2. International Tropical Timber Agreement 2006 (


Follow-up to the Declaration of the Sports Ministers of the European Union at their meeting in Biarritz in November 2008 (debate)
- The next item is the debate on the oral question to the Commission on the follow-up to the Declaration of the Sports Ministers of the European Union at their meeting in Biarritz in November 2008 by Katerina Batzeli and Doris Pack, on behalf of the Committee on Culture and Education - B6-0223/2009).
author. - (EL) Mr President, Commissioner, the informal council of Sports Ministers in Biarritz in November 2008 was the first real European sports forum at the level of transnational cooperation.
It is a first substantive and important step. Principles such as subsidiarity, autonomy and self-regulation in sport are broadly applied at national and regional level. However, they cannot answer the basic question of whether sport ultimately has a social role or a purely commercial dimension which inevitably turns a sporting activity into a product of the internal market.
Today, the intense commercialisation of sport and the fact that it has been opened up to purely commercial sectors, such as advertising through the mass media, have lent it purely economic attributes. The Court of Justice of the European Communities has already been petitioned several times to rule, in specific cases, on whether a sporting activity is a service of purely social benefit or if, on the contrary, it also encompasses economic aspects which imply that it is a service of general economic interest.
Even though the specific social role of sport does not warrant its general exemption from the rule of Community law, it continues to be recognised and to allow limitations, provided that such exemptions are warranted by the social role of sport per se.
Commissioner, there are certain questions which are also asked in the question by our committee:
firstly, the same concern about the autonomy of organisations; the autonomy of sports clubs and federations must be safeguarded. However, there are clear cases in which self-regulation does not safeguard equal treatment of all stakeholders;
secondly, the Commission urgently needs to give us the necessary guidelines on the question of the definition of the concept of a service of general economic interest in sport and the criteria by which the freedoms of the internal market and the rules of competition are imposed and
thirdly, one issue which may not be mentioned in the oral question but which is an issue of major importance is that which has arisen at national level, namely how to manage the rights of state or private radio and television stations to cover sporting fixtures. The emergence on the market of numerous new private service providers using new technologies and telecommunications was what basically lured many sports federations into making preferential sales of these rights.
However, it should be emphasised at this point that it is precisely because of the social role of sport that it would be a mistake to promote a system from which solidarity between clubs is missing and economic competition is strengthened. Collective bargaining, a matter which Mr Mavrommatis also addresses in his report, should be promoted as the most suitable and fitting solution for the sport sector.
Whatever the solution, Commissioner, it must respect not only the legal procedure of the market, but also the public role of sport and the fact that it is a social commodity and must be accessible to every section of society. The role of and the way in which sports clubs are organised are important factors in how they negotiate with the European Commission and with the Committee on Culture and Education and the European Parliament.
Member of the Commission. - Mr President, I welcome the statement by the EU Sports Ministers at their meeting last November in Biarritz. They are important in driving the political debate on sport forward step by step and also in strengthening dialogue structures on sport, as was recommended in our white paper in 2007. This White Paper on Sport is making good progress in implementation.
The recent European Council Declaration on Sport, in December, is also a very important step forward and calls for strengthened dialogue with the IOC and the sport movement as a priority.
The Commission has moved swiftly to follow up both calls from the political side. However, dialogue in sport remains a challenging task, given the diversity of sport and the complexity of the sport structures.
In January, in Lausanne, I met with the IOC President, Mr Jacques Rogge, and representatives of international sport federations. The meeting confirmed that sport organisations are really moving away from insisting on general exemptions - 'block exemptions' - from the 'acquis communautaire' for sport, and are ready to address sport-related topics with legal implications on a theme-per-theme basis. I think this is the appropriate way to achieve more clarity regarding the application of European Union law to sport, in addition to guidance provided in the white paper.
We are also exchanging views with team sports. My services met last week with the main international and European team sport federations to discuss free movement of athletes and non-discrimination aspects in sport. I intend to follow up on these discussions by convening a further meeting at this high level in June.
Finally, good progress has been achieved in setting up EU social dialogue structures in sport. It started in football and I believe it will continue in other sectors.
Regarding the shape of the dialogue framework, there simply cannot be a single, formal framework for consultation with the sport movement. Given the specific organisation of sport, the dialogue must take account of the different levels of sport.
I am committed to a constructive partnership with all actors in sport respecting the autonomy of sport, subsidiarity principles and national and EU legal frameworks. I think this is crucial in shaping the future EU policy framework for sport, which - without prejudging developments regarding the Lisbon Treaty - we might have to implement as early as next year.
Here I also would like to thank the European Parliament, and especially the Committee on Culture and Education, for its support. You also, notably, approved the specific line, or budget, for a preparatory action, which we will soon start to implement. This is an important opportunity and will help us to frame our ideas for the way ahead.
on behalf of the PPE-DE Group. - (EL) Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, as rapporteur on the White Paper on Sport, I had the opportunity of presenting the position of the European Parliament at the meeting of the Sports Ministers of the Member States of the European Union in Biarritz.
The White Paper emphasises the need to respect the autonomy and specificity of sport. The political debate on sport in Europe often attributes great importance to the so-called 'European Sport Model'. During discussions with European sports stakeholders about the White Paper on Sport, the Commission and the European Parliament agreed that, come what may, the specificity of sport must be protected. There are two approaches to the specificity of European sport:
firstly, the specificity of sporting activities and sporting rules and
secondly, the specificity of the sport structure.
As far as the second specificity is concerned, the European Union recognises the autonomy of sports organisations and of representative structures such as organisations which organise professional championships.
However, in order to achieve improved and more effective coordination, there must be minimum regulation at European level. Thus, both the Commission and European sports stakeholders believe that most of the challenges can be addressed through self-regulation within the framework of respect for the principles of sound management and compliance with Community law.
Generally speaking, the European Union is particularly careful when it comes to its approach to and regulation of sports issues, provided that they are in keeping with European law.
on behalf of the PSE Group. - (NL) Mr President, Parliament has worked hard on the White Paper on Sport and has thrown its full support behind the request to the European Commission to produce clear guidelines on the application of European law to sport. Not only Parliament but also sport organisations from throughout Europe have called for clarity. It is inhumane that they are left in the dark because, as things stand, the courts are having to decide time after time on the application of European law. The European Ministers for Sport repeated the request to the Commission in Biarritz.
It is time we heard from the Commission itself whether it has yet started to develop these guidelines. Can it tell us when they will be available? Is it prepared to organise a stakeholder conference involving, among others, representatives of the world of sport and of the European Parliament, in order to launch or accelerate this process and to increase clarity for European sport organisations as quickly as possible?
This brings me to another, closely related, point. Experience has shown that there are currently few or no good mechanisms for dialogue in sport. The clearest example is the discussion on the amended Anti-Doping Code of the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA). They cling desperately to unworkable rules, and there is absolutely no scope for real dialogue with the European institutions and the sportspeople themselves to seek solutions with the potential to produce an anti-doping policy that is effective and does indeed respect the civil rights and privacy of sportspeople. I have many conversations with sportspeople and stakeholder organisations who complain that there is a lack of consultation and that WADA and the International Olympic Committee lay down requirements but are not themselves receptive to input. WADA's response to yesterday's proposal by UEFA and FIFA alone indicates that an open attitude is completely out of the question.
With regard to anti-doping policy, to what extent has the European Commission taken it upon itself to establish a consultation on the protection of the civil rights of European sportspeople, and how does it believe a consultative framework for sport should be established - both in general and in this kind of matter? Does the Commission also take the view that this consultation must by definition be mutual?
Mr President, the oral question about further steps to be taken following the Declaration of the Sports Ministers of the European Union at their meeting in Biarritz in November 2008 is justified. Dynamic changes in society are being accompanied by changes in sport. Increasing numbers of problems in contemporary sport remain unanswered, and there is no reaction from employers. We are going through a specific crisis in sport. Among other things, doping and trade in youngsters are on the increase.
Treating sportspeople, especially youngsters, as if they were goods to be traded denies them the opportunity to continue a career outside sport as adults. The Ministers rightly call for young men and women athletes to be given access to a dual curriculum of education and sports, and for efforts to provide the relevant facilities and structures to be increased. The proposed improvements relating to competition among young sportspeople are good, but they must not cause the exclusion of other sportspeople whose performance is better.
There are, therefore, a considerable number of threats and doubts. The threats have a global character, and so reasonable coordination by the Community in the form of consultative frameworks is acceptable, as long as it is not compulsory. There always remains, however, a question about details. Referring directly to the second part of the oral question it can be said that all top-down, institutional coordination seems to supplant national governments. We must not succumb to that temptation.
- (NL) Mr President, UEFA President Michel Platini recently presented to the European Parliament excellent proposals for curbing the scourge of trafficking in youngsters in football. There is a clear link with the question tabled by Mrs Batzeli. The UEFA proposal is clear: end international transfers of young players, of children under 18 years of age. Of course, this is a delicate matter, as many see it as an infringement of freedom of movement in Europe.
