Calendar of part-sessions for 2011: see Minutes


Preparing forests for climate change (short presentation)
The next item is the report by Kriton Arsenis, on behalf of the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Food Safety, on the Commission Green Paper on forest protection and information in the EU: preparing forests for climate change.
Madam President, Commissioner, forests are very important to us all, for everyone here in this House and for every European in every corner of Europe. Forests are a part of our identity. We use them for recreation and for employment, and yet forests are so different for each of us, in each area of Europe. If someone from northern Europe visits the Mediterranean forests, he will think that many areas that we in the Mediterranean call forests are savannahs or parks, as they support no productive activities. Or, conversely, someone from the Mediterranean travelling in northern Europe will consider that the forests in the area are man-made rather than natural, as they support heavy productive activities.
These forests, which are so different for each individual in Europe, for each area, face a common threat: climate change. Climate change is threatening European forests, with an increase in forest fires, with diseases passing from one country to another and putting entire species at risk, and with disasters caused by extreme weather conditions. The impact differs from one geographical area to another, but it is a cross-border impact and needs to be addressed with Europe's assistance.
Today, we are debating, and in two days, we shall vote on Parliament's report on forest protection. This report was shaped by consent, right from the start, in cooperation with members from every country and political group. When it was tabled for debate in committee, it was further shaped by a procedure of 50 compromise amendments, from all the political groups and areas represented in Europe. I am therefore certain that this report represents Parliament's opinion as to how we can help forests, how we can help our communities to adapt to climate change.
What are we asking for in this report? We are asking for the Commission to proceed with the White Paper on adapting to and protecting forests from climate change, we are asking for a new regulation to replace the old regulation on the prevention of forest fires, we are asking for a new regulation to replace the old regulation on information on the state of forests and, finally, we are asking for an increase in funding for forests under the second pillar of the common agricultural policy.
Forests account for 42% of the countryside, but only 1% of the CAP. We are asking for the facility to finance public agencies, for sustainability criteria for woody biomass used for energy and, finally, for pro-active, viable management of forests adapted to climate change.
(RO) Madam President, the role of this report is to reopen the debate on forest protection at European level. Both forest protection activities and the provision of information about them are based on cooperation between European institutions and the authorities in Member States.
I would like to highlight Article 23 in the report about stamping out illegal logging. I should mention that implementing sustainable forest management is vital to preserving biodiversity in Europe. Additional financial resources and the removal of legislative barriers are required to complete this process. Climate change research must be encouraged, especially as part of multinational projects. I also welcome the initiative aimed at organising employee training programmes.
(PT) Madam President, on a subject which is vast by nature, I want to make just two brief points here. The first is to draw attention to threats currently weighing down on countless forest ecosystems. Amongst other things, I would highlight the spread of invading alien species, pests and forest fires. There is evidence of some recurrence of some of these factors, especially in convergence regions. There is a need for rigorous study of their impact, and also of the best ways to make the forest more resistant to this group of biotic and abiotic threats. To this end, sufficient financial resources should be channelled through Union programmes and support measures for evaluation of forests' ecological states and the health of their plants, and for their reclassification, including reforestation that favours indigenous species and mixed forests, as well as their resilience and biodiversity.
Secondly, I would draw attention to the enormous diversity of natural conditions and, consequently, of forest ecosystems occurring in Europe. They need to be recognised and valued: their multifunctionality needs to be valued, along with their potential for generating employment and development in the rural world.
(SK) Madam President, current studies into the impact of climate change on Europe's forests indicate that there is a wide range of specific regional responses from forest ecosystems.
