language version - Eiropas Parlaments - Europa

ПЪЛЕН ПРОТОКОЛ НА РАЗИСКВАНИЯТА
ACTA LITERAL DE LOS DEBATES
DOSLOVNÝ ZÁZNAM ZE ZASEDÁNÍ
FULDSTÆNDIGT FORHANDLINGSREFERAT
AUSFÜHRLICHE SITZUNGSBERICHTE
ISTUNGI STENOGRAMM
ΠΛΗΡΗ ΠΡΑΚΤΙΚΑ ΤΩΝ ΣΥΖΗΤΗΣΕΩΝ
VERBATIM REPORT OF PROCEEDINGS
COMPTE RENDU IN EXTENSO DES DÉBATS
TUARASCÁIL FOCAL AR FHOCAL NA N-IMEACHTAÍ
RESOCONTO INTEGRALE DELLE DISCUSSIONI
DEBAŠU STENOGRAMMA
2009 - 2014
17.01.2011
POSĖDŽIO STENOGRAMA
AZ ÜLÉSEK SZÓ SZERINTI JEGYZŐKÖNYVE
RAPPORTI VERBATIM TAD-DIBATTITI
VOLLEDIG VERSLAG VAN DE VERGADERINGEN
PEŁNE SPRAWOZDANIE Z OBRAD
RELATO INTEGRAL DOS DEBATES
STENOGRAMA DEZBATERILOR
DOSLOVNÝ ZÁPIS Z ROZPRÁV
DOBESEDNI ZAPISI RAZPRAV
SANATARKAT ISTUNTOSELOSTUKSET
FULLSTÄNDIGT FÖRHANDLINGSREFERAT
Понеделник - Lunes - Pondělí - Mandag - Montag - Esmaspäev - Δευτέρα
Monday - Lundi - Dé Luain - Lunedì - Pirmdiena - Pirmadienis - Hétfő - It-Tnejn
Maandag - Poniedziałek - Segunda-feira - Luni - Pondelok - Ponedeljek - Maanantai - Måndag
Единство в многообразието - Unida en la diversidad - Jednotná v rozmanitosti - Forenet i mangfoldighed - In Vielfalt geeint - Ühinenud mitmekesisuses
Eνωμένη στην πολυμορφία - United in diversity - Unie dans la diversité - Aontaithe san éagsúlacht - Unita nella diversità - Vienoti daudzveidībā
Susivieniję įvairovėje - Egyesülve a sokféleségben - Magħquda fid-diversità - In verscheidenheid verenigd - Zjednoczona w różnorodności - Unida na diversidade
Unită în diversitate - Zjednotení v rozmanitosti - Združena v raznolikosti - Moninaisuudessaan yhtenäinen - Förenade i mångfalden
Неокончателно издание - Edición provisional - Prozatímní vydání - Foreløbig udgave - Vorläufige Ausgabe
Esialgne versioon - Προσωρινή έκδοση - Provisional edition - Edition provisoire - Eagrán Sealadach - Edizione provvisoria
Pagaidu versija - Negalutinė redakcija - Ideiglenes kiadás - Edizzjoni proviżorja - Voorlopige uitgave - Wydanie tymczasowe
Edição provisória - Ediţie provizorie - Predbežné vydanie - Začasna razlicica č - Väliaikainen versio - Preliminär utgåva

BG СЪДЪРЖАНИЕ
1 - Възобновяване на заседанието ............................15
2 - Одобряване на протокола от предишното
заседание: вж протоколите..................................15
3 - Декларация на председателството ......................15
4 - Състав на комисиите и делегациите: вж.
протокола .............................................................16
5 - Изпращане на текстове на споразумения от
Съвета: вж. протоколи ........................................16
6 - Петиции: вж. протоколи......................................16
7 - Действия, предприети вследствие позиции и
резолюции на Парламента: вж. протоколи .......16
8 - Въпроси за устен отговор и писмени декларации
(внасяне): вж. протокола.....................................16
9 - Ред на работа........................................................16
10 - Внасяне на документи: вж. протоколи ............17
11 - Декларация на председателя на Европейския
парламент относно положението в Тунис.........17
12 - Хармонизирани условия за пускането на пазара
на строителните продукти (разискване)............22
13 - Последиците в Европейския съюз от инцидента
със заразените с диоксин фуражи (разискване) 28
14 - Споразумение за партньорство между
Европейския съюз и Република Камерун относно
прилагането на законодателството в областта на
горите - Споразумение между ЕС и
Демократична република Конго относно
прилагане на законодателството в областта на
горите - Споразумения за доброволно
партньорство (FLEGT) (разискване)..................38
15 - Състав на Парламента: вж. протокола.............43
16 - Споразумение за партньорство между
Европейския съюз и Република Камерун относно
прилагането на законодателството в областта на
горите - Споразумение между ЕС и
Демократична република Конго относно
прилагане на законодателството в областта на
горите - Споразумения за доброволно
партньорство (FLEGT) (продължение на
разискването).......................................................43
17 - Междинно споразумение за партньорство между
Европейската общност, от една страна, и
държавите от Тихоокеанския басейн, от друга -
Временно споразумение за партньорство между
ЕО и държавите от Тихоокеанския басейн
(разискване) .........................................................47
18 - Международното осиновяване в Европейския
съюз (разискване) ................................................54
19 - Едноминутни изказвания (член 150 от
Правилника за дейността) ..................................62
20 - Европейски консенсус относно хуманитарната
помощ (кратко представяне) ..............................68
21 - Селското стопанство като сектор от
стратегическо значение за продоволствената
сигурност (кратко представяне).........................70
22 - Дневен ред на следващото заседание: вж.
протокола .............................................................76
23 - Закриване на заседанието .................................76
ES ÍNDICE
1 - Reanudación del período de sesiones .....................15
2 - Aprobación del Acta de la sesión anterior: véase el
Acta ........................................................................15
3 - Declaración de la Presidencia.................................15
4 - Composición de las comisiones y delegaciones:
véase el Acta ......................................................... 16
5 - Transmisión por el Consejo de textos de Acuerdos:
véase el Acta ......................................................... 16
6 - Peticiones: véase el Acta ....................................... 16
7 - Curso dado a las posiciones y resoluciones del
Parlamento: véase el Acta ..................................... 16
8 - Preguntas orales y declaraciones por escrito
(presentación): véase el Acta................................. 16
9 - Orden de los trabajos ............................................. 16
10 - Presentación de documentos: véase el Acta ........ 17
11 - Declaración del Presidente del Parlamento Europeo
sobre la situación en Túnez ................................... 17
12 - Condiciones armonizadas para la comercialización
de productos de construcción (debate) .................. 22
13 - Consecuencias en la Unión Europea del caso de los
piensos contaminados por dioxina (debate) .......... 28
14 - Acuerdo UE-Camerún sobre las leyes forestales -
Acuerdo UE-República del Congo sobre las leyes
forestales - Acuerdos de Asociación Voluntaria
FLEGT (debate) .................................................... 38
15 - Composición del Parlamento: véase el Acta........ 43
16 - Acuerdo UE-Camerún sobre las leyes forestales -
Acuerdo UE-República del Congo sobre las leyes
forestales - Acuerdos de Asociación Voluntaria
FLEGT (continuación del debate)......................... 43
17 - Acuerdo de Asociación Interino entre la CE y los
Estados del Pacífico - Acuerdo de Asociación
Interino entre la CE y los Estados del Pacífico
(debate).................................................................. 47
18 - Adopción internacional en la Unión Europea
(debate).................................................................. 54
19 - Intervenciones de un minuto (artículo 150 del
Reglamento) .......................................................... 62
20 - Consenso europeo sobre la ayuda humanitaria
(breve presentación) .............................................. 68
21 - La agricultura como sector estratégico en el
contexto de la seguridad alimentaria (breve
presentación) ......................................................... 70
22 - Orden del día de la próxima sesión : véase el Acta
............................................................................... 76
23 - Cierre de la sesión ............................................... 76

4 17-01-2011
CS OBSAH
1 - Pokračování zasedání .............................................15
2 - Schválení zápisu z předchozího denního zasedání: viz
zápis........................................................................15
3 - Prohlášení předsednictví.........................................15
4 - Členství ve výborech a delegacích: viz zápis ........16
5 - Texty dohod dodané Radou: viz zápis...................16
6 - Petice: viz zápis ..................................................... 16
7 - Další kroky na základě postojů a usnesení
Parlamentu: viz zápis ............................................16
8 - Otázky k ústnímu zodpovězení a písemná prohlášení
(předložení): viz zápis ........................................... 16
9 - Plán práce ..............................................................16
10 - Předložení dokumentů: viz zápis ......................... 17
11 - Prohlášení předsedy Evropského parlamentu k
situaci v Tunisku ...................................................17
12 - Harmonizované podmínky pro uvádění stavebních
produktů na trh (rozprava).....................................22
13 - Důsledky incidentu s krmivem kontaminovaným
dioxinem pro Evropskou unii (rozprava)...............28
14 - Dohoda EU-Kamerun o právu v oblasti lesnictví -
Dohoda EU-Konžská republika o právu v oblasti
lesnictví - Dobrovolné dohody o partnerství v rámci
FLEGT (rozprava).................................................38
15 - Složení Parlamentu: viz zápis..............................43
16 - Dohoda EU-Kamerun o právu v oblasti lesnictví -
Dohoda EU-Konžská republika o právu v oblasti
lesnictví - Dobrovolné dohody o partnerství v rámci
FLEGT (pokračování rozpravy)............................43
17 - Prozatímní dohoda o partnerství mezi ES a
tichomořskými státy - Prozatímní dohoda o
partnerství mezi ES a tichomořskými státy (rozprava)
...............................................................................47
18 - Mezinárodní adopce v Evropské unii (rozprava).54
19 - Jednominutové projevy (článek 150 jednacího řádu)
...............................................................................62
20 - Provádění Evropského konsensu o humanitární
pomoci (krátké přednesení) ...................................68
21 - Zemědělství jako strategického odvětví v souvislosti
se zajišťováním potravin (krátké přednesení)........70
22 - Pořad jednání příštího zasedání: viz zápis ........... 76
23 - Ukončení zasedání...............................................76
DA INDHOLD
1 - Genoptagelse af sessionen ......................................15
2 - Godkendelse af protokollen fra det foregående møde:
se protokollen.........................................................15
3 - Erklæring fra formanden ........................................15
4 - Udvalgenes og delegationernes sammensætning: se
protokollen ............................................................ 16
5 - Tekster til aftaler sendt af Rådet: se protokollen ... 16
6 - Andragender (jf. protokollen)................................ 16
7 - Meddelelse om Kommissionens reaktion på
Parlamentets udtalelser og beslutninger: se
protokollen ............................................................ 16
8 - Mundtlige forespørgsler og skriftlige erklæringer
(modtagne dokumenter): se protokollen................ 16
9 - Arbejdsplan............................................................ 16
10 - Modtagne dokumenter: se protokollen ................ 17
11 - Erklæring af formanden for Europa-Parlamentet om
situationen i Tunesien............................................ 17
12 - Harmoniserede betingelser for markedsføring af
byggevarer (forhandling)....................................... 22
13 - Konsekvenser i EU af sagen om dioxin i dyrefoder
(forhandling) ......................................................... 28
14 - Aftale EU-Cameroun om skovbrugsbestemmelser -
Aftale EU/Republikken Congo om
skovbrugsbestemmelser - FLEGTpartnerskabsaftaler
(forhandling) .......................... 38
15 - Parlamentets sammensætning: se protokollen ..... 43
16 - Aftale EU-Cameroun om skovbrugsbestemmelser -
Aftale EU/Republikken Congo om
skovbrugsbestemmelser - FLEGTpartnerskabsaftaler
(fortsat forhandling) ............... 43
17 - Foreløbig partnerskabsaftale mellem EF og
Stillehavslandene - Foreløbig partnerskabsaftale
mellem EF og Stillehavslandene (forhandling)..... 47
18 - International adoption i Den Europæiske Union
(forhandling) ......................................................... 54
19 - Indlæg af et minuts varighed (forretningsordenens
artikel 150) ............................................................ 62
20 - Europæisk konsensus om humanitær bistand
(kortfattet forelæggelse) ........................................ 68
21 - Landbruget som en strategisk sektor i forbindelse
med fødevaresikkerhed (kortfattet forelæggelse).. 70
22 - Dagsorden for næste møde: se protokollen.......... 76
23 - Hævelse af mødet ................................................ 76

17-01-2011 5
DE INHALT
1 - Wiederaufnahme der Sitzungsperiode....................15
2 - Genehmigung des Protokolls der vorangegangenen
Sitzung: siehe Protokoll..........................................15
3 - Erklärung des Präsidenten ......................................15
4 - Zusammensetzung der Ausschüsse und Delegationen:
siehe Protokoll....................................................... 16
5 - Übermittlung von Abkommenstexten durch den Rat:
siehe Protokoll.......................................................16
6 - Petitionen: siehe Protokoll.....................................16
7 - Weiterbehandlung der Standpunkte und
Entschließungen des Parlaments: siehe Protokoll .16
8 - Anfragen zur mündlichen Beantwortung und
schriftliche Erklärungen (Vorlage): siehe Protokoll16
9 - Arbeitsplan ............................................................16
10 - Vorlage von Dokumenten: siehe Protokoll..........17
11 - Erklärung des Präsidenten des Europäischen
Parlaments zur Lage in Tunesien ..........................17
12 - Harmonisierte Bedingungen für die Vermarktung
von Bauprodukten (Aussprache) ...........................22
13 - Folgen in der Europäischen Union der Entdeckung
von Dioxin in Futtermitteln (Aussprache).............28
14 - Abkommen EU/Kamerun über das Recht im
Forstsektor - Abkommen EU/Republik Kongo über
das Recht im Forstsektor - Freiwillige FLEGT-
Partnerschaftsabkommen (Aussprache) ................38
15 - Zusammensetzung des Parlaments: siehe Protokoll
...............................................................................43
16 - Abkommen EU/Kamerun über das Recht im
Forstsektor - Abkommen EU/Republik Kongo über
das Recht im Forstsektor - Freiwillige FLEGT-
Partnerschaftsabkommen (Fortsetzung der
Aussprache)...........................................................43
17 - Interims-Partnerschaftsabkommen EG/Pazifik-
Staaten - Interims-Partnerschaftsabkommen
zwischen der EG und den Pazifik-Staaten
(Aussprache)..........................................................47
18 - Internationale Adoption in der Europäischen Union
(Aussprache)..........................................................54
19 - Ausführungen von einer Minute (Artikel 150 GO)62
20 - Europäischer Konsens zur humanitäten Hilfe (kurze
Darstellung)...........................................................68
21 - Landwirtschaft als Sektor von strategischer
Bedeutung für die Ernährungssicherheit (kurze
Darstellung)...........................................................70
22 - Tagesordnung der nächsten Sitzung: siehe Protokoll
...............................................................................76
23 - Schluss der Sitzung..............................................76
ET SISUKORD
1 - Istungjärgu jätkamine .............................................15
2 - Eelmise istungi protokolli kinnitamine (vt protokoll)
................................................................................15
3 - Presidentuuri avaldus..............................................15
4 - Parlamendi komisjonide ja delegatsioonide koosseis
(vt protokoll) ......................................................... 16
5 - Nõukogu edastatud kokkulepete tekstid (vt protokoll)
............................................................................... 16
6 - Petitsioonid (vt protokoll)...................................... 16
7 - Parlamendi seisukohtade ja resolutsioonide
vastuvõtmisele järgnev tegevus (vt protokoll) ...... 16
8 - Suuliselt vastatavad küsimused ja kirjalikud
deklaratsioonid (esitamine) (vt protokoll)............. 16
9 - Tööplaan................................................................ 16
10 - Esitatud dokumendid (vt protokoll)..................... 17
11 - Euroopa Parlamendi presidendi sõnavõtt olukorra
kohta Tuneesias..................................................... 17
12 - Ehitustoodete ühtlustatud turustustingimused
(arutelu)................................................................. 22
13 - Sööda dioksiiniga saastumise juhtumi tagajärjed
ELis (arutelu) ........................................................ 28
14 - ELi ja Kameruni vaheline metsaõigusnormide alane
leping - ELi ja Kongo Vabariigi vaheline
metsaõigusnormide alane leping - Vabatahtlikud
FLEGTi partnerluslepingud (arutelu).................... 38
15 - Parlamendi koosseis (vt protokoll) ...................... 43
16 - ELi ja Kameruni vaheline metsaõigusnormide alane
leping - ELi ja Kongo Vabariigi vaheline
metsaõigusnormide alane leping - Vabatahtlikud
FLEGTi partnerluslepingud (arutelu jätkamine) ... 43
17 - EÜ ja Vaikse ookeani piirkonna riikide vaheline
majanduspartnerluse vaheleping - EÜ ja Vaikse
ookeani piirkonna riikide vaheline
majanduspartnerluse vaheleping (arutelu)............. 47
18 - Rahvusvaheline lapsendamine Euroopa Liidus
(arutelu)................................................................. 54
19 - Üheminutilised sõnavõtud (kodukorra artikkel 150)
............................................................................... 62
20 - Humanitaarabi valdkonna Euroopa konsensus
(lühiettekanne)....................................................... 68
21 - Põllumajanduse tunnistamine strateegiliselt tähtsaks
sektoriks toiduga kindlustatuse tagamisel
(lühiettekanne)....................................................... 70
22 - Järgmise istungi päevakord (vt protokoll) ........... 76
23 - Istungi lõpp.......................................................... 76

6 17-01-2011
EL ΠΕΡΙΕΧΟΜΕΝΑ
1 - Επανάληψη της συνόδου ........................................15
2 - Έγκριση των συνοπτικών πρακτικών της
προηγούμενης συνεδρίασης: βλ. Συνοπτικά
Πρακτικά................................................................15
3 - Δήλωση της Προεδρίας ..........................................15
4 - Σύνθεση των επιτροπών και αντιπροσωπειών: βλ.
Συνοπτικά Πρακτικά .............................................16
5 - Διαβίβαση από το Συμβούλιο κειμένων συμφωνιών:
βλ. Συνοπτικά Πρακτικά .......................................16
6 - Αναφορές: βλ. Συνοπτικά Πρακτικά .....................16
7 - Συνέχεια που δόθηκε στις θέσεις και τα ψηφίσματα
του Κοινοβουλίου: βλ. Συνοπτικά πρακτικά.........16
8 - Προφορικές ερωτήσεις και γραπτές δηλώσεις
(κατάθεση): βλ. Συνοπτικά Πρακτικά...................16
9 - Διάταξη των εργασιών...........................................16
10 - Κατάθεση εγγράφων: βλ. Συνοπτικά Πρακτικά ..17
11 - Δήλωση του Προέδρου του Ευρωπαϊκού
Κοινοβουλίου σχετικά με την κατάσταση στην
Τυνησία .................................................................17
12 - Εναρμονισμένοι όροι εμπορίας προϊόντων του
τομέα των δομικών κατασκευών (συζήτηση)........22
13 - Συνέπειες στην Ευρωπαϊκή Ένωση από τον
εντοπισμό διοξίνης σε ζωοτροφές (συζήτηση)......28
14 - Συμφωνία ΕΕ-Καμερούν σχετικά με τη δασική
νομοθεσία - Συμφωνία ΕΕ-Δημοκρατίας του Κονγκό
σχετικά με τη δασική νομοθεσία - FLEGT -
Εθελοντικές συμφωνίες εταιρικής σχέσης
(συζήτηση) ............................................................38
15 - Σύνθεση του Κοινοβουλίου: βλ. Συνοπτικά
Πρακτικά...............................................................43
16 - Συμφωνία ΕΕ-Καμερούν σχετικά με τη δασική
νομοθεσία - Συμφωνία ΕΕ-Δημοκρατίας του Κονγκό
σχετικά με τη δασική νομοθεσία - FLEGT -
Εθελοντικές συμφωνίες εταιρικής σχέσης (συνέχεια
της συζήτησης)......................................................43
17 - Ενδιάμεση συμφωνία εταιρικής σχέσης μεταξύ της
ΕΚ και των Κρατών του Ειρηνικού - Ενδιάμεση
συμφωνία εταιρικής σχέσης μεταξύ της ΕΚ και των
Κρατών του Ειρηνικού (συζήτηση) ......................47
18 - Διεθνής υιοθεσία στην Ευρωπαϊκή Ένωση
(συζήτηση) ............................................................54
19 - Παρεμβάσεις διάρκειας ενός λεπτού (άρθρο 150 του
Κανονισμού)..........................................................62
20 - Ευρωπαϊκή κοινή αντίληψη για την ανθρωπιστική
βοήθεια (συνοπτική παρουσίαση) .........................68
21 - Η γεωργία ως στρατηγικός τομέας στο πλαίσιο της
επισιτιστικής ασφάλειας (συνοπτική παρουσίαση)70
22 - Ημερήσια διάταξη της επόμενης συνεδρίασης: βλ.
Συνοπτικά Πρακτικά .............................................76
23 - Λήξη της συνεδρίασης.........................................76
EN CONTENTS
1 - Resumption of the session ......................................15
2 - Approval of the minutes of the previous sitting: see
Minutes...................................................................15
3 - Statement by the President .....................................15
4 - Composition of committees and delegations : see
Minutes.................................................................. 16
5 - Texts of agreements forwarded by the Council: see
Minutes.................................................................. 16
6 - Petitions: see Minutes............................................ 16
7 - Action taken on Parliament’s positions and
resolutions: see Minutes........................................ 16
8 - Oral questions and written declarations (submission):
see Minutes ........................................................... 16
9 - Order of business................................................... 16
10 - Documents received: see Minutes ....................... 17
11 - Statement by the President of the European
Parliament on the situation in Tunisia................... 17
12 - Harmonised conditions for the marketing of
construction products (debate) .............................. 22
13 - Consequences in the European Union of the dioxin
animal feed incident (debate) ................................ 28
14 - EU-Cameroon forest law agreement - EU-Republic
of Congo forest law agreement - FLEGT voluntary
partnership agreements (debate)............................ 38
15 - Composition of Parliament : see Minutes............ 43
16 - EU-Cameroon forest law agreement - EU-Republic
of Congo forest law agreement - FLEGT voluntary
partnership agreements (continuation of debate)... 43
17 - Interim Partnership Agreement between the EC and
the Pacific States - Interim Partnership Agreement
between the EC and the Pacific States (debate) .... 47
18 - International adoption in the European Union
(debate).................................................................. 54
19 - One-minute speeches (Rule 150)......................... 62
20 - European Consensus on humanitarian aid (short
presentation).......................................................... 68
21 - Agriculture as a strategic sector in the context of
food security (short presentation).......................... 70
22 - Agenda of the next sitting : see Minutes.............. 76
23 - Closure of the sitting............................................ 76

17-01-2011 7
FR SOMMAIRE
1 - Reprise de la session...............................................15
2 - Approbation du procès-verbal de la séance
précédente: voir procès-verbal ...............................15
3 - Déclaration de la Présidence...................................15
4 - Composition des commissions et des délégations :
voir procès-verbal..................................................16
5 - Transmission par le Conseil de textes d'accords: voir
procès-verbal .........................................................16
6 - Pétitions: voir procès-verbal ..................................16
7 - Suites données aux positions et résolutions du
Parlement: voir procès-verbal ...............................16
8 - Questions orales et déclarations écrites (dépôt): voir
procès-verbal .........................................................16
9 - Ordre des travaux...................................................16
10 - Dépôt de documents: voir procès-verbal .............17
11 - Déclaration du Président du Parlement européen sur
la situation en Tunisie ...........................................17
12 - Conditions harmonisées de commercialisation pour
les produits de construction (débat).......................22
13 - Conséquences dans l'Union européenne de la
contamination d'aliments pour animaux par de la
dioxine (débat).......................................................28
14 - Accord UE-Cameroun sur l’application des
réglementations forestières - Accord UE-République
du Congo sur l'application des réglementations
forestières - Accords de partenariat volontaires
FLEGT (débat) ......................................................38
15 - Composition du Parlement : voir procès-verbal ..43
16 - Accord UE-Cameroun sur l’application des
réglementations forestières - Accord UE-République
du Congo sur l'application des réglementations
forestières - Accords de partenariat volontaires
FLEGT (suite du débat).........................................43
17 - Accord de partenariat intérimaire CE/États du
Pacifique - Accord de partenariat intérimaire entre la
CE et les États du Pacifique (débat) ......................47
18 - L'adoption internationale dans l'Union européenne
(débat) ...................................................................54
19 - Interventions d'une minute (article 150 du
règlement) .............................................................62
20 - Consensus européen sur l’aide humanitaire (brève
présentation)..........................................................68
21 - L'agriculture comme secteur stratégique dans le
cadre de la sécurité alimentaire (brève présentation)
...............................................................................70
22 - Ordre du jour de la prochaine séance : voir procèsverbal.....................................................................76
23 - Levée de la séance ...............................................76
IT INDICE
1 - Ripresa della sessione.............................................15
2 - Approvazione del processo verbale della seduta
precedente: vedasi processo verbale.......................15
3 - Dichiarazione della Presidenza...............................15
4 - Composizione delle commissioni e delle delegazioni
: vedasi processo verbale....................................... 16
5 - Trasmissione di testi di accordo da parte del
Consiglio: vedasi processo verbale ....................... 16
6 - Petizioni: vedasi processo verbale......................... 16
7 - Seguito dato alle posizioni e risoluzioni del
Parlamento: vedasi processo verbale..................... 16
8 - Interrogazioni orali e dichiarazioni scritte
(presentazione): vedasi processo verbale .............. 16
9 - Ordine dei lavori.................................................... 16
10 - Presentazione di documenti: vedasi processo
verbale................................................................... 17
11 - Dichiarazione del Presidente del Parlamento
europeo sulla situazione in Tunisia ....................... 17
12 - Condizioni armonizzate per la commercializzazione
dei prodotti da costruzione (discussione) .............. 22
13 - Conseguenze nell'Unione europea della presenza di
diossina nei mangimi per animali (discussione).... 28
14 - Accordo UE-Camerun sulle normative nel settore
forestale - Accordo UE-Repubblica del Congo sulle
normative nel settore forestale - Accordi volontari di
partenariato FLEGT (discussione) ........................ 38
15 - Composizione del Parlamento: vedasi processo
verbale................................................................... 43
16 - Accordo UE-Camerun sulle normative nel settore
forestale - Accordo UE-Repubblica del Congo sulle
normative nel settore forestale - Accordi volontari di
partenariato FLEGT (seguito della discussione) ... 43
17 - Accordo di partenariato interinale CE/Stati del
Pacifico - Accordo di partenariato interinale tra la
CE e gli Stati del Pacifico (discussione)................ 47
18 - Adozione internazionale nell'Unione europea
(discussione).......................................................... 54
19 - Interventi di un minuto (articolo 150 del
regolamento) ......................................................... 62
20 - Consenso europeo in materia di aiuto umanitario
(breve presentazione) ............................................ 68
21 - Agricoltura come settore strategico per la sicurezza
dell'approvvigionamento alimentare (breve
presentazione) ....................................................... 70
22 - Ordine del giorno della prossima seduta: vedasi
processo verbale.................................................... 76
23 - Chiusura della seduta........................................... 76

8 17-01-2011
LV SATURS
1 - Sesijas atsākšana.....................................................15
2 - Iepriekšējās sēdes protokola apstiprināšana (sk.
protokolu)...............................................................15
3 - Priekšsēdētāja paziņojums......................................15
4 - Komiteju un delegāciju sastāvs (sk. protokolu).....16
5 - Padomes nosūtītie nolīgumu teksti (sk. protokolu) 16
6 - Lūgumraksti (sk. protokolu) ..................................16
7 - Saistībā ar Parlamenta nostājām un rezolūcijām
veiktie pasākumi (sk. protokolu) ...........................16
8 - Jautājumi, uz kuriem jāatbild mutiski, un rakstiskas
deklarācijas (iesniegšana) (sk. protokolu) .............16
9 - Darba kārtība .........................................................16
10 - Dokumentu iesniegšana (sk. protokolu) ..............17
11 - Eiropas Parlamenta priekšsēdētāja paziņojums par
stāvokli Tunisijā ....................................................17
12 - Saskaņoti būvizstrādājumu tirdzniecības nosacījumi
(debates) ................................................................22
13 - Dzīvnieku barībā atklātā dioksīna radītās sekas
Eiropas Savienībā (debates) ..................................28
14 - ES un Kamerūnas nolīgums par tiesību aktiem
mežsaimniecības jomā - ES un Kongo Republikas
nolīgums par tiesību aktiem mežsaimniecības jomā -
Brīvprātīgie partnerattiecību nolīgumi par meža
tiesību aktu ieviešanu, pārvaldību un kokmateriālu un
koksnes izstrādājumu tirdzniecību (FLEGT)
(debates) ................................................................38
15 - Parlamenta sastāvs (sk. protokolu) ......................43
16 - ES un Kamerūnas nolīgums par tiesību aktiem
mežsaimniecības jomā - ES un Kongo Republikas
nolīgums par tiesību aktiem mežsaimniecības jomā -
Brīvprātīgie partnerattiecību nolīgumi par meža
tiesību aktu ieviešanu, pārvaldību un kokmateriālu un
koksnes izstrādājumu tirdzniecību (FLEGT) (debašu
turpināšana) ...........................................................43
17 - Partnerattiecību pagaidu nolīgums starp Eiropas
Kopienu un Klusā okeāna valstīm - Partnerattiecību
pagaidu nolīgums starp Eiropas Kopienu un Klusā
okeāna valstīm (debates) .......................................47
18 - Starptautiskā adopcija Eiropas Savienībā (debates)
...............................................................................54
19 - Vienas minūtes uzstāšanās (Reglamenta 150. pants)
...............................................................................62
20 - Eiropas konsenss par humāno palīdzību (īss
izklāsts) .................................................................68
21 - Lauksaimniecības atzīšana par stratēģiski svarīgu
nozari pārtikas nodrošinātībā (īss izklāsts)............70
22 - Nākamās sēdes darba kārtība (sk. protokolu) ......76
23 - Sēdes slēgšana .....................................................76
LT TURINYS
1 - Sesijos atnaujinimas ...............................................15
2 - Ankstesnio posėdžio protokolų tvirtinimas (žr.
protokolą) ...............................................................15
3 - Pirmininko pareiškimas ..........................................15
4 - Komitetų ir delegacijų sudėtis (žr. protokola) ....... 16
5 - Tarybos perduoti susitarimų tekstai (žr. protokolą)16
6 - Peticijos (žr. protokolą) ......................................... 16
7 - Veiksmai įgyvendinant Parlamento pozicijas ir
rezoliucijas: žr. protokolą...................................... 16
8 - Klausimai, į kuriuos atsakoma žodžiu, ir rašytiniai
pareiškimai (gauti dokumentai) (žr. protokola)..... 16
9 - Darbų programa..................................................... 16
10 - Pateikti dokumentai (žr.protokolą) ...................... 17
11 - Europos Parlamento Pirmininko pranešimas dėl
padėties Tunise...................................................... 17
12 - Darnios statybos produktų rinkodaros sąlygos
(diskusijos) ............................................................ 22
13 - Dioksino gyvūlių pašare įvykio pasekmės Europos
Sąjungoje (diskusijos) ........................................... 28
14 - ES ir Kamerūno susitarimas dėl miškų teisės aktų -
ES ir Kongo susitarimas dėl miškų teisės aktų -
Miškų teisės aktų vykdymo, miškų valdymo ir
prekybos mediena (angl. FLEGT) savanoriškas
partnerystės susitarimas (diskusijos) ..................... 38
15 - Parlamento sudėtis (žr. protokola)....................... 43
16 - ES ir Kamerūno susitarimas dėl miškų teisės aktų -
ES ir Kongo susitarimas dėl miškų teisės aktų -
Miškų teisės aktų vykdymo, miškų valdymo ir
prekybos mediena (angl. FLEGT) savanoriškas
partnerystės susitarimas (diskusijų tęsinys)........... 43
17 - Europos bendrijos ir Ramiojo vandenyno valstybių
laikinasis partnerystės susitarimas - EB ir Ramiojo
vandenyno valstybių laikinasis partnerystės
susitarimas (diskusijos) ......................................... 47
18 - Tarptautinis įvaikinimas Europos Sąjungoje
(diskusijos) ............................................................ 54
19 - Vienos minutės kalbos (Darbo tvarkos taisyklių 150
straipsnis) .............................................................. 62
20 - Europos konsensuso dėl humanitarinės pagalbos
(trumpas pristatymas)............................................ 68
21 - Žemės ūkio pripažinimas strateginiu sektoriumi
atsižvelgiant į aprūpinimo maistu saugumą (trumpas
pristatymas)........................................................... 70
22 - Kito posėdžio darbotvarkė (žr. protokola)........... 76
23 - Posėdžio pabaiga ................................................. 76

17-01-2011 9
HU TARTALOM
1 - Az ülésszak folytatása ............................................15
2 - Az előző ülés jegyzőkönyvének elfogadása: lásd a
jegyzőkönyvet ........................................................15
3 - Az elnök nyilatkozata .............................................15
4 - A bizottságok és a küldöttségek tagjai: lásd a
jegyzokönyvet .......................................................16
5 - Megállapodások szövegeinek a Tanács általi
továbbítása: lásd a jegyzőkönyvet.........................16
6 - Petíciók: lásd a jegyzőkönyvet ..............................16
7 - A Parlament álláspontjaival és állásfoglalásaival
kapcsolatos további intézkedések: lásd a
jegyzőkönyvet .......................................................16
8 - Szóbeli választ igénylő kérdések és írásbeli
nyilatkozatok (benyújtás): lásd a jegyzokönyvet...16
9 - Ügyrend .................................................................16
10 - Dokumentumok benyújtása: lásd a jegyzőkönyvet17
11 - Az Európai Parlament elnökének a tunéziai
helyzetről szóló nyilatkozata .................................17
12 - Az építési termékek forgalmazására vonatkozó
harmonizált feltételek (vita) ..................................22
13 - A dioxinnal fertőzött takarmány esetének uniós
következményei (vita) ...........................................28
14 - Az EU és Kamerun közötti, az erdészeti
jogszabályokról szóló megállapodás - Az Európai
Unió és a Kongói Köztársaság közötti, az erdészeti
jogszabályokról szóló megállapodás - FLEGT
önkéntes partnerségi megállapodások (vita)..........38
15 - A Parlament tagjai: lásd a jegyzokönyvet............43
16 - Az EU és Kamerun közötti, az erdészeti
jogszabályokról szóló megállapodás - Az Európai
Unió és a Kongói Köztársaság közötti, az erdészeti
jogszabályokról szóló megállapodás - FLEGT
önkéntes partnerségi megállapodások (a vita
folytatása)..............................................................43
17 - Az EK és a csendes-óceáni államok közötti átmeneti
partnerségi megállapodás - Az EK és a csendesóceáni
államok közötti átmeneti partnerségi
megállapodás (vita) ...............................................47
18 - Nemzetközi örökbefogadás az Európai Unióban
(vita) ......................................................................54
19 - Egyperces felszólalások (az eljárási szabályzat 150.
cikke).....................................................................62
20 - A humanitárius segítségnyújtással kapcsolatos
európai konszenzus (rövid ismertetés) ..................68
21 - A mezőgazdaság stratégiai ágazatként történő
elismerése az élelmezésbiztonsággal összefüggésben
(rövid ismertetés)...................................................70
22 - A következő ülésnap napirendje: lásd a
jegyzokönyvet .......................................................76
23 - Az ülés berekesztése............................................76
MT WERREJ
1 - Tkomplija tas-sessjoni ............................................15
2 - Approvazzjoni tal-Minuti tas-seduta ta' qabel: ara l-
Minuti.....................................................................15
3 - Dikjarazzjoni tal-President .....................................15
4 - Kompożizzjoni tal-kumitati u tad-delegazzjonijiet :
ara l-Minuti ........................................................... 16
5 - Testi ta' ftehim imressqa mill-Kunsill: ara l-Minuti16
6 - Petizzjonijiet: ara l-Minuti..................................... 16
7 - Azzjonijiet meħuda skond il-petizzjonjiet u rriżoluzzjonijiet
tal-Parlament: Ara l-Minuti.......... 16
8 - Mistoqsijiet bi tweġiba orali u dikjarazzjonijiet bilmiktub
(tressiq): ara l-Minuti ................................ 16
9 - Ordni tas-seduta..................................................... 16
10 - Dokumenti mressqa: ara l-Minuti........................ 17
11 - Dikjarazzjoni mill-President tal-Parlament
Ewropew dwar is-sitwazzjoni fit-Tuneżija............ 17
12 - Kundizzjonijiet armonizzati għallkummerċjalizzazzjoni
tal-prodotti għall-kostruzzjoni
(dibattitu)............................................................... 22
13 - Il-konsegwenzi fl-UE tal-każ tal-għalf ikkontaminat
bid-diossina fil-Ġermanja (dibattitu)..................... 28
14 - Ftehim UE-Kamerun dwar il-liġi tal-foresti - Ftehim
UE-Repubblika tal-Kongo dwar ir-regolamenti talforesti
- Ftehimiet ta' Sħubija Volontarja FLEGT
(dibattitu)............................................................... 38
15 - Kompożizzjoni tal-Parlament: ara l-Minuti......... 43
16 - Ftehim UE-Kamerun dwar il-liġi tal-foresti - Ftehim
UE-Repubblika tal-Kongo dwar ir-regolamenti talforesti
- Ftehimiet ta' Sħubija Volontarja FLEGT
(tkomplija tad-dibattitu) ........................................ 43
17 - Ftehim Interim ta' Sħubija bejn il-KE u l-Istati tal-
Paċifiku - Ftehim ta' Sħubija Interim bejn il-KE u l-
Istati tal-Paċifiku (dibattitu) .................................. 47
18 - L-adozzjoni internazzjonali fl-Unjoni Ewropea
(dibattitu)............................................................... 54
19 - Diskorsi ta' minuta (Artikolu 150 tar-Regoli ta'
Proċedura) ............................................................. 62
20 - L-implimentazzjoni tal-Konsensus Ewropew dwar
l-għajnuna umanitarja: l-analiżi ta' nofs it-term tal-
Pjan ta' Azzjoni tagħha u t-triq 'il quddiem
(preżentazzjoni qasira) .......................................... 68
21 - L-agrikoltura bħala settur strateġiku fil-kuntest tassigurtà
tal-ikel (preżentazzjoni qasira) .................. 70
22 - L-aġenda tas-seduta li jmiss: ara l-Minuti ........... 76
23 - Għeluq tas-seduta ................................................ 76

10 17-01-2011
NL INHOUD
1 - Hervatting van de zitting ........................................15
2 - Goedkeuring van de notulen van de vorige
vergadering: zie notulen .........................................15
3 - Verklaring van de Voorzitter ..................................15
4 - Samenstelling commissies en delegaties: zie notulen
...............................................................................16
5 - Van de Raad ontvangen verdragsteksten: zie notulen
...............................................................................16
6 - Verzoekschriften: zie notulen ................................16
7 - Aan de standpunten en resoluties van het Parlement
gegeven gevolg: zie notulen ..................................16
8 - Mondelinge vragen en schriftelijke verklaringen
(indiening): zie notulen .........................................16
9 - Regeling van de werkzaamheden ..........................16
10 - Ingekomen stukken: zie notulen ..........................17
11 - Verklaring van de Voorzitter van het Europees
Parlement over de situatie in Tunesië....................17
12 - Geharmoniseerde voorwaarden voor het in de
handel brengen van bouwproducten (debat)..........22
13 - Gevolgen in de Europese Unie van het incident met
dioxine in diervoeder (debat) ................................28
14 - Overeenkomst EU-Kameroen inzake boswetgeving
- Overeenkomst EU-Republiek Congo inzake
boswetgeving - Vrijwillige
partnerschapsovereenkomsten FLEGT (debat) .....38
15 - Samenstelling Parlement: zie notulen..................43
16 - Overeenkomst EU-Kameroen inzake boswetgeving
- Overeenkomst EU-Republiek Congo inzake
boswetgeving - Vrijwillige
partnerschapsovereenkomsten FLEGT (voortzetting
van het debat) ........................................................43
17 - Tussentijdse partnerschapsovereenkomst tussen de
EG en de staten in de Stille Oceaan - Tussentijdse
partnerschapsovereenkomst tussen de EG en de
staten in de Stille Oceaan (debat) ..........................47
18 - Internationale adoptie in de Europese Unie (debat)
...............................................................................54
19 - Spreektijd van één minuut (artikel 150 van het
Reglement) ............................................................62
20 - Europese consensus betreffende humanitaire hulp
(korte presentatie)..................................................68
21 - De landbouw als strategische sector voor de
voedselvoorziening (korte presentatie)..................70
22 - Agenda van de volgende vergadering: zie notulen76
23 - Sluiting van de vergadering ................................. 76
PL SPIS TREŚCI
1 - Wznowienie sesji....................................................15
2 - Zatwierdzenie protokołu z poprzedniego posiedzenia:
patrz protokół .........................................................15
3 - Oświadczenia Przewodniczącego / Przewodniczącej5
4 - Skład komisji i delegacji: Patrz protokól............... 16
5 - Teksty porozumień przekazane przez Radę: patrz
protokół ................................................................. 16
6 - Petycje: patrz protokół........................................... 16
7 - Działania podjęte w związku ze stanowiskami i
rezolucjami Parlamentu: patrz protokół ................ 16
8 - Pytania ustne i oświadczenia pisemne (składanie
dokumentów): Patrz protokól................................ 16
9 - Porządek obrad ...................................................... 16
10 - Składanie dokumentów: patrz protokół ............... 17
11 - Oświadczenie przewodniczącego Parlamentu
Europejskiego na temat sytuacji w Tunezji........... 17
12 - Zharmonizowane warunki wprowadzania do obrotu
wyrobów budowlanych (debata) ........................... 22
13 - Konsekwencje zatrucia pasz dioksynami dla Unii
Europejskiej (debata)............................................. 28
14 - Umowa UE-Kamerun dotycząca prawa leśnego -
Umowa UE-Republika Konga dotycząca prawa
leśnego - Dobrowolne umowy partnerskie w zakresie
egzekwowania prawa, zarządzania i handlu w
dziedzinie leśnictwa (FLEGT) (debata) ................ 38
15 - Skład Parlamentu: Patrz protokól ........................ 43
16 - Umowa UE-Kamerun dotycząca prawa leśnego -
Umowa UE-Republika Konga dotycząca prawa
leśnego - Dobrowolne umowy partnerskie w zakresie
egzekwowania prawa, zarządzania i handlu w
dziedzinie leśnictwa (FLEGT) (ciąg dalszy debat)43
17 - Umowa przejściowa o partnerstwie między WE a
państwami Pacyfiku - Umowa przejściowa o
partnerstwie między WE a państwami Pacyfiku
(debata).................................................................. 47
18 - Adopcja międzynarodowa w Unii Europejskiej
(debata).................................................................. 54
19 - Wystąpienia jednominutowe (art. 150 Regulaminu
PE)......................................................................... 62
20 - Konsensus europejski w sprawie pomocy
humanitarnej (krótka prezentacja)......................... 68
21 - Rolnictwo jako sektor strategiczny w kontekście
bezpieczeństwa żywnościowego (krótka prezentacja)
............................................................................... 70
22 - Porządek obrad następnego posiedzenia: Patrz
protokól ................................................................. 76
23 - Zamknięcie posiedzenia ...................................... 76

17-01-2011 11
PT INDICE
1 - Reinício da sessão...................................................15
2 - Aprovação da acta da sessão anterior: ver Acta......15
3 - Declaração da Presidência ......................................15
4 - Composição das comissões e delegações : Ver Acta
...............................................................................16
5 - Transmissão de textos de acordos pelo Conselho: ver
Acta .......................................................................16
6 - Petições: ver acta ...................................................16
7 - Seguimento dado às posições e resoluções do
Parlamento: ver Acta............................................. 16
8 - Perguntas orais e declarações escritas (entrega): Ver
Acta .......................................................................16
9 - Ordem dos trabalhos..............................................16
10 - Entrega de documentos: ver Acta ........................17
11 - Declaração do Presidente do Parlamento Europeu
sobre a situação na Tunísia....................................17
12 - Condições harmonizadas para a comercialização
dos produtos de construção (debate) .....................22
13 - Consequências na União Europeia do incidente
ocorrido com alimentos para animais contaminados
com dioxinas (debate) ...........................................28
14 - Acordo UE-Camarões relativo à legislação florestal
- Acordo UE-República do Congo relativo à
legislação florestal - FLEGT - Acordos Voluntários
de Parceria (debate)...............................................38
15 - Composição do Parlamento: Ver Acta................. 43
16 - Acordo UE-Camarões relativo à legislação florestal
- Acordo UE-República do Congo relativo à
legislação florestal - FLEGT - Acordos Voluntários
de Parceria (continuação do debate)......................43
17 - Acordo de Parceria Provisório entre a CE e os
Estados do Pacífico - Acordo de Parceria provisório
entre a CE e os Estados do Pacífico (debate) ........47
18 - Adopção internacional na União Europeia (debate)
...............................................................................54
19 - Intervenções de um minuto (Artigo 150.º do
Regimento)............................................................62
20 - Consenso Europeu em matéria de Ajuda
Humanitária (breve apresentação).........................68
21 - A agricultura como um sector estratégico no
contexto da segurança alimentar (breve apresentação)
...............................................................................70
22 - Ordem do dia da próxima sessão: Ver Acta.........76
23 - Encerramento da sessão.......................................76
RO CUPRINS
1 - Reluarea sesiunii.....................................................15
2 - Aprobarea procesului-verbal al şedinţei precedente: a
se vedea procesul-verbal ........................................15
3 - Declaraţia Preşedinţiei............................................15
4 - Componenţa comisiilor şi delegaţiilor: consultaţi
procesul-verbal...................................................... 16
5 - Transmiterea de către Consiliu a textelor acordurilor:
a se vedea procesul-verbal..................................... 16
6 - Petiţii: a se vedea procesul-verbal ......................... 16
7 - Continuări ale avizelor şi rezoluţiilor Parlamentului:
a se vedea procesul-verbal..................................... 16
8 - Întrebări orale şi declaraţii scrise (depunere):
consultaţi procesul-verbal ..................................... 16
9 - Ordinea lucrărilor .................................................. 16
10 - Depunerea documentelor: a se vedea procesulverbal.....................................................................
17
11 - Declarație a Președintelui Parlamentului European
cu privire la situaţia din Tunisia............................ 17
12 - Condiţii armonizate pentru comercializarea
produselor de construcţie (dezbatere).................... 22
13 - Consecinţele în Uniunea Europeană ale incidentului
privind hrana pentru animale contaminată cu dioxină
(dezbatere)............................................................. 28
14 - Acordul UE-Camerun privind legislaţia în domeniul
forestier - Acordul UE-Republica Congo privind
legislaţia în domeniul forestier - Acordurile de
parteneriat voluntar FLEGT (dezbatere) ............... 38
15 - Componenţa Parlamentului: consultaţi procesulverbal.....................................................................
43
16 - Acordul UE-Camerun privind legislaţia în domeniul
forestier - Acordul UE-Republica Congo privind
legislaţia în domeniul forestier - Acordurile de
parteneriat voluntar FLEGT (continuarea dezbaterii)
............................................................................... 43
17 - Acordul interimar de parteneriat între CE și statele
din Pacific - Acordul interimar de parteneriat între
CE şi statele din Pacific (dezbatere)...................... 47
18 - Adopţia internaţională în Uniunea Europeană
(dezbatere)............................................................. 54
19 - Intervenţii cu durata de un minut (articolul 150 din
Regulamentul de procedură al PE)........................ 62
20 - Consensul european privind ajutorul umanitar
(prezentare succintă) ............................................. 68
21 - Agricultura ca sector strategic în contextul
securităţii alimentare (prezentare succintă)........... 70
22 - Ordinea de zi a următoarei şedinţe: consultaţi
procesul-verbal...................................................... 76
23 - Ridicarea şedinţei ................................................ 76

12 17-01-2011
SK OBSAH
1 - Pokračovanie prerušeného zasadania......................15
2 - Schválenie zápisnice z predchádzajúceho rokovania:
pozri zápisnicu........................................................15
3 - Vyhlásenie predsedníctva .......................................15
4 - Zloženie výborov a delegácií: pozri zápisnicu.......16
5 - Texty zmlúv poskytnutých Radou: pozri zápisnicu16
6 - Petície: pozri zápisnicu..........................................16
7 - Kroky podniknuté na základe pozícií a uznesení
Parlamentu: pozri zápisnicu ..................................16
8 - Otázky na ústne zodpovedanie a písomné vyhlásenia
(predložené dokumenty): pozri zápisnicu..............16
9 - Program práce........................................................16
10 - Predložené dokumenty: pozri zápisnicu ..............17
11 - Vyhlásenie predsedu Európskeho parlamentu o
situácii v Tunisku ..................................................17
12 - Harmonizované podmienky uvádzania stavebných
výrobkov na trh (rozprava)....................................22
13 - Dôsledky výskytu dioxínu v krmive pre zvieratá v
Európskej únii (rozprava)...................................... 28
14 - Dohoda medzi EÚ a Kamerunom o práve v lesnom
hospodárstve - Dohoda medzi EÚ a Konžskou
republikou o práve v lesnom hospodárstve -
Dobrovoľné dohody o partnerstve v rámci režimu
FLEGT (rozprava).................................................38
15 - Zloženie Parlamentu: pozri zápisnicu..................43
16 - Dohoda medzi EÚ a Kamerunom o práve v lesnom
hospodárstve - Dohoda medzi EÚ a Konžskou
republikou o práve v lesnom hospodárstve -
Dobrovoľné dohody o partnerstve v rámci režimu
FLEGT (pokračovanie rozpravy) ..........................43
17 - Dočasná dohoda o partnerstve medzi ES a
tichomorskými štátmi - Dočasná dohoda o
partnerstve medzi ES a tichomorskými štátmi
(rozprava) ..............................................................47
18 - Medzištátne osvojenia v Európskej únii (rozprava)
...............................................................................54
19 - Jednominútové vystúpenia (článok 150) .............62
20 - Európsky konsenzus o humanitárnej pomoci
(stručná prezentácia) .............................................68
21 - Poľnohospodárstvo ako strategické odvetvie v
súvislosti s potravinovou bezpečnosťou (stručná
prezentácia) ...........................................................70
22 - Program rokovania na nasledujúci deň: pozri
zápisnicu................................................................76
23 - Skončenie rokovania............................................76
SL VSEBINA
1 - Nadaljevanje zasedanja...........................................15
2 - Sprejetje zapisnika predhodne seje: glej zapisnik...15
3 - Izjava predsedujočega.............................................15
4 - Sestava odborov in delegacij: gl. zapisnik............. 16
5 - Posredovanje besedil sporazumov s strani Sveta: gl.
zapisnik ................................................................. 16
6 - Peticije: glej zapisnik............................................. 16
7 - Nadaljnje obravnavanje stališč in resolucij
Parlamenta: glej zapisnik ...................................... 16
8 - Vprašanja za ustni odgovor in pisne izjave
(predložitev): gl. zapisnik...................................... 16
9 - Razpored dela ........................................................ 16
10 - Predložitev dokumentov: glej zapisnik................ 17
11 - Izjava predsednika Evropskega parlamenta o
razmerah v Tuniziji ............................................... 17
12 - Določitev usklajenih pogojev za trženje gradbenih
proizvodov (razprava) ........................................... 22
13 - Posledice odkritja dioksina v živalski krmi za
Evropsko unijo (razprava)..................................... 28
14 - Sporazum med Evropsko unijo in Kamerunom o
zakonodaji na področju gozdov - Sporazum med
Evropsko unijo in Republiko Kongo o zakonodaji na
področju gozdov - Prostovoljni partnerski sporazumi
FLEGT (razprava)................................................. 38
15 - Sestava Parlamenta: gl. zapisnik.......................... 43
16 - Sporazum med Evropsko unijo in Kamerunom o
zakonodaji na področju gozdov - Sporazum med
Evropsko unijo in Republiko Kongo o zakonodaji na
področju gozdov - Prostovoljni partnerski sporazumi
FLEGT (nadaljevanje razprave)............................ 43
17 - Začasni sporazum o partnerstvu med ES in
pacifiškimi državami - Začasni sporazum o
partnerstvu med ES in pacifiškimi državami
(razprava) .............................................................. 47
18 - Mednarodne posvojitve v Evropski uniji (razprava)
............................................................................... 54
19 - Enominutni govori (člen 150 poslovnika EP)...... 62
20 - Evropsko soglasje o humanitarni pomoči (kratka
predstavitev).......................................................... 68
21 - Kmetijstvo kot strateški sektor v okviru prehranske
varnosti (kratka predstavitev)................................ 70
22 - Dnevni red naslednje seje: gl. zapisnik................ 76
23 - Zaključek seje...................................................... 76

17-01-2011 13
FI SISÄLTÖ
1 - Istuntokauden uudelleen avaaminen.......................15
2 - Edellisen istunnon pöytäkirjan hyväksyminen: ks.
pöytäkirja................................................................15
3 - Puhemiehen julkilausuma.......................................15
4 - Valiokuntien ja valtuuskuntien kokoonpano: ks.
pöytäkirja...............................................................16
5 - Neuvoston toimittamat sopimustekstit: ks. pöytäkirja
...............................................................................16
6 - Vetoomukset: ks. pöytäkirja ..................................16
7 - Parlamentin kantojen ja päätöslauselmien johdosta
toteutetut toimet: ks. pöytäkirja.............................16
8 - Suulliset kysymykset ja kirjalliset kannanotot
(vastaanotetut asiakirjat): ks. pöytäkirja................16
9 - Käsittelyjärjestys ...................................................16
10 - Vastaanotetut asiakirjat: ks. pöytäkirja................17
11 - Euroopan parlamentin puhemiehen julkilausuma
Tunisian tilanteesta................................................17
12 - Rakennustuotteiden kaupan pitämistä koskevien
ehtojen yhdenmukaistaminen (keskustelu)............22
13 - Dioksiinia sisältävän eläinrehun tapaus ja sen
vaikutukset Euroopan unionissa (keskustelu)........28
14 - EU:n ja Kamerunin metsälainsäädäntösopimus -
EU:n ja Kongon tasavallan
metsälainsäädäntösopimus - Vapaaehtoiset FLEGTkumppanuussopimukset
(keskustelu)....................38
15 - Parlamentin kokoonpano: ks. pöytäkirja..............43
16 - EU:n ja Kamerunin metsälainsäädäntösopimus -
EU:n ja Kongon tasavallan
metsälainsäädäntösopimus - Vapaaehtoiset FLEGTkumppanuussopimukset
(jatkoa keskustelulle) .....43
17 - EY:n ja Tyynenmeren valtioiden välinen
väliaikainen kumppanuussopimus - EY:n ja
Tyynenmeren valtioiden väliaikainen
kumppanuussopimus (keskustelu).........................47
18 - Kansainvälinen adoptio Euroopan unionissa
(keskustelu) ...........................................................54
19 - Minuutin puheenvuorot (työjärjestyksen 150 artikla)
...............................................................................62
20 - Yhteisön humanitaarista apua koskeva konsensus
(lyhyt esittely) .......................................................68
21 - Maatalouden tunnustaminen strategiseksi alaksi
elintarviketurvan yhteydessä (lyhyt esittely).........70
22 - Seuraavan istunnon esityslista: ks. pöytäkirja .....76
23 - Istunnon päättäminen...........................................76
SV INNEHÅLL
1 - Återupptagande av sessionen..................................15
2 - Justering av protokollet från föregående
sammanträde: se protokollet...................................15
3 - Uttalande av talmannen ..........................................15
4 - Utskottens och delegationernas sammansättning: se
protokollet ............................................................. 16
5 - Avtalstexter översända av rådet: se protokollet..... 16
6 - Framställningar: se protokollet.............................. 16
7 - Kommissionens åtgärder till följd av parlamentets
åtgärder och resolutioner: se protokollet ............... 16
8 - Muntliga frågor och skriftliga förklaringar
(ingivande): se protokollet .................................... 16
9 - Arbetsplan ............................................................. 16
10 - Inkomna dokument: se protokollet ...................... 17
11 - Uttalande av Europaparlamentets talman om
situationen i Tunisien ............................................ 17
12 - Harmoniserade villkor för utsläppande av
byggprodukter på marknaden (debatt)................... 22
13 - Konsekvenserna i EU av incidenten med dioxin i
djurfoder i Tyskland (debatt)................................. 28
14 - Avtal EU/Kamerun om skogslagstiftningen - Avtal
EU/Republiken Kongo om skogslagstiftningen -
Frivilliga Flegt-partnerskapsavtal (debatt) ............ 38
15 - Parlamentets sammansättning: se protokollet...... 43
16 - Avtal EU/Kamerun om skogslagstiftningen - Avtal
EU/Republiken Kongo om skogslagstiftningen -
Frivilliga Flegt-partnerskapsavtal (fortsättning på
debatten)................................................................ 43
17 - Interimsavtal om partnerskap mellan EG och
Stillahavsstaterna - Interimsavtal om partnerskap
mellan EG och Stillahavsstaterna (debatt) ............ 47
18 - Internationella adoptioner i Europeiska unionen
(debatt) .................................................................. 54
19 - Anföranden på en minut (artikel 150 i
arbetsordningen).................................................... 62
20 - Europeiska samförståndet om humanitärt bistånd
(kortfattad redogörelse)......................................... 68
21 - Jordbruket som en strategisk sektor inom ramen för
livsmedelsförsörjning (kortfattad redogörelse) ..... 70
22 - Föredragningslista för nästa sammanträde: se
protokollet ............................................................. 76
23 - Avslutande av sammanträdet............................... 76

14 17-01-2011

1-001
1-002
ПОНЕДЕЛНИК 17 ЯНУАРИ 2011 Г.
LUNES 17 DE ENERO DE 2011
PONDĚLÍ 17. LEDNA 2011
MANDAG DEN 17. JANUAR 2011
MONTAG, 17. JANUAR 2011
ESMASPÄEV, 17. JAANUAR 2011
ΔΕΥΤΕΡΑ 17 ΙΑΝΟΥΑΡΙΟΥ 2011
MONDAY, 17 JANUARY 2011
LUNDI 17 JANVIER 2011
LUNEDI' 17 GENNAIO 2011
PIRMDIENA, 2011. GADA 17. JANVĀRIS
PRZEWODNICZY: JERZY BUZEK
Przewodniczący
1-003
1 - Wznowienie sesji
1-004
Przewodniczący. − Ogłaszam wznowienie sesji
Parlamentu Europejskiego przerwanej w czwartek, 16.
grudnia 2010 r.
(Posiedzenie zostało otwarte o godz. 17.00)
1-005
2 - Zatwierdzenie protokołu z poprzedniego
posiedzenia: patrz protokół
1-006
3 - Oświadczenia Przewodniczącego /
Przewodniczącej
1-007
Przewodniczący. − Mam kilka uwag wstępnych. Jest to
5 krótkich punktów.
Dnia 27 stycznia mija 66. rocznica wyzwolenia
niemieckiego nazistowskiego obozu koncentracyjnego i
zagłady Auschwitz-Birkenau. Każdego roku w tym dniu
czcimy pamięć ponad miliona zamordowanych tam
ludzi. Daje nam to siłę do wspólnego budowania
pokojowej przyszłości zjednoczonej Europy, która nie
będzie znała w przyszłości takich koszmarów.
Druga informacja: dnia 13 stycznia naród litewski
obchodził 20. rocznicę krwawej niedzieli, kiedy to armia
sowiecka dokonała próby obalenia demokratycznie
wybranego rządu niepodległej Litwy. Litwini obronili
swoją wolność i są dziś równoprawnymi członkami
2011 M. SAUSIO 17 D., PIRMADIENIS
2011. JANUÁR 17., HÉTFŐ
IT-TNEJN, 17 TA' JANNAR 2011
MAANDAG 17 JANUARI 2011
PONIEDZIAŁEK, 17 STYCZNIA 2011
SEGUNDA-FEIRA, 17 DE JANEIRO DE 2011
LUNI 17 IANUARIE 2011
PONDELOK 17. JANUÁRA 2011
PONEDELJEK, 17. JANUAR 2011
MAANANTAI 17. TAMMIKUUTA 2011
MÅNDAGEN DEN 17 JANUARI 2011
wspólnoty euroatlantyckiej. Wspominając tę ważną dla
Europy rocznicę, solidaryzujemy się dzisiaj z
Białorusinami, także naszymi sąsiadami, którzy
oczekują jeszcze, by wolność i demokracja zagościły w
ich kraju.
Kolejna informacja: dnia 23 grudnia 2010 roku Unia
Europejska przystąpiła do Konwencji Praw Osób
Niepełnosprawnych Organizacji Narodów
Zjednoczonych. Konwencja ta, wraz ze strategią w
sprawie niepełnosprawności przygotowaną przez
Komisję Europejską, pozwoli do 2020 roku zapewnić
równość praw obywatelskich, politycznych i
gospodarczych blisko 80 milionom obywateli Unii,
którzy mają różnego rodzaju niepełnosprawności.
Informacja czwarta: chciałbym także przypomnieć, że
jesteśmy poważnie zaniepokojeni zniknięciem
chińskiego adwokata pana Gao Zhishenga. Według
najnowszych informacji jest on źle traktowany i
poddawany torturom. Parlament Europejski kilkakrotnie
już zajmował się sprawą pana Zhishenga. Dziś pragnę
wezwać władze chińskie do ujawnienia miejsca jego
pobytu i stanu zdrowia.
Ostatnia informacja: od czasu naszego ostatniego
spotkania przed świętami zakończyła się prezydencja
belgijska, a przewodnictwo w Radzie Unii Europejskiej
przejęły Węgry. Będziemy na temat obydwu prezydencji
rozmawiali na tej sesji Parlamentu. W tym czasie
mieliśmy też do czynienia z ważnymi wydarzeniami
politycznymi: wybory na Białorusi, ostatnie wypadki w
Tunezji. Obydwa te punkty są w porządku obrad naszej
sesji plenarnej. Pragnę też przypomnieć, że w ostatnich
tygodniach świat dotknęło kilka poważnych klęsk
żywiołowych. Łączymy się w bólu z rodzinami ich ofiar
i przekazujemy im, a także rządom tych krajów, nasze
kondolencje.

16 17-01-2011
1-008
4 - Skład komisji i delegacji: Patrz protokól
1-009
5 - Teksty porozumień przekazane przez
Radę: patrz protokół
1-010
6 - Petycje: patrz protokół
1-011
7 - Działania podjęte w związku ze
stanowiskami i rezolucjami Parlamentu:
patrz protokół
1-012
8 - Pytania ustne i oświadczenia pisemne
(składanie dokumentów): Patrz protokól
1-013
9 - Porządek obrad
1-014
Przewodniczący. − Rozdany został końcowy projekt
porządku dziennego sporządzony zgodnie z art. 137
Regulaminu przez Konferencję Przewodniczących na
posiedzeniu w czwartek, 13 stycznia 2011 r.
Zaproponowano następujące zmiany.
1-015
Potito Salatto (PPE). – Signor Presidente, onorevoli
colleghi, colgo l'occasione dell'ordine dei lavori per
chiederle formalmente che l'Alto Rappresentante
Catherine Ashton venga in Aula nel Parlamento a
riferire sugli atti compiuti o che compirà per ciò che
avviene per i cristiani nel mondo. Vorremmo che venisse
qui con una sua relazione in modo che il Parlamento
possa essere informato in maniera dettagliata su tutto.
1-016
Przewodniczący. − Przepraszam Pana bardzo, Kolego.
Mamy na ten temat oficjalną debatę w środę o godz.
15.00.
1-017
Νικόλαος Χουντής (GUE/NGL). – Κύριε Πρόεδρε,
επικαλούμαι το άρθρο 173 περί εφαρμογής του
Κανονισμού, για να επισημάνω ότι παραβιάζεται το
άρθρο 116, διότι είναι η τρίτη συνεχής συνεδρίαση της
Ολομέλειας του Ευρωπαϊκού Κοινοβουλίου που στην
ημερήσια διάταξη δεν περιλαμβάνεται το θέμα
«Ερωτήσεις προς το Συμβούλιο», όπως προβλέπει το
άρθρο 116. Σας παρακαλώ να μου εξηγήσετε γιατί
γίνεται αυτό, πού οφείλεται και, σε κάθε περίπτωση, σας
παρακαλώ να υπερασπισθείτε το δικαίωμα του
Ευρωπαϊκού Κοινοβουλίου και των βουλευτών να
ασκούν κοινοβουλευτικό έλεγχο και στο Συμβούλιο.
1-018
Przewodniczący. − Decyzję w tej sprawie podejmiemy
w najbliższym czasie. Sprawa dotyczy traktatu
lizbońskiego i nowych relacji pomiędzy Parlamentem
Europejskim a Radą. Jesteśmy teraz dwuizbowym
parlamentem w Unii Europejskiej. Na równej stopie
Parlament Europejski i Rada stanowią prawo. Zmieniły
się relacje w Unii, ale ja bym proponował, żeby nie
ciągnąć tej dyskusji, bo sprawa będzie w najbliższym
czasie wyjaśniona. Bardzo dziękuję Panu za zwrócenie
uwagi. Sprawa będzie wyjaśniona w najbliższym czasie.
1-019
Bernd Posselt (PPE). – Herr Präsident, was ich fraglich
finde, ist, dass man im Hinblick auf mögliche künftige
Änderungen einfach ohne jede Grundlage ein
parlamentarisches Recht – nämlich die Fragestunde –
streicht. Die Entscheidung ist – wie Sie selbst sagen –
noch nicht gefallen. Und da sie noch nicht gefallen ist,
müsste man die Fragestunde so lange durchführen, bis
eine Entscheidung gefallen ist, und nicht in
vorauseilendem Gehorsam schon eine Entscheidung
exekutieren, die noch gar nicht gefallen ist. Ich sage
Ihnen ganz ehrlich: Ich halte es für falsch, denn in den
Fragen der Außenpolitik und der Erweiterungspolitik ist
der Rat keine andere Kammer, sondern ein Organ, das
wir natürlich parlamentarisch kontrollieren müssen!
(Beifall)
1-020
Przewodniczący. − Dziękuję kolegom za uwagi w tej
sprawie. Chciałbym Państwa zapewnić, że na najbliższej
Konferencji Przewodniczących, gdzie jak Państwo
wiecie, ustalane są porządki obrad, a więc w najbliższy
czwartek, poruszę tę sprawę – żebyśmy ustalili, jak to
będzie wyglądało w przyszłości. Konferencja
Przewodniczących jest odpowiedzialna za porządek
obrad i w najbliższy czwartek będziemy o tym
rozmawiać. Dziękuję bardzo.
Przechodzimy do porządku obrad.
Poniedziałek
Grupa Zielonych/Wolne Przymierze Europejskie
wniosła, aby debata na temat sytuacji w Tunezji
zakończona została rezolucją, czego nie planowaliśmy.
A zatem jest propozycja, aby była w tej sprawie
rezolucja. Rozumiem, że kolega Cohn-Bendit chce się
wypowiedzieć na temat tego wniosku.
1-021
Daniel Cohn-Bendit (Verts/ALE). – Monsieur le
Président, vous êtes au courant que les événements en
Tunisie se sont précipités et d'ailleurs nous pouvons
nous féliciter que M. Ben Ali ait quitté le pays. La
situation de ces prochaines semaines va donc être très
tendue en Tunisie. Je trouve que ce Parlement doit, dans
une courte résolution, demander des choses très précises
au Conseil et à la Commission. Vous savez qu'il y aura
peut-être des élections d'ici six à huit semaines, nous
n'avons donc pas le temps d'attendre février.
Il faut que l'Union européenne agisse, il faut que nous
agissions maintenant, et la base de notre action doit être
une résolution que nous devrions voter jeudi à midi. Je

17-01-2011 17
comprends que, vu la situation, c'est avec grand
enthousiasme que cette assemblée va enfin pouvoir voter
une résolution sur la Tunisie.
1-022
Francesco Enrico Speroni (EFD). – Signor Presidente,
onorevoli colleghi, non credo che la risoluzione muterà
la situazione in Tunisia, ed è per questo che sono contro.
1-023
(Parlament odrzucił wniosek)
Czwartek
1-024
Przewodniczący. − W sprawie debat - na podstawie art.
122 Regulaminu Konfederacyjna Grupa Zjednoczonej
Lewicy Europejskiej/Nordycka Zielona Lewica złożyła
wniosek o usunięcie z porządku obrad debaty w sprawie
Brazylii: ekstradycja Cesare'a Battistiego. Pan Tavares
chciałby przedstawić ten wniosek. Bardzo proszę.
1-025
Rui Tavares (GUE/NGL). – Mr President, some
colleagues took the initiative of putting an urgency
resolution on the agenda on Brazil’s refusal to extradite
Cesare Battisti to Italy. I understand their motives, but as
I shall demonstrate, this is not at present a human rights
case. It is not an urgent case and it is not even a ‘breach
of the Rule of Law’ case. Furthermore, it comes at a
terrible moment when Brazil is facing the worst natural
disaster in its history.
Cesare Battisti is in prison. He is awaiting the decision
of the Brazilian Supreme Court and the Supreme Court
is currently not in session during the southern
hemisphere’s summer holiday. There is no reason to
believe that there will not be an independent decision. I
expressed my solidarity with the families of the victims
in this case, and rest assured I have no sympathy with
political violence either from the right or the left, but we
should use the urgencies to debate Southern Sudan, the
case of Buchtar Tabuni in Indonesia, or the Palestinian
man shot dead in his bed.
Is the Parliament going to allocate to President Dilma
Rousseff, just after her groundbreaking election and for
no sound formal reason, the kind of debate that we
usually reserve for people like Mugabe? I would ask you
to remove Brazil from the urgencies on the agenda.
1-026
Mario Mauro (PPE). – Signor Presidente, onorevoli
colleghi, intanto intendo – a nome del mio gruppo e
credo di tutto il Parlamento – sottolineare con forza la
vicinanza che abbiamo nei confronti del popolo e del
governo brasiliano per il lutto gravissimo collegato alle
alluvioni di questi giorni: centinaia di persone che hanno
perso la vita e a cui facciamo sentire la nostra vicinanza.
Allo stesso tempo ribadisco a nome dei proponenti – e,
mi auguro, di tutto il Parlamento – la nostra ferma
intenzione di dibattere questo tema, perché l'istanza di
giustizia non si è ancora compiuta, perché la vicenda di
Cesare Battisti merita di essere ulteriormente giudicata
dal Parlamento europeo che deve far sentire la sua voce
in sede internazionale.
1-027
Judith Sargentini (Verts/ALE). – Voorzitter, ik wil het
verzoek van de heer Tavares ondersteunen, omdat dit
geen urgente zaak is – de heer Battisti zit in de
gevangenis en er is geen reden om aan te nemen dat hij
daar op korte termijn vrijkomt; mijns inziens zouden wij
ons niet moeten mengen in individuele zaken van
mensen die nog voor het gerecht staan.
1-028
10 - Składanie dokumentów: patrz protokół
1-029
11 - Oświadczenie przewodniczącego
Parlamentu Europejskiego na temat sytuacji
w Tunezji
1-030
Jerzy Buzek, President. − Szanowne Koleżanki i
Koledzy! Z wielkimi obawami, ale i nadziejami
obserwowaliśmy w ostatnich tygodniach wydarzenia,
które mają miejsce w Tunezji. Pokojowe demonstracje
w obronie słusznych postulatów zmieniły się w krwawe
starcia - nad czym ubolewamy - gdy tunezyjskie władze
zwróciły się przeciw swoim obywatelom. Dziś chylimy
głowy przed ofiarami tych wydarzeń. Nasze głębokie
współczucie kierujemy do tych wszystkich, którzy
stracili swoich najbliższych. Szczególnie wspominamy
pierwszą ofiarę starć – młodego Mohammeda Bouazizi.
Ten tragiczny gest na trwałe zapisał się jako symbol fali
demokratycznego odruchu tunezyjskiego społeczeństwa.
Uczcijmy minutą ciszy pamięć tunezyjskich przyjaciół.
Proszę o powstanie z miejsc.
(minuta ciszy)
Dziękuję bardzo. Drogie Koleżanki i Koledzy!
„Jaśminowa rewolucja” trwa. Pod wieloma względami
jest to prawdziwie historyczny czas. Chcę wyrazić
głębokie uznanie dla odwagi i determinacji obywateli
Tunezji. To oni są źródłem tych zmian. Jest to jednak
dopiero początek długiej drogi. Jako Europejczycy
dzielimy aspiracje Tunezyjczyków, chcemy im
towarzyszyć w drodze ku ich pełnej realizacji.
Europejczycy są szczególnie wyczuleni na
sprawiedliwość społeczną, równość szans, wolność
słowa, demokracji i prawdziwy pluralizm, kształtowanie
własnej politycznej przyszłości. Dlatego nie
pozostajemy dziś obojętni. Wzywamy, by zmiany te
miały równocześnie pokojowy charakter. Muszą
prowadzić do sprawiedliwości i rządów prawa. Mamy
także fundamentalne postulaty. Po pierwsze, uwolnienie
wszystkich arbitralnie aresztowanych. Po drugie,
przeprowadzenie niezależnych śledztw wobec
poważnych zarzutów korupcji, a także przypadków
śmierci, nadużycia siły. Po trzecie, przejrzyste,
prawdziwie demokratyczne wybory prezydenckie i
parlamentarne, monitorowane przez lokalnych i
zagranicznych obserwatorów i po czwarte, wspieramy

18 17-01-2011
starania stworzenia rządu jedności narodowej, który
reprezentowałby wszystkich Tunezyjczyków.
Unię Europejską i Tunezję łączy długoletnie
partnerstwo, to są nasi sąsiedzi zza Morza
Śródziemnego. To partnerstwo musi służyć przede
wszystkim naszym obywatelom, Tunezyjczykom i
Europejczykom. Nasze partnerstwo, jeśli ma pozostać
wiarygodnym i znaczącym, musi wspierać
Tunezyjczyków w ich drodze ku głębokim przemianom.
Musimy pomóc Tunezji odnieść sukces. Drogie
Koleżanki i Koledzy! Bądźmy po stronie
Tunezyjczyków.
1-031
Štefan Füle, Member of the Commission. − Mr
President, the recent popular uprising in Tunisia is
unprecedented in the modern history of the country. On
17 December 2010, a young university graduate set
himself on fire out of sheer desperation after police
seized the fruit and vegetables that he was selling for a
living. Less than a month later, nationwide protests have
brought about the definitive departure of President Ben
Ali.
The European Union has condemned the violence of the
repression during the last days of the regime. As I speak,
the security situation remains precarious. Looting and
violence are still being reported. Tunisia remains in a
very delicate phase, although the first news about the
formation of a national unity government is just coming
in.
Despite some uncertainty, the message of the Tunisian
people is loud and clear: Tunisia wants to be a stable
democracy that fully respects fundamental rights and
freedoms. It wants free and fair, inclusive elections. The
people want to write a new page in their history and we
want to support them in that endeavour. Respect for the
Constitution and the steps being taken, as we speak, to
bring together a national solidarity government are
moves in the right direction.
Of course, this is only a start. The European Union has
never ceased to remind Tunisia of its international
obligations in the field of human rights and fundamental
freedoms. Ever since the start of my term of office –
since my hearing before this House in fact – I have
repeated that enhanced status clearly means enhanced
commitments in all areas of our relationship, including
fundamental freedoms and human rights.
I have stressed in all meetings with the Tunisian
authorities, on behalf of the European Commission, that
they had to deliver on their democratic and human rights
commitments. At the very first session of negotiations
on the action plan for statut avancé, I insisted
personally, in an unprecedented and extremely clear
way, that any use of the new Article 61a of the Penal
Code would be seen by us as incompatible with statut
avancé and with our shared values.
And, by the way, if there were still sceptics on both sides
who thought that these values were shared only in
theory, they should listen again and again to the voice of
the Tunisian street over the last days and weeks. What
was this if not a solemn demand for democracy and for
more economic justice?
As Catherine Ashton and I stated this morning, the
European Union stands ready to support a truly inclusive
electoral process with appropriate guarantees. We hope
its modalities can be announced as soon as possible,
once the government of national unity has been shaped
and starts its work. We are ready to provide immediate
assistance in preparing and organising the electoral
process, as well as lasting support for a genuine
democratic transition.
We are also working on a broader package to assist – as
soon as the situation stabilises – with, inter alia,
economic development, close attention to the social
problems faced by Tunisia’s youth, and consolidating
the rule of law and the judiciary.
We will, of course, continue consulting closely with this
House and with the Member States on this process.
The European Neighbourhood Policy is based on
essential values shared by the European Union and its
partners: democracy, human rights and an open market
economy, with a view to building together a shared area
of democracy, stability and prosperity. The Commission
has always stressed that these values were an essential
component of our neighbourhood policy, towards both
our southern and our eastern neighbours.
With its strong middle class, high level of education,
closeness to Europe and overall moderation, Tunisia is
well placed to take the leap towards democracy that
people have now asked for with such force and courage,
and I think everyone should agree that the European
Union also has a strong interest in a democratic,
prosperous and stable Tunisia. We have a long-standing
and robust relationship with Tunisia and close links
between our peoples and our business communities. It is
my ambition, and that of the Vice-President of the
Commission/ High Representative of the Union for
Foreign and Security Policy, that we should now
strengthen our bilateral relations on the basis of new
commitments by our partners on governance, respect for
the rule of law and for fundamental freedoms, and
economic and social reforms.
We will do our utmost to help the Tunisian people to
turn their aspirations into reality.
1-032
José Ignacio Salafranca Sánchez-Neyra, en nombre
del Grupo PPE. – Señor Presidente, los recientes
acontecimientos de Túnez deberían invitarnos a
reflexionar con sentido de la responsabilidad sobre, al
menos, dos aspectos. En primer lugar, sobre el hecho de
si las políticas de apoyo al statu quo en países ayunos de
libertades democráticas contribuye realmente a la

17-01-2011 19
estabilidad, en este caso, en nuestro entorno más
próximo.
Y en segundo lugar, señor Presidente, sobre el hecho
relativo a si la desaparición de la escena política del
señor Ben Ali es una condición suficiente para
garantizar el alumbramiento de una verdadera transición
democrática.
Desde mi punto de vista, señor Presidente, la respuesta a
estas dos preguntas es negativa. Por eso, señor Füle, se
impone una profunda reflexión acerca de por qué la
política de vecindad, en el espíritu del Proceso de
Barcelona, no ha producido los efectos de
democratización que estaban previstos y cómo
podríamos o deberíamos corregir el tiro.
En segundo lugar, la experiencia nos demuestra ―y hay
muchos casos― que, cuando se produce un vacío de
poder, los partidos más radicalizados, más extremistas,
sustituyen el proceso, lo secuestran y quieren dar al
traste con él.
Señor Presidente, solamente en defensa de la libertad, el
extremismo no es un vicio; solamente en defensa de la
justicia, la moderación no es una virtud. Por ese
imperativo ético, la Unión Europea tiene que movilizar
todos sus esfuerzos para contribuir a que este proceso no
descarrile.
Celebro la declaración del señor Füle en el sentido de
prestar asistencia electoral a Túnez, pero creo que es
más importante todavía dar un paso más y acompañarlo
con una misión de observación electoral de la Unión
Europea. Y no solamente por este imperativo ético que
está inscrito en el código genético de la Unión Europea,
sino también, señor Presidente, por nuestro propio
interés: porque de nada sirve viajar en primera clase si
en clase turista hay un pasajero que viaja con una bomba
en el maletín.
1-033
Pier Antonio Panzeri, a nome del gruppo S&D. –
Signor Presidente, onorevoli colleghi, condividiamo le
preoccupazioni per quanto sta avvenendo in Tunisia ed
esprimiamo il nostro cordoglio per le tante persone che
hanno perso la vita durante le manifestazioni.
La fase nuova e confusa che si è aperta dopo la fuga
dell'ex presidente Ben Ali ora deve portare all'obiettivo
che da più parti è stato sollecitato: l'avvio di riforme
economiche e sociali in grado di rispondere alle
aspettative di larghissima parte della popolazione e
l'allargamento degli spazi di democrazia, perché siano
sempre più coinvolte la società civile e le diverse forze
di opposizione nell'azione pubblica e nel governo.
È evidente che ogni paese ha il diritto a scegliersi la
propria strada, ma noi siamo interessati al fatto che
queste riforme si realizzino e che i cambiamenti siano
effettivi e non un semplice maquillage. Ma ciò che sta
avvenendo in Tunisia in questi giorni interroga tutti noi,
interroga l'Europa con i suoi ritardi e i suoi errori.
Nel 1995, a Barcellona, l'Unione europea lanciò il
programma di partenariato con il Mediterraneo, che
doveva comprendere una cooperazione economica,
politica, militare, persino sociale e umana, ma nemmeno
nei due obiettivi chiave si è realizzato. Per l'economia,
c'è stato un drastico ridimensionamento dei progetti
regionali e infrastrutturali perché i finanziamenti degli
Stati europei non sono arrivati, quelli della Commissione
restano in standby. La promessa di zona di libero
scambio non esiste, ma il fallimento più evidente è sul
piano politico, del quale occorre piena consapevolezza,
Commissario.
L'Unione per il Mediterraneo lanciata nel 2008 è rimasta
una cosa di facciata. Il vertice che doveva tenersi nel
novembre 2010 è stato rinviato sine die. Il problema è
che i diversi governi europei non hanno e non vedono
l'interesse per una vera cooperazione, preferiscono
mantenere i rapporti con regimi discutibili, arroccati
nella difesa delle ricchezze nazionali che controllano
senza democrazia, mentre milioni di giovani vivono
senza prospettive, se non quelle di un'emigrazione
sempre più difficile.
Non c'è da meravigliarsi, quindi, se sotto la spinta della
crisi economica e sociale le manifestazioni in Tunisia si
sono trasformate in uno tsunami capace di abbattersi
pesantemente sulla struttura di potere esistente. Non
regge più il realismo politico dell'Europa per paura del
fondamentalismo islamico, così come forse è l'ora di
mandare definitivamente in archivio una concezione
tardo-coloniale che tende a riemergere ogni tanto nei
rapporti con i paesi nordafricani.
Ecco, proprio partendo da Barcellona serve una nuova
visione europea verso il proprio Sud, verso il
Mediterraneo, con maggiore credibilità rispetto al
passato. Ciò significa – e glielo chiedo, Commissario,
con forza – una profonda revisione delle politiche di
partenariato e di vicinato sin qui seguite: non possiamo
nascondere che sia la Commissione, sia il Consiglio
erano persino pronti a discutere con la Tunisia l'accordo
per lo statuto avanzato. Sulla base di quali criteri si
riteneva possibile tutto questo ancora deve essere
spiegato.
Serve un cambio di linea, un cambio di passo e ciò può
essere fatto – lo diciamo a Commissione e Consiglio –
associando con maggiore convinzione questo
Parlamento all'elaborazione e all'applicazione di una
nuova idea di partenariato verso i paesi della sponda
mediterranea. Tutto ciò non è solo nell'interesse di questi
paesi, ma è soprattutto nell'interesse dell'Europa.
Molti dei problemi che l'Europa mostra di avere possono
essere affrontati e risolti solo attraverso un rapporto
produttivo e virtuoso con tutti i paesi del Maghreb. La
strada è stretta, ma è l'unica da percorrere, quella di
sostenere riforme economiche e democratiche e, nello
stesso tempo, mettere in campo tutti gli antidoti
necessari contro il fondamentalismo e il terrorismo.

20 17-01-2011
C'è da augurarsi che questa drammatica e amara lezione
che proviene dalla Tunisia possa servire a tutti noi per
avere maggiore consapevolezza di ciò che è utile fare, di
ciò che è utile cambiare nell'azione europea.
1-034
Marietje Schaake, on behalf of the ALDE Group. – Mr
President, I would like to congratulate the Tunisian
people for their bravery, courage and persistence in
speaking up for opportunities and freedom, and I hope
all can refrain from using violence and that there will be
free and fair elections soon.
Citizens spoke out against an oppressive regime which
has used bullets and killed its youth. Only weak
governments go to such lengths to preserve their
artificially obtained corrupt power and wealth. Regimes
derive their legitimacy from providing for the well-being
of their citizens, not from closing universities and access
to information and free communications.
With regard to access to information, the Tunisian
opposition used the internet, and the internet is
becoming more and more important for peaceful
opposition across the world. I learned about the uprising
by the citizens’ movement in Tunisia through the
internet and eyewitness accounts that were posted there,
but it took about a month of the struggle before
mainstream media and political leaders woke up to the
realities of the street.
In the same week – last week – the French Minister for
Foreign Affairs offered help to the Tunisian Government
in the form of riot police and assistance in policing.
What is the Commission’s reaction to that offer, and
where was the help for citizens in support of their rights?
(Applause)
The confrontation between the Tunisian Government
and its people took place on the virtual highways of the
internet as much as on the streets. The Tunisian
Government was known for being among the most
advanced in the use of filtering and censoring software,
and over the past month it spared no efforts to repress
people through these technologies. Repressive regimes
across the world continue to use technologies to silence
free speech.
Today is Martin Luther King Day and it was Martin
Luther King who said that a time comes when silence
becomes betrayal. Commissioner Füle, that time has
arrived. The United States has lost significantly in terms
of credibility in its fight for leadership in internet
freedom.
The EU has a struggle ahead, about which we will speak
tonight in relation to the upcoming Hungarian laws. But
the young, freedom-loving generation across the world
is looking to the symbolic example that Tunisia has
given and is looking to the EU for support, and there is
no reason why we should not lead in defending people’s
freedoms, including on the internet.
1-035
Daniel Cohn-Bendit, au nom du groupe Verts/ALE. –
Monsieur le Président, chers collègues, j'avoue que
j'aurais aimé que ce Parlement soit à la hauteur de la
fierté des Tunisiens qui ont su abattre le dictateur Ben
Ali.
Chers collègues, le dictateur est tombé, mais la dictature,
la structure de la dictature existe toujours en Tunisie. Et
aujourd'hui, il faut faire très attention. Des
gouvernements européens, la majorité de ce Parlement
ont, pendant des années, soutenu la structure de la
dictature, et le dictateur tunisien. Encore la semaine
dernière, la majorité des groupes refusait un débat sur la
Tunisie et refusait une condamnation de Ben Ali.
Ce qu'a fait la ministre des affaires étrangères française
n'est que le dernier exemple de la complicité de
l'Occident. Et pourquoi ? Pour la peur, parce qu'on avait
peur de l'islamisme. On a raison d'avoir peur de la
dictature de l'islamisme, mais qu'ont-ils à voir avec cela
ces jeunes, ces Tunisiens qui n'avaient rien d'islamistes,
qui se battaient pour la liberté? Et M. Bouazizi qui s'est
immolé, c'est le Jan Palach de la Tunisie et quand Jan
Palach s'est immolé, tout ce Parlement était derrière lui.
Nous ne sommes même pas capables d'être derrière
M. Bouazizi, voilà la vérité de ce Parlement.
Maintenant il s'agit que la Commission agisse. Il s'agit
simplement de dire une chose, de dire aux Tunisiens
qu'une élection démocratique dans un pays qui vient de
sortir de la dictature ne se fait pas en deux mois. Il n'y a
pas une base de démocratie. La liberté d'expression, les
médias, les radios, la télévision n'existent pas. Il n'existe
qu'une imprimerie d'état.
C'est pour cela que je demande à la Commission qu'elle
prenne l'argent de l'accord d'association et qu'elle mette
cet argent au service de la liberté d'expression en Tunisie
et non pas au service d'organisations gouvernementales
tunisiennes.
Deuxièmement, le gouvernement de transition n'est pas
un gouvernement d'unité nationale. Pourquoi? Parce que
la majorité de ceux qui se sont battus ou de ceux qui sont
en exil ne sont pas encore rentrés, ne sont pas reconnus,
donc il faudra du temps pour que des forces
démocratiques – non pas des forces qui avaient été
"reconnues" par Ben Ali –, mais des forces réellement
démocratiques, puissent se développer.
L'Union européenne doit démonter que, pour nous, ce
qui se passe en Tunisie, c'est la clé de la compréhension
et de l'espoir pour tous les pays arabes. Démocratie et
Islam veulent aller de pair et si nous sommes capables
de soutenir la démocratie tunisienne en train de naître,
nous verrons qu'en Égypte, en Jordanie, en Syrie, et
partout, le peuple et les peuples vont s'élever contre leurs
dictateurs.
Nous avons une responsabilité, nous tous ici, parce
qu'enfin des Tunisiens, donc une partie du monde arabe,
nous montrent que l'espoir de liberté qu'on a vu en 89

17-01-2011 21
dans les pays de l'Est, ce même espoir est aujourd'hui en
train de naître dans un pays comme la Tunisie, demain
en Algérie, après-demain en Égypte et en Jordanie.
Donc c'est pour cela qu'il est inimaginable que ce
Parlement reste assis et dise: "Ah oui, peut-être, on ne
sait pas". On ne savait pas en 89 ce qu'allait devenir la
Pologne. On ne savait pas avec Gorbatchev ce qu'allait
devenir la Russie. Si à chaque fois que les peuples
demandent la liberté, on leur demande une assurance,
qu'ils nous disent que c'est sûr que ça ira dans une
direction, on ne soutiendra jamais la liberté et c'est pour
cela que je demande à la Commission: "Bougez, donnez,
montrez aux Tunisiens que maintenant la realpolitik,
c'est la politique de soutien à la démocratie et non plus à
la structure de la dictature".
(Applaudissements)
1-036
Charles Tannock, on behalf of the ECR Group. – Mr
President, the upheaval in Tunisia is undoubtedly a
reflection of people’s frustration at the country’s
political stagnation and its relative economic stagnation.
The flagrant corruption and wealth of the ruling family
elite contrasted sharply with the high levels of poverty
and unemployment among ordinary people.
Former President Ben Ali paid the supreme price for
failing to meet the expectations and aspirations of his
people, but I do not agree with some assessments,
particularly in the Green Group, that his government was
one of the most repressive in the Arab world. Tunisia
has been an example, in some ways, of a modern,
secular and progressive Arab country. For example,
polygamy and veils were banned and foreign direct
investment and tourism were encouraged.
Tunisia has managed to resist the efforts of violent
Jihadis to undermine the integrity of its secular society.
It is therefore essential that Tunisia’s political leaders –
the new leaders that will now emerge – protect that
legacy, because Salafist extremists will undoubtedly try
to take advantage of the chaos and turmoil that will
advance their dangerous agenda, which obviously also
threatens European political objectives, including
foreign policy objectives.
Tunisia’s new political leadership also needs to
understand that poor governance and gross inequality
offer a fertile breeding ground for violent radicalism. I
am encouraged that the interim leadership has promised
substantial reforms because embarking on such a path
will greatly strengthen Tunisia’s relationship with the
European Union. In the meantime, my group calls for
maximum restraint by the security forces and for the
arrest and trial of the ancien regime’s presidential guard
leadership responsible for the shooting, in the last few
days, of innocent bystanders, in a futile attempt to
destabilise the country. I congratulate the army on its
professionalism in protecting the Republic’s institutions.
We in the EU must give the new Tunisian government
of unity every assistance and also afford every assistance
to EU citizens, including British citizens, who are
stranded, having been in Tunisia on a holiday.
1-037
Marie-Christine Vergiat, au nom du groupe
GUE/NGL. – Monsieur le Président, chers collègues,
c'est avec une certaine fierté et beaucoup d'émotion que
j'interviens aujourd'hui dans cet hémicycle au nom de
mon groupe, la Gauche unitaire européenne/Gauche
verte nordique.
En effet, nous avons été très peu nombreux – peu
nombreuses même, dirais-je – sur ces bancs à dénoncer
les dérives du régime tunisien et ce qu'il faisait subir à
ceux et celles qui osaient, envers et contre tout, le
critiquer et dénoncer ses pratiques et notamment la
torture des défenseurs des droits de l'homme.
Il a fallu qu'un jeune homme de 26 ans s'immole par le
feu pour que le peuple tunisien se lève, pour qu'il n'ait
plus peur, car il se sentait bien seul. L'espoir de liberté y
est né. Il a fallu plus de cinquante morts pour que
l'Union européenne ose un timide communiqué dans
lequel elle appelait à la retenue dans l'usage de la force
sans mettre en cause en quoi que ce soit le sacro-saint
partenariat de l'Union européenne avec la Tunisie, sans
condamner les violences, Monsieur Füle, jusqu'à samedi.
Et le moins que l'on puisse dire, c'est que le régime
tunisien ne vous a guère entendu depuis votre
nomination.
Ces mots de "retenue dans l'usage de la force" me sont
restés en travers de la gorge. Le Parlement européen a
été muet, hormis un timide communiqué de la délégation
Maghreb. Ce n'est que samedi que vous vous êtes
exprimé, Monsieur le Président, et aujourd'hui la
majorité du Parlement européen a refusé une résolution
écrite. Les instances européennes savent pourtant être
plus véhémentes envers d'autres régimes. La Française
que je suis sait quelles sont les responsabilités du
gouvernement français et je ne reviendrai pas sur les
propos de notre ministre des affaires étrangères.
Visiblement, pour certains, le temps des colonies n'est
pas encore révolu mais espérons que tout ceci fait partie
du passé.
Grâce au courage du peuple tunisien, en quelques jours
le miracle tunisien, si cher à certains ici, s'est effondré et
a montré son vrai visage. Aujourd'hui, la responsabilité
de l'Union européenne est effectivement grande pour
accompagner sans ingérence le peuple tunisien dans sa
transition démocratique. L'Union européenne doit suivre
le processus électoral, veiller à ce qu'une commission
d'enquête indépendante fasse toute la lumière sur ce qui
s'est passé, sur les violences et la corruption. Le peuple
tunisien ne doit plus être spolié, les biens et les avoirs
des familles Ben ali et Trabelsi doivent non seulement
être surveillés, mais gelés.
L'Union européenne a failli. Un long chemin devra être
parcouru pour que les Tunisiens reprennent confiance.

22 17-01-2011
Aujourd'hui, certes, les choses sont encore difficiles et il
peut y avoir valeur d'exemple pour le Maghreb dans ce
qui se passe là-bas. Nous savons que des soulèvements
identiques peuvent avoir lieu dans tous ces pays où les
Occidentaux font toujours passer leurs propres intérêts
avant ceux des peuples concernés. Des hommes se sont
déjà immolés en Algérie, en Égypte et en Mauritanie. Il
est temps de passer des discours aux actes en matière de
démocratie et de droits de l'homme. Il est temps de
refonder les partenariats de l'Union européenne avec les
pays du Sud et de construire enfin ceux-ci sur l'exigence
démocratique, le respect des droits de l'homme et
l'égalité, sinon l'Union européenne fera effectivement le
lit des intégristes.
1-038
Gerard Batten, on behalf of the EFD Group. – Mr
President, you made some remarks at the beginning of
the debate about free and fair elections and good
representative government and you asked us to support
the people of Tunisia.
No democrat could disagree. People will tolerate a lot
from incompetent, corrupt governments, but push them
too far and they will rebel. It is a doctrine of internal
security services that any population is only three days
away from riots and civil unrest when the food supplies
run out.
Are there any parallels to be drawn between what is
happening in Tunisia and the European Union? The EU
gives undemocratic and incompetent government. It has
a political class that is increasingly detached from the
wishes of its people. There is high youth unemployment
in many countries in Europe as a direct result of EU
policies. There are already riots and civil unrest in
Greece due to its purely ideological commitment to the
European single currency. Countries like Spain, Portugal
and Ireland may soon follow Greece as their economies
become untenable in the straitjacket of the euro.
Do not think that it cannot happen in European
countries. When governments become the enemies of
their own people then the people will eventually rebel.
I agree with what you said in your introduction but let us
see those principles applied in Europe as well as in other
countries of the world.
1-039
Przewodniczący. − Tym samym zamykamy punkt
porządku obrad.
1-040
12 - Zharmonizowane warunki
wprowadzania do obrotu wyrobów
budowlanych (debata)
1-041
Przewodniczący. − Kolejnym punktem porządku
dziennego jest zalecenie do drugiego czytania
sporządzone w imieniu Komisji Rynku Wewnętrznego i
Ochrony Konsumentów w sprawie stanowiska Rady w
pierwszym czytaniu w sprawie przyjęcia rozporządzenia
Parlamentu Europejskiego i Rady ustanawiającego
zharmonizowane warunki wprowadzania do obrotu
wyrobów budowlanych i uchylającego dyrektywę Rady
89/106/EWG (10753/3/2010 - C7-0267/2010 -
2008/0098(COD)) (sprawozdawczyni: Catherine Stihler)
(A7-0343/2010)
1-042
Catherine Stihler, rapporteur. − Mr President, it is a
good way to start the New Year with this debate and
tomorrow’s vote on the deal concluded under the
Belgian Presidency on this important report on
construction products.
I would like to start by thanking all colleagues who
made this possible for their hard work, their
thoughtfulness and commitment to making this proposal
a reality. I would also like to put on record my thanks to
the IMCO Secretariat and to the Belgian Presidency, in
particular to Mr Vertessen and Mr Haerynck for all their
dedicated work.
As I said in my report quoting the poet Robert Frost -
‘Good fences make good neighbours’ (with an implied
question mark). It is important that we maintain the
momentum to complete the internal market and break
down barriers to trade. As Mario Monti in his report on
the Single Market acknowledges, ‘Europe is still in a
phase of “market construction” that requires breaking
down barriers to cross border activity, cutting dead wood
of national administrative and technical barriers and
overcoming corporate resistance’.
With this proposal we have attempted to make the single
market work more effectively, we have attempted to
have clearer and more transparent systems in place so
that products placed on the market are of the highest
standards and that the construction industry has a fairer
market place to trade within.
Currently the construction industry is facing the
economic challenges caused by the global financial
meltdown of 2008 and exacerbated by the slow
economic recovery we face across the EU. We should
never forget what an important sector the construction
industry is – 12 million EU citizens are directly
employed in the sector and 26 million EU citizens are
dependent on it – that is 38 million people reliant on the
sector. For economic growth construction is essential for
jobs and employment.
It is also one of the most dangerous sectors to work
within. Taking Germany, whose safety record is second
to none, one construction worker in 5000 will suffer a
fatal accident during their lifetime. The health and safety
of those who work at the coalface of construction should
always be remembered and it is important to have
acknowledgement of this in the report.
It was with this in mind that we successfully managed
on both sides to come to some agreement on the issue of
labelling hazardous substances, so that the report was in
line with REACH but also helps those who work with

17-01-2011 23
products which in the past have led to chronic conditions
and death – conditions such as asbestos-related
mesotheliomia and, to an extent, chronic obstructive
pulmonary disease caused by working conditions and by
inhaling dust.
The proper labelling of hazardous substances can help
those with these lung conditions and illustrates how
interlinked our work here is. I am proud of the fact that
this report was conducted and concluded under the
European Year of the Lung. Lung health is so often
neglected and I was delighted that in this Parliament we
recognised its importance.
I would also like to briefly comment on SMEs. In
Parliament we are urged to ‘think small first’ and this
should carry throughout our work. This is why we have
managed to create a second stream for smaller
corporations to place their products on the internal
market and the system should make it cheaper and more
practical for SMEs to reach a larger market place which
can only increase their trading potential.
On the separate issue over transparency concerning who
serves on technical bodies and how they work, I think
that we have moved the bodies which approve products
further than was originally foreseen. The transparency
over processes and the approval of products can only
help break down the walls and barriers which exist in the
European Union today. This should help companies in
the EU, and in particular the special conditions set for
micro-enterprises are also helpful in these tough
economic conditions.
In the European Union we should always strive for
better regulation. Along with my shadow rapporteurs, I
have modified the sections of the report which are no
longer relevant or which were so unclear that no one was
able to follow them or ensure their application. For an
industry such as the construction sector it is imperative
that the rules are clear and I look forward to seeing the
difference these particular changes will make.
The scale is huge and the challenges many, but today
these new rules which will come into force through
Member States in the next 24 months will help the
construction sector as we attempt to create economic
growth and, through this, jobs.
1-043
Antonio Tajani, Vicepresidente della Commissione. −
Signor Presidente, onorevoli deputati, innanzitutto
desidero ringraziare il Presidente che ci fa l'onore di
presiedere un dibattito su un argomento così importante
per la politica industriale e del mercato interno e
desidero altresì ringraziare l'on. Stihler, relatore, che ha
lavorato in modo approfondito su questa proposta e ci
ha, grazie al suo impegno, permesso di raggiungere un
accordo in seconda lettura.
Voglio inoltre ringraziare vivamente tutti i relatori
ombra e il presidente della commissione per il mercato
interno, l'on. Harbour. I vostri sforzi collettivi sono stati
determinanti per giungere ad una svolta durante i
negoziati tra le Istituzioni in merito a questo dossier
estremamente tecnico.
La Commissione accoglie con favore il compromesso in
seconda lettura da parte del Parlamento e del Consiglio;
a prescindere dagli aspetti di natura tecnica, si tratta di
un dossier di grande importanza. L'adozione del
regolamento sui prodotti da costruzione rappresenta un
passo di inestimabile rilievo per l'intero settore europeo
della costruzione. I prodotti della costruzione
rappresentano il 3% del PIL a livello europeo e in
termini di occupazione le attività legate al settore della
costruzione ricoprono il 6,5% del PIL a livello europeo e
il 7,5% in termini occupazionali: nell'insieme questo
porta il settore della costruzione a rivestire un peso del
10% nell'ambito dell'economia europea, come ha
ricordato nel corso del suo intervento la relatrice.
Inoltre, l'adozione del regolamento sui prodotti da
costruzione costituisce un passo in avanti importante
nell'ambito della semplificazione e di una migliore
legislazione e consolida nello stesso tempo il mercato
interno per i prodotti di costruzione. Questo è stato
anche il primo caso di applicazione pratica dei principi
sanciti nell'ambito dello "Small business act". In effetti,
alle imprese europee, specialmente alle più piccole,
finalmente la normativa comunitaria offrirà strumenti
abilitanti anziché l'esatto contrario, ossia moduli da
compilare, trafile burocratiche e obblighi aggiuntivi.
Non posso che essere soddisfatto di questo risultato, in
modo particolare per le soluzioni apportate alle tre
questioni considerate in precedenza più complicate: in
primo luogo, per quanto riguarda la questione inerente le
sostanze pericolose, la Commissione preparerà un
rapporto su questo punto importante, informando il
Parlamento e presentando, se del caso, le eventuali
proposte legislative successive.
In secondo luogo, il trattamento speciale riservato alle
microimprese, da sempre ritenute fondamentali al fine di
salvaguardare i principi dello "Small business act". Il
risultato conseguito soddisfa questo criterio, mantenendo
la possibilità di procedure semplificate per le
microimprese.
Infine, in varie parti del testo si riconosce la necessità di
ridurre gli obblighi amministrativi delle imprese e quelli
legati ai testi, non solo introducendo procedure
semplificate per quel che riguarda la marcatura CE, ma
anche mantenendo facoltativo l'uso delle valutazioni
tecniche europee.
Tuttavia, come indicato nella dichiarazione della
Commissione allegata alla posizione del Consiglio in
prima lettura, occorrerà verificare che le soluzioni scelte
siano veramente le migliori per affrontare le necessità
reali. In particolare, dovremo evitare di sottoporre le
imprese, soprattutto le più piccole, ad obblighi
amministrativi ingiustificati o comunque non necessari.
È nostra intenzione monitorare attentamente questo
aspetto e inserire le nostre conclusioni nella relazione al

24 17-01-2011
Parlamento europeo e al Consiglio da elaborare dopo
cinque anni dall'entrata in vigore del presente
regolamento.
Desidero inoltre puntualizzare che la Commissione
intende collaborare da vicino con il Parlamento europeo
e, naturalmente, con il Consiglio, in merito all'attuazione
di questo regolamento. A tale proposito ho chiesto ai
miei servizi – che ringrazio per il contributo che danno
sempre all'attività legislativa della Commissione – di
preparare una road map sull'implementazione, che ho
intenzione di inviarvi non appena sarà possibile. Ciò
riguarda in particolar modo i cosiddetti aspetti di
comitatologia. Il Parlamento è un partner chiave della
Commissione, e posso assicurarvi che intendo
continuare a collaborare da vicino anche per quel che
riguarda la fase successiva dell'adozione. D'altronde, 14
anni passati in quest'Aula non sono trascorsi in vano.
Infine, la Commissione ha ritenuto necessario presentare
una dichiarazione riguardante la deroga all'accordo
comune tra le istituzioni, relativa al termine per
presentare obiezione nei confronti degli atti delegati. La
Commissione tiene a sottolineare che il principio
stabilito nel progetto di intesa comune prevede un
termine per la presentazione delle obiezioni di due mesi,
prorogabile per altri due.
Nel caso in questione, la Commissione ritiene che non
sussistano circostanze particolari che possano
giustificare una deroga a tale principio. La Commissione
si rammarica del fatto che il principio concordato nel
progetto di intesa comune non sia stato rispettato e nella
sua dichiarazione sottolinea che il caso dei prodotti di
costruzione non può costituire un precedente.
Ringrazio il Parlamento – anche attraverso il suo
Presidente, che ringrazio ancora per aver partecipato a
questo dibattito – dell'interesse con il quale ha esaminato
questa proposta di semplificazione. Per concludere,
vorrei mettere in risalto i vantaggi che ci aspettiamo da
questa nuova normativa, nonché quelli risultanti per i
produttori e gli utilizzatori dei prodotti da costruzione,
come pure per le amministrazioni nazionali.
Confermiamo anche la disponibilità della Commissione
ad adempiere agli obblighi previsti dal testo del
regolamento, in particolare ad elaborare le relazioni che
le sono state richieste.
Grazie ancora Signor Presidente, grazie agli onorevoli
parlamentari per l'impegno e per la cooperazione
dimostrata.
1-044
Andreas Schwab, im Namen der PPE-Fraktion. – Herr
Präsident, Herr Vizepräsident, liebe Kolleginnen und
Kollegen! Auch von meiner Seite möchte ich zunächst
ein herzliches Dankeschön an all diejenigen richten, die
am Zustandekommen dieser Verordnung in zweiter
Lesung aktiv mitgewirkt haben. Denn diese Verordnung
– wie der Name es schon sagt – bringt eine
Verbesserung im Verhältnis zur bestehenden Richtlinie.
Das Baupolizeirecht ist ja in der Vergangenheit ein
Stück weit Kernbereich nationaler Eigenständigkeit
gewesen. Dass es uns gelungen ist, hier mit einer
Verordnung den europäischen Binnenmarkt nach vorne
zu bringen, ist sehr positiv.
Zweitens enthält die Verordnung gerade für die
mittelständische Wirtschaft, für kleine und mittlere
Unternehmen, eine Reihe von wichtigen
Erleichterungen, die ihnen das Wirtschaften und den
Umgang im europäischen Binnenmarkt erleichtern
werden. Und letztlich sind natürlich auch die
Verbraucher Nutznießer dieser Verordnung, weil die
Sicherheit und Zuverlässigkeit von Bauprodukten durch
diese Verordnung erheblich verbessert wird.
Ich darf auch für unseren Schattenberichterstatter, Herrn
Professor Mayer, sprechen, der heute leider wegen
Wahlkreisterminen noch in seinem Wahlkreis ist. Er hat
mich gebeten, darauf hinzuweisen, dass es sich bei
dieser Verordnung am Ende in zweiter Lesung um einen
Kompromiss handelt, um einen guten Kompromiss, aus
seiner Sicht aber doch noch einige Punkte zur
Nacharbeit notwendig sind. Ich bin sehr dankbar, dass
Herr Vizepräsident Tajani darauf hingewiesen hat, dass
das Parlament auch bei diesen im Nachgang noch
fälligen Arbeiten eingebunden sein wird. Für ihn als
Schattenberichterstatter reicht es nicht aus, dass das
Verhalten der Hersteller von Bauprodukten und der
Vertrieb ihrer Produkte allein geregelt werden, sondern
die hier vorliegende Verordnung muss durch ein
Regelwerk ergänzt werden, das die Grundsätze und die
praktischen Regeln für die Verwendung und den Einbau
von Bauprodukten ebenfalls festlegt. In diesem
Zusammenhang sollte nach seiner Meinung die
Kommission erwägen, der europäischen Normungsinstitution
CEN ein Mandat zur Vorlage eines
vereinheitlichten europäischen Regelwerks zu geben.
Des Weiteren möchte er darauf hinweisen, dass die
Kommission beobachten soll, ob die neue Bauprodukteverordnung
zu einer ausreichenden Harmonisierung in
allen Bereichen und nicht zu weiteren Sicherheitsproblemen
und zu unfairem Wettbewerb führen wird.
Aber nach den Ausführungen von Kommissar Tajani bin
ich sicher, dass wir dies auch gemeinsam erreichen
werden.
1-045
ΠΡΟΕΔΡΙΑ: ΡΟΔΗ ΚΡΑΤΣΑ-
ΤΣΑΓΚΑΡΟΠΟΥΛΟΥ
Αντιπρόεδρος
1-046
Evelyne Gebhardt, im Namen der S&D-Fraktion. –
Frau Präsidentin, liebe Kolleginnen und Kollegen! Ich
möchte meinen ganz herzlichen Dank der
Berichterstatterin Catherine Stihler aussprechen, die in
diesem hochtechnischen Bereich eine sehr wichtige
Arbeit geleistet hat.
Denn es ist nicht nur ein technischer Bericht, es ist auch
ein hochpolitischer Bericht, der uns vorliegt, ein Bericht,
in dem auch hohe politische Standards respektiert

17-01-2011 25
werden mussten. Es ging darum, die Belange der
Wirtschaft, der Sicherheit und des Arbeitsschutzes
miteinander in Einklang zu bringen. Und das ist der
Berichterstatterin aus Sicht des Europäischen Parlaments
und der Sozialdemokratinnen und Sozialdemokraten
hervorragend gelungen.
Die Belange der Wirtschaft zu respektieren und zu
sehen, wo ihre Probleme in diesem Bereich der
Bauprodukte sind, war eine wesentliche Sache. Es ging
auch darum, die Balance zwischen den großen
Unternehmen und den kleinen und mittleren
Unternehmen zu finden. Wir fanden es richtig, dass die
Kommission vorgeschlagen hat, dass kleine
Unternehmen weniger Regeln brauchen. Aber das
bedeutet nicht – und darauf bezieht sich die Verbesserung,
die gegenüber dem Vorschlag der
Kommission gemacht wurde –, dass es weniger
Sicherheit geben darf. Und die Standards müssen auch
wirklich auf hohem Niveau sein. Und es ist uns
gelungen, das in diesem Bereich umzusetzen.
Es ist natürlich auch wichtig, die Sicherheit in den
Vordergrund zu stellen, die für die Verbraucher und die
Verbraucherinnen von ganz besonders großer
Wichtigkeit ist. Denn wo ein Bauprodukt hergestellt und
eingebaut wird, muss dafür gesorgt werden, dass die
Benutzer dieses Produktes am Ende genau so sicher sind
wie diejenigen, die vorher damit gearbeitet haben.
Der dritte Punkt, der für uns Sozialdemokratinnen und
Sozialdemokraten ganz besonders wichtig war, ist die
Verbesserung des Arbeitsschutzes und dass dieser
expressis verbis auch noch einmal hineingeschrieben
wurde. Darauf hat Frau Stihler in ihren Ausführungen
auch großen Wert gelegt. Denn es geht auch darum, dass
bei diesen Bauprodukten häufig mit gefährlichen
Substanzen und Stoffen gearbeitet wird. Dass in diesem
Bereich dafür gesorgt wird, dass der höchstmögliche
Schutz wirklich erreicht wird, ist von außerordentlicher
Wichtigkeit. An diesen Schutz muss dann auch später –
und daran müssen wir wohl noch arbeiten, Herr Tajani –
bei der Entsorgung solcher Produkte, wenn sie nicht
mehr gebraucht werden, gedacht werden.
Ich bedanke mich noch einmal ganz herzlich bei der
Berichterstatterin, die wirklich hervorragende Arbeit
geleistet hat.
1-047
Heide Rühle, im Namen der Verts/ALE-Fraktion. – Frau
Präsidentin, auch mein Dank gilt Frau Stihler und allen
Schattenberichterstattern. Ich glaube, wir haben in dieser
zweiten Lesung einen guten Kompromiss hinbekommen,
auch wenn – wie immer bei Kompromissen – natürlich
nicht alle Seiten zufrieden sind.
Ich möchte ausdrücklich die Anmerkungen von Herrn
Prof. Meyer aufgreifen, die Herr Schwab zum Ausdruck
gebracht hat. Ich glaube, bei der Kennzeichnung müssen
wir noch nacharbeiten. Wir haben jetzt eine gute
Harmonisierung der Bauprodukte, d.h. der Erstellung der
Bauprodukte. Aber wo wir nacharbeiten müssen, ist
beim Einbau, bei der Verwendung der Bauprodukte.
Eine Möglichkeit ist es, dass die Kommission hier im
Bereich der Eurocodes weiterarbeitet und es dann hier
auch ein Mandat im Bereich der Eurocodes gibt, um zu
einer Weiterentwicklung zu kommen.
Die andere Möglichkeit ist, dass wir zu einer
Harmonisierung des Verwendungsbereichs und des
Anwendungsbereichs kommen, damit wir hier nicht
wieder zurückfallen auf die nationale Ebene und eine
Europäisierung nur im Bereich der Produkte selbst
haben, aber nicht im Verwendungsbereich. Hier müssen
wir nacharbeiten, und da hat die Kommission auch
unsere volle Unterstützung, wenn sie zu weiteren
Maßnahmen kommt.
Ich möchte noch einen weiteren Punkt erwähnen, der
wichtig war bei der Auseinandersetzung, ob wir
zustimmen oder nicht. Es gab in den Verhandlungen
leider einen Fehler der belgischen Ratspräsidentschaft.
Die belgische Ratspräsidentschaft hat in der zweiten
Lesung nach der ersten Lesung neue Bereiche eingeführt
– Artikel 8.3 und Artikel 8.6 – ohne dass das Parlament
seine volle Zustimmung gegeben hat. Nun hat die
ungarische Ratspräsidentschaft dies in einem Brief
aufgegriffen. Allerdings glaube ich nicht, dass die
ungarische Ratspräsidentschaft den Konflikt wirklich
verstanden hat. Ich möchte noch einmal darauf
hinweisen, dass ich erwarte, dass der Rat künftig, wenn
er in der zweiten Lesung neue Punkte einbringt, wirklich
auf das Parlament zugeht und versucht, mit dem
Parlament einen guten Kompromiss zu erzielen.
Dennoch sind wir angesichts des Ergebnisses der
Meinung, dass es keinen Sinn hat, wegen eines solchen
Formfehlers diesen Kompromiss abzulehnen. Wir
stimmen diesem Kompromiss zu, weil wir glauben, dass
das ein wichtiger Schritt zu einer weiteren
Harmonisierung des Sektors ist, und der Sektor hat eine
große wirtschaftliche Bedeutung. Deshalb also unsere
Zustimmung zu dieser zweiten Lesung.
1-048
Emma McClarkin, on behalf of the ECR Group. –
Madam President, I would like to thank Mrs Stihler for
her hard work. It has been a very long road.
In Europe today, the construction sector directly
employs 12 million EU citizens. In addition,
approximately 92% of the manufacturers of construction
materials are small and medium-sized enterprises – this
amounts to over 65 000 individual businesses. Clearly,
the construction sector is vital for the European
economy, and we have a responsibility to the industry to
help support it, especially after the economic crisis.
There are many aspects of this report which produced
something of a stalemate between many of us, such as
the nature of EU legislation. It is not perfect, it is a
compromise. Key issues included the declaration of
performance or CE marking, where a successful
agreement was made to ensure micro-enterprises do not
face the same burdens as larger companies. On tackling

26 17-01-2011
and identifying hazardous substances in construction
products, we managed to broker a compromise ensuring
no conflict with existing REACH regulations.
I hope that this second-reading agreement will have real
results and will encourage the free movement of
construction products, improve standards across the EU
and promote the recycling of construction products in
future whilst, most importantly, not increasing
bureaucratic burdens on businesses or confusing
consumers.
1-049
Lara Comi (PPE). – Signora Presidente, onorevoli
colleghi, accolgo con favore il compromesso raggiunto
in relazione ad alcuni punti specifici che giudico di
vitale importanza, in vista di un'efficace realizzazione
degli obiettivi che con tale proposta legislativa ci
proponiamo di raggiungere.
Mi riferisco alla conservazione delle norme sulle
procedure semplificate, volte sicuramente ad alleggerire
gli oneri e a ridurre i costi sostenuti dalle imprese, specie
per quanto riguarda le piccole e medie imprese. Ritengo
infatti indispensabile, nel quadro di una congiuntura
economica negativa come quella attuale, riconoscere
l'importanza del ruolo rivestito dalle piccole e medie
imprese, che costituiscono uno dei pilastri fondamentali
su cui poggia la nostra economia.
Inoltre, attraverso l'introduzione di meccanismi
procedurali semplificati e in particolar modo con la
riduzione dei tempi per l'immissione di nuovi prodotti
sul mercato, la nuova regolamentazione favorisce
sicuramente l'innovazione. Al tempo stesso, tutela i
consumatori, ponendoli in condizione di beneficiare più
tempestivamente di prodotti dal carattere innovativo
senza perciò rinunciare alle garanzie di qualità e
sicurezza che devono essere assicurate dal marchio CE.
A mio avviso, quindi, l'accordo raggiunto rappresenta un
ottimo compromesso capace di realizzare il giusto
bilanciamento tra le esigenze dei produttori e quelle dei
consumatori e di garantire così il corretto funzionamento
del mercato in un settore che è veramente il traino della
nostra economia europea.
1-050
Συλβάνα Ράπτη (S&D). – Κυρία Πρόεδρε, ευχαριστώ
πάρα πολύ την κυρία Stihler για την εξαιρετική δουλειά
που έκανε. Μιλήσαμε όλοι για ένα τεχνικό θέμα. Και
ευτυχώς η κυρία Gebhardt, εκ μέρους της Σοσιαλιστικής
Ομάδας, υπογράμμισε ότι το θέμα δεν είναι μόνο
τεχνικό, αλλά είναι και άκρως πολιτικό και οικονομικό.
Γνωρίζουμε όλοι ότι η οικοδομή είναι βασικός πυλώνας
της οικονομίας. Γνωρίζουμε όλοι ότι οι μικρομεσαίες
επιχειρήσεις είναι η σπονδυλική στήλη της οικονομίας
μας, μιας οικονομίας στο πλαίσιο της Ευρωπαϊκής
Ένωσης που βρίσκεται σε εξαιρετικά δύσκολη
κατάσταση. Άρα λοιπόν, η έκθεση της κυρίας Stihler
είχε μία έντονη πολιτική σημασία. Και τα κατάφερε
περίφημα!
Καταφέραμε και πετύχαμε ένα συμβιβασμό, ένα καλό
συμβιβασμό για όλους. Καταφέραμε να βρούμε την
ισορροπία εκείνη που θα μας δώσει απλές διαδικασίες,
τις οποίες θα μπορούν να εφαρμόσουν χωρίς εκπτώσεις
στην ποιότητα οι μικρομεσαίες επιχειρήσεις, και,
ταυτοχρόνως, το μέγιστο δυνατό καλό αποτέλεσμα.
Καταφέραμε να χτυπήσουμε την υπόθεση των
επικίνδυνων ουσιών. Όλοι θυμόμαστε - και οι
παλαιότεροι εμού εδώ θυμούνται πάρα πολύ καλά - την
υπόθεση της μόλυνσης με αμίαντο του κτηρίου
Berlaymont, που είχε κλείσει για πέντε ή έξι χρόνια. Για
φανταστείτε τι θα γινόταν σε ολόκληρες πολιτείες μέσα
στην Ευρωπαϊκή Ένωση εάν δεν θα μπορούσαμε να
χειριστούμε το θέμα των επικίνδυνων ουσιών.
Έχουμε, τέλος, μπροστά μας ακόμη το θέμα της
ασφάλειας και της διαφάνειας. Και εδώ νομίζω ότι τα
κατάφερε περίφημα η κυρία Stihler στην έκθεσή της και
στο συμβιβασμό που επιτεύχθηκε.
Κλείνοντας, κυρία Πρόεδρε, θα ήθελα να ευχηθώ, όσο
καλά τα καταφέραμε στην οικοδομή, άλλο τόσο καλά να
μπορέσουμε να τα καταφέρουμε στην οικοδόμηση της
ευρωπαϊκής Πολιτείας.
1-051
Malcolm Harbour (ECR). – Madam President, as chair
of the Committee on the Internal Market and Consumer
Protection, I want to associate myself very much with
many of the remarks – in fact all the remarks, I think –
that people have made on the work that Catherine Stihler
has done. I think that taking over a complex dossier for a
second reading and coming into our committee to do that
has been a tough task which she has done extremely
well.
I would remark that it shows the importance of the
second-reading procedure in this House, because we
have been able to make significant improvements to the
text of the position that we received from the Council.
As Mrs Rühle in particular pointed out, we had some
disagreements with them. We have a letter from the
Hungarian Presidency on some of the detailed issues
which will be published with the Minutes.
I just want to make two concluding remarks in endorsing
this agreement. The first is to say to you, Commissioner,
in thanking you for your work with us, that we need to
work very closely with you on the implementation of
this proposal. As you pointed out, there are important
aspects of comitology here and my committee is
absolutely behind the need to follow up these proposals
very seriously.
Secondly, I think that this is an absolutely crucial sector
and we do need to keep it under review, as many
colleagues have said, to make sure that there are in effect
no market barriers put in place that are going to stop it
contributing vitally to the European economy.
1-052
Zuzana Roithová (PPE). – Já jsem velice spokojená s
textem stavební směrnice, který dojednali zpravodajové

17-01-2011 27
se vstřícnými komisaři Tajanim a Barnierem, pro dnešní
druhé čtení. Díky tomu by se trh se stavebními výrobky
měl zjednodušit. Sjednotí se nadšení, zjednoduší
dokumentace a zruší různé zbytečné byrokratické
praktiky. Zvláště vítám, že konečně zvítězil i názor, že
budování staveb je poskytování stavebních služeb, a
nikoli uvádění výrobků na trh, a že stavební činnost
zahrnuje i případné nesériově vyrobené komponenty
zabudované do staveb. Také firmy v České republice
tuto malou reformu opravdu ocení, protože stará
směrnice jim zvyšovala náklady, aniž by to mělo vliv na
lepší kvalitu. Můj výbor IMCO se sjednotil a text přijal
jednoznačně, a to i pokud jde o zjednodušení pro
mikropodniky. A já věřím, že zítra tak učiní celý
Parlament. Bude to další důkaz o zlepšování právního
prostřední v Evropské unii směrem, který podporuje
jednotný trh.
1-053
Anja Weisgerber (PPE). – Frau Präsidentin! Die
Einigung hat mich nicht in allen Punkten überzeugt, aber
ich weiß, dass die neue Verordnung im Vergleich zur
derzeitigen Rechtslage eine deutliche Verbesserung
darstellt. Denn erstmals bekommen wir eine einheitlich
europäische technische Sprache für Leistungen von
Bauprodukten und gestraffte und vereinfachte
Verfahren. Wir haben den europäischen Binnenmarkt
vorangebracht und damit den Firmen, aber durch
einheitliche Sicherheitsanforderungen auch den
Verbrauchern genutzt. Grundsätzlich halte ich
Erleichterungen für Kleinstunternehmen von bürokratischen
Vorschriften für wichtig und sinnvoll. Aber
man muss auch berücksichtigen, dass aufseiten der
Anwender auch Kleinstunternehmen tätig sind, die
Bauprodukte verarbeiten, und diese müssen ebenso
geschützt werden.
Daher freue ich mich, dass mein Vorschlag in der
Einigung angenommen wurde. Danach gelten für
Kleinstunternehmen bei der Bewertung von Leistungsmerkmalen
der Bauprodukte vereinfachte Verfahren.
Wenden sie allerdings solch ein Verfahren an, so müssen
sie die Gleichwertigkeit der angewandten Verfahren mit
dem eigentlich europaweit vorgesehenen Verfahren
nachweisen. Nur so gewährleisten wir, dass die Angaben
zu Leistungsmerkmalen auch exakt und zuverlässig sind
und dass auch die Sicherheit von Gebäuden in ganz
Europa gewährleistet ist.
1-054
Antonio Tajani, Vicepresidente della Commissione. −
Signor Presidente, onorevoli deputati, condivido le
parole del presidente Harbour quando sottolinea
l'importanza del testo che stiamo discutendo e che sarà
approvato grazie a questo accordo dall'Assemblea,
perché si tratta di una nuova normativa che darà
importanti segnali al mercato ma, nello stesso tempo,
fisserà delle buone regole, permettendo alle piccole e
medie imprese di potersi sviluppare, soprattutto in
questa fase finale della crisi, dove noi dobbiamo fare di
tutto perché le piccole e medie imprese possano creare
nuova occupazione e possano svilupparsi. Questo è
l'obiettivo della Commissione europea, condiviso
dall'impegno forte del Parlamento europeo, proprio
grazie anche all'implementazione e allo sviluppo dello
"Small business act".
Semplificazione per le piccole e medie imprese, quindi
riduzione degli impegni burocratici, ma, nel disegnare
queste regole per la liberalizzazione del mercato e per lo
sviluppo del mercato – come ha sostenuto nel corso del
suo intervento anche l'on. Gebhardt – c'è un forte
segnale che riguarda anche la sicurezza, sicurezza che
riveste grande importanza per i lavoratori che operano
nel settore delle costruzioni, ma anche per i consumatori.
Mi pare che questo testo vada nella giusta direzione,
fermo restando che è intenzione della Commissione non
concludere con l'approvazione della norma frutto
dell'accordo e del compromesso tra Consiglio e
Parlamento: vogliamo continuare a lavorare nei prossimi
anni e confermo questo impegno anche al presidente
Harbour – che ha sottolineato la necessità di andare
avanti – di dar vita ad una road map
sull'implementazione che vi invierò appena possibile.
Molti parlamentari nel corso di questo dibattito sono
intervenuti sul tema dell'armonizzazione nel settore delle
costruzioni, in modo particolare per quanto riguarda la
sicurezza. Sono assolutamente cosciente e consapevole
del problema e sono lieto di avere elaborato con il CEN
gli Eurocodici, che sono norme armonizzate che
riguardano proprio la sicurezza delle costruzioni. La
Commissione, come sapete, sta preparando in questo
momento una comunicazione sul tema della
standardizzazione, che sarà presentata nel giro di poche
settimane all'attenzione del Parlamento e del Consiglio,
quindi signor Presidente, onorevoli deputati, credo che
oggi e domani si compia un importante passo in avanti.
Ripeto, non si tratta soltanto – e voglio ringraziare la
relatrice per la pazienza avuta nell'operare su norme
tecniche che però rappresentano la fotografia di un forte
impegno politico – di norme tecniche, ma dietro ai
tecnicismi si nasconde una scelta economica importante
a favore delle piccole e medie imprese, che sono quelle
che potranno creare nuovi posti di lavoro nei prossimi
anni, e a favore di mezzo miliardo di cittadini europei.
1-055
Catherine Stihler, rapporteur. − Madam President,
thank you to all colleagues who have taken the time to
speak this afternoon and evening.
I think Commissioner Tajani’s comments about
partnership working, the roadmap and the issue of
Eurocodes, which Mrs Rühle and (I think) Mr Schwab
also mentioned, are important and that we take forward
the good cooperation that we have had. It is a
compromise that we have reached and there are some
things colleagues might have liked in this compromise
that we did not manage to get in, but Parliament
managed to secure 75% of the amendments that we
thought were important within this text, and that is no
mean feat.

28 17-01-2011
There is something that struck me throughout this
debate. The construction sector is so vitally important to
our economies for future growth, for jobs, that I would
like to ask the President whether we can make sure there
is an annual debate in this House on the construction
sector, to take forward the cooperation that the
Commissioner has offered to us and to make sure that
we always place the importance on the construction
sector that this House should do, given that 38 million
people rely on the construction sector for their jobs.
So, thank you, Madam President, thank you,
Commissioner, and I look forward to the weeks, months
and years ahead because the construction debate will
continue in the Committee on the Internal Market and
Consumer Protection and I for one will certainly be
following it.
1-056
Πρόεδρος. – Η συζήτηση έληξε.
Η ψηφοφορία θα διεξαχθεί την Τρίτη 18 Ιανουαρίου
2011.
Γραπτές δηλώσεις (άρθρο 149)
1-057
George Becali (NI), în scris. – Vreau să o felicit pe
doamna raportor pentru conţinutul raportului său.
Construcţiile reprezintă un domeniu în egală măsură
sensibil şi important al economiei europene şi avem
nevoie de armonizare. Spun sensibil nu doar din
perspectiva modului în care acest sector a reacţionat la
criză, ci mai ales din cea a numărului mare de lucrători,
12 milioane, şi de IMM-ri, circa 65 000. Susţin puternic
ideea că trebuie să recunoaştem pentru construcţii
necesitatea unui nivel ridicat de siguranţă şi de sănătate a
muncii. Mă refer în mod egal şi clar la accidentele de
muncă, destul de frecvente, dar şi la substanţele
periculoase utilizate în proces. În încheiere, adaug un
singur lucru: piaţa unică în domeniul construcţiilor are
nevoie de sprijin potrivit importanţei şi specificităţii
sale, dar şi pentru aspectele sensibile de care vorbeam la
începutul intervenţiei mele.
1-058
13 - Συνέπειες στην Ευρωπαϊκή Ένωση από
τον εντοπισμό διοξίνης σε ζωοτροφές
(συζήτηση)
1-059
Πρόεδρος. – Το επόμενο σημείο είναι η δήλωση της
Επιτροπής σχετικά με τις συνέπειες στην Ευρωπαϊκή
Ένωση από τον εντοπισμό διοξίνης σε ζωοτροφές.
1-060
John Dalli, Member of the Commission. − Madam
President, as you are well aware, the New Year started
with a serious incident of dioxin contamination of
animal feed in Germany. The Commission services have
been monitoring developments closely and in full
cooperation with the competent German authorities.
I have already started considering possible measures
which will ensure that our high-level food and feed
safety system will become even more efficient. But let
me start with the facts of the incident first: the incident
came to light when a compound feed manufacturer
notified the German competent authorities on 22
December 2010 after having received the analytical
result from a laboratory that a sample was found to be
non-compliant with EU legislation after self-controlled
tests.
Between the middle of November and middle of
December of last year a biodiesel manufacturer
delivered seven consignments of fatty acids intended for
technical purposes to a feed fat manufacturer who also
produces fats for technical use. This latter company was
at the same time a registered feed fat manufacturer;
apparently blending of feed grade fat and technical fat
took place. Four of these consignments delivered in the
second half of November were later found to be
contaminated with dioxins. The other three delivered to
feed mills in the first half of December 2010 were not
contaminated.
However, until this was verified and for purely
precautionary reasons, all consignments were regarded
and treated as potentially contaminated. A total of
almost 2 300 tonnes of potentially contaminated feed fat
was delivered to 25 feed manufacturers in Germany. No
deliveries of feed fat were made outside of Germany.
Between 100 000 and 200 000 tonnes of feed containing
2% to 10% of the potentially contaminated fat were
delivered to about 4 800 farms in Germany. As a strictly
precautionary measure all farms were blocked; their
commercial activities suspended; there were laying hen,
fattening poultry, goose, pig, dairy cattle, bovine and
rabbit farms. Some deliveries of potentially
contaminated feed for breeding hens were also made to
France and Denmark.
No food of animal origin from the blocked farms can be
placed on the market until the farms are unblocked. This
can only happen after it is ensured through analytical
results and investigations that the farms are not
contaminated at levels above those provided by the EU
law. Currently, of these 4 800 farms that were originally
blocked, 939 farms – mostly poultry and pig
establishments – remain blocked. It appears that no
contaminated food was traded or exported from
Germany since the incident was notified, with a few
exceptions.
In the end, analytical results showed that the products
were compliant with EU legislation. This is an example
of the effectiveness of the EU’s traceability system and
we will continue to be vigilant in this respect.
The fortunate element of this incident is that the
observed levels of dioxin in food where EU limits were
exceeded have not been very high, which means that no
immediate health risk for the consumer is expected as a

17-01-2011 29
result of the consumption, if any, of the contaminated
products during a short period of time.
What has the Commission done to help manage the
incident? My services have been in constant contact with
the German authorities and they immediately
disseminated all information to Member States through
the Rapid Alert System for Food and Feed. They have
also been in touch with the competent authorities in third
countries, providing a clear picture of the incident to our
trade partners. Moreover, Commission officials met with
stakeholders in the fats and oils industries to explore
ways of further strengthening the monitoring of dioxin
in feed.
I personally contacted the German Federal Minister for
Food, Agriculture and Consumer Protection, Ilse Aigner,
on 6 January, and we exchanged views on what needs to
be done to avoid similar contamination and incidents in
the future. Today, I again contacted the German
Minister, as I was concerned by the recent news from
last weekend that a feed manufacturer did not provide a
full list of farms which received potentially
contaminated feed, and provided incorrect information
as regards the use of contaminated feed fat in compound
feed, resulting in an additional blocking of several
hundred farms.
This concerns a very serious infringement of EU food
safety provisions. Let me say it clearly: the German
authorities are fully engaged in dealing with this
contamination and are doing their best to deal with it
urgently and decisively.
I am informed that they are making available additional
capacity for testing so that this is done and finished in
the shortest possible time. However, it is important that
the wider implications for the approach towards the
safety of animal feed at EU level are also urgently
addressed. For this reason, a team from the Food and
Veterinary Office will visit Germany next week to assist
the German authorities and to inform our overall
knowledge and understanding of how this contamination
happened and how it can be avoided in the future. The
German authorities are informed and have agreed to this
visit. I know that we can count on the full cooperation of
our German colleagues.
This incident will also be discussed during the
Agricultural Council which will take place in Brussels
next Monday 24 January. As I have already mentioned,
we are reflecting on measures including legislative ones.
The incident has highlighted the necessity to ensure the
effectiveness of national control systems which underpin
the confidence of all EU Member States and third
countries in our food and feed safety measures. In order
to address this issue, I am exploring the possibility of
establishing a strict segregation of the production of fats
and oils intended for feed and food purposes from the
production of fats and oils for technical uses, and I am
considering the possibility of legal requirements on
reinforced controls on dioxins at different stages of the
feed chains.
I am confident that these measures when endorsed and
adopted will bring the necessary improvements to our
already solid food and feed safety systems.
1-061
Albert Deß, im Namen der PPE-Fraktion. – Frau
Präsidentin, Herr Kommissar! Vielen Dank, Herr
Kommissar, für die sachliche Darstellung dieses Dioxin-
Skandals in Deutschland. Mich macht es wütend, auch
als Landwirt, dass wir uns immer wieder mit solchen
Skandalen befassen müssen, bei denen die Ursache
anscheinend in Schlamperei, aber auch in krimineller
Energie liegt. Wir können noch so viele Gesetze und
Verordnungen auf den Weg bringen – wir haben in
Europa mit die strengsten Gesetze zur Produktion von
Lebens- und Nahrungsmitteln, wir haben die niedrigsten
Grenzwerte bei Inhaltsstoffen, die die Gesundheit
unserer Verbraucher gefährden könnten –, und trotzdem
sind wir vor solchen Gefahren nicht gefeit.
Deshalb muss es auch eine Forderung sein – und dafür
sind auch die Mitgliedstaaten zuständig –, dass dann,
wenn die Staatsanwaltschaft feststellt, dass kriminelle
Energie im Spiel ist, das Strafmaß massiv erhöht werden
muss. Solche Leute dürfen nicht mit Geldstrafen
davonkommen, hier sind Haftstrafen nwk1. Sie müssen
weggesperrt werden, damit sie solches Unheil nicht
mehr anrichten können.
Ich bin sehr froh, Herr Kommissar, dass Sie den
deutschen Behörden bescheinigt haben – das war auch
mein Eindruck in Deutschland –, dass hier die
entsprechenden Maßnahmen nacheinander ergriffen
worden sind. Es wird in Deutschland zum Teil ein
politisches Theater veranstaltet, das der Sache nicht
gerecht wird. Wir müssen uns alle zusammensetzen und
die strengen Bestimmungen, die wir haben, dort noch
ergänzen, wo es notwendig ist.
Sie haben eine Sache angesprochen, bei der Sie unsere
vollste Unterstützung haben. Auch ich bin dafür – und
ich spreche auch im Namen meiner Fraktion –, dass wir
bei der Produktion von Lebensmitteln und anderen
Produkten eine strenge Trennung einführen, damit
solche Vermischungen nicht erfolgen können. Unsere
Unterstützung haben Sie, Herr Kommissar, wenn es
darum geht, unsere Vorschriften und unsere
Verordnungen noch zu verbessern, damit solche
Skandale in Zukunft noch besser verhindert werden
können.
1-062
Ulrike Rodust, im Namen der S&D-Fraktion. – Frau
Präsidentin! Herr Kommissar, ich bin etwas erstaunt
über Ihre Ausführungen. Ich nehme die Presse –
zumindest in Deutschland – etwas anders wahr. Auch
mich macht es unglaublich wütend, dass es immer
wieder Skandale im Bereich der Lebensmittelsicherheit
gibt. Wir dürfen das nicht zulassen. Mir ist bewusst, dass
Verordnungen und Gesetze allein nicht verhindern
können, dass es kriminelle Machenschaften in diesem

30 17-01-2011
Bereich gibt. Aber wir müssen alles daransetzen, damit
es den Verantwortlichen so schwer wie möglich gemacht
wird. Die Kommission muss die Mitgliedstaaten
auffordern, ihr Strafmaß in diesem Bereich dringend zu
überprüfen. Ein mutwilliger und fahrlässiger Umgang
mit Lebensmitteln und Futtermitteln darf nicht mit
banalen Strafen vergolten werden. Oft ist es doch nur so,
dass Geldstrafen im Vergleich zu dem Gewinn so
niedrig sind, dass sie aus der Portokasse bezahlt werden.
Ganz wichtig ist es außerdem, die Anzahl der staatlichen
Kontrolleure zu erhöhen. Das aktuelle Beispiel in
Deutschland zeigt sehr gut, dass das Prinzip der
Eigenkontrolle große Mängel hat. Ich weise darauf hin,
dass es notwendig ist, dass das Verursacherprinzip in der
gesamten Kette konsequent greift – vom Futtertrog bis
zum Teller. Denn im Futtertrog fängt die Sicherheit
unserer Lebensmittel bereits an.
Es dürfen nicht Unschuldige das kriminelle Verhalten
anderer ausbaden. Bis jetzt ist nicht geklärt, wer für die
Verluste der Landwirte aufgrund des Dioxin-Skandals
aufkommen wird. Die in die Insolvenz gegangenen
Verursacher bestimmt nicht, denn da ist gar kein Geld zu
holen. Das kann nicht sein! Hier sollte über einen
europäischen Topf nachgedacht werden, in den die
Futtermittelhersteller alle einzahlen müssen. Die immer
wieder auftretenden Probleme bei der Lebensmittelsicherheit
machen eines immer wieder deutlich: Wir
müssen für die ganze Prozesskette, sowohl Lebens- als
auch Futtermittel, die komplette Rückverfolgbarkeit
sicherstellen. Hier sind die EU-Verordnung und die
nationalen Gesetze nachzubessern.
1-063
Corinne Lepage, au nom du groupe ALDE. – Madame
la Présidente, Monsieur le Commissaire, nous avons
connu quatre incidents de ce type en dix ans en Europe.
S'il faut se féliciter que notre système d'alerte ait
convenablement fonctionné, la survenance de ce type
d'incident est absolument inacceptable. La santé des
consommateurs européens ne peut pas être la variable
d'ajustement d'un système qui privilégie la réduction des
coûts et qui, effectivement, est un encouragement
indirect lorsque les sanctions sont aussi faibles qu'elles
le sont.
Et pourtant, Monsieur le Commissaire, nous avons
besoin, et vous le savez mieux que quiconque, d'avoir la
confiance de nos concitoyens. Dès lors, quelles actions
envisagez-vous? Vous avez parlé, et je m'en réjouis, il y
a un instant, d'obliger à séparer l'usage de la préparation
des graisses industrielles et des graisses destinées à
l'alimentation. Cela doit être une obligation, Monsieur le
Commissaire, et non pas une simple faculté dans le
processus de fabrication, pour que nous ayons beaucoup
plus de certitudes.
Deuxièmement, il est tout à fait anormal que
l'insolvabilité puisse être ainsi organisée. Quelles actions
peut-on mettre en place, Monsieur le Commissaire, pour
garantir que de tels actes ne restent pas impunis car la
responsabilité est encore le meilleur gardien de la
sécurité?
Et, enfin, en dernier lieu, quelles actions envisagez-vous
de mettre en place pour améliorer la surveillance établie
par les États? Il s'est quand même passé près de trois
semaines entre le moment où ont été livrées ces graisses
et le moment où l'alerte a été donnée. Ce n'est bien
entendu pas du tout la faute de la Commission, mais,
simplement, cela pose problème aux consommateurs
dans l'intervalle. Pensez-vous que nous pouvons
améliorer la situation sur ce point, Monsieur le
Commissaire?
1-064
Martin Häusling, im Namen der Verts/ALE-Fraktion. –
Frau Präsidentin, Herr Kommissar, liebe Kolleginnen
und Kollegen! Man muss feststellen, dass das Vertrauen
der Verbraucher wieder einmal ganz erheblich gestört ist
und die Verbraucher sich natürlich fragen: Was machen
die nationalen Behörden und was macht die EU, um
diesen Giftmischern das Handwerk zu legen? Im
Gegensatz zum Herrn Kommissar glaube ich, dass es
nicht etwa ein Zwischenfall oder ein dummer Zufall war.
Ich glaube, dass mittlerweile ein System dahintersteckt,
dass bestimmte Unternehmen mit dem Verschnitt von
Stoffen, die eigentlich nicht in die Futtermittel gehören,
Millionensummen verdienen und sich letztendlich aus
der Haftung stehlen und Bauern und Verbraucher die
Betroffenen sind.
Ich glaube, an diesem Punkt müssen wir ansetzen, und
man muss sich natürlich auch fragen: Setzt die Kontrolle
an der falschen Stelle an? Es gibt in Deutschland ein
Handvoll Unternehmen, die im Futtermittelbereich mit
Fett arbeiten. Warum setzt man da nicht gezielt in der
Kontrolle an? Warum verlässt man sich auf
Eigenkontrollen und bekommt eher zufällig Werte
geliefert, denen man dann vonseiten der staatlichen
Kontrolle hinterherlaufen muss? Das heißt, wir brauchen
europaweit eine risikobasierte Überwachung, und da
geht die Frage an Sie, Herr Kommissar: Was macht die
EFSA an dieser Stelle? Ist dies ein deutscher Fall, oder
gibt es in Europa weitere Fälle, die vielleicht nur nicht
entdeckt sind?
Wir brauchen – ich glaube, darüber herrscht
Einvernehmen – eine Positivliste, was eigentlich in die
Futtermittel hineingehört? Wir brauchen strenge
Zulassungsregeln für die Betriebe, und wir brauchen
eine Haftungspflicht und eine Trennung der
Warenströme. Aber ich glaube, wir brauchen auch – und
das muss man an dieser Stelle wieder sagen – ein
grundsätzliches Umsteuern in vielen Bereichen der
Politik. Denn schlussendlich sollte das Futter der Tiere
vom Acker kommen und nicht aus Industriebetrieben.
Die Bauern müssen wissen, womit sie ihre Tiere füttern,
und die Verbraucher müssen auch wissen, woher das
Futter kommt. Das müssen wir gewährleisten. Da
können und müssen wir bei der Agrarreform ansetzen,
dass wir hier wieder etwas zurückdrehen. Denn
letztendlich trägt die ganze Landwirtschaft den Schaden,

17-01-2011 31
den einige kriminelle Panscher hier anrichten, und das
müssen wir grundsätzlich verhindern!
1-065
James Nicholson, on behalf of the ECR Group. –
Madam President, I sympathise totally with the position
that many German farmers find themselves in at the
present time.
I had this experience about two years ago in Northern
Ireland when we went through a very similar exercise.
The people who really suffered in this were the farmers
who were not actually involved in any way at all. I think
the word ‘criminal’ has been mentioned here and there
are those with criminal intent who have been involved in
this. We have to ask why they do it, and whether they
are doing it to make a lot of extra money, as Mr
Häusling says. If they are, they should be prosecuted for
it.
But we should make it very clear that it is not those who
are producing food that are responsible. It is the
providers of the feed to those who are producing the
food that are responsible. We must take action against
these people to make sure that it does not happen and to
restore consumer confidence. I can well understand why
consumer confidence should be shaken at this moment.
As someone said, this has happened before and it should
not be allowed to happen again. Let us not simply go
wholesale and bring in new legislation. Let us
implement what we have.
1-066
Sabine Wils, im Namen der GUE/NGL-Fraktion. – Frau
Präsidentin! Mahlen, mischen, mogeln – das sind die
drei goldenen „M“ der Futtermittelindustrie in
Deutschland. Seit 1999 gab es allein in Deutschland fünf
Dioxin-Skandale. Futtermittelhersteller und Lebensmittelkonzerne
scheren sich dort offensichtlich nicht um
EU-Richtlinien und nationale Gesetze, wenn es darum
geht, mit billigen Lebensmitteln große Gewinne zu
machen. Der Wettbewerb um Niedrigstpreise im
Lebensmittelmarkt ist hart in Deutschland. Das Futter
für die Massentierhaltung soll daher möglichst billig
sein. Staatliche Kontrollen finden bei den Futter- und
Lebensmittelproduzenten kaum statt. Der Staat hat
zunehmend auf die Eigenkontrolle der Hersteller gesetzt
und qualifiziertes Personal eingespart. Unter diesen
Bedingungen konnten jetzt mit Dioxin kontaminierte
technische Fettabfälle aus der Biodieselherstellung in die
Futter- und Lebensmittelkette gelangen.
Der aktuelle Dioxin-Skandal hätte verhindert werden
können, wenn das Fett auf Dioxine untersucht worden
wäre, bevor es in das Futter gemischt wurde. Dann wäre
die Belastung rechtzeitig aufgefallen. Jetzt werden
wieder unzählige Verbraucherinnen und Verbraucher
zusätzlich mit Dioxinen belastet. 80 % des Dioxins, das
wir aufnehmen, kommt über tierische Lebensmittel –
also über Fleisch, Milch und Eier – in unseren Körper.
Foodwatch fordert zu Recht, dass Futtermittelhersteller
verpflichtet werden müssen, jede Charge einer
Futtermittelzutat auf Dioxine und PCB zu testen, bevor
sie das Futter mischen. Es darf keine einzige Zutat in das
Futter gelangen, die nicht die Grenzwerte einhält.
Hochbelastete Chargen müssen nachweisbar vernichtet
werden. Nur so können weitere Panschereien und
Verdünnungen von Schadstoffen verhindert werden.
Auch die Labore müssen verpflichtet werden,
Grenzwertüberschreitungen bei den staatlichen
Aufsichtsbehörden zu melden. Für Fleisch muss eine
Kennzeichnungspflicht zur Rückverfolgbarkeit
eingeführt werden. Die aktuellen und die bisherigen
Lebensmittelskandale in Deutschland haben gezeigt,
dass staatliche Routinekontrollen bei den Futtermittelherstellern
und den Tierproduzenten unabdingbar
sind. Wie wollen Sie das durchsetzen, Herr Kommissar?
1-067
Peter Liese (PPE). – Frau Präsidentin, Herr Kommissar,
liebe Kolleginnen und Kollegen! Verbraucher und
Landwirte müssen vor verantwortungslosen Futtermittel-
und Futterfett-Panschern besser geschützt werden. Ihnen
muss europaweit das Handwerk gelegt werden. Eine
Kollegin sprach gerade nur über Deutschland, aber wir
hatten leider Dioxin-Skandale und ähnliche Skandale in
der Vergangenheit auch in anderen Mitgliedstaaten.
Zunächst hat der Staatsanwalt das Wort, denn hier geht
es um kriminelle Handlungen. Ich hoffe, dass die
deutschen Staatsanwälte und die vielleicht noch
involvierten Organisationen aus anderen Ländern – es
wird ja auch von den Niederlanden als einem Teil der
Kette gesprochen – schneller arbeiten als die
Staatsanwälte in Irland. Dort sind nämlich erst jetzt die
Verantwortlichen für einen Skandal im Jahr 2008
verurteilt worden. Da müssen wir insgesamt schneller
werden.
Ich bitte darum, diesen Skandal – es ist ein Skandal – ins
richtige Verhältnis zu setzen. Die Werte waren maximal
vierfach erhöht. Das ist schlimm, und wir haben aus
guten Gründen einen Vorsorgewert, der nicht
überschritten werden darf. Aber der Vorsorgewert ist
bewusst so gewählt, dass wir erst bei hundertfacher
Überschreitung in die Bereiche kommen, wo im
Tierversuch langfristig Schäden festgestellt wurden. Es
geht also nicht um akute Gefahren, es geht um Vorsorge.
Bei dem Skandal in Belgien 1999 waren die Werte 700mal
so hoch wie der jetzige EU-Grenzwert. Außerdem
haben wir die Dioxinbelastung in der Umwelt seit 1990
durch Maßnahmen der EU – z.B. die Chemikaliengesetzgebung,
verbesserte Standards bei
Müllverbrennungsanlagen usw. – auf ein Zehntel
reduziert. Trotzdem brauchen wir in der
Nahrungsmittelkette Maßnahmen, die europaweit
ergriffen werden müssen. Wir brauchen Dioxin-
Monitoring, wir brauchen eine Trennung der Fette, ich
meine, wir brauchen ein EU-weites Reinheitsgebot für
Futtermittel, und wir brauchen eine bessere Absicherung
der Landwirte, die nichts dafür können, dass es in der
Futtermittelkette immer wieder zu solchen
Schlampereien und kriminellen Machenschaften kommt.
1-068

32 17-01-2011
Capoulas Santos, em nome do Grupo S&D – Senhora
Presidente, nunca é demais repetir que a Europa dispõe
de normas mais exigentes do que as que existem em
qualquer outra parte do Mundo no que diz respeito à
qualidade dos produtos alimentares e esta imagem não
pode ser posta em causa. Exigem-no os nossos
consumidores, os mercados para onde exportamos e os
nossos produtores, que fazem um grande esforço em
trabalho e investimento para as respeitar.
Se a contaminação, recentemente ocorrida na Alemanha,
tivesse acontecido em muitas outras partes do mundo,
nunca sequer provavelmente teríamos tido conhecimento
dela. Mas não. Aconteceu na União Europeia. E o que se
passou na Alemanha é inaceitável e deve ser, não só
cabalmente esclarecido, assim como rapidamente
responsabilizados os autores daquilo que parece tratar-se
de um crime e não de um acidente.
Não parece estar ainda totalmente esclarecida a origem
da contaminação e isto causa-me grande estranheza. Não
está claramente definida qual a responsabilidade das
autoridades alemãs sobre eventuais falhas no controlo.
Parece que o conhecimento se deveu a uma
comunicação da empresa e não a um controlo das
autoridades.
Não estão apurados os responsáveis e a gravidade desta
situação exige um esclarecimento objectivo por parte da
Comissão.
1-069
Britta Reimers (ALDE). – Frau Präsidentin, Herr
Kommissar, liebe Kolleginnen und Kollegen! Bei dem
jetzigen Dioxin-Vorfall geht es um mehr als nur um
einen Skandal. Hier wird den Menschen Europas ihr
Spiegelbild offenbart. Wie lange schon beklagen wir,
dass in der Landwirtschaft ein extremer Preis- und
Überlebenskampf tobt, angeheizt durch das unersättliche
Verlangen nach immer billigeren Lebensmitteln.
Dieser Kampf ist längst kein einfaches Kräftemessen
mehr, sondern es ist mehr. Und dabei greifen Einzelne
zunehmend häufiger zu immer kriminelleren Mitteln und
Methoden. Hierbei jedoch werden wir alle nur verlieren.
Wir können noch mehr Gesetze und Richtlinien erlassen,
wir können noch mehr Kontrollen mit noch mehr Kosten
durchführen, wir können noch härtere Strafen verhängen
– nichts davon wird gegen die kriminelle Energie eines
solch harten Existenzkampfs ankommen.
Wir müssen endlich die Ursache dieses Übels angehen.
Das Immer-mehr- und Immer-billiger-Wollen, muss
endlich sein Ende finden. Als Landwirtin habe ich die
Ohnmacht gegenüber solchen kriminellen
Machenschaften Einzelner – wie in diesem Fall – nun
direkt vor der Haustür erlebt. Ich habe mit meinen
Berufskollegen gezittert, wer denn nun als nächstes an
der Reihe ist und unschuldig in diesen Sog gezogen
wird.
Deswegen frage ich die Kommission: Was wollen Sie
und ihre Kollegen tun, damit Lebensmittel wieder mehr
Wert erhalten? Ich begrüße Ihre Vorschläge, aber Sie
werden das Hauptproblem nicht lösen.
1-070
Bart Staes (Verts/ALE). – Voorzitter, collega's,
mijnheer de commissaris, dit schandaal geeft me een
echt een déjà-vu-gevoel, want de crisis verloopt
inderdaad bijna identiek als twaalf jaar geleden in
België. Al te veel incidenten toonden de afgelopen tien
jaar aan dat er in de sector van de oliën en de vetten in
de diervoedersector nogal wat actoren rondlopen die
vanuit een gewetenloze hebzucht en op criminele wijze
bereid zijn fraude te plegen, fraude ten nadele van het
inkomen van boeren en boerinnen, fraude ten nadele van
de gezondheid van consumenten. Dat is onaanvaardbaar.
Vandaar dat er dus inderdaad nood is aan een soort
stresstest voor de bestaande wetgeving. Ik hoop dat de
landbouwraad daarop zal ingaan.
Maar er is ook nood aan controle en toezicht. Binnen de
sector is er nogal wat autocontrole. Welnu, op iedere
vorm van autocontrole moeten strengere extra controles
door de nationale overheden worden uitgevoerd. Dat
moet gebeuren in een goede ratio. Ten tweede vind ik
ook dat er meer controle moet komen van het Food &
Veterinary Office in Ierland. Er moet meer controle op
de controle komen. Ik heb gelezen dat er in de afgelopen
tien jaar maar drie missies hebben plaatsgevonden door
het FVO. Dat is te weinig, dat aantal moet omhoog.
Commissaris, wilt u het FVO instructies geven om het
aantal missies ter zake van dioxineproblemen op te
voeren.
1-071
Jaroslav Paška, za skupinu EFD. – Európska únia si za
dlhé roky svojho pôsobenia vytvorila nesmierne bohatú
štruktúru rozličných nariadení a predpisov, ktoré majú
u verejnosti vzbudiť dojem, že Únia dbá o čistotu a
kvalitu našich potravín. Na posilnenie tohto dojmu
zamestnala množstvo všelijakých odborníkov,
kontrolórov, veterinárov a úradníkov a vybudovala
bohaté inštitucionálne zázemie garantujúce akúsi
európsku kvalitu potravín.
No vážení, dnes vidíme, ako to funguje. Európa je
zaplavená ťažko kontaminovanými potravinami a naša
byrokratická mašinéria zjavne nevie, čo s tým. Pre
pochopenie vážnosti situácie si najskôr pripomeňme, čo
nám to kšeftári s potravinami naservírovali.
Vedecká komunita považuje dioxín za najjedovatejšie
chemikálie, ktoré kedy človek vyprodukoval. Sú
karcinogénom najvyššieho stupňa, ale spôsobujú aj
zníženie bunkovej a hormonálnej imunity, zvýšenú
náchylnosť na infekcie, zníženú plodnosť, zvýšenú
potratovosť, dysfunkciu vaječníkov, poruchy pôrodu,
zvýšenú úmrtnosť plodov, poruchy vývoja centrálnej
nervovej sústavy, patologické zmeny steroidných
hormónov a receptorov atď.
Nerozkladajú sa. Hromadia sa v tkanivách živých
organizmov a Svetová zdravotnícka organizácia uvádza,
že ak sa do priameho obehu dostane dioxín s veľkosťou

17-01-2011 33
jedného zrnka ryže, zodpovedá to množstvu ročného
limitu pre milión ľudí.
Dnes sa dodatočne dozvedáme, že nemecká spoločnosť
Harles and Jentzsch obohacovala dioxínmi krmivá pre
zvieratá a od marca 2010 dodala na trh až tri tisíc ton
dioxínmi znečisteného tuku. Podľa súčasných zistení
putovali kontaminované vajcia do Holandska, Veľkej
Británie, mäso do Francúzska a Dánska.
Pýtam sa preto, pán komisár, ako je možné, že podnik,
ktorý dodáva kŕmne zmesi tisícom farmárov, nie je
evidovaný v predpísanom systéme kontroly? Aká je
súčinnosť štátnych inštitúcií v Nemecku, keď sa podniku
umožní vyrábať kŕmne zmesi bez toho, aby bol súčasne
zaevidovaný do systému kontroly? Ako prebiehali
veterinárne kontroly na farmách, keď veterinárni
kontrolóri od marca 2010 do decembra minulého roku
nezistili kontamináciu krmiva? A vážení, ako to je s
likvidáciou týchto potravín? Hovoríme o likvidovaných
vajciach a likvidovanom mäse a čo...
(Rečník bol prerušený predsedajúcou)
1-072
VORSITZ: SILVANA KOCH-MEHRIN
Vizepräsidentin
1-073
Janusz Wojciechowski (ECR). – Pani Przewodnicząca!
Mamy do czynienia ze skandalem, ale skandal to za
mało powiedziane. To jest wielkie zagrożenie życia i
zdrowia dla tysięcy ludzi. Liczę na to, że winni zostaną
ustaleni i właściwie ukarani, ale ta sprawa niech będzie
też powodem do refleksji nad modelem rolnictwa, jaki
nam się wytworzył w Unii Europejskiej. Rolnictwo stało
się przemysłem. Już nie mamy hodowli zwierząt, tylko
produkcję mięsa, mamy wielkie fermy, mamy przemysł
paszowy i zwierzęta karmione paszami, i to z
dioksynami, paszami genetycznie modyfikowanymi,
niezbadanymi do końca, i ten model rolnictwa się nie
sprawdza. To jest model, który nie gwarantuje
bezpieczeństwa żywnościowego.
Wyjściem jest większy szacunek i respekt do takich
gospodarstw, jakie mamy jeszcze w Europie, w Polsce i
w innych krajach – opartych na własnej produkcji pasz.
Powinniśmy to popierać.
1-074
Kartika Tamara Liotard (GUE/NGL). – Commissie,
al in maart 2010 wist het verantwoordelijk bedrijf dat het
producten verkocht met gevaarlijk hoge
dioxineconcentraties. Hoe kan het dat dat bij geen enkele
overheidscontrole is gebleken, zodat er toen al
maatregelen hadden kunnen worden genomen? Zijn de
huidige mechanismen voor controle op onze
voedselveiligheid eigenlijk wel voldoende? Blijkbaar
niet, want dan had deze dioxinecrisis kunnen worden
voorkomen.
Voedselschandalen volgen elkaar op. Niet alleen
dioxinecrises, maar denk ook aan de kloonproducten die
vorig jaar ongezien in onze winkels terechtkwamen.
Regels zijn er genoeg, maar de controle op
voedselveiligheid moet beter en frequenter worden
uitgevoerd en bovendien moeten de uitkomsten van deze
controles openbaar worden. Het gaat hier om de
veiligheid van ons voedsel en om de gezondheid van
onze burgers.
Bovendien roep ik de Commissie op om de gedupeerde
boeren die zonder het te weten hun eigen vee
vergiftigden, te steunen bij schadeclaims tegen de
verantwoordelijke bedrijven.
1-075
John Stuart Agnew (EFD). – Madam President, I
would like to declare an interest: I am a British egg
producer.
The dioxin contamination appears to be a consequence
of the failure to adhere to the more rigorous processing
standards needed for animal feed, as opposed to the less
demanding process used to convert rapeseed to biofuel.
The EU’s enthusiasm for biofuels can therefore have
unintended consequences. In my view, however, this is
not a matter for the EU. It will not be solved by – and
certainly does not need – extra regulation. The Germans
have identified a problem, they have told us about it and
they are taking the necessary steps.
In the UK we have a comprehensive assurance scheme
called the Lion Code. It covers both animal feed
production in the mill and egg production on the farm,
thus ensuring that incidents like this are highly unlikely.
So, if any of you are insistent on top quality eggs, ‘ask
for the Lion’ and British producers will be delighted to
supply you.
1-076
Michel Dantin (PPE). – Madame la Présidente,
Monsieur le Commissaire, je crois qu'il faut d'abord
nous réjouir, car si nous parlons aujourd'hui d'une crise,
c'est parce que notre système a quand même fonctionné.
Nous possédons le système de protection du
consommateur qui se situe au niveau le plus élevé au
monde. Il faut que les consommateurs aient cela à
l'esprit actuellement. Mais le système n'a pas fonctionné
correctement et, avant d'en inventer un autre, je crois
qu'il faut effectivement examiner avec attention
complètement les raisons qui ont conduit à un tel retard
dans la découverte du problème et nous interroger sur les
causes de ce retard.
Mais il faut aussi – me semble-t-il – que nous nous
interrogions sur le pourquoi, au-delà de la dénonciation
de l'acte criminel. Je crois que nous avons engagé le
monde agricole et agroalimentaire dans une course aux
bas coûts, dans une course aux prix les plus bas en
matière de fourniture et nous ne sommes plus à l'abri de
ce genre de déviation avec des comportements qui ne
sont pas qualifiables.
Alors, Monsieur le Commissaire, envisagez-vous un
renforcement des pénalités pour de tels actes? Ma
deuxième question concerne la façon dont nous

34 17-01-2011
apporterons un soutien immédiat – je dis bien
immédiat – aux éleveurs concernés. Car les marges sont
tellement faibles que, si certains n'obtiennent pas des
soutiens très vite, voire des avances sur des sommes qui
leur seront dues un jour, ces éleveurs auront disparu le
jour où la procédure aura abouti suivant une vitesse que
je qualifierais "de normale".
1-077
Franz Obermayr (NI). – Frau Präsidentin! Darf ich die
Frage an meinen Vorredner richten? Er hat gesagt, dass
das System grundsätzlich funktioniert. Mich würde
interessieren, ob er weiß, dass nicht das System
aufgedeckt hat, sondern es Verbraucher waren, die hier
zum Aufdecken beigetragen haben.
Zum Zweiten möchte ich meinen Vorredner hinsichtlich
seines Informationsstandes fragen, ob er auch weiß, dass
es Studien gibt, wonach die Bürger sehr wohl gerne
bereit sind, etwas mehr zu zahlen, wenn sie die
Gewissheit hätten, dass die Produkte aus artgerechter
Haltung kommen und qualitativ hochwertig sind.
1-078
Michel Dantin (PPE). – Madame la Présidente, je pense
que le collègue qui a posé une question avait plus un
commentaire à faire sur une situation qu'une question à
me poser. Évidemment, nous savons que le système a
dérapé. Mais je voudrais souligner, vis-à-vis du
consommateur européen, la sévérité de notre système de
protection. Nous ne pouvons pas laisser dire sans arrêt
que rien n'est fait, alors que nous avons le standard le
plus haut au monde.
1-079
Paolo De Castro (S&D). – Signor Presidente, Signor
Commissario, onorevoli colleghi, ringrazio anch'io
innanzitutto il Commissario John Dalli per essere venuto
oggi in Aula a riferire su questo caso che allarma i
consumatori europei.
La prossima settimana anche la commissione
agricoltura, che mi onoro di presiedere, approfondirà
ulteriormente il dibattito sulle conseguenze di questo
grave episodio. Nonostante l'Europa sia molto
impegnata sul fronte della sicurezza alimentare, sono
necessari ulteriori sforzi in tema di trasparenza e
controlli per evitare altri casi di contaminazione
alimentare.
Ricordo che nell'ultimo anno il Parlamento ha approvato
una relazione di iniziativa sulla qualità dei prodotti
agricoli e soprattutto quest'Aula ha approvato in prima
lettura il regolamento sulle informazioni alimentari ai
consumatori, che ha introdotto l'indicazione obbligatoria
in etichetta del luogo di provenienza per i prodotti
agricoli. Un'importante novità che purtroppo, però, ha
avuto una battuta d'arresto l'8 dicembre in Consiglio
Salute. Noi in seconda lettura tenteremo di reintrodurla,
perché si tratta di un importante traguardo di tutela e
trasparenza per i consumatori europei.
Il Parlamento quindi si muove nella giusta direzione,
dimostrando di stare dalla parte dei consumatori.
Auspichiamo anche da parte del Consiglio e della
Commissione un atteggiamento analogo.
1-080
Marit Paulsen (ALDE). – Fru talman, herr
kommissionsledamot! Jag måste hålla med det som flera
av kollegerna redan påpekat, nämligen att den nuvarande
lagstiftningen till stor del fungerar. Det är inte där
problemet ligger. Problemet ligger istället i efterlevnad,
kontroll och sanktionssystem. Sanktionssystemen har vi
på EU-nivå inte rätt att lägga oss i, och vi måste komma
ihåg att om vi skriver lagar utan att det samtidigt finns
sanktionssystem så skriver vi väldigt många lagar rent ut
sagt i vatten, knappast ens på papper. Det fungerar inte.
Men kommissionsledamoten tog upp någonting som är
oerhört viktigt. Jag var föredragande för den förordning
som ligger till grund för foderkontrollerna.
Kommissionsledamoten tog upp frågan om den strikta
åtskillnaden av råvaror för foderindustrin och för
tekniska ändamål, i detta fall fett.
Mitt förslag för tio år sedan var att alla produkter av
tveksamt ursprung skulle färgas. För ärligt talat jag
tycker väldigt, väldigt synd om de bönder som gång på
gång ska drabbas av gift i fodret utan att de kan göra
något.
1-081
Licia Ronzulli (PPE). – Signor Presidente, onorevoli
colleghi, ho voluto essere uno dei firmatari di questa
interrogazione perché ritengo sia fondamentale, dopo
l'incidente avvenuto nelle scorse settimane, aprire un
dibattito sulla sicurezza alimentare.
Quanto sono veramente sani e nutrienti i prodotti che
ogni giorno milioni di cittadini europei consumano?
Siamo realmente certi che i prodotti presenti sulle nostre
tavole sono sicuri? La qualità delle materie prime è
fondamentale per garantire la genuinità del prodotto
finale; un controllo costante, dal campo alla tavola, è
l'unico mezzo per evitare la contaminazione dei prodotti
alimentari e per individuare immediatamente i potenziali
rischi.
Il nuovo incidente tedesco conferma la necessità di
rendere obbligatoria in tutti i prodotti, anche quelli
trasformati, l'indicazione di origine in etichetta, come ha
già sottolineato il collega De Castro. Dobbiamo tutelare
il diritto del consumatore a conoscere la provenienza di
ogni prodotto che sta acquistando e la sicurezza
alimentare dei nostri prodotti può essere garantita
soltanto con una condivisione di responsabilità di tutti
gli operatori.
È vero, già oggi la legislazione europea prevede controlli
e procedure per garantire che il cibo che arriva sulla
nostra tavola sia idoneo al consumo e i rischi di
contaminazione siano ridotti al minimo, ma il nostro
obiettivo deve ora essere quello di contribuire
quotidianamente al miglioramento della qualità degli
stessi.

17-01-2011 35
Sottolineo con orgoglio che domani il parlamento
italiano approverà una legge che estende l'indicazione
del marchio di origine obbligatorio a tutti i prodotti
alimentari oggi privi dello stesso. Finalmente sapremo la
provenienza di prodotti quali carni suine, anche il latte a
lunga conservazione, la frutta, la verdura e alcune bibite
come l'aranciata.
Spero che l'Europa prenda spunto da questa legge, io mi
impegnerò attivamente per garantire una più ampia
trasparenza, informazione e tutela dei diritti del
consumatore, strumenti che ritengo fondamentali per
favorire un'alimentazione sana e genuina.
1-082
Marita Ulvskog (S&D). – Fru talman! Den viktiga
frågan nu den är hur vi undviker nya skandaler, nya
risksituationer. Det är bra att kommissionsledamoten
åker till Tyskland och det är självklart att jordbruksrådet
måste diskutera saken. Det hade varit en skandal i sig
om de inte hade gjort det. Det behöver fortfarande göras
saker på det här området. Ja, vi behöver kraftfulla
sanktioner som medlemsländerna förstår att de måste
besluta om.
Framförallt behöver vi ett slut på självkontrollen. För
andra branscher och företag är det fullkomligt självklart
att det är oberoende myndigheter som ska övervaka att
regelverken efterlevs. Men det gäller alltså inte i den
bransch som handlar om att producera födoämnen som
vi människor lever på.
Att skylla på stordrift, lågpriskonkurrens och annat går
helt inte. Som konsumenter vill vi inte äta giftig mat. Vi
måste se till att konsumenterna får veta när de faktiskt
gör det och att de får reda på att de inte ska behöva göra
det.
1-083
Antonyia Parvanova (ALDE). – Madam President, the
December contamination in Germany which we are
discussing today and the blatant breach observed in our
food safety chain not only seriously put at risk the health
of thousands of consumers, but also revealed remaining
weaknesses in our food traceability system. It is indeed
more than worrying that the German authorities, and the
Commission itself, were not able to guarantee that none
of the contaminated raw products, such as eggs, entered
the food chain by being included as ingredients in
processed food.
Traceability is quite often seen as a burden for the food
industry, but it appears crucial when it comes to an
emergency situation such as the one discussed today and
should be considered as a prerequisite in protecting
consumers’ health and safety. I would therefore like to
put two questions to the Commission.
Firstly, can it now be certain and confirm that none of
the contaminated eggs or any single product affected
entered the food chain via their utilisation in processed
foods?
Secondly, does it intend to reinforce traceability and
information measures in order to guarantee an optimal
protection of consumers in future food crises with health
implications?
1-084
Elisabeth Köstinger (PPE). – Frau Präsidentin, sehr
geehrter Herr Kommissar! Die europäischen
Konsumentinnen und Konsumenten sind durch den
deutschen Dioxin-Skandal verunsichert und fordern zu
Recht höchste Sicherheit und lückenlose
Nachvollziehbarkeit in der Lebensmittelerzeugung.
Letztendlich wurde durch fahrlässiges Verhalten von
Futtermittelkonzernen das internationale Ansehen der
Landwirtschaft beschädigt. Die Kommission ist
dringlichst aufgefordert, das Vertrauen in die
europäische Qualitätsproduktion in der Landwirtschaft,
die höchste Standards erfüllt, wiederherzustellen.
Die lückenlose Ermittlung der Verantwortlichen und die
Schadensbegrenzung im deutschen Dioxin-Skandal sind
nur der Anfang. Es müssen rasche und umfassende
Maßnahmen getroffen werden, um solche Praktiken der
Futtermittelhersteller zukünftig zu verhindern. Die
Futtermittelkette ist keine Müllentsorgungsstelle und
Industrieabfallprodukte haben im Tierfutter nichts
verloren. Ich plädiere für schärfere und EU-weit
einheitliche Regeln, vor allem beim Transport. Bereits
eine Verunreinigung von Futtermitteln ist nicht zu
akzeptieren. Unabdingbar ist aber vor allem die
lückenlose und umfassende Kontrolle solcher Konzerne.
Kein Landwirt, der mehrmals jährlich überprüft wird,
kann die derzeit vorherrschende Kontrollpraxis von
Futtermittelkonzernen verstehen. Trotzdem ist
anzumerken, dass der gerade diskutierte Fall durch eine
Eigenanzeige ins Rollen gebracht wurde und die
zuständigen Behörden richtig reagiert haben.
Vor allem gilt es aber, das Augenmerk auf die zu
Unrecht geschädigten Bauern zu richten. Diese brauchen
dringend Unterstützung, denn der entstandene Schaden
darf auf keinen Fall auf sie abgewälzt werden. Tausende
Existenzen sind derzeit bedroht. Am vergangenen
Freitag brach der Erzeugerpreis im Schweinemastbereich
um 23 Cent je Kilogramm ein. Bereits zum
Jahreswechsel hatten die Mäster einen Rückgang von
13 Cent zu verkraften. Verschärft wird die Lage
dadurch, dass in den vergangenen Wochen die
Futterkosten stark gestiegen sind. Hier sind rasche
Lösungen gefordert. Das Vertrauen der Konsumenten in
landwirtschaftliche Produkte darf auf keinen Fall
aufgrund von Profitgier und Fahrlässigkeit verspielt
werden.
1-085
Catherine Stihler (S&D). – Madam President, as we
have heard, dioxin is a dangerous chemical which is
known to cause cancer, and in this instance it entered the
food chain when chemicals meant for use in biofuels
were accidentally used in animal feed.
Some test results from the Agriculture Ministry in
Schleswig-Holstein have shown that the fat in the feed
contained 77 times the approved amount of dioxin. The
Rapid Alert System for Food and Feed is designed to
protect European consumers from exactly these types of

36 17-01-2011
contamination. By the time the alarm was raised,
contaminated products were all over Germany and other
parts of the EU, even in UK quiches, which were
removed from supermarket shelves as a precautionary
measure.
This is not the first dioxin scare. We have had problems
with mozzarella from Italy, pork products in Ireland and
cattle products in Northern Ireland. What we want to
know from the Commission is why this rapid alert
system has again failed to protect consumers, and what
the Commission is going to do to put it right.
1-086
Σπύρος Δανέλλης (S&D). – Κύριε Επίτροπε, δώδεκα
χρόνια μετά το σκάνδαλο διοξινών στις βελγικές
ζωοτροφές, εντοπίστηκαν τώρα διοξίνες σε ζωοτροφές
στη Γερμανία, χώρα με παράδοση στην πειθαρχία και
τους αξιόπιστους θεσμούς. Αυτό σημαίνει ότι το
σύστημα ελέγχων δεν είναι επαρκώς αυστηρό,
στοχευμένο, διαφανές και αντικειμενικό και δεν
συνοδεύεται από επαρκή αντικίνητρα και κυρώσεις. Τα
κενά αυτά πρέπει να καλυφθούν με σοβαρότητα και
ευθύνη έναντι του καταναλωτή, ιδιαίτερα, σε μία εποχή
που η οικονομική κρίση ευνοεί την εξεύρεση αθέμιτων
λύσεων για μείωση του κόστους παραγωγής. Δεν είναι
δυνατόν να περιμένουμε ότι, ιδιαίτερα σε αντίξοες
οικονομικές συνθήκες, τα προβλήματα θα
αυτορρυθμίζονται στη βάση ενός συστήματος ηθικών
αξιών. Και βέβαια, οι καταναλωτές πρέπει να έχουν
άμεση και πλήρη πληροφόρηση για τον κίνδυνο στον
οποίο εκτίθενται.
Η Ευρωπαϊκή Ένωση υπερηφανεύεται ότι έχει θεσπίσει
αυστηρούς όρους για τη διασφάλιση της δημόσιας
υγείας, της προστασίας του περιβάλλοντος, της ευζωίας
των ζώων. Θα πρέπει όμως και να διασφαλίσει την
απαρέγκλιτη εφαρμογή τους εάν δεν θέλει η πολιτική
της να περιορισθεί απλώς σε...
(Η Πρόεδρος αφαιρεί το λόγο από τον ομιλητή.)
1-087
Franz Obermayr (NI). – Frau Präsidentin! Vorab: Für
mich ist es keine Fahrlässigkeit, sondern vorsätzlich
kriminell. Was brauchen wir? Wir brauchen ein paar
wichtige Punkte: eine zwingende EU-weite
Kennzeichnungspflicht. Aber nicht nur der
Schlachtungsort, sondern auch der Herkunftsort muss
vermerkt sein. Die Verbraucher werden gegenwärtig
bewusst getäuscht. Die Studien zeigen ganz klar, dass
die Leute gerne Geld ausgeben würden. Nur wollen sie
die Kette, woher das Produkt kommt und woher es auch
wirklich stammt, lückenlos nachvollziehen.
Zweitens: Wir brauchen strengere Kontrollen.
Schließlich waren es eben doch keine Lebensmittelkontrolleure
und auch keine EU-Agentur für
Lebensmittelsicherheit, die die Feststellung getroffen
haben, sondern das Unternehmen selbst.
Drittens brauchen wir eine klare Trennung von
Nahrungsmittelfetten und einer Fettherstellung für
technische Zwecke. Ich halte es da sehr mit Pythagoras,
der es wieder einmal sehr treffend formuliert hat: „Denn
alles, was der Mensch den Tieren antut, kommt letztlich
wieder auf den Menschen zurück.“
1-088
Mairead McGuinness (PPE). – Madam President, in
Ireland two years ago, in December 2008, we had a
problem. I wonder what the Commission has done in the
two years to avoid this current crisis.
I have a specific question: Member State authorities are
crying out for guidelines from the Directorate-General
for Health and Consumers. On the feed hygiene
regulations, they want guidance and a workshop. Will
you please make a commitment tonight to give them
what they are requesting?
I have three other points to make. We need very clearly
to identify the high-risk products, the high-risk
processors and the location and names of the high-risk
producers, and at the very least we need total
segregation of products that are destined for the animal
feed chain and thus for the food chain. It is not rocket
science.
We also need, as others have said, controls along the
way so that we detect those who continue to try and
break the rules to make money. Cutting costs is about
cutting corners. The problem is that it costs Europe
billions; it takes away consumer confidence and ......
(The President cut the speaker off)
1-089
Karin Kadenbach (S&D). – Frau Präsidentin, Herr
Kommissar! Ich bin keine Agrar-Romantikerin, d.h. ich
glaube nicht an die Werbesprüche von den glücklichen
Hühnern und den glücklichen Schweinen, weil ich
tagtäglich etwas anderes erlebe.
Aber ich glaube trotzdem, dass die Verbraucherinnen
und Verbraucher in Europa ein Anrecht darauf haben,
Lebensmittel vorzufinden, die sicher sind. Daher die
erste große Forderung: Wir brauchen strenge Kontrollen,
und wir brauchen strenge Strafen. Wir brauchen aber
auch – ich glaube, das hat die heutige Diskussion klar
gezeigt – eine andere Agrarstruktur in Europa. Heute
sitzt Kommissar Dalli vor uns, der für die Gesundheit
zuständig ist, und ein bisschen ist er heute derjenige, der
zum Handkuss kommt. Wir müssen auch in Richtung
Agrarreform gerade aus diesem Skandal heraus lernen
und in Europa für eine Struktur in der Agrarwirtschaft
sorgen, die auf der einen Seite die Bedürfnisse der
Landwirtschaft und der Landwirte erfüllt, auf der
anderen Seite aber auch die Sicherheit der
Verbraucherinnen und Verbraucher gewährleistet.
Ich würde darum ersuchen, dass wir aus diesem Skandal
wirklich lernen.
1-090
Richard Ashworth (ECR). – Madam President, we
have had a number of incidents like this over the years. I
would have thought that by now the importance of

17-01-2011 37
traceability and quality assurance would be well
understood and that the structures and regulations ought
to be in place to prevent incidents like this.
This raises a number of very serious concerns. Firstly, it
is extremely damaging to consumer confidence in the
food industry and, secondly, it is always the farmers who
are the innocent parties. It is always the farmers who
suffer a disproportionate effect when compared to the
consequences for the food-processing industry.
I am reasonably satisfied that the German authorities,
and the Commissioner and his team, took reasonable,
appropriate and swift action when they were aware that
there was a problem. Nevertheless, a number of very
serious questions arise – questions about the behaviour
of some sectors of the processing industry where,
clearly, more needs to be done by way of prevention,
more needs to be done by way of punitive powers where
the consequence of this action …
(The President cut the speaker off)
1-091
João Ferreira (GUE/NGL). – Senhora Presidente,
Senhor Comissário, a descoberta de produtos
contaminados com dioxinas e a sua disseminação por
diversos circuitos de comercialização constitui um facto
da maior gravidade.
Sem prejuízo de se apurarem cabalmente as
responsabilidades e as consequências deste facto e de se
rastrear o destino dos produtos contaminados, este
incidente convoca-nos a uma reflexão mais profunda
sobre o falhanço de todo o quadro regulamentar
existente.
Aqui está um exemplo das consequências de uma
política agrícola comum orientada para o mercado, que
promove modelos de produção intensiva de cariz
exportador, que favorece a grande agro-indústria e que
aniquila a pequena e média agricultura e a agricultura
familiar. Que inviabiliza em vez de promover, como
seria necessário, a produção e o consumo locais
susceptíveis de garantir uma muito maior
rastreabilidade.
Aqui está mais um exemplo de como também por razões
de saúde pública e de segurança e qualidade alimentar se
impõe uma profunda modificação da actual Política
Agrícola Comum.
1-092
Marc Tarabella (S&D). – Madame la Présidente,
Monsieur le Commissaire, on peut faire état d'un certain
ras-le-bol par rapport à ces crises à répétition, dont une
en Belgique en 1999, très similaire à la crise actuelle et
qui fut une crise à grand échelle.
Très clairement, nous avons les mesures les plus strictes
au monde. Je ne crois pas qu'il convienne de les alourdir.
Il faut simplement les faire mieux fonctionner. Et,
probablement, l'une des premières mesures à adopter
serait le renforcement des sanctions infligées à ces
criminels, car il ne s'agit évidemment pas de la
maladresse d'un lampiste, mais plutôt d'un crime
organisé par des criminels en col blanc, qui veulent
maximiser leur profit.
Deuxièmement, une autre priorité pourrait, semble-t-il,
être de renforcer et de mieux cibler les contrôles en
fonction des risques. Troisièmement, comme
Catherine Stihler l'a dit, le système Rapex, rapid
exchange, qui est normalement de nature à fonctionner
pour que tous les États membres soient avertis d'un
risque potentiel, a probablement manifesté certaines
faiblesses à cet égard.
J'aurais voulu votre opinion à ce sujet, Monsieur le
Commissaire.
1-093
Peter Jahr (PPE). – Frau Präsidentin! Die deutsche
Futtermittelindustrie hat ein gutes System der
Selbstkontrolle. Dieses System funktioniert allerdings
nicht bei krimineller Energie und bei kriminellen
Machenschaften. Wer vorsätzlich oder illegal verbotene
Mittel in Futtermittel beimischt, entzieht sich auch
vorsätzlich dieser Selbstkontrolle.
Für mich gibt es da in Ergänzung zu meinen Kollegen
noch drei wichtige Hauptschlussfolgerungen: Erstens
brauchen wir mehr staatliche Kontrolle. Zweitens
brauchen wir eine lückenlose Meldepflicht von
Futtermitteltestergebnissen, die auch bei entsprechenden
Kontrollen vorgehalten werden müssen. Drittens
brauchen wir für die, die kriminell werden, härtere
Strafen. Das ist kein Kavaliersdelikt, das ist mit Vorsatz
gemacht worden.
Zum Schluss müsste ich noch einmal daran erinnern,
dass in diesem Futtermittelskandal die Landwirte die
Hauptleidtragenden sind, die zurzeit ihre Produkte
überhaupt nicht bzw. nur mit großem Wertverlust
verkaufen können.
1-094
John Dalli, Membru tal-Kummissjoni. − Jiena meta
nisma' dawn il-kummenti, illi għalihom nirringrazzja lil
dawk kollha li ħadu sehem f'dan id-dibattitu, ma jistax
ikun ma nirriflettix fuq il-kritika li jkollna, mhux fuq
hekk biss, imma fuq kważi kull ħaġa li nagħmlu bħala
Ewropa, dwar il-burokrazija żejda illi aħna nimponu fuq
kulħadd meta nagħmlu regolamenti u meta aħna nesiġu
ċerti kontrolli. Ikollna konsumaturi, ikollna imprendituri,
ikollna negozjanti, kulħadd igerger illi qegħdin nimponu
ħafna xkiel biex l-affarijiet jimxu sewwa.
Però meta jinqalgħu każi bħal dan tad-diossina, naraw,
kif qed nisimgħu llum, kemm fil-fatt hemm bżonn illi
jkollna ċerti kontrolli kif għandna in place bħalissa,
kemm huma importanti u kemm jeħtieġ illi nkunu
assidwi fil-mod kif nistgħu aħna nimplimentawhom.
Bħala konsumatur niddejjaq ħafna illi niġi ffaċċjat
b'sitwazzjoni bħal din, illi, bħalkom il-konsumaturi u
bħall-konsumaturi kollha li għandna fl-Ewropa, jheddu
l-konfidenza li għandna fis-safety tal-prodotti Ewropej.
U nirrabja meta nagħraf li dan ikun qed jiġri minħabba

38 17-01-2011
nies li jkunu kisru l-liġi għax iridu jiksru l-liġi, u mhux
xi żball ordinarju.
Fil-fatt, kif għadu kemm qal l-aħħar kelliem li tkellem
illum, ebda sistema ma taħdem fejn hemm il-kriminalità.
Fejn ikollok nies li jridu jiksru l-liġi, ma tistax ikollok
sistema perfetta illi se tiggarantixxi li kollox se jmur
ħarir, li kollox se jmur tajjeb. U għalhekk l-importanti hu
illi nagħmlu minn kollox biex nassiguraw illi għandna xxibka
minsuġa tajjeb, b'toqob mill-aktar irqaq illi
minnhom dawn il-kriminali ma jistgħux jgħaddu.
Jiena, l-esperjenza tiegħi, ilni nagħmel leġiżlazzjoni
f'pajjiżi mill-1987, ili mat-23 sena nagħmel
leġiżlazzjonijiet u, kulmeta nagħmel liġi, dejjem nara li
l-problema kbira mhux il-klawżoli li se tagħmel fil-liġi,
però biex tipprova taħseb kif dik il-liġi se tiġi miksura u
għalhekk x'tista' tagħmel biex tikkontrolla biex ma
tinkisirx. U jiena naħseb issa li aħna qegħdin fil-fatt f'din
il-fażi tar-realtà. Aħna ma rridux illi jerġgħu jiġru dawn
l-affarijiet u rridu nagħmlu minn kollox biex naraw li ssistema
tagħna hija waħda li almenu min se jipprova
jiskappa, min se jipprova ma jaħdimx skont ir-regoli li
għandna u li aħna nagħmlu bejnietna lkoll, naqbduh u
naqbduh mill-aktar fis.
Nistgħu naġixxu meta aħna nkunu nafu b'dak li qed jiġri,
ma tistax taġixxi fl-injoranza ta' dak li qed jiġri. U
għalhekk kumment, pereżempju fuq ir-Rapid Alert
System, jiena ma ngħidx li r-Rapid Alert System ma
ħadmitx - ir-Rapid Alert System ħadmet tajjeb għax issekonda
li konna nafu bl-affarijiet, kulħadd kien
informat b'dak li qed jiġri. Dik hija r-Rapid Alert System,
u b'dak il-mod ħadmet ħafna.
U rridu naraw ukoll li nsaħħu kemm jista' jkun irregolamenti
u r-regolamentazzjoni li għandna. Jien
naqbel, pereżempju, ukoll ma' Ms McGuinness li qalet
dwar l-importanza li nagħtu lill-guidelines u li nesiġu li
dawk l-elementi fil-katina tal-ikel fejn hemm ir-riskju,
nagħmlu l-akbar kontrolli fuq dawn ir-riskji. U għal dan
il-għan, pereżempju, waħda mill-affarijiet li qegħdin
nipprovaw, jew li ser nissuġġerixxu hija li ma nibqgħux
biss f'ċerti elementi ta' riskju, naċċettaw sempliċi
reġistrazzjoni ta' kumpaniji, bħal pereżempju l-feed
mills, imma li jkun hemm approvazzjoni wara li jkunu
saru ċerta due diligence exercises fuq l-applikant kif
ikun.
Irridu wkoll nassiguraw li dak li ġara fil-fatt qiegħed taħt
kontroll. Jiena mal-awtoritajiet kompetenti fil-Ġermanja
qiegħed f'kuntatt kontinwu u jiena sodisfatt li qegħdin
jagħmlu dak kollu li hu possibbli biex, mhux biss
jikkontjenu s-sitwazzjoni kollha malajr kemm jista' jkun,
biex inkunu nafu l-informazzjoni kollha u sħiħa tassitwazzjoni
kemm jista' jkun malajr, però li jieħdu wkoll
azzjoni.
U jiena infurmat pereżempju li dak il-prodottur ta' feed
mill li ta informazzjoni qarrieqa, għaliex kien qal li
ssupplixxa biss għaxar farms meta fil-fatt kien
issupplixxa disa' mija, dan diġà qiegħed taħt proċeduri li
ttieħdu mill-prosekuzzjoni ġewwa l-Ġermanja, għaliex
din kienet informazzjoni ħażina li setgħet ġabet ħafna
konsegwenzi. Aħna wkoll nistgħu nassiguraw li lprodotti
li marru barra mill-Ġermanja, bħal, pereżempju,
bajd, li kien intiż biex ikun jista' jiġi użat ukoll għallmanifattura
tal-ikel, ġie użat fil-manifattura tal-ikel, però
billi kien ukoll imħallat imbagħad ma' prodotti oħrajn li
ma kinux Ġermaniżi, meta ġew ittestjati dawn ilprodotti,
instab li l-livell tad-diossina kien baxx ħafna.
U rrid nagħmel hawnhekk l-aħħar kumment, għax il-ħin
għadda: fil-fatt naqbel ukoll jien li kemm jista' jkun
ikollna sanzjonijiet mill-aktar ħorox kontra min jabbuża.
Wieħed irid jifhem però li dan it-tip ta' miżuri mhumiex
xi ħaġa li nistgħu nagħmluhom aħna bħala
Kummissjoni, jew nistgħu nimponuhom aħna bħala
Kummissjoni, imma huma affarijiet li l-Istati Membri
jridu kemm jista' jkun jinfurzawhom fil-pajjiż tagħhom.
1-095
Die Präsidentin. − Die Aussprache ist geschlossen.
1-096
14 - Abkommen EU/Kamerun über das
Recht im Forstsektor - Abkommen
EU/Republik Kongo über das Recht im
Forstsektor - Freiwillige FLEGT-
Partnerschaftsabkommen (Aussprache)
1-097
Die Präsidentin. − Als nächster Punkt folgt die
Gemeinsame Aussprache
– Forstrecht (Kamerun, Republik Kongo)
– Abkommen EU/Kamerun über das Recht im
Forstsektor
Empfehlung von Yannick Jadot im Namen des
Ausschusses für internationalen Handel (A7-0371/2010)
Empfehlung zu dem Vorschlag für einen Beschluss des
Rates über den Abschluss eines freiwilligen
Partnerschaftsabkommens zwischen der Europäischen
Union und der Republik Kamerun über Rechtsdurchsetzung,
Politikgestaltung und Handel im
Forstsektor sowie über die Einfuhr von Holzprodukten
in die Europäische Union (FLEGT)
[12796/2010 - C7-0339/2010 - 2010/0217(NLE)]
– Abkommen EU/Republik Kongo über das
Recht im Forstsektor
Empfehlung von Yannick Jadot im Namen des
Ausschusses für internationalen Handel (A7-0370/2010)
Empfehlung zu dem Vorschlag für einen Beschluss des
Rates über den Abschluss eines freiwilligen
Partnerschaftsabkommens zwischen der Europäischen
Union und der Republik Kongo über Rechtsdurchsetzung,
Politikgestaltung und Handel im
Forstsektor sowie über die Einfuhr von Holzprodukten
in die Europäische Union (FLEGT)
[10028/2010 - C7-0170/2010 - 2010/0062(NLE)]
– Anfrage zur mündlichen Beantwortung
[2010/3015(RSP)] an die Kommission über FLEGT -
Freiwillige Partnerschaftsabkommen mit Kongo und
Kamerun und weitere geplante freiwillige

17-01-2011 39
Partnerschaftsabkommen von Yannick Jadot, Catherine
Bearder, David Martin, Joe Higgins, Daniel Caspary (O-
0202/2010 - B7-0802/2010) im Namen der
Fraktion der Grünen / Freie Europäische Allianz
Fraktion der Allianz der Liberalen und Demokraten für
Europa
Fraktion der Progressiven Allianz der Sozialisten und
Demokraten im Europäischen Parlament
Konföderale Fraktion der Vereinigten Europäischen
Linken/Nordische Grüne Linke
Fraktion der Europäischen Volkspartei
(Christdemokraten)
1-098
Yannick Jadot, rapporteur. − Madame la Présidente,
Monsieur le Commissaire, chers collègues, je voudrais
déjà exprimer à tous mes collègues mes remerciements
pour le travail que nous avons mené en commun sur
cette question, qui a permis que l'ensemble des groupes
politiques de ce Parlement ait une position commune et
soit amené à poser une question orale et à rédiger une
résolution qui accompagne les accords de partenariat
volontaire.
Le sujet est d'importance. Vous le savez tous, la forêt
recule. Toutes les deux secondes dans le monde, c'est
l'équivalent d'un terrain de football qui est détruit, c'est
en un an l'équivalent du territoire de la Grèce qui est
déforesté et c'est évidemment dramatique. C'est
dramatique du point de vue de la diversité: ce sont
quelques milliers d'espèces végétales et animales qui
sont mises en danger alors que les forêts les plus
touchées – les forêts tropicales – comprennent la moitié
de la biodiversité terrestre. C'est évidemment dramatique
aussi du point de vue des changements climatiques: la
déforestation contribue à hauteur de 20 % à l'effet de
serre. Enfin, la déforestation met en danger quelques
centaines de millions de personnes qui, soit vivent dans
les forêts, soit vivent de la forêt.
L'exploitation et l'industrie forestières figurent parmi les
principales causes de la déforestation, en particulier,
dans la zone qui nous intéresse aujourd'hui: le bassin du
Congo. On estime que 20 à 40 % du bois coupé et
échangé dans le monde est du bois illégal. La question
que nous évoquons aujourd'hui est donc évidemment
essentielle.
Ces accords de partenariat volontaire ont été approuvés
dans le cadre de la procédure d'approbation au sein de la
commission du commerce international. Cette procédure
permet, grâce au traité de Lisbonne, au Parlement
européen de s'exprimer mais, en même temps, il peut
uniquement dire oui ou non. C'est donc pour cela que ce
débat est extrêmement important, parce qu'il nous
permet de rentrer davantage dans le détail et qu'il vous
permet, Monsieur le Commissaire, en tant que
représentant la Commission, de répondre aux questions
que vous adresse le Parlement.
Ces accords sont importants, ils permettent d'assurer la
traçabilité du bois. Ils mettent aussi en place des
procédures de vérification indépendantes, et
accompagnent les politiques et la gouvernance
forestières dans les pays concernés. Aujourd'hui, nous
parlons du Congo Brazzaville et du Cameroun.
Mais déjà un premier point avant de rentrer dans ces
accords et dans les questions du Parlement: il faut bien
faire la différence entre le bois légal et le bois durable.
Évidemment, nous traitons ici de la légalité du bois mais
qui dit légalité du bois ne dit pas durabilité de
l'exploitation forestière.
Donc, la première question générale que je poserais à la
Commission est: comment la Commission s'engage-telle
à assurer la cohérence globale autour de la question
des forêts – l'année 2011 est l'année internationale des
forêts – en prenant en compte ce qui a été dit à Nagoya,
en prenant en compte ce qui a aussi été décidé à Cancun,
notamment sur le mécanisme REDD-plus et en tenant
compte également des accords commerciaux négociés
qui parfois, en libéralisant le commerce du bois,
participent à la déforestation?
Ensuite, nous attendons toujours une réponse de la
Commission européenne sur la question des
agrocarburants et des changements indirects d'affectation
des sols. Vous savez que le Parlement vous a demandé
d'intégrer ces enjeux dans les critères d'évaluation de
durabilité des agrocarburants.
Concernant plus spécifiquement les accords de
partenariat volontaire, il y a beaucoup d'éléments
positifs: nous avons fortement apprécié le travail de
négociation et, notamment, d'association des acteurs de
la société civile au Cameroun et en République du
Congo; on sait que ce n'est pas facile et de ce point de
vue là, il apparaît que ces accords de partenariat
volontaire sont un succès.
Mais, comme je le disais tout à l'heure, un certain
nombre de questions et de demandes demeurent:
Monsieur le Commissaire, êtes-vous prêt à venir, par
exemple, tous les six mois ou six mois après la signature
d'un accord, nous rendre compte de la mise en œuvre de
l'accord? Parce qu'il est évident que, entre la qualité de
la négociation et la mise en œuvre, il peut y avoir une
grande différence. Nous souhaiterions donc que vous
veniez nous dire si les acteurs, notamment les acteurs de
la société civile, continuent à être associés à la mise en
œuvre. Dans des pays où il n'est pas toujours facile de se
plaindre, notamment quand il y a de la corruption, est-ce
qu'il est prévu des mécanismes de plaintes – notamment
indépendants – qui permettraient à ces acteurs de la
société civile de dénoncer une mauvaise mise en œuvre,
de dire que leur parole n'est plus écoutée? De la même
façon, nous souhaiterions que vous fassiez régulièrement
rapport sur les impacts de la mise en œuvre de ces
accords, pour que vous nous disiez où nous en sommes,
à la fois en termes de cohérence globale de l'action de la
Commission sur les forêts, et en termes de mise en
œuvre spécifique sur la question de la légalité du bois.
Enfin un dernier élément: vous prétendez que, dans ces
accords, il n'y a pas de budget. Or, il va évidemment

40 17-01-2011
falloir des budgets pour accompagner ces politiques,
donc pouvez-vous clarifier la question budgétaire autour
de ces accords de partenariat volontaire?
1-099
Catherine Bearder, author. − Madam President, the
tropical rainforests in Cameroon and the Congo are
precious and we must welcome this voluntary agreement
to address the sustainability of the harvesting of the
timber that they contain.
The forests belong not only to the people of these
countries but they are part of the ecosystem of the
planet, they are key to the life-sustaining systems and
they contain billions of tons of carbon.
Halting deforestation is one of the ways that we should
be tackling climate change, and governments around the
globe have been trying to do this for years. These two
countries should be congratulated for their courage and
foresight in signing up to these voluntary agreements
with the EU.
However, regulating and enforcing these agreements
will prove a challenge. Heaven knows, building in
sustainable management of our own continent’s
resources is hard enough. But the will is there and for
that we should be very pleased. Careful management can
bring down illegal and unsustainably imported timber.
At the moment the amount of timber that is illegally
harvested and imported into the EU constitutes almost
one fifth of the timber products on our markets, despite
Parliament and others trying to tackle this. Enforcement
will be made easier with the involvement of local people
and civil society in these countries, and we must ensure
that their right to be heard and involved is maintained
and listened to. After all, they have the most to lose if
their forests are removed.
The widespread removal of tropical timber is driven by
an insatiable appetite for products to grace our homes.
We should value this resource better and take greater
care of the resource that not only sustains a whole host
of plant and animal species but is slow-growing and
takes many years to reach maturity.
We must take care not to undermine our own efforts to
fight deforestation and climate change by
simultaneously providing the largest market for illegal
timber products in the world.
The result of these agreements may mean that tropical
timber reaches a higher price, and that is something that
we should not object to. It is not only a limited resource,
but it is the only thing that local people have to sell.
They know the true value of their resource and with this
agreement, so will we.
These people are our eyes and ears in the forest and we
need their help to enforce the agreements. They need us
to support their ability to voice any concerns. These
agreements are a two-way process and we look to you,
Commissioner, to be able to enforce it.
The VPAs (Voluntary Partnership Agreements) are good
for the planet, good for our partner countries and good
for the EU. We must ensure that the agreements work
and that any breaches are monitored and addressed.
Then we must look to other countries in Africa, Asia and
South America to sign up to similar agreements as soon
as possible and I look forward to working with you and
the Commission to achieve this.
1-100
David Martin, author. − Madam President, let me begin
by thanking Yannick Jadot for his exemplary
cooperation with his shadows. We all worked extremely
well on this report and I am delighted – as he has said –
that we managed to reach a broad consensus.
The agreements with Congo and Cameroon, taken
together with Ghana, means that some of Africa’s most
vulnerable forests are now covered by Voluntary
Partnership Agreements. The existence of these
agreements, as the two previous speakers have said, is to
be warmly welcomed. They provide a mechanism for
tackling the massive illegal trade in timber. They
provide an opportunity for the better management of a
vital natural resource and, hopefully, they will bring
greater transparency and help us tackle corruption in the
forest sector, which unfortunately in Africa is endemic at
the moment.
But, while welcoming these agreements, I nevertheless
share with the rapporteur a number of concerns. I would
just like to express three this evening.
First and foremost, the danger – it is not the intention,
but there is a danger – of agreeing such a framework is
that it is seen as providing a framework for large-scale
exploitation of our forests, leading to the opposite of the
purpose of the agreement, namely further degradation
and further deforestation, thus contributing to the very
destruction of the global environment we are trying to
avoid. What we want is an agreement that contributes to
the conservation and sustainable management of our
biodiversity resources. I agree with the rapporteur that
this means that the Commission has to constantly
monitor the situation and report back regularly on how
the agreement is progressing.
Secondly, indigenous people, who are so often the
victims of environmental exploitation, should benefit
from this agreement. The promise in the Voluntary
Partnership Agreement by the Congolese Government to
promote a law ensuring that the rights of indigenous
people are promoted and respected must be delivered
upon. Again I urge the Commission, in their contact with
the Government, to continually press for the delivery of
this promise until it is there on the statute book in the
Congo.
Thirdly, we must ensure – and I agree with Catherine
Bearder who mentioned this – that appropriate funds are

17-01-2011 41
available to properly implement this Agreement. No
matter how good an agreement is on paper, without the
resources to carry it out, it is a meaningless piece of
paper. As has been indicated, there are no financial
packages attached to the Agreement itself. It is up to us
– both the Commission to propose, and Parliament and
Council to put into the budget appropriate budgetary
facilities – to make this Agreement work. That means
we need to have money to verify the legality of timber
coming into the European Union, we need money to
train, equip and give the technical expertise to those
operating in the African countries we have VPAs with,
and we also need resources to carry out the monitoring
that I have already mentioned.
So we need to make sure, in the coming months, that we
deliver the financial framework to make a success of
these agreements. I repeat that these are good
agreements but, like all agreements, they will depend on
the goodwill and vigilance of individuals – the nongovernment
organisations, the Member States, the
Congolese and Cameroon Governments – to deliver on
their promises to make sure these agreements work in
practice. They should lead to better management of our
forests and better management of vital global resources
but, if wrongly handled, they could take us in the
opposite direction. We look to the Commission to keep a
beady eye on the progress that is being made.
1-101
Joe Higgins, author. − Madam President, we agree with
the general approach of Yannick Jadot to this issue. I
welcome any agreement that guarantees protection of the
rainforests of our planet, if such agreements also
advance the protection of the indigenous people of the
forest and give a better life to the majority of the people
in the countries concerned.
It must be said at the start that both the Republic of
Congo and Cameroon have highly repressive
governments. Cameroon is very high in the Corruption
Index kept by Transparency International, and in the
Republic of Congo there has been horrific exploitation
of some sections of the population, notably the pygmy
people, although a new law has just been passed and
people will wait to see what this does to protect
indigenous people.
The logging industry in these countries is implicated in
corruption and in the exploitation of workers and the
deforestation involved is a huge threat to the livelihoods
of the indigenous people. It is for this reason that the
original resolution of the European United Left Group
calls for the logging industry to be in public ownership
and under democratic control, crucially involving
workers in the industry and the indigenous communities
in the forests affected by logging.
The Left’s resolution also points out that illegal logging
is related to poverty levels in the countries concerned. It
can provide an income for individuals and their families
who would otherwise go hungry, and therefore ending
illegal logging is also linked to ending the poverty and
deprivation of many communities in the relevant
countries.
This will not be done by the corrupt local elites, nor by
European multinational corporations whose key
motivation is private profit, but by the forestry workers
and the indigenous peoples themselves taking
democratic ownership of their resources. In this sense,
the people of sub-Saharan Africa can take inspiration
from their brothers and sisters in Tunisia in their heroic
struggle against a corrupt dictatorship over the past
weeks.
1-102
Daniel Caspary, Verfasser. − Frau Präsidentin! Meine
geschätzten Kollegen mehrerer Exportländer von
tropischem Hartholz haben begonnen, freiwillige
Partnerschaftsabkommen mit der EU im Rahmen des
FLEGT-Aktionsplans zu unterzeichnen. Die
Europäische Union wird die Reformen für eine
verantwortungsvolle Forstverwaltung und für einen
Kapazitätsausbau unterstützen, insbesondere die
Einführung von Herkunftssicherungs- und Legalitätsnachweissystemen
für Holzprodukte.
Was mir besonders wichtig ist: Wenn es der
Verbesserung der Transparenz und der Verhinderung
von Umweltschäden bei forstwirtschaftlichen
Tätigkeiten hilft, dann ist es gut, dass die Partner die
Verpflichtung eingehen, geltende Rechtsvorschriften zu
ändern und zu verbessern. Ausdrücklich begrüße ich
auch, dass sich die Europäische Union verpflichtet hat,
beim Aufbau von Kapazitäten in den holzerzeugenden
Ländern Unterstützung zu leisten, vor allem bei der
Einführung von Herkunftssicherungs- und Legalitätsnachweissystemen
für Holz und Holzprodukte.
Zwei weitere Punkte möchte ich nennen: Die
freiwilligen Partnerschaftsabkommen werden von der
Idee getragen, dem Handel mit illegal geschlagenem
Holz und daraus hergestellten Erzeugnissen gemeinsam
ein Ende zu setzen und einen Beitrag dazu zu leisten, der
Entwaldung, der Waldschädigung und deren Folgen in
Gestalt von CO2-Emissionen sowie dem Verlust der
biologischen Vielfalt weltweit Einhalt zu gebieten.
Eine weitere großflächige Ausbeutung der tropischen
und anderer besonders artenreicher Wälder mit hoher
Kohlenstoffspeicherkapazität ist nicht zu verantworten
und kann zu einer weiteren Entwaldung und
Waldschädigung führen und somit weltweit verheerende
Folgen für die Umwelt haben.
Deshalb sind diese Abkommen ein kleiner, aber ein
guter Schritt in die richtige Richtung. Ich teile
ausdrücklich die angesprochenen Punkte meiner
Vorredner, danke dem Berichterstatter für die gute
Zusammenarbeit und würde mich freuen, wenn wir mit
diesen Abkommen wirklich vorankommen könnten, um
unsere Welt ein Stück besser zu machen.
1-103
Andris Piebalgs, Member of the Commission. − Madam
President, I would like to start by thanking the

42 17-01-2011
rapporteur, Mr Jadot, for his support for the Voluntary
Partnership Agreements on Forest Law Enforcement,
Governance and Trade with Congo and Cameroon. I
hope this House will follow the recommendations for
consent to conclude these two agreements. This would
also encourage the parliaments in both Cameroon and
Congo to complete their consideration.
It is important that both the European Union and our
partner countries endorse the VPAs, since illegal logging
is a problem for all. I know that illegal logging is just the
visible tip of the iceberg. Basically we are talking about
starting to work together for sustainable management of
forestry resources. And, to answer one of the
rapporteur’s suggestions immediately, I could say that,
yes, I am ready to come here every six months, as
Parliament calls me, to monitor the implementation of
these agreements.
It is true that this is a commitment. There are risks but
this is the only way, in my opinion, to achieve really
sustainable management of this resource, because if we
do not do this, we will not manage to be successful
through declarations alone.
For our partner countries there is a lot of commitment,
but I believe that one important factor is the loss that
results from illegal logging. Each year, USD 10-15
billion is lost in revenue. Illegal logging also has
extremely negative consequences for indigenous
peoples, for biodiversity and in terms of climate change.
At the same time, it is also important to emphasise that
the EU is one of the biggest markets for tropical wood.
This means that our approach is extremely important in
how the whole issue is being addressed. Of the tropical
wood arriving in the EU, 20% comes from illegal
sources, so we have an obligation to ensure that we
source only legal wood.
The climate change issue is another concern for
everyone, and the protection of forests needs to start
somewhere. It is very simple to say that we need to pay
to protect forests: it is a simple formula, but applying it
requires a lot of commitment from both sides.
I shall try to answer a couple of questions that have been
put to me. On enforcement and implementation, the
VPA establishes a joint committee to monitor
implementation of the agreement. It will also establish
an independent audit to analyse the legality assurance
system and its effectiveness and efficiency. There is also
an annual reporting mechanism, and the annual report
will be made public and will definitely be available to
the European Parliament.
Moreover, in preparation for the VPAs, we have
involved civil society and indigenous peoples. Until now
they had been completely left out of the process, so we
have agreed, under the new agreements, to set up multistakeholder
committees to monitor, or guide, the
implementation process where indigenous people are
involved.
In addition, the VPAs include a complaints mechanism,
and the independent auditor will have access to, and will
rely on, information from a wide array of sources,
including civil society and communities.
There is a definite cost in terms of resources. Between
2002 and 2008, the EU contributed EUR 544 million to
forestry in general in the developing world, some of it
directed to FLEGT work in individual countries. The
Commission has so far spent a further EUR 35 million to
support FLEGT more generally, and we will spend
EUR 35 million more between 2011 and 2013. I would
emphasis, too, that Member States also make fiscal
contributions.
We have also dedicated human resources to the
implementation of FLEGT. I have seven civil servants
dealing with this, and they are working closely with the
European Forest Institute and national forest authorities.
An additional effort has been made in the form of the
Illegal Timber Regulation, adopted in 2010 as a key
element of the FLEGT action plan, and this will
complement the VPA approach. It will discourage
unregulated, unsustainable exploitation of forests.
The recent agreement in Cancún on action to reduce
emissions due to deforestation and forest degradation
(known as ‘REDD’) will facilitate further Commission
support for developing countries. Our future work on
forest governance through VPAs will be helped by the
fact that REDD makes provision for governance and for
observance of the rights of indigenous peoples and
members of local communities.
I take note of the human rights situation in partner
countries. I agree with the draft motion for a resolution
that the Commission should continue to focus on these
issues. I can assure you that we keep human rights issues
at the centre of our political dialogue with the partner
countries, and I can assure you that the fight against
corruption is one of the issues we address when dealing
with the partner countries.
But I would emphasise one particular point that
represents encouragement for the whole process: the fact
that partner countries feel engaged. Without real
engagement from our partner countries, given all the
weaknesses at administrative level, we cannot protect
forests more effectively.
I know that this is the start of the process, but it is a start
being made by both sides, and I am always ready to
come to Parliament to report on how the implementation
is going. However, with FLEGT we are definitely not
taking a wrong step. It is a step in the right direction: we
are not increasing the risk. Perhaps we are not providing
entirely sufficient solutions, but at least it is a decent
step that we can be proud of.

