Approval of the minutes of the previous sitting : see Minutes


Agenda for next sitting: see Minutes


Closure of the sitting
(The sitting was closed at 10.45 p.m.)


Granting and withdrawing international protection (debate)
The next item is the report by Mrs Guillaume, on behalf of the Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs, on the proposal for a directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on minimum standards on procedures in Member States for granting and withdrawing international protection (recast) - C7-0248/2009 -.
Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the first stage will be reached this week in the recasting of the Asylum Procedures Directive. Indeed, our Parliament will be required on Wednesday to give its verdict on the revised Commission proposal on common procedures for granting and withdrawing refugee status.
This European Parliament opinion is essential to the dialogue that will be pursued with the Council in the coming months on a text that I believe is the cornerstone of the asylum package and on which - I am sorry to say - discussions are at a standstill in the Council. It will serve as a basis for a new version of this directive, which I hope will enable us to stick to our 2012 deadline for implementing common asylum rules.
The vote on this report coincides with the publication, last week, of a UNHCR study on the 44 industrialised nations. The study shows that, contrary to popular belief, the number of asylum seekers in rich countries has decreased overall by 40% in 10 years and by 5% in one year. Armed with such data, we need to study the root causes of this decline. Is it because of fewer push factors, or tighter migration control in some countries?
What that report also shows is that developing countries today assume the lion's share of the responsibility for asylum, even though they do not necessarily have all the resources to do so. Europe must therefore do its fair share, and for that it must adopt clear rules. This brings me back to this text on asylum procedures and to the main challenges. Often described as a catalogue of the worst national practices, the current directive has two major disadvantages: it fails to sufficiently protect the rights of asylum seekers, and it creates major disparities in treatment within the Member States.
Indeed, major discrepancies still remain between the different asylum systems in Europe. To take just two examples, in 2009, the percentage of positive decisions at first instance in the Member States ranged from 65% to less than 1%. The time limit for lodging an appeal against a negative decision at first instance ranged from two to 30 days. There are a number of disparities, then, between the Member States, whether in terms of the grounds for accelerated procedures, or in terms of access to personal interviews or to effective remedy.
The fact is, such disparities are incompatible with a common asylum system which ought to offer equivalent protection throughout the EU. They also run counter to one of the cornerstones of the Dublin II Regulation, which is based on the presumption that the Member States' asylum systems are comparable. Legislative harmonisation is therefore essential to ensuring that we have fair, accessible, safe and effective procedures at long last.
Since I believe they are incorrect, I should like to respond once again to some assertions made by the detractors of this text, for whom this directive ultimately amounts to little more than an increase in costs and abuses.
Admittedly, these procedural changes may create costs in the short term. However, a little clear-sightedness would help us see that it is, in fact, the misuse of inadequate procedures in quality and security terms that is today costing the Member States dear. I would mention two indicators to support my argument: the very large number of appeals and the length of the procedures thus generated.
I should also like us to move away from the black and white idea of asylum, where it is said to lead only to abuse. In a context in which immigration issues are being exploited, to defend asylum as a fundamental right is an obligation. Moreover, if the most reticent MEPs take anything away from the situation in the Arab world, it will be that the European Union has a responsibility to grant fair protection to victims of persecution.
I therefore support the Commission's approach, which aims to improve the procedures at first instance - 'front-loading' - because high quality decisions at first instance will be particularly beneficial for victims of persecution insofar as they will enable the competent authorities to deliver robust decisions, improve the defendability of negative decisions, and thus reduce the risk of them being overturned by appeal bodies, better identify cases of unfounded or abusive applications, and reduce reception and procedural costs in the Member States, while supporting their efforts to expel asylum seekers whose applications have genuinely been rejected.
Lastly, I should like to say a few words about some key points that will enable us - I hope - to take this report further now. Firstly, the right to free legal assistance at first instance is, to my mind, an essential guarantee when it comes to improving the quality of decisions. Secondly, better account will be taken of vulnerable applicants, a group of people that the current directive completely overlooks.
The third challenge is to establish more ambitious time limits for appeals so as to strengthen the right to effective remedy, and to provide greater guarantees in the case of accelerated procedures, in particular, a reduction in their grounds or the setting of reasonable time limits. As for the safe countries concept, we call for a common European list to be adopted in accordance with the ordinary legislative procedure, as the Court of Justice recommended in 2008.
To conclude, the final adoption of this report should be a strong signal from Parliament to the Council and the Commission. As I see it, Parliament's red lines have been established and the bar has been set: we are aiming at the upwards harmonisation of protection standards, and we should be delighted at that, ladies and gentlemen.
(Applause)
Member of the Commission. - Mr President, the vote on the Asylum Procedures Directive this week is very important. It will be a crucial step on the road towards the conclusion of the second phase of the common asylum system by 2012, in line with the EU's commitment to the Stockholm Programme. I would like to thank the rapporteur, Sylvie Guillaume, for her outstanding commitment to this file and for the good cooperation between us. You have shown great resilience, Madam, and a deep understanding of the needs of asylum seekers and of the challenges faced by national administrations.
The new Asylum Procedures Directive will be the cornerstone of the Common European Asylum System. Asylum seekers must, as you said, Madam, be offered the same level of treatment wherever they apply for asylum in the European Union. Today, we know that there are lots of differences, which is, of course, very hard to understand in the same European Union with the same international conventions and the same European values.
It is crucial that the common procedures are fair and efficient. They must help to prevent abuses of the asylum system, but fully respect fundamental rights. I deeply believe that these objectives can be achieved, but only if the common rules ensure the same high quality of decision by asylum authorities across the Union. The Commission proposal has been prepared in this spirit and I note with satisfaction that Mrs Guillaume and the report of the Committee on Civil Liberties generally support this proposal.
Many amendments in the draft report in fact increase the level of guarantees to asylum seekers, particularly with regard to minors. Some amendments also aim to provide more flexibility for the Member States by introducing certain grounds for accelerated procedures. I find the amendment on safe country notions very ambitious. It would significantly restructure the set of rules and change practices in Member States. I also note with interest the compromise amendments on free legal assistance. This could indeed help to resolve a tricky legal issue that several Member States have mentioned.
As you know, the Commission is currently preparing a modified proposal for this directive in order to give a boost to the stalled negotiations in the Council. The vote that you will take tomorrow or on Wednesday is a strategic benchmark in the negotiations. The Commission will carefully consider all Parliament's amendments in the preparation of the modified proposal. I look forward to working together with Members on this and on the other proposals.
Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, first of all, I would like to express my sincere thanks for the many talks we were able to have with the rapporteur and also with the Commissioner and shadow rapporteurs. This enabled good compromises to be reached in some areas. As Mrs Malmström just mentioned, this includes the compromise on free legal assistance, in particular, for the special protection of minors. Other achievements include the fact that we were able to agree on which applicants were particularly worthy of protection and, in our talks with one another, we were able to find a sensible compromise. Over and above that, we also found a compromise with regard to the subject of safe third countries.
The aim is to fundamentally improve the quality of the administrative procedures so that there are fewer hearings in court in the second and third instance, in order to provide asylum seekers who are genuinely facing persecution with as rapid and as consistently effective assistance and protection as possible. I am strongly in favour of there being appropriate minimum standards in all Member States. Unfortunately, however, both the Commission's text and some of the individual amendments intended to amend the Commission's text to a certain extent do the opposite of what this good intention is striving to achieve. Many opportunities have been created to delay procedures or even to massively abuse asylum law. I will give you a few examples of this.
For example, an applicant can make three inadmissible applications and has the right to go through the full procedure three times. Only then can an accelerated procedure be carried out. A procedure cannot be accelerated if someone is clearly not recognised as a refugee under the Geneva Convention. In this regard, I would simply mention the subject of Tunisia and also that of economic migrants.
Another example is the fact that an accelerated procedure will also not be possible if subsequent applications are made without any relevant new content. What I consider to be even more serious, however, is the subject of disappearing. If someone illegally disappears, his application can no longer be closed with a negative decision. He has to countersign the letter. Therefore, if an asylum seeker were expecting news of a negative decision, all he would need to do - if we were to adopt the motion put forward by the Group of the Greens/European Free Alliance - would be to refuse to accept the letter or not be there to receive it. The consequence of that would be that he could prolong the procedure indefinitely.
on behalf of the S&D Group. - Mr President, I speak on behalf of my group when I say that we are in a very difficult situation practically and politically, in which Member States have been talking about completing an asylum package since 1999. If there is a political imperative, then it is today, with North Africa - and the Mediterranean - in crisis.
Talking about burden sharing should now lead to a practical and sensitive proposal. On behalf of my group, I want to say that Sylvie Guillaume has prepared - in cooperation, as Mrs Hohlmeier said, with all the shadows - a proposal which is both sensitive and effective, and really provides, as the Commissioner said, a cornerstone of the asylum package. This is why the vote on Wednesday is so vitally important. If we can repeat the majority that we achieved in committee, we can reach a position of completing an asylum package which pays attention to the many concerns and sensitivities across this House.