The ability to cope with the type and range of expected problems depends on natural regional conditions (mountainous areas, for example, are exposed to different problems than those of low lying areas), on the physiological sensitivity of forest vegetation, on how far individual ecosystems have developed their potential to adapt, on the intensity of the expected climate change (in Central and Eastern Europe, for instance, the change is projected to be one and a half times greater than the global average) and on the technical possibilities available to forestry to take adaptive action, for example, by changing species composition in favour of resistant trees. When drafting measures aimed at protection and adaptation, it is therefore extremely important to take into account specific local and regional features, and to respect factors specific to protected habitats.
Madam President, it is a pleasure to be here this afternoon. Today, my colleagues and I were speaking for the first time in the Irish National Assembly - the Dáil - on Europe Day, so it is a historic day from that point of view.
The topic before us is absolutely vital because forests have a huge role to play, particularly in combating climate change. We hear a lot about high-profile issues such as renewable energy, etc., which are certainly important, but forests deserve far more attention because it takes a long time to grow forests and they must therefore be protected and encouraged.
There is a need for research, in particular, into ways of limiting forest fires. It is galling to realise that a single lit match can potentially destroy thousands of hectares of fine forest. I would also agree with the rapporteur that 1% of CAP expenditure going to forestation is not enough. Our Parliament wants to increase the number of hectares of forest in Ireland over the coming years, and an increase in funding through the CAP would certainly be sensible and worthwhile.
Member of the Commission. - Madam President, at this very late hour, I would like to begin by thanking the rapporteur, Mr Arsenis, for his commitment and his work in preparing the report on forest protection and information.
Thanks also to the members of the committee who have put forward their views for their valuable contributions. The Commission announced its intention to present a Green Paper on forest protection and information in the context of the 2009 White Paper on adaptation to climate change. It was adopted in March 2010.
The Green Paper set out the various socio-economic and environmental functions of forests and the challenges they will face in coming decades. It also reviewed current forest information systems in Europe. Most importantly it invited Parliament and the Council, as well as all other interested stakeholders, to provide their views on forest protection and information and on the way forward so that the EU could provide added value to the work going on at Member State level and more widely across Europe. The guiding principle has been to respect Member States' competences and subsidiarity while, at the same time, seeing how best the EU could contribute to ensuring that the functions of forests are protected and that the information necessary to achieve this is available.
The past year has been rich in discussion and the Council conclusions, together with the results of the stakeholder consultation, are already feeding into the Commission's reflections on the next steps. Despite the fact that there has been a lengthy debate as to whether the EU needs a forestry policy or not, I am very pleased to see that appreciation of the economic, social and environmental functions of forests was a common theme in the stakeholder and Council input and that this concern is again evident today in the report drafted by Kriton Arsenis.
Likewise, there is a very great need for information at a comparable level across a wide range of forestry-related issues such as employment, stocks, biomass, fires, soil and forest carbon information and trends, forest health, biodiversity and water protection, and each institution lays great emphasis on finding means to achieve this.
In anticipation of Parliament's report, we have already begun working with the Member States to develop further and more clearly the precise information needs at EU level. The report will help us to focus this work.
A further phase needs to be developed once the information needs are clear. We will be working on both aspects over the coming year, carefully and without duplicating other efforts in the forest area.
Armed with relevant useful and comparable information, we should, in the near future, be better able to provide EU added value across forestry-related socio-economic and environmental issues, thus paving the way for better EU input to help forests to continue to deliver their multiple benefits for us all. The Commission will now study this report in detail and reflect fully on our response to it and to the Council conclusions and stakeholders' input.
The debate is closed.
The vote will take place on Wednesday, 11 May 2011.
Written statements (Rule 149)
