European environmental economic accounts (debate)
The next item is the report by Mr Leinen, on behalf of the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Food Safety, on the proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on European environmental economic accounts - C7-0092/2010 -.
Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, today we are debating, and tomorrow we will adopt, European legislation that, on first impression, seems rather unremarkable, but with this law on European environmental economic accounts, we are probably opening a new chapter in the measurement of progress and prosperity.
We have known for a long time that gross national product is inadequate. The purely quantitative view of economic activity says nothing about the environmental balance sheet, nor about the social balance sheet, and therefore it is high time that we measured whether, year on year, we are doing well or badly in terms of our measures and efforts.
We have monthly statistics relating to our labour market figures and we have annual statistics relating to our economic figures. We therefore know exactly what is happening in these areas. However, we have an incomplete patchwork of data on the environmental impact. This law on environmental economic accounts is intended to help us to draw up an accurate balance sheet in the 27 Member States and to establish whether we are making progress or, as is often the case, whether we are going backwards.
As long ago as 2002, Parliament called for reliable information to be collected on the state of the environment and the most important trends in, influences on, and causes of, environmental change, and for the public to be informed of these things. We want a scientifically sound concept for measuring the consumption of resources to enable appropriate political decisions to be taken.
We are pleased that the Commission took this legislative initiative in April 2010, but in our opinion, it was much too tentative in the way it went about it. We in Parliament and all of the groups have called for this to be done much more quickly, because the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) and the United Nations have already been discussing these matters for 15 years. This is taking far too long. We have therefore made considerable progress in the negotiations with the Council.
It was a very difficult situation in the Council, because some Member States do not produce an environmental balance sheet and we first need to create a foundation in all 27 Member States. The Commission proposed the inclusion of three modules. These modules are air emissions - in this regard, we are very well aware of which gases are emitted into the air. Then there is the financial expenditure arising from environmental taxes and environmental charges. Thirdly, there are the year-on-year national material flows, the input and output, measured in purely quantitative terms. This is a start, perhaps, but it is too simple a start, and Parliament has called for us also to produce water, energy and waste balance sheets and to find out about the status of our forests. These are the modules that we urgently want to see in the very near future.
There was disagreement about whether statistics can also be produced for the marine environment, in other words, statistics on the status of fish stocks. In this regard, our methodology is probably still in need of improvement. Thus, we have achieved improvements in this area. In two years' time - by 2013 at the latest - the Commission is to present a report and, where possible, also propose a revision of this directive. I hope that, at the end of this decade, we will have a green national product in addition to the gross national product. That is our goal.
Member of the Commission. - Mr President, as the rapporteur, Jo Leinen, said, the purpose of the Commission proposal is indeed to establish a common legal framework for the collection, compilation, transmission and evaluation of European environmental economic accounts in order to facilitate more balanced decision making with the goal of sustainable development.
With the presentation of this proposal, the Commission has delivered its first item on the 'Beyond GDP' road map. At a time when we are striving, in Europe, to achieve a resource-efficient and sustainable economy, this data will allow us to link environmental factors to economic ones and thus offers the possibility of more comprehensive and better-informed policy making.
Following very fruitful cooperation between the three institutions, I believe we have reached our common objective, namely, the establishment of this framework regulation on European environmental economic accounts with its first set of three modules, which cover air emissions accounts, environmentally-related taxes or levies and material flow accounts.
Currently, this data is collected on a voluntary basis by the majority of Member States. For the most part, therefore, the collection of the relevant data will not impose any additional burden on respondents, as the Member States concerned should be able to compile the data by using existing data sources. With this regulation, we have established an important basis for statistical information about the interplay between the economy and the environment, which we hope to expand with further modules in the future as included in the report and the draft resolution.
As the various other possible modules are at different stages of methodological maturity, including, for instance, timber and fish as well as unused extraction, a modular structure has been adopted for the regulation with a view to possibly introducing new modules as annexes to the core text in the future.
As agreed, the Commission will report to Parliament and the Council every three years on the development of new modules and, if appropriate, the Commission may also put forward new legislative proposals for the new modules.
Let me conclude by thanking the rapporteur, Jo Leinen, the shadow rapporteur, Mr Martin, and all the members of the Committee on the Environment and the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs for their constructive approach and their very valuable contributions.
Mr President, when Mr Leinen and I come back to political positions of the last millennium, we are mostly in agreement, and that is also the case with this report. This is something good, sensible and important. After all, statistics can be sexy, particularly at a time when the European Union has a huge credibility problem where European citizens are concerned. I would say that that is largely unjustified if we look at the major issues and not at the other matters on which Mr Leinen and I are divided.
I think it is very good to be able to stand here, not only as a non-attached Member, but as someone who, with this opinion on behalf of the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs - it was not a shadow report, but a supplementary opinion that is even more comprehensive than that of the lead committee, the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Food Safety - is able to represent these positions that we have set out with a vote of 37 to 0. In specific terms, this means that we want - as I put it - to move towards a system of European sustainability statistics, nicely abbreviated to ESS. That would give us something to work with, particularly where young people are concerned and those who know that we will need new agreements on common goals in the future in order to be able to bring Europe out of the shadows and to the forefront in this brutal competition with the United States, China and many other powers.
This clearly also means - as Mr Leinen has already mentioned - that we urgently need more modules. In this regard, we can look back to the 1970s and 1980s, when all of this had already been worked out. It would be very nice if the Commission could make swifter progress in this regard. I think it is very good that there has been movement in Eurostat with regard to the collection of data, even if it is under difficult circumstances in relation to Greece. With a vote of 37 to 0 to 0, we are of the opinion that the Commission clearly needs more money in this area for an ESS, for this system of European sustainability statistics. However, we can achieve that by reallocating funds: use the enlargement dividends at last. Take the officials who were so busy with the enlargement phase for the large states and put them where we so urgently need them, where they can help with the functioning of a European project.
Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, when I read the first proposal from the Commission, I was very sceptical about the way it dealt with this matter. However, what the rapporteur, the shadow rapporteurs and my predecessor, Mrs Joly, have now presented is something that we are able to accept and also support.
In most countries, environmental economic data - whether or not they relate to these three modules - are already collected on a voluntary basis. We need a clear overview of the results that are achieved in the individual Member States with regard to air emissions, environmental taxes and material flows. That is very important. It can give us a better understanding of the relationship between the environment and the economy. We can also examine how sustainable economic development in Europe is progressing and how we can refine our environmental policy. That is a very important point that we should include here.