If I can give you one example: I dealt with refugee cases for many years as an asylum lawyer, and I know that the enemy of good asylum procedure - fair, just, effective asylum procedure accepted by most Members States - is the lack of front-loading of asylum cases. The fact that there is poor quality decision making right across the European Union in many Member States leads to higher costs for Member States, not lower costs. So when Member States talk about the financial implications, they should understand that quality of decision making, getting it right the first time, and ensuring that the appeals procedure works effectively, is where we save money and where we are fair and just.
If any Member doubts that this report is an effective, fair and just report, they should look at these procedures very carefully and understand that much work has gone into dealing with many of the potentially controversial aspects. It is also important to stress that the debate should not just be about cost: it is about harmonising practices across the EU. It is clear that standards vary too much between Member States. If we are going to continue with this kind of asylum lottery, we are not paying attention to the realities of asylum numbers going up. As we know, those asylum numbers have been plummeting for many years. Now we are in a more difficult position.
The rules in the Procedures Directive cover perhaps the most complex part of the whole asylum package. That the procedure should be fair and effective can be a matter of life or death for those fleeing persecution. We have to recognise our responsibility in upholding international obligations when dealing with people seeking protection within our borders.
Therefore, I want to congratulate the rapporteur and all the shadows for their dedicated efforts towards reaching a strong position in Parliament. Let us repeat the vote that we had in committee. Let us ensure that we send a strong signal to the Commission - but mainly to the Member States - that we are serious in this Parliament about completing the asylum package in a way that will be acceptable to many right across the House.
Mr President, Mrs Malmström, first of all, I would like to thank the rapporteur and the shadow rapporteurs most sincerely. We had very many debates. In the end, we reached some very good compromises, even though we all know that it is not always quite so easy, of course.
On behalf of the Group of the Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe, however, I would like to say that, in any case, we still have the goal of establishing a common, EU-wide asylum system by 2012. That also means that we must now make some real progress and also send a clear signal to the Council that we have not lost sight of this goal and that we are, of course, still prepared to enter into negotiations. That goes without saying. However, I also believe that we need to make it clear that, above all, we want a common asylum system. It is not acceptable, as has already been said, for it to be almost like a lottery depending on where an asylum seeker makes his application.
It is not acceptable - and in this regard I am pleased that, at the last minute, we achieved success here - for every individual Member State to have its own national list of what constitutes a safe third country. Either a country is safe or it is not - and then it still must be examined in each individual case whether it can, in fact, be a safe third country for the particular person who has made an application or whether, in this individual situation, it is perhaps not possible to simply say that is the case as such.
I am also convinced that, ultimately, the Member States will benefit from this, but so will the asylum seekers, who will have the chance, in future, to receive a ruling directly at the first instance in a fair and nevertheless rapid application procedure if this is implemented in the way that we envisage it. I believe this also to be a right; asylum is a right, not a favour. We must take an absolutely clear position on this and then also have a clear procedure.
Above all, I welcome the fact that we have managed to further extend the rights of minors. I am in favour of that and so is the ALDE Group, and I will be pleased if we get a good result in this regard tomorrow.
Mr President, the work that has been undertaken here on this report, under the guidance of Mrs Guillaume, is very important. As Mrs Malmström said, it is the cornerstone of the European asylum system, and it is true that there is a huge gap between the current situation and a European system. One ought, in fact, to call it an abyss, an abyss into which the rights of asylum seekers and the credibility of our protection system in Europe are sinking.
When we have States whose rates of positive responses at first instance range from 1-65%, when we have, in a State such as France for example, 75% of the protection decisions granted to Kosovars or Albanians being delivered on appeal, when we know that those appeals do not have suspensive effect, we gain some idea of the state of the situation and we really feel that the Council should get a move on and see that the option that has been chosen by the European Commission - and which is strengthened by the high quality report drafted under the guidance of Mrs Guillaume - namely, to improve the quality of decision making at first instance, is absolutely crucial.
As I understand it, the States that are shouting the loudest are not the ones paying, and nor are they the ones receiving the most asylum seekers. It should be remembered that Cyprus, Sweden, Luxembourg and Belgium receive the most asylum seekers when taken as a proportion of their population. Let us listen to those States too, then, because they can tell us what the best standards are when it comes to international protection for asylum seekers.
on behalf of the GUE/NGL Group. - Mr President, I am very pleased to be having this debate today, with a view to the vote on Wednesday. Hopefully, our work will shake the Council out of its inertia and trigger productive negotiations, allowing us to fulfil our objective of having a common European asylum system by 2012 and thus taking into consideration the hard work we have all put into this file. I would like to warmly thank Mrs Guillaume for her excellent work and her conciliatory approach.
On the whole, the result is a good text which includes significant improvements with respect to the asylum procedures currently implemented in the EU, which vary enormously from Member State to Member State.
To name but a few, new provisions have been introduced to ensure each applicant is provided with adequate means to substantiate his or her claims in order to reach an asylum decision within a six-month period, such as the personal interview and free advice on procedural and legal aspects in first-instance procedures, including the preparation of the necessary procedural documents.
on behalf of the EFD Group. - Mr President, the existing directive of 2005 on international protection is to be recast as the Reception Directive for asylum seekers. The new Reception Directive is a development of the EU's common immigration and asylum policy as laid out under the Lisbon Treaty. The new directive is intended to set up a new system for deciding the criteria for asylum seekers: who can and cannot enter Member States and qualify for refugee status and under what conditions. It is intended to harmonise Member States' asylum policy and give more rights and privileges to those seeking asylum.
The current influx of people from North Africa is, of course, just another beneficial crisis that gives the EU another opportunity to extend its power and dominion. Immigration and asylum policy should be the sole prerogative of the independent sovereign nation state. This proposed directive is the Lisbon Treaty doing exactly what its opponents said it would do: which, of course, is why you refused to give the people of Europe a referendum on it.
(NL) Mr President, my party, the Dutch Party for Freedom (PVV), has always been absolutely clear. We have been, and will remain, against a European asylum and immigration policy. Member States can decide on such matters perfectly well themselves. The present Dutch cabinet has been the best cabinet yet, with an excellent agenda for asylum and immigration policy. As far as that is concerned, Prime Minister Rutte and Minister Leers really do not need any interference from Europe.
My party is a party which speaks plainly. What is today's debate actually about? International protection. We simply call it 'asylum'. Especially at a time when we are dealing with disastrous mass immigration of non-Western immigrants, we should not be mincing words. Mr President, if it were up to Europe, we would throw all borders wide open and Europe would become a paradise for fortune seekers and profiteers, as if it were not one already. Look at Italy, look at Lampedusa. As far as Europe is concerned, all semi-criminal fortune seekers from Barbary would simply be included in the asylum procedure and would ultimately also be allowed to stay!
Mr President, could the Commissioner explain why Europe always has to take the strain? Why are all those boats heading our way? The only and the most appropriate solution is to provide relief to these refugees in the region. Just let the African Union, the Arabic League or the terrible Organisation of the Islamic Conference resolve this. It is them we should hold responsible for arranging shelter in the region, not ourselves.
All the more perverse is the fact that, with this report, we are actually making it easier for them to enter the European Union. At the very moment that hordes of asylum seekers from Barbary are storming the European Union, we have to make asylum applications harder, not easier.
(DE) Mr President, my fellow Member just spoke of hoards of barbarians coming to Europe. This form of cynicism cannot go unchallenged here. It is defamatory towards these people. I would ask you to reprimand him.
(NL) Thank you, Mr President, I will correct that. I did not speak about barbarians. It may be that you heard that from the interpreters. I am talking about the historical name of this region, namely Barbary. You may have other names for this part of the world, but that is what I call it. I am not saying that people from Barbary are heading for our shores like barbarians. I would like that to be corrected.
Mr van der Stoep, all these remarks will be in our record, so you can check them. All the original words, your reply and the second reply will be in that record.
(SV) Mr President, I would first of all like to thank the rapporteur, Mrs Guillaume, for her excellent and very hard work on this report, which represents a major part of the asylum package. All Member States must have fair and legally certain procedures for asylum seekers. The EU will never have a properly functioning asylum system if we do not have common minimum standards for processing applications and for the rights afforded to asylum seekers during this process. Of course, these provisions must not merely exist on paper, but must also be applied in practice in a consistent manner throughout Europe.
That said, I think it is most regrettable that the Commission has announced its intention to table a new, watered-down proposal that is closer to what many governments in the Council want. In view of the Commission's position in this regard and of the mood within the Council, the vote on this report is even more important.
The European Parliament must now send out a clear signal that in any event, we support the right to seek asylum and we believe that all asylum seekers deserve a fair and thorough investigation of their applications. The main method that is proposed, namely, that we should invest our resources in processing applications in the first instance, is absolutely the right thing to do and it will make matters easier for both the asylum seekers, who will be informed of the result more quickly, and the Member States, which will avoid the cost of further investigations as a result of the inadequate quality of the initial examination. There are a great many good amendments in the proposal, but I would like, in particular, to highlight one amendment which ensures that the needs of particularly vulnerable applicants are taken into account, particularly those of unaccompanied minors. The clear definition of family members that is proposed will also improve the situation for many minors in particular.
