26. Applicable law in matrimonial matters (
- Before the vote
on behalf of the PPE-DE Group. - Madam President, the oral amendment I want to propose is the following: 'The spouses may agree to designate the law applicable to divorce and legal separation provided that such law is in conformity with the fundamental rights defined in the Treaties and in the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and the principle of public policy.'
This oral amendment limits the right of the spouses to have the choice of law as provided for in Article 20. I believe that it satisfies the policy of the PPE-DE Group, which wanted to limit the choice of law so as to be in conformity, as we say here, with fundamental rights and also with public policy. So a judge, faced with this application by spouses to apply foreign law, will judge and say that they do not accept that because it is against public policy or fundamental rights.
Madam President, I can accept this amendment because it is self-evident. Of course, the applicable law must conform with the principles of our treaties and the Charter of Fundamental Rights. I have no problem with this amendment.
Is there any opposition to the inclusion of this oral amendment?
I do not see any.
(The oral amendment was accepted)
(IT) Madam President, obviously I do not disagree that human rights and the fundamental rights of the Union must be respected in the choice of law. That is not the issue. The issue is that if the spouses can choose the law - I would point out that the choice of law is an exception in all legal systems - whether this law must be the law of one of the 27 States of the Union or that of any country in the world.
I do not therefore oppose this amendment, but I feel that it cannot preclude the vote on the subsequent amendments of the Group of the European People's Party (Christian Democrats) and European Democrats, which establish that only the law of one of the 27 countries of the Union may be chosen.
(FR) Madam President, it is obvious from this debate that there is still some way to go where this matter is concerned. These issues obviously ought to have been debated in committee. That is why, in compliance with our Rules of Procedure, I am pleased to ask you to refer this report back to the committee.
(The request for referral to committee was rejected)
After the vote on Amendment 32
Madam President, the agreement between the Group of the European People's Party (Christian Democrats) and European Democrats, the Socialist Group in the European Parliament, the Group of the Greens/ European Free Alliance and the Group of the Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe was as follows: if we accept this oral amendment from the PPE-DE, all the other PPE-DE amendments will be withdrawn. I expect the PPE-DE to withdraw these amendments.
on behalf of the PPE-DE Group. - (EL) Madam President, it is true that the agreement included this term. Mr Casini was of a different opinion. I believe that the PPE-DE amendments are covered by the oral amendment which I made and which was approved and there is no need to vote on these amendments, which were tabled precisely in order to support the call for the right to be restricted.
Amendments 32 to 37 inclusive have therefore lapsed.
We shall continue, therefore. The groups had something to say.
Before the vote on the legislative resolution
(FR) Madam President, one sometimes has to put one's spectacles on to see if there is an MEP requesting, in terms of the Rules of Procedure, to speak with the Presidency.
As you know, another group may accept the amendments that one group has rejected. Regarding what Mr Casini said, we are not happy. We shall vote on the amendment adopted by the Union for Europe of the Nations Group.
Madam Muscardini, I just said that the amendments had lapsed. Once they have lapsed, I cannot put them to the vote.


A sustainable EU policy for the High North (debate)
The next item is the report by Mr Gahler, on behalf of the Committee on Foreign Affairs, on a sustainable EU policy for the High North.
Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, representatives of our Arctic neighbours who are following this debate, in my capacity as rapporteur, I am particularly pleased to be able to present to you today the result of over a year's work, carried out in cooperation with the shadow rapporteurs, other colleagues in the EU Arctic Forum, and numerous experts and representatives, some of them from the Artic region itself.
We have achieved a broad consensus and believe that we have formulated a sustainable policy on the High North. The report analyses the new significance of the Arctic region and describes how the EU's policy in relation to our northern neighbours should be organised from the point of view of the European Parliament. My guiding principle here is the offer of cooperation with the states and institutions of our neighbours in the High North.
We are aware of the bilateral and multilateral cooperation already taking place with the Arctic states. Quite apart from the issues relating to the Arctic, Norway and Iceland are already closely involved in the European Economic Area and in cooperation under Schengen. The EU is already an ad hoc observer in the Arctic Council, but I would like to make it clear that I believe it desirable that the EU should be given permanent observer status. This is particularly the case because almost all policy areas of relevance to the region have been brought within the Community sphere in part at least. This offer of cooperation is formulated in this way because we, the EU, cannot take action or initiate any activity in the Arctic in our own right. We are largely dependent on the willingness of the immediately adjacent territories to cooperate with us.
In this report, I also focused on the human dimension. In pursuing each individual area of common policy, all those involved must never lose sight of the fact that the concerns of those living in the Arctic must be given due consideration. I am referring to the indigenous peoples in the countries, whose way of life and livelihoods follow the principle of sustainability, as well as for the other people living there.
We accept that these inhabitants of the Arctic region wish to develop their habitat; in other words, they do not want to see a conservation order placed on the area as it currently stands, turning it into something like a national park. That is why we are working with the partners to ensure that intervention in the ecosystem and in natural habitats always follows the highest possible conservationist principles. The EU is an attractive cooperative partner for Arctic states because we have played a pioneering role in the relevant policy areas, such as protection of the environment and the combating of climate change. Thus, the question of whether or not the world's largest internal market pursues an ambitious environmental policy makes a vital difference for this region.
The EU is also an attractive cooperative partner because we are obvious customers for the commodities provided by the Arctic - not just oil and gas, but also rare ores, for example. We should follow the good examples provided here, for example, in the cooperation between Norway and Russia in the Shtokman Field in the Barents Sea. The highest Norwegian environmental standards are applied here as the partners cooperate in extracting these mineral resources. I hope that the same will apply to the cooperative agreement reached between Russia and BP in recent weeks for exploration in the Arctic Sea. In future, our monitoring satellites will provide valuable support, both in the environmental sector and in the opening up of new shipping routes, such as the Northeast Passage. Cooperation in this area will make it possible to shorten shipping routes to Southeast Asia, for example. For the EU, which accounts for about 40% of the world's commercial fleet, this is an important factor, particularly from a financial perspective.
Our Framework Programme for Research offers valuable support for further scientific cooperation between the various Polar institutes in their research stations in the Arctic. Our neighbours in the High North know the EU to be a competent cooperative partner. However, there is room for improvement when it comes to the formulation, coordination and implementation of our policies. Improvement could be achieved by bringing together the responsible areas within the Commission under the Directorate-General for Maritime Affairs and Fisheries and by establishing an appropriate body in the EEAS. In addition, an Arctic information centre to gather and evaluate all the relevant information would also further improve our database. The development of a circumpolar cofinancing and programming mechanism involving all the partners in the High North would also be an important instrument for better, more efficient cooperation in respect of research and development.
I am confident that this draft policy document will provide better guidelines for a comprehensive and successful Arctic policy in the EU that will also benefit our northern neighbours.
Member of the Commission. - Mr President, early last year, Vice-President/High Representative Ashton took the initiative of proposing a debate on the Arctic region. The plenary debate has helped us to receive your views and to illustrate the importance we attach to Arctic cooperation as part of the external relations of the European Union.
We engage with the Arctic region on many levels. Firstly, both the Union and Member States have active research policies in the region. Secondly, we pursue solid environmental and maritime policies. Thirdly, our diplomacy in the fight against climate change addresses the core origin of Arctic transformations. And fourthly, we continue to take action in favour of indigenous peoples worldwide, including those living in the Arctic.
While we acknowledge that our dialogue with all circumpolar Arctic indigenous peoples could be improved, 2010 has witnessed the beginning of a fruitful and wider process of interaction, which we will certainly pursue in the years to come.
When dealing with access to the Arctic and the exploitation of its resources, we must live up to our reputation as a responsible consumer of raw materials and energy resources, adhering to the highest safety and environmental standards. In parallel, we will firmly seek fair treatment of our interests, including those of our companies.
We are pleased to see that these areas are covered by Parliament's High North report, along with valuable proposals on how to proceed in the future. This report is an important contribution to the gradual building of the European Union's Arctic policy, and I would like to thank Michael Gahler for taking this initiative forward.
The initiative is particularly praiseworthy, as the rapporteur and several other MEPs facilitated an interesting dialogue with Arctic third parties and civil society, in which we participated actively. The various perspectives are present in the final report, demonstrating the European Union's commitment to listen to, and work with, all Arctic stakeholders.
We are now opening a new phase in the development of EU Arctic policy. Parliament's report will become the third pillar of its basic architecture, following the 2008 Commission communication and the 2009 Council conclusions. These three texts are consistent and offer a responsible and positive message to the Arctic partner countries and the people living across the region. We seek to promote a safer, sustainable Arctic. We respect the international agreements and arrangements, and would like to cooperate in their development and enhancement.
In particular, I would like to acknowledge the Norwegian-Russian delimitation agreement on the Barents Sea, which was signed last year, as a reference point for long-term peaceful cooperation in the overall circumpolar Arctic region.
The European Union would like to see a reinforced and efficient Arctic Council, in which key decisions on the future of the region are agreed and implemented. We would like to participate in the Arctic Council as a permanent observer to share our solid experience in international regional cooperation, and we are particularly grateful for Parliament's endorsement of this endeavour.
The High North report will give the European External Action Service and the Commission a robust stimulus in our external action concerning the Arctic region. I believe that its messages and approach are timely and appropriate.
Parliament's High North report will also inform our own progress report on EU Arctic policy, which the Council has asked us to deliver later this year. Our reporting will be addressed to both institutions, Council and Parliament, and we hope that it will be to your joint satisfaction.
Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I should firstly like to thank Mr Gahler for his carefully prepared report. I am genuinely pleased that the European Union's policy towards the High North is one of those areas to which the European Union has turned in relatively good time. Significantly rich resources - around a quarter of the world's unexplored oil and gas resources, biogenetic and fish resources, minerals - may be found in the Arctic. It also offers new maritime transport opportunities. Melting of the ice cap has resulted in a shipping route to the countries of Asia that is about 40% shorter. The potential of the Arctic is impressive. That is why it must be husbanded responsibly. Both irresponsible exploitation of resources and ill-considered transport flows can have serious ecological consequences. At the same time, it has to be recognised that using the riches of the Arctic can open new possibilities for resolving not only energy problems, but also raw material and food-related problems. There is stiff competition between the world's great powers over who is to have the lion's share in managing and exploiting these resources. Although approximately 3.7 million people live in the Arctic, representing several tens of indigenous peoples, it can nevertheless be regarded to a certain extent as belonging to the world in common. For the time being, the United Nations has not confirmed privileges for any nation in the Arctic and, hopefully, will not do so in the future. That is precisely why our policy must be responsible. The European Union must develop a specific, coordinated strategy for all spheres associated with the High North, and agree the funding for that policy and the sources of that funding. Climate change, the welfare and development of the local population, and energy security issues must also be taken into account. In order to implement that policy, permanent observer status on the Arctic Council would be important. Although we have no direct sea frontiers with the Arctic, the European Union can become a leader in exploring the region in respect of both its resources and new shipping routes, and in securing a high standard of environmental safety. Thank you.
Mr President, to begin with, my sincere thanks go to the rapporteur, Mr Gahler, for his constructive cooperation. Certainly the best acknowledgement of this came from Commissioner Füle, when he said that this report would become the third pillar of EU Arctic policy.
It is not any wonder that Arctic policy is becoming central to international policy, since, just as the Member who spoke before me said, the Arctic region has a third of the world's as yet undiscovered natural resources: minerals, gas and oil. Climate change and competition for these natural resources are issues that are connected, but what is really driving the trend is obviously the global economy. Fortunately, developments in the Arctic region have been steady and based on a willingness to cooperate.
In the future, Arctic policy will be a test of whether together, we can increase stability or, on the other hand, cause new conflicts. It is important that natural resources are exploited responsibly and carefully in order to avoid the 'gold rush' phenomenon and catastrophes of the sort that occurred in the Gulf of Mexico.
It is important that we have a balanced report and the message that the Arctic Council should be reinforced and that the European Union will be more robustly involved there in its capacity as observer. We should not just barge our way in, however, but exercise diplomacy, negotiate, engage in sound political cooperation and, above all, be at the forefront when it comes to assessing environmental impact. I think that it is excellent that the report mentions the importance of an Arctic Information Centre and also states that the University of Lapland in Rovaniemi, Finland, would be a good place to locate it.
Mr President, I wish to express my sincere thanks to the rapporteur, Mr Gahler, as well as all the shadow rapporteurs. We think that we have worked excellently together and it is important that the owninitiative report is adopted and that a proposal is made based on it.
The report argues strongly in favour of heavy future investment allowing people in the Arctic region to survive there, and investment in conditions of employment, transport and the environment. I also think that the view it takes regarding the need to recognise the position of the indigenous nations, especially the Sami, is of particular importance. The Sami are Europe's only indigenous people and the EU, that is the Commission, Parliament and the Council, must cooperate equally with them.
The report also acknowledges the status of the Arctic Council, which Commissioner Füle even said the EU was willing to reinforce. I was, however, really quite disappointed with Commissioner Füle's appraisal that cooperation in the Arctic region was progressing gradually. Of course, the EU must show drive, and there must be investment and a desire to step up cooperation in the Arctic. That must not be allowed to progress only gradually, almost as if we were only using one hand: it must be one of the priorities.
Finally, I want to say that I am also pleased that there is to be investment in research into the Arctic region, and that the report mentions the University of Lapland as a possible centre for this. The University of Lapland deserves praise for being the only university, the only agency, that has really worked to ensure that such a centre would be established, and has devoted much time and effort to this.
on behalf of the Verts/ALE Group. - Mr President, firstly, I would like to express my gratitude and give my sincerest congratulations and compliments to the rapporteur and fellow shadow rapporteurs for their good cooperation and understanding. I would also like to thank my fellow Green Members for their cooperation and contribution.
We can finally say that we have come up with a decent document allowing us, the European Union, to proceed in a fairly reasonable manner, taking into account all the interests of all stakeholders. Even though the Greens justifiably think that we should be even more radical, we are still glad that this report takes our worries and concerns into account, such as the proposals we made to the rapporteur concerning the fact that scientific data clearly demonstrates that the Arctic ecosystem is currently going through massive climate-related changes and that this situation requires a precautionary and scientifically robust approach to be taken to any future development in the Arctic.
That is why we called for further scientific studies, within the framework of a multilateral agreement to be completed, to inform international understanding and decision making for the Arctic ecosystem before any further major development goes ahead. We thank the other groups for accepting that. This is an example of how to put things in a congenial form for our wide range of different constituencies. There are some sceptics in this room who have stated that the Arctic region does not deserve our attention, but it does, particularly with Iceland likely to become the 28th member of the EU.
The Arctic is 'cool'. This is not because of climate change and the consequent warming up of the normally cold High North. The Arctic is also 'cool' because of the lucrative possibilities emerging on the horizon, even though they bring with them very complex and difficult problems. That is why I think politicians who tackle these problems in a responsible and politically subtle manner are 'cool' politicians, as are those of us who will vote for Mr Gahler's report today.
