Animal health strategy 2007-2013 (debate)
The next item is the report by Mr Wojciechowski, on behalf of the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development, on a new Animal Health Strategy for the European Union (2007-2013).
rapporteur. ? (PL) The main idea on which the Animal Health Strategy is based is that prevention is better than cure, which is obviously the case. I am sure we all recall the problems related to BSE and avian influenza, when it proved necessary to cull millions of animals. That was a most unpleasant experience, and I am sure none of us ever wish to see it repeated. It did, however, indicate to us that we should improve cooperation at European level in order to improve protection of animal health. The latter is very closely linked to human health, owing to the possibility of direct or indirect transmission of certain diseases from animals to human beings.
I should like to single out several points in my report for particular attention. Firstly, the promotion of better standards for animal health care. The report strongly emphasises the close link between the two. It is to be hoped that both will be prominent in future policy.
The second issue I wish to highlight is fair competition. European producers are required to comply with a great many veterinary standards, and with provisions relating to animal health and welfare. The same requirements are not imposed on importers, however. This is emphasised very strongly in the report. Our producers and those exporting animal products to the European market should all be subject to the same requirements. This represents a major challenge to our negotiators in the framework of negotiations at the World Trade Organization.
My third point relates to strong support for the vaccination programme. We believe it is an important instrument with which to reduce the number of cases of disease. A new approach is required too. Products originating from vaccinated animals should not be discriminated against on the market. A number of paragraphs in the report have been devoted to this matter.
My fourth point concerns the damages and compensation system. Firstly, this should encourage efforts to reduce the risk of disease. Secondly, it should cover not only losses directly related to eliminating the sources of disease but also indirect losses related to market crises.
The fifth point is better control on the Union's external borders. This should not be limited to controlling documents. It should involve thorough checks to effectively prevent the illegal entry of animals of unknown origin onto Union territory.
The sixth point relates to the time of implementation of the strategy. I believe we cannot expect to have all these legislative arrangements in place as early as 2013. A longer time period is needed.
The seventh point concerns financing the strategy's aims. The draft report criticises the fact that the funding for these ambitious plans is inadequate. The plans should be properly financed from the Union's budget.
In conclusion, Mr President, I should like to say a few words in English, so that I can be faithful to the quotation I shall now refer to.
(The speaker continued in English)
Member of the Commission. - Mr President, I very much welcome the positive and supportive reaction of Parliament to the new Animal Health Strategy.
We all recognise that animal disease outbreaks can have devastating consequences: they can pose a serious risk to public health; they can damage public confidence in farming in general and in animal products in particular; they can trigger heavy economic costs - just remember that in 2001 the foot-and-mouth crisis cost over EUR 13 billion in the UK alone - and animal disease outbreaks can also lead to animal welfare and environmental problems.
The strategy responds to a range of challenges taking into account feedback from our extensive stakeholder consultations.
The European Union of today - with its 27 Member States - looks very different to the embryonic Community of many years ago, when our current animal health framework was taking shape. New challenges have arisen, such as avian influenza and the spread of vector-borne diseases like bluetongue, and more are likely to emerge in the years to come. Trading conditions have changed greatly, with a massive increase in the volume of trade in and imports of animals and animal products.
The new strategy recognises and reflects the broad social and economic impacts that animal-related threats can cause - in other words, it is not just about the control of certain communicable animal diseases. It features a strong focus on animal-health-related aspects of public health, food safety, animal welfare, agriculture, trade, sustainable development and research. The key principle of the strategy is prevention is better than cure.
Recent experiences have shown the value and effectiveness of a pre-emptive or preventative approach. We need to invest more in effective measures to prevent outbreaks, thus minimising the subsequent spread of diseases and hence eliminating or at least reducing their impacts. Biosecurity on farms needs to be improved and financially supported; disease eradication and surveillance need to be stepped up; disease awareness and emergency preparedness need to be reinforced. There should be a stronger emphasis on vaccination and discriminatory testing.
The strategy envisages a new legislative framework in the form of a general animal health law to be supplemented by implementing acts of a primarily technical nature. Taking a broad holistic view, our legislation needs to be upgraded or developed in a more strategic and coherent manner: clarifying roles and responsibilities; aligning as far as possible with international standards; drawing strongly on scientific advice and the precautionary principle where appropriate.
The Commission is currently reflecting on the best methodology to define EU priority animal diseases in terms of their impact on human health, society and the economy. A study will be launched this year on the development of an EU harmonised responsibility and cost-sharing scheme to be considered in the context of a review of the currently available financial instruments. We must also work to stimulate innovation through research and development, through sufficiently funded public-private partnerships.
Finally, I should mention the Seventh Research Framework Programme, which runs parallel to new strategy. This will be important in supporting research into animal health and welfare issues.
The Commission will in the next few weeks finalise an action plan which will take into account the recommendations and opinions of Parliament as well as those of the Council and the Economic and Social Committee. The Commission would be happy to receive further input from Parliament in this regard, notably in the context of the mid-term budget review of 2009.
Thank you once again for the interest and enthusiasm you have shown for this initiative. I look forward to meeting many of the Members of Parliament at the Veterinary Week, an event the Commission is organising with your support as an early step to turn the strategy from words into action.
on behalf of the PPE-DE Group. - (NL) Mr President, perhaps we can be a bit more generous with these two minutes since my predecessor is dropping out. I want to thank the Commission for its statement and the rapporteur for his report. The big challenge now will be to translate the ambitions in the statement and the report into concrete measures.
I should like to mention in particular a couple of points that should be considered as far as we are concerned. Of course we agree with the Commission that prevention is better than cure when combating animal diseases. However, if an animal disease does nevertheless break out, as you have already said, vaccination needs to be a central element of the fight against it. We want to prevent situations such as the one in my Member State where there were 26 cases of MCD (Mad Cow Disease) in 2001 and 285 000 animals had to be slaughtered. Since there is no difference between products from vaccinated and non-vaccinated animals, the sale of such products needs to be guaranteed, both inside and outside the European Union. I would urge the European Commission to keep an eye on this, because it has sometimes gone wrong in the past. Obviously supermarkets, processors and consumers need to fulfil their responsibilities in this respect.
We are also calling on the Commission to make it clear what role the European Union, the Member States and the sector itself need to play in financing the prevention of animal disease, certainly now that this subject is actually part of the debate on the common agricultural policy health check. The Member States still have very different arrangements for financing and that might also have an impact on competitive positions. We are therefore asking for clarification of those points.
Obviously exporting countries have to comply with the same requirements as our European producers, for instance on the identification and prevention of animal diseases. Finally, I should like to ask the European Commission when it expects to present its analysis of the current transport regulations and how we can restrict the potential spread of animal diseases as much as possible in that area.
on behalf of the PSE Group. - (ES) Mr President, the truth of the matter, Commissioner, is that all of us on the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development gave a hearty welcome to the new Animal Health Strategy that you submitted to us, as demonstrated by the many contributions to this report.
It must be said that this is the largest and most ambitious programme ever submitted in relation to this issue, and I must congratulate you here. However, to tell the truth, I must voice my surprise that the mighty ambition of the arguments has not been accompanied by the required budget planning, for it is obvious that the current veterinary funds will not be sufficient to deal with the new and extremely necessary prevention policies.
Commissioner, we have just received Mrs Fischer Boel's proposal in relation to the CAP health check, and neither health nor animal welfare are recipients of the funds to be allocated to rural development to deal with the new challenges, contrary to what the services were apparently expecting, or so I was told.
In other words, the policy we are discussing will not have extra funds, or at least not agriculture funds - as I think you said - until the new financial perspective.
Commissioner: a budget with no policy is of no use, but a policy with no budget can prove totally sterile. If we wish to meet our current objectives, the budget debate must include future application of this strategy. Moreover, it is obviously going to be extremely difficult to meet the communication's 2007-2013 schedule. Thus I want to ask you whether you can state when the action plan will be ready, and when you think the initial regulations will be adopted.
As regards amendments, my Group has slightly amended paragraph 29. When the right measures are not applied, problems arise regardless of the livestock production system operating in each Member State. What is important is that things are done properly.
We agree with the development of legislative measures to control pets, but we feel finance ought to be earmarked for farm animals.
Nor do we intend to support the PPE-DE Group's Amendment 29, the objective of which is to rehash a debate that has no place here. It was, in fact, the Council that postponed a decision four years ago on animal transportation until 2011, in favour of an agreement on some extremely important matters. This is also a controversial issue that requires impact surveys and a solid scientific basis, and I thus wish to reiterate that the amendment is totally at odds with this issue, and my Group will certainly vote against it.
on behalf of the ALDE Group. - (NL) I should also like to thank the rapporteur for the enthusiasm he has put into his work. I think that, with increasing globalisation, we shall need to take more account of outbreaks of infectious animal diseases. People travel more and carry products that they are not supposed to and that can cause outbreaks. Everyone has already said that better border controls are needed, because prevention is better than cure. It always strikes me, when I arrive in the United States or Australia for example, that the border controls there are much stricter than in Europe. I wonder why the European Union does not have a similar system to the United States, with everyone being asked to state whether or not they are carrying animal products. Only then can we check properly.
