Stabilisation of Afghanistan: challenges for the EU and the international community (debate)
The next item is the debate on the report by André Brie, on behalf of the Committee on Foreign Affairs, on Stabilisation of Afghanistan: challenges for the EU and the international community
.
Mr President, Commissioner, Mr Jouyet, ladies and gentlemen, yesterday in Kabul saw the bloodiest attack since 2001 with more than 40 Afghans and Indians killed and 140 injured. We wish to extend our deepest sympathy to the victims and express our outrage at the murderers who were responsible.
Those who follow the European media and those who, for example, have read today's edition of Daily Outlook Afghanistan will know that violence in Afghanistan has now become much more widespread and commonplace. Teachers are being shot practically every day, which is one of the most cynical aspects of the Taliban strategy. Schools, and especially girls' schools, are being burnt down or forced to close, bridges and roads are being blown up. What was not reported in Europe was the attack by the US-led coalition forces on a wedding party in the province of Nangarhar on Sunday that left 23 people dead, including the bride. A similar incident also occurred in the neighbouring province of Urusgan. President Karsai has now ordered an investigation.
It is clear that the security situation in Afghanistan has deteriorated in the last three years. However, there are many distinctly positive developments to be considered too: advances in education and health policy, regional success in the rebuilding programme and in the eradication of drugs, the creation of a critical and independent media thanks to a number of incredibly courageous journalists, and the establishment in many areas of an active civil society along with spirited women's organisations.
However, there are also negative aspects to report, such as the fact that the growing of opium poppies has now reached record levels nationwide and that this crop has become increasingly linked to the general economy as well as to the escalating levels of crime and corruption and to the activities of the insurgent groups.
The international food crisis has had dramatic consequences for millions of Afghans. Corruption is widespread in government circles and indeed originates from this source. The rule of law is not properly established and can be compared with Guantanamo or the US prison in Bagram, as well as being fundamentally questioned by international governments.
Fundamentalist ideologies have clearly been gaining ground in recent years, even in key areas of government and parliament, and this poses a threat to the freedom of the press and media and, more particularly, to the hopes of Afghan women and girls for an equal role in society.
The terrible violence being committed every day against women and girls on a domestic, family and local level is for me still the most serious and glaring problem and one that is most being ignored by our media. It pains me that due to lack of time I am unable to go into this in any more detail. Afghanistan and its people have deserved our fullest commitment. After 30 years of war, with more than one and a half million people killed, the international community is duty-bound to show its full solidarity with Afghanistan.
The country and its society have been destroyed by the policies and war of occupation waged by the Soviet Union, by the internal warfare of the Mujahedeen groups who were armed by the US, Pakistan, Iran and other countries, and by the sinister rule of the Taliban.
Our report presents a discriminating and realistic picture. It recognises the significant successes of the Afghan people and identifies the political shortcomings of the Afghan and other international governments. It expresses our fullest support and makes clear that we are absolutely committed to establishing democracy and human rights, especially the rights of Afghan women and children. This is not only a matter of general principle but also a specific requirement as far as Malalai Dschoja, Pervez Kambasch and Latif Petram are concerned.
With this report the European Parliament is calling for a new strategy for the international community and for the Afghan Government that has as its central focus the rebuilding of civil society. This is the policy being promoted by the UN Special Representative for Afghanistan, Kai Eide. This is a most important move and I am pleased that we in this House have sent out such a signal.
I should like to express my thanks to my colleagues from the other political groups, to the Commission - and Commissioner you have a wonderful team in Kabul and in Brussels dealing with the Afghanistan problem - and to the Council's Special Representative, as well as to the many Afghan and international NGOs that have been involved.
I must therefore say that this makes it all the more difficult for me to have to withdraw my name from the report. I was unable to persuade a majority that the problems of Afghanistan cannot be solved by military means. If a majority in this House should now then call for troop levels to be strengthened and in so doing ignore the national reservations of the Member States, this would defeat the real issues raised in the report and would run counter to my own personal concerns. The fact that the majority wishes of all the peoples of Europe should be disregarded is unacceptable for Afghanistan - the events of recent days bear this out - and is absolutely the wrong policy.
President-in-Office of the Council. - (FR) Mr President, I am honoured and privileged to be speaking here before the European Parliament for the first time. Before beginning, like Mr Brie, I, too, wish to strongly condemn, on behalf of the Presidency, yesterday's attack on the Indian Embassy in Kabul, which killed more than 40 civilians, including a number of embassy personnel, and injured hundreds. This attack sought to destabilise the consolidation and reconstruction process under way in Afghanistan. The European Union is fully determined to support the Afghan Government and the Afghan people in their efforts to build a stable and democratic state, and these tragic events highlight the importance and urgency of our discussions this morning.
Like Parliament, the Council is convinced of the need for a long-term commitment in Afghanistan. Our objective must be to help the government to develop the structures needed for a modern and democratic state that can function properly, guarantee the safety of its citizens, respect the rule of law, and promote economic and social development.
I should point out that the combined effort of the Afghan authorities and the international community has produced some impressive results that should be highlighted: 25% decline in the infant mortality rate and 6 million children attending school, a third of whom are girls. In this respect, I must pay tribute to the work carried out by Commissioner Ferrero-Waldner and by the Commission in general in this area and in all aspects relating to the restoration of the rule of law.
We must build on these successes, but we must be aware, too, of the extent of the challenges that lie ahead, especially those highlighted by Mr Brie: governance, insecurity, corruption and drugs, which go hand in hand and have a negative impact on the normal functioning of the institutions and the sustainable development of the country.
We must therefore work with our other partners in the drugs field to ensure the application of Security Council Resolution 1817, adopted on 11 June, which should enable the international community to step up the fight against trafficking in the precursor chemicals used to produce heroin.
Like Parliament, the Council places the utmost importance on the democratic process in Afghanistan. During the 2004 and 2005 elections the Afghan people opted very clearly and very determinedly for democracy and stability, and we must help them to establish the best possible conditions for the preparations for the forthcoming presidential election in 2009 and general election in 2010.
The Council was extremely interested in the report on Afghanistan presented by Parliament and summarised by Mr Brie, and wishes to highlight three specific aspects. The first is that the Council hopes that the Afghan Government will assume a greater share of the responsibility for Afghanistan's reconstruction and development process. Moreover, in all areas emphasis should be placed on the Afghan people assuming their responsibilities and the need for guarantees in the area of good governance, hence the obligation on the Afghan authorities to fulfil their commitments in this respect.
Secondly, the Council underlines the importance of moving forward in close cooperation with the Afghan Government towards a single vision within the international community of how to achieve common objectives, ensuring in particular that the actions carried out are coherent in terms of their military and civil dimensions. That is the mandate given to the new United Nations Special Representative, Mr Kai Eide, and the Council wishes to express its full support for him in his mission. It is in the same context that the Council feels that it is necessary to strengthen the capacities of UNAMA (United Nations Assistance Mission in Afghanistan) in order to extend its presence throughout the territory, notably in the south and west of the country.
Our third and final observation concerning Mr Brie's report is that it is essential to improve cooperation and relations between Afghanistan and its neighbours in order to ensure permanent stability in the country, especially given the multi-dimensional nature of some of the problems clearly highlighted by Mr Brie, notably drug production and trafficking.
In any event, these brief comments on the report presented by Parliament should not take away from the fact that in general the Council and Parliament have very similar views on the policy to be implemented in Afghanistan. I would like to take this opportunity to welcome and encourage the initiative presented in Mr Brie's report aimed at strengthening the cooperation between the European Parliament and the Afghan Parliament.
For all these reasons the Union will continue to act and play a major role in mobilising the international community to assist Afghanistan. That goal formed the basis of the Council conclusions of 26 May, which were largely inspired by the worked carried out at the International Conference in support of Afghanistan held in Paris on 12 June. This Conference was a great success for Afghanistan, as it was for the European Union, which succeeded in putting across in full its positions on key aspects of the country's development.
I should point out that a few months earlier, at the NATO Summit held in Bucharest from 2 to 4 April, the High Representative for the Common Foreign and Security Policy, together with President Karzai and the UN Secretary-General, attended the meeting of Heads of State and Government on Afghanistan. The countries contributing to the IFAS, for which the EU Member States provide almost half of the personnel, adopted in Bucharest a new strategy for their common commitment guided by four principles, which I will mention here: a firm and shared long-term commitment; support for enhanced Afghan leadership and responsibility in security matters; a comprehensive approach by the international community to reconstruction; and a shared political strategy involving Afghanistan's neighbours, especially Pakistan.
In conclusion, I would like to highlight certain areas where the European Union makes a significant contribution and where its action is essential for strengthening State capacities and consolidating the rule of law in Afghanistan. First of all, as you know, the Union has had a Special Representative since 2002 and that post is currently held by Mr Francesc Vendrell. The difficulties initially encountered when setting up the EUPOL mission, which were logistical in nature, have now been resolved. EUPOL is particularly involved in the reform of the Ministry of the Interior and in the development of a strategy for the Afghan police.