The report on the protection of forests addresses the issue of forest decline resulting from felling. In view of the fact that we must count on further losses through climate change, European forestry finds itself in a difficult and risky situation. Some Member States (for example, Germany and Austria) operate a balanced forestry policy. A large number of countries - especially new Member States, including the Czech Republic - allow unsustainable forestry on their territory, however, which can be defined as the total clearance and looting of forest growth. The ratio of clearance to new forest growth is even higher than 100%. It is absolutely essential to manage and regulate the felling and clearance of forests at the European level, as long as these countries have such incompetent or corrupt politicians who are either unable or unwilling to halt this trend. In the Czech Republic, forestry management has become a business, in which the financial profits of the firms involved are all that matters. There can be no talk of maintenance or sustainable forestry management. It is also quite common that some citizens cut down trees without a permit, because the cost of heating fuel makes it worthwhile. I must appeal to the authorities who fail to penalise this and even fail to address it, because cutting down forests has become common practice in the Czech Republic. I welcome the report. It is a further step towards sustainable forestry in Europe, and halting the looting of forests in some Member States.
The report accurately shows that forestry policy is the responsibility of Member States. However, we must support it at the European level at the very least due to the principle of subsidiarity. From the point of view of climate change, ensuring the safety of forests is extremely important, as they are threatened more and more by natural disasters, especially such as fires or wide-ranging tree diseases. We have to remember the exceptional role of forests in ensuring biological balance and diversity, and that they are a valuable link in the proper functioning of the economy, not only in the production of timber, but also in relation to other products and services which are a common public asset. I believe that it is therefore very important to establish a sustainable common European forestry management policy. I appeal to the Commission to draw up legally binding criteria for the sustainable development of tree biomass, at the same time introducing tools for collecting information on forests and forestry and for making this information accessible.
I was rapporteur for the opinion of the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development on this report. I have endeavoured to emphasise the link that exists between forests and rural communities, based on the economic and social role which forests play as an important source of income and also in agricultural production. I feel that the role of forests in the future common agricultural policy is an important aspect of this. This is especially true in the context where Europe's action in the forestry sector is implemented in particular via the second pillar of the CAP - rural development. This must be preserved as a powerful, effective instrument, while funding must continue at a sufficient level as part of the post-2013 CAP programmes. Support must be maintained for creating forest plantations as part of these programmes. Forests are also an important provider of public services which go unrewarded by the market. This is why I think that forest owners should be given a direct payment per area. The role of forests in the European Union's energy strategy is another important point because their potential as a renewable energy source is currently underexploited.
There is a lack of consistency among the European Union's various forestry-related policies as well as those of the Member States. It is therefore necessary to coordinate policies related to forestry, agriculture, renewable energy, biodiversity, as well as other environmental policies, more thoroughly. Here, we must also take industrial and research policy and the Europe 2020 strategy into account. Forestry is a natural part of an integrated rural and regional policy, and this must be taken into account in the discussions on the future of the common agricultural policy after 2013.
, in writing. - European forests are major contributors to climate change mitigation and the adaptation of European societies through the continuation of their economic, social and environmental functions. Therefore, EU forest-related instruments need to be updated to address new threats to their sustainable management and conservation. It's underlined the central role of Sustainable Forest Management (SFM) and the importance of forests for competitiveness and employment, in order to achieve EU's climate targets and deliver necessary ecosystem services such as biodiversity conservation, protection against natural disasters and CO2 capturing. Requests for: 1. Reporting through National Forest Programmes to be enhanced and SFM to be better implemented throughout the European Union. 2. The immediate adoption of legislation on forest fire prevention as well as on forest information taking into account climate threats and the need for collection and dissemination of comparable data. Moreover, it calls for a White Paper on forest protection, addressing financial resources, knowledge exchange and promotion of research. 3. There is recognition of the importance of forests for rural development and the need to remove obstacles to funding for forestry and biodiversity. A call for access to funding of the relevant measures for public bodies and rural producers has been agreed upon.


1. Tibet (vote)


Debates on cases of breaches of human rights, democracy and the rule of law(debate)


6. Rights of passengers when travelling by sea and inland waterway (


Lapsed written declarations: see Minutes


9. A simplified business environment for companies (


Committee of Inquiry into the crisis of the Equitable Life Assurance Society (extension of mandate): see Minutes


The charging of heavy goods vehicles for the use of certain infrastructures - Greening of transport and internalisation of external costs (debate)
The next item is the joint debate on the following reports:
by Mr El Khadraoui, on behalf of the Committee on Transport and Tourism, on the proposal for a directive of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Directive 1999/62/EC on the charging of heavy goods vehicles for the use of certain infrastructures - C6-0276/2008 -, and
by Mr Jarzembowski, on behalf of the Committee on Transport and Tourism, on the greening of transport and the internalisation of external costs.
Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I wish to come straight to the point and clear up a few misunderstandings. I have read from various sources that, by bringing in this Eurovignette Directive, we are trying to give the road transport sector the kiss of death in these economically difficult times. I have also read that we mean to make road pricing compulsory for all passenger cars in Europe.
The truth is, of course, that we do not mean to impose anything at all; on the contrary, we wish to offer a wide range of possibilities to help Member States who so desire to introduce, in their own time, the 'polluter pays' principle into the road transport sector. That is, we want to establish a framework, to lay down ground rules that Member States must observe if they wish to internalise external costs.
This should bring us one step closer to a more sustainable transport system. I wish to add straight away that this is no miracle cure. Very many more measures will have to be taken if we are to work wonders. If we do nothing, however - as the Commission is well aware - road transport will increase by 55% by 2020. We therefore have to do something.
What we are proposing here is a minor revolution in itself, if I may say so, but it is just a start, and will require an ambitious follow-up within a few years. With the help of the majority in the Committee on Transport and Tourism, we managed to draft a balanced, reasonable, coherent proposal. I should also like to thank everyone involved. It was not easy; points of view differed very widely. However, I hope that we retain this balance after tomorrow and thus send out a strong signal to the Council, which needs to draw up another common position.
What are the essential points? Firstly, which externalities are to be introduced into the system? We opted for the areas of air pollution, noise and congestion. Regarding the last of these, we have actually made a concession to the road transport sector by saying that countries wanting their systems to cover congestion should make a link with passenger cars. This is optional, not obligatory.
Secondly, on the subject of earmarking, we do not regard the revenue from these charges as an additional tax that is allowed to simply flow into State treasuries. Such revenue must be reinvested in the transport system with the aim of keeping external costs down. This must be the ultimate objective.
Thirdly, there is interoperability, which is vital, and I think the Commission still has some way to go in this regard. We want to prevent lorries having to take along 27 different tins in future in order to pay all the various tolls around Europe, and so I think that clear initiatives are needed to this end.
Fourthly, there must be the possibility of further action in future. Within a few years, an overview must be drawn up of the internalisation of external costs in all modes of transport. We must consider the possibility of adding other external costs, too, but we must also favour charging schemes based on kilometerage over time-based schemes.
Overall, the impact of all of this is actually limited. We estimate that the operational costs could rise by 3% if this Directive were to be applied in the field throughout Europe. Consequently, I wish to propose to my fellow Members that we stick with the package supported by the Committee on Transport and Tourism.
In other words, I do not support the amendments by the Group of the European People's Party (Christian Democrats) and European Democrats that seek to remove congestion from the system, nor can I support the amendments tabled by the Group of the Greens/European Free Alliance, no matter how appealing I find them. Let us preserve a coherent whole and take a step forward in this way.
Mr President, Mr Vice-President, ladies and gentlemen, let me begin by saying that the mobility of people and goods is quite simply of key importance to citizens' quality of life, growth and employment, the social and territorial cohesion of the European Union and for trade with third countries.
That is why the European Community quite simply needs an infrastructure that meets its needs and equitable transport rules for all modes of transport. Given that transport also has negative consequences for people and the environment, it must, of course, be further greened, in order, also, to play its role in fighting climate change.
However, I have to tell you, Mr Vice-President, that what you put forward to us as a basis document on the greening of transport was a little too sparse. I am sorry to say that there is no consistent overall plan and you leave everything open - everything is palmed off on subsidiarity. If you say that we have to green transport, that must apply throughout the European Union and cannot be made subject to the wishes of the Member States. It must then apply to everything from the railways to marine transport.
You cannot just pick out road transport - and, in fact, specifically only goods vehicle traffic - and then say 'we will leave it up to the Member States to decide whether or not they want to have road tolls.' If you want a fundamental change, you need to put forward an integrated plan for all means of transport - and that is something we made very clear in the committee. Then, however, you also have to do that with scientifically-based impact assessments that take account of the consequences for competition amongst means of transport, mobility costs and the competitiveness of Europe.
The second communication, on the internalisation of external costs, is another example of the compartmentalisation under your system, proposing something and yet not proposing it. As regards the internalisation of external costs, you again set out a great big handbook that provides a multiplicity of ways to perform calculations, but then, in the end, you say 'we will calculate according to a flat-rate value.' No one on earth could understand that. You also fail to take account of the contributions already made by the various means of transport, be it in the form of general taxation, petroleum tax or vehicle tax.
You know, it is the same story with the Eurovignette. My group agrees with the other groups that exhaust emissions and noise should be taken account of in the external costs and in the charging thereof. Congestion, though? Mr Vice-President, congestion is caused by an insufficient provision of infrastructure by the Member States. To give the Member States money for managing their own shortcomings would be downright madness.
What is more, you are very much aware of the fact that companies have long borne the costs of congestion, as it leads to higher wage costs and higher fuel costs. With that in mind, it must be said, Mr El Khadraoui, that it makes no sense to internalise the costs of congestion - quite the opposite, in fact. We must attempt to get rid of this congestion through the prudent upgrading of infrastructure and the deployment of intelligent transport information systems, yet we must not burden businesses, already struggling with rising costs, with additional costs in the form of road tolls. There is no point in that.
Mr Vice-President, your communication on noise protection measures on the railways is positive, in principle. As the man on the English-speaking street says, though, 'Where's the beef?' What are you actually proposing? You say there are many options. No, you are the Commission! You have the right and the duty to put forward proposals that we can then implement. That is why the Committee on Transport and Tourism is calling on you to actually table a proposal for a directive on the introduction of noise-related track access charges so that, by re-investing the money collected by means of such track access charges in the railway companies - including private companies - we will be able to help see new noise-reducing brakes actually installed. All of us in this House have a clear goal and that is that noise pollution by the railways must be eradicated. We want to promote the railways, but then their journey through the serene Rhine valley must also be effected in an environmentally sound manner. So help us do this - propose something really tangible!
Mr President, we have reached the end of yet another debate on a subject that I resolved to bring to the attention of this House as soon as I had obtained the support of Parliament, in other words, our aim of not imposing a new tax on European citizens. As far as the Commission is concerned, the fact that the new Eurovignette is optional is evidence that we are not imposing a new tax. Above all, the sums collected will not be generally earmarked for the budgets of the various Member States but will be allocated to make a difference in a particular sector, namely pollution, the internalisation of external costs and the construction of safer roads and infrastructure.
I wish to thank Parliament for the commitment it showed to the greening package, particularly with regard to the review of the Eurovignette directive. The draft adopted by the Committee on Transport and Tourism based on Mr El Khadraoui's report sends out a strong message to Member States because it proposes a more flexible framework that legally authorises the adoption of new instruments to combat negative effects within the transport sector and also within the parties involved in the sector. It does this by showing a political intent to gradually encourage the introduction of fair and effective tariff scales for the use of infrastructures whereby the polluter pays, instead of the taxpayer having to foot the bill.
I feel that the opinion approved by the Commission, which is under discussion today, reinforces the Commission's proposal in some key respects. As far as the allocation of resources is concerned, I believe the proposed amendments are consistent with our suggested approach, which aims to defend the allocation of revenue from tolls and reduce the external effects of road transport, and I believe I can support them. As far as the type of external effects that should be taken into account, I say no to CO2 but yes to taking congestion into account. A modulated congestion charge would allow us to fight climate change more effectively than if we applied a one-off tax on CO2. It is essential for the economic effectiveness of road transport and useful for ensuring sufficient income to fund new transport capacities and I believe that the compromise we achieved constitutes a sound basis for discussions with the Council. We must nonetheless take great care to ensure that the final result represents an encouragement to States rather than a deterrent and does not impose conditions that are too complicated to manage.
I harbour certain reservations, however, about the specific amendment concerning sensitive mountain areas. The Commission proposal already authorises a pollution cost multiplication factor known as the mountain correction factor. The fact that we simply authorised the addition of this tariff charge to the existing surcharge, decided in 2006 to fund the great tunnels through the Alps, amounts to a double tariff charge and this is an obstacle to achieving a single market in my opinion. Hence my puzzlement.
Now I would like to move on to Mr Jarzembowski's report on the communication accompanying the directive. As he clearly showed during his speech, Mr Jarzembowski is highly critical of the Commission's position: for once. we are not in agreement after all these years of working together. The report is clearly critical. I will attempt to concentrate on two points in particular, two points that I feel are crucial. I wish to stress, on the one hand, that the Commission has carried out an impact assessment that covers all transport methods and analyses the effects of the various internalisation options. I feel that this analysis lays the foundation for the internalisation strategy proposed by the Commission. On the other hand, the Commission has proposed a common internalisation framework based on a principle that concerns all transport methods and takes into account past initiatives. It is a pragmatic approach that respects the acquis communautaire and takes into account the recently adopted proposals - I am thinking of the extension of the ETS to aviation and the international agreements on aviation, the maritime sector and inland waterways. Of course we can debate whether or not the Commission's proposals go far enough, but I must stress the fact that the Commission has dealt with the topics it was asked to cover, in other words, an integrated plan to make transport greener, supported by specific legislative proposals.
I wish to end by bringing up one aspect on which the Commission and Parliament are in agreement: the need to find a legislative approach to the problem of noise pollution in the railway sector. The Commission will submit its proposals within the framework of the first railway package revision, due to be adopted in the autumn. We will, of course, be pleased to hear your suggestions on this matter.
Thank you, Mr Tajani. In your relations with Mr Jarzembowski, you will have seen how right Karl Marx was when he showed how people's institutional position also determines their political position on various subjects.
Mr President, the Committee on Industry, Research and Energy mainly looked into two aspects of this directive, the first of which was oil.
Of all the major world economies, Europe is the most dependent on the transport of goods using oil. Let us not deceive ourselves. Although the price of oil is going down at the moment, it is only because the global economy is shrinking. Once the economy starts to recover, we are once again going to see the same problems of oil shortages, and the European economy's main Achilles heel in the future will be our dependence on oil for the transport of goods.
The second aspect relates to technology and exports. If Europe introduces a relevant Eurovignette system, it will also promote the rise of European economic players. The United States, China, India and Indonesia are economies that will have the same problem as us. This is therefore an appeal for the implementation of an ambitious policy, both with regard to the internalisation of external costs to anticipate the necessary changes from oil and to promote European industry in all the technological apparatus surrounding the Eurovignette.
Mr President, Commissioner, our rapporteur, my esteemed fellow member, Mr El Khadraoui, began with some reassuring words. No European charges are to be imposed. Instead, the rapporteur is concerned with ground rules for the internal market, aiming to facilitate sustainable transport in Europe. However, the position he adopts as rapporteur gives Member States a licence to impose very high charges, up to a few euros per kilometre, with the congestion charge and the mark-up on top. Mr President, in the Commissioner's words, what we have here are not ground rules for the internal market but barriers to the internal market.
The Group of the European People's Party (Christian Democrats) and European Democrats wishes to make its position here today clear. We are staunch supporters of investment in sustainable transport. Therefore, the internalisation of external costs for air and noise pollution can count on our approval, provided the revenues are invested in making road transport cleaner - something that enjoys broad support. However, the proposed congestion charging and mark-up are a bridge too far for the PPE-DE Group. Congestion charging has a very limited impact on the environment and does not solve the problem of congestion, and would also constitute an extra heavy burden in these times of economic crisis, an extra burden on SMEs, which is also bad for employment.
The rapporteur has reached a compromise with the Group of the Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe by making a link with passenger transport, which was crucial to obtaining their support. The Council will not accept that - so much is already clear. This puts the rapporteur in a position he himself wants but the ALDE Group does not.
Therefore, I should like to end my speech on behalf of the PPE-DE Group with an old saying: we may lose the battle, but that does not mean we have lost the war.


Verification of credentials of new members of the European Parliament
(IT) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the Committee on Legal Affairs has authorised me to give a very brief oral report. During the part-session on 10 and 11 September we verified the credentials of the 18 Members from Bulgaria, plus another seven who were nominated by the competent national authorities owing to the resignations that occurred. We have ascertained, by checking all the customary documents and the annexed minutes, that the statements on incompatibility are in order and the statements on financial interests have been signed by the Members. I therefore believe that I can speak for the entire House in welcoming the 18, plus the other seven Members from Bulgaria, thus completing the coverage of this Europe of ours. We therefore wish a warm welcome as from today to those who are joining us in the work of the European Parliament.
Thank you, Mr Gargani. Those mandates are thus ratified. We wish the new Members every success.


19. Single market for Europeans (
- Before the vote on Amendment 2
Mr President, on behalf of the ALDE Group, I wish to propose an oral amendment to Amendment 2. It takes the following words out of Amendment 2: 'by providing public authorities with a 'tool-kit' to evaluate the quality of such services'.


15. Regional Strategy Papers and Regional Indicative Programmes for Mercosur and Latin America (vote)
- Motion for a resolution: