Montenegro - EC/Montenegro: Stabilisation and Association Agreement (debate)
The next item is the joint debate on
the statement by the Commission on Montenegro,
the recommendation, by Marcello Vernola, on behalf of the Committee on Foreign Affairs, on the proposal for a Council and Commission decision on the conclusion of the Stabilisation and Association Agreement between the European Communities and their Member States, of the one part, and the Republic of Montenegro, of the other part - C6 0463/2007 -.
Member of the Commission. - Mr President, I wish to thank Mr Vernola for this very solid report, which is due to be adopted at a very crucial stage of our relations with Montenegro.
Let me first make a point on the European perspective of the Western Balkans. The Council meeting of EU Foreign Ministers on Monday reaffirmed that the future of the Western Balkans lies in the European Union. As proof of that we have in the last two months signed a Stabilisation and Association Agreement with Montenegro and initialled SAAs both with Serbia and with Bosnia-Herzegovina.
I want to thank the Portuguese Presidency for its major contribution to these encouraging steps. I hope we can soon sign the two latter agreements, once the conditions have been met by these two countries.
Montenegro has made good progress since independence, including in the development of smoother, well functioning relations with Serbia. Of course a decisive step on Montenegro's European journey was taken on 15 October this year when we signed the SAA with the country. I welcome the unanimous ratification of the SAA by the Montenegrin Parliament soon thereafter. The SAA provides a stable framework for economic, political and institutional development in Montenegro and it is a significant step forward in the country's European integration path, provided that the Agreement is properly implemented.
In another positive development, I also welcome the adoption of the Constitution of Montenegro only a few days after the SAA was signed. The new Constitution, which is broadly in line with European standards, helps strengthen democratic institutions in the country. Its full implementation will require further efforts and determination.
The Commission's regular progress report, adopted on 6 November, highlights these positive developments. It commends Montenegro for establishing the necessary legal and institutional framework following independence. It also underlines progress made by Montenegro in preparing for the implementation of the SAA and strengthening its administrative capacity. Our progress report also points out certain key challenges that Montenegro will face in the coming years. For instance, Montenegro's administrative capacity remains rather weak and therefore administrative reforms need to be continued at all levels. In the fight against corruption, urgent action is needed to achieve concrete, tangible results. Money laundering and organised crime remain areas of concern. These are also highlighted, rightly so, in your report.
The new Constitution enhances the independence of the judiciary by setting up a new constitutional body, the Judicial Council, in charge of the appointment and dismissal of judges. The Government also adopted a judicial reform strategy for the period 2007-2012. Its implementation will certainly be a major challenge but it is clear that Montenegro needs to ensure the independence, accountability and professionalism of its judges and prosecutors.
Montenegro participates actively in regional cooperation. It has good relations with its neighbours. Most issues with Serbia following independence have been settled. Montenegro has also taken a constructive approach to the Kosovo status issue, aligning itself with the EU's position.
Focus should now be on full implementation of the interim agreement on preparations for the whole SAA as well as on the recommendations of the European partnership. Montenegro needs to build a solid track record of implementation and of reforms. She has got off to a very good start in the stabilisation and association process and I hope that the country will build on this positive momentum.
We are very much looking forward to working even more closely with the Government of Montenegro, the Parliament, other institutions and the civil society of the country on its European reform agenda. I am pleased to inform you that the new Commission delegation has been operational since 1 November and is preparing to take over the work carried on by the European Agency for Reconstruction, in due course as planned. Montenegro is expected to receive close to EUR 100 million under the instrument for pre-accession in the coming three-year period until 2009. These funds will assist Montenegro in such areas as the rule of law, the strengthening of administrative capacity and implementation of the SAA. Economic and social development and civil society development certainly will be another priority. So I trust we can count on the strong support of the European Parliament, which is crucial as always.
(DE) Mr President, this was announced as a debate or as statements from the Council and the Commission. I only wanted to ask where the Council is and whether it will at least be represented again at Council Question Time or perhaps even in the course of this debate.
The services inform me that the debate is taking place in this way by decision of the Conference of Presidents, as the Council is engaged in preparations for the meeting of the Council in Lisbon tomorrow.
rapporteur. - (IT) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, it is now accepted that the future of the Balkan countries lies in Europe; that was confirmed by the Thessaloniki European Council in 2003 and has been endorsed by ourselves in this House on a number of occasions, marking an end to any further discussion of the issue.
Montenegro is undoubtedly in pole position on the road towards accession to the European Union, as the facts show: following independence from the Union with Serbia in 2006, declared democratically after a proper referendum and duly agreed with the Serbian Government, the negotiations for the country's own Stabilisation and Association Agreement were re-opened and concluded in the space of slightly more than two months. The agreements were initialled on 15 March 2007 but, unfortunately, some technical problems then arose which slowed down further progress, although the end is now in sight. The Commissioner has just announced that an office has already been opened in Podgorica - which we commend - and that everything is now in place for ratification of the agreement.
Montenegro's progress in the last year, the commitments into which it has entered vis-à-vis the European Community and ongoing reform work, even in the last few days, all lead us unhesitatingly to endorse the favourable opinion on the conclusion of the agreement. Clearly, however, that is not the final goal, but is no more than a starting point.
Montenegro must now focus on implementing all the measures needed to complete the reform process which is already under way in order to fulfil the commitments into which it has entered in the Stabilisation and Association Agreement. From that point of view, we should note the good climate of cooperation between the European Parliament and the Parliament of Montenegro, which we have met on a number of occasions and by which we shall be welcomed next week in Podgorica. Montenegro has everything that it needs to bring this process swiftly to a conclusion, starting from its status as a candidate for accession.
Montenegro's economy has continued to grow in recent years and that has helped to attract huge foreign investment, partly as a result of fiscal policies favourable to enterprises. As a result, unemployment has dropped sharply from 33% to 12%.
Some months ago, the new Constitutional Charter was adopted, a clear sign of the extent to which the country is strengthening the democratic prerogatives which mark it out in the Balkan area. The Montenegrin authorities are working speedily to bring themselves into line with European standards. The most recent news has led us to table five amendments to take account of recent developments.
In the last few days, a cooperation agreement with the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia has been signed in order to regulate technical assistance in respect of that Tribunal. We should bear in mind that unconditional cooperation with the ad hoc tribunal in The Hague is of crucial importance for all the states emerging from the break-up of Yugoslavia. We should also bear in mind that Montenegro has never shirked its international obligations, and indeed has always been praised for its efficient cooperation with the legal and foreign authorities.
Montenegro needs to make further efforts to combat and put an end to organised crime in the area of illegal cross-border trafficking. The European Parliament also considers that corruption in the public administration and the judiciary needs to be combated: the country is responding positively to the European authorities and signs of this can be seen in the new Constitution which introduces mechanisms to protect the autonomy and independence of the judiciary.
The capacity of the ruling class will also be developed by participation in Community twinning programmes and exchanges with the Member States. Some of these programmes will foster the development of younger people and researchers. Promoting the free movement of people, in particular students and researchers, is a goal which is being pursued among other things by simplifying the procedure for the issue of short-stay visas in respect of which specific agreements were signed last September with the European Union; the final goal is fully to liberalise visas in order to make freedom of movement effective, another major point of the Stabilisation and Association Agreement, and to open up channels fostering growth and education. We consider that cultural bodies should be allowed to flourish, for instance by promoting the voluntary sector and protecting the representatives of civil society. Freedom of thought must be ensured as must the right to information.
The environment deserves a special mention: the previous Constitution defined Montenegro as an ecological republic, the first in the world to give itself such a label. Nature has been kind to the country, from the beautiful coastline to the natural Bay of Kotor and the Durmitor mountain massif which is on UNESCO's World Heritage List. That heritage must be safeguarded by specific legislation which is in many cases already in the statute book but not strictly applied, often for lack of financial resources.
The country derives considerable income from tourism, but unfortunately tourism itself may have an adverse impact on the environment, as the facilities available do not have appropriate systems for managing the major influx of tourists from an ecological point of view. For that reason, we asked Commissioner Rehn in another forum to focus the Commission's attention on promoting environmental policies, especially as regards renewable energy sources, waste and water management and coastal protection. Montenegro is aware of the problem and is continuing to work towards proper management of natural resources. The spatial plan regulating construction work so as not to spoil the coastal landscape has recently been approved.
on behalf of the PPE-DE Group. - (DE) Mr President, on behalf of the PPE-DE Group, I naturally welcome the progress which Montenegro has made since declaring its independence and which has very quickly led to the conclusion of the Stabilisation and Association Agreement.