I would like to issue a word of warning, however: in our soapbox speeches, we are always talking about reducing bureaucracy. I would like to appeal to the Commission not to create additional bureaucracy in this area. That would be the wrong approach. I would therefore like to ask the Commission whether it is planning to create new positions within the Commission for the collection of the data, or whether it will manage with its existing staff, because I think it is very important that the collection of this data does not result in new burdens. Only once we have the first implementation report in 2013 can and should we decide what other modules should be included, because we need to see how this new system develops and what impact it has on legislation.
I was very shocked when I discovered that this was not intended to be debated here in Parliament today. That would have been a big mistake, because, as the rapporteur said, this is the start of something completely new.
Mr President, I agree with the previous speakers. It is incredibly important that we have a climate and environment policy that is based on facts. We need access to clearer and more reliable indicators in this area. The same conditions apply to environmental policy as to economic, redistribution, development and industrial policy. We cannot take sensible decisions and bring about the necessary changes and adaptations in society if we do not have access to the facts.
We now have an opportunity to obtain these facts. This is extremely important. The GDP yardstick does not work as well in this particular area because it is too narrow. We now have an opportunity to work with a broader perspective. There is also considerable value in coordinating environmental statistics at European level. It would make it easier to compare the effects of environmental policy between the Member States and it will give us a better picture of which policy measures actually work and which do not, and which ones may even be counterproductive.
Once we have taken this decision during this sitting, I hope we will also be able to ensure that it becomes an important part of the basis for the decisions that Parliament and the Member States will take in the future. I hope that this method of determining the quality of a society is given high priority and that sufficient resources are earmarked to enable it to work properly and not to simply remain an unimplemented idea.
Mr President, my thanks to the rapporteur, Mr Leinen, for his report. After many years of pushing and cajoling, we finally seem to be taking this step towards sustainable national accounts and that is highly necessary as - let us be entirely honest - the economic system that we have at the moment is simply not working. At the moment, you can still damage nature and the environment practically free of charge. The current system therefore does not work. These costs that no one pays are diverted onto society instead. Why is sustainable energy more expensive than conventional energy? The answer is that nobody pays the social costs of burning coal, gas and oil.
This report gives the impression of being entirely technical, but ultimately it is about really important matters. You have to measure something to know, as we say in Dutch, and that is what we are talking about here. These European environmental economic accounts are necessary for the switchover to a truly sustainable economy. However, I call on both the Commission and the Member States to actually do something with the data that these accounts will provide. You have to measure something to know about it, that is very important, but using the knowledge that we gain from doing so is even more important and that, surely, is the essential next step. I sincerely hope that this, for example, will lead to the removal of the hundreds of billions in subsidies that have a deleterious effect on the environment and nature that we still have in this world.
Let me just offer my sincere thanks to the Commission and our rapporteur once again. This, however, is just the beginning. Let us also follow up on this by truly taking the steps that the knowledge provided by this measure makes possible.
Mr President, it goes without saying, both from what we have heard today and from the report, that we need a substantiated evaluation of European environmental policy, based on reliable data. The collection of such data should therefore be compulsory and harmonised.
However, conventional national accounts focus mainly on market transactions and on indicators that reflect important factors in creating prosperity, but do not measure prosperity itself. However, there are new shortages of natural resources. We need other incentives to boost productivity and quality. There is a charge on the physical recipients. By failing to provide accounts on the private and social cost of the use of natural resources and on the damage to the environment, conventional accounts may send the wrong progress message to the decision makers and this may put society on the road to non-sustainable growth.
The introduction of environmental economic accounts is fundamentally important, but is no substitute for the creation of alternative indicators to GDP which cover the various environmental and social dimensions. The Commission should table proposals, before the start of the new Multiannual Financial Framework, so that a limited package of compound indicators can be adopted and used to supplement GDP in policy making. They should include a monetised indicator, such as adjusted net disbursements, and a physical indicator, such as an ecological or carbon footprint, for the environmental dimension, and social indicators which incorporate the social dimension, such as an inequality evaluation (for example, the Gini coefficient) and a social integration and human prosperity index, such as the Human Poverty Index.
The initial proposal for an EU regulation only makes provision for data to be collected and collated on atmospheric emissions, the environmental terms imposed on various economic activities and macroeconomic material flow accounting. A series of proposals and amendments has been tabled and I believe that these will allow us to adopt an integrated report and to achieve progress on the question of environmental policy.
on behalf of the EFD Group. - Mr President, a regulation on the European environmental economic accounts sounds very boring but, in my experience, that makes it the most dangerous kind of EU legislation, because you think that the taxpayer and the media will not bother to read it.
Let us be frank. This is about - and I quote - 'air emissions and environmental taxes', just as the last speaker said. So the Sovietisation of the EU continues. The men with clipboards and the statistical spies from Eurostat want more data and - let us be honest - you want this data to tax and control, which explains your thirst for ever more statistics.
The worst thing of all is that this is a regulation, not a directive. Regulations are far worse than directives because they pass into UK law and bypass the UK Parliament. This is very dangerous and, my friends, this is the way democracy dies.
(The speaker agreed to take a blue-card question under Rule 149(8))
(DE) We have been elected as Members of the European Parliament. If you only see yourself as a UK parliamentarian, you will perhaps only be able to answer my question from a UK perspective. With regard to statistics, you talked of Sovietisation. Is this really how you see it? Do statistics mean Sovietisation to you? Are you not in favour of specific figures on living standards and inflation - even if this relates to the control of the banks - being provided by means of statistics, and citizens and decision makers also having access to such information that will then enable appropriate decisions to be taken? Or, as far as you are concerned, does that also fall within the realm of Sovietisation in the United Kingdom?
Mr President, let me make the first point. The fact of the matter is that this place likes to control things from the centre. Let us also make another point, that none of the Commissioners are actually elected by the people. Democracy matters for the whole of Europe so, yes, I do believe that we are seeing a Sovietisation of Europe. The fact of the matter is that these decisions should be taken at Member State level. The fact that regulations can bypass my own parliament, can bypass the people who were elected by the British people, is an absolute disgrace and, yes, it is the Sovietisation of Europe.
(DE) Mr President, Mr Nuttall is complaining about something that the United Kingdom, like many other States, has been doing since 2006. This process that we will conclude tomorrow at parliamentary level - Mr Leinen has done an excellent job in this regard - will enshrine in law something that has already been practised for a long time. Why do we need these data? It has nothing to do with Sovietisation. Data are only as good as their comparability, and this comparability is the key element.
