Obligations of operators who place timber and timber products on the market (debate)
President
. - The next item is the recommendation for second reading on behalf of the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Food Safety on the common position adopted by the Council at first reading with a view to adopting the European Parliament and Council Regulation setting out the obligations of agents selling wood and products made of wood (rapporteurs: Satu Hassi and Caroline Lucas) (05885/4/2010 - C7-0053/2010 -.
Mrs Hassi is to be thanked for having picked up working on this report, which was already under way, the original rapporteur being Mrs Lucas, who gave up her seat to take up other responsibilities in the British Parliament.
Satu Hassi
Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I would like to thank the original rapporteur, Mrs Lucas, along with the negotiators from the other political groups, very sincerely for their exceptionally high levels of cooperation. My thanks also go to Spain, which headed the talks in the Council of Ministers, and the Commission. Both the Commission and the Council altered their original views significantly, and the EU will now shut down its market in illegally harvested timber. This breakthrough, which is of global importance, would not have been possible without the support of a strong majority in Parliament for a ban on illegal timber.
Now, a clear ban has been agreed on operators that place timber or timber products on the EU market for the first time. These operators must be aware of the wood's origin. Retailers have an obligation to record where they have purchased the wood or timber product and where they have sold it on. In this way, it is possible to discover, for example, the origin of wood used for furniture.
Parliament would have liked a ban on the entire chain, and not just the first seller. The regulation negotiated, however, contains guidelines requiring subsequent links in the sales chain and monitoring organisations not to act against the aims of the law. All parties must therefore take responsibility for ensuring that no illegal timber is sold in the EU.
I am sorry that the Council did not agree to list this regulation under the directive on the protection of the environment through criminal law. I would appeal strongly to the Commission that it should rework the directive as soon as possible to apply also to the latest environmental legislation. The most blatant breaches of the ban on the sale of illegal timber should be treated as crimes.
Parliament's negotiators were concerned about the concept of negligible risk that came out of the Council's insistence on a statutory text. We examined the sort of contexts in which this concept occurs in current legislation. It seems to mean a risk that is, to all intents and purposes, zero, in laws that concern such issues as genetically modified micro organisms, BSE (mad cow disease), food hygiene, cosmetics, pesticides, etc. Parliament therefore accepts the concept of negligible risk, understanding it to mean a risk that is, to all intents and purposes, zero.
With respect to the shortcomings that remain in the act, I would still like to mention the fact that printed matter is excluded from its scope of application. I fear that this could turn out to be a huge loophole, and one that will grow in size, and an incentive to outsource the printing of books and magazines to countries such as Turkey and China.
A total of 20% of global greenhouse gas emissions are caused by deforestation, and a part of that by illegal harvesting. Illegal harvesting also destroys biodiversity. It is because of this that we are losing, for example, potential medicines before there is even a chance to study them.
For years, the EU has preached against illegal timber, though at the same time hypocritically providing it with it one of the biggest markets there is. Despite the grand speeches, the EU has, through its actions, promoted the destruction of the world's natural forests. The fact that the EU is now to prohibit placing illegally harvested timber on the market is a globally significant breakthrough and an excellent example of how the EU can, again through its own actions, be part of the solution to what is a global problem. This legislation is a way for us to support all those countries that wish to curb illegal harvesting in their own territory.
Janez Potočnik
Member of the Commission. - Mr President, I thank the European Parliament and, in particular, both rapporteurs, Mrs Caroline Lucas and Mrs Satu Hassi, and the shadows for their engagement with the Council and Commission, which has resulted in the compromise text we have before us.
Forests are of vital importance in maintaining biodiversity and in global climate and water cycles. Nowhere are the three pillars of sustainable development clearer than in relation to forests. In addition to their environmental value, the economic and social value of forests is immense, as I know well from my own country in which forests cover almost 60% of our territory. In many developing countries, forests provide not only jobs but also medicines, food and shelter that are critical for the subsistence of millions of rural people.
Your vote should pave the way for a second-reading agreement that will send a clear signal to the world: the EU will not accept illegally harvested timber. The challenge remains as to how we detect illegally harvested timber. By itself, the regulation is not enough to tackle illegal logging as it only covers timber on the EU market. The EU will continue to engage with countries wishing to strengthen forest governance, in particular through FLEGT Voluntary Partnership Agreements. I am glad that the text before us recognises the efforts of countries entering into such agreements with the European Union.
To those who say that this proposal is a burden to European forest owners, I would say that legitimate operators should not face an undue burden - the text has considerable flexibility.
The proposal in front of you deserves your support. It certainly has mine.
Christofer Fjellner
Mr President, first of all, I would like to thank Mrs Hassi and the other shadow rapporteurs. We were a long way from an agreement when we started this work, and I believe that we still have different views on certain aspects. However, I must say that we worked well together. I would also like to thank the Spanish Presidency.
I had three things in mind when working on this issue. Firstly, that timber is a wonderful and renewable material that we use too little rather than too much. The legislation that we are now laying down must not create more problems or bureaucracy for those who use, and trade in, timber. We must not impose higher requirements on timber than we do on oil, for example. If this legislation results in someone choosing to produce products from plastic instead of timber, then it will be the environment that will suffer the most.
Secondly, it must be possible to implement the legislation. Many of the proposals that we have seen while we have been working on this, and that we have thrown out, have quite simply been impossible to implement. The legislation must not cover recycled material, nor must it include products that are far too complicated or impose excessive regulations on operators that are far down the product chain. It is not acceptable to demand that a table containing chipboard be labelled with the origin of the individual fibres, or to force a book seller to guarantee workers' rights in connection with the felling of the trees from which the fibres in the books come.