Finally, I wanted to point out that by deciding at the last General Affairs and External Relations Council on 26 May that its goal was to double the number of personnel involved in its Afghanistan police mission, the European Union sent a clear message to both its Afghan partners and the international community regarding its enhanced commitment to Afghanistan. This increase in the size of the EUPOL mission should improve the visibility and effectiveness of our action in the key sectors relating to police reform, in spite of the violent events that have taken place in recent days.
Mr President, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, honourable Members of this Parliament, Mr Brie, I should perhaps first like to say a few words in German and to thank you for this very important and first-rate report, and for the excellent way in which you cooperated with my staff both in Kabul and in Brussels. I would also endorse the words expressed both by you and by the President-in-Office of the Council. It truly tragic that yesterday we again witnessed such a calamity as this terrorist attack. On one hand we of course have to express our clearest condemnation, but on the other there are also the victims to consider. This is precisely the setting in which this debate unfortunately has to take place.
Let me say that I think this very comprehensive report is very important in this difficult and precarious security situation and we cannot, and will not, allow those who wish to take Afghanistan backwards to prevail.
Over the last months, and particularly during the preparation of this report, we have been working very closely with the rapporteur. I wanted to thank you for your interest as witnessed, firstly, by the two visits the European Parliament has made there and, secondly, in November 2007, when you again received parliamentarians from the Wolesi Jirga in Brussels, which was an important sign for them. We have worked with a dedicated Delegation for relations with Afghanistan; you are following developments on the ground very closely, and we try to help where we can.
Finally, your report addresses the central issue: how can we stabilise Afghanistan, what are the challenges facing the international community, and how can we deal with them? In the same spirit, at the important conference in Paris we said clearly that we want to overcome the threat of terrorism; but, at the same time, we also have a challenge in our public opinions everywhere, because they do not always appreciate the challenges, and do not always embrace all the efforts that it takes to combat this threat.
I think the Paris Conference was also a very important and good opportunity to review our strategy, to focus it even more clearly. The Commission has committed EUR 1.2 billion from 2002-2007. We have particularly worked on the following: firstly, providing better security in Afghanistan by financing police salaries, closely linking this to support for Afghanistan's police and its reform; secondly, providing alternative livelihoods to the opium poppy and thus helping to eradicate drugs; thirdly, improving the lives of Afghans - we have focused here particularly on healthcare, where we already have been part of the undeniable success of recent years, and I would also say that we have worked on the infrastructure and regional integration with transit links, such as the important road from Jalalabad to Kabul.
However, the Paris Conference also delivered a distinct political message about overdue changes. These changes are indispensable if we want to realise mutual obligations under the Afghanistan compact and turn international efforts - all our efforts - into success on the ground. Therefore, we all know that more and better coordination is needed among all the actors involved. I can also praise Mr Kai Eide, whom I have known for many years, who is an excellent person. He will play a central role and I can assure you we will all work with him very closely.
But, of course, we also see the necessity for a genuine commitment by our Afghan partners. They really have to go for more ownership in their state-building process, and this comes, of course, with its own responsibility and with a vision for a stable country for the future. We are heading towards the elections in 2009 and 2010; undoubtedly for the Government it will be crucial to regain legitimacy, which has been dented by corruption and weak governance, notably in the provinces, and therefore we are looking into ways of how to best support the election process.
Afghanistan is at a crossroads. Many of the early achievements of democratic state-building - notably human rights, freedom of expression and the media - are somewhat under pressure. It will be hard under such circumstances for a civil society to emerge. In this context, your commitment here in Parliament - and I thank the rapporteur once again - and your cooperation with the Afghan Parliament, the Wolesi Jirga, are invaluable. I think you can contribute to this fostering of a democratic process.
As the EU - and I close with that - we have the responsibility to support Afghanistan in the interest not only of the people of that country and of the stability of the whole region but also of Europe. This is what we also have to clearly tell our taxpayers.
on behalf of the PPE-DE Group. - (IT) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I knew I had two minutes but shall not dwell on that. I wish to thank Mr Brie for the commitment and enthusiasm he has invested in this report, and would appeal to him not to withdraw his name from it because he did a very good job of work, along with the other shadow rapporteurs and myself. To say what? To do what, at such a crucial moment for Afghanistan? What happened yesterday demonstrates that the commitment of Europe and others to Afghanistan is of the utmost importance.
What we demand in this report is, firstly, a stronger commitment in terms of military presence, because without that we shall get nowhere; secondly, a stepping-up of the commitment to improve democratic structures in the new Republic of Afghanistan, which has fallen into a situation of total lawlessness over the past 30 or more years and, worst of all, lies at the heart of international terrorism.
When we began to turn our attention to the phenomenon of international terrorism after September 11th, we went into Afghanistan and then Iraq and found that we had entered a viper's nest. The last outpost - like Hitler in his Berlin bunker, as it were - of terrorists in the world at the moment is Afghanistan. They are trying to regroup, taking revenge in Afghanistan for the defeat they have suffered and are still suffering in Iraq.
We in the European Parliament can send out a message along these lines if as many of us as possible vote in favour of this report.
on behalf of the PSE Group. - (PT) I congratulate the rapporteur, André Brie, on his careful analysis of the serious problems that we are facing in Afghanistan and, in particular, on his efforts to find a wording that would allow all the political groups to vote in favour of the compromise amendments.
Unfortunately, during the vote in committee, two important ideas contained within the compromise amendments fell victim to the political prejudice of colleagues who prefer to ignore the problems facing the international community in Afghanistan, problems horrifically illustrated by yesterday's suicide attack on the Indian Embassy in Kabul. As a result, the reference to the need for the international community to reassess its civil and military strategy fell by the wayside, as did the passage underlining the growing popular discontent at the corruption spreading through government institutions.
In this respect, I call on my fellow Members to support the amendments reintroduced by the PSE Group in order to rebalance the report. How can a report of this House on Afghanistan refrain from mentioning the role of Pakistan and its military regime that for so many years has misgoverned that country? How can we, as Members of the European Parliament, ignore the secret prisons of our US allies in Kabul and not only that? Why do some Members reject legitimate criticisms of the Afghan judicial system? The position of the PSE Group is clear: it is possible to support the increased presence of international troops in Afghanistan while, at the same time, defending the need to reassess the military strategy of the ISAF (International Security Assistance Force). It is possible to be in favour of close cooperation between Europe and the United States in Afghanistan, without closing our eyes to the crimes committed by the Bush Administration in the name of the fight against terrorism.
Finally, it is possible to support the Afghan institutions while, at the same time, drawing attention to their severe limitations. Europe will only be able to assume a strategic role in Afghanistan when it stops being afraid of presenting its own vision for the future of the country. Why not start here and now with this report?
on behalf of the ALDE Group. - (FI) Mr President, I would also like to congratulate Mr Brie on a good report. He has dealt with this difficult topic thoroughly and from various angles.
The primary challenges for Afghanistan are restoring security and establishing a functioning state. It is a difficult task, because the security situation in Afghanistan has deteriorated rather than improved. Improving the security situation is an essential requirement for all development, but a military solution alone will not remove the complex problems of the country, as the rapporteur stated.
Reconstructing the entire society, implementing the rule of law, improving democracy and human rights, promoting equality and building a functioning government, educational institutions and healthcare for the whole country are enormous tasks. Afghanistan also needs a programme for the comprehensive development of rural areas and the creation of alternatives for opium farmers.
All this also requires greater contributions by the European Union to supporting and reconstructing Afghanistan. The EU must also strive to make the activities of the international community more effective by coordinating them.
I would still like to emphasise the significance of the civil society that is developing in Afghanistan for strengthening the rule of law and democracy and for defeating the culture of violence. The development and freedom to act of independent, pluralistic means of communication are extremely important in this work. There is still a lot of work to do in this area in Afghanistan.
on behalf of the UEN Group. - (PL) Mr President, the last 30 years of Afghanistan's history have seen Soviet occupation, civil war and then the Taliban in power. For this reason Operation Enduring Freedom, which was begun by the US, the United Kingdom, Poland, the Czech Republic, France and Romania, together with the present ISAF mission, which brings together a military coalition of almost all the Member States in the European Union, should be treated as a success. The education system is working better, the healthcare system is working better and the Government of Mr Hamid Karzai is in control of a significant part of the country under very difficult circumstances. The terrorist revival in 2007 can only mean one thing for us: what Afghanistan needs from the European Union and NATO is increased financial, political and military support. A different approach, which can be seen in the amendments put forward by the left, would be a demonstration of selfishness, hypocrisy and short-sightedness.
on behalf of the Verts/ALE Group. - (DE) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, we are in a paradoxical situation. My Group will recommend that everyone reads the original report produced by Mr Brie so that they will understand the nature of the challenges facing us in Afghanistan. What then happened was that a majority in the Committee on Foreign Affairs simply amended and deleted the measures that were so urgently needed. We simply cannot say: more troops, everything to continue as before, everything is going well. Nothing is going well! Yesterday's attack showed that. We need to revise the military strategy; we need to bring all the different initiatives together. This was actually what we wanted to achieve together.