17-01-2011 43
1-104
IN THE CHAIR: Diana WALLIS
Vice-President
1-105
15 - Composition of Parliament : see
Minutes
1-106
16 - EU-Cameroon forest law agreement -
EU-Republic of Congo forest law agreement
- FLEGT voluntary partnership agreements
(continuation of debate)
1-107
President. − We now return to the debate.
1-108
Eva Joly, rapporteure pour avis de la commission du
développement. − Madame la Présidente, Monsieur le
Commissaire, chers collègues, ces accords de partenariat
entre l'Union européenne, le Cameroun et le Congo
devraient être en principe une bonne nouvelle pour ces
populations, une bonne nouvelle pour la biodiversité.
Mais ce n'est qu'une étape d'un long processus que le
Parlement européen suivra avec vigilance.
Si nous voulons que cet accord permette la mise en place
d'un commerce du bois réglementé, transparent,
respectueux de l'environnement, au bénéfice des
populations locales et non plus de quelques groupes plus
ou moins légaux, l'Union européenne doit faire en sorte
que les droits des populations locales et indigènes soient
pleinement respectés et que leur participation aux
consultations soit effective. Elle doit aider au
renforcement des capacités des acteurs, à la lutte contre
la corruption, à la mise en place d'une véritable
gouvernance forestière.
Les accords ne doivent pas être un prétexte pour
perpétuer le pillage des ressources naturelles des pays en
développement, mais bien permettre un rééquilibrage
des relations entre l'Union européenne et ces pays.
1-109
Christofer Fjellner, för PPE-gruppen. – Fru talman!
Dessa s.k. Flegt-avtal som vi ska rösta om i morgon
rörande Kongo och Kamerun är viktiga europeiska
verktyg, eller vapen, i kampen mot illegal
skogsavverkning. Därför välkomnar jag dem.
Den illegala skogsavverkningen är ett väldigt stort
problem, så väl miljömässigt som ekonomiskt och
socialt. Det är samtidigt viktigt att komma ihåg att det
sällan är själva sjukdomen, i detta fall den illegala
avverkningen, som skapar förutsättningar för handeln
med illegalt timmer. Den är snarare ett symptom och en
följd av många andra sjukdomar som i många fall är
ännu allvarligare – fattigdom, avsaknad av äganderätt,
korruption och i vissa fall krig.
Problemen är som störst i några av världens allra
fattigaste länder. Därför är jag väldigt glad över att
kommissionen tagit fasta på det när man utformat och
förhandlat fram avtalen. Man har så att säga bytt
frihandel i utbyte mot att de berörda länderna gör
reformer för att stärka äganderätten, bekämpar
korruption och se till att införa en vettig
skogslagstiftning.
Att man skjuter in sig på grundorsakerna snarare än
symptomen är det som talar mest för att det vi gör
imorgon är ett steg i rätt riktning. Samtidigt är det viktigt
att komma ihåg, framför allt inför kommande
förhandlingar med andra länder, att när vi bekämpar
handeln med illegalt avverkat timmer så får vi inte
hindra fattiga länder från att exportera en av sina mest
värdefulla råvaror. Vi får inte göra det svårare för dem
att använda det här fantastiska naturmaterialet som trä
är. Det goda inte blir det bästas fiende.
Jag vill påminna om att mitt land Sverige en gång i tiden
blev rikt just genom att exportera timmer. Den
möjligheten får vi inte förhindra för dagens fattiga
länder. När ni nu går vidare och förhandlar fram avtal
hoppas jag att ni fortsätter kampen mot just illegalt
avverkat timmer och inte mot handeln med trä.
1-110
George Sabin Cutaş, în numele grupului S&D. –
Comisia Europeană a început procesul încheierii unor
acorduri de parteneriat voluntare cu ţări care exportă
lemn în Uniunea Europeană. În acest context, consider
că este importantă elaborarea unei structuri de
participare activă a comunităţilor locale, atât pentru
monitorizarea punerii în aplicare a acordului, cât şi
pentru ameliorarea cadrului de guvernanţă din sectorul
forestier şi, nu în ultimul rând, cu scopul de a evita, pe
cât posibil, corupţia.
Implicarea societăţii civile în procesul de elaborare a
acordului cu Camerun reprezintă un semnal pozitiv în
acest sens. Totodată, măsuri concrete sunt necesare
pentru continuarea acestui tip de dialog în toate ţările
semnatare. Trebuie urmărită, de asemenea, clădirea unei
industrii a lemnului durabile din punct de vedere social
şi de mediu, inclusiv prin reducerea despăduririi şi a
degradării forestiere în aceste ţări. Acordurile trebuie să
respecte angajamentele internaţionale ale Uniunii
Europene în ceea ce priveşte mediul şi dezvoltarea
durabilă.
1-111
Chris Davies, on behalf of the ALDE Group. – Madam
President, we are debating Voluntary Partnership
Agreements. These are lovely words, they are good
words: they represent a European Union that is not
trying to impose its will upon developing nations but is
trying to lend a helping hand to achieve common goals.
Yet the practicalities of an agreement with a state the
size of Congo create all sorts of daunting problems.
The size of the state alone is something akin to that of
Europe; the governance for much of that state is nonexistent;
corruption levels are quite extraordinary –
Transparency International puts the Republic of Congo
almost bottom of its league table.

44 17-01-2011
Then there is the number of staff we have working to
ensure that this agreement delivers on its goals – just a
handful of people; the profits of illegal logging are
absolutely vast and perhaps greater than anything we can
offer by way of compensation; and the markets for
illegal wood are in countries like China, which may not
be paying anything like the attention that we pay, and
the respect that should be paid, to maintaining forests.
All these problems suggest that voluntary partnerships,
however good our intentions, will have difficulty
delivering the goals. So what assurances can the
Commission give us that every possible step will be
taken to ensure that our high ambitions here will truly be
realised, and that we can all have confidence that these
voluntary partnership agreements, as we make them in
future, will deliver on the goals we have set?
1-112
Anna Rosbach, for EFD-Gruppen. – Fru formand!
Jordens skove er verdens lunger, og vi skal gøre alt,
hvad vi kan, for at beskytte dem. I en tid med en hurtigt
voksende verdensbefolkning og dermed et generelt
voksende behov for ressourcer, udflyttende
arbejdspladser til fjerne verdensdele og en økonomisk
krise ser jeg hellere, at vi i EU bruger mere europæisk
træ, end at vi importerer eksotisk træ fra lande, hvor det
er svært at kontrollere ulovlig skovhugst, og hvor vi
tilligemed ikke kan styre korruptionen.
Når vi fjerner tropiske skove, forringer vi biodiversiteten
i områderne og er med til at udrydde en lang række
truede dyrearter og ændre klimaet. Og det er helt
unødvendigt! Især når der eksisterer glimrende
alternativer. For hvis vi igen lærer at rejse mere skov i
Europa og bruger mere europæisk træ, vil disse
problemer forsvinde. Hvorfor skal vore haveborde være
af regnskovstræ, eller hvorfor er eksotiske parketgulve
smartere end gulve af EU-træ?
Men når det er sagt, og da jeg ikke kan stoppe EUborgernes
brug af eksotisk og tropisk træ, er det vigtigt,
at de her foreliggende aftaler bliver vedtaget. Det er
vigtigt, at vi er med til at sikre en bedre kontrol med de
træprodukter og det træ, vi importerer. Vi skal forsøge at
sikre os mod korruption, hvilket er ekstremt svært, hvad
aftalerne da også bærer præg af. Derfor har jeg heller
ingen illusion om, at vi hermed får udryddet al illegal
skovhugst i hverken Cameroun eller Congo - desværre!
Jeg havde hellere set bindende aftaler i stedet for
frivillige. Men det er klart, at det er bedre med frivillige
aftaler end slet ingen aftaler, og derfor støtter jeg dem.
Generelt håber jeg dog at se flere initiativer til
beskyttelse af verdens skove, især når det gælder EU's
aftaler med lande fra problematiske dele af verden.
1-113
Andreas Mölzer (NI). – Frau Präsidentin! Das
Partnerschaftsabkommen mit Kamerun im Forstsektor
ist meines Erachtens zwar löblich und kommt im
Internationalen Jahr der Wälder der EU auch aus
Imagegründen sehr gelegen. Aber ob das Abkommen
das Papier wert ist, auf dem es unterschrieben wird,
muss leider bezweifelt werden.
Immerhin steht Korruption in Kamerun auf der
Tagesordnung. Umweltorganisationen werfen dem Staat
vor, dass der Regierung Umweltverbrechen der
Forstindustrie sehr wohl bewusst sind, Korruption aber
die Kontrolle und die Strafverfolgung verhindert.
Immerhin sollen ausländische Firmen mehr als 60 % der
Holzgewinnung und Holzverarbeitung und drei Viertel
des Holzexports kontrollieren. Nur wenn sichergestellt
ist, dass sich ausländische Firmen nicht länger an
einheimischen Firmen, denen das Forst- und Umwelt-
Know-how völlig fehlt, abputzen, und wenn Kamerun
die Korruption in den Griff bekommt, hat ein solches
Abkommen Sinn. Bei aller Sorge über die Vernichtung
der Regenwälder darf diese nicht als Vorwand dienen, in
Europa den Waldbesitzern die Nutzung der Wälder zu
versagen, denn die meisten EU-Länder weisen eine
vorbildhafte Waldbewirtschaftung auf.
1-114
Filip Kaczmarek (PPE). – Pani Przewodnicząca!
Miesiąc temu wraz z delegacją Komisji Rozwoju byłem
w Republice Konga, gdzie rozmawialiśmy również o
inicjatywie FLEGT z przedstawicielami władz,
ekspertami i organizacjami pozarządowymi.
Przemysł drzewny jest branżą bardzo ważną dla tego
kraju. Jest drugim źródłem dochodów eksportowych po
ropie naftowej. Warto przypomnieć, że to, co się dzieje z
dochodami z ropy naftowej i z ich wykorzystaniem nie
jest dla nas do końca przejrzyste i jasne, albo
przynajmniej informacje są przekazywane z dużym
opóźnieniem. Jednocześnie rząd Republiki Konga
wyraża troskę o przyszłość obszarów leśnych i planuje
dużą akcję zalesiania. Oczywiście nie wiemy jeszcze,
czy ten program zalesiania się powiedzie, ale na pewno
warto życzyć rządowi Konga, aby tak się stało. Dlatego
też takie ważne jest, aby wzmocnić legalny obrót
drewnem. Równie istotne jest to, aby FLEGT
funkcjonował w krajach sąsiednich, dlatego że inaczej,
np. wskutek przemytu, porozumienie może się okazać w
praktyce nieskuteczne.
Nie wiemy też jeszcze, czy standardy, które promujemy
w zakresie legalnego handlu drewnem staną się
obowiązujące i funkcjonujące globalnie – niektórzy
mówcy zwracali już na ten problem uwagę. Tak czy
inaczej musimy się starać, aby ten system okazał się
skuteczny. Musimy też pomóc w wywieraniu presji na
innych importerów (spoza Europy), aby stopniowo
eliminować nielegalny handel drewnem.
Inicjatywa FLEGT ma znaczenie zarówno dla
ograniczenia ubóstwa, jak i dla ochrony środowiska,
powstrzymywania zjawisk wylesiania oraz rozwoju
zróżnicowanej gospodarki w wielu krajach. W
przypadku Republiki Konga idzie to w parze z inną
potrzebą, a mianowicie z potrzebą rozwoju rolnictwa i
zmniejszenia importu żywności. Dzięki FLEGT
światowy handel drewnem może stać się bardziej

17-01-2011 45
sprawiedliwy, bardziej zróżnicowany i bardziej
przyjazny środowisku. Mamy nadzieję, że tak się stanie.
1-115
Κρίτων Αρσένης (S&D). – Κύριε Επίτροπε, τα
συγχαρητήρια μου για την ουσιαστική ολοκλήρωση των
διαπραγματεύσεων για τις δύο αυτές συμφωνίες. Θα
ήθελα όμως να εκφράσω την ανησυχία μου γιατί έχουν
παγώσει οι διαπραγματεύσεις FLEGT με την Ινδονησία
και τη Μαλαισία.
Κύριε Επίτροπε, έχετε στα χέρια σας, ως Επιτροπή, ένα
σημαντικό εργαλείο: τον κανονισμό για την ξυλεία.
Αυτός ο κανονισμός εξαιρεί τις χώρες με τις οποίες έχει
συναφθεί συμφωνία FLEGT από τις διαδικασίες που
προβλέπει ο κανονισμός. Είναι ένα σημαντικό εργαλείο
για να δώσουμε νέα δυναμική στις διαπραγματεύσεις.
Χρειάζεται πράγματι να ολοκληρώσουμε τις συμφωνίες
FLEGT με όλες τις χώρες που έχουν σημαντικά τροπικά
δάση είτε στην Ασία είτε στη Λατινική Αμερική, αλλά
και με τους μεγάλους μεταπράτες της ξυλείας, όπως το
Βιετνάμ, η Καμπότζη, το Λάος, η Κίνα και τόσες άλλες
χώρες.
Αυτές οι χώρες ακολουθούν τη δική τους πορεία·
θεσπίζουν τις δικές τους διαδικασίες για να
εκσυγχρονιστούν και να μπορούν να παρακολουθούν τη
νόμιμη υλοτόμηση. Το ερώτημα είναι: εμείς κάνουμε
ό,τι χρειάζεται; Τα 27 κράτη μέλη παίρνουν τις
κανονιστικές αποφάσεις για την εισαγωγή ξυλείας από
χώρες FLEGT;
Τέλος, για τον κανονισμό της ξυλείας απαιτείται μία
σειρά κατ’ εξουσιοδότηση πράξεων. Έχουμε δύο χρόνια
μέχρι την πλήρη εφαρμογή του κανονισμού. Η Επιτροπή
πρέπει να επισπεύσει τις διαδικασίες, να προχωρήσει
στις κατ’ εξουσιοδότηση πράξεις για να γνωρίζουν οι
χώρες τις λεπτομέρειες στις οποίες πρέπει να
προσαρμοσθούν.
1-116
Seán Kelly (PPE). – A Uachtaráin, gan dabht ar bith is
ceist i bhfad níos tábhachtaí é seo ná an phoiblíocht a
gheobhaidh sé.
1-117
One of the great scandals of the 20 th century was the
continuous and systematic chopping down of forests,
especially in the Third World, done not by individuals
who knew no better and cannot be faulted, but by big
greedy businesses and corrupt governments. That is why
this agreement is to be welcomed wholeheartedly and I
hope it will be implemented, because if it is not, it will
not be worth the paper it is written on.
On the broader front, we also have to ensure that other
policies of the European Union do not contribute to
continued deforestation. I am referring to the proposed
agreement on Mercosur which many people feel will
encourage farmers to chop down the forests in those
countries so that they can export agricultural products
into Europe.
So we have to be vigilant.
1-118
Go raibh maith agat.
1-119
João Ferreira (GUE/NGL). – Senhora Presidente, a
exploração de madeira ilegal em países da África
Central, como os Camarões e o Congo, constitui uma
ameaça à integridade de recursos de que depende a
existência e o modo de vida das comunidades locais e
das populações indígenas. Uma ameaça a um
ecossistema repositório de uma enorme biodiversidade e
com uma importância muito grande na regulação dos
ciclos biogeoquímicos.
Perante o avanço da destruição da floresta tropical nesta
região – alimentado, é bom não o esquecermos, pela
procura de operadores e importadores dos países
industrializados, particularmente da União Europeia – a
solução não pode ser legalizar o que hoje é ilegal, ou
seja, a exploração insustentável da floresta, legitimando
de alguma forma a usurpação da terra às comunidades
locais e a ocupação de extensas áreas de floresta por
empresas madeireiras, como vem sucedendo.
A política de cooperação e de ajuda ao desenvolvimento
da União Europeia tem aqui um papel muito importante,
apoiando uma diversificação da economia destes países
e invertendo um modelo assente na dependência elevada
da exploração e exportação de um número reduzido de
matérias-primas para os países industrializados.
1-120
Paul Rübig (PPE). – Frau Präsidentin! Ich glaube, dass
das Thema Holz uns in Zukunft noch weit intensiver
beschäftigen wird. Deshalb ist es für das Abkommen
wichtig, dass man dem Bereich Forschung eine
dementsprechende Unterstützung gibt und vor allem
auch im Bereich der Aus- und Weiterbildung schaut,
dass die kleinen und mittleren Betriebe in Kamerun und
im Kongo die Möglichkeit bekommen, sich ökologisch
in diesem Bereich entsprechend weiterzuentwickeln.
Deshalb freut es mich, dass diese Diskussion stattfindet.
Es ist für uns alle wichtig, dass der Bedarf an Holz auch
in Zukunft sichergestellt ist.
1-121
Franz Obermayr (NI). – Frau Präsidentin! 40 % der
Fläche Kameruns sind von Wald bedeckt. Noch, müssen
wir sagen, denn Kamerun ist zwar der größte
Tropenholzexporteur Afrikas, aber in keinem anderen
Land werden die Wälder so massiv abgeholzt.
Experten schätzen, dass in 10 bis 15 Jahren die
ökologisch wertvollen Baumarten aus dem Kongo-
Becken verschwunden sein werden, wenn die
Abholzung so weiter geht. Was ist zu tun? Wesentlich
für den Schutz der Tropenwälder Kameruns ist vor allem
die Bekämpfung der Korruption, sowohl auf
Beamtenebene, aber auch bei den privaten Pächtern,
weiterhin eine wirksame Strafverfolgung und natürlich
eine nachhaltige Fortwirtschaft. Wo viel gefällt wird,
muss auch etwas nachwachsen. Und ganz wesentlich ist
eine bessere Ausbildung der Holzarbeit, um frühe
Schäden beim Abholzen zu vermeiden.

46 17-01-2011
Vor allem sind die europäischen Unternehmen in die
Pflicht zu nehmen, denn rund 80 % des Ertrags werden
nach Europa verschifft. Hier muss die EU auch
entsprechend ansetzen, um direkt durchzugreifen.
Freiwilligkeit ist gut, doch in diesem Zusammenhang
kommen wir mit ihr auf keinen guten Grund und auf
keinen grünen Zweig. Wir müssen die Unternehmen in
die Pflicht nehmen!
1-122
Andris Piebalgs, Member of the Commission. − Madam
President, the debate definitely went beyond the scope of
this Voluntary Partnership Agreement. It is not only
trade that affects forests: the forest is an energy resource
for these countries, and population growth also has an
impact on the forest.
So I would like to emphasise again that this is a first step
in addressing just one of the areas of concern. I know
that it is not a solution, but you have to start somewhere
in addressing the issues.
Also, I would not like to discourage you with regard to
the level of commitment of the countries concerned. I
know that dealing with these countries is sometimes not
simple, but they are countries with a difficult history.
They got their independence 50 years ago, and not
exactly in the same circumstances as some of our
countries got independence, so things take time. It takes
time to establish state institutions capable of fighting
corruption or establishing the management of resources,
and they are on the right track. In Africa, in particular,
they have economic growth even in times of crisis, and
this means they are getting stronger and getting better.
I realise this is just one indicator, but overall there has
been encouraging news, and the only way we can
improve the process is by working together. That is
where we come in with sustainable forest management:
we are talking about Congo-Brazzaville (the Republic of
the Congo) and Cameroon today, but we are also
working with the Democratic Republic of the Congo and
with Indonesia. We are still negotiating but we have
high hopes of a positive conclusion.
So I would say that the risks here are minimal.
Commitment is the starting point and I look on this
process as a very positive one.
We should also consider the global commitment to fight
climate change. Cancún gave some assurances that other
parts of the world also take things seriously in that
regard. We are not the only ones who would like the
world to be fair and sustainable, and other parts of the
world will learn from us.
Let us take, for example, energy efficiency drives. We
made a start, and other parts of the world have followed.
The same applies to resource efficiency. If we can use
less timber, then other parts of the world will definitely
learn from our example. I believe there are a lot of ways
in which we can lead.
Last but not least, I would like, once again, to guarantee
that the Commission will conduct monitoring, not only
by my own staff but also through the EU delegations and
the Member State delegations that we have. This is one
of the processes in which we share our efforts with the
Member States. The Commission does not simply work
alone and, in many respects, Member States’ experience
has been particularly crucial in concluding this voluntary
partnership agreement.
I would ask this House really very much to deal with this
consent process because I believe it is a healthy process,
it goes in the right direction and at the same time does
not provide the answers on all the issues that you have
raised today.
1-123
Yannick Jadot, rapporteur. − Madame la Présidente,
Monsieur le Commissaire, une nouvelle fois merci aux
collègues qui sont intervenus. Je crois que nous sommes
à peu près tous intervenus dans le même sens: rappeler
ce point essentiel à travers l'APV, qui est le lien entre le
développement, l'environnement et le renforcement de la
société civile.
Je crois qu'aujourd'hui, s'il y a un levier sur lequel on
peut construire un développement durable dans ces pays,
notamment les pays africains, c'est évidemment le
renforcement de la société civile. Tant que, dans ces
pays-là, le seul ou le principal élément de démocratie, ce
sera le vote pour le président, on le voit bien – l'histoire
de la Côte d'Ivoire nous le rappelle malheureusement –
on n'avancera pas suffisamment.
Donc, le renforcement de la société civile, le fait qu'elle
soit partie prenante permanente dans la mise en œuvre
de ces accords, dans le suivi de l'exploitation forestière,
dans la discussion sur les conditions de cette exploitation
forestière et sur le partage des revenus liés à cette
exploitation forestière, est essentiel.
C'est à travers ce renforcement de la société civile aussi
qu'on répond le mieux à l'argument qui nous est présenté
souvent sur la question de la Chine. Pourquoi faudrait-il
répondre aux critères d'une coopération forte avec
l'Europe, des critères sociaux, démocratiques,
environnementaux, alors que la Chine nous offre un
boulevard en matière de corruption ou de pillage? Eh
bien le renforcement, justement, de cette société civile,
est le meilleur rempart à ce système que tente
notamment d'imposer la Chine dans les pays du Sud.
Et puis, vous l'avez dit, Monsieur le Commissaire,
l'Europe est un grand marché pour les bois tropicaux,
mais c'est aussi – et c'est essentiel pour tous les
exploitants, pour toute l'industrie – un marché stable et
rémunérateur et cela, c'est très important aussi comme
levier dans ces pays.
Merci de votre souhait de travailler avec le Parlement
européen. Nous sommes très heureux de cette
collaboration à venir.
1-124

17-01-2011 47
President. − The debate is closed.
The vote will take place on Wednesday (19 January
2011).
1-125
17 - Interim Partnership Agreement
between the EC and the Pacific States -
Interim Partnership Agreement between the
EC and the Pacific States (debate)
1-126
President. − The next item is the joint debate on
– the report by David Martin, on behalf of the
Committee on International Trade, on the
recommendation on the draft Council decision on the
conclusion of the Interim Partnership Agreement
between the European Community, of the one part, and
the Pacific States, of the other part (05078/2010 – C7-
0036/2010 – 2008/0250(NLE)) (A7-0365/2010),
– the oral question to the Commission on Interim
Partnership Agreement between the European
Community, of the one part, and the Pacific States, of
the other part, by Vital Moreira, David Martin, on behalf
of the Committee on International Trade (O-0212/2010 -
B7-0807/2010).
1-127
David Martin, rapporteur. − Mr President, firstly I
would like to say that I know that, for good reasons,
Commissioner De Gucht cannot be with us this evening.
I would like to thank him for taking the trouble to call
me last week and explain why he is unable to be here,
and I would like to thank him and his team at DG Trade
for their cooperation, and in particular Martin Dihm for
all his assistance.
I have tried, in my role as rapporteur, to follow on from
the good work of the previous rapporteur, my former
colleague Glyn Ford. I am fortunate that the adoption of
Glyn’s resolution in 2009 meant that Parliament already
had a clear position on the EC-Pacific Interim Economic
Partnership Agreement. Parliament’s formal position
then is the one that I have tried to follow in my report
and question today.
I would like to thank Donatella Pribaz, who was the
committee administrator responsible. This turned out to
be her last report for the committee before her
promotion, so I would like to wish her well in her new
job and thank her for making my task here easier.
Finally, in terms of acknowledgements, I would also like
to welcome the presence here of the Ambassador for
Papua New Guinea and to thank him and his staff for
their close collaboration. The insights they provided
allowed me to make specific input to the report.
Firstly, I would like to make a few general remarks on
the agreement and the regional context. Secondly, I plan
to discuss three specific aspects of the EPA which I
believe it is important to highlight: namely Aid for
Trade, the Fijian political situation and fisheries.
Thirdly, I will comment on the future of EC-Pacific
trading relations.
In terms of the background and regional integration, this
interim – or goods only – EPA has been negotiated with
two Pacific states – Papua New Guinea and Fiji. These
are the two Pacific island states that have the highest
levels of trade with the EU and have key exports
destined for the EU market: tuna and sugar respectively.
The EPA gives Papua New Guinea and Fiji duty-free
and quota-free access to the EU market in return for the
gradual liberalisation of their markets over a 15-year
period. Papua New Guinea has committed to liberalising
88% of EU imports on the date of application of this
agreement, and Fiji will liberalise 87% over a 15-year
period.
The remaining 12 Pacific states either enjoy duty-free
and quota-free access through the Everything But Arms
scheme or, because of their low level of trade with the
EU, have very little interest in an interim EPA.
Nevertheless, I believe it is important that, as we move
towards a full EPA, we should pursue our objective of
regional integration and continue to press for a full EPA
involving all the Pacific states.
In terms of the content of the resolution, Parliament has
to consent to this agreement before it can be ratified. We
will vote on Wednesday – as you have indicated,
Madam President – on two different reports, firstly on
consent, which I am recommending that we give, and
secondly on the accompanying motion for a resolution.
There are other issues in the motion for a resolution but,
as I have said, I want to comment particularly on three.
First, regarding Aid for Trade, funding for
implementation is crucial to achieving the agreement’s
objectives of economic diversification and poverty
alleviation. It is important that a fair and equitable share
of the EUR 2 billion set aside in the 2007 Aid for Trade
Strategy is directed towards the Pacific region. It is also
important to highlight that this interim EPA was
conceived as a short-term measure to safeguard the
Pacific’s trade preferences following the World Trade
Organisation (WTO) ruling.
Bearing that in mind, it should not be seen as a sign of
EU acceptance of the political regime in Fiji. I would
urge the Fijian Government to make moves towards
democracy. I hope that the necessary reforms can take
place to allow financial support for the Fijian sugar
industry to be allocated.
On fishing, the fisheries sector plays a key role in Papua
New Guinea’s economy and – importantly – provides
employment and income to its citizens. In the three tuna
processing plants which export to the EU there are 5700
employees, the majority of whom are women. This is a
country where it is sometimes difficult to find good
employment for women.

48 17-01-2011
I support the purpose of the flexible rules of origin in
this agreement, namely to develop the processing
industry, but it is essential that the industry develops in a
sustainable manner. Environmental considerations are
paramount and I have asked, in my report, for the
Commission to monitor this aspect and to report back
regularly to Parliament on compliance with the
regulation on illegal, unreported, and unregulated
fishing.
I appreciate that there are some concerns in this House –
and specifically in the Committee on Fisheries – about
the potential impact of Papua New Guinea’s tuna
imports on the EU industry. However, when we look at
the latest figures, we can see that during the period
2003-2009, imports made up around only 2% of total
preserved and prepared fish imports and around only 3%
of preserved and prepared tuna imports. I do not believe
that this low level of imports will threaten the domestic
EU industry, especially if we take into account the
limited capacity of the Pacific states’ fishing fleets and
the limited on-land processing capacity.
Nevertheless, it is of course right that we should
continue to monitor the situation and that, if there are
any unexpected increases in fishing products coming
from Papua New Guinea, the Commission should take
appropriate action. As I mentioned earlier, I hope that
the Pacific states can agree a comprehensive regional
EPA.
In my report I have recommended the inclusion of
several points of substance in future negotiations, which
I hope the Commission will take into account. These
include intellectual property. Too often we talk about
intellectual property from one side only, but I hope that
we will look at intellectual property in terms of
including traditional knowledge. I also hope we will add
transparency in government procurement as well as
provision for issuing working visas of up to 24 months.
As we move towards a full EPA, I hope the Commission
will involve all the Pacific states but, in the meantime,
let us press ahead and get the interim EPA with PNG
and Fiji on the books and working as a demonstration of
what we can achieve in the future.
1-128
PRESIDENZA DELL'ON. GIANNI PITTELLA
Vicepresidente
1-129
Andris Piebalgs, Member of the Commission. − Mr
President, I would like to thank the rapporteur for his
report and particularly for his positive attitude on
consent to the interim Economic Partnership Agreement
with the Pacific states of Papua New Guinea and Fiji. I
hope that this House will follow his advice.
Consent by the European Parliament – for the first time
on a trade agreement under the Lisbon Treaty – has
important political significance because this is a trade
agreement with a long-term development focus and
because of the momentum it will provide to ongoing
negotiations on the comprehensive EPA with the Pacific
region.
Back in 2007, the immediate purpose of the interim
agreement was to secure continued access to the EU
market for those countries in the Pacific region which
most depend on it, given the impending expiry of the
Cotonou trade regime. The Commission’s commitment
to concluding negotiations on a comprehensive EPA
with the Pacific region as a whole remains unchanged
and we are currently engaged in negotiations with our
Pacific partners.
We can go forward only if we accept the special nature
of the Pacific region and tailor the EPA accordingly. We
are talking about small and remote island states which
differ greatly in their economic situation, development
needs and relations with the EU. Some countries have
‘least developed country’ status and are therefore
covered by the EU’s Everything But Arms trade regime;
some have little, if any, trade with the Union. We are
therefore open to entering into the trade relationships
that best suit the Pacific region as a whole, and the
ongoing negotiations will inform the ultimate choices.
Whatever approach we opt for, it is absolutely crucial to
ensure that any agreement will indeed contribute to the
development of the countries concerned. That is why
there is also financial assistance to enhance trade
capacity. That is why we will allow partner countries in
the developing world to exclude more sensitive products
from the trade agreements: something that we would not
allow other countries to do. In this context, I have duly
taken note of the concerns expressed about the
derogation in the interim EPA from the standard rules of
origin for fisheries products.
It is precisely for development reasons that we granted
this derogation and we did so on the basis of our
informed judgment that Papua New Guinea’s small
market share makes it unlikely that its tuna exports could
damage the interests of the EU industry. The European
Union and Papua New Guinea have applied these rules
provisionally since 2008 and, whereas export figures
have fluctuated, no upward trend has been detected. Let
me also reassure you that the Commission does not
intend to offer similar arrangements to any other region.
The Commission will, in any event, closely monitor the
implementation of the derogation and will report to
Parliament on the basis of a study which will be
prepared before the end of 2011.
Some of you were also present in September last year
when the current elected Prime Minister addressed the
INTA Committee. He expressed the readiness of his
government to grant EU vessels and investors access to
Papua New Guinea’s waters. We take this oral
declaration very seriously and we will continue to
engage with our partners till it comes to fruition.
Parliament’s consent will allow us to launch the
implementation mechanisms provided for the agreement;

17-01-2011 49
one of these is the Trade Committee, which could be
convened this spring and which provides a platform for
raising all the issues relating to mutual obligations under
the interim EPA. Your vote is therefore crucial to
helping us move forward on this and other important
issues.
With regard to Fiji, the country did sign the interim EPA
but it does not apply it provisionally. This makes Papua
New Guinea currently the only country provisionally
applying the EU-Pacific interim EPA. Fiji continues, for
the time being, to have access to the EU market under
the Market Access Regulation, since the Council has not
adopted trade sanctions. As you are aware, the EU
decided to suspend development aid to Fiji because of
the political situation in the country. Resumption of aid
would presuppose progress in governance in Fiji and, in
particular, a return to democratic principles of
government, but at the moment there is no tangible
progress in Fiji in this regard.
The EPA we have discussed today is only an interim
arrangement to ensure that access to the EU market is
not lost. The Commission is fully committed to continue
negotiations on a comprehensive EPA with the Pacific
region.
1-130
Carmen Fraga Estévez, ponente de opinión de la
Comisión de Pesca. − Señor Presidente, señor
Comisario, la exención a las normas de origen parte de
un gravísimo error de cálculo que ha hecho la Comisión
sobre su impacto, no solo en el sector atunero
comunitario, que es muy serio, sino en la propia zona del
Pacífico ―a la que se pretende ayudar―, cuando los
beneficiarios reales son casi exclusivamente las voraces
flotas de China y el Sudeste Asiático y su industria de
transformación.
La DG Comercio ha establecido esta exención
basándose en que Papúa Nueva Guinea no tiene
capacidad pesquera para explotar sus recursos. Sin
embargo, según los datos más recientes de la Western
and Central Pacific Fisheries Commission, hay 41
cerqueros con pabellón de Papúa Nueva Guinea
operando en la zona, con un total de capturas que en el
año 2009 se elevó a casi medio millón de toneladas y, de
ellas, más de 75 000 (entre semitransformados y
transformados) acabaron en la Unión Europea, lo que
sitúa a Papúa Nueva Guinea entre los seis principales
exportadores a la Unión Europea. No es cierto, por tanto,
como dicen ustedes, que para desarrollar el sector
pesquero de Papúa Nueva Guinea fuera necesario dar
entrada libre a otras flotas.
En ningún caso la Unión Europea puede falsear sus
compromisos con el desarrollo sostenible. No obstante,
estamos viendo como, al amparo de esta exención y a fin
de dar entrada a los inversores asiáticos, Papúa Nueva
guinea ha enmendado su legislación para que no sea
posible presentar denuncias por daños medioambientales
y ha puesto en marcha una normativa de inversiones que
permite contratar a trabajadores locales y a mano de obra
barata procedente de Asia con las peores garantías
laborales que quepa imaginar.
Si a ello añadimos que Papúa Nueva Guinea lidera ―en
la organización regional de pesca que he citado antes―
una negativa rotunda a cualquier norma internacional de
gestión y control de la pesca el resultado es que, mientra
que la DG Asuntos Marítimos y Pesca pone toda la
carne en el asador para luchar contra la pesca ilegal,
otros le abren las puertas. Yo, señor Comisario, vengo
ahora mismo de la Western and Central Pacific Fisheries
Commission y sé muy bien la posición que ha mantenido
Papúa Nueva Guinea. Por eso, me mantengo en la
posición de la Comisión de Pesca de pedir que se
suspenda la exención en la revisión del acuerdo del que
estamos hablando.
1-131
Laima Liucija Andrikienė, on behalf of the PPE
Group. – Mr President, as shadow rapporteur for the
PPE Group, I would like to start by saying that we
welcome the increasing role of the EU as a trading
power in every region of the world, including the Pacific
region.
The agreement, as it is now, is not a perfect one, not
least because it is not a comprehensive EPA, but only an
interim one. We hope that the Commission will be in a
position to negotiate, in due time, a comprehensive EPA
including a larger number of countries in the region.
Secondly, the current agreement concerns only a small
part of EU trade, since the share of EU trade accounted
for by the whole of the Pacific region is just 0.06%, and
yet some areas have caused us concern, most notably on
the issue of the derogation from the rules of origin for
fishery products.
In our resolution we raise our concern that a number of
countries, such as the Philippines, Thailand, China, the
United States, Australia and others, will be able to take
advantage of this derogation and potentially export large
quantities of processed fisheries products to the EU,
potentially harming the interests of the EU fish
processing and canning industry.
We therefore encourage the Commission to act on
Parliament’s request for it to conduct an impact
assessment study and, in the event that the assessment
demonstrates a destabilising effect on the EU’s fish
processing and canning industry, for it to initiate the
procedure leading to suspension of the exceptional
arrangements in this agreement regarding rules of origin.
1-132
George Sabin Cutaş, în numele grupului S&D. –
Actualul acord interimar de parteneriat încheiat în
noiembrie 2007 de Comisia Europeană şi statele Papua-
Noua Guinee şi Fiji a fost aspru criticat de către
societatea civilă şi de către politicienii din regiunea
Pacificului. Aceştia au subliniat consecinţele negative pe
care acordul le-a avut asupra nivelului de solidaritate
interregională şi a dorinţei politice de integrare
economică în regiune.

50 17-01-2011
Aceasta din urmă a fost divizată în grupuri care au
negociat în mod individual şi sub presiuni obţinerea unui
acord intermediar cu Comisia Europeană. Totodată, se
crede că acordarea statutului de produs originar,
derogare de la plata taxelor vamale în Uniune pentru
produsele piscicole de provenienţă din Papua Noua
Guinee şi Fiji a condus la crearea unui centru de
procesare a acestor produse, inclusiv a unor produse
neoriginare, de către firme din statele vecine, cu scopul
de a profita de avantajele derogării.
Acest proces ar avea efecte nefaste asupra industriei,
lucrătorilor şi veniturilor locale, ţinând cont de faptul că
industria piscicolă este una dintre cele mai importante
generatoare de locuri de muncă în aceste ţări. De
asemenea, el ar reprezenta o concurenţă neloială pentru
produsele europene. Prin urmare, este posibil ca acordul
să fi avut efecte contrare celor dorite.
Astfel, Comisia Europeană trebuie să se asigure că
viitorul acord de parteneriat va contribui atât la
dezvoltarea unei industrii piscicole locale sustenabile,
creatoare de locuri de muncă, cât şi la o integrare
regională mai strânsă, spre exemplu, prin negocierea
viitorului acord cu regiunea Pacificului în întregimea sa.
1-133
Isabella Lövin, on behalf of the Verts/ALE Group. – Mr
President, one of the objectives of the EPAs is to
promote regional integration. What we have seen so far
is that this is not happening. On the contrary, in the case
of the Pacific, the EU is undermining unity by offering
interim agreements to some ACP countries, with special
conditions attached.
The derogation from the rules of origin for fish
processed in Papua New Guinea and Fiji is an example
of this. I believe that this derogation is potentially
hazardous and that it must be thoroughly evaluated in
2011, as already agreed.
I say this because it is important to have facts when
discussing this matter. What are the effects on global
fish stocks, on employment and on the environment in
Papua New Guinea? What are the social conditions of
the workers? All this must be fully and transparently
assessed, and then the derogation may or may not be
abolished on that basis, and not on the basis of
complaints from the Spanish fishing industry which,
itself, fishes in Papua New Guinea but never lands fish
there – and, by the way, does not pay customs duty when
it sells the fish as European on the European market.
1-134
Elie Hoarau, au nom du groupe GUE/NGL. – Monsieur
le Président, Monsieur le Commissaire, je pense qu'il est
quelque peu abusif de dénommer les accords de
partenariat économique intérimaires "accords Pacifique",
puisque, sur les quinze États ACP de la zone, seuls deux
d'entre eux sont signataires.
À l'évidence, ces accords prennent davantage la forme
d'accords bilatéraux que de véritables accords régionaux,
accords bilatéraux qui s'écartent des objectifs affichés
des APE, à savoir l'intégration régionale. Comment ne
pas voir là l'illustration de ce que dénoncent, dans le
Pacifique comme en Afrique, les acteurs de la société
civile, à savoir qu'un certain nombre de pays ACP ont
été contraints de signer des accords individuels parce
que la Commission n'a pas su faire des APE un véritable
instrument de partenariat de développement?
Ces fortes pressions exercées par les négociateurs
européens sur les États ACP ont été dénoncées par les
pays ACP eux-mêmes à l'occasion de la 92 e session du
Conseil des ministres d'Afrique, des Caraïbes et du
Pacifique, qui s'est tenue à Bruxelles du 8 au
12 novembre 2010. La réalité tragique des APE, accords
négociés par la Commission européenne, est telle qu'ils
sont un échec avant même leur entrée en vigueur. Un
échec tel que nombre de pays ACP demandent aux États
membres de l'Union européenne d'examiner la
possibilité de réviser le mandat de négociation donné à
la Commission européenne en juin 2002.
1-135
Andreas Mölzer (NI). – Herr Präsident! Im
Zusammenwirken mit der derzeitigen Marktsituation
führt die Reform der EU-Zuckermarktordnung dazu,
dass der EU-Zuckerpreis unter dem internationalen Preis
liegt.
Die langjährigen Abnahmeverträge mit den
Zuckerrohproduzenten in Afrika, der Karibik oder dem
Pazifik werden bei dieser Preissituation wohl nur sehr
schwer haltbar sein. Dass die Bauern in den AKP-
Staaten ihre Ware lieber zu höheren Preisen auf dem
Weltmarkt verkaufen, statt sie günstig in der EU zu
vertreiben, mag bei den Schwierigkeiten rund um die
neuen AKP-Abkommen eine Rolle gespielt haben.
Wenn nun dieser Anreiz wegfällt und gleichzeitig eine
Meistbegünstigungsklausel in Kauf genommen werden
muss und zudem noch die Staatseinnahmen mit dem
Wegfall der Zolleinnahmen sinken, ist es ja kein
Wunder, dass die AKP-Staaten so zögerlich waren.
In diesem Zusammenhang wird sicherlich ein
Augenmerk auf die Fischerei gelegt werden müssen, und
zwar nicht nur, ob Papua-Neuguinea und Fidschi
anderen Handelspartnern Zugang zu ihren
Fischereigewässern gewährt haben. Vielleicht sollte man
auch aufklären, ob die Vorwürfe stimmen, dass sich
etwa die spanische Fischereiflotte aufgrund der EU-
Einschränkungen und der Fangquoten in den Pazifik
verlagert hat und dort unter fremder Flagge fischt.
1-136
Francisco José Millán Mon (PPE). – Señor Presidente,
yo también quiero expresar mi preocupación por el
impacto de este acuerdo en el sector pesquero del atún
en conserva, muy importante en España y en especial en
Galicia, mi circunscripción.
Este impacto negativo obedece, como se ha dicho, a una
concesión sin precedentes y mal fundamentada: la
exención de las normas de origen en los productos
transformados de la pesca, cuando así se solicite, por no
disponer de materia prima autóctona suficiente.

17-01-2011 51
Pues bien, es lo primero que ha hecho Papúa Nueva
Guinea, y la exención ya se está aplicando. Papúa Nueva
Guinea se convierte así en una gran plataforma de
transformación y exportación de atún proveniente de los
grandes competidores de la industria europea, es decir,
Filipinas, Tailandia, China y los Estados Unidos.
Realmente, ellos son los grandes beneficiarios del
acuerdo.
Se estima que la producción de atún se elevará
finalmente a cuatrocientas mil toneladas al año, dirigidas
al mercado europeo, que consume actualmente un total
de unas setecientas diez mil. El impacto será muy grave,
ya que los precios del atún procedente de Papúa Nueva
Guinea son un tercio más baratos que los europeos, por
los bajos salarios y los inexistentes estándares
medioambientales.
En mi tierra, en Galicia, se considera una competencia
imbatible, que tendrá graves consecuencias en el
empleo. Deseo que el estudio de impacto que anuncia la
Comisión Europea tenga el mayor rigor posible y tenga
en cuenta las consecuencias, a corto y medio plazo, de
esa exención de las normas de origen.
Espero que ponga fin, cuanto antes, a la aplicación de
esta exención. Es una medida excepcional y transitoria.
Sin embargo, parece que en Papúa Nueva Guinea la
consideran permanente. De lo contrario, no se harían
esas inversiones. Espero, además, que esta exención no
vuelva a recogerse en otros acuerdos, y tampoco en el
acuerdo definitivo. Pero, en la actualidad, ya hay un
problema con el acuerdo provisional y debe subsanarse.
1-137
Josefa Andrés Barea (S&D). – Señor Presidente, el
Acuerdo de Asociación con Papúa Nueva Guinea y Fiyi
conlleva, como se está diciendo aquí, una exención a las
normas de origen. Afecta, sobre todo, al atún, como ha
dicho el ponente. ¿Qué queremos con este acuerdo?
Queremos el desarrollo del sector pesquero y la
superación de la pobreza en estos archipiélagos, esto es,
la ayuda al desarrollo.
¿Pero qué efectos negativos tiene que terceros países se
beneficien de este trato preferencial?
Estamos escuchando aquí las denuncias que se están
produciendo. Queremos una situación equilibrada. La
Comisión nos acaba de decir que hay análisis claros. Sin
embargo, la opinión que aquí se expresa es que no es así.
En 2008 se dijo que no existía ningún tipo de distorsión
y se nos anunció un informe de impacto.
Queremos una situación equilibrada. Queremos una
revisión, consulta y controles. Queremos saber si este
acuerdo sirve para la ayuda al desarrollo de este
archipiélago. Y también queremos saber si se cumplen
las medidas sanitarias ―algo muy importante para los
productos que se importan―, la gestión sostenible de la
pesca, la lucha contra la pesca ilegal ―elemento
fundamental― y un elemento también muy importante
que nos mostraría la forma de trabajar de estos terceros
países que pueden estar radicados en Papúa Nueva
Guinea, como es el cumplimiento de las normas
internacionales de trabajo.
Queremos dar sostenimiento a este acuerdo, queremos
ayudar al cumplimiento de este acuerdo, pero también
queremos que este acuerdo sirva para el desarrollo de
Papúa Nueva Guinea y de Fiyi y que no perjudique a la
industria española.
1-138
Alain Cadec (PPE). – Monsieur le Président, Monsieur
le Commissaire, chers collègues, je tiens à attirer votre
attention sur la dérogation aux règles d'origine accordée
à la Papouasie-Nouvelle-Guinée, concernant les produits
de la pêche transformés, notamment les conserves de
thon, qui me semble extrêmement dangereuse.
Ce pays ACP bénéficie d'un accès préférentiel au
marché européen, c'est-à-dire d'une exonération totale
des droits de douane sur les conserves de thon qu'il
exporte sur notre marché. Je ne mets pas en doute la
politique de développement que l'accord met en œuvre.
En revanche, la dérogation aux règles d'origine sur les
conserves de thon est totalement inacceptable.
Cette dérogation permet aux opérateurs extérieurs de
s'implanter en Papouasie-Nouvelle-Guinée et elle ne
profite donc que très peu à l'emploi et à la population
locale. Il faut permettre l'aide au développement, mais
une aide juste et efficace, qui profite aux régions
concernées.
Les importations communautaires de thon sont passées
de 9 200 à 16 200 tonnes de 2008 à 2009. Elles ont
doublé en un an seulement. Ce phénomène ne peut que
s'aggraver si cette dérogation est maintenue. De plus, ces
produits ne respectent pas les mêmes normes sociales,
sanitaires et de préservation de la ressource que les
normes imposées aux produits européens. Il est
notamment impossible de vérifier l'origine des captures.
Chers collègues, la Commission européenne n'a-t-elle
pas pris le temps de lire mon rapport sur l'origine des
importations des produits de la pêche et de l'aquaculture
dans l'Union européenne?
En tous les cas, si c'est le cas, c'est à désespérer. Nous ne
pouvons pas de la sorte sacrifier les emplois européens
et la qualité des produits vendus sur le marché européen.
Je ne veux pas qu'une situation destructrice pour
l'industrie de la transformation européenne se mette en
place durablement.
1-139
Ulrike Rodust (S&D). – Herr Präsident, Herr
Kommissar, meine lieben Kolleginnen und Kollegen!
Für mich als Koordinatorin des Fischereiausschusses ist
in diesem Übergangsabkommen besonders der Aspekt
der Fischerei interessant. Hier gab es im Vorfeld einige
Kontroversen hinsichtlich der Lockerung der
Ursprungsregelung für Papua-Neuguinea. Ich unterstütze
die Auffassung der Kommission, durch diese Lockerung
die Wirtschaft eines der ärmsten Länder unserer Erde

52 17-01-2011
anzukurbeln. Das darf auch – davon bin ich fest
überzeugt – uns Fischereipolitikern nicht egal sein. Ich
verstehe gleichzeitig die Sorgen der europäischen
Industrie, kann mir aber, ehrlich gesagt, nicht vorstellen,
dass die gewährten Erleichterungen dazu führen, dass
Papua-Neuguinea eine ernstzunehmende Konkurrenz für
unsere Konservenindustrie wird.
Aber wir müssen wachsam sein, denn es ist natürlich
niemandem geholfen, wenn wir unsere halbe
Konservenindustrie in den Pazifikraum verlagern. Ich
muss aber dazu sagen, dass uns in der Diskussion über
dieses Abkommen sehr widersprüchliche Informationen
hinsichtlich der Frage vorlagen, in welchem Umfang in
Papua-Neuguinea investiert wird und welche Staaten
indirekt von der Lockerung der Ursprungsregelung
profitieren. Ich bitte deshalb die Kommission dringend,
die Anwendung dieser Ausnahmeregelung genau zu
überwachen und dem Parlament rechtzeitig über die
Auswirkungen auf die Entwicklung in Papua-Neuguinea
und die Auswirkungen auf die europäische
Konservenindustrie Bericht zu erstatten. Wenn diese
Regelung nicht die gewünschten Ergebnisse vor Ort
erzielt und nicht vertretbaren Schaden für europäische
Firmen bedeutet, müssen wir bei der Verhandlung des
endgültigen Abkommens neu entscheiden. Halten Sie
uns bitte auf dem Laufenden!
1-140
Pablo Zalba Bidegain (PPE). – Señor Presidente, en
primer lugar, me gustaría aclarar que estoy a favor de
estrechar vínculos comerciales entre la Unión Europea y
Papúa Nueva Guinea que favorezcan el desarrollo de
esta región, pero que favorezcan un desarrollo
sostenible.
Creo sinceramente que este acuerdo, tal y como lo
hemos planteado actualmente, no es un buen acuerdo.
Estoy absolutamente en contra de una cláusula del
mismo que considero injusta: la exención a las normas
de origen, porque no solo pone en peligro el desarrollo
sostenible de Papúa Nueva Guinea sino que, como bien
hemos escuchado aquí, pone en peligro toda una
industria europea, la industria conservera. Esta
concesión debería ser absolutamente excepcional, y no
debería haberse aplicado en el caso de Papúa Nueva
Guinea. Además, no olvidemos el serio precedente que
esta medida está sentando, y sentará, en futuras
negociaciones de la Unión Europea.
En mi opinión, hubiese sido necesaria una resolución
mucho más clara y contundente al respecto que indicase
categóricamente que, en la próxima revisión del
Acuerdo de Asociación Interino, se suspenda
definitivamente la exención a las normas de origen. Por
tanto, quiero pedir a la Comisión que tenga en cuenta las
dramáticas consecuencias que esta concesión va a tener,
primero, en la industria conservera europea y, segundo,
en la sostenibilidad del medio ambiente y en los recursos
naturales de Papúa Nueva Guinea, y el precedente tan
negativo que sienta para futuras negociaciones. Por
mucho que la Comisión haya reconocido que no será un
precedente, la presión estará ahí. Por tanto, pido a la
Comisión que decida poner fin, cuanto antes, a la
exención a las normas de origen.
1-141
Mairead McGuinness (PPE). – Mr President, I actually
came down to participate in the next debate but I have
been watching this debate from my office and I am
concerned, like others who have spoken in the debate
here, about the idea of flexibility on rules of origin.
In the last seven days there was a programme on British
television, part of a whole Channel Four series about the
fishing industry, in which, I am afraid, the European
Union’s fisheries policy came in for severe criticism,
and we are getting lots of e-mails from concerned
citizens.
This specific issue did not arise, but I would just like to
stand up and support those colleagues who have
expressed huge concern about a proposal that is
supposed to be positive as a development tool, but in
fact could be quite negative, not just from a European
perspective, but also for the very countries we are trying
to assist.
1-142
Andris Piebalgs, Member of the Commission. − Mr
President, this was an extremely interesting debate.
There is poverty in the world. We need to deal with it.
One way would be the transfer of financial resources,
but it is much better to give the people the opportunity to
make a decent living from the work they do. The three
tuna processing facilities in Papua New Guinea which
are authorised to export tuna to the EU employ around
5 700 people, most of whom are women. Jobs are at
stake in Papua New Guinea, which is one of the most
poverty-stricken countries.
When it proposes derogations, the Commission takes
due account of the risks involved and looks to create
safeguards. The Commission takes the view that it is
highly unlikely that Papua New Guinea’s exports will
cause any serious disruption to the EU’s fishing and
canning industry given the low volume of trade between
Papua New Guinea and the EU, and Papua New
Guinea’s low market-share in the EU tuna market of
around 3% in recent years. Provisional application dates
from 2008, and we have some experience with figures. It
will not cause any disruption to Europe’s fishing or
canning industries. The development of trade flows will
be further analysed in a study on the effect of the
implementation of the special rules of origin for fishery
products which will be prepared in 2011.
In addition, the Commission will monitor trade with
PNG and will not hesitate to take appropriate measures
if a serious disturbance of the EU market becomes
evident. The Interim Agreement explicitly allows for the
application of such measures in its Chapter 2 on trade
defence instruments. There is no indication at this stage
of any negative impact of Papua New Guinea’s exports
of fishery products on the canning industry in other ACP
or GSP+ countries. This aspect will also be looked at in
the study I have just mentioned.

17-01-2011 53
I should like to add that, independently of any special
rules of origin or preferential trade agreements, countries
and companies exporting fish or fishery products to the
EU will always have to comply with the regulation on
illegal, unreported and unregulated fishing and with the
EU’s health and food safety requirements. I believe that
the Commission has considered the matter very carefully
before bringing this measure forward.
I shall now turn to a broader issue: the EPA in general.
Trade is far from simple. As I have said, the only way to
eradicate poverty is to allow growth in the developing
world. It is true that regional cooperation is rather
difficult at the start. It is not just trade agreements that
make regional development happen. That is why we
have earmarked EUR 45 million for aid for trade in the
Oceania region. This is three times more than was
provided for under the ninth EDF. It is only by
facilitating trade flows that you can expect regional trade
to take place. If we look at all developing countries,
basically all trade is based on monoculture – one
particular export item with a high fluctuation rate. This
has a highly disruptive effect in the countries concerned.
When we talk about migratory flows, security, safety
and justice in the world, we cannot just say that we do
not care about it. We should care about it, and our
departments have carried out an extensive study. We are
proposing very decent measures which are completely in
line with all the European Union’s objectives.
I believe that the measure is right and that the necessary
safeguards are in place in case anything goes wrong. I
believe we have judged this correctly and I therefore
lend my support to this agreement.
1-143
David Martin, author. − Mr President, I will be brief. I
find myself almost, indeed entirely, in agreement with
the Commissioner on this subject.
Firstly, to repeat, it is important that we sign the interim
EPA because, if we do not, existing trade preferences for
Papua New Guinea and Fiji will disappear, under the
WTO ruling. The interim EPA is precisely that: it is an
interim arrangement, and I agree with all the colleagues
who say that our objective in the long run should be a
full, comprehensive EPA with all the Pacific countries,
encouraging regional integration in the Pacific. But we
have to take this step at the moment to ensure the
continuation of preferences for the two largest countries
in the Pacific region.
On fishing, the Commission has made it very clear that
what we have here is an exception. This will be the only
derogation. There are no other parts of the world to
which we intend giving such a derogation. Why are we
giving a derogation to Papua New Guinea? I will tell
you: it is because Papua New Guinea is literally on the
other side of the world, and the likelihood of EU fishing
fleets exploiting that area extensively is limited,
although they are free to do so. There is nothing to stop
EU fishing fleets fishing in Papua New Guinea waters
and landing their catch and getting their catch canned in
Papua New Guinea – and, as has been said earlier, that
would be very good for development, and indeed we
should encourage it.
But the situation at present is that Chinese boats, Thai
boats and boats of other Asian nationalities are fishing in
Papua New Guinea’s waters and landing their fish back
in their own country, giving no opportunity for
development in Papua New Guinea.
There is a development opportunity here in terms of
providing jobs, particularly for women. We often
complain that we do not do enough in our development
policy to encourage downstream activity. Here we are
actually doing something positive for downstream
activity. As the Commissioner has said, in order to
qualify the fish still needs to meet all the standards under
the regulation on illegal, unreported and unregulated
fishing. It has to meet all our sanitary and phytosanitary
conditions. That is absolutely essential. The three
factories in Papua New Guinea meet these standards at
the moment and are providing useful jobs. If we have a
sudden increase in the number of factories, and a sudden
surge in imports from Papua New Guinea, then of course
we will have to revisit the situation and potentially take
action.
At the moment, however, the statistics speak for
themselves. This agreement has been in place since
2008. There has been no surge. There is no threat to the
European tuna industry. I have met, as rapporteur, with
the leaders of the Spanish tuna industry and they
themselves have said to me that there is no current
threat. What they are worried about is the future. They
accept that at the moment there is no serious threat to the
EU industry. So let us not exaggerate the situation. Let
us not make a poor developing country pay for our
preoccupation with our own self-interest.
1-144
Presidente. − Comunico di aver ricevuto una proposta
di risoluzione conformemente all'articolo 115, paragrafo
5, del regolamento.
La discussione è chiusa.
La votazione si svolgerà mercoledì 19 gennaio 2011.
Dichiarazioni scritte (articolo 149)
1-145
Helmut Scholz (GUE/NGL), schriftlich. – Das
Interims-Partnerschaftsabkommen zwischen der
Europäischen Gemeinschaft und Fidschi und Papua-
Neuguinea greift in den komplizierten und komplexen
Integrationsprozess in der pazifischen Region ein. Es
leistet leider kaum erkennbare entwicklungspolitische
Förderung für die beiden Staaten. Ich möchte daran
erinnern, dass der Militärputsch in Fidschi 2006 vom
Europäischen Parlament, vom Rat und auch von der
Kommission einhellig verurteilt wurden. Die bis heute
andauernde Diktatur wird nun mit dem Abschluss dieses
Handelsabkommens quasi als Vertragspartner anerkannt.

54 17-01-2011
Das Bemühen unserer Partner in Australien, Neuseeland
und anderen Ländern der Region um eine Rückkehr zur
Demokratie in Fidschi wird durch diesen Vertrag
unterwandert. Als ich in unserer Sitzung im
Handelsausschuss die Unterdrückung der Demokratie
durch die Militärs in Fidschi kritisierte, war die Antwort
von deren Vertretern: „But we are in control!“ Was ich
für blanken Zynismus hielt, scheint nun den Ansprüchen
der Kommission an die Legitimität ihrer Vertragspartner
zu genügen. Meine Fraktion wird gegen dieses
Abkommen stimmen. Ich werde mich dafür einsetzen,
das Abkommen so lange auszusetzen, bis die
Demokratie in Fidschi wiederhergestellt ist.
1-146
18 - Adozione internazionale nell'Unione
europea (discussione)
1-147
Presidente. − L'ordine del giorno reca la discussione
sull'interrogazione orale alla Commissione sull'adozione
internazionale nell'Unione europea, di Roberta Angelilli
(O-0193/2010 - B7-0670/2010).
1-148
Roberta Angelilli, Autore. − Signor Presidente,
onorevoli colleghi, molti colleghi, insieme a me, sono
stati sensibilizzati nel corso degli anni sul problema dei
minori abbandonati, orfani o bambini di strada. Tra le
associazioni che mi hanno contattato c'è quella degli
Amici dell'adozione.
Di questi bambini abbandonati ce ne sono tanti e non
solo nel terzo mondo, ma anche in Europa. Sono
bambini che diventano invisibili e finiscono nel circuito
vizioso della povertà e dell'esclusione sociale o, peggio
ancora, vengono sfruttati dalla criminalità organizzata
per l'accattonaggio, il lavoro nero, la prostituzione, il
traffico di organi o di adozioni illegali; sono bambini che
spesso passano la loro infanzia tra assistenti sociali ed
orfanotrofi.
A questi bambini noi dobbiamo garantire il diritto ad
essere adottati, il diritto ad avere una famiglia. Un
bambino deve rimanere il meno possibile in un istituto.
L'obiettivo, ovviamente, è l'interesse superiore del
minore, quindi l'adottabilità deve essere concessa
certamente con accortezza, sotto la scrupolosa vigilanza
delle competenti autorità nazionali, ma se ci sono le
condizioni, i bambini hanno il diritto di essere adottati,
innanzitutto a livello nazionale, ma anche a livello
internazionale, all'interno dell'Unione europea.
So che la Commissione è sensibile, seppur si tratta di
una competenza squisitamente nazionale, ma sarebbe
appunto auspicabile una sorta di coordinamento tra
Commissione e Stati membri per buone prassi e strategie
capaci di garantire la massima trasparenza, per evitare
adozioni illegali e adozioni facili, ma anche per ottenere
da tutti gli Stati membri la massima collaborazione nel
garantire il diritto all'adozione e per evitare che i
bambini siano abbandonati a se stessi o, come dicevo
prima, abbandonati all'interno di un istituto.
1-149
Kristalina Georgieva, Member of the Commission. −
Mr President, thank you for bringing forward this
important question. The protection and promotion of
children’s rights is a priority for the Commission,
especially since the launch of the communication
entitled ‘Towards an EU strategy on the rights of the
child’ in 2006. The strategy on the rights of the child
focuses on the fundamental rights of children, including
the protection of the best interests of the child as
enshrined in the European Charter of Fundamental
Rights.
The Commission is determined to ensure that all
fundamental rights encompassed in the Charter are duly
respected by all EU actions, both legislative and nonlegislative.
This practice will be upheld and further
developed in the forthcoming communication on the
rights of the child that the Commission will be
publishing this year. As of this year, 2011, the
Commission will also be reporting annually on progress
made on the application of the EU Charter of
Fundamental Rights.
We have to remember that the provisions of the Charter
are addressed to the institutions and bodies of the Union,
with due regard for the principle of subsidiarity, and to
the Member States only when they are implementing
Union law. We therefore have to remember that,
currently, no European Union legislation on
international adoption exists. The subject is regulated by
the Hague Convention of 29 May 1993 on protection of
children and cooperation in respect of inter-country
adoption, as well as by national laws. All the Member
States are party to that Convention, but the EU is not. Its
aim is to implement Article 21 of the UN Convention on
the Rights of the Child by establishing safeguards to
ensure that inter-country adoptions take place in the best
interests of the child and that the child’s fundamental
rights are respected.
Internationally, the Commission supports the accession
of third countries to the 1993 Hague Convention on
inter-country adoption and its correct implementation by
participating in relevant meetings of the contracting
parties. The Commission does not consider specific
European rules on intra-EU adoptions to be necessary, as
all 27 EU Member States are parties to the Hague
Convention. That being said, the Commission is closely
following the issue of international adoption within the
European Union, given the link between adoption and
children’s rights. The Commission has taken steps to see
how countries are implementing the convention on
adoption, and, in November 2009, provided a forum for
an exchange of views on the issue.
The Commission’s Green Paper on the free circulation
of public documents, published on 14 December 2010,
addresses the lack of mutual recognition of adoption
decisions as civil status acts between Member States and
its impact on the freedom of movement of EU citizens.
This is a specific step which addresses the question
raised today.

17-01-2011 55
1-150
Salvatore Iacolino, a nome del gruppo PPE. – Signor
Presidente, onorevoli colleghi, Signora Commissario,
non v'è dubbio che il tema dell'adozione internazionale
sia un tema di particolare rilevanza e bene ha fatto la
collega Angelilli a sottoporlo al Parlamento europeo in
questa sessione.
Procedure più snelle e semplificate, costi che in atto
sono particolarmente rilevanti, dai 20 ai 30 000 euro per
adozione, difficoltà a dare una risposta concreta a
un'esigenza, quella della famiglia, quella dei genitori di
diventare appunto tali. Ragazzi vulnerabili e spesso
abbandonati che si pongono talvolta in condizione di
invisibilità, mi riferisco in particolare ai flussi di
emigranti clandestini e ai tanti ragazzi che sono
sottoposti, dopo essere stati collocati nei centri di
identificazione ed espulsione, a quella tratta vergognosa
di schiavitù nella quale molto spesso gli stessi vengono
coinvolti.
Ci vogliono contributi nei confronti della famiglia; il
modello italiano, il modello di altre realtà, può essere
seguito: detrazione per le spese legate al costo
dell'adozione internazionale, crediti agevolati alle
banche, procedure, dicevamo, snelle e semplificate, con
meccanismi reali di monitoraggio su ciò che accade nei
vari Stati membri, prevenzione reale sul traffico degli
esseri umani – recentemente il Parlamento è intervenuto
con un dossier specifico – contrasto reale alle adozioni
illegali e trasparenza.
E, perché no, se vogliamo restituire centralità alla
famiglia, come spesso riferiamo in questo consesso,
dobbiamo fare in modo che le associazioni, quelle
associazioni che molto spesso sono il veicolo
fondamentale di queste adozioni siano caratterizzate da
standard di garanzia particolarmente elevati.
Se c'è un suggerimento – e concludo – alla Signora
Commissario, è: perché non prevedere una modalità di
accreditamento europeo nei confronti di queste
associazioni, fare in modo che queste associazioni si
muovano con trasparenza, chiarezza e concretezza, ma
con una linea elevata di garanzia che tuteli veramente i
diritti inviolabili e intangibili dei minori?
1-151
Monika Flašíková Beňová, za skupinu S&D. –
Hovoríme tu v tejto večernej hodine o veľmi citlivej
téme, pretože hovoríme o tých najmenších, o tých, ktorí
potrebujú našu lásku a potrebujú našu opateru.
Problém opustených detí v Európe sa stáva čoraz
závažnejším. Vzniknutá situácia je v dnešných dňoch v
oveľa väčšej miere vecou zodpovednosti práve
bezprostredného okolia. Aj prostredníctvom práva
osvojiť si dieťa na medzinárodnej úrovni je možné
predísť tomu, aby boli mnohé deti nútené žiť v detských
domovoch, kde napriek veľkej starostlivosti, ktorú
dostávajú, nikdy nepocítia takú tú skutočnú materskú
lásku alebo otcovské pohladenie.
Je preto potrebné zefektívniť systém adopcií tak, aby si
opustené deti v čo najskoršom veku mohli nájsť
náhradnú rodinu. Treba napríklad zúžiť práva
biologických rodičov, ak o dieťa neprejavujú skutočný
záujem po určitý čas. Skrátilo by sa tým obdobie, ktoré
dieťa trávi v detskom domove, lebo nie je tzv. právne
voľné. Takto by tiež bolo možné do určitej miery
eliminovať zbytočné časové prieťahy v celom adopčnom
procese.
Množstvo dohovorov o ochrane maloletých legislatívne
upravuje snahu kompetentných konať v prospech a v
záujme týchto detí. Ochrana práv dieťaťa je rovnako
jedným z hlavných cieľov Európskej únie. Vhodnými
krokmi je preto potrebné aj naďalej postupovať tak, aby
bol za každých okolností chránený najmä najlepší
záujem dieťaťa.
1-152
Cecilia Wikström, för ALDE-gruppen. – Herr talman!
Jag vill inleda med att tacka Roberta Angelilli för
initiativet och tacka för svaret till kommissionsledamot
Georgieva. Det här är en viktig debatt.
Ett hem att kalla sitt eget, en familj som skyddar en, som
värmer och värnar ett skört litet barn är något som
väldigt många barn runtom i Europa idag saknar. Det är
en dröm för de barn som växer upp på institutioner.
Vi måste alla nu göra vårt yttersta för att föräldralösa
eller övergivna barn inte ska behöva växa upp på
barnhem och andra institutioner utan i familjer där de får
den ömhet som kan bära dem ända in i vuxenlivet, så att
de blir hela vuxna och inte trasiga.
I våra medlemsstater har vi olika uppfattningar om vilka
individer som kan utgöra en familj. Jag tror ändå att vi
kan vara överens om att en familj kan se olika ut men att
det är som är viktigast är att man möter barnet med
kärlek och omsorg.
Jag hoppas att vi också kan enas kring hur viktigt
samarbetet kring politiska strategier och instrument för
internationella adoptioner är. Jag utgår från att
kommissionen tar täten i det här arbetet. Jag ser också
fram emot att tillsammans med kollegorna arbeta fram
en gemensam resolution i den här frågan. I den mån vi
kan bidra till att föra samman ett övergivet föräldralöst
barn med en familj som längtar efter barn har vi bidragit
med något mycket stort.
Låt oss också komma ihåg hur viktigt det är hur möter
dessa våra minsta bröder och systrar. Om vi möter dem
med kärlek ökar vi gryningsljuset på jorden. Det tror jag
är en livsuppgift för alla, oaktat vilken roll vi har i
samhället.
1-153
Marina Yannakoudakis, on behalf of the ECR Group.
– Mr President, adoption is a positive way of providing a
new family for children who cannot be brought up by
their birth parents, or children who lose their parents. To
adopt a child in the UK, checks and vetting procedures
are robust, and prospective parents need to be accepted

56 17-01-2011
by an adoption agency. The welfare of the child is and
should be at the heart of the adoption process.
The issue of inter-country adoptions is more complex
than national adoption, but I am very grateful to the PPE
Group for bringing this issue forward. Whilst it is to be
commended that we try and move forward in it, I have
concerns that international adoption does bring risks –
risks that have already been mentioned, such as child
abuse and malpractice, that undermine the welfare of the
child.
That is why I believe that all Member States need to
ensure that their adoption laws are regulated in a way
that promotes the interests of the child. Member States
must work together to ensure that the legal process of
adoption between the providing and receiving countries
is transparent, robust and holds the child’s welfare as its
priority.
1-154
Слави Бинев (NI). – уважаема г-жо комисар
Георгиева, скъпи колеги, ще дам пример с България,
където проблемът с изоставените деца става все посериозен
и са необходими спешни мерки, за да се
овладее ситуацията. Системи, подобни на
българската, в които огромен процент деца се дават
за международно осиновяване, са вредни.
От друга страна, докато системите за грижи за
децата са такива, международното осиновяване може
да се окаже единствената възможност за семейство и
нормален живот за мнозина от децата в домовете.
Когато подобряваме цялостната система, трябва да
внимаваме да не им отнемаме този шанс.
Необходими са мерки, които да улеснят процедурата
за международно осиновяване, но и да гарантират
интересите на децата ни. Да гарантират, че така
наречените "осиновители" не гонят само европейско
гражданство, нещо, което в момента им се
позволява.
Не трябва аз да питам дали го правят от чисто сърце
или користни цели. Това е работа на тези, които ще
проведат интервюто за осиновяване и ще внимават
за интересите на нашите деца. Принципите на
Конвенцията на ООН за правата на детето и
съпътстващата ги философия трябва да са в основата
на правото на международното осиновяване в
рамките на Европейския съюз.
1-155
Elena Băsescu (PPE). – Apreciez interesul colegilor
mei din delegaţia italiană pentru situaţia copiilor
abandonaţi, interes pe care îl împărtăşim cu toţii, de
altfel, însă această problematică ţine doar de competenţa
naţională. Am insistat să iau parte la această dezbatere,
deoarece provin dintr-o ţară asupra căreia se fac presiuni
pentru reluarea adopţiilor internaţionale şi pentru
modificarea legislaţiei aflate în vigoare. Însă, în
România, există mai multe familii doritoare să adopte,
decât copii adoptabili, iar legislaţia noastră, la care au
participat şi numeroşi experţi internaţionali, este în
perfectă coordonare cu cea europeană.
Referindu-mă acum la această rezoluţie, menţionez că
sintagma „dreptul copilului de a fi adoptat
internaţional”, cum prevede punctul d, nu este
recunoscută de convenţia ONU şi de cea de la Haga.
Adopţia internaţională reprezintă doar o opţiune. Aceşti
copii ajung în sistem datorită situaţiei precare a
familiilor din care provin, care, conform legislaţiei şi
convenţiilor internaţionale, nu trebuie să reprezinte un
motiv pentru adopţie. De aici, numărul mare de copii
aflaţi în centrele de plasament. 22 966 copii au, totuşi,
un părinte. Legislaţia din România nu prevede decăderea
din drepturile părinteşti decât în cazul unui abuz. Deci,
aceşti copii nu sunt în situaţia de a fi adoptaţi. La fel şi
cei 22 285 de copii aflaţi în asistenţă maternală.
Raţionamentul rezoluţiei trebuie axat pe interesul
superior al copilului, aşa cum au spus şi colegii mei
înainte şi nu al celui care adoptă. Fiecare stat şi nu
altcineva are obligaţia de a alege soluţiile cele mai
potrivite pentru copiii săi.
În final, recomand tuturor o mai bună cunoaştere a
legislaţiilor naţionale. Mă refer aici la faptul că, de
exemplu, mai multe tribunale de minori din Italia au
emis în 2009 şapte hotărâri de adopţie pentru copii din
România, fără să ţină cont de legislaţia noastră.
1-156
Victor Boştinaru (S&D). – Salut această dezbatere în
plenul Parlamentului European, pornind de la premiza că
protecţia drepturilor copilului este şi trebuie să fie o
prioritate a fiecărui stat membru al Uniunii noastre.
Scopul final pentru toţi cei prezenţi aici este promovarea
interesului copiilor.
Bineînţeles, criterii comune şi stricte, pe care statele
membre să le implementeze, sunt necesare pentru
ameliorarea condiţiilor de îngrijire şi trai ale copiilor
instituţionalizaţi şi abandonaţi şi pentru protecţia lor
atunci când aceştia sunt adoptaţi şi, mai ales, acum, în
condiţiile în care austeritatea bugetară pare să fie singura
idee a guvernelor de dreapta din Uniunea Europeană. În
consecinţă, primul pas este asigurarea unei îngrijiri
corespunzătoare pentru aceşti copii; în al doilea rând,
lupta împotriva traficului de copii şi a prostituţiei
infantile; în al treilea rând, să nu uităm că, în interesul
copiilor, trebuie dată întâietate adopţiilor de către un
membru al familiei şi adopţiilor naţionale; în al patrulea
rând, abia, adopţiile internaţionale.
Pentru că aici putem trage doar concluziile din trecut,
deschiderea porţilor pentru adopţiile intenţionale în
România a însemnat crearea unor reţele de trafic de copii
fără precedent, cazuri de răpire a copiilor şi vânzarea lor
spre Occident, în colaborare cu organizaţii europene şi
internaţionale. Între 1997-2000, doamnă Comisar,
România „a exportat” 9 150 copii, iar ţara mea nu va
mai accepta niciodată o asemenea monstruozitate.
Aş dori, în final, să vă rog, prin intermediul
dumneavoastră, ca doamna Comisar Reding să clarifice
alegaţiile apărute în mass-media românească şi
internaţională privitoare la Agenţia Europeană de
Supraveghere a Adopţiilor Internaţionale, propunere

17-01-2011 57
care apare şi în studiul comandat de Comisia Europeană.
Un coleg europarlamentar aşteaptă, încă, răspunsul
doamnei Comisar Reding la o întrebare.
1-157
Alexandra Thein (ALDE). – Herr Präsident! Erst vor
kurzem haben wir im großen Plenarsaal unseres
Parlaments in Brüssel einen internationalen Workshop
zur elterlichen Verantwortung und zum Schutz von
Kindern veranstaltet, den zu leiten ich die Ehre hatte. In
Europa gibt es immer mehr ausgesetzte und aufgegebene
Kinder, die nicht auf Dauer in Waisenhäusern leben
sollen. Es ist deshalb unsere Pflicht als Gesetzgeber, das
Recht auf internationale Adoption innerhalb der EU zu
stärken, damit diesen Kindern geholfen werden kann.
Dies verlangt auch Artikel 24 unserer Grundrechtecharta,
in der es heißt: „Kinder haben Anspruch auf den
Schutz und die Fürsorge, die für ihr Wohlergehen
notwendig sind.“
Wir haben zwar das Haager Adoptionsübereinkommen
und ein Übereinkommen des Europarats, diese sind
jedoch nicht ausreichend. Bei internationalen
Adoptionen bestehen noch große rechtliche Probleme in
der Praxis. Hier helfen nur internationale Regelungen,
die die immer noch bestehenden unterschiedlichen
nationalen Regelungen beseitigen und durch klare und
einfache Prinzipien ersetzen. Dabei darf bei allem
gesetzgeberischen Eifer nicht aus dem Blickfeld geraten,
dass die EU mit der Haager Konferenz für
internationales Privatrecht kooperieren muss, um ein
abgestimmtes Vorgehen zu gewährleisten. Die EU sollte
also auf diesem Gebiet nicht das Rad neu erfinden. Ich
begrüße die entsprechenden Erklärungen der
Kommissarin.
1-158
Ryszard Czarnecki (ECR). – Panie Przewodniczący!
To bardzo ważny, ale też drażliwy temat. Przypomnę, że
w Parlamencie Europejskim zeszłej kadencji mieliśmy
problem adopcji rumuńskich dzieci przez rodziców w
Izraelu i budziło to poważne perturbacje, także natury
politycznej. Teraz kolejna inicjatywa, która – jak sądzę –
ma dobre intencje, ale jak widać budzi emocje. Myślę,
że tutaj trzeba bardzo uważać, aby nie wylać dziecka z
kąpielą, aby troszcząc się o dobre przyszłe życie dla
dzieci, nie spowodować sytuacji, w której pójdziemy na
skróty, w której otworzymy furtkę dla pospiesznych
adopcji i tak naprawdę pozwolimy na odbieranie dzieci
rodzicom. Przed tym bardzo mocno bym przestrzegał.
1-159
Csanád Szegedi (NI). – Tisztelt elnök úr, tisztelt
képviselőtársaim! Örülök, hogy a nemzetközi
örökbefogadás témaköre, az elhagyott gyermekek ügye
napirendre került az Európai Parlamentben. Rendkívül
fontosnak tartom, hogy úgy en bloc a gyermekek
védelme mind az Európai Parlamentben, mind pedig az
Európai Unióban kiemelt prioritás legyen. Az elhagyott,
elhagyatott gyermekek védelmében mindannyiunknak
példát kell mutatni. Nekik is joguk van ahhoz, hogy
egészséges, mind testileg, mind lelkileg egészséges
felnőtté váljanak. Ehhez pedig elengedhetetlen, hogy
ezek az elhagyott, elhagyatott, árva gyermekek
családban, egészséges környezetben nőjenek fel.
Mindent meg kell tennünk annak érdekében, hogy minél
kevesebb gyermek kerüljön árvaházakba. Különös
megvilágítást kap az elhagyott gyermekek témaköre,
hogyha az elöregedő Európára gondolunk, ahol minden
gyermek a saját jövőnk záloga is egyben.
1-160
Edit Bauer (PPE). – Elnök úr! Kedves biztos asszony!
Szeretném megköszönni az Ön alapos válaszát. Azzal
együtt, hogy tudjuk, hogy a Hágai Szerződés
gyakorlatilag szabályozza a nemzetközi örökbefogadást,
azt is tudjuk, hogy a 27 tagországból 26 részese ennek a
szerződésnek, és abban is igaza van Önnek, hogy ez a
szubszidiaritás kérdése, hogy hogy alkalmazzák ezt a
nemzetközi egyezményt. Ezzel együtt én úgy érzem,
hogy nem lehet közömbös, az élet kikényszeríti, hogy ne
csak akkor foglalkozzunk a gyerekek problémájával,
amikor botrányok vannak, amikor kiderül, hogy több
száz gyereket adtak el ide, több száz gyereket, vagy több
mint ezer gyereket adtak el amoda. Ennek a másik oldala
az, hogy azokat a gyerekeket, akikről tudjuk, hogy
léteznek az Európai Unióban ezerszámra, örökbe
lehessen adni. A téma megkerülhetetlen, mert az Európai
Unió felelős a gyerekek jogainak betartásáért, miközben
azt is látjuk, hogy az örökbefogadás körül, bizony annak
következtében, hogy egyes jogokat túldimenzionál a
nemzeti jogszabály és a nemzeti gyakorlat, így
örökbefogadhatatlanná válnak a gyerekek és így
csorbulnak a más jogaik. Biztos asszony! Én nagyon
szeretném Önt arra kérni, hogy azt, amit elmondott a
bevezetőjében, hogy nincs olyan nemzetközi jogszabály,
ami az Európai Unióban már lehetne, hogy az
örökbefogadásról szóló dokumentumokat a tagországban
elismerjék, hogy ebben a kérdésben szükséges gyorsan
előre lépnünk.
1-161
Zita Gurmai (S&D). – Elnök úr, biztos asszony, kedves
kollégák! A nemzetközi örökbefogadás legalább olyan
súlyú kérdés, mint a határokon átnyúló válások ügye, és
legalább olyan figyelmet is igényel, már csak azért is,
mert legtöbbször a felnőttek döntéseinek érzelmileg,
anyagilag és minden lehetséges értelemben
kiszolgáltatott gyermekekről van szó, akiket a
legmagasabb szintű közösségi védelem illet meg.
A nemzetközi örökbefogadás kapcsán szóbeli kérdést
benyújtók érdeklődése elsősorban a jogi környezetre
vonatkozott. A gyakorlat áttekintése legalább olyan
fontos, mint a jogszabályalkotás. Új vagy egyáltalán jó
szakpolitikai döntés, új jogszabályi környezet ugyanis
csak megbízható adatok, statisztikák illetve a tényleges
gyakorlat ismeretében alakítható ki. Csak pontos
adatokból állapítható meg, hogy egyáltalán szükséges-e
hozzányúlni a szabályozáshoz, ezért tartom a kollégák
által feltett kérdést kiemelt jelentőségűnek. Mivel
azonban szerintem ezt az egész kérdéskört nagyon
átfogóan kell kezelni, szeretnék egy lépéssel hátrébb
lépni, mint a kérdésfeltevők tették.
A következő kérdéseket szeretném feltenni a
Bizottságnak: vannak-e pontos statisztikai adataink az
Unión belüli, illetve a harmadik országok

58 17-01-2011
közreműködésével létrejövő nemzetközi örökbefogadási
esetekről? Egészen pontosan milyen adatokat gyűjtünk
ebben a témában? Milyen módszerekkel? Ki gyűjti az
adatokat, és ha a tagállamok gyűjtik, akkor egységes-e
ez a módszertan? Ha nemzetközi örökbefogadásra kerül
sor akár az Unión belül, akár a harmadik fél
közreműködésével, akkor a szülők és a gyerekek
kiválasztása, illetve előzetes felkészítése hogyan néz ki?
A felkészítést hogyan ellenőrizzük? Vannak-e erre közös
szabályaink? Milyen különbségek vannak a tagállamok
gyakorlatai között? Van-e életkori limit akár az
örökbefogadóra, akár a gyermekre nézve? Kapnak-e az
örökbefogadó szülök folyamatos szakmai támogatást?
Van-e megbízható, rendszeres utókövetés? Lehet-e
tudni, hogy az örökbefogadó szülők milyen
gyakorisággal ütköznek problémákba, és hogy ezek a
problémák milyen jellegűek? Milyen segítséget
nyújtanak a tagállamok problémás esetekben?
Köszönöm szépen a figyelmet, és köszönöm biztos
asszony kiváló munkáját!
1-162
Sonia Alfano (ALDE). – Signor Presidente, onorevoli
colleghi, da alcuni anni in Italia numerose famiglie e
altrettanti bambini rumeni subiscono le conseguenze del
blocco delle adozioni internazionali da parte della
Romania.
La Convenzione dell'Aia rappresenta il quadro di
riferimento da attuare in maniera uniforme in tutti i paesi
dell'Unione europea e in questo bisogna che la Romania
faccia uno sforzo per adeguarsi. Se la Romania ritiene
che il blocco delle adozioni internazionali sia funzionale
a tutelare i bambini, ad esempio per il rischio che si
sviluppi un traffico illegale degli stessi, affronti anche
con l'aiuto dell'Unione europea questa problematica,
inasprendo i controlli e con normative severe; è
necessario però un impegno affinché tante famiglie per
bene possano accogliere bambini che meritano una
seconda opportunità di avere un'infanzia felice.
Chiedo quindi alla Commissione in che maniera intende
supportare un eventuale impegno della Romania a
cancellare la moratoria sulle adozioni internazionali e,
inoltre, vorrei conoscere la posizione della Commissione
riguardo alla possibilità di creare un'Agenzia europea per
le adozioni, anche alla luce degli studi effettuati.
1-163
Janusz Wojciechowski (ECR). – Panie
Przewodniczący! Adopcja może być i często jest
dobrodziejstwem dla dziecka, ale procedury z nią
związane mogą być też powodem nadużyć, takich jak
handel dzieci czy wyrywanie dzieci do adopcji z rodzin,
które wcale nie porzuciły swoich dzieci, tylko często z
powodu biedy nie są w stanie zapewnić im właściwych
warunków. Ta wielka liczba dzieci w sierocińcach, o
której wspominamy w dzisiejszej debacie, to często nie
są dzieci porzucone, ale właśnie dzieci rodziców
biednych, którzy nie radzą sobie z trudną sytuacją
życiową. Takim rodzinom trzeba pomóc. Państwa za
dużo mniejsze kwoty mogłyby pomóc tym rodzinom,
wcale nie zabierając dzieci do sierocińca, a w
konsekwencji dalej do adopcji. Powinniśmy przyjąć
jednoznaczną zasadę – w Unii Europejskiej powinno być
to obowiązujące – nigdy nie zabierać dzieci z rodzin z
powodu biedy, pomagać, nie zabierać dzieci. Bieda nie
może być przyczyną zabierania dziecku jego naturalnej
rodziny.
1-164
Raffaele Baldassarre (PPE). – Signor Presidente,
onorevoli colleghi, Signora Commissario, oggi ci
troviamo a discutere di quello che rappresenta un
terribile controsenso per un'Unione che vuole assicurare
la piena libertà di movimento dei propri cittadini ed
essere funzionale alle esigenze degli stessi; un
controsenso che rivela un concreto bisogno di aiuto da
parte di taluni e l'impossibilità da parte di altri di poter
offrire l'aiuto sollecitato.
Quello delle difficoltà e degli ostacoli che si
frappongono all'adozione internazionale è un paradosso
che si traduce in un dramma per migliaia di bambini e
famiglie all'interno dell'Unione europea. Le numerose
convenzioni internazionali hanno dato prova di poter
affrontare i problemi legati alle adozioni solo in maniera
parziale: ciò è dovuto, da un lato, alla specificità di ogni
convenzione e alla natura esclusiva delle stesse;
dall'altro, però, il limite degli sforzi sinora profusi è nel
carattere intergovernativo delle strutture e dei processi
decisionali esistenti.
Il trattato di Lisbona e la Carta dei diritti fondamentali
offrono oggi i capisaldi giuridici e l'approccio politico,
naturalmente, cambia. La protezione e il benessere dei
bambini rientra ufficialmente tra i pilastri dei diritti
salvaguardati dell'Unione. È questa la base del dibattito
odierno e dell'interrogazione orale presentata, una base
sulla quale poggia una discussione più ampia che
dovrebbe essere a cuore di questo Parlamento, che
dovrebbe essere puntuale e attenta in questo Parlamento
e perseguita con la tenacia di cui la collega Angelilli ha
dato prova.
Permettetemi di ricordare Saint-Exupéry, il quale diceva:
"Tutti i grandi sono stati bambini una volta, ma pochi di
essi se ne ricordano".
1-165
Petru Constantin Luhan (PPE). – Întrebarea orală de
la care a pornit Rezoluţia privind adopţiile internaţionale
aduce pe agenda Parlamentului European un subiect de o
importanţă majoră.
Adopţia internaţională poate fi considerată numai ca un
mijloc alternativ, după ce au fost epuizate măsurile de
adopţie la nivel naţional. De asemenea, adopţia
internaţională prezintă o serie de particularităţi şi
dificultăţi care ţin, în mare măsură, de interacţiunea
limitată dintre copil şi adoptori, în perioada anterioară
adopţiei, precum şi de probleme de adaptare lingvistică
şi culturală întâmpinate de acesta ulterior adopţiei.
Principiul interesului superior al copilului şi nu al
adoptorului, după cum rezultă din Convenţia ONU şi din
cea de la Haga, trebuie să stea la baza rezoluţiei
Parlamentului European, axându-se pe dezvoltarea
acestuia într-un mediu familiar, ce asigură continuitate

17-01-2011 59
în creşterea copilului şi luând în considerare
backgroundul etnic, religios, cultural şi lingvistic al
acestuia.
Esenţial în analizarea temei privind adopţiile şi
elaborarea rezoluţiei este principiul reintegrării copilului
din sistemul de protecţie în familia biologică sau extinsă.
Aş dori să atrag atenţia asupra unei confuzii ce se face
adesea între numărul copiilor separaţi de părinţii lor, dar
aflaţi în sistemul de protecţie şi numărul copiilor
adoptabili. Copiii separaţi de părinţii lor beneficiază de
protecţie din partea statului pentru o perioadă limitată şi
nu sunt adoptabili. Consider că nu avem nevoie de
mecanisme de control şi că principiile existente la nivel
internaţional, legate de acestea, sunt suficiente.
1-166
Marco Scurria (PPE). – Signor Presidente, onorevoli
colleghi, noi stiamo affrontando stasera questo dibattito,
frutto anche dell'intervento di tante associazioni che in
tutto il continente, in tutta l'Unione europea si sono
rivolte a noi per, appunto, affrontare questo tema così
delicato che abbiamo trasformato, a cominciare da
Roberta Angelilli, in questa interrogazione.
Ci hanno sottoposto un problema molto semplice,
almeno sembra, da un punto di vista dialettico: ci sono
tanti bambini negli istituti europei e ci sono tante
famiglie che vogliono adottare bambini, ma spesso
questo incrocio non avviene e i bambini continuano a
rimanere negli istituti e le famiglie continuano a
rimanere senza bambini.
Bambini che, chiaramente, hanno la nostra priorità, la
nostra attenzione, e quindi hanno bisogno di tutte le
accortezze del caso, ma bambini che, quando rimangono
per troppi anni negli istituti, spesso in questi istituti
diventano oggetto dei mercanti di prostituzione e di
traffici di organi per i nuovi mercanti di schiavi.
Tutto questo avviene mentre appunto molte famiglie
vorrebbero aprire le loro case a questi bambini e allora
sono molto contento di aver ascoltato il Commissario
per le misure che intende adottare, a cui dovremmo
aggiungere, però, la possibilità di una maggiore
cooperazione tra gli Stati in materia di collaborazione, di
adozione internazionale, insieme ovviamente ad una
vigilanza sulla tutela del minore adottato.
Chiediamo quindi procedure più snelle nell'interesse
delle famiglie e dei bambini, perché tra qualche anno
questi ex bambini e ragazzi diventati uomini e donne
non debbano chiedersi perché un'Europa piena di
potenziali famiglie accoglienti li ha lasciati nella loro
condizione.
1-167
Anna Záborská (PPE). – Dovoľte mi trochu iný pohľad
na adopcie. Deti si zaslúžia to najlepšie. To v prvom
rade znamená, že si zaslúžia rodinu. Vlastnú alebo
náhradnú, s milujúcou matkou a otcom. V ceste k takejto
rodine nesmú stáť hranice ani Európska únia. A hoci
hlavné slovo v otázke adopcií majú členské štáty, našou
povinnosťou je túto cestu uľahčiť.
Nezabúdajme však na to, že na prvom mieste musí
zostať snaha o dobro dieťaťa. Snaha pomôcť jeho
rodičom, ak sa ocitnú v ťažkostiach. Sociálna situácia
rodičov nesmie byť dôvodom na rozhodnutie o adopcii
ich dieťaťa. Zobrať dieťa chudobným rodičom je
jednoduché, ale zároveň to najhoršie, čo môžeme
dieťaťu urobiť. A to platí dvojnásobne o
medzinárodných adopciách.
Ako jedna z tých, ktorí sú podpísaní pod otázkou o
medzinárodných adopciách, ktorú sme predložili
Komisii, som veľmi rada, že táto téma oslovila veľa
mojich kolegov. Alebo bola by som ešte radšej, keby
sme s rovnakou energiou a nástojčivosťou zohľadňovali
dobro rodiny a jej potreby pri všetkých európskych
politikách.
1-168
Agustín Díaz de Mera García Consuegra (PPE). –
Señor Presidente, la adopción internacional inspirada en
los principios de prevalencia del interés superior del
niño y del respeto de sus derechos fundamentales resulta
un medio apropiado para procurar una familia a los que
no se les puede encontrar una familia en sus países de
origen.
El tráfico de seres humanos, la explotación sexual y la
esclavitud laboral constituyen una terrible realidad que
afecta a cientos de millones de menores. Veamos
algunos datos: hay más de ciento cuarenta y cinco
millones de niños abandonados en el mundo; solo en
Rusia, más de seiscientos mil viven en la calle; desde
1980, más de dos millones de niños han muerto en los
conflictos armados; más de seiscientos millones de niños
viven en situación de extrema pobreza; más de cinco
millones mueren cada año; más de ciento treinta
millones de niños en países desarrollados crecen sin
tener acceso a la educación básica, por causa de su
pobreza, y, de ellos, el 60 % son niñas; siete millones de
niños están sometidos a esclavitud sexual en el mundo.
Por todo ello, debemos impulsar mecanismos que
favorezcan un instrumento de adopción internacional
inspirado en la protección del menor, armonizando para
ello los diferentes requisitos y procedimientos previstos
en las legislaciones de los Estados miembros, aplicando
singularmente el artículo 21 de la Carta de los Derechos
del Niño y tomando en consideración el artículo 24 de
nuestra Carta de los Derechos Fundamentales.
1-169
Erminia Mazzoni (PPE). – Signor Presidente,
onorevoli colleghi, Signor Commissario, ho sottoscritto
questa interrogazione proposta dalla collega Angelilli
perché ritengo che ancor di più all'indomani di Lisbona
l'Unione europea non possa non porre tra le proprie
priorità la tutela dei minori.
Le procedure di adozione sono, a mio avviso, solo la
cartina di tornasole di una deriva sociale della quale
abbiamo il dovere di farci carico ponendo degli argini. I
minori, nel migliore dei casi, diventano oggetto di
scambi commerciali che sono sicuramente non dignitosi

60 17-01-2011
per ciascuno di noi, ma purtroppo sono spesso anche
vittime di sfruttamento e di violenza.
Al di là del fenomeno dei cosiddetti fantasmi, cioè di
quei nati in condizione di clandestinità e di abbandono
che non vengono censiti dal sistema, si conta un numero
incerto di bambini in stato di adottabilità, cui
corrisponde un numero di coppie che richiedono
l'adozione, che non si incontrano per questioni di
interpretazione legislativa e di burocrazia ingombrante.
L'Unicef ha di recente pubblicato uno studio dal quale
emergono dati allarmanti anche in molti paesi europei.
Come presidente della commissione per le petizioni mi
sono imbattuta più volte in casi di conflitti normativi tra
paesi dell'Unione dai quali derivano conseguenze
negative, a volte drammatiche, solo per i minori.
Le complesse procedure previste in molti ordinamenti
nazionali non sempre si rivelano proficue per l'interesse
del minore, i tempi lunghi contrastano con l'esigenza di
promuovere il passaggio del minore entro il primo anno
di vita per ridurre il trauma dello sradicamento e di
evitare una lunga permanenza negli orfanotrofi, anche
perché consideriamo che, superato un certo limite di età,
purtroppo, vengono richiesti meno dal mercato.
Alla luce di questi dati, credo che sia opportuno dar
corso alla necessità avvertita da tempo di un
coordinamento a livello europeo delle normative
nazionali che consenta, da un canto, la semplificazione
delle procedure delle adozioni intraeuropee e che,
dall'altro, garantisca il rispetto dei principi fondamentali
nelle adozioni da paesi extraeuropei.
1-170
Carlos Coelho (PPE). – Senhor Presidente, Senhora
Comissária, caras e caros Colegas, felicito a colega
Angelilli pela oportunidade desta pergunta oral. Sou dos
que consideram que temos de desenvolver políticas mais
eficazes de protecção das crianças que visem prevenir
situações de pobreza, de abuso e de abandono das
crianças e, paralelamente, de alternativas ao seu
internamento em instituições, onde a adopção deverá
desempenhar um papel crucial.
A UNICEF reconhece que não se reduziu o número de
crianças em instituições e que o aumento de adopções
ficou muito aquém do crescimento do número de
crianças institucionalizadas, pelo que temos que fazer
um exame dentro de nós. É importante proceder a uma
avaliação geral do direito e da prática administrativa e
judiciária relativamente aos processos de adopção
existentes nos vários Estados-Membros de forma a
podermos identificar os eventuais obstáculos ao seu bom
funcionamento.
E, relativamente aos países terceiros, temos de vigiar o
problema das adopções irregulares ou ilegais que incide
principalmente sobre as regiões mais pobres. É por
exemplo o caso da Guiné-Bissau, em que mais de 50 %
das crianças não foram registadas, o que facilita o
desenvolvimento da acção criminosa de redes de tráfico
de crianças.
Creio, assim, ser necessária uma estratégia europeia de
protecção dos interesses das crianças no âmbito dos
procedimentos de adopção internacional, de forma a
evitar e prevenir o rapto, a venda ou o tráfico de seres
humanos.
1-171
Mairead McGuinness (PPE). – Mr President, in Ireland
the motto of the International Adoption Association is
that families are made in many ways. The debate tonight
reflects the interest that there is in adoption. There are
over 1 200 members of that Association: many have
adopted and some wish to adopt.
Our attitudes to adoption have changed utterly. In
Ireland we come from a past where mothers –
particularly single mothers – had their babies taken from
them and given away to others to be adopted. That is not
a good history, but it is certainly one that has now
conditioned how we think of adoption: the child must be
at the centre of it. Certainly, the birth families are very
important in all of this.
Equally, we have a duty and a responsibility to give the
very best possible home to all our children. Each
Member State – and that is the level on which this
should operate – needs to protect children within its own
borders. Europe should provide a coordinating role.
I hope that in Ireland we will have a referendum on the
rights of the child. We talk about it a lot, but we are not
so effective in actually dealing with it. I am hopeful that
the referendum will happen. The situation will certainly
improve then. This has been a really useful debate and I
thank colleagues for it.
1-172
Seán Kelly (PPE). – Mr President, the greatest gift that
we can give to any child is that of a happy home. Most
children find that in their own home with their natural
parents. Many though, get this with their adoptive
parents.
Either is preferable to an institutional life, provided of
course that there is no corruption or exploitation
involved.
To find the balance is very difficult, but I think that we
need – while taking into consideration the Hague
Convention etc. – where there are prospective adoptive
parents who are bona fide and beyond reproach, to
facilitate them more in giving the gift of a happy home
to a child who has not otherwise got one, and not
encumbering them with lengthy, expensive, drawn-out
processes.
We need to get the balance right because, as a teacher, I
came across many adopted children and the vast
majority were in very good homes.
1-173

17-01-2011 61
Mario Pirillo (S&D). – Signor Presidente, onorevoli
colleghi, onorevole Angelilli, Signora Commissario, la
protezione e la cura del benessere dei minori sono
divenuti, con l'entrata in vigore del trattato di Lisbona,
uno dei diritti fondamentali che l'Europa tutela in
maniera vincolante. Ciononostante, si registrano ancora
in Europa troppi episodi di abbandono di minori, che
finiscono nel migliore dei casi in orfanotrofio. Una
situazione drammatica, che per le nostre democrazie non
può essere tollerata.
Occorre per questo mettere in campo tutte le energie
necessarie per impedire che questa situazione diventi
ingestibile, adottando una strategia per innalzare il
livello di attenzione e favorendo al massimo il diritto di
adottare i minori a livello internazionale.
Per fare ciò, innanzitutto, serve una precisa fotografia
della situazione in tutti i paesi membri, con un
monitoraggio costante da effettuare magari attraverso
l'istituzione di un osservatorio permanente sui diritti dei
minori. Inoltre, è necessario avere un quadro
complessivo delle misure in essere prese dall'Unione
europea e di quelle che potrebbero essere intraprese per
tutelare al massimo i minori che devono essere adottati
dai cittadini europei.
1-174
Catherine Bearder (ALDE). – Mr President, the wide
range of instruments which currently govern
international adoptions has led to confusion over whose
role it is to safeguard the rights of children subject to
international adoptions. The Commission needs to focus
further on the competent authorities, and ensure that
those regulating the adopters’ and the adopted children’s
rights are making sure that basic minimum standards are
adhered to, and that, in the longer term, the child is able
to maintain a link to its birth country and its culture.
Specifically, urgent measures must be taken to react to
the abuse and trafficking of children, which, as a report
in my own country today shows, is alarmingly on the
rise both within and across European borders. Child
trafficking and child laundering – the stealing of
children who are subsequently sold to adoptive parents
as legitimate orphans – is a phenomenon which does not
receive adequate attention at an international level.
I would call on the Commission to play a more active
role in the field of international adoption, to take
concrete steps to improve the convoluted and confused
legislative framework which currently governs
international adoption in the EU, and to protect those
most vulnerable young people.
1-175
Miroslav Mikolášik (PPE). – V tejto chvíli hovoríme o
medzinárodných adopciách preto, lebo v každom štáte
existujú deti, ktoré akosi nemožno alebo nie je možné
z rôznych dôvodov umiestniť vo fungujúcich rodinách
alebo v náhradných rodinách v tom-ktorom štáte
samotnom.
Je neprípustné, aby sa opakovali také situácie, ako sme v
nedávnej minulosti boli svedkami toho, že jedna
bohatšia krajina, napríklad Taliansko, mala možnosť vo
väčšej miere adoptovať deti z chudobnejšieho
Rumunska. Určite, tak ako aj niektorí kolegovia už v
tejto večernej hodine povedali, chudoba nemôže byť
dostatočným dôvodom na to, aby sme zobrali dieťa z
rodiny a umožnili medzinárodnú adopciu.
A chcem veľmi zdôrazniť, aby sme v tejto situácii dávali
veľký pozor, aby boli zachovávané nielen národné
zákony, ale aj medzinárodné. Aby sa zabránilo riziku
zneužívania, obchodovania a únosov detí.
1-176
George Sabin Cutaş (S&D). – Doresc să fac, de
asemenea, referire la Convenţia ONU prin care se spune
că adopţiile internaţionale nu pot fi decât o alternativă de
ajutorare a copilului, atunci când acestuia nu îi poate fi
găsită o familie adoptivă sau când nu poate fi îngrijit
corespunzător în ţara sa de origine.
Riscurile unei liberalizări a adopţiilor internaţionale sunt
multiple. Pe de o parte, creşte posibilitatea traficului de
copii şi a abuzurilor survenite ca urmare a intereselor de
ordin financiar şi a dificultăţilor de monitorizare a
situaţiei post adopţie. Pe de altă parte, separarea
copilului de părinţii săi biologici, de locul său de origine,
poate avea consecinţe nefaste de ordin psihologic, social
şi educaţional. Atunci când vorbim despre adopţii
trebuie să avem, în primul rând, în vedere asigurarea
bunăstării copilului şi, prin urmare, nu trebuie exercitate
presiuni asupra statelor membre ale Uniunii, cu tradiţii şi
proceduri legale diverse în domeniul adopţiilor, pentru
liberalizarea adopţiilor internaţionale.
1-177
Antonyia Parvanova (ALDE). – Mr President, I would
again like to draw your attention to the practice of illegal
adoption. There is an organised crime network in Europe
– and especially in south-eastern Europe – which deals
in this. Hundreds of children are being illegally adopted
or put up for trade.
After everything that we have succeeded in doing here in
Parliament, we should not have just one small recital on
this issue in the Human Trafficking Directive. I call on
the Commission to take special measures to prevent this
horrible crime, and also to punish the perpetrators. We
could not cope, country by country, at national level,
with this very vicious practice. It constitutes organised
crime, and I therefore insist that it should be dealt with
at EU level.
1-178
Marian-Jean Marinescu (PPE). – Rezoluţia referitoare
la adopţia internaţională în Uniune trebuie să menţioneze
clar următoarele aspecte: familiile care intenţionează să
recurgă la adopţia internaţională trebuie să aibă avizul
instituţiei naţionale competente din ţara din care provin;
adopţia internaţională trebuie să se realizeze numai sub
responsabilitatea autorităţilor competente din cele două
state membre, a familiei şi a copilului.

