6.5.2010   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 117/1

A.

whereas, four years on, UN Member States should be reminded of their commitment to the achievement of the ambitious goals set out in the 2005 World Summit Outcome document, adopted in New York on 16 September 2005,

B.

whereas only a global, effective and inclusive multilateral system can address the multiple and interlinked challenges and threats faced by nations, societies and citizens, such as those to peace, stability and human security, the challenges posed by poverty, climate change and energy security and the consequences of the global economic and financial crisis,

C.

whereas the 63rd UNGA has taken important decisions on a number of items relating to the reform agenda, including improvements in human resources management and in the administration of justice, the partial strengthening the Department of Political Affairs, and the launch of intergovernmental negotiations on the Security Council reform,

D.

whereas the UNGA has adopted, on a proposal by its Third Committee, a set of important resolutions on a wide range of human rights, social and humanitarian issues, including three country resolutions, as well as the Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights,

E.

whereas, thanks to the ‘Delivering as One’ initiative and the work of the two co-facilitators, tangible progress has been achieved, pragmatically, in pursuing some of the System-Wide Coherence reforms of the UN; whereas it is necessary to consolidate achievements and to make further progress in the areas identified by the 63rd UNGA,

F.

whereas failure to reform bodies such as the UN Security Council and the UN Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC) could lead to informal groupings such as the G8 or G20 attempting to substitute themselves for global institutional arrangements,

G.

whereas the European Union must promote what it firmly believes are universal values, while making efforts to avoid the polarisation of positions,

H.

whereas, on the other hand, cooperation between the United Nations Secretariat and EU institutions has never been so close and reflects the shared values, goals and interests of the two organisations,

I.

whereas the operational capacity of the United Nations in the field of peace and security activities needs to be further strengthened, and whereas EU/UN cooperation in peace-keeping constitutes a cornerstone of global peace and security,

J.

whereas there is an increasing number of fatalities among UN peace-keepers, and whereas all possible measures must be taken to protect these workers,

K.

whereas the EU and the US are strategic partners and it is in their mutual interest to confront together common threats and challenges in the new global scenario, on the basis of international law and multilateral institutions, in particular the UN; whereas the statement made by the new US Permanent Representative to the United Nations, Susan Rice, appears to indicate a renewed commitment to constructive engagement with the United Nations,

L.

whereas the European Union indicated, in its Statement to the UN Human Rights Council (HRC) of 19 September 2008, that the following four elements of the outcome document for the Durban Review Conference would be unacceptable (the so-called EU ‘red lines’): (1) singling out one region of the world in particular; (2) reopening the 2001 Durban declaration by inserting a prohibition against ‘defamation of religion’, designed to restrict free speech and impose the censorship inherent in Islamic anti-blasphemy laws; (3) drawing up an order of priority among victims; and (4) politicising or polarising the discussion,

M.

whereas in the context of deepening global recession, developing countries could be set back by decades as a result of falling commodity prices, lower investment flows, financial instability and a decline in remittances, and whereas the value of existing EU aid commitments will fall by nearly USD 12 000 million a year, because they are expressed as a percentage of Member States' GDP,

1.

Addresses the following recommendations to the Council:

2.

Instructs its President to forward this recommendation to the Council and, for information, to the Commission.

6.5.2010   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 117/7

A.

whereas the objective of poverty eradication must remain very much at the heart of the Joint Strategy,

B.

whereas half the population of Africa still lives in poverty and whereas Africa is the only continent that is not progressing towards the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs), particularly as regards poverty reduction, child mortality, maternal health and the fight against HIV/AIDS and malaria,

C.

whereas the Joint Strategy aims to go ‘beyond development’, ‘beyond Africa’ and ‘beyond institutions’ to cover a broader range of African and global issues than in the past, such as energy, climate change and security, and to involve a wider spectrum of non-institutional actors,

D.

whereas over the last year most of the institutional architecture and innovative working methods of the Joint Strategy have been set up but little actual progress has been achieved on the ground,

E.

whereas, despite the Joint Strategy's explicit recognition of the fundamental role of the Pan-African and European Parliaments ‘to review progress and provide political guidance to the partnership’, they have yet to be involved in any structural and meaningful way in the establishment, adaptation and monitoring of the Joint Strategy,

F.

whereas there has been minimal involvement of civil society and local authorities, particularly on the African side, in the implementation of the Joint Strategy,

G.

whereas very little new funding has been made available to implement the Joint Strategy and, indeed, the relevant sources of funding were already fully programmed before the Joint Strategy was adopted,

H.

whereas bringing the European Development Fund (EDF) within the EU budget, as Parliament has repeatedly called for, would allow for greater policy coherence and parliamentary oversight of development spending,

I.

whereas Africa's share of global trade is falling and Africa is being excluded from the opportunities offered by globalisation,

J.

whereas capital flight, especially illicit capital flight, is causing African economies to haemorrhage billions of euros every year, while the ‘brain drain’ robs the continent of much of the intellectual capacity that is essential for its future development,

K.

whereas food production and food security in Africa have been declining as political priorities and have been starved of investment over the last decade, with potentially disastrous consequences, as the recent food price crisis highlighted,

L.

whereas Africa is underrepresented in the international organisations and multilateral forums that decide on many of the issues affecting the continent's future,

M.

whereas the longstanding EU-Africa relationship takes on a new significance with the emergence of non-traditional donors whose agendas and priorities for Africa present new risks and challenges,

N.

whereas it is essential to find synergies and avoid overlap between the institutions of the Joint Strategy and those of existing relationships, such as the Cotonou Agreement, the Euro-Mediterranean Strategy and the South Africa-EU Strategic Partnership,

O.

whereas the 2009 Cotonou revision will seek to clarify the future relationship of the ACP with the AU,

P.

whereas levels of awareness as to the aims and actions of the Joint Strategy are worryingly low and whereas – mainly in Africa – public awareness of and adherence to the Africa-EU Strategic Partnership are directly linked to the Joint Strategy’s ability to deliver immediate and tangible results capable of improving the standard of living of African people,

Q.

whereas the partnership should take into account that, although a ‘partnership of equals’ means that the EU and the AU are equal in terms of participation in the discussions and in policy setting, it should also address the stark reality that both continents and their institutions are still far from equal in terms of institutional development, decisional capacity and resources,

1.

Welcomes the fact that, one year after the adoption of the Joint Strategy, the main components of the institutional architecture for its implementation are finally in place and have started to function, underpinned by an Action Plan with deliverables and timetables, and that some progress has been made towards implementation of the Joint Strategy and its thematic partnerships; however, regrets that, by the end of the first year of implementation, some partnerships are still in the process of defining working methods and have not yet established deliverables, timetables and budget allocations;

2.

Welcomes the fact that the EU and the AU met more often during the first year after the signature of the Joint Strategy than ever before;

3.

Calls on the EU and AU Commissions and the Member States of the EU and the AU to complete as a matter of priority this institutional architecture by developing the parliamentary, civil society and local authorities components that should drive and sustain the process by giving it transparency, ownership and democratic legitimacy;

4.

Welcomes the establishment of EU implementation teams with the participation of interested Member States not only because the financing of the Joint Strategy depends to a considerable extent on contributions from the Member States, but also because the direct involvement of Member States will contribute to increased awareness, continuity and sustainability of the actions foreseen in the Action Plan;

5.

Urges the institutions of the Joint Strategy to concentrate fully on the necessary deliverables, given that the first Action Plan only runs for less than three years (2008-2010);

6.

Reiterates its request to the EU and AU Commissions to take active steps to involve the European and Pan-African Parliaments in implementing, monitoring and providing political guidance for the Joint Strategy, in line with their status as key components of its institutional architecture;

7.

Stresses the role of inter-parliamentary bodies between the European Parliament and African parliaments – such as the ACP-EU Joint Parliamentary Assembly (JPA) and the Euromed Parliamentary Assembly – in enhancing peace and security, good governance and democracy, as well as being effective platforms for cooperation and for addressing issues of common concern;

8.

Takes note of the fact that the 11th Africa-EU Ministerial Troika meeting endorsed the first annual progress report on the implementation of the Joint Strategy and its first Action Plan, to which the above-mentioned Commission Communication constitutes the EU contribution;

9.

Regrets however that that report has been drawn up without any consultation of or formal contribution from the European or Pan-African Parliaments;

10.

Proposes that the Presidents of the Pan-African Parliament and the European Parliament systematically attend and address EU-Africa Summits to present those Parliaments’ conclusions on the implementation of the Action Plan and suggestions for the future orientations of the Joint Strategy;

11.

Requests that, immediately prior to the spring Ministerial Troika, the members of the Ministerial Troika hold an exchange of views with representatives of the competent bodies from the Pan-African Parliament and the European Parliament during which the Parliaments can present their suggestions and recommendations on the latest joint annual progress report; suggests that the discussion of the Parliaments’ suggestions and recommendations be put on the agenda of that Ministerial Troika meeting; expects that the subsequent joint annual report - adopted during the following autumn Ministerial Troika - will indicate how these suggestions and recommendations have been taken into account; requests that the Parliamentary representatives also meet the Troika Ministers in the margins of the autumn Troika meeting;

12.

Considers that the Pan-African and European Parliaments should participate at an appropriate level in both the joint expert groups and the AU-EU task force;

13.

Welcomes the fact that the European Commission has established a EUR 55 million support programme in the 9th EDF for strengthening the capacities of the AU institutions; insists once again that part of this budget must be made available for strengthening the administrative and operational capacity of the Pan-African Parliament and calls on the Commissions to draw up the action plans for the use of these budgets in close consultation with the Pan-African Parliament and in cooperation with the European Parliament;

14.

Recommends that the part of the budget earmarked for the Pan-African Parliament be directly administered by the Pan-African Parliament, once this Parliament has built up the necessary administrative capacity to do so and has fulfilled the requirements contained in the EC’s financial regulation (in particular Article 56 thereof) (6) for allowing the Commission to implement the budget by indirect centralised management;

15.

Invites the EU and AU Commissions to simplify procedures to ensure direct and effective dialogue with Parliaments in order to avoid unacceptable delays, taking due account of their procedural specificities;

16.

Calls yet again for the budgetisation of the EDF, and in the meantime, asks the Commission to keep the European and Pan-African Parliaments informed at all stages of the budgetary process;

17.

Believes that if the Joint Strategy is to be a genuine ‘broad-based and wide-ranging people-centred partnership’, it must effectively involve civil society and local authorities and facilitate their effective participation in the work of its implementing bodies;

18.

Regrets that, whereas the Action Plan indicates that each of the Africa-EU Partnerships is open for a wide range of actions, overwhelming emphasis is placed on state actions; stresses that the input and involvement of parliaments and non-state actors, such as civil society organisations, local authorities and other non-state actors in the process, need to be deepened and further clarified;

19.

Welcomes the African Economic, Social and Cultural Council (ECOSOCC) as a vehicle to build a partnership between African governments and civil society; is however concerned at the low level of involvement of African civil society in the implementation of the Joint Strategy and calls for immediate efforts, particularly on the African side, to set up, in close cooperation with interested stakeholders, procedures for the identification, mapping and effective involvement of representative African non-state actors;

20.

Calls on the European Commission to develop appropriate capacity building tools for African civil society organisations specifically aimed at enhancing their capacity to engage with the Joint Strategy's implementation;

21.

Notes that the Joint Strategy should also address issues which, although formally belonging to a different institutional architecture, have a profound influence on the future of Africa and which shape the relationship between the two continents, such as the economic partnership agreements (EPAs) and the relationship between the EPA regional groupings and other existing regional groupings in Africa (including the Regional Economic Communities), the second revision of the Cotonou Agreement, the Euro-Mediterranean Strategy, the EU-South Africa Strategic Partnership, and Africa’s relationship with new global players such as China and Brazil;

22.

Believes that sustainable economic, social and environmental development can only take place in countries that offer guarantees of peace, democracy and human rights;

23.

Calls on the European Commission, the Council and the African side to ensure coherence between this strategy and the other policies which may have an adverse impact on the promotion of a new strategic partnership between the EU and Africa, in particular commercial, environmental, migration and agricultural policies; stresses that the political dialogue between the EU and Africa should cover these issues;

24.

Stresses that, to combat poverty effectively, which must remain at the heart of the Joint Strategy, the EU-Africa Strategic Partnership must help stimulate sustainable economic and social development, attract foreign investment, promote equitable international trade, and contribute to creating the conditions under which African countries can gradually take their place in the global economy;

25.

Welcomes the progress made on the peace and security partnership; takes note of the AU-EU political dialogue on crisis situations in Africa and beyond; stresses that this dialogue needs to address the whole range of peace and security issues from conflict prevention and conflict resolution to post-conflict reconstruction and peace-building, including in-depth dialogue on the implementation of the Responsibility to Protect principle;

26.

Calls for due priority to be assigned to implementing the African peace and security architecture; stresses once again that the EDF is not an adequate financing source for future replenishment of the African Peace Facility; is of the view that EDF spending should comply with the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development's Development Assistance Committee (OECD/DAC) criteria for official development assistance; reiterates its call for a definitive solution for African Peace Facility financing;

27.

Welcomes the establishment in September 2008 by UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-Moon of an AU-UN Panel of distinguished persons to identify ways in which the international community can support AU peacekeeping operations established under a UN mandate;

28.

Points out that the concept of governance should be a measure of how well a society functions, through law and order, respect and active promotion of human rights, the fight against corruption, wealth creation and transparent and equitable wealth distribution and essential health and social services; stresses that external actors must not assess governance solely on externally-imposed criteria but instead on the basis of mutually agreed and shared values and standards;

29.

Stresses the importance of sustainable democracy including good governance and democratic elections which must include support for parliamentary capacity building, and the involvement of civil society and local authorities in the political dialogue;

30.

Stresses that governance must be improved on both sides: it is not only a priority in Africa but also on the European side which must improve governance and accountability as regards aid commitments and better donor coordination with a view to taking greater account of the so-called ‘aid orphans’; stresses that national and continental parliaments, non-state actors and local authorities have an important role to play in this field;

31.

Calls for increased support for existing African initiatives, such as the African Peer Review Mechanism (APRM), which is the most serious effort yet by African countries to improve governance on the continent, and the various instruments put in place by the AU, which will increase African ownership of the process;

32.

Expresses serious concern that the ‘governance profiles’ developed by the Commission for each ACP country, which will guide programming for development assistance in relation to the EUR 2 700 million additional funds under the 10th EDF, have been prepared without any participatory element; notes that eligibility for additional funds of beneficiary countries has been judged according to a set of criteria only one of which is directly linked to the MDGs; expresses dismay that the European Commission's ‘profiles’ risk hollowing out the APRM process; calls on the European Commission to consult and inform the European Parliament and the Council on the follow-up and the implementation of these funds in order to make sure they are allocated to governance initiatives to support the AU governance agenda and the APRM process;

33.

Calls for the dialogue under the governance and human rights partnership to address impunity for human rights abuses, looking at best practice under national or international law, including the work of the international criminal courts established in Sierra Leone and Rwanda;

34.

Considers, as regards the partnership on trade and regional integration, that under the right conditions, increasing trade is an essential driver of economic growth, provided trade policies are coherent with development objectives; welcomes therefore the aims of this partnership to support African regional integration and to strengthen the continent's trade capacities;

35.

Looks forward to a speedy conclusion to the World Trade Organisation's (WTO) Doha Development Round, but insists that it must remain essentially a ‘development round’, favouring African nations’ integration into the global economy, effectively reducing trade-distorting agricultural subsidies and abolishing agricultural export subsidies;

36.

Believes that the EU should help African states to ensure that their agriculture is self-sufficient and to foster essential services and vulnerable domestic industries;

37.

Insists that the final EPAs signed with African states must be first and foremost tools for development which respect the various beneficiaries’ different capacities and levels of development;

38.

Underlines the fact that EPAs must promote rather than undermine African regional integration; supports the AU’s efforts to strengthen the Regional Economic Communities as the fundamental building blocks for the regional integration of the continent;

39.

Insists that the European Commission and the Member States honour their commitment to provide by 2010 at least EUR 2 000 million a year in genuine ‘aid for trade’, the largest share of which must be for Africa; calls for a timely determination and provision of the share of the aid for trade resources; stresses that these funds should be additional resources and not be merely repackaging of EDF funding;

40.

Calls on the partnership to address the wider aid-for-trade agenda, including the development of infrastructure, the promotion of business development and better regulation including rules of origin which are simpler and user friendly;

41.

Calls on the partnership also to address economic aspects that although they are not necessarily trade-related, have important consequences for African economies, such as the need to take action to stem illicit capital flight and to promote international regulation of tax havens;

42.

Calls on the Joint Strategy to recognise and support the role of migrants and diasporas in favour of the development of their home countries, by facilitating their investments in these countries and by reducing the cost of transfers;

43.

Insists, as regards the partnership on the MDGs, that even with more and better aid it will be difficult to meet these goals, and therefore urges EU Member States to uphold the commitments they recently restated at the Doha Conference on Financing for Development, as well as at the Accra High-Level Forum on Aid Effectiveness, particularly as regards the volume of their aid, policy coherence, ownership, transparency and division of labour between donors;

44.

Notes that basic health and primary and secondary education are crucial catalysts to achieving the MDGs; consequently encourages the African countries to make these areas one of the main priorities of their poverty reduction strategies; calls on the partnership to promote such a development, considering the European Commission commitment to spend at least 20 % of the Community’s aid budget in these sectors; calls on the Commission to extend this commitment to the EDF; recalls that all efforts in this regard should include persons with disabilities; welcomes in this context the outcome of the first Joint Expert Group meeting and calls on the stakeholders involved to ensure that progress will be made in the year ahead;

45.

Calls on the European Commission to take urgent action to carry out its commitments in the field of health as regards the conclusions and recommendations of the European Court of Auditors January 2009 report on ‘EC Development Assistance to Health Services in Sub-Saharan Africa’; stresses the importance of increasing the European Commission's aid to the health sector in Sub-Saharan Africa during the 10th EDF midterm review to support its commitment to the health MDGs;

46.

Encourages the member states of the EU and the AU to attach greater importance to African food security and food sovereignty and to support actions to increase the productivity and competitiveness of African agriculture, in particular food production for local markets, and promotion of ‘green belts’ around cities;

47.

Calls on the Member States to include in their debates, within and beyond the Joint Strategy, the issue of equitable wealth distribution resulting from the exploitation of natural resources; insists that national revenues from natural resources should as a matter of priority be more equitably allocated in order to satisfy the basic needs of their populations, particularly in the fields of health, education, the conservation of natural resources and the environment, thus helping to achieve the MDGs;

48.

Expresses concern that Africa's recent period of record growth will be reversed by the global economic slowdown, and stresses that the continent could be set back by decades as a result of falling commodity prices, lower investment flows, financial instability and a decline in remittances;

49.

Recalls, as regards climate change, that developed countries are primarily responsible for climate change, while its negative impact is greatest in developing countries; insists, therefore, that fresh funds are necessary if African states are to avoid being forced to pay a disproportionate price for adaptation to and mitigation of its effects; furthermore supports the joint EU-Africa declaration on climate change presented at the Poznan UN Framework Convention on Climate Change Conference in December 2008;

50.

Demands, in the context of the migration and employment partnership, a fair and workable solution to the ‘brain drain’, which deprives many African nations of large numbers of skilled workers, particularly in the health sector;

51.

Calls for the new EU ‘blue card’ scheme to discourage the depletion of skilled workers from developing countries in sectors where these countries suffer from labour shortages, particularly in the areas of health and education;

52.

Calls on the European Commission to use the EU-Africa partnership to help African countries apply the flexibilities provided for in the Doha Declaration on Trade-Related Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS) and public health, in order to facilitate access to affordable essential medicines in Africa;

53.

Encourages both sides, as regards the science and technology partnership, to aim to bridge the digital divide by stepping up cooperation on technology development and transfer, particularly concerning telephony and the Internet;

54.

Expects the Joint Strategy to take specific steps to improve opportunities for women, children and people with disabilities in Africa, as these groups face particularly serious difficulties in developing countries;

55.

Stresses that, if the Joint Strategy is to go ‘beyond Africa’, with greater EU-Africa cooperation within international bodies and in multilateral negotiations on issues like trade, human rights or climate change, the EU and Africa should work towards making international institutions, such as the World Bank, the International Monetary Fund and the WTO, more democratic and more representative and ensuring Africa can finally exert an influence in line with its size and status;

56.

Calls once again on the EU institutions to create a specific financial instrument for implementing the Joint Strategy, centralising all existing sources of funding, in a clear, predictable and programmable way; questions to what extent the Joint Strategy will be able to achieve its lofty ambitions or offer genuine added value without any new funding whatsoever or even reprogramming of existing funding;

57.

Calls on governments in the EU and in Africa to communicate more effectively and systematically to their people the actions and achievements of the Joint Strategy and to endeavour to broaden media coverage;

58.

Looks forward to a meaningful involvement of the European and Pan-African Parliaments as well as civil society organisations and local authorities, following the experience of the EU-Africa Summit in Lisbon on 8 and 9 December 2007, in the run-up to the third Africa-EU summit in 2010 and their active participation in the summit itself;

59.

Calls on the EU and AU Commissions and Presidencies to agree to the proposals outlined above aimed at enhancing parliamentary involvement in the implementation and monitoring of the Joint Strategy;

60.

Intends to generate inside the European Parliament the necessary coordination and synergy between all its bodies to support the implementation and monitoring of the Joint Strategy; repeats, in this respect, its intention to transform its ad-hoc delegation for relations with the Pan-African Parliament into a fully-fledged interparliamentary delegation;

61.

Instructs its President to forward this resolution to the Council, the Commission, the governments and parliaments of the Member States, the EU Economic and Social Committee, the AU Economic, Social and Cultural Council, the AU Commission, the AU Executive Council, the Pan-African Parliament, the ACP Council of Ministers and the ACP-EU Joint Parliamentary Assembly.

6.5.2010   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 117/15

A.

whereas, by supporting the Millennium Declaration on development in the year 2000, the European Union, together with the whole international community, undertook to halve the incidence of extreme poverty worldwide by the year 2015, while concentrating its efforts on the eight MDGs,

B.

whereas, according to new estimates, there are about 1,4 billion people living below the poverty line (i.e. USD 1,25 per day), equivalent to over a quarter of the developing world population,

C.

having regard to the fresh undertakings given by the Commission and the EU Member States in 2007 that they will make a significant contribution to getting the work of meeting these goals back on schedule,

D.

whereas lack of access to basic healthcare and other services causes the death of millions of people and perpetuates the cycle of poverty, although access to such care and to basic education is a human right which it is the responsibility of governments to uphold and enforce,

E.

whereas the MDG contracts could offer a further means of meeting the challenges posed in the developing countries by the world food crisis, in particular in the farming sector,

F.

whereas, despite the considerable efforts they have made up to now, most developing countries do not have the necessary resources to meet the challenges they face in the health and education sectors and whereas, therefore, some form of external aid is essential,

G.

whereas Parliament is being asked to grant a discharge in respect of the European Development Fund (EDF),

H.

whereas the Commission intends to significantly increase the use of budget support during the 10th EDF to enhance the effectiveness of its aid and meet the objectives it has set itself,

I.

whereas teachers and health workers in the developing countries are currently working in deplorable conditions, whereas almost two million teachers and more than four million health workers are needed if the MDGs are to be achieved and whereas they could be recruited and trained if adequate levels of support, in the form of budget support as part of an MDG contract, were to be provided,

J.

whereas the recurring shortage of health workers and teachers is being exacerbated by the brain drain organised by the rich countries,

K.

whereas the Union intends to continue to increase its expenditure on budget support, in particular by significantly increasing sector budget support for health and education, particularly in the African countries,

L.

whereas MDG contracts set concrete performance targets by reference to MDGs in the fields of basic health and education, but other priority sectors could also be addressed on the basis of MDG contracts,

M.

whereas Parliament’s official position on development aid, as set out in paragraph 6 of its above mentioned resolution of 16 February 2006 on new financial instruments for development in connection with the Millennium Goals, is that ‘an increase in quantity must go hand in hand with an increase in quality, i.e. the effectiveness of aid must be improved by application of the ‘3 Cs’ – coordination, complementarity and coherence – as well as by reducing the transaction costs of aid, improving the predictability and sustainability of aid mechanisms, increasing the speed of delivery of aid, further untying aid, finding solutions to unsustainable debt burdens, promoting good governance, combating corruption and increasing the absorption capacity of aid recipients’,

N.

whereas predictable and long-term aid flows can make a direct and effective contribution to carrying into effect the poverty reduction strategies set out in the MDGs,

O.

whereas, despite the undertakings they gave in Monterrey (2002), Gleneagles (2005), Paris (2005) and Accra (2008) to improve the quantity and quality of development aid, many EU Member States still do not grant all the aid they have pledged to provide, and whereas, when they do provide that aid, some proves inappropriate,

P.

whereas in 30 % of cases delays occur in the disbursement of the budget support provided by the Commission, as a result of the excessively cumbersome nature of its administrative procedures,

Q.

whereas the lack of predictability in the provision of budget support is in particular the result of the annual nature of most of the conditions attaching to the provision of that support, and whereas this lack of predictability sometimes forces the recipient countries to spend the support before it has actually been provided and without being certain that it ever will be provided,

R.

whereas this lack of predictability in the provision of European development aid also affects those recipient countries which offer a degree of legal security and a stable regulatory environment,

S.

whereas the Commission is the largest multilateral development aid donor, whereas it was one of the first donors to provide budget support, and whereas it increasingly uses this type of aid, which has accounted for one-fifth of the total assistance it has provided in recent years,

T.

whereas, although budget support already constitutes one instrument which can be used to improve the provision of aid by the EU, it would benefit from being more predictable and granted for longer periods,

U.

whereas the current budget support provided by the Commission is generally delivered on the basis of three-year programmes, or one-year programmes in the case of some agencies,

V.

whereas the proposed MDG contract has no budgetary implications and the MDG contract is not a new instrument but a means of implementing existing instruments,

W.

whereas the status of the Commission document on MDG contracts is currently unclear,

X.

whereas the Commission now believes that the time has come to apply the concept of contracts based on tangible results in terms of attaining MDGs instead of annual checking of compliance with each donor’s customary conditionality requirements,

Y.

whereas the term ‘contract’ implies a financial commitment ensuring greater predictability on the part of the donor country in exchange for a more sustained commitment on the part of the recipient country to achieving tangible results,

Z.

whereas the Commission plans to conclude a first series of MDG contracts for a period of six years, in other words until the end of the 10th EDF,

AA.

whereas the Commission proposal to conclude contracts for a period of six years goes beyond the current practice employed by other donors at world level,

AB.

having regard to the Commission's appeal to the Member States to co-finance the MDG contracts by means of additional, voluntary contributions to the EDF,

AC.

whereas no changes are needed to the MDG contracts, which form part of the general budget support instrument drawn up on the basis of the criteria laid down in the Cotonou Agreement, in respect of decisions concerning the programmes already under way and the differences in the arrangements for providing general budget support, whereas the MDG contracts do not entail the establishment of a new financial instrument, and thus continue to be based on the budget support provisions set out in the Cotonou Agreement, and whereas, by the same token, the MDG contracts are still consistent with the internal guidelines governing general budget support which were recently finalised,

AD.

whereas the eligibility criteria for MDG contracts include compliance with Article 96 of the Cotonou Agreement on human rights, democratic principles and the rule of law,

AE.

whereas effective budget support should enable recipients to finance their own strategies and very concrete programmes to improve access to efficient public health and education services,

AF.

whereas the Commission has not fulfilled its commitments to systematically include Members of Parliament and representatives of civil society organisations in its dialogues with the governments of developing countries and whereas, moreover, it is now widely recognised that, to be effective, development should be entirely under the control of developing countries' own governments, parliaments and civil society organisations,

AG.

whereas the Commission envisages that, to be eligible, countries should have achieved satisfactory macro-economic results and budgetary management results when implementing budget support, thereby differing from other suppliers of budget support such as the IMF or the World Bank, which attach many conditions to their aid, running counter to the principle of ownership by the recipient country,

AH.

whereas many countries which urgently require more, and more effective, aid to help them make swifter progress towards attaining the MDGs do not fulfil the criteria currently specified by the Commission for the conclusion of MDG contracts,

AI.

whereas, in their current form, MDG contracts apply solely to ACP countries,

AJ.

whereas the budget support provided by the Commission suffers from a serious lack of transparency and of ownership by the poor countries, and whereas the funding agreements are only rarely made public,

AK.

whereas the fundamental principle of development aid is to provide aid to those who need it most and where it can be the most useful,

AL.

whereas, to take just one example, no one in Burkina Faso was aware that an MDG contract was being negotiated between that country and the Commission, and whereas no information on that subject is currently available on the website of the Commission delegation in Burkina Faso,

AM.

whereas, in the European Development Consensus, the Union pledged to adopt an approach based on results and performance indicators,

AN.

whereas the Commission needs to continue to link its budget support to the results achieved by recipient countries in respect of equality between women and men and the promotion of women's rights,

AO.

whereas budget support agreements have already been concluded between the Commission and Burkina Faso (2005-2008), Ethiopia (2003-2006), Ghana (2007-2009), Kenya (2004-2006), Madagascar (2005-2007), Malawi (2006-2008), Mali (2003-2007), Mozambique (2006-2008), Tanzania (2006-2008), Uganda (2005-2007) and Zambia (2007-2008),

AP.

whereas there are some 650 million disabled persons in the world, whereas 80 % of them live in the developing countries, and whereas one in five of them live under the extreme poverty threshold; whereas, moreover, they are victims of many forms of discrimination and rarely have access to basic health care and education,

AQ.

whereas under the ‘general obligations’, and in particular Article 32 of the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, the signatories of that Convention are obliged to take disability into account in their development cooperation,

AR.

whereas the MDGs will not be achieved by 2015 without giving due consideration to the inclusion and participation of persons with disabilities,

AS.

having regard to the report on the implementation of the Africa-EU Partnership of 22 November 2008, and in particular paragraph 37 thereof, which emphasises the glaring failure to take action to assist disabled persons in the context of the efforts to achieve the MDGs,

1.

Reasserts that development aid should be based on need and performance and development aid policy should be designed in partnership with the recipient countries;

2.

Reasserts that, to achieve the MDGs, donor countries must honour all their commitments and improve the quality of the aid they provide;

3.

Stresses the need to develop new instruments to ensure aid is more predictable and less volatile;

4.

Draws attention to the objective set in the Abuja Declaration of earmarking 15 % of national budgets for the health sector, and the objective set by the Global Campaign for Education of earmarking 20 % of national budgets for education;

5.

Calls on the Commission to continue to link its aid in the health and education sectors, in particular basic health care and primary education, to the results achieved in those sectors; and also calls on the Commission to specify the importance which will be attached to countries' performance in these sectors compared to a wider range of indicators, and how it intends to assess the progress achieved in these fields;

6.

Calls on the Commission to improve the predictability of budget support by introducing MDG contracts and extending the principles underlying these contracts to a larger number of countries and to sector budget support;

7.

Reminds the Commission of the need to significantly reduce the unnecessary delay caused by excessively onerous administrative procedures;

8.

Calls on the governments of the developing countries to increase their health spending to 15 % of their national budgets, in accordance with the recommendations set out in the Abuja Declaration, and their education spending to 20 % of national budgets, as recommended by the Global Campaign for Education;

9.

Calls on the Commission to maintain high levels of budget support spending, while aiming in particular to increase the provision of budget support for ACP countries' social services sectors and strengthen sector budget support in other regions;

10.

Notes with interest that the Commission's proposal concerning MDG contracts provides eligible countries with a minimum guaranteed aid level (70 % of total commitment);

11.

Is disappointed, however, that the document relating to MDG contracts does not specify a timetable for the introduction of these contracts, which were principally designed to cover the six-year period of the tenth EDF, and calls on the Commission, therefore, to provide a detailed timetable;

12.

Notes that the main objective of the MDG contract is to help improve aid effectiveness and speed up the rate of progress towards attaining MDG for those countries which need it most;

13.

Calls on the Commission to adopt a communication formalising the MDG contract approach and extending it to non-ACP countries which meet the eligibility criteria;

14.

Asks the Commission and beneficiary countries to ensure the involvement of their parliaments and civil society, including disabled people's organisations, in every stage of the budget support dialogue, including the formulation, implementation and assessment of the programme established in the MDG contract;

15.

Stresses that donors, rather than imposing unilateral conditions on recipients, should seek to promote good governance, democracy and stability in recipient countries through transparent criteria established in partnership with these countries;

16.

Considers that, in the interest of transparency, the conditions for the disbursement of the variable component of the support should be performance-based, to the extent that this would encourage donors and recipients to analyse the real impact of the money spent and would increase transparency in relation to the use of public funds;

17.

Calls on the Commission to periodically monitor the results of its programmes and to pass these results on to Parliament;

18.

Recommends that the Commission work towards strengthening the dialogue between donors and recipients, particularly with a view to identifying real needs and sectors in which aid is necessary;

19.

Calls for the ACP-EU Joint Parliamentary Assembly (JPA) to play a more active role in defining priorities, negotiating MDG contracts and all other stages of the process;

20.

Calls on the Commission to make its budget support conditional on results achieved with regard not only to the field of good governance and transparency, but also in terms of defending and upholding human rights, in particular those of the poorest and the excluded, including disabled people, minorities, women and children, and to ensure that budget support is not provided for sectors other than those specified in the MDG contract;

21.

Reiterates that the national indicative programmes should be drawn up in cooperation with the parliaments of the countries concerned, the JPA and civil society;

22.

Notes that the proposal concerning MDG contracts does not state which countries will be included in the first round of MDG contracts and that, in their current form, MDG contracts concern only ACP countries;

23.

Deplores the fact that the Union's budget support policy for developing countries is increasingly subject to conditions imposed by the IMF being attached to Union development aid; considers that such conditionality runs counter to the policies of recipient countries with regard to the ownership principle;

24.

Emphasises the need to develop other budget support approaches for countries which are ineligible for MDG contracts, and particularly for countries whose situation is fragile; stresses that it is obvious that the most fragile states are unable to fulfil existing eligibility criteria;

25.

Recommends that MDG contracts should also be available to countries covered by the development cooperation instrument;

26.

Calls on the Commission to explain clearly how it intends the proposed MDG contracts to be combined with other aid distribution systems;

27.

Warns against the danger of making indiscriminate and excessive use of MDG contracts and creating the perception that they are the only really effective means of distributing aid, and urges the Commission to choose whatever aid distribution methods are best adapted to each individual situation;

28.

Calls on the Commission to strengthen the capacity of the parliaments of the recipient countries to be involved in the budget process and the capacity of the parliaments and the civil society to be involved in formulating national policies, by providing them with more financial support, by stressing the need for such involvement in the course of political dialogue with the recipient countries and by concentrating on the public finance management indicators designed to enhance governments' accountability to their citizens;

29.

Asks the Commission, in collaboration with partner countries, to match every MDG contract with a series of performance indicators in order to evaluate progress achieved in the implementation of the contract; the inclusion of persons and children with disabilities should also be measured by these indicators;

30.

Draws the Commission's attention to the fact that it should imperatively continue to link its budget support to results in beneficiary countries related to gender equality and the promotion of women’s rights, and asks that the performance indicators be strengthened in this area in the MDG contracts, and that they be expanded to other spheres such as women’s rights and the rights of persons with disabilities; calls on it to strengthen the gender-related performance indicators linked to budget support by broadening their scope to include other areas, such as the rights of the disabled and women's rights, in particular measures to facilitate access for all women to information about sexual and reproductive health and to universal sexual and reproductive health services; improved access to and greater use of family planning methods; long-term measures to promote women's education and emancipation; and measures to combat sex discrimination and foster gender equality;

31.

Instructs its President to forward this resolution to the Council and the Commission, to the ACP Council and to the Governments and Parliaments of the Member States and the ACP States.

6.5.2010   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 117/23

A.

whereas the European Union, true to its motto ‘United in diversity’, should acknowledge its common history, and can do so through the history of European art because of its intrinsic universal nature,

B.

whereas schools should once again become the main place for democratising access to culture,

C.

whereas artistic and cultural education, of which image education forms a part, is an essential element in the educational system of the Member States,

D.

whereas artistic and cultural education is an essential component in the education of children and young people, since it contributes to the development of free will, sensitivity and openness to others; whereas it is a key issue in equal opportunities and a precondition for truly democratising access to culture,

E.

whereas in order to meet the challenge of democratising access to culture, it is necessary to promote artistic awareness at all levels and at all ages, to recognise the importance of group and amateur artistic activities, and to promote access to education in the arts,

F.

whereas, regrettably, Member States too often feel compelled by economic imperatives to reduce the place given to the arts in overall education policy,

G.

whereas artistic education is the basis for professional training in the field of the arts and promotes creativity, as well as physical and intellectual development in that sphere, encouraging closer and more productive links between education, culture and the arts,

H.

whereas schools and centres for art and design education help to develop philosophies, to create new artistic styles and movements and to open up different cultural worlds, which strengthens the European Union's image in the world,

I.

whereas training is very important for the success of professionals in the artistic and creative sector,

J.

whereas artistic studies that focus on developing a career and profession require of the students, in addition to talent, a solid cultural basis that can only be acquired through multidisciplinary and systematic training; whereas this increases the opportunities for access to employment in the sector, in so far as it provides a general education, a research methodology, entrepreneurial abilities and business knowledge, as well as skills in various areas of activity which are relevant to contemporary art,

K.

whereas the economic potential and potential in terms of employment represented by creative, cultural and artistic companies and industries in the European Union have a great influence on the development of the artistic sector,

L.

whereas the technological revolution has resulted in increased competitiveness within and between countries, and that this has meant that intellectual capabilities and creativity occupy a dominant place within the Lisbon Strategy,

M.

whereas the rapid and constant changes taking place within our societies require increased adaptability, flexibility, creativity, innovation and communication between people in the work sphere; whereas these qualities should be promoted by the education and training systems in the various Member States, in accordance with the objectives of the above-mentioned Education and Training 2010 programme,

N.

whereas account should be taken of the fact that there are significant disparities between the existing artistic education models in the various Member States,

O.

whereas account should be taken of the fact that, as a result of globalisation and the increased mobility of citizens, as well as the successive enlargements of the European Union, education on culture and on its diversity is an important element in preserving identity and promoting intercultural and inter-religious understanding; whereas the objectives of the European Year of Intercultural Dialogue of raising awareness of and promoting culture should continue beyond 2008,

1.

Considers that artistic education should be a compulsory element in syllabuses at all school levels, in order to promote democratisation of access to culture;

2.

Stresses the importance in both school curricula and vocational training and lifelong learning programmes of continuing courses to promote and develop creativity at all ages as part of the process of lifelong learning;

3.

Recalls that one of the aims of artistic and cultural education is to contribute to civic education and that one of its roles is to enhance our capacity to think and to contribute to personal development in intellectual, emotional and physical terms;

4.

Acknowledges the role of the arts as an important contributor to innovation in society and the economy within the European Year of Creativity & Innovation 2009;

5.

Draws the attention of the Council and the Member States to the role of European culture and its diversity as a factor in integration, and the importance of artistic and cultural education at European level, including the safeguarding of traditional cultural values in different regions;

6.

Notes that ever-increasing numbers of students of art subjects are interested in pursuing their studies in a Member State other than their own and, as a result, encourages the Member States to coordinate their policies with regard to artistic education at European Union level, to exchange best practices and to increase mobility of both students and teachers in this sector;

7.

Suggests improving the mobility of professionals in the artistic sector through increased attention to the issue of recognition of qualifications. This should be done by encouraging training institutions and employers to relate to the European Qualifications Framework, so that competences and qualifications in the sector can be compared at the European level;

8.

Urges the Commission in this connection to work together with the Member States in establishing a mobility framework for Europeans engaged in artistic and creative activity, with particular emphasis on mobility for young artists and students of art subjects;

9.

Whilst recognising that this is a matter for the Member States, considers that policies on artistic education ought to be coordinated at EU level, particularly in relation to:

10.

Calls on the Council, the Commission and the Member States to:

11.

Insists that the teaching of art history must also involve encounters with artists and visits to places of culture, so as to arouse curiosity and provoke reflexion on the part of students;

12.

Emphasises the importance of using the resources provided by new information and communication technologies and the Internet as channels for modern teaching geared to contemporary practice when introducing the artistic dimension into school curricula;

13.

Stresses in this respect the essential contribution of enterprises such as Europeana, the European digital library;

14.

Recommends that a European portal for artistic and cultural education be developed jointly and that artistic education be included in the Member States' educational curricula, in order to safeguard the development and promotion of the European cultural model, which is especially prized internationally;

15.

Calls on the Council, the Commission and the Member States to monitor progress in incorporating artistic education into school curricula; suggests in particular to the Commission that it promote studies needed to produce reliable information on the impact of such teaching on the level of education and competences of students in the European Union;

16.

Instructs its President to forward this resolution to the Council, the Commission and the governments and parliaments of the Member States.

6.5.2010   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 117/27

A.

whereas a democratic and transparent European Union will require an enhanced dialogue between citizens and the European institutions, including Parliament, but also an ongoing debate on Europe at European, national and local level,

B.

whereas after the rejection of the draft Treaty establishing a Constitution for Europe in France and the Netherlands, 53.4 % of the Irish people voted in a referendum against ratification of the Treaty of Lisbon, and whereas people with an inadequate understanding of European Union policies or of the Treaties are more likely to oppose them,

C.

whereas the Eurobarometer 69 survey showed that 52 % of Union citizens believe that their home country’s membership of the EU is a good thing, a mere 14 % believing the contrary,

D.

whereas knowledge of the European Union and its policies and functioning, but also of the rights enshrined in the Treaties, will be the foundation for restoring citizens’ confidence in the European institutions,

E.

whereas a separate Commissioner for communication strategy was appointed for the first time in 2004, although no communication policy as such has yet been adopted due to the lack of a proper legal basis in the Treaties,

1.

Recalls that surveys show that the less educated and less affluent a Union citizen is, the more likely he or she will be to oppose further European integration, which indicates that the European idea, in spite of all previous efforts, mainly reaches the well-educated, wealthy segment of European society; regards active dialogue between the European Union and its citizens as essential so as to realise the principles and values of the EU project, but recognises that the communication has not so far been very successful;

2.

Regrets the fact that, in spite of the Commission's efforts and good ideas, the success achieved in increasing Union citizens’ level of knowledge and interest in European issues has been very limited, something which was, regrettably, evidenced by the Irish referendum;

3.

Stresses the particular importance of creating cohesive communication links with targeted content both between the EU and the regions with particular characteristics and between the EU and particular social groups;

4.

Notes that, according to recent polls, a large majority of Europeans are in favour of the European Union speaking with one voice on matters of foreign policy; highlights the fact that a statement to that effect was included at the request of Union citizens in the open letter/recommendations from the participants at the concluding conference of the six Plan D citizens’ projects on 9 December 2007; emphasises that the 27 recommendations set out in that open letter also include a call on the Union to take more effective action in the area of social policy and social cohesion, in particular with a view to reducing wage disparities and fostering equality between women and men and, more generally, to pay specific attention to equality-related issues, which are often neglected; suggests that it is therefore also important to look at what is being communicated by actions and to compare how it is at variance with the message the EU wants to give to its citizens;

5.

Points out that a majority of women voted ‘no’ in the most recent referendums on the European Union: 56 % in France (Eurobarometer Flash 171), 63 % in the Netherlands (Eurobarometer Flash 172) and 56 % in Ireland (Eurobarometer Flash 245); believes that one of the factors behind the ‘no’ vote was the lack of involvement on the part of European institutions in the policies which directly affect women and which underlie the ongoing lack of equal opportunities for men and women, such as policies on reconciling work and family life or dependency support;

6.

Stresses the need to complete the ratification process of the Treaty of Lisbon, which will further increase the transparency of the EU and the involvement of citizens in decision-making processes; recalls in this context the new opportunities for participatory democracy that the Treaty of Lisbon would provide, especially the citizens’ initiative;

7.

Stresses the need for coordinated efforts and joint action by all EU institutions and Member States to communicate with Union citizens on European issues; welcomes and takes note of the above-mentioned Joint Declaration of 22 October 2008, which sets out clear objectives for the improvement of EU communication on the part of Parliament, the Council, Commission and the Member States; is of the opinion that it could be more ambitious, as Parliament had asked for an Interinstitutional agreement on communication policy between all the institutions;

8.

Believes that the EU institutions should initiate further discussions on Europe, and immediately put into practice the concepts laid down in the above-mentioned Joint Declaration, in the Commission Communication of 1 February 2006 and in the Commission Working Document of 3 October 2007;

9.

Shares the Commission's view that participatory democracy can usefully supplement representative democracy; stresses, however, that participatory democracy means not only listening to citizens, but giving them real opportunities to influence European policy; Points out that, in order to achieve these aims, the institutions have to become much more open and adopt the approaches required to enable citizens and their organisations to participate effectively at every stage when EU issues are debated; also notes that public access to documents produced by the institutions needs to be granted on as broad a basis as possible, this being a sine qua non for the purposes of exerting influence;

10.

Stresses the importance and value of the consultation process as an effective tool in empowering citizens by enabling them to input directly into the policy process at EU level; calls on the Commission to take further steps to disseminate information in time on future EU consultations via the media and other appropriate forums at national, regional and local levels, to widen the range of stakeholders’ views heard during consultations on EC legislation and to publicise more widely the Internet consultations on EU policies and initiatives so as to ensure that all stakeholders, especially small and medium-sized enterprises and local non-governmental organisations (NGOs) are involved in the debate; emphasises the importance of representatives of civil society, such as networks of professionals and consumers, at all levels from transnational to local, which provide platforms for an informed exchange of views on EU policies, thus contributing to better quality EC legislation; recognises the problems in the implementation and enforcement of legislation and encourages consumers and businesses to exercise their rights and to report existing problems to the EU institutions;

11.

Believes that the EU institutions and the Members States should coordinate their communication efforts and build a partnership with civil society in order to exploit the possible synergies; stresses the need for coordination among the institutions and the desirability of forging links between the Commission's and Parliament's television channels; calls on the Commission to improve cooperation and coordination between its representations in the Member States and Parliament’s information offices; calls on the Commission and Parliament representations in Member States to improve cooperation when it comes to consulting citizens, sharing information, knowledge and ideas about the EU with citizens, and providing opportunities for voters to meet MEPs elected in different countries and EU officials;

12.

Welcomes the fact that the Commission supports the role of Parliament and the European political parties, and recognises the need to bridge the gap between national and European politics, especially during the European election campaigns;

13.

Calls on the three main institutions to consider the possibility of holding joint open debates that would supplement Parliament's open debates, addressing topics that concern consumers and their daily lives and thereby strengthening their confidence in the internal market and consumer protection; points out that Parliamentary intergroups are playing their full part as a citizens’ intermediary, a role which genuinely links the political sphere and civil society;

14.

Notes with satisfaction that the Commission has taken into account many of the ideas that Parliament has previously put forward, such as citizens’ forums on both a European and national level, a more prominent role for civil society organisations and innovative use of new media;

15.

Calls on the Commission to extend its dialogue to all levels by adapting its message to different target groups according to their social backgrounds; therefore proposes that the dialogue between the European Union and its citizens should be strengthened by providing the same information, tailored to individual target groups, to everyone and facilitating debate with and among informed citizens; considers that the EU institutions should incorporate the conclusions of local debates organised under the aegis of Plan D into their policies and take into consideration the expectations that citizens have of the EU when deciding on new legislation;

16.

Calls on the Member States to launch effective EU communication campaigns at all levels, national, regional and local; calls on the Commission to disseminate the best practices identified from such campaigns and proposes the creation of a permanent, interactive communication system between the EU institutions and citizens, with regular campaigns of a local and regional nature by the EU, the assistance of the regional media and the active participation of civil society, NGOs, chambers of commerce, trade unions and professional organisations;

17.

Stresses that the EU's cohesion policy is a basis for European integration and social solidarity; considers therefore that citizens should be made aware of the endeavours and specific effects of EU policies on their daily lives, highlighting the contribution of the EU and the benefits of the common European project; calls in this context for local authorities to provide better information about aid received from the European Union; stresses also that commitment on the part of local and regional elected representatives is essential for developing information provision and training; welcomes in this regard the creation of an Erasmus programme for local and regional elected representatives;

18.

Stresses that the involvement of partners in the preparation and implementation of operational programmes, according to Article 11 of the General Regulation on Structural Funds (ESF) 2007-2013, contributes significantly to promoting EU cohesion policy and bringing it closer to citizens; stresses that these partners have a unique opportunity to see at first hand the real issues that are of core concern to citizens; therefore calls on the Commission to ensure that the partnership principle is correctly implemented at national, regional and local level; highlights the importance for national and regional authorities of making use of the existing financial possibilities provided by the ESF, in order to improve the skills of these partners, especially as regards training; notes the significant role which structural funds have played in fostering cross-border co-operation through community projects and programmes, which has encouraged the development of active citizenship and participatory democracy; calls on the Commission to continue to support and work in partnership with such projects and programmes;

19.

Stresses the need, in the context of the forthcoming European elections, for information at local and regional level for citizens, and particularly for young people and first-time voters; in a more general context, stresses the importance of the involvement of MEPs, in cooperation with local and regional elected officials, in the consultation process with citizens in their regions, given that they are the voice of the public in the EU; supports the efforts of the Committee of the Regions to strengthen consultation at regional level and to include regional networks and key local and regional players in that process in order to encourage debate at grass-roots level that takes into account their opinions and interests;

20.

Stresses the need for its Members to be more closely involved in communication with EU citizens and for changes to be made to the organisation of Parliament’s work so as to enable Members to engage in dialogue with citizens at the most local level possible; hopes that in parallel with the political party campaigns, MEPs will be closely involved on the ground in the European elections campaign;

21.

Calls on the Commission to launch local, small-scale communication campaigns with the involvement of local actors, and to promote activities enabling citizens to be better informed about immigrants’ countries of origin and, equally, to better inform immigrants of the rights and duties attached to Union citizenship, as the most effective and meaningful ways of achieving these communication goals, and also to continue with the efforts made in the context of the European Year of Intercultural Dialogue 2008;

22.

Stresses the importance of introducing European politics and history into the school curricula of each Member State so as to strengthen European values, and of developing the European Studies departments within university programmes; calls on the Commission to provide financial support for the promotion of such projects; calls on the Member States to promote a school course on the history of European integration and the functioning of the EU, to form the basis of a common European knowledge;

23.

Emphasises the particular role of civic education as an essential driving force of active citizenship; notes the need to support an active model of civic education that provides young people with the opportunity to engage directly with public life, with their political representatives at national level, at local level as well as at European level, with representatives of NGOs and with civic initiatives; suggests that the Commission support pilot projects promoting such a model of civic education in the Member States;

24.

Recommends that programmes such as Erasmus, Leonardo da Vinci, Grundtvig and Comenius be more effectively promoted, through more widespread communication, and organised so as to encourage as many people as possible to take part, to increase participation by less affluent citizens and to facilitate their mobility within the EU; draws attention to the fact that these programmes in particular are very popular with young people and make an important contribution to the success of European integration;

25.

Welcomes the above-mentioned Commission Communication of 21 December 2007 which sets out clear objectives as to how the Europa website can be turned into a service-oriented web 2.0 site; urges the Commission to complete construction of the new site as early as 2009 and believes that the new website should provide a forum for citizens to share their opinions and participate in online polls, where all NGOs, public institutions and individuals may share their experiences of their EU communication projects; calls on the Commission to collect and publish on this webpage the experiences of beneficiaries of the activities funded under Plan D;

26.

Welcomes the idea of EU Tube, as with almost 1,7 million viewers, it is a unique tool with which to communicate EU policies among Internet users; also calls on the Commission to prepare guidelines on efficient Internet campaigns and share them with other EU institutions;

27.

Calls on the Commission to make better use of the audiovisual material available on Europe by Satellite by establishing links with local television channels and community media that are interested in obtaining such material for broadcasting, in order to reach wider audiences;

28.

Considers the Europe Direct network an important tool for answering citizens’ queries by mail or by free telephone call from anywhere in the EU, a tool which should be further publicised;

29.

Considers the policy areas of consumer protection and the internal market to be of the utmost importance in communicating Europe to consumers and businesses; calls on Member States to increase efforts to communicate the benefits of the Single Market at national, regional and local level; calls on the Commission and Member States to promote and strengthen interactive communication and information in order to achieve effective dialogue between consumers, businesses and institutions by various electronic means of the latest technology and to contribute to the development of e-commerce;

30.

Asks the Commission to strengthen its coordination efforts in the fields of consumer education and information on consumers’ rights and obligations by increasing its financial and human resources; calls on Member States to boost the financial and human resources allocated to the European Consumer Centres Network in order to raise awareness and ensure the application of EU consumer rights and urges Member States, in view of the current global financial crisis and rising levels of consumer indebtedness, to make efforts to improve the level of financial literacy of consumers, in particular concerning their rights and obligations as well as their means of redress with regard to savings and loans;

31.

Calls on Member States to increase the human and financial resources allocated to the SOLVIT network that makes it possible to resolve problems arising from the misapplication or non-application of Community legislation free of charge; asks the Commission to accelerate the streamlining of the different services providing information and advice on the single market; therefore supports the concept contained in the Commission's Communication of 20 November 2007 entitled ‘A single market for 21st century Europe’ (COM(2007)0724) of an integrated approach to the provision of Single Market Assistance Services through the creation of a single-entry webpage; notes the Commission's initiatives on the reduction of administrative burdens and better regulation; calls in particular for improvements to support small and medium-sized enterprises, which represent an important source of jobs in Europe;

32.

Notes that a European Year on Volunteering would be an ideal opportunity for the EU institutions to connect with citizens; points out that there are over 100 million volunteers across the EU, and calls on the Commission to prepare the ground for 2011 to be declared as the European Year on Volunteering by submitting an appropriate legislative proposal to that effect as soon as possible;

33.

Stresses the importance of considering citizens’ opinions on Europe as a global player, taking into account in particular Parliament's increasingly prominent role in this respect; therefore encourages the involvement of MEPs and members of the Council in the Plan D visits by Members of the Commission, as they play an important role in reaching out to national parliaments, civil society, business and union leaders and regional and local authorities in Member States;

34.

Is pleased that the world at large is showing an ever greater interest in the European project, and that the EU and its citizens are also becoming more aware of the advantages of sharing their supranational experience with other countries and regions, especially with the EU's neighbours; therefore calls on the Commission to develop, through its delegations in third countries, ways of reaching out to those countries’ citizens and informing them about opportunities in the European Union, for example with regard to media and other forms of culture, education, language learning and mobility or exchange programmes such as Erasmus Mundus;

35.

Notes that, particularly in the context of the increase in the number of third-country nationals in the EU and the emergence of multicultural societies, to which they have also contributed, greater efforts should be made to provide for the integration of immigrants into the EU, giving them concrete access to information about what Union citizenship entails by, for example, strengthening partnerships between different levels of government (local, regional and national) and non-governmental players (e.g. employers, civil society and migrants’ associations, the media and NGOs supporting migrants); considers that successful integration will support the further development of a multicultural European consciousness based on tolerance, dialogue and equality;

36.

Calls on the Commission to promote programmes and campaigns (such as ‘The world through women’s eyes’) for encouraging women to become more socially, politically, and culturally active, taking into account women’s role in the dialogue between generations and society's sustainability and prosperity; calls therefore for girls and women to be given better information on the concept of European citizenship and the rights pertaining thereto, particularly in socially and geographically isolated regions; stresses that the aim of these information campaigns should be to improve women's participation in political life and the decision-making process; stresses the need to promote measures to overcome the gender digital divide so as to provide women with the tools to take part in the dialogue on Europe under equal conditions; congratulates the Commission on the choice of projects to be co-funded, under plan D, by its representations, which include many projects run by women’s organisations and many projects involving women; stresses the need to encourage citizens’ participation when it comes to issues such as gender violence or human trafficking, where the involvement of society is vital if progress is to be made in resolving the problem; acknowledges the problem-solving and conflict-resolution skills of women, and urges the Commission to include more women in task forces and working groups, engaged with the issues of family life, childcare, education etc.;

37.

Instructs its President to forward this resolution to the European Council, the Commission, the Council, the Court of Justice of the European Communities, the Court of Auditors, the Committee of the Regions, the European Economic and Social Committee and the governments and parliaments of the Member States.

6.5.2010   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 117/33

—

on the social and environmental consequences of structural adjustment programmes (7),

—

on experiences from the European regional integration process relevant to ACP countries (8),

—

on food security issues in ACP countries and the role of ACP-EU cooperation (9),

—

on the situation in Kenya (10),

—

on the protection of civilians during peacekeeping operations by the UN and regional organisations (11),

—

on aid effectiveness and defining official development assistance (12),

—

on the social consequences of child labour and strategies to combat child labour (13),

—

on the situation in Mauritania (14),

—

on the situation in Zimbabwe (15),

A.

whereas EPAs have been signed with some ACP regions or countries during the course of 2008 and the JPA debates on the latest developments in the EPA negotiations have taken place in March 2008 in Ljubljana (Slovenia) and in November 2008 in Port Moresby,

B.

whereas the above-mentioned Regulation (EC) No 1905/2006, which provides for thematic programmes also applicable to ACP countries and a programme of accompanying measures for Sugar Protocol countries, has been adopted,

C.

whereas the Commissioner with responsibility for development and humanitarian aid gave an undertaking at the JPA session which took place in Wiesbaden (Germany) in June 2007 to subject Country and Regional Strategy Papers for the ACP countries (2008-2013) to democratic scrutiny by parliaments; welcoming the fact that that undertaking has been fulfilled,

D.

whereas the fresh revision of the Cotonou Agreement scheduled for 2010 provides a valuable opportunity to enhance the JPA's regional dimension and develop parliamentary scrutiny in ACP regions, as well as to strengthen the JPA’s own role and activities as an institution,

E.

whereas the two JPA regional meetings held in Namibia and Vanuatu in 2008 were a considerable success and resulted in the adoption of the above-mentioned Windhoek and Port Vila communiqués,

F.

whereas the situation in Zimbabwe deteriorated still further in 2008, despite the holding of elections in July 2008; whereas, nonetheless, the agreement which led to the adoption of a resolution on Zimbabwe at the 16th JPA session in Port Moresby is welcome,

G.

having regard to the ongoing conflict in Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) and the grave, repeated human rights violations in that country, as well as to the need for effective humanitarian assistance and greater commitment from the international community,

H.

having regard to the work of the Pan-African Parliament (PAP) and the establishment of formal relations between the European Parliament and the PAP, as well as to the intention voiced by the President of the European Parliament during his address at the 10th session of the PAP on 28 October 2008 to set up an interparliamentary delegation for the next parliamentary term,

I.

whereas the 16th JPA session in Port Moresby and the Doha International Conference on Financing for Development were held almost simultaneously, thus forcing many Members to make a difficult choice,

J.

whereas excellent contributions were made by the EU Presidency-in-Office (Slovenia) and the Government of Papua New Guinea to the above-mentioned JPA sessions in Ljubljana and Port Moresby,

K.

whereas study visits were made by the JPA Bureau in 2008:

1.

Welcomes the fact that in 2008 the JPA continued to provide a framework for an open, democratic and in-depth dialogue on the negotiation of EPAs between the European Union and the ACP countries;

2.

Draws attention to the concerns voiced by the JPA about several formal and substantive aspects of the negotiations; points out that the debate is still in progress following the adoption of the EPA with the Cariforum (Caribbean Forum of States) and of interim agreements with certain countries in other regions;

3.

Welcomes the new Commissioner for Trade’s positive response to the request by several ACP countries and regions to revisit the contentious issues, in line with the statements made by the President of the Commission;

4.

Underlines the need for close parliamentary scrutiny during the negotiation as well as during the implementation of EPAs; criticises the fact that the work and role of the JPA is threatened by the prospect of the creation of a new body in the context of EPAs – namely the parliamentary committee – without the relationship between that body and the JPA being made clear; calls for the parliamentary committee to operate as part of the JPA, to avoid a costly and complicated proliferation of meetings, taking advantage of the JPA’s system of regional meetings, and to exploit the experience of the JPA and promote synergy between all the EPA regions; stresses the desirability of this committee operating in a flexible manner, enabling it to draw on the expertise on both trade and development issues of the Members of the European Parliament involved in the examination of the EPA in committee;

5.

Stresses in particular the crucial role of the ACP national parliaments, non-state actors and local authorities in monitoring and managing EPAs, and calls on the Commission to guarantee their involvement in the ongoing negotiation process, which requires a clear agenda for further negotiations, to be agreed by the ACP countries and the Union and based on a participatory approach;

6.

Draws attention to the JPA's concern at the repercussions of the current financial crisis and welcomes the Assembly's adoption of the Port Moresby Declaration on the global food and financial crises; calls on the JPA to hold regular debates on this issue;

7.

Welcomes the undertaking given by the Commissioner with responsibility for development and humanitarian aid during the above-mentioned JPA session in Kigali to subject Country and Regional Strategy Papers for the ACP countries (2008-2013) to democratic scrutiny by parliaments, as well as the work already performed by certain ACP parliaments in examining such documents;

8.

Draws attention, in this regard, to the need closely to involve parliaments in the democratic process and in the national development strategies; stresses their vital role in establishing, following up and monitoring development policies;

9.

Calls on the parliaments of the ACP countries to insist that their governments and the Commission involve them in the process of drafting and implementing the Country and Regional Strategy Papers relating to cooperation between the European Union and their countries (2008-2013);

10.

Calls on the Commission to supply all available information to the parliaments of the ACP countries and to assist them in exercising democratic scrutiny, in particular by means of capacity-building;

11.

Is in favour of incorporating the European Development Fund (EDF) into the EU budget in order to increase the consistency, transparency and effectiveness of development cooperation policy and guarantee democratic scrutiny thereof; underlines that incorporating the EDF into the EU budget is also an appropriate response to the difficulties affecting the implementation and ratification of successive EDFs;

12.

Calls on parliaments to exercise close parliamentary scrutiny of the EDF; highlights the JPA’s key position in this debate and calls on it and the parliaments of the ACP countries to take an active part therein, in particular in connection with the revision of the Cotonou Agreement scheduled for 2010; insists that the JPA be involved in the whole process of negotiating that revision;

13.

Welcomes the increasingly parliamentary – and hence political – nature of the JPA, together with the ever more active role played by its members and the greater quality of its debates, which are helping it to make a vital contribution to the ACP-EU partnership;

14.

Considers the above-mentioned JPA resolutions on the situation in Kenya and in Zimbabwe to be significant examples of this enhanced dialogue;

15.

Calls on the JPA to continue to address the situation in Sudan, and in particular in Darfur, namely by assessing the position of the Union and ACP countries regarding the International Criminal Court indictments;

16.

Calls on the JPA to continue to address the situation in Somalia, which is endangering the lives of the Somali people, poses a threat to security in the region and is a source of global instability owing to the increasing occurrence of lawlessness, extremism and piracy;

17.

Calls on the JPA to continue to discuss the alarming situation in Zimbabwe, where the elections held in July 2008 failed to restore democracy and where the economic situation poses a genuine threat to the health and lives of millions of Zimbabweans and to the stability of the region;

18.

Calls on the JPA to continue to contribute to the international community's efforts to raise awareness of the conflicts affecting the eastern DRC, to promote a negotiated political solution to the crisis and to support any action that may be proposed as part of a negotiated solution;

19.

Calls on the JPA to pursue and deepen dialogue with the PAP and the parliaments of regional organisations, in view of the importance of regional integration to peace and development in ACP countries;

20.

Deplores the fact that the JPA was not properly consulted during the drafting of the Joint EU-Africa Strategy and hopes that the Assembly will be actively involved in the implementation of that strategy;

21.

Welcomes the fact that the first of the regional meetings provided for in the Cotonou Agreement and the JPA Rules of Procedure were held in 2008; considers that these meetings make for a genuine exchange of views on regional issues, including conflict prevention and resolution, and that European policies help to enhance regional cohesion; stresses that these meetings are particularly timely as regards the negotiation, conclusion and implementation of EPAs and should be a priority; commends the organisers of the two extremely successful meetings in Namibia and Vanuatu and supports the holding of the forthcoming meetings in the Caribbean and West Africa in 2009;

22.

Encourages the JPA to strengthen the role of its Committee on Political Affairs so as to make the Assembly a genuine forum for conflict prevention and resolution within the ACP-EU partnership and, to that end, to hold more debates on urgent situations in individual countries; welcomes the work carried out in connection with protecting civilians during peacekeeping operations and the intention to work on governance in the ACP countries;

23.

Welcomes, further, the JPA Committee on Political Affairs report on experiences from the European regional integration process relevant to ACP countries – adopted in Ljubljana in March 2008 – which emphasises the key benefits of integration, such as peace and security, preventing potential conflicts from turning into armed ones, prosperity, well-being, democracy and respect for human rights;

24.

Welcomes the JPA Committee on Economic Development, Finance and Trade's intention to conduct an analysis of the Regional Strategy Papers for the ACP regions;

25.

Highlights the role played by the JPA Committee on Social Affairs and the Environment with regard to child labour and its intention to pursue its analysis of the social situation of young people in ACP countries;

26.

Welcomes, furthermore, the JPA Committee on Social Affairs and the Environment report on the social and environmental consequences of structural adjustment programmes – adopted in Ljubljana – which advocates that the practice of making World Bank and International Monetary Fund (IMF) lending subject to economic policy conditions has had disastrous social and environmental consequences for ACP countries, and should be replaced by a country-specific lending policy that focuses on reducing poverty;

27.

Calls on the JPA to demand to insist on being closely involved in the Cotonou Agreement revision process that is to commence in 2009, with a view to ensuring that the Assembly's role and activities are expanded in the future;

28.

Welcomes the growing involvement of non-state actors in JPA sessions, as illustrated by the debate resulting in the adoption of the above-mentioned Port Moresby Declaration of November 2008 on the global food and financial crises and by the economic partners' report on the EPAs submitted at the JPA session in Ljubljana in March 2008;

29.

Calls, in addition to the annual report on the activities of the ACP-EU JPA, for joint discussions to be held between the secretariats of the ACP countries and of the European Parliament on the way the JPA works, with particular regard to voting by separate Houses, equality of treatment of parliamentarians, and joint fact-finding and election observation missions;

30.

Instructs its President to forward this resolution to the Council, the Commission, the ACP Council, the JPA Bureau and the governments and parliaments of Slovenia and Papua New Guinea.

6.5.2010   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 117/38

A.

whereas cohesion policy is among the most important policy areas in the European Union, not only in terms of its budget but also and in particular because it is an essential pillar in the process of European integration and owing to its importance for the social, economic and territorial cohesion of the European Union and the development of its 268 regions, reducing development deficits and disparities and improving life for all EU citizens,

B.

whereas the regions of the European Union are confronted with broadly similar challenges, though their impact differs greatly from region to region, given their specificities as regards their character (for example, island or mountain regions) and population: globalisation and the accelerated economic restructuring that goes with it, the opening up of trade relations, the consequences of the technological revolution, and climate change, the development of the knowledge-based economy, demographic change, depopulation and the rise in immigration,

C.

whereas the best results, strengthening the knowledge base and improving competition, are often achieved in projects by means of cooperation between the public sector, businesses, the education sector and local stakeholders,

D.

whereas cohesion policy cannot develop its full potential to meet these challenges whilst potential applicants for aid are faced with major obstacles in relation to utilising the European Union’s structural funds, including:

E.

whereas a number of the current errors in the field of cohesion policy can be traced back to these existing obstacles,

F.

whereas the delays in implementing structural policy are due in part to the excessive rigidity of procedures and that, consequently, consideration should be given to simplifying those procedures and clearly dividing responsibilities and competences among the EU, the Member States and regional and local authorities,

1.

underlines that, although the added value of disseminating best practices among the broader public in terms of improved communication and cost-benefit has to be taken into account, attempts to introduce those practices in EU regional policy should be directed chiefly to Managing Authorities, guiding them to draw up rules governing access to structural resources, so that exchanges of information and experience can contribute to a substantive improvement in project quality, by providing solutions to joint problems and choosing more effective and targeted interventions;

2.

Points to the need to simplify the procedures governing the implementation of Structural Funds projects and programmes, particularly as regards management and control systems; welcomes, therefore, in this regard, the regulatory revision of the Structural Funds package in response to the current financial crisis; eagerly awaits the further Commission proposals in this area, to be announced within the next few months;

3.

Calls on the Commission, with a view to removing the above obstacles, inter alia:

4.

Recommends that the Commission go further and develop a concerted, generally accessible, approach to the interregional exchange of best practices, with a view to enabling actors involved in cohesion policy to draw on the experiences of others;

5.

Points out expressly that identifying best practices must not lead to additional red tape for applicants and project promoters;

6.

Demands that bureaucracy in the use of Structural Funds be kept to a minimum, and not needlessly increased by individual conditions imposed by the Member States;

7.

Reiterates its support for practice aimed at ensuring that each Member State produces an annual national declaration of assurance covering Community funds coming under the shared management arrangement, and calls for this to become standard practice;

8.

Welcomes the approach laid down in the context of the Regions for Economic Change initiative, firstly, to identify and to publicise best practices with the annual award of ‘REGIO STARS’ and, secondly, to set up a website for best practices; draws attention to the limited effectiveness of an Internet site alone;

9.

Criticises the lack of transparency in the Commission's objective bases for identifying best practices;

10.

Calls on the Commission, in the light of the widespread use of the term ‘best practices’, and also the frequent parallel use of the terms ‘good practices’ or ‘success stories’, to draw up a set of criteria tailored specifically to cohesion policy that will enable these ‘best practices’ to be distinguished from those applying to other projects;

11.

Recommends that the Commission take account of the following points in identifying best practices:

12.

Stresses that all the criteria for highlighting best practices must be clearly measurable and reliable, so as to avoid friction, undesired effects and subjective judgements which may undermine the entire project grading procedure based on these criteria; calls, therefore, on the Commission clearly to describe the content of these criteria and how they should be implemented;

13.

Recommends that, on the basis of analysis of a large number of projects from many EU regions, additional factors be taken into account for the identification of best practices in cohesion policy areas that are of particular importance for the development of specific regions and of the EU as a whole and that display a marked variety of approaches to implementation;

14.

Recommends that account be taken of the following factors for the area ‘Research and development/innovation’:

15.

Recommends that account be taken of the following factors for the area ‘Environment, climate and sustainable energy policy’:

16.

Recommends that account be taken of the following factors for the area ‘Creation of high-quality jobs’:

17.

Recommends that account be taken of the following factors for the area ‘Lifelong learning’:

18.

Recommends that account be taken of the following factors for the area ‘Integrated urban development’:

19.

Recommends that account be taken of the following factors for the area ‘Demographic change’:

20.

Recommends that account be taken of the following factors for the area ‘Cross-border cooperation’:

21.

Recommends that account be taken of the following factors for the area ‘Public-private partnerships’:

22.

Calls on the Commission to take account of the need to promote best practices as regards financial arrangements, in particular those of public/private partnerships and those supported by the European Investment Bank and the European Investment Fund;

23.

Is aware that it is exceptionally difficult for a project cumulatively to meet all of the above criteria; calls on the Commission, therefore, before applying these criteria, to list them in order of priority and to determine those that represent a higher priority, so as to make it easier to designate noteworthy projects as best practices; stresses the need to use the commonly agreed criteria on best practices in an open and transparent way, which will allow a better management, acceptance and comparability of best practices and prevention of confusion with other similar terms;

24.

Calls on the Commission, with a view to the future use of the terms ‘best practices’, ‘good practices’ and ‘success stories’, to work out a clear and transparent subdivision or gradation of these terms for the purposes of project description;

25.

Calls on the Commission to organise and coordinate the exchange of best practices through a network of regions, and to create a public website containing key information about the projects in all Community languages for this purpose;

26.

Recommends that the Commission set up within the current administrative framework a specific office in the Directorate-General for Regional Policy to organise, in cooperation with this network of regions, the evaluation, collection and exchange of best practices and to act as a permanent contact point for both the supply and the demand side, with the aim of establishing a long-term, continuous, reliable and successful exchange of best practices in the field of cohesion policy; calls on the Commission to disseminate this good-practice culture to all its departments;

27.

Proposes within this framework that the evaluation mechanisms should study and take into account tried and trusted methodologies which have already been implemented; believes that particular emphasis should be given to cooperation with a network of regional authorities and specialised agencies which are the key source for the primary material of best practices for evaluation;

28.

Points out that, while the European Union provides funding and good practices, it is for national, regional and local office holders to capitalise on them; welcomes in this connection the establishment of an Erasmus programme for local and regional elected representatives;

29.

Recommends that the Commission use the available tools of the Committee of the Regions, in particular the Lisbon Monitoring Platform and the Subsidiarity Monitoring Network in order to exchange best practices between regions and Member States with a view to identifying and jointly determining the objectives, subsequently planning actions and, finally, undertaking a comparative evaluation of the results of cohesion policy;

30.

Instructs its President to forward this resolution to the Council and the Commission.