The third point that I had in mind is that the legislation must not become a pretext for a new wave of protectionism. The export of timber and timber products was an important factor in Sweden becoming rich once upon a time. We must not prevent other countries that are currently poor from exporting and trading. Therefore, the requirements that we set for what we import must not be so high that, in practice, we exclude developing countries.
After working for several years on this matter, I have to say that the compromise that we have today is as far as we can go. Many of my objections have been heard, for which I am very grateful. I think the proposal we will vote on tomorrow is very much better than the one I actually voted against last May. I think that we have achieved a great deal.
Finally, I would just like to remind my fellow Members of one thing, and that is that when we talk about illegal trade in timber and timber products, we need to remember the main causes of this and continue to combat them: unclear ownership rights, corruption and poverty. This must not become an excuse to stop the important work of combating corruption, as that is the main problem.
Kriton Arsenis
Mr President, Commissioner Potočnik, today's debate and tomorrow's vote are truly an emotional moment, an historic moment. I see many friends here who fought hard with us. We have now just about managed to bring the Council round to Parliament's initial positions, and we have before us a piece of legislation which protects both European citizens and European producers.
Until now, European citizens buying timber or timber products had no way of knowing if they were legal or illegal and if, in buying them, they were subsidising bloody civil wars financed through illegal felling or climate change through deforestation. Now, with this legislation and thanks to Parliament's efforts, we have managed to get the Council to agree with the obvious, by which I mean that illegal timber should also be considered illegal in Europe.
We have also managed to centralise, through the European Commission, the control inherent in the terms, approval and authorisation on the part of the operators who will supervise legal timber evaluation systems and approve timber products. We have also managed, when each operator examines if timber is legal, to include legislation on biodiversity and numerous other matters.
Nonetheless, there are two crucial points which the Council did not accept and which, in my opinion, are critical. The Council refused to accept the obvious, that being the first to import illegal timber and timber products on to the European market should be an infringement included in the directive on environmental crime. This is absolutely absurd. As is the fact that the concept of negligible risk has been retained, thereby opening a back door to certain activities which do not need to comply with the procedures provided for in the legislation. However, this legislation protects European citizens and European producers from unfair competition from cheap illegal timber.
Finally, I should like to thank my associates who worked on this issue, such as Alexandros Kandalepas and his staff.
Gerben-Jan Gerbrandy
Mr President, you see before you a very happy man, and not only because of the Dutch team's victory against Uruguay in the semi-final. It is also because today we are sending a very strong signal to the rest of the world. Five hundred million Europeans no longer want to use illegally harvested timber, and those who do attempt this practice will be punished. This is a very important signal on the part of the European Union, and should not be underestimated. Deforestation - both legal and, in particular, illegal - remains a major problem in the world. The European Union is now making effective use of one of its strongest powers, the power of 500 million consumers. Fair is fair, however: this signal is actually only effective thanks to the European Parliament. The Council wanted to deter the use of illegally harvested timber, whilst the European Parliament wanted to prohibit it: an important distinction. As far as I am concerned, this is a great victory for democracy.
I should like to thank the Spanish Presidency - regrettably, not even the Belgian Presidency is present - for the work it has done to obtain majority support in the Council for a prohibition on the import of illegally harvested timber. I call on the Council - regrettably absent - to set to work on proper enforcement of this regulation, as that will ultimately be the key to its success. Unfortunately, if it is not enforced effectively, it will be a paper tiger.
Finally, Mr President, I should like to thank Mrs Hassi and her predecessor, Mrs Lucas, most warmly for their excellent cooperation. This also goes for the shadow rapporteurs. In my opinion, Parliament has set an example of how it can operate and express its democratic power.
Julie Girling
on behalf of the ECR Group. - Mr President, I would like also to add my congratulations to Satu Hassi who has taken over this dossier so competently. It has been a pleasure working with her. I am very happy to have been part of the successful negotiations to secure an agreement.
The agreement is strict enough to ensure real strides in the protection of forests and biodiversity, but also flexible enough not to be over-burdensome for legal and honest traders. We would do well not to underestimate the success there. It is possible to come to such agreements when we all work together.
I would like to highlight one of the very welcome side effects. It follows on nicely from what Jan was just saying. For me, a very welcome side effect of taking a dossier like this through Parliament is the huge effect on public awareness. Certainly in the UK, it has widened out beyond what I might call the usual suspects, the green environmental groups, and has engaged the wider public. For me, as a very new MEP, it has brought unprecedented contact with the public, all of whom are supporting Parliament and, I think, are impressed that Parliament has been able to move this subject in the direction in which they want to see it going.
Thank you very much to you all and again thank you to Satu - it has been an education working with her.
Marisa Matias
Mr President, Commissioner, I would also like to begin by thanking the rapporteurs of this excellent work.
As we know, deforestation is one of the planet's main environmental and social problems, and each year we lose 13 million hectares of forest, thereby contributing 20% of global carbon emissions and constituting an enormous threat to biodiversity.
Deforestation's contribution to climate change is undeniable and, as such, is a major cause of extreme weather events and floods, and even of the desertification of vast areas of the planet. The loss of forest puts all humanity at risk, but this risk and this impact is not shared equally by all of us. The communities with the least resources and those that depend most on the forest and nature to survive are those most affected.
Deforestation is linked to our collective existence, the scarcity of natural resources, their distribution, the rights of local and indigenous communities, and social justice. The main cause of deforestation is illegal logging, which accounts for 20 to 40% of the world's industrial timber production. We are therefore also talking about the transfer of wealth from the producer to the countries consuming this timber. This illegal practice places sustainable timber exploitation and the companies involved in it at risk.
