An international treaty prohibiting cluster bombs (debate)
President
The next item is the debate on:
the oral question to the Council on an international treaty to ban cluster munitions; follow-up to the Oslo Declaration, by Josep Borrell Fontelles, on behalf of the Committee on Development - B6-0319/2007);
the oral question to the Commission on an international treaty to ban cluster munitions - follow-up to the Oslo Declaration, by Josep Borrell Fontelles, on behalf of the Committee on Development - B6-0320/2007).
Josep Borrell Fontelles
author. - (ES) Madam President, Commissioner, Minister, the calls for a ban on cluster bombs are getting louder and louder. Use of these bombs in summer 2006 in the Lebanon war showed the extent to which they can cause a human disaster.
They are weapons that are a danger to both civilians and military personnel, but in practice 90% of their victims are civilians. In addition, 10% of these deadly bombs do not explode: they remain in the ground and have the same effect as landmines.
Therefore, clearing the land contaminated with these munitions is dangerous, both for the populations and for the international peacekeeping forces. These bombs are not only used for war; they act as a long-term obstacle to transport and agriculture, and they create trade barriers and obstacles to humanitarian aid.
They are thus one of the main problems affecting the development of poor countries: it is the poorest countries that are most affected by them, and in those countries the main victims are the poorest and least-educated sections of the population.
We can no longer say that bombing one's opponents from a height of 10 000 metres and showering them with bombs that remain in the ground is an efficient way of maintaining peace or taking military action.
The deployment of peacekeeping forces and humanitarian aid are today essential to stabilise and rebuild the areas affected by conflict and these bombs now lack any justification, including from a military perspective.
Today we are going to talk to the Commission and to the Council precisely about the initiatives that have come about as a result of the widespread change of attitude among the international community towards cluster bombs.
The European Parliament has repeatedly adopted a very clear position: we want to see international regulation of a global nature prohibiting the use, production, transfer, financing and stockpiling of cluster bombs. Pending this, the EU Member States should implement unilateral actions to prohibit the use and transfer of these bombs, as many states have already done and others are preparing to do.
Commissioner, Minister, the European Parliament wants to thank the Presidency of the Council, the Commission and the Member States for their efforts to negotiate a new protocol to the United Nations Convention on the Use of Certain Conventional Weapons, which deals with all the humanitarian problems associated with the use of cluster bombs. Unfortunately, however, we must recognise that very little progress has been made to date.
We therefore need a solid Oslo Process on the basis of which the states, the NGOs, the Red Cross and the international organisations can draw up and fulfil an ambitious agenda. For the moment, Oslo has been backed by 80 countries, including many developing countries, but it is far from clear yet whether this process will eventually result in a complete ban on cluster bombs.
What is clear is that we need an integrated, comprehensive approach that has a humanitarian slant and that focuses not just on disarmament, but above all on the protection of civilians, helping them to cope with the consequences of war while ensuring that the existing stockpiles of these bombs are destroyed and that the contaminated areas are cleared.
With a number of important events coming up, such as the Vienna meeting in December and the Brussels meeting the following week, as well as 5 November, the Global Day of Action to Ban Cluster Bombs, when there will be many events around the world, what are we going to do?
In this context I would like to ask the Commission and Council representatives what we are going to do, what our position will be? What is the European Union's position on the state of the discussions in the framework of the Convention on the Use of Certain Conventional Weapons?
Are we going to have a common position of the Council in this matter? What initiatives are we developing to encourage the Member States to adopt national measures aimed at prohibiting cluster bombs? What are we doing to support third countries in terms of clearing the areas affected by these munitions, providing education on the risks and destroying the stockpiles of munitions already prohibited?
Finally, is the Commission going to consider organising an international conference on the European Union's role in tackling the socio-economic, humanitarian and development consequences following conflicts in which these weapons have been used?
Manuel Lobo Antunes
President-in-Office of the Council. - (PT) Madam President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, Mr Borrell, I should firstly like to thank you for your three questions on this specific issue of the ban on cluster bombs. I will try to briefly and as objectively as possible answer each of the three questions put to the Council.
As regards your first question, I must say that, within the framework of the Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons - to keep my speech short I will simply refer to this as the 'Convention' - the Presidency of the Council of the European Union has, as you know, voiced its concern, on behalf of the European Union, about the humanitarian impact of cluster munitions. In particular, at the Third Review Conference of States Parties to the Convention which was held in Geneva from 7 to 17 November last year, the European Union expressed the view that cluster munitions represent a particularly important element of the future work of the Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons.
The EU presented a proposal supporting the establishment of an open-ended Group of Governmental Experts with the purpose of drafting recommendations for further action in the context of the Convention. This proposal was not adopted by the Conference of States Parties. However, it was agreed to convene, as a matter of urgency, an intersessional meeting of the Group of Governmental Experts on Explosive Remnants of War, with particular focus on cluster munitions.
This meeting was held in Geneva from 19 to 22 June 2007 when the EU submitted a draft negotiating mandate for a legally binding instrument to address all aspects of the humanitarian concerns raised by cluster munitions. This instrument should be adopted by the end of 2008.
The EU Troika carried out extensive consultations with third countries to promote the EU approach. The Group of Governmental Experts decided, however, to postpone any decision on a legally binding instrument until the 2007 meeting of the High Contracting Parties to the Convention which will be held next month.
In parallel with these efforts to address the concerns relating to cluster munitions, as you know, a number of EU Member States have subscribed to the Oslo Declaration and participated in a series of meetings organised within the so-called 'Oslo Process', aimed at a total ban on cluster munitions.
EU Member States have participated in their national capacity. So far no agreement has been reached on an EU position concerning the Oslo Process. The majority of Member States perceive these two processes as complementary and consider them to be parallel efforts leading to a common goal, namely an international legally binding instrument on cluster munitions.
As regards your second question, I must say that, in relation to the forthcoming meetings in Brussels and Vienna, as already mentioned, EU Member States, including the Presidency, will participate in a national capacity if they so decide. No EU common position is planned.
Finally, as regards your third question, I can say that the recent decisions taken by Austria and Belgium on the prohibition of cluster munitions, as referred to by Mr Borrell in his question, have been taken, as you know, on a purely national basis. The Council has not taken any specific action on this issue.
President
Let us hope that it will express its view soon.
Benita Ferrero-Waldner
Member of the Commission. - Mr President, I should like to thank Mr Borrell Fontelles for putting this oral question to us. I am glad because I think this is an opportunity for us to comprehensively answer this question on something which has particularly appalling consequences. It has a highly negative impact on human beings, particularly on civilians. The question is, therefore, very dear to me because things that affect human security are always very close to my heart. I fully agree with the position expressed by our Council President, but I would like to mention a few other things also.
Over the past year I have had the opportunity to discuss it in several formal and informal fora, including in meetings organised - the first in Paris and then a later one in Alexandria - by the Institute for Peace Studies and chaired by Ms Mubarak. She took on this issue very strongly and I think she has tried to bring things forward. As in the case for antipersonnel landmines, explosive remnants of war pose great threats to the lives and safety of civilian populations and I would like to comprehensively answer the questions that Mr Borrell Fontelles has asked here.
Their effects can be both immediate and long-lasting. By scattering explosives over wide areas they can kill and injure, as we all know, large numbers of civilians, very often children. In addition, many of the bomblets or submunitions fail to implode and to explode on impact, and their lethal effects remain after conflict so furthermore cluster munitions seriously hinder international humanitarian assistance. We have seen it in the war in Lebanon.
As regards crisis management and post-conflict reconstruction programmes during and in the aftermath of conflicts over the past several years, we in the Commission have been very active in countering the problems created by landmines and also by other explosive remnants of war, including cluster ammunition.