6.5.2010   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 117/46

A.

whereas what constitutes a rural area has been defined by the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development, its definition incorporating characteristics such as low population density and lack of access to services, and whereas this definition is used by the Commission in order to identify and outline development objectives for these areas,

B.

whereas rural areas differ greatly from Member State to Member State and whereas, while rural areas in some regions and Member States have experienced demographic and economic growth, the inhabitants of many of these areas are migrating to urban areas or are seeking to retrain, thus creating immense challenges for rural areas,

C.

whereas rural areas account for up to 80 % of EU territory,

D.

whereas the needs of intermediate rural areas, which are characterised by an economic structure similar to that of the urban areas adjacent to them, differ from those of areas that are predominantly rural, peripheral or isolated,

E.

whereas one of the Union’s aims is to promote economic and social progress and a high level of employment and to achieve balanced and sustainable development,

F.

whereas the economic, social and territorial cohesion of the EU can be enhanced through economic development, promotion of employment opportunities in rural and urban areas, and ensuring equal access to public services,

G.

whereas the reform of structural policy for the period 2007-2013 brought with it changes to the structure of the Funds and the basis for the allocation of assistance under this policy, and the establishment of a new European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD) linked to the common agricultural policy (CAP) and disconnected from cohesion policy,

H.

whereas the LEADER programmes have in the past already shown how rural development can be successfully promoted through regional policy instruments,

I.

whereas it is of key importance to the EAFRD’s success to ensure mutual complementarity between activities co-financed under the EAFRD and those co-financed under the structural funds, and thus for the assistance under the various funds, in particular the European Fund for Regional Development (ERDF), the Cohesion Fund and the European Social Fund (ESF), to be suitably coordinated and for the complementarity of those funds to be ensured,

J.

whereas the establishment of the EAFRD, the separation of rural development funding from the scope of cohesion policy and a broader regional development perspective must not result in some objectives (for example, environmental protection, transport and education) being either duplicated or omitted altogether,

K.

whereas the permanent transfer of funds between the European Agricultural Guarantee Fund (EAGF) and the EAFRD leads to planning insecurity for both farmers and rural development project promoters,

L.

whereas, in view of budgetary constraints, there is a risk that funding available under the ERDF will be used to a large extent to boost economic competitiveness in larger urban centres or the most dynamic regions, while EAFRD financing will be focused on improving the competitiveness of agriculture, which continues to be the motor of rural areas, and will also be targeted at support for non-agricultural activities and the development of small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) in rural areas, with the result that there is a need for closer coordination to ensure that no areas are left without coverage,

M.

whereas SMEs, especially microbusinesses and craft undertakings, have a key role to play in preserving social and economic activity in the countryside and ensuring its stability,

N.

whereas rural development policy objectives need not be contrary to the Lisbon goals provided that this development is based on the application of the relative competitiveness mechanism (better cost-effectiveness), in particular in local food processing and in relation to the development of SMEs and of infrastructure and services, such as tourism, education and environmental protection,

O.

whereas the natural relationship between and complementarity of agricultural policy and rural development policy should be recognised,

1.

Takes the view that the criteria traditionally used to distinguish rural areas from urban areas (lower population density and level of urbanisation), may not always be sufficient to provide the ‘full picture’; considers, therefore, that the possibility of adding additional criteria should be explored and calls on the Commission to produce an analysis and concrete proposals in this field;

2.

Considers that, in view of the major differences between rural areas in the various Member States and because such areas account for up to 80 % of EU territory, it is necessary to adopt and implement a suitably targeted and integrated approach for the sustainable development of such areas, aiming at levelling the existing inequalities and promoting economic dynamism of urban and rural areas; underlines the need to allocate adequate funding to the corresponding actions;

3.

Recalls in this respect that all regions throughout the Union as a whole, including rural and remote areas, should in principle benefit from the same development opportunities, to avoid any further territorial exclusion of the most disadvantaged areas;

4.

Stresses that in a large number of rural areas development possibilities, especially for young people and women, are reduced by difficulties in accessing public services, lack of jobs and the age pyramid;

5.

Points out that, in certain areas, there are no alternatives to certain forms of agricultural production which must in many cases be sustained at all costs for environmental and regional policy reasons, particularly in remote and upland farming areas affected by desertification;

6.

Recalls that the Gothenburg European Council of 15 and 16 June 2001 expanded the Lisbon objectives to include the concepts of sustainability and cohesion and that rural development policy is geared towards sustainable farming, preserving non-agricultural rural activities, maximising the potential of local development, environmental protection, balanced regional planning and the development of SMEs;

7.

Believes that proper implementation of rural development policy, in view of the long-term sustainable development of rural areas, requires due account to be taken of each area’s natural resources and specific features, including the protection, enhancement and management of the rural heritage, and of the development of links and interactions with urban areas;

8.

Also stresses the importance of assessing areas of alternative economic activity and the opportunities arising from those areas for diversification of the population's occupational activities;

9.

Believes that the future issues facing the countryside call for a balanced development policy encompassing all social and economic agents, including small businesses and micro-businesses in the production and service sectors, given their role in integrated local development;

10.

Considers that, in the case of the new Member States, rural development policy must target improving the efficiency of agriculture and reducing the economic development gap between country and city, inter alia by supporting non-farming activities, an objective which can also be attained by using the Structural Funds;

11.

Welcomes the ambitions set out at the Second European Conference on Rural Development in Salzburg in 2003 but regrets the fact that the funding granted under the second pillar of the CAP by the latest financial perspectives has been significantly reduced, risking inefficiency and creating a division between the farmer and the rural dweller;

12.

Points out that there is a need to develop a coherent, long-term rural development strategy in order to facilitate the most effective and efficient use of all available funding;

13.

Calls on Member States and regional authorities to formulate, in cooperation with the Commission and in partnership with all competent authorities and bodies representing civil society, a transparent, long-term, sustainable rural development strategy at national and regional level, in order to be able clearly to identify rural development priorities and objectives and ensure the adaptation, coordination and complementarity of the aid originating in the various sources of funding available;

14.

Calls on the Commission, the Member States and the regional authorities to ensure the direct participation of the organisations representing SMEs, microbusinesses and craft undertakings, in order to identify those priorities with a view to responding in the best way possible to those enterprises’ needs and expectations;

15.

Recognises that rural development policy plays a hugely important role in targeting and addressing specific problems in rural areas and believes that the establishment of the EARDF for the second pillar of the CAP represents an attempt to have a flexible, strategic, thematic and integrated approach to respond to the diversity of situations and the scale of the challenges facing the EU’s rural areas, and to simplify financing procedures and ensure that funds are focused on these areas;

16.

Recalls that the Member States have been called upon to prepare, for the current programming period, two strategic documents: a National Strategy Plan for rural development (EAFRD) and a National Strategic Reference Framework for regional policy (Structural Funds); recalls that the Member States have been asked to mobilise synergies and set up operational coordination mechanisms between the various funds; regrets, however, that in this process the emphasis was mainly placed on ensuring the demarcation of the various funds and programmes, rather than creating synergies from them;

17.

Considers that the efficiency of rural development policy can only be achieved if the measures implemented under EARDF and regional development policy are coordinated and complementary, so as to avoid double financing and gaps; notes with concern the insufficient coordination between those actions during the current programming period in the individual Member States; calls therefore on the Commission to propose reforms aimed at ensuring better coordination in the planning and implementation of measures co-financed under the cohesion policy and CAP; recognises that the post-2013 reform of the CAP and the EU Structural Funds will provide an opportunity to re-assess the relationship between rural development on one hand and agricultural policy and cohesion policy on the other;

18.

Recognises that the primary role of rural development policy is to continue to maintain the population of the countryside and ensure a decent standard of living for this rural population;

19.

Considers that the approach of separating rural development from cohesion policy with the creation of EAFRD needs to be monitored very closely in order to evaluate its true impact on the development of rural areas; notes that the new system was put in place in 2007 and that it is, therefore, too early for any conclusions to be reached with regard to the future of this Community policy;

20.

Stresses that one of the priorities of rural development policy is to propose measures which do not result in the rural population having to abandon agriculture and which also help, inter alia, to promote competitive holdings, the production of organic products, and traditional high-quality foods and drinks, for example;

21.

Notes with interest that Axis 3 and Axis 4 (LEADER) of the second pillar of CAP (rural development policy), which represent 15 % of total EAFRD expenditure, concern non-agricultural activities that mainly focus on the diversification of rural economies; believes that, given the nature of the interventions financed under these Axes, which resemble some actions financed by the Structural Funds, there is a risk of policy overlap;

22.

Stresses, however, the need to take account of the prospects primarily of the population employed in agriculture, who should remain the main focus of support measures under rural development policy;

23.

Stresses the importance of support for young farmers to keep them on their land, even if they are not engaged solely in agricultural production, providing them with incentives for development and other activities too, such as rural tourism and of strengthening SMEs in the countryside;

24.

Considers that the main objectives of rural development policy can only be achieved if this policy receives adequate funding that is used in line with the priorities set out for rural areas, and that funds raised through modulation should always be distributed back to active farming communities;

25.

Takes the view that the coordination of structural policy and rural development measures allows projects with greater European added value to be undertaken; sees in that an opportunity for long-term enhancement of rural areas, for example through infrastructural or environmental protection measures;

26.

Calls on the Commission to supply detailed figures and forecasts for the take-up of EAFRD and structural funding in rural areas and to look into the synergies that can be created by the EAFRD and the Structural Funds in terms of the funding available in rural areas;

27.

Calls on the Commission to assess whether regional policy programmes can contribute to offering farmers a reliable income, for example through carrying out environmental protection, nature conservation and landscape management activities;

28.

Stresses that sustainable development, per-capita income levels, accessibility, access to public goods and services and rural depopulation are among the biggest challenges for cohesion policy and can be most effectively improved through among other measures, support for economic activities in rural communities;

29.

Calls on the Commission and the Member States to take systematic account of the countryside in EU policies and to provide appropriate support for projects to develop human capital, in particular through the provision of training opportunities for agricultural and non agricultural entrepreneurs in rural areas, with a particular focus on young women, with the aim of promoting employment and job creation;

30.

Emphasises that development in rural areas requires greater attention and support for the preservation of the natural and farmed landscape, ecotourism, the production and use of renewable energy and local initiatives such as local food-quality procurement schemes and local farmers’ markets;

31.

Draws attention to the role played by SMEs in rural development and the contribution they make to convergence at regional and local levels; calls on the Commission, the Member States and regional and local authorities to lay the emphasis on strengthening competitiveness by also assisting other productive sectors and to foster entrepreneurship in rural areas, in particular by removing administrative, legal and planning barriers, providing adequate IT infrastructure and increasing the incentives to launch new entrepreneurial activities and also to offer more support to non-agricultural activities while promoting economic diversification in these areas;

32.

Once again draws the attention of the Council, the Commission, Member States and local authorities to the enormous challenge posed by the predicted disappearance of several millions of rural small businesses, which will have a major impact on employment and, therefore, on stability in the countryside; calls for all necessary measures to be taken at all levels, in close cooperation with economic and social partners;

33.

Notes that the difficulties in implementing rural development policy stem from the fact that sectoral policies and territorial cohesion policy cut across each other, as do the economic and social aspects of both types of policy, and from the wide variety of responsibility allocation and policy coordination systems used in the Member States, in this connection, stresses once again the necessity to create synergies between the EAFRD and the Structural and Cohesion Funds and calls on the Commission to assist national, regional and local authorities in properly understanding the possibilities offered by these financial instruments; calls on Member States to ensure dialogue between managing authorities so as to create synergies between the interventions of the different funds and enhance their effectiveness;

34.

Takes the view that, prior to rural funding reform, the Commission should conduct a detailed assessment of all sectoral policies having an impact on rural areas, and notably CAP and regional policy, in the context of cohesion policy and that a set of best practices should be drawn up for rural development policy as a whole;

35.

Calls on the Council to convene a joint informal meeting of the Ministers responsible for agriculture and regional policy to discuss the best means of coordinating cohesion policy and rural development measures, and to invite to this meeting the consultative bodies of the EU (Committee of the Regions and European Economic and Social Committee), as well as representatives of regional and local authorities;

36.

Requests that the Commission create a high-level working group by 2011 as part of the CAP Health Check which would bring forward proposals to secure the future of the rural economy and all who live in rural areas after 2013;

37.

Calls on the Commission to introduce or strengthen genuine governance or partnership arrangements at all levels, with the direct involvement of all players, including SMEs and microbusinesses, as well as the economic and social partners, with a view to defining the priorities for action best adapted to rural areas’ development needs;

38.

Notes that the process of rural development must be reconciled with the interests of suburban areas and must be closely coordinated with the promotion of urban development, and emphasises that the synergies between rural and urban development policies are neither sufficient nor effective;

39.

Recognises the potential of the rural community to make a positive contribution to the environment through their engagement in environmentally friendly activities and the development of alternative energy sources such as biofuels, especially considering the four new challenges outlined in the rural development policy of the Health Check, such as biodiversity and renewable energies;

40.

Instructs its President to forward this resolution to the Council and the Commission.

6.5.2010   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 117/52

A.

whereas, according to figures compiled by the World Health Organization (WHO), between 100 and 140 million women and girls worldwide have undergone genital mutilation, and, according to figures from the WHO and the United Nations Population Fund, approximately two to three million women a year are potentially at risk from these severely disabling practices,

B.

whereas every year approximately 180 000 female emigrants in Europe undergo, or are in danger of undergoing, FGM,

C.

whereas, according to the WHO, FGM is widely practised in at least 28 African countries, some Asian countries and in the Middle East,

D.

whereas violence against women, including FGM, derives from social structures based on inequality between the sexes and on a skewed balance of power, domination, and control in which social and family pressure leads to violation of a fundamental right, namely respect for the integrity of the human person,

E.

whereas sexual mutilation imposed on young girls calls for the most emphatic condemnation and constitutes an obvious violation of international and national legislation protecting children and their rights,

F.

whereas the WHO has identified four types of FGM, ranging from clitoridectomy (partial or total removal of the clitoris) and excision (removal of the clitoris and the labia minora) – the latter accounts for 85 % of FGM procedures – to the most extreme form, infibulation (removal of all of the clitoris and the labia minora and of the inside of the labia majora and stitching of the vulva, leaving only a narrow vaginal opening), and introcision (pricking, piercing, or incising of the clitoris or the labia),

G.

whereas any form of FGM, of whatever degree, is an act of violence against women which constitutes a violation of their fundamental rights, particularly the right to personal integrity and physical and mental health, and of their sexual and reproductive health; whereas such violations can under no circumstances be justified by respect for cultural traditions of various kinds or initiation ceremonies,

H.

whereas in Europe some 500 000 women have suffered FGM and whereas it is particularly in immigrant and refugee families that such circumcision is customary and girls are even sent back to their home country for this purpose,

I.

whereas FGM causes very serious and irreparable injuries in the short and long term to the physical and mental health of the women and girls who undergo it, constituting a grave assault on their person and integrity and in some cases can even be fatal; whereas the use of rudimentary instruments and the absence of antiseptic precautions have further harmful effects so that sexual intercourse and childbirth may become painful, the organs are irreparably damaged and there may be complications such as haemorrhaging, shock, infection, transmission of the AIDS virus, tetanus, benign tumours and serious complications affecting pregnancy and childbirth,

J.

whereas FGM, which is a violation of women’s and girls’ rights as enshrined in various international conventions, is prohibited under the criminal law of the Member States and in breach of the principles laid down in the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union,

K.

whereas its resolution of 16 January 2008 also urges Member States to adopt specific provisions on FGM enabling prosecutions to be brought against persons who perform such procedures on children,

L.

whereas the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women requires States Parties to take all appropriate measures to modify or abolish existing laws, customs and practices which constitute discrimination against women, and to take all appropriate measures to modify the social and cultural patterns of conduct of men and women, with a view to achieving the elimination of prejudices and customary and all other practices which are based on the idea of the inferiority or the superiority of either of the sexes or on stereotyped roles for men and women,

M.

whereas the Convention on the Rights of the Child adopted in 1989 requires States Parties to respect and ensure the rights set forth in the Convention to each child within their jurisdiction without discrimination of any kind, irrespective of the child’s sex and to take all effective and appropriate measures with a view to abolishing traditional practices prejudicial to the health of children,

N.

whereas the African Charter on the Rights and Welfare of the Child recommends that signatory states eliminate social and cultural practices affecting the welfare, dignity, and the normal growth and development of the child,

O.

whereas paragraph 18 of the Vienna Declaration and Programme of Action, adopted in June 1993, states that the human rights of women and girls are an inalienable, integral, and indivisible part of universal human rights,

P.

whereas Article 2 of the 1993 UN Declaration on the Elimination of Violence against Women refers explicitly to FGM and other traditional practices harmful to women,

Q.

whereas Article 4 of that Declaration stipulates that states should condemn violence against women and should not invoke customs, traditions, or religious considerations to avoid the obligation of eliminating it,

R.

whereas the Programme of Action of the UN International Conference on Population and Development, held in Cairo in 1994, calls on governments to abolish FGM wherever it exists and to support the NGOs and religious institutions which are fighting to eliminate such practices,

S.

whereas the Platform for Action adopted at the Fourth UN Conference in Beijing calls on governments to strengthen their laws, reform their institutions, and promote standards and practices aimed at eliminating discrimination against women, embodied in, among other forms, FGM,

T.

whereas the ACP-EU partnership agreement (Cotonou Agreement) is based on similar universal principles and contains provisions serving to prohibit female genital mutilation (Article 9, specifying the essential elements of the agreement, and Articles 25 and 31 on, respectively, social development and gender issues),

U.

whereas the report adopted on 3 May 2001 by the Council of Europe Parliamentary Assembly calls for FGM to be banned and equates it with inhuman and degrading treatment within the meaning of Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights; whereas the report maintains that the protection of cultures and traditions must not be allowed to take precedence over respect for fundamental rights and the need to outlaw practices amounting to torture,

V.

whereas, as far as a common European immigration and asylum policy is concerned, the Council and Commission recognise that FGM constitutes a violation of human rights; whereas an increasing number of asylum requests by parents are justified by the threat to which they may be subject in their home country for having refused to consent to their child undergoing FGM,

W.

whereas unfortunately, granting to parents the status of asylum seekers does not guarantee that the child will escape from the risk of FGM which, in some cases, is carried out after the family has settled in the EU host country,

X.

whereas in a statement issued on 5 February 2008 Commissioners Ferrero-Waldner and Michel explicitly spoke out against FGM, describing it as unacceptable whether carried on in the EU or in non-EU countries, and maintained that violating women’s rights can never, under any circumstances, be justified by invoking cultural relativism or traditions,

Y.

whereas national centres and institutions for young people and families can provide help to families in time to act preventively against the performance of FGM,

1.

Roundly condemns FGM as a violation of fundamental human rights, as well as a savage breach of the integrity and personality of women and girls and therefore considers it to be a serious crime in the eyes of society;

2.

Calls on the Commission and Member States to draw up an overall strategy and action plans aimed at banishing FGM from the EU and, to that end, to provide the means required – in the form of laws and administrative provisions, prevention systems, and education and social measures, and in particular, wide dissemination of information regarding the existing protection mechanisms available to vulnerable groups – to enable real and potential victims to be properly protected;

3.

Insists on the necessity to examine on a case by case basis each asylum request made by parents on the grounds that they are threatened in their home country for having refused to consent to their child undergoing FGM and to ensure that such requests are supported by a thorough body of evidence which takes into account the quality of the request, the personality and the credibility of the asylum seeker, and whether the motives behind the request are genuine;

4.

Insists that women and girls who are granted asylum in the EU because of the threat of FGM should as a preventive measure have regular check-ups by health authorities and/or doctors, to protect them from any threat of FGM being carried out subsequently in the EU; considers that this measure would be in no way discriminatory against these women and girls, but a way to ensure that FGM is banned in the EU;

5.

Calls for this overall strategy to be accompanied by educational programmes and the organisation of national and international awareness raising campaigns;

6.

Supports the moves by Europol to coordinate a meeting of European police forces with a view to intensifying the measures to combat FGM, tackling the issues related to the low reporting rate and the difficulty of finding evidence and testimonies, and taking effective steps to prosecute offenders; to that end calls on the Member-States to examine possible additional measures for the protection of victims once they have come forward;

7.

Observes that the measures to overcome harmful practices such as FGM which are referred to in the above-mentioned Maputo Protocol comprise the following: creation of public awareness by means of information, formal and informal education and campaigns, prohibition of all forms of FGM, including its performance by medical personnel, by means of laws and sanctions, support for victims through health services, legal and judicial support, psychological counselling and training and protection of women who are at risk of being subjected to harmful practices or other forms of violence, abuse and intolerance;

8.

Calls on the Member States to quantify the number of women who have undergone FGM or are at risk in individual countries, taking into account the fact that there are as yet no figures available for many countries, which likewise do not have harmonised data-gathering systems;

9.

Calls for a ‘European health protocol’ to be introduced for monitoring purposes and for an FGM data bank to be set up, since this might be useful from the statistical point of view or for information campaigns targeted at the immigrant communities concerned;

10.

Calls on the Member States to gather such scientific data as might assist WHO support for the efforts to rid Europe and all other continents of FGM;

11.

Calls on the Commission to include, in its co-operation negotiations and agreements with the countries concerned, a clause to eradicate FMG;

12.

Calls for the best practices being applied at the various levels to be compiled and assessed in terms of their impact (making use where appropriate of the projects financed and results obtained under DAPHNE III) and for the related information to be disseminated widely, making use of the practical and theoretical experience of experts;

13.

Points out that national centres and institutions play a vital role in the identification of victims and in taking precautionary measures against the practice of FGM;

14.

Calls for the European networks currently aimed at preventing harmful traditional practices to be strengthened, for instance by organising training courses for NGOs, regional non-profit-making organisations, and persons working on the ground, and for promotion of the formation of such networks;

15.

Appreciates the important contributions made by many international and national non-governmental organisations (NGOs), research institutions, the European Network for the Prevention of Female Genital Mutilation in Europe and committed individuals who, thanks to financing from United Nations agencies and the DAPHNE programme, among other sources, are carrying out various projects to raise awareness and prevent and eliminate FGM; points out that networking among NGOs and community-based organisations at national, regional and international level is, without question, fundamental to success in eradicating FGM and pooling information and experience;

16.

Points out that Article 10 of Council Directive 2004/83/EC (8) on minimum standards for the qualification and status of third country nationals or stateless persons as refugees or as persons who otherwise need international protection, specifies that gender aspects can be taken into account, but that these alone do not lead to the application of Article 10;

17.

Calls for both the European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights and the European Institute for Gender Equality, under their respective multi-annual and/or annual work programmes, to take a leading role in combating FGM; believes that these agencies could carry out priority research and/or awareness-raising actions, thus helping to improve understanding of the FGM phenomenon at European level;

18.

Considers it necessary to organise dialogue forums, reform traditional legal provisions, address the subject of FGM as part of schooling and promote cooperation with the uncircumcised in the countries concerned;

19.

Urges the European Union and the Member States to work together, in the interests of human rights, the integrity of the person, freedom of conscience and the right to health, to harmonise existing legislation and, should existing legislation not prove appropriate, to propose specific legislation on this issue;

20.

Calls on the Member States to enforce their existing laws on FGM, or legislate for penalties for the grievous bodily harm resulting from it, if these practices have been carried out within the European Union, and to help to prevent and combat FGM by fostering proper awareness among the professionals involved (including social workers, teachers, police forces, and health professionals), thus enabling them to recognise FGM cases, and to do their utmost to achieve the greatest possible degree of harmonisation of the laws in force across all 27 Member States;

21.

Calls on Member States to make it compulsory for general practitioners, doctors and health clinic teams to report FMG to health authorities and/or to the police;

22.

Calls on Member States to either adopt specific legislation on FMG or under their existing legislation to prosecute each person who conducts genital mutilation;

23.

Calls on the European Union and the Member States to pursue, condemn and punish the carrying out of these practices, by applying an integrated strategy which takes into account the legislative, health and social dimensions and the integration of the immigrant population; calls, in particular, for the relevant directives on immigration to treat the act of committing genital mutilation as an offence and to lay down appropriate penalties for persons guilty of such an offence, if these practices have been carried out within the European Union;

24.

Calls for permanent technical harmonisation and contact desks to be set up in order to bring together the Member States and provide a link between them and African institutions; believes that the desks should be staffed by FGM specialists and representatives of leading European and African women’s organisations;

25.

Urges firm rejection of pricking of the clitoris and medicalisation in any form, which are being proposed as a halfway house between circumcision and respect for traditions serving to define identity and which would merely lead to the practice of FGM being justified and accepted on EU territory; reiterates the absolute and strong condemnation of FGM, as there is no reason -social, economic, ethnic, health-related or other- that could justify it;

26.

Calls for FGM to be eliminated by means of policies to support and integrate women and families who live according to traditions encompassing it, so as to ensure that, without watering down the law or violating fundamental human rights, and without prejudice to the right of sexual self-determination, women are protected against all forms of abuse and violence;

27.

Affirms that the reasons given by many communities for maintaining traditional practices harmful to the health of women and girls have no justification;

28.

Calls on the Member States to: