EC/Mauritania Fisheries Partnership Agreement for the period 1 August 2008 to 31 July 2012 (debate)
President
The next item is the report by Mrs Carmen Fraga Estévez, on behalf of the Committee on Fisheries, on the proposal for a Council regulation on the conclusion of the Protocol setting out the fishing opportunities and financial contribution provided for in the Fisheries Partnership Agreement between the European Community and the Islamic Republic of Mauritania for the period 1 August 2008 to 31 July 2012 - C6-0199/2008 -.
Joe Borg
Member of the Commission. - Mr President, let me first extend my gratitude to the Fisheries Committee and especially to its rapporteur, Mrs Fraga, for her report.
This revised protocol has set the fishing possibilities and the financial contribution for the period 1 August 2010 to 31 July 2012. It is the result of a long and complex negotiation process between the European Commission and Mauritania that was launched in October 2007, following serious under-utilisation of the protocol by European ship-owners, namely under-utilisation for cephalopods and the small pelagic species.
The main changes introduced in the new protocol are, firstly, related to the duration of the protocol, which we have extended from two to four years, and, secondly, a reduction of the fishing possibilities for cephalopods, following scientific advice, and for small pelagics, following the actual utilisation and the forecasts for the European Union fleet. Thirdly, an overall reduction of the financial contribution over a four-year period, from an average of EUR 86 million per year to an average of EUR 72.25 million per year, but with an increase within this allocation of the part dedicated to supporting the country's fisheries policy: from EUR 11 million per year in 2008-9 to EUR 20 million per year in 2011-2012. Fourthly, there is a revised procedure for dealing with infringements in Mauritanian waters.
This is a well-balanced protocol which conciliates the different interests: the need to adjust the EU financial contribution to reduced fishing possibilities for the EU fleet, and the importance of giving greater support to the fisheries sector in Mauritania so as to encourage the integration of this sector into the Mauritanian National Development strategy.
The Fisheries Partnership Agreement contributes 20% of the budgetary revenues of the Mauritanian state, compared to approximately 30-35% in the period 2004-2005. The Fisheries Partnership Agreement amounts to 80% of the overall revenues from the fisheries sector within the state budget. The European Community fishing effort in the Mauritanian EEZ represents 20% of the overall effort - that is both artisanal and industrial fleets.
During the negotiations, the Mauritanian side asked the Commission to make every effort to pay the first annual financial contribution by the end of August 2008. This contribution is crucial for the Mauritanian national budget considering, as I said earlier, that annual payments under the Fisheries Partnership Agreement represent 15 to 20% of the country's budget. It is also of vital importance for EU operators in the region whose activities may suffer in the event of non-payment before that date - that is due to non-ratification on the Community side.
I would also like to make reference to the question of relative stability, which was also raised by one of the Member States during the June Council, and to remind you that the Commission has no legal obligation to apply the previous allocation of fishing possibilities (i.e. relative stability) under the Fisheries Partnership Agreement, that is agreements which have a financial compensation, such as the one we are considering today. This is because it needs to guarantee that the allocation reflects the best possible option for ensuring value for money (i.e. optimisation of the utilisation for the financial contribution). Under these agreements, fishing possibilities should be allocated according to other criteria such as the utilisation rate of the previous protocol, the Member States' requests during negotiations and historical fishing possibilities allocated to the Member States and also the situation/capacity of the fleet.
Carmen Fraga Estévez
rapporteur. - (ES) Mr President, I would like to say that, once again, we have worked very hard in the Committee on Fisheries so that the Commission and the European Union can honour their commitments.
It was perhaps the Commission's initial lack of interest in the negotiations that led to some of the criticisms in the report about the procedure that was followed, despite the fact that Mauritania continues to be one of the European Union's major fishing partners and despite the fact that the financial contribution is still one of the largest and involves ever-greater commitments towards developing the Community fisheries sector.
It is therefore difficult to understand why the text that has been negotiated entails a big reduction in the permissible catch of between 25% and 50% for almost all categories of fish and why, in addition to the technical measures, conditions have been accepted which for us are difficult to understand.
As we have said on several occasions in this forum, and as Europêche said in a letter to you, Mr Borg, there is not much point in negotiating marvellous fishing opportunities - which is not the case in this Agreement - if we then accept technical conditions which prevent us being able to take proper advantage of those possibilities.
The minimum size set for octopus bears no relation to the size set for adjacent areas; the additional two-month biological recovery period negotiated at the last minute, virtually unbeknown to the fisheries sector, was based on a poor quality scientific report and was introduced at the request of the Mauritanian party without the necessary prior consultation of the joint scientific committee; it is based solely on cephalopods, despite the fact that the recovery period affects all categories. All of this is a disturbing indication of how the European Commission sometimes negotiates.