(SL) Mr President, I would like to commend the excellent work done by the rapporteur, Mrs Sylvie Guillaume. The European Union urgently needs coordinated, fair and efficient asylum procedures. The need for these can be seen in the current crisis involving refugees from the Mediterranean. Common rules are in the interest of both Member States and asylum seekers.
Ladies and gentlemen, the right to asylum is a key principle of human rights. Refugees should not be punished for crossing borders. Our fundamental task is to help all asylum seekers, to safeguard their basic human rights, and to ensure that high quality European standards are applied in considering their applications.
Unfortunately, it seems that fewer and fewer European countries are respecting the rights of asylum, or that they are receiving immigrants with increasing fear and distrust. What is happening today on the Italian island of Lampedusa is alarming. It is giving rise to the threatening and distressing feeling that refugees are not wanted in the European Union. We must show solidarity with people who are fleeing trouble spots, particularly with those fleeing Libya, who need international protection.
In light of the developments in Arab countries and in North Africa, we need to be prepared for the possibility of even more refugees arriving in the Union in the future. For that reason, too, we need to improve and coordinate procedures. That will help us make life easier both for ourselves and for the refugees. We will ease the burden of countries which currently operate more humane procedures for asylum seekers, and share the burden more fairly. Europe must not become a fortress. Asylum seekers must not become victims of our systems. I would like this report to be endorsed by a large majority on Wednesday.
(EL) Mr President, I must agree with what has been said, that we all want a reliable and effective asylum procedure and we all want to safeguard these objectives.
I too, however, shall cite an example from our experience in Greece a few months ago, during Parliament's official asylum mission. When we arrived at the airport, we visited the detention centre, which was holding a third-country national; he was brought before us and we spoke to him.
He told us that he had applied for asylum and after a while, he started to speak to us in Greek. We asked him where he had learned to speak Greek and he replied: I speak Greek because I have been working in Greece for 10 years; I went back to my country and returned and now I am applying for asylum. Let me explain: of course, we need to focus on the reliability and transparency of these procedures and to protect those who are entitled to asylum; however, we also need to watch out for abuse. There are provisions that need careful attention. I refer to a number of comments made by Mrs Hohlmeier, to which I would add this: we are saying that, after six months, the burden of proof for people being prosecuted in their country shifts to the Member State, not to the asylum seeker; this alone creates bureaucracy and may be used by some as an argument for abuse.
(RO) Mr President, I want to begin by congratulating Mrs Guillaume for the fine job which she has done.
The amendments tabled to the current Asylum Procedures Directive mark an extremely important step towards establishing a common asylum system throughout the European Union. The main added value of the new directive is the clarity of its rules and procedures. It sets out sound, transparent regulations on the authorities competent to consider international protection applications and guarantees that these applications are handled as quickly and efficiently as possible.
We must absolutely ensure that the protection afforded across the entire European Union is of the highest standard. At the same time, it is important for us to continue to harmonise national legislations in order to avoid disparities between the asylum systems which currently exist throughout the European Union. Our ultimate aim must remain to create a proper common asylum system, as stipulated by the Stockholm Programme.
(DE) Mr President, if there is one thing that is certain, then it is the following: on their own, some of the individual Member States of the European Union are overstretched in the area of asylum, and also in the area of migration and immigration, as we can clearly see from the developments of recent weeks, but also of the last few years.
It is therefore necessary for the European Union to assume ever more responsibilities in this regard in order to ensure that the asylum system in the European Union operates in future according to principles that must be a matter of course for all of us, namely, uniform standards, fair and just procedures and respect for fundamental rights. On the other hand, however, we must also prevent the system from being abused, because that, of course, is always a problem that is discussed in great depth by people in the Member States. This task is difficult enough, and I hope that we will manage to do it successfully.
(SK) Mr President, the draft of the submitted directive on minimum standards for hearings in Member States on the recognition and withdrawal of international protection is based on previous experience of asylum hearing procedures in individual Member States.
The Commission's effort to introduce common procedures on granting and withdrawing a unitary asylum status or additional protection through improving the harmonisation of asylum hearing instruments and improving the quality of the hearings in order to cut the number of revised decisions, however, is running into numerous objections from the Council of the European Union and from some Member States.
I firmly believe that the opinions of the Council and the Member States who ultimately implement the asylum hearings should be decisive for us. In my opinion, therefore, if we do not listen carefully to their comments and advice when amending the asylum system, then our work is unlikely to bring the desired effect. I therefore consider it very important to have further consultations over the prepared amendments, particularly with the relevant EU Member State bodies.
(DE) Mr President, despite the influx of people from North Africa, the rapporteur clearly fears that there are too few refugees in the EU, as she calls for the definition of the family to be extended. It is apparently irrelevant whether the family members came together before or after fleeing from their country. New partners and adoptive children are also to be included in the new definition. Special protection is to be afforded to refugees with problems in relation to their gender identity, whatever the rapporteur means by that. Such wordings leave the door wide open to abuse. It is also naive to believe that asylum seekers can expect the same high level of social provision in any Member State. The European Union is made up of States with very different standards of living.
The same applies to the concept of safe country of origin. If it is a democratic state based on the rule of law, it must also be classed as safe. Finally, as Tunisia and Egypt are heading in the right direction, they should probably also be classed as safe third countries.
Mr President, international protection is a coded and euphemistic term for asylum. The word asylum has rightly lost its glamour in the eyes of the general public. Asylum seekers who pass by, or through, safe countries are migrants of choice, not genuine refugees. People who come to Europe simply because they come from unsafe countries might be unfortunate, but Europe cannot be expected to house the entire population of every unsafe country on earth. Genuine asylum seekers should seek refuge in the first safe country; one that will be culturally, religiously and ancestrally related to them.
The role of Europe and the West should not be to act as a giant reception home for the vulnerable populations of the world. Our role should be to stop creating the instability that fuels these vast population movements: there must be no more wars such as those against Iraq and Afghanistan; we must pull out of Libya before we are drawn into a ground war; we must cancel the planned conflict with Iran and we must avoid encouraging discontent in other Middle Eastern states.
Member of the Commission. - Mr President, as has been said many times, we have been negotiating this for a very long time and - as Mr Moraes pointed out - we have had the objective of having a joint common asylum policy since 1999.
The Council has made the decision to have this by 2012, and we are beginning to see an end to the deadlock that we have had for so many years. I would like to thank Parliament, because I think it has made a great contribution to this. We must have a fair, efficient and coherent system that is equivalent in all Member States.
It has been very clear from the beginning, in my contact with the different rapporteurs on the whole package, that there would have to be some amendments. This is not something that the Commission just came up with. The deadlock is such that we need to make some compromises so that the two legislative partners in this can agree. With the vote that you will be making tomorrow or on Wednesday and with the Commission's proposals in this, we will be in a good position to try to see if we can find some compromises. We have been involved in contacting the Council throughout the spring in order to identify the main difficulties here.
If we want to achieve an agreement on the asylum package by 2012 and thus commemorate the 60th anniversary of the Geneva Convention - I think we all want to do that - we must be ready to make some compromises. This is a very good start. It is the cornerstone of the future system.
I would like to thank the rapporteur, all the shadow rapporteurs and the Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs for this work.
Mr President, I should like to begin by offering my thanks for all of the speeches - well, nearly all of them. Mrs Hohlmeier has left, but I hope that someone will tell her that I have not given up hope of convincing her that Tunisian nationals are not claiming asylum throughout the European Union and that, consequently, there is little reason for them to make a second successive claim.
I wish to make two small points by way of conclusion, but they are nonetheless ones which I consider rather crucial. I should like to stress that the aim is not to turn the Member States against the principle of upwards harmonisation, quite the contrary. I can understand that there is some resistance and some misgivings, but I would also like them to understand that they have everything to gain by investing in proper, effective procedures at first instance. The proposed reforms are along these lines.
The second key point, to conclude, is to affirm that Parliament has an important role to play. We are colegislators. The European Commission has indicated on several occasions that it wants us to play an absolutely fundamental part in the follow-up to this procedure. Well, on Wednesday, we will have the opportunity to state loud and clear our priorities for genuinely harmonised procedures in this area.
The debate is closed.
The vote on the report by Mrs Guillaume will take place at noon on Wednesday, 6 April 2011.


Situation in the Horn of Africa (debate)
The next item is the position of the Council and the Commission on the situation in the Horn of Africa.
President-in-Office of the Council. - Mr President, at this late hour I wish to make a few remarks on the Council's position on the Horn of Africa.
The Horn of Africa of course is a challenging region which deserves our particular and increased attention as it has a major impact on the EU. The EU closely follows developments in this region and prepares to engage even more with the countries of the Horn of Africa.