The question is which interest and which principle prevails here. The answer, we all agree, is proper training for young people and children both at school and in sports clubs. Trafficking young children, sometimes from one side of Europe to the other, either with or without their family, cannot be conducive to a balanced upbringing. Hence my question to the Commissioner: do you intend to take up the defence of this UEFA proposal, and do you also mean to start up a dialogue on the subject with stakeholders - players, clubs, leagues and federations - in the short term?
I have a second question, too: it concerns the 'six-plus-five' rule, which is also intended to protect young players and to encourage clubs to invest more in training their own youth. The German Institute for European Affairs (INEA), a research institute, recently carried out a study on this at the request of FIFA and found that six-plus-five is indeed acceptable and compatible with European law. Commissioner Figel', what is your view on this? We should also like for you, for the European Union, to enter into dialogue on this with the sports governing bodies in the light of the specific nature of football on which we all agree, and also, of course, looking ahead to the Treaty of Lisbon.
- Mr President, I thank the Commissioner very much indeed for his opening statement. What everyone is asking about is legal certainty.
I have a couple of questions based on that and also one on the Treaty of Lisbon, should it be ratified. As a good Conservative Euro-sceptic, I should say that I hope it never is.
But I was just wondering, what will this mean - if it is ratified - for sporting organisations and governing bodies? Many of these governing bodies believe that it will recognise concretely their specificity, the specificity of sport. So, Commissioner, could you tell us how this recognition in the new Treaty will help sport? Will sport then get derogations from different aspects, like employment law or other laws, that they actually want to try and achieve?
On legal certainty, there are so many questions that the Commission should and could be helping sporting organisations with now. Should companies from overseas be investing huge amounts of money into sporting clubs within Europe? I have no problem with this. I actually see it as direct inward investment and, therefore, a very positive thing. But sporting organisations and many governing bodies think this is a bad thing. So, what is your interpretation of a sporting organisation banning such a practice?
As my colleague, Mr Belet, said, UEFA is currently proposing to ban transfers of under-18s across borders. European law recognises a worker as someone essentially with the minimum age of 16, so what happens when a 17-year old challenges the fact that he was not able to move to a big club in a country that was not his own, in the current situation that we find ourselves in?
Home-grown players; 'six plus five' with FIFA: what is the clarification of those two points? Also, football is always very interested in these subjects and it seems to drive the agenda. However, all of these matters actually affect polo and rugby union and table tennis players - all sports are affected.
Are we looking at a wider range of sports? Will the Commission actually open up a forum where sport can come and talk to the Commission openly about some of the problems it has and get some of these questions answered on a regular basis - no matter with the Treaty of Lisbon or without?
- Commissioner, you have the floor - bearing in mind that we have had many questions, but there actually only two on the oral question.
Member of the Commission. - Mr President, that is true. Usually questions are easier than answers and usually there are more questions than answers, but I believe that together we can find more and better answers.
This is all about cooperation, not only between Parliament and the Commission, but especially with the world of sport associations, federations, Member States and stakeholders. If they are responsible and responsive they come together and look for solutions which are acceptable and compatible with the law. Otherwise we adapt and change the law, whether at national or European level. So that is how we should proceed. I look forward to maintaining this approach.
I think much has changed since 2007. I do not want to repeat myself or to once again recommend reading the white paper. There is a shorter version and also a version with annexes. The first time we tried, we put together descriptions of all cases and all decisions related to sport, which made a kind of map showing how sport relates to European Community law or policies. Of course we are proposing further guidelines. We have proposed - and in Biarritz I introduced - physical activity guidelines, which could help to promote the volume, intensity and quality of physical education training in our societies and especially in schools. It should be adopted by the Council of Health Ministers. We do not have a Sports Ministers' Council, but in fact the main reason is that it is related to public health.
We cannot have one large specific set of guidelines for everything. I have said that we can address specific concrete issues theme by theme rather than case by case. Next I hope we can deal with licensing - how to make a more transparent and more sustainable system and create a set of principles for our licensing policies. Of course UEFA or its partners should have the concrete responsibility for this, but we can help. It is in our interest to promote principles such as self-regulation, transparency and sustainability, and we can make several other important contributions to improvements in licensing.
We will support the Anti-Doping Conference. This offers a great opportunity to say much more on this, but I am against the establishment of another agency or a European WADA. I have also said publicly that there is NADAS, the European network of cooperation between national anti-doping agencies in our countries, whether they are public or private. Europe needs to be more active and more united. There are lessons to be learned from WADA and we should do so quickly. There are disputes. We have spoken to Ms Bozkurt about this code of conduct. Today I saw on television Sepp Blatter and John Fahey, the Chairman of WADA, discussing how anti-doping and football competitions could go hand in hand after the code of conduct has been adopted, and there is a problem.
So on anti-doping I think we need more internal cooperation in order to make Europe more credible. We have the Council of Europe, we have a convention on this. We have many reasons to be more coherent in our contribution to the world of anti-doping or a world which fights more efficiently against doping. You have said that dialogue is not easy in this area - I mean not just regarding anti-doping but sport issues in general. It is true that sometimes it is difficult, even at international and Europe level or between different disciplines or segments, but I can assure you that a culture of dialogue and openness and a readiness to engage in dialogue is growing.
I took part in the opening of the EOC office in Brussels, which is very close to Rond Point Schuman and to the Commission, Council and Parliament. This means the permanent presence of the European Olympic Committees and the IOC in the European institutions for the purpose of dialogue and cooperation. It says something about the importance of this and the mutual readiness to work in dialogue to find solutions.
With regard to international transfers, I am also in favour of the protection of youngsters and the promotion of training and education. In 2001 we adopted decisions or agreements on international transfers. The general age level is about 18 years, but in Europe there is a specific arrangement for the period between 16 and 18 years of age. Unless severe or very critical problems become evident, we do not need to change but rather to promote better and more training and to work with talent in Europe.
That is why, for example, we supported the home-grown player rule because this mainly promotes this sort of treatment. Of course it is not an absolute rule but it concerns specific arrangements. We give preference to, or promote, specificity under certain rules. We have said that we will come back to this decision in five years' time to see what the real impact has been - not just the theory - of this new rule. 'Six plus five', as it stands now, is simply non-compatible with EU laws, as has been shown in a study. We have spoken to them and have read the papers but there is nothing new there. In substance we cannot say that we agree with the study.
But I have to say that dialogue - especially following recent events in Biarritz and Lausanne - is real and very concrete between the European Commission and its partners, including FIFA. On this specific matter of 'six plus five' we will continue further. Even FIFA says that there is no reason for a hurried approach but rather a need for very concrete and credible answers. They do not want to get into formal disputes. We agreed to make room for more expertise and for more exchange. I think that is very beneficial.
On the Lisbon Treaty and the recognition of specificity, two special clauses are included in Article 149 of the Treaty on European Union regarding education, youth and sport. It also concerns the level of competence. This is only supportive action so the Union will not have any power to decide but only to support Member States in the promotion of the integrity of sportsmen and sportswomen. It could be helpful to organise a Sports Council as we have for education and youth, which will perhaps be the enlarged format. It could help to build the first EU sport policy and sport programme but will not mean a change of architecture or a general derogation. Theme-by-theme specificity, which is real and does not mean business as usual, must be defendable vis-à-vis the system or the European Court.
My opinion only reflects the Commission's opinion. Our opinion is not the final one when it comes to explanation of European Union law. Especially in this area many issues are interlinked. We would like to promote an increased legal certainty, which is why we started the process. The white paper is there and the Pierre de Coubertin Action Plan helps to make it more readable and more concrete but it is a process. With the Treaty we can help even more but, without it, we will have to stay only at the level we have reached now.
I spoke about transfers under 18 years of age. With regard to this, FIFA made a very good decision, not only on transfers but on the promotion and protection of minors in sport - in football - and I think this is the right approach. So in some areas UEFA sets a good example, for instance concerning home-grown players, and in some areas FIFA sets a good example, for instance concerning the protection of minors. I think we can help both and it is important that this is also compatible within the world of football.
Last but not least - and I am sorry to have given a long answer - with regard to a forum on sport, which Mr Heaton-Harris mentioned, we have actually established this. In Biarritz we had a ministerial conference with major partners, but before that there was a forum with more than 200 stakeholders from very different areas of sport. It was a very positive, communicative and open forum and we want to continue with this. I believe that, under the Swedish, or especially under the Spanish, Presidency, we can hold another one to reflect on the progress we have made and to make a commitment to go further.
That is where I was when I started answering the questions - working together in a transparent, regular and credible manner. If that is the case, Europe is a leading area where sport is protected and promoted, and where we fight against negative phenomena such as doping, corruption, violence and racism around sport. I would like to invite you to share this approach because we do not have a better one. We do not want to impose anything again but rather to propose, protect and support. That is my answer.
- The debate is closed.


