Fisheries Partnership Agreement between the EC and Denmark and Greenland (debate)
The next item is the report by Joop Post, on behalf of the Committee on Fisheries, on the proposal for a Council regulation on the conclusion of the Fisheries Partnership Agreement between the European Community on the one hand, and the Government of Denmark and the Home Rule Government of Greenland, on the other hand C6-0506/2006.
Mr President, I would first of all like to thank Mr Maat, who started the work on this subject, and the rapporteur, Mr Post, for their excellent work.
As you know, on 2 June 2006, the Commission, on behalf of the Community and Greenland, initialled a new Fisheries Partnership Agreement after three years of long and complex negotiations. The Agreement came into effect as of 1 January 2007 for a period of six years. Currently, a provisional application of the Agreement is in force through a Council decision which was adopted on 21 December 2006.
Before making a short presentation of the new Fisheries Partnership Agreement with Greenland, I would like to outline just a few points relating to the previous agreement, which dated back to 1985 when Greenland had left the Community. Shortly after the Fourth Protocol entered into force on 1 January 2001, the Court of Auditors and Parliament strongly criticised the protocols under the Greenland Fisheries Agreement for including 'paper fish', for not including the ship owners' payment and for not being transparent enough. As a consequence, the Commission emphasised the need for adjustments during the mid-term review of the Fourth Protocol in order to make a clearer distinction between the value for fish and support for the development of Greenland's fisheries sector. The revision of the Fourth Protocol led to a division of funds, under which 25 % of the financial contribution was earmarked for budgetary support to the fisheries sector. 'Paper fish' were removed, real fish quotas and licence fees were introduced and provisions for an annual scientific review of the quotas were incorporated. These important changes were also incorporated into the new agreement. On this basis, during negotiations on the new agreement, the Commission has insisted on obtaining quotas for real fish and eliminating 'paper fish', on maintaining and even increasing the shipowners' payment and on having a clear sectoral policy programme for the fisheries sector to be supported by the Community.
Another outcome of the mid-term review was the Council conclusions of February 2003, in which the Council stated that future cooperation between the Community and Greenland would be based on a two-pillar approach with a broader cooperation arrangement in areas other than fisheries and a fisheries agreement. The broader agreement takes the form of a Council decision including a joint declaration and will provide up to EUR 25 million per year to Greenland on the basis of cooperation in areas other than fisheries. Therefore, one can conclude that the initialling of the Fisheries Partnership Agreement does not merely represent the closure of the negotiations conducted over the past year, but also the closure of what was initialled back in 2003 with the mid-term review of the Fourth Fisheries Protocol and the Council conclusions of February 2003.
Turning now to the new agreement, let me outline the following. The financial contribution of the previous Protocol was EUR 42.8 million per year, making it one of the biggest bilateral fisheries agreements. The value of the new protocol has decreased considerably given the changes to the Community quotas. Some have decreased due to the poor state of the stocks, the needs of Greenland's fishing industry and the rate of utilisation by the Community, while others have increased due to the sound state of the stocks and based on the needs of Community industry. As a result of these changes to the quotas, the Community's financial contribution is now EUR 15.85 million per year. This sum includes a specific sum of EUR 3.26 million to be used for a multiannual fisheries policy programme in Greenland. In addition to this contribution, a payment from ship owners of EUR 2 million in the form of licences is also expected.
With regard to the amendments put forward by Parliament, I would like to stress that the Commission fully shares the concern of the Parliament on each amendment proposed. However, with respect to amendments 1-3, we feel that these are already covered in the Protocol itself and we therefore consider them unnecessary. Furthermore, in relation to amendments 4 and 6 on the reporting requirements to Parliament, I would like to stress that the Commission already complies with the transmission of this information in line with the current interinstitutional arrangement. Moreover, concerning amendment 5 on the Member States' compliance with reporting requirements, it should be stressed that the Commission already examines whether catch reporting is respected. In addition, it is stated in the annex and the appendix to the Protocol that vessels must comply with the reporting requirements of the previous fishing year in order to obtain a licence. On this basis, therefore, the amendment is not necessary.
Finally, on amendment 7, I would like to make it clear that, given the previous criticism put forward by both the Court of Auditors and the European Parliament itself of the Commission's financial management of the external fisheries agreements, the Commission finds it hard to understand this amendment, which, in essence, is no different to the mechanism found under the modified Fourth Protocol and does not make it possible for the Commission to manage the under-utilised fishing opportunities in the best possible way. Therefore, taking the financial responsibility of the Commission into consideration, the Commission cannot accept this amendment.
In conclusion, let me thank Parliament and, in particular, the members of the Committee on Fisheries and the rapporteur for their constructive engagement on this important fight.
- (NL) Madam President, it is unlikely I will need all of the five minutes allocated to me. What the Commissioner said in this introductory speech was clear. The main focus of the report, which is largely the work of my predecessor Mr Maat, is the objective of fisheries policy in general - sustainable fishery, in other words - and, although the term 'sustainable' is clear, its meaning is also obvious from what Mr Borg said a moment ago and from what is stipulated in the agreement and the protocol.
The main objective of the partnership agreement with Greenland is to strengthen relations between it and the EU. Cooperation based on mutual trust is called for, now more than ever. After all, we have all known for some time that the fishing industry is facing drastic changes in the next few years. Due to the reduction in fish stocks and migrating fish stocks - mainly caused by marine warming, cod being a case in point - but also due to the prescribed reduction of catch quotas, the fishing industry will need to operate differently. This has been made clear to the sector, and the sector, having itself also come to realise this, is increasingly taking appropriate action.
To many fishermen, this represents a drastic change in their business operations. New business operations must, in future, eventually - by which I mean in the longer term - lead to an improvement in the fish yield, in other words, to sustainable fishing, where the catches from the sea are proportionate to the production and where, moreover, the industry's impact on the marine environment is minimised.
According to the report, fishermen must become managers of the sea, rather than merely hunting fishing grounds and fish stocks. This requires cooperation, not only mutually, and by that I mean among Member States, but also with partners such as Greenland, particularly with a view to improving the production chain in the longer term.
As rapporteur, I note that the Commission is committed to this, as also is the Commissioner in particular, and I note that our Committee on Fisheries has come to the same conclusion.
I am grateful to my fellow MEPs for the constructive input and would warmly recommend the report for which Mr Maat did most of the groundwork some time ago.
That ends my contribution, and I hope that the report will be adopted at the next plenary meeting.
draftsman of the opinion of the Committee on Budgets. - (DE) Mr President, Commissioner, I, too, am glad to see that there are to be clear rules for the two pillars, the one being the fisheries agreement with Greenland and the other the broader cooperation agreement, and would like to say, speaking on behalf of the Committee on Budgets, that we are, of course, concerned about whether European taxpayers' money is being spent as properly as we have to want it to be.
On the one hand, that does mean - and this is where I really do want to give you, Commissioner Borg, a lot of encouragement - that there really do have to be very precise checks on what is caught by the individual vessels, and, on the other, that illegal fishing - on which you have declared war - is avoided come what may.
The Committee on Budgets takes the view that no more money should be forthcoming unless and until these two states of affairs are brought about, for we have to be careful that, under fisheries agreements too, European funds are indeed expended in the spirit of those agreements, in other words, that there must be no illegal fishing going on and that fish stocks must be protected, for if they are not, there will be no more work for the fishermen of the future. It is for that reason that combining economy and ecology here is a smart move.
on behalf of the PPE-DE Group. - (ES) Mr President, it is a great pleasure finally to be able to debate a fisheries agreement with Greenland that begins to respect the minimum rules of financial transparency and non-discrimination between shipowners and Member States.
We must acknowledge the progress made since previous agreements, including the mid-term modification of 2003, to bring them into line - as the Commissioner has said quite rightly - with the guidelines of the Council of Ministers and the demands of the Court of Auditors and of this Parliament, which focussed essentially on that lack of budgetary transparency, the worst example of which was the institutionalised custom of paying astronomical sums for 'non-existent fisheries' or paper quotas.
In any event, this Agreement still has too much small print and its content is still too different from other agreements.
So that we do not have to relive past situations, therefore, I would like to ask the Commissioner whether he can commit himself to guaranteeing that we will never again have to hear about paper quotas or see grotesque situations such as that of the fishing of queen crabs - whose quotas, which had been repeatedly requested by Community shipowners, were returned in the end to Greenland unused and having cost a fortune - and whether fishing opportunities not used by the Member States to which they are allocated will be able to be used by those who request them, as happens in the case of the other agreements.
Having said that, Mr President, it only remains for me to congratulate the rapporteur, Mr Post, who has had the difficult job of continuing with a report that was begun by another Member, Mr Maat, and who has done a tremendous job.
Mr President, since I have a few seconds left, I would like once again to protest about the fact that, in this House, fisheries reports are always debated at the end of a night sitting. I would ask you, as a Vice-President and a Spaniard, to try to do something to ensure that this does not happen again in the future.
Mrs Fraga, the advantage of debating at this time is that only women Members speak, because it appears that only women work at this time of night, apart from the rapporteur and the President.
on behalf of the PSE Group. - (ES) Mr President, in one minute I would simply like to say that I am absolutely delighted with what Commissioner Borg has said about this Agreement.
Just this afternoon I was looking back over my speeches on Greenland in the plenary of Parliament, in 2003 and also in 2002, and I believe that we are getting closer to what we were saying at that time and to what we have been saying since: that we want the Fisheries Agreement with Greenland to be as similar as possible to any other fisheries agreement signed by the Community.
In this regard, I can only express my pleasure at the fact that there is finally now a balanced distribution of its cost between shipowners and the Community budget. I can only express my delight at the fact that the financial payments have been brought into line with the real fishing opportunities offered by Greenland and, of course, I entirely agree with the Commissioner that Amendment 7 should be rejected, because fleets without quotas must be able to take advantage of fisheries opportunities that are not used.
on behalf of the ALDE Group. - Mr President, Commissioner, the ALDE Group welcomes the fisheries partnership agreement with Greenland. We take this opportunity to repeat our thanks to the home rule government for the very fruitful discussions on this and other issues that a delegation from the group had with them when it visited Greenland last autumn. We are clear that the agreement is a matter of mutual benefit.
However, we have serious concerns about one aspect of the regulation, namely Article 3(2). This would allow the Commission to reallocate licences between Member States in cases where fishing opportunities have not been fully taken up. We understand the Commission's wish to ensure full value for sums expended by the Community, but we do not believe that the same procedure can be used in the case of agreements where access to resources is based on vessels and tonnage.
The Greenland agreement is based on the purchase of quota. It also differs from other agreements in allowing for quota exchanges with Norway, Iceland and the Faeroes for which there is no monetary compensation.
In addition, the parent regulation for the setting of quota entitlements allows only for Member States to exchange quota with other parties. Article 3(2) is therefore of dubious legality. It also undermines the principle of relative stability. Amendment 7 offers an alternative mechanism to achieve the optimal use of fishing opportunities and one that does not give rise to such problems.
We hope that the Commission will accept that the grounds for concern are justified and that Parliament will give its support to the amendment.
Mr President, I should like to thank the rapporteur.
In Article 3(2) of the proposal the Commission has suggested that, should quotas be under-utilised, the Commission could reallocate Member States' licences to other Member States. This appears to be legally questionable, a point underlined by the Council's Legal Service in a recent working group. As uptake is already high, it is also unnecessary and would undermine the principle of relative stability and remove the opportunity for Member States to swap quota with other Member States rather than seeing the Commission reallocate it.
I want to keep the current mechanism, which brought about much higher rates of utilisation and preserved the respective rights and responsibilities of each party. The concept of relative stability is vital to the Scottish fleet and gives our fishermen the historic rights that they have enjoyed for centuries. Undermining this amendment puts all of this at risk and ignores the basic differences between southern fisheries agreements, where fishing licences are at stake, and northern agreements, where quota is at stake. I urge colleagues to support Amendment 7, which upholds the principle of relative stability and historic fishing rights.
Member of the Commission. Mr President, first of all, thank you all for your comments and for your overall support of the Commission's proposal for a revised agreement with Greenland, which is an important part of the network of fisheries partnership agreements that are currently in place.
As I have already stated, the review was necessary for two primary reasons. First, we needed to ensure value for our money through better and full utilisation of fishing possibilities and second, further to a critical assessment by the Court of Auditors and by this Parliament, the Commission is obliged to inject transparency into the agreement, and we hope to have managed to do so.
I agree that there will be scrupulous checking of the use of the fishing possibilities under this agreement and the use of the funds provided. I would like to stress that, regarding the financial contribution to be paid under the protocol, the Commission cannot guarantee sound financial management without having the legal basis. This means, in other words, that there is a need for a transfer mechanism which habilitates the Commission in case of under-utilisation and with due respect to the principle of relative stability and to Article 25 of the basic regulation to transfer in due time unutilised fishing opportunities to ensure their optimum utilisation.
I would also underline that the new mechanism of the agreement provided in Article 3(2) is specifically to make possible maximum utilisation of fishing possibilities and to eliminate 'paper fish'. On the question of relative stability, raised by Ms Attwooll and by Ms Stihler, the temporary transfer of fishing possibilities from one Member State to another by the Commission is not contrary to the principle of relative stability, which, in accordance with Article 21 of Regulation (EC) No 2371/2002, governs the allocation of fishing possibilities amongst Member States. Such a transfer will not have any effect on the allocation of fishing possibilities between the Member States in Greenland's waters in the future. Each year the allocation will be done on the basis of the allocation keys - that is, on the basis of relative stability.
The intention behind Article 3(2) is to ensure the highest possible utilisation without affecting relative stability. This article exists and is implemented in all other third country agreements with financial compensation. The only agreement which does not have this article is the current Greenland agreement. As the new FPA is an agreement with financial compensation and involves a significant amount of public funding, it is crucial that the Commission has the legal means to act.
I would also like to underline that, notwithstanding the improvements that have been achieved under the existing agreement, the rate of utilisation is still not the optimum. Taking into account the transfers to Norway, it ranks at around 80 %. If one eliminates the transfers to Norway, it will go down to about 65 % utilisation, and I think that we owe it to the public to achieve much better results than that. Indeed, this article is subject to discussions in the Council and will be debated in the Council and decided upon, hopefully, on 11 June. Admittedly, the wording could be clearer and improved upon, maintaining the principle of relative stability while ensuring the highest utilisation of possibilities.
So, we will do our utmost to achieve an agreement in the Council whereby we will polish the wording so that, without prejudicing the principle of relative stability, we will ensure the maximum utilisation of the fishing possibilities under this new agreement.
The debate is closed.
The vote will take place on Tuesday 22 May.


