Facility for rapid response to soaring food prices in developing countries (debate)
President
The next item is the report by Mr Mitchell, on behalf of the Committee on Development, on the facility for rapid response to soaring food prices in developing countries - C6-0280/2008 -.
Gay Mitchell
rapporteur. - Mr President, the food facility began as a proposal from the Commission, in the light of the rising food prices that provoked riots in some countries, to use EUR 1 billion in leftover agricultural subsidy money to relieve the situation in developing countries through agricultural inputs and emergency safety nets. The money was, in this form, expected to be wholly additional to existing development funds. Now, five months later, we have our billion, but it is in an entirely different form than that originally envisaged.
Two Fridays ago, I attended the budget conciliation meeting, with my colleagues from the Committee on Budgets and the Council, where we were finally able to reach a compromise over the funding of the food facility regulation. The last sticking points were then ironed out on the following Monday at a trialogue between Parliament, Commission and Council.
The final compromise funding looks like this: EUR 1 billion to be financed over a period of three years, 2008-2010, via the flexibility instrument accounting for EUR 420 million; redeployment, with Heading 4, 'External actions', giving another EUR 240 million; and the increase of the emergency aid reserve by EUR 240 million for 2008. This increase requires a revision of the interinstitutional agreement. This amount is additional to another EUR 100 million used from the existing emergency aid reserve. As the emergency aid reserve is made up of contributions by the Member States, the top-up of funding will only be additional if the Member States do not compensate for their contributions by a corresponding reduction of the national budgets.
It has been suggested that there are noises of dissatisfaction from the Committee on Foreign Affairs and others about the part-financing of this from the Stability Fund. The Foreign Affairs Committee may be unhappy about this but it was probably about the best deal that could be done in the circumstances.
Although I support the compromise we have now reached, I have made a point of mentioning the shortcomings of the process and the outcome, both in the interests of honesty and to highlight - as I have done on previous occasions - the ludicrous situation where governments across the globe are producing multiple billions of dollars to bail out banks but have to search their souls to find, between 27 Member States and the budget of this Union, EUR 1 billion for the poorest people in the world.
I think we have done the best we could have done in a hundred days. We have found the money and we have put the regulation together, but it is not a totally additional billion. The content of this report includes the fact that the compromise text has already been accepted by all Member States in COREPER, and that essential elements from my report and the amendments from my colleagues on the Committee on Development are in it.
The regulation is limited in time. It now runs until the end of 2010. It concentrates on tackling the short-term crisis; its objectives are to boost agricultural production. It opposes the dispersion of funds by confining its use to a limited list of high-priority countries. It also widens the scope of possible implementing organisations and ensures parliamentary accountability. There are two statements appended to the regulation which help to ensure its proper implementation.
At the end of the day, I think we have done the best we can between Council, Parliament and Commission. We have done it in a hundred days. We have brought the law before Parliament. We will vote on it tomorrow. It is already agreed. We have found the money. I would like, in that context, to pay tribute to the cooperation we received from the Council and the Commission, particularly from Commissioner Michel, who really did want this money to be additional.
I would also like to thank the secretariat of the Development Committee, particularly Guido Van Hecken and Anne McLauchlan and to thank, in my office, Eoin Ó Seanáin and Oliver O'Callaghan, who were very helpful in all of this. I think at the end of the day that it is a good day's work and the best we could have done.
President
Thank you, Mr Mitchell, and congratulations on your report and on a really important and admirable topic, which will enhance the European Parliament's reputation in the world as a factor for progress and solidarity.
Commissioner Michel now has the floor. Like Mrs Oviir, Mrs Goudin and myself, he has just come back from the other side of the world, 14 000 km away, and he is going to tell us, on behalf of the Commission, about the meeting we had during the ACP-EU Joint Parliamentary Assembly. I can see you are on good form today, Commissioner.
Louis Michel
Member of the Commission. - (FR) Mr President, Mr Mitchell, ladies and gentlemen, the food crisis has had a severe impact on developing countries.
I think that, as you have said and as you have shown by your actions, Europe had a moral obligation to respond rapidly, and this is all the more true since this crisis has been accompanied by a very serious financial and economic crisis whose disastrous effects on developing countries we will soon, unfortunately, be able to calculate, because these could very well involve the cancellation of public development aid, at the very least. However, we shall have an opportunity to return to this subject.
It seems to me that our three institutions - Parliament, the Council and the Commission - have succeeded in meeting the challenge by working swiftly on this facility intended to enable a rapid response to soaring food prices in developing countries.
I should like to thank you on behalf of President Barroso and the Commission. My special thanks also go to the rapporteur, Mr Mitchell, for his outstanding work, as well as to Mr Böge and Mr Le Foll for the contributions they have made on behalf of the Committee on Budgets and the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development, respectively.
As you know, we regret the refusal to make use of the available margins under heading 2. However, we remained realistic given the prospects for an agreement on a good text. I have to say that the compromise text on which you will vote tomorrow is a good one: on the one hand, because it properly includes your amendments and those made by the Council and, on the other, because it retains the three key elements of our position.
Firstly, a response of EUR 1 billion, and no one seems to have cast any serious doubt on our estimation of the requirements. Secondly, it has always been understood that this should be concentrated over a very short period of time. We proposed a period of two years but could accept three. Finally, the objective was to revive agricultural production in the countries most affected by the increase in prices. In other words, it was to save crops in the immediate future.
What are the next steps after you vote tomorrow and after the Council's decision of 16 December? I think that the most important thing will be implementation in practice. In January 2009, the Commission will propose the initial project funding decisions, because I believe that we clearly need to get things under way very quickly. The main aim is to save the agricultural production of the 2009 harvest. We shall therefore do everything possible to ensure that the majority of the financial commitments are realised in 2009 and have an effect on agricultural inputs, for example, for the 2009 season.
As agreed, the general plan for implementation of the facility will be submitted to you in the very near future and, in any case, by the end of April 2009. This facility came about thanks to the political will of our three institutions, and its rapid, effective implementation will clearly require this same shared will.
László Surján
Mr President, the Committee on Budgets was aware of the European Union's moral responsibility to countries that are in difficulty. However, you need not regret for a moment, Commissioner, that we were unable to find the money for this noble purpose in Chapter 2.
There is no point regretting this, because we have the same moral responsibilities to European farmers, whom we have been telling for months that there is no money for this, that and the other thing, and that the farmers in the new Member States will have to wait 10 years until they receive equal treatment. The funds had to be found elsewhere, in the appropriate place, and as the rapporteur has stated, we have indeed succeeded in doing so. I think that we have done a good job and we can be proud of it.
The Committee on Budgets faced yet another problem. We were not convinced that - as the Commissioner has also stated - the Commission responded quickly, and that the European Commission's proposal is expedient in every respect. We found it regrettable that the concept of microcredit was not mentioned in the original material. The Committee on Budgets considers that it is very difficult to determine in Brussels or at the headquarters of any other international institution how one or another region or farmer that is facing difficulties can find a way out of their situation.
The microcredit system has proven to be very successful and has helped many countries in difficulty, and we are very grateful that the Committee on Development has accepted the recommendations of the Committee on Budgets in this regard. Commissioner, I cannot guarantee, but can predict that in all likelihood the result of the vote tomorrow will meet with your satisfaction and that of all concerned parties. Thank you for your respectful attention.
Stéphane Le Foll
draftsman of the opinion of the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development. - (FR) Mr President, I shall be brief. First of all, I should like to thank Mr Mitchell and to commend his work. I should also like to thank the Commissioner for his commitment and say that the food crisis will not simply be dealt with in two or three years but will remain a concern during the years to come.
I should like to add one point in my role as representative of the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development. It is that, for fifteen years, the proportion of development aid devoted to agriculture has been consistently falling. As Mr Diouf has said, it has dropped from 15 to 4%. It is time to consider the idea that development also means supporting agriculture and, if this facility is to have meaning in the future, then this is the meaning that I personally intend to give it.
Colm Burke
on behalf of the PPE-DE Group. - Mr President, I would like to thank Mr Mitchell for his report. I welcome the creation of this food facility for the world's poorest farmers which has finally been agreed after long negotiations.
Some members of the Council were not willing to provide unspent agricultural money to support developing countries. While one sixth of the world's population is now going hungry, certain Member States of the European Council held back (though a majority of members were in favour of using the CAP), citing a fear of setting precedents as their tenuous justification.
The money has been found elsewhere, being phased over three years from 2008 to 2010 instead of over a two-year period. Sadly this money was most needed a few months ago when food prices were soaring. Food prices are no longer soaring in some of those same countries.
Since food prices began to increase, the number of people going hungry has risen to nearly one billion. This year 100 million people were driven into poverty as a result of the food and fuel crisis, and that number continues to grow. People in developing countries spend up to 80% of their income on food, underlining the reason why the price of food must remain accessible.
The food facility will contribute to solving some short-term needs by providing agriculture inputs and strengthening safety nets. However, a new food crisis will be imminent unless EU Member States and other rich countries address the structural problems that fuelled the food crisis.