European Agency for Reconstruction (debate)
The next item is the report by Jelko Kacin, on behalf of the Committee on Foreign Affairs, on the proposal for a Council regulation amending Regulation (EC) No 2667/2000 on the European Agency for Reconstruction - C6-0170/2006 -.
Mr President, Honourable Members, I would like to thank Mr Kacin very much for the positive assessment of our proposal in his report.
Let me first explain the rationale of the proposal. At the end of an era of reconstruction, and in view of the preparations for accession, we decided to reassess the mechanisms for assistance implementation in the Balkans, including the future of the European Agency for Reconstruction. We explained our views on the future of the Agency in a report issued in December last year, which was transmitted to the Council and the European Parliament for information. The need to prepare the beneficiary countries to assume their own financial responsibility for the implementation of EU assistance led the Commission to the conclusion to discontinue the Agency but to seek its extension for two years until 31 December 2008, with its current mandate and status, and gradually to phase out its activities under CARDS.
In the mean time, the Commission will prepare the programming and implementation of the instrument for Pre-Accession in a deconcentrated manner through our delegations in the countries concerned from next year onwards. So we have both phasing-out and phasing-in going on at the same time.
The current Regulation expires on 31 December 2006, and, therefore, it is important that the amending regulation is adopted well before the end of the year in order to provide continuity in the implementation of CARDS and legal certainty for the staff of the Agency. A number of administrative decisions will have to be taken directly following the adoption of this regulation before the end of the year.
On the phasing-out of the Agency, the Commission is committed to ensuring an efficient phasing-out and at the same time a phasing-in of the EU delegation's liaison office in order to deliver aid without disruption and in a cost-effective manner. This is a complex process in terms of transferring staff (to the extent possible), transferring files, closing all remaining financial activities and making all necessary arrangements to ensure sufficient premises for the reinforced Commission delegations. The Director-General of DG Enlargement has created a Task Force at director level to monitor and steer this process.
The Commission welcomes Mr Kacin's proposal for regular reporting to the European Parliament 'on the ongoing operational details of the transfer plan'. My services will always be at your disposal to reply to your questions and to provide you with updated information on a regular basis. However, for the sake of legal clarity, I would prefer that this amendment is not included in the text of the amending regulation, the purpose of which is merely to extend the mandate of the Agency for an additional two years.
As rapporteur for Serbia and rapporteur for the Group of the Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe for Albania, Montenegro and the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, I have been following the political circumstances in the region very closely. I am aware of the fact that the phasing out of the Agency will coincide with a period of critical developments in the Western Balkans. We have already witnessed Montenegro's declaration of independence, and now we are facing not only the prospect of local, parliamentary and presidential elections but also, on top of that, the constitutional referendum in Serbia. This will take place by the end of the year and, although in theory it should not affect the timetable for deciding the future status of Kosovo, it will nonetheless do so in practice. For this reason, I have also drafted two amendments that I will proceed to present.
As I stated when presenting my report to the Committee on Foreign Affairs, I support the Commission's proposal for phasing out the Agency by extending its mandate for a further two years. The Agency will retain and renew its current status and mandate, together with its activities under the CARDS programme, but it will be phased out and replaced by Commission delegations and offices that will manage the IPA, our new financial instrument.
The Agency was founded in 2000 as the principal EU office for reconstruction in war-ravaged Kosovo. It later extended its operations to Serbia, Montenegro and the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia. The Agency is independent and its mandate is renewed successively every year by the Council and the European Parliament. Hence, even as far back as its founding, it operated on the premise that it was a temporary body and that it would ultimately be replaced. Now, ten years after the Kosovo crisis, it is obvious that the current interim arrangements are inadequate and inappropriate.
The countries of the Western Balkans are in a state of transition from a reconstruction phase to a phase of preparation for their prospective membership of the European Union. Streamlining the European Union's activities by devolving them to Commission delegations is therefore the appropriate and correct way of demonstrating our political commitment to the countries of the Western Balkans. This will also ensure that we make the best use of EU taxpayers' money. Beginning to phase out the Agency now, at a time when activities under the CARDS programme are also being discontinued and replaced by the new financial instrument that is the IPA is both sensible and timely.
I firmly believe that the new streamlined and rationalised arrangements for the political and financial assistance offered by the EU will have positive effects on the political and economic stability of the region. The draft amendment in my original proposal recommended that, in order to coordinate our positions with the Commission, we draw up a detailed report on our organisational plans for devolution. As the Commissioner has informed us, my later recommendation envisaged instead a draft amendment which would oblige the Commission to report to Parliament and the Council on the situation in this region on a quarterly basis. However, the devolution process must be continuous.
The quarterly reports would need to include brief information on the progress of the devolution of individual duties from the Agency to the individual delegations, as well as an assessment of their cooperation in the quarterly period. The reports would need to include new facts that have been gathered since the last report or will shortly be gathered, and would also need to set new objectives that need to be met. Likewise, the reports would need to include an overview of devolution in practice in the beneficiary countries, particularly in the case of the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, which is still a candidate country, but unfortunately at present still does not have a date for the commencement of negotiations.
In the context of these reports, the Commission would also need to present measures which it intends to adopt in order to promote regional projects after the Agency ceases to operate. Equally, the Commission must adopt specific plans to expand the delegations in response to the break-up of the Republic of Serbia and Montenegro and to expand the delegations in the light of the future status of Kosovo when that becomes reality. At the same time, I have called on the Commission to ensure that all the valuable knowledge and technical expertise which the Agency has accumulated during the seven years of its operation is transferred to the delegations.
draftsman of the opinion of the Committee on Budgetary Control. - (PT) Mr President, Commissioner, Mr Kacin, I should like to draw the Chamber's attention to the findings of the Committee on Budgetary Control. On at least two missions, one in Thessaloniki and the other in Kosovo, the committee has noted the effectiveness and innovation of the European Reconstruction Agency's external activities.
No such previous Community action has been anything like as effective or innovative. Action on the ground, in conjunction with the local authorities, has been outstandingly good, and I feel it would be a serious mistake if we were to fail to make use of such action in other situations and to forego its benefits.
Commission resources and European funds must not merely be handed over to the United Nations or to NGOs or to any other institution without the proper resources to administer Community funds on the ground.
The EAR's experience in administering Community funds has been most valuable, and I should like to call on the Commission not to let that experience go to waste, because that would be disastrous for the whole of the EU.
Mr President, I should like to start by thanking the rapporteur, Mr Kacin, for his work. Although we do not always agree about matters of substance, working with him and discussing things with him are always interesting experiences. I might add that I fully agree with his amendments.
As Mr Casaca has already said, the Agency has done a very good job, and I think that the EU can be proud of itself for creating it. It has indeed done an excellent job, and if that is said by someone like Mr Casaca of the Committee on Budgetary Control, a body from which we can of course expect particular criticism, it counts even more.
Nevertheless, I agree with Commissioner Rehn when he says that times and situations change; individual countries go their separate ways; the duration of the run-up to countries' accessions often varies. I would also ask him, however, to ensure that the people who have had some very positive experiences in these countries also be given the opportunity to continue to do good work for the EU and for these countries.
I should like to take this opportunity to give my sincere thanks to Commissioner Rehn, too, for his commitment to this region; as it is very important to have someone with sensitivity towards the region, someone who knows that its needs have to be met appropriately, and that that includes a pan-European approach. I should like to ask the Commissioner to do his utmost in the coming months, at a time when the situation in Bosnia-Herzegovina and Kosovo will be precarious, and also to join together with Parliament - and the Council, too, I hope - to guarantee the stability of this region. I am sure that he will do so. A great deal of the work that the Agency, too, has done, will simply be undone if we do not set clear European objectives to ensure that the path towards EU membership is clear. The countries must increasingly do their own work, however - albeit with our help and support - as we cannot take it off them. It is very important, therefore, that the responsible Commissioner give a clear direction. If he does so, we shall give him our full support in his further work.
on behalf of the GUE/NGL Group. - (NL) Mr President, the accession of newcomers to the European Union is at its most successful when they already enjoy more or less the same level of democracy, human rights, environmental protection and welfare as do the other Member States. The European Agency for Reconstruction can help remove some of the differences that are still delaying the accession of seven western Balkan states. In recent years, there were differences of opinion about the emphasis this agency should place on education and infrastructure, of both of which there is a desperate lack in those countries, or on reforms. Those reforms in the areas of governance, justice, police and market are mainly external requests. Internal requests, on the other hand, are requests for financial support for small projects that can be tackled independently without too much red tape, supervision or control, combined with the restoration of railway lines, bridges, flood-control dams and drinking water basins that have suffered damage as a result of war or neglect. To pass on the responsibilities of this agency to delegations and agencies of the Commission in 2009 is a radical step. What I would like the Commission to tell us is whether it only wants to help simplify EU intervention or also wants to meet local needs more effectively
(EL) Mr President, I too agree with the previous speakers who said that the Balkan reconstruction agency did indeed play a very important role, not only initially in sending humanitarian aid, but primarily in the reconstruction and strengthening of democratic reforms and in consolidating democratic institutions in the countries of the Western Balkans. This role was strengthened in particular - or I would say legalised - by the decisions taken by the European Council in Thessaloniki in June 2003 to support the European prospects of the Balkans, which support we need to constantly renew with deeds and decisions. Of course, this role became more effective because Thessaloniki was chosen as the agency's headquarters, due to its geographical vicinity and its knowledge of this area.