G20 Summit in Pittsburgh (24-25 September) (motions for resolutions tabled): see Minutes


4. Measuring instruments and methods of metrological control (Recast) (


40. Conservation of fisheries resources through technical measures (


Composition of committees and delegations: see Minutes


Decision on urgent procedure
Madam President, this discussion will take place this evening, if the plenary votes in favour of the urgent procedure on this issue. This is an amendment to European legislation that enables us to grant facilities for balances of payments, for countries outside the euro zone.
As we are all aware, the issue at hand is that of Hungary but, unfortunately, I believe that we must look ahead and therefore enhance this facility of the European Union to provide assistance to its Member States, including those that lie outside the euro zone.
I would therefore ask the plenary assembly to kindly vote in favour of this urgent procedure.


Forwarding of texts adopted during the sitting: see Minutes


Ship-source pollution and penalties for infringements (debate)
The next item is the report by Luis de Grandes Pascual, on behalf of the Committee on Transport and Tourism, on the proposal for a directive of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Directive 2005/35/EC on ship-source pollution and on the introduction of penalties for infringements - C6-0142/2008 -.
rapporteur. - (ES) Mr President, Vice-President of the Commission, Commissioner for Transport, Mr Tajani, President-in-Office of the Council, ladies and gentlemen, personally, I cannot imagine a greater finishing touch to the end of this parliamentary term than the adoption of this proposal for a directive on ship-source pollution and the introduction of penalties, including criminal penalties for pollution offences, which I hope will receive everyone's support.
The consensus we have reached suggests that we have widespread support for the proposal and that it will be adopted tomorrow at first reading. Apart from the tremendous effort made by the three institutions during the negotiations phase, this is mostly due to the fact that we agree that the Community needs to take action in order to combat serious offences against the environment.
It is certainly true that Member States were initially suspicious, given that the measure intended for adoption - the Community's acquisition of powers in the area of criminal law - will not be the fruit of a reform of the Treaties but, instead, will be achieved through legislation which, in addition, is unquestionable and of immense significance.
All this is derived from the need to address widespread problems in maritime transport, such as the worrying escalation of illicit operational discharges of ship-source polluting substances. Although we already have current international regulations to minimise this situation - the Marpol 73/78 convention - we are increasingly seeing glaring shortcomings as regards application and compliance; it has also been observed that the civil liability systems governing ship-source pollution in force at present are not sufficiently dissuasive.
Malpractice in certain areas of European coastlines is so recurrent that some of those responsible for maritime transport prefer to carry out the illicit practice of polluting, because it costs them less to pay the administrative penalty than to comply with the relevant legislation. Such behaviour has transformed the former principle of 'the polluter pays' into 'pay to pollute'.
Indeed, by introducing criminal penalties on account of the severity and social stigma they carry in comparison with administrative penalties, the European Union is trying to deter potential polluters from any kind of contravention.
The reform is the fruit of negotiations with the Council, represented by the Czech presidency which, by the way, deserves my full praise, since it has had no shortage of political difficulties to face throughout its term of office; it is a combination of a structural reform of the directive, which does not affect the foundations of Parliament's mandate and which fully respects the principle of subsidiarity, since the directive establishes the principle of sanctioning actions in the terms defined by the Court of Justice ruling, while leaving Member States to define the types of penalties.
Furthermore, it consolidates the difference between minor discharges and major infringements and the corresponding penalties these deserve. Thus far, we had succeeded. We simply had to reiterate the agreements reached in the debate and the adoption of Directive 2005/35/EC and of Council Framework Decision 2005/667/JHA, but according to the new legal basis, since the aforementioned rulings bring about the possibility that the Community legislator may adopt measures relating to the criminal law of Member States.
The main innovation we have added to this amending proposal, which will enable us to go a step further in our fight against environmental infringements in the maritime transport sector, is that it claims - as was defended by this rapporteur from the very first day - that repetition of minor discharges involving water pollution can also constitute a criminal infringement.
I am pleased to see I have not fought this battle alone, for Parliament lent me its support through members of the Committee on Transport and Tourism; the Commission and the Council, in the end, understood the significance and scale of my proposal.
May I express my sincere thanks to the shadow rapporteurs who have helped me in my endeavours and who have provided support in the tough negotiations with the Council and the Commission; I wish to acknowledge the draftsmen of the opinion of the Committee on Legal Affairs and the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Food Safety for their contributions. We finally reached a compromise solution with regard to the date on which the directive shall come into force, which will be in the next 12 months.
Ladies and gentlemen, I believe that today we all have reason to be satisfied, for, with the adoption of this legislation and the approval of the third maritime package at the beginning of March, the European Union has strengthened its position as a leader in maritime safety. I am certain, ladies and gentlemen, that we will be an example to others.
Mr President, honourable Members, the Commission cannot help but be delighted at the outcome we are seeing, which will lead to the adoption of a new directive amending the previous one.
This will fill the legal vacuum created following the ruling by the Court of Justice annulling Framework Decision No 2005/667, which established the nature, type and level of criminal penalties for the illegal discharge of polluting substances at sea. Once adopted, the directive will make it possible to fight more effectively against those responsible for polluting the seas. The text that Parliament is about to adopt is, therefore, an important addition to the third maritime safety package signed by the presidents of both Parliament and the Council at the end of your last plenary session.
The compromise text currently being discussed is slightly different from the Commission's original proposal, although I have to say that the essential points have remained unchanged: firstly, the criminal nature of the penalties to be imposed for illegal discharges, and secondly, the possibility of prosecuting all those responsible for such discharges, including legal persons.
For this reason, the Commission supports the text, even if it does introduce separate treatment for minor infringements and repeated minor infringements. On the other hand, I can appreciate that the Council and Parliament have thought it desirable for discharges that do not lead to a deterioration in water quality to not necessarily be subject to criminal proceedings. Even more so than Parliament, I am keen to see small discharges criminally punished; although they may not be very serious, they can lead, precisely because they are repeated, to real pollution of the marine environment.
The compromise reached concerning the question of repeated minor infringements gives a more specific definition of 'repetition' and can therefore be accepted by the Commission, which, I repeat, is pleased with the outcome reached thanks to the work of the Commission staff and Members of this House. I thus believe we can say today we are happy to be sending out a message on reducing the pollution of our seas.
rapporteur for the opinion of the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Food Safety. - Mr President, the legal vacuum created by the relevant ruling of the European Court of Justice necessitated the amendment of the directive under debate. It is incredible that a legal-basis error has caused a delay in the implementation of such an important directive, and has without doubt been detrimental to our marine environment. Lessons can and must be learned by all concerned in order to avoid such occurrences in the future.
The main issue at this point in time is to speedily amend the proposed directive and get it on the road to implementation as soon as possible. Only then can we envisage the widespread problem of the increase in the incidence and scale of illegal operational discharges of ship-source polluting substances being brought under control, and only then will our task of fighting to keep our seas clean have real hope of success.
In conclusion, I wish to thank the rapporteur for the excellent work he has done on this report.