I know that Parliament also keeps abreast of developments. The visit that your delegation made late last year to Eritrea and Ethiopia and also Djibouti was important. I also took note of the motion for a resolution on the Horn of Africa that has been elaborated partly in the context of this visit. It clearly displayed to the region and to Europeans the growing engagement for the Horn of Africa within the EU. On behalf of the Council, I welcome the involvement of Parliament in our efforts to address the challenges in the Horn of Africa.
There are several sources of tension in the Horn of Africa. I will get to them in more detail. However, in the view of the Council these tensions are often linked in one way or another within the region. For this reason, the Council is particularly looking to discern the regional links between ongoing conflicts. What are these links between conflicts?
First, there is a dispute between Ethiopia and Eritrea, which might be considered as one of the principle causes of instability in the whole region. This is reflected in the following ways: the support of opposing warring factions in Somalia; destabilisation efforts in each other's countries - let me mention Ogaden, Oromo in Ethiopia in particular; it is reflected also in support for the revival of the peace process in Sudan; Eritrea has suspended its membership in the Intergovernmental Authority for Development (IGAD).
And, last but not least, the conflict in Somalia has caused one of the most serious humanitarian situations that we face in the world today. The increase in acts of piracy off the coast of Somalia is another serious consequence of this conflict.
Another serious issue is the competition for natural resources such as water and minerals in the Horn of Africa. This phenomenon increases pastoralist conflicts in areas populated by different cultural and ethnic groups. It also increases food insecurity and human insecurity in general, which contributes to the conflict and the migration.
There are also serious regional interdependencies. Let me mention some of them. There are the border conflicts, as mentioned before: the disputes between Ethiopia and Eritrea, Sudan and Ethiopia and Djibouti and Eritrea, which might be considered as sources of instability in the region. I would also stress that improved regional cooperation would contribute to lowering tensions around national boundaries.
Food security is another interdependency. This is of course a major concern in the region. Recurring droughts, as well as floods, have a devastating effect on the population. Once again, regional cooperation could mitigate the effects of these natural events.
As you know, some argue that this problem is at the origin of the conflicts in Darfur, Somalia and many other areas of the Horn of Africa. I am not sure that gives a full explanation, but I do believe that this question must be resolved in each of the countries and within the regional context in a fair and transparent manner.
Piracy was initially localised to a small part of the Somali coast. The pretext of the pirates was to levy a fishing tax on a ship in Somali waters. As you are certainly well aware, this activity has expanded significantly and now threatens the delivery of humanitarian aid to Somalia and maritime safety in the Gulf of Aden and well beyond, including ships travelling off the coast of Kenya and Tanzania.
There are also several other interdependencies which have a serious impact on Europe and on the countries of the Horn of Africa, such as terrorism and migration.
So what are the actions which the European Union undertakes? What is our engagement or involvement? The main political instrument at the disposal of the Council - which I have the honour to represent here today - is a political dialogue, not only with the individual countries but also with other regional stakeholders, such as the African Union, the Intergovernmental Authority on Development, the League of Arab States, and the United States and China as important countries.
Political dialogue is a mutual commitment in the Cotonou Agreement between the EU and each of the countries in that particular region. This dialogue is principally pursued through the heads of the EU missions in the countries concerned. It is a very important instrument to the Council, as it gives us a direct contact with the authorities of those countries. It provides an opportunity to hear their point of view, but also to clearly explain our perceptions and raise concerns that we have on certain issues. This particularly concerns matters of governance and human rights. Those are the main issues.
On top of this, the Council disposes of the instruments of the European Security and Defence Policy (ESDP). Since September 2008, the Council has deployed this instrument to fight piracy off the Somali coast, first through the coordination cell EU NAVCO, based in Brussels and then since December 2008 through the maritime operation called EU NAVFOR Atalanta.
Finally, the EU acts through the financial instruments of the European Commission such as the African Peace Facility and Instrument of Stability. I will let Commissioner Ferrero-Waldner elaborate further on that because that is the Commission's responsibility.
Of course the Council is always looking, together with the European Commission, for ways to enhance the effectiveness and the visibility of EU action. I look forward to hearing your proposals and recommendations on this particular issue.
Member of the Commission. - Mr President, the Commission has over recent years already called for greater attention to be given by the European Union to the situation in the Horn of Africa. Today in this debate I am replacing my colleague Louis Michel, who unfortunately cannot be here; I take this matter on with great interest, both in its own right and also because it affects Europe directly - the need, for instance, to mobilise our navies to combat piracy, and this is only one recent example.
We therefore very strongly welcome the initiative of the parliamentary delegation which visited the region and their subsequent report and draft resolution, which we also support in principle.
The internal situation in each of the countries of the Horn cannot be understood in isolation from the regional dynamics. We have to continue to encourage a global approach resting on economic development, governance and security if we want to advance regional stability, respect for the essential and fundamental elements of Cotonou and the fight against poverty.
Let me comment on the situation by country before concluding with remarks on the regional strategy for the Horn.
Firstly, let me say a word on Ethiopia/Eritrea. Ethiopia occupies a strategic economic and political place in the region. The Commission continues to support Ethiopia with its poverty alleviation efforts, where important progress has been registered.
Weak regional security and inter-community tensions affect the internal situation of the country, especially in the Ogaden, where access to the population still remains constrained. The Commission will also continue to monitor the human rights situation and the democratisation process. Considering the circumstances of the 2005 general elections, the Commission will closely monitor the preparation and proceeding of the 2010 elections, especially in the context of the recently approved NGO legislation and the re-arrest of the opposition leader, Ms Birtukan Medeksa.
The internal situation in Eritrea is partly determined by the impasse in the border conflict with Ethiopia. The Commission remains seriously concerned about human rights violations and the precarious social and economic situation. In our view, there is a strong argument for the continuance of a cooperation programme which aims at the improvement of the living conditions of the population. The political dialogue initiated in 2008 provides a good platform for sustained engagement with the Eritrean authorities. Let us be clear: we expect some positive and tangible steps in Eritrea as a result of this process.
As indicated in your draft resolution, the virtual demarcation of the border between Ethiopia and Eritrea - as decided by the Boundary Commission - will not lead to a full resolution of the problem if it is not accompanied by dialogue aiming at the normalisation of relations between the two countries.
The recent dispute between Eritrea and Djibouti is to be seen in a larger regional context and for which a global solution needs to be sought through local and regional actors. We will continue to support such processes.
Now that Ethiopian troops are withdrawing from Somalia, the cooperation of both Ethiopia and Eritrea in the Somali peace process will be essential for it to be successful.
On the situation in Sudan, I fully share Parliament's analysis. Indeed, 2009 is a decisive year for the future of this country. The persistence of violence in Darfur and the difficulties in completing the implementation of the North/South Comprehensive Peace Agreement (CPA) have the potential to destabilise the country and affect the whole region. We should therefore maintain a strong dialogue with, and a strong pressure on, the Khartoum authorities to obtain their full cooperation, both on the CPA and also on Darfur and their processes. These authorities, as well as the other Sudanese stakeholders, know only too well where their responsibilities lie and what they need to deliver.
In Darfur, military operations and violence must be ended and the political process fully resumed. The deployment of the UNAMID must take place within the foreseen time. The Sudanese authorities must respect their obligations as regards the facilitation of humanitarian aid and human rights activities. On the CPA, it is crucial that the Government of Khartoum and of South Sudan settle their differences over critical issues such as sharing of oil revenues, boundary delimitation, and legislation in security and political matters. Failing to do so could turn the planned elections of 2009 into a scenario of renewed violence and conflict.
In Somalia, the peace process is in a crucial phase. The resignation of President Yusuf and the withdrawal of the Ethiopian army present a new period of uncertainty and risk. But they also provide an opportunity to launch an inclusive political process. On the political side, the European Union continues its activities in support of the Djibouti process, which should lead to more inclusiveness through the election of a new president and the formation of a government of national unity with an expanded parliament. There is no plan B for the Djibouti process. Without international and regional support that advances the emergence of favourable conditions for its implementation, the agreement will have little chance of success.
As regards security, the Commission remains committed to supporting the establishment of a system for the sound governance of the security sector. Whatever the nature of the international force (UN authorised stabilisation force, UN peacekeeping mission or only a strengthened AMISOM), its mandate will need to focus on the support for the implementation of the Djibouti Agreement. The Commission has given a positive response to the demand for further financial support to the reinforcement of AMISOM.
Finally, on the Horn of Africa in general, I very much appreciate Parliament's support for the Commission's Horn of Africa initiative. This initiative is based on the 2006 Horn strategy, which was adopted in the conviction that the conundrums in the region can only be dealt with globally. In this spirit, the Commission supports your proposal to nominate a special representative for the Horn.
We have been establishing good working relations with IGAD, which supports the Horn of Africa initiative and which plays a key role in its implementation. A second joint experts' meeting on water, energy and transport, where concrete projects could be developed that might be presented to a possible donor conference, is foreseen for the near future.