As we have seen, the agency was created in a difficult period for the Balkans. I fear that this is an equally difficult period today; we are at a dead end in the negotiations on Kosovo and therefore - and I appeal here to Commissioner Rehn - particular care is needed and we need to pass new competences to the local representations of the Commission in the capitals of the Western Balkans at once, so that there is no vacuum. Of course, there is the two-year transitional period, but what we need to secure as of now is for experience and know-how to be passed on from the agency to the local representations of the Commission. I would even say, Commissioner, that you need to be flexible, that you should not be dogmatic, even when it comes to the possibility of negative developments in the Balkans, so that provision is made right now to extend the term of office of the agency in Thessaloniki a little, even to beyond December 2008, depending on local developments.
To close, I would say that the reconstruction process in the Balkans is not a technocratic process. It is, of course, a political process, which is why the European Commission should keep the European Parliament informed. I agree with Mr Kacin that periodic reports should be submitted on the operation of local ...
(The President cut off the speaker)
(PL) Mr President, the Commission proposes to discontinue the European Agency for Reconstruction, but also to extend it for two years until 31 December 2008, retaining its status and mandate. According to this plan, the Agency and its activities will be gradually phased out and replaced by Commission representations and offices which will be managed by a new financial instrument.
Reform and ensuring proper financial management is of key importance to the European Union. On the other hand, the phasing out of the European Agency for Reconstruction should not follow a rigid schedule, but should be based on political and economic criteria and factors with full use of its potential as regards specialist knowledge and practice. The European Agency for Reconstruction is being closed at a time of key political events concerning the development of the Western Balkans. In eliminating the Agency, the Commission must make provision for securing stability in the region, and for the UN Security Council decision on the status of Kosovo. Securing the role of the European Union in this process should be a primary aim in this.
- (LT) While working at the European Parliament, I had the opportunity to visit countries of the former Yugoslavia as well as Albania and witness at first hand how valuable the European perspective is for those countries. The European Agency for Reconstruction has played and continues to play an important role in stabilising the situation and supporting reforms in the region.
As we gradually phase out the activities of the Agency, the economic and political consequences of the elimination of the Agency and the use of the professional experience and knowledge of its staff must be considered. The next few years will be crucial for the West Balkan states on their way to the EU, while some ways of solving the Kosovo problem can once again disrupt not only this region, but much more.
I welcome suggestions of how to strengthen Parliamentary control at this stage of the Agency's operation. The Commission's report should explain whether the delegations and officers of the Commission taking over the task of closing the Agency will be able to properly compensate for this closure.
Member of the Commission. (SV) Mr President, honourable Members, I would thank Parliament for supporting the Commission's decision gradually to phase out the European Agency for Reconstruction (EAR) by allowing the Agency to discontinue its activities under the CARDS Programme. As the IPA is phased in, we shall obtain the best possible conditions for successfully continuing to support affected countries in the Western Balkans. Many Members have expressed concern about the EU losing expert knowledge. We are keen to retain the expertise we have and are therefore, as far as possible, inviting those staff who now work for the EAR to do the same type of work in the Commission's delegations.
Where Montenegro and Kosovo are concerned, the Commission is in the process of planning a well-structured delegation in Podgorica, Montenegro and a possible upgrading of our liaison office in Priština.
Mr President, I would thank Parliament for its support for our stabilisation and integration policy in the Western Balkans. It is incredibly important that we work together in pursuit of the same goals. I am sure that, together, we can achieve very good results when it comes to stabilising the Western Balkans and integrating them into the European Union.
I should like to thank the Commissioner and all the speakers in that debate. I should also like to thank the interpreters for their patience.
The debate is closed.
The vote will take place tomorrow at 11.00.
(The sitting was suspended at 8.50 p.m. and resumed at 9.05 p.m.)


Voting time


Community action in the field of marine environmental policy - Thematic strategy on the marine environment (debate)
The next items on the agenda are
the joint debate on the report by Marie-Noëlle Lienemann on behalf of the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Food Safety on the proposed Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on community action in the field of marine environmental policy - Thematic strategy on the marine environment (Marine Strategy Directive) - C6 - 0346/2005 -
the report by Aldis Kušķis on behalf of the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Food Safety on the thematic strategy for protection and preservation of the marine environment
Member of the Commission. (CS) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I am delighted to be able to launch this joint debate on the thematic strategy for protecting and preserving the marine environment and on the proposed Marine Strategy Directive.
I should like to thank both rapporteurs - Mrs Lienemann for the proposed Marine Strategy Directive and Mr Kuskis for the thematic strategy. I also wish to thank the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Food Safety for their efforts. Furthermore I should like to thank the Committee on Fisheries and in particular Mr Gklavakis for his highly constructive approach to this important issue.
Seas and oceans cover 71% of the Earth's surface and contain 90% of the biosphere. Europe's marine waters extend across 3 million square kilometres, the same area as mainland Europe; in other words, 50% of Europe's territory is covered by sea. Marine ecosystems play a key role in climate and weather patterns.
The status of Europe's marine environment is rapidly deteriorating, however. In some areas, we may have gone past the point of no return. Nutrient supply has a major influence on the Baltic Sea's marine environment. Fish populations are in a poor state throughout Europe. The Northeast Atlantic has one of the highest shipping levels in the world, with all of the risks and consequences that that implies. The Mediterranean is under serious threat from uncontrolled development of its coastline.
If we are to reverse these trends, however, the existing measures and efforts - be they at international, national or EU level - are clearly inadequate. Most measures drawn up at EU level were not geared towards protecting the marine environment as such and they therefore have a limited impact. It has been demonstrated that measures adopted at international level are very difficult to implement or promote because they are not binding.
A healthy marine environment is crucially important both for life as a whole, and for the quality of our lives. It is also an essential prerequisite for fulfilling the economic potential of the oceans and seas. A dynamic marine economy can flourish only where there is a healthy marine environment. The Marine Strategy will therefore make a significant contribution to the growth and employment goals enshrined in the Lisbon Strategy.
For the reasons outlined above, it is clear that the protection of the marine environment cannot and must not simply be a by-product of other policies. At EU level what is needed is an integrated strategy that takes into account all of the pressures and influences on the marine environment.
This is precisely what the thematic strategy on the marine environment seeks to achieve. It consists of the proposed Marine Strategy Directive and a report detailing the current state of affairs. On a broader level, it covers the EU's environmental record on the marine environment and explains why the EU needs to take action.
Marine strategy must be viewed within the broader context of a new marine policy for the EU. According to the Commission's Green Paper drawn up in June, the objective of the new policy is a dynamic European marine economy, operating in harmony with the marine environment. The marine strategy is, within the area of the environment, one of the pillars of the future marine policy. It will be based on the specific activities needed to protect marine ecosystems, which provide the sustainable wealth, productivity and employment opportunities and, from a broader perspective, people's livelihood from the oceans and seas.
The purpose of this Marine Strategy Directive is to achieve 'good environmental status' in the EU marine environment by 2021, in other words to restore the environmental health of our seas over the next 15 years. This date will coincide with the first review of River Basin Management Plans under the EU Water Framework Directive, allowing for synergies on the further implementation of both directives. The joint implementation of the EU Water Framework Directive and the Marine Strategy Directive thus brings together the protection of both marine and freshwater environments.
The directive establishes European Marine Regions on the basis of geographical and environmental criteria, and defines sub-regions as management units for implementation.
At an EU level no management-related measures will be adopted. In the first phase, the Member States will be tasked with developing a marine strategy for the seas in each of their regions, and proposing practical solutions to address the specific needs of those seas. Marine strategy should firstly include taking stock of the marine environment and the threats and pressures it faces, setting further environmental goals and indicators, and establishing monitoring programmes. In the second phase, the Member States will be required to draw up and implement measures aimed at achieving good environmental status.
Cooperation is of vital importance between Member States and with the third countries with which Member States share saltwater bodies. In order to achieve this objective, Member States will need to work within the framework of the regional marine conventions. Regional conventions are invaluable partners when it comes to strategy implementation, as is evidenced by their long track record of scientific and technical competence, and the fact that they are able to work effectively at a regional level.
To conclude, I should like to stress the importance and sensitivity of marine ecosystems. A high level of protection for the marine environment is a vital prerequisite for deriving the maximum economic benefit from the oceans and seas. The marine environment is clearly the foundation of our marine economy.