My group tabled the amendments in conjunction with the Socialist Group in order to fight now to achieve this important objective, Mr Brie. I say this with all the respect that I have had for the work that you have done in recent years: we are arguing here about what is the right position to take and it is cowardly on your part - just because your Group has stabbed you in the back, and all over a subtly different position that also states that we need troops, but we need to do it properly - to simply duck your head and say that you are withdrawing your name. This is not helping the Afghan people, neither is it helping this Parliament to develop a coherent strategy for Afghanistan.
I would call on everyone to vote for the amendments, then we will be fulfilling our responsibilities: our responsibilities to those we are sending over there, the policemen and the soldiers, and to those we want to help, namely the people of Afghanistan.
on behalf of the GUE/NGL Group. - (IT) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I am extremely grateful to André Brie for the work he has done and fully support his decision to withdraw his signature. The resolution has been altered and now describes a country where there was reportedly a massive turnout at the elections, forgetting that the population voted under continuing threat from armed groups.
No mention is made of the presence of warlords in the Karzai Government; there is no all-out condemnation of Operation Enduring Freedom, which is claiming civilian victims throughout the country. NATO action is supported, ignoring the fact that its presence in Afghanistan is a major cause of the total lack of security in that country at the moment. Moreover, faced with the ongoing rise in opium production, no reference is made to the possibility of launching pilot projects on the use of opium to produce morphine, even though a specific resolution to this effect has been adopted by the European Parliament.
One positive aspect is undoubtedly the concern expressed about the fate of Malalai Joya and other activists, but that alone is not sufficient to prevent my delegation from voting against the report.
Citizens from the Member States of the European Union and far beyond our borders are answering for the pacification and reconstruction of Afghanistan with their lives. They all deserve the greatest respect and the full support of Parliament, not least our prayers for divine protection, because their mission continues to be extremely dangerous. The murderous attack in Kabul yesterday morning provides new evidence of that.
I would ask the Council and the Commission to address two specific problems of the complex situation in Afghanistan. Without an effective strategy against the 'Talibanisation' of northern Pakistan, the stabilisation of Afghanistan remains little more than a Western wish. NATO forces are in fact operating with their hands tied because of this.
The second problem in Afghanistan is the urgent need to modernise agriculture. Its greatest handicap is the persistent insecurity in large parts of the country. UN statistics make it crystal clear: the more insecure the region, the more profuse the annual blooming of the poppy fields. Council and Commission, I wish you all possible wisdom and perseverance in the active stabilisation of Afghanistan.
- (NL) We are all agreed that the situation in the fourth least developed country in the world remains tragic, despite a number of encouraging signs since the start of the reconstruction of the country. Of course, the problems are not only military and strategic, but a total victory over the Taliban remains, of course, the conditio sine qua non for the construction of a viable state with an independent judiciary and critical media. As far as this last point is concerned, I applaud the fact that this report points out that the Afghan Constitution still does not guarantee freedom of religion, because unfaithfulness to Islam remains a criminal offence. The regime that is being supported by the West must, therefore, make further efforts.
What I do miss in this report is a statement that victory over the Taliban requires a strategy with respect to Pakistan, whose territory continues to be a safe haven for terrorists: everyone knows that it gives logistical support to those terrorists, as became evident again yesterday in the attack on the Indian Embassy in Kabul. A policy for Afghanistan must therefore be an integrated policy for the whole region; otherwise, it will be doomed to failure.
Mr President, let me begin by adding my voice to the condemnation of the attack on the Indian Embassy and extend our condolences, particularly to Brigadier-General Mehta and Mr Rao from the Indian Embassy and their families. I hope that this attack will not deter India, an important ally in the reconstruction of Afghanistan, from continuing its assistance.
There is a greater tragedy in Afghanistan than the destruction of the buildings, and this is the destruction of human life and individuals over the last 35 years. It will take a greater effort than we can imagine and a longer time to reconstruct and help rebuild those lives in such a shattered country.
The first thing, however, which Afghanistan needs is more security, not less security. I welcome the fact that the report reflects a consensus, which also exists on the ground in Afghanistan, that a political solution is only possible if we sustain the military pressure on the Taliban and the insurgency. We have to sustain that pressure if we are to ensure a political solution to the situation. We have to support the policy of the Afghanistan Government that talks with Taliban elements are possible only with those who accept the constitution and put their weapons down. They can return to the political process.
We have to support Mr Karzai and the Afghanistan Government in retaking control of their country and in retaking control of the policy initiatives in their own country. Therefore I welcome very much what Commissioner Ferrero-Waldner said about focusing on the elections next year. Afghanistan needs a strong government, a committed government that looks forward and does not look backwards towards its past.
Finally, let me again say that I believe that the Commission is making an excellent effort in organising our assistance programmes in Afghanistan. In particular the Ambassador, Mr Kretschmer, and of course the Special Representative, Mr Vendrell, are doing an excellent job representing the European Union. We need today to send a strong signal of support to our people in Afghanistan, to our services and to the Council to continue their work.
(CS) Ladies and gentlemen, in order to successfully overcome the security, political, economic and social problems from which Afghanistan suffers, more is needed than just a military solution. The military pressure on the insurgents must be matched by an intensive political process, and by a dialogue with all segments of the population that recognise the Constitution and are willing to lay down their weapons. I am of the opinion that the European Union should play an increasing role in supporting Afghanistan in building its own state, with stronger democratic institutions capable of ensuring territorial integrity, state unity, and economic and social development. At present, support is urgently needed for the south of the country in particular. Strengthening of administrative institutions and a gradual takeover of the responsibilities for running the country by Afghan authorities must, however, be accompanied by effective human rights protection for all, under the rule of law. Permanent and sustainable success cannot be assured without such protection.
Mr President, we all remember why Afghanistan was invaded in the first place: it followed the 9/11 terrorist attacks on the USA, masterminded by al-Qa'ida from bases in Afghanistan under the protection of the Taliban. The USA, along with its allies, most notably the UK, launched a successful attack to displace al-Qa'ida from its stronghold. The West's serious military forces did what was needed to be done to confront terrorism.
This report states that the presence of NATO is essential in order to ensure the country's future. It is true that only the combined military force of the free and democratic world united in NATO can defend our democratic freedoms from attack, but I am very dubious about the chances of grafting democracy onto a country that has no history of it, especially where the monopoly religious ideology is one that is antipathetic to the West's view of liberal democracy.
(BG) Colleagues, Afghanistan has been the scene of military action for nearly seven years now. In June 2008 the European Union is supporting a military staff of more than 23,000. The international community provides considerable economic aid to Afghanistan, constant efforts are made to restore the infrastructure in that country. As a result of all these efforts, the government has control over only one-third of the territory of Afghanistan.
Considering these results, I cannot understand the desire to increase European Union financial assistance for Afghanistan. Why should the money of European taxpayers be spent for initiatives of proven little effect? The desire to provide supremacy of the law and improve the judicial system, but will the present government be able to uphold them, considering that it cannot ensure supremacy of its own power in the country? We are helping restore the police force of Afghanistan, but why are officials who do not respect human rights and misuse their official position the result?
Obviously, if we want one day Afghanistan to stop being a source of tension and to take its place of merit in the international community, we in the European institutions should seriously reconsider our present policies and the strategies that are being used.
Mr President, I refer back to point 16 in the resolution where we say that 'Afghanistan's security problems are more complex than just a war on terror and that they therefore require more than a military solution'. This is the point that I think my colleagues Mr Rouček and Mr Pohjamo made earlier on. We know of many examples in history showing that military power can in many circumstances force an end to conflict and create a quasi-peaceful solution, but we also know from those historical lessons that only democratic institutions, with the support of the people of these countries, can secure a lasting solution.
We were making progress in this area in Afghanistan, and Commissioner Ferrero-Waldner is right when she says that the Afghanistan Government must now show a clear respect for human rights and freedom of expression if this is to be restored. In the last elections I saw women voting in Afghanistan, which is a major step forward. These are the sort of things we have got to build on, and we must work with Pakistan so that we can restore peace in that area.
(ES) Mr President, more international troops died in Afghanistan in June than in Iraq. Also in June, the visibility and power of the Taliban was increasingly obvious in Peshawar, a key Pakistani city in the conflict.