The participation of Eritrea, which plays a key role in the regional dynamics, is essential for the success of the Horn of Africa strategy. Commissioner Michel's contacts with the heads of state and government of the region, including President Isaias, have allowed an opening in this regard and the new IGAD Executive Secretary is in the process of engaging with the Eritrean authorities, including on the reform and revitalisation process of IGAD.
Mr President, I was a little long but with so many countries, if you want to say something, you have to say at least a few words.
The introduction is covered by a special rule and there are no limits.
on behalf of the PPE-DE Group. - (PL) Mr President, Commissioner, President-in-Office, thank you very much for the opinion of the Council and the Commission on the Horn of Africa. The importance of this region transcends purely geographical bounds. The conflicts and structural problems there are compounded by the negative phenomena in other regions of Africa. I was part of the European Parliament delegation on its recent visit, and I could see for myself how complex, comprehensive and interlinked the problems there are, and why our answer needs to be comprehensive.
In the draft resolution we have concentrated on three fundamental, but also fairly broad issues: regional security, food security and, in our notes on human rights, democracy and good governance. Since my visit I am in no doubt that the fundamental condition for improving the situation is goodwill and dialogue between regional leaders.
The European Union's policy of supporting regional institutions in the Horn of Africa is correct, but without active involvement of the key players, the policy will remain ineffective. Some countries of the region use poor tactics, for example, you cannot appeal for dialogue with one neighbour and at the same time refuse dialogue with another. This practice is illogical, and makes diplomatic success practically impossible. Political leaders there need to accept the fact that exercising power is tied in with responsibility.
What we expect from the leaders in the Horn of Africa is not linked to some specifically local, European values. What we expect is a minimum acceptance of universal values. We are also convinced that fundamental rights and freedoms belong to everybody. No developing country can work properly in the modern world if it rejects fundamental, universal values. Accepting them is therefore not just a gesture towards the European Union, but an action that will further their own interests. Concepts of development may vary, but values do not change, and we would like these values - common and universal - to become the daily bread in the Horn of Africa.
The Council and the Commission must draw their conclusions from the fact that, in this Parliament's view, the governments of the countries of the Horn of Africa are not acting in accordance with their obligations under the terms of Article 9 of the Cotonou Agreement. Human rights, democracy and good governance are empty words. That is perfectly obvious to anyone who does not keep their eyes closed.
In Ethiopia, for example, which is the headquarters of the African Union, the people are oppressed under the cover of rhetoric that sounds good to donors, but which is no less crude and shameless.
I will describe two recent episodes ...
On 29 August, Ms Birtukan Midekssa, the leader of a party with a parliamentary seat, was again arrested and sentenced to life imprisonment for refusing to publicly state that she had requested the pardon that the Meles Zenawi Government used to release her in 2007, along with many other political leaders of the opposition held since the elections of 2005.
Second: the approval by the Ethiopian Parliament of the so-called NGO Act, which, in practice, criminalises all the work of independent NGOs.
There is no transition to democracy in Ethiopia, Commissioner, and I would be grateful if you would tell this to your colleague Louis Michel.
In Eritrea, the wrath of the government against anyone who tries to exercise the most basic human rights is even more shameless.
As for Somalia, which is currently the most serious situation in the whole Horn of Africa, the international community, including the European Union, has a criminal lack of interest in the fate of the people in a country where there has been no law and order for decades and where Ethiopian troops were able to occupy the land and commit crimes with impunity and where pirates and terrorist groups thrive.
The EU naval mission will not resolve anything if the European Union, the United States, the UN and the African Union continue to ignore the causes of the piracy, which are rooted and must be fought on land and not at sea.
The region will not have stability or progress without resolution of the tragic conflicts that continue to devastate Sudan, especially in the South and in Darfur, and where the rhetoric of the international community, the European Union included, needs to be translated into decisive action to protect the civilian populations who are being attacked and to end the impunity of the criminals.
In this regard, the possible confirmation of the prosecution of President Omar Bashir by the International Criminal Court will be a test of the credibility and effectiveness of both the European Union and the African Union.
on behalf of the ALDE Group. - Mr President, the Horn of Africa is a dreadful region where internal and regional conflicts continue to undermine peace and security. They create humanitarian disasters and paralyse the development of this strategically significant region.
Each war, each conflict accentuates the fragility of the states. At the heart of most of these conflicts is the lack of leadership and democratic governments rightly put forward in the report of the EP delegation.
What this region needs is home-grown democratisation, respect for national and international rule of law and above all national reconciliation. About Somalia, I would like to emphasise that the resignation of former president Yusuf and the withdrawal of Ethiopian forces creates a huge window of opportunity. The time has come to pick up the pieces and bring about intra-Somali peace.
The Somali Parliament is a crucial factor for confidence-building and can make the peace process all-inclusive. Furthermore, it is imperative that the EU supports the renewal and strengthening of an African Union Peace Force. This force needs a decent UN mandate. If not, Ugandan and Burundian forces will pull away from Mogadishu leaving a security gap behind.
I entirely agree with Commissioner Ferrero-Waldner. There is a momentum for change now in Somalia that should be taken advantage of. The power as well as the security vacuum must be filled. If not, the stateless chaos known as Somalia will remain.
Mr President, the Horn of Africa is currently a real powder keg, not only due to the situation of total instability in Somalia and Sudan, but also in the three countries that Mr Kaczmarek, Mr Hutchinson and I had the pleasure of visiting.
The three countries to which the delegation's visit was confined - Eritrea, Djibouti and Ethiopia - have in common poverty and therefore a very low standard of human rights. As regards poverty, according to the figures given to our delegation, the Government of Ethiopia has acknowledged that six and a half million people are already affected by famine. The United Nations puts this figure at over twelve million. We are therefore facing a humanitarian crisis that is not being reported in the media, due to other current international crises, even though it is truly shocking.
The human rights situation also deserves our attention, given the existence of political prisoners - and that is the word for them: political prisoners - in all three countries.
The border dispute between Eritrea and Ethiopia is totally absurd, as also is the involvement of more than 200 000 soldiers in this dispute. I cannot end my speech without congratulating Commissioner Michel on his actions in the area and for starting a political dialogue. This dialogue must continue but it must also be made clear that we will be very firm: firm in defending human rights and firm towards the outrages being committed through the adoption of laws in relation to NGOs. It must be borne in mind that, thanks to this political dialogue, we are proving that the European Union enjoys high prestige at international level.
on behalf of the GUE/NGL Group. - (DE) Mr President, the Horn of Africa has recently moved back into focus in the EU. After all, the EU's combat mission Atalanta has been stationed there since Christmas. In sending this mission, the EU has made the mistake of NATO, the United States, Russia and others there of superficially combating problems by military means, by means of warships. Indeed, Mr Kouchner actually welcomed the opportunity for action, 10 years after Saint-Malo, with a maritime combat operation off Somalia. The real causes of the problem are the unfair distribution of resources, for example owing to exploitation of fish stocks, including by fishing trawlers from the European Union. Somalia is one of the countries whose virtually non-existent government the West is supporting by all means possible.
The Ethiopian occupying forces have now left Somalia, but more than 16 000 people have lost their lives since the invasion of these forces. Dealings with the countries of the Horn of Africa are illustrated by the example of Djibouti, which has an authoritarian regime, yet all manner of Western countries have military bases there. Assistance must be provided to the people of the region - not by means of warships, which serve only to protect Western trading routes, but in the form of humanitarian aid, for example.
(DE) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, Somalia is a failed State, with all the dreadful things this entails. You have set out most excellently what needs to be done here, and my friend Mrs Gomes has also stated this very clearly.
Piracy is just one part - albeit an important one - of this problem, as piracy is very firmly established in the region. A second aspect is the protection of EU maritime routes, which is in the European Union's own interests and those of its citizens.
That is why we have the ESDP operation Atalanta, which is the first maritime operation under the ESDP. The operation's headquarters are in the United Kingdom, which is also new, and it is being led by a British naval officer, Rear Admiral Jones.
Its first task is to protect food aid and to make sure that this aid can actually reach Somalia, and its second is to combat piracy and take the appropriate action.
We had a conversation with the operation headquarters in Northwood, which made clear that they are missing several things, such as tankers and reconnaissance aircraft - manned and unmanned - and helicopters, as the surveillance needs to be carried out over a very large area. We must all have a common interest in a successful Operation Atalanta. This is necessary both to protect our maritime routes and to make a contribution - albeit possibly just a small one - to solving the problem of the failed State of Somalia.
(RO) I would first of all like to congratulate my fellow Members for this fact-finding mission to one of the most perilous regions in the world and certainly one of the most disadvantaged.
I also think that the Horn of Africa is possibly the poorest region in the world. Ethiopia has suffered a disaster as a result of the drought over the last few years. It is a country where millions of people suffer from hunger, even during years where there is a rich harvest.
Sudan and the Darfur region, in particular, are also tragic locations on the world map due to a humanitarian disaster, which has been described by many experts as outright genocide, as a result of the slaughter of more than two million people, while four million are refugees from the civil war.