The Montenegrins, of course, should not sit back and relax now but should fully implement the agreement they have signed. They should follow the guidelines they have set themselves and enable their administration to apply enacted legislation. They should ensure that the judicial system is brought up to scratch and that action is taken to combat corruption, especially in the administration and the judiciary.
I am well aware that the particular situation which prevailed in the region in the 1990s allowed corruption to take hold and that it is very difficult to eradicate it today, but it does nothing for Montenegro's reputation among the countries of the European Union when its name keeps cropping up in connection with smuggling, corruption and money laundering. Montenegrin politicians must do everything in their power to alter that image. After all, at some stage the people of the European Union are supposed to welcome Montenegro into the fold. For this reason it is imperative that the development of democracy and a market economy in Montenegro should take place in a truly transparent framework.
I do not intend to discuss every point that has been raised today or is still to be raised, nor will I refer to everything that is contained in our resolution. I would like to stress, however, that the Montenegrin landscape is a jewel, and special measures are needed to conserve its unique characteristics. This means, as Marcello Vernola said, that the clause in the new Constitution declaring Montenegro to be an environmental state must not amount to an empty promise. The coastline and hinterland must be protected, and megalithic investment projects must be prevented. Natural features and sites of cultural and historic interest must be conserved in order to ensure that Montenegro does not squander its unique tourist appeal. There are enough cautionary examples of such desecration in western Europe.
A sell-out of the coastline and hinterland must be prevented, and judicious development of tourism and cautious land-use are the order of the day. There is an urgent need to prevent overdevelopment of the coastline, and land and property speculation must be curbed. I am pleased to note that there now seems to be a land-use plan for that area. I welcome the cooperation with ICTY, the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia, and hope that it might result in the arrest of Mr Karadžić at some point.
It is also my earnest wish to see Montenegro finally create the national agency that will let the country enable its students and trainees to take part in the Erasmus and Leonardo education programmes.
We will be meeting a delegation of our counterparts from the Montenegrin Parliament next week, and we will encourage them to support their government in its efforts to pursue the path of convergence with the European Union and to combat all the abuses to which we have been referring.
on behalf of the PSE Group. - (DE) Mr President, at the EU summit in Thessaloniki in June 2003, the Heads of State or Government reaffirmed their support for the development of a European perspective in the Western Balkans, where Montenegro is the newest successor state of the former Yugoslavia, having declared its independence from Serbia in 2006.
Since then, its relations with the European Union have become ever closer, and Montenegro has clearly chosen to steer a European course. I particularly welcome the conclusion of the Stabilisation and Association Agreement on 18 October, which marks a milestone in relations between Montenegro and the EU. It brings numerous benefits to that small Balkan country, particularly in business and trade, for it provides for a free-trade area as well as facilitating investment and business cooperation.
On 19 October 2007 little more than a year after the declaration of independence, another important aim was achieved when the Montenegrin Parliament adopted the country's first Constitution, which will play a particularly important role in forging the identity of this young nation. It establishes Montenegro as a democratic, liberal and environmental state based on the rule of law. That is a great success. Montenegro still has a long way to go to attain membership of the EU, but remaining obstacles are being dismantled bit by bit.
There is still a particular need for progress in the struggle against the informal economy and corruption. The functioning of a free and independent judicial system, cooperation with the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia and, above all, reform processes in the spheres of democratisation, human rights and the protection of minorities are indispensable for Montenegro and its future in the EU. The initial priority must be the successful implementation of the reforms prescribed by the Stabilisation and Association Agreement.
On 1 January 2008 Slovenia, another of Yugoslavia's successor states, will take over the Presidency of the EU Council. It is gratifying that one of the priorities of the Slovenian presidency will be the Western Balkans. The security and stability of the Western Balkans are a paramount interest of the region itself and of the whole of Europe.
A democratic and stable Montenegro can and should play a major role in the pursuit of these goals. Let me close by emphasising that the prospect of Montenegro acceding to the EU one day, albeit in the more distant future, is the main generator of further reform processes. We in the European Parliament should support Montenegro on its way towards the EU.
on behalf of the ALDE Group. - (SL) Over a hundred years ago Montenegro was a kingdom on the political map of Europe. It was recognised and valued both culturally and politically.
Part of the coast, the Bay of Kotor, was an integral part of Austro-Hungary and at that time also provided access to the sea along with present-day Herzegovina. Montenegro was at one time part of modern Europe and is now preparing itself for full cooperation in and membership of the European Union.
Since May 2006, when it became a new European country, Montenegro has made encouraging progress as regards implementation of the European agenda. It deserves heartfelt congratulations for its signing of the Stability and Association Agreement and the new laws adopted in October. Podgorica also deserves recognition for its cooperation with the Hague Tribunal and its positive role and contribution to the long-term stability of the region.
However, from this day forward our European Union will be different, since a few hours ago in this hall we witnessed an extremely historic event when the Charter of Fundamental Rights was signed. The nationals of Montenegro also deserve greater democracy, greater respect, greater diversity and greater legal certainty. The main challenges to this young country are associated with the fight against organised crime and corruption, where more must and can be done. I would ask the competent authorities to be more proactive in the fight against corruption, organised crime and the trafficking of people, arms and drugs.
In that context I welcome the firm legislative framework. However, I would stress that the implementation of legislation in practice is a process which also requires adequate administrative and political resources. I am still very concerned about the lack of transparency and political culture both in political and economic structures. This is preventing Montenegro from developing a democratic society and a free market.
Montenegro must do more in terms of freedom, plurality and professionalism of the media. It must carry out the adopted reforms in full and ensure the independence of Montenegro's radio and television.
I regret the fact that there have still been no results in the investigation into the case of murdered journalist Duško Jovanović who at the time was publishing a series of articles on organised crime in Montenegro.
Journalists and civil society play an important role in the development of democracy, in particular where they draw attention to sensitive social problems. I would therefore ask the government to be more active in resolving these problems and to involve and consult civil society and provide them with better conditions in which to operate.
on behalf of the Verts/ALE Group. - (DE) Mr President, may I express my warm thanks to Mr Vernola for his report and for the cooperative way in which it was dealt with in the Committee on Foreign Affairs. It is with even more gratitude, however, that I congratulate our Montenegrin counterparts and the Commission, who have once again demonstrated that a European perspective fuels the development of democracy, the rule of law and stability.
In actual fact, however, I feel that the process is advancing too slowly. For this reason I appeal to both parties, starting with ourselves, the European institutions, to remember that Montenegro, and indeed the entire Western Balkans, is part of Europe. It is in our own interests that lasting peace and democracy should prevail there. We should deepen our commitment to the whole region. Our proposal for a specific agenda for a close economic and environmental partnership with the Western Balkans should be adopted. Let us do away with visa requirements as soon as possible.
I ask Montenegro to ensure that progress reports no longer tell, as they have told for years, of inadequate efforts to fight corruption, of organised crime and of public institutions with insufficient capacities. It must step up its efforts to put European values into practice. These include an atmosphere of openness in which the activity of civil society can truly flourish and in which unrestricted freedom of the media is a matter or course.
Lastly, it must take on a more prominent role as a constructive player throughout the region as well as in efforts to resolve the issue of Kosovo's status. Perhaps it can also rethink some of the steps that have led to dependence on countries outside Europe in certain areas. Such steps include both the signing of the bilateral immunity agreement with the United States and legislation permitting unhealthy speculation in land and property, which undermines efforts to protect the environment and prevents truly sustainable development of Montenegro's stunningly beautiful coastal region.
The recent adoption of land-use planning objectives is an important step. Once again, then, I offer my congratulations and my encouragement for further progress on the way to membership of the European Union.
on behalf of the GUE/NGL Group. - (DE) Mr President, Commissioner, in 1918 independent Montenegro took a voluntary decision to unite with the neighbouring states of Serbia, Croatia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, and Slovenia. After the break-up of Yugoslavia, the Montenegrin electorate decided democratically in 2006 that they did not wish Montenegro to remain united with Serbia. Montenegro thus became Europe's 49th independent state, a state in which most of the population are Slavs except in the regions bordering Albania and Kosovo, where ethnic Albanians predominate.
In terms of everyday politics, it is important that Montenegro should not become a haven for foreigners who want to pay less tax and launder ill-gotten gains. Montenegro must find solutions to the problem of environmental pollution and to the plight of long-term refugees from Serbia and Kosovo.
The railways must be made serviceable again, and smuggling must be combated. My group is pleased that the Committee on Foreign Affairs has adopted our amendments on refugees' living and working conditions. People who are not currently nationals of any country must not remain stateless for ever, and Montenegro must follow the relevant guideline laid down by the Council of Europe.
Our proposal on the resumption of rail services to Nikšić on the Bosnian border and to Shkodër in Albania has also been adopted. Urgent measures must be taken to put an end to the neglect of the North-South rail link and to redress the imbalance caused by the decision to rely entirely on cars, buses and lorries.
We also welcome the fact that the rapporteur has not repeated the call he made in his previous report on Montenegro for the country's rapid accession to NATO. Accession to NATO must not be imposed as a condition of future access to membership of the EU.
It is also a good thing that this report does not repeat the demand that Montenegro pursue the sort of neo-liberal economic policy which would go even further than we already have within the European Union. Montenegro has the opportunity to become a Member State of the EU. That is important, not only for Montenegro but also for the other states of the former Yugoslavia which likewise aspire to accession.
on behalf of the IND/DEM Group. - (NL) Mr President, the rapporteur Mr Vernola rightly makes the point that Montenegro's future lies in the European Union. But the road to European integration is not a rose-strewn path. There is cause for alarm at the way in which the fledgling Balkan state is developing. Montenegro may in theory be splendidly 'green' and developing ideally, but Podgorica has to sustain this over the longer term. And current practices seem to be stubbornly entrenched.
One danger, for example, is the unstable boom in property prices on the Gold Coast around Kotor. In addition, fast-expanding and sometimes illegal construction is placing undue strain on the country's water and sewerage systems. Mr Vernola mentions this, but not forcefully enough for so serious a problem.
The huge potential for growth of Montenegrin tourism has its dark side too. Whilst the tiny state's Adriatic coast is experiencing a development boom, unemployment in the north is more than 20% and poverty is above the national average.
And the legacy of the war is still apparent. Infrastructure is minimal and in some localities the population has to contend with water and electricity shortages. Montenegrins are still not investing productively enough in a sound economic future. With a view to development, with a view to joining Europe, Montenegro needs a properly thought-out strategy of growth for the whole of the country. There must be no careless action regarding a new 'European Gold Coast'.
(SL) I am pleased to support the consent given to the conclusion of a Stability and Association Agreement between the European Union and Montenegro which is one of the important, positive acts to have taken place in south-eastern Europe in recent months. This Agreement is recognition of the work that Montenegro has done and at the same time a contractual obligation to continue work on the road to full membership in the spirit of Thessaloniki perspective.
The Agreement lays down clearly the key priorities in the political and economic fields and in other fields. In that sense I welcome the agreement's clear relationship to development priorities in the field of tourism, environmental protection, transport and energy production. All these priorities are closely interlinked and it is therefore also important that Montenegro carry out or bring about administrative reform through which it will be able to ensure rapid development and satisfaction of the conditions for acquiring candidate status. I genuinely wish Montenegro success in this regard since implementation, which the speakers before me emphasised, depends on this.
I am convinced that under the Slovenian Presidency the European Union will note any progress by Montenegro in complying with its contractual obligations. Progress by Montenegro is of course in the particular interest of south-eastern Europe and thus also of the European Union as a whole.
(DE) Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, there is much to admire about Montenegro. The landscape is admirable, as is the way in which the separation from Serbia was conducted, both Montenegro and Serbia having acted very responsibly. I must also express admiration for the country's policy on minorities, as a result of which minorities, by and large, tend to feel at home in Montenegro. These and many other things certainly merit our admiration.
There are also dark sides, however, which cause me great concern and which other speakers have already mentioned. One of these is the activity of foreign investors, particularly those from Russia. I have nothing against Russian investment in Montenegro or any other country. The Montenegrins must beware, however, of an imbalance that would make them dependent on a single country - and I would say the same thing about dependence on any country, not just Russia. Some of these investments are already endangering Montenegro's natural beauty spots and its picturesque landscapes.
What continues to make me particularly sad is the prevalence of corruption, to which some Members have already referred. We have many reports from media sources that can at least be trusted to try to report in a fairly balanced way. The cases of massive corruption in connection with cigarette smuggling and other cases we have been reading about are things we thought had been consigned to history. I ask the Commission to make these occurrences a priority. If corruption were the sole criterion, we ought not to consent to the Stabilisation and Association Agreement today or in the days to come. We shall consent to it, however - and I include the Socialist Group here - because we want to help the country with its reform process.
Needless to say, however, we expect the Commission and the country itself to make every effort to eliminate corruption, which - and this is the sad thing - extends into political circles. At least there have been widespread serious allegations of corruption on the part of politicians. Like Mr Kacin, I wish to highlight the fact that the case of the murder of Duško Jovanović has not yet been solved. I wonder whether it is a mere coincidence that he and his colleagues had written a great deal about organised crime. I hope that it is a coincidence and that there is no connection. I certainly wish that the Montenegrin authorities would solve this case soon and would do far more to fight corruption in their own country.
(PL) Mr President, the recommendation on the conclusion of the Stabilisation and Association Agreement between the European Communities and the Republic of Montenegro concerns a special situation. For the first time we have to deal with a country that achieved independence through a referendum.
I was an observer at the first parliamentary election held in Montenegro after the referendum, as a representative of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe. Both the Council of Europe delegation and the OECD confirmed the democratic nature of the election. I was fascinated by the degree of civic involvement in the observation of the election process. Representatives of non-governmental organisations, returning officers, were present in all the electoral committees we visited. The great commitment of the members of the electoral committees in ensuring that all procedures were complied with was clear to see. It should also be noted that Montenegro has adopted the euro as legal tender.
Having regard to the progress made towards integration in the European Union, I support the recommendation on the conclusion of the Agreement. It is my hope that the adaptation process will help Montenegro improve the living conditions of its inhabitants.
(The President cut off the speaker)
(CS) Ladies and gentlemen, the relationship between the EU and the Balkans is a delicate issue partly because the biggest EU Member Sates, through their policy which amounted to a 'divide and conquer' approach, contributed significantly to the break-up of the former Yugoslavia, which since the First World War had been a key stabilising factor in the area as a whole. With the exception of Slovenia, all of these states are characterised by instability, ethnic tensions, migration issues, high levels of corruption and unemployment, a weak state and limited influence of elected parliaments. Such an environment is a breeding ground for illegal trade and trafficking of weapons, people, drugs, alcohol and tobacco products. In such an environment it is difficult to plan for transport, energy and economic development. It is also difficult to protect the environment. It should not come as a surprise to any of you that we view these phenomena, which are also prevalent in Montenegro, as pressing global issues facing the earth. A resolution is only a weak substitute for what we should do to redeem ourselves from the guilt borne by several members for the current state of affairs in this area. Is Parliament aware of this?
(EL) Mr President, our fellow Member Mr Vernola has given an excellent - vivid, I would say - picture of Montenegro, which is the most enchanting corner of the Balkans. In Balkan legend, there have always been tales of this ancient kingdom, which has managed to live with five neighbouring countries. So many neighbours! It shares borders with Bosnia and Croatia and Serbia and Albania, and also with Kosovo, which will now perhaps be Montenegro's problem, because, from what we see in the newspapers and hear from fellow Members, Kosovo is about to declare its independence, unilaterally!
This could be a problem for Montenegro, which is now home to large numbers of Albanians. In my view, the signature of the accession agreement, for the start of negotiations, is very positive, and will help towards the reform of public administration and judicial authority, but above all it will help to combat corruption, and I hope this same agreement will restrain whatever tendencies may emerge among the Albanian population.
(PL) Mr President, the political situation in the Balkans has been a subject of special interest to this Parliament for many years. We are happy that, after a period of bloody conflicts, peace and cooperation between nations are now the norm in the daily life of the region.
Even the most sensitive issues, such as declarations of independence by new states, now take place, or can take place, in a manner and form complying with the highest international standards. That is the real trend in the political development of the Balkans, a trend that creates the possibility to achieve the strategic goal of the majority of nations living in the region, namely closer cooperation with the European Union, up to and including full membership.