It has been claimed in Pakistan that the armed forces have arranged secret peace agreements with the Afghan and Pakistani Taliban leadership, and that the Pakistani army would appear to be more concerned with the Indian border than the Afghan border. Moreover, as a number of speakers have already mentioned, forty people were killed yesterday at the gates of the Indian Embassy in Kabul.
My question is: has the time not come to contemplate a different kind of strategy?
- (DE) Madam President, the month of June was the bloodiest for foreign soldiers since the end of the Taliban regime in 2001. More than 48 coalition troops were killed, which is more than lost their lives over the same period in Iraq. Since the beginning of the year violence in Afghanistan has cost the lives of more than 2 200 people. What we have in Afghanistan is not a solitary conflict but a regional war that could develop further. The situation is now more serious than it was in 2001.
In view of this alarming state of affairs, Afghanistan must remain an absolute priority for Europe. The presence of European troops and the EU's civil operations in the country is playing a key role. After lengthy negotiations in committee, I support the final version of our motion for a resolution, which contains many key elements, including the systematic training of the Afghan security forces, greater focus on the rebuilding of civil society and enhanced coordination between the international bodies.
(SV) Madam President, having listened to the debate today and read all the amendments, I get the feeling that certain people believe that only dialogue is good and helpful and that any military presence is bad and counterproductive. I do not know how many Members of this Parliament are war refugees, but I am one. I know that both civilian cooperation and a military presence are needed. My experience of war is that those who are best prepared for dialogue have no power and that men of violence, traffickers and warlords who do have power are seldom ready to pursue any dialogue. What is needed therefore is a combination of military and civilian deployments if we seriously want to break the vicious circle of violence and poverty in Afghanistan.
(SK) We are witnessing a sharp rise in terrorist acts and violent insurgency in Afghanistan. The international community must not tolerate and give in to terrorist organisations financed through the drugs trade.
The main objective of these terrorist organisations is to sow discord among the NATO allies, thereby creating the impression that it is impossible to bring peace to Afghanistan. In doing so, they are threatening the safety of not just the region but of the whole world. The EU's security policy towards Afghanistan therefore needs to be more dynamic and flexible, and include concrete short-term and long-term measures aimed at restoring Afghan society, institutions and the rule of law, and supporting President Karzai. The European Community should continue to support the measures that have already contributed to progress in the country, especially those that help to provide for the basic needs of the population and make health care available.
(RO) Afghanistan remains the greatest challenge for the international community due to its terrorist activity, the increase in drug production and the number of violent acts.
In this context, I request the Commission and the Council, as well as the international organizations, to take into account three major actions as priority for the short-term action plan: to identify and isolate the drug distribution channels in Afghanistan, greater involvement of the countries in the region in implementing international strategies, taking into consideration the cultural and religious closeness, greater financial allocation and involvement for the reconstruction and human and administrative food assistance.
I also believe that the intensification of political, cultural and religious dialogue with Afghanistan is a viable solution for achieving the stability objectives in the region.
I congratulate Mr. André Brie on the report he drafted.
Madam President, I have just returned from Helmand and Kandahar. I agree that there will be no progress without stability; stability means good governance and it means troops and it means police.
I think that some of our European allies are merely paying lip-service in terms of what they are doing in Afghanistan. We need more combat forces there; we need greater flexibility; we need greater support for the ISAF mission in Afghanistan. As far as the police mission is concerned, the EU is doing a good job there, but it is doing nothing in comparison with the scale of the American effort. There should be proper coordination between what the Europeans and what the Americans are doing in terms of police training.
Finally I should like to condemn the remarks that were made by Mr Brie when he talked about the Taliban and the Americans in the same breath: I think that was disgraceful. The Taliban are murdering their own people, the Allies are there supporting the local population.
Mr President, paragraph 11 of the motion for a resolution states that the European Parliament 'supports the efforts of NATO forces to improve security in the country and tackle local and international terrorism, and considers the presence of these forces to be essential in order to ensure the country's future'.
Amendment 9, tabled by the rapporteur, is against this position and suggests that the paragraph be deleted. It would be much better if the rapporteur instead stated clearly that Parliament supports local and international terrorism and considers the presence of NATO forces to be an obstacle to ensuring the country's Taliban future. Such an Amendment 9 would be a fair anti-Afghan and anti-NATO game.
(PL) Madam President, today one of the most important challenges facing the Union is the creation of an effective mechanism for project coordination and information exchange among participants in Afghanistan. Such a mechanism is vital in order for the projects undertaken by entities working in Afghanistan to be mutually complementary. International and local terrorism has to be countered in order to improve safety within the country and, by so doing, further its development. For this reason we should act together to support Afghan society and reconciliation projects. In addition we should work toward stabilising the situation in Afghanistan by strengthening local institutions and satisfying the basic living requirements of the population. An important step on the path to the democratic reconstruction of the country is to achieve media independence and freedom. This should be supported.
President-in-Office of the Council. - (FR) Madam President, Mr Brie, Commissioner, my friend Benita, ladies and gentlemen, I would once again like to express my support for Mr Brie's report and my satisfaction that there is such a wide consensus on the fact that Afghanistan needs more security in the broad sense and more governance at what is a particularly difficult time, as you all pointed out.
Our discussion has highlighted the fact that we are dealing with a very complex situation, which requires more than just a military solution; that we are facing an extremely difficult situation; that the international community needs to make a long-term commitment, which is necessary and a critical element for the European Union, as you said; that it will take a long time to raise the people's hopes; and that when it comes to governance in particular, as the Commission pointed out, we must concentrate on the preparations for the forthcoming elections. For its part, the Council is of course going to continue to monitor the election preparations very carefully.
As regards the governance-related aspects, respect for the rule of law and for everything related to our traditions is not a dividing element; we must also tell the Afghan authorities this.
As regards the security rules and presence on the ground, I should point out that EU personnel account for more than 50% of the IFAS and the Council will concentrate on four priority areas over the coming months. The first priority will be to implement the substantial increase in EUPOL personnel decided on at the Council of 26 May. Clearly, all aspects relating to police effectiveness are important and Parliament is right to be concerned about this.
Secondly, the Council will endeavour to monitor the implementation of the conclusions of the International Conference in support of Afghanistan: the European Union must play a key role in this respect given its financial contribution.
Thirdly, the European Union must stress the need to improve relations between Afghanistan and Pakistan - as several of you mentioned - and to encourage both countries to continue to work actively to strengthen their cooperation, notably in the fight against the common challenge posed by terrorism and in all matters relating to drug trafficking.
In conclusion, it is important for the Council and the Commission to have the European Parliament's full support in this matter, which is critical for the international community and - as several of you also highlighted - for the future of Europe.
Member of the Commission. - Madam President, I will try to be brief. I will just make three remarks. The first is on Pakistan. It is absolutely clear that it is very important to work on the border area also, and I think also to exploit this window of opportunity that is there following the new formation of the government in Pakistan.
But at the same time we already see rising tensions there, and hopefully these will not, of course, jeopardise the somewhat improved bilateral exchanges at grass-root level.
We are also working, therefore, in the border areas and we see that regional cooperation, including border management and regional trade facilities, is important, and we also support the G8 dialogue initiative that has been started with Germany on Afghanistan and Pakistan. This is my first remark.
My second remark is on justice. Indeed, we think that good governance is of course important and this goes hand-in-hand with police and justice. If there is impunity the police can do what they want. There has to be a good system of justice. Therefore, together with the Council, which has been working on police, we the Commission have been working very strongly on justice and we have, therefore, contributed substantially to shaping Afghanistan's national justice strategy and programme and again this has to be a sustainable programme which means for the long term.
There is a dedicated window, this is the Afghanistan Reconstruction Trust Fund (ARTF) for the justice sector to which we plan to contribute also from Afghanistan's bilateral programme and we have delivered on the process and promise already at the Rome Conference, but of course a lot of reforms are necessary.
My third and last remark is on rural development. The Paris Conference has clearly shown that our focus has to be very strong on rural development. I must say we have from the beginning also had this as one of the important sectors and have worked on that. We are strongly engaged in continuing and in providing economic alternatives to opium poppy production.
We also - and this is so to say, the news spin - improve rural infrastructures through river-basin management and irrigation and improve local seeds and animal breeding. And I personally think it is highly interesting to look into a regional approach, for instance in the north, with cooperation with Tajikistan on hydro-power for electricity and for gaining water for irrigation of fields, thus of course giving much better food production for the Afghan population, which could bring them away from drugs.
Thus we are indeed looking forward to a continued close and fruitful joint cooperation with Parliament because it will be for the long haul that we are there, and I do hope we get your support for the policy as such - for the strategy, but also for the implementation. We know it is taxpayers' money but I think we have to be there and work together with you for the stability of Afghanistan.