The marine environment is under threat. Consequently the EU must act effectively proactive. I hope that the proposed strategy will contribute towards achieving that aim.
rapporteur. - (FR) Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, allow me first of all, as rapporteur, to thank my fellow shadow rapporteurs from the various groups and the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Food Safety for supporting a joint piece of work aimed at enhancing the Commission proposal.
As you said, Commissioner, the seas and oceans of our planet are in a worrying state: a crisis point has been reached. Moreover, a recent study published in the Science review sounded the alarm bell by highlighting the risks of fishery resources disappearing from our seas and oceans.
The quality of the marine ecosystem plays a fundamental role in the planet's global environment and, in particular, plays a very important role in regulating the climate. Our seas also play a decisive role in people's lives in every part of the globe. As you pointed out, they play a major economic role when it comes to fishing, transport, tourism, sources of raw materials or even activities carried out along the coastlines that border them. Yet, our seas and oceans are subjected to growing pressure and worrying pollution.
Let us first address this figure: 80% of maritime pollution comes from the land, and, as you said, Commissioner, there is clearly a direct link between the framework directive on water and the directive that you have presented and that our Parliament wishes to enhance.
However, if pollution comes from the earth via water, then it also comes via the atmosphere. Recent studies show a significant interaction between atmospheric movements, air pollution and the sea and oceans, such that urbanisation and human activities taking place far away from the coasts may have a direct impact on the quality of water. Pollution is also caused by activities linked to the exploitation of the oceans and seas, such as transport and aquaculture. A few years ago, waste produced by fishing and oil industry activity reached altogether excessive and dangerous levels in certain sectors.
We are also at a time when we can see new threats looming, which the directive must anticipate. In particular, we are seeing a large increase in the number of projects aimed at desalinating seawater. We have to be certain that these activities are not going to affect the quality of water in the future. Major international debates are taking place on the storage of carbon dioxide. Thus, we can see that the threats are, indeed, real.
The aim of the directive has been to implement a structure enabling us finally to have access to a strategy that goes beyond international agreements, the results of which have mostly not lived up to our hopes thus far.
Our directive is based on a fundamental point: restoring the good ecological status of seas. Parliament would like, Commissioner, the requirement for results to be far more present and far stronger than the text in its current state provides for.
Secondly, our Parliament would like the good ecological status of seas and oceans to be defined with a great deal more precision so that this is not some sort of pious hope and so that we come closer to doing what can be done to restore the life and balance of the ecosystem.
Thirdly, our Parliament would like the deadlines to be shorter and, at any rate, we would like there to be a good balance between the deadlines, the level of the demands regarding good ecological status and the requirement for results.
Finally, we advocate the creation of marine protected areas, because the experiences of the Americans and the New Zealanders have shown that these protected areas - indeed, in some cases, these genuine marine reserves - were such as to enable fish stocks to be built up again.
Finally, we would like territorial cohesion to be enhanced by an effective piece of work carried out at marine and submarine regional level, without, however, the Member States being exempted from their responsibilities in view of the objectives set by the management plans and the plans for measures aimed at restoring good ecological status.
We are anxious to include the Black Sea in the document. We would like to sound the alarm bell concerning the Arctic: we need to think about the future of this part of the world. It is directly linked to us and its development has a considerable impact on the future of the planet, which may be endangered as a result. We would like the outermost regions of the Union, which do not yet feature in the document, gradually to become at least the subject of an appropriate strategy.
I shall conclude by mentioning the democratic issues. We see everyday, whether we are talking about fishing or transport, that sea users, ecologists and scientists feel the need to exchange their points of view so that the decisions that are taken are taken on the basis of a shared diagnosis and of a rational analysis of the problems. In any case, that is the spirit of the amendments that we have tabled.
rapporteur. - (LV) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I would like to take this opportunity to thank you all for your cooperation so far and the valuable proposals that you have submitted, so that together we may improve the Commission's proposal on the thematic strategy for the protection and preservation of the marine environment. I very much hope that this report will foster real changes that will preserve and improve the marine ecological environment. I am happy that the report also touches on as sensitive an issue as the problems of the Baltic sea environment. In the Baltic sea, which is also known as Europe's internal lake, it is particularly important to preserve the balance of the ecosystem, by not allowing it to be further threatened, and by taking special account of the specific low water exchange indicator. I would like to emphasise, on this point, that the European Parliament ought also to scrupulously assess and join in monitoring the design and construction of a gas pipeline which is hazardous for the Baltic sea environment. In my view, it is important for the people of Europe, and particularly those whose countries border the sea, to be able to personally see positive changes - the fact that water quality and cleanness is increasing, that a renewal of biological diversity is taking place in the seas and, finally, that there is considered, balanced and sustainable administration and development of the marine region following the adoption of this legislation and similar pieces of legislation. I would like to stress that this report is the product of collaboration with non-governmental organisations and representatives of this field in industry, with whom wide-ranging debates took place even before the expiry of the deadline for submitting proposals, and that many of their ideas were included in the report. Finally, ladies and gentlemen, I would like to urge the European Commission and also ourselves to talk less but to work more and achieve concrete results, so that we may all live without fear beside our seas.
From this point I shall switch to English and, speaking also for my colleague Mrs Korhola, who cannot be here today for this debate, share some comments and messages.
The thematic strategy is decided on under the Sixth Environmental Action Programme. That is very necessary. As the Commissioner has rightly said, for some time we have needed a strong, integrated EU policy on marine protection. The EU marine strategy directive will be an important new instrument in integrating the existing approaches. Great things have already been achieved with the various policies - legislation, programmes, action plans and various international conventions - but still the state of the marine environment has been deteriorating at an alarming pace. We need more overall joint action.
There are big challenges, such as the role of third countries, which might raise some questions. But if third countries turn out to be the biggest polluters and if they think of this as only a European Union matter, how do we ensure that actions and efforts put in place by the Member States produce good results when, for one reason or another, third countries do not cooperate? We have tried to address the issues in committee, but we shall only find out later how this actually works.
The rapporteur, Mrs Lienemann, has done some excellent work, influenced strongly by the NGOs, and she has been very environmentally ambitious. She has made some radical changes and integrated ideas into the report that were widely requested by the stakeholders. In general, the rapporteur has made the directive stronger and more concrete, more ambitious and effective. She has added the much needed guidelines and criteria and has tightened up the time limits.
Building on the rapporteur's approach, we have a solid chance to make this a real environmental pillar for marine policy as planned. Here are a few key elements of the draft report. The time limits and schedules for achieving good environmental status have been tightened up, from 2021 to 2017. General definitions of measures which Member States are to take in order to achieve good environmental status are added and a detailed list of GES criteria is provided.
There is no clear definition of European marine waters. The Black Sea has been added as one marine region in the directive. Preparation timetables are tighter, as are programmes of measures. Marine-protected areas are added, something that was not mentioned before. More emphasis is given to cooperation by Member States in the same marine region in monitoring programmes, etc. More emphasis is laid on third countries in broadening responsibilities and deciding who should be involved.
All in all, this report is making a strong point, from the European Parliament side, that we need effective measures to tackle this important issue.
Mr President, the main objective of the proposed directive is to achieve a good marine environmental status.
This strategy is more urgent today than at any other time, because the marine ecosystem has deteriorated significantly. However, in order for this strategy to be effective, we must pay attention to two or three things.
First, we have a saying in my country, that you cannot make an omelette without breaking eggs. The money budgeted for this action is very, very little. Provision has been made, for administrative expenses alone, for approximately EUR 90 million per annum for the first two years and for EUR 70 million per annum thereafter. I think this sum is inadequate. Saving our seas is such a serious issue that it merits our spending more money.
Secondly, we need coordinated actions. First of all, we must make fishermen our partners in this endeavour. We must come to an agreement with them; they must be persuaded that, first of all, they need to protect the environment, but that is not all; all of us involved in transport, tourism, industry, health, nutrition, agriculture and, above all, fisheries, must sit at the same table, so that we can agree and proceed.
The third thing I wanted to say was touched on by Commissioners Borg and Dimas and that is that we must agree on certain common indicators so that we can measure the environmental status at the moment, so that - and this is very important - when we speak of a good marine environmental status, we are referring to the same thing. In other words, we must agree on common measurements.
To close, I wish to say and to emphasise that the directive on the marine strategy must give fisheries its proper place and must be at the heart of the endeavour.
on behalf of the PPE-DE Group. - (FI) Mr President, first I would like to thank the rapporteur for her work, and at the same time I want to thank the Commission, which has embarked on this important project. The Commissioner with responsibility for Fisheries and Maritime Affairs, Mr Borg, himself in fact organised a conference on maritime transport safety in July in my home town of Turku, at which these important matters were discussed. This is just the sort of proper work which we in the EU should be doing together.
I would in particular like to raise the matter of the Baltic Sea, as the Baltic is an important EU sea, though at present it is a blot on the landscape. The Baltic Sea is seriously ill. Let me give you an example of this. Last summer, blue-green algae took over the entire sea, aided by the warm weather. It is hard to explain to your little children, who want to go and swim, that they cannot go in the sea because not only is it dirty, it is actually toxic. There are toxic algae in the sea, and that can cause various diseases in children if they go and swim in the sea in warm weather.
