Thematic Strategy on the sustainable use of natural resources (debate)
The next item is the report by Kartika Tamara Liotard, on behalf of the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Food Safety, on a thematic strategy for the sustainable use of natural resources.
rapporteur. - (NL) Mr President and all those present at this late hour, I think that these are times when it is quality that matters, not quantity. This is, I think, how you should look at it anyway.
The Commission has taken five years to produce a strategy for the sustainable use of natural resources. That is a long time, and so it is very regrettable that the proposal it has submitted is so lacking in ambition. To be fair, the Commission has clearly identified the problem, namely that if we carry on in this way, we will be irrevocably faced with exhaustion of our resources, and, along with it, a serious threat to our economy and our quality of life.
Thereupon, though, it also fails to come up with concrete measures. It calls, inter alia, for more research and more data. This is all well and good, but we cannot afford to wait for much longer. Like climate change, the problem of natural resources is acute now, and now is the time we need to take concrete action. When you read the proposal, there is a vague lack of urgency on the part of the Commission. It does not invite the citizens to think about this issue all that much, although they are the people eventually who will bear the brunt of it all.
The heart of the matter is simple. Our ecological footprint, in other words the environmental effect of our consumption, is much greater than what the earth can cope with. By way of illustration, if this children's shoe is the ecological footprint we would be allowed to have in order for our natural resources to be in balance, this large men's shoe represents the current consumption level. As you can see, it is really far too big. This is, therefore, a good illustration of what we are doing at the moment.
I will be very honest, Commissioner. The gut reaction in our Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Food Safety was that the entire document should be sent back to you and the Commission asked to rework it. This, however, struck us as not very constructive and besides, we cannot afford to wait for another five years for action. This is why I decided to commit to producing a sound proposal and called on all my fellow Members to help me in this task. I can tell you, my fellow Members had a few amazing brainstorming sessions. Working together, we came up with a large number of ideas to improve the Commission's document, and that took us not more than three or four months. I would like to thank them, because we have really achieved a great deal. On account of all these sound amendments, the lay-out of the report may not be anything to write home about, but I hope that the message is clear. Parliament wants to see concrete measures rather than deferral.
I should like to single out a few proposals, the first of which concerns agriculture. Agriculture does not feature in the thematic strategy, which is quite bizarre to my mind, if you consider that the agricultural sector is one of the largest users and consumers of natural resources. This sector is therefore being denied a great opportunity. I understand that the reason for this lies in the fact that DG Agriculture and DG Environment failed to see eye to eye on this. It is unacceptable, though, that mutual bickering between European officials would lead to the strategy lacking a wide support base.
I would also propose linking European agricultural subsidies straight to sustainability. To give you an example: subsidies for corn should be suspended if large-scale irrigation is needed and thus if water is being wasted, but subsidies should instead be given to farms that commit to using alternative energy sources, such as wind energy. In addition to agriculture, there are also other sectors, including transport, fisheries and construction, that are not included in the strategy - wrongly so. We will need to do something about that too. In short, the strategy should cover all areas of policy.
The structure of the strategy is largely determined by the consumer and manufacturer. Other proposals include a lifecycle approach, a top-10 list of priorities of threatened natural resources, tax incentives, the provision of information, the involvement of NGOs and experts, making use of alternative recycling and re-use. Too many to mention, really.
I suggest that the EU, in general, seeks to halve the use of resources by 2030. This is not science fiction, but a real necessity. Needless to say, European policy should not stop the Member States from performing even better. By setting the highest achieving Member State as an example to others, this trend can be promoted further.
During his most recent visit to the Committee on the Environment, Commissioner Dimas spoke about the importance of natural resources, and I was delighted to hear him do that. I have sent him a letter, asking for his cooperation. I live in hope, therefore, that this Commissioner will stand for a more ambitious policy than what the Commission's current document suggests. If that is the case, a critical report from Parliament can only be something to which they can look forward.
Mrs Liotard can be sure that this Parliament has listened to her to the best of its ability at this time.
Member of the Commission. (EL) Mr President, honourable Members, I would like, first of all, to thank the European Parliament for the special attention paid to this strategy. I would like to thank Mrs Liotard and the shadow rapporteurs for the preparation of the report under discussion today. Indeed, it contains many constructive and useful data that make us think about possible future measures and build on them.
The use of natural resources is of vital importance both for the state of the environment and our economic growth. The course of events is a cause for concern, while the consequences have become noticeable with the constant loss of biodiversity, the greenhouse gas emissions, the downgrading of the quality of water, of air and ground, but also at a significant financial cost.
It is evident that the way in which we use our natural resources constitutes a threat towards our ecosystems on which our quality of life and prosperity depend. Therefore we are obliged to adapt our economic activities to our planet's endurance capabilities.
That is the aim of the strategy for natural resources, the result of vigorous often with disagreements but also extremely fruitful debate that has lasted for more than five years. This strategy offers an approach to environmental policy which focuses on natural resources on the one hand and a long-term framework for limiting the environmental consequences from the use of natural resources in a developing economy on the other. Moreover, it aims to improve efficiency when using natural resources.
Despite being very ambitious, these objectives are feasible. Europe has already managed to stabilise the use of natural resources in certain sectors of the economy. However, we lag behind other countries as for example in the case of Japan, which uses its natural resources much more efficiently compared to Europe. The strategy promotes products, technologies and consumption patterns that are more efficient with regards to the use of natural resources and less pollutant.
New initiatives have already been undertaken for the implementation of the strategy. Allow me to mention three examples:
First of all, the Commission is setting up a data centre, which will provide information for the policy planning, and this will lead to a better understanding of the use of resources and the consequences of various economic activities.
Secondly, in order to measure our progress in the direction of environmental protection and the conservation of natural resources, the Commission will pursue the development of a new generation of indicators. Already many quantitative indicators have been established with regards to the use of natural resources, as for example in the energy and climate change sectors. The determination of strict quality targets for atmospheric air and water and waste recycling targets contributes towards achieving the targets of the strategy on natural resources. Through this strategy we will be able to work out the general quantitative goal of natural resources conservation in our economy.
