Question Time (Council)
President
The next item is Question Time (B7-0552/2010).
The following questions are addressed to the Council.

Subject: UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities
The Belgian Presidency has highlighted its firm intention to make progress in the fight against discrimination and to promote equality. In this context, what concrete measures, if any, is the Presidency taking to move forward the ratification of the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities by all 27 EU Member States?
Olivier Chastel
On 7 June 2010, the Council adopted the resolution of the Council of the European Union and the representatives of the governments of the Member States, meeting within the Council, on a new European Disability Framework. This resolution invites Member States and the Commission, in accordance with their respective competences, to promote the ratification and application of the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities concluded by the European Union on 26 November 2009. To date, the convention has been ratified by 13 Member States of the European Union.
Within the Council, we are therefore clearly expecting those Member States that have not yet done so to ratify this convention. In particular, Articles 3 and 4 of Council Decision 2010/48/EC stipulate that a code of conduct between Member States and the Commission must be adopted before the deposition of the instrument of formal confirmation on behalf of the European Union can take place, in order to lay down details of the point of contact function conferred upon the Commission. The work relating to the code of conduct is now in its final phase and should be finished by the end of the year.
Marian Harkin
I would like to thank the Council for its response. I am particularly pleased to hear you say that it could be concluded before the end of this year. I think you said 13 - my figure is that 16 Member States have ratified.
Can the Council tell me what will be the impact of the EU itself ratifying this convention?
You mentioned a number of articles, and there are obviously a number of articles within the convention referring to the issue of reasonable accommodation for persons with disabilities and the right to live independently. What do you think the impact of that will be?
In particular, my question is what will be the impact of the EU itself ratifying the convention on those countries that have not already ratified it?
Olivier Chastel
I would like to return to a point mentioned. Thirteen Member States have indeed ratified the convention. I will in fact list them so that you can castigate one or the other of them: Austria, Belgium, the Czech Republic, Denmark, Germany, Hungary, Italy, Portugal, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, the United Kingdom and France have ratified this convention.
What is the current situation? We are waiting for an agreement on the code of conduct between Member States and the Commission before laying down the instrument of formal confirmation. This will complete the ratification by the European Union of the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities.
What are the next steps likely to be? Once the convention has been fully ratified, the Council may come back to the issue of a possible 'toolbox' for actively promoting the rights of disabled persons - an idea that was, incidentally, suggested by several Member States.
Work on this project would go hand in hand with the preparation by the Commission of a 2010-2020 European strategy for disabled persons and, as its name suggests, this strategy will put forward an action plan for the next 10 years with the aim of ensuring that disabled persons can fully enjoy their rights and freedoms.
Janusz Władysław Zemke
(PL) I would like to ask the Minister a question which I consider rather important. The situation leaves a great deal to be desired. Thirteen out of the 27 Member States have ratified the convention, but 14 Member States, or, in other words, the majority, have not. Why have only half the Member States of the European Union ratified a convention that is so important to disabled people?
Vilija Blinkevičiūt
(LT) Thank you for your answer. Really, it would be very interesting to know why the Member States are taking so long to ratify the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities? Are they afraid of shouldering the responsibility for creating equal opportunities for people with disabilities? Minister, once again, if it is not too difficult, I would like to ask whether the drafting of the anti-discrimination directive has moved forward at least a little and how negotiations, discussions and consultations with the Member States on speeding up the anti-discrimination directive are progressing because it is very important for people with disabilities.
Olivier Chastel
Concerted efforts are being made within the Member States, but even so, I must say that one can, in fact, be disappointed, sceptical even, about the pace at which a number of Member States are ratifying. Indeed, I repeat for the third time that it is true that only 13 Member States have ratified.
I do not think there is any particular reason for this. It is just that the Member States ratify in accordance with a process that can sometimes differ from one Member State to the other. I am not hiding behind this argument, but I must also tell you that, in this matter as in others, national sovereignty is still a factor in terms of the way in which Member States progress through the ratification process.
Indeed, one could argue that it could go faster, that all the Member States could cooperate much more from the outset. Nevertheless, the fact remains that national sovereignty comes into play on a number of issues.
Subject: Epilepsy treatment
In August 2010, I attended the European Conference on Epilepsy and Society in Porto, where the Global Campaign Against Epilepsy launched its report entitled 'Epilepsy in the World Health Organisation European Region'. According to the report, epilepsy surgery programmes are non-existent in 58% of European countries, yet 6 million Europeans suffer from the illness, generating costs of €20 billion per year.
Is it not time for the EU Member States to adopt a common and consistent approach to the treatment of this illness?
Olivier Chastel
Honourable Members, I should like to begin by thanking, even if he is not present, the honourable Member who tabled this question for his interest in this matter. It is true that neurodegenerative diseases, neurological development disorders and non-psychiatric brain diseases, of which epilepsy is one, are a major concern for many of our fellow citizens.
In accordance with Article 168 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, the Union shall encourage cooperation between the Member States in the field of public health and disease prevention. A horizontal approach is therefore taken at EU level, with the focus being on combating stigmatisation of and discrimination against people affected by neurodegenerative diseases, neurological development disorders and non-psychiatric brain diseases.
Hence, the Council invited the Member States, in its June 2003 conclusions on combating stigma and discrimination in relation to mental health, to give specific attention to the impact of stigma and discrimination related problems due to mental illness in all age groups, and to ensure that these problems are recognised, in this context, giving special attention to the reduction of risks of social exclusion.
In its conclusions of 3 June 2005 on Community action in the field of mental health, the Council invited the Member States to implement the declaration and action plan adopted by the European Ministerial Conference of the World Health Organisation on mental health, held in Helsinki in January 2005.
Finally, the Council is particularly committed to combating another illness that is part of the group of neurodegenerative diseases, neurological development disorders and non-psychiatric brain diseases, namely Alzheimer's disease. I should mention in this connection the conclusions of 16 December 2008 on public health strategies to combat neurodegenerative diseases associated with ageing and, in particular, Alzheimer's disease, and the conclusions of 3 December 2009 on joint programming of research in Europe, covering, in particular, the launch of the pilot joint programming initiative dedicated to the fight against neurodegenerative diseases and Alzheimer's disease in particular.
Mairead McGuinness
author. - Thank you, Council, for your response. I will pass on your appreciation to my colleague, Gay Mitchell.
Could you address the realities in the different Member States, which must be of concern to the Council? It is a fact that the treatment you get for epilepsy depends on where you live, and there is a huge problem with the lack of neurologists in some Member States.
Could you also address the implications of this for the cross-border healthcare package which is currently under discussion? If epilepsy is not treated, people suffer more deeply than when there is adequate treatment. It is regrettable that in different Member States, there are different levels of care for people with epilepsy.
Olivier Chastel
I think that your observation concerning the quality of medical care in the various Member States is quite right. We are still a very long way away from harmonising the quality of healthcare management as a whole.
This is also down to the fact - and it should be pointed out - that the Union's powers in healthcare matters are still fairly restricted compared to national powers. Moreover, you are right to mention the cross-border package, because it is something that can improve a number of quality aspects in terms of healthcare.
Need I remind you that, under the Belgian Presidency, the Council is still negotiating, and will continue to do so until the end, with the aim of gaining as much support as possible for a second-reading agreement on this cross-border healthcare package? This is a difficult task, and the timescale is tight, but we have the ambition to achieve it before the end of December.
Subject: Coordination of the EU's position in Cancún
Ahead of the 2010 United Nations Climate Change conference in Cancún, what concrete measures is the Council taking to coordinate the EU's position at the negotiations, with the emphasis on the whole EU speaking with one voice?
Olivier Chastel
Honourable Members, during its meeting of 14 October, the Council adopted conclusions on the European Union's position in view of the Climate Change conference in Cancún, during which the global framework for climate protection is to be examined.
On the basis of this text, the October European Council, which will take place next week on 18 and 19 October, will establish the European Union's position in view of the 16th Conference of the Parties to the United Nations Convention on Climate Change. This EU position encompasses all the important aspects of this conference: the expected outcome, the conditions for the continuation of the Kyoto Protocol beyond 2012, the progress to be made in the various areas outlined in the Bali road map - mitigation, adaptation, forest technology aspects and financing.
For all these aspects, the Council has strived to present a position which is clear and easy to communicate. It is now incumbent on all European Union players to use this position to send a clear and unequivocal message to our international partners.
As the Council has just pointed out, the European Union hopes that the Cancún meeting will result in the adoption of a balanced series of decisions that will aid the introduction of an international policy to protect the climate after 2012. Moreover, there will be several bilateral meetings and contacts before Cancún, and they will provide an opportunity for us to explain our position to our partners.