What should happen when infectious animal diseases break out? I think everyone at the moment is already convinced that mass slaughter, as has happened in the past, is no longer acceptable. We are going to have to vaccinate and then it has to be possible for the products from vaccinated animals to be sold on the European market and also outside it. That is where the problem lies. I am not impressed by the attempts the Commission is making to convince supermarkets, consumer organisations and so on that products from vaccinated animals are just as good as those from non-vaccinated animals. Products from animals vaccinated against foot-and-mouth disease still have to be marked so that consumers know. That seems to be completely unnecessary. Therefore an active stand by the Commission is needed.
Every year up to now, and again this year, we have been used to having a large surplus in the agriculture budget. So far we have been able to meet the cost of all outbreaks of infectious animal diseases from the agriculture budget. In future the situation could very well be different. The new countries are being phased in and the margin in the agriculture budget is steadily becoming smaller. Even so, an outbreak will have to be paid for. Under European law, that has to be done. I therefore think that as soon as possible there must be a scheme for European animal insurance, animal health funds for each country or at European level, and so on. I got a pilot project on that in the budget in 2004. All the plans are ready and the Commission must set to work and do something about it as quickly as possible.
My final point is the transport of animals. I am not one of those people who say 'if you transport the animal for so many hours, that is by definition good'. Being transported for two hours might be worse than for nine. What matters is the conditions in which animals are transported and the Commission must take account of the conditions and not just of the length of time.
on behalf of the Verts/ALE Group. - Mr President, I too wish to congratulate our rapporteur. I was pleased to support this report in committee and I am pleased to support it now, along with my group. I also welcome what the Commissioner has said, and am pleased she is in the Chamber this evening as there is a great deal of common ground between the Commission and Parliament on animal health issues. I look forward to working with her and her services in the months ahead, as this dossier moves forward.
I am pleased the Commissioner highlighted why it is we need a common EU animal health strategy. It is quite clear that, in a globalised world, bluetongue does not respect borders or our policies or the differences between countries within the European Union, or indeed the EU's external borders. Avian flu and many other diseases can travel around the planet very, very quickly in a globalised world. We need to act together in order to deal with them and work out a strategy for remedying them.
We are exporting our animals - and perhaps their health problems too - and it is clear that we are all in this together. I look forward to the rolling-out of the health action plan, which the Commissioner said will be coming in the next few weeks. I would refer the House in particular to paragraph 46 of Parliament's report, which acknowledges that the EU is already a beacon of best practice for the world as regards animal welfare and refers in particular to the WTO negotiations. I would urge the Commissioner to talk with Commissioner Mandelson to ensure that the WTO negotiations do not water down or compromise the EU's standards, particularly in relation to what are, frankly, substandard imports into the European Union. We had many misadventures in the committee over the issue of Brazilian beef imports, for which I am not sure that the system worked as well as it could have done. I hope we will not be replicating that situation with the US poultry issue.
One other animal welfare issue I wish to raise is that of sheep tagging. We are supportive of the broad thrust of this measure, but frankly believe that the Commission is going in the wrong direction and is not acting in a proportionate manner to what is actually needed on the ground in order to ensure everything that it requires. This is particularly true in the case of the British Isles, where Scotland, England, Northern Ireland and Wales already have a system that works pretty well and effectively protects Europe's animals and their welfare. I would be grateful for the Commissioner's thoughts on that, but otherwise broadly support this report and her efforts.
on behalf of the UEN Group. - (PL) Mr President, Commissioner, as I take the floor on behalf of the Union for Europe of the Nations Group in the debate on the European Union's Animal Health Strategy, I should like to highlight two issues that I consider to be important.
Firstly, all the proposals on animal health protection contained in the report by Mr Wojciechowski deserve our support. It should be borne in mind, however, that they will result in higher production costs, thus causing European producers to become less competitive. Consequently, it is essential for the European Union to require producers from outside the Union wishing to place their products on the Union's market to comply with similar requirements. The European Union should insist on this in talks within the WTO framework and when negotiating bilaterally with third countries.
Secondly, where animal health is concerned, the common agricultural policy is one of the most integrated areas of European Union policy. That is why I believe it should be a priority when allocating funding from the Community's budget. Unfortunately, although the European Commission agrees with most of the provisions contained in the report, it does not want to fund them from the Union's budget. In our view, it is essential to guarantee additional financial resources to ensure that the proposals contained in the report can be funded from the European Union's budget.
on behalf of the GUE/NGL Group. - (NL) I would almost say: how unusual, an animal health strategy from the Commission with the emphasis on prevention. That is really terrific, but what a disappointment that animal welfare is only a by-product of the Commission strategy. A well-known song in the Netherlands starts with the words, 'An animal is more than a piece of meat and a person is more than a consumer'. Unfortunately the Commission is not really singing along with that. It is still far too inclined to see animals chiefly as producers of meat, hide, hair, eggs, milk and manure. The economic view is still much too dominant and so in my opinion the strategy is too one-sided.
Fortunately, and I am grateful to the rapporteur for this, his report is already rather better, simply because, unlike the Commission proposal, it does actually contain some real welfare points. I shall mention two that I think are very important. The recognition that intensive livestock breeding seriously increases the risk of outbreaks and epidemics. With the enormous size of the European bioindustry, it is not a question of whether another animal disease will break out, but when. It is rightly mentioned briefly that animal transport presents a considerable risk for the spread of animal diseases. We therefore have to avoid transporting animals as much as possible, shortening and improving the transport, also because of the enormous distress it causes to the animals. This report is not geared as much to animal welfare as I would have wished, but any improvement is something and I shall therefore wholeheartedly support it.
on behalf of the IND/DEM Group. - Mr President, I am very grateful that there is a growing recognition of the need to handle and care for animals properly. Good animal husbandry is something that Irish farm families have as a rule practised and I commend them for this. However, I would like to stress the necessity for animals and animal products coming into the EU to abide by similar welfare standards to those that the EU requires. It is not fair that animal products which may have been produced in the most cheap and cruel ways come into the EU and compete with our own animal products produced in accordance with standards which are strictly regulated; this kind of competition is not only economically unfair, it puts our animals and even our people at danger of the spread of disease.
A measure discussed in this House which is unrealistic for Irish farmers is the set limit for animal transport. While a nine-hour limit between breaks may be reasonable for land transport, it is virtually impossible to abide by this limit for sea transport from Ireland - remember Ireland is an island. We depend on sea transport of animals and such a limit would ultimately prevent Irish horse breeders and farmers from shipping animals. Thus I would like to propose that we focus more on the quality of travel accommodation of these animals, instead of on the time on board, so that we do not hinder the transportation of animals to and from Ireland.
Finally, while I was glad to see the new animal health strategy open to all animals within the EU, I would have liked to see more specific mention of the procurement and handling of pet animals. I think that many of them suffer in our countries. Pet owners are amateurs in many cases and are less likely to know how to handle and maintain their pets, which often leads to an increase in animal cruelty, often unintentional. So while we have paid very close attention to the regulation of animals coming into the EU, animal transport etc., we have neglected to look at the plight of pets and strays, an issue often mentioned by my constituents who point out the common occurrence of abuse.
(BG) Mr. President, I think the rapporteur has produced a very objective and interesting report.
I would like to draw your attention to several important aspects. The first one is this. Madam Commissioner, you yourself noted that this policy has been evolving in the EU for quite some time. This generates particular problems in the new Member States. In Bulgaria, for example, production is fragmented, with many small agricultural producers, small farms operating in difficult conditions. People are not well informed, they do not get a clear understanding of their rights and obligations, nor of the existing opportunities. In this case, again, there is a kind of discrimination against new Member States which have the obligation, the opportunity to catch up in areas that have been developing for years through constructive efforts within the European Union.
These specific cases should be treated with special tolerance, so that the things we are discussing, the legislation being made, can take effect in tangible terms, and to ensure that the things written down in statutory provisions can indeed happen. People should not be left in the dark about these issues.
In this context, the issue the rapporteur raises concerning the codification of the legal basis is very important since ordinary people find it hard to delve into complicated statutory acts. Codified, consolidated versions of directives and regulations should enable them to gain a good understanding of what they are expected to do with respect to animals.
Another issue raised was that of financing. In the difficult economic situation Bulgaria is in, I have my doubts as to whether many of the farmers will be able to implement the directives successfully unless they receive massive support from the Commission.
I do not want to repeat what has been said many times in this House, so the Commission should take a close look at these matters because there is the impression that by posing high standards we discriminate against our own farmers. The Commission should seriously consider standards to be applied as regards imports.
Mr President, I would like to thank Mr Wojciechowski very much for his report, and to welcome the Commissioner. I also wish to congratulate Mrs De Lange for the hard work that she has put in as shadow rapporteur. We are all very conscious that we need a very strong animal health strategy and animal welfare strategy, which is what consumers in Europe are actually demanding. However, we must also be careful that imported meat and meat products from outside the European Union also meet our high standards.
For instance, we would like to see a much higher welfare standard in the poultry industry. We want there to be more space for our poultry, especially broilers, and can help to produce broilers in a much more welfare-friendly manner, but at the same time we must be careful that we are not importing products of an inferior nature. Also in the case of the poultry industry, there is the banning of crates for poultry and of battery cages, and of course we also import a lot of egg products in powdered and liquid form - nearly 70% of egg products are imported in that form. Those products too can be from animals that were not kept in accordance with good animal welfare standards, so we must also be careful on that point. I also agree with my Scottish colleague that if we are to bring in traceability and look towards an electronic system, then we must ensure that system is up and running, is cost effective and can actually be properly implemented by farmers without huge costs.
So while I broadly accept what is a good report, I think we must be careful, as we make progress on standards in Europe, that we also have the same standards for imports.
(HU) Mr President, I congratulate the rapporteur, Mr Wojciechowski, on his outstanding report. It really is a very big problem that the animal health system is not functioning properly with regard to third countries. In the WTO we should be endeavouring to ensure that third countries too comply with our high standards of animal health and welfare. This is in the interests of Europe's consumers and producers.
We must protect the health of European Union consumers from imported goods produced according to lower standards. EU producers meanwhile face higher costs, putting them at an unfair competitive disadvantage. It is therefore especially important that the European Commission's Food and Veterinary Office, the FVO, should conduct an increasing proportion of its on-site inspections in third countries. In 2008 the figure was only 30%.
Food safety is a priority issue. The food safety regime within the European Union too faces serious problems at present, while the challenges and the risk of epidemics are greater than before. In many places there are not enough suitably qualified veterinarians to monitor compliance with the regulations effectively and regularly enough. The tools at their disposal are outdated, often still based on 19th century systems. In many Member States, professional training and education are inadequate and recent scandals, such as the 'M.E.G.A. Trade' scandal in my country, Hungary, also demonstrate that multinationals are not being properly monitored with regard to food safety.
The aforementioned deficits must be remedied. I agree with the Commission's strategic ideas and fully support the report. Thank you for your attention.
Mr President, congratulations to the rapporteur for an excellent report. Animal health is important, not just because it is closely linked to human health and environmental biodiversity balance but also because it has a huge farming trade and economic significance, not to mention the social and sports importance of animals, so it would not be an exaggeration to say that animal health is almost synonymous with human health and well-being. With this in mind, it is not surprising that a new Animal Health Strategy for the European Union for 2007-2013 is very much needed.
The report before us tonight is well thought out and balanced in my view and will form a good but rather synoptic basis on which to build our future legislative and non-legislative directives relating to this important matter. Let me just take this opportunity to point to a couple of important areas where the Commission needs to clear things up somewhat.
The report strongly supports vaccination as a fundamental means of preventing disease. This is, as far as I know, contrary to current practice with respect to at least one major animal illness, foot-and-mouth disease. In the case of foot-and-mouth disease, vaccination in the EU Member States is prohibited as a preventive measure because of the consequent difficulty in identifying infected animals from vaccinated animals when using screening tests for the presence of disease antibodies. Is the Commission intending to change its vaccination policy for foot-and-mouth disease in the near future?
Furthermore, what is the position of the Commission with respect to the fact that in most third countries animal vaccination against foot-and-mouth disease is not only allowed but encouraged? Will importation of animals from such countries be prohibited if the vaccination policy for foot-and-mouth disease in the EU is not changed?
The second area is the lack of necessary implementation of adequate health checks in the increasing international trade of live birds, especially parrots from third countries. This is an area which needs tidying up.
(PT) Any new animal health strategy must pay particular attention to disease prevention, animal feedstuffs, border controls and animal transport. All prevention, testing, vaccination and other measures which may allow new outbreaks of animal diseases to be avoided are important in terms of preventing serious damage such as that already suffered due to BSE, foot-and-mouth disease, bluetongue virus and other diseases, because it is food safety and also public health that are at stake.
It is therefore also important that these principles are taken into account in relation to imported animals, as has already been mentioned today. We are hoping that the new action plan just announced by the Commissioner will be implemented as soon as possible in order to improve existing mechanisms by extending technical and human support, guaranteeing financial support and increasing planned budgetary resources. This issue must in fact be clarified today.
(NL) 'Prevention is better than cure' is the motto of the European Commission. I fully agree with that. Its strategy therefore deserves my support. The 'cooperation' and 'communication' principles appeal to me. I also think it is a good idea to work on simplifying and clarifying the legislation.
In particular I want to mention vaccination. I am entirely behind that. The mass preventive deaths of healthy animals have to be avoided as far as possible. Dutch farmers have had experience of the impact of such measures in the past. I emphasise the call in the Wojciechowski report to adopt measures to prevent the erection of trade barriers in that connection. Uncertainty about sales outlets for products from vaccinated animals really has to be avoided. It is therefore very important for governments to communicate clearly the message that the products are harmless. After all, a good vaccination policy stands or falls on the willingness of livestock farmers to take part in these vaccination programmes.
Animal health and animal welfare are important issues for European citizens, and rightly so. I should therefore like to urge that that also be put on the WTO agenda. A good strategy cannot be allowed to be undermined by imports from countries that do not have the same animal health and welfare requirements as in the European Union. That damages consumer confidence and is bad for support amongst livestock farmers and others directly involved. With those comments, I can agree with the proposed strategy and I thank the rapporteur sincerely for his report.
Mr President, my thanks to the Commissioner and to the rapporteur for the work done. Can I just say, on the issue of food imports from third countries which has been mentioned in practically every contribution, that there is a real belief among EU producers that a blind eye is turned to the standards of food produced outside our borders. I really believe that unless we have the confidence of our farmers and producers that we are looking after their interests, we will not get their full commitment for measures that we take within the European Union. This is a most fundamental point. It has already been addressed. Take the issue of caged egg production: we will shift it outside of Europe unless we can incorporate standards in the WTO negotiations and at this point we have not achieved our objectives in that regard.
Moving onto the issues in this report, we know that human health is affected by animal health: 60% of human infections originate from animals and a vast number of the emerging diseases originate in animals. It is hard to predict but we do need to address and have a coherent animal health strategy across the European Union.
The issue of biosecurity is very important and farmers must be involved in preventing disease. But can I give you an example: badgers are a protected species under the Berne Convention, so how does a farmer protect himself and his herd against a badger with TB, and who should carry the cost when there is a problem? I worry about moving from cost-sharing to cost-shifting if our concern is the budget we have to spend. So we do need to look at these particular issues: in bluetongue, in avian influenza, in foot-and-mouth diseases, we do need stringent border controls and appropriate vaccination programmes. And we need to really look at those measures very seriously because the problems are increasing.
On animal transport, let us base all our measures on science - good science - so that we do not cause problems. Let us not react to the emotional part of this debate, but use science as our barometer. I do not accept that large is worse than small or small is better than large; I think all animals, whether they are groups of 10 or 100, must be looked after.
(ES) Mr President, the Commission's new Animal Health Strategy seeks to simplify legislation by implementing a general law to cover all diseases.
Simplification is always a good thing, provided it does not hinder effectiveness. However, since the Commission is suggesting that all sectors involved share the veterinary costs and that the Community cofinancing system for veterinary measures be reviewed, with a hierarchy of diseases in order of gravity, it appears to be more concerned with saving money on the Community budget than with introducing genuine improvements in terms of the eradication of animal diseases.
The Commission ought to concern itself with implementing proper border controls and making adequate provision for the veterinary fund because animal health, as recent events have shown, is a genuine problem wreaking economic havoc on countries and stockbreeders.
As regards the welfare of animals in transit, I feel the really important issue is how vehicles are equipped, rather than journey times. Here Community regulations already impose a number of requirements concerning ventilation, temperature, maximum density and rest times, among others, to ensure proper conditions of transportation, thereby reducing animal stress to a minimum.
In any case, however, on the subject of transit times and conditions, we must take account of all the animals, not only those due to be slaughtered at the end of the journey, and apply the same regulations to all of them.
Finally, I wish to state that I disagree with cloning animals to obtain meat. Cloning is a practice which at the present time ought to be restricted to research and experimentation.
Mr President, the Commission communication states and I quote, 'The concept of animal health covers not only the absence of disease in animals, but also the critical relationship between the health of animals and their welfare.' As rapporteur for the legislation on the maximum residue level of veterinary medicines in food I would like to emphasise that the key to this critical relationship is the adequate availability of authorised veterinary medicines, particularly for what in Europe we call Minor Use and Minor Species (MUMS). And the Commission needs to address this issue urgently.
