produce a good regulation that prevents the import of illegal timber, we must not forget that it might have an effect on our own production within precisely this sector. We have quite a bit to do in this area in the future. We must try to avoid the sorts of problems that we have in connection with this issue in particular.
(RO) The trade in timber purchased illegally or through illegal logging has pushed down the price of timber and contributed to the impoverishment of forests. This is why it is imperative for Europe to improve the legislative framework in this area. The new feature of this regulation, namely, the introduction of the due diligence and control system operated by accredited monitoring organisations at EU level, will provide an additional filter for verifying the legality of placing timber materials on the market. However, it is not a perfect solution.
There are options for bypassing even this system. This is why, as part of the debates in the competent committee, I proposed an amendment whereby monitoring organisations will automatically lose their accreditation if the competent authority notes the operators' failure to implement an efficient due diligence system. The content of this report is unarguably a particularly important step towards combating the placing of timber obtained illegally on the market. However, further measures are ...
(The President cut off the speaker)
(DE) Mr President, Commissioner, 2010 is the year of biodiversity, and with the regulation before us, an important provision will be created for measures against climate change and for the preservation of biodiversity.
The EU can no longer offer a market for timber and timber products from illegal felling, as this illegal felling is a significant cause of deforestation. After all, 20% to 40% of worldwide industrial timber production comes from illegal sources. Around 13 million hectares of forest are deforested every year, as we have already heard today. Twenty per cent of worldwide CO2 emissions are can be attributed to this deforestation, and they are a leading cause of the loss of biological diversity. By providing an absolute ban within the European market on illegally felled timber or products manufactured from it, the European Union is showing that it takes its responsibility for preserving biodiversity seriously.
I would like to thank the rapporteur.
(SK) The position of the European Parliament formulated in the report of Caroline Lucas is correct and decent, and should therefore be supported. It is not possible to accept the continuing tolerance shown by the governments of some European countries towards the trade in illegally harvested timber, or the way in which they avoid imposing penalties for this activity.
After a detailed examination of the positions of European Union governments concerning the regulation in question, it is hard to know whether some governments represent the views of their citizens more than the views of the business mafias who profit from the illegal harvesting of timber. The fact that some governments are not interested in suppressing the illegal grey or black economy should not be an obstacle, and should not lead us to tolerate the vandalistic looting of forests.
A decent society creates sensible rules. Decent people respect them, and decent governments should not have a problem with prosecuting thieves.
It is therefore necessary ...
(The President cut off the speaker)
Member of the Commission. - Mr President, it is late and I will try to make it short, but not because the issues are less important. On the contrary, it is because of the high level of consensus in the room.
Forests are at the heart of the battle against climate change and at the heart of the battle for protecting biodiversity. Together with the recent Regulation on illegal, unregulated and unrecorded fishing, this means that in the European Union, we will have the instruments to counter illegality in two of our key natural resources: fisheries and forests. And, yes, it is also an important part of the fight against poverty.
The impact of the regulation depends on effective implementation, and the challenge is far from over. However, today we can start to appreciate the fact that a solution on this difficult, but important, file has been found. We are clearly dealing with a proposal of a noble nature. I am looking forward to engaging in the implementation and enforcement process together with you.
Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I wish to thank everyone who has taken part in this debate at this late hour. I was involved in the situation to which Mr Davies referred: in a discussion with the European Commissioner for Development Cooperation at the time, in which he said that he thought that legislation such as that which we have now been negotiating would be impossible. I am glad that we have made possible what he thought impossible at the time.
Both the Commissioner and the other Members have duly spoken about all the types of harm that illegal harvesting causes. Many have been and are concerned about bureaucracy. I would like to remind everyone, however, that the bureaucratic demands on all those except the first party to place timber or timber products on the market are extremely modest: simply that they should know and can prove where it was bought and where it has been sold on. The companies should have the documents needed for this in any case. It is required, for example, under the laws on VAT.
I am pleased that many companies, in the packaging and furniture industries, for example, have supported the ban on illegal timber. I have also received messages from wood industry trade unions that are in support of this and which talk about the harm to competition due to the fact that there is too much illegal timber on our market. As has been said here, this law must be implemented properly, and I am also seriously in favour of keeping a record of what sort of sanctions the Member States enact. They need to be genuinely effective in the prevention of malpractice.
The debate is closed.
The vote will take place tomorrow, Wednesday, 7 July 2010, at 12:00.
Written statements (Rule 149)
Nowadays, 20-30% of industrial timber production worldwide is from illegal sources. We need to clean up the European timber market as soon as possible. While it could still be improved, the proposed regulation is ambitious and courageous. In my view, it is an effective tool for limiting rampant deforestation, without imposing administrative constraints on our European companies or harming timber, which will, on the contrary, become more highly valued.
The regulation establishes a binding provision which delegates responsibilities on the basis of the 'due diligence system'. This allows operators to trace timber and timber products, to access information on observance of the applicable legislation and, thus, to obtain sufficient guarantees to prevent the sale of products from logging considered to be illegal.
The obligations contained in the regulation must target those operators who place timber on the market for the first time, because that is when there is the most risk. Furthermore, in order to guarantee that this regulation is effective, we should emphasise the need for regular controls and a system of stringent, deterrent penalties for offenders.
It is a well-known fact that every year, in various countries of the world, thousands of hectares of forest disappear without being replaced. In many cases, we see illegal extraction even in European Union countries. Even in advanced countries such as the Czech Republic, timber is stolen by selective extraction or clear cutting without the knowledge of the owner. Commercial forests, of course, not only have an environmental role, but, as the term 'commercial forest' suggests, also have the role of producing timber. It is important for legislation to pay heed to the restoration of an optimal mix of tree types in forests. This is linked to the management of animals, especially the taller ones. It is appropriate to resolve these questions at the corresponding national or regional levels. Not even the best directive can have an impact on the damage caused to the economy of individual regions through the export of all kinds of timber outside the borders of the regions. In my opinion, the proposals contained in the European Parliament report are in accordance with the existing opinions of this supreme lawmaking body of the Community, and it would be appropriate to give full support to the report. The accelerated implementation of the regulation, the penalties in case of a breach of the regulations and the ban on trading are a necessary minimum. The attempts by some governments to take an extreme liberal approach in this sector are outrageous, and may damage the national economies of the states which uphold them on the Council. The Confederal Group of the European United Left - Nordic Green Left will certainly support the rapporteur's proposals.
Illegally harvested timber and timber products have no place on our market. As far as I am concerned, the sale of timber should be permitted only if it has been established on the basis of credible standards that the timber has not been harvested illegally or unsustainably. My appeal would be for us to think beyond the environment and the climate and consider countries where so-called 'legal' deforestation is depriving local populations of their livelihood. This is also a human rights issue. Today, the Group of the European People's Party (Christian Democrats) can show what it really means by stewardship and charity. The EPP Group wanted to decrease the protection of local populations by hiding behind the low moral standards of legislators in third countries, who allow their people to be exploited by facilitating large-scale deforestation or failing to combat it effectively. Last week, Dutch television showed how our energy companies profit from coal mining in South Africa. The spokespeople of these companies were turning a blind eye; they lacked the courage to be publicly accountable. Similar practices occur in the deforestation sector. We must eradicate these root and branch. The EPP Group cannot use the lack of effective laws and ethical codes as an excuse to switch off its own conscience. Large-scale logging drives people from the areas where they live. I endorse the environmental and climate targets, whilst also advocating protection of human rights.


Closure of sitting
(The sitting was closed at 11.50 p.m.)


Closure of the sitting
(The sitting was closed at 22.50)


Other business
(IT) Mr President, I am speaking under Rule 173 of the Rules of Procedure. This evening, the Supreme Court of Brazil has refused the extradition of the multiple murderer, Cesare Battisti.
No less than two resolutions of this House have called for the contrary decision. I should therefore like to put on record, in addition to my own disappointment, my wish that Parliament's Bureau write to the Brazilian authorities declaring the disappointment of the entire European Parliament and, above all, expressing our solidarity and our grief to the families of the victims, who have been waiting for justice for thirty years.
I am grateful to Mr Mauro for that apt intervention ... (Mr Borghezio speaks without a microphone). I believe that the whole of this House shares the disappointment and the profound bitterness at the decisions that have been taken, and therefore I can only repeat what Parliament has already made clear on this issue on at least two occasions. Let us convey our indignation in this spirit of disappointment and with this clarity to the Brazilian authorities.
(IT) Mr President, I only need a few seconds to send my good wishes to Mrs Weisberger, who has recently become a mother and who is present here with her baby girl, as well as to all new mothers in this House, those who will become new mothers and those who, like me, work hard to be good mothers and good parliamentarians.
It is lovely to see how this Chamber has been enlivened by symbols of hope, but ... (the speaker was interrupted by disturbances in the Chamber). I am asking for your attention because it is important and I feel compelled to tell you what is on my mind. Let us see if you can manage to be more grown up, since in these last few days, I have unfortunately heard remarks such as 'Parliament is not a playground. This is not a playschool. Out with children and out with mothers'. Even worse, it has been said that 'the presence of children gives Members a bad image'.
Since we very often find ourselves legislating on the work-life balance, it is truly absurd that remarks of this kind are made in this Chamber, and even more so when they are made by women.


Welcome
As President, I would today like to welcome 10 members of the Southern Sudan Legislative Assembly, led by its Speaker, Mr Wani Igga, who have travelled all the way to Strasbourg to visit the European Parliament.
(Applause)
The Southern Sudan Legislative Assembly, in which they sit, was set up as a result of the Comprehensive Peace Agreement signed in 2005 after a long and brutal civil war. The Assembly plays a crucial role in monitoring the implementation of legislation and implementation of the Peace Agreement. On behalf of the European Parliament, I wish to say that we support your Assembly, which has to cope with the challenges currently facing Sudan, especially with the prospect of the elections scheduled for next year. We hope that your visit will help you to find a peaceful solution to the Sudan conflict and that it will stimulate political dialogue between the European Parliament and your Assembly on the reconstruction process following the conflict in your country. I therefore welcome you to the European Parliament.


7. Marketing of vegetable propagating and planting material, other than seed (


Corrections to votes and voting intentions: see Minutes


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


Agenda for next sitting: see Minutes