An EU Strategy for the Black Sea (debate)
President
The next item is the report by Mr Ungureanu, on behalf of the Committee on Foreign Affairs, on an EU strategy for the Black Sea.
Traian Ungureanu
rapporteur. - Madam President, exactly three years ago, the European Parliament endorsed the Black Sea Synergy. This was the first step towards a coherent policy in one of the most sensitive areas in Europe, and it was a step in the right direction because the Black Sea is now widely analysed - and feared - as a converging space of political, strategic and security hopes, strengths and ambitions.
Today, our policy in the area can be further developed. This House can play a crucial role in upgrading EU policies to a fully-fledged EU strategy. This is actually the main idea in the report I initiated with the support of my colleagues from the Foreign Affairs Committee and Parliament as a whole.
But why a new report on the Black Sea and why an EU strategy for the Black Sea? Some people would say that the Black Sea is a small sea. Indeed it is, but if we exchange this map for a strategy map, the Black Sea becomes huge. There is also another factor: the Black Sea is getting blacker and blacker.
Since the accession of Bulgaria and Romania, the Black Sea is now partially an internal EU sea. However, developments in the region are often unpredictable: tensions accumulate and misunderstandings abound. A summary analysis of the Black Sea region leads to the conclusion that the negative challenges in this area persist or are, indeed, gaining in intensity. The Georgia-Russia war of 2008, the unsolved and so-called 'frozen' conflicts, and the worrying deterioration of democratic rule in Ukraine and Russia are all very serious developments and vivid examples of the security risks in the area.
If we examine the current results of EU involvement in the region, they seem at least mixed. The EU policy approach towards the Black Sea lacks mechanisms for monitoring, evaluation and follow-up. The Black Sea region is not visible enough in debates in Brussels, and EU funding for the region is fragmented and complicated.
While building upon the merits of the Black Sea Synergy which we adopted three years ago, a new EU strategy for the Black Sea should put in place a stronger policy and concrete tools. Let me mention just two of the recommendations in the report. The first concerns adequate resources: if the EU wants to play a key role in the Black Sea region, it needs to devote adequate resources, both financial and human. The creation of a separate budget line in the EU budget is vital. The second recommendation is for the elaboration of an EU action plan with clear objectives and tasks, including regular ministerial-level meetings of the relevant countries.
The EU strategy for the Black Sea should not underestimate, or overestimate, any state in the area. The principles of inclusiveness and regional ownership should be reflected in an important role for Turkey and Russia, but also for all the regional partners, in the success of regional cooperation.
To conclude, I should like to thank all my colleagues for their very positive contributions to the final version of this report. I think we all agree that this House expects the Commission and the Council to turn this report into reality. The strategic and beneficial involvement of the EU in the Black Sea region should become a fact.
Štefan Füle
Member of the Commission. - Madam President, I am very glad that the Black Sea region is high on the agenda of the European Parliament. This region is important for the European Union and we need to focus on it to reflect its extreme sensitivity for us.
I want to thank and congratulate the rapporteur for the Committee on Foreign Affairs, Mr Traian Ungureanu, on an excellent and very substantive report. The report and its recommendations are interesting and innovative on the many issues.
Since the latest enlargement, the Black Sea is also an EU sea. We have responsibilities towards it, just as we do to all other basin regions that border us. We have to tackle this new responsibility resolutely.
As part of the European Neighbourhood Policy, we already have an initiative targeting this region: the Black Sea Synergy. However, we must admit that its implementation has proved much more difficult than we had thought. Not everything we want to do is being welcomed with enthusiasm by everybody in the region.
Precisely for these reasons, Parliament has chosen an approach based on regional ownership and fostering dialogue. I believe that this is now the right approach for us to pursue, but these commitments can only be credible if and when they bring concrete improvements to the peoples in the region.
Thus, the report on developing a new European Union strategy for the Black Sea represents our commitment to the region and to our Member States who belong to this area by giving them our full support in facing the challenges linked to their specific geographic situation.
We understand that a strategy for the Black Sea region should not be interpreted as a replacement for existing efforts, particularly the Black Sea Synergy. It should rather be a comprehensive framework where guidance can be found for all European Union activities in the region.
The Black Sea strategy can provide an ideal occasion to review our interests in the region, including strategic, political and economic interests, and to discuss how best they can be achieved. Parliament has identified the appropriate fields in which the strategy should be developed, like governance, security and energy, transport, environment, trade, local economic development and social and human development.
Developing this strategy can also provide the opportunity to add a maritime dimension to ongoing activities in the region. The Commission is currently developing a comprehensive package that will address maritime policy initiatives, management of natural resources and the fight against illegal fishing activities.
We can draw on our know-how from other strategies, such as the EU strategy for the Baltic Sea region and the EU Danube strategy. Indeed, the Danube strategy will require obvious interactions with the Black Sea. However, we are aware that each European basin region is different. Accordingly, we need to ensure that all future EU strategies should be adapted to their own sectoral characteristics, economic and social development, environment and energy, infrastructure and natural resources.
The report on developing an EU strategy for the Black Sea region offers an overview of the future challenges for the region, but it will also be relevant for establishing solid channels with the state partners in the region to ensure its smooth and effective implementation. We need to use this opportunity to consult extensively with all stakeholders, starting with our partners in the regions and with the involvement of Parliament.
Again, this report is welcome and we are keen to draw on its recommendations. The External Action Service and the relevant Commission services will be committing their efforts to prepare a Black Sea strategy for which we will seek your and the Council's support.
Metin Kazak
Madam President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I would like to congratulate Mr Ungureanu and, as rapporteur for the Committee on International Trade, I am pleased that some of our proposals have been included in the main text of the report.
I am pleased that, as has already been mentioned, after the accession of Bulgaria and Romania in 2007, the Black Sea, to put it figuratively, became a 'European' sea and requires an overall European strategy involving quite a lot of administrative and financial resources, as well as good coordination and accountability.
A key task is to incorporate a project approach into the new strategy. Special attention has to be paid to areas of common interest, such as the environment, energy, transport and infrastructure, which are of decisive importance to the region's sustainable development.
Intensive cooperation at parliamentary level is also necessary, for example, with organisations such as the Parliamentary Assembly of the Black Sea Economic Cooperation and the WTO, and with the Black Sea Trade and Development Bank. Finally, I also believe that we should consider other regional initiatives, but not allow the strategy to drown in them.
Silvia-Adriana Ţicău
Madam President, the Committee on Industry, Research and Industry supports full market and regulatory integration on the basis of EU energy legislation and encourages the participation of countries in the wider Black Sea region in the Energy Community Treaty, as well as EU, EIB and EBRD assistance for the modernisation of the energy infrastructure in this region.
We stress the European added value and importance of the Southern Gas Corridor as a means of enhancing the European Union's supply security. Projects such as the Nabucco pipeline, a priority project for the European Union, along with the Trans-Adriatic Pipeline, the Pan-European Oil Pipeline, the Turkey-Greece-Italy Interconnector, or the Azerbaijan-Georgia-Romania Interconnector, emphasise both the importance of the EU's commitments in the Black Sea region and the further need to step up cooperation between the countries in the region. We stress the importance of establishing a regional research and education network in the wider Black Sea region and its link to GEANT, and call on the Commission to continue to support research projects in the region.
I am ending, Madam President, with a call to the Commission to devise a European Union strategy for the region, along with an action plan. We stress the need to establish a link between this and the European Union's Danube strategy.
Victor Boştinaru
rapporteur for the opinion of the Committee on Regional Development. - Madam President, Commissioner, the importance of the Black Sea region for the EU from the transport, energy, stability, security and environmental point of view is evident. It is for this reason that the EU strategy for this region will certainly have a very positive impact on the area and on the EU as a whole.
The Committee on Regional Development believes this strategy can bring growth and sustainable development for the region. But also it is of the opinion that for full effectiveness, it is necessary to involve all the states of the region, no matter whether they are Member States or not. This strategy needs actions to be coordinated - but how could this coordination exist without the proper involvement of all countries? Coordination is certainly needed with the Danube strategy, which is soon supposed to become a major priority of the Hungarian Presidency.
The use of an integrated approach and cross-border cooperation between the regions should be promoted in all fields of the strategy but, in particular, those of transport, energy and the environment.
Elmar Brok
Madam President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I would like to thank the rapporteur for the excellent work he has done, bringing many ideas together in a comprehensive form, something that will help us in our future efforts.
We must understand that this cooperation in the Black Sea region should not be confused with the Eastern Partnership or with our strategic relations with Turkey and Russia. These are different matters and this cooperation does not replace them. On the other hand, I find hugely exciting that it is possible to bring these divergent groups together on certain issues in order to produce a coherent policy that is in our own interests, as well as helping the relevant countries too. Such cooperation may possibly help to bring together conflicting political and economic interests, so that future disputes will be less dramatic and dangerous and so that, for example, our work in the Eastern Partnership is not construed as being directed against any particular individual, but rather that everything is understood to be complementary. However, when it comes to a European perspective, this cooperative stance should not preclude us from expecting that the Eastern Partnership with these countries will produce different results from development strategies with Russia, for example. We must be permitted to make such distinctions and the Commissioner is no doubt well aware that this should be the case. However, for this reason, Black Sea cooperation is in the interest of the European Union, in the interest of Russia, in the interest of Turkey and in the interest of the remaining countries in this region - most of whom are members of the Eastern Partnership. I could imagine that this will contribute significantly to the economic and political stability of Europe and hope that we can work closely with the Commissioner in order to drive this forward.
Ioan Mircea Paşcu
on behalf of the S&D Group. - Madam President, the Black Sea is a gate to and from Europe, and therefore it should be addressed as such. It is not a far distant place of little relevance which occasionally comes to our attention.
The truth is that the area has already put - and will continue to put - items on our agenda, be it through the interruption of gas transit as in 2006 and 2008, or the Georgian war in 2008. However, in spite of the evidence and its recognised importance, the Black Sea area still does not enjoy the attention it deserves from the EU - an EU which was, in a way, compelled to address these problems once Bulgaria and Romania had become members in 2007.
The Black Sea Synergy, elaborated not long after the admission of those two countries, appears to have been, in retrospect, a hastily put together document designed to cover a 'blank spot' or 'black hole' - depending on your preference - which the EU had to deal with almost overnight. The fact that nothing of importance has happened since the first review of the initiative in 2008 - and we are not very far advanced in its implementation as mentioned in the report - is indicative of that.
To my mind, there are two main reasons for this. First, there is an apparent disinterest and unwillingness on the part of EU Members to address the area decisively. Moreover, now that money is short, there is even less willingness to do so than before.
Secondly, the initial assumption on which the synergy was based, namely, that the area should become a coherent and cooperative region in order to qualify for EU attention and material support, has ignored the simple truth that just 20 years ago, the area looked completely different. To expect an area so complex and different to become coherent and get an individual identity in such a short time is either unrealistic or - I hate to say - ill-intended. Perhaps, in the context of a revisiting of the Eastern Partnership, things would improve.
Ivo Vajgl
Madam President, the report which my fellow Member, Mr Ungureanu, has prepared in such a committed way and in a manner that paves the way for cooperation, for which I thank him, brings our attention back to a region characterised by diversity. The diversity of political systems, cultural traditions, religions, statuses and ambitions in terms of moving closer to the European Union, the level of economic development, the availability of natural resources and, of course, the new situation which has arisen because, today, three Member States of the European Union form part of the region that we are discussing.
For us, the Black Sea region is particularly interesting because of its geostrategic position, which brings with it either added value or serious risks to our security interests. In this context, I emphasise, in particular, energy security and ensuring a sustainable energy supply for the European Union, infrastructure and opportunities for us to have an influence in the resolution of conflicts and unresolved issues in the region, as well as developing partnerships with Russia and Turkey. All of this can be achieved with a deeper engagement of the countries in the region and with the participation of all Member States of the European Union and other organisations and networks present in the region, including networks of civil society organisations; it is precisely they that require our special attention and recognition.
We do not need new institutions for any of this; what we need to do is ensure regular funding and greater political engagement. Commissioner, I believe that you will be able to put this report to good use and I look forward to working with you.
Werner Schulz
Madam President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, if the Black Sea region is to develop into an area of stability, security, democracy and prosperity and if these opportunities and challenges are to be fulfilled, we need an all-embracing strategy. This resolution pursues that objective and is therefore supported by my group. This is also because a number of our proposals have been included, for example, dealing with the unresolved conflicts in the region, improving cooperation in civil society, support for people-to-people projects and the promotion of small projects in the context of cross-border cooperation.
We also want to see a sustainable energy policy, greater energy efficiency and the establishment of academic and student networks. However, what I would criticise is the lack of a coherent position in relation to the question of the energy infrastructure in the region - I would mention Nabucco and South Stream in this context. I fail to understand why our call for stricter monitoring of oil rigs in the Black Sea has been rejected. This is absolutely essential following the disaster in the Gulf of Mexico. It is for this reason that we are presenting this amendment once again today.
Paweł Robert Kowal
Madam President, Commissioner, I think the document which has been drafted deserves to be endorsed, so on behalf of my group, I endorse it. I would like to emphasise that the Black Sea Synergy needs rethinking, today. Noble intentions have not always translated into effective use of the Synergy, and it is very good that the rapporteur stresses this. Therefore, I think the most important task today for Mr Füle is to try to sort out our initiatives in this part of Europe and show that our priority is Neighbourhood Policy, and that other issues should be given second place in this context. I think this way of thinking guarantees that the Black Sea Synergy will be effective in the future, especially in the field of energy. The Synergy could also be a good instrument, for example, if we are talking about supporting Georgia in the democratic and economic transformations it has been going through in recent years. However, the first and essential step, today, is to organise initiatives in this part of Europe, so that we can not only be proud of them, but that they will really be effective in achieving some specific objectives.
David Campbell Bannerman
on behalf of the EFD Group. - Madam President, in discussing the Black Sea area, one word leaps to mind, and that is 'caution'. All must tread carefully here.
The Black Sea area is Russia's backyard. It has its fleet anchored in the Crimea at Sebastopol, close to the bloody battlefields of the Crimean War. We have seen the unfortunate conflict in Georgia, where there was fault on both sides. Had Georgia been in NATO, the consequences could have been disastrous. Whilst I support Georgian independence, it is unwise to goad the Russian bear in its own lair.
Then there is Turkey which the EU is playing with by offering membership despite the reality that members such as France will veto an application. Turkey has just 4% of its landmass within Europe. It should not be in the EU. There are real dangers in leading Turkey on. Disappointment could drive Turkey into the hands of Islamic extremists.
Finally, underlying all of this is the fact that the Black Sea is the hub for vital Caspian oil and gas. Tread carefully indeed.
Dimitar Stoyanov
(BG) Madam President, I would like to join the majority of the opinions expressed in this House and congratulate the rapporteur on what he has achieved with his report. Pontus Euxinus, as the Black Sea was called in antiquity, has always been of a major geostrategic and economic significance for Europe. It still has this significance in our times.
That is why it is very important for this strategy to be translated into real action, because we are having a debate again, and I remember us having a similar debate quite recently. That is why I want to basically draw a line under what has been said by the members of the socialist group, and to lend my particular support for the point that envisages a separate budgetary item to implement the strategy.
So I call upon the Commission to act. It is only with adequate funding that we will be able to translate the words spoken in this House today into action that has an impact on European citizens.
Iuliu Winkler
Madam President, I should like to start by congratulating Mr Ungureanu on his initiative in carrying out the report on the Black Sea. I also welcome the endorsement of several of the previous speakers, my distinguished colleagues, who have committed themselves to promoting a new European vision for the Black Sea region.
The Black Sea has indeed become a partially internal sea of the European Union. Its geostrategic importance can hardly be overstated, considering the regional stability, the democratisation processes, and the related energy security, economic and commercial issues. I strongly believe that we, the EU, should benefit from the potential of the Black Sea region and not others.
To achieve this goal, the European Union has to rely more on its Member States belonging to the region, has to give up any anchorage in the past and has to show more dynamism, leadership and vision. Without touching on the issues related to the enlargement process, I would like to address a message to all the Black Sea sceptics. Any slowdown in the EU integration process of the region will have a throwback effect on the democratic evolution of the area. The risk is medium and long-term instability, whose implications would be hard to evaluate, and even harder to manage, for the European Union.
In conclusion, the EU needs its internal Black Sea and we need an integrated strategy for this region. The Black Sea strategy should be drafted by the Commission, relying on the recommendations reached by our rapporteur. Today, this House should offer its wholehearted support for the strategy.
Maria Eleni Koppa
(EL) Madam President, we are debating a very important report today on a particular area close to the European Union: the Black Sea. The area combines EU Member States and countries which are important to regional cooperation. We therefore have a common need to safeguard the existence of an area of peace, democracy, security and stability around the Black Sea.
We have a stable framework for cooperation through the Black Sea Synergy, which was put in motion some time ago, although not with tangible results. Its successful implementation through action by all participating countries will further strengthen our relations on the basis of common values. It needs to complement the established European Neighbourhood Policy and the Eastern Partnership.
Stability and security around the Black Sea have a direct impact on Europe. Consequently, the European Union shares responsibility for supporting the peaceful resolution of conflict and building confidence. This area is important to the Union, especially by reason of its energy and transport links. Strengthening democracy and a strong rule of law system will facilitate trade, investments and the free movement of people.
I absolutely endorse the view that a special line should be set up in the budget for the Black Sea Synergy. This will provide effective help in modernising the area. It is up to us to use our policies to bring these countries even closer to Europe, for the mutual benefit of all.
Adina-Ioana Vălean
Madam President, since 2007, we have acknowledged the importance of the Black Sea region, yet the impact of our approach has been modest to say the least: no concrete projects, no concrete results. We need a realistic and financially sound action plan with clear objectives, priority actions and benchmarks, and a better division of tasks and coordination with the Eastern Partnership and the Danube strategy.
We need to launch the energy and transport partnership alongside the environment partnership. Only through such a project-based approach, focused on small-scale specific projects, can we overcome the issue of the very diverse and complex interests in the region. We need to get past our fragmented approach in terms of finance as well. So far, we have had various financial instruments and little visibility. That is why we should make the Black Sea joint operational programme our central instrument for implementing the Black Sea strategy, using it as seed money to attract institutions ready to invest in the region and, hence, promote cooperation.
Oldřich Vlasák
(CS) Madam President, the slow tempo of project implementation, the non-existence of action plans and assessment reports, the absence of high-level meetings, the risk of duplicity with the Eastern Partnership and many other problems indicate that the decision for Member States to take a leading role in implementing the Black Sea strategy was ill-advised. It appears that the European Commission should play a more significant role as the secretariat and facilitator of this strategy for the Black Sea.
I also firmly believe that this strategy, just like the other macro-region strategies, should remain neutral in budgetary, institutional and legislative terms; in other words, that it should not involve the expenditure of further additional resources, the establishment of new institutions or the drafting of new legislation.
There is no need for new operational programmes and specific budgetary items, but there is a need to focus on implementing specific projects, in which the states affected will have a real interest.
Georgios Koumoutsakos
(EL) Madam President, Commissioner, it is merely a formality nowadays to emphasise that the Black Sea is an area of strategic importance to the European Union. How could it be otherwise, now that, following the accession of Bulgaria and Romania, it is practically an internal sea within the European Union? Energy, security, stability and, of course, democracy are sectors of prime importance to us in this area.
Since 2007, when we started our policy in this area, which is crucial on several counts, we have made some progress and achieved some successes. However, unfortunately, we have also seen delays and fragmented approaches and periods of inertia. It is unfortunate that no ministerial meeting on this policy has been organised since 2008. This situation falls well below our initial ambitions and, given the geostrategic, geopolitical and economic importance of the area, we only have one choice: to strengthen our policy and action on the Black Sea.
I therefore unreservedly support the proposal by the rapporteur, Mr Ungureanu, to upgrade European policy on the Black Sea to an integrated strategy supported by a separate budget line. Within this framework, I wish, as a member of the Committee on Transport and Tourism, to highlight the importance of these two sectors, which must be constituent components of a European strategy for the Black Sea.
Finally, there is no need to emphasise that the EU's Integrated Maritime Policy could also make an essential contribution to uniform, viable development of the Black Sea area. This needs to be done now. However, enlargement is another matter and requires a great deal of careful study.
Evgeni Kirilov
Madam President, with the accession of Bulgaria and Romania, the Black Sea region became an EU neighbouring region. It is a strategic bridge connecting Europe with the Caspian Sea and Central Asia. Its geopolitical and economic importance for the EU is constantly increasing in terms of security, stability and energy. The Union should therefore step up its presence, develop active policies and find lasting solutions to the existing problems in the region.
It is not only the littoral countries that show a big interest in multilateral regional cooperation - which is crucial for solving urgent issues of regional and European importance such as 'frozen' conflicts, trafficking and other security-related issues.
What is currently needed is a focus on several issues of concern that are of pragmatic interest to all the littoral states. One such issue is maritime security. In recent years, there has been an increase in accidents involving loss of human life and environmental damage in the Black Sea. The EU should reduce the risk of civil accidents by providing assistance to search-and-rescue operations within the framework of the European integrated maritime policy. We expect to vote soon on the report by our colleague, Iliana Malinova Iotova, which deals for the first time with EU fisheries policy in the Black Sea. This could also offer a good basis for multilateral cooperation in the region.
EU support is also desirable for ongoing projects like the Black Sea Ring Highway, Pan-European Transport Corridors 8 and 9, and the transport connections between the Black Sea ports.
I would like to thank the rapporteur for supporting my amendments and for his excellent oral contribution.
Marek Siwiec
(PL) Madam President, when we are talking about the Black Sea region, it needs to be said that there is no place like it around the European Union where there are such extreme differences, so many intense conflicts - including bloody conflicts - and so many conflicting interests. So we should not delude ourselves that by formulating any kind of policy, we will be able to resolve matters which other policies cannot resolve. This is not a radio request show, and we cannot solve energy problems when Russia does not want the pipeline but we do want it. We cannot resolve regional conflicts, either. In fact, it is a very limited policy, but for all that, it is worth applying it.
Since we are talking about synergy in relation to Black Sea policy, we should bear in mind that synergy means a certain added value. I would like to ask, for example, why the European Parliament is not working with organisations which exist in the region, such as the Parliamentary Assembly of the Black Sea Economic Cooperation (PABSEC). They want to work with us. The European Parliament thinks it is too big and too important, and is not seeking this cooperation. I propose we begin this cooperation and act together with others.
George Sabin Cutaş
(RO) Madam President, the Black Sea region is strategically important to the European Union. However, we note the lack of a structured approach to this region. No action plan has been drawn up for the Black Sea Synergy and funding is provided via several uncoordinated instruments. This makes it imperative to devise an EU Black Sea strategy, with the same level of priority as the European Union's other regional strategies and focused on three main areas: economic, social and human development; energy, transport and environment; security and good governance.
Certain key projects for the European economy, such as the Nabucco pipeline, which would allow greater energy independence, or the development of the Black Sea ports, require immediate impetus, which can only be achieved on the back of a common strategy.
Niki Tzavela
(EL) Madam President, the Black Sea is very important to the energy security of Europe. Commissioner, there is the major issue of the Nabucco pipeline, on which the energy security of Europe depends in large measure. However, as far as the supplier of this large pipeline is concerned, the information is very unclear. Yesterday, the President of the Commission, Mr Barroso, told us that he had been in Azerbaijan and Turkmenistan and that discussions had gone very well. What does that mean? At some point, we need to set a time limit. When will we know whether or not the Nabucco pipeline is viable, so that we do not waste energy and can look for alternatives? The issue of the Nabucco pipeline, which is one of the core issues in terms of Europe's energy security, is extremely important and needs to be clarified. Do we have a supplier or not?
Petru Constantin Luhan
(RO) Madam President, I would like to begin by congratulating the rapporteur, Mr Ungureanu, for the particularly fine job he has done on this report, which is extremely important both from a geopolitical and economic perspective. The region offers considerable potential for energy production and provision and must have greater attention focused on it, particularly with a view to ensuring the Union's energy security.
Given that, up until now, the actions taken by the EU have not been clarified sufficiently and the Black Sea Synergy has not achieved its expected potential, I sincerely hope that the European External Action Service will have available the human and material resources required to complete the implementation of the three partnerships: environment, transport and energy. I think that the European Union should not ignore this region. On the contrary, it must make its presence felt through consistent, long-term actions which will allow development opportunities to be utilised.
Csanád Szegedi
(HU) Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, as a Hungarian Member, I add my thoughts to the strategy for the Black Sea because I seem to notice two goals in the report which are identical with the main priorities of the Hungarian Presidency.
The first one is the fact that the report makes a commitment to regional development between the European Union and this region. For us Hungarian Members, this is particularly important with a view to support for the Danube strategy, as any request for support for the Danube strategy can only be credible if we remain open to supporting other strategies as well.
The second one is energy security itself. Other than its intention to ensure peace and stability in the region, perhaps the most important objective of the strategy for the Black Sea in the field of energy security is to ensure energy security itself, and as was said yesterday, energy security is the other main priority of the Hungarian Presidency, and is thus in all our interests.
Lambert van Nistelrooij
(NL) Madam President, the Black Sea is on our doorstep and, when looked at from the energy perspective, it is also genuinely European. As shadow rapporteur of the Group of the European People's Party (Christian Democrats) for the Committee on Industry, Research and Energy and as coordinator for regional policy, I would like to endorse that view once again. The Black Sea offers a great opportunity. What is key in this respect is cooperation. We have just talked about the investments around Nabucco; these things can work only with stable relations. Yesterday, Mr Barroso reported the results achieved in Azerbaijan and Turkmenistan. In brief, the added value of such strategies is beyond dispute; that is very clear and, incidentally, Mr Brok has highlighted that.
As far as I am concerned, diversifying our energy flow would be paramount as part of a much broader framework. I also wish to thank rapporteur Ungureanu for this compelling and necessary report.
Vasilica Viorica Dăncilă
(RO) Madam President, the Black Sea is important to the European Union in terms not only of its strategic location, but also of the economic opportunities available and the conditions for stronger regional development. The benefits of the strategy for this region derive from its contribution to diversifying economic activities between the countries bordering the sea, increasing education and research cooperation, as well as strengthening cooperation in the region to provide important protection for the natural resources.
I think that the European Union must encourage the countries in the Black Sea region to make sufficient use of the natural environmental resources, ensure the region's sustainable development, improve the quality of life in this region and establish local and regional partnerships.
Štefan Füle
Member of the Commission. - Madam President, at this point, I shall make just three remarks. The first I have expressed already at the beginning of our debate, which is appreciation for this timely report on the Black Sea region.
Second, let me welcome the clear evidence, as shown in our debate, of the importance you attribute to this special region, which is shared by the External Action Service and the Commission.
My third remark is that I am looking forward to cooperation with the House on the Black Sea strategy and its subsequent implementation.
Traian Ungureanu
rapporteur. - Madam President, I am very lucky I can be short, not only because of the noise, but also because I was lucky enough to be supported on both sides, largely speaking, of this House. I think that, as Mr Brok stressed in his brilliant remarks, the report which we are preparing to vote on today is a very good example of cross-party cooperation in this House; I have to give special thanks to Mr Paşcu, who proved to be a very active and honest supporter of this report.
I do not want to bring in other names, as this would be unjust because everybody had something important to say regarding this report: regarding the uniqueness of the Black Sea space, regarding its fragility as well and regarding the need to exercise caution when we formulate policy in the Black Sea area.
Of course, it is vital to remark on the necessity of the Nabucco project and its pan-European importance. I would also like to thank Commissioner Füle for his remarks, especially for mentioning the maritime dimension, which the Commission is shaping right now and, of course, for making the necessary link between the Black Sea strategy and the Danube strategy.
President
The debate is closed.
The vote will take place in a few moments.
Written statements (Rule 149)
Elena Băsescu
I would first of all like to congratulate my colleague, Traian Ungureanu, for drafting this report, which is especially important to Romania. My country is the most active EU Member State in promoting the Black Sea's strategic importance and the need for the Union to increase its role in this region. The region's importance has been outlined in several instruments supporting the EU's eastern neighbours. However, the Black Sea Synergy has produced limited results. I think that the EU's priorities must be aimed at consolidating a stable, democratic region. Unresolved conflicts have become the sore point in the Black Sea region. They can reignite at any time, posing a threat to regional security. The Black Sea is also of particular importance to EU energy security. The European Commission must continue to focus, in particular, on planned energy projects in this region.
Corina Creţu
The confused objectives and duplication of forms of cooperation are at risk of depriving the EU's Black Sea strategy of any substance. The situation is unlikely to improve due to the differences in status of the countries involved in relation to the European Union, to the frequently differing interests of the actors involved in this cooperation and due to a lack of vision, which is also evident in the Ungureanu report. If we want to speed up the process of settling the unresolved conflicts in the region, we need to start from the observation that this action has been greatly delayed by sponsors of the various plans vying with each other, thereby holding the process up for more than 15 years. Indeed, this competition betrays their varying interests, most often linked, whether explicitly or implicitly, to control over the transport routes in the region. I believe that a clearer picture will emerge only when it is patently obvious what is going to happen with Turkey's accession to the EU and what status Russia will have in relation to the Union. It is only when these matters have been clarified that the unresolved conflicts will be settled and long-term stability established in the region.
András Gyürk
The strategy for the Black Sea is expected to play an increasingly important part in the future of the European Union. This is illustrated quite well by the joint declaration signed by the European Commission and Azerbaijan last week, in which Azerbaijan made a written commitment to making a large quantity of gas sources available to Europe. I am pleased to note that the European Commission is finally taking concrete steps to promote the Nabucco project, because ensuring access to the sources of gas located in the Caspian region should be considered a special priority. Meanwhile, however, we must not forget about the transportation of gas to Europe, which can only be realised through the countries of the Black Sea.
The intensification of dialogue between the EU and the countries of the Black Sea could represent a major advancement in guaranteeing the security of European energy supply as the construction of the Nabucco pipeline will also provide Member States currently characterised by a very poor diversity of resources with access to new sources of gas. However, the establishment of the pipelines will also require active contribution on the part of the countries involved. A transparent, non-discriminatory transport framework and a business environment that supports investments are not only important for the supply security of EU Member States, but are also crucial for the stability and prosperity of the region. In my opinion, the Black Sea region can only benefit from the construction of Nabucco: the pipeline will provide a predictable source of income for countries in the region, and will, at the same time, provide them with direct access to the world's largest gas market.
Danuta Jazłowiecka
The author of the report under discussion clearly indicates that what is called the Black Sea Synergy, which was adopted in 2007, has not completely fulfilled the hopes which were placed in it. The enlargement of the Union with Bulgaria and Romania meant that this region found itself at the centre of our attention. After the situation in Central and Eastern Europe had stabilised, it seemed the time had come for the Union to concentrate on the Black Sea region. However, the global economic crisis made this subject literally disappear from the European agenda. We must not forget that the Union is not only the Baltic or the Mediterranean basin. Of course, current events in Tunisia show that these regions, too, require our attention. However, we must start to realise that the Black Sea region is slowly becoming pivotal from the European point of view. It is there that the solution to our energy problems is to be found. It is there that communication routes are located which are important to our economy. It is there that sources of instability, too, are to be found, which may, for us, represent a significant danger. For all these reasons, it is necessary to agree with the rapporteur that the time has come to develop a comprehensive EU policy for the Black Sea region. What is more, it seems that changes brought in by the Treaty of Lisbon may contribute to the effective introduction of such a plan. Furthermore, the establishment of a suitable unit in the European External Action Service could solve most of the imperfections of the current Black Sea Synergy.
Jaromír Kohlíček
The European Union strategy for the Black Sea region resembles a yeti. Everyone talks about it, but no one has seen it. This belief of mine is strengthened by some of the contradictions I can see right at the beginning of the resolution. First, there is the definition of the Black Sea region. It is rather curious that Azerbaijan, a country on the Caspian Sea, is included, while Macedonia is not, although its two closest neighbours, Bulgaria and Greece, are included in the Black Sea region, 'in accordance with the European Commission definition'. I had no idea that Greece stretches all the way to the shores of the Black Sea. The 13 areas of cooperation where greater EU involvement is anticipated in the region comprise a very extensive list. It seems that the Commission did not previously appreciate the importance of this region. Ultimately, given that EUR 1.5 million was taken from a pilot project on the environment and the development of the region in the spring of this year and redirected to a project on bananas in the ACP countries, I would have to query the information on which the Commission based such a decision. It is curious that the author 'failed to notice' the South Stream gas pipeline, yet mentions the controversial and not fully funded Nabucco project. I would like to emphasise that the opportunity to enter into partnership relationships with various EU regions will be very important for the further development of the region, excluding the area mentioned before. The conclusions from the last debate on suspending visas with Ukraine are missing.
Iosif Matula
in writing. - (RO) We are debating today a project which is important to the European Union's future from several perspectives. The accession of Romania and Bulgaria to the EU has brought added value with the provision of access to the Black Sea, a region which also brings together countries neighbouring the Union, including strategic partners. Drawing up a common Black Sea strategy will enable us to make significant progress towards creating an area of stability, security, democracy and prosperity. In this context, we can regard the common, integrated initiatives adopted by the countries in the region as a preliminary step towards the reunification of our continent.
As both a Romanian and a member of the Committee on Regional Development, I support the link being made between the future Black Sea strategy and the Danube strategy, recently launched by the European Commission. I think that the EU needs to be involved more in the Black Sea region and to cooperate with third countries, as our regions are interlinked territorially and economically. This will enable us to ensure greater energy security for the future, by implementing infrastructure projects such as the Southern Corridor or liquefied gas terminals and diversifying supply routes and sources.
Furthermore, we must give due importance to coordinating the financial instruments available for the Black Sea region, develop and modernise its ports, and reduce pollution in this area.
Zbigniew Ziobro
The Black Sea Synergy is a further example of a missed opportunity in the area of relations with regions which are geopolitically and strategically important for its future. When the strategy was adopted, construction of energy interconnections between the Black Sea countries and the European Union was set as a priority. The main investment which will enable achievement of this objective is the Nabucco gas pipeline. Unfortunately, we have, for a long time, been seeing a lack of determination from Brussels on this. Neighbouring countries which are interested in the construction of the pipeline are also saying so. For a year now, Azerbaijan has been signalling the need for action from the Union in order to contract gas from Kazakhstan and Tajikistan, because without their involvement, construction of the pipeline will not be financially worthwhile. Meanwhile, a competing project which by-passes the Caucasus countries - the Russian South Stream pipeline - is being given tacit consent for its construction. We must not work like this. The provisions of the energy report are insufficient. They should be made more specific by the addition of information about the means earmarked for investments of strategic significance for the future of the EU.
(The sitting was suspended for a few moments)


Specific measures for agricultural markets (debate)
President
The next item is the debate on the oral question to the Commission by Paolo De Castro, on behalf of the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development, on specific measures for agricultural markets - B7-0208/2010).
As Mr De Castro is not present, Mr Le Foll, who is replacing Mr De Castro, has the floor.
Stéphane Le Foll
Mr President, it therefore falls to us to close these debates this evening, and it is already late. I would like, first of all, to excuse the Chair of the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development, Mr De Castro, who is unable to be here with us this evening for reasons that you know. Like other Members of this House, he has been unable to leave his country to come and participate in our debates in Strasbourg.
The issue with which we are concerned results from the general crisis being experienced by the entire agricultural sector. As we know today, we are experiencing a crisis and, above all, seeing a fall in prices and agricultural revenues that is affecting cereal producers, livestock producers, whether pork or beef producers, and also - and I say this on behalf of Mr De Castro - olive oil producers, and which is hitting and has hit dairy producers extremely hard.
Faced with this crisis and this price fall, it goes without saying that Parliament's Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development wishes to find out from the Commission what we can do right now and in the future to escape this crisis and, above all, what measures could be adopted in the coming months to support farmers and to ensure that the agricultural markets are less volatile.
The first question that I would like to ask the Commissioner is more specifically about the dairy crisis: what is the situation with regard to the measures adopted by Parliament and the Council concerning this dairy crisis and, in particular, to the application of the famous EUR 300 million milk fund that had been agreed? That is the first question because I think that, if we are going to take legislative decisions, then we must know how they are being applied.
As I was saying, all types of production are currently being hit by a price fall and a deep crisis in the markets. That brings us to a question and to seek answers on what we might call market regulation and the way in which we can limit this infamous price volatility.
Nobody complains when prices are rising, especially not farmers. It is European consumers who fear agricultural price rises, which limit their purchasing power and impact on their ability to buy agricultural products.
It is when prices are low and when they are falling for long periods that producers are penalised in terms of their incomes and, above all, and most seriously for European agriculture, in terms of their abilities to invest and to prepare for the future. Agriculture is a hard industry; the investments are substantial and it takes a long time to obtain a return on those investments. We need to stabilise prices.
Commissioner, the question from the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development and its Chair, Mr De Castro, is composed of two points.
Firstly, you have announced a number of dairy-related measures to be implemented before the end of the year. This is important. Can you give us some details of these? Secondly, there are specific measures that need to be taken on all the markets, not just dairy.
Finally, the question that we wished to ask you is how the Commission plans to anticipate and prevent these price falls in the medium term. What market regulation mechanism can be used to limit sudden increases and, above all, sudden price falls? What work is the Commission currently doing and how does it view this issue?
Those are the three elements that I wished to mention: the milk fund, perspectives on the dairy crisis and, more generally, the way in which the Commission intends to deal with this issue of price volatility and price falls.
Dacian Cioloş
Mr President, first of all, I would like to thank Mr De Castro and Mr Le Foll, from Parliament's Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development, for having raised these problems for discussion here in this House.
It is true: I, too, must acknowledge that farmers' revenues fell spectacularly in 2009, which was nothing more than a continuation of the trend recorded in 2008. Therefore, this is a situation that we have seldom encountered on the European market. It coincides with this market increasingly opening up on the world market and follows the recent reforms of the common agricultural policy.
This crisis has affected the dairy sector in particular. Last year, we saw the sector's producers endure a difficult situation, particularly those in rural regions in which dairy production is essential not only to the agricultural sector, but also to economic activity and employment in general.
It is in this context that the European Commission took measures last year, firstly by mobilising mechanisms for intervening in the markets to halt the fall in prices. It released significant funds, more than EUR 400 million, to finance these interventions in the markets. However, as Mr Le Foll pointed out, a EUR 300 million fund was also mobilised to enable the Member States to come to the aid of the dairy sector's worst-affected producers.
This decision, then, was taken last year. It gave the Member States the opportunity to set criteria on the basis of which funds would be distributed, channelling them, above all, to those producers who needed them most.
I must also make it clear that these criteria were set by the Member States and did not require the Commission's approval. The Member States were simply obliged to inform, to notify the Commission of which criteria they had chosen.
I can announce to you that, as far as I know, all the Member States informed the Commission of their decision to apply the measures. They have therefore set the criteria on the basis of which they will distribute these funds, and the process of distributing the aid will begin. The Member States have until June to distribute these funds.
So, as I was saying, firstly, there has been a phase of intervening on the markets to put them back on an even keel. I think that the current situation shows us that this intervention has been successful, because prices have stabilised. There are still variations, of course, but they are within reasonable limits, within the normal limits of the market. Secondly, there are support measures that will be reaching producers soon. Those, then, are the measures that have already been taken.
I am keen to restate here what I recently told Parliament's Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development: as Commissioner, I hope to learn lessons from the specific situation that we experienced last year. I do not wish to wait for the common agricultural policy post-2013 reform, when we will certainly come here with more solid answers for the entire agricultural sector. I will not wait for the conclusion of the common agricultural policy 2013 reform to make specific proposals for the dairy sector, on the basis of the conclusions of the high-level group that was created last year in the wake of this crisis and whose work is now under way. This group will present its findings in June.
Immediately afterwards, in July, I will propose a debate to the Council of Ministers of Agriculture and to Parliament's Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development, on the basis of these findings. So between now and autumn or the end of the year, I will come here with proposals that will allow us to foresee and, as far as possible, prevent this sort of crisis - especially in the dairy sector, because it has experienced the most difficult circumstances of all - and thus to propose solutions, not just for the short term, but also for the medium and long terms.
We will, of course, learn lessons from this for other agricultural sectors in which we will have to intervene. Perhaps I could now take the opportunity to give you some information to follow on from the debates that we will have today.
The Commission pays close attention to the development of the markets in other sectors. Using the intervention methods that we currently have at our disposal - mechanisms for intervening in the markets, used in particular as safety nets - we will do our best to prevent a repeat of situations similar to that which has hit the dairy sector.
Thank you very much. I will listen closely to the questions and problems that you are going to raise and I will take the floor again at the end to say a few things.
Peter Jahr
Mr President, Mr Cioloş, ladies and gentlemen, the fundamental reorientation of agricultural policy to focus more on the market economy is the right approach to take. The decision to increase the links between European agriculture and the world market is also correct. The initial success of this policy was very obvious until 2007 or early 2008. European agricultural policy offered better value for money. There were hardly any market interventions and farmers had stable, rising incomes. However, we are currently seeing the downside of this reorientation which includes large price fluctuations and falling farm incomes. Both farmers and agricultural policy makers must be able to accommodate major producer price fluctuations in all areas in future, not just in the dairy sector.
In order to manage serious falls in the market more effectively, agricultural policy needs tools which allow it to react rapidly, consistently and without a lot of red tape. Therefore, I am calling for measures such as interventions or export subsidies not to be abolished altogether but to be included in the budget with a figure of zero. These instruments should only be used in exceptional circumstances and not for constant market interventions. However, when we need the instruments, they must be ready for use. We also need to identify measures for the farming profession which will create equality on the market. These include, in particular, strengthening the legal position of producer groups.
I hope that the Commission will keep its promise to consider better basic legal conditions and then take measures quickly when they are needed in order to prevent farmers and consumers from suffering serious harm.
Marc Tarabella
Mr President, Commissioner, I support your first steps as Commissioner for Agriculture and Rural Development because, since your hearing and on several other occasions, we have been pleased to hear you expressing your wishes, as you have understood that the extreme volatility of prices is a serious threat to agriculture and its future. The same is true for farmers, who can no longer plan for the long term because, clearly, investments - particularly for the youngest amongst them - are calculated over periods of 20 or 30 years.
Barely six months ago today I, along with Mr Le Foll and a few other colleagues, signed an amendment on this issue and on serious volatility, which aimed to reduce the 1% increase that had been decided on, in particular, for milk production, since we are, in fact, in a period of overproduction. The amendment was rejected by almost 250 votes to 350.
You said that in the future, we would consider a regulation. The high-level group is meeting and its members are, as I understand it, high-calibre individuals: it is not just producers who are represented, but distributors too.
I would not like the actors who find themselves in between the two, between producers and distributors - namely, processors - to be forgotten. I hope that we do not forget them, because it is also and, above all, through them that the profits are made; more so than through the distributors, in my opinion. I would like reassurance, then, that they will not be forgotten in the discussion.
Beyond the dairy sector, all agricultural sectors are being affected by volatility, and I would also be so bold as to say that prices are high. Let us be careful; this is not necessarily good for agriculture, as processors - users - are turning to alternative products. When prices return to a more normal or lower level, these users will not necessarily return to the original product.
Commissioner, this being so, I would like to know - even if it is a little premature - if you really do intend in the future to implement, in all other areas of production, the regulatory mechanisms that are keenly awaited by producers.
Martin Häusling
Mr President, Mr Cioloş, things are relatively peaceful at the moment in the countryside, not because farmers are contented, but because many farmers are currently very frustrated. We cannot fob all of them off by saying that we will identify the important solution to the agricultural crisis in 2013. We need to give them answers now. We are in agreement on this. The protests could very quickly move back to Brussels, so we have to provide some answers.
In the dairy sector, a fundamental change in policy is needed. I attended the conference of the high level group and found the responses given to the dairy crisis interesting, but by no means adequate. If a change in policy has to be made, then the recent decision to remove the regulations must be called into question. At the conclusion of this process, we could say that ending quotas resulted in a very hard landing, not a soft one. We now urgently need to consider how we can put a new policy in place, how we can set new benchmarks and how we can bring the state, in other words, the European Union, back into the game, to give us clearer rules for the market. Markets do not function without assistance. That is the answer to the financial crisis and also to the crisis in agriculture. We must provide rules.
We are currently faced by a crazy process of concentration in agriculture. I feel very concerned when I read in the paper that units which will accommodate as many as 8 000 cows are being built in the south of England. On the other hand, many small farms in disadvantaged regions are having to close. These are changes which will not produce a European but an American agricultural model with larger and larger enterprises, which will finally lead to the loss of many small dairy farms in Europe. We have to remember that this also means losing jobs.
Mr Jahr, we agree on one point, even if we do not agree that it is right to focus our agricultural policy on the world market. We need a clear legal position for farmers. They are the weakest link in the business chain. They are the first to be hit by dumping prices, which are becoming increasingly common in many areas. We agree that we urgently need a clear policy statement about how we can regulate markets better in future.
We need to look outside Europe's boundaries to see how other regions are resolving this problem. No one will tell us how and when to regulate our markets. In recent years, we have taken things too far with the removal of many of the market regulations. Let us take a look at other countries - the high level group should do the same - to see what rules are being applied elsewhere. It is clear that Canada has what many farmers and many consumers believe is a tried-and-tested model. We should not exclude this from the discussion right at the outset. Instead, we should also provide some answers.
As part of the change in the direction of our policy, we must make sure that we put policies in place for regional markets. The focus should always be on the regions and not on the 5% of products that are sold on the world market. We must not regard export subsidies and interventions as the normal rules for influencing the market in future. We must finally put an end to this process.
James Nicholson
on behalf of the ECR Group. - Mr President, first of all, I welcome the opportunity to have this debate. I think it is very timely, and the recent crisis in the dairy sector, which crippled so many of our farmers across the European Union, certainly demonstrated the serious volatility which can affect our agriculture markets. Significant price fluctuations are occurring from year to year, and indeed from month to month, and are often due to factors beyond our control, such as the global financial crisis and, indeed, the price of oil.
The effects of the dramatic drop in the price of milk in 2009 were compounded by the EU's inability to react swiftly enough to the situation. While we were eventually able to implement a mixture of market management and income support measures, such as intervention in the milk fund and export refunds, which eased the pain to a degree, many dairy farmers ended up going out of business and many are suffering serious financial loss.
In my opinion, we need to adopt a two-fold approach in order to attempt to mitigate the effects of depressed prices on our farmers. Firstly, we need to agree upon a set minimum safety net for all sectors which are vulnerable to price fluctuations. Secondly, we need to ensure that, whatever tools we introduce, we are able to respond rapidly and effectively to whatever crisis presents itself.
There is a lot of discussion at the moment in Parliament and beyond about farmers receiving a fair and stable income for what they produce. The ins and outs of food supply and the food supply chain in general is a topic which is relevant to both farmers and consumers alike. The imminent reform of the CAP gives us a real opportunity to address these issues. Of course, it is important not to undermine the competitiveness of Europe's agri-food industry. However, a reformed CAP must be able to respond to various crises in agriculture in order to stabilise the markets and ensure a fair income for our farmers.
Georgios Papastamkos
(EL) Mr President, I am starting from the assumption that there is a great deal of instability in the agricultural markets. There has been a significant drop in the prices of basic agricultural products. At the same time, there has been an increase in consumer prices and a substantial reduction in agricultural incomes.
In my opinion, the CAP, following the reforms and the uncoupling of aid, is sufficiently market-oriented. My main proposal - and I wish to make this clear - is that the agricultural sector cannot be left solely to the rules of the market. It produces public goods and it needs public European financial support. I cannot follow the contradiction in the arguments of members who propose a market orientation here, in countries which maintain, cultivate and step up consumer ethnocentricity, consumer patriotism. However, the current market management measures do not provide the necessary safety net, as the previous speaker, Mr Nicholson, said. We need supplementary measures, more flexible and effective measures, measures that guarantee market stability in times of crisis. Also, in my opinion, we need to 'arm' the CAP with a financial mechanism to deal with crisis situations, a sort of crisis management fund. Guaranteeing producers' incomes depends, above all, on safeguarding transparency in the food supply chain.
To close, we cannot confine ourselves to designing future market tools for after 2013. We know that the situation - over and above the milk sector - is also critical in other extremely important sectors, which differ from one geographical area to another within Europe.
Csaba Sándor Tabajdi
(HU) The debate so far has shown that this is a very complex problem. To a certain extent, Mr Tarabella and Mr Nicholson, and others as well, have mentioned that on the one hand, the problem has to do with the food chain as a whole, which the José Bové report also addresses, namely, that the European Union has been unable so far to resolve how to bring about a fair balance between producers, processors and retailers. As far as Mr Cioloş is concerned, I agree entirely that it would be good to find a medium- and long-term solution. There are four theoretical options.
One, which Mr Jahr has also mentioned, is to examine the neoliberal standpoint which has so far rejected and tried to dismantle interventionist systems. So I agree entirely that we need to think through whether these interventionist systems can be discarded, or whether they can, in fact, be used to regulate the market.
The second option, proposed by the French Government on the American model, is counter-cyclical regulation. The question is whether this is workable in Europe, but we need to examine this, too, since the whole market is so volatile that every option must be considered.
The third is the stock market option. Not long ago, there was a conference on the Borsa Merci Telematica Italiana, an online stock market system, and so we have to examine to what extent the stock exchange systems can be used. I would add right away, for Mr Cioloş' sake, that for Eastern Europe and the Baltic countries, the stock market system is unfortunately not very workable.
The French Presidency also raised the possibility of creating a European Union price monitoring system. We need to think this through as well, and we need to think through - something that, if I am not mistaken, is close to Mr Cioloş' way of thinking - the possibility of setting up some sort of fund, on the model of the fruit and vegetable reform, which could be used in risk management. Unfortunately, in the case of grain, this would require extremely large sums. In other words, I agree fully with the Commissioner that we have to think through every option, because at present, the EU is incapable of properly regulating the markets.
Michel Dantin
(FR) Mr President, Commissioner, as you well know, agriculture is an economic sector that comprises specific features that mean that public intervention may occasionally be necessary, if not desirable, in the interests of producers, consumers and the public. There are at least three reasons why public intervention in this economic sector is as justifiable in the European Union as it is in other countries of the world.
The characteristics of supply of agricultural goods and the demand for foodstuffs make agricultural markets unstable. Agriculture also produces non-market goods and helps ensure a certain degree of social stability in our countries and our countryside through the jobs that it creates. Above all, agriculture is the basis of an abundant, varied and healthy food supply. Can we be satisfied, then, with the current economic situation of our rural areas and our farmers?
A few days ago, Commissioner, a senior official gave me the following figures for his département - as it happens, this is a French département that you know well, a livestock farming department. The administrative centre holds 2 500 agricultural accounts. Of those, 800 have a debt ratio in excess of 80%, and 20% have a debt ratio of 100% or more.
Faced with such figures - which, I admit, surprised even me - the issue to be dealt with today is not just one of revenue but of the decapitalisation of European agriculture. Less aid, less public intervention and more restrictions on production: that is a truly explosive combination.
It is true that the general economic crisis is aggravating the situation. However, we must also question certain decisions taken by the Commission, certain decisions taken by your colleagues, Commissioner. Agriculture remains a bargaining chip in trade agreements. Despite the situation in Europe, meat, certain cereals, fruits and vegetables are all affected. The recent agreement between the European Union and the Andean countries, in particular, Peru and Colombia, will sacrifice the producers of the outermost regions. We cannot continue with such a policy.
Sergio Paolo Francesco Silvestris
(IT) Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I come from southern Italy. In my region, in our regions, production revolves around Mediterranean crops, oil, arable crops and vegetables. Little has been said about this, as the focus of Europe and of the Commission has always been predominantly on dairy farming and stock rearing; yet we also need to draw attention to Mediterranean crops.
I assure you that we are witnessing a phenomenon of rural abandonment in our areas, in our regions, due to the effects of climate change and desertification. For us, desertification manifests itself in the weeds that grow where vegetable crops, vegetables and fruits, were once cultivated, where olive groves are no longer nurtured and the soil is no longer ploughed.
I can tell you that in 1995, before the euro came along, olive producers were paid ITL 170 000, which is equivalent to about EUR 90. This year, olive producers have been paid EUR 30 per hundred kilograms. Thirteen or fourteen years have gone by and the price is now a third of what it used to be. Our producers sell oil wholesale for EUR 2 per litre; such takings do not even allow them to cover their costs, and we are putting farms in debt because they are selling at less than cost price.
We are also seeing a strange phenomenon: oil is bought wholesale for EUR 2 and we find that it is retailing in supermarkets for EUR 2 or less. There is clearly a need to introduce more controls. I would be happy to meet you to outline the problem of updating Regulation (EC) No 2568/1991; there are new control systems and we must fight against sophistication and adulteration, for the benefit of consumers and producers too.
We cannot contemplate nationalising aid in the next CAP, nor can we contemplate reducing direct aid, since the absence of direct aid or the reduction of its funds would lead to a farming crisis in southern Italy and the Mediterranean.
Commissioner, I will conclude by telling you that those who own land today own it not because they won it in a lottery, but because it was handed down to them by their father or grandfather, who cultivated that land, who poured their sweat and blood into it, and left it to their son.
Today, those who leave their farm to their children risk leaving them with a handful of debts. Europe must provide an energetic and strong response to help and aid the revival of our agricultural sector.
Sari Essayah
(FI) Mr President, stabilising the market must be one of the shared central objectives of economic policy. On this matter, we in this Chamber seem to be of the same opinion. In the common agricultural policy, we need the safety net of market measures, both for the protection of farmers and also for the protection of all those who are involved in the food chain.
The period after 2013 seems particularly alarming, for example, because of the withdrawal of export subsidies and milk quotas, as well as the increase in imports from other countries. It therefore seems good that the Commissioner is saying at this stage that he plans to take measures before 2013.
Now we need to examine how we will be able to put the new administrative tools for the market into use: for example, the many different measures for developing an income insurance system, making producers and businesses stronger and improving the transparency of the market.
Ulrike Rodust
(DE) Mr President, Mr Cioloş, I have in front of me an analysis of the economic situation in the German agricultural sector. The analysis involved the evaluation of 19 100 sets of accounts from full-time and part-time farms. The results have been projected on the basis of the distribution of farms from the Farm Structure Survey of 2007.
In the financial year 2008-2009, the overall situation deteriorated significantly. The figures for the 18 200 full-time dairy and arable farms fell from EUR 45 400 to EUR 34 400. That represents a reduction of 24%. Particularly large losses occurred in 2008-2009. Operating results fell to EUR 29 300 (minus 45%) and to EUR 43 000 (minus 18%).
In contrast, mixed livestock farms ...
(The President cut off the speaker)
Dacian Cioloş
Mr President, I think that the debate that we have just heard demonstrates the extent to which we should learn lessons from this dairy crisis. Moreover, as Mr Le Foll said at the start of his speech, we should consider implementing mechanisms for regulating the markets as part of the common agricultural policy post-2013.
I firmly believe that the CAP must be able, at the same time as respecting the diversity of European agriculture, to propose measures relating to our common objectives at European level that will allow us to fulfil the role granted to it under the Treaty of Lisbon. In other words, it must guarantee the stability of farmers' revenues and ensure that the markets are well supplied. The future instruments of the CAP should therefore make it possible for us to achieve, among other things, these objectives. There are other objectives of course, but those are the fundamental ones that we must take into account.
Measures to regulate the markets that will enable us to avoid situations of price or market volatility or to intervene in such situations will be the focus of our concerns and of the proposals that the Commission will make as part of the CAP post-2013. I can assure you that we are currently working on this. I am firmly convinced and conscious of the fact that market management mechanisms must be able to play a role alongside direct aid, which we must keep, albeit by adapting the criteria for awarding them. The market must be able to function, of course. We must leave the market to function when it is able, but I also agree with Mr Dantin when he says that the specific nature of the agricultural sector justifies public intervention. This must, of course, be targeted and must aim to solve problems with the functioning of the market and to ensure that it functions properly. It is in this spirit that we will be making proposals for the CAP post-2013.
I fully understand that sectors other than dairy are also experiencing difficulties at this time. Thus, the fruit and vegetables sector is also often subjected to major market variations: variations in price and amounts marketed or sold. This sector underwent reform a few years ago. We will also learn lessons from how that reform, which gave greater negotiating powers to producers within producer organisations, was applied. I think that, at this level too, we could learn some lessons that could be applied to other sectors.
Indeed, I am of the view that, apart from public intervention, producers must also be given the opportunity to negotiate contracts better and thus to negotiate prices better, whilst ensuring some stability in what products are placed on the market by means of private contracts. I therefore think that, in addition to public intervention, we can find other ways of allowing the market to function well, whilst giving the public authorities the power to intervene when the market is unable to play its role, since agriculture must not only supply the markets, but also continue to produce public goods. We are in agreement on that. Therefore, in order for agriculture to be able to fulfil all of its functions, we will have to help it.
As for issues relating to the food chain, in particular, the powers to negotiate a better distribution of added value, Parliament has carried out some work, the Commission has issued a communication and debates have taken place within the Council. On the basis of all these elements, I think that we will make some proposals in order to find mechanisms that will allow producers to negotiate their margins better.
I think that I have more or less covered all the speeches and all the problems that were raised. I would like to thank you once again for the opportunity that you have given me to explain myself. The debate is only just beginning. I also launched a public debate before making proposals on the CAP post-2013 reform. I think that following that debate and the work under way within Parliament, we shall be able, between now and the autumn, when I shall return with a Commission communication on the future of the CAP, to make proposals that will give farmers greater confidence in their activities. We need these farmers, not only for what they supply on the market, but also for what they do on their land.
President
The debate is closed.
Written statements (Rule 149)
Luís Paulo Alves
There has been a fall in prices in various agricultural markets in recent months as a result of the economic and financial crisis that has affected the EU, which, in turn, has affected demand for those products. Lower prices benefit consumers and, in the medium term, will lead to increased demand, but in the meantime, many producers are being badly hit. It is therefore crucial to draw up a European agricultural policy that will respond to the key issue: the need to ensure sustainable food security at reasonable market prices. What is required is an agricultural model that is competitive and economically viable and which responds to the citizens' food, environmental and social needs. Even if the common agricultural policy is market oriented, it has to contain a series of instruments to address the need to compensate for the production of public assets that the market does not remunerate and to control the extreme volatility of the market. It must also have appropriate regulation, a strong safety net and sensible risk management. It also needs to improve the food supply chain, by means of greater transparency and better contractual practices that are not damaging for producers. To conclude, it is essential to ensure equality of treatment for imported agricultural materials and produce.
Alan Kelly
in writing. - Firstly, let me say that I welcome the moves of my colleagues, especially Senor de Castro, who has taken the initiative to start the debate on this issue. It is a fact that today, our farmers are faced with overwhelming obstacles when it comes to achieving a fair price for their produce. The effect on prices during the recent dairy crisis is just one example. Stock intervention had its role to play in stabilising the market, as did the Emergency Dairy Fund. But we are not out of the woods yet, so to speak. Supermarkets present their hurdles when it comes to a fair deal for farmers. We all know how the average supermarket likes to present itself to the consumer as a 'slasher' of prices. We need to be careful however, that the supermarket does not also continue slashing the prices going to our farmers. If the current system was allowed to continue indefinitely, there would be no incentive to farm and where would our rural society be then. This has to change. I hope the Commission is as concerned about this as Members of Parliament are.
Czesław Adam Siekierski
In 2009, European farmers experienced significant difficulties. Incomes fell by almost a quarter, and the crisis affected the majority of agricultural markets, including milk, cereals, pork, beef, olives, etc. The most difficult situation was definitely that facing the dairy market. As a result of a worldwide price collapse, European milk producers suffered huge losses. Farmers publicised their difficult situation at a variety of meetings, and there were also mass protests of farmers in many countries. Currently, price fluctuations are no longer so large, but this does not mean the problems have disappeared. We are still faced with low demand and price fluctuations in many sectors of agriculture. The present mechanisms of intervention in the dairy sector and the establishment of the Dairy Fund are proving insufficient. We can already imagine what will happen when these instruments expire. We can certainly expect further falls in income and market turbulence. I agree with the statement of Mr Cioloş that the difficult situation in the dairy market should be solved immediately, and that we should not wait for 2013, when a major reform of the CAP is planned. In June, we expect a decision of the High Level Group, which will present its reflections and thoughts on improvement of the situation in the dairy sector. I hope that body will fulfil our expectations and present a balanced programme of stabilising measures. I am pleased that Mr Cioloş shares our fears and has taken account of our suggestions.