It is for this reason, Mr President, Mr Borg, that we must renew our insistence on greater involvement for the European Parliament, at least as an observer at the joint committee meetings, as a minimum institutional transparency requirement, which should have been met some time ago.
It would not be a bad thing, given the new powers which we hope the European Parliament will acquire with the entry into force of the Lisbon Treaty - which was imminent and I am convinced must take place soon - for the Council and the Commission to prepare themselves for involving Parliament in a role which, sooner or later, it will be called upon to fulfil.
We also hinted in the report that we were disappointed that the Commission, and here I am afraid that I have to disagree with you, Mr Borg, had failed to respect the relative stability of the Agreement, by giving itself powers to relax a criterion which on other occasions it has regarded as virtually sacrosanct, an action which we will keep a very close watch on, as our remit demands.
I hope that in the case to which you referred, that of cephalopods, the allocation keys based on relative stability and on the historic fishing rights in this fishing ground will be respected.
We will be very keen to know the outcome of the meetings which have been scheduled in various fora and joint committees to resolve some of the technical questions to which I referred in the report and which can, as is still the case in Morocco, tie up a fleet which desperately needs access to the fishing opportunities for which it is paying large amounts of money.
Despite all this, with its duration increased to four years, as you said, this protocol continues, along with the Morocco protocol, to be the most important fisheries collaboration between the European Union and developing countries, and for this reason we obviously seek a vote against the two new amendments proposed and swift approval of the Commission proposal.
Cornelis Visser
on behalf of the PPE-DE Group. - (NL) The fisheries agreement with Mauritania, concluded as recently as 1 August 2006, was due to be extended this year. On 14 December last year the Commission suddenly suggested that it should be terminated since the fishing opportunities were not being fully used by the European fishing fleet, particularly those relating to small pelagic species.
This came as a great surprise to us. Partly at the urging of Parliament itself talks were held to re-negotiate the fisheries protocol. The new protocol now put to us by the Commission represents very rigorous cuts compared with the old one. Not only are the fishing opportunities for species not fully taken up in previous years cut, but there are severe cuts for all fish species: 25% for cephalopods, 10 to 50% for demersal species and 43% for pelagics, whilst the financial compensation paid to Mauritania remains unchanged or only slightly reduced in the years ahead. We wonder if these cuts were really necessary and what was the rationale behind them, especially since the fishery sector is currently experiencing great difficulties due to the crisis over fuel prices and the cuts in fishing opportunities. There would thus seem to be no obvious reason to limit fishing opportunities further, certainly when there was no biological or scientific need to do so.
The fishery sector must be able to use any fishing opportunity there is just at present. One possibility, for example, might be to switch the Mediterranean tuna fishery to Mauritania. The Dutch pelagic fishing fleet is also hit by the proposed restrictions, especially on pollock, herring and mackerel. So much for Mauritania.
A brief word or two on the Commission's proposals. I am very happy with these, if not with the proposals on Mauritania. I think there are many useful pointers for adapting the fleet in response to the fuel crisis and I hope that these new measures will be enough to prevent job losses in the sector.
Rosa Miguélez Ramos
on behalf of the PSE Group. - (ES) Mr President, the noteworthy fact about this new protocol is that although its duration has been extended from two to four years, fishing opportunities have been reduced.
The allocation of licences under the protocol for category 5 (cephalopods), which gives Spain 24 licences, will not please the Spanish administration because that number is not enough to satisfy the applications from the sector directly affected by this category.
The Council has the power to decide on a new allocation of licences, taking utilisation into account. However, in this case it has not been based on averages but on the period between late 2007 and early 2008, when the situation engendered by the disputes with Mauritania, due to the use of certain technical measures, led to a large part of the European fleet being reluctant to conclude this Agreement, due to the fear of boarding, as happened in the first quarter of 2008.
Since the new protocol has solved the technical problems and opened up a more secure procedure for settling technical differences between the parties, that will surely lead to a greater number of vessels wanting to access this fishing ground, which is becoming safer by the day, and therefore offering more guarantees, than in the previous protocol.
Marie Anne Isler Béguin
on behalf of the Verts/ALE Group. - (FR) Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, when it comes to fisheries agreements, we Greens have an interpretation which is slightly different from those of the other groups. We regard fisheries agreements as falling not only under the heading of purely and strictly commercial agreements, but also under the heading of European policies. That is why I shall be referring to the opinion of the Committee on Development, which also emphasises our commitments on providing development aid and supporting democracy and good governance.
The question which we have already asked in the discussions within the Committee on Fisheries is why the Commission has threatened to terminate the fisheries agreements with Mauritania barely a year after they were signed.
As far as we are concerned, fisheries agreements are not merely agreements in which we are allowed to utilise a resource and pay for it, and when we utilise less we pay less. No, we are cutting fishing opportunities because the European fishing fleet has utilised less in the areas concerned. Yet is it Mauritania's responsibility, is it Mauritania's fault, if the European fleet has gone elsewhere for certain fishing categories?
We have always asked that fisheries resources be respected in other fisheries agreements, and we have always said that too much was being utilised and that in any case there would come a time when resources would be reduced. This is exactly what is happening at the moment. We agree with the Commission that resources should be restored to the level at which fishing is viable, and that that is a good thing. However, there is something else which we certainly do not agree with. During the discussions which took place we asked what would happen when the compensation is reduced in line with the level of fishing, so that the compensation would be reduced from EUR 86 million to EUR 70 million, which would mean that Mauritania's income would be reduced by EUR 40 million over a period of three years.
You told us, 'There is no problem. We cannot switch from the fishing quota to something different, and decide to work on development instead'. We understand this too, and you undertook, on behalf of the Commission, to ensure that there would be compensation for those EUR 40 million as part of development policy. Yet today, in this agreement, we cannot see any sign of this compensation except in a footnote which says that the possibility of compensation exists. So we do not believe in this compensation, and I think that you have deceived Mauritania to some extent in this agreement, because no provision has been made for the agreed compensation.
If you will permit, I should just like to remind you that when I was head of the EU mission covering the elections in Mauritania, the European Union undertook to support this young democracy, yet our first political act is to threaten to terminate the fisheries agreements. This is not, in my opinion, a policy of development aid, and I should really like to know what guarantee you can give us, as MEPs, regarding this compensation for the reduction decided on.
Jean-Claude Martinez
(FR) Mr President, the fisheries agreement between Europe and Mauritania, about which our fellow Member and friend Mrs Fraga Estévez has written a report, covers one of the richest regions of the world in terms of fish stocks. That is why, for example, in Dakhla, the former Spanish capital Villa Cisneros, in that part of Western Sahara now under Moroccan control, there is a 40 km sea inlet which is called the Rio de Oro, or Gold River, because of the reflection of sunlight on the scales of the shoals of fish.
In the past, this abundance of fish has actually caused us problems with Morocco. Now we are having to tackle a similar problem, but one which concerns fishing in Mauritania from 2008 to 2012. This is an area where octopus and cephalopod stocks, for example, may decline, hence the biological recovery period, but where, conversely, it is essential to fish for sardines, since the sardine is a predator of the octopus.
In practical terms, this means first of all distributing the fishing quotas, the licences, between five European countries, including Spain, obviously, and Italy, but also Portugal, Mr President, and there are some other vessels, freezer trawlers, perhaps from the Baltic States. After that, it is a matter of reducing catches from approximately 400 000 tons to 250 000 tonnes because, strangely enough, these quotas are not being used, and this also applies to Moroccan-controlled Western Sahara, which is something, General Morillon, that our Mediterranean tuna fishermen can only dream about.
In Mauritania, the average use of fishing opportunities ranges from 90% for crustaceans to a mere 22% for tuna. As in all these agreements and protocols, there is obviously a financial contribution which is paid for the right to fish, and which is round EUR 300-305 million over four years, at the rate of EUR 70 or 80 million a year. Mr Borg has told us how important this contribution is, since it represents approximately 15% of Mauritania's annual budget. This operation is also advantageous for Mauritania because the contribution remains at more or less the same level whereas catches, by contrast, are declining. Nevertheless, the Mauritanians are causing a serious problem by their harassment of our vessels, and by the boardings which they carry out simply in order to collect fines along the way, although it is true that the European Commission, as Mrs Isler Béguin reminded us just now, has not been particularly sympathetic here, and is now putting pressure on the Mauritanian Government.
Although fishing is obviously very important in these areas, on the Moroccan side, for example in Dakhla, the fish is exported to Brazil and provides a living for the entire town, hence the concern, on the part of the FAO and the ACP countries, to have a sustainable fishing industry and a code of good conduct. Mr President, perhaps in spite of the conduct of the European Commission, which has not always been very 'good' during these negotiations with the young democracy of Mauritania, we should nevertheless welcome this agreement, because it is perhaps one of the last that we shall obtain in this region, now that Morocco wants to preserve and resume control of its natural resources.
Daniel Varela Suanzes-Carpegna
(ES) Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, we had great hopes that renegotiation of the protocol to the Agreement with Mauritania might be able to make up for the previous poor negotiation; we also thought that it would serve to rectify the unsatisfactory outcome to the negotiation of the Morocco Agreement for the commercially important cephalopod fleet, which has huge socioeconomic significance in Galicia and has therefore been suffering the effects of these two poorly negotiated agreements, in addition to the general crisis in the fisheries sector.
However, it was not to be, and so we cannot praise or congratulate the Commission on this outcome. In general, there is a huge reduction in fishing opportunities and financial compensation is not tailored to that reduction. Little heed has been paid to the sector affected, and the technical measures which have been agreed, besides being ambiguous, are prejudicial to the Community fleet. In the case of cephalopods, the minimum size for octopus, as the report said, is the highest in the region, and there is no need for it, with the result that this cephalopod fleet has effectively been finished off and, as if that were not enough, the allocation of licences is damaging to relative stability, which is harmful to the Spanish fleet.
As you will understand, Mr Borg, although we very much regret the fact, all these considerations mean that we cannot congratulate you on the results achieved in this case, because I believe that they could and should have been much better.
Joe Borg
Member of the Commission. - Mr President, first of all I would like to thank you for the interesting comments and the debate that we have had. I would like to pick up on a couple of points that have been raised.
First of all you are correct to point out that there are fewer fishing opportunities under this revised protocol. This was precisely the reason behind our decision to effect a renegotiation, because we needed to ensure maximum utilisation of the fishing opportunities, whereas under the previous situation there was significant under-utilisation of the fishing possibilities both with regard to small pelagics and with regard to cephalopods.
On the issue of technical requirements, for example with regard to dredges, we hope that we will find a solution quickly to this issue, and the Mauritanian authorities are very well disposed to finding a solution to the satisfaction of both sides. Regarding rest periods, this request came originally from the industry since they maintain that, after such rest periods, catches become more profitable.
On the question of setting the minimum size for octopus at 500 g, I need to make the point that we are dealing with a third country, a sovereign nation, Mauritania, and its own regulation specifies that the minimum size for octopus is 500 g. This was a line we could not cross during negotiations: one cannot ask a third country to change its legislation because it is interesting to our own fishermen to catch smaller-sized cephalopods. However, we do recognise that there is not one harmonised regulation on the subject in the region. There are other countries which allow catches of cephalopods of smaller size, and therefore a decision on this matter should be taken within the COPACE organisation.
On the issue of allocation keys, i.e. what is known as 'relative stability', as I said before the Commission is not bound to transfer relative stability from one agreement to another or from one protocol to another.
However, it is provided for in the agreement and in the protocol that, should Member States need more opportunities, and should such requests be based on science, on the state of the stock, then such requests could certainly be considered, and I would undertake to take them up with Mauritania in order to negotiate increases, as in the case for example of cephalopods, if there is a specific request to do so.
I need to make the point that with regard to cephalopods licences were utilised on 22 occasions and in the new protocol there is provision for 25, so we are actually catering for creating a buffer, allowing for utilisation.
If the particular Member State involved maintains that they have requests in excess of 25, as long as they give us the specific facts, we will take those up with Mauritania in order to bring about an increase, always as long as the state of the stock allows. I need to underline the fact that with regard to cephalopods we do have problems concerning the sustainability and the health of the stock.
Again on the question of this whole issue of relative stability, I would also like to point out that one cannot have one's cake and eat it. On one hand, when it comes to the allocation of cephalopods, the allocation seems not to please one particular Member State. But then when it comes to tuna where there is a significant increase of allocations for that same Member State, then that works out in the Member State's favour and we have received no complaints in that regard.
Concerning the reason for the denunciation and the renegotiation of the protocol, namely that it was under-utilised, again I would like to make the point made by Mrs Isler Béguin that such agreements are not only about fisheries but also about development assistance. In fact, whereas we have decreased the financial component for fishing opportunities, there is a clear undertaking on our part to increase the development component, and we are fully committed to respect this.
Therefore, in total, the financial allocation has been maintained over the four-year term. The budgetary support to the 10th EDF will compensate for the remaining EUR 40 million for 2009/10-2012 at the rate of EUR 10 million per year and this means that Mauritania will be receiving a financial package which, when you take into account both what they are receiving by way of compensation for fishing opportunities - which have been reduced on the basis of what was actually being fished in Mauritanian waters - and the increase to the budgetary support through the 10th EDF ad hoc compensation within this protocol, we end up with a situation where the total package is equivalent to the fishing package that they had under the previous financial protocol.
Finally on the issue of boarding I would like to say that a meeting of the working group will be held this Sunday, this weekend, in order to discuss this specific issue and to agree on recommendations and guidelines that should solve the issue. On the point made by Mrs Fraga at the very outset concerning participation of MEPs, the Commission considers that the same approach that is followed for the participation of MEPs in bilateral negotiations has to be followed as regards joint committees where the two parties are officially represented.
The Commission will, however, continue to cooperate with Parliament on the basis of the framework agreement that exists.
Carmen Fraga Estévez
rapporteur. - (ES) Mr President, I will try to be systematic. In the first place, with regard to the point made by Mrs Isler Béguin, I would point out that the funds for development cooperation increase over the four years that the protocol is in force.
It is the total financial contribution which is being reduced by 19 %, but amounts allocated to development cooperation are increasing to EUR 11 million, EUR 16 million, EUR 18 million and EUR 20 million, so as far as development cooperation is concerned you need have no worries, because those amounts are actually being increased.
Mr Borg, as regards the minimum size for octopus, and since the technical measures are important for take-up of fishing opportunities, I would say that this is not a problem which needs to be dealt with at this juncture. You know very well that the matter is still pending.
I keep on saying this: the size is the highest in the whole region. The Fishery Committee for the Eastern Central Atlantic (CECAF) said at its meeting this year that a common minimum size should be set for the whole region and I think that here the Commission should make an effort to ensure that this matter ceases to be an issue.
The report drawn up by the Mauritanian scientific committee states that in November, for example, 50% of the catch in the Mauritanian fishing ground can be octopus of between 300 and 500 grams, in other words there is a problem with minimum size in the Mauritanian fishing ground and elsewhere.
With regard to relative stability, I am not going to get into an argument with you, but this is a topic which we have discussed in Parliament, one which is in the basic regulation which we have been discussing along with the regulation of licences for third countries, but the initial allocation is another matter.
The initial allocation needs to respect historical rights and then if, under that allocation, fishing opportunities are not taken up, the Commission may, I agree, give them to whoever wants them and applies for them, but initially it is the historical rights which must be respected and, in the case of category five in Mauritania, this has not been the case, Mr Borg.
I will not elaborate any further. I could answer more questions, but I think that, even though I cannot see very well without my glasses, I have run out of time.
President
The debate is closed.
The vote will take place tomorrow, 10 July 2008.


1. Zimbabwe
President
The next item is the debate on six motions for resolutions on Zimbabwe.
Marios Matsakis
author. - Madam President, the political, economic and humanitarian situation in Zimbabwe is going from bad to worse, with the threat of a generalised outbreak of cholera and other potential epidemics adding to the already dire conditions in which the Zimbabwean people find themselves.
It is now absolutely clear that Mr Mugabe cares very little about the well-being of his countrymen. He cares much more about living a life of personal luxury and extravagance. Mr Mugabe has proved beyond any reasonable doubt that he is totally unfit to govern his country in the modern world. He finds excuses for his political existence by pretending to fight the ghosts of the long bygone British colonial era.
There is no way we Europeans can convince Mr Mugabe to see reason. The only chance to force him to step down is a drastic change in the stance held by the African Union. It is shameful that this organisation has not intervened in a much more decisive and resolute manner already. I believe that our efforts must be directed at the African Union and the governments of the nations it consists of. We must make it absolutely clear to them that we hold them wholly responsible for the sorry state of affairs in Zimbabwe and expect them, even at this very late stage, to take proper drastic action to get Mr Mugabe's regime to step down and go home or face severe consequences, not excluding trial for crimes against humanity.
Catherine Stihler
author. - Madam President, if colleagues could think for a moment about their worst nightmare, it would not even come close to what is happening to the people of Zimbabwe. Once a prosperous country, it has been turned on its head by its President. The country is collapsing - no governance, no jobs, hyperinflation, no food, no health service - and the breakdown of the sanitation system is now creating a cholera outbreak.
A week ago, Zimbabwean President Robert Mugabe said the cholera outbreak had been arrested. He claimed Western powers wanted to use an epidemic as an excuse to invade Zimbabwe and topple him. However, South Africa has declared most of its northern border with Zimbabwe a disaster area, as the disease spreads over with refugees, and Oxfam has warned that the situation in Zimbabwe could get a lot worse.
Today's reported figures show that 1 111 lives have been lost and the disease is spreading. There are 20 581 cases of cholera. Cholera is a highly infectious disease caused by a bacterium which creates an intestinal infection. Symptoms include diarrhoea and dehydration. In its most severe form a sudden onset of acute watery diarrhoea can lead to death by severe dehydration and kidney failure. It can kill healthy adults in hours.
To give an example of the impact the disease is having on the population, I want to tell Parliament about Cynthia Hunde's son, Munashe. Munashe died of cholera shortly before his first birthday. Cynthia had gone to work in South Africa to try and provide a better future for her son, as there is no work in Zimbabwe, leaving Munashe in the care of her mother. When she returned to her mother's home, she found Munashe dying in his grandmother's arms. Interviewed by the BBC, she said: 'I feel so bad ... It's so hard to describe. When you have a son you have dreams for him. I came home expecting to find him running around the house, but that just didn't happen'.
Please, colleagues, support this resolution condemning Zimbabwe and please help innocent victims like Munashe.
Erik Meijer
author. - (NL) Madam President, in the previous urgent debates on the subject of Zimbabwe that were held on 7 July 2005 and 24 April 2008, I indicated why Mr Mugabe has managed to stay in power for so long.
The people remember their country's violent past. To many, he has remained the hero of the fight for freedom. According to this line of thinking, everything he does should a priori be considered good. Everyone who opposes him serves, as before, the interests of other countries and at home only those of the privileged white majority. If Mr Mugabe were to lose power, the country would be re-colonised, and the majority of the people would be discriminated against. The reality is different, though.
Mr Mugabe's sudden radicalism of a few years back, when he had never managed to overhaul agricultural land ownership and had allowed the chasm between rich and poor to continue to exist, was mainly intended to attract new supporters among a young generation and not to alienate his old comrades any further.
This approach may have won him more fanatical and violent allies, but certainly not the support of the majority of his fellow countrymen. For years, Europe and America had misjudged the situation in Zimbabwe and, by doing so, had brought on themselves the suspicion of having ulterior motives. Precisely these feelings of hostility ensured that Mugabe could stay in power.
Resistance is growing now that everyone realises how inefficient and disastrous his policy is. Without killing and intimidation, he would not have won the presidential elections, and the opposition's narrow parliamentary majority would have put it in government.
We have now reached a stage further than during the previous urgent debates. Drinking water supplies have broken down and cholera is claiming victims. This is no reason to triumph over the failing opponent, but to help the people of Zimbabwe. They deserve a better government, but this cannot be imposed from outside by anyone. What we can do is prevent Mr Mugabe from getting support from outside.
Mikel Irujo Amezaga
As the report says, according to 2007 estimates Zimbabwe has a population of 12 million, and almost half of them are starving. Life expectancy is 36 years. Only 40% of the country's teachers are working and only one third of students attend classes. This shows that Mr Mugabe is not only killing the present: he is killing the future.
Repression and the trampling of human rights are also part of the daily agenda. People who uphold human rights in Zimbabwe have been systematically targeted with arbitrary detention, arrest and torture. Government legislation has severely curtailed the freedoms of expression, assembly, movement and association.
I would like to mention a few examples, since the government has introduced increasingly repressive laws that have been used against these activists defending human rights. They include the Access to Information and Protection of Privacy Act, used by the government to effectively silence journalists; the Public Order and Security Act, which has severely curtailed the freedom of assembly, and hundreds of defenders of human rights, including workers of independent means, have been arbitrarily detained; and the Private Voluntary Organisations Act, brought back by the government in 2002 and presumably used to intimidate and harass NGOs.
Madam President, in my mother tongue Euskera - Basque - which is not official in this House, 'mugabe' means 'without limit', a good motto for this individual.
The dictator of this African country is not just one more name on the long list of dictators that we have had the misfortune to have on this planet, but I would dare say he is up there among the top ten dictators. In my opinion, we in the EU have to do our utmost for this individual to step down and end his days facing a Court of Human Rights.
We therefore wish Zimbabwe a happy 2009 without Mugabe.
Andrzej Tomasz Zapałowski
Madam President, two months ago, we discussed the great famine which afflicted the Ukraine during the 1930s. The following question was frequently asked: how could this tragedy have come to pass? Why did the world remain silent? Today, when we look at events taking place in Zimbabwe, a similar question comes to mind: how is it possible, in this day and age, for a leader to destroy his own country? Why is the world doing so little to address this problem?
Resolutions alone will not change the leadership in Zimbabwe. We should ask ourselves whether we are prepared to stand by while the Zimbabwean people are sent to their destruction, just as the UN forces looked on while people were being slaughtered in Rwanda. Perhaps our response to the situation in Zimbabwe might be more decisive if that country had a plentiful supply of raw materials. Today's resolution is an excellent document, but it remains nothing more than that. More dynamic action is needed if people are to be saved. That is why we must without fail support Zimbabwe's neighbours, so that appropriate aid can be provided on Zimbabwe's borders.
Charles Tannock
author. - Madam President, in the past few years Zimbabwe has figured so often in these debates that we could be forgiven for running out of condemnatory words to say, but we must speak up because the long-suffering people of Zimbabwe have themselves been denied a voice by this ruthless despot, Robert Mugabe.
He has forfeited all rights to claim democratic legitimacy, because of his wanton disregard for human rights, political freedoms and the rule of law. The recent shooting of Perence Shiri, one of Mugabe's henchmen, hints at the anger bubbling under Zimbabwe's surface. Shiri has the blood of 20 000 people on his hands. It was Shiri who, with assistance from Communist North Korea, systematically massacred innocent civilians in the early 1980s in Matabeleland. If that was not bad enough, Mugabe's neglect has now caused an epidemic of cholera, a disease that had been almost totally eradicated throughout Zimbabwe until recently.
In response to international concerns, Mugabe says, outrageously, that the outbreak amounts to genocide perpetrated by Britain, my country, the former colonial master. It is perhaps this groundless accusation of neo-colonialism, combined with our own post-colonial guilt, that prevents us in Europe from taking more robust action.
Yet when we look to Africa to provide a solution we find an ocean of indifference and ineffectiveness. The strident condemnation of Mugabe by the Prime Minister of Kenya and the President of Botswana stands out in stark contrast to the apathy of most other African states and leaders, and in particular South Africa, although we must now hope that a President Zuma takes a tougher approach.
If the African Union aspires to anything like the authority of the European Union, it needs to address Mugabe's reign of terror and consider the possibility of action to force Mugabe from office. One concrete measure we should encourage is the indictment of Mugabe in the International Criminal Court through a UN Security Council resolution, as has proven useful in the case of President al-Bashir over Darfur. I hope, the next time I speak on Zimbabwe, it will be to hail Mugabe's demise and departure from office.
Ioannis Kasoulides
on behalf of the PPE-DE Group. - Madam President, Zimbabwe is becoming a failed state. Half of the population will survive under foreign sustenance or will face starvation. Sanitation and unpolluted water are almost unavailable and, as a result, a devastating cholera epidemic is spreading within Zimbabwe and the surrounding countries.
All this is because Mr Mugabe and his cronies want to punish their own people because they voted for him to go. The South African mediation was unsuccessful and the African countries have so far been disappointing in taking resolute action. The above picture constitutes a grave humanitarian catastrophe, so, as a first step, Mr Mugabe should be referred to the International Criminal Court to be indicted for crimes against humanity and to have an international warrant issued for his arrest.
Lidia Joanna Geringer de Oedenberg
on behalf of the PSE Group. - (PL) Madam President, Zimbabwe has been struggling with a very serious humanitarian crisis for some time now: almost half of the population are starving, there is practically no access to running water and the sanitary conditions are terrible. During the past decade, the average life expectancy in Zimbabwe has fallen from 60 years for both sexes to 37 years for men and 34 for women. A spreading cholera epidemic has already claimed eight hundred victims, while over 16 000 people are infected. According to Médecins sans Frontières (MSF), around one and a half million people might soon be infected with cholera.
The country's economy is in a sorry state. The rate of inflation has long been the highest in the world. Over 80% of the population are living on less than a dollar a day. The authorities in Zimbabwe seem not to notice the seriousness of the situation and have taken no action. President Mugabe has not fulfilled his promise to create a government of national unity, and political opponents continue to be persecuted.
The critical situation in Zimbabwe requires a decisive reaction from the European Union, and both the Council and the Commission should confirm their commitment to the cause by continuing to provide humanitarian aid to the suffering population. We must put pressure on the Zimbabwean government to lift their restrictions on aid organisations and stop arresting human rights activists. In addition to this, we should support the Elders Group, so that its members can obtain permission to enter Zimbabwe.
The process of introducing democratic change to Zimbabwe will require commitment from other African countries, regional institutions and international bodies. Ensuring that parliamentary elections are fair and monitoring the creation of a new government might provide an opportunity to stabilise the situation. At the same time, the international community should be prepared to provide financial aid to help rebuild state structures that are based on the rule of law.
Zdzisław Zbigniew Podkański
Madam President, the information contained in the Resolution on Zimbabwe is shocking: 5.1 million people, namely half of the population, are starving, over 300 000 people are threatened by a cholera epidemic, 1.7 million are infected with HIV and the average life expectancy is 37 years. All this is too much for any government to handle on its own.
That is why we should fully support all initiatives to improve the situation in Zimbabwe. The authors of the Resolution rightly draw our attention to the fact that we need to facilitate and extend the scope of humanitarian aid and that the Council, Commission and the European Union Member States need to undertake other activities, including diplomatic action and giving financial and practical support to Zimbabwe. This needs to focus not only on the present, but also the long term, and must be based on a specific programme. I say 'rightly', as yet another Resolution will not help to feed the people. What we need, and what the population of Zimbabwe are waiting for, is practical aid.
Michael Gahler
(DE) Madam President, the only good news from the ravaged country of Zimbabwe is that what we are currently seeing are probably the final months of the Mugabe regime.
The good news from Africa is that more and more countries are opposing the state of affairs in the country. As the first Vice-Chairman of the ACP-EU Joint Parliamentary Assembly, I can report that our African counterparts joined us in our critical assessment of the situation in Zimbabwe for the first time three weeks ago, at our session in Port Moresby. In South Africa, too, the pressure is growing for the government to withdraw its protection from the Zimbabwe regime at long last. The situation is worsened by the fact that the refugees are now also bringing disease into South Africa. It is to be hoped that this situation will have improved by the time of the World Cup, as this may explain why South Africa is making changes: out of fear that the visitors will stay away. That in itself should be a reason to withdraw its protection from the Mugabe regime.
Ewa Tomaszewska
- (PL) Madam President, we discussed the situation in Zimbabwe on 24 April 2008. During that discussion we addressed the problem of the election results, and more specifically, President Mugabe's continuing grip on power in spite of those results. Today, we are addressing the dramatic consequences of those events. Over 12 500 people suffering from cholera cannot count on the government for assistance, while 565 people have already died. This epidemic is also spreading across the border to the Republic of South Africa.
The above-mentioned figures, which come from UN reports from the beginning of December, are lower than those now being released by humanitarian organisations. According to them, the death toll already stands at more than a thousand people, while over 20 000 people are infected with cholera. Millions of people are starving or have no access to water. The African Union is not taking effective measures to improve the situation in Zimbabwe. President Mugabe must now be made to appear before the International Criminal Court and urgent action must be taken to control the cholera epidemic and ensure that food and medical aid reach the people of Zimbabwe.
Kathy Sinnott
Madam President, we have watched Zimbabwe's slow agony for many years. In addition to political violence and deepening poverty we now see it speed up as we see the inevitability of starvation and disease gripping the five million inhabitants. We must be there for the people, feed them, bring them medical relief, and support their yearning desire for freedom.
To help them, we must isolate its leader, Mugabe, from his African supporters by getting all African leaders to condemn him. Beyond Africa, we must work to remove the international supporters, the usual suspects China and Russia, by challenging them to cut off all support and trade with Mugabe. We have to examine our own conscience, though, because it is not so long ago that we, the EU, invited Mugabe to attend the EU-hosted AU-EU summit in Lisbon.
Jacques Barrot
Vice-President of the Commission. - (FR) Madam President, I am grateful to all the MEPs who have launched an urgent appeal for Zimbabwe, since Zimbabwe is facing a crisis on an unprecedented scale, and it is getting worse - not a single sector is spared.
On a political level, we are witnessing an increase in violence, as the reports of arbitrary arrests and the disappearances of human rights activists show. The fresh outbreak of political violence may cause any crisis solution to fail and drive the parties to adopt irreconcilable positions.
On a humanitarian level, the situation is worsening, as is shown by the cholera epidemic that is spreading and threatening Zimbabwe's neighbouring countries.
On an economic level, the situation is disastrous. The prices of basic commodities continue to increase. The cost of the average food shopping bill increased by 1 293% last week.
On a social level, the risks of an explosion increase more each day with the harmful effect this situation could have on the stability of the entire region.
So what can we do? Zimbabwe's needs are huge. They are increasing exponentially, and this is mainly due to the current government's mismanagement.
On a humanitarian level, the Commission continues to be actively involved. A mission on the ground, from 15 to 19 December, is currently reassessing the humanitarian situation. This will enable us, among other things, to determine very quickly whether there are any additional requirements.
On a political level, the Commission - and beyond that, the international community as a whole - will be able to help Zimbabwe only if it can work closely with a legitimate government that is flexible enough to adopt the political and economic measures required.
The latter depends on the agreement of 15 September being implemented and a government of national unity being established. It also depends on the stakeholders of the region and of the African Union becoming more involved. We express our earnest desire to see such an involvement in all the contacts we have with them.
To conclude, I can assure you that the Commission, which is monitoring very closely the situation on the ground, will continue to work with all the Member States, and with our African and international partners, to find an equitable solution that will enable Zimbabwe to emerge from the current crisis, which all of you have strongly denounced.
Thank you for your attention. It is true that, during this festive season, we cannot forget about all those people who are suffering in Zimbabwe. They rank among those people who are without doubt most in distress today.
President
The debate is closed.
The vote will take place at the end of the debates.