Josep Borrell Fontelles
Congratulations, Commissioner. Without your total dedication to this cause, it would not have come to this apparently happy ending. You have fought hard all the time to achieve this aim. My thanks are also due to my colleague the rapporteur, Mr Mitchell. Between the two of you, you have saved the European Union from the resounding ridicule that would have resulted if we had not managed to find this billion, after having promised it so often in so many places around the world.
Maybe it is not exactly a billion and it will not be entirely additional, although a very large part of it will be. It will not come from agriculture, as you had proposed, Commissioner, and it will not all come in just one year, but in two or three. The imperfections of the real world, however, did not stop you from achieving the goal that you had set yourself, with, may I say, the help of the Committee on Development and the Socialist Group in the European Parliament.
It is not a lot of money: just EUR 1 for each malnourished person in the world, EUR 1 per hungry individual. It may, however, help to reduce the number of them in the future, provided that the Member States do not deduct the additional funds that they have had to provide for this emergency relief from their development aid.
Therefore, Commissioner, I call on all the Member States not to reduce the additional amount provided in this sum by cutting back in their national budgets. One Member State has already hinted that it may do so. Others like Spain, on the other hand, have made a firm commitment not to do so. There is no point at all in robbing Peter to pay Paul, in other words just moving money around so you end up giving the same amount. I am sure that you, Commissioner, will be the first to complain if that happens.
Kyösti Virrankoski
on behalf of the ALDE Group. - (FI) Mr President, I would like to thank Mr Mitchell for his excellent report. My group has always been in favour of the rapid granting of food aid. The Commission made its proposal for aid worth EUR one billion in July. Unfortunately, that went against the principles of the Interinstitutional Agreement on budgetary discipline. This was surprising, as the Commission is traditionally a guardian of the Treaty and lawfulness. It was not until the budgetary conciliation stage that the Commission altered its proposal to conform to existing legislation. It was then that agreement was reached.
The French Presidency also deserves our gratitude. It succeeded in persuading the Member States to adopt the food aid position. EUR 760 million out of EUR 1 billion is new money and a clear victory for the European Parliament.
One problem is ensuring that the aid gets to its intended destination. Sceptics claim that just a part of the aid arrives at its destination, while most stays in the hands of intermediaries. This problem needs to be watched closely. One problem with agriculture in the developing countries is not the availability of fertilisers or seed but the lack of education and the primitive working methods, equipment and facilities. That will not be solved in one year with a billion euros. That is why food aid is primarily a wake-up call that development cooperation should make agricultural development and boosting food production its priority.
Agriculture in developing countries is often practised in difficult conditions, typically barren spoil and a harsh climate. Such circumstances call for an exceptionally high degree of professional know-how and advanced farming methods. For that reason, vocational training needs to be developed. At present there is barely any at all. Production methods need to be adapted to the limits that poverty imposes. The leap from plough to hi-tech tractor is not at all an appropriate one. Agricultural development needs to happen one step at a time.
Marie-Hélène Aubert
on behalf of the Verts/ALE Group. - (FR) Mr President, now that my fellow Members have reminded us of the somewhat difficult progress of this excellent initiative, we hope that it will start to take a more concrete form.
For my part, Commissioner, I should like to question you on two points. Firstly, it is said that some of the finance for the additional funds will be provided by drawing on the funds dedicated to the stability instrument, which was set up for the purposes of conflict prevention and the consolidation of peace. This redeployment appears to me to be extremely problematic. Has it been confirmed? And if it has, will any compensation be envisaged? I imagine that you will no doubt also be concerned with the long-term future of this instrument of instability.
Secondly, now that this EUR 1 billion seems to have been raised, what channels will be employed to ensure that the funds are moved quickly and effectively to the many different and widely spread actors in the field, as well as to the hundreds of family-based agricultural organisations? How do you intend to deal directly with these actors in the field and avoid the waste and loss which, as we well know, are associated with the presence of many different intermediaries?
Wiesław Stefan Kuc
on behalf of UEN Group. - (PL) Mr President, the European Union is attempting to establish a facility which will enable it to offer rapid assistance to poor and non-developing countries, to ensure that their populations survive if food prices rise. In this context, we have been saying that the food shortages in those countries are permanent, and not simply associated with failed harvests or speculative food price rises. It follows therefore that short-term responses and food aid will not solve the problem.
Offering training and introducing new production methods, better seed and fertiliser, promoted for years by FAO and the World Bank, have not brought the expected results. For this reason, regarding EUR 1 billion as a facility which will allow rapid response to food price surges in developing countries is not commensurate with the expected results, especially considering the way our Union operates.
This was perfectly well noted and understood by Mr Mitchell, the rapporteur, but it would seem not to have been grasped by the rapporteurs for the consultative committees and the Committee on Budgetary Control.
Konstantinos Droutsas
The global food crisis and soaring prices are the result of food becoming a common commodity, an object of capitalist speculation rather than a means of survival. The European Union, by giving minimum funds and dedicating a fraction of its time wants pharisaically to wash its hands of its responsibilities on, what has officially been described as a crime against humanity. We believe that these funds will end up in the pockets of the multinational companies in control of the development programmes. The solution to this problem demands respect for the right to food security and sufficiency, supporting small- and medium-sized farmers and restructuring local and regional markets. In essence, we need a fundamental change in the common agricultural policy which currently promotes the transferral of the land over to the few, the uncontrolled exploitation of natural resources and the replacement of food crops with other plants.
Hélène Goudin
on behalf of the IND/DEM Group. - (SV) Madam President, poverty, misery and starvation are the daily lot for the more than two billion members of the earth's population who live on less than two dollars a day. The recent dramatic price increases, particularly for rice, maize and other staples, are of course another major reason why many people do not have enough food. The EU has also noticed this problem and consequently wishes to set up a fund to deal with the crisis.
The question that we must ask ourselves, ladies and gentlemen, is why we accept the EU's damaging agricultural policy, which is one of the worst culprits in this regard. This protectionist policy robs poor people of income opportunities and thus of the ability to avoid starvation. Nonetheless, this Chamber always votes in favour of the common agricultural policy. It is a tragedy, and I ask myself whether it is a conscious or an unconscious move on the part of the EU.
Czesław Adam Siekierski
(PL) We are all aware that due to the continuing food crisis many people, especially those living in the very poorest developing countries, are experiencing great difficulties. Instead of achieving the UN Millennium Development Goals, further millions are falling into poverty.
The European Union must not hold back from coming to their aid. I expect that most of us sitting in this room would agree with this. Supporting these countries is our moral duty, an expression of solidarity with poorer nations. We must show them the right way to overcome the crisis and help them to provide the appropriate quantity of food, above all by supporting their agricultural production.
I should also like to stress that assistance is needed not only outside the Union. Within the Union too, millions face the problem of high food prices and food shortages. I therefore ask that while helping others, for instance in Africa, we do not forget those waiting for our assistance close by. This is why we need to support the European Commission's proposal increasing funds for the food distribution programme for Europe's most deprived people. It is regrettable that some Member States are opposed to this programme.
Juan Fraile Cantón
(ES) Madam President, in the framework of the current crisis, the United Nations has warned us of the dire situation faced by 22 particularly vulnerable countries, and the World Bank tells us that the 850 million people already going hungry in the world will be joined by a further 100 million as a result of the crisis.
This situation required a swift, joint response from the European Union, and in July the Commission proposed a special financing facility to help farmers in developing countries and to try to mitigate soaring food prices.
The measure sought both to increase agricultural production in those countries, where the effects of rising prices are felt most strongly, jeopardising chances of meeting the Millennium Development Objectives, and as far as possible to avoid instability and tensions that might endanger the results of years of investment in the political spheres of development and peacekeeping.
We therefore welcome the agreement that has been reached, fulfilling a promise of adding EUR 1 billion that was made, as I was saying, at the highest political level ...
(The President cut off the speaker)
Proinsias De Rossa
Madam President, I would like to congratulate all those involved in this report and this very significant achievement: the rapporteur Gay Mitchell, all the political groups - including my own - and Commissioner Michel.
Food prices and the collapsing global economy will have devastating effects on people in developing countries. It has been estimated that, for every 1% drop in the world GNP, 40 million more people will be driven into poverty. Consequently, it is extremely important that this proposal to cope with soaring food prices is implemented with urgency. The developing world is not the author of the current financial and economic crisis. If we are to avoid condemning another generation of people to abject poverty and hunger, we must avoid short-sighted penny-pinching in the field of development aid. As has already been pointed out, the figure of EUR 1 billion may seem large, but it is trifling compared to the amount of money we are pumping into banks and stimulus packages. I urge that this report be implemented as quickly as possible.
Silvia-Adriana Ţicău
(RO) The Council of the European Union should make national and international policies relating to the problem of guaranteeing food supplies to populations more coherent.
High food prices are having serious repercussions for the poorest populations and are putting at risk the achievement of the Millennium Development Goals. The introduction of the facility proposed by the regulation is a result of lower agricultural expenditure.
