50th anniversary of the Tibetan uprising and dialogue between the Dalai Lama and the Chinese Government (debate)
President
The next item is the oral question to the Commission on the 50th anniversary of the Tibetan uprising and dialogue between the Dalai Lama and the Chinese Government, by Marco Cappato, Marco Pannella and Janusz Onyszkiewicz, on behalf of the Group of the Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe, and Monica Frassoni and Eva Lichtenberger, on behalf of the Group of the Greens/European Free Alliance - B6-0012/2009).
I should like to make a brief personal comment: I truly believe that our debate can contribute to the freedom of all Tibetan citizens and not to the domination of either a state or a religion.
Marco Cappato
Madam President, I share your hope. Unfortunately we cannot hope that the President-in-Office of the Council will take advantage of this debate and this discussion to help advance the position of the European Union. In fact the Czech Presidency evidently considers a common European policy to be a barrier to the great national foreign policies of our national states. China is grateful for this, Russia is grateful, that is to say repressive and anti-democratic countries all over the world give thanks for this absence of Europe that is so well illustrated by the absence of the Presidency in this House.
I would like to point out to Mrs FerreroWaldner, as we tackle this point together, what is in my view the ultimate issue: it is not just a question of law and order - in other words looking at how many monks have been arrested and how many Tibetans have been killed recently due to brutal Chinese repression, hoping that the count will be lower than it was a year ago. What I would have liked to say to the Council and will now say to the Commission is that it must give an opinion on the fundamental political point, that is on the talks between the People's Republic of China and the envoys of the Dalai Lama, the aim of these talks and the reason why they were suspended - we could now say they have failed - unless we can revive them.
There are two opposing positions: on one side, the position of the Chinese regime, which says the Dalai Lama is a violent man at the head of a violent people, and that the Dalai Lama and the Tibetan government in exile want independence for a national Tibetan state, which runs counter to Chinese territorial unity. That is the line taken by Beijing. On the other side, there is the Dalai Lama, the exiled Tibetan government and the Dalai Lama's envoys, who say they seek something else, that their means of fighting is through non-violence and that they simply want true autonomy, meaning autonomy to retain their culture, tradition, language and religion, or their cultures and religions. This is the message of the memorandum that the Dalai Lama's Tibetan envoys presented to the Chinese regime. This memorandum has been published and contains their demands.
At this point the European Union is being asked to choose, to take sides. There are two conflicting positions: one of the parties is lying. The EU can be decisive in the search for the truth. As the Radical Party we propose satyagraha, the search for truth, as a collective global political initiative. The European Union should make use of its diplomatic tools - Mrs FerreroWaldner, please say this to President Barroso - we must meet with the Dalai Lama and do him the honour of allowing him to speak, in order to find the truth. Is Beijing right in saying that the Tibetans are violent terrorists favouring independence, or is the Dalai Lama right in saying that they want a decent and dignified autonomous state? Europe cannot stand still and remain silent in the face of this conflict.
Eva Lichtenberger
Madam President, 50 years ago, the Chinese army delivered the final blow to Tibetan resistance. Since then, Tibetans have fled, with an inordinate amount of effort, over the Himalayas and across the borders into other states. Up to now, several thousand people a year - all of whom are refugees - have made this supreme effort to cross 5000 m high passes. If, as China has always claimed, the situation of the Tibetans is so wonderful, there would be neither grounds for flight nor justification for the fact that journalists, people from the West and observers have been prevented for months from visiting this country at all or only under close escort. Female journalists are even followed to the toilet by female intelligence service observers to ensure that nothing forbidden can be done.
I therefore ask myself: what is our task as the European Union? We need somehow to bring about the resumption of the Sino-Tibetan dialogue. However, it must take place on a different basis. Up to now all that has happened is that China has repeated the same accusations and demands, without trying in the slightest to understand the Tibetan representatives' explanation that it is not a matter of leaving China and becoming an independent state; it is about achieving autonomy.
Commissioner, how do we deal with the fact that the monitoring of the Internet in Tibet is stricter than anywhere else in China and that it was European companies that supplied the tools to make this monitoring so efficient? We need to act. We are being called on at home to enter into dialogue.
Benita Ferrero-Waldner
Member of the Commission. - Madam President, I am very pleased that this discussion is taking place today, on an issue which has preoccupied many of us for a long time and especially since the sad events a year ago in Tibet. Therefore I think that it is very good that we are having this open discussion to again see what can be done.
Before I come to the many issues you raised in the tabled joint resolution, let me also have a quick word on our bilateral relations with China. The EU policy vis-à-vis China is one of engagement. Our strategic partnership is strong, and this permits us to tackle all issues, including the most sensitive ones. We have constructed an impressive framework of high-level interaction where we regularly address all the global changes that our citizens are facing, without neglecting the issues where we may disagree. Tibet is one of them. Let me be very clear - we do not see eye to eye with China on Tibet, and we still have a very real and legitimate concern about the human rights situation in Tibet, as you have both just outlined; about the fact that Tibet has remained largely closed for the international media, for diplomats and for humanitarian organisations for almost a year now; and about the stalemate in talks between the representatives of the Dalai Lama and the Chinese authorities, despite the three rounds of talks last year.
These issues were also at the top of the agenda for several EU leaders in bilateral meetings held with the Chinese leadership last year. We have endeavoured to find common understanding with China on this delicate subject, and we have been very clear whenever we have addressed the situation in Tibet with them.
Let me again mention the EU's position, which does not leave any room for misinterpretation. Firstly, we support the sovereignty and territorial integrity of China, including Tibet. Secondly, we have always supported a peaceful reconciliation through dialogue between the Chinese authorities and the Dalai Lama's representatives. I remember, when I went there with the Commission, President Barroso and other colleagues, I had specific dialogues with many of my interlocutors on this issue. We have always maintained that there should be a reconciliation dialogue and that the dialogue should go on.
This dialogue has to be constructive and substantive, and of course we therefore regret that, up to now, this dialogue has not brought really substantive results. We have always said that the dialogues should address the core issues, such as the preservation of Tibet's unique culture, religion and traditions as well as the need to achieve a system of meaningful autonomy for Tibet within a Chinese constitution. We have always said that this dialogue should address the participation of all Tibetans in decision-making. Therefore we would welcome it if these issues were to be addressed in China's future national human rights action plan.
For us, Tibet is a human rights issue and has therefore invariably been approached as such. We have also consistently passed this message to our Chinese counterparts and listened very carefully to their views. We have made every effort to understand the position in a spirit of mutual respect, but human rights are universal, and the situation in Tibet is therefore - rightly - of international legitimate concern to the whole international community, particularly the European Union. This fact is, of course, emphasised by the existence of instruments of international law for the protection of human rights over half a century.
In your resolution you stipulate the future of a Sino-Tibetan dialogue. As you all know, at the last round of talks, following the request of the Chinese Government, the Tibetan side submitted a memorandum on genuine autonomy for the future of Tibet. In my opinion the paper contains some elements that could provide the basis for future talks. I am thinking of a paragraph on culture, education and religion.
I am also encouraged by the fact that, for the first time in a written document, the Tibetan side has expressed its firm commitment not to seek separation or independence. I think this is important in order to bring this dialogue further. I am also pleased that the Dalai reaffirmed before this House last December his devotion to the middle-way approach and to dialogue as the only means for achieving a mutually acceptable and lasting solution.
Let me conclude by sharing with you a personal conviction. Throughout my political and personal career, I have always strongly believed that, through engagement and dialogue, even the most difficult issues can be addressed and hopefully, when the time is right, can also be solved. Therefore I wish to appeal to China and to the Dalai Lama's representative to resume this dialogue at the earliest possible opportunity with an open spirit and a view to achieving a durable solution in Tibet. I can guarantee, from our side, our wholehearted support for such a process. This is our position and this is the position that we bring to the Chinese side.
Charles Tannock
on behalf of the PPE-DE Group. - Madam President, the EU's motto is 'Unity in diversity'. It is a principle that has served us well.
Unfortunately, such an idea does not resonate at all well with the authoritarian Communist dictatorship in the People's Republic of China. Diversity is suppressed, rather than embraced. Minorities wishing to express themselves in any way other than the mainstream Party-sanctioned way are routinely marginalised and persecuted. This trend can be seen in the treatment of many religious minorities, including Christians, Muslims and Falun Gong practitioners, and most notably in the PRC's attitude to Tibet.
In 1950, Communist forces invaded Tibet, leading to the exile of the Dalai Lama 50 years ago. Ever since then, Tibet has been under the control of Beijing. The traditional Tibetan culture, which was isolated for hundreds of years, has now been heavily diluted by the actions of the Government, which has been at pains to prevent any sense of Tibetan nationalism from resurfacing. In fact, the systematic and sometimes brutal suppression of Tibetan culture has kindled the fire of Tibetan identity and awakened the world's conscience to the plight of the people of Tibet.
The inspirational leadership of the Dalai Lama has ensured that Tibet's future remains very much at the forefront of public debate, notwithstanding the huge efforts made by the PRC to admonish those like the former President-in-Office of the Council, Nicolas Sarkozy, who dared to question Beijing's point of view.
We in this Parliament have always taken a strong line in defence of the autonomous rights of the people of Tibet, which does not automatically mean the right to self-determination or independence. In doing this, we do not seek to provoke or antagonise China. However, we recognise that our commitment to certain values - human rights, democracy, the rule of law and freedom of conscience - cannot be seen separately from the undoubtedly important strategic economic partnership that the EU is developing with China.
Pro-China voices on the other side of the House will have their say in this debate, but for too long the people of Tibet have been denied their voice, and we must speak for them.
Glyn Ford
on behalf of the PSE Group. - Madam President, the Socialist Group is concerned about the human rights situation in China. While we recognise that the situation has improved significantly over the last 10 years, there are still many areas where human rights are still not properly or adequately protected. There may be a degree of freedom of thought, but there is not freedom of action. We would certainly highlight the failure to allow free trade unions to operate within China. We are concerned about the plight of the 100 million migrant workers who have moved from country to city and who have the most limited access to health and education. We are concerned about the plight of religious and ethnic minorities across the whole of China.
Nevertheless, the Socialist Group was opposed to this debate and resolution. The reason was proportionality. It is right to criticise China for its human rights record, as we criticise the United States for its use of the death penalty, Guantánamo and extraordinary rendition, but we do not have to do it every part-session. Frankly, it is becoming counterproductive. At one time, the Chinese authorities paid heed to our resolutions, but no more. As some individuals and groups in their desperate attention-seeking continue to up the ante with today a demand, I think for the first time, that Member States should abrogate the one-China policy and recognise the Tibetan government-in-exile.
The Dalai Lama was here only in December, speaking on behalf of Tibet in the plenary. Why is it necessary to revisit the issue again? There is nothing new in the resolution.
I, along with Elmar Brok, Philippe Morillon and other Members of this Parliament, had the opportunity last summer to visit Lhasa. We were the first international group to travel there after the troubles in March and spoke both to the authorities and those who were sympathetic to the Tibetan protesters. As I wrote afterwards, the reality was that peaceful protests - and we support peaceful protest - turned into race riots, when shops, homes and Han Chinese were attacked and burned, with dozens of deaths. Schools suffered arson attacks and hospitals and mosques of the Muslim minority were attacked. The Dalai Lama himself recognised the reality of the situation when he threatened at the time to step down as a living god.
China has done an enormous amount for Tibet in terms of providing infrastructure, like the new Qinghai-Lhasa railway, and higher levels of social provision than elsewhere in rural China. The problem is it is beginning to be resented elsewhere within China.
(Protests)
But the problem is, to quote the Beatles: 'Money can't buy you love'. Tibetans still want a degree of cultural and political autonomy far beyond that which China is prepared to grant. As I said at the time, China needs a dialogue with representatives of Tibet to find a solution that grants that autonomy, while protecting minority rights of ethnic and religious groups in the province.
The alternative is that impatient, young Tibetans will turn to violence and terrorism. As a result of the article I wrote at the time, I was asked to discuss the matter with Dalai Lama's representative in London, which I did at some length. I agree with the Commissioner: it is through dialogue and engagement that we will find a way forward, not through shrill, endlessly repetitive, rehashed resolutions, such as the one we have here today.
Hanna Foltyn-Kubicka
Madam President, during the last few decades, democratic countries have called, on numerous occasions, for human rights to be respected in non-democratic countries. These efforts have been effective only when countries and international organisations have been consistent in their actions and demands. Unfortunately, the case of Tibet or, more broadly speaking, the issue of human rights in China, has generally often been pushed to the sidelines, with trade relations taking priority. If it were not for the Olympics in Beijing, and the decisive stance taken by many social and non-governmental organisations, the world would still know very little about the situation in Tibet.
Our role, as the European Parliament, is to ensure that democratic countries react strongly and decisively to the actions of the Chinese authorities, such as the 'Strike Hard' campaign which was implemented some time ago. However, this can only be achieved if we consistently and decisively condemn all human rights violations perpetrated by the Communist authorities in China.
It is worth remembering that, in its resolution of 6 July 2000, the European Parliament called on Member States to recognise the Tibetan Government in exile if, within the space of three years, no agreement had been reached between the Chinese authorities and the Dalai Lama's administration. As we know, Beijing still refuses to engage in talks with the indisputable leader of the Tibetan people. Let us also not forget the Eleventh Panchen Lama, the youngest political prisoner, who has been in Chinese custody for 14 years. He will be 20 this year.
I would, therefore, like to once again call on Parliament to be consistent in its actions and to treat its declarations seriously. If we do not show that we mean what we say, it will be difficult to expect others to keep their promises and fulfil their obligations.
Raül Romeva i Rueda
Madam President, I have been following the case of Tibet for years. I have visited the region and have spoken to many people inside and outside the country. I consider the Tibetan people's claims to be legitimate and to a certain extent logical. I especially find their current fears more than justified in view of the Chinese Government's policy of severe repression towards them, which has now lasted more than 50 years, apart from a brief and, I would say, false truce during the Olympic Games.
I have known few people more clearly willing to talk and reach an agreement than the Tibetan people. That is why I fail to understand this obsession by the Chinese Government both to twist reality and to insist on blocking the round of talks again and again.
A country is not made great by its military strength or its size or its economic wealth. What makes it great is the magnanimity of its acts and its generosity. The European Union can and must help to resolve this situation, while of course respecting the sovereignties involved, but it must do so firmly. The way to do this is to support the Tibetan request to restart the Chinese-Tibetan talks and to recognise that, if anyone has spent years giving way to and being pressurised by the Chinese authorities, then in this case it is the Tibetan people.
This is not a conflict between equals in terms of either capacity or motives. The European Union must be respectful towards both parties, but it cannot remain neutral towards the oppression, indiscriminate detentions, torture, murders or the religious, linguistic and cultural genocide.
The memorandum for genuine autonomy for the Tibetan people, now rejected by China as a working document, shows that the Tibetan people have already made a genuine effort and given up an enormous amount of what, I emphasise, are their legitimate aspirations.
China now has the opportunity to show the world its generosity and its desire for peace and harmony and, above all, the European Union has the opportunity to help it act in accordance with its greatness.
Thomas Mann
(DE) Madam President, on 10 March 1959, the Tibetan people were subjected to unspeakable suffering at the hands of the Chinese. Sixty thousand people lost their lives and hundreds of thousands were arrested, taken away and tortured in the months that followed. A year ago, the violence escalated once again. More than 200 Tibetans died, some as a result of deliberate fatal shots, and now - shortly after the 50th anniversary - monasteries are closed to the outside world, access roads are controlled and soldiers and security men stand in readiness to nip demonstrations in the bud. We still have no news of possible rioting. What is the response to this show of power? Silence in the media. The Dalai Lama has urged his people to maintain the path of non-violence. His call for dialogue has had no positive response in Beijing. When an envoy of the Dalai Lama presented specific steps for autonomy in a memorandum, they were rejected by President Hu Jintao. He said, 'we must build a Great Wall against separatism'. This idea, which is pure provocation, was topped by the planned forced introduction of a holiday for Tibetans: 28 March is to be Serfs' Emancipation Day. This is the bitter reality.
Two days ago, the European Parliament displayed flags. In plenary, an impressive number of us placed the Tibetan flag on our tables and showed our solidarity with the suffering Tibetans. There were peaceful protests in all parts of the EU. Our fellow Members - Mr Cappato, Mrs Lichtenberger, Mr Tannock and Mr Romeva i Rueda - are absolutely right: today's resolution speaks loud and clear. The memorandum must form the basis for further negotiations. It is a document for true autonomy within the framework of the Chinese constitution. The isolation of Tibet must stop - for the inhabitants, for tourists, for journalists. We must have an answer to 600 imprisoned Tibetans.
Roberta Angelilli
(IT) Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, this Parliament cannot allow the recent cry of pain from the Dalai Lama to go unheard. Only a few months ago we listened to him speak in Brussels; we all know him to be a gentle man, a peace-maker, a spokesman for Tibetan culture, that is to say the culture of harmony and fraternity par excellence. It is in the name of these values, speaking of his 'Chinese brothers', that the Dalai Lama has asked - forcefully, however - for legitimate and tangible autonomy for Tibet, recalling the torture and terrible suffering of his people and his land. This is a request that Parliament should be proud to support. It is our political and institutional duty, in the name of democracy, human rights and the values of freedom. The Tibetans look to Europe, perhaps, as their only hope; we really must not disappoint them.
Georg Jarzembowski
(DE) Madam President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, without a doubt we Christian Democrats recognise the sovereignty of the People's Republic of China over its territory, including Tibet.
However, at the same time we reject China's view that any statement from the European Union regarding human rights in China constitutes impermissible interference in China's internal affairs. According to a modern understanding of human rights and international law - which hopefully China will also soon share - the international community is required express concern about human rights in all parts of the world, particularly in very blatant cases.
How else could an International Criminal Tribunal take action against the crimes against humanity in the countries of the former Yugoslavia and pass judgment if it did not have the right to intervene for the sake of human rights?
The People's Republic of China and its government should therefore recognise that the discussion of human rights such as the freedom of assembly, the freedom of an independent press, religious freedom and the rights of cultural minorities in Tibet and in other parts of China does not constitute impermissible interference. It must face up to this discussion.
Our main concern today, however, is simply the plea - and I cannot therefore understand Mr Ford in this regard, although he has always been more on the side of the Chinese government - for the People's Republic of China and its government to resume talks with the Dalai Lama as leader of a large proportion of the Tibetan people.
To be honest - as my fellow Member has already said -the government did hold these talks last year, but broke them off after the Olympic Games. We are forced to suspect then that these talks were only conducted during the Olympic Games to divert our attention. However, Mr Ford, we will not allow our attention to be diverted. We will place this matter on the agenda time and again and we call on the Chinese Government to enter into real and serious talks with the Dalai Lama, as human rights are still being violated in Tibet and we must ensure that this situation changes.
Marcin Libicki
(PL) Madam President, if we are discussing the fate of persecuted Tibetans today, then we must be aware that their prospects will improve only if the whole international community exerts political pressure on China. Therefore, I must also stress that, in this regard, all the efforts made by Mrs Ferrero-Waldner, and by those in a position to influence global politics, may very well bear fruit.
I must also stress that it was with the greatest regret that I listened to the speech made by the representative of the Socialist Group in the European Parliament, who claimed that China's crimes were justified by the construction of a railway line to Tibet. This reminds me of a time when, in Europe, the construction of motorways was used to justify the construction of concentration camps. We cannot allow railway lines and motorways to be built on the pain and suffering of persecuted people.
Cornelis Visser
(NL) Madam President, I stood here one year ago, when we were discussing the unrest in Tibet. We implored China to give the media and international organisations access to the area and I am glad to say that we, as Parliament, called at that point for a serious dialogue between China and the Dalai Lama.
Last year, China showed the whole world, through its organisation and holding of the Olympic Games, that it is a country capable of transformation and of astonishing the world. In the run-up to the Games, China gave foreign journalists some space. I appreciate that this temporary granting of some freedom of the press was for foreign journalists. Sadly, it was short-lived. Last Tuesday, journalists were unable to get into Tibet in order to report on the situation there.
I deeply regret the fact that the Chinese Government no longer guarantees the freedom of the press. At the same time, there is absolutely no freedom of the press for journalists in China. Chinese journalists apply a system of self-censorship that requires them to adopt the government's position. In this case, too, there is a world of difference between the law - which is sound and guarantees the freedom of the press - and the reality on the ground, where journalists have to impose restrictions on themselves. All the media have to submit to the censorship diktats of the parties.
What is more, the government also blocks websites. Internet users inform one another quickly of political developments as they happen. For the dialogue between the Tibetans and the Chinese - the population, the people - it is crucial that they have accurate information. Negotiations can only be held on the basis of facts, and the freedom of the press in China is an important precondition for that to happen. There must be freedom to write, to enable journalists to inform the rest of the Chinese people about what is going on in Tibet.
Let us, Europe, bang our fist on the table and stand up for human rights in China. This is a necessary step in order to get the dialogue between China and Tibet going again. Let China take this one step in the right direction and pave the way for dialogue, or, in the words of the Chinese philosopher Lao Tzu, 'a journey of a thousand miles begins with a single step'.
Zita Pleštinská
- (SK) I was in China at the time of the sad events of March 2008 in Tibet and I was able to follow the events only on the Internet because we were not allowed into Tibet. I saw then how much the inhabitants of Tibet need help.
I firmly believe that, through this resolution, the European Parliament must convey to the Chinese Government the words of His Holiness the Dalai Lama about how Tibet does not have separatist tendencies and is striving only for the recognition of Tibetan cultural autonomy within the framework of China.
I understand that the EU is trying to establish good economic relations with China, and we communicated this in our discussions with the Chinese Government and MPs in Beijing within the framework of the IMCO delegation visit in March 2008. However, we cannot remain indifferent to the situation in Tibet or to the constant violations of human rights, the reprisals, the suffering and the violence.
On the occasion of the 50th anniversary of the departure of the Dalai Lama into exile in India, I expect the Chinese authorities to allow independent observers and foreign media unrestricted access to Tibet in order to assess the situation on the ground.
Victor Boştinaru
(RO) Commissioner, I would like to thank you for the balanced position which you have presented once again today during Parliament's plenary.
The European Union's relations with China are of strategic importance to all Members of the European Parliament and they do and will have major global repercussions. I would have expected us to discuss the European Union's cooperation with China in reforming the global financial system, bearing in mind China's balanced and constructive position, especially now, before the G20 summit in London. It could have been the right time to put Africa on a common agenda, bearing in mind the major role which China plays there, and I could continue.
In spite of these obvious issues, in spite of the European Commission's agenda with China and unlike the 27 Member States' much more consistent and balanced agenda with China, I note with regret that we, in the European Parliament, are turning this strategic relationship into an issue and pawn in the political groups' electoral campaign.
Human rights are and must be the main priority, but they cannot be the only one.
Janusz Onyszkiewicz
(PL) Madam President, in the early 1950s, the Chinese Government forced Tibetan representatives to sign an agreement in which it guaranteed Tibet far-reaching autonomy. These guarantees came to nothing. As a result of public pressure and the fear of a boycott of the Olympic Games, the Chinese Government began talks with the representatives of the Dalai Lama. However, these talks were held at a gallingly low level and, moreover, the dialogue was akin to communication between two televisions, set to different channels.
We do not want dialogue, we want negotiations. We want the Chinese to negotiate with the representatives of the Dalai Lama, on the basis of the proposed memorandum. If the Chinese Government thinks that this memorandum is not a good basis, let it justify its opinion, rather than hiding behind the blanket statement that it is nothing more than a memorandum proposing Tibetan independence, which is absolutely not the case.
Laima Liucija Andrikien
Madam President, I fully support what has been said by the Commissioner, that dialogue and engagement are of crucial importance. At the same time, we have to admit that what we see today is a clear lack of political will on the Chinese side to have serious and result-oriented dialogue with the representatives of the Dalai Lama.
For many of us the case of Tibet - its autonomy - is a litmus test for the Chinese authorities. Tibet is a reflection of the human rights situation in China, as well as the situation of human rights defenders like Hu Jia, Sakharov Laureate 2008. I do not see Mr Ford in the Chamber now, but I would like to assure him that human rights always have been and always will be at the top of our political agenda.
Tunne Kelam
Madam President, the Chinese Government has termed the anniversary of the occupation of Tibet the 'liberation of serfs'. Sadly, this is Orwellian Newspeak still being practised: slavery is freedom; lies are truth. But it shows that the Chinese Communist leaders have become long-term prisoners of their own bad conscience.
Achieving genuine autonomy for Tibet is closely related to realising the message of another date: soon, 20 years of Tiananmen student democracy.
Achieving real democracy in China is key to a solution in Tibet, but time is running short, and much will depend on our own moral determination.
I also call on the Council Presidency to make a similar statement to our resolution on this occasion and also in June on the occasion of the Tiananmen Square massacre.
Benita Ferrero-Waldner
Member of the Commission. - Madam President, this debate has briefly but clearly shown once again our great concern at the situation in Tibet. The interventions have underlined that this concern remains as real and legitimate 50 years after the Tibetan uprising of 10 March 1959. Moreover, I think our discussion has also underlined the necessity for both parties to resume dialogue promptly. I say 'dialogue' because dialogue is always the first important step before moving on to negotiations. It is also the best way to avoid frustration and violence among young Tibetans. I think this is a very resonant reason. That is why a more substantial dialogue is in the interests of both sides.
The Dalai Lama is a respected religious leader and, amongst other things, a Nobel Peace Prize Laureate. While individual European leaders have met with him in various, but usually religious, contexts, meetings in a political context are not our policy. Having said that, we have frequent exchanges with his envoys, especially on progress with the dialogue process, and this is how we will continue.
President
The debate is closed.
I too hope that the Tibetan people can have their freedom, but also that they will not have to live under the control of either a state or a religion.
I have received five motions for resolutions pursuant to Rule 108(5) of the Rules of Procedure.
The vote will take place today at 12 noon.
Written statements (Rule 142)
Filip Kaczmarek
For 50 years, Tibetan refugees have been calling for their fundamental rights to be respected. I am convinced that respecting these rights and reopening the process of dialogue with the people of Tibet is clearly in China's interest. In today's world, a country's image is an important part of the way it operates within the global economy, and in terms of international cooperation. China's refusal to engage in dialogue with the Dalai Lama's representatives, and its rejection of the extremely moderate demands of the Tibetans, is harmful to its image. Engaging in talks on rights which are in accordance with the principles of the Chinese constitution would not pose any significant risk for China. In fact, quite the opposite is the case. Great countries and great nations should be magnanimous. Such behaviour may provide proof of their greatness.
Engaging in a dialogue with Tibet provides China with an opportunity to show its good, positive, side. Showing solidarity with Tibet and the Tibetan people is not anti-Chinese. It is an expression of concern for human rights, religious and linguistic freedom, cultural diversity and the right to maintain one's national identity and autonomy. Therefore, we are not interfering in China's internal affairs, but merely trying to defend standards and values which are important to us everywhere - in Europe, Asia and throughout the world. China has not been singled out in any way. We defend the rights of small nations even when this proves to be bothersome or uncomfortable. This is because we believe that it is the right approach to take.
(The sitting was suspended at 11.55 a.m. and resumed at 12.05 p.m.)


11. Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia: progress report 2008 (vote)
- Before the vote:
Erik Meijer
author. - Mr President, before we vote on the resolution I tabled on the accession process for the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, I wish to make three technical remarks so that everybody can decide on the correct texts.
First remark: where it speaks about the Macedonian negotiator in paragraph 12, the text should be 'the negotiator of the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia'. This is entirely in line with what we decided on when voting on my reports of 2007 and 2008.
Second remark: in paragraph 18, the Macedonian Orthodox Church is the official name of the biggest religious community in the country. This is mentioned in order to distinguish it from the Serbian Orthodox group. This use of the word 'Macedonian' cannot be replaced by any reference to any state name. As it is the official name of an institution, I propose surrounding the name with inverted commas.
Third remark: as regards the translation of the word 'pending' in paragraph 10 in the phrase 'pending full implementation of the key priorities of the Accession Partnership', the French and Italian versions - at least - differ from the texts in English, German and Dutch. For all final translations I propose using the original English version.
Giorgos Dimitrakopoulos
on behalf of the PPE-DE Group. - (EL) Mr President, in paragraph 12 we had Amendment 1 by Mr Swoboda, on which a roll-call vote was requested and, as you know, Mr Swoboda withdrew Amendment 1 today. I would therefore ask that a roll-call vote be taken on the second part of paragraph 12.
Anna Ibrisagic
on behalf of the PPE-DE Group. - Mr President, I should like to propose a deletion of one part of the text, so the new text of the second part of paragraph 13 should read: 'in view of the new round of negotiations announced under the "Nimetz process", expresses the hope that all governments in the neighbourhood will support the integration of this country in the EU, thus contributing to the stability and prosperity of the region;'.
Hannes Swoboda
on behalf of the PSE Group. - (DE) Mr President, I would like to say first of all that I do not think it is fair that, when I withdrew my amendment, you rejected part of my original text. That is not a fair procedure.
However, with regard to what Mrs Ibrisagic has just said, I would like to say that we are able to accept this wording. I would then also withdraw my Amendment 3 and I hope for fair treatment from the other side.


3. Area of Freedom, Security and Justice (AFSJ) 2007 (vote)
- Before the vote on Amendment 1
Manfred Weber
(DE) Mr President, on behalf of the PPE-DE Group, may I move an oral amendment for the reformulation of Amendment 1. Before doing so, let me say that the report from Mr Deprez and the entire committee is excellent, and the PPE-DE Group would like to vote in favour of it. We do, however, have one key point, which is the question of voting rights for migrants in the European Union, not because we reject enfranchisement in general but because we take the view that subsidiarity should apply to such decisions. Electoral law is not a European matter.
For this reason, we would like to build a bridge to the amendment by proposing that it be reworded. We ask our fellow Members in the other groups to support the new wording so that we can all approve this good report.
The new wording reads as follows:
'a proposal concerning the integration of long-term residents into the political life at European and local level; a step forward which could help the social, cultural and political integration of these long-term residents;'.
(DE) I ask for your support.
President
I see there are objections.
(The oral amendment was not adopted)


Assessment and management of flood risks (debate)
President
The next item is the recommendation for second reading by the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Food Safety on the Council common position with a view to adopting a directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on the assessment and management of flood risks (12131/6/2006 C6-0038/2007 (Rapporteur: Richard Seeber).
Richard Seeber
rapporteur. - (DE) Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, let me take a moment to thank my friend Jacques Barrot for repeatedly confronting the problems involved in transalpine freight haulage and for being our comrade-in-arms on the long march towards the solution of these problems.
Today, however, we are speaking about floods and what can be done about them at the European level. At this juncture I wish to thank Commissioner Dimas and his staff, the shadow rapporteurs and the German Presidency, all of whom have worked very constructively with me to achieve an agreement at second reading, a far-reaching agreement that covers all the key issues.
I need hardly remind you that floods have become the commonest form of natural disaster in Europe. In 2002 and 2005 we had raging floods with devastating effects. They claimed people's lives and caused serious damage to housing and infrastructure. Those floods hit us hard. There is sound scientific evidence that heavy rainfall is becoming increasingly frequent and severe and that this trend is directly linked to human activity.
The first reason lies in concentrated urbanisation, especially in high-risk areas, with the development of built-up areas and streets, river realignments and ill-considered construction schemes on flood plains. The second reason is deforestation, especially the authorised clearing of river valleys for developments such as the construction of holiday chalets but also for industrial estates and shopping centres. Thirdly, highly intensive farming practices result in topsoil being sealed in concrete and reduce the availability of meadows and flood plains. Fourthly, we have the phenomenon of soil erosion, which is also a contributory factor.
Following the catastrophic floods in 2002, the Commission presented a flood-response programme, which included provision for improvements in research and information. The Commission also presented a Communication on flood-risk management, which analysed the situation and proposed a concerted EU action programme. One of the components of that programme is the present proposal for a directive that has now culminated in the compromise package on which we shall vote tomorrow with a view to reducing the flood-related risks to human health, the environment, the infrastructure and the economy.
In view of the increased risk of flood-induced damage, it is truly essential to create a European regulatory framework alongside the national rules, because the great majority of rivers flow across national borders. A total of 80% of Europe's rivers are not confined to a single country but straddle national borders. It therefore went without saying that Europe had to respond to the flood problem.
This also means, however, that due consideration must be given to the subsidiarity principle in this legislation. The fact is that conditions in a narrow Alpine valley differ from those on a Greek island or in the Finnish lowlands. We must take care to avoid the adoption of blanket provisions that cannot be applied in the real world.
The package on the table wisely provides for three steps. The first is an initial identification of the places where flood risks actually exist. It would, of course, be pointless to establish flood defences in places where there is no specific risk. The second step is the production of flood maps, and the third is the formulation of flood-risk management plans, but only where these are absolutely necessary.
Many Member States have already made great progress in the realm of flood prevention, and we also had to take care to avoid any duplication of effort. This is why there are very comprehensive rules designed to safeguard existing arrangements, and Member States need have no fear of being compelled to implement a second set of measures. Their own chosen measures can, of course, be implemented in full, as long as they are consistent with the aims of the Directive.
The Council's common position contained a few points which, in our opinion, required improvement. In particular, we could not figure out why the phenomenon of climate change had received so little attention. In our negotiations with the Council, we have succeeded in incorporating the issue of climate change, which now runs like a thread through the entire package. That is only right and proper, for we must be seen to respond to public concerns.
To sum up the remainder of our efforts, there have been some changes in time limits, we have placed stronger emphasis on flood plains and other natural retention areas, and we have made the case for sustainable land use and asserted the principle of solidarity from start to finish. The rule is that those on the upper reaches must not take any action that is detrimental to their downstream neighbours. We managed to achieve this in a spirit of good European solidarity.
I can now present the report to the House with a clear conscience tomorrow, and I commend it to you.
Stavros Dimas
Member of the Commission. (EL) Mr President, I would like to thank and congratulate the rapporteur Mr Seeber for his exceptional work in the flooding directive, as well as the Committee on Environment, Public Health and Food Safety for its positive contribution. I am extremely satisfied with the rapid progress in the first and second readings. The European Parliament played a significant role in order to achieve agreement on an exceptional text and I would like to praise these efforts.
The aim of the proposal is to minimise the risks of flooding for human health, economic activities and the environment. The text, in its current form, reflects these goals and allows the European Union to fulfil them. The main characteristics are as follows: the directive introduces a procedure as previously mentioned by Mr Seeber in three stages, which begins with identifying the areas at risk of flooding. The next step is mapping imminent flooding in the context of intermediate and extreme scenarios.
The third stage refers to the drawing up of flood risk management plans. They will be coordinated across river drainage basins, basins shared by more than one country as well as coastal areas.
Within the framework of flood risk management, a possible increase in the frequency and intensity of floods due to climate change has been provided for and I agree with Mr Seeber I am very pleased with the fact that Parliament insisted there should be strong mention of climate change.
As the climate is already changing, it is clear that besides facing and abating the phenomenon, we will have to adapt to it. The European Union will have to be prepared for unexpected floods on a larger scale that will be accompanied by intense and unforeseen rainfall. Coastal floods due to storms, together with the increase of sea levels, might pose more risks from floods in coastal areas. The European Union must be ready to face dangers posed by the said natural phenomena.
The improvement of coordination through the water framework directive is an important step forward. The comprehensive management of the river drainage basins must include both elements: controlling water quality and flood risk management. I am very pleased that the European Parliament has stood by the Commission on this issue and also for the fact that the scope of coexistence of both procedures has been expanded.
The basic points raised at first reading remained. Namely the implementation of the directive across the European Union and especially the emphasis on river drainage basins shared by more than one Member State. With this new and significant legislative act the European Union will be ready to decrease and minimise the potentially destructive consequences of floods.
Anja Weisgerber
on behalf of the PPE-DE Group. - (DE) Mr President, let me begin by thanking the rapporteur, Richard Seeber, for the cooperative spirit in which our discussions took place. He has negotiated a robust compromise with the Council Presidency, a compromise that makes significant improvements to the proposal from the Commission.
It is important to adopt a European approach to the prevention of flood damage. Rivers and floods are no respecters of national borders. The measures taken by the government of a country on the upper reaches of a river have specific effects on territories further downstream. In many cases these territories belong to another country. For this reason I consider it important that each and every Member State of the European Union should take preventive anti-flood measures rather than waiting until a disaster occurs.
As with other proposals from the Commission, it is our parliamentary duty to ensure that unnecessary red tape, excessive administrative input and pervasive reporting obligations are avoided. We managed to prevent and considerably improve a number of excessively bureaucratic provisions. I particularly approve of the compromise safeguarding flood plans and maps that already exist or are being prepared. Thanks to our intervention, all maps and plans already compiled by the Member States are now recognised along with those that are in the course of preparation, provided they are completed by the end of 2010.
The process of drawing and producing these flood maps is in full swing in some countries. Moving the goalposts at this stage would have caused unnecessary duplication of effort, and the new tendering procedure would have generated a great deal of additional expense without any recognisable benefit in terms of better flood prevention. For this reason I am pleased that the compromise provides for the possibility of recognising these maps and plans in the framework of the Directive. I shall therefore vote for the compromise, and may I once again thank the rapporteur for our constructive cooperation.
Edite Estrela
on behalf of the PSE Group. - (PT) Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I should like to begin by congratulating Mr Seeber on the manner in which he conducted the informal negotiation process. The negotiations were most fruitful and led to a package of compromise amendments that demonstrated broad consensus and that the Council should accept.
The Socialist Group in the European Parliament supports the compromise that has been reached as it corresponds to the key objective of this directive, namely to protect human health, the environment, cultural heritage and economic activities, while taking account of the impact of climate change on the occurrence of floods. There are increasing periods of extreme drought followed by heavy rainfall, which results in more flooding.
The proposal before us will ensure greater environmental protection by promoting the inclusion in risk maps of information on potential sources of environmental pollution arising from floods. I also welcome the idea of making the Member States responsible for promoting the sustainable use of soils. In other words, the Member States should take more care in their spatial planning policies. The report also calls for solidarity, dialogue and coordination between neighbouring countries.
We know that there is a cycle of natural disasters leaving a trail of death and destruction. According to the World Health Organisation, hundreds of people die each year on account of natural disasters. In order to prevent worse evils, the time has come to move from a culture of reaction to one of prevention. Prevention is better than cure. It is more effective and less costly.
Vittorio Prodi
on behalf of the ALDE Group. - (IT) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I would naturally like to thank Mr Seeber for the collaboration that we enjoyed while debating and drafting this document. I would also like to thank Commissioner Dimas, because his presence at such times is always very valuable and highly appreciated.
This is a directive that I believe to be very important, partly in the context of other directives, such as the directive on water, the directive on waste and the directive on soil, which is yet to be debated. These directives form a very important framework of prevention, particularly with regard to climate change, which is a phenomenon with its origins in global warming and which consists, basically, in a worsening of extreme events, such as an increase in rain intensity.
We therefore need to adopt a preventive approach across the board, particularly in the conservation of our land. The directive in question is directed at this aim, since it has attempted to stress good practices that can be disseminated, as well as all the infrastructure and knowledge that can contribute to the long-term prevention and the short-term forecasting of floods, with a view to providing significant assistance to civil protection bodies in the management of emergencies.
This is a directive which I believe can easily be supported and I also welcome the compromise reached at trialogue. On behalf of my group, I too therefore call on you to support the text under consideration.
Leopold Józef Rutowicz
on behalf of the UEN Group. - (PL) Mr President, the Directive on the assessment and management of flood risks underlines the need for action which unfortunately is not always respected in business activity in practice. Flood risk assessment and management should be the basis of long-term plans for engineering works, information systems and other means of flood damage limitation.
This directive should be tied to the provisions on assessing and avoiding the risk of drought, which also causes great economic and environmental damage. Both these issues are related to water management and conservation. If flood water were collected, it could be used to offset the impact of droughts. Both systems should operate over entire river basins and take into account the interests of all the countries and regions involved.
I would like to thank Richard Seeber for his very competent report. The proposed amendments enhance and supplement his document.
Urszula Krupa
on behalf of the IND/DEM Group. - (PL) Mr President, the seasonal and regional differences in precipitations, long-term climate change and lack of coordination between some countries have resulted in catastrophic floods which account for 43% of all natural disasters in Europe, and are often of a trans-border nature.
Human activity has played its role in this. It includes felling trees in forest regions, which has led to soil erosion and faster run-off of rain, or urban development in flood plains. The increasing frequency and intensity of flood events will probably be closely linked with meteorological conditions and climate change as well as changes in river flows. This makes it imperative to take measures to prevent flooding and to minimise its effects.
While preventing global warming is an important element in this, planning and coordination among Member States on the construction of retention reservoirs, dams, warning systems and disaster relief are just as important. In the past, emptying reservoirs in one country have resulted in flooding disasters in the next. Because of the trans-border nature of these events, we must ensure effective international cooperation, both regional and with neighbouring countries, including third countries, which will help us to prepare better and will lead to a reduction in the effects of flooding.
Andreas Mölzer
on behalf of the ITS Group. - (DE) Mr President, Commissioner, Mr Seeber, it may be the case that we suffer less frequently from floods than we used to because of increasingly effective preventive measures, but their effects are nevertheless disastrous.
Regrettably, technical progress has made us grow careless, with the result that buildings are ever more frequently erected in ever closer proximity to flood-prone areas. Together with what is often reckless interference with river alignments and the loss of natural retention areas such as flood plains, these actions have created a self-inflicted problem. The agricultural support provided by the European Community over the past few decades has no doubt done its bit too, and the interaction between agricultural use and changes in soil structure are one more reason to rethink the common agricultural policy with a view to focusing more support on organic cultivation. As part of the planned common system of flood-risk management, consideration must also be given, of course, to measures such as river restoration, the creation of links between flood plains and exposure of enclosed soil. If we are serious about pursing the aims of preserving natural habitats and coping with climate change, we shall also have to adopt new, innovative approaches.
Péter Olajos
(HU) Hopefully tomorrow we will reach the end of a long journey. Two years ago, when we began debating this directive, we experienced flooding throughout Europe, water sweeping away houses and destroying dams everywhere.
My country, Hungary, is a downstream country, a basin into which a great deal of water flows from many sources. Two of Europe's five largest rivers flow through my homeland, and so it is not surprising that it has the largest amount of water per capita. Naturally the damages, too, are enormous. In 2005, at the time of the great flood that has already been mentioned, we were obliged to invest more than EUR 200 million in flood protection. There was a lot at stake for us.
If I had to stress a particularly important element of the new directive, I would definitely speak of cooperation. I feel that joint, planned preparation, sharing of information, and the provision of mutual assistance are all elements that appear in this regulation, and make it clear that we can only deal with and resolve the problem of flooding if we work together.
I agree with Mr Dimas: the future, global climate change, and the responses to these challenges constitute one of the most important questions. It is probable that there will be more frequent and more unpredictable floods across Europe, along with more significant rises in water levels and greater destruction. I feel that this directive will soon be put to the test, and I am absolutely sure it will come through with flying colours. Fewer human lives will be lost and less damage caused thanks to this directive. I am completely satisfied with the compromises reached, and congratulate Mr Seeber for his excellent work. I feel that we have really succeeded in drafting a directive that will protect human lives and increase physical safety in Europe.
Karin Scheele
(DE) Mr President, in the wake of climate change, inadequate river management and building activities in flood-prone areas, floods are set to become an increasingly frequent occurrence. Population growth and the accompanying increase in the number of economic assets in these areas give rise to higher risks and more costly damage. Besides their economic and social impact, floods can have serious environmental consequences, for example if they hit industrial plants where large volumes of toxic chemicals are stored. Our rapporteur has fully explained all of this.
The compromise package that our rapporteur has negotiated will enable us to pursue the aims of this Directive more successfully. I would like to offer him my warmest congratulations. Major points in his report have already been incorporated into the common position and can be put into even sharper focus through this compromise package.
It is important to the European Parliament that the impact of climate change is to be taken into account in the assessment of flood risks. It would have been very difficult to explain the decision to leave climate change out of the equation when assessing flood risks. One very important demand is that, in each of the three steps prescribed by this Directive, namely the flood-risk assessment, the production of maps and the formulation of management plans, best practices and the best available technology should be used.
Johannes Blokland
(NL) Mr President, Mr Dimas, ladies and gentlemen, the Netherlands has played a major role in the development of the High-Water Directive as it is now before us. It is important to have a legislative framework for assessing and managing flood risks, taking into account the principle of subsidiarity. What can be done at local level is done locally, such as measures to prevent sewage systems from overflowing. This is a way of protecting the environment, public health and the economy.
Since a low-lying country such as the Netherlands relies on many of its neighbouring countries where water management is concerned, it is important for Member States not to take measures that lead to increased flood risks in other countries. It is for this reason that a coordinated approach is called for, and I set great store by the concept of solidarity which is included in this proposed directive and mentioned more explicitly in Amendments 48 and 61 of the compromise package, which I wholeheartedly support.
In addition to the term 'solidarity', it is also important to involve the expected climate change and its potential implications in drafts of risk management plans for floods, so as to prepare ourselves for the future in the best way we can. All that is left for me to do now is to extend warm thanks to the rapporteur, Mr Seeber, for the excellent cooperation and to congratulate him on this result.
Stavros Dimas
Mr President, I would like to thank all the speakers in tonight's debate for their positive contributions.
A number of key elements have been included in the overall compromise package that is now proposed. Most importantly it contains: a clearer and earlier attention to the impact of climate change in the preliminary assessment of flood risks; an agreement on the earlier date of 2011 for the first preliminary flood risk assessment, thus leaving Member States more time to prepare the flood maps; a strengthened role of flood plains and the promotion of sustainable land use practices in flood risk management; sound coordination - also in relation to implementation - with the water framework directive and a link to the cost recovery principles in that directive; a further strengthening of the language on solidarity in river basin districts; and last but not least, a requirement to set clear priorities for the implementation of measures included in the flood risk management plans.
I know that these elements were all important to Parliament at first reading and in the committee this time around. I believe that the proposed current compromise will satisfy Parliament, as important ground has been won on key principles of sound flood risk management practices. I am also particularly pleased to note the importance placed by both Parliament and the Council on this directive, which was only proposed by the Commission 13 months ago. It shows that, faced with the serious challenge of preparing Europe for the risks of possibly increased flooding, agreements can be reached relatively rapidly.
To conclude, the Commission is very pleased with the outcome of negotiations. The Commission can accept the proposed compromise amendments in full and I wish to thank and congratulate once more the rapporteur, Mr Seeber, for all his efforts to reach an agreement at second reading.
President
The debate is closed.
The vote will take place on Wednesday at 11.30 a.m.
Written statements (Rule 142)
Gyula Hegyi
in writing. - (HU) It is extremely important for Hungary that the European Union enact a directive regulating a common defence against flooding. My country is typically a downstream country to which 95% of fresh water comes from rivers outside its national borders. Therefore, it is important that within a flood plain area the downstream countries be involved as well in the tasks of prevention and defence. I trust that the Austrian, Slovak and Romanian experts will collaborate smoothly with Hungarian water officials in this task. Likewise, I consider it important that flood protection plans contain those potential sources of danger which can cause environmental pollution in the event of a flood. In such cases there is often a flooded industrial plant or another factory that causes more harm than the water damage itself. Since just like air pollution, flooding knows no borders, third countries, such as the Ukraine, should be involved in implementing the directive.
Kathy Sinnott
in writing. - Through an organisation I chair in Ireland called Hope Project, I have been participating in Commission research entitled Rescuing Disabled People in Emergencies. In this research we have identified flooding as a most significant risk for elderly people, children and people with disabilities. We have just embarked on follow-up research that looks specifically at flooding.
There are two reasons why flooding is becoming such a problem. First is climate change, with the possibility of rising sea levels, and in Ireland, increased rainfall. Secondly, throughout Europe, but especially in Ireland, there is a trend of building on flood plains. It is not uncommon to have fields that were under water for several weeks every year to now be the site of estates with 200 houses. Eventually this practice will catch up with us.
I encourage the House to establish common sense and preventative action in the area of floods and flood control.


Reinforcing the Union's disaster response capacity (debate)
President
The next item is a statement from the Commission on reinforcing the Union's disaster response capacity.
Stavros Dimas
Mr President, last year, thanks to the Community Civil Protection Mechanism, the EU mobilised en masse to help the Member States stricken by the catastrophic forest fires.
We have identified certain points that require immediate attention in a bid to avoid similar disasters in future.
Firstly, we need to overcome the lack of available technical resources for disaster relief. This was noted during the operations in 2007.
Secondly, there must be an integrated approach to dealing with forest fires, and prevention, readiness and response.
Thirdly, the operational capability of the Commission's Monitoring and Information Centre should be strengthened.
The Commission has already adopted some practical operational measures, the main ones being:
the establishment and training of a network of forest-fire experts;
interoperability training for national firefighting teams;
a large-scale exercise organised in Sardinia in April, with the participation of forces from five Member States;
the formation of three civil protection units for aerial forest firefighting.
Funds have already been secured for the transport of aid equipment. In addition, under the 2008 pilot programme for forest fires, we are cooperating with Member States to create tactical reserves that will be on standby for emergencies in Europe.
In addition, between 2007 and 2013, approximately EUR 5.8 billion will be available under the cohesion policy programmes, for risk prevention and response to various types of disaster, including forest fires.
A further EUR 1.6 billion will be available from the rural development funds to restore forest resources and initiate preventive actions.
Lastly, for the most devastating natural disasters, the option of support from the European Solidarity Fund is retained.
In the Communication it presented in March, the Commission underlined the need for an integrated approach to disaster management, which must include prevention, readiness, response and restoration. It examined all types of natural and man-made disasters, within and outside the EU, and also all the Community resources available for disaster response.
In addition to civil protection, the Communication examined three other areas of Community action:
strengthening European humanitarian aid;
improving the coordination of intervention capability for disaster response;
upgrading interinstitutional cooperation, i.e. cooperation between European agencies or institutions.
We are also developing an action plan. This will be ready in the summer and will map out a range of specific initiatives over and above those mentioned in the Communication, such as:
analysis of the shortcomings in material and technical support capability, for both humanitarian and civil protection actions. This will enable us to determine which particular tools are available, which are the most necessary, and which are most cost-effective;
support for initiatives to limit disaster risks in third countries;
closer cooperation with the UN, the International Bank and various NGOs, with a view to strengthening disaster response capability at global level;
better use of science, technology and innovation;
an upgrade in the role of our agencies in disaster response throughout the world;
a more effective evaluation of disaster damage.
As regards disaster prevention, there is at present no integrated European approach. To address this issue, the Commission is preparing a communication to assess the added value of instituting a Community disaster prevention mechanism. The Commission will present possible options aiming at:
improving our knowledge of disasters and their impact;
improving the interconnection of related policies, e.g. the interconnection between land-use planning and disaster prevention;
improving the use of Community resources.
In addition to this initiative, which will focus on the EU, the Commission is drawing up a strategy for disaster risk reduction in developing countries.
Lastly, the Commission has taken a series of measures to strengthen the EU's intervention capability to respond to disasters that might occur in Europe. In particular, the Commission's Monitoring and Information Centre is being strengthened. Since we do not currently have detailed analyses of the gaps and shortcomings in response capability in the event of major disasters, we are in the process of analysing disaster scenarios and testing innovative arrangements. This will release civil protection resources and capabilities for operations on a European scale. By mid-2009, the Commission also intends to submit proposals for a European disaster response training network.
To conclude, I would like to thank Parliament for the constant, steady support it is giving in strengthening the Community's disaster response capability. This support is reaffirmed in the draft resolution that is to be put to the vote in plenary.
Antonios Trakatellis
Mr President, in recent years many EU Member States have been stricken by natural disasters such as fires, floods and earthquakes. Human lives have been lost, properties, farms and houses have been destroyed, and the environment has suffered devastating damage that will take many years to repair.
One of the key principles on which the EU was founded is that of solidarity. This means that in the event of a natural disaster, it is extremely important that the EU should be able to provide not only coordinated technical assistance, but also, through the European Solidarity Fund, financial resources to stricken areas. I have listened with interest to the Commissioner's analysis of all the elements of prevention and coordinated intervention, and we expect to see corresponding action on the part of the European Commission.
Allow me to focus attention on an issue concerning the European Solidarity Fund. I consider it unjustifiable for the Council decision not to adopt the regulation on the European Solidarity Fund, and this decision should therefore be revised.
The restructuring of the European Fund will contribute significantly. Firstly, the EU will be in a better position to manage natural disasters effectively and flexibly. Secondly, citizens left homeless and insecure after a disaster will immediately be aware of European solidarity. They will understand the importance of being citizens not only of a country, but also of the EU.
Such are the policies and actions that European citizens expect of us, and I hope the regulation on the European Solidarity Fund will be adopted without delay.
Edite Estrela
on behalf of the PSE Group. - (PT) Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, it is a sort of annual ritual, either before or after the summer: forest fires are on the political agenda. This is an increasingly serious issue, however, because natural disasters are linked to climate change. And because extreme weather events are gradually getting worse, scientists warn that natural disasters are becoming increasingly frequent and intense, which means periods of repeated and more extreme drought, heavier and more destructive flooding, more frequent bouts of excessive heat and more violent and larger forest fires which are more difficult to combat.
In 2006 the European Parliament approved three reports on this issue, in one of which the Environment Committee draftsman suggested that the Commission present a directive on fires. My question to the Commission is therefore: in view of the circumstances and bearing in mind that an integrated approach to this issue is needed - in other words, anti-climate change policy cannot be dissociated from civil protection policy - does the Commission not think that in these circumstances a directive on fires is justified?
Meanwhile, this debate is taking place at a particularly critical time: the energy crisis, the food crisis and so on. All this is also linked. Biomass, for example, should be exploited to clean up the forests, thereby avoiding fires, and used to produce energy at the same time. Another advantage of this is that it means that cereals are not being used to produce biofuels.
Marios Matsakis
on behalf of the ALDE Group. - Mr President, recitals A and D and paragraph 4 of this resolution clearly stress the value of prevention. This is extremely wise, as prevention is always better - much better - than cure. In this respect I wish to speak about a particular type of preventable mass disaster: that of building collapse. I was prompted to do so by an event that occurred in Cyprus very recently. Last Wednesday the steel roof of the 1 100-seat capacity municipal theatre of Nicosia collapsed, suddenly and without warning. The force of the falling steel beams and other debris crushed the seats below. Luckily the theatre was empty at the time; otherwise hundreds of civilians would have been killed or injured. In the previous few days this theatre was packed with children attending various school events. Two weeks ago the visiting Bolshoi Ballet performed there to a packed audience, and a few months ago President Barroso - along with many EU officials, MEPs, the President of Cyprus, ministers, MPs and many others - attended the ceremony of Cyprus's entry into the euro area in the same theatre. It is a miracle that a mass disaster of huge proportions did not occur.
It is noted that major reconstruction works costing approximately EUR 6 million were carried out in the building only three years ago but it seems that none of the responsible, esteemed and highly paid architects, engineers, government officials etc. managed to diagnose that the 50-year-old steel roof was totally unsafe. It is suspected that other public buildings in Cyprus may be structurally dangerous but, due to apparent negligence or ignorance, or corruption concerning relevant authorities or departments or private firms, corrective measures are not being implemented. A similar situation, in fact, may apply to other EU Member States. Incidentally, in Cyprus, public buildings are, mostly, totally not subject to anti-seismic legislation, although private buildings are. I call upon the Commission to make sure that, with this resolution, a check is carried out on the safety of buildings in the EU.
Dimitrios Papadimoulis
Mr President, Commissioner, we can all see that natural disasters are on the increase because they are caused by changes in both climate and land use.
The resolution I have drawn up - and I hope we shall have a near-unanimous vote on Thursday in plenary, as we did in the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Food Safety - calls on the Commission to stop procrastinating, talking idly and postponing.
I ask you, Commissioner: do you intend to take steps in the Commission to ensure that the Barnier proposal on the creation of a European civil protection force is approved, as the European Parliament repeatedly requests in its resolutions?
Do you intend to take steps to make the Solidarity Fund more flexible and less bureaucratic?
Do you intend to take steps to fill in the serious gaps in the legislation and the policies applied to allow Europe a greater and more effective presence in backing up the action taken by Member States where natural disasters are destroying properties and taking lives?
In the Committee on the Environment, we approved a series of questions to the Commission, and you told us today that in a year's time, in mid-2009, you would present proposals. The question is, when will the Commission decide to examine these issues seriously and give an answer to the European Parliament's proposal?
Which proposals do you agree with, and when will you carry them out? Which do you disagree with, and why? If the Council is holding you back and refusing to give you the funding you need, or if certain people in the Commission are preventing you, Mr Dimas, you should tell us so that we can help you. We do not want just fine words; we want action, so that this summer we will not be mourning the victims of major ecological disasters.
Dimitar Stoyanov
(BG) Earlier this evening I presented to this Parliament the face of corruption at the top in Bulgaria, Ahmed Dogan, and the party he heads, the Movement for Rights and Liberties. Now I would like to provide some specific information concerning forest fires.
It is a public secret in Bulgaria that what Dogan himself refers to as 'the circle of companies' around his party has been cutting down, for eight years now, the forests of Bulgaria. The easiest way for them to cover up this crime is to set up forest fires, and every summer thousands of hectares of Bulgarian forests are set on fire and burnt. And if that used to be a purely Bulgarian problem, today it emerges as a problem at the European level as well because Bulgaria is entitled to quite substantial subsidies to respond to disasters occurring in the forests. But where would these subsidies go through? These subsidies would be remitted to the Ministry of Emergencies, which is headed by Dogan's deputy, Mrs. Emel Etem. It is the ministry where tens of millions of euros from the European Solidarity Fund intended for the floods in Bulgaria have disappeared. And I call upon you, Mr. Commissioner, and you all, members, to come visit Bulgaria in order to see the kind of solidarity that Emel Etem has for her own constituency, that of the MRL to its own constituency, to the Muslim Bulgarians, who have been living in temporary shelter, in caravans not fit for living in, while the money from the European Solidarity Fund has sunk away somewhere in the depths of the ministry run by the MRL.
This is the reason why I bring up this issue. This is a grave crime against Bulgarian nature and against the European Union, a virtual theft of its funds. Whatever disaster may befall Bulgaria in the future, it can never compare to the disaster called Movement for Rights and Liberties.
Gerardo Galeote
(ES) Mr President, I welcome the Committee on the Environment's initiative, which we can add to a list of many others by the Committee on Regional Development in the present legislative period, even though these initiatives are not always well understood. The truth is that some developments, including some legal decisions, show our concerns were fully justified.
Nevertheless, it is sad to see the Council being so insensitive and unresponsive. It is also paradoxical that questions affecting the environment, regional policy and agriculture are the responsibility of the Ministers of Finance.
National governments should reflect on the stubborn refusal to reform the obsolete Solidarity Fund, despite the efforts of Parliament and the Commission and the clear public demand for such reform. I hope that this summer we do not suffer the scourge of fires, droughts and floods of other years. I hope the Council is not forced, once again, to issue empty communiqués of solidarity rather than offering coordinated civil protection mechanisms and funds to help people, leaving us to complain about citizens being indifferent and disinterested in what our institutions are doing.
Some members of the Committee on Regional Development have presented amendments to draw the Council's attention to the need for reforms and initiatives. We will see whether the Council, which is conspicuous by its absence today, is able to make some response.
Iratxe García Pérez
(ES) Mr President, I would like to begin by welcoming Parliament's initiative to step up the European Union's disaster response capacity, given that, unfortunately, disasters are increasingly common and this will certainly become a fundamental challenge to our political initiative and capacity to respond rapidly.
We must adopt a wide-ranging approach that considers how to deal with, prevent and recover from disasters, so it is important we ask the Commission to urgently present proposals to prevent disasters in the European Union.
Similarly, we must take into account the need to recognise the specific nature of natural disasters caused by droughts and fires in the Mediterranean region and adapt our prevention, investigation, risk management, civil protection and solidarity mechanisms accordingly.
We know that the resources available to Member States to fight forest fires, especially from the air, are sometimes limited, so we ask the Commission to bring forward measures to finance community teams, with the aim of increasing capacity and complementing national resources.
This resolution must also make a firm request to Council to adopt a decision on the proposed Regulation of the Solidarity Fund, to facilitate a quicker and more effective response to disasters that Member States are unable to deal with alone. Neither can we forget the victims of these disasters, who need immediate aid and support.
We cannot remain indifferent to this situation, which, year after year, summer after summer, afflicts many parts of the European Union. We must be able to respond decisively to these unfortunate events and help the people who are caught up in them. The future is uncertain, and we in the European Union must get involved.
Françoise Grossetête
(FR) Mr President, it is surely regrettable that once again, on the eve of the holidays, we are meeting to discuss this same problem, which creates the impression that we are seeing no progress from one year to another. At a time when most of our fellow citizens have doubts about the effectiveness of Europe, it is urgently necessary to show them that when natural disasters, be they fires, floods or even epidemics, put people's life and property at risk, Europe can respond and that, basically, when they are in trouble, they need Europe and that Europe is there for them.
Where are we today? Once again, we talk about the need for solidarity and, of course, of the need for a binding framework. We absolutely must convince Member States of the need for a genuine, operational civil protection force equipped with financial reserves, assistance mechanisms and additional European resources. Of course we must strengthen humanitarian aid by filling the existing gaps as regards the provision of that aid and strengthening global capacity. We have to create a training network. As the Commissioner said, it is essential to train experts in emergency aid in the event of disasters, drawing on the experience acquired by Member States in the field of civil protection training. Above all, however, we need to take preventive action and in order to do that we need genuine policies relating to soil, land and forest. We need to take preventive action and only then can we prepare for disasters by taking remedial action and setting up early warning systems, for that is absolutely essential.
What is the situation with the Barnier report proposal? I would like to see practical results in the wake of that proposal.
Stavros Lambrinidis
(EL) Mr President, Commissioner, last September, many politicians expressed grief over the fire victims, but not many spoke of the responsibility they should have felt because the fires had been allowed to happen and we had suffered such disastrous results. Now, politicians should feel responsible. For this reason, before the summer and the outbreak of fires, the Socialist Group in the European Parliament requested in its oral question that we hold a debate here with the Commission on what was being done to prevent fires.
Commissioner, you said that EUR 5.8 billion would be made available for the period 2009-2013 to prevent fires. Today, in 2008, how much money have you allocated for prevention? How many governments, and which ones, have made use of this funding?
Unfortunately, last year when the worst fires occurred, the Greek Government acknowledged in its report to the Commission that there was a lack of coordination between the agencies concerned, and a lack of prevention plans. Have you, in the meantime, looked at what has been done in Greece to alleviate these problems, or are you simply allocating funds to governments that are likely to waste them?
Rolf Berend
(DE) Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, as a signatory of some amendments on behalf of the PPE-DE Group and as a member and Vice-Chairman of the Committee on Regional Development, I would like to take the opportunity to present my views on the Solidarity Fund and its revision, as rapporteur of the European Parliament.
Since the report on the Commission's draft instrument on the new Solidarity Fund was adopted in Parliament by an overwhelming majority in May 2006, this draft has been with the Council, where a majority of the Member States reject the new Fund in its amended form. None of the intervening Council presidencies has included the new Solidarity Fund in its work programme. On the contrary, the revised version is being blocked in the Council by the Finance Ministers. Accordingly, the new Fund, designed to cover the period from 2007 to 2013, is not in force. Unfortunately, until further notice we only have the old Fund, which has been in existence in its present form since September 2002 and which was cobbled together hurriedly at the time. In tough negotiations and hard bargaining here in Parliament in 2006, we managed to work out compromises designed to make the Solidarity Fund a faster, more effective and, above all, more clearly defined emergency aid instrument. Now the Council wants to bury this revised version once and for all.
I fail to comprehend how we, as a community based on solidarity, can turn our backs in this way, because of the sensitivities of some Member States, on an emergency instrument whose name celebrates the concept of solidarity. We improved that instrument. We extended it. I cannot grasp why those who have already benefited from the Fund are now withholding their approval. For this reason I make an urgent appeal to the Council to reconsider its decision and finally adopt the revised version. We are a community based on solidarity, Mr President, and no one knows when or where the next disaster will occur. It will then be your responsibility ...
(The President cut off the speaker.)
Margaritis Schinas
(EL) Mr President, it goes without saying that any substantial natural disaster management action by the EU has to be effective in prevention, response and regeneration. Yet what we find here is that, owing no doubt to pre-conceived ideas or to some fixation, there is a reaction against the EU getting involved in prevention. There is a very obvious reaction within the Commission itself, just as there is on some of the benches here, because some people think that the EU has no part to play in the matter.
I strongly object to this attitude. Without prevention we can achieve nothing. The sight of President Barroso flying in at the end in a helicopter, holding a cheque from the Solidarity Fund, is not what the EU's practice of solidarity is all about. Practice of solidarity means a comprehensive response framework. Mr Barnier has outlined a similar one, but it is still festering somewhere in the labyrinthine depths of bureaucracy. We have made our diagnosis clear and are now writing out the prescription.
Gyula Hegyi
(HU) Under the previous agenda item, mention was made of the point that the majority of Europe's natural disasters are water-related: drought, floods, forest fires. One of the roots of the problem lies in traditional flood defence methods; to be more specific, it lies in the fact that if flooding occurs our main priority is to remove water as quickly as possible, but then a few months later when we have droughts or forest fires we are surprised to discover how useful it would have been to have had proper storage to capture the rainwater that fell when the floods or extreme precipitation events occurred. It would therefore be very important, and to some extent it could address - in other words help to prevent - the problems mentioned here, if we managed to realign the focus of water management as a whole to the principle that every drop of fresh water is a valuable resource that must be saved for more difficult, drier times. It would be especially important, particularly in the new Member States, to promote this to the level of Community policy, so that, as a Community policy, we could develop it using Community funds and thereby mitigate the damage that results from floods, drought and forest fires.
Zuzana Roithová
(CS) Although I speak as a Member representing a country that is not going to experience serious problems with fires until we feel the full impact of global warming, I understand the importance of solidarity among European countries. Having listened to similar debates several times before, I firmly believe, as a former manager, that it is high time we had a common strategy focusing on prevention, on how to provide help when a country needs it. It is not a question of money. It is a question of capacity and targeted management, targeted aid that does not depend solely on financial means. I am also calling on the Council, all the presidencies and of course the Commission to make every effort to ensure that we in this House do not stand here empty-handed and can vote on whether we help today or in a week's time, whether the disaster is big or small.
Zbigniew Zaleski
(PL) Mr President, I am one of the five called under the catch-the-eye system. I wanted to say that there are two things we can do as regards natural disasters. The first is to prevent them to whatever degree we can, for example, flooding, and then when they occur we have to look after the people affected by these disasters. One of the activities is psychological counselling. We can see someone who has lost everything they had through flooding, their house, whatever they had; they continue living, but are destitute, and they experience an enormous sense of loss. I know from experience that the work of psychologists is very important at these times, so I believe that such disaster relief groups should include and provide funds for psychologists to go into action immediately in order to help these people.
Stavros Dimas
Mr President, I thank all the speakers for their very positive contributions.
The Commission is committed to helping substantially towards strengthening the Community's disaster response capacity. In the Communication it issued in March, and through measures that are now in preparation, the Commission is adopting an integrated approach.
Firstly, we are examining all aspects of disasters: prevention, preparation, readiness, immediate response and long-term restoration.
Secondly, we are examining all types of disaster, both natural and man-made, within the EU and outside it.
Thirdly, we intend to integrate all the Community resources by improving coordination between EU agencies.
As for the points raised, first of all, Parliament and the European Commission agree on reforming the Solidarity Fund. Unfortunately, the Council rejects this reform. The Commission, however, does not intend to withdraw its proposal, and has high hopes that the Council will be won over.
As for the directive on forest fires, my departments are working on a communication on disaster prevention, and one option to be assessed is to institute legislation specifically on forest fires.
The Commission was the main driving force in adopting the Eurocodes on safe buildings. These are the European standards for the earthquake stability of buildings; they are now being incorporated into national legislation and are being enforced accordingly.
I am a very keen supporter of Mr Barnier's proposals. May I remind you, however, that the Council's unanimous approval is required. We all know that at present there is no unanimity among the Member States. For this reason, the preparation of our proposals is taking longer than we would wish. Let me simply remind you that under the Lisbon Treaty, a qualified majority in Council would be sufficient.
We have already financed Red Cross programmes for the provision of psychological relief, and further programmes are in preparation at technical level.
Lastly, the Commission notes the strong interest and increased role of the European Parliament in the field of disaster management. I look forward to excellent collaboration with Parliament and the Council in defining the limits of subsidiarity in order to promote and further develop the European dimension in disaster management.
President
I have received one draft resolution submitted under Rule 103(2) of the Rules of Procedure.
The debate is closed.
The vote will take place on Thursday, 19 June 2008.
Written Statements (Rule 142)
Daciana Octavia Sârbu
The forest fires in Greece, Italy and Spain during the summer of 2007 and the floods in Romania and Great Britain have led to an increase in the calls formulated for improving the efficiency of the EU response capacity in case of disasters. The frequency of disasters related to climate change has been increasing and requires multilateral and coordinated reactions to mobilize all available resources, taking into account aspects such as rapidity, efficiency and financial yield.
The actions proposed by the Commission, which will contribute to increasing the EU response to disasters include the strengthening of the Monitoring and Information Centre (MIC), improving the European Civil Protection response capacity and a better coordination between the UN and the Red Cross as regards the provision of humanitarian assistance. It is also intended to set up a European Disaster Response Training Network, early warning systems and the use of the European emergency number "112", which is not very well known in all Member States. In Romania, only 30% of the citizens know that this number can be called in case of emergency from any EU country and national authorities need to continue their efforts to promote this number in order to respond rapidly to problems related to climate change and other problems.