Madam President, allow me to make three further comments. Firstly, I would like to say to Mrs Beer that I am not afraid of my own group and would be fully up for this debate. One of the most dreadful amendments to my report in committee came from my group: it stated that there had been no positive changes in Afghanistan. The arrogance of this really incenses me. I believe that we all need to take a very realistic and discriminating attitude towards Afghanistan. That country has a society that is not only rich but also contradictory and multifaceted, and the problems facing us are even more so.
Secondly, many colleagues and fellow Members have said to me that we need to shoulder our responsibilities towards Afghanistan when it comes to dealing with terrorism, opium growing, corruption and so on. Many of my left-wing colleagues would possibly say that this applies to the occupation too. My own personal viewpoint, which I have tried to make clear, has to do with the interests of a people who have lived through 30 years of war. I think that much of this is in the report and for this I would again thank all those persons and all those groups involved.
Thirdly, while I disagree with important parts of the text I am happy to continue to work on the report as part of my ongoing commitment to Afghanistan. There is no question of that.
The debate is closed.
The vote will take place today.
Written statements (Rule 142)
in writing. - (PL) Afghanistan is a country faced with many problems. It is a country that experiences many terrorist attacks, with worsening internal security, and where human rights are not respected.
The country is a producer of an enormous quantity of opium, which also has a negative impact on security and politics, as an economy based on opium production is a source of corruption, weakening public institutions, particularly the legal system.
Over half of the Afghan population lives below the poverty line, with unemployment reaching 40%, and renouncing Islam is still a punishable offence. Despite the fact that this country embarked on a complicated and painstaking process of reconstruction, it needs to satisfy its inhabitants' needs much better in areas such as education, health, housing, food and public safety.
Help given to Afghanistan should involve short-term and long-term measures made possible by far-reaching improvements to the system of government. The support of the European Union should be based on the experience and knowledge of the missions of Member States that are present in Afghan territory, using civilian or military forces as intermediaries. The presence of NATO forces is also vital to combat terrorism. The large-scale participation of the population in elections should have a positive effect on the country's future, as this shows a desire to create a democratic state. It is also extremely important to continue the battle against corruption and to encourage the creation of new structures in Afghan institutions. Restructuring and the joint international effort can have an enormous impact on pulling Afghanistan out of the difficult situation it is in, caused by the long-running internal conflict.


Interpretation of the Rules of Procedure
The interpretation of Rules 56 and 50 of the Rules of Procedure of the European Parliament, which was adopted by the Committee on Constitutional Affairs at its sitting of Monday 14 February 2011, was announced during yesterday's voting time. As this interpretation was not contested by anyone pursuant to Rule 211(4) of the Rules of Procedure, the interpretation can be deemed to have been adopted. As a result, the vote on the Mathieu report on the procedure for a single permit for third-country nationals to reside and work in the territory of a Member State has been removed from the agenda for this part-session. As you are aware, the matter has been the subject of much debate, and now we have an interpretation on the basis of the Rules of Procedure and the principles governing our work.


Lapsed written declarations: see Minutes


Oral questions and written declarations (submission): see Minutes


6. Social services of general interest (vote)


Resumption of the session
I declare resumed the session of the European Parliament adjourned on Thursday 9 October 2008.


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


Dates of forthcoming sittings: see Minutes


Arrangements for importing fishery and aquaculture products into the EU with a view to the future reform of the CFP (debate)
The next item is the report by Alain Cadec, on behalf of the Committee on Fisheries, on arrangements for importing fishery and aquaculture products into the EU with a view to the future reform of the CFP.
Mr President, Commissioners, ladies and gentlemen, one of the strong ideas of this report is the need to establish a vital link between the common commercial policy and the common fisheries policy.
With this in mind, we can only welcome the fact that the Commissioner for Maritime Affairs and Fisheries, Mrs Damanaki, who is our regular contact, and the Commissioner for Trade, Mr De Gucht, are reunited on the Commission's bench. Two Commissioners for one report, what an honour! I must say that this dual representation of the Commission is surprising and flattering, and moreover, rather unusual.
Let us return to the report itself. Imports of fishery and aquaculture products from third countries account for more than 60% of EU consumption. This worrying level of EU dependence on imports is the result of a double phenomenon: firstly, there has been a decline in EU production, and, secondly, the EU market has been increasingly opened up to imports, as a result of the trade policies conducted by the Commission in the course of the last decade.
These developments are making life difficult for EU fishermen who, paradoxically, are finding it hard to sell their catches at sufficiently lucrative prices, even though demand exceeds supply for most species. European fishermen accept having environmental, social and health restrictions imposed on them, but bitterly resent the fact that they are not applied in the same way to products imported in huge numbers from third countries.
What is at stake here is quite simply the survival of an economically viable European fisheries sector, a supplier of jobs right across the industry, a provider of safe and good quality food, contributing to the preservation of the cultural identity of our coastal regions.
Ladies and gentlemen, the survival of European fisheries is non-negotiable. In essence, we are demanding the following. Firstly, the preservation by the European Union of significant tariff protection for fishery and aquaculture products, so that the preferences granted to certain third countries, in particular developing countries, still mean something, and so that the WTO mechanisms are still effective in ensuring that our processing industry receives supplies. We must shield these products from the tariff minefield by using the Swiss formula and demanding that they be treated as sensitive products.
Secondly, the trade preferences granted to certain third countries must be dependent on their complying with strict environmental, social and health standards, at the very least.
Thirdly, we call for the responsibility for conducting trade talks on fishery and aquaculture products to be transferred from the Trade Commissioner to the Commissioner for Maritime Affairs and Fisheries. This will mean that better account is taken of the specific characteristics of fishery and aquaculture products. I think this is the perfect time to review the terms of this fundamental debate. Indeed, we are on the eve of an important reform of the CFP.
Furthermore, we note that the Doha Round at the WTO has come to a standstill, giving us an opportunity to reconsider some ill-timed concessions that the Commission was preparing to make on behalf of the European Union. Furthermore, on the initiative of Commissioner De Gucht, who is here with us, the European Commission has just opened a public consultation period with a view to creating new guidelines for the common commercial policy, within the framework of the Europe 2020 strategy. The European Parliament henceforth has powers of codecision in relation to both trade policy and fisheries policy, and it fully intends to make its voice heard and to ensure that its point of view is respected in these matters.
In my view the first demonstration of this should be the Commission and the Council genuinely taking into account the recommendations contained in this report. In any case, we will be extremely vigilant in the coming months, and I personally intend to keep working on these issues.
Member of the Commission. - Mr President, first of all I would like to thank Mr Cadec and the EP Committees that have sponsored this own-initiative report. You have regretted that the green paper on the CFP reform did not pay enough attention to the issues you raise here. My objective today is to reassure you that the Commission is committed to the work, taking into full account all policies that would have an impact on the CFP reform. As I have already stated, the purpose of the reform is to turn around the negative spiral we are in now. We have a fisheries sector that is neither ecologically sustainable nor economically performing well. We need robust fisheries that ensure sustainable exploitation of the resources while allowing our fishermen, their families and the communities involved to make a decent living from their activities.
We need fisheries which are ready to meet the challenges of the market: both national and international, and both currently and for the future. I hear your concerns about unfair competition from third countries and the absence of a level playing field in terms of social conditions, environmental and sustainability requirements and health protection laws. Let me tell you that this same concern was voiced by all the Member States which took the floor at the last Agriculture and Fisheries Council. So here we need an answer.
While we are changing the rules for European fisheries in the context of our CFP reform, one of the biggest challenges we will have will be precisely to do our best in order to secure a level playing field for all products placed on the EU market. In this respect, for instance, we should all work together to fully and effectively implement our legislation against illegal, unregulated and unreported fishing.
I would also like to say that we remain committed to promoting the respect of all international principles and instruments of good maritime and fishery governance by our partners, as well as their responsible behaviour in terms of environmental protection and social conditions.
I strongly support your call for an increased coherence of our policies. We need to work together with a global and integrated vision. Two thirds of the fish consumed in Europe, as we have already mentioned, are already imported in order to ensure a steady supply of raw material to our processing industry and fair prices to consumers. Yet one third of the EU market is still supplied by an EU sector that represents jobs and this part of the social fabric of many regions in Europe. So, while we are in the middle of a serious reform of our common fisheries policy, EU trade policy should continue to take into account the complex nature of the EU's fishing sector and its economic and social realities. I look forward to working closely together with my colleague Mr De Gucht in order to secure the necessary time for the adjustments that are needed, taking into account the pace of the ongoing CFP reform.
With reference to WTO negotiations, we are paying particular attention to the ongoing discussions on subsidies. It is our view that we should always be able to support environmentally friendly and innovation-oriented initiatives of our Member States. Concerning the revision of the market policy, I agree with the draft report that the new market policy of the CFP should revisit the instruments of the current common market organisation. The revision should aim at strengthening producer organisations in their ability to better link the supply to demand in terms of quality and volumes. It shall also support market supply and stability and review provisions of marketing standards and information to consumers.