Thirdly, we must adapt all our policies to take account of the use of natural resources based on the entire life-cycle. We must take into consideration the environmental consequences of natural resources from their creation to their depletion, that is, from their birth to their death, so that the consequences are not transferred from one stage of life cycle to another or to other countries. When, for example, we import processed metals to Europe we must not overlook the environmental consequences of mining in other countries. The natural resources we actually use in Europe increasingly come from developing countries. Biofuel is another characteristic example.
Therefore we are talking about a global challenge and we have to assume responsibility. Together with the United Nations Environment Programme, we have set up an International Panel on the sustainable use of natural resources, which will start evaluating the consequences of the use of resources on our planet and will propose new measures. The work programme of this new International Panel already includes issues, such as environmental conditions for the production of biofuel and the implementation of measures on a worldwide scale in order to boost the recycling society. If this panel manages to reach the achievements of the International Panel on Climate Change, we will fulfil our goals to a great extent.
Honourable Members, the foundations have already been laid. Following the detailed examination on your behalf, and with the proposals you made, the Commission is committed to ensuring the successful implementation of the strategy for natural resources. In the long term, this strategy will lead us to sustainable use of natural resources and could constitute a benchmark for other policies. This is only the first stage of a long process. We should cooperate, now, with specific actions, so that its implementation can play a part in the development of all policies in all sectors of the economy.
on behalf of the PPE-DE Group. - Mr President, the Commissioner says that these are 'ambitious goals'. I think not, Commissioner! The Commission's report came under a lot of fire when the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Food Safety first discussed it in October, as the document is seriously limited in its ambition after five years of gestation. At best, it could be described as a reasonable basic document with which to start the discussion, but it lacks any concrete objectives and, as I said, any ambition. This can probably be attributed to a turf war between the Directorate-General for Agriculture and Rural Development and the Directorate-General for the Environment - guess who won? DG ENVI's strategy has been mainly restricted to knowledge-gathering and fails to address some key problematic sectors such as - unsurprisingly - agriculture, forestry, transport and many others.
Whilst some new initiatives are mentioned, such as a data centre for natural resources, a high-level forum and an international panel, the proposed time horizon of 25 years is totally unacceptable. By contrast, the rapporteur Mrs Liotard has worked hard to add some substance to the proposal. She correctly makes the point that the Commission communication does not comply with the requirements laid down in the Sixth Environmental Action Plan for concrete targets and timetables. The report calls on the Commission to replace this non-strategy with ambitious proposals, including clear targets and binding timetables.
I welcome the emphasis on an integrated policy approach and on the external impact of EU policy on sustainable resources. The only problem is that the rapporteur may have done too good a job. There is such a broad consensus for her report in the ENVI Committee that practically all amendments tabled were adopted, making the report somewhat long and repetitive in places. In my view, this takes away from the message. For this reason I have indicated on my group's voting list a negative vote on certain paragraphs that duplicate points mentioned elsewhere in the report.
on behalf of the PSE Group. - Mr President, we have inherited natural resources from nature or the Creator, but we are responsible for them with regard to future generations. We hear increasingly varying information on the threat to the balance of nature. Two-thirds of the ecosystems on which human beings depend are in decline. Europe's demand on natural resources has risen by almost 70% since the early 1960s. This dangerous trend must be stopped.
We want economic growth, because many people are still in need, but without increasing the use of natural resources and with less environmental impact. This decoupling of economic growth and the increasing use of natural resources is the main message of this report. The strategy proposed by the Commission is rather weak and has no deadlines or targets. That is why I tabled around 25 amendments on behalf of the PSE Group. I am happy that all but one of them has found favour with the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Food Safety.
My fellow parliamentarians and I have proposed concrete targets to improve our commitment to the future. I propose specific targets regarding food, housing and the transport sector. In a market economy, taxation is the proper tool for regulating the use of resources. That is why it is so important to set up a European eco-taxation system. This report should be followed by specific regulations and directives to stop the self-destructive over-use of natural resources.
on behalf of the ALDE Group. - (SL) Greater efficiency in using energy and raw material resources is the objective of the thematic strategy being discussed here. This strategy is probably the most important partial strategy of the Sixth Environmental Action Plan. Its main objective is to prevent the unnecessary squandering of renewable and non-renewable sources which is threatening the environmental balance.
Product lifecycles is a philosophy which occupies a special place amongst the measures designed to limit excessive consumption. It is possible to increase significantly the volume of products that are channelled back into the economy at the end of their lifecycle and to reuse them. In this regard, the strategy is closely related to the process of revising EU legislation on waste management.
The ambitious goals that we want to see in this thematic strategy are not unrealistic. In fact, the priorities of the political debate on the economical use of natural resources have already enhanced the willingness of citizens to participate in the beneficial reuse of waste. Our cities, for instance, are potential mines of raw materials. Just as we extract ore from mines, we can use advanced waste collection and separation methods to extract iron, zinc, copper and plastic, and in the process we will use three times less energy than we would by producing them from fresh raw materials. Urban mining offers a promising vision of the modern city as a lucrative cache of recycled materials. And it is not the only method that considerably improves efficiency in using natural resources.
on behalf of the UEN Group. - (PL) Mr President, almost half a century has passed since the first report was delivered in Rome. Since then, natural resources have diminished, but we made great technological advances and learned to make more efficient use of raw materials and energy, harnessing resources which we could not have dreamed of fifty years ago. Have we done everything our knowledge, technology and experience are capable of? Definitely not. This is what this report clearly shows.
I am wholly in favour of the report, but I also see that the European Union is doing a great deal, much more than other countries, to protect the earth, air and water. It is doing a lot to recycle and re-use its raw materials. However, we need to intensify our activities for the better utilisation of manufacturing waste, which will not only reduce environmental pollution, but also make our use of natural resources more efficient.
on behalf of the Verts/ALE Group. - (FI) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, my thanks go to the rapporteur, Kartika Liotard, for her excellent work. These days mankind lives on an ecological credit card which goes over the limit of ecological funds. Mankind as a whole uses 25% more than the sustainable level of natural resources, which means that we are using up our children's capital. According to the European Environment Agency, the consumption of natural resources in Europe exceeded Europe's own biocapacity back in the 1960s. If the current trend continues, by 2050 we will be using double the level of sustainable natural resources. The need to cut climate emissions is only part of the more universal challenge of using natural resources more sparingly and more wisely.
If our use of natural resources is to be brought down to a sustainable level and at the same time we make it possible for developing countries to rise out of poverty, the rich countries, such as ourselves, should over a period of 50 years make the ratio between the prosperity achieved and consumption of natural resources ten times greater. This sounds like science fantasy but by degrees it only means an improvement of 5% a year. We have been able to do something similar in improving work productivity so why not in improving the productivity of natural resources? This century must be the century in which we improve the productivity of natural resources, the ratio between prosperity achieved and the use of natural resources.
As everyone has already said, the strategy put forward by the Commission is far too flimsy, mainly because it lacks any concrete targets and timetables, even though they are required under the Sixth Environment Action Programme. The knowledge base for producing them exists. We need clear targets and timetables by next year, including sector-wide action programmes.
The cheapest way of improving productivity in the use of natural resources is to end aid that is environmentally harmful. That should be done right away. Kartika Liotard's conclusion that we need more quality and less volume could also be a motto for us in our use of natural resources.
(SK) I would like to begin by thanking the rapporteur for her excellent work and for the stance she has taken on this question. I can fully endorse all the points in her report on a thematic strategy for the sustainable use of natural resources. The fact that the Commission worked on this document for five years indicates the seriousness of the problem.
The Commission's document does not contain specific schedules, nor does it describe the methods to be adopted. We have to recognise that we have a worldwide water crisis, especially as regards drinking water, as well as global warming, and a threat to biodiversity, where Europe's ecological footprint is twice as big as its biological capacity, and every year people are dying of diseases caused by a polluted environment. This calls for a more proactive and radical approach.
I agree with the proposal for a complete reform of the subsidy system. Subsidising activities which have a negative impact on the environment must be reduced or stopped, especially in agriculture. If the Commission claims that it does not have enough indicators to set specific timescales, the rapporteur mentions several in her report, for example, gross domestic product, domestic use of materials, etc.
If we wish to reduce our dependence on natural resources, I agree that by 2012, 12% of the energy in the EU must come from renewable sources, and by 2008, a specific policy and line of action must be implemented for the 20 most important materials that have the greatest impact.
(FI) Mr President, Commissioner Dimas's example was a good one, as when the production of bioenergy is increased, it must happen on a sustainable basis and, in particular, at a global level, although the problem, with this strategy, for example, is that agriculture and forestry are not included in it.
This is one of the last thematic strategies that form part of the Sixth Environment Action Programme. It has already been stated here that quantitative and qualitative objectives have been set under the Sixth Environment Action Programme for the European Union's environmental policy and that they have not been mentioned in the Commission's proposals. Furthermore, it has not been possible in this strategy on natural resources to meet the objective of ensuring that the use of natural resources and their impact do not exceed the carrying capacity of the environment.
The Sixth Environment Action Programme was supposed to have been reviewed a year ago, and it is vital that we undertake a review of a programme as analytical as this one is, now that we have already come a long way in debating thematic strategies. I would therefore like to ask Commissioner Dimas when the Commission is going to review the Sixth Environment Action Programme.
(EL) Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, allow me to thank my colleague Mrs Liotard for her comprehensive and cohesive report. The climate changes and energy crisis faced by the European Union call for community action and the creation of a well-structured strategy for the sustainable use of natural resources which are at least in accordance with demands set by the sixth action plan for the environment.
I would like to emphasise that we need a strategy which targets the efficient use of natural resources, improvements in both their management and in waste management with a view to adopting sustainable production methods and consumer standards, whilst on the one hand, disengaging the use of resources and waste production from the economic growth rate and, on the other, ensuring that their use will not put too much of a strain on the environment than it can withstand. I believe you have made a good point, Commissioner. The foundation has already been laid.
Before giving the floor to Commissioner Dimas I wanted to let Mrs Liotard know that I have consulted the Rules of Procedure and it is not necessary for her to enclose the two shoes which she used in her example for the purpose of drafting the Minutes, and therefore she may keep them.
These were actually shoeprints, not footprints!
Mr President, honourable Members, first of all, let me thank you for the constructive remarks made in the report and during the debate tonight. We all agree that today's use of natural resources is not sustainable. Indeed, the sustainable use of natural resources is a common challenge for all of us as policymakers, as companies and as citizens, both in Europe but also globally.
Parliament has an essential role in leading this project and mobilising the necessary public support. Today, more than one year after adoption of the communication, we have already made some progress. Member States have endorsed the strategy and it is becoming a global benchmark promoted, for example, by the OECD.
We are developing and moving forward with the implementation in an open, transparent and engaged way. Your report and today's discussion will now be taken into account in future actions.
The use of natural resources policy is intimately linked to the way we produce our products and consume them. The forthcoming action plan on sustainable consumption and production will focus on the eco-design of products, on making procurement greener and on measures that help consumers make better choices.
Actions will start from food, housing and transport, the sectors with the highest environmental impacts. Your other priorities will be tackled as well. We will promote best-practice approaches, innovative and eco-efficient solutions and the use of economic instruments. Just one month ago the Commission published a Green Paper on the use of market-based instruments in energy and environment policy, and I am committed to looking beyond GDP when we assess the economic, social and environmental progress of our societies.
Finally, I fully understand those of you who want to see more action and sooner, and I thank Parliament for its proactive role in this.
I also have a lot of sympathy for calls for more specific targets. As I highlighted earlier, a number of ambitious targets related to resource use are already in place, for example the strategy's over-arching goal to decouple negative environmental impacts from growth on a European and global scale. This is arguably a very ambitious target and is formally endorsed by the Commission and the Council.
We will assess the need to set an overall target for resource efficiency in the context of the review of the resource strategy planned for 2010. The resource strategy is a big step forward, tackling environmental impacts in a lifecycle approach.
The debate is closed.
The vote will take place on Wednesday at 11.30 a.m.
Written statement (Rule 142)
, in writing. - (HU) In spite of increasing evidence pointing to the fact that natural energy sources have been used irrationally and excessively, and that daily life has become part of the worry about the sustainability of the natural environment, today humanity, and especially political leaders, lack a clear conception of how to address the problem.