The European Community needs to boost the growth of agricultural production in the short and medium term in developing countries, while reducing the adverse effects of rising food prices on the poorest sections of the population in developing countries.
Community aid is not going to be used to pay taxes, duties or other charges. At the same time, this regulation must ensure protection for European farmers.
Friedrich-Wilhelm Graefe zu Baringdorf
(DE) Madam President, we have destroyed agriculture in developing countries by providing billions in export incentives and we have undermined food safety in these countries. If we think we can offset this with one billion, that is ridiculous! I am in favour of this one billion being paid - do not get me wrong - but 850 million starving people are not the result of our having had high food prices but of our having pushed the prices to such a low level in these countries with our export incentives that agriculture no longer pays. The subsistence economy, owner farming and self-sufficiency have been destroyed.
By this logic, if we now give them one billion, it will not help, instead it will aid destruction. We must therefore take great care as to how it is awarded.
I am favour of our strengthening food safety long-term in these countries. This means that we must stop dumping exports on these markets.
Louis Michel
Member of the Commission. - (FR) Madam President, following this and some of the other contributions, I should like to make one important point very clear. This EUR 1 billion is in no way a structural response to the problem posed by the food crisis in developing countries.
It is, in reality, a rapid reaction intended as an emergency response in order to save the forthcoming crops, that is to say those of 2008-2009 - I think that we might more properly talk of those of 2009, 2010 and perhaps 2011.
I would also add that the underlying idea is that, at some time in the future, naturally, this rapid response capability could become permanent. In saying this, I am certainly going to worry a number of Member States. I have therefore said that this is a rapid, intact response. It is not the structural response.
The structural response was basically alluded to by Mr Le Foll when he rightly voiced his concern that, for many years now, the share of the development aid budgets allocated to agriculture and rural development has been constantly shrinking. Clearly, I shall pass over the question of the responsibility for all this. I believe that, although undoubtedly acting in good faith, the international community has to some extent colluded in this withdrawal. Clearly, then, we now need to refocus on this issue. Progress has been made. I have already had the opportunity to present the figures to you. The ninth European Development Fund: four countries chose agriculture or rural development as a sector on which to focus or concentrate in their cooperation with the Commission. Four, representing EUR 650 million, in the tenth European Development Fund and, after much discussion, many suggestions and great insistence, we are now at a level of EUR 1.25 billion for 25 countries. Twenty-five countries is only a third of the total, however. There is therefore still work to be done.
I believe, following on from what Mr Le Foll was saying, that the idea suggested by a number of the European Union's development ministers that, in five years' time, the bilateral development aid budgets focusing on agriculture should rise from an average of 10-15% is a good one. Clearly, these figures will have to be discussed. This will obviously make structural responses possible. This EUR 1 billion is therefore not meant to act as a structural response, or at least, not on a large scale. It is intended for emergency purposes.
I must tell you that references to the situation of European farmers compared to the small farmers of developing countries present me with a moral problem. First of all, I do not think that it is right to compare them. I believe that the European farming community or, at any rate, family businesses, are facing a number of problems, but in the case of the EUR 1 billion we are talking about here, what was the starting point? The starting point was the idea that, since prices had risen, the compensatory mechanism intended to cope with falls in prices and the loss of income for European farmers no longer had any purpose. The idea therefore emerged of using these sums, somewhat symbolically, to allocate to these other countries what had been planned for European farmers but had not proved to be necessary.
I do not think that the situations should be compared. I most truly do not. Of course, I think that Europe's consumers and citizens have the right to our full consideration and I regret, furthermore, that it should be so difficult to help those in Europe who are in need of assistance, in particular by means of the aid which is currently being debated and on which little progress seems to have been made.
We should not establish a link and we should not make our actions in favour of some dependent on our possibly parallel actions in favour of others. The two things are not the same; they are really not at all the same. First of all, we are not talking about the same levels of poverty and, secondly, I believe that we must remain consistent.
This is a fundamental question which, in essence, perfectly frames the problem of the consistency of European policy with regard to agriculture. The problem was raised by Mr Borrell. It is clear that the real issue at hand that we must now monitor very closely and that will require us to be extremely responsive, both at the level of Parliament - which I know will act in this way - and of the Commission, and even of certain Members of the Council, concerns our Member States, which have accepted this formula, along with a number of other Member States, which have been forced and constrained to accept it, because we have had to fight. I express my sincere thanks to Parliament because I do not believe that this would have been possible without it. At a certain point, I even thought that we would not succeed, so increasingly specious and at the limits of intellectual honesty were the arguments being advanced.
Of course, Mr Borrell, total vigilance will be required in order to observe whether the Member States or some of the Member States will not compensate for the commitment they have undertaken here. If this were to happen, it would clearly constitute nothing more than a fool's deal, and we would undoubtedly have to continue our efforts.
I have just come back from Doha. I must admit that I am anything but wildly optimistic about the increase in public development aid. I must say that, when you leave meetings that have gone on for several hours - I admit that I sometimes have a rather volatile temperament but I am able, nevertheless, to keep my nerves in check - it can be difficult to put up with. It is difficult to put up with bad faith, with speeches that say that more public development aid is needed but, when a suitable text is drafted to reconfirm past commitments, suddenly there is no longer agreement and people invent all sorts of reasons not to undertake the commitment or, at any rate, to leave enough escape routes available to be able to turn their backs on their responsibilities and commitments in the most dishonourable way. So we will have to fight. Let us not be under any illusions about that. We shall have to accuse, expose, call on those responsible to face up to their responsibilities and, most of all - because I admit that I cannot put up with it anymore - undo, disassemble the double-speak, because the most terrible thing of all is that, at the very same time as they are making speeches of the most fabulous generosity, the speakers are treacherously doing all they can to stop the commitments from being honoured. We have therefore not seen the last of such behaviour, of that I am sure.
Mr Virrankoski, the aid must arrive at its intended destination, and I believe in all honesty that, in the case we are discussing, it will arrive. Nevertheless, I must in some way demand consistency in the struggle we wish to undertake together. When we say, the aid must arrive at its intended destination, we are sending the worst possible message to the public, who we need in order to help us encourage States to increase their public development aid.
We must stop saying the first thing that comes into our minds on this question. I think that the public aid that is dispensed by the Commission under your control and under the control of all the institutions whose task it is, does arrive at its intended destination. We may discuss our procedures, our rules, the fact that it is necessary to conduct consultations, audits, studies and so on, and that this has a cost, in a certain way, that it takes money, but, on the other hand, this is undoubtedly the price that has to be paid for genuine control and this is also the price that has to be paid for ensuring a minimum level of quality in delivering the service.
We therefore have to know what we want, but I do not believe that you can say that the aid would not arrive at its intended destination. In the case in question here, I can confirm that all of this can be verified and checked and that we have all the procedures with which you, moreover, and I are familiar. I therefore honestly believe that we should not be too anxious about this.
Mrs Aubert, I believe that, fundamentally, through your question or suggestion, you have given voice to what, for me, is also probably one of the negatives, one of the few real negatives, of the agreement, clearly, because, when considering the stability instrument, you have seen perfectly that what is taken from the stability instrument is money that is not necessarily available for other things and that, at root, this is, to tell the truth, a shift. It is, furthermore, what stops us, or, at any rate, what stops me, from claiming that this is an additional EUR 1 billion. We cannot really say that this is an additional EUR 1 billion, and Mr Mitchell has had the intellectual honesty to emphasise this. However, being completely objective, I nonetheless believe that this should not stop us from being happy because I did not really expect us to get this far.
So the EUR 240 million will be redeployed from the stability instrument, and EUR 70 million of this in 2009. The available balance will, broadly speaking, be at the 2008 level, which was EUR 135 million. However, this is not really an argument. All things being equal, it is of course an argument. If any new requirements were placed on this instrument, we would have a problem. However, as far as 2010 is concerned, the Commission has been invited, during the budgetary conciliation phase, to present a revised financial programme designed to ensure the ordered progression of the amounts planned for the period 2010-2013 while retaining an unchanged annual margin level. This revised programming will be presented within the framework of the annual policy strategy, and we shall naturally monitor it closely.
Turning to the questions you have asked concerning implementation: depending on the country, the choice will be made on the basis of criteria of effectiveness. Who might cooperate in this? Clearly, the international and regional organisations, the countries themselves, the States and the decentralised authorities, the NGOs, as well as the agencies of the Member States. Moreover, if the number of types of operators has been extended, this is at Parliament's request. Personally, I admit that I was opposed to this but it was your wish and I can understand it. The criterion will be one of effectiveness, but if we want to act quickly, then you have to know that the best way of doing so is to work, as a priority, with the organisations set up for this very purpose and with which we can basically move more swiftly because we have rules for cooperating with these institutions that are capable of rapid action. However, I can assure you that we shall fully participate in this effort, as was decided by your Parliament and as was decided in the final agreement.