Now the Commission and all of us are being urged to take swift and determined action and provide the resources needed to rescue the Baltic Sea. That will of course mean that much action will have to be taken. One excellent project now under way is the financing of the St Petersburg sewage plant. This is one of the most important examples. We also need dialogue with Russia, for example, in the area of safety regulations for shipping. We will not succeed if we do not work closely with Russia.
Saving the Baltic Sea is no longer just an environmental issue. It is above all a political one.
on behalf of the PSE Group. - (FI) Mr President, it is no exaggeration to say that Europe's marine regions are in a crisis and there is an urgent need to take action to protect the seas. Over the next 50 years, for example, fish stocks are threatened with collapse. The Commission proposal for a directive in the field of Marine Environmental Policy and a Marine Strategy is a way to seek a pan-European integrated approach to saving marine ecosystems. Although all our seas are in a poor state, it is only reasonable to examine the question of their protection from a regional perspective. Marine regions vary in terms of their characteristics, and at least some of the problems are essentially local. What they all have in common, however, is that they should all be capable of achieving good ecological status within a specific period of time. Hopefully that will be before the year 2021.
The Socialist Group in the European Parliament supports the rapporteur's endeavour to define what we mean by good environmental status in the marine environment. To achieve good status, as defined, we need to establish sufficiently stringent conservation objectives to prevent deterioration and for measures for the recovery of the seas and restoring them to a sustainable level. These measures may be quite tough, but I hope that the Group of the European People's Party (Christian Democrats) and European Democrats will support them in the vote. It is important that the measures are properly binding and not merely recommendations.
The protection of the seas is about cooperation, not just among the Member States of the EU, but also with third countries with links to marine regions. For example, effective protection of the Baltic Sea region cannot succeed without Russia's commitment to cooperation. For years now, there has been cooperation in the context of HELCOM, or the Helsinki Commission. HELCOM is presently overseeing a Baltic Sea Action Plan. Conservation action under the strategy should start within the framework of the HELCOM Action Plan so that practical measures can be taken as swiftly as possible in the Baltic Sea region. I would like to thank both the rapporteurs for having adopted this view within the context both of the strategy and of the directive.
on behalf of the ALDE Group. - Mr President, having a marine strategy that does not concentrate on fish is like filling a goldfish bowl with clean water after the cat has already taken and eaten the goldfish!
Having said that, there is strong support in this House for the principles behind this strategy and for the legislation, and that is hardly surprising given the catastrophic picture the Commission has painted of the state of our seas. We need to introduce protective measures that are enforceable through the courts in order to ensure that Member States apply them.
The Commissioner used strong words, which we welcome, but the proposals originally submitted to Parliament highlighted some of the weaknesses and divisions within the Commission itself. One thing we are most pleased about is the fact that the whole idea of good environmental status has been reinserted into the proposals and given a clear definition, and we are united on there being powers to create marine protected zones. However, why were those ideas not in the Commission's original document? When it came out of DG Environment they were, but by the time it emerged from the College some of these crucial matters had been deleted. The time has come for the Commission to back up its fine words on sustainability with some united action from the Commissioners of each department.
We hear that there are divergent views in the Council - so be it. But the message to the Commission and the Council from this Parliament should be that there is strong cross-party support for a significant improvement and strengthening of the measures being proposed. The Commission was right to draft these proposals, but let us now ensure that the warm sentiments can be transformed into practical action.
on behalf of the Verts/ALE Group. - (SV) Mr President, I wish to thank the rapporteurs for their exemplary work and their excellent reports. They improve the Commission's proposal by demanding that good environmental status be achieved by 2017 instead of 2021. Moreover, the targets are made binding, and the importance of marine reserves is emphasised.
Climate change, waste, unsustainable fishing, noise, eutrophication and the extraction of raw materials threaten our seas. If the mass destruction and the natural disaster taking place in the depths of the oceans were instead to be taking place - visibly - on land, the debate on the protection of the marine environment would dominate everyday discourse. Species of fish, birds and mammals are threatened by extinction. The Marine Strategy can, in fact, be a small step in trying to get to grips with the problems, but only if it is as ambitious as the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Food Safety proposes.
The Member States must assume their responsibility for setting up significantly more marine reserves. We have national parks in all the Member States, but marine reserves are conspicuous by their absence where they are most needed. There is overwhelming statistical evidence that marine reserves provide protection that increases both the fish population and biological diversity in the immediate surroundings of the reserves. When fish are protected and are thus able to increase in numbers, the older fish disperse and make for better catches. The Baltic Sea, in particular, is an extremely sensitive sea with brackish water. The countries around the Baltic Sea must always be entitled to introduce more stringent water protection requirements if they think it necessary to do so without, as a consequence, being constantly threatened by protracted legal proceedings because the internal market has to take precedence over protection of our seas.
I wish to point out the importance of the committee's call for no support to be given to agricultural activity involving large-scale nutrient leakage into the seas. My Amendments 81 and 82 are designed to introduce responsible regulation of discharges from waste disposal sites. The original proposal is too weak on this point. I am opposed to Amendment 90 about removing the reference to radioactive substances, because doing so would be contrary to the original objective from 2002. Finally, the Maritime Strategy's call for utilisation of the seas must be adjusted and altered so that it falls within the framework of the Marine Strategy.
Mr President, Commissioner, I should like to congratulate Mrs Lienemann on the excellent work she has done in the report and to stress that she has managed, with a great deal of success, to include in her report the views of all the members and of non-governmental organisations, and as a result she has improved the Commission's original paper significantly.
The marine environment, which is a basic and valuable source of life, is under daily threat. Maritime pollution, climate change, shipping and coastal developments continue to threaten the marine environment and to have an adverse impact on human health.
The directive in question, which is designed to plug the gaps in environmental policy, is an important step towards improving health and restoring the seas.
It is important for us to support amendments requiring the Member States to achieve a good environmental status, amendments which recognise the threats to the marine environment and which aim for the shortest possible timeframe for the implementation of the directive. I refer to Amendments 24, 27, 73 and 78, which I urge you to support.
Furthermore, actions by the Member States must be based on the principle of prevention, on an approach based on the ecosystem while, at the same time, account must be taken of accurate evaluations carried out on the basis of current European legislation, as referred to in Amendments 23, 49, 45, 51 and 60.
Finally, I call on you to support Amendments 81 and 82 banning any systematic or deliberate dumping of any liquid, gaseous or solid body in the water or on the sea bed, in keeping with the provisions laid down for carbon dioxide, except where the relevant approval is granted in accordance with international law and a prior environmental impact study is carried out in accordance with the directive.
on behalf of the UEN Group. - (IT) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the two reports under discussion could not have come at a better time, since they examine the notorious construction of the Baltic pipeline, a project that, in the absence of a serious environmental impact assessment, risks causing an ecological disaster in a sea already suffering, moreover, from a worrying level of pollution. Not only that: the northern and southern shores of the Mediterranean, where fish stocks are becoming ever more scarce, also suffer in some areas from a high level of pollution, caused, among other things, by oil extraction and, above all, by oil refining. I refer, in particular, to the industrial triangle of Syracuse in Sicily, which is the largest petrochemical complex in Europe.
In this industrial zone, not only is there an extremely high level of air pollution, causing the tragedy of birth defects and the indefensible death rate due to tumours - over 57% higher, in fact, than the Italian average - but there is also the problem of marine pollution. The consequences are obvious: the poor-quality fish stocks are down to critical levels; fishermen, often small operators, either cover more miles to find better fishing waters, or are forced to give up their traditional livelihoods. As if that were not enough, plans are underway to construct a regasifier in this industrial zone, a project I have condemned several times before this House.
The proposal for a Marine Strategy Directive and the appropriate amendments that, in our opinion, improve it, are therefore very welcome, Mr President. Above all, I hope that it will shorten the timescale for achieving the objectives of a healthy ecology and environment. We need to make up for the severe delays that Europe has accumulated in this sector, and, as we all know, political timing does not always coincide with the needs of the environment. From this evening, we can afford to be a little more optimistic.
on behalf of the IND/DEM Group. - (PL) Mr President, the marine environment has faced various threats for a long time now, which is why a far-reaching marine strategy is a necessity. The European Union has territorial waters greater than its entire territory, with 1 200 ports, and 90% of its exports are transported by sea. We consider it crucial to emphasise the interdependence of a common fisheries policy and the proposed marine environment strategy. It is logical and advisable to allow a hazardous vessel that has been penalised to sail to the nearest shelter, and then to the nearest available shipyard provided that it does not pose a health or environmental threat.
Another proposal worthy of attention is that of declaring the Arctic a nature reserve dedicated to peace and science.