Montenegro is an excellent example of this trend. After declaring independence, it maintained good relations with its nearest neighbours, including the Republic of Serbia, with which it had previously been joined in a federation. It immediately began intensive negotiations on a Stabilisation and Association Agreement, which culminated in the signing of the Agreement on 15 October of this year. In parallel, it concluded a free-trade agreement with the EU that will enter into force in January.
In the course of this short period of time, barely one and a half years, Montenegro has made appreciable progress. The changes made in fiscal and taxation policy, and in establishing a market economy based on competition and the free movement of capital, must be seen as positive achievements.
There is still much to be done, especially in the fields of social policy and employment, energy and protection of the environment, and security and civil rights. An effective fight against corruption and organised crime and full cooperation with the International Tribunal in the Hague are particularly important tasks facing the government of Montenegro.
Montenegro, however, is not alone in facing these problems. Similar challenges face all Balkan countries applying for membership of the European Union. Montenegro is one of the leaders in this process, and I would like here to express the hope that it will remain so. The Union is prepared to welcome the Balkan countries into the community. Whether and when that happens depends, above all, on the Balkan elite and the wisdom of Balkan politicians.
(CS) Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, Montenegro has made visible progress during its short existence. The foundations have been laid for a new state and a new constitution has been adopted. The country's economy is showing strong growth of 8% and inward investment has this year been in the order of EUR 700 million. The Stabilisation and Association Agreement has been signed and Montenegro has taken its first steps on its way to full membership of the EU. If, however, its path to membership of the EU is to be as short and fast as possible, Podgorica should make some fundamental decisions. It is necessary to reinforce the functioning of the rule of law and guarantee among other things an independent judiciary. It is also necessary - with more conviction than in the past - to combat corruption and increase transparency in decision-making in political and economic structures with a view to guaranteeing the democratic and equitable functioning of the market economy. Tourism has a fundamental significance for the economy of Montenegro. Its sustainability must be guaranteed by adopting a unified legislative framework for the protection of the natural environment and the coastline.
Ladies and gentlemen, the accession process of Montenegro and its neighbours facilitates much greater development of regional cooperation. I am convinced that regional cooperation in the context of CEFTA will also help to solve many political, economic and social issues in the area as a whole. I would like to conclude my speech by inviting the Commission to help Montenegro and other Western Balkan states to develop regional cooperation, primarily in the areas of energy, transport and the environment.
(PL) Mr President, Mr Swoboda rightly referred a moment ago to the widespread corruption in Montenegro. In support, I would like to quote figures given by Transparency International, which show that, on a scale of 0 to 10 (where 10 denotes the absence of corruption), Montenegro scores 3.3. It is thus right at the forefront of countries where corruption is a major problem.
I would add that smuggling is also a dramatic problem for Montenegro. In this respect the country really does have no borders. Recently there was a proposal to prohibit smoking in public places, when at the same time, in the centre of the capital city, you can buy thousands of packets of contraband cigarettes. In that regard Montenegro clearly has a long way to go on the road to the European Union.
On the other hand, the country must be encouraged to meet the Union's criteria as soon as possible. I welcome the fact that, in regard to the judiciary, for example, or the functioning of the administration, there has been perceptible progress. We have to appreciate what Montenegro has done in this field since the moment it rather unexpectedly declared its independence following a referendum.
I believe the European Union should give a clear signal that, once the relevant criteria have been met, the road to the Union will be shortened. We have to hold out a real prospect of membership - obviously not in two, three or four years' time - but a real incentive to Montenegrin society for the increasing achievement of European standards.
(DE) Mr President, Montenegro is not just one of the world's most beautiful countries; it is also the Balkan country with the oldest tradition of independence in the modern era. When Belgium was founded, Montenegro had already been independent for centuries and possessed the characteristics of a state. I stress this because Montenegro is always wrongly dismissed as an example of a superfluous tiny land that suddenly found itself independent by a quirk of fate.
Let me say to Mr Markov that Montenegro was annexed by its Serbian ally after the First World War. There was no question of voluntary union at that time. A pro forma parliamentary vote was taken, but that was all. There was a massive Montenegrin liberation movement, whose activities continued through the twenties and into the thirties. Tito then restored Montenegro's independence within Yugoslavia, and under Tito's Yugoslav Constitution it had a right of secession. When it tried to exercise that right, however, obstacles were placed in its way. Today it is an independent country on the way to membership of the European Union.
We must support the democratic forces there. As has already been said, its treatment of minorities is an example to many others in the region, which is why the minorities supported independence. What it still needs, however, is a stronger system of independent education, such as that provided by the Franciscan school centre in Tuzi, near Podgorica. Private education initiatives are needed to release the country from its rigidity.
I call on the government to keep moving vigorously along this path towards pluralism, not only in the economy but also in education and in the country's constitutional and democratic structures.
(Applause)
(PL) Mr President, there is no doubt that Montenegro is an example of positive development in the Balkans with regard to the structure of the state, the constitution, the rule of law, entry into the global market and the creation of a market economy. Without a doubt, therefore, the European Parliament should support the Stabilisation and Association Agreement between the European Union and the Republic of Montenegro.
At the same time, however, we must remember that Montenegro has a great deal to change and to do, especially with respect to the rule of law and the fight against corruption. I would point out that in April 2007 Montenegro signed a bilateral agreement with the United States on exclusion from the jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court. Unfortunately, that agreement is in contradiction with the common position and basic principles of the European Union. The International Criminal Court is a very important institution from the viewpoint of EU policy. The bilateral agreement therefore grated unpleasantly with the prospect of an agreement with the Union.
I do not say this in order to make the European Parliament ill disposed towards Montenegro. On the contrary, I believe the European Commission and all the EU institutions should do a great deal at the present time to help that country prepare properly for closer relations with the European Union, especially in combating corruption, strengthening the rule of law, building a market economy and countering the black market.
(DE) Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, the example of Montenegro shows how important a referendum can be. I therefore understand why numerous posters calling for a referendum were held aloft in the House today, as the Treaty of Lisbon itself, of course, gives us the option of offering the European people such a referendum. I believe it is important that the general public are involved in the consultation process and that they have the opportunity to express their wishes.
In Montenegro I believe there is also a need to improve the country's economic structures; as Mr Posselt has already indicated, the educational establishments and programmes of the European Union are particularly important in that respect. In energy too, energy efficiency and renewables pose a huge challenge in Montenegro as well as offering unprecedented opportunities.
In the telecommunications sector too, it would be desirable for Montenegro to transpose the Roaming Directive into national law because that could, of course, contribute to better communication with our European countries at more reasonable prices.
It goes without saying that the environment is one of the key challenges, and the domain of waste management, sewage works and waste water poses a particular problem. If we speak of magnificent unspoiled natural beauty, we have grounds for applying the latest standards there. The European Union is offering environmental support frameworks, which should be put in place as soon as possible.
(LT) Many thanks to the rapporteur, who had the honour, in this report, of introducing a new and at the same time old European country. After the 'velvet divorce' from Serbia, Montenegro has been given the opportunity to demonstrate the unlimited potential of a small, proud country. On the other hand, Montenegro should lead in the development of regional cooperation, continuing to increase the rights of minorities and contributing to the conversion of the Balkan region from a barrel of gunpowder to a garden of nations.
Like the other countries whose names have only recently appeared on the map, Montenegro is facing a number of hazardous challenges: deep-rooted corruption, illegal business, the black economy, etc. It is unfortunate that some foreign investors, especially those from Russia, are attracted to this young country mainly because it offers easy ways of striking illegal financial deals. The decision not to hand over the US workers to the International Criminal Court in exchange for military assistance undermines Montenegro's credibility as regards its willingness to cooperate peacefully with its neighbours, and even its dedication to European objectives.
Today, from the shadows of the past, Montenegro, like some of its neighbouring countries, is attracted to the prospect of becoming a member of the European Union. The very perspective of becoming a Member State encourages the development of democracy, human rights and a better life for citizens. The implementation of the Stabilisation and Association Agreement should put the wind of Europe in the sails of Montenegro's reforms. The country can draw from the experience accumulated en route to achieving EU membership by their neighbour Slovenia and other countries that joined the EU in the new Millennium.
Montenegro's initiative of declaring itself an ecological republic is laudable; however, the path to achieving credible implementation could be a long one.
It is good, that the curtain of isolation surrounding visas for Montenegro and other Balkan countries has been ripped up. The European Commission and the Council should not linger at the halfway stage, but continue to demolish this obstruction, together with financial and bureaucratic barriers, while maintaining a strong level of protection against criminals and lawbreakers.