Somalia, Eritrea and Djibouti are three of the poorest countries where conflict is a permanent reality, just as you have actually highlighted, Commissioner, and my fellow Members before that.
The constant instability in the region is one of the causes of the problems which the Horn of Africa is facing during the process of economic, social and political development. The success of the peace process in the region is closely linked to the involvement of regional and African structures, such as the Intergovernmental Authority on Development or the African Union.
The European Union must support the consolidation of these organisations, along with an increase in their ability to prevent and resolve conflicts. Better regional integration would also facilitate a more open dialogue between the countries in the Horn of Africa on subjects of common interest, such as migration, arms trafficking, energy or natural resources, and would provide a basis for dialogues on controversial topics.
The European Union must, of course, get involved more when it comes to human rights violations. According to the Cotonou Agreement, these countries need to reach an agreement with the European Union with regard to observing the rule of law, human rights and democratic principles.
(SV) Mr President, Commissioner, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, on the morning of Sunday 23 September 2001, the Swedish citizen Dawit Isaak was taken from his home in Eritrea by the country's authorities. He was imprisoned without trial and, more than seven years later, has still not been formally charged. His crime is stated as 'having reported independent news'. In this resolution, we have the first direct reference to Dawit Isaak. This should increase the pressure on Eritrea.
It is unacceptable for an EU citizen, a Swedish journalist, to be imprisoned for years and to be harassed by a rogue regime like that in Asmara, a regime that receives aid from the EU, aid that, moreover, has increased significantly. It is now time, Commissioner, for the European Union to act and lay down conditions for this aid. The time for silent diplomacy is past. Enough is enough. The EU will not accept the trampling underfoot of fundamental human rights, the murder or imprisonment of journalists and critics of the regime, while the population is oppressed and starving.
The European Parliament is today demanding that Dawit Isaak and the other journalists imprisoned in Eritrea be released immediately. This is a powerful step in the right direction. Now the Commission and the Council must also lend force to these words. It is therefore high time that the EU entered into negotiations and introduced sanctions.
(SV) Mr President, like my fellow Member from the Group of the Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe, I would like to highlight the issue of the release of Dawit Isaak. For seven years, the Swedish citizen Dawit Isaak has been imprisoned without trial in a prison cell in a terrible dictatorship. I am pleased that we have included a passage on his immediate release in the resolution on the Horn of Africa. We require the immediate release of Dawit Isaak, as well as all of the other imprisoned journalists. No trial, and what was their crime? Well, it was working for democracy and for the freedom of speech.
The EU's future aid to Eritrea must be linked to clear demands for the release of Dawit Isaak and the other journalists. Conditional aid, together with sanctions, the freezing of Eritrean assets in Europe and the reporting of this violation of international law to the International Court of Justice are what we need today. The Swedish Government has worked using silent diplomacy, it has been said, but, after seven years, still nothing has happened. Now it is time to act.
Mr President, the Horn of Africa is pretty much an unmitigated disaster. The region has been devastated by decades of war, famine, environmental degradation, corruption, mismanagement and political repression. Human rights are abused as a matter of course. Civil society is weak. Alarmingly, the situation could easily deteriorate further. Tensions between Ethiopia and Eritrea over disputed territory are still likely to flare up at any moment. The failed state of Somalia remains infected by clan violence and Islamist extremism, which will worsen as Ethiopia now withdraws its troops and with the resignation of the recent President.
We have also debated the epidemic of piracy off the Somali coast. There is, of course, always a temptation by the EU to suggest military action as a panacea to the chaos in the Horn of Africa. Past experience suggests this would be a terrible mistake. President Bill Clinton sent US troops to tame Somalia, but that was a disaster too.
The one oasis of optimism, in my view, is in the region of Somaliland, which was formerly a British Protectorate. It was absorbed into the Somali Republic in 1960 after foolishly voluntarily relinquishing its brief period of independence, but split away again in the chaos following the death of Siad Barre in 1991. Ever since then, Somaliland has been the only cohesive and functional polity in Somalia. The people of Somaliland benefit from a relatively benign government and progressive institutions. They also possess symbols of statehood such as a separate currency and a flag.
Speaking personally, and not for my party or my political group, perhaps it is time for the international community, led by the African Union, to begin considering more seriously Somaliland's quest for independence. An independent Somaliland, supported by the West, could be a force for stability and progress in an otherwise hopeless and chaotic region. Certainly, the people of Somaliland would be justified in asking why we here in the EU were so reluctant to recognise their de facto country, but were so quick to recognise the independence of Kosovo.
(RO) The European Union really has every good reason to be concerned by the situation created in Somalia where a power vacuum has virtually formed which has every chance of being filled by Somali Islamic militia. Apart from withdrawing the three thousand Ethiopian troops, the missions under the auspices of the African Union could also withdraw if they do not receive additional support during the subsequent period.
I could not describe the European mission patrolling the waters in the region as anything other than a resounding success, but this task only involves treating the effects of the 'disease', and not at all the disease itself. Somalia must have a government capable of acting as a dialogue partner for the international institutions, European Union and all the other states willing to assume an active role in bringing stability to this region.
(RO) The European Union has numerous responsibilities in Somalia and the Horn of Africa. Instability, the lack of governance and security have made this region a source of concern for many reasons.
Above all, the unprecedented increase in the acts of piracy committed by groups given shelter in Somali units is affecting commercial routes in a region which is vital to European and global trade. It concerns us to see that these groups are becoming increasingly more technologically advanced and capable of attacking ships located at ever greater distances from the shore.
This state of affairs is obviously due to the desperate situation which Somalia is in, specifically, the non-existence of a central government capable of controlling its territorial waters. However, the international community equally bears responsibility with regard to these events. Piracy, no matter on which seas it takes place and the safe havens which the perpetrators enjoy, is a violation of the written and unwritten laws of any country and intervention against this is justified, regardless of where it comes from.
The chances of the European Union and the international community changing the basic reality in Somalia are slight. However, tackling one of its consequences, piracy, is much more within our grasp.
President-in-Office of the Council. - Mr President, firstly, allow me to react to two remarks made here and then draw some conclusions. Olle Schmidt and Eva-Britt Svensson asked about the journalist, Dawit Isaak: yes, we are trying to do something in Eritrea to set him free.
Anna-Maria Gomes asked about the recent arrest of the opposition activist Mrs Bertukan. The Council is certainly aware of this case, which dates back to the post-election riots in 2005 when she was arrested, together with other opposition activists, before being pardoned in 2007. She was re-arrested at the end of the year. Since then the EU has been closely following the case, and the Council is ready to take the appropriate steps if the situation requires.
Then I would like to make five short concluding remarks. First let me say that we really appreciate the input of the delegations that travelled to the region, in particular to Mr Hutchinson, Mr Kaczmarek and Mr Irujo Amezaga.
First I think I can assure you that, under the Czech presidency, there will be continuity. So we certainly are not going to completely redefine the EU strategy towards the Horn of Africa. We will rather try to pursue the policy established by our predecessor in the best possible manner.
One of the most important tasks will be the containment of piracy and, in this context, we strongly appreciate the effort of the French presidency that accomplished the difficult start of deploying the first EU naval mission. Certainly, we are not a naval power in the Czech Republic so we appreciate here strong EU engagement.
My second remark is that the short-term Operation Atalanta has already prevented several acts of piracy from taking place and apprehended a number of pirates, so within a month of deployment the effectiveness of the operation has already become apparent. Atalanta is a short-term measure to curb piracy. However, it was a necessary short-term measure.
The third point is that, in order to find a long-term solution in Somalia, the Council lends its full support to the Djibouti process within the transitional Federal Government and the Alliance for the Re-liberation of Somalia, and there is no plan B to this process.
Ethiopia has begun its withdrawal from Somalia; this is an important step in the implementation of the Djibouti process. There are some concerns that there will be a security vacuum when Ethiopia leaves; the EU therefore continues to give substantial support to the African Union Mission to Somalia, the AMISOM. EUR 20 million have been allocated for the period of December 2008 to May 2009.
My fourth point is regarding direct contacts: we foresee resuming political dialogue with the intergovernmental authority on development at ministerial level. The authority on development proved its capacities during the engagement in Sudanese peace talks, which resulted in the signing of the comprehensive peace agreement in 2005. So the authority might become a key partner of the EU in bringing peace and stability to Somalia.
Last but not least, as regards the matter of more engagement, I would like to inform you that revision of the Horn of Africa strategy of the Commission will be initiated during our presidency, which is not in contradiction of my words on continuity.
Member of the Commission. - Mr President, let me make a few comments on this short, but important, debate. Firstly, on Somalia, I listened with great interest to all your comments and suggestions and I am encouraged to see that we agree, not only on the assessment of the situation, but also on the action to be taken. We need the support of the entire international community, including the new US administration, but also key players in the Islamic world, for a sustainable, political solution in Somalia and to finally end the unspeakable suffering of the population. Here the Commission will provide full political, but also strong financial, support to the Djibouti process.