I have the privilege of representing Scotland in this Parliament and that means I also represent a large share of the EU's indigenous resources of oil and gas. As I understand it, we are committed to maximising the potential of our indigenous energy resources. Surely this is only sensible for economic and logistical reasons and for security of supply. It is also the case that the extraction of hydrocarbons in the North Sea is already well regulated in all its environmental and ecological aspects. Yet certain amendments adopted by the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Food Safety will effectively stop exploitation of these resources. That is just plain absurd. Indeed these amendments will even, I understand, cause suspension of a major offshore wind project in the Moray Firth. Much of the research funding for this came from the European Union.
Do we want to look ridiculous? Do we want to hobble our few indigenous energy resources and become even more dependent on one or two dominant, and often domineering, external suppliers? The North Sea's ecology must be considered holistically in North Sea terms. The North Sea is not the Mediterranean.
I appeal to the rapporteur and other sensible groups to support the PPE-DE amendments, which will make this proposal ambitious - yes - but also responsible and practical.
(SV) Mr President, I wish to thank Mrs Lienemann and Mr Kušķis who, I think, have done a very good job indeed on these directives.
I myself live by the Baltic Sea and have therefore, unfortunately, been able to see at extremely close quarters the significance, not only for individual people but also for employment and growth, of the seas' ecosystems being out of balance. I also know that people expect us in this House to make a vigorous effort and do something about the problems they experience every day. I therefore hope that, tomorrow, Parliament will not listen to the previous speakers but will instead give broad support to the changes backed by the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Food Safety.
Firstly, it should support a considerably accelerated process, whereby the measures are implemented earlier, together with a timetable significantly more ambitious than the one proposed by the Commission, specifying precisely when the objective of good environmental status in our seas is to be achieved. Secondly, it should support more clearly defined objectives that, just as Mrs Lienemann said, are a guarantee of our in actual fact achieving something and are not, in the end, just so much empty talk. Thirdly, it should support making what is perhaps the sea in the worst situation, namely the Baltic, into a pilot area for this strategy - an area in which the measures are implemented particularly early and are preferably based on the Helsinki Convention. These measures are needed if the Baltic Sea is to be saved.
(SV) Mr President, two weeks ago, Nicholas Stern, a former World Bank employee, published, on behalf of the British Government, a shocking report on the consequences of climate change. The message was plain. We must no longer think of nature as being something without value as, if we do so, the consequences may be incalculable. The same also applies to the state of the sea.
We in the Group of the Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe have prepared a number of amendments in the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Food Safety. They are all aimed at increasing the level of ambition, bringing stricter timetables about, strengthening cooperation with third countries such as Russia and plugging loopholes in the legislation. One serious loophole, for example, is in relation to the international waters that begin 12 nautical miles off the coast. In the vulnerable Baltic Sea, mainly cargo ships - but also passenger vessels - continue to dump latrine waste straight into the sea. That is something that they are able to do legally in international waters. Out in the Baltic, 1 800 vessels are dumping in more ways than one all the time. The mind boggles. We are pleased that the rapporteur and shadow rapporteurs with whom we have worked are taking on board our amendment about plugging this loophole in the law. The amendment needs to be implemented quickly, without the decision getting caught up for years in the International Maritime Organisation's decision-making machinery.
We must have a high level of ambition. The EU must support Russia in its efforts to cleanse St Petersburg of all waste water. It will be expensive, but not to take action would be still more expensive. Drilling for oil and the laying of gas pipelines must not, out of economic considerations, take precedence over the environmental risks presented by such activities. The harmful effects of traffic too must be reduced.
I believe that our populations wish to see the EU genuinely able to take action on these issues pertaining to the fate of humanity. Only in that way can we increase confidence in the EU. The objective must be to protect Europe's seas and restore them to their former state and to ensure that human activities are conducted in a sustainable way.
Mr President, the European Union has 68 000 kilometres of coastline; Scotland has 11 000 kilometres. Almost 50% of the EU population live within 50 kilometres of the sea; in Scotland 70% live within 10 kilometres of the sea. Clearly it is in Scotland's long-term interests to protect the marine environment and to conserve its wealth of marine resources for the long term.
Scotland has oil and gas reserves for at least another 30 years. I will be supporting various amendments that will ensure that oil and gas extraction can continue to benefit the Scottish and EU economies.
I cannot support committee Amendment 8 in the Lienemann report, as drafted, because it seeks to link the marine strategy to 'the principles of the common fisheries policy'. The CFP has been a miserable failure and the last thing I want to see is a new marine strategy linked to such a flawed set of principles.
The idea that Member States should determine what good environmental status is in waters under their jurisdiction, and work with their neighbours in logical marine regions, makes a lot of sense. Fisheries management should be brought into that common sense situation, and jurisdiction should be returned to the Member States so that, for example, countries around the North Sea can work together with those who have most to gain from conservation being encouraged, giving the incentive to make a marine strategy succeed.
(EL) Mr President, systems to protect the marine environment are covered in a fragmentary manner by various sectoral policies of the European Union, with the result, however, that there is a compilation of policies, legislative acts, programmes and action plans, without any overall integrated policy for protecting the marine environment.
The aim pursued in the two combined legislative arrangements on the thematic strategy on the protection and conservation of the environment and the marine strategy directive is to achieve a good environmental status of the marine environment in the European Union by 2021. However, if we take account, firstly, of the more general nature of the two arrangements and, secondly, of the pillars on which they are based, it is certain that in 2021, not only will there not be a good marine environmental status, but there will hardly have been any improvement to the present poor status, which is directly acknowledged in the explanatory statement to the proposal for a directive, which points out that overall there has been a fundamental deterioration in the marine environment over recent decades.
The substantiated scientific data of the United Nations Organisation concerning the causes of the deterioration and pollution of the marine environment are incontrovertible: they are shore industries and shipping and the non-existent or under-developed infrastructures for storing and processing residues.
More importantly, the pillars on which both the thematic strategy and the proposal for a directive are based are the common fisheries policy and the Green Paper on the European Union's shipping policy, all - of course - within the framework of the 6th Environment Action Programme for the period from 2002-2012, which we have acutely condemned.
In our opinion, these are in essence numerous, insubstantial interventions on the same wavelength as the Commission proposal, the most daring and ambitious aim of which is to bring the deadline forward from 2021 to 2017.
(The President cut off the speaker)
(ES) Mr President, I would like warmly to congratulate Mrs Lienemann, and I am not doing so in a superficial way or because protocol requires it. I think that this Directive has achieved something important. Thanks to her extensive experience, she has an extraordinary knowledge of philosophy and of European legislative formulas and has achieved a succinct, short Directive. Despite the number of amendments, it does not have too much in it and her own amendments are very generic ideas that are typical of a framework directive. I know for a fact that she worked with experts and was open to many suggestions; amendments were not even needed in order for some of them to be incorporated.
I would like to say that it is an extraordinary and wonderful thing that finally Europe is discussing the sea. Its time has come. I would, however, also like to say that this Directive should be the start of a subsequent development of legislation, as precisely because it is a framework directive, there are still many aspects that need to be developed in the future, which is what I want to talk about.
For example, Amendment 27, which is practically the same as Amendment 86 tabled by my group, suggests several aspects that should be developed: among other things, activities at sea, many industrial activities, many of which are new, such as desalination, which I am not against, but it has not yet been studied, and the methodologies for studying the marine environmental impact, which are practically in their infancy, that is, they have not yet been done.
I also think that the indicators should be developed more and that digital marine charts should be drawn up, which should also be used for cultural purposes.
I think that one of the great treasures of world and European history are archaeological charts. This is something that needs to be developed in order to preserve our heritage and I think that it will be one of the most stimulating discoveries for all of us.
(EL) Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, allow me to congratulate my honourable friend Mrs Lienemann on her complete and detailed work.
It is now essential that the European Union acquire an integrated policy for the protection of the marine environment, because the fragmentary legislation which has applied to date has not managed to reverse the reduction in biodiversity and the loss of habitats. It is our duty, therefore, towards future generations to achieve a very high level of protection of the marine environment, so that our strategy on sustainable development can be combined with the objectives of the Lisbon Strategy, not forgetting that, in many countries in Europe and for a substantial section of the populace, the sea is a large pole of economic development.
At the same time, this directive offers the Member States an historic opportunity to collaborate in a field which, until recently, was a field of conflict and antagonism, such as sea fishing areas and fishing quotas.
The basic objective must be to clearly define the term good environmental status of marine ecosystems, so as to achieve a cohesive and effective marine policy at European Union level.
I believe that adopting protected marine areas, as a tool for protecting ecosystems and combating the reduction in biodiversity, will also help considerably in achieving this objective. At the same time, we are calling for the deadlines for attaining the targets of the proposed directive to be brought forward to 2017.
Mr President, I wish to congratulate Mrs Lienemann and Mr Kušķis on their excellent reports which, despite the view of some Scottish colleagues, have been wisely strengthened by the Committee on The Environment, Public Health and Food Safety.