Member of the Commission. - Mr President, I wish to begin by thanking the Members for a very substantial and substantive debate and Mr Vernola for stimulating this debate.
Most Members rightly emphasised the absolute necessity of combating corruption and crime and ensuring that the rule of law is reinforced in Montenegro. I could not agree more: the rule of law is fundamentally important for all sectors of society, underpinning the functioning of the whole society and the economy. That is precisely why the Commission insists very much on judiciary reform early on in the pre-accession process in Montenegro, as well as in the other countries of the Western Balkans. This is one of the most important political criteria of accession, which should be considered first and foremost.
Mr Vernola and many other Members also highlighted the importance of ecology and the environment. The Commission is assisting this ancient kingdom to become the ecological republic in the garden of nations, as Mr Paleckis said, by strengthening the administrative capacity of Montenegro, which in turn makes the country better able to approximate its laws to ours, for instance in the field of waste management and water treatment.
However, this is also related to corruption and I want to quote from the progress report of the Commission. 'There have been no improvements in activities to curb political corruption. ... Management of public assets raises serious concerns. There is considerable room for corruption, especially in the cases of construction and land-use planning, privatisation, concessions and public procurement.' This is a very serious issue and that is why Montenegro needs to address corruption as one of its first priorities.
Let me also inform the honourable Members that the Commission intends to adopt a communication early next year - probably in March - in which we will take stock of developments since Thessaloniki, and Salzburg last year, and give pointers towards the future. One such issue will be visa liberalisation, mentioned by many of you, and rightly so. The Commission will initiate dialogue on roadmaps towards visa-free travel, which should help the countries of the Western Balkans to make progress to meet the requirements so their citizens will no longer need visas to travel to the European Union.
But, I want to underline that this is not, as such, within the competences of the Commission but in the hands of the national governments of the European Union, and the ministries and ministers of the interior are the key players here. Therefore let us join our forces and carry out effective lobbying of the ministers of the interior as well as of the countries concerned in the Western Balkans, because we have to be sure that all the security requirements, such as the issuing of documents and border controls, are in full order before we can move towards visa liberalisation.
Finally, I am very pleased to hear about the successful parliamentary cooperation which is taking place between the Parliament of Montenegro and the European Parliament. I know this is very important - it is part of true political integration - and this is helping to develop institutions in Montenegro in a most welcome way. I trust that we can work together towards reinforcing the democratic institutions and administrative capacity of Montenegro. I am very glad that we see eye to eye on the future development of Montenegro on its road towards the European Union.
(Applause)
I have received one motion for a resolution to wind up the debate on the Commission statement.
That joint debate is closed.
The votes on the motion for a resolution and the Vernola report will be on Thursday, 13 December 2007.
Written statements (Rule 142)
in writing. - (PL) Mr President, as a Member of the European Parliament I have great pleasure in expressing support for the conclusion of the Stabilisation and Association Agreement between the European Communities and their Member States and the Republic of Montenegro.
I believe that cooperation between the European Union and the Republic of Montenegro will be mutually beneficial in the future, especially through the gradual creation of a bilateral free-trade area. I am also very pleased at the progress made by the Republic of Montenegro towards meeting the obligations imposed by the European Union.
I would, however, refer briefly to areas in which, as set out in the Commission's recommendations, Montenegro must continue its efforts if it wishes to draw closer to the European Union. The most important task is to improve the rule of law by reforming public administration so as to strengthen institutions at all levels and effectively combat their politicisation. I am aware of and appreciate the legislative efforts made by Montenegro in this area, but it is most important that they should gradually be given greater practical force. The Montenegrin authorities must also achieve greater transparency in matters of budgetary control, management of public funds and tender procedures.
I believe that implementation by the Republic of Montenegro of all the European Commission's recommendations will make it possible to set the country swiftly on a direct path to accession.


One year after Lisbon: the EU-Africa partnership at work (debate)
The next item is the report by Mrs Martens, on behalf of the Committee on Development, on One year after Lisbon: The Africa-EU partnership at work.
Member of the Commission. - (FR) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I would first of all like to thank the Committee on Development and its rapporteur, Mrs Martens, for this report which makes a first assessment of the Africa-EU Strategic Partnership one year after the Lisbon Summit.
It is, of course, with great satisfaction that I note the number of positive elements underlined by this report and the progress that has been made during the course of a year, which is relatively short for such a vast and, above all, politically ambitious exercise. To mention just one of these, we have this afternoon had a meeting between Parliament's ad hoc delegation for relations with the Pan-African Parliament of the African Union and the Pan-African Parliament of the African Union's ad hoc committee for relations with the European Parliament on the role of parliaments in implementing and monitoring Africa-EU strategy.
That in itself is a concrete result. A new institutional architecture between the two continents is being put in place and I wish to congratulate the two presidents for the work that they have completed.
Rather than elaborating on the positive aspects of the Martens Report, I would like instead to touch on three key points that the report highlights for improving the EU-African Union partnership. The first point is on the role of parliaments. You know how much of a believer I am in the role of the parliaments, both as actors and as scrutineers of the democratic process. It is in this twin capacity that the European and Pan-African parliaments are invited to take part in the Africa-EU Strategic Partnership.
I can therefore assure you of my total support for the proposals made in the European Parliament and Pan-African Parliament joint proposal and repeated in the report. These consist firstly of participation at the appropriate level in the joint panels of experts relating to the four thematic partnerships which concern you. Secondly, involvement in drawing up the annual progress reports. Thirdly, participation in the joint taskforce, and fourthly the participation of the presidents in the Africa-European Union Summit.
Some of these proposals have, I might add, already materialised, or are in the process of doing so. As regards civil society and non-state actors, I am more convinced than anyone that the principle challenge for 2009 consists of speeding up the achievement of tangible results before the mid-term assessment planned for autumn 2009 and achieving the ambition of a partnership centred on people outside of institutions.
In this context, non-state actors are being brought in to play an important role ahead of becoming involved in the joint panels of experts for each of the eight thematic partnerships. On the European side, a civil society steering group has already been established last spring to monitor and participate in the implementation of the partnership. On the African side, a civil society steering group has also been recently put in place under the aegis of the Economic, Social and Cultural Council of the African Union.
European and African civil society should meet in a forum at the end of April 2009 to draw up concrete proposals for commitment to the joint Africa/European Union ministerial Troika.
As regards strategic partnerships, and specifically the one dealing with governance and human rights, I welcome Parliament's move towards a notion of government that is very dear to me: the good execution of the executive functions and the powers conferred by public law by a state that is impartial and capable of meeting the needs and aspirations of its citizens.
It is, therefore, with this in mind that two years ago we set up the EUR 2.7 billion governance section for all the ACP countries. This approach is based on three principles: dialogue, incentivising reforms and ownership of these reforms by the partner country. However, the report expresses doubts and concerns, particularly as regards the governance profiles: how they are drawn up, how they are used and their possible negative impact on the African Peer Review Mechanism.
I would remind you that the governance profiles that cover all dimensions of these - that is the political, economic, social, institutional and environmental dimensions, and so on - were only the starting point and in no way guided the programming of this section.
Moreover, the results and conclusions of this analysis were discussed with the government of the partner country during the programming dialogue. On the basis of this, the government was encouraged to explain its own reform plan or, if need be, complete it or go into more detail; to demonstrate the relevance, ambition and credibility of these reforms on the basis of three evaluation criteria, which then allowed the level of financial incentive for each country to be determined. In this context, particular attention was given to countries which are committed to the African Peer Review Mechanism and which have completed the review, showing their desire to continue along these lines. This exercise threw into stark relief the very different situations of each country; the respective needs for reform as well as the different capacities for drawing up and proposing a governance plan. Flexibility and pragmatism have therefore been necessary when apportioning the governance incentive fund. In January 2009, the Commission published an interim report on the incentive fund process and sent it to all the institutions of the European Union, for whatever purpose it may serve.
rapporteur. - (NL) Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, we are discussing the report 'One year after Lisbon: The Africa-EU partnership at work', which is to say the implementation of the Joint Africa-EU Strategy for the development of Africa, as set out at the EU-Africa Summit in December 2007.
That Summit was a momentous occasion. It was, in fact, the first time that the European Union and the African Union had together laid down a strategy on the basis of shared values and principles and mutual respect, that they had reached agreements to achieve the Millennium Development Goals together and to find solutions together to common challenges in the areas of, for example, security, migration and the climate.