62 17-01-2011
De asemenea, monitorizarea copiilor adoptaţi prin
procedura de adopţie internaţională trebuie să fie
efectuată de către instituţia naţională cu atribuţii în acest
domeniu. Nu în ultimul rând, este necesar ca autorităţile
naţionale competente să raporteze periodic statului
membru din care provine copilul adoptat, prin procedura
de adopţie internaţională, cu privire la procesul de
dezvoltare a acestuia.
1-179
Catherine Stihler (S&D). – Mr President, I just wanted
to add something about kinship care, and support to
kinship carers.
Most kinship carers are grandparents and find
themselves being the main caregivers for their
grandchildren, normally because the parent either has a
drug addiction or has died through that drug addiction.
The issue I wanted to bring to this House’s attention is
the good work that Mentor UK has been doing on the
rights of kinship carers. Some kinship carers adopt their
grandchildren. Others do not, but are in a caring
relationship with that child and provide a stable and safe
home for them. However, the rights of kinship children
are often actually less than those of children who are in
proper care. This is something which I felt people had
touched upon in this debate, but I would urge you, if you
are interested in the issue of kinship carers, to look at the
work of Mentor UK and the help that is given to kinship
carers in different countries.
1-180
Kristalina Georgieva, Member of the Commission. −
Mr President, let me first echo the sentiments of those
who expressed thanks to Ms Angelilli for initiating a
very rich debate this evening. I have five points to make
in summing up the debate.
First, the Commission fully agrees with the views that
have been expressed on the importance of protecting and
promoting the rights of children in inter-country
adoptions. This is and will remain the main objective of
the Commission as we participate in discussions on this
topic, both in the context of the Hague Convention and
in our work on the rights of children in Europe.
On this issue, I would point out that in the forthcoming
communication on children’s rights, we will present
actions to promote the rights of the child for the period
between 2011 and 2014. These will include actions
aimed at improving the support the Commission
provides to Member States in the implementation of the
United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child.
As I mentioned with reference to the Green Paper, we
are also taking steps that will facilitate the circulation of
civil status acts as adoption decisions – in other words,
the mutual recognition of national adoption decisions
within the EU.
With regard to MEPs’ concerns that the issue is sensitive
and should be seen in the context of national needs and
national legislation, the Commission would like to
underline that the Romanian law on international
adoptions is the sole responsibility of the Romanian
Government. The measure that has been taken must be
seen in connection with the abusive practices in intercountry
adoption in Romania in the past. The
Commission is closely following developments in
Romanian legislation, but I would like to stress again
that it is Romania’s sole responsibility to further develop
this law.
On monitoring, it is our strong belief that the appropriate
institution is the Special Commission of the Hague
Convention on the Protection of Children and
Cooperation in respect of Inter-Country Adoption. The
Commission participates in that monitoring body. We
will take many of the points that have been made this
evening into account when we think about how we
participate in the work of this body.
The Commission considers accreditation to be a matter
of national authority. It relates to family laws that
Member States have and develop, and therefore it is
appropriate that it should be addressed at that level.
Finally, I will convey to Vice-President Reding the
points that have been made here this evening, including
the question raised by one Member in relation to which
an answer is expected.
As the godmother of an adopted boy, I have seen how
emotional and difficult the issue of adoption can be, and
how many factors are involved in a decision to adopt. I
have listened to the debate this evening not only with
great interest, but also with a sense that it is a matter not
just of legislation, but also of hearts and minds.
Therefore let us pray that hearts and minds are brought
into play in a way that best protects the interests of
children, both our children and children in other
countries.
1-181
Presidente. − Comunico di aver ricevuto cinque
proposte di risoluzione conformemente all'articolo 115,
paragrafo 5, del regolamento.
La discussione è chiusa.
La votazione si svolgerà mercoledì 19 gennaio 2011.
1-182
19 - Interventi di un minuto (articolo 150 del
regolamento)
1-183
Presidente. − L'ordine del giorno reca gli interventi di
un minuto su questioni di rilevanza politica.
1-184
Zuzana Roithová (PPE). – Je to již 19 měsíců, kdy
Kanada náhle a jednostranně zavedla vízovou povinnost
pro občany České republiky, která jako člen Unie nesmí
zavést reciproční víza pro všechny Kanaďany. Předseda
Barroso ihned řekl, že to je unijní, nikoli bilaterální
problém, ale bohužel komisařka Malmströmová to neřeší
jako prioritu, jen pasivně monitoruje bilaterální pracovní
jednání. Rada na mou interpelaci řekla, že o reciprocitě
Unie nejedná, neboť dosud ani nedostala žádné návrhy

17-01-2011 63
od komisařky. Čeští občané tak jsou de facto
evropskými občany druhé kategorie, pokud jde o jejich
práva, a diví se, že Kanaďané do České republiky jezdí
dál bez víz.
Upozorňuji, že liknavost Komise zvyšuje také riziko, že
český parlament odloží ratifikace smluv mezi Unií a
Kanadou. Nemá totiž jinou možnost, jak bránit práva
občanů, když EU selhává a netlačí na Kanadu. Proto
žádám spolu s vámi, aby paní komisařka neprodleně
jednala s Kanadou a také se postavila za Rumuny a
Bulhary. Anebo společná vízová politika a princip
solidarity už nejsou evropskými hodnotami? Je si paní
komisařka vědoma, co vše je dnes ve hře?
1-185
Petru Constantin Luhan (PPE). – Consumul de
substanţe psihotrope şi psihoactive ce se situează, de
regulă, în zona gri a legislaţiei are efecte mult mai
nocive decât drogurile cunoscute până acum. Aceste
substanţe sunt întâlnite în mod frecvent în Europa, în
magazinele de vise şi sunt cunoscute sub numele de
etnobotanice, un termen inventat pentru a da un aspect
nevinovat traficului şi consumului de droguri.
Ţări precum Polonia, Israel, Suedia, Danemarca, Anglia,
Germania au interzis deja un număr semnificativ de
substanţe identificate ca fiind psihotrope şi psihoactive.
Substanţele comercializate, deşi nu fac parte din lista
substanţelor interzise, sunt foarte greu de supus
controlului, punând corpul medical în imposibilitatea de
a oferi ajutor, deoarece combinaţiile chimice folosite au
reacţii necunoscute. Singura măsură ce se poate lua este
aceea de a interzice funcţionarea acestor magazine, după
care trebuie să ne concentrăm eforturile asupra eliminării
comercializării prin intermediul internetului.
1-186
Άννυ Ποδηματά (S&D). – Κύριε Πρόεδρε, η
συνεχιζόμενη κρίση στην ευρωζώνη θέτει όλους –
ευρωπαϊκά θεσμικά όργανα, κράτη μέλη, πολιτικές
ηγεσίες – ενώπιον των ευθυνών μας. Πρέπει να πάρουμε
την πρωτοβουλία των κινήσεων από τις αγορές, να
δώσουμε μια ολοκληρωμένη και πειστική απάντηση
στην κρίση συμπληρώνοντας - και όχι υποκαθιστώντας
ή παραβλέποντας - τις ευθύνες που έχουν αναλάβει τα
κράτη μέλη να εκπληρώσουν τις υποχρεώσεις τους. Σ’
αυτό το πλαίσιο, ευρωπαϊκές προσωπικότητες, πολιτικά
κόμματα, κινήσεις πολιτών, ευρωπαϊκά συνδικάτα
υποστηρίζουν ότι τα ευρωομόλογα μπορούν να παίξουν
ένα ρόλο κλειδί για την υπέρβαση της κρίσης χρέους και
τη διασφάλιση της σταθερότητας του ευρώ.
Θέλω λοιπόν να τονίσω ότι το Συμβούλιο πρέπει να
ανταποκριθεί άμεσα στο αίτημα που διατύπωσε το
Ευρωπαϊκό Κοινοβούλιο με το ψήφισμά του στις 16
Δεκεμβρίου 2010 και να δώσει ένα ξεκάθαρο σήμα στην
Ευρωπαϊκή Επιτροπή ώστε να προχωρήσει σε ενδελεχή
μελέτη του θέματος και σε υποβολή συγκεκριμένων
προτάσεων.
1-187
Graham Watson (ALDE). – Mr President, I rise to
make a statement about the plight of hundreds of
thousands of airline passengers in Europe in the 10 days
before Christmas and the chaos in the arrangements for
transporting them and their baggage to their intended
destinations. The failure of our airlines and our airports
to deal with a few centimetres of snow in a few Member
States caused devastating delay, disruption and despair
for travellers.
I call on Parliament’s Committee on Transport and
Tourism, the Union’s Transport Commissioner and
transport ministers in the Council to conduct an inquiry
into the disruption, to make provisions to prevent its
recurrence, to ensure that those affected are properly
compensated, and to study a sharing of the burden of
compensation in future between the airline companies
and others involved, such as airport operators.
Unusual snowfalls and uncommonly low temperatures,
as predicted in 2009 by the Potsdam Institute, arise from
the melting of the Arctic ice cap. They will become
more frequent. We cannot prevent them, however much
we must try to limit them, but we can – and we must –
be prepared for them.
1-188
Ryszard Czarnecki (ECR). – W Moskwie ogłoszono
wyniki raportu specjalnej komisji badającej przyczyny
katastrofy polskiego samolotu pod rosyjskim miastem
Smoleńsk 10 kwietnia zeszłego roku. W tej katastrofie
zginął prezydent Polski i 96 innych pasażerów, w tym
szereg najważniejszych osób w państwie. Ten raport jest
absolutnie skandaliczny. Zawiera szereg kłamstw i
ewidentnie spycha odpowiedzialność za tę katastrofę na
stronę polską, całkowicie pomijając poważne błędy po
stronie rosyjskiej, np. złe naprowadzanie tego samolotu
przez kontrolerów wieży lotniczej w Smoleńsku. Strona
rosyjska nie uwzględniła bardzo wielu uwag Polski do
tego raportu, 20 stron uwag zostało po prostu
zlekceważonych. To sprawa bardzo przykra, tym
powinna się zająć Unia Europejska.
1-189
João Ferreira (GUE/NGL). – Senhor Presidente,
terminou 2010, declarado o Ano Europeu de Combate à
Pobreza e à Exclusão Social, ano em que a União
Europeia, com inauditos cinismo e hipocrisia, pôs em
marcha políticas e orientações que tiveram e têm como
consequência o significativo aumento da pobreza e da
exclusão social.
Em Portugal, o orçamento de Estado para 2011,
concebido e aprovado sob a pressão e o aplauso da
União Europeia, conduzirá o país à recessão económica
e à regressão no plano social, com subida do
desemprego, já hoje em níveis históricos, e alastramento
da pobreza e da exclusão social.
Somam-se a tudo isto as inaceitáveis pressões e
chantagens que se abateram sobre o país nas últimas
semanas e que aqui queremos vivamente denunciar, o
crescente tom de ameaça do capital financeiro e das
instituições ao seu serviço para que o país e o seu povo
se submetam e aceitem a injustiça e o esbulho, para que

64 17-01-2011
aceitem a drenagem de recursos do país para os bolsos
do capital financeiro.
Uma coisa é certa: espera-nos um ano de muitas lutas, se
persistirem por este caminho.
1-190
Angelika Werthmann (NI). – Mr President, with regard
to Article 18 of the Universal Declaration of Human
Rights, and to Article 10 of the Charter of Fundamental
Rights of the European Union, I was informed that, on
Christmas Day, a massive abuse of religious freedom
took place in the Church of St Synesios in the occupied
town of Rizokarpaso.
The so-called authorities, supported by Turkey, had
stopped the Saturday service on the pretext that no
application had been made to hold the mass that day,
although according to the Church of Cyprus, such
permission was requested at the beginning of December,
as has been the case for the last 36 years.
Mr President, I strongly encourage you to take the
appropriate steps to guarantee religious freedom on the
soil of a European Union Member State.
1-191
Ioannis Kasoulides (PPE). – Mr President, on
Christmas Day, the Turkish Security forces in
Rizokarpaso, in the occupied part of Cyprus, interrupted
by force the Christmas mass being celebrated by the few
remaining – elderly – Christians there, evicted the priests
from the church and ordered the congregation to leave.
The excuse was that they had been given written
permission for Sunday mass, but that Christmas was on
a Saturday.
Demanding written permission for mass is a restriction
of the freedom of religion in itself, let alone to interrupt
a Christmas Day mass on the grounds of a petty
bureaucratic excuse – all this in a Member State of the
Union, by ordinance of a country aspiring to join it.
Under the Vienna Agreement, 12 000 Greek Cypriots
enclaved in the Karpass Peninsula were allowed to live
there after the Turkish invasion. Today there are 300.
Now you understand why.
1-192
Alf Svensson (PPE). – Herr talman! Jag tror det vore av
mycket stort värde att EU från högsta nivå startade en
interreligiös dialog. Jag skulle gärna se att EU försökte
få Turkiet att stå värd för en sådan dialog. Vi vet alla hur
kristna har behandlats runtom i världen, på olika håll i
Mellanöstern, kopterna i Egypten, kristna irakier i Irak
etc., etc. Vi kan inte, enligt min bestämda uppfattning,
bara referera, åhöra och åse detta, utan vi måste göra
någonting konkret.
Det första vi måste göra, enligt mitt sätt att se, är att
skapa en dialog. Det vore värdefullt om Turkiet, med
den brobyggaranda som trots allt tror jag finns där, fick
stå värd för den typen av dialog. Det handlar om judar,
om kristna, om muslimer. Låt oss få till stånd en bred
interreligiös dialog i EU:s regi.
1-193
Philippe Juvin (PPE). – Monsieur le Président, en Iraq,
en Égypte, les chrétiens disent: "Notre calvaire est
lourd". Bientôt, chers collègues, il n'y aura plus de
chrétiens sur les terres qui ont vu naître le christianisme.
En Turquie – on en parlait il y a quelques instants –,
pays musulman laïc, pays qui frappe à notre porte, 20 %
de la population était chrétienne il y a cent ans, ils sont
moins de 1 % aujourd'hui.
Le mouvement auquel nous assistons est en réalité un
mouvement de fond. Le monde arabo-musulman
persécute ses chrétiens, les condamne, empêche leur
conversion, les punit, les tue. On voit très bien que la
religion, l'islam, devient une religion d'État. Le résultat
est là, la religion chrétienne est la plus persécutée au
monde.
Or, chers collègues, défendre les chrétiens d'Orient, c'est
augmenter les chances de faire contrepoids à la montée
de l'extrémisme de l'islam. La présence des chrétiens
partout est un facteur d'équilibre. Il faut donc
absolument la défendre.
Et vraiment, je me demande, chers collègues, où sont
passés les défenseurs des droits de l'homme, qui se
félicitent, comme nous, que l'Occident soit laïc et
pluraliste et qui baissent honteusement les yeux devant
un Orient qui devient peu à peu réservé à une seule
religion.
1-194
Frédéric Daerden (S&D). – Monsieur le Président,
chers collègues, le gouvernement hongrois a décidé, fin
de l'année 2010, de ne plus subventionner l'Institut de la
petite enfance créé par Emmi Pikler à Budapest.
Cette scientifique hongroise a créé ce centre pour qu'il
développe des méthodes pédagogiques à destination des
tout petits sur des bases scientifiques. L'efficacité de ces
méthodes pour le développement psychomoteur des
enfants a été reconnue internationalement. Des
institutions de la petite enfance calquée sur ce modèle se
sont multipliées en Europe, jusque dans ma propre ville
belge.
Il est dommage qu'à la sortie de l'année européenne de
lutte contre la pauvreté, notamment la pauvreté infantile,
un tel signal soit donné par la Hongrie. Cette décision est
surprenante, vu le rayonnement international de cet
Institut Pikler et les autorités administratives hongroises
ayant annoncé leur volonté de continuité dans les
fonctions de celle-ci. Je m'interroge donc, mais sans
aucun préjugé, sur les motifs qui ont présidé à cette
décision du gouvernement hongrois.
1-195
Ramon Tremosa i Balcells (ALDE). – Mr President, I
would like to express concerns over the Agreement
between the EU and Morocco. The future of the
agriculture sectors in the Euro-Mediterranean countries

17-01-2011 65
will be seriously affected if this Agreement remains as it
is now.
We have to open our borders and reach an agreement
with the European agricultural sectors, and not one
behind their backs. The Commission has carried out
studies that clearly show that the Euro-Mediterranean
countries will be the most negatively affected by the EU-
Morocco Agreement.
I would not ratify this Agreement without the inclusion
of some clauses concerning the labour market, the social
dimension and the environment in Morocco. If we do
nothing, it is our farming activity and food chain
industry that will risk losing out, especially in the Euro-
Mediterranean countries. These are the concerns I
wanted to share with you tonight.
1-196
Constance Le Grip (PPE). – Monsieur le Président, je
voulais à mon tour, à l'instar de plusieurs de nos
collègues, aborder la question de la persécution des
chrétiens partout dans le monde, notamment des
chrétiens d'Orient.
Nul n'est besoin de rappeler les actes horribles
récemment perpétrés. Je voudrais rappeler tout à fait
solennellement que défendre les chrétiens en Orient
comme partout dans le monde, plaider pour la liberté
religieuse, la diversité des croyances, c'est plaider pour
la liberté, la démocratie et les droits de l'homme, qui
sont des valeurs au cœur du projet européen et qui sont,
bien sûr, en tout cas nous en sommes tous convaincus
ici, des valeurs universelles.
Il est vraiment temps maintenant, par-delà l'indignation,
l'émotion, les condamnations solennelles, de passer des
paroles aux actes. J'appelle donc instamment les
autorités de l'Union européenne, la haute représentante
pour les affaires étrangères et la politique de sécurité
mais également tous nos gouvernants, les ministres des
affaires étrangères à engager des mesures précises, à
mettre en place un plan d'action précis, concret pour
faire du respect de la diversité religieuse et de la lutte
contre toutes les formes de persécution religieuse une
priorité.
1-197
Tamás Deutsch (PPE). – Tisztelt elnök úr, kedves
képviselőtársaim! Magyarországon tavaly májusig nyolc
esztendőn keresztül a szocialisták és a liberálisok
koalíciója volt hatalmon. Magyarországon nyolc
esztendőn keresztül folyamatosan gyengült a
demokrácia, tömegessé vált az emberi jogok sérelme.
Magyarországon gyengült nyolc esztendőn keresztül a
sajtószabadság. Ezzel kapcsolatban az európai
szocialistáknak és az európai liberálisoknak szava sem
volt. Tavaly májusban a magyar polgárok elsöprő
többsége leváltotta ezt a szocialista-liberális kormányt és
Európában példa nélküli többséggel a Fidesz-
Kereszténydemokrata kormányt jutatta hatalomhoz. Ez a
kormány tavaly év végén egy új médiatörvényt fogadott
el, amelyik garanciáját adja a sajtószabadságnak. Ilyen
körülmények között éri éles támadást Magyarországot és
az Unió soros elnöki tisztségét betöltő magyar kormányt.
Nem egyeztethető össze az európai értékekkel ez a
kettős mérce. Ez ellen fel kell emelnünk a szavunkat.
1-198
Sergej Kozlík (ALDE). – Pred tromi rokmi došlo k
rozšíreniu schengenského priestoru o nové členské
krajiny. Avšak na hraniciach medzi starými a novými
členskými krajinami stále existujú obmedzujúce
opatrenia.
Napríklad na hraničnom prechode Rusovce – Kittsee, je
to diaľničný prechod medzi Slovenskom a Rakúskom,
rakúska strana uplatňuje výrazné obmedzenie rýchlosti
na 30 km/h. Pritom prejazd je ešte výrazne zúžený
betónovou zábranou.
Nie je ničím výnimočným, že na tejto hranici sa
pravidelne vykonáva kontrola rýchlosti prechádzajúcich
vozidiel a dosť často aj policajné kontroly dokladov
a obsahu kufrov áut.
Členstvo v Schengene predsa znamená voľný pohyb
ľudí a tovarov. Na to, že občan prekračuje hranicu
členského štátu Únie, by ho mala upozorniť len obyčajná
informačná tabuľa. Uvedené správanie, a to nielen v
prípade Rakúska, je porušovaním pravidiel Schengenu a
Európska komisia by mala na to dať principiálnu
odpoveď.
1-199
Marek Henryk Migalski (ECR). – Panie
Przewodniczący! Moi poprzednicy mówili o
dyskryminacji chrześcijan. Ja też chciałbym powiedzieć
o pewnej formie dezawuowania części państw
europejskich. W ciągu ostatnich paru tygodni na
początku prezydencji Węgier padło bardzo wiele
krytycznych słów pod adresem Węgrów i bardzo często
te słowa były nieuzasadnione i nieusprawiedliwione.
Niestety oprócz słów ministra spraw zagranicznych
Luksemburga również bardzo niesprawiedliwe słowa,
chyba obrażające Węgrów, padły z ust polityków tej
Izby, między innymi pana Martina Schulza. Myślę, że to
jest przejaw pewnej wiary, że państwa w Unii
Europejskiej dzielą się na lepsze i gorsze. Lepsze są te,
które są tutaj już od dłuższego czasu, a gorsze są te,
które są tutaj dopiero od 2004 roku.
Myślę, że ten typ dyskryminacji powinien się
zakończyć, wszyscy powinni się przyzwyczaić do tego,
że nowe państwa są pełnoprawnymi członkami Unii
Europejskiej, zwłaszcza na tej sali. Dlatego proszę o to,
żeby osoby na tej sali, które pozwalają sobie na tego
typu dyskryminację, dyscyplinować i karać.
1-200
Alajos Mészáros (PPE). – Sokakkal együtt én is
üdvözlöm a magyar EU-elnökséget. Büszke vagyok arra,
hogy ez a közép-európai tagállam a 2004-ben
csatlakozottak közül harmadikként láthatja el ezt a
megtisztelő és felelősségteljes küldetést. Nem fér hozzá
kétség, hogy Magyarország mindig is a demokrácia
élharcosai közé tartozott. Ki kérdőjelezné meg 1956-ot,
1989-et vagy 2006 őszét. Ezért nagyon megdöbbent az a

66 17-01-2011
negatív kampány, amelyet bizonyos politikai erők a
soros EU-elnök ellen indítottak, többek között a magyar
médiatörvény ürügyén. Egészen nyilvánvaló, hogy nem
jogi kérdésről van itt szó, hanem a politikai vesztesek
támadásáról. Ők próbálják kikezdeni az egységes
európai eszmét. A kultúrtörténeti szőnyegen ábrázolt
Magyarország térképéhez pedig ennyit: aki nem képes
szembenézni a történelemmel, az a jövőt sem látja
tisztán. Úgy, ahogy egy francia, egy német vagy lengyel
beszélhet nemzete múltjáról, megteheti ugyanezt egy
magyar is. Nagyon felelőtlennek és veszélyesnek tartom
az elnöklő országunk ilyen jellegű lejáratását éppen
akkor, amikor a legnagyobb összefogásra lenne
szükségünk.
1-201
Γεώργιος Παπανικολάου (PPE). – Κυρίες και κύριοι
συνάδελφοι, η Ελλάδα αποτελεί τη βασική πύλη
εισόδου παρανόμων μεταναστών προς όλη την Ευρώπη.
Σύμφωνα με την FRONTEX, το 90% των
λαθρομεταναστών που καταφεύγουν στην Ευρώπη
μπαίνουν από την Ελλάδα.
Αντιμετωπίζουμε στην Ελλάδα, λοιπόν, μια μεγάλη
κρίση σε ό,τι αφορά το ζήτημα αυτό. Το τελευταίο
διάστημα η ελληνική κυβέρνηση ανακοίνωσε την
πρόθεσή της να δημιουργήσει ένα φράχτη στα χερσαία
σύνορά μας με την Τουρκία. Διερωτάται κανείς αν μία
τέτοια λύση μπορεί στρατηγικά να βοηθήσει στην
επίλυση του προβλήματος, αν αρκεί αυτό. Φυσικά και
όχι. Όσους φράχτες και να φτιάξουμε, όσες προσπάθειες
και να κάνουμε, χρειάζεται συνολική στρατηγική και
αλληλεγγύη μεταξύ των ευρωπαϊκών κρατών. Και για
να ξεκινήσουμε σωστά, το πρώτο που πρέπει να
κάνουμε είναι να εδραιώσουμε μια καλή συνεργασία για
τα θέματα αυτά με τη βασική χώρα προέλευσης, την
Τουρκία.
Εκκρεμεί η υπογραφή σύμβασης Ευρώπης-Τουρκίας.
Γνωρίζουμε πολύ καλά ότι, για να καταλήξουμε σε μία
συμφωνία και να προχωρήσουμε στην εφαρμογή της,
χρειάζονται ενάμιση με δύο χρόνια· μέχρι τότε, λοιπόν,
ας εφαρμόσουμε τη διμερή συμφωνία που υπάρχει με
την Ελλάδα από το 2002, όπως έκαναν και άλλες χώρες
του Νότου και ρύθμισαν το πρόβλημα.
1-202
Catherine Stihler (S&D). – Mr President, next week all
across the world people will be celebrating the life of
Scotland’s national poet, Robert Burns. As many of you
know, a central part of a Burns supper is a haggis.
Currently there is a ban in the USA on importing
Scottish haggis, yet one in three Americans claim
Scottish ancestry and would like to try some authentic
Scottish haggis. What action can the Commission and
the Council take in their transatlantic dialogues to put
Scottish haggis back, not just on the agenda, but also on
the menu when it comes to American traditional Scottish
Burns suppers?
1-203
Sonia Alfano (ALDE). – Signor Presidente, onorevoli
colleghi, il 13 e il 14 gennaio si è svolto nello
stabilimento FIAT di Mirafiori un referendum con il
quale gli operai e gli impiegati sono stati chiamati a
votare a favore o contro il piano di rilancio dello
stabilimento torinese.
Il piano di rilancio è basato su un nuovo contratto
collettivo che intacca diritti fondamentali dei lavoratori,
quali quello alla malattia, allo sciopero, addirittura
quello alla pausa intermedia durante otto ore ad una
catena di montaggio. Il referendum è illegittimo, perché
l'amministratore delegato Sergio Marchionne ha
minacciato gli operai che, in caso di vittoria dei "no"
all'accordo, l'azienda avrebbe abbandonato la produzione
italiana, trasferendo tutto altrove.
Questa strategia della paura, di un capitalismo al ribasso
senza regole e senza diritti, ha avuto il sostegno del
governo e addirittura di gran parte del Partito
Democratico, partito di opposizione con radici nel
Partito Comunista Italiano. Gli unici sindacati a opporsi
sono stati la FIOM e la CGIL e sono state estromesse
dalla rappresentanza sindacale.
Ciononostante, il "sì" ha vinto con solo il 54% dei voti.
Con questo accordo, l'Italia dei diritti torna indietro di
parecchi decenni. È giusto che l'Europa sappia e ne
tenga conto.
1-204
Ρόδη Κράτσα-Τσαγκαροπούλου (PPE). – Κύριε
Πρόεδρε, θα ήθελα να αναφερθώ στην ανησυχητική
κατάσταση σε χώρες εταίρους της Μεσογείου και τις
επιπτώσεις που μπορεί να έχει η κατάσταση αυτή στις
σχέσεις μας, στην ασφάλεια, στην ευημερία στην
περιοχή.
Μιλήσαμε σήμερα το απόγευμα για τις ραγδαίες
ανατροπές στην Τυνησία· κοινωνικές ταραχές υπάρχουν
σε χώρες του Μαγκρέμπ και του Μασρέκ· νέα πολιτική
αστάθεια στο Λίβανο, ενώ αδιέξοδα συνεχίζουν να
υπάρχουν στην ειρηνευτική διαδικασία. Πρέπει να μας
απασχολήσει σοβαρά η κατάσταση αυτή, διότι οι χώρες
της Μεσογείου είναι χώρες εταίροι και όχι μόνο χώρες
γείτονες.
Θα σας θυμίσω ότι στην Τυνησία από το 1995 μέχρι
σήμερα έχουν διατεθεί ποσά άμεσης βοήθειας που
υπερβαίνουν το 1 δισεκατομμύριο ευρώ, πέρα από τα
χαμηλότοκα δάνεια της Ευρωπαϊκής Τράπεζας
Επενδύσεων, και μέχρι το 2013 έχουμε προγραμματίσει
σημαντικά ποσά άμεσης βοήθειας.
Θα ήθελα λοιπόν να κάνω μια έκκληση, κύριε Πρόεδρε.
Να κάνουμε μία σοβαρή πολυμερή συζήτηση με
απολογισμό των σχέσεών μας, να δούμε τις προοπτικές
και τις διαδικασίες που πρέπει να ακολουθήσουμε, και η
Ύπατη Εκπρόσωπος να μας παρουσιάσει ένα
ολοκληρωμένο σχέδιο γειτονίας μέσα στο πλαίσιο της
Ένωσης για τη Μεσόγειο για να αντιμετωπίσουμε τις
κρίσεις αυτές από κοινού με τις χώρες εταίρους.
1-205
Joe Higgins (GUE/NGL). − Mr President, in December
Commission President Barroso told me by letter that his

17-01-2011 67
meeting with President Nazarbayev last October would
help advance respect for human rights in Kazakhstan.
The same was said about granting Kazakhstan the chair
of the OSCE in 2010 and holding a major OSCE summit
in Astana in December. However, world leaders had
scarcely left that summit when it was announced that a
referendum was to be held in March to cancel the
presidential election in 2012, thus keeping Nazarbayev
in power until 2020.
Harassment of the opposition press and of human rights
defenders is being stepped up. Activists from the leftwing
movement ‘Kazakhstan 2012’ are being harassed
and jailed.
I demand that the EU stop boosting the Nazarbayev
dictatorship. The independent trade union and social
movements in Kazakhstan must be fully supported so
that they can lead mobilisation to end this dictatorship –
just as people power in Tunisia ended the Ben Ali
dictatorship – and put in place structures to bring the
wealth of Kazakhstan into the democratic ownership of
the majority.
1-206
Krisztina Morvai (NI). – (a képviselő mikrofonja nem
volt bekapcsolva, így a mondat eleje nem hallható)...a
Bizottságnak a rendkívüli ülése. Mi más is lett volna a
téma, mint a magyar médiatörvény? Nem akartam hinni
a fülemnek, amikor befolyásos szocialista és liberális
képviselőtársaink azt követelték, hogy az Európai Unió
indítson úgynevezett súlyos jogsértési eljárást
Magyarországgal, a jelenlegi soros elnökkel szemben.
Ez a rendelkezésre álló legsúlyosabb szankció. Ilyen
szankciót, sem pedig semmilyen szankciót nem
alkalmaztak akkor, amikor 2002 és 2010 között a
szocialista és liberális kormány Magyarországon minden
egyes tüntetést szétveretett, emberek százait börtönözte
be önkényesen, szemeket lövetett ki és súlyos
sérüléseket okozott. Ha ezek után az Európai Unió
súlyos jogsértési eljárást fog a jelenlegi magyar kormány
és állam ellen indítani, akkor végre kinyitja azoknak a
szemét, akiknek bármiféle illúziójuk volt az Európai
Unió Magyarországhoz való hozzáállásával
kapcsolatban, és azt gondolom, hogy a magyar nemzet
követelni fogja az Európai Unióból való kilépésünket, és
lesznek, akik követnek bennünket.
1-207
Antigoni Papadopoulou (S&D). – Mr President, I also
want to raise the issue of respect for religious freedom
for all, without discrimination, because this is a basic
human right.
That human right was violated in my country for the few
Christians attending Christmas mass at the church of
Agios Synesios in the occupied village of Rizokarpaso.
The so-called police of the Turkish occupying regime
entered the church and forced the priest to terminate the
Christmas Day service and then forced the enclaved
Greek Cypriots attending the mass to evacuate the
church.
The European Parliament must strongly condemn such
actions, which reveal the ugly and oppressive face of the
Turkish occupation of the northern part of Cyprus, in
violation of European law and human rights and the
Third Vienna agreement of 1975.
The EU must stop Turkey and its subordinate local
administration in the occupied part of Cyprus from
committing further violations, and from continuing the
ethnic cleansing of the remaining 300 Christian Greek
Cypriots.
1-208
Seán Kelly (PPE). – Mr President, the Food
Supplements Directive was adopted in 2002 but, almost
nine years later, it has still not been fully implemented.
The Commission has yet to produce a proposal to
harmonise the maximum amounts of vitamins and
minerals that can be included in food supplements as
required by the directive. This failure means that
companies have to produce multiple product
formulations to comply with different national laws.
This is unfair and expensive, especially as a scientific
model for setting maximum amounts is available. The
Commission itself cited this in a paper in 2006.
It begs the question of why the proposal has not been
produced? Perhaps, to paraphrase Robbie Burns, whom
somebody mentioned a minute ago, ‘The best laid plans
of mice and men and the Commission gang aft agley’. It
needs to happen very soon, because EU legislation is
intended to make it easier for companies to compete in
the internal market by standardising requirements. The
sooner it happens, the better. I urge the Commission to
get a move on.
1-209
Илиaна Ивaнова (PPE). – уважаеми колеги,
напоследък обществеността в България е свидетел на
поредица от публикации за предполагаемо
използване на специални разузнавателни средства за
подслушване на висши управляващи. Източникът на
тази информация е неясен, с неясен произход и
автентичност, остава анонимен и никой не поема
отговорността за разпространението й.
Ясно изразената воля за реформи и борба с
организираната престъпност от правителството,
недопускането на влияние от страна на бившата
Държавна сигурност, както и фактът, че тази година
в България предстоят президентски и местни избори,
дадоха старт на тази кампания, създаваща
напрежение и насаждаща недоверие в управлението.
Интерес от това състояние имат кръговете на
влияние, които покровителстваха и се
облагодетелстваха от срастването на престъпността с
държавата. Днес те търсят реванш за засегнатите си
интереси.
Искам да ви уверя, че България е правова държава, в
която такива средства се прилагат от органите само в
рамките на закона и че управлението ще продължи
реформите по пътя, който е поело, недопускайки

68 17-01-2011
нелегитимни интереси да пречат на борбата с
престъпността.
1-210
Станимир Илчев (ALDE). – през последните
месеци в България наистина расте тревогата сред
обществото от ескалацията в използването на
специални разузнавателни средства. Но към този
проблем има и друга гледна точка. Подслушванията
се превръщат като че ли във фетиш за някои
политици и ръководители на съвременните
специални служби.
Ефективността в борбата с престъпността не се е
повишила. Още по-неприемлива е назряващата
страхова психоза от тези подслушвания. Наистина
не са ясни авторите на тази вакханалия: дали това са
хора от сектора за сигурност, дали са техни бивши
колеги или нелегитимни структури, които имат
дестабилизиращи намерения. Съдържанието на
подслушваните разговори мистериозно циркулира из
медиите. В такъв разговор участва и министърпредседателят
на България. Съдържанието е
дискредитиращо, но той твърди, че записът е
манипулиран.
Отвъд тази неприятна фактология е усещането на
българските граждани, че институциите не работят
добре, че брутално се нарушават човешки права. И
затова като новоприета страна член на Европейския
съюз България се нуждае от съдействие, за да
преструктурира своите специални служби.
1-211
Presidente. − C'è una lunga lista di interventi, quindi
pregherei tutti gli oratori di essere puntuali e rigorosi
nell'attenersi ad un minuto.
1-212
20 - Consenso europeo in materia di aiuto
umanitario (breve presentazione)
1-213
Presidente. − L'ordine del giorno reca la relazione di
Michèle Striffler, a nome della commissione per lo
sviluppo, sull'attuazione del consenso europeo sull'aiuto
umanitario: bilancio di metà percorso del suo piano
d'azione e prospettive future [2010/2101(INI)].
1-214
Michèle Striffler, rapporteure. − Monsieur le Président,
Madame la Commissaire, chers collègues, le contexte
humanitaire global s'est aggravé, les défis et besoins
humanitaires sont immenses et il y a une multiplication
des terrains d'intervention.
Le consensus européen pour l'aide humanitaire est un
instrument fondamental qui garde toute sa pertinence
dans ce contexte humanitaire en pleine mutation. Les
défis humanitaires peuvent trouver leur réponse dans une
application rigoureuse du consensus et de son plan
d'action. Cependant, le consensus reste encore trop
méconnu au-delà des partenaires humanitaires. Un effort
est donc à effectuer afin de renforcer sa visibilité et de
mieux le faire connaître auprès des États membres et des
acteurs impliqués. Il faut plaider pour que ce consensus
soit diffusé, compris et appliqué au sein du service
européen d'action extérieure et par les acteurs militaires.
En 2009 a été mis sur pied le groupe de travail sur l'aide
humanitaire et l'aide alimentaire au sein du Conseil, qui
est devenu un forum pertinent, mais dont le rôle devrait
être renforcé en termes de coordination entre États
membres et de suivi de la mise en œuvre du consensus et
de plaidoyer pour l'aide humanitaire vis-à-vis des autres
groupes de travail du Conseil du COPS.
La révision à mi-parcours du plan d'action est une
occasion unique de renforcer l'action dans des domaines
méritant plus d'attention tels que, premièrement, la
promotion des principes humanitaires et du droit
international humanitaire, car l'aide humanitaire n'est pas
un instrument de gestion de crise et il convient de
regretter la politisation croissante de l'aide humanitaire
et de ses conséquences sur le respect de l'espace
humanitaire. Un deuxième domaine concerne les
questions liées à la qualité, à la coordination et à la
cohérence dans le cadre de la fourniture de l'aide
humanitaire de l'Union européenne, et un troisième
élément est la clarification de l'utilisation des moyens et
capacités militaires et de protection civile en conformité
avec le consensus humanitaire et les directives des
Nations unies.
La distinction entre les mandats des acteurs militaires et
humanitaires doit rester bien claire et un dialogue entre
acteurs militaires et humanitaires est nécessaire afin de
favoriser une compréhension mutuelle.
De plus, j'invite dans mon rapport la Commission
européenne à présenter des propositions législatives très
ambitieuses afin de créer une force européenne de
protection et je me félicite de la récente communication
de la Commission sur le renforcement des capacités de
réponse de l'Union européenne en cas de catastrophe.
Enfin, il faut renforcer la dimension "réduction des
risques de catastrophe" et le lien entre l'aide d'urgence,
la réhabilitation et le développement.
Le traité de Lisbonne a introduit le service européen
d'action extérieure. Nous nous sommes donc attachés, au
cours des négociations, à défendre l'indépendance de la
DG ECO et à éviter toute instrumentalisation possible de
l'aide humanitaire à des fins de politiques étrangères.
Des règles strictes et transparentes doivent être mises en
place pour la coopération et la coordination entre le
service européen d'action extérieure et la Commission
pour la gestion d'une crise de grande ampleur.
Pour finir, j'aimerais attirer votre attention sur la
multiplication des violences sexuelles – Je pense en
particulier à l'Est de la République du Congo dans le
Kivu – et sur l'importance d'intégrer systématiquement
le genre et la santé reproductive dans la réponse
humanitaire dans les services de santé de première
urgence.

17-01-2011 69
1-215
Anna Záborská (PPE). – Monsieur le Président, je
félicite M me Striffler pour son rapport. Il omet cependant
de mentionner les acteurs qui fondent leur engagement
sur la religion, notamment chrétienne. Le texte du
consensus européen mentionne bien la Croix-Rouge
mais ignore d'autres acteurs disposant du même statut en
droit international mais qui se fondent sur la religion
chrétienne comme par exemple l'Ordre de Malte.
Ainsi, ce rapport apporte une nouvelle preuve de la
négligence avec laquelle les institutions européennes
accueillent l'engagement des acteurs chrétiens dans
l'intervention humanitaire. Les religions n'ont pas
seulement l'obligation, mais aussi la compétence
nécessaire pour intervenir rapidement dans les situations
de crise et de catastrophe naturelle.
J'invite le rapporteur à proposer un amendement oral
pour reconnaître l'utilité et l'efficacité des acteurs qui
fondent leur travail sur la foi chrétienne.
1-216
Miroslav Mikolášik (PPE). – Európska únia spolu s
členskými štátmi sú najvýznamnejším svetovým darcom
humanitárnej pomoci. A je to naša morálna povinnosť.
Európsky konsenzus o humanitárnej pomoci sa stal
významným medzníkom, čo dosvedčuje aj analýza
akčného plánu realizácie humanitárnej pomoci. Správa
však poukazuje aj na konkrétne slabiny systému a iné
prekážky, ktoré bránia efektívnemu a rýchlemu prísunu
humanitárneho tovaru a služieb pre najzraniteľnejšie
obyvateľstvo v krízových oblastiach.
Verím, že Lisabonská zmluva prinášajúca celý rad
inovácií v oblasti humanitárnej pomoci Európskej únie,
ktorá je odteraz aj samostatnou politikou, bude vhodne
a promptne využitá na zlepšenie dosahovania
hmatateľných výsledkov v súlade s rešpektovaním
ľudskej dôstojnosti, humanitárnych hodnôt a
dodržiavaním ľudských práv, ako sú zakotvené v
medzinárodnom práve, napríklad aj pri rýchlej pomoci
pri katastrofách.
1-217
Zuzana Roithová (PPE). – Trvalé zvyšování počtu a
rozsahu humanitárních katastrof ve třetích zemích, které
je mimo jiné i důsledkem klimatických změn, vyžaduje
kvantitativní, ale i kvalitativní zlepšení humanitární
pomoci. A proto plně podporuji opatření zmíněná ve
zprávě, včetně transformace civilní ochrany členských
států, aby mohla sloužit i jako akceschopná
koordinovaná pomoc Evropské unie. Za naléhavé ovšem
považuji také zlepšit bezpečnost humanitárních
pracovníků. Myslím, že by Komise měla vyčlenit
kapacity také na šíření osvěty zejména na Haiti, aby
postižení obyvatelé chápali příčiny a následné okolnosti
jejich katastrofy a pomáhali chránit bezpečnost
humanitárních pracovníků, a nikoli naopak. Jinak je
nutné – a nikoli nežádoucí – využívat ochrany
armádních sil.
1-218
Seán Kelly (PPE). – Mr President, I should briefly like
to ask some questions. Regarding the European Union, I
know that we are wonderful for donating aid to where it
is needed, but it often goes through NGOs. Are there any
NGOs that have not been up to scratch, or that have been
the subject of complaints in the countries in which they
operate, or that the European Union itself might have
reservations about? In other words, do we just give the
aid and the supplements – let us put it that way – to the
NGOs annually? Where is the accountability?
In the light of some programmes I have seen recently, I
was rather concerned about allegations being made as to
what some of the NGOs were doing and their lack of
accountability. Having said that, I know that the vast
majority are doing good work and are properly
motivated.
1-219
Peter Jahr (PPE). – Herr Präsident! Vielen Dank an die
Berichterstatterin, dass wir diese Problematik heute in
diesem Haus diskutieren können. Ich habe noch zwei
Anmerkungen bzw. Fragen, die mich immer bei der
humanitären Hilfe umtreiben: Erstens ist es unstrittig
und wichtig, dass man natürlich hilft, wenn Menschen in
Not sind, aber – das hat mein Vorredner schon gesagt –
man sollte auch immer wieder die Frage stellen: Werden
diese Mittel auch angemessen und ordentlich
verwendet?
Zweitens dürfen wir auch nicht vernachlässigen:
Humanitäre Hilfe, Menschen geraten in Not, das ist
richtig. Das können Naturkatastrophen sein, aber es sind
auch zunehmend von Menschen selbst verursachte
Katastrophen. Dazu zählen insbesondere politische oder
auch kriegerische Auseinandersetzungen. Wir müssen
bedenken, dass humanitäre Hilfe Soforthilfe ist, wir aber
gleichzeitig auch die Ursachen, nämlich die politischen
Gewalttaten, beseitigen müssen.
1-220
Kristalina Georgieva, Member of the Commission. −
Mr President, I very much welcome Mrs Striffler’s
report, as well as Parliament’s involvement in and
continued strong advocacy for effective European
humanitarian action.
The consensus was adopted in 2007. It provides an
essential common policy framework for the EU – a
common vision accompanied by an action plan. Both the
Member States and the Commission have a shared
responsibility to make sure that the consensus is well
implemented.
I want to stress that what comes very clearly out of the
report is the message that humanitarian principles,
international humanitarian law and protection of the
humanitarian space have to be at the centre of our action
on the consensus. Four-fifths of our humanitarian aid
goes to people in need in conflict-related, man-made
emergencies. For us to be able to reach these people it is
critical that our aid is independent and neutral and that it
is perceived in this way.

70 17-01-2011
I would like to give you one example of this. I have just
come back from Yemen where, together with the UN
High Commissioner for Refugees, Antonio Gutierrez,
we engaged on the humanitarian access issue with
high-level government officials and representatives of
the al-Houthi rebel movement. For the first time we
obtained commitment on their part to facilitate
humanitarian access and respect delivery of aid to all
Yemeni people in need, in line with the humanitarian
principles of neutrality and independence. Having spent
a number of hours with men with Kalashnikovs, I would
like to observe that we in Europe do bring this value of
neutrality that is a bridge to people in need. In the
Yemeni case, there are 300 000 internally displaced
people and many more hundred thousands affected by
six wars in six years in the north of Yemen.
Of course, for a long-lasting impact, humanitarian aid is
not the right instrument. It is development that can lay
the foundation for lasting peace. We in the Commission
have completed a year-long review process of the
European consensus action plan, in close liaison with
our Member State and humanitarian partners. On 8
December, the Commission adopted a Communication
on this. The review shows that over the past three years
we have made significant contributions to strengthening
the humanitarian response in terms of advocacy and
humanitarian action, as well as by bringing humanitarian
aid and civil protection together.
We also concluded that there is scope for further
improvement in three areas.
Firstly we need to promote the quality and effectiveness
of aid by good assessment, a well-coordinated response
and investment in disaster risk reduction and local
capacity. At a time when needs are growing and budgets
are constrained, this is critical.
Let me just respond here to the question of
accountability. Obviously we need to stretch every euro
to the full and deliver it with the highest possible quality
and in the most effective way. In order to ensure that our
partners – UN agencies and NGOs – are accountable, we
review one-third of all partners and one-third of all
projects every year. We have our own humanitarian aid
offices in all the hotspot areas of the planet to be the ears
and the eyes of our taxpayers, including in Yemen,
because of increasing humanitarian needs. I recently cut
the ribbon of our humanitarian aid office there.
The second issue concerning which we can see room for
improvement is the strengthening of the European voice.
We are the largest donor and have to make sure that we
speak very clearly with one voice. We must also reach
out to other donors so that we play our leadership role,
vis-à-vis traditional donors, but also by engaging new
donors.
Thirdly we need to ensure coherence which means
working, together with the External Action Service, with
military actors to make sure that a principled
humanitarian approach is safeguarded and is also
promoted in Europe.
Let me finish by once again thanking Mrs Striffler for
her work on this issue and calling upon Parliament to
continue the discussion on this topic. The world has
changed. Unfortunately there will be more and more
natural and man-made disasters. Whatever action we
take will determine not only the lives of the people
affected, but also the moral standing and the capacity of
the EU to lead in the world.
1-221
Presidente. − La discussione è chiusa.
La votazione si svolgerà martedì 18 gennaio 2011.
1-222
21 - Agricoltura come settore strategico per
la sicurezza dell'approvvigionamento
alimentare (breve presentazione)
1-223
Presidente. − L'ordine del giorno reca la relazione di
Daciana Octavia Sârbu, a nome della commissione per
l'agricoltura e lo sviluppo rurale, sul riconoscimento
dell'agricoltura come settore strategico per la sicurezza
dell'approvvigionamento alimentare [2010/2112(INI)].
1-224
Daciana Octavia Sârbu, Raportoare. − Sunt onorată să
vă prezint raportul meu, care vorbeşte despre importanţa
strategică a agriculturii în asigurarea securităţii
alimentare a Uniunii Europene. Agricultura este
neglijată în discuţiile privind strategia şi viitorul Uniunii
Europene, iar raportul vine să arate că Europa nu se află
într-o situaţie de securitate alimentară, că fermierii şi
întregi zone rurale sunt în pericol de dispariţie şi că noile
provocări, cum sunt schimbările climatice, tind să
destabilizeze rezervele alimentare, deja în scădere, nu
doar în Europa, ci şi în lume.
În contextul în care producţia de alimente trecuie să
crească până în anul 2050, cu cel puţin 70%, pentru a
satisface nevoia de hrană a populaţiei la nivel global,
este nevoie ca securitatea alimentară să se afle în centrul
dezbaterilor atât la nivel mondial, cât şi european.
Uniunea Europeană trebuie să răspundă ferm acestor
provocări, iar prin acest Raport încercăm să propunem
astăzi câteva căi concrete de acţiune.
În primul rând, avem nevoie de o politică agricolă
comună puternică, menită să garanteze securitatea
alimentară atât a cetăţenilor săi, cât şi să contribuie la
asigurarea securităţii alimentare la nivel mondial, în
contextul resurselor limitate şi al efectelor schimbărilor
climatice. Nu putem vorbi despre securitatea alimentară
dacă nu abordăm două probleme esenţiale şi anume:
volatilitatea pieţelor şi a preţurilor şi rezervele de hrană
în scădere la nivel mondial.
În ceea ce priveşte volatilitatea preţurilor, am solicitat
Comisiei ca, în cadrul noii PAC, să consolideze rolul
instrumentelor de intervenţie pe piaţă şi să ia măsuri mai
consistente pentru limitarea speculaţiilor pe pieţele

17-01-2011 71
agricole. În zilele noastre, rezervele de alimente la nivel
global sunt mult mai limitate decât în trecut, conform
estimărilor, acestea putând acoperi nevoia de hrană de la
nivel mondial doar o lună şi jumătate. De aceea, am
considerat că ar fi benefic să se creeze un sistem global
de rezerve alimentare, atât rezerve de urgenţă, pentru a
reduce foametea, cât şi rezerve care să fie folosite pentru
reglementarea preţurilor pe pieţele agricole, care să se
afle sub egida internaţională şi să se prijine pe expertiza
instituţiilor deja existente, precum ONU sau FAO. Cred
că Uniunea Europeană trebuie să fie iniţiatorul acestui
demers, de aceea am cerut Comisiei să îşi asume acest
rol.
O altă chestiune importantă abordată în acest Raport este
situaţia tinerilor agricultori. Dacă ne gândim la viitorul
agriculturii europene, atunci trebuie să acordăm mai
multă atenţie tinerilor agricultori. La nivel european,
doar 7% din agricultori sunt sub 35 ani. De aceea, am
cerut Comisiei să se prevadă măsuri de încurajare a
acestora.
Pe de altă parte, am subliniat necesitatea păstrării
diversităţii agriculturii europene. În acest sens, am
menţionat faptul că practicile agricole tradiţionale,
exploataţiile familiale, fermele mici, dar şi agricultura
ecologică pot aduce o contribuţie valoroasă la asigurarea
securităţii alimentare şi am solicitat crearea de programe
la nivel european, care să sprijine aceste tipuri de
agricultură. Să nu uităm însă că şi pe teritoriul Uniunii
încă există sărăcie şi foamete şi că milioane de europeni
au apelat în această iarnă la ajutoare alimentare
europene. De aceea, în contextul crizei economice, este
de o importanţă majoră menţinerea programului
european „Ajutoare alimentare pentru persoanele cele
mai defavorizate”, cu finanţare europeană.
În încheiere, aş dori să mulţumesc raportorilor din umbră
şi celorlalţi colegi din Comisia pentru agricultură pentru
buna colaborare şi pentru contribuţiile aduse în
redactarea acestui raport, cât şi secretariatului Comisiei
pentru agricultură şi sper ca, împreună, să adoptăm
mâine un raport care să răspundă aşteptărilor cetăţenilor
europeni.
1-225
Mairead McGuinness (PPE). – Mr President, I would
like to thank Mrs Sârbu, our rapporteur, for the excellent
work she has done on this report and for her cooperation
with all the shadows. This follows work which I carried
out in the previous mandate on the role of the common
agricultural policy and global food security.
I regret that we are debating this report just before
midnight. Perhaps it will be at a minute to midnight that
Europe and the world wake up to the realities of how
insecure we are when it comes to food production.
This report is extremely welcome in our overall debate
on this issue and in the context of our debate on reform
of the common agricultural policy.
I had some concerns, but I think they are reflected in the
final text. The idea that one form of production system is
better than another – that organic, small, local is better –
is not a good argument. We need all production systems
to contribute to our food security. We do need to address
market volatility and speculation and I do not think we
have all the answers yet.
The single key problem with agriculture is low incomes
for farmers. Young farmers will not work for nothing,
and we have to address the low income problem if we
want security of food supply.
1-226
Miroslav Mikolášik (PPE). – V dôsledku neustáleho
rastu populácie sme nútení čoraz intenzívnejšie sa
zaoberať otázkou potravinovej bezpečnosti, prístupu
k primeranej, zdravotne neškodnej a výživnej strave.
S cieľom zaistiť potravinovú bezpečnosť je preto
nevyhnutné zvýšiť transparentnosť a spravodlivosť v
samotnom potravinovom reťazci. Zabezpečiť
spravodlivú návratnosť pre poľnohospodárov, zisky a
tvorbu cien, ako aj životaschopné poľnohospodárstvo.
Osobne považujem za vysoko dôležité uplatňovanie
ráznej politiky rozvoja vidieka, prostredníctvom ktorej
zachováme životaschopnosť vidieckej Európy a zvýšime
konkurencieschopnosť poľnohospodárstva, podporíme
inovácie a v konečnom dôsledku aj samotnú
zamestnanosť.
Poľnohospodárstvo má veľký význam predovšetkým v
znevýhodnených oblastiach a aj preto treba prijímať
stimuly, ktoré podporia poľnohospodárstvo vidieka,
prilákajú do poľnohospodárstva viac mladých ľudí a
napomôžu znížiť regionálne rozdiely a zabezpečia trvalo
udržateľný rozvoj.
1-227
Luís Paulo Alves (S&D). – Quero dar os meus parabéns
sinceros à colega Sârbu pela excelência do relatório
produzido, aconselhando vivamente a que a Comissão o
tenha em conta, sobretudo naqueles aspectos em que a
dimensão complexa das questões agrícolas – que em
muito ultrapassam a dimensão estrita da agricultura –
exigem o envolvimento de outras áreas como a da
concorrência do mercado interno e da regulação
financeira, bem como também exigem o seu tratamento
noutros palcos extracomunitários como o G-20 ou a
OMC.
As questões absolutamente determinantes para a
agricultura, para os agricultores e para a disponibilização
em quantidade e qualidade suficiente de alimentos às
populações da Europa e do mundo só poderão de facto
ser enfrentadas se o forem em todas estas suas
dimensões, e os objectivos ambiciosos da reforma da
PAC só poderão ser alcançados se a reforma ultrapassar
as fronteiras estritas da agricultura e os seus objectivos
forem igualmente tidos em conta nas necessárias
intervenções nas outras áreas de políticas e nos outros
organismos de carácter global.

72 17-01-2011
Este relatório deixou-o bem claro e eu saúdo-o por isso.
1-228
Janusz Wojciechowski (ECR). – Panie
Przewodniczący! Też przyłączam się do gratulacji dla
pani Sârbu za znakomite sprawozdanie, które uważam
za jedno z najważniejszych w tej kadencji.
Ludzi na świecie jest coraz więcej, ziemi pod uprawę
coraz mniej. Żywność staje się produktem strategicznym
w coraz większym stopniu. O ile ropę naftową można
zastąpić energią słoneczną czy atomową, o tyle
żywności pochodzącej z ziemi nie da się zastąpić
niczym. W Unii Europejskiej zachowujemy się niekiedy
tak, jakbyśmy ciągle borykali się z problemem
nadprodukcji żywności. Cała polityka rolna Unii
Europejskiej w ostatnich latach nastawiona była na to
jak ograniczać produkcję rolną, jak ją zmniejszać.
Dzisiaj na horyzoncie są już czasy, kiedy żywności
będzie brakować. Bardzo dobrze, że z Parlamentu,
dzięki sprawozdaniu pani Sârbu, wychodzi ten sygnał,
że sytuacja się zmieniła i polityka rolna Unii
Europejskiej też musi się zmienić. Musimy szanować
rolnictwo – gwarancję naszego bezpieczeństwa
żywnościowego.
1-229
Peter Jahr (PPE). – Herr Präsident! Es ist nun einmal
in der Politik so wie im täglichen Leben: Das, was man
hat, das schätzt man am wenigsten. Und so scheint es ja
auch offenbar so, dass wir in der Europäischen Union
einen Überfluss an Nahrungsmitteln haben, und es gibt
ja immer noch genügend zu kaufen. Wenn man die
Futtermittelexporte gegenrechnet, haben wir in der
Europäischen Union einen Selbstversorgungsgrad von
88 %. Das heißt, auch wir in der Europäischen Union
müssen aufpassen, dass der Selbstversorgungsgrad an
landwirtschaftlichen Produkten und Nahrungsmitteln
gewährleistet ist.
Deshalb bin ich der Berichterstatterin, Frau Sârbu sehr
dankbar, dass sie dieses Problem wieder in den
Mittelpunkt gerückt hat. Auch wir brauchen in der
Europäischen Union eine gemeinsame Agrarpolitik, die
die Menschen in unserer Union ausreichend mit
Lebensmitteln versorgt. Angesichts einer wachsenden
Weltbevölkerung oder der Auswirkungen des
Klimawandels und steigender Energiepreise wird
deutlich, dass die Landwirte in Europa dies zukünftig
nicht alleine bewältigen können. Wir brauchen dazu
auch eine strategische Abstimmung in der Welt.
1-230
Csaba Sándor Tabajdi (S&D). – Az Unió biztonságos
élelmiszer-ellátása a következő évtizedek egyik
legnagyobb biztonságpolitikai kihívása lesz. A Sârbujelentésnek
ez a legnagyobb értéke, ami rámutat arra,
hogy egy-két évtized múlva az élelmiszer és az édesvíz
olyan stratégiai termék lesz, mint most a kőolaj és a
földgáz. Azért is jó az időzítése a jelentésnek, mivel
most folynak a közös agrárpolitika jövőjéről szóló viták,
most folyik a 2014 utáni költségvetés tervezése, és sokan
fenik a fogukat a közös agrárpolitika költségvetésének
megcsorbítására. Nagyon fontos, hogy ez a közös
agrárpolitika a jövőben megfelelő forrásokkal
rendelkezzen. Ehhez meg kell győzni a
pénzügyminisztereket, a döntéshozókat, hogy az
élelmiszer-gazdaság az Európai Unióban nem csak
élelmiszert termel, hanem olyan közjavakat,
környezetvédelmi szociális közjavakat is, amelyeket a
mezőgazdaság nélkül semmi módon nem tudnánk
szavatolni és megtermelni.
1-231
Krisztina Morvai (NI). – Az élelmiszer–biztonságról
szólva zavaró számomra, hogy az Európai Unió
országait egységes egészként kezeli a jelentés. Az új
tagállamokban egészen más a helyzet, mint a régiekben.
Magyarországgal kapcsolatban például hadd tegyek fel
két kérdést. Hogyan lehetséges, hogy egy csodálatos
mezőgazdasági adottságokkal rendelkező országban
gyermekéhezésről beszélhetünk? Az Európai Unió
közepén gyerekek és felnőttek is éheznek. A másik
kérdésem: hogyan lehetséges, hogy olyan egészségtelen
irányban változott a mezőgazdaságunk, hogy hatalmas
területeken ipari jelleggel nyersanyagot állítunk elő,
elsősorban valamiféle –elnézést a kifejezésért, de –
gyarmati jelleggel, és ugye a feldolgozása ennek az
élelmiszernek külföldön folyik, ott termelik meg azt a
profitot, amit aztán – megint csak visszahozva
Magyarországra a feldolgozott élelmiszert – realizálnak
magas áron. Valami alapvető probléma van mindezzel.
1-232
Seán Kelly (PPE). – A Uachtaráin, cosúil le cainteoirí
eile ba mhaith liom comhghairdeas a ghabháil leis an
rapóirtéir Bean Uí Sârbu as an dea-obair san ábhar seo.
1-233
In four minutes, Mrs Sârbu covered a multitude of
issues. I am not going to go over all the things she
mentioned, but I would like to reiterate two points. First,
there is a need for a well-funded CAP. I hope this
Parliament will play a key role in ensuring that the CAP
is not demeaned or diminished in any way. Second, we
need to ensure that young people are encouraged to go
into farming as a livelihood.
Furthermore, we have a policy of encouraging the
growth of energy crops on good agricultural land. In
view of the fact that we may be facing a food shortage
worldwide, with a population increasing at a rate of
80 million per year, should we reassess that policy? Are
we robbing Peter to pay Paul, or perhaps robbing Paul
and Peter and finishing up with nothing? That is the
question I would like to ask.
1-234
Csanád Szegedi (NI). – Tisztelt elnök úr, tisztelt
képviselőtársaim! A jelentésből egyértelműen kitűnik,
hogy a mezőgazdaság területén sem mehet minden úgy,
ahogy eddig ment. Nem mehet az tovább, hogy a világ
egyik végéből a másik végére szállítunk, illetve a
nagyvállalatok szállítanak mezőgazdasági termékeket.
Ugye, ez működhet természetellenes módon. Európába
hoznak be, köztük Magyarországra is almát, paprikát,
paradicsomot, és nem is Spanyolországból vagy
Hollandiából nagyrészt, hanem Kínából, Brazíliából, hát
hústermékeket. Mehet ez így, csak hát azokat a

17-01-2011 73
termékeket fel kell tenni a szállítóeszközre, mondjuk
hajóra, heteken-hónapokon át utaznak. Ezeket
különböző tartósítószerekkel tartósítani kell, amik az
emberek számára nagy fogyasztás esetén mérgezőek.
Namost az emberek a nagy kereskedelmi láncokban
ehhez a termékekhez jutnak hozzá, és aztán
csodálkoznak, mi ez a sok betegség, daganatos, rákos
megbetegedés. Hát nyilvánvaló, hogy az ételszínezékek
és a mesterséges adalékanyagok ezeknek a kiváltói.
Hozzá kell tennem, hogy a kisgazdákat kell támogatni,
hogy egy kialakulóban lévő élelmiszerválságban Európa
mentőövei lehessenek, ezért a multicégek helyett a
kisgazdákat kell támogatni.
1-235
João Ferreira (GUE/NGL). – Senhor Presidente, o
reconhecimento da agricultura como um sector
estratégico no contexto da segurança alimentar de que
nos fala este relatório é indissociável do reconhecimento
e promoção do conceito da soberania alimentar. Quanto
maior a dependência alimentar de um país, maior a sua
insegurança alimentar, maior a dificuldade em assegurar
o abastecimento de alimentos à sua população em
quantidade e qualidade suficientes.
A soberania alimentar é o melhor seguro contra a
volatilidade dos preços dos bens alimentares, assunto
que volta dramaticamente a estar na ordem do dia. Esta
volatilidade tem tido origem fundamentalmente na
especulação financeira exercida sobre os produtos
alimentares, área em que os especuladores, fundos de
investimento, hedge funds, fundos de pensões, grandes
bancos, se foram concentrando à medida que outras
bolhas especulativas foram secando ou rebentando.
A única maneira de impedir esta especulação é acabar
com os instrumentos que a viabilizam, nomeadamente
com alguns produtos financeiros como os derivados
OTC.
Infelizmente, as medidas que a União Europeia adoptou
neste domínio estão muito longe de poder travar esta
sinistra engrenagem da especulação e as suas desumanas
consequências – como vem, aliás, reconhecer um
relatório recente das Nações Unidas da autoria do relator
especial para o direito à alimentação.
1-236
Lívia Járóka (PPE). – Mr President, we are discussing
the poorest of the poor – the European Roma – and,
together with the new Hungarian Presidency, we are all
addressing the European Roma strategy.
Among inter-sectoral issues that concern the poorest of
the poor, agriculture is very rarely addressed, notably
because no land is owned by the poorest of the poor in
Europe. So we are talking not just about food security
but about having food on the table. As one of my
colleagues has already said, this is an essential question
for the EU today. I believe that the agricultural sector –
and the Commission’s work on these documents – has to
be in line with all the EU micro-regional development
projects which are concerned with fighting poverty and
securing food on the table for future generations.
1-237
Kristalina Georgieva, Member of the Commission. −
Mr President, the Commission very much welcomes this
timely report, as food prices are rising sharply, mainly
due to erratic weather conditions and natural disasters,
but also to increases in energy prices that impact on the
cost of food.
Therefore I want to thank the rapporteur, Mrs Sârbu, and
the members of the Committee on Agriculture and Rural
Development for their efforts.
Food security is fundamental for the almost one billion
people around the world that still suffer from hunger, but
it is also important for vulnerable populations across
Europe. For them, the common agricultural policy
makes a real difference. The – sometimes criticised –
CAP has managed to provide EU citizens with food at
affordable prices and has ensured food security in
Europe. This must continue. Food security is identified
as a central issue in the communication on the common
agricultural policy towards 2020 that was adopted on 18
November by the Commission.
The report that Mrs Sârbu has put in front of us
underlines the issue of excessive price volatility, which
is closely linked to food security because of the impact it
has both on farmers and on consumers.
The Commission fully agrees that there is a need to
tackle excessive price volatility. We must collectively
look for better regulation, supervision and transparency
to address market issues, and this requires not only
better financial regulations but also substantially
improved transparency on the market.
The report recommends the creation of a global food
system. Not an easy subject. We have had experiences in
the past of commodity boards. They have proved not to
be successful and therefore this topic undoubtedly
requires more detailed debate. It also requires analysis of
the experience we have gained, for example from the
EUR 1 billion Food Facility adopted by the Commission
in 2008, and also from the work that the Commission
undertakes closely with the FAO and the World Food
Programme to ensure that bumper stocks are
pre-positioned in order to soften the blow of rising food
prices.
All these efforts can be developed when the G20 looks
closely into the food stocks issue, and you can be
assured that the European Commission will be an active
participant in the related deliberations in the coming
weeks.
The report has made a call, echoed by many of you here
this evening, for a strong agricultural and rural
development policy in Europe, capable of ensuring food
security for all, with the support of research and
innovation to face the challenges of producing more
with the fewer resources we have and will have.

74 17-01-2011
The Commission fully agrees with this. There is no more
relevant instrument to fulfil these objectives than a
strong common agricultural policy able to guarantee the
economic and environmental competitiveness of
agriculture and – as some of you said – able to bring
young people into the agricultural sector of Europe.
1-238
Presidente. − La discussione è chiusa.
La votazione si svolgerà martedì 18 gennaio 2011.
Dichiarazioni scritte (articolo 149)
1-239
Sergio Berlato (PPE), per iscritto. – Signor Presidente,
onorevoli colleghi, la sicurezza alimentare rappresenta
una priorità politica sia a livello comunitario sia
mondiale. Il processo di globalizzazione della catena
alimentare fa emergere costantemente nuove sfide e,
talvolta, anche rischi per la salute e per gli interessi dei
consumatori.
Una delle principali sfide che l’Unione europea dovrà
affrontare è rappresentata dall’elaborazione di riforme
agricole e alimentari volte a soddisfare le esigenze della
popolazione mondiale. Secondo dati recenti,
quest’ultima è in continua crescita e si prevede che
aumenterà del 40% circa entro il 2050, determinando un
aumento della domanda di alimenti che si stima
raddoppi rispetto agli attuali fabbisogni.
Per far fronte al crescente aumento della domanda
mondiale di prodotti agricoli e alimentari, gli Stati
membri e l’Unione saranno chiamati a garantire la
sicurezza dell’approvvigionamento alimentare. Per
realizzare tale obiettivo, l'UE dovrà garantire la
sicurezza dei prodotti alimentari tenendo conto delle loro
specificità e assicurando, allo stesso tempo, il corretto
funzionamento del mercato interno.
Da ultimo, sollecito l'attenzione della Commissione su
tutte le possibili misure volte a migliorare la formazione
dei giovani sul lavoro ed a creare opportunità di lavoro
per i laureati nel campo della sicurezza alimentare, con il
principale obiettivo di contribuire all'occupazione nel
settore agricolo.
1-240
Zuzana Brzobohatá (S&D), písemně. – Je zcela
správné podtrhnout význam potravinového zajištění
obyvatelstva EU, které je jejich základním lidským
právem. Evropská unie proto musí usilovat o zajištění
zdravotně nezávadných a výživných potravin, které
budou ekonomicky a fyzicky dostupné pro všechny
občany EU a umožní jim tak vést aktivní a zdravý život.
Je třeba striktně dbát na dodržování nejvyšších standardů
potravinové a zemědělské produkce, na bezpečnost a
kvalitu potravin stejně jako na jejich ekologickou
udržitelnost. Nicméně v této souvislosti je třeba
upozornit také na striktní vyžadování stejných
kvalitativních a bezpečnostních standardů, pokud jde o
potraviny dovážené z třetích zemí, tak aby byla chráněna
konkurenceschopnost evropských zemědělců. Ráda bych
také podpořila opatření, která budou zemědělce
motivovat k vyšší energetické účinnosti, neboť
energetické náklady jsou klíčový faktor pro míru
ziskovosti zemědělské činnosti. Jako nejdůležitější v
celé zprávě vidím důrazný apel na Komisi, aby ve
veřejném zájmu zajistila ve spolupráci s členskými státy
přístup veřejnosti k informacím o výsledcích kontrol
zajišťování potravin, zejména rychlým sdílením těchto
informací mezi členskými státy. Nesmí se prostě
opakovat stejné selhání jako prodej masa obsahujícího
stopy dioxinu, jako tomu je nyní v Německu, kdy ostatní
členské státy byly nedostatečně a pozdě informovány o
nastalé situaci.
1-241
Robert Dušek (S&D), písemně. – Zabezpečení dodávek
potravin považujeme za jedno ze základních lidských
práv. Již dnes je ve světě 900 milionů lidí, kteří kvůli
chudobě trpí neustálým hladem. Do roku 2050 má
světová populace překročit počet 9 miliard lidí a světová
produkce potravin se bude muset zvýšit až o 70 %.
Zemědělství má na jedné straně zvyšovat produkci a na
druhé straně se potýká s vysokými cenami energií, stále
se zmenšující neznečištěnou půdní plochou a s následky
klimatických změn. Musíme řešit nestabilitu a kolísání
cen způsobené spekulacemi na komoditních trzích i
ubývání zásob potravin. Budoucí zajištění dodávek
základních potravin vyžaduje silnou společnou
zemědělskou politiku. SZP by měla zlepšit zabezpečení
dodávek potravin zvýšením produktivity a podporovat
ekologicky udržitelnou produkci potravin i tradiční
zemědělství, drobné zemědělce, ekologické farmy,
místní a regionální distribuci potravin. Tyto modely
zemědělství přispívají k zajišťování dodávek potravin,
neboť využívají po generace vyzkoušené metody a
postupy v jednotlivých oblastech EU. Zemědělství je
nejstrategičtější politikou EU, jeho úspěšnost pomůže
zajistit přežití evropské populace v době potravinové
krize. Aby mohla společná zemědělská politika bojovat s
následky klimatických změn, s udržením cen potravin na
akceptovatelné úrovni a zvyšovat dodávky nezávadných
základních potravin, je nezbytné, aby její rozpočet zůstal
zachován na minimálně stávající úrovni.
1-242
Sandra Kalniete (PPE), rakstiski. – Eiropas
lauksaimniecība ir viena no Savienības stratēģiski
svarīgākajām nozarēm, jo tā nodrošina ar pārtiku vairāk
nekā 500 miljonus iedzīvotāju. Lai Eiropas
lauksaimniecības politika varētu sasniegt savu galveno
uzdevumu, proti, nodrošināt Eiropas iedzīvotājus ar
veselīgu un kvalitatīvu pārtiku par samērīgām cenām,
vienlaikus saglabājot pienācīgus ienākumus
lauksaimniekiem, tai ir jābūt konkurētspējīgai globālajā
tirgū un jānodrošina godīga konkurence Eiropas iekšējā
tirgū. Tāpēc mūsu uzdevums KLP reformas ietvaros ir
nodrošināt vienlīdzīgas konkurences iespējas visiem
Eiropas lauksaimniekiem. ES valstis nav saskārušās ar
pārtikas nodrošinātības problēmām, tomēr šādi riski
pastāv nākotnē, un mums ir jāspēj attiecīgi reaģēt, pirms
tas ir noticis. Jāņem vērā, ka lauksaimnieki jau šobrīd
strādā ar minimāliem ienākumiem vai pat zaudējumiem,
kas nelabvēlīgi ietekmē viņu spēju uzturēt ražošanu. Arī
dabas kataklizmas ietekmē pārtikas cenas veikalos un

17-01-2011 75
līdz ar to arī pārtikas pieejamību cilvēkiem. Mums ir
jāapzinās lauksaimniecības stratēģiskā nozīme Eiropas
Savienībā un jādara viss, lai nākotnē Eiropas cilvēkiem
nenāktos pieredzēt situācijas, kad iestājas pārtikas
nepietiekamība, jo ES politiķi un valdības nebūs laikus
saskatījuši riskus un tos novērsuši. Lauksaimniecības
atzīšana par stratēģiski svarīgu nozari pārtikas
nodrošinātībā ir svarīgs solis, lai mēs nākotnē izvairītos
no pārtikas nodrošinājuma problēmām.
1-243
Elżbieta Katarzyna Łukacijewska (PPE), na piśmie. –
Drogie Koleżanki i Koledzy! Europa potrzebuje
Wspólnej Polityki Rolnej, która zapewni rozwój, a nie
stagnację europejskiego rolnictwa. Polityka rolna musi
odpowiadać na wyzwania europejskie i globalne,
zwłaszcza gdy weźmiemy pod uwagę fakt, że według
Światowej Organizacji ds. Wyżywienia i Rolnictwa
produkcja żywności musi wzrosnąć co najmniej o 70%,
aby zaspokoić populację światową, która do 2050 roku
ma przekroczyć 9 mld. Widać zatem, że Wspólna
Polityka Rolna powinna zwiększać bezpieczeństwo
żywnościowe poprzez zwiększenie wydajności przy
jednoczesnym promowaniu zrównoważonej
środowiskowo polityki żywności. Chciałabym zwrócić
uwagę, że uregulowania w tym zakresie powinny być
przejrzyste. Cenię sobie inicjatywy, które zalecają
promocję różnorodności rolnictwa, uwzględnienie
rolnictwa tradycyjnego i ekologicznego. Dodatkowo
ważnym aspektem jest zagwarantowanie młodym
rolnikom dostępu do ziemi i kredytów, aby realizować
cele WPR takie jak innowacyjność, modernizacja,
wzmocnienie konkurencyjności, a przede wszystkim
nowoczesne rolnictwo.
1-244
Rareş-Lucian Niculescu (PPE), în scris. – Salut
raportul referitor la recunoaşterea agriculturii ca sector
strategic în contextul securităţii alimentare dar, în acelaşi
timp, îmi exprim regretul pentru faptul că Parlamentul a
decis să aloce atât de puţin timp pentru dezbaterea
acestuia. Tema este cu atât mai actuală în această
perioadă, în care am devenit conştienţi de modul în care
criza alimentară poate afecta stabilitatea statelor. Revolta
din Tunisia a avut printre motivaţii scumpirea
alimentelor. Algeria, India, Bangladesh sunt state în care
scumpirea alimentelor a provocat tensiuni serioase.
Sporirea culturilor de biodiesel, speculaţiile financiare,
reorientarea extrem de rapidă a producătorilor către
culturi agricole mai rentabile, nu în ultimul rând,
schimbarea obiceiurilor alimentare ale cetăţenilor multor
state sunt, de asemenea, teme noi, legate strâns de
subiectul raportului de astăzi.
Un comentariu final: într-un top al vulnerabilităţii la
creşterea preţului alimentelor, realizat de o bancă
japoneză, dintre 40 de ţări cele mai vulnerabile, patru
sunt membre ale Uniunii Europene, un alt stat va deveni
curând membru al UE, iar 3 state sunt vecini imediaţi ai
Uniunii. Un top interesant care trebuie să ne dea de
gândit.
1-245
Iosif Matula (PPE), în scris. – Creşterea cererii de
alimente la nivel global, ca efect al creşterii populaţiei
planetei, se reflectă în mod evident asupra resurselor
naturale de hrană şi implică noi reglementări şi precauţii
în domeniul securităţii alimentare. UE are misiunea
prioritară de a garanta statelor membre dreptul la
securitate alimentară şi de a susţine ţările în curs de
dezvoltare să atingă un nivel adecvat de siguranţă
alimentară. Consider importantă promovarea producţiei
şi comercializării alimentelor tradiţionale locale.
Produsele alimentare cu referinţă regională prezintă
multiple beneficii prin: costurile reduse de transport şi
reducerea riscului de perisabilitate. Există multe regiuni
cu un pronunţat potenţial agricol neexploatat din cauza
unor dezechilibre în plan social sau economic, pe fondul
accentuării îmbătrânirii populaţiei rurale sau
industrializării. Astfel, importante suprafeţe agricole nu
sunt utilizate eficient. Un rol cheie în asigurarea
securităţii alimentare îl pot avea autorităţile regionale
prin sprijinirea capacităţii agricole a regiunilor ce deţin
acest potenţial. UE este unul dintre liderii mondiali în
domeniul cercetării şi inovării, inclusiv în agricultură.
Cu o majoritate a populaţiei urbane în continuă creştere,
apare o nouă provocare: cât de prioritară este
dezvoltarea agriculturii urbane în vederea asigurării
securităţii alimentare, prin diverse modele cum ar fi
agricultura urbana pe verticală?
1-246
Pavel Poc (S&D), písemně. – Chápeme-li zemědělství
jako strategické odvětví, pak nezbytnou podmínkou
zajištění bezpečnosti dodávek potravin je soběstačnost
EU minimálně na úrovni produkce základních potravin a
krmiv. Závislost EU na dovozu zemědělských produktů
způsobuje růst cen potravin a poškozuje jejich přímé
producenty v obchodním řetězci. Podle Organizace OSN
pro výživu a zemědělství (FAO) by se do roku 2050
mohla poptávka po potravinách a krmivech zvýšit o
70 %. Bude proto třeba uplatnit všechny formy
zemědělství, které jsou k dispozici, a významně podpořit
finanční investice do vědy a výzkumu v této oblasti.
Účinné využívání tradičních zemědělských odrůd, které
jsou pro určité regiony charakteristické, také vyžaduje
větší podporu a zájem veřejnosti. Například posouzení
environmentálního dopadu produkce potravin a
přepravních vzdáleností je pro spotřebitele snadno
srozumitelné. Současné až 50% plýtvání v rámci celého
řetězce výroby nebo neúměrný růst nákladní dopravy
nejsou faktory slučitelné se zajištěním bezpečnosti
potravinových dodávek. Nelze předstírat snahu o
zajištění bezpečnosti dodávek potravin ani ochranu
životního prostředí a současně tolerovat závislost na
dovozu produktů vypěstovaných na jiném kontinentě a
dovážených tisíce kilometrů. Taková praxe vytváří
obrovskou ekologickou stopu a současně nutí rozvojové
země dovážet téměř veškeré potřebné potraviny, činí je
závislými, ničí jejich hospodářství, zbídačuje jejich
obyvatelstvo a ničí jejich životní prostředí.

76 17-01-2011
1-247
22 - Ordine del giorno della prossima
seduta: vedasi processo verbale
1-248
23 - Chiusura della seduta
1-249
(La seduta è tolta alle 23.30)

НЕОКОНЧАТЕЛНО ИЗДАНИЕ
В настоящото издание (достъпно и в интернет - вж.
страница последна) всяко изказване фигурира на
езика, използван от оратора. Окончателно издание
е достъпно едва впоследствие. Ораторите, които
желаят в текста на изказванията им да бъдат
нанесени корекции, следва да ги представят на
Отдел "Протоколи и пълни стенографски протоколи
на пленарни заседания" в едноседмичен срок
на адреса, посочен на страница последна (по
електронна поща поставете в полето "Относно"
"CRE / дата").
EDICIÓN PROVISIONAL
La presente edición (disponible también en Internet -
véase última página) contiene todas las intervenciones
en la lengua usada por el orador. La edición
definitiva estará disponible posteriormente. Las
correcciones que los oradores deseen efectuar en el
texto de su intervención deben enviarse a la Unidad de
Actas y Actas Literales de la Sesión Plenaria en el plazo
de una semana a la dirección que figura en la última
página (para el e-mail: asunto «CRE / fecha»).
PROZATÍMNÍ VYDÁNÍ
V tomto vydání (které je rovněž k dispozici na
internetu – viz poslední strana) je každé vystoupení
zaznamenáno v jazyce, ve kterém je řečník přednesl.
Řečníci, kteří si přejí provést opravy ve znění svých
vystoupení, mohou do jednoho týdne předat opravy
oddělení pro doslovný záznam a zápis z plenárního
zasedání na adresu uvedenou na poslední straně (v
příslušném e-mailu uvést v předmětu zprávy (subject):
„CRE / datum“).
FORELØBIG UDGAVE
Denne udgave (findes også på internettet - se sidste
side) indeholder samtlige taler på det af taleren
anvendte sprog. En endelig udgave offentliggøres
senere. Enheden for Plenarmødeprotokoller og -
referater bør inden en uge, på den adresse der er
angivet på sidste side, underrettes om de ændringer,
som talerne måtte ønske at foretage i deres indlæg
(ved henvendelse pr. e-mail, skriv venligst "CRE / dato"
under "subject").
VORLÄUFIGE AUSGABE
Diese Ausgabe (auch im Internet abrufbar — siehe
hintere Umschlagseite) enthält alle Reden in der vom
Redner verwendeten Sprache. Eine endgültige Ausgabe
wird später veröffentlicht. Etwaige Korrekturen,
die die Redner am Text ihrer Reden vorzunehmen
wünschen, sollten innerhalb einer Woche dem Referat
Plenarprotokolle an die auf der Rückseite angegebene
Adresse zugesandt werden (für E-Mail: im Betreff
erwähnen: CRE / Datum).
ESIALGNE VERSIOON
Käesolevas versioonis (mis on kättesaadav ka internetis
– vt viimast lehekülge) on toodud kõikide sõnavõttude
originaaltekstid. Lõplik versioon avaldatakse hiljem.
Sõnavõtjatel, kes soovivad oma sõnavõtus teha
muudatusi, palutakse edastada muudatused ühe
nädala jooksul täiskogu istungite protokollide üksusele
viimasel leheküljel toodud aadressil (e-posti puhul
märkida teemaks „CRE / kuupäev”).
Списък на съкращенията на политическите групи
PPE
S&D
ALDE
Verts/ALE
ECR
GUE/NGL
EFD
NI
Група на Европейската народна партия (Християндемократи)
Група на прогресивния алианс на социалистите и демократите в
Европейския парламент
Група на Алианса на либералите и демократите за Европа
Група на Зелените/Европейски свободен алианс
Европейски консерватори и реформисти
Конфедеративна група на Европейската обединена левица -
Северна зелена левица
Група „Европа на свободата и демокрацията”
Независими членове
Lista de las siglas de los grupos políticos
PPE
S&D
ALDE
Verts/ALE
ECR
GUE/NGL
EFD
NI
Grupo del Partido Popular Europeo (Demócrata-cristianos)
Grupo de la Alianza Progresista de los Socialistas y Demócratas en
el Parlamento Europeo
Grupo de la Alianza de los Demócratas y Liberales por Europa
Grupo de los Verdes/Alianza Libre Europea
Grupo de los Conservadores y Reformistas Europeos
Grupo Confederal de la Izquierda Unitaria Europea/Izquierda Verde
Nórdica
Grupo Europa de la Libertad y de la Democracia
No inscritos
Seznam zkratek politických skupin
PPE
S&D
ALDE
Verts/ALE
ECR
GUE/NGL
EFD
NI
Skupina Evropské lidové strany (Křesťanští demokraté)
Skupina Pokrokové aliance socialistů a demokratů v Evropském
parlamentu
Skupina Aliance liberálů a demokratů pro Evropu
Skupina Zelených/Evropské svobodné aliance
Skupina Evropských konzervativců a reformistů
Skupina konfederace Evropské sjednocené levice a Severské zelené
levice
Skupina Evropa svobody a demokracie
Nezařazení poslanci
Liste over forkortelserne for de politiske grupper
PPE
S&D
ALDE
Verts/ALE
ECR
GUE/NGL
EFD
NI
Det Europæiske Folkepartis gruppe (Kristelige Demokrater)
Gruppen for Det Progressive Forbund af Socialdemokrater i Europa-
Parlamentet
Gruppen Alliancen af Liberale og Demokrater for Europa
Gruppen De Grønne/Den Europæiske Fri Alliance
Gruppen De Europæiske Konservative og Reformister
Den Europæiske Venstrefløjs Fællesgruppe/Nordisk Grønne Venstre
Gruppen for Europæisk Frihed og Demokrati
Løsgængere
Liste der Abkürzungen der Fraktionen
PPE
S&D
ALDE
Verts/ALE
ECR
GUE/NGL
EFD
NI
Fraktion der Europäischen Volkspartei (Christdemokraten)
Fraktion der Progressiven Allianz der Sozialisten & Demokraten
im Europäischen Parlament
Fraktion der Allianz der Liberalen und Demokraten für Europa
Fraktion der Grünen / Freie Europäische Allianz
Fraktion Europäische Konservative und Reformisten
Konföderale Fraktion der Vereinigten Europäischen
Linken/Nordische Grüne Linke
Fraktion Europa der Freiheit und der Demokratie
Fraktionslos
Fraktsioonide lühendite nimekiri
PPE
S&D
ALDE
Verts/ALE
ECR
GUE/NGL
EFD
NI
Euroopa Rahvapartei (kristlike demokraatide) fraktsioon
Euroopa Parlamendi Sotsialistide ja Demokraatide Progressiivse
Liidu fraktsioon
Euroopa Demokraatide ja Liberaalide Liidu fraktsioon
Roheliste / Euroopa Vabaliidu fraktsioon
Euroopa Konservatiivide ja Reformistide fraktsioon
Euroopa Ühendatud Vasakpoolsete / Põhjamaade Roheliste
Vasakpoolsete liitfraktsioon
Vaba ja Demokraatliku Euroopa fraktsioon
fraktsioonilise kuuluvuseta parlamendiliikmed
BG
ES
CS
DA
DE
ET

ΠΡΟΣΩΡΙΝΗ ΕΚΔΟΣΗ
Η παρούσα έκδοση (διαθέσιμη και στο Διαδίκτυο - βλ.
οπισθόφυλλο) περιέχει τα πρωτότυπα όλων των
αγορεύσεων. Η τελική έκδοση θα είναι διαθέσιμη
αργότερα. Οι αγορητές που επιθυμούν να επιφέρουν
διορθώσεις στις αγορεύσεις τους καλούνται να τις
διαβιβάσουν στη μονάδα Πρακτικών της Ολομέλειας
στο αργότερο μέσα σε μία εβδομάδα στη διεύθυνση
που αναγράφεται στο οπισθόφυλλο (για το e-mail: να
αναγράφεται στο θέμα "CRE / ημερομηνία").
PROVISIONAL EDITION
This edition (also available on the Internet – see back
cover) contains the texts of all speeches in the original
language used by the speaker. The final edition will be
available later. Speakers wishing to correct their
speeches are requested to send any corrections
within a week to the Plenary Records Unit at the
address shown on the last page (if using e-mail,
please enter ‘CRE / date’ in the subject line).
EDITION PROVISOIRE
Dans la présente édition (disponible également sur
Internet - v. dernière page) chaque intervention figure
dans la langue utilisée par l'orateur. Une édition
définitive sera disponible ultérieurement. Les orateurs
qui désirent voir apporter des corrections au texte de
leur intervention sont priés de transmettre celles-ci à
l'unité des Procès-verbaux et des Comptes rendus de
la plénière dans un délai d'une semaine à l'adresse
figurant en dernière page (pour l'e-mail: mentionner
dans le sujet "CRE / date").
EAGRÁN SEALADACH
Is é atá san eagrán seo (atá ar fáil ar an Idirlíon chomh
maith - feic clúdach cúil) ná téacsanna bunaidh de
gach aitheasc. Beidh eagrán deiridh ar fáil níos déanaí.
Ba cheart do chainteoirí aon cheartúcháin a chur in
iúl don Aonad do Thaifead na gCruinnithe Iomlánacha
trí ríomhphost a sheoladh laistigh de sheachtain
chuig an seoladh ar an leathanach deiridh (cuir
'CRE/dáta' mar ábhar an ríomhphoist le do thoil).
EDIZIONE PROVVISORIA
La presente edizione (disponibile anche su Internet
all'indirizzo indicato all'ultima pagina) contiene tutti i
discorsi nella lingua usata dall'oratore. L'edizione
definitiva sarà pubblicata successivamente. Gli oratori
che desiderino rivedere il testo dei loro interventi
sono pregati di far pervenire le correzioni entro una
settimana all'unità Processi verbali e resoconti
integrali della seduta plenaria all'indirizzo indicato
all'ultima pagina (per l'e-mail indicare nell'oggetto
"CRE / data").
PAGAIDU VERSIJA
Šajā izdevumā (pieejams arī internetā — sk. pēdējo
lappusi) visas runas ir oriģinālajā valodā. Galīgā versija
būs pieejama vēlāk. Runātāji, kas vēlas labot savas
runas, tiek lūgti izlaboto tekstu vienas nedēļas laikā
nosūtīt Plenārsēžu protokolu un stenogrammu
nodaļai uz adresi, kura norādīta pēdējā lappusē (epastā
kā tematu rakstīt: CRE / datums).
Συντομογραφίες των πολιτικών ομάδων
PPE
S&D
ALDE
Verts/ALE
ECR
GUE/NGL
EFD
NI
Ομάδα τoυ Ευρωπαϊκoύ Λαϊκoύ Κόμματoς (Χριστιαvoδημoκράτες)
Ομάδα της Προοδευτικής Συμμαχίας των Σοσιαλιστών και
Δημοκρατών στο Ευρωπαϊκό Κοινοβούλιο
Ομάδα της Συμμαχίας Φιλελευθέρων και Δημοκρατών για την
Ευρώπη
Ομάδα τωv Πρασίvωv / Ευρωπαϊκή Ελεύθερη Συμμαχία
Ευρωπαίοι Συντηρητικοί και Μεταρρυθμιστές
Συνομοσπονδιακή Ομάδα της Ευρωπαϊκής Ενωτικής
Αριστεράς/Αριστερά των Πρασίνων των Βορείων Χωρών
Ευρώπη ελευθερίας και δημοκρατίας
Μη Εγγεγραμμένοι
List of abbreviations denoting political groups
PPE
S&D
ALDE
Verts/ALE
ECR
GUE/NGL
EFD
NI
Group of the European People's Party (Christian Democrats)
Group of the Progressive Alliance of Socialists and Democrats in the
European Parliament
Group of the Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe
Group of the Greens/European Free Alliance
European Conservatives and Reformists Group
Confederal Group of the European United Left - Nordic Green Left
Europe of Freedom and Democracy Group
Non-attached Members
Liste des sigles des groupes politiques
PPE
S&D
ALDE
Verts/ALE
ECR
GUE/NGL
EFD
NI
Groupe du Parti populaire européen (Démocrates-Chrétiens)
Groupe de l'Alliance progressiste des Socialistes et Démocrates au
Parlement européen
Groupe Alliance des démocrates et des libéraux pour l'Europe
Groupe des Verts/Alliance libre européenne
Groupe des Conservateurs et Réformistes européens
Groupe confédéral de la Gauche unitaire européenne/Gauche verte
nordique
Groupe Europe Liberté Démocratie
Non-inscrits
Liosta de ghiorrúcháin na ngrúpaí polaitiúla
PPE
S&D
ALDE
Verts/ALE
ECR
GUE/NGL
EFD
NI
Grúpa Pháirtí an Phobail Eorpaigh (Na Daonlathaithe Críostaí)
An Grúpa d’Aontas Forchéimnitheach na Sóisialaithe agus na
nDaonlathaithe i bParlaimint na hEorpa
Grúpa Chomhghuaillíocht na Liobrálaithe agus na nDaonlathaithe
An Grúpa Glas/Grúpa na Saor-Chomhghuaillíochta Eorpaí
An Grúpa do Choimeádaigh agus Leasaitheoirí na hEorpa
Grúpa Cónasctha den Chlé Aontaithe Eorpach - den Chlé Ghlas
Nordach
An Grúpa d’Eoraip na Saoirse agus an Daonlathais
Feisirí Neamhcheangailte
Elenco delle sigle dei gruppi politici
PPE
S&D
ALDE
Verts/ALE
ECR
GUE/NGL
EFD
NI
Gruppo del Partito popolare europeo (Democratico Cristiano)
Gruppo dell'Alleanza Progressista di Socialisti e Democratici al
Parlamento europeo
Gruppo dell'Alleanza dei Democratici e dei Liberali per l'Europa
Gruppo Verde/Alleanza libera europea
Gruppo dei Conservatori e Riformisti europei
Gruppo confederale della Sinistra unitaria europea/Sinistra verde
nordica
Gruppo Europa della libertà e della democrazia
Non iscritti
Saraksts ar politisko grupu saīsinājumiem
PPE
S&D
ALDE
Verts/ALE
ECR
GUE/NGL
EFD
NI
Eiropas Tautas partijas grupa (Kristīgie demokrāti)
Eiropas Parlamenta sociālistu un demokrātu progresīvās alianses
grupa
Eiropas Liberāļu un demokrātu apvienības grupa
Zaļo un Eiropas Brīvās apvienības grupa
Eiropas Konservatīvo un reformistu grupa
Eiropas Apvienotā kreiso un Ziemeļvalstu Zaļo kreiso spēku
konfederālā grupa
grupa „Brīvības un demokrātijas Eiropa”
Pie politiskajām grupām nepiederošie deputāti
EL
EN
FR
GA
IT
LV

NEGALUTINĖ REDAKCIJA
Šioje redakcijoje (ją taip pat galima rasti internete – žr.
paskutinį puslapį) pateikiami visų pranešimų tekstai
originalo kalba. Galutinė redakcija bus paruošta
vėliau. Kalbėjusiųjų, norinčių pataisyti savo
pranešimus, prašome pateikti savo pataisymus
Plenarinių posėdžių protokolų ir stenogramų skyriui
paskutiniame puslapyje nurodytu adresu ne vėliau
kaip per vieną savaitę (siunčiant el. paštu, dalyko
skiltyje nurodykite CRE / data).
IDEIGLENES KIADÁS
A jelen kiadásban (amely az Interneten is
hozzáférhető, ld. az utolsó oldalt) minden felszólalás a
felszólaló által használt nyelven szerepel. A végleges
kiadás elkészítésére később kerül sor. Azok a
felszólalók, akik javításokat kívánnak tenni
felszólalásuk szövegében, szíveskedjenek a kívánt
javításokat egyhetes határidőn belül eljuttatni
a plenáris ülések jegyzőkönyvéért és szó szerinti
jegyzőkönyvéért felelős osztályhoz, az utolsó oldalon
szereplő címre (az e-mailek tárgyában tüntesse fel a
következőt: „CRE / dátum”).
EDIZZJONI PROVIŻORJA
Din l-edizzjoni (li tinstab ukoll fuq l-Internet - ara lqoxra
ta' wara) fiha t-testi oriġinali tad-diskorsi kollha.
L-edizzjoni finali tkun disponibbli aktar 'il quddiem.
Dawk li jixtiequ jikkoreġu d-diskors tagħhom huma
mitluba li jgħaddu, fi żmien ġimgħa, l-verżjonijiet
riveduti lill-Unità tal-Minuti u ta' l-Atti tal-Plenarja, flindirizz
indikat fuq il-qoxra ta' wara (jekk tuża l-email,
jekk jogħġbok ikteb CRE / id-data fil-linja indikata).
VOORLOPIGE UITGAVE
Deze uitgave (ook te vinden op Internet - zie
achterkant) omvat alle redevoeringen in de taal
waarin zij zijn uitgesproken. Een definitieve versie in
elk van de officiële talen zal op een later tijdstip
verschijnen. Sprekers die verbeteringen in de tekst
van hun redevoeringen wensen aan te brengen,
kunnen deze binnen een week aan de Afdeling
notulen en volledig verslag plenaire vergaderingen
op het op de achterkant aangegeven adres doen
toekomen (Voor e-mail: onder onderwerp vermelden:
CRE / datum).
WYDANIE TYMCZASOWE
Niniejsze wydanie (dostępne również na stronach
internetowych - zob. ostatnia strona) zawiera teksty
wszystkich przemówień w językach mówców.
Wydanie ostateczne będzie dostępne później. Mówcy,
którzy chcieliby wnieść poprawki do tekstu swojego
przemówienia, proszeni są o przesłanie poprawek do
Wydziału protokołów i stenogramów z posiedzenia
plenarnego w terminie jednego tygodnia na adres
podany na ostatniej stronie (zaznaczając w temacie
wiadomości e-mail: CRE / data).
EDIÇÃO PROVISÓRIA
A presente edição (também disponível na Internet - cf.
última página) contém todas as intervenções na
língua utilizada pelo respectivo orador. A edição
definitiva será publicada ulteriormente. As correcções
que os oradores desejem efectuar no texto das
respectivas intervenções devem ser transmitidas, no
prazo de uma semana, à Unidade da Acta e do Relato
Integral das Sessões, para o endereço que figura na
última página deste caderno (para a transmissão via
e-mail, é necessário inscrever a menção "CRE / data"
no campo assunto).
Frakcijų pavadinimų sutrumpinimų sąrašas
PPE
S&D
ALDE
Verts/ALE
ECR
GUE/NGL
EFD
NI
Europos liaudies partijos (krikščionių demokratų) frakcija
Europos Parlamento socialistų ir demokratų pažangiojo aljanso
frakcija
Liberalų ir demokratų aljanso už Europą frakcija
Žaliųjų frakcija / Europos laisvasis aljansas
Europos konservatorių ir reformuotojų frakcija
Europos vieningųjų kairiųjų jungtinė frakcija / Šiaurės šalių žalieji
kairieji
Laisvos ir demokratiškos Europos frakcija
Nepriklausomi nariai
A képviselőcsoportok betűszó szerinti listája
PPE
S&D
ALDE
Verts/ALE
ECR
GUE/NGL
EFD
NI
az Európai Néppárt (Kereszténydemokraták) képviselőcsoportja
az Európai Szocialisták és Demokraták Progresszív Szövetsége
képviselőcsoport
Liberálisok és Demokraták Szövetsége Európáért képviselőcsoport
a Zöldek/Európai Szabad Szövetség képviselőcsoport
Európai Konzervatívok és Reformisták képviselőcsoport
az Egységes Európai Baloldal/Északi Zöld Baloldal képviselőcsoport
a Szabadság és Demokrácia Európája képviselőcsoport
független képviselők
Lista ta' abbrevjazzonijiet ta' gruppi politiċi
PPE
S&D
ALDE
Verts/ALE
ECR
GUE/NGL
EFD
NI
Grupp tal-Partit Popolari Ewropew (Demokristjani)
Grupp tal-Alleanza Progressiva tas-Soċjalisti u d-Demokratiċi fil-
Parlament Ewropew
Grupp ta' l-Alleanza tal-Liberali u d-Demokratiċi għall-Ewropa
Grupp tal-Ħodor/Alleanza Ħielsa Ewropea
Konservattivi u Riformisti Ewropej
Grupp Konfederali tax-Xellug Magħqud Ewropew - Xellug Aħdar
Nordiku
Grupp għall-Ewropa ħielsa u demokratika
Membri mhux affiljati
Lijst van afkortingen van de fracties
PPE
S&D
ALDE
Verts/ALE
ECR
GUE/NGL
EFD
NI
Fractie van de Europese Volkspartij (Christen-democraten)
Fractie van de Progressieve Alliantie van Socialisten en Democraten
in het Europees Parlement
Fractie Alliantie van Liberalen en Democraten voor Europa
Fractie De Groenen/Vrije Europese Alliantie
Fractie Europese Conservatieven en Hervormers
Confederale Fractie Europees Unitair Links/Noords Groen Links
Europa van Vrijheid en Democratie
Niet-ingeschrevenen
Lista skrótów grup politycznych
PPE
S&D
ALDE
Verts/ALE
ECR
GUE/NGL
EFD
NI
Grupa Europejskiej Partii Ludowej (Chrześcijańscy Demokraci)
Grupa Postępowego Sojuszu Socjalistów i Demokratów w
Parlamencie Europejskim
Grupa Porozumienia Liberałów i Demokratów na rzecz Europy
Grupa Zielonych / Wolne Przymierze Europejskie
Grupa Europejskich Konserwatystów i Reformistów
Konfederacyjna Grupa Zjednoczonej Lewicy Europejskiej / Nordycka
Zielona Lewica
Grupa Europy Wolności i Demokracji
Niezrzeszeni
Lista das siglas dos grupos políticos
PPE
S&D
ALDE
Verts/ALE
ECR
GUE/NGL
EFD
NI
Grupo do Partido Popular Europeu (Democratas-Cristãos)
Grupo da Aliança Progressista dos Socialistas e Democratas no
Parlamento Europeu
Grupo da Aliança dos Democratas e Liberais pela Europa
Grupo dos Verdes/Aliança Livre Europeia
Grupo dos Conservadores e Reformistas Europeus
Grupo Confederal da Esquerda Unitária Europeia/Esquerda Nórdica
Verde
Grupo Europa da Liberdade e da Democracia
Não-inscritos
LT
HU
MT
NL
PL
PT

EDIŢIE PROVIZORIE
În prezenta ediție (disponibilă și pe internet –
consultați ultima pagină), fiecare intervenție figurează
în limba utilizată de către vorbitor. Ediția definitivă va
fi disponibilă la o dată ulterioară. Vorbitorii care
doresc să aducă modificări textului intervenției lor
sunt rugați să le transmită în termen de o
săptămână Unității Procese-verbale și Stenograme
Ședințe Plenare, la adresa indicată pe ultima pagină
(în cazul trimiterilor pe e-mail: menționați la rubrica
subiect „CRE/data”).
EDBEŽNÉ VYDANIE
Toto vydanie, ktoré sa nachádza aj na internete (pozri
poslednú stranu), obsahuje znenie všetkých prejavov
uvedené v pôvodnom jazyku rečníka. Konečná verzia
bude k dispozícii neskôr. Rečníci, ktorí chcú vložiť
opravy do svojich prejavov, môžu zaslať všetky opravy
na adresu Oddelenia pre zápisnice a doslovné zápisy z
plenárnej schôdze uvedenú na poslednej strane, a to
do jedného týždňa (ak ide o e-mailovú korešpondenciu,
treba uviesť ako predmet = CRE / dátum).
ZAČASNA VERZIJA
V začasni različici (na razpolago tudi na svetovnem
spletu - glej hrbtno stran) so govori v jeziku, v katerem
je govorec nastopil. Naknadno bo na razpolago tudi
končna različica. Govorci, ki želijo vnesti popravke v
besedilo svojega govora, naj jih v roku enega tedna
posredujejo službi za zapisnike in dobesedne zapise
plenarnega zasedanja na naslov, naveden na hrbtni
strani (prek elektronske pošte: omenjeno v zadevi
"CRE / datum").
VÄLIAIKAINEN VERSIO
Julkaisu (joka on saatavilla myös Internetissä – katso
takakansi) sisältää kaikkien puheiden alkuperäiset
versiot. Lopullinen julkaisu ilmestyy myöhemmin.
Puhujia, jotka haluavat tehdä korjauksia puheisiinsa,
pyydetään toimittamaan korjatut versiot täysistuntopöytäkirjoista
ja sanatarkoista istuntoselostuksista
vastaavalle yksikölle viikon kuluessa takakannessa
mainittuun osoitteeseen (sähköpostia varten:
asiakenttään maininta "CRE / päivämäärä").
PRELIMINÄR UTGÅVA
Denna utgåva (som också finns tillgänglig på Internet
– se nedan) innehåller samtliga anföranden på
originalspråket. En slutlig version kommer att
offentliggöras senare. Talare som önskar justera sina
anföranden ombeds skicka den justerade versionen
till enheten för plenarsammanträdesprotokoll inom
en vecka, se adress nedan (för e-post: ange som
ärende ”CRE / datum”).
Lista siglelor grupurilor politice
PPE
S&D
ALDE
Verts/ALE
ECR
GUE/NGL
EFD
NI
Grupul Partidului Popular European (Creștin Democrat)
Grupul Alianței Progresiste a Socialiștilor și Democraților din
Parlamentul European
Grupul Alianței Liberalilor și Democraților pentru Europa
Grupul Verzilor/Alianța Liberă Europeană
Grupul Conservatorilor și Reformiștilor Europeni
Grupul Confederal al Stângii Unite Europene/Stânga Verde Nordică
Grupul Europa Libertății și Democrației
Deputați neafiliați
Zoznam skratiek politických skupín
PPE
S&D
ALDE
Verts/ALE
ECR
GUE/NGL
EFD
NI
Poslanecký klub Európskej ľudovej strany (kresťanských
demokratov)
Skupina Pokrokovej aliancie socialistov a demokratov v Európskom
parlamente
Skupina Aliancie liberálov a demokratov za Európu
Skupina zelených/Európska slobodná aliancia
Európski konzervatívci a reformisti
Konfederatívna skupina Európskej zjednotenej ľavice - Severskej
zelenej ľavice
Skupina Európa slobody a demokracie
Nezaradení poslanci
Seznam kratic političnih skupin
PPE
S&D
ALDE
Verts/ALE
ECR
GUE/NGL
EFD
NI
skupina Evropske ljudske stranke (krščanskih demokratov)
skupina Napredne zveze socialistov in demokratov v Evropskem
parlamentu
skupina Zavezništva liberalcev in demokratov za Evropo
skupina Zelenih/Evropske svobodne zveze
skupina Evropskih konservativcev in reformistov
konfederalna skupina Evropske združene levice - Zelene nordijske
levice
skupina Evropa svobode in demokracije
samostojni poslanci
Poliittisten ryhmien lyhenteet
PPE
S&D
ALDE
Verts/ALE
ECR
GUE/NGL
EFD
NI
Euroopan kansanpuolueen (kristillisdemokraatit) ryhmä
Euroopan parlamentin sosialistien ja demokraattien progressiivisen
liiton ryhmä
Euroopan liberaalidemokraattien liiton ryhmä
Vihreät / Euroopan vapaa allianssi -ryhmä
Euroopan konservatiivit ja reformistit
Euroopan yhtyneen vasemmiston konfederaatioryhmä /
Pohjoismaiden vihreä vasemmisto
Vapaa ja demokraattinen Eurooppa
Sitoutumattomat
Förteckning över förkortningarna för de politiska grupperna
PPE
S&D
ALDE
Verts/ALE
ECR
GUE/NGL
EFD
NI
PARLEMENT EUROPÉEN
Secrétariat général - Procès-verbaux et Comptes rendus de la Plénière
L-2929 LUXEMBOURG
e-mail : pv-cre@europarl.europa.eu
Internet : http://www.europarl.europa.eu
(aller vers: "Activités", "Plénière", "Débats")
Europeiska folkpartiets grupp (kristdemokrater)
Gruppen Progressiva alliansen av socialister och demokrater i
Europaparlamentet
Gruppen Alliansen liberaler och demokrater för Europa
Gruppen De gröna/Europeiska fria alliansen
Gruppen Europeiska konservativa och reformister
Gruppen Europeiska enade vänstern/Nordisk grön vänster
Gruppen Frihet och demokrati i Europa
Grupplösa
RO
SK
SL
FI
SV