European marine waters, as indeed international waters, have often become the dustbin for waste of varying quantities and levels of toxicity. This practice has been carried out for many years by individuals, companies and governments, who have shown little knowledge of or regard for the enormous diversity and importance of marine ecosystems. In many instances that has resulted in unprecedented environmental damage. In other cases, the survival of certain species is now balanced on a knife edge.
It is high time for the EU to intervene decisively in order to protect our marine environment. Therefore, we should all fully support these two welcome reports in the hope that the implementation of the necessary strategies and directives will be forthcoming unhindered, as well as extended to third countries, and that further, complementary measures will be introduced in the near future. After all, the protection of our marine environment is an essential element in safeguarding our own survival on this planet.
(NL) Mr President, first of all, my heartfelt compliments to Mrs Lienemann, who really has written an excellent report. Ladies and gentlemen, it is not easy for fish to survive in the seas and oceans surrounding the European Union; overfishing and pollution have taken their toll, and when the fish are gone, they are gone, so we must take drastic measures now in order to prevent the situation arising around 2040 of there being no fish left. Let this prediction by scientists serve as an important warning.
Whilst the marine strategy is a sound initiative, the directive is not specific enough for my liking. First of all, fish reserves need to be set up. By setting up reserves at spawning locations, fish are given the opportunity of reproducing at their leisure. This has proved effective in New Zealand and Australia. If, alongside reserves, sustainable fishing methods are introduced, then we can safeguard the future of fish in the waters surrounding the European Union.
In addition, something needs to be done about exotic species and the problem of ballast water. The Japanese oyster has found a pleasant living climate in the North Sea without natural enemies, but this oyster is actually thriving too well. The purification of ballast water is a simple procedure that must be undertaken across the board. The marine directive requires Member States to think about how the marine environment can be improved and how we can cooperate better, which is in the interest of us all. I warmly support Mrs Lienemann's report, and I hope you will all do the same.
(SV) Mr President, Commissioner, it feels good to be back again, and I have been able to begin work by reading two constructive reports.
We are all of us responsible for ensuring that our seas can survive the stresses to which the marine environment is exposed. An additionally large responsibility lies with this Assembly and the European Union to find the right forms of coordinated and vigorous cross-border cooperation. As many speakers have pointed out, time is extremely short.
In my own part of Europe, the Baltic is the most important sea and the one that has been, and still is, exposed to the greatest threats. That is why we view the planned gas pipeline from Russia to Germany with great concern. Tomorrow, more detailed plans are to be presented. A gas pipeline in the sensitive Baltic Sea constitutes a considerable threat to the environment. The gas pipeline may be damaged by ships or old unrecovered mines and be exposed to terrorist attack. The gas pipeline would constitute a threat to the environment and to fishing, both when it was being constructed and during the period that it was in operation. In my opinion, the risks are manifestly greater than the advantages. Certainly, Europe needs energy supplies, but this natural gas pipeline must not be laid on the bed of the Baltic Sea. If the pipeline is to be constructed, it must be so on land - for the sake of the marine environment and of the Baltic.
Member of the Commission. (CS) Ladies and gentlemen, I have followed your debate with interest and I am pleased to note that in principle you have endorsed the holistic approach favoured by the Commission. On the other hand, it is clear that this issue is a complex one, requiring urgent action in many areas. It is also clear that a range of different opinions has emerged and that further analysis and clarification are required.
I should like to refer to some of the main amendments in more detail.
In the timetable for implementation (Amendments 20, 24, 31, 32, 35 and 69), the Commission chose the year 2021 as the date by which the Member States have to achieve 'good environmental status' of their marine environments. The Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Food Safety proposed an earlier date.
Although the Commission would like 'good environmental status' to be achieved quickly, the committee's date is not in my view a realistic one. The Commission's proposal addresses firstly the need to improve our understanding of the marine environment and the threats it faces, and secondly the need for action. In order that we may find the most appropriate, and cost-effective, measures to protect the marine environment, we must equip ourselves with the essential knowledge and skills. Under these conditions, to bring the deadlines forward would be counter-productive.
This is clear, especially in view of the parallels with the current Water Framework Directive, to which this directive is closely related. In the Water Framework Directive, successfully adopted in 2000 due to the fact that Mrs Lienemann was the rapporteur, 'good environmental status' is called for by 2015, that is to say, 15 years after the adoption of the directive. The Marine Directive should operate in the same way.
In view of the extent of the sea area addressed by the Marine Strategy Directive, and in view of the size of the task, no one should be in any doubt that our proposed timetable is highly ambitious. The date proposed by the Commission in the directive, 2021, will moreover coincide with the first review of the River Basin Management Plans under the EU Water Framework Directive, allowing synergies on the further implementation of both directives.
Apart from this, the Commission believes that it would not be practical to call on the Member States to 'achieve good environmental status by 2021' as the Committee on the Environment is proposing in the Directive. Nor would it be realistic. The measures that must be taken as part of the Marine Strategy will be up and running by 2018 according to the proposed timetable. Some measures will not deliver immediate results because it will take time for some of the ecosystems to react to the measures. Overall progress towards good environmental status must be shown, however, which is why the Commission has proposed the idea of 'achieving good environmental status'.
The Commission is prepared to support the insertion of an article stressing the importance of marine protected areas (Amendments 27, 39, 62 and 72). Such an article should ideally be based on Article 6 of the Water Framework Directive on protected areas.
The Commission is also prepared to back the idea that in order to meet the objectives of the Directive it may be necessary to create further protected areas or even closed nature reserves. It cannot accept, however, the proposal from the Committee on the Environment for the mandatory creation of marine protected areas as part of the implementation of the proposed Directive. Protected marine areas should be created only when they can contribute directly towards achieving a 'good environmental status'. They should not simply be created as an end in themselves, but should be viewed as a means rather than an end.
The Commission agrees with the committee's wish to integrate the fundamental definition of 'good environmental status' (Amendment 80) directly into the Directive.
The Commission nevertheless has definite problems with the list of definitions proposed by the Committee on the Environment. Many of these definitions are based on the factors influencing the marine environment and the threats to it, rather than the quality of the ecosystem. This is a dangerous approach because some potential risks and threats may be omitted or, on the other side of the coin, unduly emphasised. Even more importantly, if we monitor only the influencing factors, the EU will not be able to move away from the current fragmented approach on managing the marine environment towards a more integrated approach, which would cover all of the factors as well as their mutual impact on the marine environment.
Lastly, with regard to financial matters, (Amendments 19 and 74), there are a number of EU funding mechanisms from which the Member States can benefit, for example the Structural Funds, LIFE+ and the Seventh Framework Programme for Research. Consequently, it is not necessary to create any special funding mechanisms.
Honourable Members, the debate has touched on the complexity of this whole issue, including the fact that the marine environment receives pollution from the atmosphere, and that the quality of the marine environment depends to a large extent on tackling climate change. It has also been mentioned that some seas have not been included, as in the case of the Black Sea, and naturally the approach adopted by Romania and Bulgaria will fundamentally change the situation and open up fresh possibilities. As regards the Arctic Ocean, owing to its geographical situation it is not possible to change the Commission's position significantly and nor is it possible to create an independent strategy for what is an exceptionally sensitive and important environment here, albeit in no way connected directly to EU territory.
Mr President, honourable Members, I shall pass on the list of Commission opinions on the Amendments to Parliament's Services.
The debate is closed.
The vote will take place tomorrow at 11.30 a.m.
Written Statements (Rule 142)
(SV) It is very gratifying that attention is being devoted to issues concerning the marine environment because there is a great need to ensure that our seas do not suffer still more pollution or destruction. The amendments by the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Food Safety are, for the most part, positive and will hopefully improve the condition of the marine environment, especially as a result of good environmental status being defined.
The Commission's proposal does, however, contain an article that gives rise to a certain amount of concern. Article 13, on special areas, opens up opportunities for, to some extent, disregarding the environmental objectives if the alterations in a particular area have taken place as a result of actions taken for reasons of great public interest. One can imagine this article being invoked very extensively. It is therefore extremely important that the Commission impose significant restrictions if and when this happens, because the future environment we are all to live in is also of great public interest.
(IT) Europe is surrounded by four seas and two oceans, containing different types of ecosystems and different biogeographical regions. The European coast extends over 100 000 km, and is where 16% of Europeans live, many of whom are strongly tied to the sea for their work, leisure, or sport, or because of the natural resources and energy it provides. In the case of enclosed or partly enclosed seas, such as the Black Sea, the Baltic and the Mediterranean, the risk of pollution is particularly high.
The proposal for a Marine Strategy Directive, which seems desirable and long-awaited, must enable the current political framework for the protection of the marine environment in Europe to be expanded and strengthened. Its effectiveness will determine the future health of European seas, and has the necessary potential to guarantee the environmental basis needed for the sustainable use of the resources and functions of the sea, both within and outside of Europe.


6. Mobilisation of the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund: Noord Holland and Utrecht Division 18/Netherlands (


Forwarding of texts adopted during the sitting: see Minutes