We are all aware of the criticism in our own countries, where people wonder whether it really makes sense to continue investing money in Africa, especially in these times of economic crisis. I would like to emphasise once again how important our efforts continue to be for the development of Africa, and that applies to both continents. Commissioner Michel was spot on when he said, in a meeting in this regard just a short while ago that the more poverty there is, the more instability there is. This is also important from the point of view of demographic trends. Before long, Africa will account for 20% of the world's population, while Europe will account for just 5%. We have common problems, we face common challenges. When people lack opportunities in Africa, it is only natural that they will seek them in Europe. Africa deserves our support, and not only for that reason.
Today, we are discussing the implementation of the agreed strategy and we have an action plan. We must continue to act together in order to realise the strategy and the action plan. I am pleased with the results that have been achieved so far in relation to the partnerships. In my previous reports I have always expressed concern about the lack of a clear specific role for the parliaments when it comes to the implementation of a joint strategy. In 2007, the Pan-African Parliament and the European Parliament issued a joint statement which actually quite pithily sums up what is involved. I will now read it in English.
'As institutions representing the peoples' will, our parliaments must see to it that their needs are satisfied, their concerns heard by decision-makers, and that their wishes are reflected in the policies proposed by the institutions that govern them. Our parliaments have an essential part to play in shaping the debate on the joint priorities for the future of our continents; they reflect the various currents of opinion in our societies, and are therefore the place where the debate must be conducted, and where differing views can be reconciled and compromises sought.'
(NL) I am therefore pleased that, at this meeting, we agreed what the role of the parliaments would be. It is also thanks to Mr Gahler, our colleagues in the Pan-African Parliament and all those involved that an agreement has been reached on the role of the parliaments. It is about participation in the group of experts in connection with the eight partnerships and the coordinating task force. The parliaments are to give their input in the annual progress reports and the presidents of the European Parliament and the Pan-African Parliament are to be invited to give their visions at the Africa summits. That is an important detail.
I will conclude with one more question for the Commissioner. We know that the definitions of ODA will shortly - in April - be on the agenda again in the EU-SEDAC talks and that the European Commission will be involved. Can the Commissioner tell us what his vision for this discussion is and what the input of the European Commission will be?
on behalf of the PPE-DE Group. - (PL) Mr President, development policy, one of the most important areas of EU policy, aims to resolve global problems. It was fortunate, and by no means an accident, that the first joint partnership strategy was created for Africa, and involving Africa.
One of the reasons for the great importance of development policy is the fact that it has become an instrument of historically-oriented policy. In this context, the fundamental aim of cooperation on development issues is to counteract past processes and mechanisms. Jomo Kenyatta, the father of Kenyan independence, described this in a vivid, albeit simplified, manner. I know that the Commissioner is familiar with this famous quotation. Mr Kenyatta once said: 'When the missionaries arrived, the Africans had the land and the missionaries had the Bible. They taught us how to pray with our eyes closed. When we opened them, they had the land and we had the Bible.'
Historically-oriented policy is not, however, the only reason for Europe's involvement in development-related problems. There are also more pragmatic reasons. Africa remains the poorest continent in the world. Nevertheless, for the first time in 30 years, it is experiencing a period of economic growth. In any case, we may add, this economic growth is higher than in Europe. There are, of course, African countries which, as a result of the work of inept governments, have indeed managed to destroy their own economies. Generally speaking, we can state that Africa is a continent with untapped potential. I am pleased that the EU is helping to revive and activate this potential.
That is why one of the aims of the strategy is to ensure broader dialogue and cooperation, in fields other than those typically related to development issues. The strategy covers a wide range of policies, including security, energy and climate change. It is worrying, however, that little progress has been made in most of these areas. We must also admit that certain EU Member States have not been as committed to the partnership with Africa as others have. I am convinced that the second year of partnership will be better and that we will be able to achieve our goals more rapidly.
Mr President, Commissioner, for a year we have been celebrating the development of this new process, this new agreement between the European Union and Africa. This being the case, you will allow me to be less reserved than usual, Commissioner. I believe that on the occasion of its first anniversary, a certain number of acknowledgements must be made.
Down there, there is a shortage of everything. There is a shortage of managers, doctors, teachers and technicians. Here, there is talk of managed immigration, yet we still have not taken the measures necessary to allow diasporas, for example, to put themselves at the service of their states. Down there, they do not even manage to feed their populations. Here, we are renewing the export subsidies on our agricultural products and promoting biofuels, which leads to huge monocultures down there.
Down there, everything continues to fall apart, destitution spreads, disease kills and water is short. Here, we talk a lot, we make promises, we debate and we vote on resolutions; but what is happening in practical terms for the people of Africa? I think - as do you for that matter, and I know that you are firmly convinced of this - that it is time to bring together the parliaments of these countries, and thus to bring together their peoples. I believe that no process between the European Union and Africa will succeed as long as we remain at the level of politicians and technicians. The peoples of Africa must be brought together and it is through their parliaments that we must do it.
I am delighted to hear that there is a will to develop this special relationship at parliamentary level. However, I have my doubts, Commissioner, because just before this debate we had a long debate with your colleague Mrs Ashton about Economic Partnership Agreements. Bizarrely, it is almost impossible to achieve the involvement of the parliaments of partner countries in those agreements. We are not managing to convince part of this House, but also the Commission, that it would really be necessary for their parliaments to have their say first, before asking us - the European Parliament - our opinion on issues that will directly affect the lives of people down there. That being the case, I hope that things will change in this regard.
Likewise, I believe that it is important - thankfully, you also emphasised it - to involve NGOs and African civil society in the process a lot more and a lot better; I also mentioned diasporas, but that relates to here. I do not know what practical things have been done with respect to this, but in any case I think that they give the process which you have set in motion a chance of success.
on behalf of the ALDE Group. - Mr President, the year 2007 was unfortunately the second year in a row when contributions to official development assistance decreased in the developed world. I am therefore glad that the rapporteur has reiterated the need to urge the European Union Member States to uphold their commitments.
I find that the Member States ought to revise their current assistance to target countries, as the 2008 Millennium Development Goals Progress Chart indicates that Sub-Saharan Africa is the only region lagging seriously behind the progress expected. I would like to use this opportunity to encourage Member States to increase their contribution to Sub-Saharan Africa, which is the least developed region in the world. Also, target countries are not always too receptive towards the conditional nature of EU assistance. We should continue with the efforts to involve those countries more intimately.
The global economic crisis burdens us all, yet we must not forget or ignore the fact that the least developed countries are also the most vulnerable now. Furthermore, with the stagnant situation in Africa, Europe is more and more intimidated by flows of immigration that might become strenuous to the welfare state. It is much wiser to deal with the problems of the people of the developing countries before those problems spill over to concerns that we need to address here in Europe.
Mr President, Commissioner, once again we are discussing Africa in the European Parliament. Today, we are not talking about war, human rights or aid for developing countries. Instead, we are trying to sum up the current state of play regarding the partnership between Africa and the European Union. Unfortunately, this partnership is virtually non-existent.
To be fair, we do have lofty aspirations for achieving understanding and cooperation between the African Union, the Parliament of the African Union and the Commission of the African Union. However, Africa still remains the poorest continent on our planet, where people have the shortest life expectancy in the world, where there is famine and disease on an unprecedented scale, while the level of education and health, especially in poor urban areas and villages, is almost zero.
The positive impact of the African Union on the economic situation is so small that, in practice, it is merely a sham organisation, with no influence in terms of solving everyday problems. It is an organisation of politicians, who use it to participate in global political life. Africa is a continent with rich natural resources, which are used by the whole world. However, this has had no positive impact on the living standards of the population or in terms of reducing poverty. Various organisations are trying to tackle the problem of poverty, but progress is barely noticeable. The rapporteur, Mrs Martens, has clearly stated this fact.
We really do not know how to help Africa, and the report does not provide a solution, either. Let us remember how a peaceful Kenya became drenched in blood within the space of a few days. How can we ensure that financial aid from different countries is properly distributed? This is an issue we discussed a few months ago. We also spoke about the steps China is taking. Perhaps China has found the right path? We should examine this path carefully.
on behalf of the GUE/NGL Group. - (IT) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the joint EU-Africa Strategy is first and foremost a great challenge, a time for us to show that we are capable of taking a fresh look at ourselves and our policies. I believe we still need to think through relations between our two continents, and our development strategies, very carefully.