Through the two European Commission mine action strategies covering the period 2002-2007, over EUR 300 million have been committed worldwide in projects covering activities such as demining, stockpile destruction, mine risk education, mine victim assistance, rehabilitation and social economic reintegration. Projects covering cluster munitions have also been carried out in countries which are highly affected by these weapons, such as Afghanistan, Laos and Cambodia to name a few of them.
As for the future, we will maintain our engagement through mainstreaming actions against antipersonnel landmines and explosive remnants of war in our Community external assistance strategies and programmes - so this will be everywhere.
The Commission also makes use of the humanitarian aid instrument managed by ECHO to fund humanitarian demining efforts. The most recent case of humanitarian demining support has been in Lebanon, which received significant humanitarian aid following the conflict in December 2006, which I mentioned before.
Concerning the Commission's role in the negotiation of disarmament treaties or conventions, I would like to recall that such negotiations are sometimes not in our competence. If the Community is not a party to the disarmament treaties or conventions, it can then legally only encourage partner countries to engage fully in multilateralism, in particular via participation in treaties and conventions. I think our President has said a lot on this already.
We took part in the EU troika démarches carried out in key countries such as the United States of America, Japan, Brazil, South Korea, Canada, Pakistan and Ukraine, to promote the multilateral initiatives on cluster munitions in the framework of the Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons, and in particular a negotiation on a legally binding instrument addressing humanitarian concerns about cluster munitions. The objective is to conclude negotiations by the end of next year.
At the same time, the Commission closely follows the Oslo Process and intends to participate as an observer at the meetings planned in that context in Brussels and in Vienna.
In conclusion, I would like to assure you, Mr Borrell Fontelles, and also the European Parliament, that the Commission will continue to make its best efforts to support all the multilateral initiatives that are aimed at a comprehensive and effective ban on cluster mines.
Tunne Kelam
on behalf of the PPE-DE Group. - Madam President, I should like to say to the Commissioner that I am encouraged by the fact that we share the same worries and goals and I thank her for her presentation and description of the developments. I am also glad about the good cooperation between the Members of Parliament in preparing a relevant motion for a resolution.
First of all, it is a matter of urgency. It has a human and political urgency because, in spite of warning signals from all around the world, cluster bombs are still being actively used. So there are two problems we need to address.
Firstly, the use of cluster bombs has an especially inhuman aspect. Those who launch these bombs are usually not able to target them very specifically. The failure rates happen to be much higher than might be expected. The tragic result is extremely high numbers of casualties among civilians, more than 90%, as has been said.
Another problem is the multitude of unexploded cluster bombs that lie in the former conflict areas. This is a major handicap to states that have resolved to start to rebuild their economies after conflicts. Against this background I think the EU should take the lead in trying to ban any kind of production, use and sale of cluster munitions.
The first step should be to introduce an immediate moratorium on the use of these weapons. Further, our resolution insists that EU troops should under no circumstances make use of any kind of cluster ammunition until the relevant international agreements have been achieved. We ask Parliament and the Commission to urgently increase financial assistance to communities and individuals who have been affected by both exploded and unexploded cluster munitions, using to this end all available instruments.
Ana Maria Gomes
on behalf of the PSE Group. - (PT) Mr President, I am speaking on behalf of the Socialist Group in the European Parliament. These questions exemplify the leading role played by this House in relation to conventional disarmament, controls on the transfer of munitions and the strengthening of international humanitarian law.
We fought for the extension of the Ottawa Convention to all types of mines. Well before the European Council, we argued for a global treaty on the arms trade. The vital need to convert the EU Code of Conduct on Arms Exports into a legally binding instrument has also been a constant demand of this Parliament.
These questions on cluster bombs look to the future and to what Europe must do to eliminate these weapons which make no distinction between civilians and military personnel and which destroy so many human lives. We are calling for an immediate moratorium on using, producing, stockpiling and exporting these weapons. The moratorium must in due time be converted into a legal instrument which has the effect of banning these barbaric munitions, in the long term, from arsenals and battlefields in the same way as anti-personnel mines have already started to disappear.
In addition to calling on the European Union to begin a diplomatic offensive in favour of this new instrument, we want the Member States to lead by example and eliminate the use of these weapons by their Armed Forces. Not only that, they must also permanently stop their export, production and stockpiling. Every day in the Lebanon, Chechnya, Afghanistan and dozens of other countries where the wars have already ended, people are paying the ultimate price for the criminal and immoral irresponsibility of Armed Forces which have lost any sense of the ethical and legal limits that should guide the actions of civilised people.
It is up to Europe to lead a global alliance to re-establish, reaffirm and reinforce these limits. We urgently need a common position in order to eradicate cluster bombs and other cluster munitions.
Elizabeth Lynne
on behalf of the ALDE Group. - Madam President, civilians - many of them children - are indiscriminately killed or injured by cluster bombs. Dreams are shattered and lives are destroyed. Take the case of the Iraqi boy, Ahmed Kamel. Attracted by a shiny object, Ahmed picked up a bomblet and it exploded. He lost both of his hands and his sight. How is a 12-year-old supposed to make sense of this?
And yet the shocking fact is that cluster munitions are stockpiled in over 15 EU Member States. Horrifyingly, at least 10 EU Member States are producing these weapons: France, Spain, Greece, Italy, the Netherlands, Poland, Romania, Slovakia, Sweden and Bulgaria. It is my view that these countries, as well as those that have used them, including the UK, have blood on their hands.
Whilst I welcome moves by countries such as Belgium to establish national legislation to ban cluster munitions, all other EU Member States must follow suit. I urge the Council and the Commission to endorse the Oslo Process, as we have already called on them to do.
Diplomatic manoeuvres by the UK Government and others to suggest there are 'dumb' and 'smart' cluster munitions must be given short shrift - they all kill and maim. The word 'smart' could not be more misleading or more inappropriate.
We need an immediate moratorium on the use, investment, stockpiling, production, transfer or export of all cluster munitions by all EU Member States. All states which have used them must accept responsibility for their clearance, and the Commission must urgently increase financial assistance to the communities affected by unexploded bomblets. I urge you all to support this resolution.
Frithjof Schmidt
on behalf of the Verts/ALE Group. - (DE) Madam President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, the Oslo Process offers an historic opportunity to achieve an international agreement - not just a declaration, but an international agreement - banning cluster bombs. For two decades, there have been campaigns and international initiatives, but they have been repeatedly bogged down in the diplomatic mire of military and economic interests. Now we have an opportunity to reach an agreement in 2008.
This requires support not only from Parliament, which has a clear position here across all parliamentary groups. I was very pleased and interested to hear, Mrs Ferrero-Waldner, that the Commission also supports this position, which is most welcome. The Council now needs to follow the clear stance that has been adopted by Parliament and the Commission; that is very important. It is not just about banning the use and stockpiling of cluster bombs and the trade in these weapons; it is also about production. We should have a ban on the production of these bombs, and the European Union is still one of the main producers of these weapons. They are still being manufactured in Germany, in the United Kingdom, in France, in Spain and Belgium. Legislation has now been adopted in Belgium and Austria to ban production but I know that production has still not stopped entirely in Belgium. There are loopholes in this legislation as well.
We must press ahead with a ban on these weapons. The Member States must move forward towards a ban, and the Council must defend the clear position that has been set out here. That is the only way to ensure that, in 2008, we actually get an agreement.
Tobias Pflüger
on behalf of the GUE/NGL Group. - (DE) Madam President, the first time I dealt personally with this issue was during NATO's war of aggression against Yugoslavia, one of the wars which I opposed and which like many other wars was waged by Western countries.
Some 98% of the victims of cluster bombs are civilians. Between 5 and 40% of the submunitions of cluster bombs do not explode. Let me be blunt: it is mainly the major Western industrialised countries which produce and equip their armies with fragmentation bombs and deploy cluster bombs in wars. There are 34 countries which produce cluster bombs, including 13 EU Member States. Cluster bombs are a factor in wars being waged by EU countries, for example in the former Yugoslavia, Afghanistan and Iraq, so please, let us not shed any crocodile tears here!
The EU must bite the bullet. In specific terms, this means that we need the European Union to adopt a common position condemning these murderous weapons. That means an end to the production of cluster bombs, and of course no use of fragmentation bombs as occurred in the Gulf War, Yugoslavia, Afghanistan, Iraq and Lebanon. It cannot be allowed to continue.
Alain Hutchinson
(FR) Madam President, Mr President-in-Office, Commissioner, much has already been said on this subject and we of course deplore - the word is hardly strong enough - the use of cluster munitions, which have caused so much serious damage in a number of countries, and I wish to thank Mr Borrell for having in fact raised this disturbing issue.
However, if this ban is to be effective, and if the resolve expressed in the resolution is to succeed, we of course need to go much further than banning the use of such weapons. We also need to deal with their manufacture and sale, because we cannot have a humanitarian debate on the one hand - and it is true that these bombs that do not explode but that lie hidden in the ground in all kinds of places, thereby preventing communities and refugees from returning to their homeland, also prevent the distribution of humanitarian aid - we cannot have such a debate that seeks to highlight the humanitarian side of the problem without at the same time taking effective measures against those industries here at home that, regrettably, are still producing and selling these weapons.
I would like to conclude by saying that this resolution perhaps gives us an opportunity to appeal to the Member States too. In this respect my own country, Belgium, has passed the necessary legislation, indeed I think that it was the first to do so, and I believe that we could be inspired by the law that has been adopted in Belgium to appeal to the other 26 Member States to follow suit.
Annemie Neyts-Uyttebroeck
(NL) Madam President, Commissioner, Minister, President-in-Office of the Council, I would like to use my turn to speak to support both the question and the way it has been worded by Mr Borrell, as well as our joint motion for a resolution on this issue.
I am all too well aware that all the efforts being made on arms control are always very difficult and are sometimes more like a procession of Echternach, where you take two steps forward and then one step back. I think that we must intensify these efforts, because it seems to me in the last few years as if people who are working for disarmament, for arms control, to control weapons, are old-fashioned specimens from a bygone age, because now rearmament is the order of the day. I find that extremely alarming.
When you think that a head of state of the only remaining superpower in the world recently threatened a possible third world war, that strikes fear right to my heart. In this context, which is far less conducive to joint efforts, I think that it is more important than ever that both the Council and the Commission continuously underline that the Member States must act together on this, which unfortunately has not been the case up to now.
Carl Schlyter
(SV) Thank you Madam President. I am also speaking on behalf of my colleague Raül Romeva. He comes from Spain, I come from Sweden, and both countries produce these dreadful weapons and both countries have promised to ban them. But what is my own country doing? At the talks in Oslo, Sweden argued that we should have restricted use rather than a ban. That is a disgraceful position. No civilised country can defend these cruel weapons, and I am delighted to see the great unity that exists between the Council, the Commission and Parliament today in support of a total ban.
When these weapons strike, they constitute a weapon against innocent children. It is an effective weapon against human rights and economic development. We must therefore be highly effective in our fight to ban them. This is the beginning - let us complete the process as soon as possible, as another child is dying every minute. Thank you.
Luis Yañez-Barnuevo García
(ES) Mr President, I would like to echo those who have already talked about banning the production, export and stockpiling of these weapons - cluster bombs - which are so harmful to civilians, and to express my support for the Oslo Process, despite the fact that, as the previous speaker said, my country manufactures, stockpiles and exports these types of weapons.
I must make one point, however: on 21 September - i.e. just a month ago - the government, in the shape of the party that supports it, the Socialist Party, tabled in parliament an amendment to the Law on control of external trade in defence and dual-use material aimed partly at restricting - and, where appropriate, prohibiting - cluster bombs that are particularly dangerous for civilians.
In other words, the trend is changing in my country: the manufacture, stockpiling and export of these weapons were approved by previous governments. This government is fully committed to the Oslo Process and wants to see the gradual elimination and, eventually, complete prohibition of their manufacture, stockpiling and export. This was the important point that I wanted to make.
Manuel Lobo Antunes
President-in-Office of the Council. - (PT) Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I should like to raise two vital points, but I will be very brief as I know we are overrunning. The first is that this debate has given me a very clear idea and conviction that this issue will be followed very closely by the European Parliament and is something that concerns many Members. I will therefore of course duly take this into account.
Secondly, I would point out that the European Union is also playing a leading role in this issue, possibly not with the energy that many Members would like, and certainly with some difficulty, but, despite everything, with a certain optimism.
We have already voiced in the appropriate place, in other words in the Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons, the European Union's concern about the humanitarian consequences of this type of weapon. We have also already proposed the negotiation of a legally binding instrument to be adopted by the end of 2008 at the latest, although possibly not with the ambition that many of you desire. However, the fact is that we are here to take decisive steps. This is a process that I hope will amass ever more political will, enthusiasm and effort so that we can ultimately achieve the proposed goals.
Benita Ferrero-Waldner
Member of the Commission. - Mr President, I would just like to add one thing to what I said before. I can, of course, only speak on areas within the Commission's competence, and you know that this area is a particular competence of the Member States. However, I can speak on the financial assistance to those affected.
I can reconfirm what I said before, which is that we have already done our best to alleviate the problems caused by explosive remnants of war, including cluster munitions, in particular through our mine action strategies and the related horizontal budget line, which accounted for about one third of the funds spent in this domain.
I can assure you that actions against mines and explosive remnants of war will continue to be carried out through the new geographical instruments, and are even being mainstreamed now - and this is new - into our external assistance strategies and programmes.
Some actions can also be funded under the new instrument for stability, so we now have more instruments on hand to address this major challenge, and will take clearly into account the strong position expressed by Parliament in using these as effectively as possible, where necessary, because I totally share the objective that you have expressed.
President
I have received a motion for a resolution tabled in accordance with Rule 108(5) of the Rules of Procedure.
The debate is closed.
The vote will take place tomorrow.
(The sitting was suspended for a few moments before Question Time)


Galileo (debate)
President
The next item is the Commission statement on Galileo.
Jacques Barrot
Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I am grateful to Parliament for having taken the initiative for this resolution. The content of the resolution assists the efforts of the Commission. Its adoption in plenary is further testimony of the European Community's clear and unwavering desire to bring to a successful conclusion this great European project that is Galileo.
What is the situation? In the face of a standstill in the contract negotiations with the consortium candidate and in the absence of progress on the conditions that I laid down a year ago, I have issued an ultimatum with precise deadlines in order to break this deadlock. On the basis of this ultimatum, supported by the Council, I have received a mandate from the Council to work on all the possible options. The work of the Commission on the basis of the Transport Council's mandate of 22 March 2007, to which your resolution gives invaluable support, is progressing satisfactorily. The result of this work will be the subject of a communication to Parliament and to the Council, which the Commission intends to adopt on 10 May 2007, that is, a month before the next Transport Council in June 2007.
This communication will respond to all the demands made by the Council of 22 March 2007 and by Parliament in the resolution that you are going to adopt. This communication will include an examination of the current situation, of the difficulties faced by the programme, including the reasons for the deadlock in the concession contract negotiations, then an analysis of the chances of a rapid conclusion of the concession contract and also alternative solutions to the plan adopted until now. There will be no taboos, whether on the causes of the current difficulties, on the possible timetable, or on the issues relating to finance or to governance.
As far as alternative solutions are concerned, several options are possible. They range from retaining the project in its present form to, obviously, ending it, which I do not envisage, of course. An intermediate solution could be for the public sector to assume responsibility for the deployment of all or part of the satellite infrastructure, then, for its operation to be taken on by a private partner. That is one of the alternatives. Each of these alternatives, however, will be the subject of a detailed examination looking at their technical and financial implications, including in terms of governance.
The Commission's concern is still to ensure the best cost-benefit ratio for the project while avoiding further delays. Avoiding fresh delays is crucial in the face of the risks that would arise from the modernisation of competing systems. Of course, should the current plan be pursued and the concession contract negotiations resume very actively over the coming weeks, I will inform Parliament of the progress achieved.
I should like now to speak to you about the European Geostationary Navigation Overlay Service (EGNOS) programme, which improves the global positioning system for European users. The European Space Agency will complete the operational readiness review of this system by March 2008. EGNOS will then be ready for full operation, and an economic operator able to use the EGNOS applications will have to be found before March 2008. The European institutions will also be in a position to provide funding for the system from that same date. I am insisting on this slightly because EGNOS will give us the opportunity, already, to evaluate some applications for satellite navigation, and it is therefore of great interest, because it is the first step that will pave the way for Galileo.
Concerning the funding for the European satellite navigation programmes, you know that the Commission proposed from July 2004 a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council. This proposal provided for a specific legal instrument for the Galileo programme that was consistent with the future European Space Programme and that responded to the concern for sound financial management within the financial framework 2007-2013. This proposal mentions provisional arrangements for financial aid from the European community amounting to EUR 1 billion. The Council reached a partial general approach on this proposal on 21 April 2005. Parliament also adopted a positive opinion at first reading on 5 September 2005. The definitive costing will depend on which options are taken up and, of course, it will be submitted in good time to the budgetary authority.
Concerning governance of the Galileo programme, the Commission is currently considering ways that are likely to enable more effective coordination between the different actors in the programme: the Commission itself, the Supervisory Authority and the European Space Agency.
A word now about external relations. International agreements concerning the Galileo programme are negotiated on the basis of Article 300 of the Treaty. The procedure laid down in this article still includes consultation with Parliament prior to the conclusion of these negotiations. I am, of course, aware of Parliament's concern to be closely involved in the monitoring of governance.
With regard to the applications of Galileo and to the Green Paper on these applications, the public debate phase is about to come to an end. More than 70 contributions have been received, from a wide range of actors. The Commission must now analyse the results before working out the plan of action to be implemented from 2008.
You know, ladies and gentlemen, that Galileo is the most ambitious industrial project that Europe has ever undertaken. Naturally, I am keen this evening to seek the support of Parliament, taking into account the difficulty of the undertaking, but also our desire to make it succeed. It is true that the month ahead is going to be a time of extremely hard work for the Commission and for the competent services, in order to find the best solutions that will enable us to emerge from the current situation and move the programme forward in due time.
That is what I wanted to bring to the attention of Parliament this evening. Of course, during the course of the studies under way, I shall make it a point of honour to keep Parliament informed, and I would thank it in advance, Mr President, for agreeing, in the proposed resolution to be voted on tomorrow, to give us the assistance we need to convince the Member States that a project such as this is too important for the future of Europe not to be pursued with determination.
Etelka Barsi-Pataky
on behalf of the PPE-DE Group. - (HU) Mr Vice-President, thank you for the detailed information. This afternoon at the opening of the Airbus photo exhibit we heard of the impressive achievements of 21st century European developmental engineers. But we have also heard from the representative of Airbus that the problems arose with manufacturing, that the delay has caused irremediable damages, and also that Airbus was not European enough but was governed by considerations of the Member States.
Now Galileo has also embarked on this road, but since the spring Council, it seems the Council, the Commission and Parliament have agreed that these errors can still be avoided in time. Last autumn, Parliament drew the attention of the Commission and of the Council to the growing number of unsolved problems and delays, and therefore we welcome and are pleased, Mr Vice-President, with your bold move and decisive action. I can assure you, Mr Vice-President, that you will have the support of the European Parliament in the resolution of the most difficult questions if a transparent, clear and feasible timetable and affordable financing are finally worked out, either by means of negotiation or by an alternative solution. This is what we are waiting for: effective, better public governance, clear political lines of responsibility for the acquisition of the necessary tools. We are looking for an unambiguous response regarding the overall need for Community financing and responsibility. We are awaiting a clear answer at last from the players in the European space industry, regarding financial participation, the mode of funding based on a 2/3 formula, since this is what was stated in the call for tenders.
Galileo is the first Community infrastructure, and this is why the European Parliament is following it with great interest. Mr Vice-President, you mentioned that the EP voted almost 1 billion euro for the Galileo programme in its seven-year budget. The amount is available as of 1 January, and we would like to know what we will spend it on and how we will make use of it.
Norbert Glante
on behalf of the PSE Group. - (DE) Mr President, Commissioner Barrot, ladies and gentlemen, it is certainly a bit frustrating to see the pretty pass we have gradually come to because of the delay in the Galileo project. It is unquestionably an ambitious venture to conduct a PPP project on a European scale for the first time. However, the small and medium-sized enterprises that took part in the survey conducted through the Green Paper are waiting for the go-ahead to devise, produce and market their applications, so that the jobs they all expect to create can actually materialise.
The business community expects us to keep it free from political interference. 'Business does business' is a familiar saying. Time and again, however, although I personally am always very business-friendly, I get the feeling that, whenever the business community hits difficulties, it reverts to appeals for political assistance and shies away from taking risks.
Fair sharing of investment, risks and profits is of paramount importance in the PPP model. The proposal in the opinion delivered by the Committee on Industry, Research and Energy that funds be held in reserve for the Supervisory Authority in the first instance was intended by us as an admonition to all parties to move forward and make up for lost time. We know full well that this is rather like kicking the dog and meaning the master, to quote an old proverb, but unfortunately we have no other means of exerting pressure.
We remain optimistic, and our Socialist Group in the European Parliament also continues to support the project, but our patience is not inexhaustible. I hope the time limits and deadlines that have been set will now serve to bring together the business participants and the requisite consortium. To close with another proverb, actions speak louder than words. It is time to let them speak.
Fiona Hall
on behalf of the ALDE Group. - Mr President, Commissioner, I welcome the opportunity to have this discussion tonight on Galileo, but it gives me a very strange sensation of being in a time warp.
It was seven months ago that we last had a plenary discussion on this topic and it is very alarming to realise that no progress has been made since then. On that occasion in September I expressed my concern, as did other Members, at the spiralling cost of the project. We need to be brutally honest: no taboos, as the Commissioner said. Galileo has the potential to be a great European project, but technology moves very fast. There has been so much delay that the point could be reached where it is simply not worthwhile doing any more. Galileo is dependent on revenue and, if it offers no added value, then no one will pay to use it.
I listened with great interest to what Commissioner Barrot said. It seems that something which has at last changed is the Council and Commission's willingness to take firm action. I very much welcome the 10 May deadline and the insistence that substantial, immediate progress be made by then on the heads of terms. I also welcome the undertaking to explore alternatives for delivering the project, but I am alarmed at the possibility of an interim solution dependent on the public purse.
Finally, the Commission has said that it may have to revisit some fundamental aspects of its earlier assumptions and approach. I would ask the Commissioner whether with hindsight he would concede that it was a mistake to agree in July 2005 to the merging of the two consortia. It seems to me that this was the point when the Commission lost all leverage. Would he now agree that it is the spur of competition and the existence of alternatives which is most likely to keep a public/private partnership on schedule and in budget?
David Hammerstein Mintz
on behalf of the Verts/ALE Group. - (ES) Mr President, in its financial perspective, the European Union is making a significant effort to launch this Galileo programme. We now have an obligation to ensure that the Union's money is spent and managed properly.
If the programme's private partners are not fulfilling their obligations, they must be replaced immediately. We trust that the Galileo system will be operational as soon as possible and will become a key element in helping transport and improving the observation of our environmental problems, such as climate change.
We would like the Galileo project also to be compatible and interoperable with the conventional navigation systems, such as the GSM, and others. It is important that they are interconnectable and complementary. Together with the US GPS and the Russian GLONASS, they must contribute to improving our navigation system.
At the same time we must continue to monitor the programme in order to ensure that Galileo's applications respect the strictest ethical and human rights standards.
We are now asking ourselves, however, whether Galileo is simply an illusion or whether it will be a reality. I wonder whether the European Commission's capacity for management is sufficient for the circumstances and challenges of Galileo. The European Union's prestige is at stake.
Gerard Batten
on behalf of the IND/DEM Group. - Mr President, there is a perfectly good existing satellite system available for EU citizens' use. But we all know that Galileo is really about extending the power and dominion of the European Union and it is eventually intended to be used for military purposes by the planned EU armed forces.
Meanwhile, the funding plans of this grandiose project, which will run into billions of euros, are encountering severe difficulties. The British Government, ever with an eye for an additional taxation opportunity, plans to use it to implement road-charging schemes so that British citizens can help pay for it by being charged for the privilege of driving on their own roads.
Galileo has all the makings of an Airbus in space and, as Galileo Galilei pointed out, what goes up must come down. In this case it would be much better if it did not go up in the first place.
Józef Pinior
(PL) Mr President, the GALILEO satellite navigation system will secure the European Union's place in global civilisation in the coming century. The selfish interests of individual corporations and countries will not succeed in undermining the entire Union's justified interest in this. The European Parliament is concerned by the delays in implementing the GALILEO project and demands that the Commission submit a plan which will guarantee that the European Union's own satellite navigation will actually take off. The European Parliament must support the Commission in its drive to get GALILEO built in an alternative way by a group of contractors different to the consortium set up in 2005. We have to remember that Europe may be overtaken by the Russian GLONASS or the Chinese BEIDOU system. The GALILEO system will guarantee the European Union's future place in civilisation.
Jacques Barrot
Mr President, first of all I should like to thank Mrs Barsi-Pataky for the support she has given to this programme, at the same time as being very vigilant, because she has always asked the right questions about it.
I should like to be very clear before Parliament: I do not think, Mrs Hall, that the problem is due to the fact that there is only one consortium. The real problem is that the Galileo programme was launched with a public-private partnership that perhaps was not worked out as well as it might have been. The public-private partnership is still based on a very precise business plan, and I would add that, in the United States, independence in space was acquired from the Army's military budget, which later allowed NASA to develop its services.
I think, therefore, that we have to ask ourselves the fundamental questions now. Does the public-private partnership - even if we keep it - have to have exactly the same dimension? That is the problem. I do not believe, in all conscience, that there being one consortium or two is really the problem. The real problem now is knowing whether the applications of Galileo offer an added value such that they justify a commitment from the Union at the level at which this commitment is envisaged.
I heard also that Galileo could be useless. We have to know whether we want for the European Union not only independence in space but also a whole series of advances in everyday life for the benefit of the citizens. This is not merely a prestige programme, but a programme that is intended fundamentally to meet needs, and I am in a good position to know how much, in the field of transport, we could benefit from the Galileo programme.
I have promised, Mr President, to keep Parliament regularly informed about the progress of our deliberations. I have to tell you that I have personally taken this issue very much to heart; I really want to take a very close look at things in order to make it clear that, if we have to modify somewhat the scenario that was conceived at the outset, it is so that we can be sure of its success. Mr Glante in particular spoke of the benefits that could be gained by the citizens, as well as by small and medium-sized companies to which Galileo will offer new opportunities: you are right, that is indeed the heart of the matter. We need to know what added value Galileo will provide and what all the applications that it will be possible to implement consist of.
We are in the process of studying all that very carefully. That is all I can say this evening, but I shall remain at Parliament's disposal to talk about this fascinating, but difficult, subject.
President
I have received a motion for a resolution tabled in accordance with Rule 103(2) of the Rules of Procedure.
The debate is closed.
The vote will take place on Thursday at 12 noon.


Agriculture as a strategic sector in the context of food security (short presentation)
President
The next item is the report by Mrs Sârbu, on behalf of the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development, on the recognition of agriculture as a strategic sector in the context of food security.
Daciana Octavia Sârbu
Mr President, it is an honour for me to present my report to you, which deals with the strategic importance of agriculture in ensuring the European Union's food security. Agriculture is a neglected topic in the discussions about the European Union's strategy and future. This report will show that Europe has not achieved food security, that farmers and whole rural areas are in danger of disappearing, and that new challenges, such as climate change, are likely to destabilise already dwindling food stocks, not only in Europe, but also worldwide.
Against a background where food production needs to increase by a minimum of 70% by 2050 in order to meet the world population's food demands, food security must be the topic at the heart of the debates conducted at both global and European level. The European Union must respond robustly to these challenges and this report is our attempt to propose today a number of specific courses of action.
First of all, we need a strong common agricultural policy aimed at guaranteeing food security for as many EU citizens as possible and also at helping ensure global food security in the context of limited resources and the impact from climate change. We cannot talk about food security if we do not tackle two crucial issues, specifically: market and price volatility and dwindling global food stocks.
On the subject of price volatility, I have called on the Commission, as part of the new CAP, to enhance the role of market intervention instruments and adopt more consistent measures for restricting speculation on agricultural markets. Global food stocks are much more restricted nowadays than in the past. According to estimates, they can cover the world's food requirements for just a month and a half. This is why I thought that the creation of a global food stock system would be beneficial, comprising both emergency stocks to reduce hunger and stocks to be used to regulate prices on agricultural markets, which comes under the international aegis and is supported by the expertise of existing institutions such as the UN or FAO. I believe that the European Union must initiate this action, which is why I have asked the Commission to take on this role.
Another important issue touched on in this report is the situation of young farmers. If we are reflecting on the future of European agriculture, we must focus more attention on young farmers. Just 7% of farmers across Europe are under the age of 35. This is why I have asked the Commission for measures to be provided to encourage them.
On the other hand, I have stressed the need to preserve European agriculture's diversity. In this regard, I mentioned that traditional agricultural practices, family farming, small-scale farms and organic farming can make a valuable contribution to food security. I also called for the development of EU-level programmes to support these forms of agriculture. However, we must not forget that poverty and hunger persist in the European Union and that millions of Europeans have requested food aid from the EU this winter. Consequently, in the current economic crisis, it is of paramount importance to use EU funding to maintain the EU's 'Food Aid for the Most Deprived Persons' programme.
Finally, I would like to thank the shadow rapporteurs and my other colleagues from the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development for their good cooperation and the contributions they made to the drafting of this report, as well as the Secretariat of the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development. I hope that tomorrow, we will adopt together a report which meets European citizens' expectations.
Mairead McGuinness
Mr President, I would like to thank Mrs Sârbu, our rapporteur, for the excellent work she has done on this report and for her cooperation with all the shadows. This follows work which I carried out in the previous mandate on the role of the common agricultural policy and global food security.
I regret that we are debating this report just before midnight. Perhaps it will be at a minute to midnight that Europe and the world wake up to the realities of how insecure we are when it comes to food production.
This report is extremely welcome in our overall debate on this issue and in the context of our debate on reform of the common agricultural policy.
I had some concerns, but I think they are reflected in the final text. The idea that one form of production system is better than another - that organic, small, local is better - is not a good argument. We need all production systems to contribute to our food security. We do need to address market volatility and speculation and I do not think we have all the answers yet.
The single key problem with agriculture is low incomes for farmers. Young farmers will not work for nothing, and we have to address the low income problem if we want security of food supply.
Miroslav Mikolášik
(SK) Mr President, due to constant population growth, we are obliged to adopt a more intensive approach to the issue of food security, and access to an adequate, healthy and nutritious diet.
In order to ensure food security, it is essential to increase transparency and fairness in the actual food chain, so that we can secure a fair return for farmers, with profits and price controls, and a viable agricultural sector.
In my opinion, it is extremely important to apply a resolute policy on rural development, by means of which we can maintain the viability of rural Europe and boost the competitiveness of agriculture, support innovation and, ultimately, employment as well.
Agriculture is enormously important, particularly in disadvantaged areas, and it is therefore necessary to adopt stimulus measures to support agriculture in rural areas, attract more young people into agriculture, and help to reduce regional differences and secure sustainable development.
Luís Paulo Alves
(PT) Mr President, I would like to offer my sincerest congratulations to my colleague, Mrs Sârbu, on the excellent job done on the report. I strongly recommend that the Commission take it into consideration, particularly in those aspects in which the complex dimension of agricultural issues - which extend well beyond the narrow boundaries of agriculture itself - requires the involvement of other areas, such as competition on the internal market and financial regulation, and merits attention on stages outside the EU, such as the G20 or the World Trade Organisation (WTO).
The crucial determining issues for agriculture, for farmers, and for supplying sufficient good quality food to the people of Europe and the rest of the world, can only be tackled in reality if they are considered from all angles. The ambitious objectives of common agricultural policy reform can only be achieved if the reforms extend beyond the narrow boundaries of agriculture and if the objectives are also taken into account in the action required in other policy areas and in other global bodies.
This report makes this patently clear and I take my hat off to it for doing so.
Janusz Wojciechowski
(PL) Mr President, I, too, would like to congratulate Mrs Sârbu for an excellent report, which I consider to be one of the most important in this parliamentary term.
There are increasing numbers of people in the world, while the amount of arable land available is falling. Food is becoming, to an ever greater degree, a strategic product. While crude oil can be replaced by solar or nuclear energy, there is nothing which can replace the food our planet produces. In the European Union, we sometimes behave as if we were continually struggling with the problem of overproduction of food. The entire agricultural policy of the European Union in recent years has been based on ways of limiting and reducing agricultural production. We can already see on the horizon, today, that the time is coming when there will be a shortage of food. It is very good that this signal, in the form of the Sârbu report, has come from Parliament, saying that the situation has changed and that the European Union's agricultural policy has to change, too. We must respect agriculture - it is the guarantee of our food security.
Peter Jahr
(DE) Mr President, it is the case in politics as it is in daily life: we do not fully appreciate what we have. Thus, it also clearly seems to be the case that we in the European Union have an excess of food, and there is, of course, always plenty to buy. If we compensate for animal feed exports, we have in the European Union a self-sufficiency rate of 88%. That means that, in the European Union, we, too, must endeavour to ensure that we maintain this self-sufficiency rate in terms of agricultural products and foodstuffs.
I am therefore very grateful to the rapporteur, Mrs Sârbu, for bringing this problem into the spotlight once again. In the European Union, we also need a common agricultural policy that can supply our citizens with sufficient food. In view of the increasing global population, the effects of climate change and increasing energy prices, it is clear that farmers in Europe will not be able to manage this alone in future. For this, we also need strategic coordination on a global scale.
Csaba Sándor Tabajdi
(HU) Mr President, security of food supply in the EU will be one of the most serious challenges facing security policy in the coming decades. Herein lies the key asset of the Sârbu Report, which highlights the fact that in one or two decades, food and fresh water will be strategic products just as oil and natural gas are today. The timing of the report is particularly fortuitous because discussions are currently under way about the future of the common agricultural policy, the post-2014 budget is being planned, and many are keen on curtailing the budget of the common agricultural policy. It is very important that this common agricultural policy has adequate resources in the future, and to guarantee that it does, the finance ministers and decision makers must be convinced that the agricultural economy in the European Union produces not only food but also public goods, including public environmental goods, which we would not be able to guarantee or produce without agriculture.
Krisztina Morvai
(HU) Mr President, speaking of the food security issue, I am bothered by the fact that the report is treating EU countries as a single integrated unit. The situation in new Member States is entirely different from that in older ones. For instance, let me ask one question with regard to Hungary: how is it possible that we are talking about childhood starvation in a country with exceptional agricultural resources? Children and adults alike are starving in the centre of the European Union. My other question: how is it possible that our agriculture has taken such a dysfunctional turn that we are producing raw agricultural products on vast areas on an industrial scale, primarily in some - forgive me for the expression - colonial way, only to have them processed abroad, where the profits are made, and then returned to Hungary, where they are sold at high prices? Something is fundamentally wrong here.
Seán Kelly
(GA) Mr President, like other speakers I want to congratulate the rapporteur, Mrs Sârbu, for her good work on this subject.
In four minutes, Mrs Sârbu covered a multitude of issues. I am not going to go over all the things she mentioned, but I would like to reiterate two points. First, there is a need for a well-funded CAP. I hope this Parliament will play a key role in ensuring that the CAP is not demeaned or diminished in any way. Second, we need to ensure that young people are encouraged to go into farming as a livelihood.
Furthermore, we have a policy of encouraging the growth of energy crops on good agricultural land. In view of the fact that we may be facing a food shortage worldwide, with a population increasing at a rate of 80 million per year, should we reassess that policy? Are we robbing Peter to pay Paul, or perhaps robbing Paul and Peter and finishing up with nothing? That is the question I would like to ask.
Csanád Szegedi
(HU) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, it is clear from the report that things in agriculture cannot continue as they are, either. We, or rather, large enterprises, cannot continue to transport agricultural products from one end of the world to another. Of course, we can carry on without any compelling logic. apples, peppers, tomatoes and meat products are transported into Europe, including into Hungary - but mostly not from Spain or from the Netherlands, but from China and from Brazil. We could certainly continue on this path, but the products must be loaded onto transportation equipment such as ships, on which they travel for weeks or months. These products must be kept fresh with various preservatives that are toxic when consumed in large quantities. Now, people buy these products in large commercial chains and then wonder where all these diseases, cancers and tumours come from. It is, of course, obvious that they are caused by food colourings and artificial additives. I must add that instead of supporting multinational corporations, we must support smallholders so that they can be Europe's lifesavers in a developing food crisis.
João Ferreira
(PT) Mr President, the recognition of agriculture as a strategic sector in the context of food security that this report speaks of is inseparable from the recognition and promotion of the concept of food sovereignty. The greater the food dependency and food insecurity of a country, the more difficult it is to guarantee a sufficient supply of food to its population, in terms of both quantity and quality.
Food sovereignty is the best insurance against food product price volatility, an issue that has dramatically re-emerged on the order of business. This volatility has its origins fundamentally in the financial speculation carried out on food products, an area on which the speculators, investment funds, hedge funds, pension funds and large banking institutions have focused so much of their attention that the other speculative bubbles have either dried up or burst.
The only way to stop this speculation is to do away with the instruments that make it viable, namely, certain financial products such as over-the-counter derivatives.
Sadly, the measures that the European Union has adopted in this area are far from being capable of putting the brakes on this sinister wave of speculation and its inhumane consequences - as is acknowledged in a recent United Nations report authored by the Special Rapporteur on the right to food.
Lívia Járóka
Mr President, we are discussing the poorest of the poor - the European Roma - and, together with the new Hungarian Presidency, we are all addressing the European Roma strategy.
Among inter-sectoral issues that concern the poorest of the poor, agriculture is very rarely addressed, notably because no land is owned by the poorest of the poor in Europe. So we are talking not just about food security but about having food on the table. As one of my colleagues has already said, this is an essential question for the EU today. I believe that the agricultural sector - and the Commission's work on these documents - has to be in line with all the EU micro-regional development projects which are concerned with fighting poverty and securing food on the table for future generations.
Kristalina Georgieva
Member of the Commission. - Mr President, the Commission very much welcomes this timely report, as food prices are rising sharply, mainly due to erratic weather conditions and natural disasters, but also to increases in energy prices that impact on the cost of food.
Therefore, I want to thank the rapporteur, Mrs Sârbu, and the members of the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development for their efforts.
Food security is fundamental for the almost one billion people around the world that still suffer from hunger, but it is also important for vulnerable populations across Europe. For them, the common agricultural policy makes a real difference. The - sometimes criticised - CAP has managed to provide EU citizens with food at affordable prices and has ensured food security in Europe. This must continue. Food security is identified as a central issue in the communication on the common agricultural policy towards 2020 that was adopted on 18 November by the Commission.
The report that Mrs Sârbu has put in front of us underlines the issue of excessive price volatility, which is closely linked to food security because of the impact it has both on farmers and on consumers.
The Commission fully agrees that there is a need to tackle excessive price volatility. We must collectively look for better regulation, supervision and transparency to address market issues, and this requires not only better financial regulations but also substantially improved transparency on the market.
The report recommends the creation of a global food system. Not an easy subject. We have had experiences in the past of commodity boards. They have proved not to be successful and therefore, this topic undoubtedly requires more detailed debate. It also requires analysis of the experience we have gained, for example, from the EUR 1 billion Food Facility adopted by the Commission in 2008, and also from the work that the Commission undertakes closely with the FAO and the World Food Programme to ensure that bumper stocks are pre-positioned in order to soften the blow of rising food prices.
All these efforts can be developed when the G20 looks closely into the food stocks issue, and you can be assured that the European Commission will be an active participant in the related deliberations in the coming weeks.
The report has made a call, echoed by many of you here this evening, for a strong agricultural and rural development policy in Europe, capable of ensuring food security for all, with the support of research and innovation to face the challenges of producing more with the fewer resources we have and will have.
The Commission fully agrees with this. There is no more relevant instrument to fulfil these objectives than a strong common agricultural policy able to guarantee the economic and environmental competitiveness of agriculture and - as some of you said - able to bring young people into the agricultural sector of Europe.
President
The debate is closed.
The vote will take place on Tuesday, 18 January 2011.
Written statements (Rule 149)
Sergio Berlato
Food security is a political priority at both European and world level. The globalisation of the food chain means that new challenges - and sometimes risks to health and consumer interests - are constantly emerging.
One of the main challenges that the European Union will have to face up to is developing agricultural and food reforms in order to satisfy the needs of the global population. According to recent figures, the world's population is steadily increasing, and it is thought that it will increase by around 40% by 2050, creating an increase in demand for food which is expected to double current requirements.
To tackle the rising growth in world demand for agricultural products and foodstuffs, the Member States and the Union will need to ensure the security of food supply. To attain this objective, the EU will have to guarantee the security of food products bearing in mind their specific characteristics and, at the same time, ensuring the proper functioning of the internal market.
Lastly, I should like to ask the Commission to look at all possible measures to improve training for young people at work and to create job opportunities for graduates in the field of food security, with the principal objective of contributing to employment in the agriculture sector.
Zuzana Brzobohatá
It is quite right to emphasise the importance of food security for the inhabitants of the EU, as it is their basic human right. The EU must therefore strive to ensure that healthy and nutritious foods are financially and physically accessible to all EU citizens, enabling them to lead an active and healthy life. We must strictly monitor compliance with the highest standards for food and agricultural production, for the safety and quality of foods, and also for their environmental sustainability. Nevertheless, in these circumstances, it is also necessary to point out the strict need for similar quality and safety standards in relation to foods imported from third countries, in order to protect the competitiveness of European farmers. I would also like to support the measures, which will motivate farmers to improve energy efficiency, as energy costs are a key factor in the profitability of farming activities. In my opinion, the most important aspect of the whole report is the emphatic appeal to the Commission to secure, in the public interest and in cooperation with Member States, public access to information on the results of food security monitoring, particularly through the rapid communication of this information between Member States. We simply cannot allow another failure like the selling of meat containing traces of dioxin, as is now happening in Germany, when other Member States were given insufficient and late information as to the situation that arose.
Nessa Childers
in writing. - As we begin to consider what the final make-up will be of the CAP post-2013, the themes of food security, food shortages and sustainability are coming ever more to the fore. This is something that almost everyone in this House, and everyone who will be involved in drawing up the bill, will recognise. The biofuel boom several years ago, coupled with the global food crisis in 2009, has shown us how scarce a resource food is beginning to become. As such, our vision must be narrowed: the sustainability of food and the needs of those who do not have automatic access to food must be put first; farming practices and innovations should be geared towards more food, and the correct crops; and, as we draft the new CAP bill, we should finally ensure that the new CAP will work towards a carbon-free Europe, and one which does not exacerbate the current carbon problem.
Robert Dušek
We consider security of food supply to be one of the basic human rights. In today's world, there are 900 million people suffering from constant hunger due to poverty. The world's population is set to exceed 9 billion by 2050, and global food production will have to increase by up to 70%. Agriculture must, on the one hand, boost output, and, on the other, cope with high energy costs, an ever diminishing area of non-polluted land and the consequences of climate change. We must address the instability and fluctuating prices caused by speculation on the commodity markets and declining food stocks. The future security of supply of basic foods requires a strong common agricultural policy (CAP). The CAP must improve food security by boosting productivity and supporting both environmentally sustainable food production and traditional agriculture, small farmers, organic farms, and the local and regional distribution of foods. These agricultural models contribute to food security, as they employ methods and procedures proven for generations in individual regions of the EU. Agriculture is the most strategic EU policy, the success of which will help to ensure the survival of Europe's population in a time of food crisis. In order for the CAP to be capable of combating the effects of climate change, maintaining food prices at an acceptable level and increasing the supply of healthy foods, it is essential for its budget to be preserved at least at the existing level.
Sandra Kalniete
in writing. - (LV) European agriculture is one of the Union's strategically most important sectors, as it provides more than 500 million people with their food supply. So that European agricultural policy may carry out its most important task, namely, to provide Europe's population with healthy and good quality food at reasonable prices, while ensuring an adequate income for farmers, it must be competitive in the global market and there must be a guarantee of fair competition in Europe's internal market. Hence, what we must achieve with CAP reform is a level playing field for all Europe's farmers. EU Member States have not encountered food security problems. Nevertheless, such risks will exist in the future, and we have to react accordingly, before that occurs. We must take into account that farmers are already having to work for minimal incomes or even at a loss, and this has an adverse effect on their ability to maintain production. It is also a fact that natural disasters affect food prices in the shops and hence, how available food is to people. We must acknowledge the strategic importance of agriculture in the European Union and do all we can to ensure that in the future, the people of Europe will not have to experience food shortages as a result of the failure of EU politicians and governments to have spotted the risks in time and to avert them. The recognition of agriculture as a strategically important sector for food security is an important step towards avoiding food security issues in the future.
Elisabeth Köstinger
The own-initiative report recognises the fact that agriculture is of strategic importance in the context of global food security. A glance into the future shows how urgent the need for action is. By 2050, experts estimate that global demand for food will double. Agriculture must be in a position to be able to meet the enormous needs of the growing population for safe and adequate food. At the same time, the obstacles resulting from the limitation of natural resources, high energy prices and climate change need to be dealt with. I supported the report, which clearly demonstrates that food security is a central concern in the European Union, too, and requires coordination of the individual policy areas. Only if the areas of agricultural policy, development policy, trade policy, financial policy and energy policy, as well as research, work together can improvements be achieved. Securing the incomes of farmers and an adequate supply of good quality food must therefore be key goals of the common agricultural policy. The greatly fluctuating market prices in the agricultural sector are the result of crop failures, speculation and a concentration in trade, and these are significant uncertainty factors. Interventions and stockpiling are the crisis mechanisms that will put a stop to market abuse and speculative transactions. It is important that these market intervention mechanisms play a central role in the future common agricultural policy. Another important point is the recommendation for the development of a global system of food stocks and emergency reserves.
Elżbieta Katarzyna Łukacijewska
Europe needs a common agricultural policy which will guarantee the development, and not the stagnation, of European agriculture. Agricultural policy must respond to European and global challenges, particularly when we take into account the fact that, according to the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organisation, food production has to increase by at least 70% to meet the needs of a world population which, by 2050, is set to exceed 9 billion. It can be seen, then, that the common agricultural policy needs to increase food security by increasing efficiency, while at the same time promoting an environmentally sustainable food policy. I would like to point out that regulations in this area should be transparent. I appreciate initiatives which recommend the promotion of agricultural diversity and the use of traditional and ecological agriculture. In addition, it is important to ensure that young farmers have access to land and loans in order to achieve the objectives of the CAP, such as innovation, modernisation, improving competitiveness and, above all, modern agriculture.
Véronique Mathieu
The link between the European common agricultural policy (CAP) and global food security is an important theme that must be taken into account during the process of drafting the CAP post-2013. Indeed, the priorities of the CAP must be viewed against the backdrop not only of the aspirations of our modern-day society, but also of the constraints that will be imposed on us throughout the world in the future. According to the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organisation, food production must increase by at least 70% if it is to meet the growing needs of the world's population. Europe must take account of world food security and must increase its production with a view to limiting imports. In addition, I support the proposal to review our financial legislation in order to combat price volatility, which is caused mainly by speculation. To be effective, however, this review must be carried out simultaneously at international level. I am delighted that one of the priorities of the French Presidency of the G20 in this area is to combat food and commodity price volatility.
Iosif Matula
The increase in global demand for food, resulting from the planet's growing population, obviously has an impact on natural food resources and entails new food security regulations and precautions. The EU's priority task is to guarantee Member States the right to food security and to support developing countries in achieving a sufficient food security level. I think that it is important to promote the production and sale of local traditional foods. Numerous benefits can be derived from regional food products: lower transport costs and a lower risk of food perishing. There are many regions with significant agricultural potential which has remained untapped due to social or economic imbalances, against the background of an increasingly ageing rural population or of industrialisation. Indeed, large areas of farmland are not used efficiently. Regional authorities can play a key role in food security by supporting the agricultural capacity of the regions which have this potential. The EU is one of the global leaders in the field of research and innovation, including in the agricultural sector. A steady rise in the urban population's majority poses a new challenge: how much of a priority is the development of urban agriculture with a view to guaranteeing food security, using various models such as vertical urban agriculture?
Tiziano Motti
I support the approach suggested by the resolution adopted today in this Chamber: food safety is a basic human right and it is achieved when all people, at all times, have physical and economic access to suitable, safe and nutritious food. In the European Union, around 80 million people still live below the poverty line today, and many of them are helped through food aid programmes. A proper diet is necessarily a key factor in our health, and there are still too many doubts being raised about genetically modified organisms by part of the scientific community. For this reason, I am against the text's openness to GMOs, particularly the part that provides for extending the approval process for importing genetically modified foods from third countries into the European Union. For the sake of consistency, I do not believe that we can forbid our farmers from using a technique that we then tolerate in the production of imports. However, I do support the measures to encourage young farmers, who currently represent just 7% of the total, with installation premiums, subsidised interest rates on loans and other incentives which have been implemented by Member States through their rural development budgets, safe in the knowledge that European agricultural production can maintain its current high levels of quality and safety.
Rareş-Lucian Niculescu
I welcome the report on recognition of agriculture as a strategic sector in the context of food security. However, I also wish to express my dismay that Parliament decided to allocate so little time to debating it. This topic is particularly current at the present moment when we have realised how the food crisis can affect states' stability. One of the causes of the uprising in Tunisia has been the increase in food prices. Algeria, India and Bangladesh are also states where rising food prices have caused serious tensions. The increasing cultivation of biofuel crops, financial speculation, producers switching very rapidly to more profitable crops and, last but not least, the change in the eating habits of citizens in many states, are also new topics closely related to the subject of today's report.
I wish to make one final comment. In an index produced by a Japanese bank indicating vulnerability to food price rises, four of the forty most vulnerable countries are Member States of the European Union, with another state soon to become an EU member, and three states are the EU's immediate neighbours. This is an interesting index which must give us food for thought.
Pavel Poc
If we regard agriculture as a strategic area, then an essential precondition for ensuring the security of food supplies is for the European Union to be self-sufficient, at least in the production of basic foods and animal fodders. EU dependence on imports of agricultural products causes food price rises, and undermines the EU's direct producers in the marketing chain. According to the UN Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO), demand for food and animal fodder could rise by 70% by 2050. It will therefore be necessary to use all available forms of agriculture, and to provide significant support for financial investment into scientific research in this area. The efficient use of traditional agricultural varieties that are characteristic to certain regions also requires greater support and public interest. For example, assessment of the environmental impact of food production and transport distances is easily understood by the consumer. Current wastage levels of up to 50% in the overall production chain, and the disproportionate growth in freight transport, are not factors compatible with ensuring the security of food supply. We cannot pretend to ensure food security and protect the environment while at the same time tolerating a dependence on products grown on another continent and imported over thousands of kilometres. Such practices create an enormous environmental footprint and, at the same time, oblige developing countries to import almost all necessary foods, making them dependent, ruining their economies, impoverishing their inhabitants and destroying their environment.


Resumption of the session
President
I declare resumed the session of the European Parliament adjourned on Thursday 17 January 2008.
The sitting cannot begin until 12.30 p.m., because the President of the Commission is unable to be present any earlier. It is therefore scheduled to end at 2 p.m.
(The sitting was suspended at 12.05 p.m. and resumed at 12.30 p.m.)


Order of business
President
The final version of the draft agenda as drawn up by the Conference of Presidents at its meeting of 14 October 2010, pursuant to Rules 130 and 131 of the Rules of Procedure, has been distributed. The following amendments have been proposed:
Monday
No changes.
Tuesday
No changes.
Wednesday:
I have received a request from the Group of the Greens/European Free Alliance to defer the vote relating to the 2012 calendar of part-sessions to one of Parliament's next part-sessions. They do want to vote, but at a later date. This motion will be presented by a representative of the Group of the Greens. Is anyone ready to speak?
Daniel Cohn-Bendit
Mr President, please excuse me; I was receiving a report about the situation in Belgium, and I did not fully understand.
If I understand correctly, this is about the vote on the 2012 calendar. Mr President, in our group, as in others, discussions are taking place on this calendar for, I repeat, 2012.
As it is not a legislative text, there is no debate and there are no amendments. We are simply voting on the calendar. We call for this vote to be postponed by one part-session and for it to therefore be held next month in Strasbourg, so that we can make contact with the other groups and see whether we cannot start taking some tentative steps towards reforming the calendar.
Francesco Enrico Speroni
Mr President, this is the first time that this Parliament has voted on a calendar so far ahead of time. Yet this is not such an unusual event because, in effect, the calendar reflects what we have always done; there are no particular changes.
Contrary to what has been suggested by Mr Cohn-Bendit, it is possible to table amendments, indeed - according to the e-mail - some members intend to do so. I see no reason in delaying the vote since, if it is true that the calendar will come into effect in 2012, we will still have the power and the option to make changes in the event that they are deemed necessary.