During the conference itself, this position will be clarified if necessary during the regular coordination meetings held by the European Union. Of course, we are counting on all the institutions to help make our position clear by conveying, if possible, the same message in all our external representations.
Seán Kelly
President-in-Office of the Council, I appreciate your response and I think it is very important that we do have a positive impact in Cancún, unlike what unfortunately happened in Copenhagen.
I would just ask a supplementary question: from the contacts I presume you have with other countries around the world, arising out of Copenhagen, how confident would you be of getting agreement on binding targets? At the end of the day, they have to be binding. Anything else will not deal with this unfortunate situation.
Olivier Chastel
I should say and make it clear that, yes, it will be difficult to make progress in Cancún.
There are three reasons for this relative pessimism. Firstly, the economic crisis that is obviously affecting the European Union and many other countries outside the EU has led to goodwill and investment promises in this matter being levelled down; secondly, the refusal of emerging countries to accept binding commitments; and lastly, the United States' failure to enact clear legislation on the subject.
The European Union has kept the same positions it had in Copenhagen, and I think we should exercise caution in the way in which we are currently committing ourselves, in order not to trivialise the positions and guidelines that we could adopt in Cancún in a month's time.
Silvia-Adriana Ţicău
(RO) Minister, I would like to ask you whether you are considering linking climate change and pollution reduction objectives with the millennium goals because there are, admittedly, developing countries which think that it is too costly for them to move to an emission-reducing process, even though this can entail job creation and, by extension, a sustainable economy. I am therefore asking you whether you intend to establish a link between the Millennium Development Goals and climate change.
Franz Obermayr
(DE) Madam President, in Copenhagen, even cooperative countries like Indonesia and Brazil ultimately fought on the side of the G77 states, thus joining forces to form a bloc against the so-called rich states of the North. The climate debate became a debate about fairness and, even in the preparatory conference, the emerging economies made it clear that they had no intention of making concessions in Cancún.
My question to you, then, is as follows. How can the formation of blocs like this be avoided and how can this kind of changing of the subject be prevented? Should the EU not take on an important role as a mediator here?
Olivier Chastel
To answer these two questions, I cannot agree with you more. The Union should change strategy in relation to Copenhagen.
The Union should explain its position much more, the Union should talk much more with groups of countries that have significantly different opinions to ours and, yes, you are right, the link between climate change and the Millennium Development Goals is plain to see.
Clearly, we cannot expect, and especially not in the coming years, in the next few years, the same effort from those who have to reduce a heavy industrial base, such as we have within the Union and developing countries have. This is seemingly not enough, but this is also why the Union contributes so much to the 'fast start' principle, which is financing aimed at helping developing countries. This scheme is very clearly aimed at countries that cannot afford this reduction.
I think that this forms a whole. Dialogue and appropriate resources should enable developing countries to think more deeply about their own objectives in terms of reduction, in particular, of greenhouse gas emissions.
Subject: Programme of the Presidency - early school leaving
The chapter of the Belgian Presidency's programme entitled 'Education, Training, Youth, Sport, Culture and Audiovisual Policy' states that the Presidency will pay particular attention to the problems associated with the failure to complete schooling, as well as to the role of education and training in social inclusion.
What initiatives exactly has the Presidency taken so far to achieve the above commitments and what timetable does it intend to follow through to the end of the year?
Does the Council have any data providing evidence that the current economic situation is exacerbating the problem of early school leaving in the Member States which are affected by it?
Olivier Chastel
Madam President, honourable Members, the Presidency, in continuing the work begun by previous presidencies on greater European cooperation in the area of school education, is paying special attention to the issue of key skills and of early school leaving.
In so doing, it is following up on the conclusions of the March 2010 European Council, which highlighted the need to reduce the early school-leaving rate in Europe and which also set a collective target for bringing it under 10% by 2020.
The Presidency has launched several initiatives to this end, starting with the ministerial-level seminar that it organised at the very start of its term, in July. This seminar, together with the meeting of Directors-General of compulsory education, which incidentally took place the day before, focused on the difficulties pupils experience in acquiring basic skills, that is to say, their mother tongue, sciences and mathematics, as well as on the experience of Member States and the policy guidelines to be developed as regards the prevention of early school leaving.
Following on from these meetings, the Presidency has drawn up conclusions on the importance of raising the level of key skills in the context of European cooperation in the area of school education. Since the Council is currently discussing these conclusions, the Presidency is planning to put them on the November Council agenda.
More generally, the Council is waiting for a proposal for a recommendation that the Commission is due to submit shortly on the issue of early school leaving at European level. At the same time, efforts will continue or will be stepped up at national level in order to gradually reduce the early school-leaving rate by 2020, in accordance with the target set by the European Council.
In closing, I would add that in the context of the European Year for Combating Poverty and Social Exclusion, the Belgian Presidency also organised, on 28 September, the conference entitled 'Breaking the cycle of disadvantage - Social inclusion in and through education'. The outcome of this conference will serve as material for a debate that will take place during the Education Council on 19 November.
Georgios Papanikolaou
(EL) Thank you, Minister, for your reply. Following on from what you said, I should like to add the following questions: where do all these children who leave school go? Do they end up on the margins, in social exclusion or do they enter a technical profession which represents a good move that will afford them a decent standard of living?
Does the Council have any data or has it at least asked or is it planning to ask the Commission to map the social corridors, so that we can see what happens next in these children's lives and how we can ensure that our policies have better results?
Olivier Chastel
Honourable Members, the initiative is excellent and, moreover, contacts between ministers and those working in education show us how much the situations vary from one EU country to another, because some countries have programmes that can be very specific and very selective, to ensure that those who leave school early are not marginalised. This map-making process is therefore particularly important. It will take time, because assessing the situation in 27 Member States is not easy to do.
I think that the work in relation to early school leaving has got off to a good start under the Belgian Presidency and that subsequent presidencies, the Hungarian Presidency in particular, will certainly be able to initiate a draft recommendation, not only to reduce the early school-leaving rate, but also to draw conclusions from this mapping of the 27 Member States about what becomes of those pupils who leave school early, in particular, when they are marginalised and when they are not picked up by a more vocational education system, as you point out.
Vilija Blinkevičiūt
(LT) Thank you, Minister, for the efforts you have made, as the country holding the Presidency, to combat poverty. Do you not agree that poverty is also one of the reasons why not all young people finish secondary school and are forced to leave school? Today, our European Parliament is approving a very important decision on strengthening minimum income throughout the European Union. In your opinion, as the country holding the Presidency, could this also be one of the measures to encourage young people to acquire a secondary education and not leave school?
Silvia-Adriana Ţicău
(RO) Unfortunately, the school dropout rate in Europe is 19%, while it is 40% in countries like Portugal. The economic crisis and the decrease in budget and population resources have resulted in some countries in the closure of many schools, especially in rural areas. When we talk about education, we are talking about the future of Europe. I would therefore like to ask you, Minister, in the European Year for Combating Poverty and Social Exclusion, to set compulsory targets, at Council, and perhaps even at European Council level, for reducing the school dropout rate.
Olivier Chastel
I would like to say that I agree with the two honourable Members in that, yes, early school leaving is linked to poverty and social exclusion. It is clear to me that a number of our children, depending on their family status, their parents' financial status, are disadvantaged in their schooling and that the economic crisis has obviously made this phenomenon much worse.
Having said that, both the Council and the Commission have taken this on board since, together, we have adopted, as you know, this 2020 strategy, which combines at the same time economic development, research for development, the quality of our teaching and also the fight against poverty. All these elements form a whole that enables us, in my view at least, to come up with a coherent response.
I wish to return briefly to key skills, because this is an important issue. The conclusions that the Belgian Presidency will submit for adoption at the November Council will target a number of objectives. I will mention them quickly: the implementation of national strategies for improving pupils' performance in reading, mathematics and science.
Another objective is to analyse the effectiveness of current national strategies in order to have a source of information that can be used, as we were saying previously, in the decision-making process. However, the aim is also to launch pilot projects carried out between Member States on a voluntary basis and with the aim of improving young Europeans' basic skills, and - why not? - to ensure the more effective use of the instruments that we have available to us and which are relevant, such as those that are part of the open method of coordination, the programme for education and lifelong learning and the Seventh Framework Programme for Research and Technological Development.
Those are a number of objectives that we will pursue under the Belgian Presidency and that will most certainly be taken up by subsequent presidencies, in particular, by the Hungarian Presidency.