The political concept of sustainable development is too general to lead to tangible results, and what is more, it tries to deal at the same time with protecting the natural environment and resolving the complex problem of justice among generations and nations. Methods for measuring the environment (for instance, life cycle analysis [LCA]), and indicators (for example, the ecological footprint) are burdened with methodological problems and are often contradictory.
Without calling into question the usefulness of designing a unified, complex and clear knowledge base on natural energy sources and a set of indicators measuring the use of energy sources, it is important to emphasise that even in their absence, many measures could be put into practice.
It is unfortunate that both the Commission's proposal and the accompanying report from the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Food Safety are silent on the important role that the market and market-oriented regulations could play in the effective use of natural energy sources. It would be a mistake to forget that the regulation of carbon dioxide emissions - in spite of the inevitable over-allocation by the government during the first distribution period - worked satisfactorily. It would be a mistake not to recognise that numerous solutions that protect natural energy sources (for instance the broader distribution of renewable energy sources) is hampered precisely by the lack of a unified, unrestricted competitive market in Europe.


Economic and trade relations with Korea (debate)
The next item is the report by David Martin, on behalf of the Committee on International Trade, on the trade and economic relations with Korea.
rapporteur. - Mr President, this report had to be put together rather quickly, because we anticipated - we even hoped - that the Free Trade Agreement between the European Union and Korea might be concluded by the end of this year. That is clearly not going to be the case but, nevertheless, we are pleased that Parliament is able to report today and we hope, through our report today, that we will be able to influence the Commission's position.
To get to where we are today, some of my colleagues had to work extremely hard, and I would like to thank Christopher Ford from the Trade Committee and Emmanuelle Le Texier from the PSE Group, who worked above and beyond the normal call of duty to get this report prepared in time. I would also like to thank Commissioner Mandelson and his services for the good cooperation I have had from the Commission in producing this report, and also the Korean Ambassador, whose assistance enabled me to get an insight into the Korean position on these negotiations.
Historically, free trade agreements between the European Union and Asian countries have been trade-light, despite their name. I think this could be the exception to the rule. Korea has shown a willingness and an ability to negotiate a far-reaching and comprehensive bilateral trade agreement.
Korea is a significant player in the region in Asia. It is now a wealthy country, the 11th largest economy in the world. Its per capita income is comparable to Spain. It is an economy that is growing quickly, and trade between our two regions - between Korea and the European Union - reached EUR 60 billion last year. So it is a deal worth doing, and, if we can get it right, I think it is a win-win situation. The Korean manufacturing industry, for example, can win through access to European services, enabling Korean manufacturing to expand and to compete more favourably. We can win, through access to the Korean market for some of our key goods and services.
The timetable, as I mentioned, was originally set for conclusion by the end of this year. It now realistically looks like May next year will be the earliest negotiations can be concluded, but I am encouraged that, after five rounds of negotiations, talks seem to be getting down to the nitty gritty and seem to be getting serious. There are clearly still significant gaps between the European Union position on issues like country-of-origin labelling, technical standards for the automobile industry and on tariff concessions for goods. But the key point is that negotiations are now being conducted at a serious and detailed level.
My main concerns come in the field of, firstly, social and environmental standards. Even with this delay, the Korean agreement looks like being the first of the new generation of FTAs that we agree. As such, it can be a template for further FTAs, and I would like to see our ambitions in relation to environmental and social standards raised. I would like to ensure that there is a dispute settlement mechanism in the Agreement. I do not believe that we should settle for anything less than the United States have settled for, and they have got a dispute settlement mechanism in their report. I believe issues like ratification of key ILO conventions and the post-2012 application of any new climate change agreement cannot be left to mere gentlemen's agreements or simply encouraging people to do things. We have to actually have some mechanism for settling disputes. I hope the Commission will look at this again.
I also want to argue that the Kaesong Industrial Complex should be looked at sympathetically in relation to such an agreement. I accept the Commission's approach that, firstly, we have to get the Free Trade Agreement; but if we can get the FTA, before signature we should look at how we can assist South Korea in terms of encouraging North Korea to come into the real world. The Kaesong Industrial Complex, based in North Korea but run by South Korean companies, is a way of engaging North Korea with the rest of the world, and it is a process that we should be encouraging. I believe that, through our trade agreement, we can do much to assist South Korea in this process. It is not just a matter of interest for South Korea but it is a matter of interest for the world. It makes the world a safer place if North and South Korea can cooperate.
I believe this is an important free trade agreement. I believe it is one that both the EU and Korea can win if we get the right deal. I support the Commission's view that we should not rush to a settlement, and that a good settlement is better late than a bad settlement that we get early. I hope, when Korea changes president at the beginning of next year, that the new president will instruct his administration to work tirelessly to reach this agreement before the summer.
Member of the Commission. - Mr President, I welcome the excellent and speedy work done by the rapporteur, Mr Martin, and his colleagues and staff. Together they have produced a comprehensive and balanced report, which I commend.
Parliament's endorsement of this motion for a resolution will send a clear signal of support for the Commission's policy of seeking an ambitious and comprehensive free trade agreement (FTA) with South Korea, as part of the strategy laid out in the Global Europe Communication of October 2006. The choice of South Korea as partner for this generation of free trade agreements reflects the important economic and political potential of the country, but it is also an acknowledgement of the reality that important barriers exist and persist to stronger economic and trade ties between us.
The motion is timely: free trade negotiations with South Korea were launched in May 2007, and have progressed rapidly so far. We are ready to work for an early conclusion so long as the substance and quality of the outcome are right. That is our bottom line and it will remain so.
Our FTA with South Korea should be fully WTO-compatible. That goes without saying. We seek far-reaching liberalisation in trade in goods and services, as well as in investment. We are paying special attention to non-tariff barriers and to rules and regulations in key areas, such as intellectual property rights, competition and government procurement. I fully agree with the importance the report attaches to non-tariff barriers and to effective dispute settlement machinery in this and other aspects of the prospective agreement.