Personally, I think that Europe has shown itself to be equal to the challenge because I believe that we are talking here about the EUR 1 billion for this rapid reaction to save the crops. I should also like to remind you of the hundreds of millions of euros that have already been released and spent and that we shall continue to spend within the framework of our emergency humanitarian aid or emergency food aid. Europe has been extremely responsive in these areas. I just want to remind you - and it gives me pleasure to do so here - that, in 2007, Europe represented EUR 46 billion per year. I have yet to see another donor provide as much development aid.
As far as Mr Droutsas is concerned, to say that the European Union is washing its hands of this matter and that everything will be swallowed up by the businessmen is a view that I cannot share and that seems somewhat excessive to me. I am not saying that everything is completely wrong. For example, it is clear that we can discuss, debate the price of fertilisers and seed. We can indeed attempt to obtain an objective view of this question. It would probably not be a waste of energy, as part of the structural response, to attempt, at the level of the major international organisations - and this is something I am thinking about more and more - to negotiate with all these leading companies, which basically produce particularly effective seed but at an extremely high price. The same applies to fertilisers. There are initiatives that we should certainly consider, not least the idea of producing fertilisers locally, for example. There are places where this could be done. We could also create supply corridors that would make it possible greatly to reduce transport costs. I recently met a producers' organisation to get an idea about what they were prepared to do, and we are also going to hold a meeting between them and our business forum to see what they can bring to our structural response strategy. I obviously see this as important.
Mrs Goudin, I am often in agreement with you but I have to say that I do not believe that protectionist policies are the solution in the countries that are facing this problem. In contrast I think that what would be interesting - because I believe that protectionist policies risk throwing everything off balance, or at least risk not responding to the problems at a regional level, although this is an economic dimension that I am not going to address now - where I would be willing to back you and where we are currently working intensely, in particular with the French Presidency, is on the following question: how can we organise the specific nature of agriculture in developing countries in the same way - we seem to have rather short memories in Europe - as Europe has done for its own agriculture? In Europe, agriculture has never been considered to be a type of production or an economic product identical to all other economic products. Agriculture has always received special treatment. I will not yet say that this is my definitive option but, when we consider regional common agricultural policies, these, in my opinion, are objects of study that it would be interesting to take forward quite rapidly with the aim, of course, not of bringing about protectionism but protection - something quite different indeed. I prefer the concept of protection to the one of protectionism and the anxiety it causes.
To conclude, I would just like once again - I hope that I have covered as much ground as possible - to thank you for the agreement and for your commitment. Without you, this would not have been possible. We have just convincingly demonstrated that, when the European Parliament and the Commission are able to work in harmony, it is difficult for the States to resist.
Gay Mitchell
rapporteur. - Madam President, I thank the Commissioner and the Chairman, and the other Members who spoke, for their kind words about my contribution to this report. I would also like to thank Reimer Böge for his work in the Committee on Budgets in facilitating it and my shadow rapporteur, Thijs Berman, who was very supportive and helpful in seeing it through.
In the developing world, 78 children per thousand die at birth. In the European Union the figure is 5 per thousand on average. It used to be 45 per thousand just after the Second World War in Ireland. We have got it down to 78 in the developing world, and we can get it down again to what used to be the rate in Ireland, and to what now is the rate in Ireland, with determination and commitment.
If they get past birth, two million of those children will die before the age of five for lack of vaccines that have been available in the west for over 30 years. In that context, and when you see the hunger that those children will face, the lack of educational opportunity and the absence of health facilities, some of the contributions made here this evening bordered on inhumanity. Members playing to their national galleries at the expense of those people is obscene, and it is time that this was said very clearly.
By 2050, the population of this planet will have increased from some 6 billion to some 8 billion. Ninety percent of those people will be born into what is now the developing world. If those people continue to exist in their present conditions, it will be the cause of the third conflagration on this planet, causing huge migration and huge problems.
On the other hand, if we invest and work with those people in solidarity, they will be our trading partners. These are the options facing us and that is why I think it is important that we can respond with a facility such as this.
President
The debate is closed.
The vote will take place on Thursday 4 December at 12 noon.
Written Statements (Rule 142)
Jean-Pierre Audy
in writing. - (FR) I support this initiative providing the European Union with a new development policy instrument to tackle the key problems linked to the rise in food prices that has sparked riots, unrest and instability in several countries, threatening the results of many years of investment in politics, development and peace keeping.
Hundreds of millions of people have seen their poverty exacerbated. The progress made towards achieving the Millenium Development Goals has been undermined. The Union plans to fund 10% of the EUR 18 billion required, that is to say EUR 1.8 billion and, given the funding already available, an additional package of EUR 1 billion is needed. I do not agree, however, with the European Commission's proposal to use funds reserved for agriculture and I hope that the Council will oppose this and will reach a compromise on this funding. Politically, it would be a disaster if, through financial means or worse, the use of symbols, European citizens were to feel that our development policy, in particular issues associated with hunger, were to operate at the expense of the common agricultural policy, which is a different matter.
Constantin Dumitriu
In my view, the Commission's proposal presents a limited number of options in terms of how financial aid can be granted as it stipulates that the initiatives should be implemented exclusively with the help of regional and global organisations. I understand the motives behind these restrictions, but I support the active involvement of all stakeholders: consumers, producers and the general public too.
It goes without saying that farming conditions vary in developing countries. However, the facility needs to be adapted to specific local conditions, with a view to consolidating and streamlining markets. Small farmers need to be protected against the development of possible dominant positions on the market.
Introducing this type of facility is beneficial and provides an incentive to farmers in developing countries. It is also appropriate in the context of the current global economic and financial crisis. However, I would like to emphasise the importance of the condition that funds are allocated on a supplementary basis and that this is not detrimental to development activities required in other areas. We need to strictly observe the commitments we have undertaken. We also need to protect farmers, especially those from the new Member States who still do not enjoy the same support as farmers from the other 15 Member States.
Siiri Oviir
in writing. - (ET) For years, experts on the right to food at the UN, the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund have warned the global public of the possibility of famine.
At a time when wealthy Western countries are burning food, more than 850 million people are starving across the world. Every five seconds, one child below the age of 10 dies from a lack of food. The rapid increase in the price of foodstuffs affects 2.1 billion people worldwide on a daily basis, many of whom are trying to survive on less than USD 2 per day.
The ever-increasing scale of biofuel production has contributed towards raising the price of foodstuffs, which has in turn had a large effect upon the people of the world. The price of foodstuffs has skyrocketed on the world market because an ever-increasing area of arable land is now being put aside to grow oil plants to be used as raw material in the production of biofuel (for example, to produce 50 litres of fuel, 200 kilograms of corn is needed, on which a Zambian or Mexican child could live for a whole year). In addition, several countries have suffered through drought or flooding, which has considerably decreased their harvest yield.
It is my view that the European Union should be willing to contribute more rigorously in its pursuit of the UN Millennium Development Goal: to halve world famine by the year 2015.
I welcome the European Commission's initiative to direct EUR 1 billion into solving the foodstuff crisis. This will allow for the provision of EU food aid to the most disadvantaged people in order to satisfy their primary nutritional needs and contribute towards increasing the capacity of developing countries to produce their own foodstuffs.
At the moment, relatively little motor fuel is produced from edible crops in Europe. However, we should not sacrifice human foodstuffs purely for the sake of 'green energy'. Rather, support must be given to scientific research with the goal of producing motor fuel from alternative sources. This would help to avoid an increase in the price of foodstuffs, and would also help to prevent famine and global warming.
Bogusław Rogalski
in writing. - (PL) The past two years have seen an escalation of agricultural produce and food prices. These changes have been felt most painfully by nations in the most difficult economic situation and countries at war.
Approximately 2.1 billion people throughout the world must survive on less than two dollars a day, which means that they spend approximately 50% of their income on food. These are the people most at risk of disease and death due to the record prices of their staple foods, namely cereals such as rice, corn and wheat. This has a direct impact on the number of starving people, which increased by another 50 million in the year 2007 alone. The crisis is further intensified by the adverse impact of the climate change and by the shortage of such natural resources as water and energy.
As part of our aid and attempts to address this crucial issue, we need to invest the funds intended to improve access to resources of agricultural production and services and to increase agricultural production capacity, in order to satisfy the basic food needs of developing countries.
The European Union must also increase its expenditure on agriculture, since the 4% allocated to development policy so far is decidedly too little.
Of equal importance is a return to the minimal regulation of international markets, to ensure supplies and at least a relative stability, in the interest of all consumers and producers throughout the world.
Toomas Savi
in writing. - I welcome the timely report on the proposal for a regulation establishing a facility for rapid response to soaring food prices in developing countries. This year the world has been shaken by various crises that have taken a terrible toll on the poorest populations of the world.
It has been proposed that one billion euros are to be spent to improve their situation over the period from 2008 to 2009, which is quite a notable sum in the European Union budget. But I would like to remind you that most European Union humanitarian and development aid is not directed by the Commission but by the Member States. If the Member States fulfilled their commitments to the Millennium Development Goals, the Commission would not have to take such action.
The rapporteur has rightfully pointed out that one cannot desire more effective common policies without providing more budgetary resources, yet the Member States seem rather reluctant to do that.
In my opinion, the Member States ought to start pooling their resources under the auspices of the Commission to exercise a truly effective common humanitarian and development policy.
Daniel Strož
Concerning the report on a facility for responding rapidly to soaring food prices in developing countries, I am definitely in favour of its adoption, since developing countries need this kind of assistance. At the same time, though, I would like to point out that the report failed to include among the causes of the crisis one which in my view is far more important than the increased consumption of meat in China and India or the drought in Australia. I would remind you that food prices are also increasing within the European Union and it is abundantly clear that the constant increases are due to rising energy prices which in turn relate directly to the mounting profits of multinational energy firms. Neoliberalism has become the model for all of the EU's policies, but in reality it will not solve the problem of food sufficiency anywhere in the world.
Anna Záborská
in writing. - (SK) The record high prices for staple foods, which have a major impact on the numbers of people suffering from hunger in the world, are due to several well-known factors. Apart from the specific situation in some countries (such as China and India) these factors include global fluctuations in the weather, the shift from growing crops for consumption to growing crops for biofuel production and low world grain stocks.
In this context I consider it essential for the EU to develop a unified, coordinated and effective response. I welcome the Commission proposal to establish a fund for handling the food crisis, particularly at a time when higher food prices are increasing the cost of the food aid which is needed by increasing numbers of people. We must not forget that we are using EU taxpayers' money for development aid. Neither the sharp food price increases in developing countries nor the results of these increases on the poorest people can justify us in failing to ensure the effective and transparent allocation of these funds. In view of the unstable regimes in many developing countries, the violations of democracy and the corruption I am very reluctant to prop up their national budgets. I would prefer to support projects and programmes that are managed by non-governmental or semi-governmental organisations, consortiums or associations representing these. Two years ago I made a proposal adopted in a plenary session for aid to be monitored and assessed twice a year and then signed off by the Commission, the local state authorities and the aid recipients.


European Year for Combating Poverty and Social Exclusion (continuation of debate)
President
Continuing the debate on the Report on the European Year for Combating Poverty and Social Exclusion, we now move on to speakers on behalf of the Groups.
Thomas Mann
on behalf of the PPE-DE Group. - (DE) Mr President, with all this focus on export growth and globalisation gains, one group seems to have been overlooked. I refer to people living in poverty, of whom there are 78 million in the EU, including 19 million children. Is it a matter of learning to live with this state of affairs? Certainly not!
Young people who cannot cope with school and drop out are part of this group, as are older people who, despite having worked for decades, receive small pensions that cover only the bare necessities. They feel marginalised, and in actual fact they are often left to struggle on their own. The result is that daily life imposes severe mental and physical strains in the form of housing without security of tenure, problem estates, the risk of indebtedness, alcohol and drugs - a life without dignity or self-esteem. The annual poverty reports in our Member States should set alarm bells ringing.
Last year I listened to a debate from the visitors' gallery of the German Bundestag. The subject of the debate was the lower classes. It gave rise to weeks of heated public debate. That is what the victims of poverty need: they need people to be aware of them, to take them seriously, to show them how to break out of the poverty trap. Marie Panayotopoulos-Cassiotou has drafted a very good report - I can say that on behalf of the PPE-DE Group and on a very personal level too, Marie - which gives us the green light for the designation of 2010 as the European Year for Combating Poverty and Social Exclusion.
If the European Year does not merely yield analyses of the situation but enables the endangered target groups to become actively involved and to obtain a forum through which their voices can be heard, if institutions present tangible successes instead of only announcing good intentions, if educational experts outline motivating teaching methods that have resulted in more pupils successfully completing their schooling, and if welfare benefits are identified which have demonstrably and sustainably reduced the risk of poverty, many people who still feel marginalised today will finally become aware of their rights as stakeholders in our society.
Richard Falbr
on behalf of the PSE Group. - (CS) I first of all wish to thank my fellow Member, Mrs Panayotopoulos-Cassiotou, for her good report and pleasant cooperation. I want to mention two aspects.
Many of our documents use the expressions 'decent work' and 'decent jobs'. The fact remains, however, that more and more jobs fit the description of menial jobs, in other words unskilled, badly-paid work. The number of people living in poverty or suffering from in-work poverty is not falling, which is proof that more and more employers are employing people illegally. The recently adopted draft Working Time Directive, which introduces the possibility of working like people do in some Chinese industrial zones, is a further blow that will surely result in an increase in the number of poor people.
The other issue I want to mention relates to the need to take into account, at last, the fact that the trend towards the privatisation of public and social services in some countries of the Union is going unnoticed. The privatisation of public and social services also leads to an increase in the number of people living in poverty. I should say that my amendments, which highlight this fact, are regularly rejected. I would like us to actually start doing something, instead of just churning out more pages and setting deadlines.
Sepp Kusstatscher
on behalf of the Verts/ALE Group. - (DE) Mr President, let me begin by emphasising that I very much approve of the idea that political efforts to combat poverty and social exclusion should be brought into particularly sharp focus throughout Europe in 2010.
Allow me, nevertheless, to make a few critical comments. The way in which proposals for improvements have been brushed aside, mostly under pressure from the Council, for the sake of reaching agreement at first reading has greatly annoyed me. I have called for more funds to be allocated to this important initiative in the 2010 budget, since combating poverty and social exclusion is an unequivocal goal of the Lisbon Agenda, a goal which, sadly, has not been achieved at all.
I also wanted to ensure that the ample financial resources disbursed by the European Commission were subjected to closer scrutiny, particularly in the context of the European Year in 2010, in order to establish whether they served as an instrument of fairer distribution or whether they might actually be helping to make the rich richer and scarcely ever reaching those below the poverty line.
I am another of those who would have welcomed a discussion within the EU institutions on the introduction of an unconditional basic income, especially on the question whether that would be an appropriate weapon with which to combat poverty and social exclusion. I very much regret that these proposals were immediately shot down. I support the initiative for a European Year, but I find it all too non-committal and too devoid of implications in the field of social policy.
Jan Tadeusz Masiel
on behalf of the UEN Group. - (PL) Mr President, the announcement that 2010 is to be the European Year for Combating Poverty and Social Exclusion is a very good initiative from the Council. We should remind our citizens that the elimination of poverty is one of the principal objectives of the European Union. This will, without doubt, increase people's trust in our European institutions, I am thinking specifically here of the new Member States.
In my own country, Poland, accession to the EU in 2004 is still, unfortunately, associated in many people's minds with an increase in poverty, particularly for people living in the countryside and in small towns. This resulted in the low turnout to the elections for the European Parliament and in the results of these elections. The European Year for Combating Poverty will be an opportunity to review the situation in this regard and to mobilise Member States to undertake concrete steps to combat poverty and social exclusion. From superficial observations of society, it would seem that the quality of life of many individuals and families in both the old and the new EU has recently undergone considerable changes, but unfortunately these changes are for the worse. It has become ever more difficult, for example, to find housing. We need new and current statistical data in this regard.
In a world that is becoming ever more globalised in nature and ever more difficult to control, the responsibility of the state towards the citizen should become greater. The state should make sure that citizens feel safe, at least at the most basic level. I think that the principal benefit from this European Year will be to inform everyone of the existence of the problem, to raise awareness and to increase solidarity, and this includes financial solidarity, with poor and excluded persons.
Gabriele Zimmer
on behalf of the GUE/NGL Group. - (DE) Mr President, the Left Group in the European Parliament approves the report presented by our honourable colleague and hence endorses the goal of the European Year for Combating Poverty and Social Exclusion. The report very clearly spells out the wide implications of poverty and social exclusion, not only as a social problem but also, and more especially, as a personal problem for those caught in the poverty trap. Several references have already been made to the 78 million people, including 19 million children, who are living in poverty within the European Union.
If serious efforts are to be made to combat poverty and eradicate it as a social problem, however, specific binding political strategies are essential. Political aims and a guaranteed individual right to live in freedom from poverty and social exclusion are on the agenda. These, however, are precisely the things for which the European Union makes no provision. The main political strategies of the European Union have nothing to do with combating poverty. Economic growth and job growth do not reduce poverty. Even the Union's richest Member States are registering growing numbers of people who live below the poverty line or below the at-risk threshold. In Germany in particular, recent years have seen a fall in the level of low incomes but a rise in the number of people who earn them.
Employment in the EU, in other words, does not automatically lead to the prevention of poverty, and I am sorry to say that awareness of this fact within the European Commission and among the Member States has not generated any specific packages of measures involving objectives such as the introduction of a minimum wage above the at-risk threshold or the solution of the problem of basic social security to which Mr Kusstatscher referred.
Kathy Sinnott
on behalf of the IND/DEM Group. - Mr President, I commend Mrs Panayotopoulos-Cassiotou. I feel that the issue of child poverty needs to be urgently addressed.
Underlining the statistics in relation to the number of children at risk of poverty - 19 million in Europe - a greater emphasis needs to be put on enshrining the paramount importance of the family and, emanating from this, defending family life. The institution of the family merits unconditional respect and protection. It is the natural setting for children. In developed countries we find that poverty is increasingly a family phenomenon rather than a regional one. A child's economic status is closely linked to that of their parents. Parental unemployment is a cause of child poverty.
In Ireland, although families often earn a reasonable income, mortgage, health and car payments can absorb the majority of that income and leave little for raising children. Other issues, such as parental addiction, leave insufficient funds for a secure childhood. Separation and divorce also disrupt family finances to the detriment of children. It is imperative that families be efficiently supported, both economically and socially, in order to alleviate the shameful modern predicament of child poverty in Europe.
José Albino Silva Peneda
(PT) Mr President, Commissioner, I note that the report we are discussing today refers expressly to eradicating rather than merely to combating poverty, as was actually proposed. I am therefore pleased that my observation has borne fruit, and I would like to thank the rapporteur, Mrs Panayotopoulos-Cassiotou, for that.
The European Union has become accustomed to reacting very rapidly and with great solidarity to help the victims of natural disasters throughout the world, for example, but it still prevaricates a great deal when it comes to helping the victims of economic and social catastrophes within the EU itself.
I say this because I find it rather difficult to understand why a report that addresses the issue of poverty makes no reference to rising food prices. This shocks me, because we all know that the poorer a family is, the higher the percentage of its budget that is spent on food. I therefore think it would be useful to make some reference to the recent Commission communication on the increase in the price of food products, for example.
I also believe, meanwhile, that we should not restrict the eradication of poverty to EU territory alone. This battle has no boundaries - we are talking of values which are essential to human dignity.
Throughout its history Europe has always been defined more by its expansion throughout the world than by its own identity. In the 21st century, of all the tasks the EU could perform for the good of humanity, the eradication of poverty will perhaps be the most noble of all. That is why I hope this issue will be promoted strongly in 2010.
Jan Andersson
(SV) Thank you very much, Mr President, Commissioner. Let me begin by thanking Mrs Panayotopoulos-Cassiotou for an excellent piece of work. Let me also say that I think the initiative to make 2010 the European Year for Combating Poverty and Social Exclusion is an excellent one.
Just as Vladimir Špidla said, such a Year may increase awareness and knowledge of the structures present, but that is not enough. It must be followed up by action, as some Members have previously pointed out. The situation is quite good in the EU generally, but at the same time poverty is not diminishing. Rather it is increasing, and, just as others have said, a great many of those affected are women and children. The approach is the Open Method of Coordination, but measures are needed in a large number of areas, not just a few. Employment is of course important, but so are education, social security systems and a regional policy which devotes attention to neglected areas. There is a need for action targeted at special groups, such as persons with functional disabilities and persons from other parts of the world who are suffering greater poverty than others. I hope that this Year, besides increasing knowledge and awareness, may also be the starting point for concrete measures to reduce poverty in the EU.
Ewa Tomaszewska
(PL) Mr President, the European Year for Combating Poverty and Social Exclusion will be the high point of the 2005-2010 social agenda. The Committee on Social Affairs has adopted a set of common indicators for the process of social protection and integration, which will ensure comparability of data.
Despite the fact that the European Union is aware of the problem of poverty as well as of the importance of measures to increase social cohesion, disparities in income continue to accompany economic growth in EU countries. As a result, the poor gain little from this growth. In effect, this means there is a decrease in the level of social cohesion. This situation is accompanied by other factors that also have negative consequences: almost one-fifth of children in the European Union are at risk of poverty. At a time of demographic decline we should take particular care of children, particularly in families with many children that are experiencing the most difficulty. However, it is particularly these families that are subject to discrimination through high VAT rates on children's products.
I would like to congratulate the rapporteur, in particular, for drawing attention to the issue of combating poverty.
Edit Bauer
(SK) Mr President, Commissioner, I welcome the report by Mrs Panayotopoulos-Cassiotou, as well as the Commission's determination to continue to fight poverty.
The great extent of poverty is probably one of the most notable contradictions in prosperous Europe. It is no coincidence that all the other Members have mentioned the high figures, the millions of people who live at risk of poverty, but the most striking thing is the high number of children who are born into and live with the risk of poverty. Consequently, it does not come as a surprise if these children leave school early, if the percentage of early school leavers is strikingly high. Another striking statistic is the very high number of children, running into the hundreds of thousands, who are homeless or live in institutions.
The problem is that poverty as well as social exclusion are inherited. Consequently, for socially excluded people, the opportunity to get an education and to participate in lifelong learning remains an unattainable goal.
Let us hope that the European Year for Combating Poverty provides sufficient incentive for strengthening the principle of solidarity in national policies. When we consider future changes in the population structure, the implementation of this principle will indeed be even more complicated. Analyses of some public spending and insurance systems show that in some Member States these systems carry financial or even social risks, which can lead to poverty becoming even more widespread.
Without any doubt, the present rapid increase in the prices of oil and food will place a burden on the budgets of the people in the lowest income bracket. This means that there are more than enough reasons to make sure that the European Year for Combating Poverty not only draws attention to poverty but also helps to create specific accountable national bodies that could facilitate the coordination of the various policies used to combat poverty and social exclusion.
Alejandro Cercas
(ES) Mr President, I also wanted to congratulate the Commission and, of course, the rapporteur, who have provided the opportunity for this debate and to take the first steps towards making 2010 a significant year in the fight against poverty.
As discussed in Lisbon, this is one of the European Union's objectives and we have often said, and many Councils have said, that there must be a significant reduction in poverty by 2010, but there is unfortunately not much sign of that happening. We must therefore make additional efforts and use this opportunity to reiterate that the increase in the creation of wealth is not benefiting all of us equally.
Some sectors of the population are especially vulnerable and need protection from poverty, because it is very difficult for people to escape poverty once they become poor.
We therefore need a horizontal policy that provides decent jobs and educational opportunities, not only as part of this programme, but as part of all European Union programmes, so that solidarity remains at the heart of the Union and is not only addressed by economic policies.
Ryszard Czarnecki
(PL) Mr President, it could be said that the data that we have collected really minimise the scale of the problem. This is because they speak of poverty in the European Union at the time before the accession of Bulgaria and Romania. After the accession of these two relatively very poor countries, the level of poverty in the EU has significantly increased. We should not hide this fact. Furthermore, it is not every seventh person in the EU Member States who is below the poverty line, but the true percentage is considerably above 16%, in fact it is over 20%.
In this regard I would like to make an urgent call that the financing from the European Union for all the projects that we have discussed should be over 50%. This is important particularly from the point of view of the poorer countries. Limiting the amount to 50% is, in reality, a decision to restrict the real fight against poverty.
(Applause)
Joel Hasse Ferreira
(PT) Mr President, Commissioner Špidla, ladies and gentlemen, it seems absolutely essential to recognise the inalienable rights of the socially most vulnerable groups, and the practical recognition of such rights will involve the strong commitment of public and private social stakeholders.
The various dimensions of social cohesion must be protected by means of EU and Member State commitment to eradicating poverty and combating social exclusion, promoting concrete action at the most varied levels.
Full and realistic monitoring of poverty and social exclusion is also required, Commissioner, which means that reliable and comparable indicators showing the development of the various social, economic and cultural dimensions of that phenomenon are essential.
Ladies and gentlemen, poor women and single-parent families are particularly vulnerable to poverty and exclusion, and must therefore be given special attention and the corresponding support.
In conclusion, Mr President, after thanking the rapporteur, I would say that 2010 will have to be a particularly effective year for combating poverty and social exclusion, a battle that must also be given a much needed higher profile.
Zbigniew Krzysztof Kuźmiuk
(PL) Mr President, I would like to draw attention to three issues in this debate. Firstly, according to the latest European Commission report, in 2004 there were about 100 million EU citizens, that means 20% of the whole population, who were living on less than 60% of the average EU income, meaning they were living on less than 15 euro a day. In the new Member States, such as Poland, Lithuania, Latvia and Slovakia, this is true of almost 80% of the population.
Secondly, solutions that are often put forward by liberal economists, that significant differences in incomes are important for economic growth, should not be adopted in the economic and social practices of EU countries. In 2006 the countries with the lowest disparities in income were Denmark, Sweden, Finland, Slovenia and the Czech Republic, and these countries have for many years enjoyed stable annual GDP growth, which is quite different from those countries that have the highest disparities in income, such as Latvia, Lithuania, Portugal and Greece as well as, unfortunately, my own country, Poland.
Thirdly, I would like to express the hope that 2010, as the European Year for Combating Poverty and Social Exclusion, will make all our decision makers aware that poverty and social exclusion have a destructive effect on economic growth and social development.
(Applause)
Gabriela Creţu
(RO) Dear Commissioner, dear colleagues, we are well aware of what the Commission reminds us: there is a huge number of Europeans who live in poverty, including extreme poverty. Those who do not know this should accept the blame for the fact that a rich society, which is based on the principles of justice and solidarity, like ours, operates in such a way that a country of poor Europeans would have more seats in this Parliament than Germany. Poverty is not an abstraction; it is a way of life affecting women and children in particular. Women, including employed ones, come across increased risks given the structural salary gap, their concentration in poorly paid, weakly unionized sectors and in the informal economy, given their prevalence among single-parent families. Poverty is inherited. The economic poverty of parents favours the cultural poverty of children, by reduced access to education, the political poverty, by low participation in or exclusion from decision-making, the social poverty, by low participation in civic activities and isolation. It creates deeper inequalities than those derived from the different purchasing power. Minimum coherence between statements and actions forces us to do more than make citizens aware. Political decisions are necessary in order to remedy the situation. In the Union, we cannot speak of a lack of resources, but sometimes of their unfair distribution, of rules perpetuating exclusion. It is a joint responsibility, including of companies that, for their own interest, should go beyond the stage in which the financing of a foundation for protecting stray dogs in the neighbourhood is the only expression of social responsibilities.
Zdzisław Zbigniew Podkański
(PL) Mr President, declaring 2010 to be the European Year for Combating Poverty and Social Exclusion will not solve the problems experienced by the 80 million people in the European Union who live below the poverty line. Appointing committees, increasing bureaucracy, meetings and sittings will, likewise, not give them any food.
In order to combat poverty you have to approach the issue of creating and distributing wealth in a different way. You have to state clearly that globalisation encourages excessive wealth creation for some and rapid impoverishment for others. Unfortunately there are more and more of these others. The problem of poverty in the EU will continue to grow and there are several reasons for this, including unfair distribution of wealth, problems of food distribution and rising food costs, a general increase in the costs of maintaining a family, the demographic situation in Europe and the world, continuing inequalities, the backwardness of certain regions due to historical reasons and a failure to produce a proper model of how to help the needy.
Finally, as we are not in a position to solve the problem of poverty as a whole, then let us at least provide children and young people with free education and extra meals as required.
Zbigniew Zaleski
(ES) Mr President, Commissioner, I want to highlight one particular aspect and I will speak in Polish:
(PL) Mr President, we are trying to help poor countries in Africa and Latin America with little effect, but there can be no justification for failing to help the poor within the European Union. There are regions where people are very poor, especially children. I would like to point out an issue that will have serious consequences in the future, namely the phenomenon of Euro-orphans. These are the children of migrants who travel from one country to another within the EU, often abandoning their children to their fate. I believe that, in future, the psychological consequences of this problem will cost us dear. For this reason we should do everything we can to eliminate this problem now.
Monica Maria Iacob-Ridzi
(RO) Honourable President, eradicating poverty and social exclusion is one of the major objectives of the European Union. For this reason, the year 2010 should be decisive in implementing the European strategy in this field. Of the 78 million citizens who live at risk of poverty, 19 million are children. Unfortunately, there are still no European programs and funds designed for improving the situation of children. It is true that the European Union provides funds for fruits and dairy products in schools or money for the education of pupils, but I think we need a coherent strategy and actual programs designed for children coming from poor families. At the same time, we should also focus on the other categories of disadvantaged people, and in particular young people, for whom we have to establish policies and allocate important amounts of money from the structural funds. Moreover, it is important to emphasize the fact that, at present, we cannot create the premises for sustainable social development if we don't have the necessary financial resources. I believe the allocated amount of 17 million Euros is insufficient in relation to the social inclusion and poverty fighting needs Europe presently has. Last, but not least, the fight against poverty and social exclusion should be connected to the existing programs. Both the European Social Fund and the Progress European programmes, should be used for financing the priorities of the European Year for Combating Poverty.
Anna Záborská
(FR) Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I congratulate you on this excellent proposal. I also thank Mrs Panayotopoulos-Cassiotou for her very good report. I am sure we will vote for the resolution unanimously.
Yet I wonder. Here we have another European year, this time against extreme poverty. It is now 20 years since, on 17 October, the international community celebrated the International Day for the Eradication of Poverty. Looking round at the moment of celebrating 17 October in front of the European Parliament in Brussels, I see myself there with my colleague, Iñigo Méndez de Vigo, who leads this Parliament's delegation with the Fourth World.
As I take the floor here, I would ask you to note this date in your diary. I hope that on 17 October the European institutions will mark their strong solidarity with the slogan for that date: 'Wherever men and women are condemned to live in extreme poverty, human rights are violated. To come together to ensure that those rights be respected is our solemn duty.'
Vladimír Maňka
(SK) In all, 78 million people in the European Union live at risk of poverty. Rising prices of commodities, energy and food further multiply the risk for the most vulnerable groups.
Quality employment significantly reduces the poverty risk. However, often even those people who are employed live at risk of poverty.
The amended Lisbon Strategy promotes equal opportunities for all as a vector for social and intergenerational solidarity and the creation of a poverty-free society. Consequently, I welcome the initiative to make the problem of poverty more visible and the effort to establish a single coordinated policy.
The campaign to fight poverty should raise public awareness and produce a long-term effort to fight the phenomenon of poverty. In this sense we have a lot to learn from the Scandinavian countries. They have proved that one of the most effective means of poverty reduction is an active labour market policy combined with the establishment of decent working conditions and strong social protection.
DanutBudreikait
(LT) I welcome the Commission's proposal to designate 2010 the European Year for Combating Poverty and Social Exclusion. Poverty is a problem both in the EU and worldwide.
I would like to highlight some acute aspects of poverty and social exclusion on which we should focus much more attention than we used to.
First of all, simply by eliminating child poverty we would be able to escape the vicious circle of generations condemned to a life of poverty and social exclusion.
Secondly, nearly 10% of workers experience poverty because of low wages, part-time employment and low qualifications. It is essential to promote quality employment based on educating employees.
Thirdly, it is vital to promote solidarity within society, making all its members aware of the issues of poverty and social exclusion.
I would like to encourage all EU institutions and Member States to provide the members of society with more detailed information on combating poverty and social exclusion in order to increase the sense of common responsibility and help disperse the prejudice of being a financial burden on society.
Czesław Adam Siekierski
(PL) Mr President, poverty is a very complex problem and it can adopt various forms. It varies depending on the country. In Europe we are not talking of people dying of starvation, but, in the main, low income, poor housing conditions, poor health, often alcoholism, feelings of alienation or lack of any prospects are the greatest problems.
Poverty is a dangerous phenomenon, particularly among children, because, in many cases, it is hereditary. Children brought up in poverty have a more difficult development path and, without outside help, are condemned to failure and to share their parents' fate.
For this reason it is important to take all possible steps to break the cycle of poverty being handed down from one generation to another. Strengthening social integration, reducing poverty and combating social exclusion are some of the challenges faced by the EU, particularly when we take demographic changes into account, by which I mean an ageing population and an influx of migrants.
Ilda Figueiredo
(PT) It is not sufficient to establish a European Year for Combating Poverty when around 20% of the European Union's population is threatened with poverty. What is happening - exacerbated by social inequalities, rising numbers of poorly paid workers with insecure jobs, thereby increasing the number of people in poverty, and rising fuel and food prices - requires other policies to ensure that children, women and families are socially included.
Measures are needed that make work more attractive, increase employment with rights and guarantee high-quality public services, decent housing and public and universal social security.
A European strategy of solidarity and social progress to replace the neoliberal policies of the Lisbon Strategy and the Stability Pact must therefore be approved as a matter of urgency so that we do not have even more poverty in 2010 than we have at the moment.
Juan Andrés Naranjo Escobar
(ES) Mr President, first, I would like to congratulate our rapporteur and the Commissioner for this initiative.
Social exclusion and poverty are two sides of the same coin and are features of a society with very needy people, a society that is not socially cohesive. At the end of the day, ladies and gentlemen, progress is a question of ethics.
The year 2010 will be the year for combating poverty. We already know that the eradication of social exclusion and poverty will be a long and complex task, but if we make the most of each euro invested in this programme, if we are capable of reaching the groups of people that need most help, if we are capable of awakening the conscience of public opinion, we will be creating a new European citizenship. This is the big issue.
Last week, the citizens of Ireland rejected the Treaty of Lisbon. Demagogic propaganda drawing on a wide range of opinions have wrought havoc in Irish society, provoking unfounded fears of globalisation and a certain amount of confusion about the construction of our common home.
As well as making 2010 the year for combating poverty, we must also make it the year of European citizenship.
Vladimír Špidla
Member of the Commission. - (CS) Ladies and gentlemen, thank you for the in-depth debate that touched upon many aspects of poverty. I think that the proposal itself makes it clear that the Commission does not ignore the issue of poverty and that it aims at gradually creating such political environment that will make it possible to fight poverty in a more effective way. I also wish to say that the Commission is dealing with the problem of poverty in all its complexity. Although some of its texts, namely our recent communication on active inclusion that deals with poverty per se, emphasise the importance of quality jobs, given that the goal of the Lisbon Strategy is more jobs and better quality jobs, the Commission nevertheless understands that the complex issue of poverty cannot be resolved purely through labour market means. Suffice to mention child poverty, which is also clearly related to the quality of the education systems. There is also the issue of poverty among pensioners, which obviously cannot be resolved directly by labour market means either.
Allow me to mention some other issues I consider to be important. The Commission is proposing financing totalling EUR 17 million and in the course of the debate we heard the opinion that funding of national projects should be increased, especially in some countries. The Commission does not agree with this view for the simple reason that our aim is to make as much financial support available as possible in order to make our actions as effective as possible. The European Year for Combating Poverty is a classic example of a routine democratic political procedure. In order to achieve a breakthrough, in order to change the political atmosphere, we need a detailed and topical debate on this subject, and that is the goal for the European Year.
Allow me now to touch upon certain individual amendments. I agree with the amendments concerning the revision of the headings of objectives in Article 2 and in the list of priorities for the European Year, and I am also in favour of the amendments focusing on the issue of gender equality. Furthermore, since a large number of amendments have been tabled, allow me to present Parliament with an exact list of the amendments instead of resorting to verbatim citations.
Let me mention just two articles - Articles 37 and 52 - which I want to single out in my speech. With your permission, I am going to read the text concerning these two articles.
The Commission attaches the greatest importance to facilitating and supporting wide participation at all levels in activities connected with the 2010 European Year for Combating Poverty and Social Exclusion as a practical means of ensuring that its impact is positive and lasting.
In accordance with the Decision on the European Year, the Commission will draw up common guidelines in the Strategic Framework Document (SFD) which will set the key priorities for the implementation of activities relating to the European Year, including minimum standards in terms of participation in national bodies and actions.
The SFD is addressed to the National Implementing Bodies (NIBs) responsible for defining the national programmes for the European Year and for selecting individual actions to be proposed for Community funding, and to other actors concerned.
In this context, the Commission will underline the importance of facilitating access by all NGOs, including small and medium-sized organisations. With a view to ensuring the widest possible access, the NIBs can decide not to request any cofinancing and instead to fully fund certain actions.
That was the text itself. Ladies and gentlemen, let me mention another speech, that of Mr Falbr, who brought up the issue of the Working Time Directive and did so in a way far removed from reality. To be absolutely clear, the simple way of summing up the result of the compromise reached by the Council is as follows: 'The 48-hour working week remains and the possibility to use the opt-out was reduced from 78 hours per week to 60 or 65 hours'. This is one of the substantial features of the compromise, and since it was mentioned in the course of the present debate I thought it would be good to respond to it.
Ladies and gentlemen, to conclude let me once again thank you for the debate, which touched upon many aspects of poverty and was, in my opinion, very insightful. Unfortunately, I do not think that it is possible to respond at the moment to each of your speeches, leaving aside the fact that the overwhelming majority of your views are incorporated in the rapporteur's report. I would like to thank her again for the report.
Commission's position on Parliament's amendments
Panayotopoulos-Cassiotou report
The Commission can accept in full Amendments 6, 7, 12, 13, 16, 17, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 27, 28, 29, 31, 33, 34, 35, 36, 38, 39, 41, 42, 46, 47, 48, 49, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62 and 63.
The Commission can only accept in substance, in part, and subject to rewording, the following amendments: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 8, 9, 10, 11, 14, 15, 18, 24, 25, 26, 30, 32, 37, 43, 44, 45, 50, 51, 52, 64 and 66.
Finally, the Commission rejects Amendments 40 and 65. More specifically, regarding Amendments 37 and 52, concerning the participation of small and medium-sized organisations and the possibility of cofinancing up to the total amount of the costs of certain projects, the Commission proposes - as a compromise solution - making a statement in that regard, which I shall read out to you, in which it undertakes to incorporate the spirit of the content of those two amendments in the framework strategy document that the Commission will be drawing up to define the main priorities of the European Year activities.
Marie Panayotopoulos-Cassiotou
Mr President, I thank the Commissioner for his opinion. I hope the common guidelines in the strategic framework document will indeed guide the national committees in planning effective action. As the Commissioner himself has emphasised, the key aim must be to include all those affected by poverty both now and in the future.
Personally, I believe that poverty cannot be eradicated once and for all because it may return after a natural disaster. We have talked about the disasters in Greece and other countries owing to flooding or fires: poverty might reappear or it might be brought back by the international situation. We must therefore always be ready. For this reason, we place special emphasis on prevention; this explains our Day for the Eradication of Poverty on 17 October, as Mrs Záborská has pointed out. We have included this date in our report.
These, then, are not measures with little or no binding force; we want to see them matched to every national need and we believe that dealing with poverty means combating the first great enemy to the peace and prosperity of every community. The Commissioner is in any case a historian and knows that the Emperor of Byzantium, an empire that lasted for 1 000 years in Europe, supported the fight against poverty in every speech he made. He considered it the most important enemy of the state after the various foes he did battle with on his borders.
We too in the EU must fight poverty both internally and externally. We must achieve those famous Millennium Goals, so that we can also address the problem of economic migrants and illegal immigrants who come here because they compare their own situation with ours.
I am sure, then, that with good planning we shall have good results and I thank you all for your excellent words.
(applause)
President
The debate is closed.
The vote will take place tomorrow at 12 noon.
Written statements (Rule 142)
Adam Bielan
in writing. - (PL) Mr President, I would like to thank Mrs Panayotopoulos-Cassiotou for an excellent report and particularly for drawing attention to the issue of poverty prevention. I am in favour of designating 2010 as the European Year for Combating Poverty and Social Exclusion. In discussing the above-named report I would like to draw attention to the importance of finding a route out of poverty through concrete measures and not just by talking about it. In Europe 78 million people live in poverty and 19 million of these are children. We have to remember the importance of the family, which should be protected and given social and economic support in order to eliminate the enormous poverty among children in Europe.
At this point it would be worth mentioning the cause of poverty. Poverty is caused by a significant increase in the prices of food and energy, which primarily affects families with many children as well as the elderly. According to the European Commission, about 14% of Poles, Greeks and Portuguese in permanent employment live in poverty.
Corina Creţu
I thank the Rapporteur for the spirit of cooperation in drafting this report. In Europe, one out of six people lives below the poverty threshold, a figure that does not include the statistics in Romania and Bulgaria.
Although in most Member States, the difference between women and men, as regards poverty, is increasingly shrinking and the average difference is 2% as regards poverty and persistent poverty, I would like to draw your attention to the reality in the new Member States. In Romania and Bulgaria, the number of women at risk of becoming victims of poverty is more than ten percent higher than the number of men. Women are also much more exposed to social exclusion.
We should not ignore the fact that the ideas of solidarity, social justice, and eradication of poverty are challenges regarding not only the countries in the European Union, but also its involvement on the world economic and political scene.
Therefore, I would like to welcome the inclusion into the final text of the matter regarding the difference between men and women, in a more general article. I also consider important the correlation of the European Year for Combating Poverty and Social Exclusion with the Millennium Development Goals and, in particular, the International Day for the Eradication Poverty.
Zita Gurmai
in writing. - (HU) Poverty is a complex, relative and multi-faceted problem: it raises economic, social and cultural questions. Nevertheless, we must take action to combat poverty because in 2006 no less than 16% (78 million) of the total population of the twenty-five Member States of the European Union were living below the poverty threshold. When the Lisbon Strategy was launched in March 2000, the Council of the European Union called upon the Member States and the Commission to take steps 'to make a decisive impact on the eradication of poverty' by 2010. It is an important step that we now have a measure for poverty, since in order to tackle the problem it is important to identify its exact nature. I welcome the fact that we have designated 2010 as the European Year for Combating Poverty and Social Exclusion. I am sure that the Year will help to promote the exchange of best practice and see the launch of new initiatives in every field, especially in connection with poverty prevention, monitoring, financial mechanisms and combating child poverty.
It should be noted particularly that, according to the empirical evidence, women are much more vulnerable to the threat of poverty than men, and this is especially true in the case of women who are multiply disadvantaged. It is vital that the principle of equal treatment is also applied in the fight against poverty, and therefore also in the European Year of Combating Poverty and Social Exclusion. Genuine equality for men and women is a fundamental precondition for reducing the risk of poverty, since women are less likely to fall victim to poverty if they have appropriate and adequately remunerated work that they can combine with their family commitments.
Rovana Plumb
The Constitution of the International Labour Organization stipulates: "Poverty anywhere constitutes a danger to prosperity everywhere". For this reason, I emphasize the importance of the amendment regarding the prevention and fight against poverty by carrying on multidimensional policies at a national, regional and local level, which would ensure active participation of citizens in the society and on the labour market.
The reforms in the field of social protection and the active inclusion policies have decisively contributed to accelerating economic growth and creating more jobs in Europe. In the first quarter of the year 2008, Romania had one of the greatest economic growths in the EU, increasing by 8.2% (while the European average is 2.5%, according to Eurostat), but, nevertheless, people with low education levels, without any qualification, especially in the rural environment, children, young people, people with disabilities and the Roma have a significant risk of poverty.
I congratulate the Rapporteur for her activity and I consider it necessary that the policies drafted by the Member States, following European recommendations, aim at the beneficial reconciliation between the citizen's economic competitiveness and social welfare.