Contents

1.

Opening of the sitting

4

2.

Composition of political groups : see Minutes

4

3.

Composition of committees and delegations : see Minutes

4

4.

Announcement of voting results: see Minutes

4

5.

Data Protection Commissioner v Facebook Ireland Limited, Maximillian Schrems (‘Schrems II’) - Case C-311/18 — The adequate protection of personal data by the United Kingdom (debate)

4

6.

Chinese countersanctions on EU entities and MEPs and MPs (motions for resolutions tabled): see Minutes

11

7.

First voting session

11

8.

Data Protection Commissioner v Facebook Ireland Limited, Maximillian Schrems (‘Schrems II’) - Case C-311/18 — The adequate protection of personal data by the United Kingdom (continuation of debate)

11

9.

Roma Equality, Inclusion and Participation (debate)

17

10.

Debates on cases of breaches of human rights, democracy and the rule of law (debate)

27

10.1.

Prisoners of war in the aftermath of the most recent conflict between Armenia and Azerbaijan

27

10.2.

The situation in Haiti

35

10.3.

The situation in Chad

39

11.

Resumption of the sitting

44

12.

Announcement of voting results

44

13.

Resumption of the sitting

44

14.

Second voting session

44

15.

Resumption of the sitting

45

16.

Request for waiver of immunity: see Minutes

45

17.

Composition of committees and delegations : see Minutes

45

18.

The severe impact of the recent spring frost on fruit and wine growers (debate)

45

19.

Resumption of the sitting

60

20.

Announcement of voting results: see Minutes

60

21.

Explanations of vote: see Minutes

60

22.

Corrections to votes and voting intentions: see Minutes

60

23.

Petitions: see Minutes

60

24.

Documents received: see Minutes

60

25.

Decision to draw up own-initiative reports: see Minutes

60

26.

Modified referrals to committees (Rule 56): see Minutes

60

27.

Associated committees (Rule 57): see Minutes

60

28.

Consent Procedure (Rule 105): see Minutes

60

29.

Amendment of the Rules of Procedure (Rule 237): see Minutes

61

30.

Change to the title of own-initiative reports: see Minutes

61

31.

Agenda of the next sitting : see Minutes

61

32.

Closure of the sitting

61

Verbatim report of proceedings of 20 May 2021

PŘEDSEDNICTVÍ: MARCEL KOLAJA

místopředseda

1.   Opening of the sitting

(The sitting opened at 9.04)

2.   Composition of political groups : see Minutes

3.   Composition of committees and delegations : see Minutes

4.   Announcement of voting results: see Minutes

5.   Data Protection Commissioner v Facebook Ireland Limited, Maximillian Schrems (‘Schrems II’) - Case C-311/18 — The adequate protection of personal data by the United Kingdom (debate)

President. – The next item is the joint debate on

—	the Council and Commission statements on Data Protection Commissioner v Facebook Ireland Limited, Maximillian Schrems (‘Schrems II’) – Case C 311/18 (2020/2789(RSP)), and

—	the Council and Commission statements on the adequate protection of personal data by the United Kingdom (2021/2594(RSP)).

Ana Paula Zacarias, President-in-Office of the Council. – Mr President, I would like to thank the Commissioner and honourable Members for this debate on data protection adequacy.

The Council believes that the EU must find the best solution to make the transfer of personal data possible to a European Economic Area third country, territory or international organisation, while at the same time respecting EU legislation and case-law. When the conditions are fulfilled, adequacy decisions should be adopted.

This is in line with the European Council Conclusions of October 2020, in which the heads of state or government welcomed the European strategy for data. This strategy supports the European Union's global digital ambition to build a true European competitive data economy while ensuring values and a high level of data security, data protection and privacy. As you know, the Council itself does not take part in the adoption of adequacy decisions, although Member States are involved in the comitology procedures.

This being said, let's look at the transfer of personal data to the UK. According to the Commission explanations provided in the draft decision, the UK has chosen to keep its data protection framework fully aligned with the EU rules. The UK has strong safeguards in the area of government access to data and therefore provides an equivalent to data protection. These elements are essential, both to safeguard economic activity and to maintain a high level of cooperation with the UK in different sectors, including law-enforcement cooperation. The Trade and Cooperation Agreement (TCA) provides for a maximum of six months during which the UK is not to be considered a third country for the purpose of transferring personal data, and, as you know, this period expires at the end of June.

After the draft adequacy decisions have been presented by the Commission and the European Data Protection Board provides its opinion, the process of adopting the adequacy decisions should be completed in time to make sure that there is a solid legal base for the transfer of personal data with the UK. So, we will continue to support the Commission to come up with solutions that at the same time respect the fundamental rights of the Union and the TCA timeframe. That is essential, both to safeguard economic activity, in particular for SMEs and startups, and to maintain a high level of cooperation with the UK in different sectors, including law enforcement, as I said, and judicial cooperation. The UK will continue to be a very important partner of the European Union in these areas.

Besides, adequacy decisions are not the end of the story – it is always important to keep an eye on evolution in the third state concerned, and the adequacy decisions provide for such a mechanism, in addition to the well-known sunset clause. This is also an important safeguard as it is important to make sure that the UK maintains a high level of protection of personal data in the future, and, if there are problematic divergences, this will certainly have consequences.

Now let's talk about the transfer of personal data to the United States. Turning to this point, it is clear that the invalidation of the Privacy Shield by the European Court of Justice has important implications, even if the Court upheld the validity of the standard contractual clauses. These standard contractual clauses for the transfer of personal data will soon be updated, and they play an important role by providing additional legal certainty. We are confident that negotiations will intensify, following the joint statement by Commissioner Reynders and the US Secretary of Commerce, Gina Raimondo, of 25 March.

The Council and the Member States are following these negotiations closely on the basis of information provided by the Commission and I look forward to hearing Commissioner Reynders speak on this topic.

Didier Reynders, Member of the Commission. – Mr President, I am grateful for the opportunity to discuss with you all this morning two important draft resolutions of this Parliament: a first one on the consequences and lessons of the Schrems II judgment and a second one on the UK draft adequacy decisions.

On 16 July last year, the European Court of Justice invalidated the EU-US Privacy Shield, concluding that insufficient protections were in place on the US side. The Schrems II ruling is a strong reaffirmation of the fundamental right to data protection under EU law. The Court confirmed that protection must travel with data, and that the level of this protection must meet EU standards.

In this ruling, the Court also provided us with precise requirements that need to be fulfilled when adopting adequacy decisions, such as the ones we have proposed with respect to the UK, and the one we are discussing with the US, in view of a possible successor to the Privacy Shield.

This being said, the two resolutions that we are discussing today concern two situations that are very different. The one concerning the draft UK adequacy decisions is about managing and remedying possible future divergence, since the UK data protection rules are currently aligned with the EU ones. In contrast, the other resolution is about building convergence with important international partners, such as the US, through the development of additional and strong data protection safeguards.

Complying with EU law standards, including the case-law of the EU Court of Justice, calls, in particular, for the delicate balance between national security and privacy to be addressed. This is not an easy balance to strike. As the commissioner responsible for both the rule of law and the protection of personal data, it is my responsibility and my personal commitment to ensure full compliance with all the elements of the judgment of our highest Court.

Let me now briefly turn to each of the two resolutions. Let me first address the draft adequacy decisions relating to the United Kingdom. Less than three weeks ago, an overwhelming majority in this plenary voted to approve the EU-UK Trade and Cooperation Agreement (TCA) by 660 votes in favour. Data protection standards were not subject to negotiation with the UK. In fact, the TCA provides that transfers of data to be carried out in the context of its implementation will need to take place in compliance with the requirements of the laws of the transferring party (which means, for the EU, the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) and the Law Enforcement Directive (LED)).

In this context, the EU's interest is that the many transfers that will necessarily take place in application of the TCA, in a wide range of areas, from trade to law-enforcement cooperation, will be based on a comprehensive instrument, requiring a high level of protection. Such an instrument should also allow us to react if this level of protection is undermined.

This is what our draft adequacy decisions provide for.

First, they recognise that today the UK system continues to be based on the same rules that were applicable when the UK was a Member State of the EU. This is the result of a deliberate choice of the UK legislator, which has decided to fully incorporate the principles, rights and obligations of the GDPR and the Law Enforcement Directive into the British post-Brexit legal system. It is difficult to find a system that is more equivalent to ours.

In addition, the UK shares with EU Member States a number of international commitments in the area of data protection, be it under the European Convention on Human Rights, as interpreted by the European Court of Human Rights, or the specific treaty on data protection of the Council of Europe. This is particularly important as regards the balance between national security and privacy: it means that also in that area, the UK adheres to the same standards as the EU Member States.

This is why we have made very clear in our draft decisions that adherence to such international instruments is a central element of an adequacy finding.

Second, recognising the current alignment between the UK and the EU does not mean that we are naïve or unprepared. We fully share Parliament's concerns on the possible future evolution of the UK system. Brexit means that the UK data protection system will be administrated in a fully autonomous way. Even very similar rules can be interpreted, applied or enforced differently. The key question is therefore, in our view, whether we can trust the UK not to lower the current level of protection.

The Commission is aware of the scepticism of a number of Members of this Parliament towards the UK in this regard. As President von der Leyen said of our new relationship with the UK, ‘trust is good, but law is better’.

This is why we have significantly reinforced certain important aspects of our approach on adequacy compared to previous decisions concerning other third countries. In particular, our proposed decisions – for the first time – strictly limit the duration of the adequacy findings by including a sunset clause: the decisions will automatically expire four years after their entry into force. If we were to consider that our adequacy findings can be renewed because the UK continues to ensure an adequate level of data protection, this will need to be subject to new decisions. Such decisions will have to be adopted following the entire adequacy decision-making process, with an opinion of the European Data Protection Board and a comitology procedure.

By including that time limitation, we make clear towards the UK that possible problematic divergences will have consequences. This comes on top of – and does not replace – other mechanisms that we have also reinforced, and that would allow us to react immediately at any time, without waiting for the four year-period to expire if changes are introduced in UK law, or if there are practices that would undermine the level of protection. I am thinking of the suspension and termination mechanisms provided for in our draft decisions, in addition to the sunset clause.

Following the receipt in April of the opinion of the European Data Protection Board (EDPB), which was largely in agreement with the Commission's approach, we have further strengthened these mechanisms by identifying even more clearly in the draft decisions the aspects requiring specific monitoring and for which, in the event of divergence, we would trigger the suspension or termination procedure that we had already provided for in the initial draft. This concerns, for instance, the way the UK will implement its rules on international transfers.

More generally, following the EDPB's opinion, we have clarified our decisions on a number of aspects regarding both, firstly, why we consider that today the UK ensures an adequate level of protection, and, secondly, how we intend to react if the situation changes.

This includes aspects that I know are particularly important for this Parliament, and that are discussed in the draft resolution: from certain possible limitations to some data protection rights for other objectives of public interest, such as immigration control, to the conditions, limitations and safeguards that apply in the event that national security authorities seek access to data.

Once again, we believe that we can credibly address the uncertainties of the future while recognising that the starting point is an adequate one at this stage. In particular, the sunset clause sends the message to the UK that problematic divergence will have a cost. However, it will only have its intended dissuasive effect if we clearly distinguish, on the one hand, convergence – and its benefits from, on the other hand, divergence – and its risks and consequences.

To sum up, based on our assessment, after having taken into account the opinion of the EDPB, as well as concerns raised by this Parliament and by the Member States, the Commission is of the view that, as things stand, at this stage, we should go ahead with the adequacy decisions.

Let me now turn to the second issue of today's debate. In response to some of the points raised in the second draft resolution, I would like to update you on what the Commission is doing following the Schrems II judgment.

First, we are finalising the modernisation of standard contractual clauses for international data transfers that fully take into account the requirements of the Schrems II judgment. We are very close to final adoption, which will probably take place in the next weeks, after a successful conclusion of a comitology procedure.

As standard contractual clauses are the most-used tool by European companies for their international data transfers, this is a top priority for us. We have revised the clauses on the basis of the feedback received from the European Data Protection Board and the European Data Protection Supervisor. We have also taken into account the input we received from stakeholders during a broad public consultation.

The new clauses will provide companies with a practical toolbox to assist them in their compliance efforts. Because they are a ready-made tool, they will be particularly useful for SMEs, which, as is also pointed out in the draft resolution, may have limited resources and expertise. In addition, we will be in consultation with stakeholders to develop a user-friendly practical guide on the basis of questions and answers to further facilitate the use of these new standard contractual clauses.

I also fully agree on the importance, stressed in your resolution, of ensuring consistency between the standard contractual clauses and the guidance of the European Data Protection Board on Schrems II, which is currently being finalised after a public consultation. That is why, in revising the draft standard contractual clauses, we have worked very closely with the Board to align our approaches and to provide companies with legal certainty.

Finally, we are also working with the US on a possible successor arrangement to the Privacy Shield. What is certainly positive is that we see real engagement from the administration of President Biden, and a clear willingness to work on possible solutions. This was also reflected in my recent statement with the US Secretary of Commerce Gina Raimondo, with whom I have been in contact on a regular basis since she took office.

At the same time, we also have to recognise that the issues around access to data for national security purposes that have to be addressed are very complex. As like-minded partners, the EU and the US should be able to find appropriate solutions on fundamental principles, such as access to a court, enforceable individual rights, and safeguards against excessive interferences with privacy. But let me be clear: there are no shortcuts and there will be no quick fix. We will only accept a solution that is fully in line with the requirements of Union law, as interpreted by the Court of Justice. This is a question of compliance with the decision of our highest Court. It is also in the mutual interest of the EU and the US that we put in place a solid, sustainable and legally certain transatlantic transfer mechanism.

I know I can count on your support and the support of the entire Parliament for solutions based on strong safeguards, which can, in that way, facilitate transfers. So I will continue to work and discuss this matter with the US in such a way, and I thank you for your attention this morning on those two very important topics and I am now looking forward to our debate.

Tom Vandenkendelaere, namens de PPE-Fractie. – Voorzitter, commissaris, staatssecretaris, de gegevensbescherming in de Europese Unie is met de komst van de GDPR van het hoogste niveau wereldwijd, ook in relatie tot derde landen. Net daarom zijn die adequaatheidsbesluiten zo cruciaal. Ze verzekeren dat bedrijven en rechtshandhavingsinstanties binnen een duidelijk juridisch kader veilig met elkaar gegevens kunnen uitwisselen.

Begin dit jaar hebben we in dit halfrond de verkiezing van Joe Biden en Kamala Harris op applaus onthaald en was het onze boodschap om de relaties met de VS opnieuw op te bouwen. Dat doen we nu ook met een duidelijke uitgestoken hand om samen met de Commissie te werken aan een nieuw solide, toekomstbestendig kader.

Maar toch ben ik verbaasd. Drie weken geleden klonk hier in deze zelfde kamer, in het debat over de handels- en samenwerkingsovereenkomst, nog vanop alle banken dat vertrouwen de sleutel tot succes is wat betreft onze toekomstige relaties met het Verenigd Koninkrijk. Loze woorden, zo blijkt drie weken later … In een van de eerste concrete dossiers waarin we dit vertrouwen gestalte kunnen geven, slagen we daar niet in, integendeel! De manier waarop deze resolutie over het adequaatheidsbesluit ten aanzien van het Verenigd Koninkrijk tot stand gekomen is, tart echt alle verbeelding. Van dat vertrouwen richting de Britten om het niveau van gegevensbescherming – dat overigens volledig gebaseerd is op de GDPR – hoog te houden, blijft niets meer over. Van enig vertrouwen in de expertise en de onafhankelijkheid van de Europese Commissie evenmin.

De Europese burger verwacht van ons dat we gegevensbescherming serieus nemen. Maar die verwacht evenzeer van dit Parlement dat we verantwoordelijkheid tonen. Daarom roep ik jullie op: trek niet aan de noodrem. Ondermijn onze samenwerking met de Britten tegen de georganiseerde misdaad niet, houd onze bedrijven niet langer in een wurggreep.

Juan Fernando López Aguilar, en nombre del Grupo S&D. – Señor presidente, Presidencia portuguesa, señor comisario Reynders, en este debate conjunto discutimos dos asuntos que son competencia de la comisión que tengo el honor de presidir, la Comisión de Libertades Civiles, Justicia y Asuntos de Interior, y de los que he sido ponente.

El punto de conexión son los derechos fundamentales: la protección de datos consagrada en el artículo 8 de la Carta de los Derechos Fundamentales. La Comisión LIBE ha empleado muchas horas desde que entró en vigor la Carta con el Tratado de Lisboa, mucho tiempo de trabajo en aprobar el régimen de protección de datos de mayor estándar del mundo: el Reglamento de protección de datos y la Directiva sobre protección de datos en el ámbito penal. Y ambos tienen que ver con la llamada de atención que hacemos a la Comisión para que reconsidere esa decisión de adecuación del régimen de protección de datos del Reino Unido.

Discutimos durante años el acuerdo de salida del Reino Unido. Y también hemos empleado mucho tiempo en un Acuerdo de Comercio y Cooperación; no solo comercio: cooperación, que incluye transferencia de datos. Pero hemos expresado preocupaciones legítimas que, además, han sido reflejadas en el informe del Comité Europeo de Protección de Datos, que tienen que ver con las excepciones en materia de inmigración y de seguridad que contempla el régimen de protección de datos de los Estados Unidos, que se está aplicando incluso a ciudadanos de la Unión Europea que intentan residir o establecerse en el Reino Unido. Y por supuesto, con la transferencia de datos a los Estados Unidos, que es el segundo asunto que tratamos.

Sentencias determinantes del Tribunal de Justicia, que utilizan la Carta como parámetro de enjuiciamiento, han declarado incompatibles con el Derecho europeo el principio de ‘puerto seguro’, en la sentencia Schrems de 2015, y el Escudo de la privacidad, en la sentencia Schrems de 2020. Lo que quiere decir que transferir datos a los Estados Unidos, que es una práctica habitual del Reino Unido, es incompatible con el estándar de protección del Derecho europeo.

Y esto significa que hay que valorar no solamente la legislación del Reino Unido, sino sus prácticas aplicativas. Y esta es la recomendación que expresa la preocupación legítima que la Comisión LIBE tiene el deber de trasladar a la Comisión. Porque sabemos muy bien que la implementación, el acto de ejecución corresponde a la Comisión y lo va a adoptar.

La Comisión y el Consejo están haciendo su trabajo, pero el Parlamento Europeo hace también su trabajo llamando la atención sobre la importancia de valorar adecuadamente las prácticas aplicativas del Reino Unido en el presente y en el futuro.

Moritz Körner, im Namen der Renew-Fraktion. – Herr Präsident, liebe Kolleginnen und Kollegen! Wir diskutieren hier oft über Europas Rolle in der Welt, und diese Kommission hat sich sogar zum Auftrag gemacht, eine geopolitische Kommission zu sein. Diesem Anspruch werden wir nicht gerecht, wenn wir nicht in der Lage sind, die Grundrechte der EU-Bürger überall zu schützen und unsere eigenen Regeln hier in Europa in der digitalen Welt durchzusetzen. Safe Harbour, Privacy Shield – beide Abkommen sind vom Europäischen Gerichtshof gekippt worden.

Die US-Sicherheitsgesetze auf der einen und die Grundrechtecharta auf der anderen Seite sind wie zwei Züge, die gegeneinander rasen – sie sind nicht vereinbar. Die entscheidende Frage ist doch an dieser Stelle jetzt: Wer knickt ein? Wird es am Ende so sein, dass es wieder Europa ist? Ich sage hier ganz klar: Wir werden die Grundrechtecharta nicht ändern, und die Urteile des Europäischen Gerichtshofs sind absolut klar. Wir brauchen legislative Änderungen auf der US-Seite bei ihren Sicherheitsgesetzen oder ein EU/US-No-Spy-Abkommen. Das ist klar, dass wir das brauchen.

Die Zeit dafür ist doch günstig. Wir sehen gerade, dass selbst Trump jetzt Sorge hatte bei TikTok, dass chinesische Sicherheitsbehörden Zugriff auf Daten haben. Die Sorge ist berechtigt, aber die Sorge, die wir da bei TikTok sehen – die kennen wir seit Snowden ganz sicher für US-Anbieter. Deswegen müssen wir doch hier klar sagen, auch gegenüber China: Wir brauchen die EU als Partner. Zusammen mit den USA müssen wir doch für Privatsphäre und Datenschutz kämpfen. Jetzt sagen ja einige: Wir müssen jetzt auch beim Vereinigten Königreich möglichst schnell Adequacy machen, wir brauchen da das Abkommen, die Wirtschaft braucht das.

Ehrlich gesagt, das Schlimmste für die Wirtschaft ist die Rechtsunsicherheit. Das Schlimmste ist, dass Sie der Wirtschaft zweimal zugemutet haben, dass sie sich immer wieder auf neue Abkommen eingestellt hat, ihre Prozesse daraufhin ausgerichtet hat, und dann waren sie eben nicht mit EU-Recht vereinbar, und dann hat der Europäische Gerichtshof das gekippt. Das darf nicht noch einmal passieren!

Ich sage das ganz klar auch in Richtung Kommission: Wenn Sie mal mehr tatsächlich Ihren Anspruch deutlich machen würden, weniger das Europäische Parlament, weniger den Europäischen Datenschutzausschuss und mehr unsere internationalen Partner zu beeinflussen, dann würden Sie Ihrer Rolle als tatsächlich geopolitische Kommission mehr gerecht.

Marco Campomenosi, a nome del gruppo ID. – Signor Presidente, signora Segretaria di Stato, signor Commissario, onorevoli colleghi, la mia premessa è che le preoccupazioni espresse nelle risoluzioni che voteremo oggi sono anche le mie, assolutamente.

Abbiamo deciso di dotarci di standard molto elevati, con un sistema di regole complesso ma a tutela degli utenti e dei cittadini, in questo caso della rete, però non mi sento del tutto convinto nel puntare il dito solo nei confronti di paesi terzi come la Gran Bretagna e gli Stati Uniti, quando vedo che abbiamo delle difficolta estreme nell'applicare i principi del regolamento sulla protezione dei dati anche all'interno dell'Unione europea, perché casualmente, probabilmente attratte dalla cultura gaelica e da un'isola stupenda, i giganti del web hanno scelto di avere sede in Europea in Irlanda.

L'Autorità per la protezione dei dati irlandese, però, che cosa sta facendo? Risponde e porta a termine solo 7 ricorsi sui 10 000 che i cittadini di tutta Europa hanno presentato. Allora un esempio positivo è avvenuto proprio nel mio paese, dove il Garante per la privacy italiano ha utilizzato l'articolo 66 del GDPR, quello per le procedure di circostanza eccezionale, e ha fatto applicare una norma per cui abbiamo un social network cinese che stipulava contratti con ragazzini minori di tredici anni e la situazione è stata risolta in maniera efficiente. Anche la Germania sta seguendo questo esempio.

Quello che mi preoccupa quindi, e sarebbe un peccato non approfittare di questo dibattito per parlarne – l'ho chiesto anche in un'interrogazione fatta pochi giorni fa – è di implementare anche all'interno dell'Unione europea l'applicazione delle regole, perché se i cittadini fanno ricorso ma questi ricorsi non vengano portati avanti, è inutile che ci dotiamo di standard così elevati.

Gwendoline Delbos-Corfield, on behalf of the Verts/ALE Group. – Mr President, what have we learned from the Schrems judgment? Given that the Commission is ready to hand the United Kingdom an adequacy decision in a too hasty way, we could think the European Union has learned nothing. But we should know better.

The Privacy Shield was invalidated at the European Court of Justice because of the mass surveillance practices used by the US Government, and thanks to the 2013 revelations by Edward Snowden we are well aware now that the UK Government uses similar mass surveillance devices, and it should be obvious to everyone that mass surveillance – indiscriminate mass surveillance – is a huge threat to our fundamental rights.

European citizens have the right to not be considered first as criminals by their governments. European citizens have the right to protect their very personal and sensitive information. In concrete life would it be possible to have someone knocking at your door every five minutes trying to sell you something or make you do something, complete strangers that know everything about you, not only where you went, what you did, who you met, who are your relatives, but very intimate things – your tastes, your habits, your wishes, your frustrations, your dreams, your angers, your joys.

It seems that some lobbies, and maybe some people in the Commission, want to bargain these fundamental rights. And this is not in the interest of citizens, but neither of business, because good business is done with good democratic rules and stability and good faith.

There has been legal uncertainty for too long, there have been various attempts at prioritising hazardous data flows for too long. First, with the US, now with the UK, but soon with third countries which the UK Government will go into trade with, not respecting any of our rules and accepting to share data with no rules. We are at serious risk of sharing personal European citizens' data everywhere in the world, even with authoritarian countries.

Assita Kanko, on behalf of the ECR Group. – Mr President, there is a charade happening with some in this Parliament, a charade that could cost jobs across the EU. I strongly believe in the highest standards of data protection. Our citizens deserve to know their data is being treated correctly and lawfully when it leaves the EU, but that is exactly what the United Kingdom is doing. It has fully implemented the GDPR and has committed to maintaining it in words and spirit. The European Commission has confirmed that the UK meets the adequacy criteria, yet still some in this Parliament object.

We already have adequacy agreements with Argentina, Uruguay, Israel, Japan and more. Are we honestly saying that these countries have better data protection standards than the UK, which helped create the EU's current standards? The British may sometimes appear irritating to the Left, but honestly, they are not dangerous.

The only conclusion I can draw here is that this is payback, but it's time to leave the past and Brexit where it belongs. After a divorce, people should be able to share a meal together. Let's start shaping a constructive and fruitful relationship with an important strategic ally. By punishing the UK, you are harming the EU too. Haven't our businesses already suffered enough in this past year? Businesses and consumers need certainty. Therefore, the PPE and ECR have tabled a better alternative. Please support it.

(The debate was suspended)

6.   Chinese countersanctions on EU entities and MEPs and MPs (motions for resolutions tabled): see Minutes

7.   First voting session

President. – Before continuing with the debates, I will open the first voting session of today. We will vote on the files as indicated on the agenda. The voting session will be open from 9.45 until 11.00. The same voting method will be used as during the previous voting sessions. All votes will be held by roll call.

I declare the first voting session open. You have until 11.00 to vote. The results of the first voting session will be announced at 13.00.

8.   Data Protection Commissioner v Facebook Ireland Limited, Maximillian Schrems (‘Schrems II’) - Case C-311/18 — The adequate protection of personal data by the United Kingdom (continuation of debate)

President. – We now continue with the joint debate on the Council and Commission statements on data protection adequacy.

Cornelia Ernst, im Namen der Fraktion The Left. – Herr Präsident! Demokratie ist, wenn ein einzelner Bürger vor Gericht zieht und rechtswidrige Vertragspraktiken, die gegen elementare Grundrechte verstoßen, gekippt werden. Noch besser stünde es um die Demokratie, wenn er das nicht laufend machen müsste. Und am allerbesten wäre es, wenn die Kommission, die Hüterin der Verträge, endlich mit ihren Eiertänzen aufhören und handeln würde. Ja, das Privacy Shield ist genauso rechtswidrig wie damals Safe Harbour, und wir wissen das seit langer Zeit. Was wir jetzt bestimmt nicht brauchen, ist eine Art Privacy Harbour.

Datentransfer ohne Schutzniveau für personenbezogene Daten im Sinne der GDPR ist verboten, Punkt! Mehr ist da nicht zu sagen, da helfen auch keine halbseidenen Standardvertragsklauseln. Massenüberwachung, Auslieferung von Daten unbescholtener Bürgerinnen und Bürger an Geheimdienste – das hat mit Rechtsstaatlichkeit nichts zu tun, und das muss auch die irische Datenschutzbehörde endlich begreifen.

Meine Damen und Herren, wenn wir noch halbwegs alle Tassen im Schrank haben, können wir auch dem Vereinigten Königreich kein adäquates Datenschutzniveau für den Datentransfer bescheinigen. Cambridge Analytica, Abhörprogramm Tempora, Power Bill – die Downing Street braucht eine einzige klare Antwort: No, Sir! Datenschutz ist keine Petersilie auf dem Kartoffelsalat. Datenschutz ist Grundrechteschutz, und den gilt es bitteschön zu verteidigen – und zwar jetzt!

Jeroen Lenaers (PPE). – Mr President, the United Kingdom is now a third country and as with all third countries, we need to carefully assess its level of data protection before we allow personal data transfer to take place without any condition. This is essential because those trans-border data flows between the EU and the UK are so important. They are important for our economy, for small and big businesses, they are important for our citizens and they are important for our common fight against crime.