That is why we have this European economic accounting and why we have used this system globally since the 1930s - including in the United Kingdom. It is such a good system because it is based on uniform standards and therefore, we can compare the prosperity of individual states and their economic and social success. The US dollar is usually used as the currency for comparison. Here we have a major opportunity to elevate the euro to the status of a comparison currency. I believe that is the second element.
However, we also know that there are many gaps in these economic accounts. Consider Fukushima. Fukushima will now have a positive effect on the Japanese gross domestic product because a lot of investments are being made in this regard. They are flow accounts rather than stock accounts. We need to compensate for these things, and therefore the Commission subsequently put forward its 'GDP and beyond' proposal.
These sustainability accounts that we will be adopting today and tomorrow will be the first step. Why is that? It is because investing in energy efficiency and consuming less energy, for example, will have a negative effect on the gross domestic product. Even someone like Mr Nuttall cannot disagree with that.
This is not so much about big policies; it is simply about us wanting to make our policies testable: what taxes are levied in this area, how much material are we using. Thus, we want to improve the legislative process, and if you were not in the Union, you would have to use the same system, otherwise your data would be worthless. Therefore, I would say that this is a positive first step. I would like to thank the Commission and the rapporteur.
(EL) Mr President, Commissioner, I should like to congratulate Jo Leinen on his excellent report. We really do need to proceed with environmental economic accounts. We can no longer consider the economy and the environment separately. The dual crisis hitting us - both environmental and economic - leaves us no such margin. The paralogisms of the past must stop.
Mr Seeber quoted the example of Fukushima. Another, simpler, daily example is that of fires. A fire which destroys a forest and the biodiversity and eco-systemic services provided by the forest, by which I mean clean water, clear air and the framework for reproducing food, which destroys the cultural heritage of a place, which destroys agricultural production, is measured positively in terms of GDP, because investments are made to restore the damage, despite the fact that the country, the region, the area, will have sustained long-term damage. In the long term, it will be poorer than it was before.
The environmental economic accounts we are calling for today are not perfect. However, they are an important step in the right direction. They are a step towards better policies based on a more complete, more objective view of reality. They are a step that will allow us to ensure that our policies are consistent, that will allow us to achieve international commitments and the objective of a greener European economy.
(FI) Mr President, Commissioner, first of all, I wish to congratulate Mr Leinen for the excellent and important work that he has done with respect to this report. This regulation on environmental economic accounts is very important, as has been said here more than once, because at last it establishes a statutory basis for a system of accounts integrating environmental and economic statistics that is crucial for environmental policy, and, in the broader context, social policy.
As for its scope, it is very important that, during the first phase, the focus should specifically be on air emissions, material flows and environmental taxes. There are good reasons for this. Furthermore, it is probably a very realistic approach, considering the capacity that the Member States have, to start a system of accounts in these areas. Of course we need to realise that, among our various countries, we are at different levels with respect to statistics systems, and it is important that this does not create any additional red tape, as the Commissioner said.
As far as new modules are concerned, it is important that they strongly emphasise themes that support the implementation of the Europe 2020 strategy.
(IT) Mr President, this regulation forms part of the framework of measures designed to establish more comprehensive indicators to supplement GDP. European environmental economic accounts should contribute to the evaluation of policies, providing data about the interaction between environmental and economic factors. The Commission's proposal is commendable, although new and complex bureaucratic procedures are being created in order to be able to monitor the environmental policies that Member States actually develop. For this reason, we will abstain during the vote.
We are against the report, however, insofar as the rapporteur wishes to add further accounting modules. A first-reading agreement was reached with the Council on the basis that the introduction of the new modules proposed by the rapporteur would be subject to evaluation under the review clause so that, where appropriate, changes or improvements can be made to the quality of the data and the methods by which it is gathered.
In our view, all this represents a new and costly form of bureaucracy being imposed on Member States.
(FR) Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, as I see it, politics is about finding the best possible solutions to the problems that exist. How can this be achieved, however, if the problems and the potential solutions are not fully understood? This is a fundamental issue, and it does not only concern environmental policy.
Political decision makers must therefore have at their disposal data that is both reliable and as exhaustive as possible on the modern world and the environmental situation. That was the conclusion reached by the European Council in June 2006, when it called on the European Union and its Member States to extend the national accounts to key aspects of sustainable development. I welcome this initiative and the European Commission's proposal, as it will help improve our knowledge of air emissions, environmental taxes and material flows in the economy.
However, this proposal will have to be amended during tomorrow's vote so as to ensure that the data collected are reliable and conducive to debate, and also, and above all, to ensure that all the Member States are involved in this approach. Indeed, how can we draft European policies if we do not have data on the situation in each Member State?
Lastly, I should like to voice my support for two powerful ideas upheld by the Group of the European People's Party (Christian Democrats): the power conferred on the European Commission to adopt delegated acts should be reviewed every five years, and a verification clause should be introduced - the verification clause being the second powerful idea in this regulation. We will need new data in a few years, but everything in its own time. This draft regulation is a real step forward: let us continue in this direction.
(DE) Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I, too, would like to offer my sincere thanks to Mr Leinen for a long overdue regulation. Before we were elected to the European Parliament, many of us simply assumed that the decisions this Parliament took, these decisions that determine the future, were, in fact, based on these data, and we have discovered with a certain amount of dismay that, although these statistics and data exist in most Member States, in reality, they have not yet been brought together into a common framework, and this has therefore given rise to a certain lack of credibility in the eyes of the general public.
From the media, we always get the impression that the economy and the environment are diametrically opposed. These data would help us to consider whether something benefits the environment, whether something benefits the environment and, at the same time, benefits the economy, or whether something benefits the economy and, at the same time, benefits the environment, and hence also our social environment. That is the main task that we as politicians should set ourselves. We want to establish and improve quality of life, not only in the workplace, but also in our environment.
I can only agree with the desire expressed by Mr Leinen today when he said that, by the end of this decade, we should have moved away from gross domestic product and towards a green domestic product. By doing so, we will have taken the first crucial decision. I am very confident that we will succeed in strengthening the credibility of Europe and of matters relating to the environment and to the economy as a result of these environmental economic accounts.
Thank you very much. Please continue with this good work.
(DE) Mr President, Mr Rehn, ladies and gentlemen, sound statistics, efficient data collection and evaluation - that is the basis on which to shape the future. It is obvious that we need to harmonise the Member States' existing statistics in order to take the right decisions for the future for the whole of Europe on the basis of the same data. Equivalent, comparable data from all of the Member States is the goal.
The question arises as to what we can actually discover from this data. What additional conclusions can we draw in order for Europe to develop in a balanced way in terms of its social, economic and environment policy? The Commission wants to extend the economic accounts to key aspects of sustainable development. To this end, it proposes three modules in order to collect data on economic activities that result in air emissions, on environmental tax revenue and on material flows. Products of plant origin, for example, cereals, leguminous crops, vegetables, fruit and wood, are also included in this.
I wonder about the usefulness of such calculations - what will they actually tell us? I am not as optimistic as the rapporteur and my fellow Members. Wanting something is one thing; putting it into practice is quite another. I have doubts about the efficiency of the red tape and I question the objectivity of the intention to produce environmental economic accounts, to record material flows and to evaluate individual products, including plants, in terms of CO2 emissions. Both the production of oxygen as well as the emission of CO2 during production and transport must be included in such calculations with regard to plants, for example.
I welcome the fact that, in the compromise that has now been reached, it is clarified that additional data requirements may only be introduced following a flexibility assessment and that the competence of the Member States must not be encroached upon. Such programmes must also be developed without additional financial expenditure and bureaucracy.
(HU) Mr President, my colleague, Jo Leinen, has prepared an excellent report, which is important from the point of view of the national economy, environmental protection, society, agriculture and other aspects as well. As a member of the STOA panel, a project aimed at more efficient management of natural resources, I consider it very important to compile a reliable statistical database. How can we measure the use of water and energy efficiency in the Member States of the European Union if we do not have reliable statistical information? As a member of the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development, I consider it very important to have a clear picture, at last, of the real social benefits of the environmental public goods produced by farmers, in relation to the reform of the common agricultural policy (CAP). Without statistical data, we cannot determine how much farmers contribute with their agricultural activities to the protection of air, agricultural landscape, arable land and the environment, and how farmers produce environmental public goods that are not yet paid for by the market, nor by the CAP. Therefore, the current statistical report is very progressive and forward-looking from the point of view of environmental protection and agriculture.
(DE) Mr President, when it comes to statistics, there is always a lot of debate and disagreement. Above all, they must not be decoded, because data protection is also clearly justified. On the other hand, we need transparency and comparability. I think that is important. We therefore need to collect the data in a fully automated manner using random samples, so that they are then comparable. We are aware of imaging processes, for example, that will also play a major role in this regard in future. Accordingly, automation of the process will simplify our political decision making in future.
(DE) Mr President, European environmental economic accounts will provide us with important data to enable us to bring environmental aspects into all kinds of political decisions and, as a result, to have these aspects taken into consideration in a whole range of issues. The collected and analysed data will be crucial for providing effective countermeasures against the environmental effects of economic activities. The conscious need for sustainable policies in order to be able to deal with challenges such as climate change, loss of biodiversity, increasing environmental pollution and the impending exhaustion of our natural resources is strongly supported today. Reliable data and the resulting predictions with regard to the use of natural resources will not only enable us to clearly measure the success of a sustainable economic policy, but will also provide very important added value for the Member States.
(EL) Mr President, I, too, should like to take my turn in congratulating Mr Leinen on his exceptional report. I believe that Europe has now reached a point at which we rarely encounter clashes between development and environmental protection. On the contrary, we have entered an interactive phase. Europeans now have an environmental conscience.
This report will help even more in ensuring that we have a better picture of what is happening to the environment in Europe. I should like to emphasise three elements: firstly, we need precise information on the state of the environment in the Member States; secondly, we need a procedure for renewing that information every five years; and, thirdly, we need to carry out a joint progress evaluation of all environmental actions undertaken in the European Union.
(DE) Madam President, if we want to preserve our environment for future generations, we must not consider economic and environmental aspects separately. It therefore makes sense to supplement economic accounts with environmental factors, and the basis of any sound balance sheet is adequate and reliable data.
However, when the EU calls for key data from the Member States, it should not baulk at sensitive issues. I am thinking here of nuclear policy, genetic engineering, adequate origin labelling of foodstuffs and, not least, an investigation with regard to the recent EHEC cucumber scandal.
Interactions between the economy and the environment are clearly evident here. Here, too, it is clear where - unfortunately - the weight lies in the EU, namely with big business and the lobbyists.
Member of the Commission. - Madam President, many thanks for a very substantive and responsible debate. I think we all agree on the importance of this proposal and of environmental economic accounts. We also agree that we need to take the next steps to define policies using the data, to keep us on the path to a more sustainable economy.
Let me make a few points in response to a number of remarks. This is the first regulation, with three modules. It is the beginning in terms of legislation. The second batch of modules is now in preparation for a second, amending regulation towards the end of 2012. We are also already planning the third batch, so the work is ongoing and will be continued.
Concerning the issue of red tape, this will not create a new burden for enterprises because we are using existing administrative and statistical data. In fact, the United Kingdom is a leader in environmental accounting, which is also worth noting. Moreover, concerning the statistics, and referring to what was said by Mr Leinen, Mr Martin and many others, we have made significant progress in improving the European statistical system over the past year and a half.
For instance, the present Commission made the very first legislative proposal on 10 February 2010 - the day after you had voted in favour of setting up the present Commission - when we adopted a regulation on audit powers for Eurostat, which gives Eurostat the possibility of checking and verifying the quality of statistics at the source, which is very important. We have already started to use this, for instance, in the case of Greece.
Secondly, the action plan for Greece is being implemented and within a year, it has brought a very profound overhaul of the statistical system in Greece. As a result, the quality of the statistics on the excessive deficit procedure has greatly improved already, and in the latest round, Eurostat could validate the data for Greece.
Finally, on resources, although we do not need resources for this particular subject of environmental economic accounts, I agree with Mr Martin that we need sufficient resources. In fact, I took advantage of this part-session week to stop by in Luxembourg to meet Walter Radermacher, the Director General of Eurostat, to discuss resources just a few hours ago. We are on the way to redeploying and improving our resources in Eurostat in order to focus on our key priorities.
But I would not take resources from enlargement, as Mr Martin suggested, and especially not from the Western Balkans. Stability, democracy and peace in that region continue to be a key priority for the European Union, for the Commission and, I trust, for Parliament as well. Please remember that without our soft power, and without EU enlargement policy, Ratko Mladić would not be in The Hague now. Please remember that as well.
Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, thank you for the debate. I see broad support for the creation of environmental balance sheets in the European Union. With a few exceptions, this has found favour here.
I also agree with Mrs Kadenbach's statement. Many of us thought that this was already in place, and we were surprised to find that a lot of data does not exist at all, and that in the statements we make with regard to the state of the environment in the European Union, we are therefore actually completely blind.
One Member, Mr Gerbrandy, said that measurement brings knowledge. We then know something, and knowledge is the basis for taking measures and for all of our programmes. We quite simply need a better basis for the decisions that we take. These environmental accounts can help us in this regard. Of course, we have the EU 2020 strategy, in which sustainability is a planning goal. I hope that in the next few years, we will also have this basis so that in 2020, we will be able to see whether we were successful or not. We know that gross domestic product provides no information on the state of the natural world and the environment, on resources that we have used, or on the whole sustainability problem. That is why this is now necessary.
We are also tackling this in stages. Mrs Klaß, we are not making excessive demands; rather, the modules are to be expanded gradually. After all, as the Commissioner said, the individual pieces of legislation - the water legislation, waste legislation and clean air legislation - already contain the requirement to collect this data.
Europe is also under a global obligation, Mr Nuttall. If we sign the Convention on Biological Diversity, the Convention on Climate Change or any other convention, we must be able to tell the rest of the world whether we have done well or badly.
Thus, all in all, I would like to thank the shadow rapporteurs and also Eurostat, which will subsequently have to carry out the work. I hope that the necessary resources will be available in Luxembourg, because without funds, without resources, this balance sheet cannot, of course, be produced. Parliament should also help out in this regard. Thank you very much. This is an important political matter - as some people have rightly recognised - and it is a new chapter in the consideration of what we do in Europe year in year out.
The debate is closed.
The vote will take place tomorrow at 12:00.
Written statements (Rule 149)
I would like to thank the rapporteur, Mr Leinen, for the report he has submitted. I agree with its assessment of the Commission's proposal, and I would like to make a few observations on the importance of such activities.
Measuring quality of life through indicators such as gross domestic product does not tell the whole story. Although experts have been in agreement on this for quite some time, the message has only recently got through to the political sphere, after considerable time and effort.
In this respect, I very much applaud the Commission's proposal for European environmental economic accounts, because there is no need for the wholesale rejection of misleading indicators. Rather than assessing quality of life and the environment on the basis of impressions, we need to come up with better data and better methods of data collection and aggregation so that they deliver an improved service in gauging, for example, the environmental impact made by policies and economic activities.
I join the rapporteur in calling for a greater emphasis in the Commission's proposal on monitoring and evaluation issues. Finally, I would like to note how very important it is for the Commission's proposal to incorporate and rely even more fully on the strategy document 'GDP and beyond: measuring progress in a changing world'. A consistent, systematic approach will perhaps be more crucial than anything else in efforts to improve the way quality of life is measured.
in writing. - Recycling and prevention of waste, air emissions and climatic change and sustainable consumption and production could be monitored much more effectively if high-quality data were available regarding the interaction between environmental and economic factors. The relevant data collection, which has been made on a voluntary basis until today at EU level, should therefore become mandatory. Moreover, environmental data currently available should be expanded in the medium term to facilitate the necessary policy assessment of European environmental policy.
The proposed regulation establishes in this respect a common framework for the collection, compilation, transmission and evaluation of European environmental economic accounts by providing common European-wide methodology, common standards, definitions, classifications and accounting rules for compiling these accounts. The regulation concerns the collection and compilation of data regarding air emissions, environmental taxes applicable to various economic sectors and macroeconomic material flow accounting. Accurate and adequate statistical data on energy and resource consumption are fundamental if we want to get indicators for progress and well-being beyond the GDP. Moreover, a sound assessment of the European environmental policy is only possible if reliable data is available.


3. North Korea
The next item is the debate on seven motions for resolutions on North Korea.
author. - (NL) Madam President, the repression of any potential criticism of the established order in North Korea is so strict that no information about any individual dissident or activist is in the public domain. This is the razor-sharp conclusion of an open letter of 14 June which five human rights organisations have addressed to the foreign ministers of the European Union. It is also a measure of how serious the situation is in Kim Jong Il's famished empire. We do not have the names of any dissidents or activists in the territory of North Korea. That information must be allowed to percolate through to us. The situation there is even incomparable with that in the former Soviet Union or Ceausescu's Romania.
The open letter of 14 June urges European government officials to do a great deal more in response to the relentless violations of the fundamental rights of North Korean citizens, both within and without the boundaries of their country. Various concrete recommendations to this effect may be found in Parliament's joint resolution. Well done! Let us, for instance, continue to remind China, at all European political levels, of its treaty responsibilities towards North Korean refugees.
I also wholeheartedly support paragraph 14 of the resolution. The Commission is protecting the rights of North Korean workers in the Kaesong Industrial Complex by incorporating an unambiguous clause on this point in its Free Trade Agreement with South Korea.
Madam President, officially North Korea claims that it guarantees religious freedom to its population of 24 million. In practice, however, anyone who is found distributing bibles or taking part in secret prayer meetings is liable to be sent off to a labour camp or even executed, according to the testimonies of refugees. At the beginning of this month we found out that Son Jong Nam was tortured to death in a North Korean prison for spreading the gospel, the good news, to his fellow countrymen and women. What evidence is there of his crime: 20 bibles and 10 worship tapes? It would appear that this is the thing that the North Korean authorities literally mortally fear.
author. - (DE) Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, it is good that we have taken the opportunity today to discuss the situation in North Korea, a country that has shut itself off so comprehensively from the scrutiny of the rest of the world that only a few people know what is happening there and the people in this country essentially do not know what is happening in the rest of the world.
I would like to focus on two things. The first is the human rights situation in North Korea, where people disappear off the streets and spend the rest of their lives in camps; where sometimes even a second generation of people spend their whole lives imprisoned in camps because their parents had allegedly committed crimes; where people are publicly executed and other people are obliged to watch these executions, and much more besides. We believe it is high time that the human rights situation in North Korea was investigated by an independent commission, as we have proposed in this joint report.
There is a second point I would like to mention. It is ridiculously difficult to get out of this country, to escape. It ought to be one of the most fundamental human rights that should go without saying for people to be able to choose where to live and to move around freely. However, we currently have a situation where those who manage to leave North Korea are often not admitted into another country and many are sent back.
Therefore, I would, in particular, like to urgently call on the EU embassies to take in people who manage to flee to these embassies and help them to get to safer countries and to find sufficient support there to start a new life. That is important when we consider the situation that these people are in. What is currently happening here is appalling.
author. - Madam President, the Democratic People's Republic of Korea is anything but democratic as it has one of the worst records on human rights violations in the world. Indeed, my personal meeting with civil society representatives on the Korean peninsula provided additional painful proof of the extremely disturbing and critical human rights violations in the country. I am deeply disappointed that the human rights situation in the DPRK has not improved but rather deteriorated since the last European Parliament resolution. Over 150 000 political prisoners are still detained in concentration camps, subjected to forced labour, tortured and deliberately starved. Moreover, I am shocked by the practice of guilt by association that results in the imprisonment of entire families, including children. Therefore the EU and its Member States must combine their efforts and put more diplomatic and political pressure on the DPRK Government to respect the human rights of its citizens.
Let me finish with one thought. At the same time we must prevent bilateral and multilateral sanctions having a serious negative impact on the ordinary impoverished North Korean citizens already suffering from systematic starvation and oppression.
(Applause)
Madam President, it is very good that Parliament is taking an interest in the situation in North Korea, because it is a cause of the greatest anxiety in our societies.
Recently we have been able to see sportsmen from North Korea playing at the FIFA World Cup. We were particularly impressed by their first match, when they played on equal terms in a hard-fought game against Brazil. In the following matches they did not do so well. Why am I talking about this sports event? Well, there are reports that during North Korea's previous appearance in the World Cup finals 40 years ago, when the country's players achieved great success, their performance was not, however, satisfactory to the authorities of the Korean regime. Afterwards, the players met with repression, and they were held in forced labour camps. I draw attention to this fact so that we will also look at the situation now, and try to make sure that something similar does not happen. We need an appeal and pressure from the sports authorities about this, because they have certain possibilities of putting pressure on the Korean authorities to make sure that something similar does not happen this time. We are very worried about what is going to happen to these sportsmen next.
The Democratic People's Republic of Korea has for many years been presented as the country with the worst violations of human rights. It is surely necessary to agree with the draft resolution on the points which call for a halt to public executions, abolition of the death penalty, a halt to torture and the release of political prisoners.
On the other hand, the call to ensure access to food and humanitarian assistance for all citizens who need it is, in my opinion, hypocritical. It is a notorious fact that North Korea has long-term problems with ensuring sufficient quantities of foodstuffs, and unless I am mistaken, many countries in Africa and Asia have similar problems, and yet the European Parliament does not adopt similar calls to the governments of these countries.
This does not alter the fact that there is a food shortage and that this shortage is an enormous problem in objective terms, causing malnourishment and related health problems among the citizens of the country. The situation is indisputably grave and I am not at all sure that a few draft measures in a resolution will bring significant improvements. The criticism made by the authors, who have used it against China, is a classic example of hypocritical buck-passing, and reveals the policy of double standards applied by the authors. There is a call for the countries of the European Union to accept refugees from North Korea, while at the same time the European Union applies readmission agreements against all of its southern neighbours. If this is not an example of double standards, then I really do not know what to call these hypocritical formulations.
In the entire resolution there is no trace of an attempt to reduce tension and demilitarise the Korean peninsula, namely the necessary steps in the right direction. None of the Confederal Group of the European United Left - Nordic Green Left can vote for a resolution formulated in this way.
author. - Madam President, first of all I would like to underline that there is broad agreement in this Parliament on the situation in North Korea. It was very easy to come to a joint resolution and, as you see, there are no amendments to this resolution, so we are united behind it.
On the other hand, I would like to raise one point - which was also discussed in my group yesterday - that maybe using the urgencies procedure on such issues is not the best way because nothing really urgent has happened in North Korea. Maybe we deserve to have a bit more time to prepare a more comprehensive resolution and to debate a bit more on the possible recommendations and more complex solutions that we may offer.
I do not want to repeat what has already been said in the resolution about the grave violations of human rights there. This is perhaps a country like no other in the world right now. I would like to underline, however, that of all those violations, the public executions where children are present are perhaps the most disgusting. I do not think we should put all these violations in any order, but this is really something very disgusting.
Fortunately in our resolution we recognised that China has a role to play. The changes in China, including in the human rights area, may not be sufficient for us but are a good example and perhaps China can use its relations to promote some changes in North Korea. This should be one of the future topics of our discussions with China when we have our bilateral dialogue.
Finally, allow me to say that appointing an EU Special Representative for North Korea could be a very good step towards being able to promote a more complex approach on this.
on behalf of the PPE Group. - Madam President, human trafficking in North Korea remains a serious problem. Reportedly 80% of North Koreans in China end up as trafficking victims. Women are particularly vulnerable to prostitution, rape, arranged marriages and bride traffickers. Many victims of trafficking are unable to speak Chinese and are held as virtual prisoners.
The legal status of North Koreans and the Chinese Government's policy of detaining the refugees and sending them back to North Korea increase the refugees' vulnerability to trafficking for purposes of forced labour and sexual exploitation. They have no protection from the authorities in either China or North Korea, and there is little recognition of their plight from the international community. China must change its law to protect the victims of trafficking instead of returning them to North Korea. Finally, if people are killed, tortured and illegally imprisoned, it is a matter of urgency every day.
on behalf of the S&D Group. - Madam President, it is almost common ground in this Parliament that the human rights situation in North Korea is dire. Therefore I will not expand on what other colleagues have said.
The question really is, what can we do about it? Just because North Korea has decided to be the Greta Garbo of the international community - 'we want to be alone' - it does not mean we should leave them alone. There are 24 million people in North Korea who need our assistance. In keeping with the spirit of the resolution, I would like to suggest four things that we could do.
Firstly, we must continue to provide humanitarian aid, but we must make sure that aid goes to the people and does not in any way prop up the regime. Secondly, we should continue to increase our funding for NGOs that try to get assistance into North Korea and in particular those NGOs who try to get information into North Korea. Provision of a radio in a country where there is no information is actually a vital tool. Thirdly, we should ask Catherine Ashton to appoint a special representative to enter into dialogue with the Chinese, the Russians and the United Nations, to keep the pressure up on North Korea. Finally, we should do our best to assist refugees. As other colleagues have said, people flee North Korea and they are not given the assistance they deserve.
Unfortunately, things are not as Mr Vigenin and Mr Martin have said. Unfortunately, it is not true that we in this Chamber are agreed on this matter, because a moment ago we heard from the Communist side that they have some reservations concerning our position. This is unfortunate, because it would seem that on this question we ought to be united.