Studies have suggested that, in some sectors in Korea, non-tariff barriers are now more important than the tariffs themselves. Substantial improvements on these behind-the-border barriers to trade, creating real market access for EU exports to South Korea, will be absolutely key to conclusion of the FTA.
On a few of the specific concerns that have been raised, the question of Kaesong raises complex technical and political questions. We welcome the amendments proposed in this regard, because they highlight the complexity of the question, which will require careful consideration. The recognition and promotion of the social and environmental aspects of trade - sustainable development - will be an integral part of the free trade agreement with South Korea.
I agree that effective enforcement of standards is key to securing an ambitious and effective result on sustainable development in this agreement. However, a cooperative tone can achieve much more in this area than the appearance of coercion. We expect to cover a greater number of multilateral environmental agreements, and to include issues such as decent work and a stronger commitment to ILO core conventions, and expect to go beyond other recent agreements, such as those covered by the Korea-US FTA. We will also aim to involve the social partners and civil society in this cooperation.
The sustainability impact assessment has been launched. The main findings of draft reports in the different phases will be discussed with civil society. We have set up the SIA to ensure that there will be continuous and rapid feedback into the negotiation process. This builds on the initial contacts we had with civil society at the start of the negotiations.
We have also worked closely with Parliament. The cooperation with the rapporteur and the Committee on International Trade has been excellent. I myself, as well as the Director-General, have regularly updated that Committee. As far as the ratification procedure is concerned, this will depend on the content of the agreement itself, but the Commission is in favour of involving Parliament as much as is possible under the Treaty.
Finally, a possible future FTA covering the bilateral trade relations with South Korea will be part of an overall and coherent framework of EU relations with South Korea. The existing bilateral framework agreement will continue to govern bilateral cooperation and political dialogue.
To conclude, the goal of this FTA is to complement an ambitious Doha outcome by going deeper and further bilaterally with South Korea. Past experience shows that such agreements can road test liberalisation solutions and become stepping-stones for the future evolution of the WTO. An ambitious and comprehensive FTA with South Korea is not just commercially significant, but will also mean an important upgrading of the bilateral EU-Korea relationship. It is also a recognition of the engagement of the EU on the Korean Peninsula and in the region. In a wider sense, it is part of our broader commitment to ensuring that EU trade policy in Asia is keeping up with the dramatic development of that region, and securing the benefits in terms of jobs, growth and growing trade for both sides.
draftsman of the opinion of the Committee on Industry, Research and Energy. - (DE) Mr President, the Committee on Industry, Research and Energy thanks the rapporteur for adopting our proposals. We think an agreement is reasonable, but would nevertheless point out that there have been considerable sectoral problems with Korea in the past. I am thinking here of the discussion on dumping prices in the shipbuilding industry in recent years, for instance, where we also had lawsuits. We wish to ascertain whether these sectoral problems are being resolved in order to ensure that both sides really are opening up and Korea is not the unilateral beneficiary, and that - even when we think of our pharmaceutical industry, the car industry, of the many industrial sectors - reciprocity is guaranteed.
One particular subject was Kaesong. The Commissioner has just addressed the issue of how to involve these North Korean special zones. According to what I am hearing, eight other special zones are planned. In the opinion of the Committee on Industry, international standards must apply here. We cannot undermine our own free trade agreements in this way. We therefore ask that this aspect in particular be thoroughly checked. Otherwise, many thanks - to the Commission, too - for these negotiations!
on behalf of the PPE-DE Group. - Mr President, let me first congratulate my colleague, the rapporteur Mr Martin, for a high-quality and comprehensive report. Our negotiators should take note of it. We should also learn from the recently completed USA-Korea FTA, which shows that speed of conclusion is important, but should not be the top priority. The main goal should clearly be to accomplish high quality and an even playing field in flows of trade. Today, those flows are still seriously impeded by non-trade barriers.
Korea does not apply international norms or labelling requirements regarding automotive products or other important products such as pharmaceuticals, cosmetics and electronics. There is also a need for clarification in the area of intellectual property rights and counterfeiting. These issues need to be resolved before we sign this FTA, in order to ensure free and fair trade. Unless all these issues are resolved to our complete satisfaction, I would advise the Commission not to sign this agreement.
I admire the economic miracle of South Korea, which is reflected in the fact that it is the European Union's fourth largest trading partner. Having a strong democracy has obviously benefited them greatly, and one has to feel sorry for their brothers and sisters in North Korea.
We should be prepared to do all we can to bring about an emotional reunion similar to the one we saw in the late 1980s between East and West Germany. This should, of course, be based on the principle of democracy, which has brought so much success to South Korea.
on behalf of the PSE Group. - (DE) Mr President, I should like to address three aspects. First of all I would like to thank the rapporteur, Mr Martin, on behalf of my group. The report has been written with great care and it actually alludes to all the points that are important and have to be debated. It also advises on the appropriate caution to be exercised on certain subjects, e.g. in the automotive sector. In this respect I believe it is an excellent report, which is a good prerequisite and should accordingly be considered by the Commission and the Council. I am pleased to hear that the Commissioner has responded so meticulously to it.
Secondly, I should like to ask the Commissioner: how will negotiations with Korea generally proceed, in your view? Negotiations are indeed underway and are at a very difficult stage. It seemed very much better at the beginning, I believe, than we have thought in the meantime. Parallel negotiations with all the ASEAN nations are also being added, of course. These negotiations are also - as far as I have gathered from the Minutes - at a very difficult stage. What is the Commission's assessment of this? What influence will our ongoing negotiations with ASEAN have on negotiations with Korea?
My last question to the Commissioner relates to the fact that the Heads of State or Government are just about to sign the Reform Treaty today, 13 December. Under this Reform Treaty, Parliament will in future have a great deal more influence in the retail sector, for which we in this Parliament have been fighting for a very long time. I should like to thank the Commission and Commissioner Mandelson in particular for always having backed this.
My question, however, is this: can you imagine that the Commission will support us when we ask the Council for the right that has already been brought forward under the upcoming free trade agreement and that Parliament will therefore keep the relevant endorsement obligation? Can we assume that we have you on our side in this, Commissioner?
on behalf of the ALDE Group. - (ES) Mr President, I would also, on behalf of my group and very formally, like to congratulate the rapporteur David Martin on the excellent quality of the report that he is presenting to the House. In reality, not all reports are equal. It is important that, although here we vote on all sorts of documents, we point out when some of them have a content and a solidity that enable them to be examined in detail, and cover all the subjects that are up for discussion. I therefore congratulate the rapporteur and the team that supported him in making this happen.
It is true that we do not talk about Korea very much here; we do not talk about it enough, although it is undoubtedly one of our major commercial allies, and indeed the fourth largest outside of Europe, as the report states. The European Union is the leading investor in Korea, which is also, undoubtedly, one of the strongest democracies in the whole of that region.
If we consider what I have just said, on the one hand, therefore, and on the other hand the difficulties in the multilateral context and the reality that there are obstacles to accessing the market for European products and services, which are major non-tariff obstacles, it is obvious that this makes it a very clear candidate for a bilateral agreement that has the full support of Parliament. This agreement, however, needs to be well put together, well negotiated and ambitious.
There are difficulties in very specific areas. I would highlight the subject of services, which has already been mentioned, and the subject of intellectual piracy, in one of the countries with the greatest Internet penetration in the world, and where, therefore, there are very specific problems resulting from the fact that copyright and rights protecting the audiovisual sphere are not taken seriously.
Finally, on the question of Kaesong: my group is going to support the text as it is in the report; in other words, we recognise and understand the political content of this area between South Korea and North Korea, but we understand that, if free trade with the European Union were simply introduced into this context, it could cause serious problems, and therefore we would not support the simple inclusion of the Kaesong area in a possible agreement with the European Union.
on behalf of the UEN Group. - (PL) Mr President, in rising to speak on behalf of the Union for Europe of the Nations Group in the debate on economic and trade relations between the European Union and Korea, I wish to draw attention to the following matters. In a situation where Korea has signed a Free Trade Agreement with EFTA and ASEAN and also with the United States, but will not sign such an agreement with the European Union, the competitiveness of European companies taking advantage of duty-free access to the Korean market will decline. This will have a negative impact on the level of economic growth and the level of employment in EU countries.
Secondly, according to analyses carried out by independent research centres, as a result of the conclusion of a free trade agreement, two thirds of the benefits accruing from such an agreement would go to Korea, and only one third to the European Union. It is therefore necessary for Korea, in addition to this agreement, to make a commitment to the EU in which Korea undertakes to observe European social standards, and in particular the basic elements linked to decent work, as well as environmental and consumer protection standards.
Thirdly, this approach gives an opportunity to lead on to honest competition between Korean and European companies. It is only then that Korean companies will include in their manufacturing costs the overall costs of labour, environmental protection and consumer protection, and thus the price of their products will reflect the full manufacturing cost.
on behalf of the Verts/ALE Group. - Mr President, let me start by thanking Mr David Martin for his report and by underlining the crucial importance of this dossier. The EU-Korea Treaty will be the first application of the new EU trade doctrine Global Europe, a doctrine that is highly controversial, not least because it seeks such deep market access conditions through the removal of all kinds of barriers to all-out import penetration, precisely at a time when more and more people are becoming aware that there are very many losers as well as some winners in a completely liberalised global economy.
On the positive side, the report sets out some very good standards for trade and social and environmental fields, which Greens absolutely support, and in that respect I think the report sets a very important precedent for further upcoming parliamentary responses to other free trade agreements, with India and ASEAN, for example. So we welcome the fact that the report insists that there must be no exceptions to the rule that access to the European market is conditional on compliance with environmental protection standards.
We welcome the fact that it demands that the trade agreement with Korea incorporates binding social and environmental clauses and, to our mind, this by itself makes it difficult to contemplate that the North Korean Kaesong industrial complex would be included within the FTA rules. Most importantly, it intends to give teeth to those binding clauses by demanding that they are subject to the standard dispute settlement mechanism.
But we do have some serious misgivings about this report as well. First, there is the demand to scrap all non-tariff barriers (NTBs) to trade without any attempt at differentiating what really constitutes a legitimate NTB and what does not. We should not assume that everything that prevents unfettered free trade is an illegitimate obstacle. There are some very good reasons to qualify trade, especially when public policy wants to put in place controls for social, health or environmental reasons.
We are also opposed to the full introduction of the so-called 'Singapore issues' into the free trade agreement. Again there are good reasons why total investment freedom or public procurement should remain outside the scope of a trade agreement. Korea had a devastating experience with the free flow of capital in the late 1990s and they have used sheltered public procurement policies to get back on their feet since then. Now, it is not up to us to judge whether they should offer those items on their side, but we are allowed to judge for our side, and my Group does not support giving unlimited freedom to foreign investors in Europe or destroying the possibility of engaging in public spending for social goals through specific domestic procurement policies.
(NL) Mr President, South Korea is one of the EU's main trading partners outside Europe, something that is highlighted clearly in this balanced report. It is a country that arouses sympathy owing to its contiguity with the most backward, most totalitarian communist regime in the world.
Trade relations have grown substantially in recent years, which in itself is a very good thing, but that does not mean there are no problems. If we conclude a free trade agreement with South Korea, it must be based on complete reciprocity. South Korea still has far too many tariff and non-tariff barriers for us to really talk of reciprocity.
Europe must insist on the elimination of all these barriers, and must be able to come to agreements that are at least as advantageous as those of the free trade agreement between South Korea and the United States.
(DE) Mr President, as leader of the European Parliament Delegation for relations with the Korean Peninsula, I should like to congratulate the rapporteur specifically and say that I am very happy to back this report.
I should also like to emphasise something that many still do not know: that the Republic of Korea is an important trading partner. Precisely for this reason it is important that we conclude a free trade agreement. The aim of this agreement must be to achieve fair and equitable trading conditions to our mutual advantage and our mutual benefit.
I can also say that I am pleased that the negotiations have been running substantially better in the fifth round than they did in the fourth round. I should like to encourage Korea to support EU proposals for the faster and reciprocal abolition of import duties. The EU's target for this would be 2015.
As we all know, the motor vehicle sector is and remains a challenge in the negotiations. What we as the European Union expect is that our safety standards are accepted by Korea just as we, too, accept Korea's standards in this sector.
I am optimistic that the barriers in the pharmaceutical products and services sectors, and particularly in the banking and legal advice sectors, can be removed. With regard to Kaesong, I should like to say that it would be significant for the negotiating partners to find a way of supporting the Kaesong project and other projects, on economic and political grounds, particularly for introducing North Korea to the international community of states.
We are generally on the right track and I hope that there will be a conclusion at the beginning or in the first half of 2008.
(FR) Mr President, I would first like to thank Mr Martin for the quality of his report. When negotiating this future trade agreement with Korea, we would do well to remember that our priority should remain multilateralism, because we know that the excessive proliferation of bilateral agreements is damaging to the regulated multilateral structure that we belong to. That is why, if we enter a new era of bilateral trade agreements, these should include guarantees and principles, some of which are mentioned in Mr Martin's report.
The future free trade agreement with Korea should be up-to-date and include restrictive environmental and social requirements such as those in the fundamental ILO conventions, which aim to promote proper working conditions.
Moreover, following Parliament's commitment to enable better access to generic medicines, I am delighted that the provisions on public health have been included and that our wish has been respected that any demands that would limit our partners' ability to make use of the flexibilities provided for in the atypical Doha declaration agreement should not be included.
On the other hand, despite its positive points, it is unacceptable that this text makes no reference to the fate of workers in the Kaesong free trade area, as our rapporteur wanted, and I deplore this.
(PL) Mr President, Korea is one of the leading economies in the world, but at the same time it has the greatest difference in income among the OECD states. Korea is the EU's fourth largest trade partner outside Europe, whereas in 2006 the EU was the largest foreign investor in Korea.
The main problem in our bilateral trade relations is difficulty of access to the market across non-tariff barriers, including a lack of accepted norms and international standards. A free trade agreement with Korea should include protection for foreign investments, a competition policy, public order transparency and trade facilitation.
We must also bear in mind, though, that this agreement could have a negative impact on the European automobile industry, so the Commission must give careful consideration to the strategy of gradual removal of EU import duties. First of all, non-tariff barriers on the Korean side must be withdrawn, so that it does not turn out that the sole beneficiary of this cooperation is Korea.
Mr President, I wish to join with the other speakers in congratulating Mr Martin on his report on a free trade agreement with South Korea, which is the EU's fourth largest trading partner outside Europe and the world's eleventh largest economy.
I want to deal briefly with two issues. Firstly, the opposition of trade union and farmers' groups to the free trade agreement with Korea and, secondly, the case of the industrial zone. In the first case, we need to place the opposition in perspective. Thousands demonstrated against the US agreement with Korea and a number of people burnt themselves to death. Rather than thousands, we have only dozens protesting, possibly because we are attempting to include in our free trade agreement an associated political cooperation agreement - social, political and labour clauses that will help protect labour standards in the south and may well enhance them. At the same time, we will not have the discussion over rice which Korea had with the United States.
With respect to Kaesong, we are not arguing that this should be included. We are arguing that we should not automatically exclude it. That is a rather different position, and I hope that on that basis the Liberals will be able to change the way they vote. As the former Prime Minister of Jamaica once said, the only thing worse than being exploited is not being exploited. Some of us had the opportunity to visit Kaesong last month, as part of an EU workshop on economic reform held in North Korea. I saw thousands of happy North Koreans flooding from the zone, smartly dressed, because they have standards of living six times higher than in the North. This is an opportunity, politically and economically, to actually change that regime and move things in the right direction. Kaesong can transform the North and, allowing for the difficulties, should be encouraged and not killed.
Member of the Commission. - Mr President, let me make three brief points. First of all, on the issue of Kaesong, I think that Mr Ford's formulation - that we should not automatically exclude Kaesong - is the right approach to take. We in the Commission will be very prudent on this subject, but I think, on that basis, the amendment is probably a worthwhile one.
Secondly, I was asked about the overall prospects for the negotiation. Well, in this job I have not discovered a trade negotiation that is not in some difficulty. However, I would say that this negotiation is in less difficulty than some other trade negotiations I could identify.
Lastly, Ms Mann asks whether the European Parliament can obtain rights earlier than the Treaty ratification in respect of this agreement. When asked about this in a different context, I overstepped my collective Commission responsibility in my enthusiasm, so today I shall be a little bit more careful and simply stress that we will seek to involve Parliament as much as possible.
(Applause)
The debate is closed.
The vote will take place today at 11.30 a.m.


19. Specific programme to be implemented through direct actions by the Joint Research Centre (Seventh RTDD Framework Programme, 2007-2013) (vote)


Documents received: see Minutes


Written declarations (tabling): see Minutes


The Bologna Process and student mobility (short presentation)
The next item is the report by Doris Pack, on behalf of the Committee on Culture and Education, on the Bologna Process and student mobility.
rapporteur. - (DE) Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I do hope the fact that we are once again meeting in camera this evening does not imply anything about our basic attitude to education.
The Bologna Process is truly the most radical reform of higher education in recent years. The flow of knowledge should surely not stop at national boundaries any more in this day and age. This is why it is also essentially gratifying that the Member States and the universities are prepared to work together on this matter, regardless of the subsidiarity principle they always prize so highly. I welcome that, but I also note that all the parliaments have been bypassed in this matter. The European Parliament was not contacted, nor were any of the 46 national parliaments.
The galling thing is that we Members of Parliament are constantly being asked out there about this Bologna Process. If anything goes wrong, the finger is pointed at us, yet we have nothing at all to do with it; not even the Commission has had anything to do with it. I am glad to say that the Commission is now on board and is helping to get this Bologna Process off the ground in the framework of our educational programmes with which you will be familiar. In short, the labour pains were difficult, and they are not yet over. It would have been wise to involve the parliaments.
By 2010 we want to create a European area of higher education. That goes without saying. Students must have a broad spectrum of choice, a wide range of high-quality courses. To this end, the Bologna Process envisages three priority areas for action: the introduction of the three-cycle system of bachelor's degrees, master's degrees and doctorates, quality assurance and recognition of qualifications and periods of study.