And as we all know until very recently the UK was a member of the European Union and it is therefore evident, also in the words of the European Data Protection Board, that many aspects of the law and practice in the UK are essentially equivalent to the EU and that there is a strong alignment between the GDPR and the UK legal framework. And I'm surprised, therefore, that some colleagues here are arguing that we cannot allow this adequacy decision with the UK to pass.

No adequacy for a third country that even the EDPB characterizes as essentially equivalent. If we can't apply it to the UK, who can we then apply it to? Unless you want to stop cross-border data transfers altogether and all move back to the 19th century, to the detriment of our citizens, of our businesses and of our security.

I fully support the approach of the European Commission, but that doesn't mean that there are no concerns and I count on you, Commissioner Reynders, to take the recommendations of the EDPB seriously and to make sure that this decision will stand the test of time by closely monitoring all developments in the UK in this area and respond swiftly where necessary.

Marina Kaljurand (S&D). – Mr President, we all agree that the ability to transfer personal data across borders has the potential to be a key driver of innovation, productivity and economic competitiveness, especially with close partners like the US and the UK. We also agree that the free movement of personal data has to fulfil the EU standards set out in the GDPR and Law Enforcement Directive, and I hope that we all agree to learn from previous mistakes.

Therefore, it is important that, as the European Parliament, we make it crystal clear that any decisions to transfer data are also in line with EU court rulings and concerns raised by the European Data Protection Board (EDPB). In terms of the US, both the Safe Harbor Agreement and the Privacy Shield have been overruled by the European Court. This Parliament had previously issued several calls on the Commission to address the problems and now this resolution calls for any new personal data transfer agreements to ensure full compliance with GDPR and every aspect of the relevant court rulings. I welcome the fact that the Commission is currently modernising Standard Contractual Clauses (SCCs) and reviewing all existing adequacy decisions to ensure that they comply with the court rulings. I wish you all success in negotiations with the US.

In terms of the UK, it has to be recognised that the UK legal framework is similar to that of the EU, but there are a number of concerns regarding its implementation, including exceptions in the fields of national security and immigration, which now also apply to EU citizens, and the absence of court oversight of such data policies. The resolution also raises concerns over data transfer to third countries without adequacy agreements.

To conclude, while these resolutions will not block the adequacy decisions, they call on the Commission to ensure that, in line with the EDPB, they should be fully consistent with the Union and case law to ensure that the personal data of our citizens is protected. The ball is in the Commission's court, and I hope you act responsibly.

Virginie Joron (ID). – Monsieur le Président, Monsieur le Commissaire, Madame la Secrétaire d'État, à quoi servent les règlements sur la protection des données et les arrêts de la Cour de justice européenne, si les GAFAM peuvent continuer à faire ce qu'ils veulent de nos données personnelles? Sans surprise, les affaires judiciaires les plus importantes concernent Facebook, notoirement connu pour sa conduite à la limite de l'éthique. Le mois dernier, dans un autre cas, il a été révélé que les données personnelles de plus d'un demi-milliard d'utilisateurs avaient été divulguées. Comme l'a dit M. Schrems, les GAFAM font des profits en violant la loi.

Pourtant Facebook et d'autres continuent de collecter des données personnelles et de les stocker en dehors de nos pays, avec tous les risques que cela comporte. Seulement 4 % des données sont stockées en Europe. Que reste-t-il de la souveraineté numérique de nos nations, si nous ne pouvons pas protéger les données de nos concitoyens? Tant que nous resterons dépendants des caprices de ces entreprises rapaces, nous ne pourrons jamais assurer la protection de nos données. Si nous voulons vraiment mettre fin aux abus de données et reprendre le contrôle, nous devons investir dans des solutions alternatives européennes, afin que les données puissent être stockées ici, en Europe. De plus, en investissant dans des capacités de traitement et de stockage de données en Europe, nous donnerons un coup de pouce aux entreprises françaises et européennes.

Oui, nous devons reprendre le contrôle dans le domaine du numérique et mettre fin à la position dominante des GAFAM, car nous avons perdu trop de temps depuis.

Adam Bielan (ECR). – Mr President, in this Chamber, I think we all agree on the importance of data protection, both as a fundamental right and as a key enabler for the digital economy. The continuation of EU-UK data flows after 30 June will depend on the adoption of the adequacy decisions. My group has always supported the use of adequacy decisions as they provide citizens and businesses with a clear and solid legal basis for the exchange of personal data.

We cannot leave our enterprises without a solution. Indeed, we need to protect the businesses with cross-border data flows that are crucial for economic development and innovation. That is why my group is calling on the Commission today to adopt the adequacy decisions in a timely manner in order to avoid any disruptions for European and UK companies. For this reason, we also do not support the resolution of the Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs (LIBE).

Clare Daly (The Left). – Mr President, Ireland's subservience to multinationals is well known. I've spent half my political life calling it out. It's very problematic, but it's not the problem here, and suggesting that Ireland is the source of Europe's privacy ills, as the Schrems resolution does, ignores very real problems.

We have dedicated, well-intentioned staff in regulators all over Europe hobbled by the fact that they're facing off against hordes of highly paid lawyers in multinationals, with infinite resources, infinite time, infinite wealth and so on. Only nine Data Protection Authorities (DPAs) say that they have enough resources, and the Commission and the EU has given them no extra funding.

We have complaints about the delays, but little acknowledgment that the delays have got nothing to do with the Irish regulator. Big Tech can bury regulators with procedural queries and legal arguments, as they are legally entitled to do, and, when they get through all of that, they need to get agreement with the other European colleagues on that. The Twitter case alone took seven months in the European Data Protection Board (EDPB) stage. I'd love it if all the problems were on Ireland's door, but it's not as simple as that. The sooner we get off that bandwagon, the better we'll be able to deal with our problems.

Seán Kelly (PPE). – Mr President, the drama, worry, frustration and relief associated with the entire Brexit process has been replaced with the slow reality of what it means. Beyond the bluster and tabloid outrage, the new reality is starting to dawn: that deeper cooperation is in our mutual interest and that the UK should remain a close partner of the EU.

Yet, there is no doubt that in an increasingly digitalised world, the future relationship between the EU and the UK depends on the continued free flow of data. The securing of adequacy for data transfers is crucial to the future prospects of our economies.

We need to provide legal certainty for businesses and citizens, but also for our own security in order to effectively combat cross-border crime. I know there are some in this House who hold reservations about the adequacy decisions proposed by the Commission. Nevertheless, the fact remains that the United Kingdom's system is the most convergent to the EU's of any country in the world.

The rules in the UK and EU are identical in GDPR and the Law Enforcement Directive. The Commission also wisely introduced a sunset clause, which will allow us to continuously monitor UK law and practices.

So, I call on the United Kingdom Government to maintain its high level of protection of personal data, now and in the future, and I call on colleagues in this House not to erect unnecessary barriers that will severely impact businesses and people's livelihoods.

Paul Tang (S&D). – Voorzitter, dinsdag vierden wij de derde verjaardag van de algemene verordening gegevensbescherming. Een standaard voor de digitale wereld: een feestje waard. En precies twee weken geleden maakte Microsoft bekend persoonsgegevens van Europese burgers enkel nog in Europa op te slaan. Dit volgt de Schrems II-uitspraak van het Europese Hof. Het Hof concludeert terecht dat onze data in de VS niet voldoende beschermd worden. Laat dit een duidelijk signaal voor de Commissie zijn.

Hoewel het Verenigd Koninkrijk nog maar pas uit de EU is, geldt dat de Britten zich evengoed aan onze Europese principes moeten houden. Massasurveillance, een toezichthouder die bewust de advertentiesector de hand boven het hoofd houdt, misbruik van data over migranten, dit alles is niet te aanvaarden. Zolang en als de Commissie de persoonlijke data van Europeanen als bruidsschat ziet, stevenen we af op een ongelukkig langeafstandshuwelijk met de Verenigde Staten en met het Verenigd Koninkrijk.

Tomislav Sokol (PPE). – Poštovani predsjedavajući, povjereniče, kolegice i kolege, s pravom možemo kazati da je Europska unija svjetski predvodnik u zaštiti osobnih podataka.

Opća uredba o zaštiti osobnih podataka jamči našim građanima sigurnost u postupku njihovog tretiranja. Uredba predviđa i mogućnost prijenosa podataka s trećim državama temeljem odluke o primjerenosti, što je tema današnje rasprave. S obzirom na to da je Ujedinjena Kraljevina izlaskom iz Europske unije postala treća država, a kako bi se osigurala sigurna razmjena osobnih podataka, potrebno je da Europska komisija u komitološkom postupku donese odluku o primjerenosti.

Taj postupak odlučivanja ne uključuje Europski parlament, međutim to ne znači da bismo mi kao izabrani predstavnici građana trebali biti isključeni iz čitavog postupka. Zato pozdravljam današnju raspravu i tražimo da Europska komisija donese ovu odluku te iskoristi sve dostupne mehanizme kako bi osigurala da osobni podaci naših građana i u Ujedinjenoj Kraljevini budu tretirani u skladu s najvišim standardima pravne zaštite.

Ostavština članstva Ujedinjene Kraljevine je njezino iskustvo u primjeni europskih pravila o zaštiti osobnih podataka. Međutim, snažno pozivam Europsku komisiju da se ne ustručava staviti izvan snage ili pak suspendirati odluku o primjerenosti ako se pokaže da Ujedinjena Kraljevina više ne osigurava primjerenu razinu zaštite osobnih podataka naših građana.

Tu ne smije biti nikakvih iznimaka ili posebnih propusta. Mi u Europskom parlamentu nastavit ćemo kontinuirano nadzirati trendove zaštita osobnih podataka u trećim državama pa tako i Ujedinjenoj Kraljevini.

Katarina Barley (S&D). – Mr President, personal data is the global currency of our times. Gathering as much as possible makes companies powerful and wealthy. On the other hand, if your personal data is in the hands of someone, you tend to risk becoming an object, not only of advertisement, but of manipulation. This is why the European Union takes pride in its achievements made concerning the protection of personal data.

The EU has turned out to be a role model in the world, and we are not willing to allow new loopholes. And we have plenty of reasons for this. Let me just mention three. The UK grants wide-ranging data protection exemptions in the area of national security and immigration, which now also apply to EU citizens who wish to stay or settle in the UK. Current UK legislation allows mass data access without suspicion of a crime and mass data retention, which the ECJ has found to be incompatible with the rights enshrined in the GDPR; and the UK's agreements with the US open up the possibility of EU citizens' data being shared with the USA. It has been mentioned several times today.

We therefore urge the Commission and the UK authorities to address the issues highlighted in the resolution. No adequacy decisions should be taken without a clear plan on how to address the problems.

PRZEWODNICTWO: EWA KOPACZ

Wiceprzewodnicząca

Barbara Thaler (PPE). – Frau Präsidentin, sehr geehrter Herr Kommissar, liebe Frau Staatssekretärin, liebe Kolleginnen und Kollegen! Als Abgeordnete dieses Hauses und als langjährige Unternehmerin in der IT-Branche bin ich ehrlich gesagt wenig begeistert über die andauernde Nicht-Fisch-Nicht-Fleisch-Situation. Während wir in Europa nach innen die Einführung der Datenschutz-Grundverordnung mit viel Mühe und viel Kraft umgesetzt haben, brachen außerhalb der Europäischen Union die Rechtsgrundlagen weg. Das Safe Harbour-Abkommen wurde gekippt und vor einem Jahr dann auch noch die Nachfolgeregelung, das Privacy Shield. Übriggeblieben ist, dass unsere Unternehmen wieder die Risiken auf sich nehmen müssen und die potenziellen Grauschattierungen auf keine Farbkarte mehr passen. Zugleich weiß auch jeder Bürger, der selbst – zum Beispiel in einem kleinen Verein – ordnungsgemäß die DSGVO befolgt, dass seine Aktivitäten im Internet, seine persönlichen Daten außerhalb Europas von Geheimdiensten und Drittstaaten abgegriffen werden können. Max Schrems hat das nun zweimal erfolgreich aufgezeigt.

Ich erwarte mir, dass die Kommission bis 2024 nicht nur 82 Gesetzesvorschläge zur Dekarbonisierung des Verkehrswesens vorlegt, sondern in Bälde auch ein Abkommen, das unseren Unternehmen Rechtssicherheit bietet und die Daten von unseren Bürgerinnen und Bürgern nach außen genauso schützt wie innerhalb der Europäischen Union.

Bettina Vollath (S&D). – Frai Präsidentin! Max Schrems kämpft seit Jahren für Datenschutz. Er selbst kann hier nicht reden, also bin ich heute als Abgeordnete im besten Sinne sein Sprachrohr, und mit seiner Botschaft identifiziere ich mich auch zu hundert Prozent.

Zitat Max Schrems: ‘Danke an das EP für diese wichtige Resolution. Wir sehen, dass die DSVGO zu schwach durchgesetzt wird. Damit wird riskiert, dass dieser große Wurf des europäischen Gesetzgebers in der Praxis nicht gilt. Bei fast allen grenzüberschreitenden Verfahren haben wir auch nach drei Jahren keine Entscheidung. Behörden weisen Beschwerden reihenweise ohne Untersuchung ab. Die Grundrechte der BürgerInnen bestehen damit nur auf dem Papier, nicht aber in der Realität. Daher möchte ich heute betonen, dass Beschwerden von BürgerInnen umgehend untersucht und entschieden werden müssen. Am Ende gibt es aber wohl Behörden und Mitgliedstaaten, die einfach ihre Arbeit nicht tun. Da müssten dann Vertragsverletzungsverfahren greifen. Denn die DSVGO ist auch dank dem Europäischen Parlament geltendes europäisches Recht, das wir verteidigen müssen und werden.’

Danke, Max Schrems, für den Einsatz!

Pablo Arias Echeverría (PPE). – Señora presidenta, señor comisario, señora secretaria de Estado, todos conocemos lo que dice la sentencia Schrems II. No he venido aquí para comentar la actualidad; he venido para compartir tres mensajes muy claros sobre la importancia de proteger a nuestros ciudadanos y sus datos personales.

Primero, el ciudadano tiene que estar y sentirse protegido. Desde las instituciones, debemos garantizar la protección de sus datos, tanto dentro como fuera de nuestras fronteras.

Segundo, para ello necesitamos transparencia. Tenemos que saber qué, quién y para qué recopila y utiliza nuestros datos, independientemente de donde los utilicen.

Y tercero, quiero reivindicar que no podemos permitir que, dentro de unos años, los tribunales vuelvan a decirnos que los datos de los ciudadanos europeos no están suficientemente protegidos, tal y como plantea el RGPD.

Cualquier empresa es bienvenida en la Unión Europea, pero debe cumplir con nuestras normas y nuestro estilo de vida. Tenemos que reforzar la transparencia sobre el uso de nuestros datos para asegurarnos la confianza de los ciudadanos. De otro modo, no confiarán en el ámbito digital, y la Unión Europea no avanzará en la carrera digital global adecuadamente.

Michiel Hoogeveen (ECR). – Voorzitter, de brexit was een democratische beslissing. Maar voor een groot deel van dit Parlement is en blijft de brexit een onaanvaardbare realiteit. Vandaag spreken we over de goedkeuring van een regeling die doorgifte van persoonsgegevens tussen het Verenigd Koninkrijk en de EU mogelijk maakt. Normaal gesproken geen controversieel onderwerp. De Britten hebben tenslotte zeer hoge standaarden op het gebied van databescherming, vaak nog strikter dan de EU zelf, maar toch slaagt een aantal van mijn ambtsgenoten erin dit onderwerp te gebruiken om hun minachting voor het besluit van het VK te botvieren. Kinderachtige schoolpleinpolitiek. Voorzitter, democratie smaakt soms bitter, maar in een professionele en volwassen omgang met ongewenste uitkomsten toont zich de ware democraat. Daarin hebben sommigen in het Parlement nog een hoop te leren.

Didier Reynders, Member of the Commission. – Madam President, first of all I want to thank you for this debate and I also want to answer to the remarks about the fact that UK data protection law allows exemptions to the rights of individuals, and I will take maybe the example of immigration control.

In EU law, as in UK law, data protection rights just like many other fundamental rights are not absolute. They can be balanced against all the objectives of public interest. Article 23 of the GDPR allows EU Member States to introduce exceptions to the data protection rights if they are necessary and proportionate for important objectives of general public interest.

It is under that provision that the UK immigration exemption was introduced while the UK was still a Member State. Effective immigration control is an important objective of general interest. According to UK law, this exemption can be relied on, on a case-by-case basis, only if at a certain moment in time, the application of certain data protection provisions can prejudice, the maintenance of effective immigration control.

It is also important to recall that the scope of this exemption is limited to certain rights and obligations. For instance, the right to rectification is not a right which can be restricted under this exemption. Like any other provision of UK data protection law, the use of this exemption can be challenged by the concerned individuals before the Data Protection Authority and courts.

We have not limited our assessment of this exemption to what is written in the law. We have also looked at how it has been interpreted and applied. Both UK courts and the UK Data Protection Authority confirmed that this exemption is subject to the strict requirements of necessity and of proportionality, which prevent it to be used in a generalised or abusive manner. In particular, while the UK was still an EU Member State, the UK High Court assessed whether the immigration exemption was in line with the requirements of the GDPR and the charter, and it came to the conclusion that this is the case.

More specifically, the High Court concluded that the exemption can only be invoked in a specific case if otherwise there would be a very significant and ready chance of prejudice to the public interest at stake in this specific case. This is clearly a high standard developed by consolidated case law in the UK. It means in particular that a mere impact on immigration control is not sufficient to rely on the exemption. Moreover, the UK Data Protection Authority has assured detailed guidance for the use of the immigration exemption, making clear that it cannot be used in a blanket manner and that it must be carefully considered and the documented in each and every case.

It is difficult to understand why such a provision that has not been changed since the UK left the EU would now need to be considered as not meeting the test of essential equivalence. The UK authorities have also shared some figures on how these limitations on the use of this exemption are reflected in practice.

For example, the exemption was never applied in the context of the issuance of so-called settled status to more than 4 million EU citizens who were residing in the UK before the end of the transition period. When considering all immigration cases concerning European Economic Area citizens, the cases in which the exception was used in 2020 amount to 2.8 percent of such cases.

That doesn't mean that the situation can never change. We of course recognise the importance of this issue, that goes to the very heart of EU citizen rights when they travel to work or reside in the UK. And this is why following EDPB opinions and exchanges in the Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs (LIBE Committee), we have specifically strengthened the monitoring clause of our draft decisions in that respect.

The application of the immigration exemption and its impact on the effective exercise of individual rights in the UK is expressly identified as one of the areas that we will monitor very closely and an area where a lowering of protection would lead to launching the suspension or termination or amendment to our schedule.

Madame la Présidente, Mesdames et Messieurs les députés, je crois que nous avons vraiment tenu à vérifier non seulement la situation légale en Grande-Bretagne, mais aussi la manière dont ces textes sont interprétés et appliqués – je viens d'en donner un exemple.

Cependant, il ne fait aucun doute que les données personnelles des citoyens européens doivent être protégées de manière adéquate lorsqu'elles sont transférées en dehors de l'Union européenne. L'arrêt Schrems II de la Cour européenne de justice rappelle les défis auxquels nous sommes confrontés pour garantir la protection des droits fondamentaux dans un monde numérique interconnecté et sans frontières, où un transfert de données peut avoir lieu en un seul clic.

Les entreprises doivent pouvoir s'appuyer sur des mécanismes de transfert solides, juridiquement sûrs et prévisibles. C'est ce à quoi les entreprises européennes s'attendent à juste titre, car elles sont amenées à transférer des données non seulement vers le Royaume-Uni ou les États-Unis, mais également vers de nombreuses autres destinations dans le monde, dans le cadre de leurs opérations quotidiennes.

C'est en travaillant avec des partenaires internationaux ayant des approches similaires que l'Union peut être en mesure de façonner les règles du jeu au niveau global. Ceci est encore plus important lorsque d'autres acteurs internationaux avancent un agenda différent, basé sur des valeurs fondamentalement différentes des nôtres.

En ce qui concerne plus spécifiquement les décisions d'adéquation avec le Royaume-Uni, je pense que notre approche doit s'inspirer de celle suivie avec succès par mon ancien collègue, Michel Barnier, lors des négociations relatives au Brexit: à la fois calme et objective, préparée à tous les scénarios possibles et déterminée à défendre les valeurs et principes de l'Union avec la plus grande fermeté.

Ana Paula Zacarias, Presidente em exercício do Conselho. – Senhora Presidente, Senhor Comissário, agradeço as detalhadas informações que nos forneceu. Senhoras e Senhores Deputados, as vossas intervenções de hoje demonstram a convergência com o Conselho quanto à importância de haver normas rigorosas de proteção de dados quando se trata de transferir dados pessoais dos cidadãos da União Europeia para países ou territórios terceiros.

Por outro lado, mostram também a necessidade de continuar a permitir essas transferências, de forma segura, em especial para os nossos parceiros próximos, como os Estados Unidos ou o Reino Unido.

Tal como referi no início, o Conselho não faz formalmente parte do processo de decisão sobre estas decisões de adequação, mas atribui grande importância a estes instrumentos que são uma componente essencial do quadro jurídico que permite o fluxo de dados pessoais de e para os nossos parceiros, mantendo, simultaneamente, um elevado nível de proteção de dados para os nossos cidadãos.

No que diz respeito ao Reino Unido, em particular, é essencial sublinhar dois pontos: primeiro, a necessidade de uma solução dentro do prazo previsto pelo acordo de comércio e cooperação; segundo, a Comissão concluiu que o Reino Unido manteve a sua proteção alinhada com as regras da União Europeia e que serão implementadas medidas para fazer face a eventuais alterações do enquadramento legal no Reino Unido. Isto é importante para a salvaguarda dos direitos e interesses dos cidadãos e das empresas, mantendo um olhar vigilante sobre a implementação da legislação.

Przewodnicząca. – Zamykam debatę łączną.

Głosowania nad poprawkami odbędą się dzisiaj, tj. 20 maja 2021 r.

Jeśli chodzi o projekty rezolucji w sprawie Data Protection Commissioner przeciwko Facebook Ireland Limited, Maximillian Schrems (‘Schrems II’) - Sprawa C-311/18, głosowanie końcowe odbędzie się dzisiaj.

Jeśli chodzi o projekty rezolucji w sprawie odpowiedniej ochrony danych osobowych przez Zjednoczone Królestwo, odbędzie się ono jutro, tj. 21 maja 2021 r.

9.   Roma Equality, Inclusion and Participation (debate)

Przewodnicząca. – Kolejnym punktem porządku dziennego są oświadczenia Rady i Komisji w sprawie równouprawnienia, włączenia społecznego i udziału Romów (2021/2689(RSP)).

Ana Paula Zacarias, President-in-Office of the Council. – Madam President, I would like to thank honourable Members for this topic on the agenda.

The social exclusion of Roma is an injustice that we in the European Union have failed to address with sufficient determination. It's already a decade since the first EU framework for national integration strategies was put in place and, sadly, the results so far are disappointing. The figures are striking. As many as 63% of Roma aged between 20 and 64 have no employment, education or training. The corresponding EU average is 12%.

Allow me also to recall some of the facts cited in the resolution that this Parliament adopted in September last year. In countries with the largest population of Roma, about 80% of Roma live below the poverty line, one in three lives in a household without tap water and only half have an indoor flush toilet or a shower. Only one in two Roma children attend preschool or kindergarten and a mere fifth of Roma women and a quarter of Roma men have completed secondary education. These figures show that equality is not yet a reality in the EU and that life chances in our Union are not the same for all.

The situation of Europe's Roma is the legacy of long-term inequality, lack of opportunities, prejudice, outright racism and discrimination. Uniquely disadvantaged, the Roma community is trapped in intergenerational poverty and it is time to break the cycle of disadvantage. Our credibility as a just and fair union is at stake.

The social dimension is one of the three main priorities of the Portuguese Presidency. I firmly believe that social fairness belongs at the heart of everything the Union does, today more than ever, as we recover from the COVID pandemic and we grapple with the enormous challenges that the shifts associated with green and digital transitions produce. At a time of hardship and uncertainty, it is essential that all citizens can count on the European social model and the values that underpin it: solidarity, convergence and cohesion.

We have all suffered during the crisis, but for many Roma its effects were compounded with pre-existing inequalities, as your resolution once again usefully reminds us. On the broad principles and values that make our social model there is broad consensus in Europe. We saw this clearly two weeks ago in Oporto for the Porto Social Summit, a landmark event, which the European Parliament also strongly supported and contributed to. A vision of a just and inclusive recovery is now clearly enshrined in the Porto Social Commitment and the Porto Declaration, the essence of a common vision summed up in three headline targets on employment, training and poverty reduction. This was unanimously endorsed.

These three targets are crucially relevant for Roma. As we all know, the first ten-year campaign designed at EU level to improve the lives of Roma, ended last year. The Commission tabled new initiatives in the autumn. The Council wasted no time in responding. In March this year, the Member States adopted a new Council recommendation that seeks to give fresh momentum to their policies. The three pillars of the recommendation are echoed in the title of today's debate: equality, inclusion and participation.

To date, our efforts have focused largely on education, employment, healthcare and housing. The new framework will seek to strengthen this approach by increasing the emphasis on three other core objectives: first, fighting and preventing anti-gypsyism and discrimination; second, reducing poverty and exclusion so as to close the social economic gap; and, third, promoting active participation through the empowerment and trust of these communities.

The Member States have undertaken to present their new strategic framework to the Commission very soon, preferably by September this year. Meanwhile the Fundamental Rights Agency has been tasked with carrying out regular surveys every four years to ensure that we monitor progress objectively. It is true that Member States have the key competence and the main responsibility for ensuring the well-being of their citizens, including minorities, but the added value of cooperation, inspiration and mutual learning is real and the Union supports its Member States through relevant funds and programmes so we need to use them well.

To conclude, let's remember our ultimate priority: Europe's people. When we speak of Europe, we speak of a social Europe that puts the well-being of its citizens first, especially the ones that are left behind and more vulnerable.

Helena Dalli, Member of the Commission. – Madam President, respect for human dignity and equality are fundamental values of the EU. However, many Roma across Europe continue to face anti-Gypsism, discrimination and exclusion in their daily lives. Additionally, the COVID-19 pandemic has hit marginalised Roma communities particularly hard. Overcrowded households and a lack of access to healthcare, clean water or a regular income are just some of the factors that have increased their vulnerability to negative health impacts.

Additionally, the mid-term socio-economic impact of the pandemic has put Roma communities at risk of sliding even further into poverty and social exclusion. We have taken these lessons on board when designing the revised and strengthened EU Roma strategic framework for equality, inclusion and participation, which we adopted last October.

With this framework, we have set out a comprehensive three-pillar approach for the next 10 years. We will continue to work towards improving the inclusion of marginalised Roma communities, with the long-term aim of closing the socio-economic gap between Roma and non-Roma. At the same time, we are providing a stronger focus to promoting equality and stepping up the fight against racism, discrimination and expressions of anti-Gypsyism, and we will strengthen our efforts to promote participation through empowerment, cooperation and trust. We want to create the right conditions enabling all Roma to realise their full potential and engage in political, social, cultural and economic life. With the new EU-Roma strategic framework we are reaching out to all Roma regardless of their socio-economic status.

With this approach, we recognise that all Roma can experience discrimination, including those who do not suffer from economic deprivation. We are also giving a stronger focus to diversity among Roma because we want to ensure that national Roma strategic frameworks meet the specific needs of the different groups, including women, youth, children, EU mobile citizens, stateless persons, LGBTIQ persons, all the Roma and those living with disabilities.

We also acknowledge that inclusion is a two-way process. This is why the new strategic framework targets not just Roma, but society as a whole. In order to make the best possible use of existing tools, we promote the mainstreaming of Roma inclusion across all relevant policy areas and funding instruments. These range from policy initiatives such as the European Education Area, the Child Guarantee or the gender equality strategy to funding instruments including the ESF+, the Recovery and Resilience Facility or the InvestEU Programme. At the same time, the new initiative also includes targeted measures in order to make sure that the Roma have an effective equal access to rights and services.

Most importantly, we want to ensure that we achieve genuine results over the next 10 years. To be able to measure progress, we have defined seven objectives linked to the three pillars of equality, inclusion and participation. For each of these objectives we have defined quantitative targets and indicators that will allow effective monitoring and make the progress in implementation transparent and easily measurable for all actors.

The Commission will of course also monitor the implementation very closely and report on progress every two years, based on surveys from the Fundamental Rights Agency, Member States' implementation reports and coordinated civil society reporting.

I thank you very much for your attention and I am now looking forward to a constructive debate.

Peter Pollák, za skupinu PPE. – Pani predsedajúca, na jednej strane som rád, že dnes môžeme o tejto téme debatovať. Na druhej strane som naozaj frustrovaný z toho, že to skončí tak ako častokrát inokedy iba debatou bez rezolúcie.

Minulý rok Európska komisia prijala strategický desaťročný rámec, ktorý sa v súčasnosti národné štáty snažia pretransformovať do národných stratégií inklúzie Rómov na najbližšie desaťročie.

Predchádzajúcich 10 rokov ukázalo, že neustále debaty a prázdne ambície rómskym komunitám nepomohli.

Práve teraz, keď členské štáty tvoria vlastné stratégie, sme mohli zásadným spôsobom dať jasný odkaz, že situácia si vyžaduje nielen reči, ambície, ale reálne skutky. Som frustrovaný že opakovane hovorím, že máme v Európe milióny Rómov bez pitnej vody, bez kanalizácie, bez vzdelania, bez práce, žiaľ, aj bez záujmu politikov túto situáciu reálne riešiť.

Snažil som sa, vždy sa snažiť budem, aby tento parlament nielen o tejto téme debatoval, ale aj prijal reálne teda rezolúcie.

Mnohí politici v členských krajinách, žiaľ aj v tomto parlamente, majú plné ústa čo by chceli teda urobiť chudobným, pre chudobné rómske deti, no nakoniec sa zachovajú ako farizeji.

To vám naozaj, vážení socialisti, alebo vážení liberáli, zreniu nestáli rómske deti za rezolúciu, ktorých tu prijímame milióny, alebo teda niekoľko tisíc?

Je žiaduce očakávať, že ambiciózna Európa, ktorej záleží na zraniteľných, či teda postihnutých ľuďoch mimo európskeho priestoru, podá pomocnú ruku aj európskym Rómom.

Ak chceme naozaj zmeniť stav v rómskych komunitách musíme začať od seba a prejsť od ambícií k skutkom.

Juan Fernando López Aguilar, en nombre del Grupo S&D. – Señora presidenta, presidenta en ejercicio del Consejo, comisaria de Igualdad, este debate sacude nuestras conciencias ante la situación de buena parte de la minoría étnica y cultural más importante, más relevante, de Europa: la minoría romaní, doce millones de personas que forman parte integral de nuestra historia común.

La Recomendación del Consejo sobre la igualdad, la inclusión y la participación de la población gitana, adoptada el 12 de marzo, anima de nuevo a la puesta en marcha de marcos estratégicos nacionales que garanticen la igualdad y el combate contra la exclusión social y económica y el riesgo de pobreza que padece buena parte de esta población; que promuevan su inclusión, y particularmente de las personas más vulnerables: mujeres, infancia, juventud, personas discapacitadas…; que enfaticen la igualdad de oportunidades en el acceso a la educación, al aprendizaje permanente, a la educación de adultos, al empleo de calidad o a los servicios sanitarios, y, por supuesto, la igualdad de trato en la vivienda, para que la minoría no sea segregada de manera permanente, y en el acceso a los servicios esenciales.

Pero yo quiero darle importancia también a un mandato vinculante de adopción de legislación que comprometa a los Estados miembros: no solamente recomendaciones, no solamente un marco estratégico, sino una legislación vinculante. Este Parlamento incoó en su momento una Directiva de igualdad de trato, y esa legislación vinculante es la que ha refrendado el Parlamento Europeo en la Resolución de septiembre de 2020 que tiene como ponente a un distinguido miembro de la comunidad romaní de este Parlamento Europeo, Romeo Franz. Por tanto, Derecho, legislación europea en los Estados miembros y en el Parlamento Europeo.

Anna Júlia Donáth, a Renew képviselőcsoport nevében. – Elnök Asszony! Az Unió még mindig túl messze van. Ezt tapasztalom, amikor nap mint nap járom a településeket Magyarországon. Legutóbb Hajdúhadházán szembesültem ezzel, ahol a város fideszes polgármestere, Csáfordi Dénes embertelen módon, EU-s pénzt felhasználva, ráadásul felzárkóztatásra szánt EU-s pénzt felhasználva, lakoltatna ki tizenkét roma családot szociális bérlakásokból. Az Európai Unió időről időre újabb és újabb romastratégiát, illetve ajánlásokat fogad el azzal a céllal, hogy javítsa, javítsuk az európai, így a magyarországi cigányság helyzetét.

De vajon mit ér például a tavaly elfogadott európai roma keretstratégia, amikor tagállami kormányok és ellenérdekelt helyi vezetők könnyedén szabotálják a céljainkat. Ebben a vitában nem az a fontos, hogy milyen hatásköre van az EU-nak, a tagállamoknak, vagy a helyi önkormányzatoknak, hanem az, hogy mi történik például az említett tizenkét roma családdal. Ha sikerül is megakadályoznunk a kilakoltatást, és azt, hogy a bajba jutottaknak szánt európai forrásokat a rászorulók érdekeivel ellentétesen használják fel, felmerül a kérdés, hány Hajdúhadháza, és hány Csáfordi Dénes létezik még Európában, amiről nem is tudunk.

Az Unió addig messze lesz az emberektől, amíg az általunk meghatározott emberséges és igazságos célokat nem öntjük a tagállamokban kötelező jogi formába. Messze lesz, amíg a kormányzati végrehajtást az uniós intézmények alig ellenőrzik, teret engedve ezzel annak, hogy a kohéziós pénzekből a különbségek nemhogy csökkennek, de még nőnek is. Ezen kell változtatnunk, hogy ne kelljen roma családoknak attól rettegni, hogy a nekik szánt európai pénzekből lakoltatják ki őket.

Mara Bizzotto, a nome del gruppo ID. – Signor Presidente, onorevoli colleghi, basta soldi ai rom, basta buttare i soldi dei nostri cittadini per rom e sinti. Dal 2014 al 2020 l'Europa ha speso oltre 21 miliardi di euro in programmi per l'integrazione dei rom: una montagna di soldi sprecati per nulla in Italia.

L'integrazione dei rom sta praticamente a zero, perché sono loro che non vogliono integrarsi! Se non mi credete, venite in Italia a vedere come i rom non si sono integrati. Chiedete ai sindaci, ai carabinieri, alla polizia, ai cittadini che hanno la sfortuna di vivere vicino ai campi rom. Guardate le televisioni, leggete i giornali e ogni giorno troverete valanghe di notizie sui problemi causati dai nomadi.

E non permettetevi di dire che siamo razzisti, perché noi non lo siamo: stiamo dicendo soltanto cose vere e documentate, che accadono ogni giorno.

Cari burocrati europei: basta con questa follia! I miliardi che volete regalare ai rom vanno dati ai nostri cittadini, ai nostri disoccupati, alle famiglie italiane in difficoltà. Noi abbiamo il dovere di aiutare le imprese e i lavoratori italiani travolti dall'emergenza COVID e non i rom, tanto cari ai falsi buonisti della sinistra italiana ed europea.

Romeo Franz, on behalf of the Verts/ALE Group. – Madam President, in the last ten years, we have experienced the approach of soft policies and things have not changed for my Romani people. The Commission presents a new framework for the next ten years with almost the same content, but under a new title and supported by a Council recommendation. However, this will produce no significant change and the EU is losing credibility on the topic because of this continuous superficial approach.

Let me show you what value your recommendation has for whom, and we have a responsibility. This is a picture from ten years ago of Tinca, a marginalised Romani community in Romania, with children waiting, as you can see, for some food to keep them alive. This is another picture of the same Tinca as it is now. The situation is worse than ten years ago and the children are even bitten by rats in the middle of the night. This is the case for a million souls in Europe. These are European Romani citizens, but they are forgotten and not saved by this recommendation. Is their pain making you happy? Is this what you still want to see after another ten years of soft policies and recommendations? Really? Hey, this is an emergency, not a game.

The EU has already played a game with the lives of these kids. Please take it seriously and put an end to this senseless practice and soft policies. If you want to convince yourself, look at the evaluation of the Commission on the last framework. Even this is saying that the approach is not efficient. Make a law, exactly as the resolution of September 2020 of the European Parliament is calling on the Commission. This is the solution and this will make the EU credible.

Commissioner Dalli, please accept my deepest gratitude for all the support that you have given and shown to me and for my people until now. However, I look into your eyes and I'm telling you that you are a major source of hope for my people. You are my hope for making a Romani law real. This is the solution, not the soft policies. We are ready – I am ready – to support you even more to make change happen. So I am asking you: are you ready and willing to makes the law possible or are we going to play the same game for another ten years?

(Applause)

Joachim Stanisław Brudziński (ECR). – Pani Przewodnicząca! Szanowni Państwo! Ludność romska jest największą mniejszością etniczną w Europie. Szacuje się, że spośród 10-12 milionów Romów mieszkających w Europie około 6 milionów to obywatele lub prezydencji Unii Europejskiej. Romowie wciąż pozostają grupą zmarginalizowaną. Przyczyn tego zjawiska jest wiele, ale jednym z podstawowych jest niewątpliwie bariera wewnątrz-kulturowa. W Polsce Romowie zamieszkują od przeszło 700 lat . Mniejszość ta liczy około 20-25 tysięcy osób. Mój kraj od wielu lat prowadzi działania mające na celu wdrażanie strategii integracji Romów.

Jako były minister spraw wewnętrznych w rządzie Rzeczypospolitej Polskiej odpowiedzialny za mniejszości narodowe i etniczne z dumą mogę powiedzieć, że Polska o dekadę wyprzedziła Komisję Europejską, gdyż już w 2001 roku wdrożyliśmy program stabilnego finansowania i działań na rzecz integracji tej mniejszości. Obecnie wdrażany jest w Polsce kolejny wieloletni program integracji Romów na lata 2021-2030, obejmujący w szczególności edukację, ochronę zdrowia, kulturę, bezpieczeństwo, promowanie wiedzy i edukację obywatelską skierowaną do Romów. Nie ma jednak wątpliwości, że żaden z tych programów nie wypełni w całości postulatu pełnej integracji tej grupy. Dlaczego? Być może pytanie tkwi po stronie samej mniejszości romskiej.

Clare Daly, on behalf of The Left Group. – Madam President, I have to say I'm really sick of listening to talk about traveller and Roma inequality and exclusion and nothing changing, and my own country Ireland is an example of that. We are waiting for more than 10 years for a traveller health action policy and there still isn't one, despite the fact that traveller men have a life expectancy of 66 years – 15 years younger than their peers.

We have a Roma national and traveller national inclusion strategy, no clear implementation plan, no significant resources. We have a traveller education strategy – no sign of it happening. No action on housing – 15% of travellers homeless, many more in unsuitable accommodation and nothing is done.

But let's be honest about it. Racism is at the heart of the problem. It is one of the reasons why nothing is being done. And unless we tackle this, take action and invest resources then nothing will change.

Miroslav Radačovský (NI). – Pani predsedajúca, integrácia Rómov do spoločnosti bude úspešná len vtedy, pokiaľ sa na nej budú podieľať aj samotní Rómovia.

Nestačí len vzdelávanie Rómov, prípadne finančná pomoc. Rómovia musia cítiť, že sú rovnocennými občanmi Únie, rovnoprávnymi občanmi toho ktorého členského štátu, bez akéhokoľvek skrytého náznaku rasizmu, xenofóbie, čo žiaľbohu stále existuje.

Človek je len jeden. Koža je len obal. Len človek v dôstojnom postavení môže byť prínosom pri riešení problémov.

Rómovia nie sú Cigáni. Rómovia nie sú cigojner, Rómovia nie sú gitan, ani gypsies.

Sú národ, národnostná menšina, a majú jediné historické pomenovanie Róm, staré 3000 rokov.

Európska komisia sa musí dôrazne zasadiť za to, aby v každom štáte toto pomenovanie bolo ako historické pomenovanie kodifikované. Iné pomenovanie pre väčšinu Rómov je hanlivé, neúctivé. Uráža ich to a vylučuje zo spoločnosti.

A pokiaľ sa budú cítiť byť vylúčení zo spoločnosti, nebudú mať snahu podieľať sa na zlepšení svojho postavenia.

Loránt Vincze (PPE). – Madam President, this is a debate we should not have. The national Roma strategies should already have been adopted. Roma inclusion, equality and participation should already mean funding, programmes and some results. This is not yet the case unfortunately.

We learn from the shortcomings of the previous year Roma framework that delivering results for the Roma is largely dependent on the political will in the Member States. The reason the previous strategy had failed was not its content, but the lack of support from some Member States. The European Union must provide the necessary push, structure and coordination for Member States so that we can move away from the institutional and political inaction.

I agree with colleagues. We need more than the debate. We need more than a resolution even. A proper Roma legislative framework would be needed, that in the future would create certainty, predictability and career goals on this matter.

Roma integration strategies should not be conceived as isolated documents. The national Roma strategies are not independent from the national EU financing programmes, from the recovery plan or those from the Next Generation EU. On the contrary, country-specific recommendations and on the situation of Roma should be an integral part of the relevant horizontal, central and local policies.

Roma inclusion must make it to the top of national, social and economic agendas. I invite the Commission and the Council to act in this direction.

Evin Incir (S&D). – Madam President, Member States are supposed to submit their national Roma strategies by September this year. It is important to reflect already.

Let me give you an example of what is happening in one of our Member States, Hungary, a country with a significant number of marginalised Roma population in Europe. An only draft national strategy, seen by a civil society organisation that we in the Anti-Racism and Diversity Intergroup talked with, is not reflecting recommendations from the new EU framework. For example, the draft doesn't even mention anti-Gypsyism or discrimination or racism. There is no real consultation even with the independent Roma and pro-Roma organisations. No Roma is participating in the implementation in, for example, the Hungarian flagship programme ‘300 villages’. There is no transparent use of EU funds.

To conclude, it is high time we ensure that the financial support aimed at supporting the Roma communities goes to the communities, and is not being misused by some Member States for other purposes.

Dragoș Pîslaru (Renew). – Doamnă președintă, doamnă comisară Dalli, doamnă secretară de stat Zacarias, originea etnică stă la baza celei mai răspândite forme de discriminare în Uniunea Europeană.

Comunitățile de romi sunt cele mai expuse la prejudecăți și intoleranțe. Copiii din aceste comunități sunt parte a unui ciclu al dezavantajelor transmise din generație în generație, trăind în sărăcie, excluziune socială și discriminare.

Suntem foarte aproape să avem o garanție europeană pentru copii, instrument care vine să combată sărăcia în rândul copiilor din aceste familii defavorizate. Pentru a-și atinge scopul – așa cum Președinția portugheză a ajutat – Garanția trebuie să ajute și să ofere tuturor copiilor acces la servicii esențiale: la educație, la asistență medicală, la nutriție sănătoasă, la locuire adecvată.

Recomandările Consiliului și noul cadru strategic pentru egalitatea, incluziunea și participarea romilor sunt binevenite, însă trebuie să fim mai ambițioși, să avem obiective obligatorii și măsurabile, susținute de o legislație europeană care să ghideze incluziunea socială, participarea în comunitate și combaterea discriminării romilor.

Joachim Kuhs (ID). – Frau Präsidentin, Frau Ministerin, Frau Kommissarin, werte Kollegen! Roma und Sinti haben mich mein Leben lang begleitet. Seit rund dreißig Jahren bin ich mit gemeinnütziger Arbeit für Kinder in Rumänien engagiert. Besonders erinnere ich mich an die zehn Roma-Familien auf dem Müllberg von Arad. Unser Hilfsverein wollte für sie Wohnungen bauen. Leider scheiterte dies an der Stadtverwaltung. Zuletzt war ich im Rahmen der Donauraumstrategie mit der Förderung und Integration von Roma in den Donauländern verbunden.

Leider erinnere ich mich auch an die vielen insbesondere jungen Roma, die in unseren Städten als Bettler unterwegs sind und deren Anblick mir immer einen Stich ins Herz gibt. Oft begegnete ich den gleichen Kindern in den Fußgängerzonen in Freiburg, in Frankfurt, in Mannheim, in Stuttgart, und wenn mich der Eindruck nicht täuscht, habe ich sie auch hier schon in Brüssel gesehen. Diese Kinder gehören aber in die Schule. Sie erbetteln Geld für ihre Clans, die sich dann prächtige Häuser in Ungarn und Rumänien bauen. Diese Paläste habe ich mit eigenen Augen gesehen.

Was können wir tun? Zuerst verdienen diese Menschen unseren Respekt, nicht unser Mitleid. Sie brauchen Chancengleichheit, nicht unser Geld. Und die Roma müssen auch bereit sein, sich in die europäische Gesellschaft zu integrieren – wenn sie das nicht wollen, dann nützt alles nichts. Dann nur können wir es schaffen, die Roma zur gleichberechtigten Teilhabe in allen Bereichen zu ertüchtigen. Es gibt viel zu tun, packen wir es an!

Sylwia Spurek (Verts/ALE). – Pani Przewodnicząca! Romowie i Romki to najbardziej liczna mniejszość etniczna w Unii Europejskiej. Są mieszkańcami i mieszkankami Unii, a jednak w wielu państwach członkowskich wciąż odmawia im się fundamentalnych praw.

W Polsce przez dekady kolejne rządy nie zauważały społeczności romskiej, wolały nie widzieć wykluczenia, dyskryminacji, warunków, w jakich żyli i wciąż żyją. Tak było łatwiej, niż rozwiązywać problemy. Te lata zaniedbań uwypukliła pandemia, wiele dzieci romskich pozostało bez dostępu do edukacji. Zagrażające zdrowiu warunki bytowe na osiedlach romskich, np. brak bieżącej wody, teraz stały się zagrożeniem dla życia.

Szczególnie trudna jest sytuacja kobiet. Romnia, czyli w języku romani Romki, doświadczają dyskryminacji krzyżowej, mierzą się z utrudnionym dostępem do edukacji, ochrony zdrowia i zatrudnienia, z wykluczeniem w ramach swojej społeczności lub ze względu na bycie jej częścią. Dotyka je przemoc, także ta motywowana uprzedzeniami rasowymi.

Najnowsza strategia ramowa Komisji Europejskiej na rzecz równego traktowania Romów i Romek zawiera konkretne cele, tylko czy Komisja znowu nie poprzestanie na pięknych słowach i pustych obietnicach.

Ангел Джамбазки (ECR). – Госпожо председател, колеги, подходът Ви по този въпрос е тотално и напълно сбъркан. Говорите за права, права, права и права. Чудесно! Само че правата навсякъде и винаги трябва да ходят със задължения. Задължението да се учиш, задължението да работиш, задължението да си търсиш работа, задължението да не извършваш престъпления, да не обираш, да не ограбваш възрастни хора, задължението да не насилваш самотни възрастни жени. Когато имаш тези задължения, ти имаш и правата, разбира се. Обаче Вие непрекъснато акцентирате върху другата тема. Изляхте милиони, милиарди от парите на европейските данъкоплатци в ръчичките на крадливи фондации и организации, които за 10, 15, 20 години, декади и прочие щуротии, не направиха абсолютно нищо. Да ви кажа ли какъв е резултатът от тази работа. Ще Ви кажа. Само преди два дни в България, Нова Загора, жителите на махалата в Нова Загора нападнаха влак. Спряха го и го потрошиха с камъни за забавление. Влак, бе колеги, влак, за забавление. Виждали сте влак, нали? И камък вероятно сте виждали. Все едно тази случка я е описал Карл Май или Майн Рийд, но уви това е резултатът от Вашата работа 20-30 години, в 21-ви век. Срамота, уважаеми! Време е да си отворите очите, да си извадите главата от земята и да видите проблема такъв, какъвто е. Няма интеграция, която не е пожелана и не може да бъде пожелана. Задълженията преди правата!

Eugenia Rodríguez Palop (The Left). – Señora presidenta, frente al crecimiento de las políticas antigitanas y el racismo de la extrema derecha, es esencial la voluntad política y el compromiso democrático. La extrema derecha no solo odia al extranjero, odia al diferente, aunque no sea foráneo. Quieren imponer una Europa homogénea a su imagen y semejanza: pretenden ser el perfecto modelo europeo y no son más que una monstruosidad a la que nadie quiere parecerse.

En Europa, hay un antigitanismo estructural y otro instigado por el supremacismo de ciertas formaciones políticas y sus tentáculos: el resultado es que tenemos gitanos europeos, desde hace siglos, que siguen condenados a la pobreza, la falta de recursos y la criminalización.

Frente a este discurso psicópata, tenemos que defender la universalidad de los derechos y acabar con el apartheid de la población gitana: hay que articular políticas públicas con la participación activa de sus destinatarios, evitando el paternalismo y el clientelismo, políticas más transversales e interseccionales a las que hay que dotar de fondos.

Pedimos un compromiso serio para acabar con el supremacismo blanco y el racismo en Europa, liderado por la extrema derecha.

Przewodnicząca. – (zwracając się do posła Romea Franza) Informuję Pana Posła, że jeśli jest to wniosek formalny, to wnioski formalne składa się godzinę przed rozpoczęciem sesji. Jeśli jest to wniosek formalny, powinien był Pan go zgłosić godzinę przed rozpoczęciem sesji: takie są obowiązujące teraz reguły.

Delara Burkhardt (S&D). – Frau Präsidentin, liebe Kolleginnen und Kollegen! Die Pandemie trifft uns alle, aber sie trifft uns eben nicht alle gleich. Hunderttausend Roma standen in den letzten Wochen und Monaten unter extremem Druck und noch größeren Risiken. Es kam in mehreren europäischen Ländern zu rassistischen Übergriffen, unverhältnismäßigen Maßnahmen, wie beispielsweise der kompletten Abriegelung einiger Stadtteile oder Dörfer, in denen überwiegend Roma leben.

Warum der fehlende Zugang zu sauberem Wasser, Essen, medizinischer Vorsorge mitten in einer Pandemie fatal ist, muss ich hier – glaube ich – nicht erklären. Aber auch vor der Pandemie war der Handlungsdruck schon groß. Viele Roma erfahren strukturellen Rassismus, werden tagtäglich im Beruf, in der Ausbildung, auf dem Wohnungsmarkt und nicht zuletzt im Gesundheitssystem diskriminiert. Roma in ganz Europa haben ein Recht auf Gesundheit, Bildung und politische Teilhabe. Es braucht endlich rechtlich verbindliche Konsequenzen, wenn Mitgliedstaaten Ziele nicht umsetzen. Die Kommission muss hier in der Strategie nachlegen. Antiziganismus hat keinen Platz in Europa!

Maite Pagazaurtundúa (Renew). – Señora presidenta, yo creo que el discurso del señor Dzhambazki hay que analizarlo, porque es un ejemplo claro de lo que puede ser la creación de retóricas intolerantes, de retóricas de creación del odio. Y cuando las retóricas del odio se transmiten desde los lugares públicos, tienen muchísimo más efecto y mucho más pernicioso.

Hay una cosa que está clara: todos los seres humanos son y tienen la misma dignidad y no deben ser estigmatizados al nacer. Y el señor Dzhambazki lo que ha hecho es generalizar y estigmatizar a todo un colectivo por hechos supuestamente realizados, en su opinión, por todos los componentes de ese colectivo.

Esta es la primera gran cuestión: crear enemigos.

Y, vamos a ver: hay un círculo vicioso de las condiciones desfavorables y los estereotipos y la discriminación y los prejuicios, que lastran a personas generación tras generación. Usted, señor Dzhambazki, en un niño, no ve un niño: ve un enemigo.

Y tenemos que romper con esto. Esta es la cuestión fundamental: hay que romper con esto.

Cada ser humano tiene su dignidad; y si hay una persona que es delincuente, sea romaní o sea no romaní, pues la Justicia tendrá que determinarlo. Usted está categorizándolos a todos como delincuentes y esto es lo primero que en este Parlamento no podemos permitir.

Maria Grapini (S&D). – Doamnă președintă, stimați colegi, astăzi dezbatem un lucru pe care l-am mai dezbătut. Ce concluzie putem să tragem? Că discriminarea romilor, că lipsa de incluziune a lor, de fapt, doar se dezbate, dar nu avem măsuri concrete care să ducă la o finalitate.

S-a vorbit de banii cheltuiți – îmi pare rău că trebuie să spun – dar să știți că banii nu au ajuns de multe ori la romi, au ajuns la anumite asociații care i-au luat. Nu ați stabilit, doamnă comisar, și trebuie să stabilim niște indicatori de performanță. Ce fac cu acei bani? Au un rezultat de integrare a romilor? Și, cu tot respectul, cred că sunt mulți cetățeni discriminați.

Se vorbea aici că romii și copiii nu au apă caldă. Să știți că sunt mulți alți copii săraci care nu au apă caldă. Eu cred că Europa are nevoie de umanitate, de umanism, de solidaritate și acest lucru trebuie să-l facem nu prin vorbe, ci prin fapte și statele trebuie să fie solidare, să-și asume. Am văzut de nenumărate ori romi îmbarcați în avioane și trimiși în altă parte. De ce?

Avem o piață unică și ei sunt cetățeni europeni. Toți sunt cetățeni europeni din toate cele 27 de state, indiferent de etnie, și trebuie să-i respectăm. Oamenii trebuie să trăiască în demnitate, altfel facem de formă niște declarații care n-au niciun impact asupra cetățenilor.

Lívia Járóka (NI). – Elnök Asszony! Nagyon köszönöm a mai megszólalásokat, és a kritikák teljesen jogosak voltak az Európai Bizottság és a Tanács felé is. Az Európai Parlament 2010-ben javasolta azokat a döntéseket, amik most végre Portóban megszülettek. A tagállamoknak, Magyarországot követve, a szeptemberben beadandó Recovery Fund-os programoknál a romákat előtérbe kell helyezni. A diszkrimináció megszüntetése csak munkahellyel és oktatással történhet meg.

Európa legnagyobb vesztesei a Covid-járványnak mondhatjuk azt, hogy a szegények, és az ezt követő időszakban nagyon fontos gazdasági lépésekre van ahhoz szükség, hogy az európai romáknak ne csak a diszkriminációjuk szűnjön meg, hanem az integrációjuk, a gazdasági bekapcsolásuk az európai társadalomba végre megtörténhessék. Az európai romák több mint 800 éve tagjai az európai társadalomnak, a gazdasági integrációjukhoz és kultúrájukhoz hozzájárultak. Ennek mértékében kérem az Európai Tanácsot és az Európai Bizottságot, hogy jobb szakmai javaslatokkal támogassák a tagállamokat a romák integrációjában.

Przewodnicząca. – Zwracam się do wszystkich obecnych na sali, szczególnie tych Państwa, którzy chcieli zabrać głos. Informuję Państwa, że w związku z naszym procedowaniem w okresie pandemii nie mogą Państwo reagować i zabierać głosu ani składać wniosków formalnych. Powinno się to odbyć na godzinę przed rozpoczęciem posiedzenia, ale oczywiście rozumiem Państwa emocje, w związku z czym przekażę tę informację przewodniczącemu Parlamentu, bo tylko on może zmienić formę procedowania w okresie pandemii.

Helena Dalli, Member of the Commission. – Madam President, I sincerely thank honourable Members for this important debate, and I don't use the word ‘important’ loosely here because we are speaking about the realities of millions of Europeans. So thanks again for your contributions here.

In order to ensure the best possible implementation of the EU Roma strategic framework and make real progress towards Roma equality and inclusion at all levels of governance, we need to work together. The EU needs to join forces with Member States' regional and local authorities to achieve sustainable progress, and we must also involve all stakeholders in a spirit of genuine partnership. Above all, we must continue to reach out to Roma people themselves and create the right conditions, allowing them to engage fully in all stages of the policy process as well as in social, cultural and economic life.

It is good that Member States have demonstrated their commitment to address the challenges faced by Roma communities by taking on board our proposal and adopting the Council recommendation on Roma equality, inclusion and participation unanimously last March. This recommendation provides stronger guidance to Member States and sets out concrete measures that they should adopt in order to achieve equality, inclusion and participation of Roma. In addition to addressing the sectoral policy areas of education, employment, health and housing, which remain relevant, the recommendation covers measures focusing on equality and non-discrimination, stronger partnership and institutional capacity, better use of funds and reinforced monitoring. So, as a next step, Member States are now defining their national measures. They should submit their Roma strategic frameworks by September and report on implementation every two years.

I underline once more that we have taken to heart the lessons learned from our past experience and designed a comprehensive strategic framework to foster Roma equality, inclusion and participation. I am personally convinced that, by genuine commitment and unity on this issue, we can make this initiative a success. I therefore call on all of us – all of us – to contribute and help make a real difference for Roma people in Europe.

Ana Paula Zacarias, Presidente em exercício do Conselho. – Senhora Presidente, Senhora Comissária, Senhoras e Senhores Deputados, fica claro neste debate que as populações ciganas são as populações mais vulneráveis e discriminadas no nosso espaço comum e que temos que fazer mais para reverter esta situação.

A recente recomendação do Conselho, adotada já durante a Presidência portuguesa, aposta na complementaridade das políticas europeias nacionais e locais, como referiu a Senhora Comissária, no combate a este processo secular de exclusão social e de discriminação da maioria das populações europeias de origem cigana.

A recomendação oferece orientações para o desenho, a implementação e a monitorização de uma nova geração de estratégias nacionais que promovam a efetiva inclusão destas populações, como consagrado nos Tratados, nos princípios do Pilar Europeu dos Direitos Sociais e no seu novo plano de ação.

Mas integração não significa perda de identidade. Integração é poder ser diferente, mas usufruir dos mesmos direitos, das mesmas oportunidades, da mesma dignidade e, neste sentido, foi muito importante e muito inspirador para mim a conferência que acabámos de organizar em Portugal, a nível europeu, chamada Working Together for Roma Rights, na qual tivemos o prazer de ouvir organizações da sociedade civil, académicos, políticos, incluindo membros deste Parlamento.

Temos, aliás, mantido um contacto bastante estreito com os deputados membros do Intergrupo ARDI, ao longo da nossa Presidência, em diversos contextos, procurando valorizar o seu contributo na defesa da diversidade, na não discriminação e na promoção de uma verdadeira inclusão social das comunidades ciganas.

Nessa conferência, ouvimos também distintos quadros da comunidade cigana, incluindo estudantes e académicos, que estão na vanguarda dessa luta pela igualdade, pela participação, pela inclusão, pela participação cívica. Eles são a voz de uma comunidade que a História tem maltratado e marginalizado, mas são também o rosto de um enorme potencial de construção de uma sociedade europeia inclusiva, plural, desenvolvida, que rejeita o anticiganismo.

As populações ciganas da Europa não são estrangeiras, são europeias. Têm as mesmas aspirações e o mesmo potencial que todos nós. Cabe-nos assegurar que elas possam ajudar a definir as políticas que lhes dizem respeito, impulsionar a economia, melhorar a sociedade europeia no seu conjunto, aumentando a sua representação nos processos de decisão, incluindo a nível político, mas só assim, sem dúvida, só assim poderemos avançar e ter resultados concretos, como foi dito na Cimeira do Porto.

Przewodnicząca. – Zamykam debatę.

Oświadczenia pisemne (art. 171)

Ioan-Rareș Bogdan (PPE), în scris. – Romii sunt cea mai numeroasă comunitate etnică din Europa. Se estimează că pe continentul nostru trăiesc 10-12 milioane de romi, dintre care aproximativ 6 milioane sunt cetățeni sau rezidenți ai UE. În ciuda numeroaselor acțiuni întreprinse în sensul combaterii discriminării, mulți reprezentanți ai acestei comunități sunt încă victime ale prejudecaților și excluziunii sociale. Cifrele indică faptul că un procent semnificativ dintre romi trăiesc sub pragul sărăciei, multe gospodării sunt fără apă sau nu au toaletă interioară sau un duș.

Trebuie să ne concentrăm toate eforturile pentru a duce la îndeplinire trei ținte extrem de importante: ocuparea forței de muncă, formarea profesională și reducerea sărăciei în rândul comunității rome. Când ne gândim la Europa, ne gândim la o Europă care pune accent pe bunăstarea cetățenilor săi în primul rând. UE are datoria să își protejeze minoritățile împotriva rasismului și discriminării și de aceea susțin orice demers în care cetățenii romi și comunitățile de romi pot avea șanse egale în toate sferele vieții, pot beneficia de incluziune socioeconomică și pot participa în mod egal în societate.

10.   Debates on cases of breaches of human rights, democracy and the rule of law (debate)

10.1.   Prisoners of war in the aftermath of the most recent conflict between Armenia and Azerbaijan

Przewodnicząca. – Kolejnym punktem porządku dziennego jest debata nad sześcioma projektami rezolucji w sprawie jeńców wojennych pojmanych w czasie ostatniego konfliktu między Armenią i Azerbejdżanem (2021/2693(RSP)) (*1).

Andrey Kovatchev, author. – Madam President, the main aim of this urgency is to strongly demand an immediate and unconditional release of all Armenian prisoners – military and civilian – detained during and after the most recent war from last year between Azerbaijan and Armenia. Baku has to refrain from any arbitrary detentions in the future and to fully implement the Tripartite Ceasefire Statement, which foresees an exchange of prisoners of war, hostages and all other detainees, as well as the remains of fatalities.

Despite the various definitions Azerbaijan uses for these people – calling them criminals or terrorists – they are all protected by the Geneva Conventions and international humanitarian law and should be returned to their families. Azerbaijan should assist the European Court of Human Rights by providing it with reliable information on the detainees and their well-being. It should refrain from any mistreatment or humiliation of these people. Independent and effective investigations have to be carried out of all credible allegations of grave breaches of the Geneva Conventions and other violations of international law and war crimes.

Baku should also close down the so-called ‘Trophy Park’, which exhibits degrading and dehumanising wax figures of Armenian soldiers, and which further intensifies long-lasting hostilities and undermines the trust between the two countries.

I would like to make reminder that the European Parliament has always tried to be as objective as possible. If we had reliable information that there were currently any Azerbaijani citizens in Armenian custody, we would be demanding the same things from Yerevan: immediate and unconditional release. Every human life is precious and has to be preserved.

Very soon this House will discuss the country reports on Armenia and Azerbaijan. We are going to evaluate if our demands of today have been fulfilled and then, accordingly, the texts of the future reports will be adopted.

Isabel Santos, Autora. – Senhora Presidente, o conflito entre a Arménia e o Azerbaijão transformou a relação entre estes dois países desde 1988 e continua a causar sofrimento às populações. Na sequência da escalada do conflito no final do ano passado, que causou a morte a mais de cinco mil soldados em apenas 44 dias e um número incontável de pessoas que ficaram feridas ou tiveram de se deslocar dos seus locais de habitação, muitos outros foram tomados como prisioneiros de guerra e é sobre esta questão que esta resolução de urgência se pronuncia.

Na declaração tripartida de cessar-fogo entre os países, acordaram em realizar trocas de prisioneiros de guerra, reféns e outros detidos, bem como os restos mortais das vítimas, segundo um princípio de todos por todos. É, por isso, inaceitável que até hoje alguns prisioneiros arménios continuem detidos no Azerbaijão e que nos continuem a chegar relatos de tortura e tratamento degradante dos detidos numa clara violação da Convenção de Genebra.

Apelamos, por isso, à libertação imediata e incondicional de todos os prisioneiros e à completa implementação do acordo de cessar-fogo.

É fundamental que ambas as partes abandonem a retórica hostil e retomem rapidamente o diálogo político de alto nível, sob a direção dos Copresidentes do Grupo de Minsk. Só através de uma solução política negociada, respeitadora dos princípios básicos da OSCE, será possível determinar o futuro da região, de uma forma pacífica, duradoura e sustentável.

Petras Auštrevičius, author. – Madam President, regrettably, conflicts and war in the South Caucasus are leading the way against dialogue, cooperation and peace. The most recent autumn war between Armenia and Azerbaijan is a tragedy resulting in grave suffering for both nations.

Everything possible must be done to move from conflict to peaceful coexistence. Release of prisoners of war, hostages and other detainees is a way forward. No matter how many prisoners of war remain, human life is sacred. International commitments to the safety, health and dignity of prisoners must be upheld.

One of the consequences of the conflict is the deployment of the so-called Russian peacekeepers to Nagorno-Karabakh, which raises another equally worrisome security concern. Russia's presence might turn into a long-term process.

The European Union was a passive observer of the conflict and did not use its influence to prevent it. The European Union must initiate and actively participate in the peace process and help its highly valued eastern partners, Armenia and Azerbaijan, to meet the needs of their people, which include: confidence building, cooperation and a lasting peace.

Viola Von Cramon-Taubadel, author. – Madam President, war is ugly and unjust. Thousands of killed soldiers from Armenia and Azerbaijan and many more displaced civilians – that is the price of what President Aliyev calls an unprecedented victory.

Mr President Aliyev, nothing suits a true winner more than humility to extend a helping hand to its defeated enemy, not only because it is morally correct but also it is strategically wise. True winners know that dehumanising the enemy in trophy parks and crossing the border only extends the vicious circles of violence. True winners know that indoctrinating your children with hate only maintains war and that short-sighted revanche will never lead into solid peace. And they also know that unjust done to displace Azeris can never justify similar unjust against Armenians. So, true winners know that every human life counts, no matter of which ethnicity.

President Aliyev, there was once a long-standing friendship between Armenians and Azeris, so you have a chance now to be a true winner, embrace your defeated enemy and turn them into loyal friends again, because if Nagorno-Karabakh is Azerbaijani – and it is – you are responsible for all the well-being of all of its inhabitants.

Pernando Barrena Arza, author. – Madam President, the attack against Nagorno-Karabakh by the Azeri Government ended up on an agreement between the parties that has not been respected by Azerbaijan. Around 200 Armenians are still held in captivity by Azerbaijan and these prisoners of war are being mistreated by the Azeri military and there are allegations that prisoners have been subjected to extra-judicial killings or enforced disappearances that constitute war crimes.

It's time for this Parliament to demand from Azerbaijan the immediate and unconditional release of all Armenian prisoners detained during and after the conflict, full implementation of the ceasefire agreement and to refrain from further military intrusion in Armenian territory.

As the joint motion for a resolution states, a long-standing political negotiated solution based on the principles of non-use of force, territorial integrity and the equal rights and self-determination of peoples, is crucial to determine the future status of Artsakh.

A comprehensive political solution will be needed. But meanwhile, we have to expose the Turkish-Azeri aggression against Armenia and Nagorno-Karabakh.

Charlie Weimers, author. – Madam President, the acting OSCE Chair and Swedish Foreign Minister, Ann Linde, has called for ‘the sides to urgently complete exchange of detainees’. Sides? How many Azerbaijani prisoners of war does Armenia have yet to return? Minister Linde, there is only one side in this conflict that completely disregards international humanitarian law, and that is Azerbaijan.

Ann Linde, as a Foreign Minister and acting OSCE Chair, I ask you, as co-author of this resolution of the European Parliament, to heed this resolution and to call upon Azerbaijan to immediately and unconditionally release all Armenian prisoners – both military and civilian – detained during and after the conflict. Diplomacy is no excuse to conceal the truth.

Tom Vandenkendelaere, namens de PPE-Fractie. – Voorzitter, het conflict rond Nagorno-Karabach sleept al veel te lang aan en blijft ook vandaag een grote zorg voor ons, de Europese Unie, in het bijzonder met betrekking tot de terugkeer van de krijgsgevangenen nadat de wapenstilstand werd bereikt. Er blijft heel veel onduidelijkheid over het lot van de Armeense krijgsgevangenen en vooral grote misnoegdheid over de manier waarop de Azerbeidzjaanse autoriteiten optreden.

Laat me duidelijk zijn: Armeense krijgsgevangenen mogen niet als criminelen worden bestempeld om zich zo te kunnen onttrekken aan het internationaal recht. Zowel Azerbeidzjan als Armenië zijn partners in ons oostelijk nabuurschapsbeleid, maar dit kader biedt helaas niet meteen nuttige hefbomen om de nodige druk te kunnen uitoefenen op Azerbeidzjan.

Toch kan de EU zich niet onbetuigd laten door des te meer in te zetten op actieve en maximale ondersteuning van de Minskgroep die hier in het kader van de OVSE wel effectief kan wegen en die door het Franse covoorzitterschap extra gevoelig moet zijn voor de impact van de EU. Ik roep daarom de Europese Dienst voor extern optreden op om zoveel als kan aan de inspanningen van de Minskgroep bij te dragen en zo een snelle en toereikende deblokkering van deze onaanvaardbare situatie te bewerkstelligen.

Marina Kaljurand, on behalf of the S&D Group. – Madam President, war is never a good solution. It might bring a short-term victory, but it also brings unnecessary deaths and suffering, and it takes time to heal wounds. Let me focus on three very urgent issues in this context.

First, the need to release all Armenian prisoners of war and other detainees. I urge Azerbaijan to fulfil its international obligations, including the ceasefire agreement and the ruling of the European Court of Human Rights, which has granted interim measures with respect to more than 200 Armenian individuals.

Second, the inflammatory rhetoric and spreading of hatred needs to stop. The Military Trophy Park in Baku is the most serious example of it. It humiliates and dehumanises Armenians, glorifies violence and teaches the wrong lessons to Azerbaijani kids. It has to be removed.

Third, the border incident and ongoing crisis at the southern interstate border are deeply worrying. I urge Azerbaijan to withdraw and start proper border negotiations with Armenia. Removing these obstacles will bring closer the much-awaited peace and reconciliation to the people of Armenia and Azerbaijan.

Ilhan Kyuchyuk, on behalf of the Renew Group. – Madam President, for a long time Azerbaijan and Armenia have been locked in the Nagorno-Karabakh territorial conflict that led to the loss of lives, including the civilian population, internally displaced people and many sufferings from the both sides.

The European Parliament has always stood for the respect of the sovereignty and territorial integrity and I welcome the agreement from November 2020 on a complete ceasefire in Nagorno-Karabakh. Despite the fact that the changes to the status quo were made through military force rather than peaceful negotiations, we have to admit that Azerbaijan acted exclusively within its internationally recognised borders.

I hope that this agreement will open now a brighter perspective for a peaceful settlement and good neighbourly relations in the future. However, recent developments show us that the confrontation is far from over. Therefore, I urge the European Union to play an active and important role in this conflict.

Silvia Sardone, a nome del gruppo ID. – Signora Presidente, onorevoli colleghi, è una vergogna che l'Europa non alzi la voce contro la pulizia etnica e religiosa che sta subendo l'Armenia cristiana, sotto i colpi dell'islamismo di Azerbaigian e Turchia.

Circa duecento soldati armeni sequestrati e non riconsegnati; anziani torturati; migliaia di case devastate; decine di chiese demolite e profanate; migliaia di lapidi e tombe distrutte. I crimini contro l'umanità, con mutilazioni e decapitazioni di soldati e civili, e la distruzione sistematica dei monumenti cristiani attestano il fanatismo degli aggressori. Il leader dell'Azerbaigian ha realizzato un'impresa macabra che nessuno aveva mai tentato prima di lui: ha istituito il Parco dei trofei, un vero e proprio museo ufficiale dell'odio, con gli elmetti dei soldati armeni uccisi e manichini in cera.

Fa male che oggi in Europa si parli più di islamofobia che di cristiani perseguitati. Dispiace vedere le istituzioni europee piegarsi ad Erdoğan, che ancora non riconosce il genocidio armeno, senza contare che ha usato questa guerra per mostrare la propria forza.

L'Europa è avvisata: il silenzio su cosa sta avvenendo in quelle terre è l'ennesimo segnale di una sottomissione sempre più evidente. È una vergogna il silenzio sul patrimonio culturale e religioso distrutto e sulla civiltà europea calpestata.

Jordi Solé, on behalf of the Verts/ALE Group. – Madam President, six months after the ceasefire the situation on the ground remains fragile – as the recent incursion of the Azeri army into Armenian territory shows. The issue of the status of Nagorno-Karabakh is far from being settled.

War is being glorified and hatred against Armenians incited in the so-called Trophy Park, and the government of Azerbaijan refuses to comply with international obligations and is unlawfully keeping prisoners of war and civilian captives. All Armenian prisoners – military or civilian – detained during or after the conflict have to be immediately and unconditionally released.

The security of the Armenian population in Nagorno-Karabakh has to be ensured by all means, and their cultural heritage protected. The final status of Artsakh cannot be imposed by force of arms. There has to be a political solution that takes into account the democratic will of the population living there.

At the time of the ceasefire the EU was simply absent. Now it's time for us to engage in the peace process in order to bring about stabilisation, reconciliation and a fair settlement.

VORSITZ: KATARINA BARLEY

Vizepräsidentin

Ryszard Czarnecki, w imieniu grupy ECR. – Pani Przewodnicząca! Pani Komisarz! Szanowni Państwo! Byłem kilkanaście razy w obu tych krajach, a w sumie w górach południowego Kaukazu przeszło 20 razy, więc moja wiedza nie ma charakteru akademickiego. Znam tych ludzi, znam te kraje, znam ich specyfikę, znam ich historię. Przestrzegałbym przed takimi bardzo łatwymi, uproszczonymi sądami i ocenami, które nam, ludziom szeroko rozumianego Zachodu, przychodzą czasem tak bezrefleksyjnie. Chciałem powiedzieć, że jesteśmy politykami w tej Izbie, chociaż być może wielu z nas chciało być ombudsmenami, rzecznikami praw człowieka. Powinniśmy wybrać kontekst geopolityczny: co jest dobre dla Rosji? Dla Rosji jest dobre wpychanie tych krajów w rosyjską strefę wpływów i przed tym bardzo przestrzegam.

Kateřina Konečná, za skupinu The Left. – Paní předsedající, paní komisařko, výměna válečných zajatců je velmi podstatnou součástí nacházení mírového soužití mezi dvěma znepřátelenými stranami. Navozuje pocit důvěry a je aktem naděje, že silová válečná řešení nejsou rozumnou cestou mezi civilizovanými státy. Není tedy za žádných okolností možné zastávat se strany, která dohody o výměně zajatců buď odmítá, nebo je neplní. Jedná se o chybu diplomatickou, politickou a primárně lidskou. Neochota participace na těchto výměnách dává signál, že pro minimálně jednu stranu není konflikt ukončen a může se tedy v brzké době znovu rozhořet. A to není přijatelné.

Stejně tak je nutné se postavit proti tomu, aby státy válečné zajatce odmítaly nahlásit, a tedy je tajily. Takovéto praktiky jsou nešťastné a zavrženíhodné. Domnívám se, že po krvavých lekcích z dob minulých by všichni měli dodržovat lidské principy, a solidarita demonstrovaná výměnou válečných zajatců mezi ně určitě patří.

François-Xavier Bellamy (PPE). – Madame la Présidente, mes chers collègues, nous avons enfin réussi à mettre à l'ordre du jour cette urgence humanitaire absolue: la situation des prisonniers de guerre arméniens toujours détenus en Azerbaïdjan, au mépris des conventions de Genève, au mépris du droit international, au mépris même de l'accord de cessez-le-feu.

L'Arménie a libéré tous ses prisonniers. Aliyev garde des otages en prétextant qu'il s'agirait de terroristes; mais les seuls terroristes dans l'affaire sont ceux que M. Erdoğan a financés pour attaquer le Karabakh, les mercenaires djihadistes qu'il a fait venir de Syrie. Combien de prisonniers sont encore séquestrés par l'Azerbaïdjan? Il refuse de le dire.

Aujourd'hui même, en Arménie, des centaines de familles vivent dans l'angoisse absolue de ne pas savoir si leurs fils sont morts ou prisonniers, victimes de nombreux cas de tortures qui ont été documentés. L'Arménie a saisi la CEDH sur le cas de 19 prisonniers exécutés en détention: Micha, Narek, Yourik, Yelena… C'est d'eux que nous devons être la voix. Ces derniers jours, nous avons tous reçu un flot de menaces et de mensonges alternés, mais nous ne nous tairons pas.

Aliyev parle de paix et de respect, mais comment le croire quand il viole aujourd'hui encore la frontière de l'Arménie? Aucune raison, aucun désaccord, aucune diplomatie ne peuvent excuser que soient violés les droits les plus fondamentaux. Les prisonniers de guerre arméniens doivent être libérés sans délai.

Klemen Grošelj (Renew). – Gospa predsednica! Pravzaprav je zadeva preprosta. Mednarodno humanitarno in vojno pravo predvideva, da po koncu sovražnosti vse sprte strani omogočijo izmenjavo oziroma vrnitev, repatriacijo zadržanih oseb oziroma vojnih ujetnikov.

Tako mednarodno pravo pravzaprav predvideva tudi instrument, ki bo to omogočil, to je Mednarodni odbor Rdečega križa, ki naj bi vodil evidence pridržanih oseb oziroma vojnih ujetnikov in njihovo repatriacijo.

Azerbajdžan lahko uporablja katere koli izgovore, ki jih sicer želi, a edina pot, ki mu bo omogočila, da potrdi svojo pripadnost mednarodni skupnosti in zavezanosti k mirnemu reševanju spora v Gorskem Karabahu, je, da omogoči mednarodnemu Rdečemu križu neodvisno in odkrito evidentiranje vseh zadržanih Armencev v njihovih zaporih in skupaj z mednarodnim Rdečim križem omogoči njihovo brezpogojno in takojšnjo vrnitev oziroma repatriacijo v Armenijo.

Vse druge poti vodijo v nadaljevanje in poglabljanje konflikta.

Tomasz Piotr Poręba (ECR). – Pani Przewodnicząca! Mówimy dziś o poważnym problemie, jakim jest przestrzeganie prawa międzynarodowego oraz litery ustaleń zawieszenia broni między Armenią i Azerbejdżanem, i w moim przekonaniu tylko to powinno być tematem naszej rezolucji, bo nie ulega wątpliwości, że do rozwiązania kwestii wymiany jeńców powinno dojść jak najszybciej i ta kwestia powinna zostać jak najszybciej rozwiązana.

Pamiętajmy, że ostatniej wojnie towarzyszyła olbrzymia akcja dezinformacyjna na niespotykaną skalę, dlatego też bez bardzo wnikliwego śledztwa, sprawdzenia stawianych zarzutów nie będziemy mieć nigdy pewności, że przedstawione przez nas fakty są całkowicie zgodne z prawdą. Zupełnie też nie rozumiem, dlaczego rezolucja zawiera tak wiele dodatkowych elementów wykraczających poza jej temat. Nie powinniśmy na przykład wchodzić w kwestie przyszłego uregulowania statusu Górskiego Karabachu czy ewentualnej roli Unii Europejskiej w tym zakresie. Jednocześnie w rezolucji brakuje chociażby informacji o czterech żołnierzach azerskich postawionych w stan oskarżenia przez azerskie władze za łamanie praw człowieka.

W moim przekonaniu ta rezolucja nie daje możliwości na spokojną, rzeczową rozmowę z władzami Azerbejdżanu i rozwiązanie problemu, dlatego zarówno ja, jak i moi koledzy będziemy głosować przeciw.

Lars Patrick Berg (NI). – Frau Präsidentin, Frau Kommissarin! Am 19. März berichtete Human Rights Watch über die Misshandlung von armenischen Kriegsgefangenen durch die aserbaidschanischen Behörden. Human Rights Watch wies auch auf das Versäumnis Aserbaidschans hin, die im Friedensvertrag enthaltenen Vereinbarungen zu befolgen, und darauf, dass die noch in Gefangenschaft befindlichen Armenier als Terrorismusverdächtige bezeichnet werden. Der Europäische Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte hat darauf hingewiesen, dass Aserbaidschan seinen internationalen Verpflichtungen leider nicht nachkommt. Ich bin der festen Überzeugung, dass es diesem Haus obliegt, jetzt zu prüfen, welche Maßnahmen erforderlich sind, um derartige Vorkommnisse zukünftig schnell und konsequent zu lösen.

Ein Staat, der so eklatant gegen internationale Abkommen verstößt und so leichtfertig Menschenrechtsverletzungen begeht, begibt sich ins Abseits. Präsident Alijew kann nun zeigen, dass er ein Staatsmann ist, ein wirklicher Staatsmann, ein Staatsmann, der die armenischen Kriegsgefangenen und die als Terroristen bezeichneten Gefangenen umgehend freilässt.

Peter van Dalen (PPE). – Voorzitter, onze boodschap vandaag is heel eenvoudig. Azerbeidzjan moet alle Armeense krijgsgevangenen, civiel en militair, onvoorwaardelijk en direct vrijlaten, punt uit! En verder moet Azerbeidzjan dat walgelijke zogenaamde park van de militaire trofeeën in Bakoe ogenblikkelijk sluiten. Over de ruggen van Armeense krijgsgevangenen en soldaten heen wordt hier een vernederende tentoonstelling getoond en het is walgelijk. Dat moet gestopt worden, dat park moet dicht. Voorzitter, ik ben wel blij dat we nu eindelijk vandaag dit debat hebben met een resolutie, want we staan naast het volk van Armenië. De Europese Unie mag niet wegkijken van het onrecht dat de Armeniërs werd en wordt aangedaan.

Clara Ponsatí Obiols (NI). – Madam President, the people of Nagorno-Karabakh have the fundamental right to peacefully and democratically decide their future. Resolving border problems between neighbours violently doesn't work. The ceasefire agreement of November 2020 must be respected, and it is urgent that Azerbaijan abide by the Geneva Convention and that the Armenian prisoners of war are liberated.

The EU cannot continue to sit and watch. We must get involved to help construct a lasting solution for the region. The recognition of the Armenian genocide of 1915 is a necessary first step, and it is equally indispensable that Member States like Spain – that actively opposed sanctions on Turkey last autumn – stop supporting Erdoğan's strategy of conflict for his benefit. If Europe wants to promote peaceful and democratic solutions rather than conflict, European support for Turkey must end.

Στέλιος Κυμπουρόπουλος (PPE). – Κυρία Πρόεδρε, κύριοι συνάδελφοι, κατά τη διάρκεια του 2020, με ευθύνη του Αζερμπαϊτζάν, εγκαταλείφθηκε ο διάλογος που διεξαγόταν από την Ομάδα του Μινσκ για την ειρηνική διευθέτηση του ζητήματος στο Ναγκόρνο Καραμπάχ. Η αναζωπύρωση αυτή σημαδεύτηκε κατά τη διάρκεια των εχθροπραξιών από εκτεταμένη χρήση βίας με θύματα πολλούς αμάχους και από την παρουσία ακραίων ισλαμιστών μισθοφόρων που στάλθηκαν με βοήθεια της Τουρκίας. Ο τερματισμός των εχθροπραξιών συνοδεύτηκε, όμως, από την ταπείνωση των Αρμενίων αιχμαλώτων πολέμου και τη δημιουργία εμποδίων στην επιστροφή τους, αλλά και από την καταστροφή πολιτιστικών και θρησκευτικών αρμενικών μνημείων στις υπό αζέρικη κατοχή περιοχές.

Η Ευρωπαϊκή Ένωση υπήρξε δυστυχώς απολύτως ανέτοιμη στην αντίδρασή της στις νεοοθωμανικές βλέψεις της Τουρκίας και των εταίρων της. Οφείλουμε τουλάχιστον τώρα ως Ευρωπαϊκή Ένωση να δείξουμε την αποφασιστικότητά μας πετυχαίνοντας την ταχεία επιστροφή των Αρμενίων αιχμαλώτων με την προσαρμογή του Αζερμπαϊτζάν στους κανόνες του διεθνούς δικαίου και την εγκατάλειψη της χρήσης βίας. Η Ευρωπαϊκή Ένωση είναι το φωτεινό παράδειγμα ειρηνικής επίλυσης των διαφορών σε παγκόσμιο επίπεδο κι αυτό το υπόδειγμά της πρέπει να το διαδώσουμε.

Λουκάς Φουρλάς (PPE). – Κυρία Πρόεδρε, κύριε Επίτροπε, όταν η πολεμική μηχανή των Αλίεφ και Ερντογάν ισοπέδωνε θρασύδειλα με drones το Ναγκόρνο Καραμπάχ και χτυπούσε ανελέητα τους Αρμενίους, ακόμα και αμάχους, η Ευρώπη ήταν απούσα. Όταν οι ηγέτες του Αζερμπαϊτζάν και της Τουρκίας πανηγύριζαν για το έγκλημά τους, η Ευρώπη απλά παρακολουθούσε. Σήμερα, τόσους μήνες μετά, δεκάδες Αρμένιοι παραμένουν αιχμάλωτοι στα χέρια του Αλίεφ, με το Αζερμπαϊτζάν να αρνείται να τους δώσει πίσω στις οικογένειές τους.

Ακούστε κάτι: στην Κύπρο, όταν οι Τούρκοι εισέβαλαν το 1974, πήραν χιλιάδες αιχμαλώτους, εκατοντάδες από αυτούς ουδέποτε επέστρεψαν. Ακόμα και σήμερα ανασύρουμε κόκαλα νεκρών μας από πηγάδια και ομαδικούς τάφους. Μην περιμένετε λοιπόν ότι ο Αλίεφ θα επιστρέψει αιχμαλώτους αν δεν αναγκαστεί να το πράξει. Σας καλώ να σώσουμε την αξιοπρέπεια της Ευρώπης. Σας καλώ να σταθούμε έστω και τώρα δίπλα στον αρμενικό λαό που ζητά επιστροφή αιχμαλώτων. Με όλη τη δύναμη της ψυχής μας ας δηλώσουμε ότι, μέχρι και ο τελευταίος Αρμένιος αιχμάλωτος να επιστρέψει στην οικογένειά του, δεν θα σταματήσουμε να το διεκδικούμε.

Fabio Massimo Castaldo (NI). – Signora Presidente, gentile Commissaria, onorevoli colleghi, camminando per Baku in via 8 Novembre, celebrazione nazionale recentemente proclamata dal regime azero per commemorare l'esito della guerra di aggressione nel Nagorno Karabakh, vi troverete davanti a una placca molto strana che recita ‘Karabakh e Azerbaigian’, posta all'entrata del nuovo Military Trophy Park.

Se decideste di visitare questo posto surreale, vedreste gli elmetti dei soldati armeni, forse abbandonati o magari presi dai loro corpi ancora caldi; trovereste poi 26 statue di cera di combattenti armeni. Guardandole bene, notereste qualcosa di strano: hanno tutti i lineamenti sproporzionati e il naso aquilino. Cari colleghi, quello che sembra un incubo, una storia grottesca, è invece realtà e gli stessi autori delle sculture hanno detto che, generalmente, volevano fare qualcosa di più bello e, invece, questa volta è stato ordinato loro di fare il contrario.

Condanno nel modo più assoluto il concetto stesso che sta alla base di questa esposizione. Questi tentativi di disumanizzazione e di svilimento di un popolo intero rievocano alcuni dei momenti più oscuri della nostra storia.

Oltre alla doverosa richiesta di liberazione immediata dei prigionieri di guerra, che non devono essere usati come sordido ricatto, chiedo l'urgente e definitiva chiusura di questo luogo grottesco, che non posso definire museo, e invito l'intera comunità e l'intero Parlamento a fare altrettanto.

Helena Dalli, Member of the Commission, on behalf of the Vice-President of the Commission / High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy. – Madam President, thank you, and I would like to thank Members of the European Parliament for raising the issue of prisoners of war and other detainees in the aftermath of the 2020 hostilities.

We took good note of the letter of more than 120 Members of this House on the same issue. The EU has taken a clear position. We have repeatedly called on both parties to fully implement the ceasefire agreement. We have also called on them to exchange prisoners of war and to release all remaining detainees regardless of the circumstances of their capture, in accordance with international humanitarian law and the ceasefire agreement. The release of all Armenian detainees is essential for building confidence and trust and would be an important political gesture.

We welcomed the release of five Armenian detainees on 29 January and of three on 4 May. We insist that all remaining detainees be released without further delay. The EU expects both parties to cooperate, not only on the return of detainees, but also on other important humanitarian issues. The recovery and repatriation of remains of the missing should continue. Urgent and decisive steps are needed on the exchange of information necessary for the conduct of humanitarian demining and including the sharing of any available maps of minefields to enable return to areas devastated by conflict.

To defuse tensions and allows societies to progress towards normalisation, it is also crucially important to refrain from inflammatory public rhetoric. The EU has called for accountability for any violation of international humanitarian law. Allegations of torture, ill-treatment or execution of captives and any other war crimes that might have been committed during the recent hostilities, must be thoroughly investigated. The EU stands ready to contribute to international and independent justice mechanisms and to support an independent investigation into such claims.

The cessation of hostilities and addressing the range of immediate humanitarian issues is only a first step to end the long lasting Nagorno-Karabakh conflict. Renewed efforts for a negotiated, comprehensive and sustainable settlement are needed. The EU fully supports the OSCE Minsk Group led by its co-chairs, and we stand ready to contribute in the shaping of a durable and comprehensive settlement including through support for stabilisation and confidence-building measures.

Die Präsidentin. – Die Aussprache ist geschlossen.

Die Abstimmung findet heute, Donnerstag, 20. Mai 2021, statt.

Schriftliche Erklärungen (Artikel 171)

Loránt Vincze (PPE), in writing. – I fully endorsed the demand of the European Parliament that all Armenian prisoners, both military and civilian, detained during and after the conflict must be released and that Azerbaijan must fully implement the tripartite ceasefire statement of 9 November 2020. The European Union was unjustifiably absent in the efforts to end the conflict. It can no longer stand idle while the soldiers of Armenia, its friend, are still held in prison by Azerbaijan. It must help Armenian families get their children back! Other top priorities are that humanitarian assistance urgently reaches those in need and that the security of the Armenian population and its cultural heritage in Nagorno-Karabakh is ensured. We must also emphatically stress that the ‘Park of Military Trophies’ inaugurated in Baku displaying wax mannequins depicting dead and dying Armenian soldiers and models of Armenian prisoners of war chained in a cell has no place in any country in the 21st century.

Marco Zanni (ID), per iscritto. – Il conflitto tra Armenia e Azerbaigian ha causato grande distruzione ed enormi perdite umane: sono oltre 5mila i militari deceduti e migliaia i feriti e gli sfollati. Ad oggi, l'Azerbaigian non sta rispettando il punto 8 della dichiarazione tripartita di cessate il fuoco siglata con l'Armenia e la Russia, il quale stabilisce che i prigionieri di guerra, gli ostaggi, gli altri detenuti e i corpi delle persone uccise debbano essere scambiati. Secondo diverse fonti, l'Azerbaigian starebbe detenendo illegalmente e in condizioni disumane 200 prigionieri di guerra.

Le continue provocazioni e il mancato rispetto dell'accordo di cessate il fuoco sono inaccettabili, soprattutto quando provengono dallo stesso Paese che ha dato inizio al conflitto in quanto aggressore. Le autorità dell'Azerbaigian hanno addirittura giustificato gli arresti illeciti dei cittadini armeni, successivi alla fine delle ostilità, accusando i detenuti di terrorismo. Esprimo la mia vicinanza al popolo armeno, storicamente e culturalmente legato all'Europa. Rimanere in silenzio di fronte a questa situazione non è tollerabile. L'Europa deve alzare la voce, condannando le gravi azioni dell'Azerbaigian e richiedendo l'immediato rilascio dei prigionieri e la tutela del patrimonio culturale e religioso dell'Armenia.

10.2.   The situation in Haiti

Die Präsidentin. – Als nächster Punkt der Tagesordnung folgt die Aussprache über sechs Entschließungsanträge zur Lage in Haiti (2021/2694(RSP))*.

*Siehe Protokoll.

Seán Kelly, Údar. – A Uachtaráin, tá géarchéim pholaitiúil, dhaonnúil agus slandála i mbun i Háítí faoi láthair. Bhí olltoghchán le bheith acu sa bhliain 2019, nár thárla fós, agus tá an Uachtarán Moïse, fós in oifig, in ainneoin gur tháinig deireadh lena mhandáid i mí Feabhra. Tá imní ar phobail Háítí agus ar an bpobal idirnáisiúnta faoin reifreann atá le rith i Háítí i rith an tsamhraidh. Le cúpla mí anuas, tá na mílte daoine i Háítí ag léirsiú in ghaidh an reifrinn agus mhandáid an Uachtaráin. Úsáidtear foréigean ina gcoinne go minic. Toisc nach bhfuil trédhearcacht ná daonlathas i gceist leis an eifreann, tá an cinneadh ceart déanta ag an Aontas Eorpach, gan é a chistiú agus gan breathnóirí a sheoladh ann. Tá fadhbanna ollmhóra eile sa tír chomh maith, ó thaobh an choróinvíris, dronganna, fuadach, agus fiú córas sclábhaíochta leanaí. Táim ag impí go láidir ar údarás Háítí na céimeanna riachtanacha a thógaint chun deireadh a chur leis na fadhbanna tromchúiseacha seo.

Hannes Heide, Verfasser. – Frau Präsidentin, Frau Kommissarin! Haiti befindet sich derzeit nicht nur in einer, sondern in gleich mehreren Krisen, die in engem Zusammenhang miteinander stehen und sich noch gegenseitig befeuern. Von den schrecklichen Folgen des Erdbebens im Jänner 2010 hat sich das Land bis heute nicht erholt. Ganz im Gegenteil, es schlittert angetrieben von der besorgniserregenden politischen Entwicklung immer tiefer in eine existenzielle Krise. Als wäre das noch nicht genug, fegt seit über einem Jahr auch die COVID-19-Pandemie durch das ohnehin gebeutelte Land. Gewalt, Korruption, Menschenrechtsverletzungen stehen auf der Tagesordnung. Die Armut steigt. Die Ernährungsunsicherheit hat sich in den letzten zwei Jahren fast verdoppelt. Rund vier Millionen der insgesamt über elf Millionen Haitianerinnen und Haitianer leiden an Hunger. Dazu kommt eine massive politische Krise, die durch eine korrupte Elite und deren systematische Abkehr von demokratischen und rechtsstaatlichen Standards gekennzeichnet ist. Wahlen werden willkürlich nach eigenem Ermessen verändert. Präsident Moïse regiert seit Anfang 2020 per Dekret und missachtet durch die faktische Abschaffung der Gewaltentrennung das Herzstück einer demokratischen Gesellschaft.

Wir fordern ein Ende der Gewalt in Haiti! Menschenrechtsverletzungen müssen sofort abgestellt werden, und die Schuldigen müssen zur Verantwortung gezogen werden. Der Rechtsstaat muss wiederhergestellt werden, unabhängige demokratische Strukturen müssen aufgebaut werden. Den Bürgerinnen und Bürgern Haitis darf das Recht auf freie, faire und transparente Wahlen nicht genommen werden. Die Europäische Union muss alles daransetzen, dass die Hilfsgelder dort ankommen, wo sie am dringendsten benötigt werden: bei den Menschen, denen es ohnehin an allem fehlt!

Nathalie Loiseau, auteure. – Madame la Présidente, 10 milliards de dollars: c'est ce que les bailleurs de fonds ont mis sur la table après l'effroyable séisme qui a frappé Haïti en 2010. C'est une somme colossale. Quelle trace a-t-elle laissée dans la vie des Haïtiens ordinaires? Pratiquement aucune.

Aujourd'hui, en Haïti, on ne vit pas, on survit, quand on n'est pas confronté à l'insécurité que font régner les gangs armés. Il y a quelques semaines, ces gangs ont enlevé des religieux qui ont consacré leur vie à venir en aide au peuple haïtien. Ces gangs ont partie liée avec une partie de la classe politique haïtienne, une classe politique qui a tragiquement failli.

Aujourd'hui, le président haïtien gouverne par décrets, prépare un référendum que nous ne pouvons pas soutenir, et annonce des élections sans avoir réuni les conditions pour qu'elles puissent se tenir sereinement. Tant que les conditions ne sont pas réunies, l'Union européenne ne peut apporter son soutien, ni envoyer des observateurs pour des scrutins aussi incertains.

Mais la faillite d'Haïti est une faillite collective. Personne – ni les ONG, ni les bailleurs, ni l'Union européenne – ne peut s'enorgueillir de la situation de crise totale, politique, économique, sociale et sécuritaire que connaît le pays et qui rejaillit sur la région, en particulier sur nos Outre-mer. Avant qu'Haïti ne s'effondre pour de bon, c'est à nous tous de nous ressaisir.

Caroline Roose, auteure. – Madame la Présidente, Haïti est un pays en cours d'effondrement d'un point de vue politique, humanitaire, social et sanitaire. Rarement un pays a été gouverné par une telle bande de criminels et d'incompétents. Le quotidien du peuple, c'est la mort, les assassinats, l'impunité, l'insécurité et la corruption. À cause de l'instabilité du pays, de nombreuses bandes criminelles contrôlent plusieurs quartiers dans les villes, en enlevant des centaines de citoyens innocents chaque année. Depuis trop longtemps, les Haïtiens n'ont plus confiance en leur gouvernement et en leur président, Jovenel Moïse, incapables de satisfaire les besoins de base de la population.

Que pouvons-nous faire pour faire respecter l'état de droit, la démocratie et le respect des droits de l'homme en Haïti? Nous ne pouvons pas rester sans rien faire face à cette situation. En restant trop discrète face au maintien au pouvoir du président Moïse, la communauté internationale se fait complice d'un pouvoir autoritaire qui génère pauvreté, violence des gangs et insécurité alimentaire.

Nous, Européens, avons notre part de responsabilité et n'ignorons pas les appels du peuple haïtien. Prenons explicitement nos distances avec Jovenel Moïse et son gouvernement. Ne travaillons qu'avec les organisations qui appellent à une stabilisation démocratique du pays.

Cette résolution est significative étant donné l'échéance imminente du référendum constitutionnel du 27 juin. Nous condamnons l'organisation du référendum constitutionnel voulu par le président Moïse, qui lui permettrait de concentrer plus de pouvoirs entre ses mains. Les élections doivent être libres, crédibles et transparentes. Nous demandons à l'Union européenne et à la communauté internationale de soutenir Haïti dans cette entreprise. Il n'y a plus de temps à perdre. Aussi complexe que soit la situation, c'est notre devoir de nous mettre à écouter ce que disent les Haïtiens et les Haïtiennes et agir sans plus attendre.

Jadwiga Wiśniewska, autorka. – Pani Przewodnicząca! Pani Komisarz! Szanowni Państwo! 59% populacji na Haiti żyje w skrajnym ubóstwie, 70% haitańskich dzieci nie uczęszcza do szkoły. Nadal powszechną praktyką na Haiti jest restavek. W ubiegłej kadencji przyjęliśmy rezolucję w obronie tych dzieci, które poddawane są współczesnej formie niewolnictwa. Teraz wracamy z kolejną rezolucją o Haiti, a sytuacja tam jest jeszcze bardziej dramatyczna: wzrost przemocy, porwania, gwałty, zabójstwa, masakry, których dopuszczają się uzbrojone gangi działające całkowicie bezkarnie.

Tylko wiarygodny, przejrzysty i transparentny proces wyborczy może przezwyciężyć kryzys polityczny na Haiti. Unia przyznała środki finansowe na wsparcie dla najsłabszych na Haiti, ale powinniśmy zadbać o to, by pomoc ta trafiła do tych, którzy jej najbardziej potrzebują. Dlatego uważam, że zasadne jest sporządzenie przez Europejski Trybunał Obrachunkowy sprawozdania o wydawaniu środków unijnych na Haiti, zwłaszcza w kontekście zarzutów o korupcję.

Marisa Matias, Autora. – Senhora Presidente, a situação que se vive no Haiti é absolutamente trágica.

Junta-se a uma crise política profunda também uma profunda crise humanitária. A insistência do Presidente Moïse em manter-se no poder a todo o custo tem dado origem a situações de violência de Estado, agressões a quem quer lutar pela democracia. Para além disto, há violência em forma de raptos, de violações, de massacres.

No Haiti, a taxa de pobreza não para de crescer: 59% da população vive abaixo do limiar de pobreza. A educação não chega a todos: a população ativa é maioritariamente analfabeta e 350 mil crianças não estão a ir à escola. Há insegurança alimentar: quatro milhões de pessoas não conseguem garantir uma alimentação digna e isto tem a ver, obviamente, com o furacão Laura, mas também com a pandemia e com a falta de governação por parte do Presidente.

Há uma impunidade total no Haiti e, por isso, nós apelamos à solidariedade com a população do Haiti e a um apoio nos recursos necessários para que estas pessoas possam viver com dignidade. Para isso, é necessário, obviamente, que o Tribunal de Contas Europeu possa investigar e garantir que os fundos que são distribuídos chegam mesmo à população e não ficam retidos nas elites corruptas.

Precisamos também de condenar a realização do referendo, que é ilegal, mas precisamos, sobretudo, de não esquecer a situação trágica em que está a população do Haiti e continuar a apoiá-la, sem limites.

Carlos Zorrinho, em nome do Grupo S&D. – Senhora Presidente, Senhor Comissário, no Haiti temos assistido ao crescimento do protesto popular desde que o Presidente declarou a sua manutenção no poder por mais um ano e a convocação de um referendo visando uma reforma constitucional.

O prolongamento do mandato resulta de uma interpretação da Constituição fortemente contestada por juristas, constitucionalistas e pelas forças da oposição, que consideram terminado o mandato do Presidente, que governa por decreto desde janeiro do ano passado, depois de dissolvido o Parlamento.

A convocação do referendo, por seu turno, viola a Constituição do país, que estipula ser estritamente proibida qualquer consulta popular para a alterar.

A par da instabilidade política, o Haiti está também à beira do abismo sanitário, social e económico.

Por isso, apelo às autoridades do Haiti para que seja restaurado o Estado de Direito, o respeito pelos direitos fundamentais e pela democracia, através da realização de eleições presidenciais legislativas e locais, livres e justas, ainda no decorrer deste ano.

A democracia é a base da paz social e a alavanca para a estabilidade económica do país, pelas quais o povo do Haiti espera há demasiados anos e merece quanto antes.

Stéphane Bijoux, au nom du groupe Renew. – Madame la Présidente, chers collègues, personne ne doit pouvoir montrer du doigt et stigmatiser un homme, une femme ou un enfant qui a été obligé de quitter son pays pour fuir la misère et la violence; mais tout le monde doit se mobiliser quand, derrière cet exil, se cache aussi un trafic d'êtres humains.

Vu de Bruxelles, Haïti peut paraître loin; mais en réalité, dans cette région du monde, plusieurs territoires européens français sont en proximité directe avec le drame haïtien des Caraïbes, jusqu'en Guyane française. Partout, toujours, nous avons fait la démonstration de notre solidarité et nous savons que les urgences d'aujourd'hui exigent cohérence et efficacité.

Alors oui, il faut vérifier si les aides européennes à Haïti contribuent réellement à lutter contre la souffrance du peuple haïtien. Nous avons des doutes et ils sont légitimes; mais nous devons aussi mesurer les impacts de cette crise violente. En ce moment même, aux frontières de la Guyane française, plusieurs centaines de Haïtiens sont là et réclament l'asile. Nous ne pouvons pas laisser ce territoire européen seul face au drame haïtien. Le gouvernement français intervient; l'Europe doit aussi intervenir.

Sabrina Pignedoli (NI). – Signora Presidente, onorevoli colleghi, Haiti è un paese poverissimo, martoriato da eventi naturali disastrosi e pandemie, da ultima quella del COVID. Ma non è meno grave il quadro sociale e politico: è preoccupante il livello di violenza e impunità che ha travolto il Paese, ostaggio di gruppi armati, alcuni dei quali godono della protezione del presidente Moïse.

È importante che l'Unione europea eserciti la sua forza diplomatica di persuasione, insieme alla comunità internazionale e alla nuova Presidenza americana, per fermare l'escalation di violenza e la deriva democratica che il Paese ha intrapreso. Occorre assumere una chiara e ferma posizione contro il tentativo di revisione della carta costituzionale di Haiti, che mira ad accentrare i poteri esecutivi del Presidente Moïse.

È importante che vengano garantite nuove elezioni per salvaguardare gli sforzi sostenuti finora per l'instaurazione di una democrazia. L'Unione europea deve continuare a mantenere il suo sostegno economico nel Paese ma deve esigere il rispetto dei diritti fondamentali.

Javi López (S&D). – Señora presidenta, la situación que padece Haití es desoladora: el 60 % de la población se encuentra bajo el umbral de la pobreza, cuatro millones de haitianos sufren inseguridad alimentaria y se vive una crisis económica perpetua, ahora agravada por los efectos del huracán Laura y la pandemia. A esta situación humanitaria desastrosa se le suma una grave crisis política, con el presidente Moïse intentando perpetuarse en el poder y una respuesta de la ciudadanía consistente en una gran ola de protestas, además de una grave situación estructural de violencia en el país.

Por todo ello, hacemos un llamamiento en primer lugar a garantizar la seguridad de sus ciudadanos y el derecho legítimo a la protesta; en segundo lugar, al respeto al orden constitucional del país y la separación de poderes; en tercer lugar, a organizar unas elecciones libres y justas con la mayor brevedad posible que permitan estabilizar el país, y en cuarto lugar, a continuar utilizando nuestras herramientas en materia de cooperación al desarrollo para que mejore la devastadora situación humanitaria de la isla.

Izaskun Bilbao Barandica (Renew). – Señora presidenta, señor vicepresidente de la Comisión, la pobreza, la miseria, la desesperación, la falta radical de expectativas y de futuro que padece la población de Haití es la primera y principal causa de la crisis política que vive el país; por eso apoyo los llamamientos que se hacen en esta Resolución para restaurar el calendario electoral del país y corregir el conflicto constitucional, y los esfuerzos para que cesen la represión y la violencia desatada por bandas organizadas.

Pero la primera condición para que la democracia y los valores de la paz y la convivencia se abran paso en un país que ha sufrido demasiado es propiciar una profunda transformación económica y social que requiere apoyo exterior. La palanca que realmente puede transformar la situación se llama justicia social y necesita ayuda al desarrollo, economía social y reparto de la riqueza; nos obliga también a garantizar que todas las empresas europeas que operan en aquel país aplican en sus actividades los valores de la Unión, y, por supuesto, debemos cumplir las leyes internacionales de asilo para acoger a quienes huyen de la persecución: por eso no comparto la redacción del apartado 16 de esta Resolución.

Josep Borrell Fontelles, Vice-President of the Commission / High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy. – Madam President, certainly the situation in Haiti is as many of you have described in your interventions. In recent months kidnappings for ransoms, attacks by criminal gangs against their rivals in the neighbourhood and widespread insecurity have increased in Haiti in the context of almost total impunity.

In parallel, political tensions are resurfacing due once again to disputes over the timing and the scope of the referendum on constitutional reform and of the elections proposed by the government. This electoral process has created a lot of trouble and increased political tensions.

At the European Union we have been following with a lot of attention and concern the current political and social crisis and its negative effects on the security situation for the everyday lives of Haitians. Certainly the persistent insecurity, growing poverty and the structural inequalities in Haiti, together with increasing political tensions, may lead to a pattern of public discontent that will be followed by violence, police repression and other human rights violations.

It's very worrying to observe an increasing radicalisation of political instances, a worsening of the humanitarian crisis and the increase in gang-related violence with a high number of killings in poor neighbourhoods of the capital. We have urged the authorities to conduct effective and thorough investigations into these crimes.

The EU has called for an inclusive political dialogue between all the forces of Haiti in order to find an agreement on the conditions necessary for the organisation of such credible and democratic elections that will meet the aspirations of the people.

Unhappily, we had to announce on 6 May that the European Union would neither finance nor send observers for the referendum on the new constitution. On that situation it is essential that the authorities provide safety and security for their citizens while respecting the rule of law and international human rights principles, which are crucial for Haiti's stability and development.

We will keep monitoring developments in Haiti and we will insist on the need to respect the rule of law and human rights. The European Union stands by the Haitian population, but the political class and the government need to understand that they have to become serious about basic economic and social reforms if they want to count on our continued support.

In this context, the time is ripe for the development of a wider scale of EU public diplomacy in the field of human rights in Haiti in accordance with the principles of the Cotonou Agreement and the European Union's global human rights strategy for 2024. Thank you very much for your contribution, through your debate and resolutions.

Die Präsidentin. – Die Aussprache ist geschlossen.

Die Abstimmung findet heute, Donnerstag, 20. Mai 2021, statt.

10.3.   The situation in Chad

Die Präsidentin. – Als nächster Punkt der Tagesordnung folgt die Aussprache über sieben Entschließungsanträge zur Lage im Tschad (2021/2695(RSP))*.

*Siehe Protokoll.

Željana Zovko, author. – Madam President, High Representative, Chad is a key country for security and stability in the Sahel and an important partner of the European Union in the fight against the terrorism in the region. Sixty-six percent of the people live in severe poverty and more than 400 000 citizens are internally displaced.

The turmoil that emerged after the death of President Déby describes the fragility of the political situation in the country. I call on the National Council of Transition to respect its own declarations and to work towards free and fair elections. The people of Chad deserve a civilian government based on the principles of democracy and human rights. The European Union has to support Chad in these efforts towards democracy.

At the same time, we need to reaffirm our support for Chad's commitment in the G5 Sahel. We should remain determined to assist Chad and the wider Sahel on its road towards stabilisation and recovery. Yet, this support cannot be fully effective unless there is a strong governance and ownership.

Maria Arena, auteure. – Madame la Présidente, Monsieur le Haut représentant, le peuple tchadien a été oublié dans la recherche de la stabilité au Sahel. Le Tchad est devenu un pays où tous les indicateurs socio-économiques sont dans le rouge: corruption et impunité sont institutionnalisées. Le Tchad est certes un acteur majeur pour lutter contre l'insécurité dans la région, et ce en partenariat avec les membres du G5. Il est soutenu par des opérations françaises et l'aide européenne.

Cependant, la grogne sociale dans ce pays est énorme. L'implosion qui en découlerait aurait pour toute la région des conséquences désastreuses. Le boycott massif de l'élection présidentielle du 11 avril 2021 constituait déjà un signe avant-coureur d'une lame de fond prête à ébranler les piliers déjà fragiles de ce pays. Une dynamique de contestation a été lancée depuis février 2021, se traduisant par des manifestations hebdomadaires, dont le pic a été atteint en avril, aussi bien en matière de mobilisation que de niveau de répression.

Les Tchadiens espéraient un vrai changement, surtout pour les jeunes majoritairement analphabètes, démunis, affamés et prêts à l'emploi pour les mouvements armés, les mercenaires ou encore les djihadistes. Les Tchadiens, dans leur grande majorité, appellent à un dialogue inclusif et apaisé pouvant aboutir à des élections transparentes, libres et démocratiques. La conférence nationale inclusive qu'ils réclament doit pouvoir se tenir librement. Le Conseil militaire de transition doit veiller à une participation la plus large possible et assurer les libertés individuelles et publiques pour tous, y compris ceux qui ne partagent pas son point de vue.

La répression violente n'est pas la solution. C'est la raison pour laquelle nous condamnons avec la plus grande fermeté la répression menée par le CMT à l'encontre des manifestations pacifiques, et nous demandons des enquêtes indépendantes. Par ailleurs, l'Union européenne soutient bien entendu le peuple tchadien, mais doit garantir que les moyens qu'elle lui octroie ne financent pas des actions qui ne respectent pas les droits de l'homme.

Jan-Christoph Oetjen, auteur. – Madame la Présidente, chers collègues, le Tchad est un partenaire important pour l'Union européenne dans la lutte contre le terrorisme, cela a déjà été dit par plusieurs collègues. Il faut également mentionner que le Tchad a beaucoup souffert, depuis 2015, des attaques et des activités de Boko Haram.

Cette résolution n'est pas faite pour pointer quelqu'un du doigt; elle est faite pour montrer le chemin, parce qu'après le décès du président Idriss Déby, la situation est devenue instable. Je suis convaincu que ce ne sont pas des armes qui vont résoudre les problèmes actuels au sein de la société du Tchad, mais le dialogue, chers collègues. Dans ce sens, c'est un signal encourageant qu'un gouvernement de transition ait été nommé avec la participation de membres de l'opposition et de la société civile. Je suis convaincu que seul un chemin démocratique peut être un avenir stable pour le peuple tchadien.

Le Tchad doit rester un partenaire important pour l'Union européenne. Nous invitons la communauté internationale à soutenir le Tchad sur son chemin vers la démocratie et la stabilité pour la région.

Mounir Satouri, auteur. – Madame la Présidente, Monsieur le Haut représentant, les citoyennes et citoyens du Tchad ont-ils droit à la démocratie et au respect de la constitution de leur pays? À en croire le silence de certains s'affichant aux côtés de Mahamat Idriss Déby, au lendemain de sa prise de pouvoir autoritaire, non. Pourtant, les Tchadiennes et les Tchadiens ont réclamé leurs droits politiques dans la rue avec courage face à un Déby fils aussi brutal que son père, pour une démocratie et non une dynastie militaire.

Mahamat Idriss Déby viole la constitution tchadienne et n'a aucune légitimité démocratique. Mahamat Idriss Déby, à travers ce coup d'État qui se déroule au Tchad, a été avalisé par le gouvernement français; pourtant il ne le sera pas par le Parlement européen. Nous condamnons la prise de pouvoir militaire et la suspension de la constitution tchadienne, et rejetons la charte proposée par la junte sans aucune consultation démocratique. Par notre voix, l'Europe demande à la junte de permettre des élections le plus rapidement possible. Nous veillerons à ce que la diplomatie européenne s'emploie à convaincre ses partenaires tchadiens d'honorer leur droit démocratique. Ce Parlement demande ceci d'une voix forte.

Aujourd'hui, nous pouvons être fiers de représenter l'Europe des valeurs, tandis que d'autres s'engagent dans la compromission. Beaucoup de membres de ce Parlement dans le groupe Verts ont également demandé le gel des avoirs des auteurs du coup d'État. Nous continuons cette bataille pour que l'Union utilise tous les leviers à sa disposition pour protéger les droits démocratiques.

Assita Kanko, Auteur. – Voorzitter, de dood van wijlen president Idriss Déby betekent meteen een periode van grotere instabiliteit voor Tsjaad. Hij legde een brokkenparcours af op het vlak van mensenrechten. Daar kunnen we niet omheen. Maar hij verzette zich ook fel tegen oprukkend jihadisme in de ontvlambare Sahelregio.

Nu zijn zoon de macht heeft overgenomen en hardhandig vreedzame protesten heeft stilgelegd, moeten er zo snel mogelijk vrije en eerlijke verkiezingen worden georganiseerd in aanwezigheid van internationale waarnemers. De EU moet Tsjaad blijven steunen in de strijd tegen jihadisme in de Sahelregio, in de strijd tegen radicale islam.

Maar laat mij duidelijk zijn, het land mag zeker de democratische waarden en mensenrechten niet verloochenen. We mogen niet toelaten dat de Sahel een brandhaard wordt, want de vonken daarvan zullen snel overslaan naar Europa. Daarom moet er meer ingezet worden op beleid in de Sahellanden en moet meer aandacht worden besteed aan deze regio, om zo de rekruteringsbodem voor de jihadisten weg te nemen.

Miguel Urbán Crespo, autor. – Señora presidenta, al morir el presidente Idriss Déby, el Ejército tomó el poder e impuso como jefe de Estado a su hijo: una sucesión dinástica en un país que, irónicamente, es una república. ¿Y qué responde Europa? Bueno, pues el señor Borrell fue a Chad para recordar el importante papel de Déby en favor de la estabilidad y pedir una rápida conclusión de la transición.

Lo que ustedes llaman transición, nosotros lo llamamos golpe de Estado, y lo que llaman estabilidad, nosotros lo llamamos dictadura, y por eso pedimos que se restablezca el orden constitucional, se entregue el poder político a las autoridades civiles, se celebren elecciones y cese la represión, y que, mientras tanto, se suspendan los fondos europeos y la cooperación, porque la condena de un golpe de Estado no puede depender de si el país es o no nuestro aliado político y comercial, y aún mucho menos de que estos se deban a intereses coloniales y geoestratégicos para Europa.

François-Xavier Bellamy, au nom du groupe PPE. – Madame la Présidente, chers collègues, la résolution qui nous est proposée sur le Tchad explique le terrorisme qui frappe ce pays par, je cite, le changement climatique et l'exploitation des ressources naturelles ou le manque de perspectives éducatives et économiques.

Comment ne pas voir que ce qui suscite le terrorisme à N'Djamena comme à Paris, Vienne ou Londres, c'est d'abord l'idéologie islamiste? Le déni de réalité confond cause et conséquence. Comment ne pas voir que cette idéologie islamiste, partout où elle l'a emporté, à Kaboul comme à Mossoul, a fermé toute perspective d'avenir, interdit l'éducation, et imposé la violence et la guerre? Comment ne pas voir que l'Europe est, a été et sera toujours la cible, pour ce qu'elle est, pour ce qu'elle représente, de cette idéologie de mort?

Je partage évidemment pleinement l'amendement que notre collègue Arnaud Danjean a déposé pour rappeler cette évidence: l'Europe doit sortir du déni, enfin. Cette menace djihadiste, les militaires français, appuyés dans la région par quelques-uns de nos pays, la connaissent bien pour la combattre chaque jour et avoir payé le prix du sang face à elle. Depuis 2013, 55 soldats français sont tombés dans ce combat qui nous concerne tous, car la sécurité de l'Europe se joue aussi au Sahel.

Elle suppose l'emploi de la force face à des ennemis qui sont déterminés et soutenus par des acteurs qui veulent nous déstabiliser, et qu'une fois encore, nous laissons agir impunément. Faut-il rappeler le rôle que la Turquie joue, par exemple, sur le front libyen du Tchad? Chers collègues, c'est ensemble que nous devons agir, aussi bien au Sahel qu'ici, dans nos pays, face à cette menace, la même qui menace nos démocraties.

Carlos Zorrinho, em nome do Grupo S&D. – Senhora Presidente, Senhor Comissário, a recente morte do Presidente do Chade, que aqui lamento, a substituição pelo filho à frente do Conselho Militar de transição, a suspensão da Constituição, a proibição de manifestações e a morte de pelo menos seis pessoas no final de abril constituem motivos de enorme preocupação nesta região do Sael.

O Chade tem um papel de enorme relevância na estabilidade do Sael, onde os deslocados ascendem a muitos milhares e as crises humanitárias, a fome, a insegurança alimentar e a falta de atividades económicas são problemas endémicos e a este quadro sombrio acresce a ação do Boko Haram, da Al-Qaeda e de outros grupos terroristas que destabilizam as perspetivas de crescimento e desenvolvimento do país e da região.

Por isso, apelo às autoridades do Chade para que, em conjunto, com a comunidade internacional, a União Europeia, a União Africana, prossigam o esforço para assegurar uma transição democrática, através da marcação urgente de eleições legislativas e provinciais justas e transparentes, que respeitem a Constituição, os standards eleitorais mínimos, assegurem a participação dos partidos da oposição e o envolvimento da sociedade civil no futuro processo eleitoral.

Nathalie Loiseau, au nom du groupe Renew. – Madame la Présidente, si un pays est l'otage de sa géographie, c'est bien le Tchad. Pris en étau entre la crise libyenne, les soubresauts soudanais, Boko Haram et les djihadistes sahéliens, le Tchad vit l'arme au pied depuis des années. Son armée, le fer de lance du G5 Sahel, et sa valeur militaire sont reconnues par tous, mais les menaces contre ce pays sont elles aussi d'ordre militaire, ce que vient encore de démontrer la rébellion du FACT, qui a tué le président Idriss Déby. Il nous faut aider ce pays, auquel on demande beaucoup et qui fait face à trop de menaces.

Toutefois, le poids de l'armée au Tchad est à la fois la force et la faiblesse de ce pays; car si on repousse son ennemi à la pointe de son fusil, on ne gouverne pas en uniforme, ni par la force, ni en se recroquevillant sur son clan. Trop longtemps, certains ont cru que la stabilité du Tchad passait par le maintien au pouvoir d'un régime autoritaire. J'invite l'Europe et l'Union africaine, mais surtout tous les Tchadiens, à les démentir et à faire la démonstration que c'est par l'ouverture et l'inclusivité que la transition tchadienne réussira. Au Tchad comme ailleurs, la place des militaires est de servir l'État, pas de se substituer à lui.

Jadwiga Wiśniewska, w imieniu grupy ECR. – Szanowna Pani Przewodnicząca! Czad to jeden z najbardziej skorumpowanych i najbiedniejszych krajów na świecie. Po śmierci prezydenta Czadu w walce z rebeliantami władzę przejęła de facto armia, zawieszono konstytucję, rozwiązano rząd i parlament, zaś obietnice przeprowadzenia wyborów są mgliste i niepewne. Protesty opozycji zostały krwawo stłumione.

Czad jest głównym filarem walki z terroryzmem w regionie Sahelu, cennym sojusznikiem Unii i ONZ. Region jest niestabilny, stale zagrożony islamskim terroryzmem, zorganizowaną przestępczością, nawiedzany klęskami głodu. Stajemy wobec pytania, czy za wszelką cenę utrzymywać dobre relacje czy też twardo domagać się najpierw przywrócenia ładu demokratycznego? Innymi słowy: stabilność czy demokracja? Jednak dziś już wiemy, że bez demokracji nie da się utrzymać stabilności. Brak demokratycznego mandatu dla rządzących jest idealną pożywką dla zbrojnych grup terrorystycznych wykorzystujących niezadowolenie społeczne.

Formułując rady i zalecenia dla Czadu – podobnie jak w relacjach z innymi państwami Afryki – musimy odnowić dotychczasowe podejście i retorykę wciąż przesiąkniętą mentalnością kolonialną, przeświadczeniem, że to my, Europejczycy, wiemy lepiej, czego potrzebuje Afryka i jak uszczęśliwić Afrykańczyków.

Seán Kelly (PPE). – Madam President, the killing of President Déby, allegedly at the hands of rebels in the north of the country, will have undeniable regional repercussions. This act of violence and the recent further loss of life in attacks by armed groups in the region needs to be strongly and collectively condemned by this House. I join colleagues in concern over the volatile security situation in the north of the country, but we must also send a strong signal that the repeated breaches of human rights and humanitarian law is not acceptable, and the international community needs to make this clear.

Corruption, political exclusion, growing disparity and repression of dissent were trademarks of President Déby's rule in Chad. However, unless these grievances are addressed, Chad's instability can be expected to persist, particularly as it has regional repercussions, given Chad's strategic location. Violence and intimidation cannot produce an inclusive and fair society, and we should make our voices loud and clear in reiterating this as many times as necessary.

Krzysztof Hetman (PPE). – Pani Przewodnicząca! Szanowni Państwo! 20 kwietnia w wyniku starć z rebeliantami zmarł prezydent Czadu. Pod jego rządami ten kraj odegrał dużą rolę w zapewnieniu bezpieczeństwa i stabilności regionu, angażując się w operację antydżihadystyczne i walkę z siłami ekstremistów. Można powiedzieć więc, że stabilność polityczna Czadu jest ważna także dla całego regionu. Czad zdecydowanie czekają teraz zmiany, a to jak zostaną one przeprowadzone, będzie swego rodzaju sprawdzianem i ukształtuje kraj na kolejne lata.

Teraz konieczne jest jak najszybsze zorganizowanie wolnych i uczciwych wyborów prezydenckich. Zarówno organizacja wyborów, jak i wszelkie działania w okresie je poprzedzającym powinny być prowadzone z poszanowaniem prawa i porządku konstytucyjnego. Ponadto wolność słowa i prawa człowieka powinny być zawsze respektowane i nie może dochodzić do aresztowań lub użycia siły wobec pokojowo protestujących obywateli. Unia Europejska powinna wspierać wysiłki Unii Afrykańskiej w celu ustabilizowania sytuacji w kraju.

Josep Borrell Fontelles, Vice-President of the Commission / High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy. – Madam President, honourable Members of the European Parliament, as many of you have said and as your resolution also points out – and it's important to underline – Chad plays an important role in the fight against terrorism within the G5 Sahel Group, and we need to preserve the territorial integrity and the stability of Chad in the fragile security context of the region.

The region is the Sahel region and the Sahel remains very high on the European agenda. It's one of the regions of the world where the Union and its Member States are most committed to peace, stability and development.

Between 2014 and 2020 we have provided EUR 8.5 billion in development and humanitarian aid, security and defence. This is why the European Union decided to adopt a renewed Sahel strategy mid-April, and why I chose this moment to make my first visit to the region from 22 to 24 April.

I took this opportunity to convey a clear message to all the leaders of the region, that the European Union is engaged to support them in the essential fight against terrorism that is paramount for all of us, but our collective commitment needs to bear fruit, needs to deliver, and that's why we are engaging, with more than 1 000 people in our military and civilian CSDP missions in Mali, in Niger, and also the EU training mission in Mali that now is going to expand its activities to other countries in the region. And that's why also some Member States with others are participating in this effort, for example with the anti-terrorist Task Force Takuba.

However, and many of you have also said that even if with not the same words, that we will not collectively succeed in the fight if we don't win the peace, while we intend to win the war we will not win the war without winning the peace. This is the sense of the ‘civilian surge’ decided at the N'Djamena Summit last February and I want to stress the importance of this commitment. It's not only a matter of war, it's a matter of good governance and deploying the capacities of the governments of the territory in order to provide basic public goods to the population.

As I said, after the approval of our strategy for the region, and when I was visiting Sahel, the death of President Déby of Chad occurred on 20 April. So, being in the region, I decided to visit Chad not only to attend the funeral, but also, as I said in my speech at the very same funeral, that we had to take this opportunity to convey a message to the Chadian authorities and to the African leaders who were present at the ceremony. First, to recognise the contribution of Chad in the fight against terrorism, and this contribution is essential, as I said at the beginning, so much it is the Chad stability. Indeed President Déby's death was quickly followed by a military takeover, by the military junta, and the situation remains evolving rapidly and future developments are difficult to predict.

Just before coming here I been having a meeting with the President of Niger. He visited here in Brussels. I had the opportunity to exchange with him views about this situation and learn from him, what can be the prospects. For us Europeans and for all countries in the region, this is a major source of concern because the effective and necessary involvement of Chadian troops in the G5 joint forces in the fight against terrorism in Lake Chad. But, as I clearly stated during my eulogy, my intervention in the funeral, while the stability of Chad remains paramount we need a genuine inclusive dialogue as a necessary step towards a renewed social contract in Chad too.

I also declared there, and reiterated in my latest statement, the importance of a swift return to constitutional order and that the political transition must be civilian led. It was good news that the military junta decided some days after to nominate a civilian as prime minister. This transition has to be limited in time and peaceful. Unhappily, there have been events with regrettable casualties among civilians that do not follow this peaceful requirement. They should respect human rights and fundamental freedoms and lead to credible elections. The military authorities nominated a government which includes some opposition representatives. They indicated their will to engage in an inclusive dialogue and, as I said, they nominated a civilian prime minister. Still, demonstrations against the military junta were put down by force and there are reports of civil society organisations and political opponents being harassed by the state security services.

We, the European Union, have strongly condemned this repression of demonstrations in Chad and we are talking to all the stakeholders, including representatives of the opposition and of civil society to convey our key messages and to listen to their concerns.

Let me finally stress that a close cooperation with the United Nations and the African Union remains important. The latter had a mission in Chad to evaluate the situation and the African Union Peace and Security Council is expected to come with recommendations for the transition.

Certainly, dear Members, this is a difficult moment in Chad's history, but it is also a potential threat for our strategy to fight terrorism in the region, but it is also an opportunity, as we say here in Europe these days, to build back better, to build a new social contract in Chad, that should serve to meet the numerous aspirations of the population, and to address the root causes of instability of the country, including certainly lack of democratisation, lack of good governance and fully respect of human rights.

We will be ready to accompany Chad in that direction, but we need to see a clear commitment by the authorities to go along that path and I am going to use this opportunity here on the tribune of the European Parliament to reiterate this message.

Die Präsidentin. – Die Aussprache ist geschlossen.

Die Abstimmung findet heute, Donnerstag, 20. Mai 2021, statt.

Schriftliche Erklärungen (Artikel 171)

Dominique Bilde (ID), par écrit. – Le décès du président Idriss Deby Itno, qui a consenti au sacrifice suprême face aux terroristes du Front pour l'alternance et la concorde au Tchad, nous rappelle la valeur de l'armée tchadienne, dont elle a fait également montre dans le cadre de la lutte contre le terrorisme islamiste, aux côtés de la France et au sein du G5 Sahel. Rappelons, notamment, la disparition d'une centaine de soldats tchadiens face à Boko Haram en mars 2020. Lourd tribut, qui n'a pas empêché le président Deby de confirmer en février dernier le renforcement de ses troupes affectées aux opérations antiterroristes. Il est dans l'intérêt de l'Union européenne et des États membres de prendre acte de la transition proposée par le Conseil militaire, afin de ne pas voir ce pays s'effondrer, réduisant à néant des années d'investissements français et occidentaux dans la lutte antiterroriste. À la clef, c'est non seulement la stabilité du Sahel, mais également le contrôle des flux migratoires vers l'Union européenne qui seront en jeu. C'est d'autant plus vrai à l'heure où les États membres renâclent à soutenir l'effort militaire français au Sahel, particulièrement s'agissant de l'envoi de troupes. Je vous remercie.

(Die Sitzung wird um 12.47 Uhr unterbrochen)

11.   Resumption of the sitting

(Die Sitzung wird um 13.06 Uhr wieder aufgenommen)

12.   Announcement of voting results

Die Präsidentin. – (nach der Verlesung der Ergebnisse der ersten Abstimmungsrunde) Ich erteile nun dem Berichterstatter Herrn Doleschal das Wort.

Christian Doleschal, rapporteur. – Madam President, following the vote that has taken place on the Aarhus Regulation here today, I would like to request that the matter be referred back to the committee responsible for institutional negotiations pursuant to Rule 59.

(Die Sitzung wird um 13.11 Uhr unterbrochen)

PRESIDÊNCIA: PEDRO SILVA PEREIRA

Vice-Presidente

13.   Resumption of the sitting

(A sessão é reiniciada às 13h45)

14.   Second voting session

Presidente. – Passamos agora ao segundo período de votação.

Votaremos nos dossiês conforme indicado na ordem do dia.

O período de votação decorrerá entre as 13h45 e as 15 horas.

A votação é feita segundo o mesmo procedimento que foi utilizado nos períodos de votação anteriores e todas as votações serão realizadas por votação nominal.

Declaro aberto o segundo período de votação. Podem votar até às 15 horas.

Os resultados das votações serão comunicados às 16h30.

(A sessão é suspensa às 13h46)

VORSITZ: OTHMAR KARAS

Vizepräsident

15.   Resumption of the sitting

(Die Sitzung wird um 14.30 Uhr wieder aufgenommen)

16.   Request for waiver of immunity: see Minutes

17.   Composition of committees and delegations : see Minutes

18.   The severe impact of the recent spring frost on fruit and wine growers (debate)

Der Präsident. – Als nächster Punkt der Tagesordnung folgt die Aussprache über die Anfrage zur mündlichen Beantwortung an die Kommission über die schweren Auswirkungen des jüngsten Frühjahrsfrosts auf Obst- und Weinerzeuger von Norbert Lins im Namen des Ausschusses für Landwirtschaft und ländliche Entwicklung (O-000032/2021 - B9-0016/2021) (2021/2696(RSP)).

Norbert Lins, Verfasser. – Herr Präsident, Herr Kommissar, liebe Kolleginnen und Kollegen! Die Landwirtschaft ist der Sektor, welcher am stärksten vom Klimawandel betroffen ist. Ob Dürre oder Frost – jede Extremwetterlage hat direkten Einfluss auf den Ertrag unserer europäischen Bäuerinnen und Bauern. In diesem Jahr hat es vor allem unseren Obst— und Weinbau erwischt. Der härteste Frühjahrsfrost seit 1991 führte zu historischen Ernteverlusten, teilweise bis zu hundert Prozent. Das ist eine wirtschaftliche Katastrophe für die betroffenen Erzeugerinnen und Erzeuger, welche immer noch an der COVID-Krise leiden.

Die Häufigkeit dieser Extremsituationen nimmt von Jahr zu Jahr zu. Ich sehe es als Aufgabe der Europäischen Union, hier unsere Risikomanagement-Instrumente anzupassen, um unsere Landwirte zu unterstützen. Als Parlament machen wir gerade dies: In den laufenden GAP-Verhandlungen zur europäischen Landwirtschaftsreform arbeiten wir gezielt an Verbesserungen. Und – da bin ich mir sicher – das wird den Erzeugerinnen und Erzeugern bei Verlusten in Zukunft viel helfen. Unsere Bäuerinnen und Bauern brauchen aber jetzt Unterstützung. Auch wenn wir als Parlament hart daran arbeiten, die Verhandlungen nächste Woche zu beenden, ist dies zu spät für bereits bestehende Verluste.

Ich fordere die Kommission hiermit auf, hier verfügbare Mittel zu prüfen und unserer Landwirtschaft zu helfen. Zusätzlich müssen wir an die Zukunft denken, und hier hat der Agrarausschuss drei Fragen an die Kommission, Herr Kommissar. Erstens: Wie plant die Kommission, die bestehenden Instrumente des Risikomanagements zu verbessern? Der Agrarausschuss setzt sich für mehr Flexibilität bei der Umsetzung innovativer Instrumente in den Strategieplänen ein. Ziehen Sie dies in Erwägung? Zweitens: Welche Maßnahmen wird die Kommission vorschlagen, um den betroffenen Landwirten bei der Bewältigung der Frostschäden zu helfen? Und drittens: Wie plant die Kommission, die Anpassung von Nutzpflanzen an den Klimawandel zu verbessern? Wie fördern wir Forschung und Innovation in diesem Bereich?

Sehr geehrter Herr Kommissar, geschätzte Kolleginnen und Kollegen, ich sage immer, die Landwirtschaft ist Teil der Lösung für mehr Umwelt und Klimaschutz und nicht das Problem. Sie muss und wird sich anpassen. Gleichzeitig ist sie der einzige Sektor, welcher CO2 natürlich speichern kann und so ganz automatisch zum Klimaschutz beitragen kann. Trotzdem oder gerade deshalb dürfen wir unsere Bäuerinnen und Bauern in einer solchen Situation, in einer solchen Extremlage, nicht alleinlassen, sondern müssen sie unterstützen. Und ich hoffe auch auf Ihre Unterstützung, Herr Kommissar.

Janusz Wojciechowski, Member of the Commission. – Mr President, thank you very much, thank you Mr Lins for your questions, and thank you for your camaraderie for putting this very important topic on the agenda.

Honourable Members of the European Parliament, risk management requires three essential elements: risk prevention and adaptation to new conditions, in particular environmental and climate ones, the right risk management tools to deal with it, and an adequate budget to finance it.

Currently the common agricultural policy offers various options to help farmers to adapt to new production conditions and manage their business risk, mainly through sectoral market programmes financed by the guarantee fund or rural development programmes financed by the Rural Development Fund.

Risk prevention and adaptation to new conditions is important and can be improved. Sectoral fruit and vegetable and wine programmes can play a key role to help growers to adjust to climatic events. Rural development programmes allow Member States to offer public support aiming at helping farmers increase the resilience of their businesses at holding level.

The common agricultural policy already supports compensation schemes to cover production losses caused, for instance, by adverse climatic events such as frost. Farmers may receive public support to address the risk from climate-related events from all risk management instruments, such as insurance, mutual funds or income stabilisation tools. Furthermore, support for the restoration of production potential damaged by natural disasters is possible.

I wanted to point out to you that the CAP tools are available. However, in order to implement them, and to make them available for farmers, Member States and sectoral producers' organisations have to activate them in their programmes.

About risk management in the future CAP. In the future CAP we have to do more. The Commission recognises the increased exposure of the sector to climate-related risks. The proposal for the post-2020 common agricultural policy that we are currently debating in the trilogue negotiations delivers on the needs of risk management and use of innovative tools to be included in the preparation of the CAP strategic plans.

The CAP can provide support to help farmers manage their production and income risks from unexpected weather events outside their control. Specifically, insurance and mutual funds, including income stabilisation tools, should remain possible but support will also be possible for other more innovative risk management tools.

Member States will be required to conduct a needs assessment and approach the objective strategically, including the planning and implementation of relevant support schemes. Such a strategy needs to include support to withstand unexpected shocks. The scope of the risk management tools under the FRD has been widened to accommodate the above-mentioned needs.

Concerning the budget. You are aware that we discussed the agriculture reserve during the trilogue on the horizontal regulation on 23 April. At that time, the Council Presidency stressed that the Council's general approach reflects the July 2020 European Council decisions. As you remember, the EUCO set a fixed amount of EUR 450 million per year as a crisis reserve. I understand that for the European Parliament it is crucial to have a more flexible reserve. I'm sure this point will be on the agenda at the super trilogue next week.

In relation to the second question: does the Commission intend to propose any measures to help the farmers concerned overcome the losses caused by the frost? As this stage, the Commission is not intending to activate sectoral support measures connected to the frost damages caused this year in the wine and fruit and vegetable sectors. However, close monitoring of the situation in the sectors will continue, keeping the option open to react were needed.

The immediate issue is the potential impact on harvest later this year. Crop losses due to the frost comes at a time when wine producers have already been hit hard by COVID-19 lockdowns and bar and restaurant closures as well as the cancellation of wine fairs and loss of revenue from tourism.

Therefore, the monitoring and assessment of the situation in the wine and food sectors should also consider the extensive and extraordinary support that is being provided to the agricultural sector as a response to the COVID pandemic. This includes the expanded state aid options and other dedicated support schemes, such as under the FRD exceptional temporary support to farmers and SMEs particularly affected by the COVID-19 crisis.

For the sectoral market programmes, the Commission could consider, where feasible, adjustments in existing fruit and vegetable and wine programmes in order to make risk management more attractive, without leading to additional expenditure – the normal programming.

For the rural development programmes, the legal proposal for the post-2020 common agricultural policy currently debated in the trilogue negotiations delivers on the needs, risk management and use of innovative tools to be included in the preparation of the CAP strategy plans. Farmers increasingly face the consequences of the climate and biodiversity crisis. It is therefore crucial that the new CAP helps our farmers become more resilient.

As regards the last question: what action the Commission is planning to take in the field of research to improve the adaptation of crops to climate change? Research and innovation have a key role to play in helping permanent crops to adjust to climate change, including late frost. Research and innovation can contribute by developing adapted breeds that can better deal with the late frost.

Both the framework programme for research and innovation and the CAP EIP-AGRI have contributed solutions to this important issue. This is no one-size-fits-all solution to this issue, but a large number of approaches that can fit specific crops and locations in the EU.

Several EU research and innovation projects have contributed to solving this issue. For instance, INNOVINE research and innovation project aimed at developing knowledge tools and genetic resources necessary to better adapt viticulture to climate change.

The EUBerry project developed a technical innovation to control spring frost with low water consumption. That will be a topic in the Horizon Europe work programme 2021-2022, which will deal with the development of adaptation strategies that can potentially bring additional solutions.

On the site of the EIP-AGRI under the CAP, a focus group has dealt specifically with this issue in a very comprehensive manner in the fruit sector in 2019 and reviewed the various possible approaches to deal with it. A number of bottom-up projects, the so-called EIP-AGRI operational group, are focused on this issue.

Herbert Dorfmann, im Namen der PPE-Fraktion. – Herr Präsident, sehr geehrter Herr Kommissar, geschätzte Kolleginnen und Kollegen! Die Spätfröste in den ersten Apriltagen haben leider sehr große Teile Europas betroffen, und leider auch nicht zum ersten Mal. Wir erleben in den letzten Jahren immer wiederkehrende Spätfröste, sehr ausgebreitet, auch in Gebieten, wo sonst eigentlich Spätfröste kaum auftreten, wie zum Beispiel im Mittelmeerraum. Es hat leider – Herr Kommissar, Sie haben es gerade auch gesagt – auch gerade wieder jene Bauern getroffen, welche durch die COVID-Krise schon schwer getroffen worden sind: den Obst- und Gemüsesektor und vor allem auch den Weinsektor.

Daher stellt sich schon die Frage, wie wir diesen Bäuerinnen und Bauern jetzt unter die Arme greifen können. Und da gebe ich Ihnen Recht, Herr Kommissar: Wir müssen über ein effizientes Krisensystem nachdenken, und wir brauchen hier eine schnellere Antwort. Aber wir müssen auch schauen, dass diese Situation nicht vom Markt ausgenutzt wird. Das Angebot wird sich verknappen, die Preise werden steigen, und wir erleben leider immer wieder, dass solche Situationen dann auch von den Verteilern, von den großen Supermarktketten ausgenutzt werden, um ungerechtfertigt höhere Preise zu erreichen. Das, glaube ich, ist nicht im Sinne der Bauern und erst recht nicht im Sinne der Konsumenten.

Aber das zentrale Thema – das haben Sie, Herr Kommissar, auch angesprochen – ist die Frage: Wie gehen wir mit Risikomanagementsystemen um? Da muss ich feststellen, dass immer noch viel zu wenig Bäuerinnen und Bauern, viel zu wenig landwirtschaftliche Betriebe versichert sind, weil die Mitgliedstaaten teilweise keine brauchbaren Tools anbieten, weil die Betriebe es sich nicht leisten können, sich versichern zu lassen, oder weil sie es ganz einfach nicht tun möchten. Hier brauchen wir neue Ansätze. Wir müssen dafür sorgen, dass ein Großteil der bäuerlichen Betriebe in Europa auch gegen Spätfröste und gegen andere klimatische Ausnahmeerscheinungen versichert ist. Und ich glaube, wir sollten offen sein für alle neuen Instrumente, die hier vorgebracht werden. Auch der Mitgliedstaat, aus dem ich komme, hat im Laufe dieser jetzt stattfindenden Trilogverhandlungen neue Ideen aufgebracht, wie man solche Risikomanagementsysteme verbessern könnte. Ich glaube, wir sollten das unterstützen. Jeder neue Ansatz ist ein wichtiger und guter Ansatz für die Zukunft.

Paolo De Castro, a nome del gruppo S&D. – Signor Presidente, signor Commissario, onorevoli colleghi, le immagini dei nostri agricoltori, impegnati giorno e notte con candele e bracieri per difendere i propri vigneti o i propri frutteti dall'eccezionale ondata di gelate dello scorso aprile, non possono lasciarci ancora una volta indifferenti.

Settori produttivi fondamentali, non solo a garantire la nostra sicurezza alimentare ma anche per il numero di occupati che generano, hanno subito perdite che sfiorano la totalità della loro produzione. Una situazione che va a sommarsi agli effetti drammatici dovuti alla pandemia del COVID-19 e che mette a serio rischio la sostenibilità sociale ed economica delle aree rurali europee.

Non possiamo più permettere che eventi catastrofici di questo genere, sempre più frequenti e direttamente collegati al cambiamento climatico, vengano fronteggiati solamente dall'impegno e dallo spirito di sacrificio dei nostri produttori.

Per questo, caro Commissario, chiediamo un suo intervento tempestivo, al fine di attivare le misure eccezionali per contrastare tali situazioni, previste dall'articolo 219 del regolamento sull'organizzazione comune dei mercati (OCM). Misure che sono già state utilizzate per situazioni simili negli ultimi anni, offrendo un parziale ma vitale ristoro ai produttori delle aree colpite.

Ma al di là della gestione dell'emergenza serve una visione di più lungo termine su come l'Unione europea intenda dimostrarsi al fianco dei propri produttori agricoli per affrontare efficacemente questa sfida globale, con un approccio comune e fortemente coordinato.

In questo senso, come lei ha detto Commissario, la riforma della politica agricola comune che ci apprestiamo a concludere offre un'occasione imperdibile per un sostanziale miglioramento degli strumenti a disposizione degli agricoltori europei per la gestione e la mitigazione dei rischi intrinsechi all'attività agricola.

Nonostante i passi avanti effettuati negli ultimi anni, infatti, ci rendiamo sempre più conto di come gli strumenti esistenti non siano adeguati alle mutate condizioni climatiche dei nostri territori. Una inadeguatezza che potrebbe essere colmata grazie al rafforzamento, come proposto da questo Parlamento, delle misure eccezionali per fronteggiare le turbative di mercato previste dal regolamento OCM.

Non solo, chiediamo con forza che una parte, seppur limitata, dei fondi destinati ai segmenti diretti della PAC possa andare a finanziare una rete di sicurezza che protegga tutti i produttori europei dagli eventi catastrofici, come quelli che hanno colpito svariate regioni lo scorso aprile.

Presidente, Commissario, i nostri agricoltori e i nostri lavoratori agricoli hanno ripetutamente dato prova del loro spirito di abnegazione, non da ultimo durante la pandemia, quando hanno garantito che il cibo continuasse a giungere sulle nostre tavole, mettendo a rischio la propria salute. Ora è arrivato il momento di dimostrare la solidarietà dell'Unione europea, ponendoci al loro fianco nel fronteggiare le future sfide del settore.

Irène Tolleret, au nom du groupe Renew. – Monsieur le Président, Monsieur le Commissaire, chers collègues, début avril, des viticulteurs et des arboriculteurs de plusieurs régions européennes se sont réveillés et ils avaient tout perdu. Ils avaient tout perdu suite à un épisode de froid arctique d'une ampleur inégalée.

Plusieurs centaines de milliers d'hectares ont été touchés en France, en Allemagne et en Italie. On parle de 5 milliards d'euros de pertes. Rien qu'en France, 80 % du vignoble est gravement atteint et les producteurs prévoient de très faibles récoltes. Beaucoup de fermes ont perdu 100 % de leurs récoltes. Il faut remonter à 1991 pour retrouver un épisode aussi dévastateur. Ces gels sont la goutte d'eau qui fait déborder le vase du désespoir pour les viticulteurs, qui n'arrivaient déjà pas à sortir la tête de l'eau, à cause des conséquences économiques de la COVID-19 et des sanctions américaines.

Il n'y a pas que le vin; il y a l'arboriculture. Beaucoup de productions fruitières ont payé un lourd tribut à ce froid de cette année, avec des pertes qui atteignent 80 % pour les abricots, 70 % pour les prunes et 60 % pour les pommes, par exemple. En seulement quelques nuits de gel, les revenus de nombreux agriculteurs se sont volatilisés, y compris des agriculteurs qui avaient investi dans du matériel de protection des récoltes contre le froid.

Sommes-nous étonnés de ce qui s'est passé? Non, nous ne pouvons pas le dire. Chaque année, nous nous retrouvons pour dire: ‘Ah, encore un épisode et on n'avait jamais vu ça.’ Des aléas de plus en plus extrêmes, de plus en plus vastes et de plus en plus fréquents touchent l'Union européenne chaque année: c'est le changement climatique. Les systèmes assurantiels que nous avons en place ne sont pas à la hauteur des pertes des agriculteurs. Les fermiers sont confrontés à une réalité climatique qui dépasse la taille des outils que met à leur disposition la politique agricole commune. Il est très important que l'Union européenne regarde ce fait dans les yeux et arrête de regarder ailleurs.

Je regrette vivement que, lors des négociations de la réforme de la politique agricole commune, le Parlement européen n'ait pas eu le soutien de la Commission européenne pour améliorer de manière substantielle le régime assurantiel du deuxième pilier de la PAC. Je veux d'ailleurs profiter de cette occasion pour demander à la Commission, en vue de la phase finale de la négociation qui aura lieu la semaine prochaine, qu'elle revoie sa position concernant la demande du Parlement de modifier la moyenne utilisée pour le calcul des pertes. La moyenne actuelle de cinq ans doit être élargie, car nous avons des agriculteurs qui, sur ces cinq années, ont quatre ans d'aléas climatiques, donc la moyenne n'est pas adaptée.

Face au changement climatique, les mesures de prévention sont parfois inutiles au stade actuel. Les agriculteurs n'ont pas les moyens pour faire face aux imprévus climatiques. On parle d'irrigation et d'investissement dans du matériel d'irrigation, mais encore faut-il avoir de l'eau pour irriguer. Je me réjouis des objectifs du pacte vert pour l'Europe en matière d'amélioration de la durabilité des productions agricoles européennes, mais il ne faut pas tarder à mettre en place des instruments destinés à renforcer la résilience environnementale et économique des productions européennes.

D'ailleurs, il ne faut pas que l'Union européenne perde la bataille de la science, ni celle de la région: nous allons voir débarquer sur les marchés internationaux des produits issus de recherches qui, aujourd'hui, ne sont pas autorisées en Europe et qui font que, par rapport au changement climatique, les agriculteurs européens peuvent partir avec des règles de base différentes. Ils n'arriveront pas à résister au changement climatique si la recherche ne produit pas des plantes qui résistent au changement climatique. Ces nouvelles techniques peuvent être une solution efficace et peu coûteuse pour répondre aux exigences du pacte vert pour l'Europe et pour améliorer la résistance des cultures. Le rapport publié la semaine dernière sur les nouvelles techniques de modification génomique a été le bienvenu. J'attends la suite de l'étude d'impact.

Chers collègues, ne manquons pas le rendez-vous que l'histoire nous donne: celui de l'adaptation de notre agriculture au changement climatique.

Elena Lizzi, a nome del gruppo ID. – Signor Presidente, signor Commissario, onorevoli colleghi, purtroppo non è un bel momento per il settore ortofrutticolo e vinicolo. Per contestualizzare la drammatica situazione, rammento i numeri disastrosi causati dalle gelate che hanno colpito la mia regione, il Friuli Venezia Giulia, nei mesi di aprile e di maggio.

Per quanto riguarda il settore vinicolo, le gelate hanno colpito le varietà precoci della zona della pianura pordenonese che avevano già iniziato il germogliamento, come i vitigni glera e chardonnay; nel settore ortofrutticolo le specie più danneggiate sono il kiwi e gli asparagi, quasi completamente falcidiati. Purtroppo la situazione non è differente in Veneto, dove si registra l'azzeramento della produzione del kiwi in provincia di Verona e danni gravi ai ciliegi del Vicentino, oltre alle orticole e gli asparagi tra il padovano e il veneziano. Queste sono solo alcune delle situazioni del nordest dell'Italia e, secondo le associazioni di categoria nazionali, i danni ammontano a un miliardo di euro solo in Italia e quindi servono interventi straordinari.

L'Istat ha ieri dichiarato che, solo per il vino, le esportazioni italiane nel primo bimestre 2021 sono diminuite del 13 % rispetto allo stesso periodo del 2020; tutto ciò in un contesto non ancora post-pandemico e sappiamo, lo abbiamo ricordato, l'impegno degli agricoltori durante la pandemia.

Per aiutare il settore è necessario analizzare quali sono le difficoltà che hanno gli agricoltori nella corretta gestione del rischio e cosa serve per avere un impianto assicurativo appetibile: in base alla normativa la gelata tardiva è considerata assicurabile, quindi le Regioni non possono aiutare economicamente gli agricoltori. Le Regioni, però, hanno bisogno nel più breve tempo possibile di flessibilità e di strumenti ad hoc per calmierare le perdite causate dal gelo e per avviare strumenti straordinari ci dev'essere un intervento congiunto, nazionale e comunitario.

Anche la ricerca potrebbe dare una grossa mano con risposte concrete e scientifiche: è necessario un cambio sulle new breeding techniques poiché la loro regolamentazione potrebbe dare un maggiore impulso alla ricerca, per creare varietà più resistenti al freddo o che possano ritardare il loro ciclo vegetativo o posticipare lo sviluppo fenologico e, di conseguenza, evitare gli effetti delle gelate.

Possiamo però mettere in pratica già oggi tecniche agronomiche e strumenti, come giusti impianti d'irrigazione per proteggere fiori e gemme, che devono trovare una via privilegiata negli investimenti dello sviluppo rurale. Questo servirebbe per proteggere le colture dalle gelate e dare corpo al sistema della sostenibilità con le giuste risorse.

L'acqua serve nei campi, non per annacquare il vino. Signor Commissario, io spero che i colleghi stiano attenti quest'anno per evitare un'altra variazione di bilancio con cui risorse dai capitoli dell'agricoltura finiscono per altre finalità.

Claude Gruffat, au nom du groupe Verts/ALE. – Monsieur le Président, Monsieur le Commissaire, chers collègues, Cyril est vigneron bio à Mont-près-Chambord dans le Loir-et-Cher, en France, c'est près de chez moi. Il élève un vin particulièrement élaboré, sur l'expression d'un terroir, avec des cépages historiques adaptés à un modèle cultural plutôt doux qui recherche la qualité avant tout.

Le mois dernier, je suis allé sur son domaine d'une douzaine d'hectares constater les dégâts du gel: le résultat était terrible. C'est pire que ce que j'imaginais. Sa récolte était largement compromise et il craignait même pour la survie de ses ceps. La faute à un froid étonnamment marqué pour cette période, où le gel était un gel d'hiver à — 7 oC, plutôt qu'un gel normal de printemps à — 2 oC pour cette période. L'impact est violent. Le vigneron ne peut pas lutter, malgré son équipement antigel installé dans les vignes.

C'est l'épisode précédent, bien trop chaud, qui a fait bourgeonner prématurément les vignes. C'est bien le dérèglement climatique qui est en cause. Pire, et c'est là le plus inquiétant, alors que son prédécesseur subissait un épisode de froid extrême, une fois tous les douze à quinze ans, donc trois fois en 45 ans, Cyril en aura connu une tous les deux ans depuis son installation, il y a dix ans: cinq en dix ans.

Le dérèglement climatique a rendu ces aléas non pas exceptionnels, mais habituels. Chers collègues, ce qui est sinistré dans cet épisode, ce ne sont pas seulement les vignes de Cyril et les récoltes de bien d'autres paysans européens; ce qui est sinistré, ce sont nos certitudes. En tant que paysans et en tant que politiques, cette année, une fois de plus, nous avons un avant-goût des menaces qui pèsent sur notre sécurité alimentaire et une illustration de la faiblesse de la PAC actuelle et de celle des années à venir.

La gravité de la situation nécessite notre pleine attention et des actes à la hauteur. Nous le devons à nos paysans et à la souveraineté alimentaire européenne. D'abord, il faut évidemment venir en aide aux producteurs de toute urgence. À leur niveau, les États peuvent agir, notamment sur les allégements de charges et les reports d'échéances financières, et par des assouplissements dans les versements de soutien de la PAC. En ce qui concerne les indemnisations, l'Union de son côté va ouvrir le chantier d'une refonte et – vous l'avez dit, Monsieur le Commissaire – celui des assurances récoltes. Trop chères, mal calibrées, les assurances privées actuelles sont peu prisées des paysans. À la fin, c'est en général la puissance publique, et donc le contribuable, qui est mis à contribution.

Un système d'assurance mutualisée pluriannuel permanent accessible au plus grand nombre serait évidemment le bienvenu. C'est une réflexion à inclure d'urgence dans la réforme en cours de la PAC, qui prévoit une proposition de couverture des risques, mais qui est insuffisante. Un système assurantiel mutualisé continu serait plus efficace sur le long terme, mais les assurances ne sont que des expédients.

Il importe surtout d'agir plus en profondeur, à moyen et long terme, sur le modèle d'agriculture industrielle dominant depuis 60 ans. Ce modèle, qui porte d'un côté une part de responsabilité dans les catastrophes climatiques que nous déplorons, année après année, est par ailleurs incapable de répondre aux conséquences occasionnées par ces mêmes catastrophes. La PAC actuelle comme à venir constitue un frein structurel à l'émergence des changements agronomiques indispensables et à une souveraineté alimentaire future. Agroécologie, nouvelles variétés, adaptation des pratiques, meilleure gestion de l'eau, etc: autant de chantiers indispensables, mais pas du tout accompagnés.

Un changement de paradigme est indispensable. Il faut d'urgence passer des mots aux actes. Le pacte vert pour l'Europe et les stratégies ‘De la ferme à la table’ et biodiversité doivent passer de la théorie et de la rhétorique à une mise en œuvre concrète. Cela passe par une PAC totalement rénovée, loin de ce qui est négocié aujourd'hui. Chers collègues, ce grave épisode de gel doit nous inciter à sortir des faux-semblants. Il faut arrêter de dire; il faut faire. Nous le devons à Cyril et à tous les autres paysans de l'Union européenne.

Krzysztof Jurgiel, w imieniu grupy ECR. – Panie Przewodniczący! Panie Komisarzu! W Polsce na podstawie ustawy o ubezpieczeniach upraw rolnych i zwierząt gospodarskich rząd przyznaje z budżetu państwa dopłaty do składek producentów rolnych z tytułu zawarcia umów ubezpieczenia od zdarzeń losowych, takich jak przymrozki. Pomoc ta obejmuje kredyty preferencyjne, wsparcie finansowe w opłacaniu bieżących składek na ubezpieczenie społeczne, odroczenie niektórych płatności ponoszonych przez rolników oraz ulgi w podatku rolnym.

Zmiana klimatu powoduje, że klęski klimatyczne będą coraz częstsze. W ramach reformy wspólnej polityki rolnej dyskutujemy o zmianach w zakresie obecnej rezerwy kryzysowej. Kryzys koronawirusa pokazał, że taka zmiana jest konieczna, by zapobiec ogromnym stratom finansowym ponoszonym przez rolników i pomóc im stanąć na nogi. Kryzys koronawirusa był jednak – i w zasadzie nadal jest – kryzysem bezprecedensowym. Susze, przymrozki, powodzie i inne zdarzenia losowe są natomiast nieodłącznie wpisane w działalność rolniczą. W związku z tym powinniśmy być przygotowani na rozwiązanie tego problemu na poziomie unijnym.

Kwiecień 2021 roku był w Polsce najzimniejszy od 24 lat. Majowe przymrozki dotknęły rolników w całej Europie, a ich skutki są tragiczne. Przymrozki w tym kluczowym okresie mogą całkowicie zniszczyć całoroczne zbiory w przypadku winogron czy znacznie pogorszyć jakość jabłek oraz innych owoców i warzyw, co dotyka nie tylko rolników ale i konsumentów.

W ramach działań interwencji rynkowej zasadne jest wnioskowanie do Komisji Europejskiej o uruchomienie rezerwy kryzysowej na realizację ustanowionych przez Komisję Europejską środków przeciwdziałania zakłóceniom na rynku w formie aktów wykonawczych na podstawie art. 219 rozporządzenia ustanawiającego wspólną organizację rynków produktów rolnych.

Wnioskuję zatem do Komisji Europejskiej, by w przypadkach podobnych klęsk żywiołowych uruchamiano rezerwę kryzysową, by pomóc sadownikom i w efekcie ograniczyć wzrost cen owoców dla konsumentów.

Mick Wallace, on behalf of The Left Group. – Mr President, the discussion today focuses very much on southern Europe and I have a particular interest in Italia. I thought it would only be right to wear the Torino jersey today, given that their draw with Lazio on Tuesday night means they survive in Serie A. This is very important for a lot of people.

I grow a little wine in Piemonte and I've been familiar with the frost for a few years, believe it or not. I've built and operated Italian wine bars in Dublin, and so I have a lot of contacts with producers in Italy. Speaking to some of these producers, there is a shared understanding about the problems. Obviously, it's hard to find consensus on the way forward.

There are many problems facing the wine industry and agriculture, in general. Some are connected to global warming, others are connected to privatisation and the neo-liberalisation of the agricultural sector. The fact of the matter is that the neo-liberal ideology not only drives us faster towards climate systems breakdown, but compounds the disastrous effects of the ravages of climate change.

We are generally talking about Southern Europe in the debate, but the trend is global. It's impossible to talk about just one sector of agriculture, because it's all connected. Some sectors of agriculture, like dairy and beef, are contributing to climate catastrophe. Some forms of agriculture are helping to make other forms of agriculture precarious. The world over, intensive big-input farming has made deserts out of perfectly decent arable land. Millions have been displaced and often there are secondary displacements as conflicts over reduced access to essential resources flare up.

This is the context of global warming: the violent and forced suppression and control of the global south, which is used as a site of resource extraction to feed the perpetual growth of the global north as it continues to billow out carbon emissions and speed along climate disaster.

Not only does the EU help destroy the environment where it extracts its raw material from, it ensures that these areas of extraction do not have the resources available to mitigate and implement the most basic mechanisms to protect their own populations from destruction. Now European agriculture is suffering from the effects of global warming that the developed world's capitalist system helped bring about. The spring frosts and extreme weather events have become part of everyday life, and even if the global north were to take real action to deal with climate change, which means degrowth, it would take many years before we would start seeing signs of improvement, but start we must.

The producers that I have spoken to have all said that the best thing for them as farmers would be for the EU to engage in real climate action. Bruno Rivetti, a producer in Neive in Piemonte said to me: these increasingly frequent and intense frost waves are the consequences of climate change due both to pollution and to the exploitation of the land and natural resources. He says we must learn to rethink our earth and the planet we live on as a precious asset, not only for us, but above all for our children and for the generations to come.

There are also calls for investment in research into mitigation practices and so on, but the fact of the matter is, the best defence against a late frost at the moment is pruning later in the year. Now this means the pruning process will have to take place much more quickly for vineyards of any size and this means investment in expensive equipment that can automate a part of the pruning process.

This leads us to another problem: the bureaucracy involved at all levels of wine production and agriculture in general has become unworkable. There are ever more private intermediaries between the farmer and his or her local organisation and the grant money available. I spoke to a producer in Lazio, Marco Marocco, and he said: I don't know if Europe can help us. The biggest problem we have in Italy that perhaps Europe can help us with, is to solve our bureaucratic problem, even to have access to the old European fund. Many vintners that I know, they renounce to participate, to ask for European funds because they're terrified by the quantity of bureaucracy that we have to face, because here in Italy it's a crazy situation. It's a crazy situation, he says and it's a huge problem. He said: I applied for a European fund five years ago. I had an answer after five years. They just let me know that I was not in because they'd finished the money. After five years, you know. I could even be dead after five years.

It's all connected. And unless you see that colonialism, wars, capitalism, privatisation and endless growth are leading to destructive spring frosts in Europe, we are condemning all farmers everywhere to increased devastation of their livelihoods. We have a responsibility to protect food producers and, sadly, the last CAP and the new one are still giving 80% of the money to the 20% richest farmers. We are still giving the money to the farmers that don't need it. The money has to go to the farmers that need it if we want them to survive, if we want to help them to move away from chemical fertilisers and pesticides. This can't happen unless we help them. But we're not doing it, we're still giving the money away to those with the most power and the most money.

Ivan Vilibor Sinčić (NI). – Poštovani predsjedavajući, hrvatski poljoprivrednici često imaju problema s mrazom. Međutim, mnogo veći problem su interesne skupine koje desetljećima kroje hrvatsku poljoprivrednu politiku.

Cilj tih interesnih skupina je ojačati nekolicinu najvećih proizvođača, a u isto vrijeme malo ili ništa ostaviti velikom broju malih proizvođača, odnosno feudalizacija. U Hrvatskoj krš ide sve od Samobora pa do Konovala, a to je prostor veći od Slavonije i predstavlja veliko bogatstvo za razvoj poljoprivrede i to one ekstenzivne i ekološke koja je budućnost.

Agro šumarstvo je sistemsko korištenje zemljišta i upravljanja u kojem se uzgaja drveće ili grmlje oko ili između usjeva ili pašnjaka, odnosno to je kombiniranje stabala s usjevima i pašnjacima. I dok je u drugim zemljama Europe s kršem i krškim pašnjacima, mahom su one na Mediteranu, normalno da stoka pase u šumama, među stablima ili u grmlju, u Hrvatskoj se takav način proizvodnje zatire. Ista Unija, druga pravila. Ista zajednička poljoprivredna politika, druga praksa. Drugi mogu, Hrvati ne.

Osim pristojne politike Vlade, odgovornost je na Hrvatskim šumama, državnoj firmi koja upravlja zemljištem i šumskim zemljištem i opstruira hrvatske poljoprivrednike. Potrebna je promjena politike u ovom sektoru, i to brzo.

Anne Sander (PPE). – Monsieur le Président, Monsieur le Commissaire, depuis plus d'un an, les obstacles s'accumulent pour nos agriculteurs européens: guerre commerciale avec les États-Unis, pandémie et maintenant, terribles épisodes de gel.

En France, de nombreuses régions ont été impactées par cette vague de froid exceptionnel, causant d'importants dégâts dans nos cultures de fruits et de vin, et se traduisant par une perte sèche de revenus pour les producteurs. Les soutiens nationaux sont insuffisants pour pallier ces calamités agricoles. La situation actuelle montre, une fois de plus, l'importance d'outils de gestion des risques forts et capables d'aider nos agriculteurs face à ces pertes importantes.

La réforme de la politique agricole commune permettra d'avancer sur ces sujets, en donnant plus de flexibilité aux États membres, mais également en consolidant les avancées obtenues dans le cadre du règlement Omnibus et dans le règlement de transition.

Toutefois, ces avancées sont trop timides et la boîte à outils de gestion des risques de la PAC restera facultative pour les États membres. Je déplore, à ce titre, les résistances de certains d'entre nous sur les bancs de notre hémicycle qui nous empêchent d'aller plus loin, et ce d'autant plus que le réchauffement climatique sera malheureusement propice à la répétition de ce type d'événement. Je regrette également que les États membres ne soient pas plus ambitieux dans la mise en place d'une véritable réserve de crise.

Nous devons nous doter des moyens nécessaires pour accompagner nos producteurs dans ces pires moments, mais aussi pour leur donner les moyens de faire évoluer leur production vers plus de résilience lorsque cela est nécessaire.

Clara Aguilera (S&D). – Señor presidente, señor comisario, a los quince meses que llevamos de pandemia y que ha padecido el sector, a los aranceles impuestos por los Estados Unidos a algunos productos españoles y europeos, como el caso del vino, a toda esta situación, hay que sumarle las heladas de esta primavera que, especialmente en mi país, han tenido una repercusión en sectores tan relevantes como el del vino, con denominaciones de origen importantes, o los de la fruta de hueso y el almendro.

En mi país, las principales zonas de uva de vino han padecido esas heladas en el mes de abril, por lo que se han visto afectadas. Estoy hablando de zonas como Navarra, La Rioja o la provincia de Álava; también de Castilla y León y Castilla-La Mancha, con denominaciones de origen importantes, como Ribera del Duero, Toro, u otro tipo de denominaciones también con una gran relevancia. Esta afectación viene añadida a todo lo demás. Hay que sumar a esto la fruta de hueso y el almendro. Todo ello resulta en más de 63 500 hectáreas afectadas en España.

Allí tenemos seguros agrarios, es verdad. Tenemos un fuerte sistema de gestión de recursos, pero es insuficiente, señor comisario. Es insuficiente porque, a estas heladas en 63 500 hectáreas, hay que sumar lo que están suponiendo estos quince meses.

Y quiero terminar con un nuevo agradecimiento al sector agrícola español y europeo por todo el gran trabajo que están haciendo a pesar de la pandemia, a pesar de los aranceles y a pesar de la situación climática.

Hilde Vautmans (Renew). – Voorzitter, commissaris, sneeuw op 6 april! In Vlaanderen is zoiets eigenlijk ondenkbaar. Maar vorige maand heb ik het in levenden lijve kunnen aanschouwen in mijn mooie stad Sint-Truiden. Plots waren onze prachtige bloesems, die op dat moment op hun kwetsbaarst waren, bedekt onder de sneeuw. Het was prachtig om te zien, maar samen met de telers hield ik mijn hart vast voor de gevolgen van het vriesweer en de sneeuw voor de kersen-, peren- en appeloogst. Nachtenlang was het voor onze boeren alle hens aan dek, stelden ze de vuurpotten op en was het bang afwachten. Want zo'n stevige winterprik in volle lente, ik heb het in elk geval nog nooit meegemaakt, commissaris.

Het is me opgevallen dat ik mijn tussenkomsten de laatste jaren steeds vaker moet beginnen met de woorden: ‘Ik heb dit nog nooit meegemaakt.’ Dit jaar met de sneeuw en de late vorst in april, in 2019 — herinner u – met de zonnebrand, in 2016 met de zware junistorm. Ook de droogteperiodes waren de afgelopen zomer steeds extremer.

Commissaris, als schepen van Landbouw ga ik iedere keer na zo'n ramp te velde. Er zijn boerderijen waar ik jaar na jaar ben moeten binnenstappen en buitenkomen met het verdict 80 % schade, 100 % schade. Boeren, kanjers van mannen die huilend op hun erf staan, waar – echt waar – alle reserves op zijn, jaar na jaar zoveel schade … Commissaris, u weet dat! Tijdens uw hoorzitting in de Commissie landbouw haalde u aan dat er in Europa 1 000 landbouwbedrijven per dag verdwijnen. 1 000, dat is een cijfer waar ik als boerendochter van wakker lig en dat natuurlijk vele oorzaken kent. De extreme weersomstandigheden, maar ook de lage prijzen, de ongelijke concurrentie en vooral natuurlijk politieke beslissingen waar de boeren de prijs voor betalen, waar ze niks aan kunnen doen. Denk maar aan de brexit, aan de Ruslandboycot. Dat zorgt natuurlijk voor druk op die boerenfamilies. We moeten deze trend een halt toeroepen, trotser zijn op onze boeren en hun heerlijke, verse producten, die ze elke dag produceren.

We hebben onze boeren nodig. Zonder hen geen eten op ons bord. De onderhandelingen over het nieuwe GLB zijn nog steeds niet afgerond. Dus daarom, commissaris, wil ik nogmaals hameren op een landbouwbeleid op maat van de boer, dat innoveert en investeert, dat de jonge boeren én boerinnen ondersteunt en dat hen echt ondersteunt in de strijd tegen de klimaatverandering.

Commissaris, u kent me. Weet dat ik klaar sta om met u mee te vechten om de boerenstiel in Europa terug leefbaar te maken.

Joachim Kuhs (ID). – Herr Präsident, Herr Kommissar, werte Kollegen! Auch ich möchte eine Lanze für die Landwirte brechen, wie auch meine Vorrednerin gerade eben. Auch ich bin ein Sohn eines Landwirts und auf einem Bauernhof aufgewachsen. Und meine Mutter hat mir erzählt, ich hätte als kleines Kind unter den Kühen und unter dem Pferd gesessen und hätte den Kühen die Wollsachen, die ich hatte – meine Wollmütze und meine Fäustlinge –, zum Fressen gegeben. Wie sich das auf die Milch ausgewirkt hat, kann ich Ihnen nicht sagen, das hat mir meine Mutter nicht erzählt – gut war es bestimmt nicht. Also ich liebe auch die Landwirtschaft, und jeder von uns, glaube ich, weiß, dass wir die Bauern brauchen – wie die Kollegin gesagt hat – und dass wir alles tun müssen, um eben hier die Landwirte von solchen großen Schäden irgendwie zu verschonen oder ihnen dabei zu helfen.

Wir haben hier aber ein großes Problem: Unsere Landwirte sind in einem System gefangen, sie sind wie in einer Zwangsjacke – durch das große Agrarsystem, das wir aufgebaut haben –, und sie können sich kaum noch bewegen. Sie haben eine Unzahl von Vorschriften, von Regelungen und von solchen Dingen. Risikomanagementsysteme sind sicher gut, aber sie legen ein weiteres Netz über unsere Bauern. Und sie werden noch mehr gestriezt, noch mehr gepresst und noch mehr in eine Zwangsjacke gepresst.

Deshalb, liebe Kollegen: Wir können dem nicht länger zusehen. Wir müssen dieses System wieder auf die Beine stellen, vom Kopf auf die Beine. Es ist so viel falsch gelaufen. Und wenn wir unseren Bauern wirklich helfen wollen, dann sollten wir genau hinschauen. Der Kollege hat es gesagt: Wenn achtzig Prozent der Bauern kleine sind und zwanzig ganz große, dann macht es wenig Sinn, dass wir diese zwanzig Prozent unterstützen. Wir müssen schauen, dass wir die achtzig Prozent unterstützen, die jetzt in besonderer Weise betroffen sind, auch durch diese Fröste und durch diese Katastrophe, die jetzt im Frühjahr passiert ist.

Natürlich wollen wir und will ich persönlich den freien Wettbewerb unterstützen, aber wir müssen doch ganz klar sehen: Wenn wir diesen Landwirten, die in diesem System gefangen sind, jetzt nicht helfen, dann werden sie untergehen! Wir werden sie verlieren! Und das darf nicht sein, und das kann nicht sein. Und deshalb appelliere ich auch an Sie, Herr Kommissar: Bitte tun Sie alles, damit eben diese Sicherheitsreserven, die wir haben, diese Fonds, diese Gelder, freigesetzt werden. Und unabhängig von allen anderen Dingen muss jetzt geholfen werden, sonst ist es zu spät.

Dorien Rookmaker (NI). – Mr President, I would like to thank Mr Wallace for his interesting analysis, and I couldn't agree with him more. That's the problem: bureaucracy. But, that said, I am very concerned about everybody looking to Brussels when something goes wrong. This is not sustainable. It could even cause the collapse of the EU. Risk management is something everyone should do. This goes for individuals, families, businesses, farmers, states, and the EU as well.

The wine sector in France is going through difficult times. The corona crisis, the decrease of tourism and the trade war with the US have cost billions of euros. It looks as if the cold is the next disaster. Vintners have to take a closer look at their strategy to overcome these crises. Insurance, refinance and state support have to be considered. But, as this is a strictly national issue, I wonder why are we having a debate about it here in Brussels. Is it because of the French national elections? And, if so, who will benefit most from European support? Macron or Le Pen?

Juan Ignacio Zoido Álvarez (PPE). – Señor presidente, comisario Wojciechowski, en los últimos meses, las heladas y los fenómenos meteorológicos extremos han devastado cultivos y ocasionado pérdidas millonarias para los agricultores de toda Europa. Hemos visto numerosas imágenes de los agricultores poniendo velas al lado de los viñedos, haciendo hogueras frente a sus cultivos, dejándose, en definitiva, la piel para sacar adelante sus frutales, pero la pertinaz naturaleza ha sido en ocasiones más poderosa que los esfuerzos de los agricultores y sus efectos han sido devastadores.

Si nos atenemos a las cifras de las empresas aseguradoras, vemos como en España las indemnizaciones por fenómenos climatológicos han crecido un 37 % tras episodios como la tormenta Filomena: tan solo en el primer cuatrimestre de este año, los pagos alcanzaron los 255 millones de euros, pero son muchos los agricultores que no han quedado cubiertos por estas indemnizaciones y atraviesan una dura crisis. En España, especialmente seria es la situación de muchos viticultores que, a la crisis de la COVID-19, el cierre de la hostelería o el impacto de los aranceles, suman ahora los daños meteorológicos.

Por todo ello, solicitamos a la Comisión Europea ayudas excepcionales para los sectores frutícola y vitivinícola. Los agricultores son los primeros en contribuir a poner freno al cambio climático, pero también los primeros en sufrir sus consecuencias más graves: por eso es nuestra responsabilidad protegerles con un apoyo financiero que les permita volver a ponerse en pie y continuar produciendo.

Eric Andrieu (S&D). – Monsieur le Président, Monsieur le Commissaire, l'épisode de gel que viennent de connaître plusieurs États membres est une véritable catastrophe pour l'agriculture, en particulier pour les viticulteurs et pour les arboriculteurs, cela a été dit longuement. En France, les pertes sont estimées à cinq milliards d'euros. C'est un nouveau coup dur pour un secteur qui a permis – faut-il le rappeler? – par son engagement d'éviter qu'à la crise sanitaire ne s'ajoute une crise alimentaire.

La gravité de la situation dans plusieurs régions européennes nécessite une aide immédiate aux producteurs, par les différents mécanismes d'allégement de charges et de prêts garantis par l'État. L'Union européenne doit également accepter de lever toutes les exigences sur les règles de minimis pour permettre aux États membres de verser des dédommagements nécessaires au nom de la solidarité nationale. Il y a une nécessité absolue de mesures d'aide d'urgence exceptionnelle – et vous l'avez dit, Monsieur le Commissaire – et la situation est très critique, vous le savez, pour un grand nombre d'exploitants.

Cette nouvelle crise nous rappelle que le dérèglement climatique ne peut plus être contesté et nous engage à une évolution en profondeur de la gestion des calamités agricoles. La gestion des risques agricoles ne peut plus être considérée uniquement comme un marché en devenir pour les compagnies d'assurance et le secteur de la finance, comme c'est le cas depuis plus de 30 ans. Il faut bien sûr s'appuyer sur des assurances pour les risques maîtrisables; mais pour les catastrophes naturelles, c'est la solidarité nationale et européenne qui doit prendre le relais. Il faut pour cela être pragmatique et regarder ce qui fonctionne ailleurs. Regarder par exemple aux États-Unis: lorsque les pertes sont supérieures à 50 % de la récolte, c'est l'État fédéral qui prend en charge ces pertes. L'Espagne a développé depuis 40 ans un système exemplaire basé sur un partenariat public-privé robuste. Pourquoi ne pas s'en inspirer?

Il est grand temps en Europe que les autorités publiques reprennent leur rôle de garant de l'intérêt général et de soutien indéfectible en cas de crise majeure pour sécuriser notre système alimentaire. Oui, nous avons besoin d'échanges et de commerce, mais nous avons aussi besoin de stocks alimentaires. Qu'y a-t-il de plus essentiel et de plus stratégique que l'alimentation? Aujourd'hui la question des stocks stratégiques alimentaires est devenue un enjeu majeur. Cette question ne doit plus rester un tabou pour l'Union européenne.

Lucia Vuolo (ID). – Signor Presidente, signor Commissario, onorevoli colleghi, in Europa la parola innovazione è certamente quella che mette d'accordo tutti. Innovazione nel campo sanitario, nei trasporti e anche nell'agricoltura. Purtroppo, però, l'innovazione non riesce a evitare i danni alle colture, con i conseguenti costi che non sono pienamente supportabili dagli Stati membri o dall'Unione europea.

Lo dico a tutti, investite anno per anno e condividete i progressi innovativi per la coltivazione. Tutto questo aiuterà gli agricoltori e soprattutto eviterà che una gelata di due giorni metta in ginocchio intere filiere agricole.

Tuttavia, la bontà dei prodotti d'Europa viene minata, oltre oltre che dai cambiamenti climatici, anche dall'Europa stessa, che suggerisce di aggiungere acqua al vino o immettendo in commercio prodotti che nulla hanno a che vedere con il gusto e la salute, insomma con la dieta mediterranea.

Le gelate di aprile 2021 hanno causato milioni di euro di danni all'agricoltura: in Italia, anche a seguito di un lungo periodo di siccità, le produzioni di frutteti dalle albicocche alle pesche, dalle fragole ai kiwi, fino agli ortaggi hanno subito seri danni. Basti pensare che in Abruzzo le temperature hanno raggiunto in meno di 24 ore i 22o C sottozero. Una catastrofe!

Al Sud danni soprattutto in Puglia, nelle zone della Capitanata e della Murgia. Richieste di aiuto arrivano da ovunque, serve velocità nei supporti. Serie conseguenza anche alle produzioni di vini come lambrusco, sangiovese, chardonnay e moscato.

Dunque innovazione sì, ma condivisa e immediata. Ciascuno, da Bruxelles alle regioni, faccia la propria parte.

Franc Bogovič (PPE). – Gospod predsednik, spoštovani gospod komisar! Danes je 20. maj in četrto leto že praznujemo svetovni dan čebel – na predlog Slovenije, v spomin in čast na velikega čebelarja Antona Janše. In ko govorimo o pozebi, moramo spregovoriti tudi o čebelarstvu in o škodi, ki so jo utrpele čebele, ki v sodelovanju s kmetijci ustvarjajo hrano in nam zagotavljajo prehransko varnost.

Okoli škode v sadjarstvu vam lahko govorim zelo s prve roke. Sem namreč poleg politika tudi sadjar. Doma imam tri hektare jabolk, in če smo lansko leto v tem nasadu jablan pridelali 200 ton jabolk, morali tudi kuriti v nasadu, da smo jih lahko zaščitili pred pozebo, ki je bila eno noč, je letošnje leto pridelek v celoti propadel, kajti 15 centimetrov snega, minus osem stopinj, je bilo prehudo za bilo kakršno aktivno zaščito.

Mislim, da je prav, da govorimo v tem Parlamentu o tem primeru, kajti te škode so vedno pogostejše. V Sloveniji smo sadjarji vinogradniki utrpeli četrto škodo, četrto pozebo v zadnjih šestih letih. Zato je prav, da spregovorimo tudi v luči sprejemanja skupne kmetijske politike za naslednja leta, da najprej poiščemo in damo v programu razvoja podeželja možnost za aktivne zaščite, ki so poznane, imajo določene pogoje.

Od tu naprej se strinjam tudi s tem, kar je bilo danes rečeno z raziskavami do novih sort. Vsekakor pa rabimo tudi aktivno zaščito in neko safety net, se pravi varnostno mrežo za leta, kakršno je letošnjo.

To covid krizo so kmetje preživeli in omogočili prehransko varnost. Bojim se, da te klimatske spremembe povzročajo to, da bodo ti primeri vedno pogostejši, zato moramo zagotovo tudi s krizno rezervo znati vskočiti in pomagati kmetom, kakor znamo pomagati po covidu z načrtom za okrevanje, sicer bodo kmetje propadli in naslednjih kriz enostavno in takšnih primerov ne bodo preživeli.

Isabel Carvalhais (S&D). – Senhor Presidente, pese embora toda a modernização tecnológica, a vida do agricultor é, em larga medida, marcada pelo constante sobressalto ditado pelos crescentes fenómenos climáticos extremos que diluem a própria identidade das estações. As inusitadas geadas que recentemente afetaram, de modo severo, milhares de hectares de vinha e de fruteiras são disso exemplo.

A atividade agrícola tem, de facto, um carácter diferente, estando, desde logo, profundamente ligada às características dos recursos naturais. A esta condição junta-se a sua vulnerabilidade em face das crescentes alterações climáticas, fonte de riscos adicionais significativos, não só para a atividade agrícola, mas para os sistemas alimentares na sua globalidade.

Exigem-se, naturalmente, esforços redobrados no cumprimento efetivo do nosso compromisso comum de atingir a neutralidade climática em 2050, mas também a adoção de medidas concretas de adaptação que mitiguem as ameaças, protejam o rendimento dos produtores e evitem a desertificação das nossas zonas rurais.

Falamos de ter instrumentos eficientes de gestão de risco que permitam em situações extremas, como aquela que hoje aqui discutimos, dar uma resposta rápida aos agricultores que, de um dia para o outro, veem perdido o produto de todo um ano de trabalho.

Mas falamos também, por exemplo, de apoiar investimentos que reforcem o acesso justo à água, bem como o seu uso eficiente e sustentável, em particular em regiões mais vulneráveis como as regiões mediterrânicas, permitam-me que recorde aqui, onde temperaturas mais elevadas e a diminuição de precipitação ameaçam cada vez mais extensas zonas rurais, condenando-as à desertificação.

Carmen Avram (S&D). – Domnule președinte, domnule comisar, cred că e clar pentru toată lumea deja că nu ne mai putem permite să vorbim despre schimbările climatice ca despre un scenariu foarte îndepărtat. Ele sunt aici și lovesc din toate părțile, în special în sectorul agricol.

În ultimii doi ani am avut inundații devastatoare, secetă extremă și, la începutul acestui an, un îngheț care a îngenuncheat, pur și simplu, sectoarele viticol și pomicol din Europa. Și să nu uităm, că toate acestea au venit pe fondul unei crize sanitare și în timp ce fermierii europeni se pregătesc pentru cea mai mare schimbare din istoria post-industrială, care vine la pachet cu condiții drastice și un buget redus.

Bilanțul e cutremurător. La sfârșitul lunii aprilie, aveam zeci de mii de hectare de pomi fructiferi distruse de îngheț în opt state membre, dar statistica la care mă refer nu cuprinde toate țările afectate, cum ar fi România, de exemplu. La acest bilanț se adaugă culturi de viță de vie calamitate într-un procent de până la 50 %.

Și când tragem linie, vedem că acest dezastru, care i-a adus pe fermieri în pragul disperării, va fi plătit din buzunarul celor patru sute cincizeci de milioane de consumatori europeni, iar asta va oferi o oportunitate și pentru importatorii din țări terțe care, speculând momentul, vor scumpi la rândul lor produsele agricole.

Noua politică agricolă comună trebuie, deci, să poată răspunde prompt la astfel de crize, care nu mai sunt accidentale, ci devin predictibile, iar banii nu trebuie să rămână doar pe hârtie cum, din păcate, s-a întâmplat în primul an de pandemie.

Mai mult, schimbările de climă ne obligă să adaptăm condițiile de accesare a fondului de criză care, în acest moment, nu poate fi folosit la îngheț. În actualul context climatic, nu cred că mai putem omite vreun fenomen natural din măsurile de intervenție rapidă. Agricultura nu e moft, agricultura e supraviețuire.

Tonino Picula (S&D). – Poštovani predsjedavajući, poštovani gospodine povjereniče, kolegice i kolege, u kontekstu današnjeg Svjetskog dana pčela podsjećam na njihovu izuzetnu važnost, ali i na važnost sve utjecajnijih klimatskih promjena.

Proljetni mraz, najoštriji od 1991. prouzročio je veliku štetu našim poljoprivrednicima koji sada zbrajaju gubitke u ovom ionako teškom razdoblju. U Hrvatskoj su štete od prirodnih nepogoda tijekom prošlih godina ostavile traga i na proizvođače i na kupce. Šteta od mraza je na pojedinim kulturama i do 90 pa i 100 posto.

To se nažalost itekako vidi na primjeru domaćih trešnji i marelica. Urod marelica na razini Europske unije trebao bi biti najniži u posljednjih 30 godina, a nasadi domaće trešnje osobito su teško stradali u Dalmaciji.

Podsjećam i da su tijekom još uvijek aktualne pandemije poljoprivrednici već izloženi velikim gubicima. Europske poljoprivredne proizvodnje nema bez domaće poljoprivrede. Potrebno je dakle podržati poljoprivrednike, ne samo većim ulaganjima već i suvremenim tehnološkim rješenjima.

A kad govorimo o negativnim trendovima, nedavno su naše vinare uzbunili napisi o planovima Komisije za favoriziranje dealkoholiziranog vina. Takve alternative nikako ne smiju biti ravnopravne s našim tradicionalnim proizvodima i ne smiju ugroziti njihov pristup tržištu.

Mi smo u Hrvatskoj ponosni na naše sorte i oznake izvornosti te ih želimo sačuvati. Sve u svemu, očekujemo od Komisije da bude fleksibilna i predloži mjere djelotvorne pomoći poljoprivrednicima, voćarima, vinogradarima radi pokrivanja gubitaka od mraza.

César Luena (S&D). – Señor presidente, las últimas heladas acaecidas han causado a los agricultores europeos nuevas pérdidas, que se suman a todos los serios obstáculos ya conocidos de los últimos dos años de sanciones, de COVID-19 y de excedentes de producción. Estos episodios extremos, como este que nos ocupa hoy, van a ser cada vez menos aislados y más frecuentes como consecuencia del cambio climático. Desde aquí, muestro mi solidaridad con el sector primario y le reconozco la labor fundamental que desarrolla. Es necesario que la Comisión Europea adopte medidas concretas y extraordinarias que palíen los efectos adversos del clima.

Recupero también la solicitud presentada hace un par de meses por catorce Estados miembros —España entre ellos— y pido que se dote de fondos excepcionales a los viticultores: el sector vitivinícola es uno de los más afectados por las restricciones que han seguido al estallido de la pandemia y exige la adopción de acciones concretas que ayuden a reequilibrar el mercado, así como fondos para financiarlas.

Me gustaría también, por último, reivindicar ante la Comisión Europea la creación de un fondo específico para la dotación de ayudas por causas climáticas.

Janusz Wojciechowski, Członek Komisji. – Panie Przewodniczący! Szanowni Państwo Posłowie! Jestem pod wrażeniem tej dyskusji i wypowiedzi. Państwo Posłowie przypomnieli te dramatyczne sceny, kiedy rolnicy walczyli, starali się ratować swoje plantacje, wszyscy widzieliśmy te płonące ogniska w Europie. To była dramatyczna walka, trudna do wygrania oczywiście, i straty są ogromne. Wszyscy mamy tego świadomość. Wyrażam wielki szacunek dla rolników za tę dramatyczną walkę i składam wyrazy współczucia tym, którzy stracili niekiedy dorobek życia. Jest to rzeczywiście dramatyczna sytuacja i dzisiaj mamy do czynienia z taką sytuacją. Ten kryzys pokazuje, że rolnicy są rzeczywiście pierwszymi ofiarami zmian klimatycznych. Pierwszymi ofiarami, gdyż to się na rolnikach w tej chwili najbardziej odbija.

Mamy całą serię takich zdarzeń, które dramatycznie wpływają na rolnictwo: katastrofy (te właśnie związane z klimatem), susze, powodzie, huragany, mrozy, pożary, które coraz częściej dotykają rolnictwo europejskie. Mamy kryzysy związane z chorobami – pandemia też przecież wywarła ogromny, negatywny wpływ na całą gospodarkę i na rolnictwo – afrykański pomór świń czy ptasią grypę. Mamy też kryzysy polityczne: embargo rosyjskie czy taryfy amerykańskie. To przykłady takich zdarzeń, które nagle dotykają rolników i powodują ogromne straty. Myślę, że dzisiaj wielkie ryzyko związane z prowadzeniem gospodarstw rolnych jest głównym powodem znikania dużej części gospodarstw i tego, że coraz trudniej jest o wymianę pokoleniową w rolnictwie. Zawód rolnika jest bardzo ryzykowny i wiele osób obawia się, że w tym zawodzie można zrobić wszystko według najlepszej wiedzy, woli, z największą starannością i z powodu tych różnych zdarzeń wszystko stracić.

Dlatego niesłychanie ważne jest, abyśmy dysponowali systemem pomocy dla rolników w takich sytuacjach? Rolnicy sami sobie nie poradzą. Jako komisarz bardzo chciałbym dysponować takim funduszem klęskowym, który można by było uruchamiać w tego rodzaju sytuacjach, aby skutecznie pomagać rolnikom. Mamy budżet, jaki mamy. Rezerwa kryzysowa przewidziana w tym budżecie jest niewielka. Wciąż dyskutujemy nad jej i wielkością i sposobem funkcjonowania. Ostatecznie okaże się w rozmowach trójstronnych, jak zakończy się ta debata. Ja jestem i Komisja jest za tym, żeby wzmacniać system zarządzania kryzysowego w rolnictwie w sposób zdecydowany, żeby były to skuteczniejsze elementy. Wiąże się to też z budżetem, gdyż rezerwy kryzysowej praktycznie nigdy nie używano w przeszłości, bo to jest niestety tak, że kryzysy dotykają mniejszość państw, a większość jest na ogół za tym, żeby jednak nie naruszać dopłat bezpośrednich, nie zmniejszać ich w ich państwach. I ta rezerwa jest z roku na rok rozwiązywana i nie używa się jej. O tym dyskutujemy w ramach rozmów trójstronnych.

Co do ubezpieczeń – istnieją dowody i są sprawozdania na ten temat (choćby sprawozdanie Europejskiego Trybunału Obrachunkowego), że systemy ubezpieczeń rolniczych nie są efektywne. Choć różnie to wygląda w różnych krajach. W sprawozdaniu Trybunału Obrachunkowego jest mapa Europy ukazująca systemy ubezpieczeniowe. Mamy grupę krajów, które korzystają z dopłat do ubezpieczeń z budżetu Unii Europejskiej (Portugalia, Francja, Belgia, Holandia, Włochy, Chorwacja, Węgry, Rumunia i kraje bałtyckie). Są kraje, które pomagają z własnego budżetu i dopłacają do ubezpieczeń (między innymi Hiszpania, Słowenia, Austria, Polska, w tym systemie są jeszcze Grecja, Bułgaria). I są kraje, które nie mają żadnych dopłat, lecz wyłącznie ubezpieczenia komercyjne (w takim systemie funkcjonują między innymi: Niemcy, Słowacja, Irlandia, Szwecja czy Finlandia).

Musimy odbyć rzeczywiście poważną debatę nad tym, jak wzmocnić system zarządzania kryzysowego w rolnictwie. Po części ta debata odbywa się w ramach reformy Wspólnej Polityki Rolnej, ale myślę, że jest to chyba trochę za mało. Musimy pomyśleć nad długofalowym systemem zarządzania kryzysowego w rolnictwie. Muszą istnieć różne instrumenty, również instrumenty, które zwiększą odporność rolnictwa w ramach planów strategicznych. Będziemy się temu przyglądać i chcemy, aby kraje członkowskie zaproponowały takie działania, które będą służyć zmniejszaniu ryzyka nieszczęść dotykających rolników i które będą wzmacniały odporność rolnictwa. Mamy fundusze odbudowy, nad którymi trwa debata, a państwa członkowskie składają propozycje. Rolnictwo nie jest przecież wyłączone z funduszy odbudowy i różne działania wzmacniające odporność rolnictwa na takie sytuacje kryzysowe mogą być tam również wspierane. To musi być synergia różnych polityk, to musi być system, który będzie wzmacniał rolnictwo, bo jestem absolutnie przekonany, że musimy zrobić więcej. Rolnicy zapewniają nam bezpieczeństwo żywnościowe, a my powinniśmy wspólnie zapewnić rolnikom bezpieczeństwo ekonomiczne i pomoc w trudnych sytuacjach kryzysowych.

Der Präsident. – Die Aussprache ist geschlossen.

Schriftliche Erklärungen (Artikel 171)

Sandra Pereira (The Left), por escrito. – É cada vez mais comum que os agricultores sofram com os prejuízos de intempéries várias. Por exemplo, na primavera são cada vez mais frequentes geadas e granizo, o que, em muitas regiões da Europa, afeta gravemente os fruticultores e viticultores e as suas produções, com perdas económicas avultadas. Da mesma forma, situações de seca, fortes chuvadas ou incêndios causam também enormes prejuízos na atividade agrícola.

No âmbito da discussão da Política Agrícola Comum (PAC), temos proposto um Seguro Agrícola Público, financiado pelo orçamento da União, que conferiria um nível de proteção mínimo a todos os agricultores de todos os Estados-Membros. No nosso entender, seria uma forma de garantir um rendimento mínimo aos agricultores afetados por fenómenos meteorológicos extremos e por outras situações de catástrofe natural ou provocada pelo homem, incluindo incêndios florestais, doenças e pragas. A existência deste seguro não prejudicaria a existência de outros esquemas de seguros, específicos de determinados setores, e garantiria uma proteção mínima aos agricultores. Na atual situação, em que ainda se carece de medidas de mitigação e adaptação às alterações climáticas, a criação deste seguro seria uma medida mais do que justa. Infelizmente esta nossa proposta foi chumbada pela maioria neste Parlamento.

Tom Vandenkendelaere (PPE), schriftelijk. – De klimaatverandering wordt steeds zichtbaarder voor Europese landbouwers.

Veel delen van Europa hebben dit jaar de zwaarste voorjaarsvorst sinds 1991 meegemaakt. Dit heeft vooral ernstige gevolgen gehad voor fruittelers en wijnbouwers, wier gewassen in de zomer door hittegolven zijn verschroeid en vervolgens hun knoppen zijn verloren door de voorjaarsvorst. Hierdoor zijn volledige oogsten verloren gegaan. Deze klimaatrampen hebben zware financiële gevolgen gehad voor landbouwers, in een tijd waarin velen van hen reeds kampten met verliezen als gevolg van de coronacrisis.

Ondanks de grote inspanningen in het kader van de Green Deal en de verduurzaming van de landbouw in het kader van het GLB ziet het er niet naar uit dat de situatie de komende jaren zal veranderen. De Europese Commissie moet de risicobeheersinstrumenten daarom zodanig invullen dat landbouwers bij dergelijke klimaatrampen beter kunnen worden ondersteund.

Daarnaast moet de Commissie blijven inzetten op innovatie en nieuwe technologieën, bijvoorbeeld om gewassen beter tegen zware voorjaarsvorst te beschermen. De recente studie van de Commissie over nieuwe gentechnologieën kan daarbij een nieuw debat aansturen over de rol die deze technologieën kunnen spelen bij het weerbaarder maken van teelten tegen de gevolgen van de klimaatverandering, zoals droogte, hitte of vorst, en daarmee bij het behoeden van landbouwers voor financiële rampen.

(Die Sitzung wird um 15.51 Uhr unterbrochen)

VORSITZ: RAINER WIELAND

Vizepräsident

19.   Resumption of the sitting

(Die Sitzung wird um 16.30 Uhr wieder aufgenommen)

20.   Announcement of voting results: see Minutes

21.   Explanations of vote: see Minutes

22.   Corrections to votes and voting intentions: see Minutes

23.   Petitions: see Minutes

24.   Documents received: see Minutes

25.   Decision to draw up own-initiative reports: see Minutes

26.   Modified referrals to committees (Rule 56): see Minutes

27.   Associated committees (Rule 57): see Minutes

28.   Consent Procedure (Rule 105): see Minutes

29.   Amendment of the Rules of Procedure (Rule 237): see Minutes

30.   Change to the title of own-initiative reports: see Minutes

31.   Agenda of the next sitting : see Minutes

32.   Closure of the sitting

(Die Sitzung wird um 16.35 Uhr geschlossen)

---

(*1)  Patrz protokół posiedzenia.