It is a long process; we cannot expect to solve everything at once, and it is also very complicated, but primarily it must, in my opinion, be an inclusive, participative process built from the bottom up: a partnership between equals.
The Lisbon Summit was not able to achieve this in full, perhaps because of the haste with which it was concluded, and neither the European Union nor the African Union wanted or was able to give a structural role to parliaments and civil society, in Africa or Europe. It is now a year since the summit and, as the Martens report strongly emphasises, our Parliament, the Pan-African Parliament and civil society still do not have a real say in determining the strategy.
It is therefore vital - not least in order to meet the Millennium Development Goals on overcoming poverty and disease and on agricultural and educational development - that these should be included, along with all the topics that have been raised, from desertification to climate change and energy.
It is essential to have complete ownership and a democratic partnership open, therefore, to the public and not confined solely to governments and committees. We, as the European Parliament, have enhanced our relations with the Pan-African Parliament and there is no doubt that these steps forward have had a positive impact on the joint EU-Africa Strategy.
A number of doubts emerged back in 2007, however, regarding funding. Will the funds be found to achieve this joint strategy? What is the future for the ACP States and the Cotonou Agreement? What will be our relationship with international organisations - the World Bank, the International Monetary Fund and the WTO? Let us work together to make these institutions more democratic.
To conclude, I believe that we should take heart and press ahead with this challenge because Africa - as we have learnt in recent years - is a continent rich in human and economic resources; a genuine partner. It is fantastic to see - Commissioner Michel, whom I know well, is aware of this - that there is great wealth and not just death, destruction and war, although we must, of course, work on those areas to build peace and democracy.
on behalf of the IND/DEM Group. - (NL) Mr President, first of all, I would like to thank the rapporteur, Mrs Martens, for this solid report. It is good that Parliament not only welcomes the announcement of a partnership, but also really does monitor the tangible results. That is what Africa needs: The foundations for a successful partnership with Africa require good governance and human rights. This is essential in a continent where mayors can overthrow presidents and where another president has been crippling his own population to carry out witch hunts. The Council and the Commission should make this a key priority.
When I mention good governance I am also thinking of the role of China, which is only mentioned in passing in this resolution. It strikes me that there is a failure to sound any critical note about the sometimes disastrous consequences of China's involvement in Africa. The European Union can perhaps learn a lesson from the EUR 2 billion that the China-African Development Fund invests in Africa. The fact that Beijing also invests in countries such as Zimbabwe says it all about China's contribution to long-term democracy and good governance in Africa.
I also have a comment to make to the rapporteur. In paragraph 46 she refers to African food security and food sovereignty. What I believe is lacking in this resolution is any text going into a problem that has been around for a number of years, namely the lease or even purchase by outside states or companies of large areas of agricultural land, with the harvest going to foreign investors and therefore not benefiting the malnourished local population. Such situations are really quite distressing. Furthermore, these investments do not provide any jobs. It is a shame that the resolution does not address this specific problem, which is currently receiving a lot of attention in the media once again.
(DE) Mr President, as chairman of the Ad-hoc Delegation for Relations with the Pan-African Parliament, I would like to take the opportunity today to thank the many people involved. First of all, I would like to thank Maria Martens, who has prepared an excellent report on progress made regarding the agreed EU-Africa Strategy. Secondly, I would like to thank the institutions involved. We have managed, within the framework of a hexalogue - that is, involving six interlocutors - to reach an understanding between the two Parliaments. Both Commissions have agreed, as have the two Parliaments as well as the two Councils. As far as the Council is concerned, I would specifically like to single out the legal service, which is always particularly important when it comes to such matters, as common positions sometimes fail here. However, following the first meeting in Adis Ababa, we have managed, in our second meeting today, to implement and finally agree on what we had agreed concerning the involvement of the two Parliaments.
I would like to comment on what Mr Hutchinson said. What is really happening? Yes, many bad things are happening in Africa. However, my impression - and perhaps this is coincidental - is that, since the agreement of this common strategy, Africa has reacted differently to coups. In Mauretania, Guinea, Guinea-Bissau and Madagascar, Africa has reacted by suspending the membership of these countries. That did not happen in the past. Back then, it would have been business as usual.
In this regard, I would also like to state that we, as European governments, should also take these facts into account. If this partnership is based on common values, then the Europeans also have to react when Africans react when something goes wrong in Africa. That is why I am confident that if we, as Parliaments, are more involved in the implementation of this strategy in the future, we will be able to deliver added value to this partnership.
(PT) I want to congratulate Mrs Martens on this important report and point out how vital this Parliament's role is in monitoring the implementation of the Joint Africa-EU Strategy and the respective Action Plan.
Some important steps have been taken with regard to several of the eight partnerships involved in the strategy, particularly the establishment of joint expert groups and implementation teams and the commencement of dialogue in the context of these partnerships.
However, I regret that, by the end of the first year, some partnerships are still in the process of defining working methods and have not yet established deliverables, timetables or budget allocations.
I hope that the next joint annual progress report will be much more specific than the first in its presentation of the results and in its indication of the financial envelopes. It is particularly important that we are vigilant in terms of honouring the commitments made by the European Union and its Member States with a view to selecting the Millennium Development Goals. We must also ensure that the global recession, which is affecting everyone, does not disproportionately penalise the countries and peoples of Africa, given that they are already the most vulnerable.
Development and democratic governance in Africa must form part of the crisis exit strategy for all of us. In this respect, we also need to see more significant progress in all the partnerships, including those which are politically more sensitive, as is the case with governance and human rights.
The European Parliament's role in this process must be reinforced by officially giving it monitoring functions and involving it in the work of the strategy implementation teams. It is also vital to ensure the involvement in this process of actors representing both European and African civil societies, particularly national parliaments, NGOs and the media.
(PL) Mr President, I would like to draw attention to three issues in this debate. First of all, in December 2007, the European Parliament adopted a new EU-Africa Strategy, which aimed to ensure equality between the two sides. The main issue at the heart of this Strategy was to reduce poverty in African countries. However, not much progress was made in this field last year.
Secondly, the continuing financial and economic crisis may, unfortunately, worsen the situation facing African countries. The leading global financial institutions are making the following predictions for 2009. The IMF estimates that global GDP will shrink by 1%, while the World Bank estimates a fall of 2%. The WTO predicts a decrease in the value of global trade of as much as 9%. It will be the first time that this has happened in 50 years. The crisis facing the most developed countries will, according to the IMF, go on to affect developing countries, including those in Africa, while rising unemployment and poverty might cause civil unrest and, in some cases, may even lead to war.
I hope that, in view of this crisis and its repercussions, which will continue to be felt during the next few years, the EU-Africa Cooperation Strategy will be amended in an appropriate manner, in order to prevent this kind of civil unrest, or perhaps even armed conflict, being caused by the global economic crisis.
(ES) Mr President, in Lisbon in December 2007, the Heads of State or Government of the European Union adopted the Joint Africa-EU Strategy and the first Action Plan for its implementation.
There were three facts that brought about this strategy. The first was the fact that, on the African continent, peace processes and the gradual consolidation of democratic systems coexist with persistent conflicts such as that in Darfur, high levels of poverty and the emergence of situations such as the massive waves of illegal immigration.
The second fact is that sub-Saharan Africa is the poorest region on the planet. The population has low life expectancy, low levels of education and literacy and high demographic growth. Three hundred million people live on less than EUR 1 a day.
The third fact is that Africa is the physical location of the big pandemics, the place where more than two thirds of those infected with AIDS live and the site of 90% of deaths caused by malaria.
In the last year we have made little progress on the targets we set ourselves and, given that the action plan covers the period up to 2010, we must take immediate action in two important areas. Firstly, we must cooperate on democratic governance, the strengthening of institutions and enhancement of the role of civil society, with particular attention to gender policies. Secondly, we must cooperate to address basic social needs, the fight against hunger and the launch of development programmes in education, health and access to basic resources such as water.
(PL) Mr President, the partnership we are discussing today is the answer to Africa's needs, as it provides support for the process of democratisation in African countries and for human rights and, at the same time, it ensures strong, bilateral involvement in the fight against climate change and in the field of energy security.
Today, in view of our growing global co-dependency and shared responsibility, we also need commitment from potentially weaker partners. Let us take the fight against climate change as an example. Although Africa contributes the least to polluting our atmosphere, it feels the repercussions most acutely. That is why we need to include African countries in the fight against climate change, especially in terms of making the broadest possible use of the renewable energy sources which are at these countries' disposal.