Student mobility and high-quality education are supposed to be among the top priorities of the Bologna Process, but the process itself, and particularly the rushed introduction of bachelor's courses, has resulted - as we have learned from our hearings - that fewer students dare to spend any study time abroad during their bachelor's courses because these courses have been overladen with far too much learning material. Five years of university study cannot suddenly be packed into a three-year bachelor's degree course. That is what has been done in some cases. Then it emerges that students cannot get away at all, that studying abroad is out of the question. That is a pity. Erasmus is such a great programme, and the opportunities it offers, plus all other opportunities to go abroad, ought to be taken. In fact, a course involving mobility really ought to be made compulsory.
In my view, the credit system is not working. It is not right that three credits should be awarded for a particular module in one country while another country awards only one. There must be a European framework within which everyone is treated equally. This is an area where more work is needed. I believe the theory is good, but it is not being applied particularly well.
We should also ensure that universities do everything in their power to take advantage of funding opportunities in order to make it easier for students to exercise their mobility if they wish to do so. For many universities, this will mean coming out of their ivory towers and linking up with the business community. How many large companies would consider it an honour to sponsor a doctorate or master's course? If it meant that a master's course had to bear the name of Mercedes or Sony or some other corporate brand, so be it! The point is that the sponsorship money would help students. It is not a matter of selling anyone the right to stipulate the content of the curriculum but of locating sources of funding that really do enable anyone who is interested to study abroad. If we make progress towards the achievement of these goals with the aid of the Commission, we shall all be well content.
Member of the Commission. - Mr President, I especially want to thank Doris Pack again. She is one of the founding mothers of the lifelong learning programmes, which are very popular programmes for student mobility. This report on the Bologna Process and student mobility is a very concrete contribution towards even better and even more mobility.
As we all know, the Bologna Process is well advanced and will soon have existed for a decade, having become continent-wide. It started because we had already had a mobility scheme, called Erasmus, since 1987, and most of its instruments became part of the Bologna Process. The two are mutually supportive and make a very important policy contribution. It is not just mobility for mobility's sake, but for modernisation and openness and the internationalisation of our universities. The report provides a very comprehensive overview of what further actions are needed in this field.
Your conclusions are in line with the findings and recommendations of the special group I invited to work with the Commission, which was the high level expert forum led by former Minister Maria João Rodrigues, who reported to me in June this year. Both reports suggested we need substantial and concerted action to increase student mobility and, if I may add, mobility of young people in general: pupils; young people in training; young artists; and young entrepreneurs. I would like to see a mobility period introduced into all degree programmes to encourage students to go abroad, and for mobility to be seen as the standard rather than as a special case.
I agree with you that the Bologna reforms should be used to open up our higher education systems, and not become new obstacles to mobility. Your ideas on flexible formats for courses in some study areas would be compatible with the Bologna rules and deserve to be explored. I also agree that we should invest better and more, which means more effectively, in the mobility of our citizens. We need to combine public, private, national and European funds.
I welcome the suggestion that 'strengthening the financial envelope provided for the programmes in the field of education and notably for Erasmus grants could be considered.' That would be very beneficial not only for education but also, for example, for citizenship - to feel like Europeans in Europe, and to have access and opportunity and a real experience of Europe.
I am sure that Parliament will take its responsibility in full in this respect. Once again I offer my congratulations and thanks and recommend adoption of this report to the House.
The debate is closed.
The vote will take place tomorrow.
Written statements (Rule 142)
in writing. - (RO) I welcome this report and the sound recommendations it contains regarding the effective implementation of the Bologna objectives and the creation of a European space for higher education by 2010. This year, it is important to analyse existing obstacles as well as the opportunities for strengthening this process in the future, after 2010.
I would like to emphasise two of the many proposals in the report, due to their major importance. First of all, greater effort should be made to harmonise national education systems, to complete mutual recognition of qualifications and the equivalence of degrees. I believe that persisting diferences in this field constitute the main obstacle to the equal treatment of students. .
Secondly, I would like to draw the attention of all European institutions to the fact that mobility is still something inaccessible to many students, researchers and teaching staff, particularly those from new Member States, due to insufficient grants. Consequently, the appropriate funding of projects in the new Member States is a priority. Only in this way can the objective of European mobility be accomplished in a coherent and balanced manner..
in writing. - (RO) Young people, especially students, are a priority in my political agenda, and I can only welcome the adoption of Mrs. Pack's report on the Bologna process and the mobility of youth.
I believe that the principle of reciprocity in the exchange of students and scholarships, as well as the setting up of a European framework for the quality and recognition of degrees, must remain two priority aspects of this policy, all the more so as a reduced level of mobility of students towards the new Member States has been noticed.
The exchange of good practice between the Member States is a highly effective way of improving the European mobility framework; therefore, it needs to be constantly supported and extended. The social side of this report, shown in its concern for young people coming from disadvantaged environments, is commendable.
Other considerations aside, we must promote quality and excellence, both among students and among teaching staff, and this can only be done with constant support, both in terms of politics and of investment, for mobility within the education system; this support should be both national and European.
in writing. - (RO) I would like to tackle the social dimension of mobility, which is extremely important: it provides young people with an extremely rich experience in terms of academic, cultural and social diversity, and this is why I would like to congratulate Mrs. Pack on this report.
As a Romanian MEP, I proposed the amendment that students from all Member States should receive a single European student card. I believe that the single card will encourage the mobility of young people throughout Europe, which will lead to the exchange of ideas and implicitly to a change of mentalities, to opening up towards other cultures, stimulating creativity and the capacity for innovation.
From my point of view, this measure is perfectly in line with both the objectives of the European Year of Intercultural Dialogue, 2008, and with the objectives of the European Year of Creativity and Innovation, 2009.


6. The exclusion of health services from the Services Directive (vote)
- Report: Vergnaud
- Before the vote:
rapporteur. - (FR) Mr President, I am taking the floor simply to point out to the House that there has been an error.
Indeed, as the same sentence appears in three different paragraphs, Parliament's services have rightly deleted paragraphs 47 and 53 from the report, since this sentence appears in its entirety in paragraph 51.
I simply wished to inform my fellow Members of this matter.


Delegated acts (Rule 87a): see Minutes