The availability of an adequate range of veterinary medicines to treat the wide variety of animal species in the European Community has been a growing challenge over the last two decades. During this period considerable efforts have been made by various stakeholders to address the problems of medicines availability. Despite these efforts, the situation has continued to deteriorate. The lack of authorised medicines poses a real threat to animal health and welfare and the safety of consumers. It also poses significant problems for animal owners, farmers, veterinarians and governments.
These effects include animal health and welfare problems if animals are untreated or treated with unauthorised or an unsuitable product, and zoonotic disease implications from untreated or inappropriately treated animals for animal owners and consumers. There are also financial, legal and trade implications for the various stakeholders involved, whilst the lack of medicines may have negative effects on rural communities and agriculture generally.
Moreover, the current availability problem in the EU not only has implications for the health and welfare of our animals, the security of the Community's food supply, and public health, it also undermines the ability of the EU to meet the Lisbon Agenda and to reap the enormous benefits for European agriculture and aquaculture.
I therefore call on the Commissioner to commit to incorporating an urgent review of the Veterinary Medicines Directive and address the issue of medicines' availability in the strategy on animal health. We should not wait until emerging diseases reach a crisis state; we must amend our veterinary medicine legislation swiftly as the consequences and cost of a major outbreak of a high-impact disease in the EU would far exceed the cost of action now to develop appropriate and adequately available...
(The President cut off the speaker.)
(DE) Mr President, Commissioner Vassiliou, ladies and gentlemen, besides implementing the Lisbon Agenda, one of our objectives is, of course, to live long and healthy lives, which means having a healthy diet. To this end we need healthy animals so that we all have the necessary basis for a long and healthy life.
For this reason, I believe it is very important that we reflect on how we can establish new principles for the food industry which quite simply guarantee food safety, prioritise sustainable production and ensure consumer-friendly prices. Europe, as we know, has benefited greatly from international trade. The average family in Europe saves EUR 5 000 a year because of international trade. We should certainly take that benefit into account.
(PL) Mr President, the proposed European Union Animal Health Strategy contains well-devised plans. This is a sound document, and the reference to the principle that prevention is better than cure is very apt indeed. The strategy identifies a number of important issues. These include ensuring a high level of public health and food safety, promoting animal health by preventing the outbreak of animal diseases, and reducing their incidence. Other issues dealt with are the promotion of animal husbandry and welfare practices that reduce the risks related to animal health and minimise harmful effects on the environment. In addition, there are references to increasing economic growth, cohesion and competitiveness by ensuring free movement of goods and appropriate animal movements. The transport of animals is also covered, as is the increasing risk of disease and the role of vaccines as one of the fundamental methods of preventing disease, which has rightly been emphasised.
Mr President, I have three quick points to make. Firstly, I must express some concern about the creation of a legal framework for a cost-sharing scheme with regard to major disease. It would have been far better and more equitable to use some of our traditional under-spend in the budget for a good cause like that. I also confess that part of my concern is that a legal framework would be likely to give considerable discretion to Member States as to how much cost-sharing they require of local farmers. My fear is that, on the basis of past practice, this would mean it being punitive for farmers within the United Kingdom.
My second point is that I agree with the call for assistance for farmers to purchase new electronic ID equipment, and I look forward to that being possible under the rural development programme. Thirdly, I welcome the focus in the report on EU standards being undermined by imports from third countries. That concern, Commissioner, has never been greater than when witnessing Commissioner Mandelson's reckless push for a WTO deal at any price, with scant regard for the future of our indigenous agrifood industry.
(PL) Mr President, within the European Union we attach great importance to ensuring that food is of an appropriate quality. Our quality standards are very high, and rightly so, as the health of human beings is at stake. Europe has a highly developed quality control system that mainly relates to the state of animal health.
Animal breeders from outside the Union frequently fail to meet the animal welfare standards we impose on European farmers. A large proportion of imported food is produced in conditions where these standards are not complied with. This affects competitiveness and European farmers often lose out. I share the rapporteur's view that the animal health protection strategy should be more long term, and that appropriate funding should be ensured.
Member of the Commission. - Mr President, let me thank you all for your very interesting recommendations and your input. With the very limited time I have available I will not be able reply to all of them, but let me comment on some of the issues.
First of all, the time constraints. A Member noted that we have time constraints, but let me point out that the first proposal - the general animal health law - that will come into force is scheduled for 2010, not 2013 as was mentioned.
Another point that was made by several speakers was welfare during transport. As I have committed myself already, we are conducting an impact assessment which hopefully will be ready in a couple of months and then, depending on the outcome of the impact assessment, we shall decide how to proceed regarding welfare of animals during transport.
Now let me turn to budgets. Following the recommendation of the European Parliament, the Commission is expected to prepare a detailed budget on the expenditure involved in different programmes of actions. This cannot be done in the frame of this action plan as it must follow the relevant budgetary procures. The intention is to reflect on proposals during the 2009 budget mid-term review and the Commission will explore the possibility of widening the current veterinary fund and making use of other related funds to finance actions that will have a positive impact on animal health.
Vaccination is extensively carried out and financed by the Union in many Member States at present, both for bluetongue and for rabies, but I must make it clear regarding foot-and-mouth disease, Mr Matsakis, that we are not in favour of preventive vaccination, though in emergency cases we will of course vaccinate.
Finally, in answer to Mrs Doyle I would say that the problem of minor use for minor species is taken into account in the Animal Health Action Plan through the Technology Platform project, which comes under the Seventh Research Framework Programme. I really heard a lot of interesting comments from all of you and we will have the opportunity to discuss these points more extensively in the near future. Thank you very much for your support.
Mr President, Commissioner, I should like to thank all those who have taken the floor for their comments and for welcoming this report. I now wish to refer to two particular issues.
The first of these was raised in most of the speeches made. It concerns requiring those exporting animal products to the European market to comply with the same standards and introduce the same requirements as are imposed on European producers. This stands to reason. As many as nine of the 80 paragraphs in the report are devoted to this matter. It certainly represents a major challenge and every possible effort should be brought to bear upon it. Today's debate makes that quite clear. The Union should give priority to resolving the matter within the framework of the WTO. I support everything said in the House today. We cannot condone double standards. That is simply unacceptable.
The second issue I wish to refer to was also raised in some of the speeches made. It relates to transport and is particularly relevant as we are due to vote on Mrs De Lange's amendment tomorrow. I should like to say that, as rapporteur, I fully support Mrs De Lange's amendment which proposes limiting the transport of live animals to abattoirs for slaughter to nine hours. This issue has long been the subject of debate in the House. I support the limit for humanitarian reasons. There are many dramatic reports of what goes on during transport of this nature. There are also financial considerations to take into account. After all, someone has to pay for those long journeys. If animals are being transported over long distances, from Poland to Italy or from Lithuania to Italy, for example, of course the consumer pays. The farmer usually pays too, because for it to be profitable to transport the animals so far, they have to be bought cheaply from the farmer. Farmers should not therefore fear this limit, because it will oblige the processing industry to locate itself nearer the places where the animals have been reared. I believe it would be in their interest to do so. We are debating the increase in food prices. These very expensive journeys are one of the factors contributing to the rise in food prices. All this merits very careful consideration.
Mr President, Commissioner, I should again like to offer my sincere thanks to you and to all those who took the floor during the debate on this report.
The debate is closed.
The vote will take place on Thursday.
Written statements (Rule 142)
in writing. - (DE) I very warmly welcome the initiative of the European Parliament to deliver a detailed opinion on the Commission's Animal Health Strategy for the period from 2007 to 2013. Clear expectations are important in the context of both human and animal health.
The motto of the Animal Health Strategy is 'Prevention is better than cure', and preventive inoculation is the best contribution to animal welfare. For this reason we strongly urge that sufficient provision be made in future for protective vaccination and for adequate inspections when outbreaks of disease occur.
In order to guarantee the prevention of animal diseases, care must be taken to ensure that research, science and innovation receive support and that new findings are disseminated.
The Animal Health Strategy must extend to all animals in the EU. For this reason, we need a common legal framework that is less complex, clearer and more transparent than the existing legislation.
Lastly, biosecurity is an important subject in the context of the Animal Health Strategy; the need for biosecurity begins at the external borders of the EU and concerns all stakeholders. The risk of spreading pathogens by importing or bringing animals from other countries into the European Union must be minimised. Importers, holidaymakers and consumers must all be aware of their responsibility in this respect. The EU has the important task of conducting the requisite inspections so as to ensure that the risk to animal health, and hence to human health as well, is kept as low as possible.
in writing. - (PL) There is a close link between animal and human health owing to the possibility of transmission of certain diseases. Animals are living sentient beings and their protection and proper treatment is one of the most serious challenges facing European countries. Animal health is an important issue because an epidemic of animal diseases can cause problems, particularly in rural areas. Coordinated action at European and global level is required if the various problems affecting this sector are to be resolved.