Subject: EU goal of total elimination of landmines
What steps does the Council intend to take to counter the devastating consequences of landmines? A number of countries continue to use APLs and some are also believed to continue to produce landmines - approximately 65 countries remain affected to some degree by mines and UXO. Global estimates of new landmine casualties each year vary between 15 000 and 20 000 people, many of whom are civilians, including children.
The EU has been very vocal about its wish to eliminate landmines and their use and stockpiling, but as yet, an ambitious plan of action with deadlines has not been forthcoming, yet alone been implemented.
Olivier Chastel
The European Union has been working for years towards the total elimination of anti-personnel landmines, thus helping to solve the enormous humanitarian and development problems they cause. Back in May 1995, the European Union adopted, by means of Council Decision 95/170/CFSP, its very first joint action to help combat the use and proliferation of anti-personnel landmines throughout the world.
The European Union was therefore the first to act within the international community, in November 1997, following the adoption of the Ottawa Convention on the Prohibition of the Use, Stockpiling, Production and Transfer of Anti-Personnel Mines and on their Destruction. On 18 September, the Council adopted a new joint action designed to continue the Union's political efforts with regard to the total elimination of anti-personnel landmines and, more specifically, to establish a joint moratorium on the export and production of anti-personnel mines and to facilitate a multi-dimensional contribution, within the Union, to mine clearance efforts and other related activities.
Since then, the European Union has continually promoted these commitments, which have been based, since 2003, on the European security strategy. In June 2008, a new joint action was adopted to support the universal adoption of the Ottawa Convention. This joint action is also aimed at specifically helping the States Parties to the Convention to implement the convention's provisions, particularly those concerning mine clearance, victim assistance and the destruction of stockpiles.
Furthermore, although the number of States Parties to the Convention has considerably increased, and the number of victims of anti-personnel landmines is going down, there is still a need to assist victims and to improve their lives in practice.
The European Union was involved in drawing up the 2010-2014 action plan - which it fully supports - adopted in Cartagena, Colombia, during the convention's second review conference from 29 November to 4 December 2009.
A new Council decision is currently being drafted in order to specifically support the action plan and its victim assistance component. In addition to the Council's more political action, the assistance programmes managed by the Commission in the context of development aid and of the Neighbourhood Policy - together with the Member States' national programmes - have increased the European Union's contribution to mine clearance and victim assistance to EUR 1.8 billion, which is half of the total global contribution.
Jim Higgins
I would like to thank the President for his very comprehensive reply. He mentioned the Ottawa Convention or Mine Ban Treaty, we have had the international Convention on Cluster Munitions signed in Dublin in 2008, and now we have an action plan, but the reality is that the European Union committed EUR 1.8 billion to landmine awareness projects for the period up to 2007, but only 1.5 billion of this has actually been spent. The reality is that landmines are still being used. It is a barbaric practice; 2 000 people die or are maimed every single month and we really need to get to grips with this issue comprehensively and on an international basis.
Olivier Chastel
You are right, we have spent 1.5 billion, and there are still 2 000 victims every month. The European Union cannot single-handedly do everything that needs to be done in this matter - it is already doing half the work.
I think I have clearly explained how sensitive we are to the human aspect of this problem. Unfortunately, we cannot go much further in terms of decision making. Only substantial and concrete progress with respect to disarmament is probably still possible, and we are particularly involved in the aspect concerning the prohibition of anti-personnel mines.
Paul Rübig
(DE) Madam President, Mr Chastel, landmines will probably continue to be a major problem even far into the future. Do you believe that it is possible to initiate dedicated research programmes into the detection of landmines? Of course, this is not a European problem, it is a global problem. Can you envisage also finding suitable institutions that grapple with research programmes in this field?
Seán Kelly
Firstly, thanks to my colleague, Mr Higgins, for raising this very important question and thanks also to the Council for their comprehensive response.
I think, in fairness, the European Union has been pro-active in dealing with this unfortunate situation. I would like to ask the Council: is it happy with the way the United Nations is dealing with this issue and can it make a better contribution, similar to what we are doing?
Olivier Chastel
The two questions are very much linked, and I was going to answer the first one by referring to the second one. It is true that any search programme to find anti-personnel mines around the world would be welcome.
The introduction of such a programme requires close cooperation with the United Nations and, crucially, it must be possible to reach agreement, within the UN institutions, with all those who make up these institutions. This work is long and exacting, because there is a need to convince others who do not necessarily agree on the resources that will have to be invested in this kind of search programme.
Subject: Creation of an Observatory on Violence Against Women
The Council conclusions on the eradication of violence against women, adopted on 8 March 2010, call for the establishment of a European observatory on violence against women, building on existing institutional structures, in order to collect high quality statistical data for use as a basis for the policies to be introduced. There is no place in a civilised society for violence against women, and it must be eradicated. There is a need to collect better quality statistics, improve the coordination of measures, exchange best practices and organise effective information campaigns on violence against women.
When does the Council intend to reach a decision on the establishment of this future observatory? What will be its objectives and missions and when will it become operational?
Olivier Chastel
Honourable Members, combating violence against women is a goal shared by both the European Parliament and the Council. As you know, our two institutions have been working on this topic for several years and in many different contexts.
Let me remind you of the resolution that you adopted last year, when we celebrated the 10th anniversary of the United Nations resolution establishing 25 November as the International Day for the Elimination of Violence against Women. In that resolution, you invited the Commission to submit a targeted and more coherent EU policy plan, and urged Member States to introduce a coherent system for collecting statistics.
As the honourable Member has reminded us, in March, the Council asked the Commission to draw up a European strategy for preventing and combating violence against women. One of the priorities identified by the Council in this matter is to prepare the creation of a European observatory on violence against women, based on existing structures.
The Commission is currently drafting a new strategy on violence against women, which will also touch on the creation of this observatory. However, as you can imagine, for the time being, we still do not know what will be in the strategy. We expect to receive it some time next year. It is therefore highly likely that a separate proposal will be required thereafter in order to create this observatory.
Obviously, as you know, the Council can only intervene as legislator on the basis of a Commission proposal. Such a proposal will be duly examined by the Council, acting as colegislator with the European Parliament.
Evidently, it is a little premature at this stage to make assumptions about what the objectives of a future observatory on violence against women will be, and especially about the date when it will come into force.
Vilija Blinkevičiūt
(LT) Minister, thank you for your answer. There is still hope then, that at some point, there will be a centre which will collect reliable data about the violence against women that continues to exist. However, I would like to know whether, in your opinion, the Member States hold sufficient data for the fight against violence towards women to really become a priority. To my understanding, we do not yet have reliable data and this is one of the reasons why rather a lot of different types of violence still exist in the European Union.
Olivier Chastel
What you are saying is not wrong. It is difficult today to accept that, in order to create this observatory and identify the issues involved, we need only rely on what the various Member States have already individually come up with in terms of census, type of violence and prevalence of the various types of violence. This is a start.
What we are expecting from the Commission is a plan, a direction, a methodology so that we can harmonise throughout the EU, in the 27 Member States, a reliable way of listing all the types of violence and their prevalence and so that we can draw up, together if possible, a strategy that will bear fruit.
Paul Rübig
(DE) Mr Chastel, we do have agencies that already deal with these issues. I would remind you of the Agency for Fundamental Rights in Vienna. Would it not be possible to ask that agency to focus on this issue and to concentrate its work on it so that we do not have to create a new body but could instead pass this activity on to the existing agency in Vienna? We have very qualified staff there. It would be good if that could be arranged.
Olivier Chastel
President-in-Office of the Council. - (FR) (off-microphone) easily answer that question. I am very much in favour of using an existing agency rather than creating a new one. I think there are too many agencies, and so there is no need to create new ones. In any case, I hope that existing structures, such as the Vienna agency, will be involved in the drafting of the tactical plan that the Commission is due to present to us.
Subject: Bio-waste
On 6 July 2010, Parliament adopted, by a large majority, resolution P7_TA(2010)0264, on the Commission's Green Paper on the management of bio-waste in the European Union, urging the Commission to draw up a proposal for a specific directive on bio-waste by the end of 2010.
During the subsequent exchange of views between the Committee on the Environment and the Belgian minister, Joke Schauvliege, held on 14 July 2010, the latter, speaking on behalf of the Belgian Presidency, welcomed the resolution adopted by Parliament and promised further action on the matter.
Now that we are halfway through the Belgian Presidency, can the Council state what action it intends to take before the end of the Presidency with a view to implementing the measure called for by Parliament?
Olivier Chastel
Madam President, honourable Members, like the European Parliament, on 25 June 2009 the Council adopted conclusions on the Green Paper on the management of bio-waste in the European Union.
In its conclusions, the Council encourages the Commission to continue its impact assessment with a view to preparing, if appropriate, an EU legislative proposal on biodegradable waste by 2010. You will tell me that we are in 2010 now. In particular, the Council invited the Commission to consider preventive measures, measures for introducing separate collection of biodegradable waste, a quality assurance system based on the principle of integrated chain management and traceability throughout the process, and the establishment of requirements on labelling and on quality criteria for compost and digestate.
Furthermore, the Council of 11 June 2010 took note of the Commission communication on future steps in bio-waste management in the European Union. In that communication, the Commission indicated its intention to continue working towards the introduction of technical rules to assist bio-waste management and, accordingly, to amend Directive 86/278/EEC on sewage sludge.
The Council is obviously going to examine a new proposal along these lines, and the Belgian Presidency organised a conference on bio-waste on 21 September to discuss, among other things, the substance of the Commission communication. The outcome of this conference was communicated to the Council on 14 October, so it is very recent.
José Manuel Fernandes
(PT) Madam President, Mr Chastel, on 6 July this year, the European Parliament adopted, by a large majority, a specific directive on bio-waste. For the sake of clarity, for the sake of simplicity and for the sake of legal certainty, we believe that instead of this legislation, which is spread across several legal texts, instead of this situation, a specific directive would be better.
In this way, we will also be able to be in line with the Europe 2020 strategy, with intelligent, sustainable and inclusive growth. In this way, we will also achieve more green jobs. In this way, we will also successfully combat climate change. Using high quality compost will enable us to better help our soils and will also aid biodiversity. I question, therefore, whether the Council agrees: whether the Council, too, is advocating a specific directive, and what it will do to achieve this end.
President
I have been relatively gentle with you all tonight because we have had a reasonable amount of time, but it is meant to be 30 seconds.
Olivier Chastel
I will try to be as brief as possible, Madam President, so as not to be called to order at the end of my speech. However, this is an interesting question. As you know, it is up to the Commission to propose or not such a specific directive. The Council is aware that in its communication on future steps in bio-waste management in the European Union, the Commission did not note any shortcomings in the current legislation which would require specific legislation, but it did announce a proposed amendment to the Sewage Sludge Directive.
This is not going to satisfy you, but please also be aware that, when the Council conclusions were being drafted in 2009, the Member States appeared to be divided on whether or not there was a need for a specific directive on bio-waste. Therefore, I will not answer with a 'yes' or a 'no', since the Member States are divided. The Council will obviously examine with interest the Commission's proposals concerning this Sewage Sludge Directive and particularly its provisions on bio-waste, which will, of course, be covered by this proposal.
President
Thank you, Minister. My comments were not directed at you.

Subject: The possibility of a double-dip recession: sustainability of the 3% target
Can the Council respond to comments by the respected Nobel prize-winning economist Joseph Stiglitz that the European economy risks sliding back into recession due to spending cuts imposed by EU governments in an attempt to reach the 3% deficit limit laid down in the Stability and Growth Pact?
Is this 3% target a realistic one, considering that some Member State finances are under severe strain at present?
Olivier Chastel
Madam President, honourable Members, the main objective of the Stability and Growth Pact is to maintain price stability within the European Union. Under the terms of the treaty, Member States should conduct a national policy that is consistent with the Stability and Growth Pact and the broad economic policy guidelines.
The Council of 7 September agreed on the introduction of the European Semester from 2011. The main objective of this exercise is to align the timetable for presenting the stability and growth programmes and the national reform programmes, with a view to ensuring consistent structural surveillance at every level of budgetary discipline, macro-economic stability and growth, whilst preserving formally separated individual procedures.
This process will allow for better coordination of economic policies within the European Union and will help to strengthen budgetary discipline, macro-economic stability and growth. This same concern has led the European Union, in accordance with the powers laid down in the treaty, to envisage measures aimed at promoting the recovery while also ensuring this budgetary discipline. Europe 2020, the new EU strategy for employment and smart, sustainable and inclusive growth, adopted by the European Council on 17 June, meets this challenge. Its aim is to change the focus of policies from crisis management to the introduction of medium- and long-term reforms, which specifically promote growth and employment, and which also guarantee the viability of public finances.
As you know, the major objectives identified in the Europe 2020 strategy include an increase in the number of jobs, better conditions for research and development, an improvement in education levels - we touched on this in a previous question - and the promotion of social inclusion, including poverty reduction. To my mind, therefore, there is no mismatch between a stability pact and measures to restore growth and employment.
Mairead McGuinness
Thank you for your response. I had expected more detail but I thank you for it. The party of which I am a member, Fine Gael, supports the 3% target, as do all the major parties in Ireland. I believe having the target and a date to achieve it is vital, not just for our own self-interest, but also for the sake of the European Union.
I would draw Members' attention to an excellent speech delivered this morning by a former Taoiseach of Ireland, John Bruton, a friend of this House, who speaks in very straight terms about the challenges, but also the fact that we are able to do what is set out for us in these tough targets and that Ireland as a country has many qualities which will allow us to achieve the targets without suffering. There will be pain, but we will be able to manage that pain. I would like your comments on that please and also to draw your attention to that speech.
Olivier Chastel
You mention the Irish problem. I understand, and we are obviously all sensitive to the Irish problem. My answer to your first question is obviously a very broad one covering 27 Member States, because we must have consistent policies, we must have monetary and budgetary stability policies, and recovery policies. Furthermore, it is fair to say that some will, of course, have more difficulties than others, depending on their level of debt, depending on their annual debt in the last two or three years and since the beginning of the recession.
So, yes, it is true that Ireland is going through a difficult time. You can rest assured that Europe understands that it is going through this difficult time, but I think that several countries are in this situation, several countries will experience the same thing in the future, and austerity and solidarity are not mutually exclusive.
I therefore think that the economic governance measures that the Commission has put on the table this week will invariably include a concern not to leave any country by the wayside - you know what Europe was capable of in terms of solidarity in the case of Greece. Let us not compare the situation of two countries, but rest assured that under no circumstances will Europe leave any of the 27 Member States by the wayside.
Brian Crowley
I would like to thank the President-in-Office for his answer. Just two points very briefly. First of all, when discussions are held with regard to the 3% deficit issue, there appears to be different accounting standards used in different Member States according to certain criteria.
Secondly, on the enforcement, what level of flexibility is there because of the current crisis afflicting all Member States to allow for leverage or margins for error within that 3% figure?
Georgios Papanikolaou
(EL) Minister, of course, the Council conclusions and the 2020 strategy contain what endeavour to be optimistic messages. However, even in the budget which we passed today, when it comes to achieving the 2020 targets, I believe that - for example, in research and innovation - we have failed to respond and we will not be able to attain the targets we want with these figures.
We also see, however, that the Council is silent on the question of the massive north/south divide in the European Union. I am reminded of a recent statement by a senior officer of the European Union, the Eurogroup Chair, to the effect that large countries in the Union, such as France and Germany, knew about Greece's problem - I mention this because you referred to Greece - and yet did nothing before now, because they gained massively from this situation.
Can we expect an initiative to address the north/south divide in the Union?
Olivier Chastel
Two questions, two answers. Regarding the first question: of course, there have been, and still are, a number of disparities in the accounting standards. These standards are, of course, being harmonised, because if, in the future, we want to be fair to all 27 Member States' economies, we need to have the same calculation methods. Therefore, this harmonisation is ongoing and under way.
As for flexibility regarding the 3% limit, as you know, we really are being flexible; we have been flexible since 2009, we have been flexible in 2010, and we will continue to be flexible in 2011 and 2012 so that our various Member States can return to healthy budgets, because if we wanted to apply this 3% limit rigidly, with absolutely no margin for error, then this year for instance, practically every one of us would have failed to comply with this budgetary restraint plan, and that is not the case.
I think that the European institutions realised that returning to stable and balanced budgets by 2013 would take time, particularly in view of the recession and the Member States' situation.
Now to the North-South imbalance. Whether the imbalance is between the North and the South or between Member States which have capitalised to some degree on aid provided by the European Union in order to boost their economy, productive fabric and labour market, and other Member States which have done so to a lesser extent, I think that the European Union is actually there to safeguard this coherence, this cohesion. In particular, the funds available in the European budget for cohesion - the first heading in the Union's budget - should indeed be used to reduce these imbalances. You mention the North-South imbalance, but I am not sure that that is the only imbalance that exists within the European Union.
Subject: Council measures in favour of free movement of labour between Member States
The EU's new plan for the economy for the next ten years refers to workforce mobility as an essential condition for reducing unemployment. The unemployment rate has risen disturbingly with the crisis, from 6.8% in May 2008 to 10% in July 2010. Meanwhile, according to a Commission survey published on 13 July 2010, 48% of Europeans would be willing to seek employment outside their country or region, rather than remain jobless. In addition, 17% said they expected to work abroad at some time in the future. It should also be remembered that Member States are obliged to give preference to nationals of other Member States over third-country workers.
In the light of the above, can the Council state what concrete measures it proposes with a view to the rapid elimination of the barriers now existing to the free movement of workers from those Member States which joined the Union after 1 May 2004?
Olivier Chastel
Madam President, honourable Members, the Council would obviously like to reiterate that the free movement of persons is one of the fundamental freedoms guaranteed by the treaty and secondary legislation deriving from it, and that this includes the right for citizens of the European Union to live and work in another Member State.
With regard to the temporary restrictions set out in the accession treaties, it is up to each Member State still applying restrictions to assess the repercussions for its labour market and to decide whether to maintain the remaining restrictions or to relax them before the end of the transition period: April 2011 for the countries that joined in 2004 and December 2013 for the countries that joined in 2007. Moreover, the Council has invited those Member States that are still applying restrictions in accordance with the transitional provisions laid down in the accession treaties to lift them during the third phase of the transition period if it cannot be established that their labour market would suffer or is liable to suffer serious disruption.
Since May 2009, when Denmark granted free access to its labour market, the transitional provisions applied by Member States have stayed the same, and whereas a majority of Member States do grant free access to workers from those Member States that joined after 1 May 2004, 10 Member States are still applying restrictions.
The Council has stressed that the economic and financial crisis should not be used as a reason to justify, on its own or more generally, the continued use of the provisions in question, and has called on Member States to further develop suitable strategies and tools which would enable them to identify and analyse the barriers to the geographical and professional mobility of workers, and to help eliminate existing barriers, in accordance with the treaty.
Silvia-Adriana Ţicău
(RO) Minister, thank you for your reply. I would even request that the European Council continues to ask Member States to lift barriers and temporary provisions restricting the free movement of workers from new Member States, especially Romania and Bulgaria. I also wish to stress that offering equal opportunities on the European labour market to all workers from all Member States means protecting workers in the destination countries as well. This is why, Minister, I call on you to ask Member States to lift existing barriers.
Georgios Papanikolaou
(EL) Madam President, thank you for giving me the floor again. Minister, on the one hand, we have mobility problems and, on the other, we have Europe's initiatives to boost job mobility which, in these very difficult times, will certainly be an option for many European citizens, especially young people.
We adopted the European Job Mobility Action Plan in 2007 and it is due to expire in 2010. Can we expect an evaluation of this plan and a new Council proposal? We also have the Leonardo da Vinci programme on job mobility. Can we expect further support for this programme or similar new initiatives?
Nicole Sinclaire
Just briefly, what steps is the Council taking with respect to the movement of workers, or actually refugees, coming into the European Union, getting papers and then moving to other countries within the European Union, and also with respect to the safeguards under the 1951 Convention which mean that they have to claim asylum in their first safe country?
I am just wondering what steps the Council has taken with respect to that.
Olivier Chastel
President-in-Office of the Council. - (FR) Firstly, I should like to point out that the free movement of labour is a genuine priority for the Council. I think that everything is being done to inform Member States that retain a number of restrictions to thoroughly analyse this transitional phase, during which they retain a number of restrictions, and to see how they can lift those restrictions.
Moreover, to answer one of the questions, I should add that, while it is true that the free movement of workers is a priority for the Council, it is a priority in particular for the Presidency. You will find in the 18-month programme of work of the trio of Presidencies of the Council - Spain, Belgium and Hungary - that these three countries will work, and are currently working, on the review of the single market that is under way, by encouraging the implementation of the four freedoms, given that exploiting the full potential of the single market is essential for a return to growth.
Our programme specifically mentions the possibility of reviewing the transition periods, which limit the free movement of workers from the new Member States. Should we consider that these transitional restrictions are incompatible with the free movement of workers? It is not for me to judge, as the transitional restrictions are defined in the accession treaties and such restrictions have been used for all the accessions.
It is true that, beyond the incentives we can offer them, it is the responsibility of each Member State applying these restrictions to analyse the impact on its own labour market and to decide whether to retain or lift these restrictions before the end of these transitional periods, which, as you will recall, are April 2011 for the 2004 accessions, and December 2013 for the 2007 accessions.
President
Questions which have not been answered for lack of time will receive written answers (see Annex).
That concludes Question Time.


Securing Europe's supply of rare earth elements (debate)
President
The next item is the debate on:
the oral question to the Commission on 'Securing Europe's supply of rare earth elements', by Mr Tsoukalas, Mr Rübig, Mr Caspary and Mrs Schnieber-Jastram, on behalf of the PPE Group - B7-0017/2011),
the oral question to the Commission on 'Securing Europe's supply of rare earth elements', by Mrs Ek, Mr Panayotov, Mrs Hall, Mrs de Sarnez, Mr Rinaldi, Mrs Schaake and Mr Theurer, on behalf of the ALDE Group - B7-0020/2011), and
the oral question to the Commission on 'A raw materials strategy for Europe' by Mr Szymański, on behalf of the ECR Group - B7-0207/2011).
Ioannis A. Tsoukalas
Madam President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen. Rare earth elements are critical to hundreds of high-tech applications and key to the development of green technologies. EU industry depends totally on REE imports from China, which holds a monopoly over 97% of world production and has 36% of global economic reserves. China has strong scientific research in the field and has achieved a palpable competitive advantage in producing alloys and end products.
At the same time, EU industry lacks both access to raw materials and the know-how for processing them. Although rare earth elements are not as rare as their name suggests, experts estimate that it takes around 10 to 15 years to reorganise a viable production line. The European Union is developing a medium-term strategy for raw materials; however, the problem of rare earth elements is much more immediate. Increased domestic needs in China and its efforts to limit the environmental impact have already resulted in very strict limitations on exports, at a time when global demand is increasing. China has set lower export limits for the first half of 2011, down 35% compared with last year, but stricter limits are expected in the second half. The shortfall is expected to make itself keenly felt over the next six months, with increases in the prices of rare earth elements and disruptions to production lines. Experts estimate that there will be a global shortfall of 40 000 tonnes of rare earth elements in 2014.
The questions to the Commission are direct and urgent:
What short-term measures is the Commission proposing to take, along with its partners, to establish alternative sources of rare earth elements?
What is the state of play in our talks with China and our international partners on the subject?
Lena Ek
author. - Madam President, I sometimes wonder if Europe's response in the face of every challenge is to freeze in fear of China and call for trade sanctions and state intervention.
A successful EU raw materials strategy must be aimed at encouraging free trade. It should contain sustainable and resource-efficient management, innovation and access to raw materials for European companies. It should not involve stockpiling raw materials with taxpayers' money.
Europe is increasingly dependent on a small number of key resources and is falling behind in the race to secure alternative sources, but it is private companies, not politicians, who can determine the need to build up stockpiles. If it is an efficient use of resources, they will do so. What we need instead is a comprehensive raw materials strategy that involves all aspects of access to rare earths. This includes trade, research and innovation, recycling and development of transport and infrastructure to enable development of domestic sources. We need better management of raw materials supply within Europe and effective measures to encourage recycling and reducing waste.
Europe is rich in natural resources and is also strategically placed with its proximity to the resource-rich Barents region. With minerals, metals and forests, northern Europe has the potential to respond significantly to EU raw material needs in a sustainable way.
We also need to encourage innovation and research into alternative solutions and find ways around materials that European companies find too expensive. The EU strategy must be based on free trade and must ensure that both developed and developing countries can benefit from the sustainable supply of raw materials. We should also use the aid-for-trade mechanism.
Europe needs actions aimed at innovation and eliminating trade barriers in third countries, not a policy of stockpiling rare and critical raw materials and undermining democracy abroad. We need suggestions from the Commission regarding raw materials and rare earth elements. We are still looking for these suggestions.
Konrad Szymański
Madam President, access to rare earth elements will determine the position and competitiveness of European industry. If we do not ensure the availability of these materials, we will do away with the most technologically advanced sectors of our economy. No areas of our policy must therefore be neglected. We must skilfully use the resources we already have and which have been abandoned unnecessarily. We must use trade policy instruments to ensure effective prevention of free trade violations. We cannot therefore limit ourselves to using only the expensive and still very limited possibilities open to us for recovering materials from used appliances.
There are several questions at least which should be put to the European Commission in the context of the communication on raw materials. Firstly, has the Commission assessed the impact of China's protectionist raw materials policy on European industry? Secondly, what role can recycling play in comparison to the opportunities provided by trade policy and own resources? What is the ratio between these three possibilities? Thirdly, does the Commission have at its disposal an assessment of the costs involved in increasing the share of recycling in the European raw materials policy?
Antonio Tajani
Madam President, honourable Members, as you know, at the beginning of February, the Commission approved the updating of the EU strategy on raw materials, which is based on three pillars.
The first concerns the supply of raw materials from outside the European Union through agreements with the African Union. We have put the raw materials issue on the agenda of our meetings with the Russian Federation. Moreover, as I said during the previous debate, in June, I will travel to Brazil, Argentina and Chile to initiate diplomatic action with those Latin American countries as well. Then I will talk about the relationship with China.
The second pillar is about ensuring a more sustainable supply within the EU. This is why we have updated the implementing rules of Natura 2000, in agreement with Commissioner Potočnik. We want to ensure that they are interpreted in a way that will not harm extraction activities but, at the same time, we want to ensure that the environment is still respected.
The third pillar concerns recycling and the efficient use of resources. I would repeat what I said during the previous debate: as part of our innovation policy, we are planning a series of innovation partnerships in various sectors, one of these being the raw materials sector. One of the innovation partnerships will concentrate, in particular, on activities that we can carry out in the raw materials recycling and substitution sector.
The new communication emphasises, in particular, the situation concerning the supply of rare earths and other essential raw materials. There is no doubt that the reduction in the rare earth export quota decided by China significantly limits the global supply. We are assessing the situation in order to identify the most suitable multilateral instruments, including the World Trade Organisation and our bilateral relations with China.
At the WTO, we have initiated a dispute settlement procedure against China regarding access to the nine principal raw materials in 2009. The examination of the case is at an advanced stage, and the conclusions will, of course, be very important for our discussions concerning the initiation of a WTO procedure on rare earths.
At bilateral level, the Commission has taken up the issue with the Chinese Government on several occasions, from both a political and a technical point of view. At the end of 2010, a working party was set up between the EU and China to facilitate the dialogue on issues relating to rare earths and other raw materials.
The EU will conduct, within the scope of strategic partnerships and of dialogues on future policies, an active raw materials diplomacy with the aim of guaranteeing access to these materials, and to essential materials in particular. One example, as I said, is the initiation of a bilateral dialogue in the context of the 2011-2013 Joint Africa-EU strategy, which includes a section specifically dedicated to raw materials. I have already told you about our relations with Russia and Latin America.
Within the EU, the Commission is supporting the exploration of essential raw material deposits, and this objective is promoted in particular by the ProMine 2009-2013 project, which comes under the Seventh Framework Programme.
As for recycling, it presents huge technological challenges, particularly since the quantity of raw materials contained in many products is infinitely small. Our strategy is intended to promote recycling through measures aimed at improving the implementation and application of EU waste management legislation.
Furthermore, we shall continue to encourage research and innovation in the recycling and substitution sector, as has already been done under the Seventh Framework Programme for financing projects concerning the substitution of rare earths. In this context, the Commission is examining the possibility of launching an innovation partnership in the field of raw materials and hopes to present a specific proposal within the next few months. We have also begun a cooperation exercise with the United States in the field of innovation, and we are examining the possibility of cooperating with Japan as well.
Naturally, we shall continue to keep a close eye on the problem of essential raw materials in order to define the priority measures required, and we believe that security of raw material supplies is essentially the responsibility of companies. However, we are prepared to discuss, in close cooperation with the Member States, the costs, potential benefits and added value of a raw material stockpiling programme.
This is what we are doing, but naturally, I am always ready to listen to any suggestions from Parliament in order to ensure that the Commission continues to work actively on a matter that is crucial for the competitiveness of our European entrepreneurial system.
Paul Rübig
Madam President, Mr Tajani, thank you very much indeed for your initiative. Raw materials will help to ensure that we have a healthy industrial sector in future and, therefore, it is important for us to conclude bilateral agreements with China and many other countries, and not just in the field of trade policy. For example, we should also be focusing on investment protection agreements, because we can sign long-term contracts in this area which will protect the return on investments in the new mines that we urgently need. In other words, long-term contracts will provide protection for our investments so that the new mines, which will be competing with existing ones, can receive the financial support that they require.
In the context of the World Trade Organisation's (WTO) follow-up conference to the Doha round, we can also investigate the situation of the Singapore issues. We have already put together a good package of measures in Singapore and we need to take this forward, perhaps even in parallel with the current Doha negotiations.
We need to find out whether there has been a breach of anti-dumping regulations with regard to the prices which industry in China pays in some cases for raw materials for processing and the surcharges imposed on European industry. Work on clarifying this is already in progress. However, this is not just about rare earth elements (REEs), but also about magnesite, for example, which is the most important raw material for fireproof products and which is essential for the production of steel, glass, cement and other materials. We should be considering possible substitute products which can be used in the future and perhaps establishing our own research programme for these products.
I also welcome Mrs Hedegaard's proposal for a carbon footprint tax, which would allow additional VAT to be charged on products manufactured with high levels of CO2 emissions that are transported over long distances.
Marita Ulvskog
Madam President, Commissioner, I believe this debate shows how important it is for the raw materials strategy to have a long-term and broad impact. Rare earth elements are, of course, rare on the market, but not in the ground. There are a number of reasons for this. They have quite simply not been of sufficient economic interest to quarry in all of the places where we know they are present. There have also been environmental and working environment disputes.
The EU ought to invest a great deal in research and development. It ought to invest in resource efficiency and, in particular, in recycling, as has been said here throughout the evening. This, of course, requires everything from intelligent, simple and smart collection strategies to ecodesigns which make it easy to take batteries out of devices that are to be recycled. However, we also need to move away from our colonial impulses in our cooperation with other countries in other parts of the world. That is something that we have not managed to do particularly well yet.
Niccolò Rinaldi
Madam President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, you have already provided some information, Commissioner, but I would like more details.
Firstly, the WTO. What exactly are we doing at the WTO concerning the initiative that was already taken in 2009 but which, as far as I know, concerned magnesium and bauxite? Do we have a procedure at the WTO regarding rare earths? Is such a procedure possible and do we initiate it alone, or can we initiate it together with the United States and Japan, as I think would be desirable?
Secondly, you have said that we need to increase supplies from other deposits, including European ones. Is there a role for Greenland? What is the precise thinking in this respect?
Thirdly, the recovery of rare earths from recycling. Are we moving towards a set of European rules on so-called urban mining? Will there be a directive or a regulation? What is planned in this respect?
Fourthly, with regard to studies and investigation, the development of investigations, will we have some specific provisions in the Eighth Framework Programme also? Furthermore, with regard to the stockpiling system, will we have common European rules on stockpiling in this case, too?
Finally, to what extent is the issue being dealt with bilaterally with China as part of the high-level economic and commercial dialogue and in the negotiations under way on the new partnership and cooperation agreement with that country?
Reinhard Bütikofer
Madam President, in the short and medium term, our dependency on the import of rare earth elements (REEs) from China certainly presents a problem. I cannot see that Europe has a strategic weakness and it must not remain dependent. To put it more bluntly, in some ways, the Chinese are doing us a favour by making it entirely obvious to us that we need to escape from our current position of dependency.
Therefore, we must not make the additional mistake of creating antagonism between Europe and China. There are opportunities for cooperation in this area. However, when we look towards Asia, we should also take Japan into consideration. Over the last year, Japan has been in a more difficult position with regard to access to REEs than Europe has. Japan has also reacted more quickly and more effectively. The Japanese Government has spent USD 1 billion on research into the substitution and recycling of REEs. How much are we making available as part of the Seventh Framework Programme?
It goes without saying that we need trade policy. We must also develop our own reserves, where they are available. However, in my opinion, the strategic focus of our policy on REEs must be innovation, raw material efficiency and technological leadership. We need mandatory targets for raw material efficiency. We also need specific, concrete plans for recycling REEs. The Commission's communication makes no direct mention of recycling. This is no longer a solution for the future, but one which we need now. Many companies have already been doing this for some time, including Rhodia, BASF, Osram and many others.
Substitution is another key factor. Even China is now beginning to invest in substitutes for REEs, because it is obvious that it cannot continue using these substances at its current rate, even to meet its own requirements.
We must be quick to make the most of the opportunities offered by the current situation and we must not complain that these opportunities are open to us.
Zbigniew Ziobro
Madam President, rare earth elements are of decisive importance for hundreds of technological solutions. They are therefore an essential factor in continued technological progress and greater innovation in the European Union. The fact that they are used so widely means that demand has increased, while opportunities for increasing the amounts extracted are growing rarer.
At present, 124 000 tonnes of rare earth elements are extracted annually worldwide, and demand for them will grow by as much as 50% by 2012. Around 97% of the global supply is extracted in China, which is crucially important, since China has been reducing extraction and exports since 2006. In August, it announced that it would be reducing exports by over 50% and creating strategic reserves. What is more, many companies extracting rare earth elements in other parts of the world are, in fact, Chinese-owned. The take-over of a rare earth elements mine by a Chinese mining company was recently blocked in Australia. This is a very serious problem relating to the monopoly on the extraction of these raw materials. We must do everything in our power to prevent any risks in connection with this key economic sector, which guarantees Europe's growth and future.
Helmut Scholz
Madam President, Mr Tajani, only last autumn, the European Parliament specifically welcomed the fact that the Heads of State or Government of the European Union had explicitly recognised, in a statement from the Madrid Summit, the sovereign right of states to manage their own natural resources and to control their use. The statement also included a specific reference to the importance of sustainability criteria. The summit was attended by Latin American countries, but the same laws apply to China and other states.
The extraction of rare earth elements (REEs) has led to serious environmental damage in China, as was the case in the past in the USA and elsewhere. This must not continue. We need an international agreement. China and other potential producers need our expertise and technology transfer in order to ensure that their mining processes are environmentally friendly and that their miners can work in much greater safety.
China is also interested in investing in high-tech production facilities for processing REEs, because it does not just want to be a supplier of raw materials. The Commission should therefore play the role of mediator here.
A modern raw materials policy must be characterised by partnership. At the same time, you must put the emphasis on developing improved recycling and substitution technologies, because in future, the metals found in REEs will become even rarer: too rare simply to use them once.
Daniel Caspary
(DE) Madam President, Mr Tajani, you have made some more announcements today, Mr Tajani, about what the Commission intends to do over the next few months regarding supplies of raw materials. In 2007, the Commission also made an announcement and presented its raw materials strategy. My problem is that the announcements we have heard over recent days and the announcements we have heard over recent weeks are very similar to those made in 2007. However, I have the impression that very little has happened since then.
Little has happened at least when it comes to us asserting our own interests. It seems to me that many other states are promoting their interests very aggressively. This is known as the 'colonial reflex'. I see this happening not in the countries of the European Union, but specifically in China, which is using the issue of raw materials, and of rare earth elements (REEs) in particular, to maintain its monopoly and put other countries at a disadvantage.
I increasingly often ask myself, Mr Tajani, who should be responsible for ensuring that something actually happens. Is it your Directorate-General? Is it you? Is it the Directorate-General for Trade? Is it Mr De Gucht? Is it the other commissioners? Who really has overall responsibility? What concrete steps must be taken? Whose actions should we be measuring and when, in order to ensure that measures are actually put in place by the European Union? I would be very grateful if you could investigate this issue, because we are all aware that the Chinese are continuing to play an active role and are imposing export restrictions and duties, which present our companies with huge problems.
Has the Commission finally drawn up a list of all the products where the Chinese currently have a competitive advantage because of their export restrictions? Is the Commission intending to take anti-dumping measures, where appropriate, in order to remove competitive disadvantages for our companies? I would be very grateful if you could turn your attention to these issues.
Silvia-Adriana Ţicău
(RO) Madam President, rare earth elements are vital for the production of monitors and mobile phones, as well for manufacturing high-performance permanent magnets used in wind turbines or electric vehicles, car catalytic converters, PCBs and fibre optics. They are therefore vital to new clean energies as well. Although these elements are traded globally, the market for certain raw materials and rare earth elements is not very transparent and the volumes traded are small.
The European Union is dependent almost entirely on rare earth element imports, with 97% of their global production being concentrated in China. The demand for raw materials will be boosted by the growth of the emerging economies and by the rapid spread of new technologies. The processes for mining, refining and recycling rare earth elements have severe consequences for the environment if they are not managed properly. The European Union should focus its efforts on streamlining the processes for using and recycling rare earth elements and on research targeted at replacing critical raw materials with other less critical materials.
Commissioner, we call for the list of raw materials to be updated regularly.
Charles Goerens
(FR) Madam President, the observations conveyed by the oral questions on which this debate is based are simply a further indication of the scarcity of resources and, in particular, of the increasing scarcity of certain essential minerals. Moreover, they tell us about the vulnerability of States that import compared to States that hold a monopoly.
The reaction of the European Union must be two-pronged: on the one hand, to ensure that we are not taken hostage by defending our situation in all relevant forums (WTO, G20, United Nations), while, on the other hand, acting within the framework of the Lisbon strategy in order to reduce our dependence on rare earth elements. Our watchwords must be effective recycling of materials already used and the promotion of research and development programmes into alternative products.
Finally, through our partnerships with developing countries, the EU must help prevent the looting of the rare earth elements belonging to those countries.
(Applause)
Teresa Riera Madurell
(ES) Madam President, Commissioner, the situation is clear: the EU needs to secure its supply of rare earth elements, but we face increasingly tough competition in this market.
To be sure, China controls 95% of global production, and its continued cuts in export quotas have placed this issue at the heart of the G20 agenda.
We are therefore debating a critical issue for the whole European economy, one that must, of course, be addressed through cooperation with countries that have reserves, but also, and above all, through research, development and innovation.
It has already been said that investing in research and development is vital if we are to tackle the technological challenges involved in finding more efficient extraction techniques, searching for alternative raw materials to reduce dependence and recycling, which is something of the utmost importance, as the so-called 'urban mines' could be an important source of raw materials for the European Union.
We therefore congratulate the Commissioner on his commitments to this issue, and we will be keeping a close eye on all the steps that the Commission takes in this regard.
Seán Kelly
Madam President, I must say that I am very concerned about some of the aspects I have listened to here in Parliament recently - tonight, the shortage of rare earth elements; last night, the 80% deficiency in protein; a few weeks ago, sugar beet factories being closed down and now we have a deficiency in sugar. I think it is time the European Union started putting itself first and particularly trying to promote its industries.
Obviously, where rare earth elements are concerned, I welcome the Commissioner's commitment to look at innovation in terms of getting substitution, etc. (and also recycling), but, above all, to look at new technologies. I attended a seminar a few weeks ago in Brussels which described new technology developed to get rare elements from the seabed.
At the end of the day, we have to look to be self-sufficient. It is good for the Commissioner to go to Brazil and to talk to China, but if diplomacy fails and they do not give us what we want, where do we go? If we do not have a strong economy, we will be irrelevant politically.
Zigmantas Balčytis
(LT) Madam President, the issue of raw materials is inseparable from the European Union's growth and economic progress. We can therefore congratulate the Commission for the raw materials strategy. Nevertheless, the potential shortage of raw materials in the future should not only make us focus on solving the issue of access to raw materials. I agree that this may be a very good opportunity to turn the European Union economy towards a model based on using resources more efficiently. A reduction in the use of raw materials and much greater concentration on the efficient processing of raw materials are probably the quickest route to reducing the Union's import needs. Proper investment in new processing technologies and the creation of substitute raw materials would facilitate a significant reduction in dependence on imported rare earth elements. This could ensure a leading role for Europe in this area and would make a major contribution to the implementation of the goals set out in the Europe 2020 strategy.
João Ferreira
(PT) Madam President, this debate on the difficulty of accessing commodities, such as rare earth elements, is intrinsically linked to the current state of development of the world economy and the systemic crisis in which we are immersed. The crisis which was announced as being financial is, in reality, a much larger, global crisis. It is a crisis that is also rooted in the confrontation between economic growth as it is understood by capitalism and a planet Earth that is generous but finite. The roots of a system, capitalism, which subordinates everything to the dynamic of profit and accumulation, also lie in this inability to understand nature and its limits; but nature does, in fact, have limits.
The move toward a world that is polycentric from the economic and political points of view opens the way for increased competition for resources: it awakens and feeds conflicts. The foreign-exchange and trade wars that we have been witnessing are worrying symptoms, but not isolated ones. Other wars are queuing up as threats to the present and future, and it is also about all these things that we are talking when we are debating what has been brought before us today.
Edit Herczog
Madam President, Commissioner, when my grandmother was born, she was one of the two billion living on earth; when I was born, I was one of the five billion on earth; and when my granddaughter is born, she will be one of the nine billion living on earth. So extensive technologies must be replaced by intensive technologies for all resources, including rare materials. Therefore, I would like to remember somebody who, a hundred years ago, received a Nobel Prize for chemistry for the separation and purification of radium and polonium: Maria Skłodowska, who is known as Madame Curie. We need Madame Curies, we need scientists, we need breakthrough technologies. I would therefore like to ask you, Commissioner, to do your utmost to ensure that chemistry remains a place for young talent in Europe.
Judith A. Merkies
(NL) Madam President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, yes, we could import raw materials, but we should be conserving them, instead. Perhaps we could even start producing them ourselves. I welcome your initiative for a new partnership, one which includes substitution in its remit, but I think that the other members have already mentioned this and they are right: we have to try to conserve raw materials here in Europe. That is very important. We need to increase collection. We need to switch to other business models, in order to recover rare earth elements for recycling wherever possible. We can do this through innovation and, to that end, we need greater efficiency.
However, I have one very important concern: are you going to ensure that, if those rare earth elements become even rarer, they will be reserved for the most important applications? Are you going to ensure that, should these metals become even rarer, the applications we all need the most, those that are the most urgent, will ultimately be enabled to continue? For example, are you going to ensure that, instead of ending up as part of a McThis or McThat, these metals are allocated to windmills? Will you look at that issue as well? That seems to me to be very important.
Adam Gierek
(PL) Madam President, for reasons of competitiveness, market players are predisposed towards investments which give a rapid return, or, in other words, investments in plants whose products reach consumers directly. Investments in prospecting for raw materials, particularly in mineral deposits, involve a long and expensive process with a long wait for returns. It is therefore only the largest investors which can afford them. They are mainly monopolists and can set their own conditions, as was the case with the rare earth elements. It has now turned out that Europe's growth is limited due to a lack of lanthanides, in particular, samarium and neodymium, which are needed for the production of high-energy permanent magnets and which are used in wind energy and to power electric vehicles.
It is time for the European Union to pay attention to the security of raw materials, in the same way as it pays attention to energy security. This relates not only to rare earth elements, but also to other rare raw materials and materials used as catalysts, for example, rhenium and the platinum metals, tungsten, molybdenum, lithium, selenium and so on. Thank you.
Antonio Tajani
Madam President, honourable Members, I would like to thank Parliament because, with this debate, it is giving power to the action that the European Commission - and the Barroso II Commission in particular - is taking to resolve the sensitive issue of rare materials.
As Mr Scholz emphasised, since the Madrid meeting, the European Commission has begun to take determined action. In other words, it has not just made announcements; it has taken specific measures. When I say specific measures, I mean the preparation of a list of 14 rare raw materials on which action is needed - a list which, unfortunately, I fear will have to be extended.
In addition, the first agreement with the African Union has involved several months of work and has culminated in an agreement within the African Union/European Union action plan, which sees Africa directly involved in a joint effort with the European Union and with the Commission. That effort concerns both what we can do within the EU to analyse our needs and an analysis of the real possibilities of extraction work in Africa, the possible implementation of a geological service and the plan to create trans-African network infrastructure to support the mines from which it will be possible to expand the extraction industry.
The agreement with the Russian Federation to put raw material agreements on the agenda is another definite result - not just an announcement - and two meetings have been held.
In the same way, the European Commission document on raw materials is not merely an announcement, but a Commission-approved text that outlines a clear and precise strategy, as I told you, which is based on three specific pillars on which we intend to continue to work.
The decision to create an innovation partnership linked to an action that will see the private sector - and, I hope, also Parliament and the other institutions - participating in innovation and research with the aim of identifying robust recycling and substitution measures yielding real results is not just an announcement, but a specific measure on the part of the European Commission. It is a request that has been approved by the College and which is therefore part of the Commission's innovation strategy.
With regard to the WTO, naturally, we shall continue to work to resolve the issue by diplomatic means. The trip to Latin America is another specific measure, not just another announcement, because visits connected with such sensitive issues require dedicated preparation that must subsequently produce real results. Naturally, I shall inform Parliament about what has been done.
With regard to certain locations in Europe where it is possible to check whether raw materials are present in the subsoil - I am thinking of Greenland, the Barents Sea and other locations in northern Europe - we need to check whether extraction activities are possible and whether they are economically viable. However, we are ready to support any initiatives aimed at carrying out possible investigations.
Next week, a political debate, but one that includes technical aspects too, will be held at the European Parliament building in Brussels. It will focus on the opportunities that exist in the Barents Sea, and I will be present in order to discuss with some Swedish ministers and some experts whether those opportunities are economically viable or not, and whether they are viable from an environmental point of view - another area where we need to see whether it is right and appropriate to carry out investigations.
With regard to the WTO, I am responsible for the industrial part of the raw materials issue. Commissioner De Gucht is responsible for the commercial part. He has already said very clearly that he intends to defend the interests of the EU. Indeed, and I also say this for the benefit of those who are interested, including Mr Caspary, who I believe asked the question - if he wishes, I will forward it to him by tomorrow morning - paragraph 5(2) of the document in the raw materials communication mentions possible anti-dumping measures and commercial action.
However, with regard to the action at the WTO, for which Commissioner De Gucht is responsible - as I have said during my speech - we have initiated a procedure with Mexico and the United States regarding nine raw materials, which do not include rare earths. The examination is already at an advanced stage of completion. Hence, the conclusions will also be crucial in terms of indicating the steps the Commission should subsequently take with regard to rare earths. We are evaluating the situation precisely in order to identify the most suitable instruments in this area.
However, with regard to the recycling of rare earth elements, and the question asked by Mr Rinaldi during his speech, I can answer by explaining the recycling measures that we as the European Commission intend to take. Current legislation covers 40% of the waste produced in the EU.
The Commission has proposed to expand significantly on Commissioner Potočnik's proposal, which is not my proposal, regarding the targets for recycling electrical and electronic waste containing rare earths. Other measures are also planned in order to improve the action concerning products and to facilitate their end-of-life recycling. Legislation is already being drafted, and Commissioner Potočnik intends to continue to work along these lines.
With regard to industrial policy relating to rare earths and raw materials, it is my intention to continue to move forward and not to make promises, because I am not accustomed to making them - I am accustomed to honouring the commitments I make, particularly those I make before Parliament, as I have done ever since I obtained a vote of confidence from the committees to which I presented myself. I intend to continue to move forward and to honour all the commitments I have made, without making announcements, but by trying to provide specific responses to the needs of European companies and citizens, including in this sensitive area of industrial supplies.
President
The debate is closed.
Written statements (Rule 149)
Elisabetta Gardini
Rare earths are a key element of the European economy. Following the European Commission communication on the raw materials initiative, we have to strive to ensure that an ambitious common strategy is defined quickly for this sector. We really must prevent Europe from becoming totally dependent on the current monopoly enjoyed by China, which today produces 97% of these metals and are indispensable for high-tech industries. It is therefore necessary not only to re-evaluate the extraction potential within Europe, but also to recover these precious elements from waste by means of more effective recycling. In this respect, the European Union must urgently invest more resources in technological research, aimed, in particular, at an easier and more economical form of extraction of rare earths from electronic waste. One need only think, for example, that up to 350 grams of gold could be extracted from one tonne of mobile phones, if they are recycled correctly. The road to guaranteeing a sustainable supply of these elements is still long and cannot develop without greater cooperation with resource-rich countries through strategic partnerships and ongoing relations. Finally, I would like to see timely measures adopted to deal with the increase in the prices of these materials, which are of strategic importance for European industry.
Jarosław Leszek Wałęsa
We have recently started to become increasingly aware of the fact that rare earth elements are of decisive importance for technological applications and of fundamental importance for the development of environmentally-friendly technologies such as wind turbines, hybrid vehicles, etc. It should be noted that their extraction is extremely complicated. EU industry is entirely dependent on imports of rare earth elements from China, which has a virtual monopoly in this area, since it controls 97% of global production. China possesses 36% of confirmed global reserves of rare earth elements and 59% of estimated total reserves and, at the same time, is endeavouring to conclude bilateral agreements in order to secure proven reserves throughout the world. EU industry lacks access both to rare earth elements as raw materials, and to the expert scientific and industrial knowledge needed to process them. Furthermore, while global demand for rare earth elements is still growing, China has announced drastic cuts to its exports, as vividly described by a group of Japanese experts during a very interesting presentation they made when visiting the European Parliament in February 2011. In connection with the unquestionable need for exploitation of rare earth elements by industry in the EU Member States and the need for research into them, I would call for dialogue with the People's Republic of China on increasing exports of these raw materials and for our efforts to be focused on searching for alternative sources for their extraction.