I agree with Ana Maria Gomes that the countries of the Horn of Africa have serious human-rights and good-governance problems - many other colleagues have also said this. We are very concerned about these tremendous challenges. However, we consider that it would be difficult to make an across-the-board judgement regarding Article 9 of the Cotonou Agreement. We must stand firm on human rights and good governance, fully utilising the policy instruments at our disposal, including a political dialogue with clear benchmarks.
On food aid and food security, this is one of the priorities of the European Parliament resolution. In this context, I would like to emphasise that, in addition to the envelope of the EDF, there are now funds under the so-called food facility, which will be EUR 100 million from 2009 to 2011.
Finally, we are also fully aware of the situation of the Swedish citizen, Dawit Isaak, who is still under arrest in Eritrea. My colleague Louis Michel talked to President Isaias about this case during his last visit in June 2008, and some further quiet diplomacy is going on in this particular case. I can assure you that we remain committed to working towards the improvement of the human rights situation in Eritrea so that it is very dominant in our minds.
I have received a draft resolution tabled in accordance with Rule 103(2) of the Rules of Procedure.
The debate is closed.
The vote will take place on Thursday, 15 January 2009.


Community civil protection mechanism (debate)
The next item is the report by Mr Papadimoulis, on behalf of the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Food Safety, on the proposal for a Council decision establishing a Community civil protection mechanism (recast) C6-0076/2006.
Μember of the Commission. (EL) Mr President, first I wish to thank the European Parliament and, in particular, the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Food Safety and the rapporteur, Mr Papadimoulis, on drafting an exceptional report.
The Commission proposal to recast the 2001 Council decision establishing a Community civil protection mechanism takes account of the demand by both the European Parliament and the Council for resources and facilities to be strengthened in the field of civil protection in Europe. Its objective is to strengthen the mechanism with the experience acquired from previous emergency situations. It provides a basis for the further development of cooperation in the field of civil protection by improving and strengthening the existing project in this sector and by launching new activities.
We must highlight two innovations which we are proposing: funding for the cost of hiring equipment and of hiring transport means. We often face situations in which aid is available but there are no suitable means for taking it to the scene of the disaster. As a result, this aid either arrives late or does not arrive at all. In the case of emergencies which affect several European countries at once, such as, for example, forest fires in summer, floods in spring and possible simultaneous terrorist threats throughout Europe, the Member States may find it hard to provide help to other Member States, due to their own needs. That is why the Commission proposed that a safety net be created at Community level, so that we have the facility to hire the necessary transport means and equipment. The Commission, of course, knows that the European Parliament understands the importance of the benefit which will accrue from the reforms in question and expresses its thanks for the support which it has already given to the proposed new funding mechanism.
As emphasised in the Barnier report, the result of the enhanced cooperation in the field of civil protection will be better protection, both for the citizens of the European Union and for the inhabitants of third countries. It will ensure that the Community as a whole can offer more coordinated and more effective and more prompt aid to any country affected by a major disaster.
I should remind you here that the proposal to hire transport means and equipment was part of the proposal for the new funding mechanism on which Parliament formulated its opinion earlier this year. The negotiations which followed in the Council proved to be very difficult. That is why we are calling on all the members of the European Parliament who wish to advance this proposal to do what they can at national level to support it; otherwise we shall not be able to achieve the enhanced cooperation in the field of civil protection called for by Parliament.
Mr President, over recent years we have experienced a tsunami, hurricane Katrina and earthquakes in Pakistan and Indonesia with high death tolls, while in the European Union the Member States have frequently faced major floods and storms, forest fires, disasters at sea and industrial accidents. The repercussions of these tragic events are huge not only in terms of human lives, but also to the economy. That is why the citizens of the European Union are rightly calling for a more effective approach.
Improving the European Union's ability to respond to emergency situations is a priority for the European Parliament. That is why we are today debating ways of improving the Community civil protection mechanism.
During the preparation of the committee proposal we are debating, various alternative proposals were examined. One of them was recast, which the Commission chose and which is the least ambitious choice, because it introduces a limited number of improvements to the Council decision governing the civil protection mechanism. Could the Commission therefore tell me how it arrived at this choice, the least ambitious choice, despite the repeated announcements by the European Council and the resolutions by the European Parliament on greater and stronger development of the Community civil protection mechanism?
The main weaknesses identified in the recast proposal tabled by the Commission relate, firstly, to the transportation of rescue teams and equipment. Today every Member State bears responsibility for organising the transportation of its own civil protection aid. However, this shortcoming undermines the effectiveness of European aid. In 2005 alone, in five emergencies, Member States were unable to send experts and equipment, because they did not have the means to transport aid where it was needed. I think that the Commission needs to do more to address this problem.
The second weakness relates to the development of a European rapid response capability. Today, Community civil protection aid is provided by the Member States on a voluntary basis. This does not add up to the European rapid response capability demanded by the European Parliament. In its communication on 25 April, the Commission proposed the creation of special standby modules which would be mobilised on request by the competent European authority. I ask you, why did the Commission not include its own proposal in the recast?
The third problem relates to early warning. The ability of the European Commission to respond to natural disasters also depends upon the existence of early warning systems. The recast states that the Monitoring and Information Centre in Brussels should be linked to the systems of the Member States and international organisations. That is good, but it is not enough because, immediately after the earthquake caused by the tsunami, the governments learned, but the citizens never learned. That is why a suitable legal basis must be set up within the framework of the Council decision, so that early warning systems can be developed within the framework of the mechanism.
The fourth weakness concerns the coordination of interventions in third countries. In this sector also more work needs to be done, because there is a blatant lack of coordination. Some Member States work constantly through the Community mechanism, some Member States prefer to work with the United Nations, some Member States work with both and some Member States with neither. This fragmentation and lack of coordination completely contradict the ambitious announcements by the European Council.
As rapporteur, together with the shadow rapporteurs from all the political groups, we tabled amendments which were approved almost unanimously by the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Food Safety. In brief, they relate to information for citizens, to the integration of civil protection measures in education programmes and advertising campaigns, to land management and use, in order to strengthen prevention, to the definitions of terms based on the agreed international terminology, to the inclusion of public health and to the use of military means on an auxiliary and voluntary basis.
Finally, I should like to mention the Barnier report on the creation of Europe Aid. In January 2006, the President of the European Commission and the President of the European Council asked Michel Barnier to examine the role of the European Union in dealing with crises. It turned out to be a very detailed report with interesting proposals. Unfortunately, however, both the Commission and the Council simply welcomed the report as an important contribution and did nothing about it. I should like the Commissioner to tell me how the Commission intends to make use of the Barnier report.
The price of the lack of a unified and effective Europe when it comes to crisis management is very high, which is why we need to proceed more effectively and with greater coordination.
Mr President, the Council decision being approved, with our adopted amendments, is the product of an exhaustive preparatory procedure and of the experience acquired over recent years from dealing with natural and man-made disasters, disasters which, apart from their huge impact on every aspect of citizens' every day lives, revealed objective shortcomings in the capacity for national intervention and, hence, enhanced expectations for Community assistance.
We are therefore being called upon today to strengthen and arm the Union so that it can respond to this demand by the citizens for effective intervention in the fields of the prevention of and rapid response to natural and man-made disasters. This is therefore an expression of the real solidarity sought between the Member States, which will further strengthen the feeling of participation in a community and will thus further strengthen the European conscience. As far as the amendments to the initial proposal are concerned, I consider it necessary to draw your attention to the following points:
An effective early warning and response system is founded on the following four components: identifying and assessing risks, constantly monitoring them, a warning and communication mechanism and, lastly, preparedness - the capacity to react and assist.
I too, like the rapporteur, should like to emphasise that the amendments which we tabled concern matters such as the early warning system, standby modules from the participating states, response and citizen information guidelines, best practices for dealing with situations and, lastly, mutual consular assistance for determining contact points between Member States.
I should also like to say - and I think that this should be accepted - that we must pay special attention to the public health sector, because disasters are usually accompanied by dangers to public health, either as a result of a lack of food or water or from epidemics and, consequently, this component should also be included in the proposal.
Finally, I should like to observe, as our rapporteur said, that the Barnier report is an exceptional report, which should be taken into account because, otherwise, what was the point in doing all this exceptional work? I think that, together with your report today, we shall have an effective mechanism.
To close, I should like to thank our rapporteur for his excellent work. Congratulations, Mr Papadimoulis.
on behalf of the PSE Group. - (PT) Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I should like to begin by congratulating Mr Papadimoulis on his report and the Commission on its initiative. The EU has at its disposal various legal mechanisms for preventing, and responding to, natural disasters. There are indeed a number of Parliament resolutions to this effect.
I myself drew up a report on the European strategy for responding to natural disasters on behalf of the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Food Safety in which I advocated the need for the Union to have quicker and more effective resources for responding to serious emergencies. On the basis of the experience of recent years with the forest fires in southern Europe and the floods in Central Europe, the creation of detection and early warning systems to protect the citizens and their property from natural disasters, including earthquakes and tsunamis, has become a priority.