Mr President, the Arctic is definitely changing. The most obvious results of these changes are the possibility of establishing new transportation and trade routes, and the possibility, which is already clearly in view, of exploiting natural resources and extracting oil and gas. World reactions to these changes are chaotic. On the one hand, we have the very constructive Norwegian-Russian delimitation agreement on the Barents Sea, while on the other, we also have the Russians attempting to pursue a policy of faits accomplis. I think there is a huge role to be played here by the European Union and the international community. We give encouragement for this in the report, and it has been expressed well there. The second matter to which we have drawn attention is the necessity of achieving a guarantee of equal, non-discriminatory access to transportation routes. Neither regulatory nor financial considerations should be an obstacle in this equal access to routes. This has all been expressed well in the report. Therefore, we will be pleased to endorse the report in the vote.
Mr President, many thanks to Mr Gahler for his report. It is clear, also from this report, that there is enormous interest in the natural resources of the Arctic region. As a result of climate change, oil and gas and other resources can be extracted increasingly easily. The issue of making better use of shipping routes has already been discussed.
The logical consequence of this is that pollution will increase in the region. Industrial development - in particular, through the extraction of oil and gas, the expansion of commercial fishing and increased shipping traffic - will all necessarily lead to the disturbance, or perhaps even destruction, of this highly sensitive ecosystem, with devastating consequences.
Unfortunately, this report deals in generalities and does not contain any effective strategies for combating these dangers. A point that is not mentioned is the fact that the EU is not alone in recognising the increased geostrategic significance of the Arctic. The bordering states of Russia and NATO members USA, Canada, Denmark and Norway have already begun militarising the Arctic region and intend to protect their interests there.
Climate change has led to this situation in the Arctic. We need to prevent the catastrophic progress of this change, something that can only be achieved through a rapid changeover to renewable energy sources. However, this strategy takes a diametrically opposite approach.
We, the Confederal Group of the European United Left - Nordic Green Left, demand that the Arctic should not be allowed to become the next geopolitical hotspot. In common with numerous environmental organisations, we are calling for a moratorium on new oil extraction projects in the Arctic. A treaty needs to be agreed - similar to the Treaty on the Antarctic - that prohibits the extraction of mineral resources in the region. Last but not least, we are calling for the immediate demilitarisation of the region and therefore for the establishment of the Arctic as a demilitarised zone.
Because my group and I are unable to support the results of the own-initiative report presented here, the GUE/NGL has submitted an alternative report.
(The speaker agreed to take a blue card question under Rule 149(8))
(FI) Mr President, I would like to ask how the representative of the Confederal Group of the European United Left - Nordic Green Left thinks it possible that we could achieve some sort of moratorium when none of the actors or countries in the region wants one. How would the indigenous peoples view it if the European Union were to tell them what to do from above? Parliament has already committed one sin, the ban on the sale of seal products, which has angered them a good deal. Why should we annoy them even more? Now it is diplomacy and cooperation that are needed.
(DE) Mr President, I am not in favour of that and, of course, it is not possible to impose this from above. The question remains, however: Who was consulted? Which states are involved? Which indigenous peoples are affected? Was there any consultation with the people who may benefit from the situation, or with those who may lose their livelihood? I think that further dialogue is needed. The talks held so far are not enough. We need to try to keep this dialogue as broad as possible, also consulting with wider sections of society, possibly including the indigenous peoples in particular.
Mr President, first of all, I would like to express my deep appreciation for the sterling work done by rapporteur Gahler.
The Arctic is of strategic importance, especially now that the warming of the Arctic region seems to have opened up opportunities for transport and resource extraction there. It is also an area where the environment is very fragile, especially as a result of pollution from Europe, North America, Russia and China. The fact that national claims to the Arctic are not always clear is a complicating factor. Although the EU will not have access to the Arctic coastline before the accession of Iceland, the EU does have Member States in the Arctic region.
I therefore support an EU strategy for the Arctic regions which will position the EU squarely alongside the other major powers, in particular Russia, which is clearly bent on exploiting this region economically. If the economic activities intensify over the coming years, then it will be important that we ensure a proper balance between the environment and economics and, in doing so, that we involve the local population. Securing an observer status for the EU in the Arctic Council would be a good step in the right direction.
(DE) Mr President, as we know, the Arctic's untold mineral resources have made the area the subject of heated dispute. It is estimated that 90 billion barrels of oil alone lie untapped under the ice. Inevitably, there is a certain feeling of unease that British Petroleum of all companies, having caused the oil catastrophe in the Gulf of Mexico last year, is now to be allowed to extract resources in this sensitive natural environment, where conditions are far more extreme than in the Gulf.
After all, the fact is that the Arctic region already provides the final resting place for the world's mercury emissions. Nonetheless, in view of the global demand for energy, it is probably unrealistic to expect a decision to be taken to forego the Arctic's oil resources. It is to be hoped that the European Union, in its role in the Arctic Council, will ensure that better safety standards are put in place, so that the Arctic's wildlife does not suffer a similar horrific fate to that in the Gulf of Mexico in the wake of the recent oil disaster.
In addition, from the EU's perspective, the Arctic is also of essential importance for the development of new world trade routes. If it were indeed possible to open up a new shipping route between Europe, Asia and North America, this would immediately circumvent piracy in Somalia, while also saving the EU a lot of money because the Atalanta Mission would no longer be necessary. Of course, this is to assume that the indigenous Inuit populations would not be driven to similarly desperate measures such as piracy as a result of losing their livelihoods. This is something that needs to be kept in mind both when planning shipping routes and when drilling for oil.
(PL) Mr President, I too, of course, would like to thank Mr Gahler for his very good draft resolution and his fruitful cooperation.
For me, the most important matter during work on this report was the increased significance given to research into and monitoring of environment change, because the information gained is crucial in making political and economic decisions. It looks as if economic matters like fisheries, transport and natural resources are the main object of the European Union's interest. This is a pity, because there is no doubt that science allows us to assess what influence economic changes have on the environment in the region. An influence which is significantly greater than in other regions. What exactly is this influence? Only the experts can tell us.
Unfortunately, the openness of research in the Arctic is being increasingly restricted by the states which have access to the Arctic Ocean. Even in areas covered by international conventions and treaties, in the last two or three years, there has been a significant reduction in freedom of activity and research, often under the pretence of protecting the environment. Climatic and oceanic processes in the Arctic have a significant effect on climate and environment change, so freedom of research is extremely important for understanding what is going on, not only in the Arctic itself, but more importantly here, where we are. Furthermore, the work which has already been completed on these issues by scientists from countries outside the Arctic and the money which has been spent entitle us to make our voice heard on matters concerning the northern polar region.
Mr President, I should like to thank Mr Gahler for his very careful and detailed report, and indeed for his willingness to compromise. However, I fear that we have produced the proverbial Christmas tree - albeit it post-Christmas - of wishes, and of wishes that obscure the main political point.
Our previous debates on Arctic policy in this Chamber provoked, indeed, the Commission communication. We insisted very clearly then on the protection of the fragile Arctic environment in a coherent way - on protection of this last wilderness, which is now an environmental flashpoint.
There seems to have been a very subtle shift - an undertow - in our thinking, towards security: security of energy supply and security to use resources. This has been confirmed by the agreement this weekend between Rosneft and BP - BP of Deepwater.
As the Commission and other commentators have persistently pointed out, there are many, many regulatory gaps in the Arctic. The EU's environmental footprint there is not light.
The regulation is piecemeal and unfocused. The field is open to multinational companies. We could do better. We previously said we wanted to do better. We wanted a more coherent approach. I wonder what has changed, and I think our citizens might ask what has changed.
Mr President, I, too, congratulate Michael Gahler on a well-balanced, excellent report. Despite the challenging nature of the environment in the Arctic, the rising price of oil has stimulated international interest in drilling in that zone. We all know that oil was first produced in 1968 from Prudhoe Bay on the Alaskan North Slope, but many areas of the Arctic have not yet been explored.
A 2008 US geological survey estimated that areas north of the Arctic Circle have 90 billion barrels of undiscovered oil - technically recoverable oil - and 44 billion barrels of natural gas liquids. Now this represents between 13% and 20% of all undiscovered oil in the world. Needless to say, the recovery of so much oil will have a dramatic impact on the Arctic and may cause ecological disasters on a global scale, so I think we have to ask ourselves whether it is wise to embark on such a project at a time of determined efforts to sever our dependency on fossil fuels and to aim ultimately for a CO2-free society.
(DA) Mr President, for some reason, reading the Commission's communication on the Arctic makes me think of a cat licking its lips at the prospect of a saucer of cream. Global warming and the melting of the ice at the North Pole are certainly opening up new opportunities: natural resources, oil, fish, shipping and so on. We have heard all about this. However, I think it is important for the EU not to get too excited, as it does not have any coastline along the Arctic Ocean. As a Dane, it strikes me as rather pathetic that Denmark is being used as one of the justifications for the EU's Arctic connections. The fact of the matter is that Denmark's only connection to the Arctic is via Greenland, which, in a referendum 26 years ago, decided to leave the European Union.
Likewise, the EU should not expect too much in relation to Iceland, either. The decision on Iceland's membership must be taken by the Icelandic people alone, without pressure from the EU. There is absolutely nothing to indicate that there is a majority in favour of EU membership there.
Thus, instead of seeing ourselves as a potential Arctic power, the EU should perhaps recognise its geographic location and instead work to attain good neighbourly relations with the countries that are actually situated in the Arctic. This includes our friends in the western Nordic countries, Norway, Iceland, Greenland and the Faroe Islands. It should be the job of the European Parliament, in particular, to ensure this.
(FI) Mr President, this is an important issue, and because Finland is situated in the north, I am familiar with these matters. For once, I can agree with my Finnish fellow Members that they in Lapland and at the University of Lapland in Rovaniemi know about these things. I also agree about the position of the indigenous peoples.
I will vote in favour of this report, although my biggest criticism is targeted at the climate change claims, according to which we should have an agreement based, as it were, on the views of the EU. Emissions trading in the EU has failed completely. In 2008, it was revealed that there had been abuses, VAT swindles and many other scams to the tune of EUR 5 billion. Furthermore, these have grown steadily in number. Emissions trading simply does not work; it is harmful. To take its place, we need a system of specific emissions, as there is with vehicles, where one can measure who is doing the emitting and what is being emitted, and not engage in an international trade in indulgence where people buy the right to pollute. This is an important matter.
The Arctic issue is also important, though I am not very sure how it will progress when I consider the recent action taken by the EU. The things that the EU touches do not necessarily go ahead. The Danish Member spoke here sensibly about the regions which are there. They are regions with sovereign rights, which they may exercise to take decisions on their own matters.
(RO) Mr President, I would first of all like to congratulate my colleague, Michael Gahler, for the excellent report he presented. This report encourages the Council and Commission to outline a specific EU Arctic policy, while highlighting that Iceland's possible accession to the European Union would turn the Union into one of the Arctic's coastal entities.
As this Parliament's rapporteur for Iceland, I would like to stress that this country has Arctic priorities compatible with the European Union. These are strengthening the Arctic Council's political and administrative role, followed by ensuring the region's sustainable development and, lastly, I would like to remind you about supporting the indigenous populations' rights. The fact as well that both Iceland and the European Union are currently in the process of devising an Arctic strategy may provide an opportunity to coordinate both policies, among other reasons, with regard to the European Union's application for permanent observer status in the Arctic Council.
I wish to conclude by saying that the European Union can obviously contribute to effective multilateral governance in the High North. I would also like to tell Mr Søndergaard that I listened very closely to what he said about the majority in Iceland. I believe that we are facing a lengthy process which could go through numerous changes. In my view, we are in the position to encourage a responsible pre-accession process and a mainly balanced debate in this country about the European Union.
(LT) Mr President, I would like to offer my compliments to my fellow Member, Mr Gahler, who, despite coming from southern Germany, has demonstrated a remarkable knowledge and love of the Arctic and the High North. Some colleagues have said that countries should deal with problems that arise individually and that there is no need for so much coordination here. I categorically reject this opinion. It is precisely the European Union, which has the greatest experience of how to work together and really go into unchartered territory, which should play a very important role in this region. It is, after all, clear - either confrontation, an uncertain scramble and conflicts, or peaceful cooperation and a region that could be an example to other countries around the world. One other dimension - profit, or economic benefits, or the environment and conservation. I believe that the European Union, which always led the way in the fight against climate change, must continue to place more emphasis on the second dimension when harmonising both approaches.
(GA) Mr President, the Arctic area is changing significantly as a result of climate change, with ice and snow melting. New shipping routes are opening up, fishing grounds are available and there are more and better opportunities for viable oil and gas exploration.
The EU is playing an active role in Arctic issues. For example, the EU is a major contributor to research and development funding via the Seventh Framework Programme for Research and Development. The European Parliament is actively involved in ongoing dialogue with elected representatives from the Arctic through the Standing Committee of Parliamentarians of the Arctic region, and as chairman of the SINEEA delegation, I represent the European Parliament on this important body.
In September, Parliament hosted the biannual meeting of the standing committee for the first time. The conference was a great success, which enabled the European Parliament to deepen and to strengthen its relationship with the Arctic nations.
(HU) Mr President, I do not speak as a Member living at the Arctic Circle either; I only wish to warn everyone that the North Pole does not only hold economic heritage and energy heritage, but it is also one of the greatest examples of our natural heritage. It is therefore very important that the companies that are going to conduct explorations and drillings in that area do not go there with the profit-mongering mindset of the gold diggers of old, but instead with the sense of European responsibility that took shape by the 20th and early 21st century. Let us not forget that work there will have to be performed under extremely harsh weather conditions and through the use of new technologies. It is of the utmost importance that we do not make concessions in this, and that we apply rules, standards and requirements to these companies, which enable the technical management of this issue at the most up-to-date technological standard, while financial funds should be available to prevent any kind of natural disaster, such as the one we have seen in the case of Deep Horizon. It is extremely important to stick to the proper order: Planet, people and product ...
planet, people and product. The product in this case is, of course, the gas and oil reserve. Thank you very much for your attention and congratulations to the rapporteur.
(DE) Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I would also like to thank the rapporteur, Mr Gahler, and all the shadow rapporteurs. It is quite true to say that Europe needs to adapt continuously to new realities and to deal with changes in the balance of political power. In relation to Arctic policy, this means: we must understand that the Arctic states wish to develop the region themselves, but that they are open to cooperation. They are not interested in new treaties, but want to see existing regulatory treaties being developed further.
Climate change and new shipping routes do not solely entail risks, but can also offer opportunities. In relation to the Arctic, this means the EU has an opportunity for greater cooperation and development. After all, no one can combat the effects of climate change on their own, just as no one can develop the potential of the Arctic region on their own. In addition, the European Union has a sustained interest in the safe development ...
(The President cut off the speaker)
(FI) Mr President, the riches of the Arctic are not just its huge energy resources and new shipping lanes, but also its indigenous peoples. It is not an Arctic museum, but home to three and a half million people. That is why they need to be listened to. No one has the right to rape and plunder that region.
In the future, we will obviously see a lot of mines, industry and ships there, and with them a growing threat of environmental disasters. We need to prepare for these responsibly. It is a challenging task there to salvage nature, which is especially vulnerable in the region.
New research at the University of Lapland shows that, surprisingly, the EU already has a lot of power in the Arctic region. That is why it should be more active and responsible. It should invest in the region financially and tangibly. This will also depend on Iceland's possible future membership. I, too, think that the University of Lapland in Rovaniemi is the best place for an Arctic Information Centre.
(FI) Mr President, Commissioner, firstly, I wish to congratulate the rapporteur for producing an excellent, balanced report. The global interest in northern regions has increased a good deal in the past few years, reaching new levels, as has been said. Consequently, it is vitally important that the European Union also takes an active role in this and, furthermore, actively endeavours to acquire a role as a permanent observer in the Arctic Council.
As has already been mentioned, these regions have enormous potential, as regards their natural resources, for example. We need a bold vision and cooperation, but also financial investment, so that the people who live in the region can sustainably exploit what it may have to offer.
Like many of my fellow Members, I am also very pleased that the report makes special mention of an Arctic Information Centre, the skills and expertise of the University of Lapland and the excellent facilities that exist there.
(LV) Mr President, I have no doubt that the subject we are discussing today is very significant, and as I see it, this century will witness a struggle - between nations, between governments - to gain benefits from the Arctic. In this respect, then, I approve of our discussing such a question today. On what do I base such a conclusion? We observe that China is even now building an icebreaker. We observe that a whole string of nations that do not border on northern seas want to become members of the Arctic Council, and I am pleased that the European Union is and will become such. There are two aspects, however. The first, to my mind, is that I would recommend that the Commission takes care, in the days to come, that the region does not become militarised, for already ...
(DA) Mr President, this report contains fine words on climate concerns and environmental considerations, but in reality, it is about the EU's hunt for resources in the Arctic. It talks about the expected quantities of oil, gas, minerals, forests and fish that the EU will be able to exploit in the near future. It states that the EU has large areas of land in Sweden and Finland, but does not mention that these are Swedish and Finnish areas. It also claims that the Union has exclusive competences with regard to the conservation of marine biological resources. I am not sure that the Greenlandic, Russian and Canadian Inuits would agree with that.
Just because the Arctic is sparsely populated does not mean that anyone can go there and help themselves. The area cannot support mass tourism, overfishing and the plundering of raw materials on a massive scale. The Arctic is an extremely sensitive area with a tradition of cooperation, and the majority of the Arctic countries are simply not members of the EU. In fact, Greenland actively withdrew from the EU, as Mr Søndergaard just mentioned.
(SV) Madam President, I would like to thank Mr Gahler for an excellent initiative and an excellent report. I think it is well-balanced and takes into consideration those who want to exploit natural resources as well as those who are seriously concerned about the impact on the climate.
I believe that the best form of protection for the Arctic would be a global climate agreement, but in the meantime, we must draw up more short-term solutions in order to limit the warming of the Arctic. I would like to see the European Parliament acknowledge that emissions of carbon black are contributing, to a large extent, to the warming of the Arctic. I would therefore like to call on the Commission to make the necessary amendments to the directive on national emission ceilings for certain pollutants to also include carbon black emissions.
(EL) Madam President, I agree with numerous fellow Members, especially Mrs Herczog and Mr Repo, who referred to the environmental importance of this area and the importance of protecting the rights of nationals. This is a virgin area a long way away. However, there are people living there, people with a culture. The environment in this area is extremely important. It is a crucial area in terms of combating and adapting to climate change. I am truly saddened when I see the European Union participating in this race to see who will be the first to exploit the oil reserves in this area, now that the ice is melting. The fact that others are doing so does not justify our doing the same. Our voice must always express our values and we must always take action to protect these resources and achieve a low carbon economy.
(CS) Madam President, there are three main issues arising in relation to the Arctic. The first is the issue of energy, and there has been talk here of oil and gas, and in the future, there will be methane as well, since there are about 300 years worth of reserves of usable methane in the permafrost. EU bodies have, in the meantime, not looked into this issue in any way.
The second issue is transport. The opening up of the northern route shortens the journey to the Far East. From Hamburg to Seoul will take 21 days. If this possibility is taken into account, it will greatly reduce costs, and contribute to closer contacts between the two regions.
The third issue is the environment, because the exploitation of energy resources and greater transport volumes will bring a series of environmental risks to this region. In my opinion, it would be good to draw up a plan ...
(The President cut off the speaker)
(LT) Madam President, I would like to offer my congratulations to the rapporteur, Mr Gahler, on initiating a very important and necessary European Parliament report on the High North and on responding to the European Commission's recommendation for the formulation of an EU Arctic policy with very specific and all-embracing proposals: from the inclusion of local inhabitants in the dialogue and stability and security in the region to future projects, environmental dimensions and climate change. A fifth of the world's undiscovered resources lie in precisely this region. Reckless competition for access to the Arctic's natural resources is most undesirable, but real. It is therefore important to broaden the dialogue so that the Arctic region does not become the arena of a competitive struggle among countries and oil companies, the victims of which would, above all, be local inhabitants and the particularly sensitive Arctic ecosystem. The report states that in the Arctic region, where the effects of climate change are especially visible, drilling projects will increase over time. I therefore believe that it is right and particularly important to note that an environmental impact assessment ...
Madam President, I think it is good that the European Union is developing policies and strategies for broad regions such as the Baltic, the Danube and my own region, the Atlantic, and today discussing the High North.
But in dealing with the High North, it is important that we are seen to be diplomatic, not didactic; cooperative, not coercive; and explorative, not exploitive. Because of the importance of the indigenous people, they must be given primacy of consideration, and there are companies and countries out there which are casting their greedy eyes on the North now because of its resources in terms of fossil fuels, fish and - probably - maritime transport possibilities. The European Union, because of its treaties and because of its raison d'être, is not in a position to strike the balance.
One other point I would make is this: I am a member of the Delegation for relations with Canada, and we could also establish a collegial approach with Canada and like-minded countries to ensure fair play for the High North, and particularly the indigenous people.
(DE) Madam President, the plundering of commodities, strategic interests, climate change and, not least, increasing tourism are driving this sensitive ecosystem to the brink of destruction. However, the ecosystem of the High North is relatively self-sustaining and therefore extremely sensitive. For this reason, it is important to strike a balance between exploitation, on the one hand, and maximum protection for this sensitive system, on the other. However, this cannot be achieved without imposing restrictions on the extraction of commodities and the methods used in this extraction, as well as stricter rules for tourism and commercial shipping.
News that major mineral oil company BP and the Russian state-run enterprise Rosneft have drawn up joint plans for extracting oil and gas would not seem to point in the direction of the prudent extraction of commodities - quite the opposite in fact!
It is therefore clear that the protection of the Arctic is an issue that goes beyond individual national strategic and economic interests and must be a central concern for the EU.
(FI) Madam President, I wish to thank the rapporteur, Mr Gahler, and the shadow rapporteurs, for an excellent, diverse report, which raises various issues in a balanced way. These include the Arctic region's potential, its vast natural resources, the raw materials and energy resources, and the new traffic lanes and tourism, but also, at the same time, the vulnerability of the delicate Arctic environment, and the rights of its indigenous peoples. In the north, we need to behave very responsibly indeed, and to have a good Arctic strategy.
I also agree with my fellow Finnish Members who have expressed their satisfaction with the report, in that it has positively taken account of the initiative of the University of Lapland to establish an EU Arctic Information Centre on its premises. I look forward to the Commission's report on Arctic policy, as promised by Mr Füle.
Member of the Commission. - Madam President, this has indeed been an interesting debate showing how many important subjects are covered by Arctic cooperation, and how varied are the sensitivities in our society when discussing the Arctic's future. Let me address five specific issues raised in this morning's discussion.
Firstly, the Arctic Information Centre. Both the Commission communication of 2008 and the Council conclusions of 2009 ask the Commission to explore the possibility of establishing a new Arctic Information Centre. We are thoroughly examining the various possibilities in the European Union, including the centre in Rovaniemi, Finland (Lapland) and, above all, the role of this possible centre.
Secondly, the European Union is the only Arctic stakeholder to have recognised upfront that, as an industrialised entity, it is responsible, along with other industrialised areas, for the changes happening in the Arctic. The Commission communication gives priority to environmental protection, and the prominence of this point was maintained in the Council conclusions of 2009.
Thirdly, we are proud of our Sami EU citizens, and we are proud of the different provisions in the EU treaties and in the EU regional policy addressing the Sami people. Our cross-border cooperation and European instrument for democracy and human rights programmes are supporting the Sami people of north-west Russia and other indigenous peoples of the Barents region.
Fourthly, the European Union and Member States are a leading force for Arctic research in the world, and we are proud of it. This area has been mentioned in the framework programme. Altogether, through the fifth, sixth and seventh framework programmes, the European Union is investing EUR 200 million in this field. However, trying to be the prominent and unilateral leader in overall Arctic politics and policies, while not being an Arctic coastal entity, will not be a wise policy to pursue.
Fifthly, the Commission adopted in 2010 a communication on offshore drilling, which should guide our actions across the world, including the Arctic region. It promotes a cautious approach that we will also apply in the Arctic. This is totally in line with the EU principles of protecting the Arctic and firmly asking for the highest environmental standards.
Mr President, honourable Members, the Parliament's High North report gives a comprehensive overview of the European Union's activities, responsibilities and interests in the Arctic region. It also consolidates the EU's balanced approach to the Arctic, combining its protection and its sustainable development. We are convinced that this is within our reach and that the European Union will become an unavoidable and positive reference for Arctic circumpolar cooperation.
Madam President, I would also like to thank all the speakers. Commissioner, when I referred to a policy in relation to our neighbours in the High North, I did not wish to imply that you were engaging in a dispute over authority with Baroness Ashton. I just wanted to clarify that.
Almost all the speeches we have heard have made one thing clear: the challenge confronting us is to demonstrate through our policy that different interests and activities are reconcilable or must be made reconcilable.
I believe that this can be seen in microcosm in Norway, for example: they catch fish, they drill for oil and gas, they practise the highest environmental standards on land and sea and they develop their northernmost regions for the people who live there. If we can apply this principle to the region as a whole through cooperation with local communities, then we will become a role model for other sensitive regions. What has changed in the political reality is the fact that we do not believe that we can compel people to comply with our wishes, but that we must accept the challenge of achieving all our goals at the same time: we need a high standard in environmental protection, a clamp-down on climate change, a sustainable fisheries policy, secure shipping route development and acceptable development for local communities. If we try to work together to set these targets and then to achieve them, then we really will achieve something important in cooperation with our partners for the benefit of the region and ourselves.
Once again, I would like to thank all the shadow rapporteurs in particular. I look forward to further debate on the basis of this report. The vote should not mark the end of this issue.
The debate is closed.
The vote will take place later.


Opening of the sitting
(The sitting was opened at 10.05 a.m.)


Nairobi Conference on Climate Change (debate)
The next item is the oral question to the Commission by Karl-Heinz Florenz, on behalf of the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Food Safety, on the Nairobi Conference on Climate Change B6-0440/2006).
Μember of the Commission. (EL) Mr President, the twelfth conference of the contracting parties to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change in Nairobi is the first such conference to be held in sub-Saharan Africa, the poorest area on the planet with which the European Union maintains particular political relations. It is therefore only natural that the conference should focus on the needs of developing countries.
The European Union will stress in particular that combating climate change may be combined with fast economic development and, furthermore, that policies to reduce emissions must be incorporated into decision-making procedures in crucial sectors.
The development of the economies of the countries of Asia, Africa and South America, a secure energy supply and improved air quality are, for example, important - parallel - benefits of actions to combat climate change.
I believe that improving the understanding, at international level, of the dangerous repercussions of climate change and the show of interest in addressing the needs of developing countries will increase the potential for us to reach an agreement on the period after 2012.
The European Union has four specific priorities in Nairobi. Firstly, to achieve agreement on the institutional framework for the Adaptation Fund. The fund will be financed from levies on the clean development mechanism and is expected to disburse more than EUR 350 million between 2008 and 2012.
Secondly, to achieve agreement on the list of activities within the framework of the five-year programme of work on adaptation. The programme contains a series of activities aimed to improve our adaptability, such as further improvement of our knowledge about the negative repercussions of climate change, its socio-economic repercussions and the weak points of our economies and societies to climate change.
Thirdly, to facilitate greater access to the clean development mechanism by the poor countries of Africa and other areas of the planet. We need to address the question of the fair distribution of projects under the clean development mechanism, because only a small percentage of all the projects are destined for Africa.
Fourthly, the debate on the period after 2012, which will continue, without being completed in Nairobi. I truly believe that we still have a great deal of work in store. There are various opinions as to what should be done. The developing countries do not feel comfortable with the prospect of having to step up their efforts to combat climate change. At the same time, numerous developing countries continue to hesitate to take the necessary measures to reduce emissions which are required in order to help limit the average rise in temperature on the planet by two degrees Celsius.
In Nairobi, the European Union will justifiably continue to maintain that the fight against climate change and the millennium development goals, are not only mutually compatible but also mutually dependent.
In Nairobi we hope to secure, on the one hand, a clear, specific and balanced approach and stable progress in the ad hoc working party on Article 3, paragraph 9, on the dialogue being held within the framework of the convention and, on the other hand, agreement on how the Kyoto Protocol will be revised on the basis of Article 9. However, we need to look beyond Nairobi, given that Europe needs to step up its efforts in order to persuade its partners throughout the world to continue efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions after 2012.
It is very positive that 10 members of Parliament will be joining the delegation and I personally look forward - as over the last two years - to close cooperation with them. I shall ensure that they are fully informed and shall pass all the available information on to them immediately. We shall address the media together and I hope that the Members of Parliament will have contacts and dialogues with delegates from other countries during the conference. In this way we shall be able to transfer to a global audience our ambition and joint vision for a sustainable future for mankind.
on behalf of the PPE-DE Group. - Mr President, I should like to thank the Commissioner for his well-chosen words here this evening.
I am delighted to be one of the ten MEPs in the European Parliament group in the EU delegation. We are all members of the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Food Safety and we will be led by our colleague, Mr Blokland, as our vice-chairman.
I had expected my colleague, Mr Florenz, to be leading on behalf of the PPE-DE Group, but I do not see him. Part of his question was to put down yet again a marker in the sand about the fact that the members of the European Parliament's delegation, as part of the EU delegation, will be treated as second-class citizens.
I know the Commissioner will tell us the tale about interinstitutional agreements, the Council, the Commission, precedence and practice. Frankly, we are all sick of hearing that and we do not want to hear it any more. The Commissioner is always excellent on these occasions and gives very generously of his time, as do his officials. They brief us extremely well after the event, outside the door, but we are never let in, not even as observers at the high-level meetings. I should like, on behalf of my PPE-DE Group colleagues and, I suspect, all colleagues, to be treated on a par with both the European Commission and the Council delegates who will be there. If the Commission calls it an EU delegation, then the three EU parties who are present should be treated equally.
The Commissioner told us at a recent briefing that he does not expect spectacular breakthroughs. This will be another interim COP, COP 12-MOP 2 if you like, but it is very important, as this is the first meeting on sub-Saharan Africa. The Commissioner mentioned the need to extend CDMs. At the moment only 2.5% is spent in Africa in this area and that is mainly in Morocco and South Africa, and none in the rest of Sub-Saharan Africa as such. A lot of work needs to be done there. I am very interested in looking into the creation of a carbon fund for Africa, as the Commissioner has suggested, and where that will take us.
Who will finance the Adaptation Fund? The argument is about whether GEF will be the main source of funding and where that is going to be. In Montreal it was agreed that there would be two tracks in the negotiations: one for the UNFCC framework and the other for the Kyoto Protocol. I believe this clarifies where different countries stand. Together we can make progress, bring in more of the developing countries and persuade more of our friends in the United States in particular to join us in the very important task of reducing carbon emissions.
on behalf of the PSE Group. - (NL) Mr President, Commissioner, Al Gore has been travelling the world, spreading his message, for some time. The climate is changing quickly, more quickly than expected. Ice caps are melting, sea levels are rising and we will soon reach the point of no return. That is when a political answer is expected. We should not simply cry in Al Gore's arms, but also start looking for a solution. Nairobi presents us with an opportunity for meeting this challenge head-on. When we discuss the energy crisis and climate problems, we should not be overcome by pessimism, because solutions are possible. Where can we find these solutions?
First of all by trusting our own measures. I should like to take this opportunity to express once again my support in favour of the emissions trading system, even if it is far from perfect. I am, above all, talking to the Commission, who should ensure that the national allocation plans are credible and that over-allocation is a thing of the past. In the longer term, we must consider auctioning emission rights as an option, because this is how we can prevent the windfall profits in electricity companies and the all too generous allocation of free emission rights.
Secondly, I would argue in favour of a large-scale investment in the development of new, clean energy. Apart from existing initiatives, there is much scope for innovation. There is the blue energy, harnessed by mixing salt and fresh water, that can produce energy. Or the ladder mills with high-level kites that work as windmills and generate energy. Other alternatives include energy-producing greenhouses and houses, geothermal energy and solar mirrors; so much can be done. We must capitalise on these possibilities by means of technological innovation. This must be funded by governments but, in time, also by auctioning emission rights.
Thirdly, we must be pro-active in cooperating with countries such as China, which opens a new power station every month and needs clean coal technology, which we must supply. Thanks to the transfer of technology, China may well take on board obligations after 2012. If China joins in, participation from the US will also be more likely.
Fourthly, we must invest generously in the adjustment fund. Europe has the historical responsibility of climate change, and it is up to us to help the developing countries to adjust to its implications. Climate change is not always a popular subject in developing countries. A leader of a developing country - Mr President, I had been given an extra minute, because Mrs Ferreira had generously given me her speaking time, which gives me a total of three minutes - once said to a Dutch environment minister: 'First, we will become as rich as you, and only then will we worry about climate change as much as you do.' I think that things could be done differently. They could become rich without CO2 emissions. Europe has the duty to help them achieve this, and we must, in Nairobi, show them that we really mean it.
Commissioner, I am looking forward to an excellent group effort during the Nairobi conference. Needless to say, I wholeheartedly support Mrs Doyle's appeal. I think that we must be involved in all negotiations as much as possible and have maximum access to the meetings, and I know that you will do your level best in this respect. I should like to close by repeating that I hope for good cooperation.
on behalf of the ALDE Group. - Mr President, I should like to thank the Commissioner for coming to speak to such a packed house about the most important subject facing the planet!
You suggested before that this conference of the parties in Nairobi is a bit of a marking-time sort of meeting, that the lateral events might be as important as the main ones. But we have often heard that, with every month that passes, the problems become greater and more difficult to resolve. So perhaps we cannot afford to have any more intermediate events: the stakes have to be raised and you have to try and extract everything you can from every possible meeting.
I would like to raise three particular issues. First of all, transport emissions within the European Union. According to current figures, five of the major car manufacturers are going to reach the voluntary agreement target of 140g of CO2 by 2008, but 75% are not on target to reach that. Just remember what that means. They signed a voluntary agreement with the Commission, with the European Union. In their own private boardrooms they have looked at the figures and recognised that they could make more profits out of SUVs and four-wheel drives, and they have deliberately decided that they are not going to fulfil that commitment. They have torn it up, they have not shown good faith and it is now time for the Commission to clamp down really hard.
We know from the five who are meeting the target that there is nothing special about 140g. You need tough action, and I hope that will be forthcoming in the next few months.
Secondly, the national allocation plans. I know that you are sending the national allocation plans back to the Member States and saying that a 15% margin between allocations and real CO2 emissions is far from good enough. This is an impossible situation. You know that this is the most important instrument. You need to be tough and to use every resource the Commission has at its disposal to emphasise that national governments have to act on the fine speeches they make in Council.
Finally, looking ahead to the post 2012 emissions trading scheme, how are you going to make it work in future? Free allocations were a good start, but proved pretty weak in practice. Auctioning will still give windfall profits to some of the major power generators. You think you have to start looking at benchmarking, which is very difficult. But you need to tell industry now across the whole of Europe that we are going to reward best practice and it should start investing now in making a difference to our planet.
on behalf of the Verts/ALE Group. - (FI) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the message that we are receiving from the world of science is becoming ever more serious: the more recent the study, the more serious the message from science is on accelerated climate change. We are approaching a threshold, past which major disasters are unavoidable. That is what British Foreign Minister Margaret Beckett said and she went on to say we are heading for climate chaos. At the same time the economic analyses show that very ambitious emission reductions are very reasonable in terms of cost and they will of course be a lot cheaper than letting climate change run riot.
Public awareness of this is growing, reflected, for example, in the opinion expressed by the European Trade Union Confederation (ETUC) that Europe must reduce its emissions by 75% by the middle of the century and it cannot wait about for the others to follow.
Even in the United States of America public opinion is changing. That is evident from the huge success of Al Gore's film, long articles in the big newspapers on climate change and its possible solution, and, most recently, the latest issue of Scientific American on energy without coal.
In this situation what we really need is leadership on the part of the EU. In the United States too, those who desire responsible climate protection look to Europe, and what Europe does encourages them. We must be worthy of this trust. Neither can we be content in the context of international talks with waiting and wasting time. We have to draft our own constructive proposals on what the world should do after 2012.
Within Europe too, we have to make our own emission reduction commitments and take action in line with the aim to prevent the world from heating up by more than two degrees. We also need to implement our own commitments under Kyoto, and, with regard to that, the emissions trading system is very important. I urge the Commission to be strict. It is not enough that emissions are traded; emissions trading must also result in a reduction in emissions in the way described in the Kyoto Protocol.
Business also needs European leadership. So that it can invest wisely it needs long-term emission reduction targets. The wrong investments will become very expensive. The lifetime of a power plant is 40 years. Power plants that are hostile to the climate should no longer be built at all.
on behalf of the IND/DEM Group. - (NL) Mr President, there is no doubt in anyone's mind that climate change is for real. The average temperature is rising every year, and this year, unfortunately, was no exception. That is why last week, Prime Ministers Balkenende and Blair wrote a letter to the Council Presidency requesting for practical action. I quote from their letter: 'We only have ten to fifteen years to take the steps that are needed to prevent us from going beyond the point of no return'. I should like to find out what steps we can expect very shortly, as time is pressing.
I should also like to take this opportunity to thank the Commissioner for the energy efficiency action plan that was published last week, although I should like to add in this connection that the target percentage of 20% is, first of all, too low and secondly, will never be met if it is not combined with reduction targets for the Member States.
As Mrs Doyle and Mrs Corbey have already said, the delegation from this House insists on the climate conference pledging that we finally be admitted to all the meetings that are organised by the EU delegation. Commissioner Dimas knows this and we count on his support in order to achieve this. We are an official EU institution and are therefore just as much entitled to attend those meetings as are the others.
Mr President, as we prepare for the next conference on climate change in Nairobi, what is most urgently needed is honesty. It is true that we are proud of the progress we have made so far, but what is the outcome in terms of overall emission reductions? The world needs efficient climate policies that deliver and not unfounded complacency. We all know and agree that we need to move from one-sided EU climate politics to a global front, as only truly global action will lead to efficient emission reductions. Therefore, for the sake of the climate and to really win the battle, let us be honest when analysing the problems arising from the Kyoto Protocol, as well as from the EU ETS preparing for Kyoto.
I am afraid that the headlines have already been written: 'Nairobi was a success and the EU leads the way'. But is this the right way? Understandably for the EU, it is politically important to stand in the front line and to show a good example, encouraging others to follow sooner or later. However, unless the front cannot be widened, the EU efforts will be like taking a few drops out of the ocean or having a haircut to lose weight.
What makes this especially challenging is the effect that one-sided efforts have on the markets. In the global markets, this means giving the competitive advantage to the polluter, as the cost of environmental investments and emission rights cannot be included in the prices. The temptation is for the international capital of the global markets to be invested where there are neither emission restrictions nor environmental norms. A pollution shift is not a pollution cut.
Interestingly, the last conference on climate change in Montreal was publicly described as a victory. Looking at the results, however, there is not much reason to celebrate. In terms of emission reductions, not a single step forward was taken in Montreal. There is no implication that the mitigation front would be widened. With the Kyoto Protocol, only a quarter of global emissions are controlled. That is not enough.
Mr President, Commissioner, climate change is no longer speculation, it is a fact. As is the prospect of a countdown to unprecedented catastrophe for further generations if the present unacceptable situation continues.
The time has come for brave and bold decisions that will bring about drastic measures which can secure significant results. The EU has in the past taken a leading role in this field, and the UN Nairobi Conference presents our opportunity and our duty to press for concrete and effective action. We no longer have the luxury of waiting for those who still need convincing, or continuing to tolerate those who simply do not care. In my view at least, the following two points must be included in our Nairobi strategy: firstly, strict emission reduction targets must be set and severe penalties must be envisaged and implemented for those who fail to meet them; secondly, the international community must isolate those countries that have not signed the relevant conventions and are not willing to cooperate in the joint fight against climate change. Here I am referring particularly, of course, to the United States, which alone is responsible for one third of global carbon dioxide emissions.
The stance of the USA is represented by the extraordinarily selfish and inconceivably arrogant way the US State Department's spokesman, Adam Ereli, commented on the ratification of the Kyoto Protocol by Russia in 2004. He said, 'We do not believe that the Kyoto Protocol is something that is realistic for the United States and we have no intention of signing or ratifying it'.
It is about time we stood up to the US and told it straight that if it does not sign and ratify the Kyoto Protocol forthwith, our transatlantic relations will suffer a very heavy blow indeed.
Member of the Commission. Mr President, I should like to express my appreciation for the opportunity to respond to some of the questions raised in this debate and to express my thanks for all the positive contributions.
If Nairobi is a success, it will mean that we have made the right decisions and the right agreements. The Commission recognises the need for the European Union to maintain its leading role in not only international but also domestic efforts to fight climate change. I agree that it is important to assist developing countries to adapt to the adverse effects of climate change and to help them in deploying sustainable technologies.
A few days ago, the Commission proposed the new Global Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy Fund. The anticipated total initial funding from public and commercial sources is EUR 100 million. This new initiative aims to boost climate-friendly technologies in Africa in particular. In addition, we have the Adaptation Fund. We hope it will be agreed in Nairobi to make this operational. The fund will be financed by 2% on the proceeds of the clean development mechanism. We expect about EUR 350 million to be available for investments in developing countries and in Africa for the period 2008 to 2012.
The European Union can only be credible in its leadership role when it achieves meaningful reductions in domestic emissions and complies with international commitments under the Kyoto Protocol. The second national allocation plans of the European Union Emissions Trading Scheme will be a decisive test. If Member States put more allowances into the European market than companies are likely to emit collectively, the European Union Emissions Trading Scheme would fail. Mr Davies said that collectively the first 17 plans notified propose a total allocation that exceeds 2005 emissions of these Member States by about 15%, which is really a lot. I am determined that we shall not permit the European Union Emissions Trading Scheme to fail and the Commission will assess all the National Allocation Plans in a consistent and fair manner. All the Member States will have to contribute to the success of the Emissions Trading Scheme in the period 2008 to 2012.
I agree that we should try very hard with our public relations and the possibilities for influencing our governments, but also your involvement and action is important in this crucial phase of the Emissions Trading Scheme. I would ask you that together we ensure that, in all the capitals of the Member States and in Brussels, this debate on the allocation is about how much more we should reduce, rather than how much more we can emit.
In the next few days, a communication on the Emissions Trading Scheme should be adopted by the Commission, launching a review of this important scheme. This will address its scope, how to make it simpler and more predictable, strengthening compliance and linking up with Emissions Trading Schemes elsewhere.
As regards tackling transport emissions, which contribute to about 22% of the emissions in the European Union, this year the Commission will put forward a legislative proposal to include the aviation sector in European Union emissions trading. Also this year, the Commission will review the possibilities for further reductions of carbon dioxide emissions from cars after 2008-2009, with a view to meeting the Community target of 120g of carbon dioxide per kilometre by 2012. That will, of course, require legislation.
The Commission is also exploring options for a legal framework in the European Union to allow the safe capture and underground storage of carbon dioxide from industrial installations, provided that that is considered appropriate.
The Commission also intends to promote adaptation measures, helping the regional and national decision-makers to deal with increasingly evident impacts of climate change. On the basis of a Green Paper on adaptation to climate change, to be launched at a conference in Brussels on 1 December, the Commission will begin a public debate on the need to adapt to unavoidable climate change.
Most importantly, we will have to further frame the international debate after 2012. Next January, the Commission is planning to release its energy package. A core part of the package will be the strategic European Union energy review. This will put forward an alternative energy scenario for the European Union that is in line with the European Union's long-term climate change objective.
Close to the adaptation of the energy package, the Commission will also be releasing a Green Paper on the European Union's views on further action to tackle climate change. This Green Paper will respond to the European Council's request to develop a European Union strategy to limit global warming to 2°C, compared to pre-industrial levels. It will identify concrete proposals, both within the European Union and internationally, for achieving that objective. One of our main objectives will be to bring on board the United States and other fast-developing countries like China and India in a common but differentiated way, as provided for by the United Nations Convention on Climate Change.
The Commission will ensure that the energy package and the Green Paper put forward a climate and energy strategy for the European Union that is coherent, coordinated and sustainable. I believe that since last year in Montreal there is a certain new momentum in the international debate on climate change. While we need to keep up the pace in domestic efforts, in the international process we will have to remain patient and continue to build trust.
Finally, I would like to say that Al Gore has really helped a lot in raising awareness in the European Union and I had the honour to introduce him to a packed theatre in Brussels about a month ago.
I have received one motion for a resolution in accordance with Rule 108(5) of the Rules of Procedure.
The debate is closed.
The vote will take place tomorrow at 11.30 a.m.


2. Financing instrument for development cooperation (