Nice sounding words are not enough. Parliament must adopt strong and consistent measures in this fight. This report takes a very important step in this direction by defining prohibitions on timber trading.
Good intentions are not enough either. Effective means are needed, particularly penalties, which could be of three types in this case. Firstly, fines that eliminate any financial benefit from the illegal practice, to be increased for repeat offenders; secondly, the confiscation of the timber and any products in question, and; thirdly, the immediate suspension of authorisation to exercise any commercial activity.
That is why those exploiting or trading a natural resource must be socially responsible, and that is why those importing timber or timber products into the European Union for the first time must be investigated to ensure that the timber has come from legal sources.
That is also why all subsequent operators must supply basic information on this timber, namely its origin and its destination. The public must also have the right - and I am ending here, Mr President - to access information on those in compliance and those who are not.
Anna Rosbach
on behalf of the EFD Group. - (DA) Mr President, my thanks to Mrs Hassi, who has quickly acquainted herself with a complicated subject. I would just like to mention a few of the many areas that the report deals with: the illegal importing of timber into the EU, endangered tree species that are felled illegally in remote parts of the world and the importing of finished products manufactured in countries outside the EU. If we are talking about timber that has been produced in European forests and that has been legally felled, it is not difficult to obtain information on the country in which the timber was felled, the species of tree, the quantities and value in order to be able to place a legal logging mark on a product. However, how far back should we trace timber, and which products is it realistic to check? I am thinking about furniture consisting of MDF and chipboard that is made of recycled wood, for example. We need to produce realistic legislation, otherwise we will only succeed in making European companies unable to compete any more on a global level and causing them to move far away from Europe's well-intentioned standards and controls. I hope that, with this proposal, we will be able to prevent that from happening.
Sirpa Pietikäinen
(FI) Mr President, this is an important step for the responsible use of resources, international responsibility, climate policy, biodiversity and people's lives. It shows that the European Union can be an effective international actor by means of its internal legislation, just as the Ecodesign Directive is also.
The result that has been achieved is a lot better than the disadvantages of the compromise, but I want to point out, as the rapporteur, Mrs Hassi, did, that the major drawback with this is the absence of sanctions, at European level and at a minimal level, and also that at this stage, the regulation is not included in the directive on the protection of the environment through criminal law, either in respect of illegal harvesting or in the trade associated with it. I hope that the Commission will put forward proposals relating to this as soon as possible. In the same way, it will be vitally important to include printed matter in the regulation in the future.
Linda McAvan
Mr President, it is very late now and I do not think I should distract us from the idea that this relates to one of the most important votes we will have this week in this Parliament. It is important for our citizens, judging by my postbag and the number of e-mails I have received. There is an online petition, which, about four hours ago, had 125 000 signatures - and the number is going up every minute - urging us to stick with this proposal tomorrow.
It is important for the climate, as everyone has mentioned, but I think, as the Commissioner has said, it is most important for the millions of people who live in the world's poorest countries and whose livelihoods are being destroyed by illegal logging. Let us take Madagascar, where 100 000 rosewood trees were illegally chopped down last year, each tree worth more than the average GDP in that country. No wonder illegal logging fuels criminality in Madagascar. The civil war in Liberia, mainly funded through illegal logging, killed 250 000 people. It fuelled the war in Cambodia in the 1990s and it is the enemy of democracy. Global Witness calculates that 15 tonnes of timber crosses from Burma to China every seven minutes, helping to prop up that despicable regime.
Illegal logging deprives millions of people of a better chance in life because billions of dollars are lost in tax revenues to governments. Human Rights Watch says that USD 2 billion have been lost in tax revenues in Indonesia. That is enough to provide basic heath care for 100 million people in that country and is more than the entire health budget of that country.
So what we are doing today is a first step. It is not perfect, as the Commissioner has admitted, but it is a lot better than where we started off with a kind of voluntary code with which we would have due diligence. I would like to thank the Commissioner for going further than his predecessors. I would like to thank the Spanish Presidency for pushing for this agreement and I would like to thank Hilary Benn, the former UK Secretary of State, for sticking his ground in Council and pushing for a more ambitious agreement.
Tomorrow, we will make a start. I think Satu Hassi and the shadows have done a very good job, but we have to maintain consumer pressure and public awareness. I hope the Commission will also play a role in doing that and in getting good enforcement of this very important new law.
Chris Davies
Mr President, the world's forests are being destroyed - sometimes with the support of governments, but often through illegal activities. The drugs trade and the timber trade are two activities that can generate such enormous amounts of money that they corrupt governments, which makes enforcement hugely difficult. Five years ago, I took the case to Louis Michel, the Commissioner at the time, and said we needed a measure like this. He was sympathetic, but his services and lawyers said it could not be done. I would say to the Commissioner that there is an important piece of advice there, which is that if the lawyers say it cannot be done, then change the lawyers. It can be done, and here we have proof of it. This is excellent, this is good news and an important measure.
However, this directive requires that Member States introduce enforcement regimes which are effective, proportionate and dissuasive. What does that mean? What if Slovenia says that the penalty for illegally importing wood will be 10 years' imprisonment, and the United Kingdom says it will be a slap on the wrist? How do you ensure that this legislation will be put into effect properly across the whole of the European Union?
Commissioner, I would ask you to write to Member States and tell them that you are going to start publishing details of the penalties they put in place to ensure that this legislation is properly enforced, and that you will name and shame in a way that has never been done before. One sees the words 'effective, proportionate, dissuasive' time and time again. I would like you to be the first Commissioner to actually ensure that those words have proper effect.
Holger Krahmer
(DE) Mr President, I think that we are making good legislation today. It is good and right that we are taking steps to avoid illegal timber being placed on the European internal market.
However, what holds for all environmental laws also holds for this law: we cannot just put in what we want, but we must also always check whether what we put in and prescribe is feasible in the end. Therefore, I think it is right that we have, in the end, come to the compromise that due diligence only needs to take effect at the first instance of placing on the market, and also that only then can the import ban be issued.
It would be much too bureaucratic to provide documentary evidence of origin throughout the entire supply chain within Europe. This was on the table at the beginning of the debate. I think that it is not realistic here to constantly keep new accounts and provide documentary evidence, from the timber yard and the sawmill right up to the furniture factory. This produces bureaucracy which, in case of doubt, produces more paper and thereby may even accelerate legal felling. Therefore, we must be moderate in this area and ensure balance. We have succeeded in doing this.
I am not in favour of the approach that Mrs Hassi has just spoken of, namely that we can bring in a zero-risk policy. This is not only applicable to felling, and it will not work. Zero risk is not feasible. It produces bureaucracy and, above all, produces new risks. We must ensure that the laws remain balanced and feasible. In this sense, this compromise is a good one. I am pleased that we will be able to approve it with a large majority tomorrow.
Riikka Manner
(FI) Mr President, this illegal harvesting of forests must be stopped and we have to fight against it. We are surely all unanimous on that issue. I cannot, however, support this compromise in all respects, for example, where it concerns each operator in the chain being in a certain way responsible for verifying the origin of the wood. In my view, this is connected with the very considerable fear that this will increase bureaucracy both for forest entrepreneurs and owners. That should not be the purpose at all.
When we implement this regulation, we must also ensure that the very comprehensive certification system already in place in several countries is valid and that we do not start to create an overlapping verification method that again adds to bureaucracy and, in a way, weighs down our competitiveness in the forestry sector. It is also important that we do not accord timber a status that is inferior to other materials. That, too, is now something to make us apprehensive.
Carl Haglund
(SV) Mr President, the issue that we have before us is a very important one, and it is easy to agree with what has been said here this evening. At the same time, as Mrs Manner just said, in this work we are starting to lose sight of the fact that we have very sustainable forestry production and forestry activity in northern Europe, particularly in the Nordic countries. Unfortunately, we are forgetting this fact in our implementation of the important objectives that we had to prevent the import of illegal timber to the European market. This is an important example of how we should not work.
I am grateful that Mrs Hassi and others worked well in the trialogues, and therefore I, too, will be able to vote in favour of this tomorrow. At the same time, we need to learn from this, that when we do something important, as we are about to do here, and as we are also doing now, and finally produce a good regulation that prevents the import of illegal timber, we must not forget that it might have an effect on our own production within precisely this sector. We have quite a bit to do in this area in the future. We must try to avoid the sorts of problems that we have in connection with this issue in particular.
Elena Oana Antonescu
(RO) The trade in timber purchased illegally or through illegal logging has pushed down the price of timber and contributed to the impoverishment of forests. This is why it is imperative for Europe to improve the legislative framework in this area. The new feature of this regulation, namely, the introduction of the due diligence and control system operated by accredited monitoring organisations at EU level, will provide an additional filter for verifying the legality of placing timber materials on the market. However, it is not a perfect solution.
There are options for bypassing even this system. This is why, as part of the debates in the competent committee, I proposed an amendment whereby monitoring organisations will automatically lose their accreditation if the competent authority notes the operators' failure to implement an efficient due diligence system. The content of this report is unarguably a particularly important step towards combating the placing of timber obtained illegally on the market. However, further measures are ...
(The President cut off the speaker)
Karin Kadenbach
(DE) Mr President, Commissioner, 2010 is the year of biodiversity, and with the regulation before us, an important provision will be created for measures against climate change and for the preservation of biodiversity.
The EU can no longer offer a market for timber and timber products from illegal felling, as this illegal felling is a significant cause of deforestation. After all, 20% to 40% of worldwide industrial timber production comes from illegal sources. Around 13 million hectares of forest are deforested every year, as we have already heard today. Twenty per cent of worldwide CO2 emissions are can be attributed to this deforestation, and they are a leading cause of the loss of biological diversity. By providing an absolute ban within the European market on illegally felled timber or products manufactured from it, the European Union is showing that it takes its responsibility for preserving biodiversity seriously.
I would like to thank the rapporteur.
Jaroslav Paška
(SK) The position of the European Parliament formulated in the report of Caroline Lucas is correct and decent, and should therefore be supported. It is not possible to accept the continuing tolerance shown by the governments of some European countries towards the trade in illegally harvested timber, or the way in which they avoid imposing penalties for this activity.
After a detailed examination of the positions of European Union governments concerning the regulation in question, it is hard to know whether some governments represent the views of their citizens more than the views of the business mafias who profit from the illegal harvesting of timber. The fact that some governments are not interested in suppressing the illegal grey or black economy should not be an obstacle, and should not lead us to tolerate the vandalistic looting of forests.
A decent society creates sensible rules. Decent people respect them, and decent governments should not have a problem with prosecuting thieves.
It is therefore necessary ...
(The President cut off the speaker)
Janez Potočnik
Member of the Commission. - Mr President, it is late and I will try to make it short, but not because the issues are less important. On the contrary, it is because of the high level of consensus in the room.
Forests are at the heart of the battle against climate change and at the heart of the battle for protecting biodiversity. Together with the recent Regulation on illegal, unregulated and unrecorded fishing, this means that in the European Union, we will have the instruments to counter illegality in two of our key natural resources: fisheries and forests. And, yes, it is also an important part of the fight against poverty.
The impact of the regulation depends on effective implementation, and the challenge is far from over. However, today we can start to appreciate the fact that a solution on this difficult, but important, file has been found. We are clearly dealing with a proposal of a noble nature. I am looking forward to engaging in the implementation and enforcement process together with you.
Satu Hassi
Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I wish to thank everyone who has taken part in this debate at this late hour. I was involved in the situation to which Mr Davies referred: in a discussion with the European Commissioner for Development Cooperation at the time, in which he said that he thought that legislation such as that which we have now been negotiating would be impossible. I am glad that we have made possible what he thought impossible at the time.
Both the Commissioner and the other Members have duly spoken about all the types of harm that illegal harvesting causes. Many have been and are concerned about bureaucracy. I would like to remind everyone, however, that the bureaucratic demands on all those except the first party to place timber or timber products on the market are extremely modest: simply that they should know and can prove where it was bought and where it has been sold on. The companies should have the documents needed for this in any case. It is required, for example, under the laws on VAT.
I am pleased that many companies, in the packaging and furniture industries, for example, have supported the ban on illegal timber. I have also received messages from wood industry trade unions that are in support of this and which talk about the harm to competition due to the fact that there is too much illegal timber on our market. As has been said here, this law must be implemented properly, and I am also seriously in favour of keeping a record of what sort of sanctions the Member States enact. They need to be genuinely effective in the prevention of malpractice.
President
The debate is closed.
The vote will take place tomorrow, Wednesday, 7 July 2010, at 12:00.
Written statements (Rule 149)
Gaston Franco
Nowadays, 20-30% of industrial timber production worldwide is from illegal sources. We need to clean up the European timber market as soon as possible. While it could still be improved, the proposed regulation is ambitious and courageous. In my view, it is an effective tool for limiting rampant deforestation, without imposing administrative constraints on our European companies or harming timber, which will, on the contrary, become more highly valued.
The regulation establishes a binding provision which delegates responsibilities on the basis of the 'due diligence system'. This allows operators to trace timber and timber products, to access information on observance of the applicable legislation and, thus, to obtain sufficient guarantees to prevent the sale of products from logging considered to be illegal.
The obligations contained in the regulation must target those operators who place timber on the market for the first time, because that is when there is the most risk. Furthermore, in order to guarantee that this regulation is effective, we should emphasise the need for regular controls and a system of stringent, deterrent penalties for offenders.
Jaromír Kohlíček
It is a well-known fact that every year, in various countries of the world, thousands of hectares of forest disappear without being replaced. In many cases, we see illegal extraction even in European Union countries. Even in advanced countries such as the Czech Republic, timber is stolen by selective extraction or clear cutting without the knowledge of the owner. Commercial forests, of course, not only have an environmental role, but, as the term 'commercial forest' suggests, also have the role of producing timber. It is important for legislation to pay heed to the restoration of an optimal mix of tree types in forests. This is linked to the management of animals, especially the taller ones. It is appropriate to resolve these questions at the corresponding national or regional levels. Not even the best directive can have an impact on the damage caused to the economy of individual regions through the export of all kinds of timber outside the borders of the regions. In my opinion, the proposals contained in the European Parliament report are in accordance with the existing opinions of this supreme lawmaking body of the Community, and it would be appropriate to give full support to the report. The accelerated implementation of the regulation, the penalties in case of a breach of the regulations and the ban on trading are a necessary minimum. The attempts by some governments to take an extreme liberal approach in this sector are outrageous, and may damage the national economies of the states which uphold them on the Council. The Confederal Group of the European United Left - Nordic Green Left will certainly support the rapporteur's proposals.
Kartika Tamara Liotard
Illegally harvested timber and timber products have no place on our market. As far as I am concerned, the sale of timber should be permitted only if it has been established on the basis of credible standards that the timber has not been harvested illegally or unsustainably. My appeal would be for us to think beyond the environment and the climate and consider countries where so-called 'legal' deforestation is depriving local populations of their livelihood. This is also a human rights issue. Today, the Group of the European People's Party (Christian Democrats) can show what it really means by stewardship and charity. The EPP Group wanted to decrease the protection of local populations by hiding behind the low moral standards of legislators in third countries, who allow their people to be exploited by facilitating large-scale deforestation or failing to combat it effectively. Last week, Dutch television showed how our energy companies profit from coal mining in South Africa. The spokespeople of these companies were turning a blind eye; they lacked the courage to be publicly accountable. Similar practices occur in the deforestation sector. We must eradicate these root and branch. The EPP Group cannot use the lack of effective laws and ethical codes as an excuse to switch off its own conscience. Large-scale logging drives people from the areas where they live. I endorse the environmental and climate targets, whilst also advocating protection of human rights.


2009 budget: Parliament's estimates (debate)
President
The next item is the report by Mr Lewandowski, on behalf of the Committee on Budgets, on Parliament's estimates of revenue and expenditure for the financial year 2009.
Janusz Lewandowski
rapporteur. - (PL) Mr President, in assessing the European Parliament's estimates of revenue and expenditure for the financial year 2009 we have taken account of the special circumstances and challenges facing us in the coming year. All of us here agree on what those challenges are: Parliament needs to be adapted to its increased powers after the expected entry into force of the Lisbon Treaty; elections are in the offing, and the election campaign has to be funded; new rules on MEPs' remuneration are to be adopted, as well as - let us hope - transparent rules governing the employment and remuneration of parliamentary assistants.
Not every challenge of the year to come has been quantified and taken into account in the expenditure estimates. In cases of uncertainty, the obvious answer is a budget reserve, and this was precisely what we discussed at our meeting with Parliament's Bureau, referred to in our budgetary jargon as the 'preconciliation' meeting. I am pleased to be able to tell you that the atmosphere at the meeting was good and that many of our proposals were accepted. Specifically, the 65 new posts planned were integrated into the estimates, with some of the money placed in reserve. Also, a 'Lisbon reserve' was created to take account of the findings of the ad-hoc working group now assessing the impact of the Lisbon Treaty on Parliament's new needs. The Budget Committee considered the demands of the political groups and recognised the need to strengthen the support staff, but subject to the principles of budget discipline, i.e. reemployment must take precedence over the creation of new posts.
With regard to buildings and buildings policy, we await presentation of a long-term strategy in May, especially as the sums allocated and held in reserve for the time being, together with carry-forwards from the current year, are considerable. We found in the budget an appropriation of EUR 3.4 million for the removal of asbestos from the SDM building in Strasbourg. In view of the rather unfavourable publicity surrounding the conflict with the Strasbourg municipal authorities and the sensitivity of the issue, the matter requires clarification, and there are amendments to that end. They go so far as to demand a reserve to cover the necessary measures. I shall not go here into other issues involving a heavy financial burden, namely computerisation of the Visitors' Centre and additional services for MEPs. What should be stressed above all is the fact that we are still below the ceiling of 20% of the overall administrative expenditure of the European institutions. This figure of 20% is not an end in itself but a sensible self-imposed limit that increases our credibility when we call for budgetary discipline on the part of other institutions. I hope the expenditure estimates will prove to be close to Parliament's final budget. I hope that we shall maintain the climate of trust that is to a considerable extent the personal achievement of Secretary-General Rømer. Tomorrow's vote should go smoothly, as only four amendments have been tabled.
Finally, I would like to thank all those who have helped to make the pilot procedure - which was thought likely to prove troublesome - run smoothly so far. I hope it will continue to do so until the final adoption of Parliament's budget.
Reimer Böge
on behalf of the PPE-DE Group. - (DE) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the fact that only four amendments to the Lewandowski report have been tabled is ample evidence of the rapporteur's outstanding preparatory work and his sterling efforts to arrive at an understanding with the political groups. Perhaps it also demonstrates the purpose of what is known as the pilot process, in which we seek to take a first step this year towards a successful system of cooperation between the Bureau and the Committee on Budgets, based on a division of responsibilities and preceded by very intensive discussions with both the Bureau and the parliamentary administration in order to eliminate the sort of misunderstanding and even incomprehension we have frequently experienced. Apart from anything else, we need to adopt a common approach.
It is also important, particularly at a time when the implementation of the Reform Treaty is under discussion, to re-emphasise that Parliament remains firmly committed to budgetary discipline and that it will not exceed the limit of 20% of heading 5 as long as the present situation continues.
It is likewise important to re-emphasise that it amounts to a virtual cultural revolution, and at least represents a good start, when the Bureau itself decides, as it has now done, to put the appropriations for certain new posts into the budgetary reserve and not simply to rubber-stamp an administrative proposal here and there but to engage in a more detailed substantive discussion of what lies behind the budget. That will also facilitate the work of the Committee on Budgets and make it easier for the Committee and the Bureau to engage with each other.
At first reading we must, of course, discuss in far greater detail the question of reallocating funds for the purpose of strengthening the committees and the political groups so that we can successfully perform the tasks assigned to us by the Reform Treaty.
To put it very plainly, I expect - not least on the basis of plenary decisions and of our preliminary talks with the Bureau - that this week, either today or on Wednesday, the Bureau really will take the essential decisions on the questions of the assistants' regime, the assistants' statute and on the other outstanding matters. There have been clear plenary decisions on these matters, and the Bureau need only implement them in order to respond fittingly to the internal and public debate.
Thijs Berman
on behalf of the PSE Group. - (NL) How much longer is at least one in ten of the MEPs' assistants going to be working here without any social security protection, in a maze of different kinds of contracts that is totally unclear and gives rise to a suspicion of fraud?
Whenever the Socialist Group in the European Parliament attempts to give the Members' assistants a proper contract, with all the usual social security guarantees, the Group of the European People's Party (Christian Democrats) and European Democrats tries to stand in the way of such a statute for assistants. The word 'statute' really is taboo for the PPE-DE. This time the word 'statute' is to be replaced by 'regime'. That is not just a play on words. This Parliament should set an example with working conditions, but it is hopelessly behind what have long been perfectly normal standards. Without a uniform statute, our colleagues will never be given the protection to which they are normally entitled.
This one point, a statute for assistants, is therefore important, and the amendment aimed at scrapping it would be a blot on the otherwise excellent report by Mr Lewandowski. I agree with his comments and those by Mr Böge. The budget is still within the limits, despite the wider responsibilities Parliament is given under the new Treaty. Certainly more clarity is needed, firstly on the allocation of staff and secondly on the removal of asbestos from the European Parliament buildings. Clarity on those points must be an express requirement if the amounts we wish to place in reserve for that purpose are to be released.
Anne E. Jensen
Mr President, the Parliament's budget is not adopted until October, but with Mr Lewandowski's report we are in principle supporting the proposed budget for 2009 adopted by the Bureau in April, and in particular the dialogue on the details of the proposal, which is being carried out as a pilot project this year. I think that the initial experiences show that it is useful to have such a dialogue. It means that the budget will be reviewed in detail by those who are politically responsible, and that the Committee on Budgets is properly involved. This is good. The dialogue has focused very strongly on the staff requirements in connection with Parliament's new tasks arising from the Treaty of Lisbon, not least the matter of ensuring that needs are met through possible reshuffles before we start talking about increasing the number of staff. We have of course seen large increases in staff numbers with the expansion of the EU, and we must now have a period of consolidation while we review the staff requirements carefully.
We have also agreed to prepare a long-term strategic plan for buildings and their maintenance before the end of this month. Again, it is necessary to consider future policy in this area. The asbestos case shows that details are of interest. We are surprised that funding has been set aside for the removal of asbestos from the SDM building, as when Parliament purchased the building, we were told that there was no asbestos! The Group of the Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe thus supports the proposal put forward by the Socialist Group in the European Parliament to put the money in reserve.
Last, but not least, I would also like to underline the need for us to adopt a regime for the assistants, as discussed with Parliament's Secretary-General, Harald Rømer. It must not go wrong this time. We must sort this matter out.
Wiesław Stefan Kuc
on behalf of the UEN Group. - (PL) Mr President, the motion for a European Parliament resolution on Parliament's estimates of revenue and expenditure for the financial year 2009 tabled by Mr Lewandowski, together with the preliminary draft budget, reconciles the achievement of Parliament's tasks in that year - the tasks imposed by the entry into force of the Lisbon Treaty, the European Parliament elections, the new Members' Statute, buildings policy, the improvement of services for MEPs, energy saving, and so on - with further budget savings. What has always been said about the EU budget as a whole - that you cannot do more for less money - has now proved possible. The know-how and enormous experience of Mr Lewandowski and the rest of us, plus excellent cooperation with the Bureau, has worked a miracle. My group will be voting in favour of the motion for a resolution.
Gerard Batten
on behalf of the IND/DEM Group. - Mr President, on 21 April the Bureau adopted preliminary draft estimates totalling over EUR 1.5 billion for the cost of the European Parliament. 2009 will see the impact of the Lisbon Treaty - if indeed it is ratified by all Member States.
We were told that the Lisbon Treaty - in fact, the European Constitution by another name - was just a tidying-up exercise which would simplify the workings of Parliament. But EUR 2 million is being asked for by officials to cover the additional costs that will be created by the Treaty and 65 new jobs will be required in Parliament alone to help political groups understand it. This is all being approved before the Treaty is ratified in Britain and before the people of Ireland have had their say in a referendum.
Of course, Parliament has already decided that it will ignore the decision of the Irish people if they vote 'no', and, in order to encourage the Irish to vote 'yes', the EU has promised Ireland another EUR 332 million in funding. Let us hope that the Irish do not hold their freedom so cheap. But as that great Englishman, Ken Dodd, once remarked, every cloud has a silver lining, plus VAT.
The report notes that there is an additional need for more money for the Visitors' Centre. I have always thought that the more visitors that come to Parliament and see the great talking shop and legislative sausage-machine in action, the more they will turn against it.
If every European citizen could see the chaotic and shambolic way in which legislation is voted on in this Parliament, then there would be a party like the UK Independence Party in every EU Member State. That, at least, would be money well spent.
Margaritis Schinas
(EL) Mr President, I think we have made a very good start on the parliamentary budget for 2009. It is a realistic and politically astute start because it should not be forgotten that 2009 is an election year.
I believe the plan we are discussing today has three plus points that allow us to talk of a good start.
The first is discipline. Contrary to what we hear from the Eurosceptics, this is the third successive year that the European Parliament has kept below the 20% administrative cost limit. Parliament has disproved extreme European views by functioning in a disciplined, rational manner.
Secondly, human resources reflect for the first time our increased need for co-decision under the new Treaty. We have an organisational structure that is transparent and clear-cut.
The third positive aspect is the buildings policy. I think we should be generous here. When it comes to removing asbestos, we should be aware that we cannot put a cost on safety; price is irrelevant. We must therefore be generous and act wisely. Every one of us here as well as our fellow civil servants must work in an environment where health and safety in the workplace are guaranteed.
Of course, this is only the start; we are not ready yet and first reading will take place in the autumn. I think the excellent cooperation between the Committee on Budgets and the Presidency on these matters should continue. We expect the Presidency to stay in direct contact with us in order to give the forthcoming stages of first and second reading a truly sound basis.
Vladimír Maňka
(SK) I would like to congratulate the rapporteur on this excellent report. This budget is specific in the way that it has to take several important new realities into consideration: ratification of the Lisbon Treaty, European Parliament elections, and introduction of the new status for Members of the European Parliament and, I believe, for assistants, too. However, we must also consider and set effective parameters for a property policy, including maintenance and environmental protection costs. In order to make the right decisions we need a long-term strategy in this area, which we will be able to consider as early as next month.
Our main task is to prepare good legislation. The proposed knowledge management system, interpreting and translation services, and the library analytical service will ensure higher quality services and save resources. That is another reason why we should have all the necessary analyses available to us before the first reading of the budget, so that we can prove to our citizens that we are using their money in a responsible way.
Jan Mulder
(NL) Just like many other people, I also think there should be a statute for MEPs' assistants as soon as possible. It could save us a lot of trouble in the future.
I should like to say something about the buildings. When we bought several buildings in Strasbourg some years ago, whether or not they contained asbestos was very important. An expert inspection was carried out and revealed that there was asbestos in the buildings - that was true of all buildings built at that time - but it was definitely not dangerous. We bought the buildings on that basis. There was never any suggestion that we would have to remove the asbestos as quickly as possible.
I therefore think that the administration is on the wrong track in asking for that now, because if it has to be done, Strasbourg council should pay for it. Whilst there is uncertainty on that point, I do not think we should start removing asbestos from the buildings at Parliament's expense. We need to clarify the position with Strasbourg city council first, because they must pay for it.
Zbigniew Krzysztof Kuźmiuk
(PL) Mr President, I wish to make three points.
First, if the Treaty of Lisbon is ratified by all Member States, 2009 will be the first year in which Parliament will operate on the basis of that Treaty. Not only will the European Parliament have greater powers, it will also be obliged to consult the parliaments of the Member States with respect to proposed legislation. That will certainly mean a considerable increase in operating costs, with the employment of more staff, greater expenditure on expert opinions and consultation, etc.
Second, the year 2009 will see new elections to Parliament, and especially the introduction of the new Members' Statute, which will undoubtedly involve a considerable increase in Parliament's expenditure.
Third and last, experts estimate that the average annual inflation rate in the EU in 2009 will be around 4%, which will result in an appreciable increase in Parliament's administrative costs.
I trust all these factors will be taken into account in preparing the final draft of the European Parliament's budget.
Valdis Dombrovskis
(LV) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, with regard to the European Parliament's 2009 budget estimate, first of all I would like to congratulate the rapporteur on the fact that his rigorous approach to budget expenditure has been proved right and the European Parliament's total level of expenditure next year will not exceed 20% of total EU administrative expenditure. Thus, regardless of the changes to the European Parliament's work expected in 2009 - pursuant to the Lisbon Treaty, this will include a growing volume of legislative work, a change in the system of remuneration for MEPs, as well as a public information campaign in connection with the European Parliament elections - the total amount of expenditure will remain within the bounds previously set. Within the context of the 2009 budget we should also properly evaluate the return on individual ambitious projects. Firstly, there is talk about the European Parliament's web TV project. In order to assess the usefulness of this and similar projects, we ought to aggregate data on the popularity of the European Parliament's web TV and find out how many viewers are in fact attracted through these multi-million investments. In relation to the European Parliament's communication policy and the expected public information campaign, greater weight should be placed on decentralised communication through Parliament's information offices in the Member States. Communication with citizens of the various Member States takes place more effectively by this means than when it is centralised. Thank you for your attention.
Brigitte Douay
(FR) Mr President, once again in this budget debate thanks must go to Mr Lewandowski for his very well balanced report. And once again I would remind you what an important year 2009 will be for European democracy: with both a new Parliament and a new Commission taking office, it will be a key year in terms of our institutions' communication with the public.
However, in order that members of the public should feel interested in, and affected by, European issues and should turn out en masse to vote, communication emanating from the different institutions will have to be consistent and clear. With that in mind and in the interests of greater efficiency, close cooperation among the three main institutions that are engaged in communication - either directly or on a decentralised basis through their representations in the Member States - is of the utmost importance with elections just a year away.
Such is the thinking behind Amendment 2 to Mr Lewandowski's report, which my group has tabled. Our aim is to be more citizen-friendly and that is a matter of real concern to all of us here in this House.
Ville Itälä
(FI) Mr President, I wish to thank the rapporteur, Mr Lewandowski, for doing an excellent job, and I would like to focus attention on a few points.
Firstly, I would like to say something about the regime for assistants. I am in favour of what the rapporteur has proposed. He states here that this is an important issue and it must ultimately be resolved as a result of this report.
Now I want to turn to the issue of the asbestos problem which has been discussed here. Before any financing is granted it needs to be established who is responsible and how much money will actually be needed. There also needs to be a clear plan as to how to proceed. It is quite obvious that we cannot work in a building where, incredibly, we find there is asbestos after we have bought it.
I would also like to draw your attention to the fact that there has been talk about an Engineered Materials Arresting System (EMAS) for a long time now, although there are no clear plans regarding it. I also hope that the majority in Parliament have clearly decided that the administration should draft a proposal that we invest in more environmentally friendly vehicles for everyday use here in Parliament, but there are no plans yet for this either.
Esko Seppänen
(FI) Mr President, I approve of Mr Lewandowski's report in principle, but we are abstaining because Parliament's budget will not be voted on in its final form until the autumn and Parliament's first draft budget is unsatisfactory. Our experience shows that by the autumn it will be clearer and so we cannot as yet adopt a position on the final wording, which will not be presented until then.
On a positive note I would like to draw attention to the statement by Secretary General Rømer, who said that travel expenses during the next parliamentary term will be paid entirely on the basis of genuine costs, and that no interim or temporary solutions will apply.
I agree with the criticism made by Mr Mulder regarding the Strasbourg building programme: in our view it will be a swindle if we have to carry out renovations due to asbestos.
Janusz Lewandowski
rapporteur. - (PL) Mr President, in the first place, transparency in the rules governing the remuneration of parliamentary assistants that were are trying to achieve ought not to be an area for haggling and conflict among the political groups: it is the joint responsibility of Parliament as a whole, which will be asking next year for a renewed vote of confidence. Secondly, the climate of trust between us and the Bureau will be all the better, the more frequently and more fully we are informed in advance of undertakings with financial implications. Thirdly, the purpose of our work on the budget is precisely to prepare for the most likely scenario in the coming year. Where there is uncertainty, the answer is a budget reserve, and that applies also to uncertainty with respect to the Lisbon Treaty and its impact.
President
The debate is closed.
The vote will take place tomorrow, 20 May 2008.
Written statements (Rule 142)
Nathalie Griesbeck
in writing. - (FR) The purpose of the report before us today is for our institution to state its position on the estimated budget for the European Parliament for 2009.
It will be a crucial year: a year in which Parliament will be renewed; a year that will also see significant changes in the statutes for MEPs and their assistants; and, above all, the first year in which the Lisbon Treaty will be in force, giving our institution extra responsibility and the extra work that goes with it.
I wish to support the draft estimates that the Bureau has submitted. Taking account of the increased financial requirements Parliament will face, these draft estimates keep us below the threshold of 20% of expenditure under heading 5. Our administration must pursue its rationalisation drive with a view to further optimising our efficiency, notably through staff redeployment.
I would add that an impact analysis is being carried out of the needs that will be generated when the simplified treaty comes into force, and that adjustment of the estimates will be possible until the first-reading vote on the budget in the autumn.