Enforcement of regulations on the shipping of toxic waste to developing countries (debate)
President
The next item is the debate on
the question for oral answer to the Commission on the enforcement of regulations on the shipping of toxic waste to developing countries from Mrs Bearder, Mrs Ek, Mr Ouzký, Mr Seeber, Mrs Klaß and Mrs Harms on behalf of the Group of the Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe, the European Conservatives and Reformists, the Group of the European People's Party (Christian Democrats) and the Group of the Greens/European Free Alliance - B7-0217/2011) and
the question for oral answer to the Commission on the enforcement of regulations on the shipping of toxic waste to developing countries from Mrs Wils, Mrs Liotard, Mrs de Brún, Mr Ferreira, Mrs Matias and Mr Chountis on behalf of the Confederal Group of the European United Left - Nordic Green Left - B7-0218/2011).
Catherine Bearder
author. - Mr President, does the Commissioner not consider that, if any of us woke up one morning to find our rich neighbours had dumped their toxic rubbish in our front yard, we would be furious? Yet that is what the EU is doing every day.
Every year tonnes of toxic waste is shipped from the EU to developing countries against European environmental law, smuggled through ports with very weak controls. Almost three quarters of electric waste in the EU is unaccounted for and only one third of electronic waste is treated according to EU legislation. In the UK the average Briton throws away four pieces of electronic waste every year. That is 500 000 tonnes of broken TVs, computers and phones, but over half of this is not recorded as being recycled - it just disappears - and that is only in my own country.
The export of controlled waste from the EU for disposal is prohibited under current legislations, yet annually illegal shipments from the EU are thought to average about 22 000 tonnes. The WEEE Directive states that exported electronic items must be in working order. However, this relies on effective EU-wide inspection policies which are clearly missing. This waste contains lead, cadmium, barium, mercury, brominated flame retardants and other chemicals and plastics that become hazardous when burned. Burning is often the cheapest method to recover these valuable metals as adults and children scramble over the dumps of rubbish in their quest to earn a few cents.
We cannot ignore the environmental and health impacts of this scandal which affects the most vulnerable. Frankly, as a European, I am ashamed. I thank the Commissioner for the answers and the responses, but we need to know the specifics of how he is going to close this loophole in the Waste Shipment Regulation. Does the Commission have any plans to address the tonnes of EU waste already dumped in African countries? Does the Waste Shipment Regulation need to be revised or is it just a matter of enforcement? This is an urgent problem and action needs to be taken now. I await your response.
Anna Rosbach
deputising for the author. - (DA) Mr President, I am pleased that so many of my fellow Members are aware that our waste does not simply disappear of its own accord, but unfortunately often ends up out in the wider world where no one deals with it properly. There is actually nothing new about this, of course. A great many European countries started to send their discarded ferries filled with asbestos to India many years ago, where bare-foot workers separated old iron from the hazardous components on an open shore - as they still do today. An even worse situation is that of the African children who sit on the ground and separate out our electrical waste right down to the individual components. Is this acceptable? No, of course it is not. However, the EU lacks reasonable and realistic means to enforce the sound regulations that were laid down as long ago as 12 July 2006.
The directive is enforced via the individual Member States, as stated in Article 50 of the same regulation, but some States turn a blind eye when it comes to this enforcement. Something has to be done, however, because 70 million tonnes of hazardous waste per year - and rising - is no trifling matter. I therefore have another question in addition to the written questions that the Commission has already received, and that is: Has the Commission considered utilising special port areas for unloading hazardous waste in selected ports? That would provide better means of control in general. Could the Commission envisage carrying out some publicity work to encourage EU citizens to take their hazardous waste to specific places in the Member States? It is extremely important to make our citizens aware of the problem, because without their help in the struggle to manage hazardous waste we will get nowhere.
Richard Seeber
author. - (DE) Mr President, Mr Barnier, it is not just in the banking sector that we have regulations that do not work, but also in the environmental area. Although we have a regulation covering the shipping of waste dating back to 2006, this does not work because there is an increasing trend towards shipping hazardous waste beyond the EU's borders, in particular to developing countries where the proper disposal of these hazardous substances cannot be guaranteed. This cavalier approach to disposal leads to environmental and health problems in these countries that can cause many fatalities in extreme cases.
In addition, here in the European Union, we are discarding valuable resources. Part of the 2020 strategy includes a strategy on resources and waste is one of our resources. We should make every effort to improve our research activities in this area so that valuable materials can be segregated at the end of the product lifecycle.
In a speech on 7 April of this year, your colleague, Commissioner Potočnik, announced that, despite the Commission having avoided this issue and done nothing for many years, he intended presenting a communication in the autumn of this year in which he would tackle the problem, in particular with regard to implementation of existing regulations and an improved inspection system, as well as a broadening of the scientific base. Commissioner, I would like to know whether this communication is already being prepared by the Commission services.
In other speeches, Commissioner Potočnik also referred to a new agency. Although we already have a large number of official bodies, he is obviously thinking of a way to strengthen the control of the Member States' authorities in this area. I would like to know how things stand in this area, because at present it would seem that we are unable to resolve this problem. What steps does the Commission intend to pursue in this area?
Satu Hassi
deputising for the author. - (FI) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the poor implementation of the Waste Shipments Regulation has been a serious problem for a long time now. This has been emphasised by the European Union Network for the Implementation and Enforcement of Environmental Law since 2003, and it has made clear proposals for improvements. The Commission, however, has done virtually nothing, unless you count the many studies it has conducted and its proposal for a new Renewables Directive.
For more than 10 years now, Parliament has been calling for tighter controls, including legislation on European inspections: for minimum criteria for inspections in Mr Jackson's report in 1999, for legislative reform for shipments of waste in Mr Blokland's report in 2003, and for minimum criteria for inspections in the 2008 resolution. All these the Commission has mainly just ignored.
In 2006, we were shocked by the massive Trafigura scandal, when huge quantities of toxic waste were dumped in Côte d'Ivoire. The then Commissioner for the Environment, Stavros Dimas, promised to look for ways to strengthen the Waste Shipments Regulation and its implementation in the Member States, but nothing concrete happened. Two years ago, a Commission study recommended that a special agency should be set up for the implementation of legislation on waste. It would execute numerous tasks, such as checking the investigation systems in place in Member States and coordinating controls and inspections, but no proposal was put forward.
Last year, a Commission study came to the conclusion that the best option would be a legal instrument governing the criteria for inspections, but no proposal was put forward, although Commissioner Potočnik has said that the implementation of EU environmental legislation is his priority.
Now I would ask the Commission when it actually intends to introduce proper measures, instead of just conducting more studies. When will we have a proper legislative proposal, and not just communications and studies? As my colleague Mr Seeber said, this would also improve Europe's resource efficiency.
Sabine Wils
author. - (DE) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, illegal waste exports and the illegal disposal of waste pose an increasing threat to the health and environment of millions of people in developing countries.
The volume of toxic waste is continuously increasing in the EU. Because of the high cost of recycling and disposing of waste, there is an enormous temptation to ship this waste to countries with less stringent environmental controls and lower disposal costs. I am pleased to find that this problem is accepted by all sides of the House and hope that Parliament will take a concerted approach to this issue.
The legal loopholes that permit these hazardous exports must be closed. The existing regulations on the shipment of toxic waste to developing countries must be tightened up and enforced. We need a legislative proposal for environmental inspections, something that Parliament already called for in 2008, so that ships can be inspected effectively by the authorities in the local ports.
This must also be linked with the possibility of impounding ships in ports throughout the EU if there are grounds to suspect breaches of the law. We propose that this should be reinforced in a joint resolution by all sides of the House.
The entry of waste into the EU must also be better controlled. Off the coast of Calabria, just a few miles away from the port of Cetraro, there is a sunken vessel known for carrying highly toxic waste. It is assumed that many other toxic waste transporters have been sunk just off the coast in the Tyrrhenian Sea. This example illustrates the need for transparency in the shipment of waste and for reliable official inspections.
Michel Barnier
Mr President, honourable Members, firstly, my colleague and friend Mr Potočnik sends his apologies, as he is in New York this evening for the signing of an important agreement - the Nagoya Agreement - on biodiversity.
Nevertheless, I am pleased to have been given the opportunity to stand in for him, or to try to do so anyway, since the issue you are discussing is one that has always interested me, ladies and gentlemen. I was Environment Minister in my own country and I have not forgotten the efforts that we made, during my first mandate as Commissioner around 10 years ago, to begin to address this extremely serious issue with Parliament. The Waste Shipments Regulation prohibits exports of hazardous waste to developing countries, as well as exports outside the Union and the European Free Trade Association (EFTA) countries of waste intended for disposal.
However, we know - and you have pointed it out - that the efforts made to enforce this ban vary greatly between Member States. Operators often seek to benefit from inadequate inspections in order to get round the ban and smuggle the waste through other Member States where the inspections are less rigorous, as you said.
Furthermore, false declarations are often used to export waste as second-hand goods, which complicates the work of the authorities responsible for monitoring and enforcing the rules. Then there is the obviously low treatment cost in third countries, which is the main economic factor encouraging or driving these illegal shipments. There is also the very serious situation of countries that receive, so to speak, this waste, these illegal shipments, which cause significant pollution of the air, water, soil and homes, and which threaten - as you said a moment ago, Mrs Wils, and as Mrs Bearder and Mrs Rosbach said with the same emotion before you - people's health, and particularly children's health, which is the most shocking of all, as well as the health of workers and of a large proportion of the population. The already toxic nature of the hazardous substances contained in waste often poses a further increased risk when inappropriate waste management techniques are used, which is often the case in these countries of destination.
Furthermore, illegal shipments of waste to third countries obviously have an adverse effect on trade and competition since, economically speaking, businesses that comply with the legislation evidently face competition and are put at a disadvantage. The European recycling and waste management sector, which is bound to comply with the EU's rigorous environmental legislation, is a dynamic one. It has a healthy EUR 95 billion turnover. It provides, or supports, 1.2 to 1.5 million jobs and accounts for 1% of GDP, and this waste management and recycling sector, which operates by the rules, is also competing with, and put at a disadvantage by, these illegal shipments.
Effective enforcement of the Waste Shipments Regulation at EU level would encourage this sector, I believe, to invest and to create even more jobs in the future. Illegal waste shipments and poor quality recycling also lead to a loss of resources, since secondary raw materials can go a long way towards meeting Europe's raw material requirements, and can also improve the effectiveness and use of resources. On the basis of this diagnosis, then, we need to improve the situation. That is why the Commission has sought to find out whether additional legislative measures need to be taken at EU level and, if so, which new, specific requirements and criteria they would include for waste shipment inspections.
We are currently completing an impact assessment of the various possible approaches to resolving the problem that I just mentioned, including national inspection and mandatory national risk assessment plans and programmes, as well as more targeted training for national officials responsible for enforcing the provisions and, on the other side of the coin, for proving that those who declare waste to be second-hand goods are doing so fraudulently.
I should like to conclude, Mr President, by raising the following points in response to some specific questions. Firstly, it is possible to circumvent the Waste Shipments Regulation by claiming that the articles being exported are second-hand goods rather than waste. The main problem is that the Member States are not implementing the inspection requirements properly. To remedy this, the Regulation needs to be supplemented by more detailed rules on national inspections. The legislative measures should be accompanied by adequate training for officials in charge of enforcing the rules, as I said.
Secondly, non-legally binding guidelines at EU level could support and facilitate the implementation and enforcement of the Waste Shipments Regulation, particularly by customs officers, and thus help to combat illegal activities. However, guidelines alone will not be enough. We also need binding rules to combat this problem.
Thirdly, waste production has increased or stabilised in recent years. Waste management is improving throughout the Union, and recycling has increased over the last five years. Yet what is remarkable today is the great disparities between the Member States with regard to the implementation of our waste requirements. The Commission, ladies and gentlemen, is conscious of the environmental, economic, social, human and public health consequences of illegal waste shipments, and the Probo Koala affair, in which several people died after being exposed to hazardous waste illegally dumped in Côte d'Ivoire, is one of the worst examples in living memory, and here too there are lessons to be learnt. The Commission has launched numerous studies on this issue, and the results of these investigations can be consulted on our website.
Once illegal shipments of waste have been detected, there are measures laid down in the regulation to remedy the situation. The waste must be sent back to its country of origin, pursuant to EU legislation and international law. If the companies responsible cannot be located, the country of origin in the Union must pay a fee to have the waste repatriated and treated. In some cases, Member States have to bear costs in excess of EUR 1 million. In the Probo Koala affair, which I mentioned a moment ago, the company Trafigura had to pay the equivalent of EUR 152 million in clean-up costs and EUR 33 million in compensation to the residents of the affected towns.
Lastly, I should like to say to Mr Seeber that, as far as I am aware, Mr Potočnik promised to present that communication on the implementation and enforcement of EU law and he is in the process of drafting it.
Åsa Westlund
Mr President, many of us are outraged at the fact that, despite a comprehensive public debate on this, Europe is still dumping hazardous waste in poorer countries. As many here have already said, we are right to be outraged. Not only do we use products that exhaust and damage the environment and then also fail to deal with them properly once we no longer want them, we also dump the hazardous waste, which damages the health of innocent people, often children, and makes the land and water in other countries toxic for generations to come. That is absolutely unacceptable.
How can this be allowed to continue? We have legislation and we have a ban in place, but it is not working. Therefore, the Commission must now propose amendments. Of course, the best solution, as always, would be for there not to be any hazardous waste. The extensive work that we have carried out to identify and phase out hazardous chemicals, within REACH for example, is therefore important in this case, too. Since the ban on the export of hazardous waste is not working, I think that we should be especially pleased that we have strengthened the legislation concerning waste electrical and electronic equipment (WEEE) by setting high collection targets. However, knowing how poor the Member States' compliance with the export ban is, there are good reasons for the Commission also to closely monitor the Member States' actions with regard to WEEE and other legislation stipulating how this type of product should be dealt with.
As many people have said, including the Commission, we need some form of clarification and simplification of what rules actually apply when it comes to the shipping of toxic waste to developing countries, so that it will be easier for the police and other border control officers to take measures to deal with the crimes against the environment that the export of hazardous waste actually entails. However, we just as surely need the Member States to give higher priority to this matter. I think the fact that the Member States are failing in their responsibility to check their compliance with EU legislation is a constantly recurring issue. It is very clear here that the Member States are not fulfilling their obligations.
The Member States must take greater responsibility, and we expect the Commission to ensure that they do. What you have presented here today, Mr Barnier, seems to me to be a definite step in the right direction. Once we are able to see the whole communication we will be able to decide whether or not we think the number of steps taken are sufficient. Thank you.
Zuzana Roithová
- (CS) Mr President, the exponential growth in the volume of waste from European manufacturing and consumption looks like a time bomb, both in the EU and in the developing countries to which hazardous waste is exported, much of it illegally. Commissioner, I welcomed your communication of the Commission's specific desire to remove the gaps in the legislation relatively soon. Along with the speakers who came before me, however, I believe there is little desire on the part of Member States, in particular, to invest in controls and to introduce sufficiently harsh penalties for breaches of the existing rules. As the Vice-Chair of the Delegation to the ACP-EU Joint Parliamentary Assembly, I believe we also need to establish a common strategy with the ACP countries for the fight against illegal imports of toxic waste to these countries, and in particular action plans for introducing a system for the safe management of waste in African countries, including support for recycling technology.
Csanád Szegedi
(HU) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the seemingly strict EU regulation concerning hazardous waste has many loopholes in practice, which can be eminently used by organised groups of criminals and the hazardous waste mafia.
Illegal disposal of toxic waste classed as hazardous has become one of the most lucrative businesses. One reason for this is the extremely high cost of legal disposal and recycling; another reason is the over-bureaucratisation of obtaining legal licences.
The solution has to be bi-directional: the administrative burdens of enterprises that recycle and dispose of hazardous waste legally has to be relieved, and of course in parallel, producers of hazardous waste should be encouraged to choose the legal course and made interested in restraining the hazardous waste mafia.
On the other hand, criminal law sanctions for environmental crimes must be radically tightened, and inspection must be uniformly increased at EU level.
Miroslav Mikolášik
- (SK) Mr President, it is a quarter to midnight and we are debating a serious matter: the exporting of toxic waste to developing countries.
It is scandalous that European countries in the modern age are engaging in the kind of activity we saw in the Oscar-winning film Erin Brockovich, which featured Julia Roberts, and where we saw that only in California could something like this happen, with factories exporting toxic waste and people then falling seriously ill and even dying. It is a very sad fact that EU Member States export their toxic waste to African countries that are almost powerless to prevent this, and it includes toxic elements such as lead, cadmium, mercury, asbestos and others. In my opinion it is good that the Commission wants to continue working on this. I would like to call on Commissioner Barnier, who promised us that the Commission would take a more energetic approach, to adopt measures to improve this situation.
Mairead McGuinness
Mr President, there is a problem in the European Union because our citizens are dumping on their own doorsteps. To do that in Europe is one thing but to do it to the developing world and to the poor is, as the authors of this question said, reprehensible.
I will listen carefully to the Commission's response about new legislation. I am always concerned that we layer legislation on top of existing laws without looking at the enforcement aspects, and I would ask the Commission to address the issue of enforcement. I think in many areas we do not have sufficient numbers in Member States to correctly keep control and account of the transportation issue, in this case of toxic waste. The consequences for the health and welfare of those who handle this waste in a very inappropriate way are extremely serious. This is a moral and ethical question. Perhaps if our citizens were aware of this - I think they are not - they might think twice about their purchasing and disposal methods.
Michel Barnier
Mr President, Mrs McGuinness made an important point just now, namely that there is a moral and ethical dimension to this issue, given all the public health, biodiversity and economic concerns we have raised.
That is why - and I say this to Mrs Westlund and Mrs Roithovà, as well as to other speakers - the Commission is determined to act. In order to support the impact assessment, which will demonstrate the justification for this initiative, the Commission will propose tightening up EU legislation, in particular so as to improve inspections and enforcement of the Waste Shipments Regulation. This should greatly reduce the considerable number of illegal shipments.
All possible solutions are being examined. Give Mr Potočnik the few weeks he needs to draft this legislation. I can say on his behalf that it will be before the end of this year, 2011, that the Commission, taking into consideration the very important debate that you have held, despite the late hour, presents its legislative proposals to step up the fight against these illegal shipments and all their consequences.
President
The debate is closed.
Written statements (Rule 149)
Daciana Octavia Sârbu
, in writing. - Earlier this year I made some enquiries to the European Commission in response to press reports about shipments of toxic waste from Italy to Romania. Although no evidence was found for the shipments, what was clear from the outcome of my enquiries was that we could benefit from more regular inspections of cargo, as this would act as a deterrent to those involved in the illegal shipment of waste. Such measures may have an additional impact in the case of third countries because they may lack the capacity to properly monitor incoming shipments and therefore prevent the entry of toxic material into their territory. We should give serious consideration to the benefits of thorough, regular inspections, coordinated at EU level, especially in the case of shipments to developing countries.


14. Lamfalussy follow up - Future Structure of Supervision (
- Before the vote on paragraph 2(c) of the Annex:
Ieke van den Burg
co-rapporteur. - Mr President, in the light of topical developments we have strengthened the text in an oral amendment about the deposit guarantee schemes, and it reads 'the Lamfalussy Level 3 Committees can take decisions on the basis of a fair ...'. Sorry, I have the wrong one.
This one is about qualified majority voting in the Level 3 Committees. This text is brought in line with what should be done to guarantee that host Member States have an important say in the group supervision, and it reads that 'the Lamfalussy Level 3 committees take decisions on the basis of a fair and appropriate QMV system that takes into account the relative size of the financial sector and the GDP of each member State, as well as the systemic importance of the financial sector for the Member State'. From then on it is the same text.
President
Mrs van den Burg, unless I am mistaken I do not think that you read out the correct text.
Ieke van den Burg
co-rapporteur. - Mr President, it is the second one. It was indeed about the deposit guarantee schemes. We tried to strengthen the present text by asking that these rules in the European Union be 'urgently revised to avoid arbitrage between guarantee levels in Member States that may further increase volatility and undermine financial stability instead of increasing security and depositors' confidence'. Then it says they should also guarantee a level playing field for financial institutions. Sorry for this.
(Parliament agreed to accept both oral amendments)
- Before the vote on Amendment 8:
Daniel Dăianu
co-rapporteur. - Mr President, also as an acknowledgement of the frantic search by EU Member States to rescue the banking system, but not in a sufficiently coordinated way, we have thought that it makes sense to introduce this amendment. It reads: 'whereas the increasing cross-border nature of banking in Europe and the need to respond in a coordinated way to adverse shocks, as well as the need to deal with systemic risks effectively, require divergences between the national regimes of Member States to be reduced to the greatest extent possible; whereas there is a need to move beyond the studies that the European Commission has already carried out in this regard and to amend Directive 94/19/EC as soon as possible to provide the same level of protection for bank deposits across the whole European Union in order to preserve financial stability and depositors' confidence and avoid distortions of competition'.
(Parliament agreed to accept the oral amendment)


Freight transport in Europe (debate)
President
The next item is the report by Michael Cramer, on behalf of the Committee on Transport and Tourism, on freight transport in Europe.
Michael Cramer
Madam President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, firstly I should like to thank the shadow rapporteurs most sincerely in connection with the report on freight transport in Europe as well as the secretariat of the Committee on Transport and Tourism, particularly Mr Catot. Cooperation was fruitful, not least because it showed that the report had been unanimously accepted in committee without any negative votes or abstentions.
Europe's citizens are increasingly suffering under the burden of rising freight traffic, particularly on the roads. My report strives to bring the scourge of the lorry under control. The European Commission has clear objectives for its action plan on freight transport, which it wants to introduce soon.
The independent rail freight network in Europe is unequivocally rejected. Even if it is a pleasant dream, mixed traffic is in most countries comfortable on tracks, i.e. freight and passenger trains travel on the same tracks. The utilisation of existing infrastructure must therefore be improved at every technical and logistical opportunity and - of course - must also be extended when necessary.
The report on the Commission's idea of 'green corridors' has provided greater substance. Transport should be shifted on to environmentally friendly modes of transport in order to reduce not only accidents, congestion and noise, but also air pollution and encroachment on the countryside. Renewable energies ought to have an important role in this, whereupon wind and solar power are expressly mentioned in the report.
With the acceptance of the user and polluter pays principles for all modes of transport, the report also delivers a clear message in the debate on the Eurovignette: transport by heavily polluting lorries should no longer be subsidised, and external costs must be completely internalised.
(Heckling)
... and particularly for aircraft.
Shifting freight traffic from road to rail remains a central aim. For this reason the report is demanding a minimum investment of 40% of EU transport funds in the railways. Only around 17% of freight is transported by rail in Europe. In the highway country of the United States, however, the proportion is 40%. The EU will only be able to deal with the increase in freight traffic if it improves its rail infrastructure. The Member States' transport ministers are being asked as a matter of urgency to look beyond their national perspectives and make the investments necessary for Europe in their own countries.
Interconnection of transport modes is also important. A standard carriage document is also required for shipment by sea, rail, lorry and aircraft, a European maritime transport space without barriers, a not only European, but also worldwide standard for intermodal loading units and, in particular, a better connection between maritime and river ports and the hinterland's road and rail network.
Despite the unanimous vote, my group put forward amendments because some votes in committee were extremely close. The most important amendment concerns the challenge to the Commission to specify the areas of major congestion and problems in the European rail freight transport system. This kind of analysis is necessary in order to quickly eliminate the weak spots in the rail network and thus create greater capacity. The Commission itself, incidentally, has very much welcomed this idea and I hope that tomorrow - during the vote in plenary - a majority will be obtained on this.
Many thanks once again to all my fellow Members and for their attentiveness.
Peter Mandelson
Member of the Commission. - Madam President, in a set of four communications adopted in 2007 and 2008, the Commission has developed its strategy for improving the performance of the systems of freight transport in Europe. These communications are: firstly, the EU's freight transport agenda, boosting the efficiency, integration and sustainability of freight transport in Europe; secondly, the action plan for freight transport logistics; thirdly, towards a rail network giving priority to freight; and fourthly, the multiannual contract for rail infrastructure quality.
I am particularly pleased to see that all of these communications have now become the subject of a motion for a resolution in your assembly, which indicates the importance Parliament attaches to this matter.
I would like to thank the rapporteur, Mr Michael Cramer, for the work that he has done, and all the Members who have contributed to it.
In terms of tonnes per kilometre, the White Paper of 2001 foresaw a 50% growth in goods transport in Europe between 2000 and 2020. The Commission will update that estimate next year, but it is already clear that it was pretty accurate. The major challenges presented by this growth, the fight against congestion and climate change, reductions in pollutant emissions and guaranteed security of the energy supply are more topical now than ever they have been.
The choice of means of transport should, therefore, be directed towards the least pollutant ones, although each means of transport, including road transport, should be used where it is most efficient and most suitable.
There is also a need to improve the efficiency of the European transport system by implementing measures aimed at introducing information technology on a large scale, in administrative simplification as well as enhanced service quality.
I welcome the fact that the draft report is encouraging the Commission to pursue a goods transport policy that places a greater emphasis on sustainability. Our wish is to create a transport system that is reliable, effective and viable, both financially and environmentally. To this end I am convinced that co-modality - that is, the rational and optimum use of all modes of transport on their own and in combination - must become one of the guiding rules behind our thinking and action.
In addition, the various modes of transport must meet a number of performance criteria that are essential to competitiveness. In particular, punctuality, regularity, reliability, high quality, sufficient capacity, interoperability and transnational coordination on international corridors are some of the watchwords for an array of services that has the customer absolutely in mind. It is through specific, immediate action at a controlled cost such as those contained in the text of your resolution, together with other European initiatives such as the Green Paper on the future of the TEN-T, that we will be able to increase the efficiency of the European transport system.
Georg Jarzembowski
Madam President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, my group supports the own-initiative report by the Committee on Transport and Tourism with its multifaceted proposals for freight transport in Europe. The framework conditions for environmentally friendly freight transport tailored to suit market needs are crucial for growth and employment in the European Union.
I must also say, however, that the European Union and the Member States are being called upon to increase their efforts considerably in developing and upgrading efficient transport structures. We shall be reminding the Commission of this when we carry out the mid-term review of finances. Making grand speeches does not help if the money is not made available to upgrade the trans-European networks. Upgrading the transport infrastructures applies in particular to rail transport. The priority here is to upgrade the most heavily used rail corridors and equip them with the ERTMS cross-border European rail traffic control system so that we quickly shift freight transport from road to rail. However, to tell you the truth, Commissioner, when you compiled the list of proposals for freight services - I still remember that Neil Kinnock had already had the idea of separate rail networks for freight transport - you were once again acting on the Commission's proposal 'Towards a rail network giving priority to freight'. Since that time nobody at the Commission has been talking about this because you and we know that there is not enough money to provide a second rail network alongside a normal, sensibly developed system tailored to suit market needs. As the Commission you should therefore be telling the truth: the idea of separate freight networks is dead. Let us develop sensible, dual-use networks: primarily passenger trains by day and primarily freight trains by night. We then have to resolve the problem of noise because in cities in Germany and elsewhere, and along the Rhine, the noise at night really gets on citizens' nerves and stops them sleeping. Therefore, let us talk about practical sound-proofing measures on the railways, on the trans-European networks and on the dual use of the rail network.
It is even more important, however, that we take sensible action on the logistics. That, Mr Cramer, is mentioned all too little in the report. It is important that the Member States and the EU work more effectively together with industry and the service enterprises in order to make better use of the freight logistics. The use of logistics is, of course, a primary task of the enterprises. They know best how logistics are used. However, the European Union and the Member States can help by lifting unnecessary national restrictions and - this I fully concede to Mr Cramer - by providing standard customs documents, for example, in order that better use can be made of the logistics. Let us therefore upgrade the infrastructure nationally and let us cooperate with the industry in determining the best use of transport logistics.
Inés Ayala Sender
Madam President, I would first of all like to thank the Commission for the Logistics Action Plan, which has taken into account the majority of the European Parliament's previous proposals. I would also like to thank Mr Cramer, the rapporteur, for being open to constructive dialogue. This has achieved a more integrative text in which logistics should not only contribute to the sustainability of transport in general, and of freight transport in particular, but also to improving mobility by including logistical solutions for all modes of transport and support for green corridors as models of mobility and convenience.
I also welcome the fact that emphasis is placed on using the existing rail traffic networks which are being freed up as a result of the progress made with high-speed passenger trains, and can be specifically dedicated to freight transport.
I also think that the inclusion of the prominent role of internal logistical platforms and dry docks is important, as well as the promotion of urban logistics through determinedly enhancing the logistics aspect of the very interesting CIVITAS programme, which we welcome.
We would also like to thank Mr Cramer for the emphasis placed on the logistics factor in priority cross-border rail freight corridors, among which I must mention the line that includes the central Pyrenees crossing that will be a future link between the Spanish logistical platforms such as Plaza and those in the South of France.
To conclude I would like to draw the Commission's attention to the proposal to arrive at a programme for strengthening cooperation between the national logistics plans of the Member States by the end of this year, which would help to prepare more effective formulas for mitigating the current shortage of resources and dealing with the needs of what is a key sector at this time, in this economic climate, in which fuel prices, the demands of combating climate change, the peripherality caused by enlargement and the dangerous working conditions in the sector mean that it is more urgent that intelligent, innovative and attractive solutions are applied, which only an ambitious European logistics action plan can offer us.
My group therefore supports Mr Cramer's report and his Amendment 4 on multi-annual contracts.
Erik Meijer
on behalf of the GUE/NGL Group. - (NL) Madam President, at various stages of the production process goods are hauled to a faraway place, subsequently ending up in a completely different place as finished products. They are often transported in the most environmentally unfriendly way: by lorry on the increasingly congested motorways. The enormous growth in freight transport, which is still continuing, has been caused by a steady decrease in the costs involved. This is bad news for the environment, for safety, for working conditions and also for animal welfare. My group therefore opts for restricting the growth in transport, and for transferring the necessary remaining transport to the railways and inland waterways as far as possible. This desire is reflected in toned-down form in the European Commission proposals and in the supplementary proposals by the rapporteur, Mr Cramer.
We object to the possibility of precedence being given to freight transport at the expense of passenger trains, however. The growth in freight transport may necessitate a supplementary infrastructure to prevent the two interfering with each other. In addition, I would draw attention to the problems with the launch of the uniform European safety system ERTMS. Investment in this will be beneficial for the future, but will cause problems in the short term.
Johannes Blokland
Madam President, I should like to start by thanking Mr Cramer for his work as rapporteur. The report is a good one, and I should like to highlight the following aspects of it.
Freight traffic must be unrestricted, honest and clean, and we are working hard in this House to make this happen. Earlier this year, the end of cabotage restrictions came into view. That was a good start. This report continues in that vein, and that is excellent. The rapporteur rightly points out that urban freight logistics require a specific approach. It is of the utmost importance that European towns and cities be cleaned up. I think that computerised speed adjustment in towns and cities is an excellent instrument, therefore, and I hope that the European Commission will support measures and make proposals to ensure that freight transport in towns and cities is not constantly having to brake and accelerate. This is the way to make freight transport faster and cleaner.
Silvia-Adriana Ţicău
(RO) The Union's economic development and competitiveness depend on efficient transport of goods. We have to develop the railway infrastructure, the maritime corridors, the ports infrastructure and co-modality. Improving the connections between seaports and river ports and the inland railway and road network is an important component of the logistic infrastructure.
Romania's and Bulgaria's accession provides the European Union with an exit to the Black Sea. The Danube is now almost entirely a waterway inside the Union. This means new opportunities for the European transport of goods. Nevertheless, I emphasize that the efficient transport of goods needs: balanced use of all types of transport, decongesting traffic, simplifying procedures, legislative stability, investments in logistics systems and intelligent transport systems, such as Galileo, but especially ensuring transportation safety.
Programmes such as Naiades and Marco Polo are not sufficiently used by Member States in order to improve the transport of goods. Nevertheless, I call the Commission's attention to the barriers met by some road carriers, and I refer to the Romanian ones, when transiting the territory of certain Member States.
Michael Cramer
Madam President, Commissioner, we also have to think of our own failings, of course. We cannot always be talking about sustainable transport on Sundays and doing the opposite from Monday to Friday. It does seem to be the case that in the Commission 60% of the money flowing into transport flows into roads as co-financing and only 20% of it into environmentally friendly railways.
It can be said that transport in Europe is too cheap and environmentally friendly transport too expensive. This is also to do with the framework conditions. We do, for example, have a compulsory rail toll system for each Member State. This applies to every engine, every kilometre of track, whereas the toll in environmentally damaging road transport is voluntary, its amount is limited and it applies only to motorways, and usually only to lorries of 12 tonnes or more. You need to change these unfair framework conditions, otherwise you will resolve neither problems to do with climate policy nor transport problems. The forecast is that traffic is on the increase. But why is it on the increase? Because it does not cost anything.
There are several examples that could be mentioned. I should like to mention one example from your home country. The United Kingdom exports 1.5 million tonnes of pork every year. If you look at the balance of imports, this shows that the United Kingdom also imports a further 1.5 million tonnes of pork. We could eliminate this. We could eliminate this transportation and use the capacity, which we definitely need, to do so. In Europe we therefore have to eliminate a lot of the nonsense over transport capacity and then we have to shift transport over to environmentally friendly modes and design it to be efficient so that we can guarantee mobility, while providing people with the goods, but also protecting the environment, because this is the order of the day.
Without a healthy environment, neither we nor our children and children's children have the future we all want.
President
The debate is closed.
The vote will take place on Thursday 4 September.
Written statements (Rule 142)
Gábor Harangozó
in writing. - Sustainable and efficient freight transport must indeed seriously be improved as the transport sector is responsible for a large share of CO2 emissions in the Union. As the sector is expected to grow substantially, increasing its efficiency and sustainability should be seen as an opportunity to develop its economic competitiveness and to create numerous jobs.
The Union should therefore allocate resources sufficient to achieve the ambitious objectives of improved mobility, intermodality in transport modes, energy efficiency, reduced consumption of oil and reduced pollution. We welcome therefore the strategic approach of the proposed Freight Transport Action Plan and its objectives: to focus on freight corridors using a combination of the various modes of transport; to promote innovative technologies and infrastructures; more efficient freight transport management and to enhance the attractiveness of modes of transport other than road. To ensure the success of a sustainable European transport policy, we - of course - have to bear in mind the importance of fostering synergies and complementarities with other European policies such as energy and environment policies.
Cross-border harmonisation of national rules and synergy with the other related policies are necessary conditions for the achievement of the objectives of sustainable and efficient freight transport.


2. European Council meeting (15-16 October 2008) (vote)
- Before the vote:
Pervenche Berès
Mr President, in managing this crisis, Parliament has demonstrated its sense of responsibility. It is in this spirit that the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs met on Monday evening to approach the revision of the Capital Requirements Directive, known as 'CRD', which has been presented by the Commission as one of the cornerstones of its response to the serious financial crisis in the European Union.
I would like to inform this plenary assembly that the Commission did not consider it useful to participate in the work done by the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs on Monday evening for this exchange of views.
- Before the vote on paragraph 6:
Wolf Klinz
(DE) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, you have received this in writing. I am in favour of our adding a phrase with the following wording in English:
'Deplores the expected spillover effects to other sectors of the economy, therefore ...'
(DE) This insertion would make clear that the financial crisis has a negative impact on the overall economy.
(The oral amendment was not accepted)
Hartmut Nassauer
(DE) Mr President, I should just like to point out that we are voting on a joint motion for a resolution by four political groups, who have agreed not to table any amendments to the joint text. Oral amendments are also amendments, and the Group of the Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe has signed the joint resolution. For this reason, to our regret, we must oppose further amendments, including oral amendments.
- After the vote on Amendment 6:
Avril Doyle
Mr President, were we not required to vote on paragraph 6? I will be advised by you.
President
No, there has been no request for a separate vote on that paragraph.
- Before the vote on paragraph 9:
Margarita Starkevičiūt
(LT) I just wanted to add the words which are next to paragraph 9, and then the text would sound like this:
'and their conformity with the Treaty provisions', for the purpose of clarification. The text would therefore read as follows: 'state aid rules to measures taken and their conformity with the Treaty provisions'.
(The oral amendment was not accepted)
- Before the vote on paragraph 29:
Ona Juknevičien
Mr President, I believe the colleagues from the PPE-DE Group will be standing up to speak shortly, but, before they do, I would ask them to consider whether it would harm their principles to support my oral amendment by adding two words which highlight the isolation of the Baltic region in the energy sector and its 100% dependence on Russia. We would like to highlight and to welcome the Commission's, and specifically the Council's, initiative to help put an end to the Baltic region's isolation in the energy sector. Therefore, in paragraph 29, where we talk about Eastern Europe, I would like to mention the Baltic region. I ask for your support.
(Applause from the centre and the left)
Hartmut Nassauer
(DE) Mr President, I would suggest that our fellow Members from the Group of the Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe raise their legitimate objections during the negotiations intended for that purpose. It is an impertinence to make such proposals in plenary, as we cannot hold a serious debate on them here. That is unparliamentary, and therefore should be dropped.
(Applause)
(The oral amendment was not accepted)
- After the vote on Amendment 1:
Hélène Goudin
(SV) Mr President, I think there is no excuse for us not having received the amendments until ten o'clock this morning, and then only in English, Latvian and Finnish. That is not how things should happen.
President
We note your complaint, Mrs Goudin.
- After the vote:
Alexander Alvaro
Mr President, I just wanted to point out to the House that we voted on a resolution of a European Council meeting, and it is a disgrace that nobody from the Council is present to take into account what we have been working on and what we have to say. This is not the way we work together.
(Applause)
David Martin
Mr President, it may be true that the Council is not here, but I would like to ask the House to welcome our new Commissioner who, immediately after her endorsement, has taken the trouble to be present for the vote. I welcome Baroness Ashton to the Chamber.
(Loud applause)
President
Indeed, Mr Martin. You are absolutely on the ball.