draftsman of the opinion of the Committee on Legal Affairs. - (DE) Mr President, marine pollution is only the focus of interest when there has been a dramatic accident. Then there are serious debates about the threats to our oceans from this ongoing pollution. Unfortunately, the subject is always largely ignored in the interim. We must take seriously the constant and repeated violations of the law which make just as significant and just as dramatic a contribution to the threat not only to our oceans but also to our coastlines.
I would like to thank my fellow Members with whom we were able to discuss the issue for taking a consistent approach to the protection of our oceans. I come from a landlocked country, but nevertheless, as a European, I feel responsible for protecting our oceans against ongoing pollution caused by cheap business interests and for integrating the principles of the third maritime package, which is urgently needed, as the Committee on Legal Affairs has proposed.
on behalf of the PPE-DE Group. - (DE) Mr President, Vice-President of the Commission, the Group of the European People's Party (Christian Democrats) and European Democrats supports the version of the amending directive, negotiated by the rapporteur with the Council, which introduces sanctions against ship-source pollution. We would like to congratulate him warmly on his work. We would also like to congratulate the Vice-President, because without the help of the Commission it would not have been possible to come to an agreement with the Council at the first reading. It is a big day for us, because we can complete this important dossier at the end of this period.
We must always remember that the new regulations became necessary because the Court of Justice of the European Communities in its judgments from 2005 and 2007 has finally made it completely clear that legislation, including criminal law, is permitted on the basis of the first pillar. We need this legislation to protect the seas from ships and from the behaviour of captains, shipowners and others. Until now the civil liability legislation has simply not been dissuasive enough.
It is much cheaper to discharge something illegally into the sea. Surely that cannot be right. Therefore, we need effective sanctions. I would like to thank the rapporteur for this three-way agreement, which has been reached between all three institutions. It is clear that serious ship-source pollution must be classified and punished as a criminal offence and minor ship-source pollution can be regarded a regulatory offence, so that there is a distinction between the seriousness of the two types of activity. However - and my third point is very important - repeated minor ship-source pollution should now be regarded as a criminal offence, because it contributes to the overall pollution of the oceans and that is not a trivial matter.
We must send out clear signals in this respect and we call on the Member States - and I hope that someone will pass this call on to the Council - to implement and to apply this directive immediately. We can only protect our oceans by means of dissuasive criminal sanctions.
I too would like to congratulate Mr de Grandes Pascual. I also want to mention that pollution of the sea is really a topic which we must discuss more often. Unfortunately, I can cite the example of the Black Sea where, in just the last two years, the fact that it has become heavily polluted has led to a four-fold increase in the volume of algae, precisely due to a very high concentration of nitrates.
Obviously, maritime transport is unfortunately responsible for some of this pollution. This directive is actually intended to deal with illegal discharges from ships made either through negligence, deliberate intent or carelessness. In practical terms, the directive harmonises the definition of ship-sourced pollution caused by individuals or legal entities, the scope of the response to this and the punitive nature of the sanctions which can be applied in the event of any such violations committed by individuals.
I also want to mention that a set of coherent legislative measures have already been adopted at European level for reinforcing maritime safety and preventing ship-sourced pollution. This legislation refers and applies to flag states, ship owners and classification companies, as well as port and coastal states.
However, it is important for us to tighten the current system of sanctions for illegal discharges from ships by supplementing the relevant legislation. We must emphasise that this legislation was necessary precisely because the existing preventive regulations were not enforced adequately. Unfortunately, the MARPOL 73/78 Convention was not enforced adequately either. This is why I believe that it is important for us to have this legislative package. I also believe the fact that opinions were given by both the Committee on Legal Affairs and the Committee on Petitions highlights the importance of this subject.
(BG) It goes without saying that at a legislative and executive level, the European Commission and European Parliament are in the debt of the European citizens who are ultimately affected by the pollution which has occurred in our marine areas.
I am looking at this issue from the point of view of the previous regulation and its enforcement aimed at protecting the environment, the seas and associated coasts. I would like to reiterate that the regulation and the amendment to the directives are necessary, but are still inadequate. The most important thing of all is how effectively they are enforced.
It cannot be accepted as normal that you can dump your waste in the sea and pay a fine which costs less than complying with the directive's requirements. This is why, above all, attention must be focused on monitoring. Nowadays, there is a sufficiently large number of technological options available to ensure that waters and coasts can enjoy the protection of a long-term policy governing the use and protection of the entire flora and fauna.
I support the proposal to amend the directive as I believe that it is particularly important to set up a specialist body for the European Maritime Safety Agency whose activities will be aimed at implementing this directive.
Mr President, honourable Members, at the end of this debate we must be grateful, I think, for the interinstitutional cooperation between Parliament, Council and Commission, which Mr Jarzembowski underlined in his speech. I would also like to thank the rapporteur for his work.
This time the institutions have shown, even at the end of this parliamentary term, that they are able to work in partnership and come to a solution at first reading, and I believe that this is a message we are sending to citizens, on the eve of the European elections.
A further message in the sensitive area of transport, and, since this will be one of the last debates to involve Parliament's Committee on Transport and Tourism, I take this opportunity to thank all the members of that committee for the work they have done in cooperation with the European Commission and myself, to come up with practical solutions to several important matters, some of which had been dragging on for months. This was made possible thanks to the intelligence of Members of this House, and also to the work we have done to achieve efficient cooperation among our staff, showing that, when bureaucracy has clear-cut tasks, when there are goals to be reached, it is not a barrier for citizens but an effective instrument, alongside politics, with which to meet citizens' needs.
I believe that today, and of course tomorrow with the vote, Parliament will give another demonstration of efficiency and a desire to always work for the people. So, with this debate and with the vote, Commission, Parliament and Council are filling a legal vacuum and enabling Member States, from tomorrow, to better prosecute those who pollute our seas: another step taken by the European institutions to strengthen the rights and freedoms of the European people.
rapporteur. - (ES) Mr President, I shall speak very briefly, for which the honourable Members will be grateful at this time of night: Mr Tajani, many thanks once again because you have shown, as you did in the third maritime package, that your impetus and political skill have brought about an agreement with the Council and made it possible for Parliament, the Council and the Commission to come to an agreement on this occasion and in the final days of this parliamentary term.
I believe that we should congratulate ourselves. I am, of course, grateful to the draftsmen of the opinions, both from the Committee on Legal Affairs and the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Food Safety, for their close collaboration.
May I reiterate my thanks for the shadow rapporteurs' hard work and collaboration; I am certain that tomorrow's adoption of an agreement at first reading on such an important regulation that is sure to complete the work of the third maritime package, is a success for this Parliament and for the three institutions of the European Union; once again, it justifies the useful codecision procedure which enables us to hold a constructive dialogue to the benefit of all the citizens of the European Union.
Thank you, Commissioner, not only for your work as Commissioner but also as a Member of the European Parliament.
The debate is closed.
The vote will take place tomorrow (Tuesday, 5 May 2009).


Role of women in agriculture and rural areas (short presentation)
The next item is the report by Mrs Jeggle, on behalf of the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development, on the role of women in agriculture and rural areas.
Madam President, Commissioner, as Parliament's rapporteur for the own-initiative report on the role of women in agriculture and rural areas, it was my aim to conduct a broad public debate in order to give more visibility and weight to the important multi-functional role of women in rural areas.
It remains a key task of European rural policy to achieve equivalent living conditions in all regions, preventing the one-sided development of heavily populated urban areas, so that, even in rural areas, people can look forward to staying put and making a successful life. The focus of the common agricultural policy (CAP) over recent decades has been on the positive economic development of agriculture and rural areas. In future, it will be geared increasingly to shaping and furthering future-oriented rural areas.
This will require fresh efforts and new strategies by all concerned. It will be more necessary than ever to take account of the needs of women in rural areas and to utilise their potential. Experience shows that, in rural areas most particularly, quality of life and economic strength are linked to the presence of women and their involvement in a wide range of activities. It has become apparent in recent years that significant advances for rural societies generally result from support for women and women's projects. Findings to that effect have been gleaned from experience with such support under the second pillar of the CAP and various other EU funding schemes in all regions of Europe.
However, women also have an essential role to play in agriculture. This is a sector where women have made a substantial contribution in recent years to business diversification and adjustment to the market, thereby advancing the practical outworking of the sector's multi-functionality. In addition to their own food production, agricultural businesses also offer innovative products and services. The types of economic potential represented here can be utilised to an even greater extent. In this context, there are opportunities to provide practical support measures for women in agriculture. Greater account must be taken of the wide range of vocational skills, interests and achievements of women. To that end, we call, in particular, for women to have a full share in the resources that underpin farming as a way of life and a type of business. Women farmers want a share in rights and duties that is commensurate with their co-responsibility for the farm business, including through the appropriate representation of interests on agricultural bodies. Ensuring adequate social cover for all women who work in agriculture is essential.
Following an intensive dialogue, we succeeded, in our vote in the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development, in adopting the report with only one vote against. No amendments have been tabled for tomorrow's vote in plenary. That indicates to me that we have found a very good compromise that is acceptable to all groups. A unanimous vote would give the report the necessary weight for it - I hope - to receive sufficient consideration in the Commission and the Council. I would like to thank my fellow Members, especially the shadow rapporteurs, for their truly excellent cooperation.
The important role of women in agriculture and rural areas must not be overlooked in the forthcoming debate on the future of the CAP post 2013. I am confident that our report will provide an important basis for this essential debate and that it will also make a positive contribution to the forthcoming financial debate.
Madam President, I congratulate Elisabeth Jeggle for her good work in this report and for her continued work in this area over the number of years I have known her. It is a compliment to her work that there are no amendments tabled to this important report.
In the short time I have, I want to draw attention to several paragraphs in it. I welcome paragraph 4 about the importance of an adequate budget for agriculture in general, and paragraph 10, about new technologies in rural areas and the need to widen the access to broadband. I think paragraph 34 is particularly important. Women ought to be adequately represented in all political, economic and social bodies in the agriculture sector so that decision-making processes are informed by both male and female perspectives. That is really important, and I regret to say that the face of farm organisations is unfortunately all too male. We do need to look at that issue.
Lastly, the Commission needs to be aware that the problem for male and female farmers at the moment is the uncertainty over the debate on CAP reform. I worry that some farmers are trying to second guess the outcome of those reforms and that they may be taking on additional costs, which will be a burden to them. I would ask you to bring that message to the Commission.
(RO) Madam President, the main concern of women in rural areas is the lack of jobs. The lack of jobs means low incomes for the elderly, which, in turn, increases the risk of poverty. In addition, children's education and healthcare services in rural areas are the lifeblood of these communities.
The precarious nature of the basic infrastructure in the countryside means that entrepreneurs show less interest in developing farms and production units in these areas. I urge Member States to use the Structural Funds to remedy the lack of basic infrastructure in rural areas and to implement policies for improving access to the public infrastructure for everyone. I call on the Commission and Member States to abide by their commitment to improve the broadband infrastructure in rural areas as a means of boosting their competitiveness.
Rural tourism based on family tourist enterprises creates jobs, makes it possible to combine family obligations with work, and encourages the rural population to remain in the countryside.
Madam President, I welcome this timely report from Elisabeth Jeggle and thank her for her good cooperation.
Not many people realise that 42% of those engaged regularly in agriculture are women, and that three out of every ten holdings in the EU are managed by women. In order for women and families to remain in the countryside and make their contribution to achieving the objectives of the EU 2020 strategy through agriculture, there must be a range of services and facilities for normal everyday life. These services should include such things as healthcare and care services, education, leisure, transport and broadband.
It is crucial that all services are not just market-oriented. There also needs to be proper social insurance for women working in agriculture so that their future and their pensions can be guaranteed. It is also important for women's entrepreneurial skills to be facilitated and, across the board, for women to be involved in decision making at local and regional level, in farm organisations and, indeed, in all decision-making bodies. That will have a huge impact and will help ensure women's future role in agriculture.
(PT) Madam President, the situation of women in agriculture and the rural sphere reflects and is being damaged by the deep crisis into which current policies, such as the common agricultural policy (CAP) and others, have plunged rural areas. Women represent 42% of agricultural workers in all countries of the European Union. The great majority of these women work on family farms. They are thus particularly affected by the closure of hundreds of thousands of small and medium-sized farms and by the process of destruction of family farming that has resulted from successive CAP reforms. They are also, as in other areas of activity, hit particularly hard by unemployment, insecure jobs, low wages and poverty. All of this is exacerbated by the antisocial policies imposed under the pretext of the crisis.
Fine words and declarations of good intentions are therefore not enough. A break with these policies is required, ascribing value to the roles of women, to their rights and to equality, and ascribing value to and strengthening, among other things, the network of services relating to rural resources, health, education and family assistance. It is also necessary to make cultural and leisure activities available, and to combat the various asymmetries and desertification.
(RO) Madam President, I personally believe that the most important sections in the report are those about living conditions in the countryside, and I would like to make a few remarks on this point.
Firstly, there is the important role played by the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development in modernising villages. This fund must be financed adequately and as part of the future common agricultural policy to help narrow the disparities between rural and urban areas. Secondly, I believe that we need to start, especially in the new Member States, with modernising the basic physical infrastructure. This must remain, without fail, a component of the EAFRD.
My last comment concerns the ageing of the rural population. I would like to emphasise in connection with this point the importance of the programmes aimed, on the one hand, at the early retirement of farmers and farm workers and, on the other, at setting up young farmers in business.
(RO) Madam President, I would like to congratulate Mrs Jeggle for the approach she has adopted in this report.
I feel that it is vital to recognise the significant role played by women in agriculture, both in primary production and in the diversification of economic activities on farms and in rural areas.
I believe that we need to draw attention to the high level of poverty and isolation which affects women in the countryside, thereby emphasising the need for effective measures to guarantee equal opportunities for women in agriculture as a main objective of the common agricultural policy. In this context, it is essential to improve the quality of life of women living in rural areas by providing them with the easiest possible access to education and vocational training, lifelong learning, effective local public healthcare services, not to mention to the infrastructure and services for supporting children and families.
I should emphasise that improving equal opportunities for women in rural areas involves promoting their role more actively, both in farming and in other areas of economic activity, including in protecting agriculture's multi-functionality.
Vice-President of the Commission. - Madam President, I would first like to thank the rapporteur and the members of the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development, as it was important to put this topic on the table.
The Commission is very conscious of the essential role women play in agriculture and in rural areas. It can see that this is a task for the rural development policy. The rural development regulation provides for support in a number of areas which are important for women in rural areas. The setting up and development of micro-enterprises, adding value to agricultural projects and seeking sales outlets for them are only a few examples.
The rural development policy also foresees possibilities to help men and women to balance family and professional life. For example, under the basic services measure, social facilities like day care centres for children or elderly people can be supported. In addition, local transport services and small-scale infrastructure are eligible for support.
The situation in rural areas is very diverse across Member States, including as regards possibilities and requirements for women. Member States and regions have to carefully analyse the situation and design tailor-made measures linked to local conditions, taking account of the specific problems women face. For example, Member States can give preference to women with regard to certain measures. In addition, Member States can use financial engineering to set up guarantee funds in order to help women to get access to credit. Women should also play an important role in the LEADER Programme, where they should bring in their specific interests and their specific potential in order to mobilise the development potential of an area.
The Commission agrees that it would be useful to have more data on the situation of women. However, especially in the light of Member States' call for simplification, it would prove difficult to convince them of additional reporting burdens. But for those data for which it is possible, statistics should be presented and analysed, broken down by gender. The Commission will include, where available, data on women in its progress report on the implementation of the strategic guidelines for rural development.
One very important factor in taking women forward in agriculture and rural areas is the exchange of experience. In this context, I would like to draw your attention to the European Network for Rural Development and its constituent national networks. They can be used to learn from each other's best practices and it would be desirable if more women's associations made use of these existing networks in order to connect women in different rural areas with each other.
The debate is closed.
The vote will take place on Tuesday, 5 April 2011.
Written statements (Rule 149)
in writing. - (RO) I come from Romania where a high proportion of the population live in the countryside. This is precisely why I am aware that it is absolutely imperative for us to focus greater attention on the status of women in these areas, taking into account the specific opportunities and challenges.
As a member of the Committee on Culture and Education and of the Committee on Regional Development, I want to stress the need to provide a vocational training system which will offer women adequate training both as producers and entrepreneurs, especially so that we can therefore meet the Europe 2020 strategy targets. This can also be achieved by providing farmers with better access to broadband Internet services.
Supporting entrepreneurial initiative among women can provide them with incomes supporting a stable way of life, thereby giving them economic independence. This will allow us to eliminate the impact of social exclusion and poverty, which have a disproportionate effect on women.
In this very same context, we are also talking about the future reform of the common agricultural policy, as part of which we will need to give greater consideration to the role and needs of women in rural areas. Making living in the countryside and farming more attractive remains a challenge, but it can offer women in these areas real opportunities for economic and personal development.
It is men who most frequently choose careers in the agricultural sector, but women have been present in rural areas since time immemorial and, unfortunately, their contribution has always been underestimated. Their consistent actions and long-term approach to many issues help improve the quality of life and work in rural areas. They are, however, very frequently not represented during the resource planning stage, and taking female farmers' needs into account in this respect could bring many benefits to rural communities. We should ensure that professional development opportunities are open to women in agriculture by providing real support in the form of education or also careers advice. It is important to promote rural areas to women as an attractive place to work, where it is possible to realise both family and professional plans.


3. European Union fishing fleets affected by the economic crisis (vote)


Declaration of financial interests: see Minutes


4. Cooperation between committees (amendment of Rule 47) (vote)
- Report: Corbett
- Before the vote on Amendment 3:
(DE) Mr President, the issue here is the adoption without a vote of an amendment from the committee asked for an opinion. It is generally understood to be clear that the adoption of an amendment from a committee whose opinion is sought can be automatic only when that amendment falls under the exclusive competence of that committee. The word 'exclusive' is missing in this instance. For the sake of greater precision, I have agreed with the rapporteur that the term 'exclusive competences' be added to this sentence.
rapporteur. - Mr President, as rapporteur I can accept the oral amendment.
(The oral amendment was accepted)


7. Reciprocal recognition of navigability licences for inland waterway vessels (codified version) (


Documents received: see Minutes


10. Action plan on organ donation and transplantation (2009-2015) (


4. (


Application of EIA Directive in Austria (debate)
The first item is the oral question to the Commission by Erminia Mazzoni, on behalf of the Committee on Petitions, on the application of the EIA Directive in Austria (Ο-000084/2011 - Β7-0314/2011).
Madam President, I have a point of order under Rule 96 by prearrangement with the President, whom I would ask to write to the Formula One Teams Association - including Lotus in my own constituency - which made clear in a letter yesterday that it objected to a rearranged Bahrain Grand Prix on logistical grounds.
I would ask the President, in that letter, to remind those teams that there is a fine tradition of sportspeople withdrawing from events on human rights grounds - from Muhammad Ali and Vietnam to cricketers refusing to go to South Africa under apartheid and athletes to the Moscow Olympics.
I would also ask the President to make it clear on behalf of the European Parliament that should any of the teams withdraw on human rights grounds, they would have the support of this Parliament, and that the bloodied name of Bahrain should not stand, this year, alongside the proud European names of the Nürburgring, Monza, Monaco and Silverstone.
We have noted your point, Mr Howitt, and we shall pass it on.
(SV) Madam President, I am rapporteur for the report on transitional arrangements for bilateral investment agreements after the Treaty of Lisbon and, following thorough consideration of Parliament's vote and the Council's proposal, I would like to step down as rapporteur for this report, as the position of both the Council and Parliament so one-sidedly favours the interests of investors and does not take account of the need for transparency. Furthermore, the old Member States are not taking into account the need of the new Member States for new agreements, and investors' rights are not balanced in any way by environmental, social and other legal requirements. I therefore do not feel able to defend Parliament's position, nor do I feel able to lead these negotiations to a successful outcome. I therefore ask to be allowed to transfer the task of rapporteur to the committee chair.
That is a procedural point and you should bring it before the competent committee.
Madam President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I am speaking on behalf of Mrs Mazzoni, the chair of the Committee on Petitions, who is unfortunately unable to be with us. No doubt there are more important petitions than this one. This petition does not concern thirty thousand people, as in the case for some other petitions that are pending in this House. The drivers behind this question as far as the Committee on Petitions is concerned are nature, which is a contentious matter locally, how the local economy is allowed to develop, and, above all - and I will come back to this subsequently - the uniform application of the law in the European Union.
Perhaps I might make another comment before going further. The report on this case - on this ski lift project - shows that the local media delight in seeing someone or other on the ground. It could be a lobbyist for nature, a lobbyist for business, the local authorities or the national government. That is not appropriate in this case. We went on a local fact-finding mission - Mrs Lichtenberger accompanied me - and the impression that the European Union can act as some kind of supreme court of appeal is entirely misplaced.
We have to rely to some extent on local authorities implementing the law properly. This takes us to what is at the heart of the petition. The petitioners assert that the local threshold for carrying out an environmental impact assessment (EIA), which was 20 hectares at the time, was not adhered to; that instead, the project was artificially subdivided into smaller parts and that in reality, the 20 hectare threshold was exceeded. As an aside, a 10 hectare threshold has since been introduced in Austria. Things have therefore changed somewhat in any case.
When we investigated locally, we concluded that the provisions concerning environmental impact assessments, as applicable in Austria, were complied with at the time - at least in essence. One might argue over the odd square metre or other measurement, but in our view, the dispute does not concern vast areas. Neither do we feel that consideration of individual aspects of the development would obviously lead to a different conclusion. This applies, for example, to the issue of the lake created to provide water for artificial snow, the issue of parking facilities serving the project and other aspects.
However, we came to the view that we needed to look a little more into what was behind this case. We questioned whether the way the national government had applied the law on the EIA was correct and in accordance with the spirit of our European regulations. We then soon saw that to some extent, it was possible for the provisions to be applied in different ways - not just in Austria, but also in some other Member States, including my own country.
The question arises as to whether we should always allow projects to be sliced up locally. The question arises as to whether we should allow projects to be divided into separate stages in time, if, in retrospect, one can say that actually it was all part of an overall plan and should have been looked at as a whole from the start. There are also cases of projects being subdivided locally as far as their legal arrangement is concerned, which gives rise to the question of how much this is permitted by our European legislation - deliberately or otherwise - and whether things need to be tightened up in this respect.
One particular point stood out for us in respect of such facilities. Can we really allow ski runs - new ski areas of 1, 2, 3 or 10 hectares which are added on to ski areas or which will be more heavily trafficked as a result of the expansion of existing ski facilities - to be completely disregarded in the calculations? My personal opinion is that, based on the European rules, all the areas to be used should be included in the overall project, hence our specific question to the Commission as to whether it does not feel that we need to tighten up the European regulations in this area.
Member of the Commission. - (DE) Madam President, honourable Members, Mr Potočnik and I are pleased that we have a parliament that has made the monitoring of environmental regulations a focal area of its work, as is the case in this instance. The EIA Directive is of great value for the ecological development of the European Union. For us, it is an important instrument for achieving sustainable development.
It states that projects that have a substantial impact on the environment must undergo an assessment in which all their direct, but also indirect, effects on the environment are evaluated. These are types of projects in which the Member States have to decide, using threshold values, whether the results of this assessment mean that an EIA must be carried out. The circumstances in your ski area belong to a class of projects in which Member States have long had to decide whether an EIA is necessary.
The Austrian legal provision was not really satisfactory in the past. It concerned an area of 10 hectares or of 20 hectares or more. After we received the petition, the Commission asked the Austrian Government how it had ensured that the directive was properly applied in this project. Austria replied that it had not had to carry out an EIA because the threshold of 20 hectares had not been reached. There was then official doubt on our part. We pointed out that in determining the size of the area, and thus deciding on whether an EIA was necessary, an overall view should be taken rather than looking at the area in its narrower sense.
Austria then revised its law on EIAs, which I think is the most important result in this individual case. In our legal opinion, it now complies in every respect with the requirements of the European EIA Directive. The decision as to whether an EIA is necessary when a ski area is expanded now depends overall on the size of the enlargement in land area and whether it lies within a designated nature conservation area. Moreover, earlier expansions are also now to be included in the appraisal.
The requirements of the EIA Directive are actually clearly and strictly stated in this respect. Circumventing these merely by subdividing projects into stages, into sections or tranches, is not possible. We place great importance on an overall analysis of the impact on nature. The European Court of Justice has confirmed our interpretation of the law. It has made it clear on more than one occasion that the aims of the EIA Directive cannot be circumvented by subdividing projects. As far as the threshold area is concerned, taking into consideration only those surfaces on which building work is actually to be carried out is too narrow. We are concerned not just with the building work, but also with its overall integration into the surrounding area. In other words, when calculating whether the threshold area is reached, one must include areas in which no building works are actually taking place, but which are indisputably part of the project and part of the impact of the project.
That is why we feel that screening should have been carried out in the Damüls-Mellau ski area before the expansion took place in order to establish whether an EIA was necessary for the project. This decision should also have been made public, giving the reasons behind it. These are the obligations with which the Austrian authorities did not comply. They failed to carry out such screening, which, in our view, was a requirement.
The project is in the past; it was decided on five years ago and approved five years ago. Construction is already complete. We have therefore requested further details of the effects of the works from the authorities in Vienna and have also made enquiries as to whether measures to alleviate the consequences are necessary and can still be considered. Once we have received this information, we will examine whether further steps can be taken to alleviate the effects on nature in this area as a whole.
We have also asked the authorities in Austria to confirm to us that in the event of the future expansion of this or other ski areas which met the criteria under the old version of the Austrian act on environmental impact assessments, screening will first be carried out to ascertain whether an EIA is necessary. Mr Potočnik is currently working on a revision of the EIA Directive. Both he and we intend to submit a new text that further enhances environmental protection, which especially takes into consideration the areas of climate change, energy and biodiversity, which also includes relevant important rulings by the European Court of Justice and which harmonises and simplifies the existing procedures as far as possible and, moreover, excludes circumvention more clearly than previously.
Mr Potočnik is in the process of preparing the recast of this directive and has therefore consulted broadly with the public and the relevant interest groups over the past year. The results are currently being evaluated and we will table a proposal accordingly in 2012 at the latest. The improper execution of this construction work will at least have a positive effect for the future, because European law will be worded more clearly and will no longer be so easy to circumvent. We are pleased that the Austrian act on the EIA now complies with the directive.
The Commission will take action to ensure that the Austrian authorities look at the environmental impact of the work that has already been carried out in order to ensure that in any future expansion of the ski area in the region around Damüls-Mellau, the requirements of our directive are applied in accordance with the rules. In other words, we have all learnt from the mistakes made in this individual case.
(Applause)
Madam President, Commissioner, Mr Wieland has already outlined the facts of the case very clearly. I would like to add one or two political assessments, if I may.
Firstly, the fact that existing regulations or directives are examined to see how well they are working in practice or how well they are achieving their objectives and are then improved or interpreted more precisely where necessary is not an argument against European policy, but rather an argument in favour of such policy. There will always be competition between European regulations and directives and the form that these take at local level. The Committee on Petitions may not be a court of appeal, but in my own understanding of what we are doing in the Committee - in other words, what I understand as my role as a member of the Committee on Petitions - I am rather proud that this petition, in which we saw that things were being interpreted differently at local level than was our intention at European level, together with the opinion of the Committee on Petitions, ultimately resulted in the law being changed in a Member State. I consider that to be a great success, and a success of European policy.
The general problem as I see it is the question that I will now put to the Commissioner. Many citizens are concerned about how European law on the environment is being implemented in the Member States. There are many petitions on this. Many of these are concerned with cross-border matters, but there are also many concerning circumstances in the Member States. Time and again, we face the problem that when we make enquiries to the Commission while matters are in progress, we get the answer: 'We assume that Member State X is implementing and applying the existing directives and regulations of the European Union appropriately. We see no need to intervene'. We need an instrument that we can use to enter into a serious dialogue with the Member States while matters are in progress if there are indications that something is going wrong, so that we do not end up in the same situation as in this case. Things did not go optimally, but it is done now and we have a solution for the future - but not, unfortunately, for the past.
Madam President, I think we can describe what happened here as a lesson from which we have learnt. We Austrians are very keen skiers. For that, of course, you need ski runs. However, as we must be aware and must take into consideration, a beautiful, intact environment is also a part of skiing, and people will not go skiing where this no longer exists.
Seen in the light of this situation, Austrian policy has made many mistakes in the past. Ski runs have been added unilaterally without considering whether more runs are actually a good idea, and administrative practice and the legal situation were also characterised by this mindset. What happened here demonstrates the value added by the European Union and the European Parliament. In this case, it seems that things went wrong. In many cases when things go wrong, nothing happens. In this case, however, a petition was tabled, people reacted accordingly and Austria put its house in order. As far as I am concerned, it provides a good example of what should happen.
Madam President, Commissioner, I am very grateful for the information you have given. I consider what you have said to be very important. I have just one supplementary question. You said that the Commission is entirely satisfied with the way that Austria is now implementing environmental impact assessments. However, there still remains a ruling by the European Court of Justice stating that citizens must be involved in the procedure for establishing whether an EIA is required. This has not been incorporated into the revised Austrian act and it could act as a kind of early warning system to ensure that what we saw in Mellau cannot happen again.
I would like to emphasise once more that I think it somewhat absurd if ski runs are not included in the size of a ski area just because the entire mountain has not been dug up. As I see it, those are ultimately the areas concerned and they must be included. It is quite clear that this is a case in which a project was subdivided into smaller parts for the purposes of circumvention. I hope that you will bear this case in mind in future proceedings.
Madam President, we have a case that can help us resolve an issue that the Commission has, in fact, acknowledged, that has also been raised by Mr Jahr, and that we are going to include in the annual report that will be presented by the Committee on Petitions in the discussions regarding 2010.
The situation is as follows, and we have the example of Damüls in the Alps, and also that of the Pyrenees: it is often the case that the time taken from the moment a complaint is made by some European citizens until it is resolved can be too long to resolve the issue without irreversible damage resulting. I am referring to the ability that many Member States have to evade the European directive requiring an environmental impact assessment for public or private projects in very sensitive areas in the European ecosystem, such as the Alps in this case, or it could be the Pyrenees in Spain. In this case, a project has been split up and divided to evade the directive, thus preventing any environmental impact assessment from being performed.
Ladies and gentlemen of the Commission, if you really accept that environmental impact assessments need to be strictly implemented, I think you have to react more quickly to stop projects going ahead despite reports that indicate that these projects need a prior environmental impact assessment. Therefore, it is very important for us to change the time a complaint takes to be resolved and for the Committee on Petitions and the European Commission to work to shorten those times so that Member States do not evade the need to implement the Environmental Impact Assessment Directive. It has been evaded in many Member States, as has already been mentioned here, not just in Austria. In my country, Spain, we now have a project pending in the Pyrenees. It is also a ski resort, in the Castanesa valley, and the Spanish state is going to do the same. In this case, the responsible authorities in Aragon are going to split the project up in order to prevent the environmental impact assessment from taking place.
I believe that in both the European Parliament and in the European Commission, we have to work to speed up the procedure.
(DE) Madam President, Commissioner Oettinger, ladies and gentlemen, the purpose of the environmental impact assessment is, in accordance with the precautionary principle, to determine and assess the direct impact of projects on the environment, but also their indirect effects. Excluding planned development that is clearly linked to the project in geographical or other terms can only undermine the legal situation. The European Court of Justice ruled back in 1996 that Member States must ensure that the aim of the directive cannot be circumvented by subdividing projects.
In its 2003 report on the application and effectiveness of the EIA Directive, the Commission found that the roots of the multiple problems that were hindering the effectiveness of the EIA provisions lay not necessarily in the implementation of the directive at national level, but rather in its practical application. One of the recommendations formulated at the time was aimed specifically at those Member States, such as Austria, that had established binding thresholds. It was recommended that where projects might possibly have a considerable environmental impact, appropriate screening should be carried out - particularly as regards sensitive areas and the possible cumulative impact of projects. You mentioned the screening process in your introduction; we are awaiting the results.
Austria's citizens are increasingly protesting that too little consideration is given to their concerns. The European Court of Justice has ruled that the individual act at national level must be sufficiently detailed and provide for adequate public participation. What is the Commission's assessment of this aspect in the Austrian act on environmental impact assessments?
Criticism of the lack of public participation is something that can be heard in nearly all the Member States. The current revision of the EIA Directive should also include a debate on a review of the uniform procedure for public participation which is actually laid down in the directive.
(DE) Madam President, Commissioner, looking at the list of speakers, one might get the impression that the Community and also the Committee on Petitions is seen as some kind of supreme court in this process. I would also like to say that these projects are not something from which we should be scoring political points.
We are talking here about a project in Damüls-Mellau. These are two small communities. The provincial government in Vorarlberg and the local administration tried to apply this Austrian law on the environment to the best of their ability. I believe that there is no reason to reproach these authorities. The legal question arises, however, as to how the Republic of Austria has transposed the EIA Directive. Here, one must bear in mind that the legal traditions in Austria and also in the European Union vary widely. I must point out to my fellow Member that I believe that Austria tried to do things properly. In the course of this process, lawyers came to the opinion that a few mistakes may have been made. I would like to emphasise once again that we are talking about just the last couple of percent here. In this project, measures have been taken voluntarily to compensate for this, which seems to have been forgotten. Substantial payments have been made. That must also be stated.
Finally, we should probably also carry out a political appraisal. Bearing in mind that compensatory measures have been carried out in this project, that an attempt has been made to put right any wrongdoing that may have taken place, then surely the project can be rubber-stamped. Regrettably, at this juncture I must ask the Commission to treat everyone equally and to look outside our borders at some cases in other Member States where much greater damage is actually being done to natural resources. The Commission should, however, proceed with a certain amount of circumspection here. Such circumspection is particularly important in the area of environmental policy if it is to gain wider acceptance.
(DE) Madam President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I should like to emphasise the aspect mentioned by the Commissioner that 'the national authorities have learnt from this', because I believe that the way the Austrian national government - and specifically the environment minister responsible - has proceeded with the amendment of the Austrian act on environmental impact assessments is to be seen as very positive and could be used as an example, as a benchmark, for many other cases with which many people are not as familiar.
Finally, however, I would like to give my support to the amended petition by Mr Jahr which calls for specific and effective tools to allow influence, monitoring and correction as far back as the planning and early stages of such projects.
(PT) Madam President, I have some very brief observations which arise from this process. Notwithstanding its positive aspects, the experience of the practical application of the environmental impact assessment (EIA) procedure also shows us that it can and should be improved. It is important to look at analysis of projects' cumulative impact in a different way, whether they are of the same type or are all different. Too often, we cannot see the woods for the trees. It is important to learn in a more complete way about the major and cumulative impact human activity has on nature.
Also, the post-EIA stage should merit closer attention: it is frequently neglected. It is important to assess the extent to which predicted impacts are realised, how effective minimisation or compensation measures are, if there are any, and the extent to which they are or are not implemented. Public environment authorities have a key role to play here and should be properly equipped to put it into effect.
Finally, the transparency of the procedure, and public participation and scrutiny thereof, are of crucial importance to ensuring, as far as possible, the transparency, quality and independence of the study.
(LT) Madam President, today we are debating very specific issues about a specific country, but environmental impact assessments are still a rather complicated and difficult matter, both at national and international levels. Probably the greatest problem is a crisis of confidence in society over the environmental impact assessment examinations carried out, that is, the fact that project operators carry out the examinations, etc. The public should therefore be more actively involved in this process but, of course, we need to strike a balance, so that projects are not stopped without justification. Another problem is the concept of post-project assessment, when certain things, including environmental impact analysis, are not mentioned and some side effects emerge later.
Yesterday, we voted in favour of the principle of independence in the impact assessment system. This should also naturally be applied in environmental law, and when reviewing the Environmental Impact Assessment Directive, we should focus on precisely this issue.
(The speaker agreed to take a blue-card question under Rule 149 (8))
(DE) Madam President, it may be that I have misunderstood Mrs Morkūnaitė-Mikulėnienė, which is why I wanted to ask. I believe that it is important for the rules that are currently in force to be followed. We should not always be able to talk our way out of things by saying that we do not need to keep closely to the rules because of a change in circumstances. Rules must always be followed to the letter and rightly so.
I would like to know whether you meant that the rules must be adhered to, regardless of the situation, and that people should not always be guided by the circumstances.
(LT) Madam President, I would like to stress that it is very important to respect the rules, but there are cases where certain interest groups, perhaps manipulating public opinion, try to influence the implementation of certain projects. However, as I have already underlined, autonomy, appropriate analysis and the independence of experts must be guaranteed, and everything should be done according to the rules, as provided for by legislation.
(DE) Madam President, Mr Oettinger, ladies and gentlemen, this discussion once again highlights the fact that with regard to the whole area of the environment, we have a major communication problem. The environment, the economy and regional interests are constantly being played off against one another. This is where the big problem lies. We need support from the Commission to ensure that the environment is seen as an essential aspect of the economy. At the moment, far too little emphasis is being put on the fact that measures to protect the environment and the natural world can also create and safeguard jobs.
Currently, the discussion is always polarised: either nature or jobs. We politicians have, unfortunately, also used this type of argument. I am calling on everyone to work on raising awareness and to acknowledge on both sides that we need to preserve the environment in order for the economy to continue functioning effectively in future.
(CS) Madam President, Austria once voted against the nuclear power plant in Zwentendorf in order to get rid of a regional chancellor, and in doing so created a structure unique in Europe - a model atomic power plant built on a scale of 1:1. I would say that this was an expensive experiment and that the Austrians should not make anyone in Europe go down the same path.
(DE) Madam President, I am actually happy with the response, but I would just like to have some clarification on one point. Under the current regulations, ski pistes only have to be included in the calculation of the thresholds when structural changes are planned during the development of the facility. All the other areas used by skiers, fare dodgers or other people do not come into consideration. I am of the opinion that the effects of using an area which has not been left in its natural state should be included.
One final, brief point: in one area of a Member State which we, Mr Oettinger, are both very familiar with, the Committee on Petitions has the option in selected cases to apply a blocking procedure. I believe it would be a good thing for us to agree with the Commission and the Council that it is possible to put a freeze on proceedings if this is handled responsibly.
(The speaker agreed to take a blue-card question under Rule 149(8))
(DE) Madam President, I would like to ask Mr Wieland again, as he is a lawyer, whether he now wants to include the mountain hikers and the ski mountaineers, who wear skis and who sometimes use the ski lifts so that they do not have to cover the entire distance on foot, and also people using other sporting equipment. Will the whole Alpine region be subject to an environmental impact assessment? He should define the criteria more accurately and explain exactly what he means.
(DE) Madam President, I would like to make one thing quite clear and to contradict the impression that has been given. The natural world is not the property of the conservation organisations. Nature is there to be used by the people. Therefore, as has just been touched on, I am not of the opinion that Damüls-Mellau is a case where this blocking procedure should have been applied.
Member of the Commission. - (DE) Madam President, honourable Members, firstly, it must be clear to all of us that this case has not been handled correctly. However, the reappraisal of the case will help us to make progress within Europe. We have established that the thresholds were incorrectly applied, that no screening process was carried out and, therefore, that the environmental impact has not been assessed objectively enough.
Secondly, the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) Act in Austria needs to be amended or expanded to ensure that it corresponds with the European Union directives, in other words, with your requirements. Thirdly, we believe it is important that, when other measures are taken in this region, whether these are additional car parks or other developments, a special screening of the entire project is carried out which includes existing developed areas and existing building projects. You could say that the region is now under closer scrutiny.
Anyone who enjoys skiing, as I do, will know that at around 15:00 in the afternoon in this region, noise pollution seems to be a bigger problem than damage to the natural environment. Of course, I do not mean that entirely seriously. The Commission now has the option of initiating an infringement procedure. We are not threatening to do this, but the option remains open to us. Then we need to look in general terms at the revision of the EIA Directive. What does Mr Potočnik have in mind?
Firstly, this is all about incorporating new policy objectives, such as climate change, biodiversity, energy, trans-European networks and cohesion policy. Secondly, the judgments of the Court of Justice of the European Union, which have resulted in an important clarification of the issue, must be included. In answer to Mr Lichtenberger's question, I would like to say that we have established that Austria's EIA Act now meets the threshold requirements. We are currently evaluating whether it is satisfactory in terms of transparency, civic participation and public consultation, both in form and in substance. I can confirm that Mr Potočnik, the Commissioner for the Environment, will provide you with a comprehensive written answer during the next few weeks about whether it corresponds with the transparency and civic participation requirements of our directive.
I believe that this case and other findings will enable us to produce a satisfactory revision of the European directive next year. Mr Wieland asked how the definition of the area should be regarded. We will give you a written answer on this issue. I believe that when a transport facility is built, we should include not only the area of land under the cable, in other words, not just the route of the lift, which is one metre wide and several thousand metres long. On the other hand, the entire mountain should not be covered, although the fare dodgers are often the best skiers if they are on the black runs. However, from a more detailed perspective, all the areas designated as pistes must be included. In other words, any managed pistes and areas where snow making machines are used, in my opinion, belong to the developed area of the mountain and, therefore, have to fall within the threshold. If necessary, this should be clearly defined during the revision of the directive.
How could we have influenced the process at an earlier stage? These discussions are, of course, taking place relatively late in the day, five years after permission to build was granted. This is a fundamental problem because, under the terms of the Treaty, subsidiarity applies and the responsibility for implementing European law lies primarily with the Member States, which have to administer and enforce the law locally. I hope that in Austria in particular, lessons will have been learnt from this case about taking a sensitive approach when weighing up the interests of the economy and the environment and, therefore, that the case will have a positive impact in future.
The debate is closed.


7. Nomination of a member of the Court of Auditors - Ms Rasa Budbergyt(LT) (