I come from a country which was ruled by Communism. As a young adult I witnessed what Communism is capable of, and I remember the hope with which we waited for the voice of the free world, the Western world. Sometimes we overestimated its significance, but we waited with great joy, hoping that someone would speak up for our rights, and I think that we as the free world should ensure that this voice is heard, today. Only for this we need, as Mr Häfner said, to ensure the existence of free media as well as access, at least, to these media in North Korea. We should strive for this, working of course with the United States, because only by cooperation of this kind will we be able to ensure that North Koreans have access to free media. This is something which we should guarantee.
(DE) Madam President, we football fans are currently experiencing what is good about sport: team spirit, the joy of winning and, as yesterday evening, respect for the opposing team. However, there has also been the experience of footballers being made personally responsible for defeats.
There is a persistent rumour that, following their early exit from the World Cup, the North Korean national players had to do forced labour - this is hopefully incorrect information. I call on the North Korean Government to explain the whereabouts of the footballers. The fact that we are concerned about them is hardly surprising given that this is a country where the state leadership punishes criticism, where ten thousand people are tortured and ill-treated and where innumerable people are malnourished.
The EU must continue unabated the serious dialogue with the so-called Dear Leader of the People's Republic of Korea. It is time to put an end to forced labour and torture and abolish the death sentence and public executions. Even potential victories in football cannot mask the reality of the situation. North Korea is still lacking in all areas: human rights, chances of survival and respect for the individual.
Madam President, such is the DPRK's isolation, we can only guess at the human rights violations that are actually taking place there. Occasional news leaks come out from defectors and the reality is truly horrific. Forced labour camps, kidnappings, arbitrary arrests and torture appear to be the hallmarks of Kim Jong-il's tyrannical regime. The death penalty is applied regularly with no regard to the rule of law.
We all remain extremely concerned about North Korea. Not only because of the internal situation but because of all the country's bellicose and impulsive, even paranoid behaviour internationally. Regrettably Pyongyang has nuclear weapons and seeks collaboration with other nefarious regimes around the world, such as Iran. Also the recent sinking of a South Korean naval vessel was undoubtedly a deliberate attack by the North.
In this respect, the PRC needs to assume its responsibility as a member of the UN Security Council by exerting pressure on North Korea. But I think a lasting improvement in the human rights situation in North Korea will only come about through regime change and democratisation and hopefully through eventual reunification with the democratic South.
(PL) Madam President, I have a very difficult name and am used to the fact that people find it difficult to pronounce.
History shows that in countries ruled by a totalitarian regime human rights violations are an everyday occurrence, but the situation in North Korea is appalling. The Government of the People's Republic of Korea denies the existence of the problem of human rights violations. This is, however, at complete variance with the eye-witness reports of refugees and defectors. There are labour camps which are places of torture, slave labour and hunger for the many thousands of Korean citizens who have dared criticise the totalitarian system or who are politically 'unsafe'. In Korea, a person is reduced to the rank of an object, without free will or without the ability to express it openly. We know, for example, of reports of married couples who were forced into divorcing because they belonged to different classes.
Therefore, I appeal to all countries which have any kind of economic ties with North Korea to put pressure on the government there, to demonstrate that the world is not indifferent to the situation of many thousands of Koreans and that this will not remain a matter just for North Korea.
(PL) Madam President, North Korea and Cuba are the last remnants of Communism in the world. Unfortunately, it is tragic that 20 years after the fall of that criminal system in Europe, there are countries where, in the name of that sick ideology, people are dying of hunger, are being tortured, are imprisoned or are forced to work in labour camps and concentration camps.
The dream of many North Koreans is simply to flee their own country. As people of the free world, we are obliged - especially in relations with the People's Republic of China, because these relations are developing - to ensure that these refugees are not returned to the Korean authorities, because for them this means a severe prison sentence or simply death. I am concentrating on this aspect of our resolution, because I do not believe in the effectiveness of our Parliament's appeals or the appeals of the whole free world in putting a stop to the violations of human rights in North Korea. Therefore, since we cannot effectively bring about an improvement in the situation in Korea itself, let us do everything possible so that those who have managed to escape from that prison have the chance of a better life - even in China, which, of course, as a state is itself far from European standards of freedom, democracy and respect for human rights. However, life is better there than in North Korea.
(RO) The human rights situation in North Korea is giving particularly grave cause for concern. The leadership in this country bans any form of political opposition, democratic elections, press and religious freedom.
We cannot remain unmoved by the suffering of North Korea's inhabitants as they have no access to basic foods or humanitarian assistance. I am particularly concerned about the situation of women and children in North Korea as more than a third of them are suffering from malnutrition.
According to reports, more than 150 000 North Koreans continue to be held in six labour camps. They are not given any kind of medical care and receive very little food. In fact, the currency reform of November 2009 has failed and led to a rise in the level of poverty among the population.
I think that the European Union must give its support to setting up a UN committee of inquiry which will substantiate human rights violations in North Korea.
(PL) Madam President, the United Nations and numerous non-governmental organisations continually report information to the international community about the repression which is being imposed on tens of thousands of North Koreans. Torture and sentences in forced labour camps, often because of political views, are an everyday occurrence there. A significant part of the population is suffering from malnutrition and a lack of suitable medical care, and the North Korean Government rejects all forms of cooperation with United Nations bodies, which makes it impossible for the people of North Korea to have access to any kind of international humanitarian aid.
I think the European Parliament has a moral obligation to appeal to the authorities of the Democratic People's Republic of Korea to end these practices as quickly as possible. In addition, in view of the huge influence of the People's Republic of China on policy in Pyongyang, the European Commission should raise these matters as part of the European Union's dialogue with China. In order to coordinate our action better it would be a good idea to appoint a European Union Special Representative for North Korea.
(SK) The Democratic People's Republic of Korea is perhaps the last surviving relic of the Second World War. Ideological differences and power interests have divided the Korean nation into two states, whose leaders still compete over their rights and their philosophical view of the world.
The north of the Korean peninsula has become an enormous ghetto, incarcerating millions of Koreans, who, under the militaristic administration of their regime, can only dream of a free life.
The North Korean leadership, under the pretext that the country is in a state of war, continue to keep their citizens within this militaristic regime. How can we help the Koreans in this situation?
Through an active joint approach by the great powers. It was the great powers that divided Koreans, and they must therefore work together now to put consistent pressure on the North Korean leadership, including the threat of criminal prosecution for crimes against humanity, in order to free the North Korean people.
(RO) There are so many human rights violations in North Korea that we cannot list them all. The most serious of these is possibly the starvation of the population and the differentiation made in the distribution of food between those who are close to the regime and government and those who are not.
According to Amnesty International, last year roughly 9 million North Korean citizens, more than a third of the population, suffered from starvation.
I also find deeply concerning the situation regarding collective punishments where sometimes up to three generations of a family are sent to prison systems dominated by brutality, torture, forced labour and public executions, as also mentioned by Mr Tannock. The majority of those sent to these camps are no longer released. If they have children, the latter can spend their whole life in captivity.
I would like to end by saying that, although the North Korean Government agreed to participate in the Universal Periodic Review carried out by the United Nations Human Rights Council, it is terrible that it has so far not accepted any of the recommendations it has been given as part of this framework.
(PL) Madam President, to this list of highly dramatic stories about North Korea we have to add one more item. I mean the nuclear blackmail which is being used by Kim Jong-il and which has, in a certain sense, paralysed the world. Although perhaps unwillingly, the West has rather often turned its attention away from events on the Korean peninsula. Therefore, we must talk specifically about the crimes which are being committed and renew our appeals. The international community must find a form of sanctions which will be felt as little as possible by the citizens of North Korea themselves. We must not, however, delude ourselves: all sanctions which strike at the regime inevitably leave their mark on society.
Therefore, I think that currently the only effective measure may be cooperation with North Korea's closest neighbours, especially over aid for refugees, because only when we have specific knowledge about the situation under the Communist regime will we be able in the future to act effectively on behalf of people who currently do not have any choice at all.
Member of the Commission. - Madam President, I would like to congratulate Parliament for undertaking this debate. If you allow me, I would like to recognise the young boy behind seat No 582, because the future of North Korea is relevant to the future of our children.
It is very sad to record that in the past seven years, since the adoption of the first resolution in the UN context condemning the deplorable human rights situation in North Korea, very little if any progress towards improvement has been made. The Commission fully shares the concerns about the need to address the very serious human rights situation in the country, as expressed in the joint motion for a resolution we are debating today.
The EU has been working towards such an improvement in the international context ever since 2003, when it initiated in the Geneva Commission on Human Rights the first resolution condemning the situation in the Democratic People's Republic of Korea, which as many have already mentioned is not very democratic. In addition, the EU continues to raise the issue of human rights in our bilateral political dialogue with North Korea. We are also raising it, as a number of speakers have pointed out, in our discussions with China, and specifically the issue of the forced return of North Korean citizens who entered China illegally. We will continue to do so. These people cannot simply be regarded as 'economic migrants'.
So many of the elements incorporated in the motion for a resolution are already part of the EU's current human rights policy with regard to North Korea. We very much welcome the convergence of views among Members and between the Members of Parliament and the Commission. We fully agree on what needs to be done, including a point that has been made by many speakers that we need to maintain the existing programmes to assist the most vulnerable people in North Korea, who are facing tremendous hardship. We should not punish them for the sins of their leaders.
We broadly agree on how to go about it but there are three specific points where the Commission holds somewhat different views - and I would like to explain what they are and why we have some differences.
The first one is the proposal to include in the EU-South Korea Free Trade Agreement a clause to monitor North Korean workers active in the Kaesong Industrial Complex. The negotiated text for this free trade agreement provides for the possibility of designating outward processing zones. Both sides recognise that such zones could promote the goal of peace on the peninsula, but, before a zone can be recognised as such under the free trade agreement, it has to be proposed by one side and considered by a special committee of representatives of both sides. In the current political circumstances, it is unlikely that such a proposal is to be made in the short term, once the free trade agreement has entered into force. However, I would like to assure you that the Commission will pursue the ample opportunities to deal with this issue at a later stage.
The second proposal contained in the motion for a resolution concerns the possible nomination of an EU special envoy to North Korea, and a number of speakers supported this proposal today. The EU is committed to stepping up its contribution to international coordination and the High Representative/Vice President is very seriously interested in pursuing that. She is, however, now considering all options to do it in the context of two things. One is the review of the mandate of all EU Special Representatives, and the second is the establishment of the External Action Service. It would be in this context that the High Representative/Vice President would pursue increased participation by the EU in international coordination.
The third point is a proposal to press for the establishment of a Commission of Inquiry at the UN. The European Commission deeply appreciates the rationale of this proposal in the motion for a resolution. At the same time, we believe it would be prudent at this stage to put all our efforts into supporting the mandate of the new, recently appointed UN Special Rapporteur for Human Rights in North Korea, Mr Marzuki Darusman, who has been empowered by the UN Human Rights Council to pursue the matter of human rights in North Korea. With this in mind, we need to ensure that he has all the back-up to do his job. From the Commission's position, we see this today as the better course in front of us.
(Applause)
The debate is closed.
The vote will take place shortly.
Written statements (Rule 149)
in writing. - (RO) The situation regarding human rights and humanitarian aid in North Korea remains a delicate subject of concern to the European Union as an international player which promotes human rights globally. On the other hand, at the United Nations, the resolution of 25 March 2010 expressed concern about the serious violation of civil, political, economic, social and cultural rights in the Democratic People's Republic of Korea. It is regrettable that the North Korean Government has taken the decision to refuse to cooperate with the UN via the mechanisms for promoting human rights, including the mandate of the Special Rapporteur on the Situation of Human Rights in North Korea.
It is the EU's duty to urge North Korea to respect human rights. The EU must also act independently to help the population of this country, through continuing the humanitarian aid programmes, maintaining communication channels inside North Korea and granting asylum to North Korean refugees who have arrived in Member States.
Appointing a European Union Special Representative for North Korea would allow us to monitor the human rights situation more closely in this country and ensure better coordination of the responses from Member States to this issue.


1. Extension of the EC-USA agreement for scientific and technological cooperation (


1. Request for the waiver of Mr Elmar Brok's parliamentary immunity (
(FR) Madam President, you know this since you yourself were disavowed by the European Court of Justice in an immunity case concerning me.
I am hopeful that the leniency we are showing towards Mr Brok for a financial affair will also apply to the freedom of expression of those Members of the House who belong to the minority.
The equality that prevailed 20 years ago in this House was a credit to it and to its Committee on Legal Affairs. Unfortunately, the immunity system has turned into a party political issue. I personally deplore this and hope that our institution will pull itself together.
(Applause)
rapporteur. - (IT) Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, I only have to clarify one statistic. Due to a misunderstanding, the figure of EUR 2 900 was mentioned in the explanatory statements of the reports, whereas the correct figure is EUR 2 356.41.