Although responsibility for managing the response to natural disasters rests primarily with the country affected, with the Union playing a supporting role, the Community civil protection mechanism set up in 2001 lacked resources and powers. In other words, it fell short of what was needed.
This recast, improved proposal is worthy of praise. It will lead to better coordination and quicker assistance for the people affected. More needs to be done, however, and the model needs to be perfected, not only on the basis of the Barnier report, but also the amendments tabled by the Committee on the Environment, of which I should like to highlight the following: cooperation in civil protection should be based on a European strategic coordination centre responsible for gathering and disseminating information on emergencies and for providing additional resources for rapid intervention to fight natural disasters; the involvement of communities in prevention and response, for which they will need training and information; and greater investment in training the assistance intervention teams.
on behalf of the ALDE Group. - (IT) Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I should like to congratulate Mr Papadimoulis on his excellent work. His report translates in practical terms that which has already been provided for in the report on the Solidarity Fund, which represents the legal and financial basis for intervention in the field of civil protection.
The European Union currently has financial means and new knowledge based on the experience of the Community Civil Protection Mechanism, created in 2001, which will enable us to improve the instrument's practicality and effectiveness. It is true that the emergency response to disasters must come first and foremost from the local level, with prevention and reconstruction measures, but it is also true that there is a need for crisis management measures, which can and should be coordinated at European level, if we want to achieve significant economies of scale and, above all, greater efficiency.
Furthermore, when the scale of a disaster overwhelms the local or even national capacity to react, it would be desirable to be able to provide rapid additional assistance from other countries, using their available skills and resources. We should in fact bear in mind that in many cases major disasters have effects that transcend borders, having an impact on the territories of neighbouring countries.
In addition, I agree with the rapporteur on the importance of proper and appropriate planning of land use and of prevention and management of disasters with a view to reducing risks. There is a need to strengthen the European civil protection system, in order to be able to provide coordinated responses to tackle emergencies and contribute to a European Union capable of giving its own citizens confidence and safety. I believe that we have to learn to live up to these legitimate expectations.
(DE) Mr President, Commissioner, we all learn from the past and from our own experiences, and I believe that disaster prevention is one area in which we do this. The documents you have submitted and Mr Papadimoulis' outstanding report represent an attempt by us at putting these experiences to good use.
Three aspects need to be considered: firstly, the preventive measures; secondly, interventions in a crisis situation, and, thirdly, how to deal with the aftermath. While the European Union can afford a great deal in the way of preventive measures, it is an unfortunate fact that disasters strike in a variety of regions and for various reasons, so it is of the utmost importance that we, here in the European Union, should learn from one another. It is in this respect that the European Union has a particular task to perform.
During interventions to deal with a crisis situation, the Union must discharge its particular role as a coordinator. The Member States must not be discharged from their responsibilities; the prevention of disasters is and remains a national responsibility, and it is for that reason that I take an extremely critical view of the EU's current acquisition of equipment, which represents what might be termed an attempt at duplication, and certainly is not beneficial. It is important that duplication should be avoided, and we should concentrate on good coordination of the resources present in the Member States in order to do that.
The next stage is dealing with the fallout, and a crisis response instrument - in the shape of the Solidarity Fund - has already been put in place by the European Union in order to do this. Here, too, we should consider how more efficient use may be made of it, possibly by changing the basic rates and concentrating on dealing only with crises that affect Europe as a whole.
(EL) Mr President, the protection of European citizens from accidents and natural disasters is directly connected to their economic and social security. Over recent years, there has been a huge increase in the number of natural disasters, resulting in an equally huge increase in requests for assistance from the civil protection mechanism on the part of the governments of the Member States.
Civil protection is a complex system which consists of prevention, intervention and, lastly, restoration. The excellent report by Mr Papadimoulis on the proposed recast does, I think, improve the Council proposal in a way which strengthens the supportive and supplementary actions by the Union when they are needed.
However, I stand by the ongoing need for instruction of the parties involved and I consider that greater information for the public is needed, especially in areas with a high degree of risk, in order to help improve prevention and preparedness in the areas in question.
Μember of the Commission. (EL) Mr President, I should like to thank all the speakers for their excellent comments. Before I touch on the matter of the amendments, I should like to reply on the question of the Barnier report and to say that the Commission has already started work on many of the issues connected with this report, the most important, of course, being the development of civil protection modules. Meetings have been held with specialists from the Member States in order to ascertain what types of modules should be available in each case and the specific terms and conditions for each type of module.
A second field of work relates to exercises and, despite the fact that no provision is made for the creation of a European institute in accordance with the Barnier report, we do nonetheless propose that a network of centres should be developed which will extend the existing exercise programme.
We also agree that the Monitoring and Information Centre should be reinforced. We have already requested an increase in the number of employees, of officers, to be employed at the centre. We have also asked the Member States to give us the opportunity next year to use certain specialists at the MIC.
Finally, the Commission has two legislative proposals, one for the means of financing and one for the recast of the 2001 decision, which will give us the possibility of working in another sector, the transport sector, about which I spoke earlier.
Now, as far as the amendments are concerned, the European Parliament has presented a series of important amendments with a view to strengthening civil protection capabilities at European level. The amendments relate to the need to safeguard prompt transportation of civil protection aid, the importance of early warning and alert systems, the interoperability of civil protection modules and the role which the mechanism can play in helping the citizens of the European Union.
The Commission can accept most of the proposed amendments. However, there are some which cause problems and cannot be adopted as they stand. I refer to those relating to the provision of measures relating to prevention, public health and deliberate maritime pollution.
As regards the measures relating to prevention, the Commission wishes to emphasise that the proposal for the means of financing civil protection will cover actions in this sector. The Community civil protection mechanism is designed to cover actions in the sectors of preparedness and intervention only. Nonetheless, the Commission agrees with the European Parliament about the importance of actions in the field of prevention and has promised to promote them within an appropriate framework.
As regards the inclusion of public health, the Commission recognises that civil protection actions very often aim to protect public health. However, the civil protection mechanism set up at European Union level does not form part of public health policy, which is covered by other existing Community mechanisms, such as the Community action programme in the health sector.
As far as deliberate or intentional maritime pollution is concerned, the Commission fully supports the proposal whereby it must be possible for the civil protection mechanism to intervene in cases of extensive maritime pollution caused either accidentally or deliberately. The proposal by the European Commission to extend the scope so that it also covers man-made disasters covers this possibility. However, the term 'intentional, deliberate' maritime pollution usually refers to the jettisoning of small quantities of oil from ships and the Commission wishes to avoid the interpretation that the scope of the regulation covers jettisoning to such a minor degree. It would be practically impossible for the Commission to mobilise the mechanism - nor, as I said earlier, does it have the staff - and this sort of minor jettisoning should be dealt with by the means available to each country. That is why the corresponding amendments were not accepted.
Finally, the Commission would point out that a series of amendments relates to aspects of existing legislation. The Commission supports some of these amendments in essence. However, the interinstitutional agreement on the use of the recast technique does not allow the Commission to accept them, unless they are of vital importance to the application of the new provisions contained in the proposal or derive directly from the new provisions. However, the Commission will bear the issues in question in mind within the framework of the development of our policy in this sector.
These are the main issues on which the Commission's position differs from that taken in the European Parliament report. However, I wish to stress that these differences of opinion do not overshadow our common objectives. We agree fully with the ambition of the European Parliament to develop a very strong European intervention capability in the field of civil protection, both inside and outside the European Union, and we thank you for your support. I shall send the European Parliament secretariat a full list of the Commission's positions on the amendments. I should like once again to congratulate the rapporteur, Mr Papadimoulis, on his excellent work.
The debate is closed.
The vote will take place on Tuesday at 12 noon.
Written statement (Rule 142)
(SV) The European Parliament is now dealing with a proposal for revising the Civil Protection Mechanism set up in 2001. There is no doubt that disasters put great strains on the parties affected. Coordinated European civil protection is not, however, the solution to the problem, especially in the form in which it appears in this proposal.
Civil protection in each Member State is funded through taxes. It is up to each State to choose how tax revenue collected from its citizens is to be distributed. This proposal may entail a risk of certain Member States choosing to invest a minimum of resources in national civil protection, relying on other EU countries contributing when a disaster occurs. This problem of free-riding is very serious and is unfair towards people in those countries that choose to have strong civil protection. Where international efforts are concerned, these should be coordinated through OCHA and funded by the Member States and not by the EU.
The Commission's document also talks about rapid reaction forces and about the Member States having to give notice of available resources, including military resources and military capacity, in cases where an affected country requests that type of aid. The June List resolutely objects to these proposals. A country's military resources are a matter for that particular nation, and it is up to each Member State to decide whether or not such resources should be mobilised.


2. Common system of value added tax as regards the rules on invoicing (


7. Coordination of safeguards required of companies (codified version) (


2. Death penalty in Nigeria (vote)


10. REACH (Draft Test Methods Regulation) (vote)