Certain countries are aiming to draw African countries into their sphere of influence. This should not happen. Africa does not need to be controlled. Instead, it needs our help and support. At the same time, we should also treat Africa as an equal partner, rather than simply as a recipient of financial aid. Being on an equal footing fosters a greater degree of commitment.
Member of the Commission. - (FR) Mr President, I would like to thank the various speakers.
I am pleased that there is satisfaction with the first results, but it goes without saying that this is not yet enough. We must understand that things have only been in place for one year and that we should be moving up a gear in 2009.
I accept the essentials of the various speeches and the issues raised correspond perfectly to my convictions. It is obvious that there can be no development if there is no ownership, as Mr Hutchinson and Mrs Morgantini were saying. It is equally obvious that the role of the national parliaments and that of civil society are eminently important.
Moreover, I regret that it was not possible to conduct a thorough reform of the institutional mechanisms governing Parliament's responsibility for development policy. I remember that you asked for the country strategy papers to be debated not just here but also in partners' national parliaments. The European Council did not allow me to do that, which is why I sent the country strategy papers to the joint parliamentary assembly. Through that channel, you sent them on to the various parliaments of Europe, but all that does not add up to any sort of institutional rule, as I sincerely wish were the case. As a reminder, I add that that will continue to be one of my absolute priorities, because we would make enormous progress if the European Development Funds were included in the budget. While this will not be included in the budget, we will still have poor reasons for not letting Parliament play the role that it should, and as a result the commissioner in charge of development will sometimes be powerless. It would be far simpler if I could discuss the priorities, programmes and projects here in Parliament; I could move forward, strengthened by this backing. Unfortunately, that is not yet the case. I hope that we will get there.
I do not want to skip over issues that do not seem right to me either. I would remind you that last year, at European level, we spent the contribution of the Commission and Member States, knowing that each one put in EUR 46 billion. However, we are EUR 1.7 billion behind on the programme or, shall we say, on the objective that had been set. I am not at all satisfied with that and I think that we will have to fight for it in the future. Parliament will need to be a true ambassador for this message and exert pressure. We will need all our available strength at political level simply to hold Member States to respecting their 2005 commitments. It will not be easy. I still remember the struggle for the billion for the food facility. That was not easy, but we obtained good conditions. We got an additional billion, however it was spread over three years instead of two. Fortunately though, the projects are moving forward and their implementation is progressing in a positive way. I am therefore, naturally, entirely in agreement.
We do not intend to reopen DAC issues. There are some adjustments à la marge under discussion, for example peacekeeping missions.
(FR) Therefore we have no intention of reopening that debate. Moreover, I must say that I am very cautious. I am not particularly in favour of reopening this debate, because if we do that you will even see certain Member States participating in order to include anything and everything in the budget for this.
I must tell you, Mr Cook, that I do not agree when it is said that we have lost our ideals. I do not think that is the case. I think that you only have to hear the voices in this House to realise that we are still extremely committed to defending developing countries. It is not true to say that we are not contributing to the solution. Obviously, we cannot be expected to be able to solve everything, but I shudder to think how poor the world would be without European aid.
It is not enough, I fully agree, but it represents 57% of aid worldwide. Unfortunately, I do not think that we can discuss that now, but the issue of knowing whether European aid from our Member States or from the Commission is still achieving its goals or is still effective - whether it is a good way of working - is another matter. I would like this debate to return to the issue of the establishment, or not, of budget support and conditionalities because, like you, I am very unsure about the latter.
That said, we still need to know what we want. If we want to get a government to make approaches to civil society or get its population - or its parliament in some cases - to participate, we must all the same accept that we must impose conditions. This is because it is sometimes not enough to simply say to a government 'we hope that you are going to do that', to make impassioned pleas or simply friendly suggestions. The issue surrounding conditionalities - I do not like the word conditionality and prefer to talk about criteria - is still important. When you talk, for example, about profile, I believe that it is still quite normal to be able to set one up. That profile has not been used to set the budget for the initiative. It is still quite normal for us to analyse the governance profiles of each country when we are getting ready to grant them up to an extra 25 or even 30% in financial incentives. All of these debates are still open. I do not wish to close them, but I do hope that we are able to do so at some point.
I shall miss out everything to do with China. Obviously I think that it is a good discussion. I think, naturally, that developing countries have the right to put the cooperation that they want out to tender. Africa is no longer the exclusive territory of Europe and that is very good. This is something I consider important.
It is indeed advisable to question the quality of the development policies set up between China and Africa. We cannot criticise them for doing it, but we can wonder. I have, for example, been receiving reports for several months of Chinese contracts in the Democratic Republic of Congo. I am not saying that these are bad contracts. I am simply saying that a whole series of issues merit responses. We are busy responding to them at the moment, particularly the issue of the state guarantee because it is an agreement that is made with a private enterprise. We are also dealing with the percentage of loans compared to gifts, the fact that they did not go out to tender and the fact that it is almost the same amount as the country's debt to the European Monetary Fund. These are all issues to which a solution must be found, but not by denouncing this type of relationship. African countries have the right to make partnership agreements with the Chinese too. I will not return to this point.
I think, Mrs Morgantini, that you have put your finger on some issues which had already been raised by Mr Hutchinson. It is clear that the real problem will always be in ensuring that the relationship between us and the developing countries is a genuine partnership. I think that the Lisbon Summit was a considerable step forward because we at least forged in the texts the beginnings of a new philosophy of equal partners in terms of rights and responsibilities.
However, we are obviously still not fully there and this is one of the issues that is linked to ownership and to - where possible - budget support. It is linked to ownership by civil society and by debate at parliamentary level. I believe that you are right and that these are the areas we must work on.
You asked another question which is of real concern to me and which is, in my opinion, an essential subject for debate. It was 'how can we achieve better harmonisation: getting people to work together better, dividing up the work better, supporting global development policy better between the various partners; the role of the World Bank, the World Trade Organisation, the International Monetary Fund, the Commission and all the large-scale donors?'
It is true that for the moment - as was said in another meeting - there are superimpositions and duplications. There is even competition and it is not always useful competition. I can tell you that a lot of progress has been made in the last two years, particularly with the World Bank. I can tell you that seeing the new message, strategy and philosophy that I detect at the World Bank makes me quite optimistic. There is therefore room for another type of cooperation; for collaboration between the various partners, and I think that you have really put your finger on a fundamental point, which we will need to take a close look at.
Of course, good governance is a major element; it is the reason why we made provision for the governance package.
Mrs Gomez broached the important subject of the effects of the financial crisis on the economic and social situation in developing countries. Pretty much all the experts are currently in agreement in saying that there will be at least a 2% reduction in growth, which represents up to 50 million more poor people. We must be very aware of that.
As far as we are concerned, I will already be very pleased if the Member States keep the promises they made in 2005. I assure you that together we will have to fight extremely hard to force the Member States to do so.
Secondly, I am busy preparing a communication - the April package that I promised - which goes beyond public development assistance. It will attempt to mobilise a whole series of the Commission's sectional budgets for development policies. I must tell you that there are some really interesting leads. I am also working with the European Investment Bank on that package, particularly regarding supportive infrastructure to try to develop them quickly and have quite a quick impact. I will come to Parliament with that in April. I would just like to say that I still have one more very important issue to cover, which is the role of civil society and national parliaments.
I will finish with that. Mr Hutchinson once suggested that some experiments could be carried out with Members of this House, and perhaps members of the parliaments of Member States, to go wherever it were possible to do so, and hold debates on the country strategy papers. I have had the opportunity to do so in three different countries. It worked very well, but it is obvious that it worked well because in those three countries we had the support of their governments, because without such support on this issue it is extremely difficult. I therefore think that you are right: mobilising parliamentary action is certainly one of the priorities. In any case, believe me that I will do everything in my power to ensure this.
rapporteur. - (NL) Mr President, I actually do not have much more to add. This is the first debate about the implementation of the strategy. We have made a start, but we are still at the beginning. There is still an exceptional amount left to do. Africa remains the poorest continent. You have all pointed out where our concerns lie and what challenges we face, be it in relation to peace and security, economic growth, good governance, building capacity or the role of the parliaments and civil society. The Commissioner has made the necessary remarks in that regard.
I would like to thank you, my fellow Members, the Commissioner and our colleagues from the Pan-African Parliament. We will continue to follow this process.
The debate is closed.
The vote will take place on Tuesday, 24 March 2009.