Global warming, increased demand for food, mobility of human beings, trade and the opening of borders all contribute to increasing the threat to animal health. Veterinarians have a very important role to play. They should become experts in the provision of specialist services such as animal health planning. Ensuring biological security on farms, vaccination and scientific research are further steps along the road to tightening up animal welfare standards. Another important issue worth emphasising is the impact of undertakings concerned with the slaughter of animals, their transport and also with feed production, because such undertakings have a direct impact on the health and dignified treatment of animals.
A new strategy and policy should be devised, based on the European Union's single legal framework on animal health and incorporating the standards and guidelines laid down by the World Organisation for Animal Health. A key role in the monitoring and promotion of animal health is, however, played by farmers, breeders and animal owners.
Thank you, Mr President.
Today's debate is very important because it concerns not only animal health but also, and most importantly, human health. The problem has become increasingly serious of late, due to the ongoing rise in imports of meat from third countries. It is no secret that the general standards of animal care and feeding in those countries differ significantly from those in Europe.
The contemporary consumer is entitled to know whether the animals he or she consumes were fed genetically modified plants or not. Meat should be clearly labelled accordingly.
The best way to protect against the spread of dangerous diseases amongst animals is to ensure self-sufficiency in animal breeding within the European Union and to limit farm size. Breeding should essentially be an agricultural activity, not an industrial one.
I congratulate Mr Wojciechowski on his report.


Aid for Pakistan and possible implication for the European industrial sector (debate)
The next item is the Commission statement on aid for Pakistan and possible implication for the European industrial sector.
Member of the Commission. - Madam President, honourable Members of Parliament, Europe is very concerned at the devastating impact of the floods in Pakistan, which destroyed livelihoods and communities throughout the country.
The scale of the disaster is unprecedented in Pakistan's history. The cost in humanitarian needs, and to its already fragile economy, is immense. The severity of this crisis demands an immediate and substantial response, also taking into account the strategic importance of Pakistan's development, security and stability in the region.
The European Council on 16 September called for a comprehensive package of short-, medium- and longer-term measures that will help underpin Pakistan's recovery and future development. The initial EU response to the floods was swift and generous. Our common contribution to the humanitarian aid efforts presently stands at more than EUR 320 million from Member States and the European Commission in cash and in kind. This alone represents more than 60% of the global initial UN appeal.
The European Council recognised that, in addition to the immediate and significant humanitarian aid and development assistance, ambitious trade measures are essential for economic recovery and growth. Trade is therefore part of the long-term response to the ongoing crisis. To this end, the Commission adopted on 7 October a proposal for unilateral suspension of import duties on a number of important export items from Pakistan. This proposal is now submitted to Member States and the European Parliament.
The Commission is proposing to liberalise 75 tariff lines on imports from Pakistan, accounting for 27% of Pakistan's current imports to the EU and almost EUR 900 million. This would yield an increase in EU imports from Pakistan of about EUR 100 million.
The objective of this measure is to support Pakistan's reconstruction efforts in the medium term. Consequently, the special concessions will be limited in time - the Commission is proposing three years. Given the nature of Pakistan's industrial base and export basket, where textiles account for more than 60%, a large number of products for which we propose liberalisation are textile products. Other industrial products such as ethanol are also included.
If Parliament and the Council can act quickly on this, we hope to have the measure in place on 1 January 2011. In parallel, we are working with other members of the World Trade Organisation to obtain the necessary permission - a WTO waiver - which has to be granted before the measure takes effect.
The trade concessions should be economically meaningful for Pakistan but, at the same time, take account of industrial sensitivities in the European Union. Therefore, in drawing up this proposal, we have tried to take into account industrial sensitivities in the EU, especially as regards textiles. Our analysis has shown that the impact on EU production is likely to be modest.
The potential increase in EU imports from Pakistan (EUR 100 million) corresponds to less than 0.5% of EU production value of the liberalised items, which, in fact, account for EUR 24 billion. The European Parliament's support in helping this proposal come to fruition is essential to the presentation of a complete picture of EU solidarity in times of unprecedented needs.
Trade can be an important part of a long-term economic solution for Pakistan. We have a tight calendar to work to. You can count on me and my staff to explain our approach and reduce any lingering concerns you may have.
Madam President, I must say that I fully understand what they are going through in Pakistan, but I would also say that this decision is tragic for Europe and, particularly, for some countries that are already experiencing serious difficulties, such as Portugal, Spain and Greece.
For example, the textiles and clothing industry represents 11% of Portugal's total exports, 22% of the manufacturing industry; 80% of production for some products even takes place in Portugal. Perhaps, then, this 80% spread across the 27 Member States means little to the European Commission, but it means an enormous amount to Portugal.
Europe cannot demand extremely damaging - but understandable - measures to control public audits and to fight the deficit, and, at the same time, take decisions that hurt the productive heartlands and capacities for wealth and job creation of those very same countries.
I must say too that this decision is also an incomprehensible attack on the normal market rules. I do not advocate any form of market protectionism, but I demand the strict defence of its proper rules: the rules of a market that is healthy and fair.
Please understand that this decision will make it possible for products manufactured in Pakistan to come on to the European market, and with production costs below those possible for our companies simply because the same conditions are not required of them during production; humble apologies, but I call that unfair competition. It is unfair competition because Pakistani companies do not have social costs relating to their workers, they do not have environmental costs, they are not particularly concerned with combating the child labour that goes on there, and they do not have equivalent restrictions on the use of primary materials for reasons of public health.
I would even ask: how is such a radical decision possible without a report being tabled first that exactly details its negative impact on the various Member States?
Nevertheless, I could venture some consequences right now, and those consequences are the closure and collapse of companies in the European Union, particularly in Portugal, and increased numbers of unemployed. It is good for you to fully understand this, because there will come a time when someone has to be responsible for it.
If, in the end, we can assume - as some surely will - that this proposal is inevitable, please at least give a bit of forethought to some things that are not yet under consideration. For example, the establishment of a tariff rate quota, which is provided for in the case of ethanol, but not in that of textiles. The waiver should be for a maximum of one year because aid is temporary. Believe me; no European company will survive three years in direct competition with Pakistani companies.
Madam President, I am finishing now: lastly, a provision is needed on primary materials, so that Pakistan does not block European companies' access to such materials to benefit from this production itself.
on behalf of the S&D Group. - Madam President, I understand what Mr Melo is saying but I cannot agree with it. I welcome the Commission's proposal to suspend import duties on key Pakistan imports into the European Union.
Firstly, the common ground between us is that Pakistan, which has not had an easy history since its birth as a nation, is going through its worst possible period. It is in the frontline of the war against terrorism, costing it so far, it is reckoned, USD 40 billion. We are all very well aware of the floods, the combined impact of which is worse than the Asian tsunami of 2004 and the Haitian floods of earlier this year. That is a significant blow to any country.
What I welcome about the Commission proposal is that we give Pakistan the opportunity to trade its way out of some of its difficulties. It is an intelligent proposal. Firstly, as the Commissioner has said, the 75 tariff lines that would help boost Pakistan's trade by an estimated EUR 100 million a year do little harm to EU investment. This will not significantly damage any European Union industry and, equally importantly - in fact, quite possibly even more importantly - it will not harm the developing countries which are on a par with Pakistan, because none of the tariff lines affect products on the DDA preference erosion list. That is very positive.
The second thing that is sensible about the Commission proposal is that it is time-limited and does not unilaterally attempt to alter the GSP resolution. I welcome that because it still gives an incentive to Pakistan to come into line with social and human rights standards between now and 2014 in order to qualify for GSP+ in 2014. So it gives the emergency aid we need now but, at the same time, does not give carte blanche to the Pakistan Government. It says 'you have a duty yourself to put your country in order if you want to continue to qualify for these benefits'.
This is a real test of Europe's generosity and I hope that we, in this Parliament, will be prepared to meet it.
Madam President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, our debate today marks a fork in the road between two crucial principles. On the one hand, there is the duty of solidarity towards a country that has been hit by natural disasters, bringing its society, which already has structural problems, to its knees. On the other hand, there is the necessity for a balanced trade policy. With the European Commission's proposal to suspend duties for Pakistan, the European Union is rightly avoiding a policy of mere humanitarian aid, allowing Pakistan to strengthen its economy and therefore its society.
The fact that all 74 of the tariff lines involved relate to the textile and clothing sector is almost inevitable for a country that can export only products within this sector. We liberal democrats definitely prefer recourse to this kind of measure, rather than agreeing on humanitarian aid which is incapable of giving the country a genuine boost. However, as Mr Melo reiterated a short while ago, we must not be naive and we ask the Commission - above all - not to make the mistake of naivety.
The Commissioner is well aware of the critical situation in which some textile districts, such as Prato, find themselves. Prato is a special case: The situation there has gone out of the control of the national authorities and there is widespread illegality, which is also exacerbated by the crisis in the European textiles sector.
Since we believe that it cannot be just the European textiles sector that pays for our rightful humanitarian solidarity with Pakistan, we ask for three things to be done: 1) To set up regulatory instruments to avoid all possible triangulation with other countries that could profit from the duties from which Pakistan is benefiting; 2) Not to aggravate the crisis in the European textile sector, by implementing measures that could instead support it, such as a reduction in the cost of electricity; and 3) To avoid creating a precedent for other countries that suffer such natural disasters. By working in this way, I think the aid for Pakistan is shared and sustainable, including in the long term, and that is what that country needs.
We have met this evening to discuss the Commission's proposal to help Pakistan in the aftermath of the flooding. We should bear in mind that almost 14 million people suffered from the flooding in Pakistan, which was of truly biblical dimensions. It caused unimaginable destruction in Pakistan itself, and the results will soon be felt all over the world. Why? Cotton, which is also referred to as white gold, and of which Pakistan is one of the main producers, grew poorly this year, and on top of that, has been largely destroyed in the country. Clothes manufacturers and leading global brands are already forecasting an increase in the price of cotton products. Cotton is a raw material we come across all the time, and which is used to manufacture clothes, banknotes, coffee filters, tents and fishing nets, as well as even being found in book bindings and many other everyday products. It is used for a huge number of purposes. We are in a time of crisis, and increases in the price of daily necessities are forecast. This makes the scale of the problem huge.
On the one hand, we have large-scale European importers, which will gain from Pakistani products coming into Europe. On the other hand, we have another small number of large Pakistani textile factories, which are actually outside the areas affected by the disaster, and which will also gain enormously from the Commission's proposal.
That is the reality. The winners are not the ill, not the displaced, not the children, not the elderly whose homes were destroyed: the winners are wealthy businesspeople. What is happening here is that the disaster is being put to use: extreme climate phenomena are being made to serve the interests of big business.
That is what is absolutely intolerable about the proposal that the Commission is making. They would do well to backtrack.
on behalf of the EFD Group. - Madam President, in the past, I have often been sharply critical of British Prime Minister Cameron. However, Prime Minister Cameron was absolutely correct to ask for trade preferences to be granted to Pakistan. Now I use the word 'ask' with some care. Asking is exactly what the British Prime Minister has had to do.
Since joining the EU, the United Kingdom, the world's fifth largest economy, does not have the autonomy to determine trade policy even with a Commonwealth country. Nevertheless, it is in the UK's national interest that Pakistan should now get trade preferences. I rarely agree with David Martin but I do on this. Pakistan is not only a developing country with 170 million inhabitants and strategic borders with Afghanistan; it is also a country which has some thirty nuclear warheads.
The security implications of a collapse of the Pakistan State would be devastating to the security of the entire developed world. Trade preferences for Pakistan at this time may perhaps help stop that happening.
(DE) Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, I think we should all recall, once again, how dramatic the situation was in Pakistan a couple of weeks ago and indeed still is in many places. Whole regions have been flooded, regions that are bigger than many of our Member States. Tens, in fact hundreds, of thousands of people are in major need. The infrastructure has been destroyed: roads, hospitals, universities, nurseries, schools, businesses. Many people's livelihoods have been destroyed. I do not think we can even imagine what that is like. We all agree that we have to help. The problem, though, as we would say in German, is 'wash me, but do not get me wet'. What do I mean by that? Well, direct financial aid costs money, which, of course, has to be taken from elsewhere in our budget. Indirect aid - trade facilitation - is what the Commission is now proposing, and there, too, there are, of course, concerns from those who may be affected. That is why we are quite rightly having this debate on this topic today.
The Commission has not proposed using the Generalised System of Preferences. That is a good thing, I feel. Fundamentally, I think the current solution of doing this via the WTO, taking this route and really trying to help people help themselves, is a prudent one. There are many unanswered questions, however, such as what will the impact on industries in the European Union really be? When I look at the Commission's document, the proposal for a regulation, I see that it states in the explanatory memorandum right at the beginning that the working premise is that net imports into the EU would rise by EUR 100 million per year. Is that really major, durable aid to Pakistan? Will it really help to move the major sums that we are actually talking about here? On the other hand, the proposal will entail tariff revenue losses of EUR 80 million from our budget. Does this ratio add up, too? Does it make sense to do without EUR 80 million in customs revenue in order to receive EUR 100 million in increased imports? Are these figures correct? I would like some really head-on information from the Commission on this whole issue.
I am firmly convinced that we have to help Pakistan. I am also prepared to explain to the citizens of the European Union, and to those of my electoral district, that we have to do something and that aid for others always has to be paid for by someone. However, I am firmly convinced, Commissioner, that you should use the opportunity this evening and over the coming days and weeks to really convince the 736 Members of the European Parliament that your measures are the right ones to take, that they are sensible. You should also use the opportunity, above all, to highlight ways in which the workers of companies that may be affected in countries like Portugal, Italy and Spain, and in the European Union as a whole, can also find routes forward and prospects for themselves. I believe that these are truly the tasks to be performed in order to achieve a majority for your proposal in this House in a few weeks' or months' time. I believe there is a lot of work to be done by all those involved in connection with convincing people and providing information.
(IT) Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, I think we have to be mindful of the crisis that the European Union and its Member States are experiencing on a global level. With a crisis that is hitting work, employment and growth, I wonder about the logic inspiring some European countries but, above all, the European Commission, in terms of international relations. The Commission proposal under discussion today will heavily penalise some industrial sectors, particularly textiles and, in a situation like the present one, we must ask ourselves whether it is reasonable.
Some people fear that these decisions are borne from the desire for Europe to take a leading role on the world stage. In reality, we know that this is not so and that the attempt to reduce the pressure, including terrorist pressure, within or related to some political and institutional systems, has even less to do with it. The truth is that not even the recent flood has anything to do with this proposal, since the main concentration of the Pakistani textiles industry is not based in the regions hit by the disaster.
The actual reason is that once more, the aim is to penalise a sector in favour of financing the European economy and to favour large-scale retail, rather than the interests of the manufacturing industry located in some European countries. This is profoundly mistaken in terms of growth, work and employment in a time of serious economic crisis and the need for real EU growth on global markets, in terms of its exports and its capacity for innovation and quality.
Madam President, may I firstly thank the Commissioner and colleagues Martin and Caspary for their very helpful comments. Following the floods which took place, I actually have travelled to Pakistan to see for myself the extent of the devastation. The devastation caused by the floods is the biggest natural disaster in Pakistan's history. It is certainly beyond anything that I could have imagined or expected to see.
Certainly, when I met with the Prime Minister of Pakistan on 22 September, he was very appreciative of the EU's response to date and he believed it to be a very courageous response; courageous in the way that Commissioner De Gucht has described it. We have to be absolutely sure that we continue to react in an appropriate way. The Commission has now come forward with a legislative proposal to cut the tariff to zero on 75 tariff lines covering 27% of Pakistan's exports to the EU, which would boost Pakistan's exports by about EUR 100 million a year. This really is now a test of the EU's credibility.
We must ensure that we translate the political agreement reached by EU leaders into action that will make a real difference and give the Pakistani economy a lifeline at this desperate time of need. We are, after all, their largest trading partner. I hear the concerns made by colleagues in this Chamber and it is only right that we are fair in our response; fair but ambitious. The trade concession to be offered to Pakistan needs to represent a credible effort by the EU and bring about meaningful economic benefits to Pakistan, whilst taking into account sensitivities of our own industries as well as other WTO members - in particular, those of least-developed countries.
I believe through this proposal we are being ambitious, we are being courageous, but, above all, we are being fair to ourselves, as well as to the people of Pakistan.
Madam President, clearly the 20 million people hit by the recent disastrous flooding in Pakistan need immediate and substantial assistance, especially the 100 000 children left homeless by the flood and in danger of dying simply because of a lack of food.
Critical to food production at affordable prices are the millions of small farmers and landless farmers now at the mercy of the landlord class. The distribution of free seeds, fertilisers that are environmentally compatible and other utilities could lay the basis for a rapid recovery of food supplies, but the liquidation of landlordism in Pakistan and the distribution of land to the landless is a key to food sustainability.
It was 140 years ago that the Irish peasantry conducted a major struggle for an end to landlordism, so it is long overdue here. Tariff reductions must go to the workers and the poor and not to the landlords, corrupt state officials or the profits of industrialists. Small farmers in Pakistan should benefit from just prices for their agricultural products on the world market, rather than callous speculators on the commodity markets.
(IT) Madam President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, we are all concerned about the floods that have devastated Pakistan and for the serious effects on the economy, but we are also concerned about the European Commission's proposal, even if it was brought up on the initiative of the Heads of State or Government.
The regulation proposed by the Commission concentrates, above all, on the suspension of duties in the textile and leather goods sectors - which represent 60% of Pakistani exports with a turnover of almost EUR 200 million for textiles and EUR 510 million for the leather industry, both of which are characterised by production located in neighbouring areas that are not clearly affected by the floods.
It seemed to us that the political indications were instead directed at choosing an aid policy that did not damage structural sectors for the European economy. The suspension of duties will have a serious effect on European textiles and leather industries, with a potential loss of thousands of jobs over the planned three years of the regulation. These measures will be integrated and aggravated by the Generalised System of Preferences which, in 2013, will be extended to Pakistan as well.
Commissioner, we are all aware that exceptional and unilateral measures are being adopted because we want to help a large, poor country that is in trouble due to the disaster that has hit it and is further aggravated by the economic crisis and the failure to adjust the World Trade Organisation's rules. Indeed, the current rules favour countries that are already developed, such as China and India, rather than poorer countries. Exceptional measures in favour of one country should not, however, cause a crisis in other countries.
The Commission proposal therefore requires significant corrections to diversify the sectors involved, including the production and exports of Pakistan, accepting a different vision and a serious reflection on the respect for human rights and the fight against terrorism. Pakistan must be helped, but through clear agreements, including those with regard to the political situation in the region.
(ES) Madam President, Commissioner, the floods in July and August of this year caused 1 800 deaths in Pakistan and affected 20 million people, 12.5 million of whom need humanitarian aid.
The European Union has undertaken a humanitarian effort of EUR 320 million - as you said - and Spain has contributed EUR 11 million. What we are discussing here is not a trade agreement, but supporting the strategic development of Pakistan.
The Commission, with a mandate from the Council, has liberalised 70 products over three years. There is no question that Pakistan's exports will have varying impacts on the different EU countries, taking into account the specific characteristics of each country. The products that Pakistan may export are ethanol, textiles and leather goods.
The Commission maintains that it cannot amend the lists of products that will clash with textile production. Spain represents 16% of the volume of business from the textiles sector. The Community of Valencia represents 18% of Spanish textile production, and 17% of employment is in the Community of Valencia. The market for the Valencian textile sector is Europe and, within Europe, France, Italy and Germany. Therefore, textile products being imported from Pakistan reduces their market, both in Europe and within Spain.
You said that there is a strategic study, but has Pakistan's industrial capacity been evaluated? Has consideration been given to reducing the list of textile products? Is there going to be an annual evaluation of the impact of this agreement?
(SV) Madam President, Commissioner, I would like to say that the abolition of duties and barriers to trade as a step in the provision of aid to Pakistan in connection with this major disaster is extremely welcome. I will say, probably for the first time in this Chamber, that I am impressed by both the Commission's and the Council's swift action and resolve on this issue.
It is certainly the case that money is needed. However, what is the point of providing support and money - other than to assuage our own bad conscience - if, at the same time, we make it more difficult, by means of duties and barriers to trade, for people to recover by their own efforts.
What we are doing right now, namely comprehensively and quickly abolishing duties and barriers to trade on all 75 different tariff lines, corresponding to 27% of Pakistan's exports, is an excellent response to the disaster that this country is facing. However, we in Parliament now have a responsibility. We have a responsibility to act swiftly. In other words, this must not turn into an example of how long the political process can take. Pakistan needs money and aid now - not in a year's time. We must demonstrate that we understand that.
At the same time, I am disheartened to see how wide the opposition to this is. I received a petition from European textile producers expressing their opposition to this, as they were afraid that Pakistan would export more to Europe, which they did not want.
However, is that not the whole point of it? Is it not the intention that they should be able to trade with us in order to get themselves out of poverty? If European consumers were to get slightly cheaper textiles, would that be a problem?
Free trade and solidarity are often embraced here right up until we are to make a decision on them. Let us here and now demonstrate that these values are most important to us when they are needed the most. There is probably no better opportunity to stand up for both free trade and solidarity than in connection with this proposal.
(IT) Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, by means of this short speech, I should like to show my disagreement with the possible suspension of duties in favour of Pakistan for some three years and across 74 tariff lines, almost all of them in the textile and clothing sector.
My concerns regard the negative consequences on European industry and particularly Italian industry - and on the loss of jobs in Europe in a sector that has already been sorely tested by the economic crisis. I am referring in particular to the small and medium-sized enterprises in the sector that we are trying to help anyway, and which would suffer considerable damage.
Also, the fact that Pakistan set a 15% duty on its cotton fibre exports at the start of this year in order to discourage the supply of raw materials is not insignificant. It is clear that the aim is to conserve raw materials by seeking to obtain more attractive exchange rates for their export. I fully understand the need to help a country with serious problems, particularly following the serious disasters it has suffered. However, the European aid that I would hope for would be contributions towards the construction of roads and infrastructure using local labour.
(DE) Madam President, Commissioner, it is not easy to hold an objective debate when you are talking about 100 000 children being made homeless, millions of farmers on the streets and people living in absolutely truly bitter poverty. I think it is right for the European Union to act quickly and provide help quickly here. The big question that arises for me, when it comes to the measures that you have proposed is, are we giving help in the right place or are we helping the wrong people? That is something that I would like explained in more detail, as it is absolutely justified to say, in relation to the textiles industry, that the aid does help Pakistan overall, but whether it reaches the right people, I am not so sure.
Secondly, I would also like to say that, if this aid helps people to help themselves, obviously you do have to take into account what effect all of this has back in Europe. I think, however, that there is already a drastic situation here, that we need to provide aid, and I hope that the aid does reach the people who really need to be helped.
Madam President, I just want to respond to some of the comments which have been made.
What Pakistan is trying to do at this point is actually to help itself out of the mess that it is in after the devastating floods. If the factories were in flood-hit areas, they would not be able to produce, so it is not surprising that the factories concerned are not in flood-hit areas.
The direct aid that could be put in is miniscule compared to what the need actually is. Distribution of the income from the additional exports is important - we know that for infrastructure, for energy supplies, for schools, for roads, etc. - while there are indeed responsibilities that lie with the democratically elected government of Pakistan in terms of its effectiveness, of income, of tax revenue and so on.
People have also talked about the need for greater diversity. If Pakistan had a greater diversity of industrial sectors, we would not be concentrating so much on textiles. I appeal to Members to offer that country this opportunity to help itself out of this disaster.
(PT) Madam President, Commissioner, the tragedy in Pakistan demands that Europe show solidarity, but it cannot be a pretext for putting at risk the textile industry in a number of Member States, such as Portugal. There are other ways of showing solidarity: more effective types of aid that are aimed at the recovery of the affected areas and the improvement of the living conditions of local people, but also fairer types of aid.
Trade concessions are not long-term measures, as I have been saying. This benefits the large European importers above all, as it fulfils their long-held pretensions. However, it damages the textile industry, as well as the countries and regions that are most dependent on it; all this in a context of profound crisis and high unemployment.
While it is true that the measures proposed by the Commission cannot, under any circumstances, be a pretext for more redundancies, we cannot ignore the objective difficulties that these measures are creating. Measures are needed to defend the European textiles sector and the jobs related to it.
At the suggestion of the Confederal Group of the European United Left - Nordic Green Left, the Union budget 2010 provides for a budget heading allocated to creating a Union programme for the textiles and footwear sector. Where is this programme, Commissioner? What are its key elements? I will leave you with these questions.
(IT) Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, I think it is paradoxical that instead of defending our jobs, the European Union puts them at risk by concealing the possible consequences of its actions behind well-meaning rhetoric of humanitarian aid. The possible reduction in duties for the next three years on clothing products from Pakistan risks plunging the manufacturing sector into an even greater crisis than the one we are currently experiencing, with the loss of 120 000 jobs across Europe, and 40 000 in Italy alone.
Pakistan must be helped, but we cannot adopt soft trading measures when my country - Italy - and other Member States are already feeling the effects of counterfeiting of textile products, especially from Asian countries and from China in particular. The Commission cannot give to charity at the expense, above all, of Italy, which represents 30% of the entire European textile sector. I believe that along with Pakistan, our small and medium-sized enterprises must be helped to escape from the crisis by imposing duties and quotas on Asian products. I am from Prato and my fellow citizens and I have had quite enough of measures like these.
(EL) Madam President, as far as manufacturing industry is concerned, I would remind the House that Pakistan is the fourth largest cotton producer in the world, accounting for 9% of global production, with the European Union following with just under 5.5%. Clearly, therefore, this is a very serious issue. Of course, we do not want protectionism, which damages healthy competition; on the contrary, we want free and open international trade. On the other hand, however, members have also raised this point. Mr Melo, who is from Portugal, a country with a fragile economy, was very graphic. Members referred to Italy. I would add Greece; you all know the problems it is facing. Of course, we should support Pakistan, but we should also monitor it and that is want I want to ask the Commission: do we have mechanisms to ensure that the aid we give Pakistan will be channelled in the right direction and not used for other purposes or for certain industries, to the detriment of European companies and European workers?
Madam President, I do not claim to be particularly au fait with the intricacies of this situation, but I do recognise the strategic importance of Pakistan. For that reason, I support the point made by Mr Karim, that it is in everybody's interest to have a stable regime there in a region of great volatility.