This brings us to labelling. Consumers want to know more about the seafood they buy. They want to know where the fish was caught or raised; also they want to know whether the products respect the environment and whether they have been fished sustainably. The Commission is ready to work on legislative initiatives aiming at giving consumers the information they need.
Finally, a word on aquaculture. The Commission is fully committed to achieving the objectives of the strategy for the sustainable development of aquaculture, as we have already discussed in the EP report. We also share the view that developing aquaculture in the EU can lead to reduced dependence on imports and better respond to constantly rising consumer demand.
Before closing I would like to stress that today's debate will provide an important contribution to the preparation of the CFP reform, but it will also send an important political signal - a positive signal - to the men and women of the European fisheries sector, who are prepared for tougher discipline but are also expecting a message of hope for their future.
Member of the Commission. - Mr President, the Commission welcomes the European Parliament's decision to prepare an own-initiative report on the import regime for fish and fishery products. The debate opened by the European Parliament provides a good basis to start reflecting on how to address trade negotiations in the context of a reformed common fisheries policy.
I would like to invite the Members of the European Parliament to take into consideration the following observations on the issues raised in the draft EP report.
The Commission is aware of the particular nature of the fisheries sector and its importance, especially for coastal communities. This sensitivity is taken into consideration in the implementation of the common commercial policy.
I would like to highlight that the EU's trade policy has to reconcile the diverse interests of the various parts of the fisheries sector affected by the policy, including producers, processors and consumers. The Commission's goal when pursuing its trade policy for fishery and aquaculture products is to achieve a balanced result between, among other things, an adequate supply policy, the situation and interests of EU producers and the demands of consumers, while taking into account potential development policy objectives.
We all acknowledge that the EU is strongly dependent on imported fishery and aquaculture products to satisfy its market demands, represented not only by consumers, but also by the processing industry. Given the existing trends and potential increase in dependence, the current reform of the common fisheries policy is a good opportunity for the EU to reinforce the economic performance of the sector and its ability to compete globally.
We should not ignore the likelihood that broader globalisation will continue in the future given current global trends in international trade, both at multilateral and at bilateral/regional level. In the context of free trade arrangement negotiations, the Commission has taken, is taking, and should take into account the complex nature of the EU's fishing sector during market access negotiations and ensure there is a balance between the diverse interests affected by trade policy, as I have just mentioned. In the context of these global trends in international trade, the Commission will strive to secure the necessary time for the adjustments that will need to take place, taking into account the pace of the ongoing common fisheries policy reform.
Let me briefly refer to one of the main suggestions included in the report, which is the possibility of detaching fish products from NAMA in the framework of the DDA. I will be very honest with you on this point. At this stage of the discussions, besides being very difficult to segregate fish products from NAMA, other approaches such as a specific negotiating group could result in the EU coming under enormous pressure to further liberalise its market.
The Commission takes due note of the draft report's call for the responsibility for the negotiation of fishery and aquaculture products to be transferred from the Trade Commissioner to the Fisheries Commissioner. According to the principle of collegiality which governs the Commission work, all the members of the Commission are jointly responsible for decisions and actions taken. This also means that the Trade Commissioner and DG TRADE, who are responsible for negotiations of fishery and aquaculture products, do not act alone, but negotiate in close cooperation with the Maritime Affairs and Fisheries Commissioner and DG MARE and with their direct involvement at all stages of the negotiations.
The Commission wants to reassure the EP that the specific needs of the fisheries sector are taken into consideration in the course of trade negotiations. Indeed, the Commission defends the interests of the EU sector in trade negotiations and takes into account its sensitivities as far as possible, even when faced with strong pressure from our trading partners.
In defending the interests of the EU fisheries sector in trade negotiations, the Commission also seeks to remove any trade barrier maintained by our trade partners that might threaten the export potential of the EU industry, with the aim of ensuring a level playing field in bilateral and multilateral trade in fish products.
Finally, the report voices concerns from stakeholders as regards ensuring a level playing field for EU products and third country imports. The EU is firmly committed to promoting both labour and environmental standards in the context of trade negotiations with third countries in parallel to market opening - for example, in the framework of a sustainable development chapter included in our trade agreements or in a number of international fora where these issues are addressed, such as the UN, FAO and regional fisheries management organisations, where the EU is an active participant.
I would like to conclude by showing my willingness and availability to further discuss with the Honourable Members of the European Parliament the Commission's role in trade negotiations as far as fishery and aquaculture products are concerned.
Mr President, Commissioners, I think we must note the convergence of this Parliament's Committee on Fisheries and its Committee on International Trade on this matter and on the proposals presented in connection with it.
It has been said that fishing is an extremely important sector for spatial planning, employment and cultural identity in Europe. It is also a sector which has an extremely strong impact on fisheries resources, and today a great majority of stocks are considerably overfished. Too often people would have us believe that the ultimate objective of a European common fisheries policy is to adapt the fisheries sector to globalised trade in fishery products, the extremely harsh effects of which we can see today, whether it be socially, economically or, of course, environmentally.
We therefore actively defend much stronger integration of social and environmental criteria into trade agreements regarding fishery products. We support the idea of withdrawing fishery products from non-agricultural market access (NAMA) rules, because a fish is not a sock or a washing machine, it is absolutely crucial to food security and biodiversity. However, we must be clear. Since we are bringing this into international negotiations, our European policy must be exemplary and we must move in the direction of having more and better paid fishermen who do not overexploit fish stocks, either in our territorial waters or in those in which we buy fishing rights.
Mr President, Commissioners, ladies and gentlemen, I should like to thank Mr Cadec for the work - the excellent work - he has done on such an important issue as the arrangements for importing fishery and aquaculture products into the EU.
I had prepared my speech on the need, for example, to focus on ensuring that imported products comply with the same health rules and the same requirements, but I see that others have spoken about this, so it would be rather pointless and a waste of time for us to go over it again. However, I must mention a fundamental aspect, which I seemed to perceive from Commissioner De Gucht's speech and which the Member before me spoke about, namely that there are some minor conflicts today between the powers of the two Commissioners or between the powers that the two Commissioners should have.
All hypocrisy aside, I believe that it is important to emphasise this because, as has been said, the fisheries sector has a fundamental role to play if we want to ensure that our fishermen do not keep reducing their catch capacity because we have forced them to do so for the sake of our seas. If we want to ensure that people do not continue to regard our fishermen as the Cinderella figures of Europe, so to speak, then we will have to devote more attention to this matter.
Commissioner Damanaki and Commissioner De Gucht have both expressed their intention to devote themselves fully to this entire issue, but I believe that it is important to have just one line of approach. I also believe that the aspect regarding the Fisheries Commissioner, with everything that that entails subsequently within Parliament, is crucial to ensuring that the problem is solved and that this report becomes an important future perspective.
on behalf of the S&D Group. - (PT) Mr President, Commissioners, ladies and gentlemen, fisheries and aquaculture products make up an important part of the European diet, as we all know, and this means that we need to import more than 60% of these products to meet our needs, as Commissioner Damanaki has rightly stated. This simple fact amply illustrates the importance of the report by Mr Cadec, with whom, as a shadow rapporteur, I had the pleasure of working in the search for as broad a consensus as possible on protecting the sector, the jobs that it provides, and above all European consumers.
For this reason the Group of the Progressive Alliance of Socialists and Democrats in the European Parliament is backing the key assumptions and basic conclusions of the report, particularly with regard to the concerns and recommendations on the need to guarantee the health and safety of imported fisheries and aquaculture products, and the environmental criteria that need to be made a requirement for catching, producing and processing these very products.
The report rightly addresses other issues that are equally deserving of support, but due to lack of time I cannot explain these here. For these reasons my group will obviously vote in favour of the report. Moreover, I would like to congratulate Mr Cadec on the excellent work that he has done.
on behalf of the ALDE Group. - Mr President, at the outset I want to congratulate Mr Cadec on producing this report. The decline in fish prices in recent years is directly and substantially caused by competition from imports of both wild and farmed fish. The producers of these products are not subject to the demanding regimes of EU operators in areas such as conservation and in areas such as hygiene standards. They enter the European market at a price that is uneconomic for European producers.
This issue must be addressed in the context of the reform of the common fisheries policy, and I know that Commissioner Damanaki will address this. There is a huge reliance on imported goods, as has been pointed out by both Commissioners, but when I look at my own country importing 46 000 tonnes per annum costing EUR 181 million, there appears to be a lack of awareness among consumers of imported fish versus wild fish.
If we are to resolve this problem, we must look at import substitution to reduce the 66% to 50% over a period of, say, 10 years, but in order to do that we must ensure that the red tape which is stifling the sector at the present time is simplified and that all DGs, and indeed all government departments and the various Member States, work in tandem in the best interests of this sector.
on behalf of the Verts/ALE Group. - (SV) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I welcome Mr Cadec's report on the importing of fish into the EU. Europe's own catches have diminished at an alarming rate - by 26% since 1997 alone. More than 60% of all fish consumed in Europe today is imported. This should not need to be the case. If we managed our own fish resources at least according to the maximum sustainable yield (MSY), European catches could increase to double what they are today, while at the same time we would have strong and viable stocks.
With that goal in mind, we must now ensure that we do not transfer our problems of overfishing to other countries. The Cadec report mentions several important instruments that the EU can use. The first is the IUU Regulation. All fish that are placed on the EU market must have approved documents indicating where, when and by whom the fish were caught. That is a first step, but it does not go far enough. In large parts of the world, illegal fishing is a problem that poor countries do not have the resources to do anything about. In countries where corruption is rife, it is not difficult to acquire the right documents for a fish exporter. Therefore, the EU, as the world's largest importer of fish, must take responsibility by providing tangible and technical financial support and contribute the resources that are needed to facilitate compliance and control in developing countries.
The second instrument is already in place in the United Nations. We have good international agreements, but we also need to implement them. During 2006, the EU pursued the question of an implementing agreement for, among other things, the FAO's Code of Conduct for Responsible Fisheries in the United Nations. We must continue to pursue this.
Mr President, I would like to thank Mr Cadec warmly for such a bold report, which is of extreme importance to the common fisheries policy currently being constructed. Even while the report was being drafted, many areas of the common fisheries policy could be observed which, in our view, differ significantly from the opinion of the Commission, and this, unfortunately, also means the final form of the report. In the opinion of fishermen, this crucial report should have an enormous effect on the structure of the future common fisheries policy in terms of organisation of the market.
Mrs Damanaki, you repeated at many meetings that instead of criticising when discussing individual transferrable quotas, we should present proposals for solutions under the future policy. I am convinced that making use of the ideas contained in this report is an alternative to the concept being forced on us by the Commission.
Mr President, Commissioners, first of all I want to thank the rapporteur for his report. On 24 July 2008, in response to the economic crisis facing Europe's fishing fleet, the EU Fisheries Council approved temporary and specific measures aimed at promoting and restructuring the fleet. Just as many fishermen tried to avail themselves of these measures, they were hit with the fallout from the global recession. The value of nethrops or langoustines sold by my fishermen in Northern Ireland to other parts of Europe plummeted. This at the same time as imports of shellfish and fish have become increasingly available.
Europe needs fish. We need fish imports, but I would contend that these should not come at any cost. On the one hand, my colleagues want to stop our fishermen receiving any subsidy. However, the contradiction comes that, as we seek to remove these subsidies, European policy allows fish imports of unregulated fishery and aquaculture products that undermine the sustainable and economically viable fishing industry we strive for.
Europe cannot have it both ways. There is a lack of consistency, and it is to reverse this that I support Mr Cadec's report.
(ES) Mr President, this report originated as a response to the frustration and lack of defence of the EU fishing sector.
Commissioner, this sector is not asking for protectionism, what it is asking for at this stage, given the history of disregard by those in charge of the Directorate-General for Trade, is that it is not sunk even further.
In this regard, we particularly support the request in the report by Mr Cadec that negotiations on the fishing chapters are transferred from the remit of the Directorate-General for Trade to that of the Directorate-General for Maritime Affairs and Fisheries, as is the case with agriculture, as we are also dealing here with products that are particularly sensitive, tuna being the classic case.
On the subject of tuna, we have a scandalous example in the waiving of the rules of origin without the conditions being taken into account in the agreements with Papua New Guinea and Fiji, which only serves to favour our main competitors: Thailand and the Philippines.
Commissioner, are you aware that, in addition to strangling the EU sector, thanks to your policy, Papua New Guinea is entering a phase of very low-quality job creation and zero sustainable development? Are you aware of the reports by non-governmental organisations operating in the region of child labour, insanitary conditions and lack of hygiene in factories, the disastrous environmental impact on the Madang coast and illegal fishing? Is it your responsibility to prevent this?
Mr President, the behaviour of Members of this House today is disgraceful. It would not happen in any other parliament in the world. If there is no respect for the Chair of the Committee on Fisheries and for fisheries in general, I propose that you adjourn the sitting until such time as people have respect for this House and stop having these meetings.
(Applause)
Mr Gallagher, we have to carry on. I would like to ask all colleagues to please keep quiet so that we can work for 10 more minutes and finish this important report and important work.
(DE) Mr President, Mrs Damanaki, European fisheries policy is facing enormous challenges. Our fishermen have to cope with diminishing stocks and at the same time have to deal with competition on the global market that is not always fair. We urgently need to introduce radical reforms in order to put an end to overfishing in European waters and to ensure the survival of European fisheries.
I agree with Commissioner Damanaki that we should not ask too much of our fishermen by on the one hand demanding that they make radical reforms while on the other liberalising trade. Doing both of these things at the same time will place too high a burden on our fishermen. The best way to increase competitiveness is to allow fish stocks to recover. Another way to enable European fisheries to survive would be through better marketing. Under certain circumstances, European consumers are prepared to pay more for European fish if they are better informed about its origin.
(DE) Mr President, Commissioners, I would like to congratulate Mr Cadec on his successful and balanced report. I would also like to thank him for his excellent cooperation.
There are major challenges involved in regulating the import of fishery and aquaculture products into the EU. With a volume of 12 million tonnes and a value of EUR 55 billion, the EU fisheries market is the largest in the world. This market is growing rapidly and is increasingly dependent on imports from third countries. It is therefore important for us to control the conditions under which the products from third countries are produced and imported.
We have now submitted two amendments in plenary. These relate to the need for us to recognise the special economic situation in the peripheral regions of Europe. However, we do not hold market liberalisation alone responsible for the difficulties. The huge introduction of fish products onto the EU market, which has been described as unfair, also has no direct effect on...
(The President cut off the speaker)
(PL) Mr President, I do not have much time, so I would like just to underline one of the themes of Mr Cadec's report. Fish should not be treated in the same way as other industrial products, but should come under the WTO trade rules which apply to sensitive products. EU trade policy pays little attention to the specific nature of this sensitive sector and the interests of EU producers. Therefore, it is a good idea to evaluate the desirability of fisheries products no longer being subject to the industrial non-agricultural market access rules, in order to facilitate the alignment of trade in fisheries products with the requirements that apply to food and sensitive products.
(FR) Mr President, I would like to congratulate our fellow Member Mr Cadec on his excellent work.
The text put to the vote today marks a certain change in the way our institution views the concept of free trade. Without being protectionist, the line defended here may be described as less naïve.
We all agree that European production is insufficient, and rather than immediately resorting to imports, we must first try to intensify our efforts to safeguard and regenerate stocks, including through the use of aquaculture, to ensure the sustainability of the sector and its jobs in the Union, as well as European fisheries that are less dependent on third countries.
As for imports, we must guarantee that the European market in fishery and aquaculture products does not suffer unfair competition as a result of less strict health and social conditions and ludicrously low tariffs. That is why I favour a European label, in accordance with our standards, both environmental and social.
(PT) Mr President, Commissioner, Europe is currently the biggest European market for fishery and aquaculture products, importing approximately 60% of fish consumed. Community production of fish is not and cannot in the near future be enough to satisfy the demand for these kinds of products, and importing them has become a necessity.
In this context, it is important to safeguard two fundamental aspects: firstly, creating the conditions necessary to ensure that EU consumers have access to good quality imported fishery and aquaculture products; and secondly, establishing a framework of fair competition, both for imported products and for those caught and produced by the fisheries and aquaculture sectors in Europe.
It is therefore necessary for fishery and aquaculture products that are imported by the European Union to fulfil the same environmental, social, health and quality standards as those imposed on EU products. Reform of the common fishery and aquaculture products market is also necessary, particularly the revision of the mechanisms used to counter phenomena such as the gradual suppression of customs duties and the growing competitiveness of imports.
This report by Parliament, which has been led admirably by Mr Cadec, is timely and considers a number of important proposals for the sustainable development of the fisheries sector and related sectors, including marketing.
(ES) Mr President, Commissioner Damanaki, Commissioner De Gucht, thank you for being here at this debate on a very important report on the import arrangements.
Fishing is an important issue, in relation to which two essential issues need to be emphasised: the fact that we are not self-sufficient, and the fact that unfair competition takes place a great deal of the time, as a result of which there is a need to secure fishing in Europe and to prevent unfair competition.
I would like to address this to the Commissioner for Trade: you cannot continue considering fishing to be a 'non-sensitive product'; it should not continue to be governed by non-agricultural market access rules; it cannot be a product like industry; it needs to be a 'sensitive product' and it needs to be governed by the rules of the World Trade Organisation and the Food and Agriculture Organisation of the United Nations.
We cannot therefore be sustainable, we cannot guarantee the maintenance of species and we cannot engage in true market activity if we do not consider fish to be a 'sensitive product'.
Mr President, I rise again to suggest through you to the Conference of Presidents that someone needs to get their act together. We were told originally that there would be votes at 12.00. This has moved by five minutes every five minutes. People have planes to catch; it is inconvenient; it makes a mockery of Parliament. Someone get a grip!
(Applause)
We indicated that the votes would be postponed until 12.15 or 12.20, so please let us carry on with the answers from our Commissioners. I am sure that we will be able to vote at 12.20.
Member of the Commission. - Mr President, I cannot get a grip, but what I can do is to be very brief.
I would like to say that we are taking care of all the concerns mentioned by the Members. As Mr De Gucht and I have already mentioned, we are trying to find a balance. We need a viable fisheries sector and we have some obligations to the WTO and other international bodies. I would like to reassure everybody that we are doing our best to contribute so that our CAP reform will be for the best future of our fishermen.
Mr President, I consider the behaviour of our fellow Members completely disrespectful and unacceptable in a Parliament such as ours. What you are doing here is scandalous. You make me feel ashamed. All you are worried about is voting and going home. We are working on an important report, so at least have the decency to listen to people or leave the Chamber.
Anyway, ladies and gentlemen, following my little outburst I have no doubt that in a few minutes you will largely vote in favour of this report, and since I have the opportunity, I must thank our colleagues in the Committee on Fisheries, in particular the Chair Mrs Fraga Estévez, who agreed to take up this matter and entrust me with this report.
I would also like to thank the shadow rapporteurs Mr Capoulas Santos, Mrs Reimers, Mr Gróbarczyk and Mrs Lövin for their contributions to all the discussions and the amendments.
I would also like to thank all those who contributed to this report and the sector representatives who enabled me to carry out my research work, in particular the officials from the Directorate-General of Trade (DG Trade) and the Directorate-General for Maritime Affairs and Fisheries (DG Mare). I am thinking of Zoltan Somoguy and Miriam Garcia Ferrer from DG Trade and Pierre Amilhat, Christian Rambeau and Juan Ranco from DG Mare, and I would like to thank you, Mrs Damanaki, for being here, and you too, Mr De Gucht, even if I am not entirely satisfied with your answers - which are not really answers since they preceded my speech.
In any case, I would also like to thank Mauro Belardinelli from our group, Ollivier Gimenez, my assistants, Emilie Herrbach and Vincent Guerre, and to give a special mention to Philippe Musquar, who helped me greatly with this report and assisted me in its conception.
I will finish my speech by thanking you in advance for your vote.
By way of explanation, Mr De Gucht did not reply because of the noise in this room, so I would like to apologise to both our Commissioners for the noise.
The debate is closed.
The vote will take place shortly.


Communication of Council common positions: see Minutes


Agenda
(FR) Colleagues, I have to remind you that 19 Members have requested time for oral explanations of vote on each of the seven reports that were adopted before lunch. There are a further 10 individual requests for explanations of vote. Theoretically the time required for explanations of vote would thus be 143 minutes, something more than two hours. In order to be able to take these explanations of vote today, I therefore propose the following change in the order of business:
We would take the Commission's statement on waste in the Campania region, which is currently scheduled for 9 p.m., immediately after the Angelilli report on the rights of the child.
The explanations of vote would then be taken during the evening sitting, after the oral question on the status of elected MEPs in Poland.
The order of business would thus be as follows:
from 3 to 5.30 p.m.: Cashman report, Angelilli report, then the Commission statement on waste in the Campania region,
from 5.30 to 7 p.m.: Commission Question Time,
then during the evening sitting from 9 p.m. to midnight we would have, in order: the Pack report, the Graefe zu Baringdorf report, the oral question on the status of elected MEPs in Poland and finally the explanations of vote on those items put to the vote before lunch.
Mr President, on a point of order, for clarification of the Rules as they were ruled upon earlier today. Under Rule 171, invoked by Mr Schulz, about the suspension of the sitting, it does not say - because we had finished the votes and were before an explanation of vote - that the rule could be invoked at that particular time. If the sitting was then suspended, it is precedent in this House that, when you resume the sitting, you continue with the business, and continuing with the business - based on precedent in this House and what we have done in the eight years I have been here - would be the explanations of vote. I am quite happy to come back here at whatever time is necessary to give my explanations of vote, because I want to do that for a number of reports.
I would ask you what the basis of the ruling on Rule 171 was, because I do not think that was in order; you know you are twisting the Rules, as well as I do here, to go against the democratic wills of some Members of this House. It is a strange type of democracy when you are trying to silence a minority who are just doing what they are allowed to do within the Rules of Procedure.
(FR) Colleagues, allow me to remind you of a few basic facts about how we operate here. The President can suspend the sitting at any time.
I merely have to get up - to rise from this seat - and the proceedings will be suspended automatically. Rest assured, please, that I have no intention of rising from my seat, but do be aware that all it takes for the proceedings to be suspended is that the President should get up.
So my first point is this: the proceedings were suspended because it rests entirely within the President's power to suspend the sitting when he or she chooses to do so.
A second absolute rule is the following: this is the plenary session and only the plenary session has control - total control - over its agenda. That is why I am proposing to you that you amend the order of business along the lines I have just suggested.
Should you not wish to make the changes I have proposed, then in that case - and only in that case - Mr Heaton-Harris, you would be right, we would work to the agenda previously agreed.
I will therefore now ask whether the Members are formally opposed to changing the order of business as I have just suggested. We will formally hear the case against the proposal and then I will take a speaker in favour of it.
Mr President, it is undoubtedly true that you, as President, could leave the chair and the Assembly would be suspended. However, that is not the basis on which what happened before lunch time happened. That was on the premise of a proposal under Rule 171, from Mr Schulz, that the House be suspended.
The rule is quite clear, that when such a proposal is made there should be a speaker for, and a speaker against. That was not the case, meaning that the proposal was irregular and should not have been put to the vote, and that the decision is not binding. You should, therefore, now return to the agenda.
(FR) I would remind you again that the House is the sovereign authority here. So the President in the chair is entitled to do as I am now doing, namely to call on two colleagues to speak, one for and one against. That is a prerogative of the President.
Of course the House has to take a vote, but I believe that a vote was taken this morning, and electronically confirmed. I do not think that the result of that vote can be contested.
on behalf of the PSE Group. - (DE) Mr President, I only wish to acknowledge that the President who chaired the sitting this morning did indeed forget to ask who wished to speak for and against the proposal. It is equally true, however, that a clear majority of this House voted that we should not debate or hear the explanations of vote now but at ten o'clock this evening. Now there is a new proposal, and I wish to support it on behalf of my Group and, I think, on behalf of other Members too. I believe the arrangement you have proposed makes good sense, and we shall see how the vote goes. Moreover, as you said yourself, the House is sovereign. The majority of the House will decide.
(Applause)
(FR) Colleagues, I have taken one speaker against and one speaker for the motion. If someone has something to say at this point, it should be on a different matter, not to re-argue the for and against. If that is what you wish to do, I cannot give you the floor.
Mr President, on a point of order, this Chamber may be sovereign, as you say, but it nonetheless must follow its own Rules of Procedure.
The suspension or closure of a sitting is covered by Rule 171; I quote, 'The sitting may be suspended or closed during a debate or a vote.' Now, this morning was not during a debate or a vote, it was after the vote.
Furthermore, Rule 163, 'Explanations of vote', does not allow discretion to the Chair to not hear them or to change the time. It reads explicitly, 'Once the general debate has been concluded, any Member may give an oral explanation on the final vote for not longer than one minute'.
It is true that the rules of this House give substantial arbitrary power to the speaker. But these are two items where no such power pertains, and this House chose - in the most flagrant way - to tear up its own Rules of Procedure rather than delay a couple of people from having lunch.
I have to say it is symbolic of the way in which the European Union is proceeding with the ratification of the Lisbon Treaty, nay, European Constitution, that you tear up your own rule book when it does not suit you, rather than tolerate an opposing point of view.
(FR) What I propose, colleagues, is as follows: clearly we are not in a position this afternoon, here in plenary session, to assess all the various arguments about the interpretation of this rule.
If Members wish to engage in recriminations, let them do so in writing to the President of Parliament. I am sure that he will refer complaints to the appropriate committee.
What I am concerned to do now is simply to decide on the order of business. I have made a proposal. I have heard one Member speak against it and one Member for it. I now put it to the vote.
(Parliament agreed to the request.)
(The order of business was thus established.)