I also have to say that a Union which was founded on the principles of peace and prosperity for our citizens should be in the vanguard of bringing peace and prosperity to other parts of the world, so I support the proposals here this evening, but I would like the Commission to answer very fully the points made by Mr Higgins and others on the Left.
Can they guarantee that the aid we would be giving would be going to those who deserve it and not to big traders and landlords? That is the key question this evening.
(DE) Madam President, the flooding disaster in Pakistan has humanitarian consequences on an unimaginable scale. I consider it to be the European Union's duty to make sure that aid gets to the people of Pakistan quickly. Measures designed to invigorate the economy and employment over the long term are an important contribution for the EU to make in order to help this hard-hit country out of its crisis. However, I question whether a simple reduction in the customs tariff will have the desired effect. We need to clear up whether or not preferences for Pakistan flow into Third countries via indirect channels and thus, whether they have the desired effect. As well as the textiles industry, I am thinking here, above all, about the field of bio-ethanol.
My specific question to the Commission is whether setting up a tariff quota for ethanol is regarded as a truly sustainable and efficient option that will help the people of Pakistan. Can it be assessed whether the necessary sustainability criteria for imports into the EU are also fulfilled in the production of bio-ethanol.
(The speaker agreed to take a blue card question under Rule 149(8))
Madam President, I just wonder if the speaker appreciates that just this one time, we are actually not discussing aid but are actually simply discussing trade preferences. This would give the opportunity for Pakistan to earn its way out of its problems by its own efforts and volition. I wonder if the speaker appreciates that.
(DE) Madam President, I do believe that that is the core element that we are discussing. The measures need to be clearly thought through in order to ensure sustainable assistance. Above all, there is always the question of the extent to which the cost/benefit calculation ultimately adds up for Europe.
(IT) Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, Pakistan must undoubtedly be helped following the floods that have hit it. However, the question we must ask ourselves today is what kind of help this country needs most, and what kind is the European Union best capable of providing. We must act quickly, but also effectively.
Indeed, it is the effectiveness of the European Commission's proposal which causes me great concern. I find it to be a patchy proposal which, by intervening primarily in the textile and leather sectors, would risk not being effective enough, since this aid could generate fresh tensions due to the new instances of poverty it would generate in Europe and would further hamstring the European textile sector, which is already in serious decline.
Then we must consider the fact that by favouring exports from producer businesses, we are actually helping those areas of Pakistan which have not been flooded, whereas our aid should serve to build competitiveness and development, helping the recovery of production in the areas of the country that have been hit by the catastrophe. For all these reasons, I believe that the path of abolishing duties is absolutely unsuitable and we do not consent to it or support it.
Member of the Commission. - Madam President, first of all, I would like to present very clearly the figures we are speaking about. We are talking about a trade volume of EUR 900 million. The effect will be EUR 100 million of additional exports to the European market by Pakistan, but the overall balance for the European Union will only be EUR 50 million because, as a result of the more favourable position of Pakistan to export on the European market, there will also be a certain amount of trade diversion, which means that other importers will lose some opportunities on the European markets. So, the overall impact will be about EUR 50 million on a yearly basis.
I am saying this because I heard again in this debate that 120 000 jobs would be lost. Now you all have a calculator tool on your mobile phone; if Europe is to lose 120 000 jobs because of an additional EUR 50 million of imports on the European market, then there is really a serious problem with the European textile industry, regardless of what happens with Pakistan. It is simply not serious to put that argument forward.
That is my first remark. Secondly, we have duly taken into account the sensitivities of the European textile industry and the somewhat difficult position this industry might be in. Bed linen is not part of the tariff lines that we are proposing, and neither are apparel or household linen, which are three of the most sensitive product lines for Europe.
On the contrary, a lot of semi-finished products are included. If they are semi-finished, it means that they will be finished in Europe, which should, in fact, generate cheaper imports for those companies which give the final treatment to such products. So this is not immediately harming us. I would even say the opposite. We have really been studying very carefully what would be a good proposal for Pakistan without harming European industry too much at a time when we are also coming out of an economic crisis that is certainly not easy to manage.
A comment was also raised concerning cotton exports. There is a scarcity on the worldwide cotton market, and it is true that Pakistan is one of the main cotton producers. What I have in mind is that once we have this agreement, once we see that we are really getting somewhere, we should also ask Pakistan to make sure that our own textile industry gets enough cotton to be able to produce what the market is asking for. As there is such a worldwide scarcity of cotton, or at least certain varieties of cotton, you might ask why we do not import those cotton varieties from Africa. Well, because they do not produce the right varieties of cotton we need, and it is not easy to switch to a different kind of cotton production from one day to another, so we will have to pay special attention to that problem.
Let me just conclude by saying that when you look at the situation with respect to Pakistan, what we need is more aid and more trade; we need both. The European Union has contributed EUR 320 million already, 60% of what the United Nations initially asked for. We will continue to do so; that is more aid.
Trade is not aid, as has been said in this plenary. Trade is about giving opportunities to the Pakistani economy to produce and to export and to give jobs to the people that need those jobs. I think it is an essential tool in economic recovery that we should give additional trading opportunities to Pakistan. But it is not about aid, which means that you cannot direct those who will be, let us say, the beneficiaries. It is much easier to direct the process in the case of trade, but we also know that while trade has its frailties we are not going to recover an economy by aid.
I think you need both elements, aid and trade, and that is why we are working on both possibilities. It is true that we should also bear in mind, as I have been saying in this plenary, that we are talking about a region that has been severely devastated. Many Members of Parliament from Italy have spoken, and I understand that the territory of Pakistan which is flooded is about the size of the territory of the whole of Italy. That is what we are talking about, so I think we should help them, but we should also bear in mind that this is a very sensitive region which is geo-strategically very important. It is also very important to us and to our security. It would be very dangerous for Europe if this region became unstable, so we should do everything we can to make sure that the stability of the region is not affected by what happens in Pakistan.
So this is an overall array of measures which we are employing. We have political discussions with Pakistan; we had a summit with them recently, and we will continue to have such discussions. Several EU officials have been going there, as well as Commissioner Georgieva, for example, with respect to humanitarian aid. We have the aid package, which is considerable, and we also have an economic approach in terms of more trade. I think, and I hope, that this will really mean something considerable for Pakistan. I am also convinced that by helping Pakistan, we also, to a certain extent, help ourselves.
The debate is closed.


Opening of the sitting
(The sitting was opened at 9.10 a.m.)


Agenda: see Minutes


6. Gender aspects of the economic downturn and financial crisis (


5. International rail passengers' rights and obligations (vote)
- Before the vote on Amendment 22
(DE) Mr President, over the last couple of hours there have been further discussions on two items, those being Amendments 22 and 47, as a result of which my group will be voting a different way. I would like to ask the rapporteur whether he is able to give us any further information on those two amendments.
rapporteur. - (NL) Mr President, the original wording of Amendment 22 created problems for some railway companies in a number of EU Member States, because they work with very short notice periods for contracts. In order to counteract these problems without necessitating fundamental changes, we have split the amendment into three sections, keeping most of the text but taking out the word 'existing' after the second split vote, and removing the last sentence after the third split vote, as a result of which we have retained the essence but managed to do away with the practical problems.
(The oral amendment was accepted)
- Before the vote on Amendment 47
rapporteur. - (NL) Mr Jarzembowski had also asked why we had requested a split vote on Amendment 47, the second part of which has to do with a second person travelling free of charge, and it is the huge number of objections to this system that have prompted me to ask for a split vote. I would also like to know - hence the split vote - how many Members are backing this proposal and who are not, since this is something with which some Member States experience major problems. Hence my request for a split vote.
(The oral amendment was accepted)


Statement by the President
Before starting on the agenda, it is with a heavy heart that I have to remind you that the terrorist organisation, ETA has broken the ceasefire it had declared last March. Its barbarous attack on Madrid airport has caused the deaths of two Ecuadoreans, Carlos Alonso Palate and Diego Armando Estacio, who, as immigrants, had found their place in Spanish society and so were able to support their families in Ecuador.
With this attack, ETA has put an end to the process that was initiated by the Spanish Government and that was debated in October 2006.
I should like, on behalf of the European Parliament, to express our most sincere sympathy and condolences to the families and friends of the two men who were murdered and to all Spaniards and Ecuadoreans.
I also want firmly to reiterate in this House the condemnation of this savage act of terrorism and to make it absolutely clear that, in a democracy, violence is wholly incompatible with dialogue and that peace,
(Applause)
coexistence in freedom and respect for human rights are non-negotiable.
I also want to reiterate our support for all of Spain's democratic institutions in that country's fight against ETA terrorism and to express the hope of all the European democracies that, sooner rather than later, Spaniards will put an end to violence throughout Spain.
I am going to ask you to observe a minute's silence for Carlos Alonso Palate and Diego Armando Estacio.
(The House rose and observed a minute's silence)