26.11.2009   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 285/1

A.

whereas the customs union is one of the historic foundations on which the economic and political integration of the European continent was built,

B.

whereas the concepts of customs union and common trade policy are coterminous,

C.

whereas the European Union’s import and export rules and procedures continue to play a crucial role in the smooth functioning of the internal market,

D.

whereas, over the years, the common trade policy has undergone important changes which have required — and continue to require — continual adjustments to import and export rules and procedures,

E.

whereas the common trade policy can only function by basing itself on efficient rules and procedures with regard to the import and export of goods,

F.

whereas simplifying and updating the import and export rules and procedures in the European Union and at international level are of strategic importance for competitiveness and trade,

G.

whereas the specific problems encountered by small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) with regard to mastering customs rules and procedures often impede such firms’ access to international trade and prevent them from taking full advantage of all the opportunities offered by globalisation,

H.

whereas correct assessment of the tariff classification, origin and value of imported goods is essential for the proper application of the common customs tariff, tariff preferences, anti-dumping and anti-subsidy measures and a whole range of other trade policy instruments,

I.

whereas excessively burdensome or lengthy customs rules and procedures are obstacles to international trade in goods and are regarded by economic operators, in particular by SMEs, to be amongst the key non-tariff barriers to trade,

J.

whereas the role of customs is now moving away from the simple collection of customs duties, an important task which, however, has been considerably scaled down over the last 20 years, towards the application of non-tariff measures, especially in respect of security and safety, combating counterfeiting, money laundering and drugs, and towards the application of measures concerning health, the environment and consumer protection, not to mention the collection of VAT and import/excise duties and exemption from export/excise duties, as well as, of course, compliance with the Union’s trade policies,

K.

having regard to the efforts made since August 2004 in the context of the WTO and the Doha Round to negotiate a binding multilateral agreement on trade facilitation, and taking note of the difficulties faced by many developing countries in financing the border measures proposed in those negotiations,

L.

whereas developing countries experience particular difficulties in setting up effective customs systems, especially with regard to infrastructure, equipment and staff training and integrity,

M.

whereas the essential objective of facilitating trade must be reconciled with the equally important objective of effective controls,

N.

whereas concerns relating to the security of persons and goods are playing an increasingly large role in the framing and application of customs rules and procedures, particularly for some of the Union’s major trading partners,

O.

whereas European consumer protection standards, particularly relating to health and safety, should apply to all products circulating freely within the internal market, regardless of their origin,

P.

whereas greater use of information technology and other modern technologies when processing customs transactions and checking goods is producing significant improvements in efficiency and speed,

Q.

whereas it is necessary to take into account the interoperability requirements imposed by the use of such equipment and the costs incurred through its use by the administrative authorities concerned and economic operators,

R.

whereas one of the new fundamental objectives laid down in Article 3(5) of the Treaty on European Union (corresponding to the current Article 2(5) as amended by Article 1(4) of the Treaty of Lisbon) is that in its relations with the rest of the world the Union must contribute to the protection of its citizens; whereas the Treaty on European Union also specifies, in Article 3(2) (corresponding to the current Article 2(2) as amended by Article 1(4) of the Lisbon Treaty), that the Union offers its citizens ‘an area of freedom, security and justice’ without internal borders, ‘in which the free movement of persons is assured in conjunction with appropriate measures’ with respect to, inter alia, external border controls,

S.

whereas while the Union’s customs rules and procedures are defined and adopted at Community level, their actual implementation depends on the action of the national administrations of the Member States,

T.

whereas the WCO plays an important role in promoting trade through international customs cooperation,

1.

Stresses the importance of effective import and export rules and procedures for the implementation of trade policy;

2.

Points out that the effectiveness of any trade policy measure depends largely on the Union’s ability to ensure it is properly enforced; this concerns, in particular, trade defence measures and all kinds of tariff preferences that the Union grants to its various partners; a measure that is unenforceable, or difficult to enforce, from the customs standpoint is a measure that is ineffective from the trade standpoint, since it can lead to serious distortions of competition and huge economic, social and/or environmental collateral damage;

3.

Deplores the fact that the ‘customs feasibility’ of certain trade policy initiatives is not always properly assessed and taken into account; draws attention, for example, to the problems encountered in 2005 in implementing the Memorandum of Understanding with China of 10 June 2005 on the import of textile and clothing products;

4.

Stresses the need for better cooperation between the Commission departments responsible for trade policy and those responsible for customs policy, in particular by including the latter more systematically in the teams which negotiate trade agreements;

5.

Calls on the Commission to pay particular attention to the problems encountered by SMEs, specifically by facilitating the process of adapting their IT systems to those employed by customs administrations, at the lowest possible cost, and by simplifying the procedures for securing ‘authorised economic operator’ status;

6.

Welcomes the admission of the European Community to the WCO as a full member with effect from 1 July 2007, a step which formally recognises its international competence in the sphere of customs policy and which can help to strengthen its internal cohesion; calls on the Commission to support the WCO;

7.

Points out the particular importance of the rules concerning the tariff classification, value and origin — preferential and non-preferential — of goods;

8.

Encourages the Commission to strive continuously to improve these rules, both at Community level and in the multilateral contexts of the WTO and the WCO, making them more transparent, predictable, simple and effective;

9.

Deplores the persistent deadlock in the multilateral harmonisation exercise concerning non-preferential rules of origin, which began as early as 1995 on the basis of the Agreement on Rules of Origin (ARO) concluded in the Uruguay Round; believes that such harmonisation would enable trade defence measures throughout the world to be applied more effectively and fairly and would provide a better framework for origin marking practices; calls on the Commission to take all possible measures with a view to restarting and concluding these negotiations on the basis of the principles laid down in the ARO;

10.

Notes the efforts made by the Commission with a view to modernising and simplifying the rules on preferential origin;

11.

Deplores the fact that Parliament is not more closely involved, so as to enable it to exercise the right of prior scrutiny it enjoys under the comitology procedure, in considering the draft regulation on the reform of the rules of origin of the Generalised System of Preferences (GSP), currently under consideration by the Member States in the context of the Customs Code Committee, in spite of the importance and great political sensitivity of this reform; notes, however, that the Commission is due to deliver a presentation on the subject to the parliamentary committee responsible;

12.

Notes the strong objections from certain Community industrial sectors, such as textiles, clothing and agri-foodstuffs, with regard to the uniform application of the value-added criterion; calls on the Commission and on the Member States to take account of these justified criticisms as far as possible;

13.

Notes that it is important in general terms to ensure that the preferences granted to countries benefiting from preferential arrangements in certain sensitive sectors do not, by virtue of excessively flexible rules of origin, lend themselves too easily to being exploited by very competitive third countries;

14.

Deplores the fact that European firms are making little use of Community ‘customs warehousing’ and outward and inward processing procedures owing to their complexity; calls on the Commission to consider simplifying the ‘procedures with economic impact’, introducing more flexible procedures and a paperless system;

15.

Attaches the utmost importance to the trade facilitation negotiations underway since August 2004 in the WTO; points out the considerable benefits that are expected from an ambitious agreement in terms of reducing transaction costs, improving the competitiveness and international attractiveness of developing countries and promoting trade;

16.

Acknowledges the risk that the outcome of the negotiations on trade facilitation could lead to the imposing of obligations on developing countries to undertake expensive programmes that they can ill afford; regards it as essential, therefore, that, as part of the eventual outcome of the negotiations, developed countries give a clear commitment to provide financial and technical assistance to developing countries in order to enable them to meet the compliance, adjustment and implementation costs of any future multilateral framework;

17.

Underlines the eminently cooperative nature of these negotiations, which do not lend themselves to any cross-sector bargaining involving other issues in the Doha Round; considers that the issue of trade facilitation could be concluded and implemented separately, without disrupting the Round, and therefore calls for it to be removed from the Single Undertaking;

18.

Also supports the Commission’s ambitious plans to include a chapter on facilitating trade and customs cooperation in all the new free trade agreements it negotiates, in line with its Communication of 4 October 2006 entitled ‘Global Europe: Competing in the World — a contribution to the EU’s growth and jobs strategy’ (COM(2006)0567);

19.

Reiterates the need to establish at EU level a plan to combat counterfeiting and piracy, and stresses the need for enhanced cooperation on this subject within the Commission, in other words between the departments responsible for intellectual property rules, trade policy and customs policy, with the Member States’ customs authorities and between those authorities;

20.

Welcomes the compromise reached by the Member States and the Commission on a negotiating mandate for the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA), which is an important element of the Union’s global trade strategy and will provide a high-level international framework for strengthening the enforcement of intellectual property rights and protecting producers against industrial theft and consumers against the health and safety risks associated with many counterfeit products;

21.

Calls on the Commission and the Member States to take all necessary measures to ensure that goods imported with a view to being placed on the EU market comply with European consumer protection standards, particularly as regards health and safety, to prevent the circulation of products or substances which could be dangerous for consumers;

22.

Acknowledges the legitimacy of concerns relating to the security of people and goods, but stresses the need to strike a fair balance between control and facilitation, in order not to hamper international trade needlessly or excessively; regards, however, the role of customs in the full application of Community measures concerning health, the environment and consumer protection as a priority that must not be compromised by customs facilitation measures;

23.

Supports the SAFE Framework of Standards (to Secure and Facilitate Global Trade) adopted by the WCO Council in 2005; fully endorses the opinion expressed by the WCO that ‘it is an unacceptable and an unnecessary burden to inspect every shipment’ and that priority should be given to managing risks effectively by means of efficient automated systems;

24.

Deeply deplores the adoption by the US Congress in July 2007 of the so-called HR1 legislation and the unilateral introduction by the United States of a scanning requirement for all shipping containers bound for that country as from 2012; doubts that such a measure will be effective and that it is compatible with WTO rules; fears that once implemented, it will curb the development of transatlantic trade;

25.

Notes that secure trade is particularly important in an ever more integrated global economy; urges the Transatlantic Legislators’ Dialogue (TLD) and the Commission to continue their efforts to ensure that the US legislation requiring the scanning of all US-bound cargo is modified in line with a risk-based approach; calls on the Commission to raise the matter in the Transatlantic Economic Council (TEC) and other bodies and persuade the US to change its decision; calls for support to be given to mutual recognition of ‘authorised economic operators’ and of security standards agreed by the WCO (C-TPAT, SAFE framework);

26.

Points out that the compatibility of the Union’s customs system with WTO rules was essentially confirmed on appeal by the WTO Dispute Settlement Body in the aforementioned Case WT/DS315, and welcomes this result;

27.

Notes, nevertheless, that both our trading partners and European economic operators themselves continue to call for greater harmonisation between national administrations in the implementation of Community customs legislation;

28.

Notes that pernicious discrepancies are sometimes found between Member States, for example with regard to the levying of VAT on imports, conditions for access to certain simplified procedures, the frequency of physical checks on goods and penalties;

29.

Considers that every effort must be made to ensure equal treatment for economic operators throughout the Community customs territory, as it is an essential prerequisite as regards preserving the integrity of the internal market and protecting the Union’s financial interests, maintaining its powers in the area of external policy — particularly trade policy — and ensuring compliance with its international commitments;

30.

Expresses its support for all measures seeking to increase cohesion between national administrations, encourage synergies, establish new communication and information-sharing systems, develop best practices and exchange staff and experiences with a view to enabling these administrations to function as one in the application of Community legislation;

31.

Stresses the crucial importance, in this respect, of instruments such as the Community’s integrated tariff (TARIC), European binding tariff information (EBTI), Binding origin information (BOI), and the common risk management framework; calls on the Commission and the Member States to continue to perfect these instruments and ensure they function properly;

32.

Stresses the need to standardise the law of evidence or establish common minimum rules and ensure uniform implementation by the 27 Member States of Community customs regulations (and in particular Regulation (EC) No 1383/2003) (4);

33.

Calls on the Commission to incorporate in its proposals precise rules on the administrative and penal sanctions for infringing the customs provisions laid down in Articles 135 and 280 of the EC Treaty, as amended by Article 2 points 45 and 276 of the Lisbon Treaty;

34.

Criticises the reluctance of the Commission and the Member States to envisage, at this stage, new structures to ensure that Community customs legislation is applied in a uniform manner; calls on the Commission and the Member States to consider seriously the possibility of establishing a unified EU customs service, with a view to moving towards a Community administration in charge of the customs union, to enable customs rules and procedures to be implemented more effectively throughout the European Union’s customs territory;

35.

Instructs its President to forward this resolution to the Council and Commission, the governments and parliaments of the Member States, the World Customs Organization, the World Trade Organization and to member countries and candidate countries of both organisations.

26.11.2009   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 285/7

A.

whereas the European Union remains committed to further developing and deepening its relations with Georgia and supports the necessary political and economic reforms, measures to establish solid and efficient democratic institutions and an effective and independent judiciary and further efforts to combat corruption, thereby creating a peaceful and prosperous Georgia that can contribute to stability in the region and the rest of Europe,

B.

whereas following a Presidential decree Russian ministries and other state agencies were instructed to establish official ties with counterpart agencies in the Georgian breakaway regions of Abkhazia and South Ossetia,

C.

whereas the Russian Federation withdrew from the 19 January 1996 decision of the Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS) Council of Heads of State which prohibits the signatory states from any military cooperation with the separatist authorities of Abkhazia,

D.

whereas in May 2008 Russia unilaterally deployed further troops and moved heavy artillery into Abkhazia under the auspices of a CIS-sanctioned peacekeeping mission, and announced its intention to establish 15 additional check-points along the administrative boundary-line; whereas Russian representatives announced that the number of troops of the Russian battalion stationed in South Ossetia may be increased,

E.

whereas on 20 April 2008 a Georgian reconnaissance drone was shot down over Abkhazia; whereas the recent report by UNOMIG on the incident indicates that the reconnaissance drone was shot down by a Russian aircraft; whereas the report also states that Georgia should stop sending these reconnaissance drones over Abkhazia,

F.

whereas no official high-level meetings have taken place between Georgian and Abkhaz representatives under the auspices of the United Nations (UN) since October 2007; whereas the Georgian President Mikheil Saakashvili has put forward new proposals concerning the resolution of the conflict in Abkhazia, which include broad political representation at the highest levels of the Georgian government, granting veto rights on all major legislation related to Abkhazia, and establishing international guarantees to ensure broad federalism, unlimited autonomy and security,

G.

whereas Georgia has taken official steps calling for the revision of the current peacekeeping format or the replacement of the Russian peacekeeping contingent currently deployed in Abkhazia,

H.

whereas on 15 May 2008 the UN General Assembly adopted resolution A/RES/62/249 recognising the right of ‘refugees and internally displaced persons and their descendants, regardless of ethnicity’ to return to Abkhazia and emphasising the importance of preserving the property rights of refugees and internally displaced persons, including victims of reported ‘ethnic cleansing’,

I.

whereas the Tbilisi authorities have suspended bilateral talks with Moscow on Russia's accession to the World Trade Organization (WTO) in protest at the Russian decision to step up cooperation with the self-proclaimed republics of Abkhazia and South Ossetia; whereas the Russian ban on imports of Georgian wine and agricultural goods is still in place,

J.

whereas a nationwide plebiscite took place in Georgia on 5 January 2008; whereas at NATO's 2-4 April 2008 summit in Bucharest no membership action plan was offered to Georgia but a political commitment for eventual membership was made,

K.

whereas Russia's granting of citizenship to Abkhazians and South Ossetians, enabling them to take advantage of the EU-Russia visa facilitation agreement, is increasingly disadvantaging Georgian citizens as a similar agreement between Georgia and the EU is not yet in place,

L.

whereas, despite efforts to conduct Georgia's elections in line with international standards, the International Election Observation Mission to the Georgian parliamentary elections of 21 May 2008 identified some problems which should be addressed in due course,

1.

Expresses its deep concern at the escalation of the situation in Abkhazia and calls on all parties to refrain from actions that could further destabilise the situation; calls for renewed international efforts to bring the parties back to dialogue and restart the peace process with a view to reaching a lasting and comprehensive settlement;

2.

Expresses its deep disapproval at Russia's announcement that it would establish official ties with institutions within the separatist authorities of South Ossetia and Abkhazia; deplores, in this regard, the decision taken by the Russian Ministry of Defence on 31 May 2008 to send its forces to Abkhazia to restore the rail and road infrastructure in the breakaway region in accordance with the presidential decree;

3.

Reaffirms its full support for the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Georgia within its internationally recognised borders and calls on Russia to revoke this decision, which undermines the international peace efforts in which Russia is also taking part;

4.

Supports the efforts that have been made to calm the situation through talks between the High Representative for the Common Foreign and Security Policy (CFSP), President Saakashvili and Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Viktorovich Lavrov; urges the EU Special Representative for the South Caucasus to find ways to facilitate a dialogue between all parties concerned, and to try to restore a degree of mutual confidence;

5.

Urges the Russian Federation to withdraw its additional troops in Abkhazia immediately; takes the view that the present peacekeeping format must be revised since the Russian troops have lost their role of neutral and impartial peacekeepers and calls for a deeper European involvement in these frozen conflicts in order to move the peace processes forward;

6.

Calls on the Council to consider bolstering the international presence in the conflict zone by sending an European Security and Defence Policy (ESDP) border mission, drawing on the positive experience of the European Union Border Assistance Mission (EUBAM) at the Transnistrian section of the border between Moldova and Ukraine, while suggesting that the Member States could take a more active role in UNOMIG; calls on the UN to boost the mandate and the resources of UNOMIG;

7.

Calls on the UN Security Council, the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) and other international organisations to support the proposals of the Georgian Government for new alternative negotiations and peacekeeping formats, which include the progressive establishment of truly independent international peacekeeping forces;

8.

Calls, in this regard, on the Council and the Commission to raise the issues of Abkhazia and South Ossetia firmly with their Russian counterparts at the forthcoming EU-Russia summit and during the negotiations on a new strengthened partnership agreement, and urges the Russian authorities not to oppose an eventual ESDP mission in the region including an EU presence in civilian and military peacekeeping operations;

9.

Calls for an investigation and inspections by the UN into whether all relevant UN Security Council resolutions are being closely followed by all actors in the conflict zone, including whether heavy weaponry is present;

10.

Takes note of the outcome of the parliamentary elections on 21 May 2008 and the findings of the International Election Observation Mission, which states that overall the election day was calm and generally was assessed positively, and that substantial progress has been made since the January presidential elections;

11.

Stresses, however, that further efforts have to be made in close cooperation with the international community to address and solve all the problems identified in the electoral process caused by the inconsistent and incomplete implementation of the OSCE and Council of Europe standards, and to improve and consolidate Georgia's democratic achievements; calls on the Georgian authorities to deal with all complaints about the electoral process in a transparent manner and to work on further improvement so that trust and confidence in the electoral process can increase further;

12.

Calls on all political forces in Georgia to respect the rule of law, to commit themselves to constructive dialogue and compromise and to refrain from further polarising Georgian society; recognises that the lack of trust between the government and the opposition parties is an obstacle to further democratic development and expects all political forces to strive for a democratic political culture where political debates take place in parliament and political opponents are respected and constructive dialogue is aimed at supporting and consolidating Georgia's fragile democratic institutions;

13.

Supports Georgia's aspirations to speed up the process of integration with the European Union in the framework of an enhanced ENP;

14.

Calls on the Council and the Commission to speed up the opening of negotiations on the EU-Georgia visa regime in order to conclude the visa facilitation and readmission agreements with Georgia in the near future so as to ensure that citizens of Georgia are not disadvantaged in relation to those holding Russian passports in the separatist regions;

15.

Welcomes the Council Conclusions of 18 February 2008 on the ENP concerning the need to start negotiations on deep and comprehensive Free Trade Agreements (DFTAs) where possible; urges the Commission to seek a rapid agreement with Georgia on its ambitions and to secure a negotiation mandate from the Member States; hopes for further progress on this matter during the French Presidency;

16.

Welcomes the setting-up of the EU-Georgia Subcommittee on Justice, Freedom and Security with a view to stepping up the bilateral dialogue and implementing the ENP Action Plan;

17.

Hopes that Georgia will make full use of the additional financial possibilities provided by the Neighbourhood Investment Facility (NIF), in particular in projects relating to infrastructure, energy and environmental protection, but calls on the Commission to pay increased attention to education, democracy building and social areas;

18.

Instructs its President to forward this resolution to the Council, the Commission and the Member States, the President and parliament of Georgia, the OSCE, the Council of Europe and the President and parliament of the Russian Federation.

26.11.2009   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 285/11

A.

whereas a clear definition of the interests of the Union is essential in order to attain the goals of the Union's external action and in particular of its foreign affairs policy,

B.

whereas increased political unity within the European Union is necessary in order to strengthen and make effective the value-driven CFSP, since otherwise the credibility of the European Union as a global player risks being undermined, as has happened in the way in which the EU has dealt with China, Russia, Iraq, Afghanistan, Cuba and energy security; whereas it is to be hoped that the Lisbon Treaty and the strengthened role of the High Representative will facilitate a more forward-looking and long-term foreign policy strategy and the establishment of a comprehensive approach that commands the support of all Member States,

C.

whereas the Treaty of Lisbon clearly improves the CFSP arrangements currently in force, thus raising the Union's international profile and enhancing its effectiveness; whereas, nevertheless, further efforts are needed in order to streamline the decision-making process as regards foreign policy with a view to overcoming the veto power and introducing qualified majority voting,

D.

whereas the pressure of crises and conflicts beyond the EU's borders and the need to deal with alarming new challenges created by the rapid climate change suggest a wider perspective for the CFSP,

E.

whereas, in order to be credible, the CFSP and the future Common Security and Defence Policy (CSDP) must be allocated resources in line with their ambitions and specific targets, and whereas in this regard a significant increase is considered necessary during the mid-term review of the Financial Perspectives in 2009 and from other financial sources,

1.

Is of the opinion that, from its inception, the CFSP, including the European Security and Defence Policy (ESDP), has helped to strengthen the European identity and the EU's role as a global player;

2.

Takes the view, nevertheless, that the EU's role in the world is not commensurate to its potential and to the expectations of European public opinion, due to the reluctance of the Member States to adopt the necessary and indispensable reforms aimed at enhancing the effectiveness, coherence and accountability of its foreign policy;

3.

Believes that, since the European Union is a community based on values, in order to be a credible global player it has to uphold its high standards in external relations, and that the CFSP must therefore be underpinned by the values which the European Union and its Member States cherish, notably democracy, the rule of law and respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms, as key objectives of the CFSP;

4.

Points out, in this regard, that the EU's strong energy dependence on non-democratic countries may undermine the coherence, assertiveness and sustainability of its common foreign policy;

5.

Strongly believes that the European Union can make an impact and conduct a genuine, effective and credible CFSP only if it clearly defines its common objectives, provides itself with the appropriate instruments, in such a way as to ensure consistency between objectives and means, speaks with one voice and enjoys the strong democratic legitimacy afforded by Parliament's scrutiny; at the same time, considers that the key objectives of the CFSP can only be attained if Parliament itself speaks with a common voice and, in this respect, encourages a clearer delimitation of competences between its specialised bodies dealing with the CFSP, from a thematic and geographical perspective;

6.

Calls on the Member States to commit themselves to consult their EU partners and the High Representative before adopting strategic decisions in the area of foreign policy, particularly in multilateral organisations, in order that their positions with respect to strategic decisions are at least coherent, convergent and compatible and do not affect the coherence and cohesion of the EU's external action or undermine the EU's credibility as a global player vis-à-vis third countries;

7.

Takes note of the 2006 Annual Report on the CFSP from the Council;

8.

While recognising progress in the structure of the report, especially the inclusion of more forward-looking planning alongside the description of activities carried out in the previous year, expects the Council to take into account for the next annual report the relevant resolutions and/or recommendations adopted by Parliament;

9.

Is of the view that Parliament should more systematically adopt positions on each successive stage of CFSP and ESDP decision-making; recommends that, in order to enhance their democratic legitimacy, common positions and joint actions should where appropriate take into account, and contain references to, those positions adopted by Parliament;

10.

Recognises that considerable progress has been achieved in relations between the Council and Parliament, especially through the establishment of new and more flexible channels of communication; considers, however that Parliament has to adopt a firmer position in relation to the issues discussed, which should be systematically dealt with in the Council; points out that progress has also been achieved through the increased contacts between the institutions, including regular exchanges of views with the High Representative and more frequent appearances by EU Special Representatives as well as other senior officials before Parliament; however, considers that there is room for further progress, particularly with regard to the timing of such appearances, which should also reflect the agenda of Parliament and its competent bodies;

11.

Welcomes the growing recognition that the legitimacy and coherence of the CFSP/ESDP depend to a great degree on the growing willingness of the High Representative and his services to cooperate with Parliament, as well as the Council Presidency's readiness to engage with Parliament;

12.

Proposes that priority be given in 2008 to a limited number of subjects which better relate to the concerns of European citizens and to their expectations as regards the role to be played by the EU in international affairs;

13.

Urges the Council and the Commission to address jointly, and with a greater sense of urgency, issues of current concern for Europe such as terrorism, organised crime, improving security through cooperation and development, energy security, climate change, sustainable development, improvement of stability in the neighbouring regions, crisis management, conflict prevention and conflict resolution, the non-dissemination of weapons of mass destruction (WMD), migration management and promotion of human rights and civil liberties; welcomes the report by the Commission and the High Representative to the European Council on climate change and international security; calls on the Council to examine the report and to submit recommendations on appropriate follow-up; underlines the importance of the external dimension as a cornerstone for the setting-up of a European area of Freedom, Security and Justice;

14.

Invites the High Representative to assess the progress made, and any shortcomings, in the implementation of the ESS since 2003, including proposals for improving and supplementing the ESS; believes that respect for international law, effective multilateralism, human security and the right of citizens worldwide to be protected, conflict prevention, disarmament and the role of international institutions should become the guiding principles of the EU's external action; is of the opinion that such evaluation should form the basis for a wider public political debate; underlines that any future assessment of the ESS should be made in close consultation with all EU institutions including the European Parliament and national parliaments; is of the opinion that the ESS should be revised in such a way as to include an in-depth analysis of the present mission and future direction of NATO and NATO's relationship with the European Union at strategic and operational levels, as well as an analysis of the security ramifications of further NATO enlargement; invites the European Council to formulate, for the first time, a coherent position on EU-NATO policy that will serve not only to revitalise transatlantic relations but also to provide support for the early development of ESDP as envisaged under the Treaty of Lisbon;

15.

Calls on the Council to consider setting up appropriate structures and procedures and also improving the functioning of the existing ones, in order for the EU to develop the capacity to react rapidly in crisis situations; also calls for the development of a legal framework which defines the right to intervene and the obligation to protect in crisis situations, including the decision-making procedures and the due responsibilities in such situations;

16.

Is of the view that the importance of the foreign policy dimension of energy security, including the Union's dependence on energy and other strategic supplies from unstable or undemocratic countries and regions, will continue to increase; recommends wide-ranging diversification of energy sources and energy transport routes and increased energy efficiency as well as solidarity in energy security policy among Member States; deplores the uncoordinated signing of bilateral energy agreements by Member States, which undermine the interests, and call into question the strategic projects, of the Union as a whole and of other Member States; underlines, in this connection, the strategic importance of the Nabucco pipeline for the energy security of the European Union and calls on the Commission and the Council to mobilise all efforts aimed at successful implementation of this project as soon as possible; reiterates its call for the creation of the post of High Official for Foreign Energy Policy under the authority of the future double-hatted High Representative/Vice-President of the Commission, with responsibility for coordinating the Union's activities in this field; regrets the lack of response from the Council and the Commission to Parliament's abovementioned resolution of 26 September 2007;

17.

Regrets the lack of progress towards a common European foreign policy on energy and deplores the bilateralism of action adopted by certain Member States, which considerably weakens the bargaining power of the European Union as a whole and its efforts towards a common foreign policy on energy; reiterates its view that such a policy must be based on solidarity and supported by an effective and well interconnected internal market equipped with all the tools needed to counteract monopolistic and politically motivated non-commercial behaviour which may constitute a threat to the Community's energy security; therefore welcomes and strongly supports the third-country clause included in the third energy package;

18.

Reiterates that terrorism, as a means used by non-democracies or terrorist organisations, constitutes one of the main threats to the EU's security, and welcomes the efforts made by the EU Counter-Terrorism Coordinator to consolidate implementation of the EU counter-terrorism strategy; notes that the fight against terrorism must be conducted with due respect for the universal values of democracy, the rule of law, human rights and fundamental freedoms, and the protection thereof, in close cooperation with international partners and in keeping with the strategy laid down by the United Nations (UN); is of the view that an effective fight against terrorism must be a key priority in relations between the EU and third countries;

19.

Reiterates the importance of orderly migration management; considers it essential, therefore, to secure the cooperation of both countries of origin and transit countries, and to encourage this by applying a policy of positive conditionality; points to the need to avert illegal immigration and to fight the groups that traffic in it;

20.

Reiterates that strengthening global governance, international institutions and the value of international law remains a vital interest for the Union's external action; underlines in this regard the crucial role to be played by the UN in support of effective multilateralism, and stresses that the Union must stand united while urging its partners to pursue the development and consolidation of democracy, human rights and the rule of law, as a common basis for a prosperous and secure world; reaffirms its commitment to the UN Millennium Development Goals, in particular the global fight against poverty;

21.

Is of the view that, in the pursuit of global governance, particular attention must be paid to the role played by sovereign wealth funds and analogous state economic players, which should be encouraged to operate with maximum transparency and accountability;

22.

Considers it important for the EU to make a greater effort to enhance and consolidate its policies for worldwide support of democracy; therefore regards it as essential to place such support at the heart of the CFSP and to ensure coherence between the actions of the EU institutions and the Member States;

23.

Insists on the need for the effective implementation of human rights clauses and of non-proliferation and counter-terrorism provisions and the inclusion of an energy security clause in agreements with third countries, in order to ensure the coherence and effectiveness of the EU's external policies;

24.

Insists on the need to continue to press for implementation at international level of the EU strategy against the spread of WMD, to work actively for the retention of the existing arms control and disarmament system, in particular for the entry into force of the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty, the consistent implementation and comprehensive monitoring of the Chemical Weapons Convention, an international ban on cluster munitions and universal application of the Ottawa Convention banning landmines, to place greater emphasis on initiatives to control the small-arms trade and other disarmament and non-proliferation initiatives and issues, and to strengthen multilateral non-proliferation treaties and provide the financial means to implement the EU's WMD strategy; calls on the EU and the Member States to play a positive and effective role in ending the ongoing deadlock at the Geneva Disarmament Conference and to take steps to ensure that the negotiations result in a non-discriminatory, multilateral, international and effectively verifiable treaty banning the production of fissile material for nuclear weapons;

25.

Is of the view that the Union's enlargement process, based on Article 49 of the EU Treaty, remains a key foreign policy priority and that it should be based on the Union's capacity to integrate new Member States (taking account of the impact of enlargement on its institutions, its financial resources and its capacity to pursue its political objectives);

26.

Considers that stability in the Western Balkans should be the top priority for the EU in 2008, in line with the Council's view as set out in its Annual Report for 2006; therefore attaches the utmost importance to the redoubling of efforts to bring the Western Balkans closer to the EU, including the introduction of a visa-free regime, the stepping-up of regional cooperation in areas such as trade, transport, energy and the participation of Western Balkans countries in Community programmes; believes that the stronger emphasis on economic and social issues which this involves would facilitate and underpin those countries' preparations for EU accession, in line with the Thessaloniki Agenda; stresses the importance of involving civil society in the accession process;

27.

Is of the view that dialogue with Serbia should be intensified and that concrete steps should be taken in order to reaffirm the European perspective of that country; regards the signing of the Stability and Association Agreement as a concrete move towards the future accession of Serbia to the EU; encourages substantial assistance, implementation of mutually made commitments and cooperation measures, including the visa liberalisation road-map; underlines that particular emphasis should be placed on strengthening ties with all democratic forces and civil society in areas of common interest; considers that the EU should develop adequate policies and initiate appropriate processes in order to avoid Serbia's isolation;

28.

Refers to the conclusions of the General Affairs and External Relations Council held on 18 February 2008, in which the Council noted the adoption by the Kosovo Assembly on 17 February 2008 of a resolution declaring Kosovo to be independent and in which the Council also stated that Member States will decide in accordance with national practice and international law on their relations with Kosovo;

29.

Takes the view that the European Union Rule of Law (EULEX) mission in Kosovo must safeguard the interests of national minorities as provided for by the Ahtisaari plan in order to preserve the multi-ethnic character of the territory, build confidence among ethnic communities, protect the cultural, religious and historical heritage, consolidate the rule of law and promote economic development; points out that the local ownership of these efforts will ensure a successful transition and sustainable social, political and economic development of Kosovo; voices its concern about the stalemate in negotiations on the transfer of responsibilities from the United Nations Interim Administration Mission in Kosovo (UNMIK) to EULEX; calls on the Member States to take concerted action in the UN with a view to securing recognition of the EULEX mission as part of the international civilian presence in Kosovo under UN Security Council Resolution 1244(1999);

30.

Stresses that the situation of minorities in all the countries of the Western Balkans should be the subject of further thorough monitoring by the EU in order to ensure effective protection of all minority groups and their rights, and that further consistent progress should be made in this field in line with European standards; believes that advantage should be taken of the 2008 Year of Intercultural Dialogue in order to promote mutual understanding and education designed to inculcate tolerance;

31.

Further underlines that the strengthening of the European Neighbourhood Policy (ENP) should be regarded as a main objective for 2008, and that this should lead to a more differentiated approach to our neighbours which takes due account of their expectations and of the Union's strategic interests; believes that this revamped policy should make better and more extensive use of available Community instruments;

32.

Reiterates that the persistence of unresolved conflicts in the ENP countries represents a serious challenge to the security of the EU's external borders and to the effective implementation of the ENP; underlines that, with the 2007 enlargement, the EU's borders lie even closer to these areas of conflict; calls, therefore, for more active and comprehensive EU involvement in the ongoing efforts to resolve these conflicts, in particular that in the Transnistrian area of the Republic of Moldova, in accordance with international law and the principles of territorial integrity, and also for a deeper engagement on the part of the EU in conflict management;

33.

Believes that the Union should focus attention on developing economic cooperation, political stability and democracy in the three key regional cooperation areas, namely the Mediterranean, the Baltic Sea and the Black Sea, by utilising cooperative structures in those areas, by consolidating synergy between institutional and regional policies, and by assisting the countries in those regions in their integration processes; welcomes the intention expressed by the European Council of 13-14 March 2007 to boost the Barcelona Process; reiterates the importance of achieving tangible results in the Euro-Mediterranean region where respect for human rights and economic and social development in countries on the southern shore of the Mediterranean should be promoted and where attention should focus more on energy and environmental challenges;

34.

Reiterates that the Black Sea and Baltic Sea regions have a strategic importance for the Union and that they therefore merit a more coherent approach, similar to that for the Mediterranean Sea region; calls on the Council and the Commission to foster regional cooperation with the Black Sea and the Baltic Sea; is of the opinion that equal attention to and balance between these three crucial regions would be best assured by devising new organisational structures for regional cooperation in Black Sea and Baltic Sea regions, as well as strengthening relations with the existing multilateral assemblies such as the Parliamentary Assembly of the Black Sea Economic Cooperation;

35.

Underlines the need to strengthen the transatlantic alliance and intensify contacts with the United States, inter alia through a more advanced and comprehensive Transatlantic Partnership Agreement, the potential of which should be fully exploited and which should include consultation and cooperation on mutual interests, as well as civil conflict prevention, the international legal order, peace and disarmament, sustainable development and combating poverty; welcomes the establishment of the Transatlantic Economic Council; underlines the importance of the parliamentary dimension within the framework of the ‘Transatlantic Legislators' Dialogue’, as well as the need to engage in deeper dialogue with the US Congress on the future of EU-US relations, the future of NATO and UN reform;

36.

Regards the review in 2008 by the Union of its relations with Russia as highly important; is of the view that those relations should be based on a balanced partnership, which would address global challenges such as non-proliferation of WMD, regional security and energy security, and would promote consolidation of democracy, protection of human rights, free trade and, above all, respect for the rule of law; recalls that a genuine partnership must be based on equal treatment of all Member States as well as good relations with neighbouring states, transparency and accountability; asks Member States to coordinate relations with the Russian Federation on the basis of the Union's common interests; calls on the Council and the Commission to ensure that the mandate for any future Agreement not only underlines these shared interests but also establishes a mechanism to monitor its implementation;

37.

Calls on the Council and the Commission to continue efforts, both within the framework of the Middle East Quartet and on the ground, to foster negotiations between Israelis and Palestinians for a comprehensive, lasting and fair peace solution on the basis of two secure and viable States in line with the commitments set out in the Annapolis Agenda; takes the view that the Union should maximise its financial, trade and political leverage on both sides in order to achieve this peaceful solution and that the Union should play, within the relevant fora, a role commensurate to its financial and political contribution;

38.

Believes that the nuclear non-proliferation regime under the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) is in serious danger and calls on the Council and particularly the two Member States possessing nuclear weapons to bring forward a European initiative on the implementation of the disarmament obligations contained in Article VI of the NPT with regard, in particular, to the 2010 NPT review conference; strongly opposes the production and dissemination of WMD, which threatens to become a reality in an increasing number of countries due to the impossibility of clearly separating the use of nuclear technology for energy purposes and its use for weapons production; cites in this context, in particular, the uncertainties as to the goals of Iran's nuclear programme; calls on Iran to be actively transparent in its relations with the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) and to seek to rebuild trust with the international community; calls on the members of the UN Security Council to refer the Iran issue back to the IAEA and to start negotiations without preconditions; calls on the Member States to ban all exports of nuclear technology to any country that has not ratified the additional protocols to the NPT;

39.

Believes that the EU could contribute to confidence-building vis-à-vis countries with which it has no contractual ties, or reduced contractual ties, by boosting people-to-people contacts, such as through town twinning or Erasmus Mundus programmes;

40.

Expects a quick and comprehensive implementation of the Central Asia strategy;

41.

Reiterates that promoting international solidarity, stability, peace and democratic, human and economic development, the rule of law and the fight against drugs must continue to be among the priorities of the EU's policy towards Afghanistan in 2008; stresses the need to restore security in Afghanistan, which cannot be achieved by military means alone; underlines that, to this end, it is equally vital to strengthen the police forces in order to establish the rule of law and to increase development efforts; notes with anxiety that drug production has gradually been stepped up, with the result that Afghanistan has once again become the world's biggest producer; welcomes the deployment of the EU police mission in Afghanistan (EUPOL Afghanistan) and urges Member States to provide it with experienced and well-prepared staff and, eventually, to enlarge it; is concerned that insufficient coordination, both among the international community (especially between the EU and NATO) and in relations with the Afghan authorities, seriously hampers the effectiveness of the activities on the ground; calls on all players to make efforts to improve this situation; welcomes in this regard the appointment of Kai Eide as the UN Secretary-General's Special Representative for Afghanistan;

42.

Recommends that political and economic relations with China be deepened in 2008, on condition that substantial progress be made in the field of democracy and human rights, and that China heed the EU's grave concerns about its conduct in Tibet, maintaining a constructive dialogue with the authorities on these issues, a fortiori in the run-up to the Beijing Olympics; asks China to develop a forward-looking comprehensive approach to the reconstruction of the country, with enhanced respect for its different peoples and its cultural traditions; regrets in this regard the lack of substantial results as regards the EU-China human rights dialogue;

43.

Recommends that political and economic relations with the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) be deepened in 2008, on the basis of substantial progress made in the field of democracy and human rights; recognises ASEAN's growing role as a force for regional stability and prosperity; believes that the EU and ASEAN have great potential for increased cooperation based in part on ASEAN's progress with regard to regional integration and in the fields of democracy and human rights; remains particularly concerned by the situation in Burma;

44.

Stresses the need to give substantial follow-up during 2008 to the decisions reached at the EU-Africa Summit held in December 2007 in Lisbon; in this context, welcomes the appointment of a double-hatted EU Special Representative/Head of Delegation of the European Commission for the African Union, based in Addis Ababa; believes in this regard that the EU, in cooperation with the UN, should make every effort to reinforce the peace-building and peace-keeping capacity of the African Union; welcomes in this regard the EU Security Sector Reform missions in the Democratic Republic of the Congo and the Republic of Guinea-Bissau, and calls for coordinated use of CFSP and Community instruments such as the Instrument for Stability;

45.

Expects that the Vth EU-Latin American and Caribbean Summit, held in May 2008 in Lima, will result in a deepening of the content of the declared Bi-Regional Association, including the setting-up of the Solidarity Bi-Regional Fund proposed by Parliament, as well as the timely finalisation by the end of 2008 of negotiations on the EU's Association Agreement with Mercosur, the Andean Community and Central America;

46.

Draws attention to its extensive resolutions and reports concerning the different geographical areas of interest, since they contain valuable contributions to the debate on the way in which the EU's policy vis-à-vis those geographical areas should evolve;

47.

Recommends that the Union strengthen its political dialogue with third countries and regions, in particular with major partners; reiterates in this regard the important role that parliamentary diplomacy plays as a complementary tool in the Union's relations with third countries and regions, principally through the three major multilateral interparliamentary assemblies (the African, Caribbean and Pacific-EU Joint Parliamentary Assembly (ACP-EU JPA), the Euro-Mediterranean Parliamentary Assembly (EuroMed) and the Euro-Latin American Parliamentary Assembly (EuroLat)); undertakes to set up an EU-Neighbourhood-East Parliamentary Assembly (Euro-Nest) by 2009, in order to enhance the parliamentary dimension of the political partnership between Parliament and the countries involved in the eastern part of the ENP;

48.

Reiterates its call on Member States that are also members of the UN Security Council to improve their coordination within that framework in order to enhance the effectiveness of the Union's action on the world stage, and, with a view to the longer term, to strive to secure a seat for the EU on the Security Council within the context of a major reform of the UN system; asks those permanent members of the UN Security Council that are Member States to cooperate more closely with Member States that are not permanent members;

49.

Welcomes the improvements brought about by the Treaty of Lisbon regarding external action, the CFSP and the ESDP, which is to become the CSDP; is of the view that the new Treaty significantly enhances the external action of the Union and its role in international relations, and that it raises the Union's visibility and profile while strengthening its capacity to act effectively on the world stage;

50.

Hopes that the Lisbon Treaty will be promptly ratified in all Member States, so as to allow for its timely entry into force; congratulates those Member States that have already ratified the Lisbon Treaty;

51.

Welcomes the improvement of the institutional framework of the Union in the field of the CFSP, mainly by:

52.

Welcomes the broadening of the Union's external field of action, including the provision of a new legal basis and instruments affecting CFSP-related areas, such as an explicit legal basis for the ENP, the establishment of a single legal personality for the Union, urgent financial support for third countries, humanitarian aid, sanctions against non-state entities, space policy, energy security, combating climate change, the prevention of international terrorism and the protection of personal data;

53.

Highlights the importance of ensuring policy coherence within the Union's external field of action, particularly between the CFSP, the CSDP and development and trade policies; in this context, stresses the important role that the High Representative and the EEAS should play in the pursuit of policy coherence;

54.

Recalls that the establishment of the Union's legal personality raises the question of its status within international organisations such as the UN; takes the view that the Union's future status within the UN should be commensurate with its financial and political contribution;

55.

Regards the establishment of the closest possible collaboration between the President of the European Council, the President of the Commission, the High Representative and the rotating Presidency as crucial in order to ensure that their different functions contribute to the coherence and efficiency of the CFSP;

56.

Calls on the Council to respond in a substantive manner to the wishes and concerns expressed in formal communications from Parliament, particularly with respect to resolutions on cases of breaches of human rights, democracy and the rule of law;

57.

Calls on the Council to examine the effectiveness of its sanctions policies against certain abhorrent regimes, such as the Mugabe regime in Zimbabwe and the military junta in Burma, and to introduce measures for their improvement including the necessary mechanisms for the wholehearted observation and enforcement thereof;

58.

Invites the future High Representative/Vice-President of the Commission to build on the experience of the periodic appearances by High Representatives and by the External Relations Commissioner before Parliament in plenary and its Committee on Foreign Affairs and on the practice of informal meetings, in order to develop regular, systematic and substantive consultations with Parliament and its competent bodies, and to involve Parliament in the decision-making process so as to enhance the transparency of and accountability for the main choices of the CFSP; points out that the future office of High Representative/Vice-President of the Commission will derive its legitimacy directly from Parliament;

59.

Further underlines that Council-Parliament relations also need to be reconsidered in order to take account of the major reforms of the future CSDP and of Parliament's strengthened powers of scrutiny, following the transfer of the remaining Western European Union competences to the EU; in this regard, welcomes provisions for closer cooperation between the European Parliament and national parliaments;

60.

Requests the establishment of an interinstitutional agreement between Parliament and the Council defining their working relations in the field of external action, including the sharing of confidential information, at such time as the Treaty of Lisbon enters into force; requests that the Framework Agreement between the Commission and Parliament be updated to take into account the provisions of the Treaty of Lisbon;

61.

Requests that the future High Representative/Vice-President of the Commission take office together with the new Commission on 1 November 2009, that a temporary solution be found for the period between entry into force of the Lisbon Treaty and 1 November 2009, and that Parliament be fully consulted on the nomination by the European Council, with the consent of the President of the Commission, of the first High Representative/Vice-President of the Commission, as well as any other interim appointment; in this context, considers that an ad hoc hearing procedure needs to be established for the nomination of the High Representative/Vice-President of the Commission, with the Committee on Foreign Affairs acting as the lead Committee;

62.

Underlines the significant effect which the setting-up of the EEAS will have on the EU's external relations; stresses the need for transparency and democratic input into this process; recalls its right to be consulted on the establishment of the EEAS in accordance with Article 27(3) of the EU Treaty as amended by the Treaty of Lisbon; requests full association with the preparatory work in this regard; refers to its ongoing report on this matter; hopes that the establishment of the EEAS will provide greater clarity with regard to the criteria for and the appointment and evaluation of EU Special Representatives, including the definition and purpose of their tasks, the length of their mandate, and coordination and complementarity with European Commission delegations;

63.

Calls on the future High Representative/Vice-President of the Commission, as well as the Council and the Commission, to reinforce collaboration with the existing multilateral parliamentary assemblies (ACP-EU JPA, EuroMed, EuroLat and, once it is established, Euro-Nest), which bring parliamentarians of the Union together with some of their most important counterparts, as this clearly provides added value for the consistency and efficiency of the Union's external action;

64.

Is of the opinion that parliamentary scrutiny is of crucial value for the ESDP; in this regard, invites the Political and Security Committee (PSC) to establish, together with Parliament, a mechanism in respect of confidential information on emerging crises or international security events comparable to existing mechanisms in several national parliaments of Member States which would — according to the degree of confidentiality — range from closed committee meetings to meetings between the PSC and appointed members of the relevant committees and subcommittees;

65.

Regards it as necessary to provide for the Chairman of the Committee on Foreign Affairs to attend the informal meetings of the Ministers of Foreign Affairs of the Member States (Gymnich meetings), following what is already established practice for informal Council meetings in other policy areas;

66.

Stresses the need to ensure the democratic accountability and transparency of the activities undertaken by the European Defence Agency;

67.

Notes with satisfaction the strengthening, under the Treaty of Lisbon, of Parliament's budgetary powers over all EU spending, including the EEAS, giving Parliament parity with the Council, abolishing the distinction between compulsory and non-compulsory expenditure, and making the multi-annual financial framework legally binding;

68.

Regrets the unnecessary complexity of the arrangements for the rapid financing of CSDP activities outside the EU budget; insists that all external actions of the Union (including those within the future CSDP but excluding all military expenditure) should in future be financed from the common EU budget;

69.

Underlines in this regard that special attention should be paid to monitoring civilian crisis management where resources and different responsibilities are pooled from the Council, the Commission and the Member States, so as to ensure optimum efficiency and coordination;

70.

Recognises the usefulness of the joint consultation meetings between the bureaux of the Committee of Foreign Affairs and the Committee on Budgets and the Chairman of the PSC, as provided for in the abovementioned Interinstitutional Agreement of 17 May 2006; at the same time supports the idea that the Chairs and/or rapporteurs of Parliament's committees responsible for external action be involved in the activities of the new Conciliation Committee for the new budget procedure if this is deemed necessary in the context of the annual procedure;

71.

Requests that, in the spirit of the said Interinstitutional Agreement of 17 May 2006, which provides for a structured dialogue between the Council and Parliament, the Council should inform Parliament prior to the adoption of any decision entailing CFSP expenditure;

72.

Regards the total amount of EUR 1 740 million allocated to the CFSP for the period from 2007 to 2013 as insufficient to achieve the ambitions and specific goals of the EU as a global player, while recognising that the CFSP funding agreed for 2008, amounting to EUR 285 million, represents an important step forward compared to previous allocations of funds (and an increase of EUR 125 million on 2007); underlines that this increase should be accompanied by stronger measures for parliamentary control and improved cooperation by the Council;

73.

Will make specific proposals about the financing and budgetary control of the EEAS in the context of its forthcoming report on the matter;

74.

Instructs its President to forward this resolution to the Council, the Commission, the governments and parliaments of the Member States, the Secretary-General of the UN, the Secretary General of NATO and the President of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe.

26.11.2009   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 285/23

A.

whereas in 2007 and early 2008 the Council has taken important operational decisions in the field of ESDP and on the implementation of the ESS, including:

B.

whereas in 2007 and early 2008 further developments in the field of ESDP capabilities and the implementation of the ESS have been achieved, including:

C.

whereas 2007 and early 2008 have also witnessed continued shortfalls in the fields of ESDP and the implementation of the ESS, including:

D.

whereas the Treaty of Lisbon will introduce major innovations in the field of ESDP,

E.

whereas continuous efforts need to be made to avoid duplication and to increase interoperability within the EU, and whereas the most cost-effective way of doing this is to share and pool defence assets in order to maximise Europe's defence capability,

1.

Reaffirms the conclusions of Parliament's previous resolutions concerning the ESS and ESDP;

2.

Welcomes the signature of the Lisbon Treaty, which will introduce major innovations in the field of ESDP, in particular by strengthening the office of High Representative, establishing a European External Action Service and introducing an article on mutual defence assistance, a solidarity clause, permanent structured cooperation in the field of defence and an extension of the ‘Petersberg tasks’; hopes that the ratification process will be completed successfully and in a timely fashion in all Member States; congratulates those Member States that have already ratified the Lisbon Treaty; points out that Parliament will fulfil its responsibilities under the current Treaty and will closely monitor the implementation of any new innovations;

3.

Asks the Member States concerned to investigate the possibilities and possible impact of bringing under permanent structured cooperation, as envisaged in the Lisbon Treaty, existing multinational forces such as Eurocorps, Eurofor, Euromarfor, the European Gendarmerie Force, the Spanish-Italian amphibious force, the European Air Group, the European Air Coordination cell in Eindhoven, the Athens Multinational Sealift Coordination Centre and all relevant forces and structures for ESDP operations;

4.

Invites the High Representative to assess in a White Paper the progress made, and any shortcomings, in the implementation of the ESS since 2003, including lessons learned from ESDP operations; the link between external and internal aspects of security (fight against terrorism); the protection of borders and critical infrastructure including protection against cyber-attacks; the security of energy supply as a challenge for civilian, economic, technical and diplomatic efforts; unresolved regional disputes in the EU's neighbourhood, i.e. Transnistria, Abkhazia, South Ossetia and Nagorno-Karabakh; humanitarian and security challenges on the African continent; and the consequences of climate change and natural disasters for civil protection and human security, as well as proliferation of weapons of mass destruction; invites him further to evaluate whether those threats, risks and challenges are directly relevant to a broad understanding of European security or whether they merely possess a security dimension;

5.

Invites the High Representative to include in that White Paper proposals for improving and complementing the ESS, such as the definition of common European security interests and criteria for the launching of ESDP missions; invites him further to define new targets for civilian and military capabilities (including structures for command and control, and transportation for all European actors in crisis management for both ESDP and disaster relief purposes) and to reflect on the implications of the Lisbon Treaty with regard to ESDP and proposals for a new EU-NATO partnership;

6.

Also urges the High Representative to tackle the issue of the ‘caveats’ in the White Paper; although this is a matter for the national sovereignty of each Member State, considers that they should be harmonised to protect the safety of the various Member States’ forces deployed on the ground;

7.

Is of the opinion that such a White Paper should be the basis for a wider political debate conducted in public, mainly because the ESS defines the Union's fundamental values and objectives and illustrates what it stands for; underlines that a future assessment of the ESS has to be carried out with greater democratic accountability and therefore made in close consultation with all EU institutions including the European Parliament and national parliaments;

8.

Highlights that NATO is the transatlantic forum in which security concerns are to be addressed by most of the EU Member States, the United States and Canada; nevertheless encourages the Council and the High Representative to take initiatives for a direct security dialogue with the incoming US administration and the Canadian government in fields where the EU has competences; proposes that such a dialogue should concentrate on concrete issues such as increasing the credibility of Western values in the fight against terrorism and stabilisation and reconstruction;

9.

Welcomes the new Civilian Headline Goal 2010 launched on 1 January 2008, which takes account of lessons learned from previous civilian ESDP missions;

10.

Welcomes the establishment within the Council secretariat of the CPCC, which will serve as the civilian equivalent of an EU Operational Headquarters and will provide assistance and support in the planning and implementation of civilian ESPD missions, thus ensuring a civilian chain of command; calls for such a balance to be reflected in the role and administrative structure of the Civil-Military Cell;

11.

Calls on the Council and the Commission to examine the possibilities for a more appropriate organisational setting, such as a specialised unit within the European External Action Service, so as to ensure a more coherent and comprehensive approach to civilian crisis management, bridging institutional divides and thus allowing for better coordination of internal EU instruments as well as cooperation between the EU and external organisations and non-governmental organisations;

12.

Requests the Council, against the background of unsatisfactory planning and deployment of EUPOL Afghanistan, to carry out an immediate review of the decision-making, financing and deployment aspects of civilian ESDP missions and to put forward concrete proposals designed to avoid any repetition of this situation in the future;

13.

Acknowledges Member States’ efforts to make personnel available for civilian ESDP missions in the areas of civil protection, monitoring, support to EU special representatives and mission support; notes, however, continued shortfalls in the areas of police, the rule of law and civilian administration; stresses the importance of providing competent and highly skilled staff for ESDP missions;

14.

Calls on the Council and the Commission to increase their cooperation in the area of ESDP civilian missions and EU border missions where the division of competences between the two institutions is blurred; is of the view that the European External Action Service envisaged in the Lisbon Treaty should facilitate this task; believes, however, that conflicts in respect of competences could still occur even under the Lisbon Treaty, thus necessitating decisions by the High Representative;

15.

Urges the Member States to regularly review the availability of personnel for civilian ESDP missions and to bring their competent national authorities together in order to set up national action plans with regard to possible contributions, as is the case in Finland, including the creation of procedures to secure the career prospects of participants in such missions and appropriate consideration of UN Security Council Resolution 1325 (2000) concerning the representation of women in mechanisms for the prevention, management and resolution of conflict; further urges that specific training be devised with regard to the protection of children, in line with the EU Guidelines on Children and Armed Conflict;

16.

Regards it as important to strengthen the conflict resolution civil capacity; therefore calls on the Council and the Commission to establish an EU Civil Peace Corps for crisis management and conflict prevention as requested by the European Parliament;

17.

Notes the lack of use of the valuable Civilian Response Team (CRT) instrument and regrets that the CRT experts have been deployed almost exclusively on an individual basis rather than, as envisaged, in the team format for which they were trained;

18.

Welcomes Council Decisions 2007/779/EC, Euratom of 8 November 2007 establishing a Community Civil Protection Mechanism (4) and 2007/162/EC, Euratom of 5 March 2007 establishing a Civil Protection Financial Instrument (5), designed to improve the mobilisation and coordination of civil protection assistance in the event of major emergencies inside or outside the EU;

19.

Reminds the Council of its responsibility under international law to ensure that all civilian and military personnel are fully trained in accordance with international humanitarian standards and that adequate guidelines are reviewed and developed to ensure respect for local populations, cultures and gender;

20.

Recalls the importance of human rights and gender mainstreaming, and calls for the nomination of more female candidates for Common Foreign Security Policy (CFSP) and ESDP senior management positions, including for positions as EU Special Representatives as well as for ESDP operations in general;

21.

Calls on the Member States to continue working towards the goal of an international ban on cluster munitions, to further develop ways to detect and destroy unexploded ordnance, to provide financial and technical assistance to the countries concerned and to continue to work towards the conclusion of the ongoing negotiations on strengthening the global ban on landmines, a global ban on uranium weapons and global control of conventional arms transfers; in this light, finds it embarrassing that, despite the fact that the EU Code of Conduct on Arms Exports will celebrate its tenth anniversary in 2008, it is not yet legally binding and uncontrolled arms exports from EU Member States seem to be continuing without much hindrance, even to governments in countries where the EU is launching or considering an ESDP operation; further notes the danger that weapons may be transferred through the EU via those Member States with less strict export controls to third countries and/or by an irresponsibly flexible use of the International Import Certificate; stresses, therefore, that it is important for all Member States to apply the highest standards in terms of arms export controls, so as to prevent EU weapons from fuelling conflicts;

22.

Reaffirms its concern about the ongoing proliferation of small arms and light weapons (SALW), which cause unnecessary human suffering, exacerbate armed conflict and instability, facilitate terrorism, undermine sustainable development, good governance and the rule of law, and contribute to grave violations of human rights and international humanitarian law; is of the opinion that the appropriate integration of SALW reduction and control strategies must become an integral part of international programmes aimed at conflict prevention and post-conflict peace building; calls on the Member States, the Council and the Commission to get governments to agree on binding provisions to control SALW (including brokering and transfers) through international, regional and national legislation;

23.

Emphasises the need for the European Union to take over the initiative of strengthening the international arms control regime, thereby contributing to the reinforcement given to effective multilateralism within the international order; notes further the congruence of efforts to integrate aspects of non-proliferation within the European Neighbourhood Policy with that of the overall strategic objective of building security within the Union's neighbourhood;

24.

Is of the opinion that disarmament, demobilisation and reintegration should be an integral part of ESDP operations, and calls on the Council whenever appropriate to include in the mandate of ESDP operations the destruction or safe storage of decommissioned arms and to avoid their illegal transfer as a lesson learnt from the NATO Multinational Stabilisation Force (SFOR)/EUFOR Althea experience in Bosnia;

25.

Welcomes the first ever EU joint meeting of Defence and Development Ministers on 19 November 2007, which was an important step in reviewing the problems faced by the developing world, thus enhancing coherence and consistency in the EU's short-term actions on security and long-term actions on development vis-à-vis the countries concerned; also welcomes the Council Conclusions on Security and Development dated 19 November 2007, particularly the emphasis placed therein on conflict analysis and conflict sensitivity, and strongly encourages the Council and the Commission to implement those conclusions;

26.

Is of the opinion that the 40th anniversary of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) on 1 July 2008 must be seen as an opportunity for the EU to promote the need for nuclear disarmament in its Strategy Against the Proliferation of Weapons of Mass Destruction, with a view to the Preparatory Committees for the forthcoming NPT review conference; reiterates its view that this includes the need for the ‘recognised’ nuclear weapons powers to put forward disarmament initiatives, to make Europe a nuclear-weapon-free zone, and to conclude a global convention banning nuclear weapons;

27.

Stresses the leading diplomatic role played by the EU with regard to the Iranian nuclear programme, which not only involves the High Representative speaking on behalf of the EU and the EU3 (France, Germany and the United Kingdom), but also the United States, Russia and China bringing together different interests and approaches in pursuit of a common goal; reaffirms that the proliferation risks attaching to the Iranian nuclear programme remain a source of serious concern to the EU and the international community; highlights in this regard its resolution of 31 January 2008 on Iran (6) and supports the UN Security Council's Resolution 1803 (2008) of 3 March 2008 as well as the offer made to Iran by the EU3 and by the United States, Russia and China concerning the peaceful use of nuclear energy, political and economic cooperation, energy partnership, agriculture, environment and infrastructure, civil aviation, and development cooperation in the fields of economic, social and humanitarian aid;

28.

Deplores the delay in delivery and rising costs of the A400M aircraft for long-range transport and the lack of available and operational helicopters for short-range transport;

29.

Endorses the work of the European Defence Agency (EDA) on strategic transport, and calls on the Member Sates to do more to make up for the shortfalls; welcomes interim measures such as SALIS (Strategic Air Lift Interim Solutions) and encourages the development of an operational concept for the pooling of capabilities;

30.

Welcomes the proposal from the United Kingdom that information about the availability of helicopters for EU missions be shared, with a view to better coordinating fleets;

31.

Welcomes the Franco-German heavy transport helicopter project, but is also aware of the complex reasons for the shortage of available and operational helicopters, mostly related to the high costs of flight hours and maintenance; invites the Council to explore possibilities designed to bridge the gap for the near future, either by a joint action or by supporting Member States in the refurbishing and upgrading of Russian-built helicopters as well as establishing a helicopter training centre; reiterates that, generally, one of the principal obstacles to modernising and transforming European forces so as to enable them to cope effectively with the security challenges of the 21st century is not the level of defence expenditure but rather the lack of cooperation, the absence of a clear division of labour and specialisation, and the duplication and fragmentation in arms production and procurement, which increase the risk of non-interoperability between armies; however, urges the Member States to envisage an increase in defence expenditure for the concrete purpose of being able to make efficient use of acquired helicopters;

32.

Calls on the Council and the Commission to keep Parliament informed of current initiatives to address capability gaps in key areas such as helicopters and medical support units, and to put forward joint financial proposals for guaranteed access to such capabilities for both humanitarian and ESDP purposes;

33.

Welcomes the EDA project on software-defined radio, which has the potential to improve communication between civil and military authorities in the event of an emergency;

34.

Calls on the Member States to increase their exchange of intelligence through the EU Joint Situation Centre; believes that special measures need to be taken into account concerning new threats not covered in the ESS, such as the security of energy supply and the security consequences of climate change;

35.

Is of the opinion that the Battle Groups are an instrument which is helping the Member States to transform their armed forces, to strengthen interoperability and to establish a common strategic culture on defence; notes that the Battle Groups have so far not been used, due inter alia to narrowly defined terms of deployment, and deplores the fact that the present Battle Group concept has therefore not solved the force generation problem for concrete operations; is of the view that, in order to avoid a wasteful overlapping of military structure-building, urgent clarification is needed;

36.

Is aware of the fact that force generation is primarily a question of political will and joint assessment; calls on the Council to examine options to improve force generation, for example through the further development of the Battle Group concept, leading to a larger permanent joint EU Task Force, or through a more extensive catalogue of available capabilities within the framework of the Headline Goal, so as to be in a position to swiftly generate a force adequate to a mission's circumstances;

37.

Calls for the creation within the EU Operations Centre of a permanent planning and operational capability to conduct ESDP military operations;

38.

Proposes to place Eurocorps as a standing force under EU command and invites all Member States to contribute to it;

39.

Calls for continued improvement in interoperability between EU national armed forces; deplores the existing heterogeneity in training and equipment among various armed forces of the Member States and calls for a military ‘Erasmus’ programme that would include common training for military personnel that could be deployed in operations;

40.

Recalls that the success of ESDP operations depends on military personnel being adequately equipped and provided for; calls on the Council to develop common standards in medical care and operational welfare; is of the opinion that such common standards and a regular exchange of best practices, coordinated for example by the EU Military Staff, would support the individual Member States in their capability development work and thus help them to provide capable forces over time;

41.

Regrets that the establishment of the EDA came too late to prevent the emergence of three different national programmes on the unmanned air vehicle instead of a single European one, thus enabling some companies to engage in more than one project and thereby to pocket taxpayers’ money several times over, leaving the EDA with no option but to work on the insertion of unmanned air vehicles into the regulated airspace; expresses its preference for a single European satellite project, whether in the field of intelligence or communication;

42.

Welcomes the Commission's defence package, in particular its proposals for a directive in the field of defence procurement and for a directive in the field of intra-Community defence equipment transfers; is of the opinion that these are necessary steps in order to provide national and EU military personnel with the best possible interoperable equipment;

43.

Welcomes the statement of the EDA steering board of 14 May 2007, especially its call for a reduction of dependence on non-European sources for key defence technologies and underlining the need for the EU to enjoy autonomy and operational sovereignty;

44.

Points out that the growing role of the EU, in particular through ESDP civilian missions, is creating a demand for an ever-increasing CFSP budget, and hence demands a greater and more timely flow of information from the Council, so as to enable Parliament to prepare its decisions on the annual budget;

45.

Invites the Council and the Commission to develop proposals enabling flexible procurement procedures appropriate for ESDP civilian missions — which very often require rapid decisions — to be examined and agreed upon by Parliament, the Council and the Commission; welcomes the fact that the Commission has recently opened its training on procurement and financial procedures to staff from ESDP missions;

46.

Regrets the unnecessary complexity of the arrangements laid down in Article 28 of the EU Treaty with regard to the rapid financing of ESDP activities outside the EU budget; insists that the Interinstitutional Agreement of 17 May 2006 between the European Parliament, the Council and the Commission on budgetary discipline and sound financial management (7), and the structured dialogue between the Council and Parliament envisaged therein, be fully implemented; in the longer term, calls for the Athena mechanism to be transferred to the CFSP budget while retaining its flexibility;

47.

Calls for a mid-term review under the Financial Perspective 2007-2013 regarding the coherence and complementarities of the use of EU external instruments (the CFSP budget, the Instrument for Stability, the Development Cooperation Instrument and the European Neighbourhood Policy Instrument) across the range of EU crisis-management (military and civilian) actions;

48.

Points out that the European Parliament, through its contacts with the national parliaments (Conference of Foreign Affairs Committee Chairs, Conference of Defence Committee Chairs, NATO Parliamentary Assembly) and through the future implementation of the Protocol to the Lisbon Treaty on the role of national parliaments, is the legitimate body at European level in which parliamentary scrutiny, monitoring and control of ESDP should take place;

49.

In the light of the new potential in CFSP and ESDP, which is to become the Common Security and Defence Policy, afforded by the Treaty of Lisbon, wishes to foster closer collaboration between the relevant committees of the European and national parliaments and the NATO Parliamentary Assembly;

50.

Invites the Political and Security Committee (PSC) to establish, together with Parliament, a mechanism in respect of confidential information on emerging crises or international security events comparable to existing mechanisms in several national parliaments of Member States which would — according to the degree of confidentiality — range from closed committee meetings to meetings between the PSC and appointed members of the relevant committees and subcommittees;

51.

Stresses that Parliament should continue to adopt a recommendation or resolution prior to the launch of any ESDP operation (including the launch of a Battle Group), in close consultation with national parliaments, in order to have a European Parliament position available before an ESDP operation; is of the opinion that, in order to ensure flexibility when Parliament is not in plenary session or rapid deployment is deemed necessary, its Rules of Procedure should be adapted with a view to authorising its responsible committee to adopt that recommendation or resolution on its behalf;

52.

Asks the Council to include a reference to the recommendation or resolution adopted by Parliament in the Joint Action authorising an ESDP operation, thus demonstrating that the Council is seeking additional democratic legitimacy for its external actions through parliamentary decisions;

53.

Regrets Turkey's objections to the implementation of the EU-NATO strategic cooperation based on and going beyond the Berlin Plus Agreement; is concerned about their negative consequences for the protection of the EU personnel deployed, notably EUPOL Afghanistan and EULEX Kosovo, and calls for the lifting of those objections by Turkey at the earliest possible date;

54.

Is of the view that the US plan to establish an anti-missile system in Europe at this time may hamper international disarmament efforts; expresses its concerns about Russia's suspension of implementation of its obligations under the Treaty on Conventional Armed Forces in Europe, which has caused worries about the strategic balance in Europe; stresses that both issues affect the security of all European countries and should not therefore be the subject of purely bilateral discussions between the US and individual European countries; calls on the Council and the Member States to establish, together with NATO, a framework designed to include as many European countries as possible in the debate; invites the Council and NATO to evaluate estimated future nuclear threats from certain countries and the danger of a new arms race in Europe and to propose an adequate multilateral response to them;

55.

Regards the European Union and NATO as mutually reinforcing, and urges close cooperation between them;

56.

Instructs its President to forward this resolution to the Council, the Commission, the governments and parliaments of the Member States, the NATO Parliamentary Assembly and the Secretaries-General of the United Nations, NATO, the African Union, the OSCE, the OECD and the Council of Europe.

26.11.2009   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 285/32

A.

whereas the EU-US partnership is a cornerstone of the external action of the Union and is founded on shared values such as freedom, democracy, human rights and the rule of law, and supports sustainable economies and sustainable development,

B.

whereas the European Union and the United States play key roles in the world's economy and politics, and share responsibility for promoting peace, democracy and stability in the world and for tackling global economic challenges, in particular crises in financial markets, trade and currency imbalances and debt crises in some of the poorest countries,

C.

whereas the effects of climate change, such as territorial conflicts over resources, rising food prices and migration, are issues of great concern to the peoples and the leaders of the EU; whereas, according to the International Energy Agency, global energy demand will rise by between 50 % and 60 % by 2030,

D.

whereas both the EU and the United States can and should play a leading international role in tackling climate change,

E.

whereas world demand for food is rising faster than supply, not least because of rising demand in emerging economies such as India and China for, in particular, meat and dairy products, and therefore also for feed; whereas, according to the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), current US subsidies for converting corn into ethanol have contributed to the global increase in food prices, which impacts most heavily on the world's poorest countries,

F.

whereas in most developing countries, most of the Millennium Development Goal (MDG) targets will not be met by the 2015 deadline,

G.

whereas there is consensus within the EU on reviving and strengthening the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) in the period leading up to the forthcoming 2010 NPT Review Conference,

H.

whereas Israeli and Palestinian leaders agreed in Annapolis to engage in renewed negotiations with the aim of concluding an agreement before the end of 2008; whereas efforts to bring stability to the Middle East by promoting peace, democracy and respect for human rights require strong cooperation between the EU and the United States, including within the framework of the Middle East Quartet and with the League of Arab States,

I.

whereas close cooperation between the EU and the United States in Kosovo is crucial to the stability and development of the Western Balkans; whereas the United States has made a commitment in principle to participating in this key ESDP/Rule of Law mission in Kosovo (EULEX) with approximately 80 police officers, 2 judges and 4 to 6 prosecutors,

J.

whereas, in the fight against international terrorism, it is necessary to stress the importance of fully respecting international law and treaties regarding human rights and fundamental freedoms,

K.

whereas in a historic vote the UN General Assembly adopted on 18 December 2007 a resolution sponsored by a cross-regional alliance, including the EU, on a moratorium on the death penalty; whereas it is deeply concerned at the continued existence of the death penalty in many US states,

L.

whereas a cooperative transatlantic economic relationship is in the mutual interests of the EU and the United States, and whereas consistent political leadership is needed to strengthen the transatlantic market; whereas it supports the ongoing work of the Transatlantic Economic Council and hopes that it will become one of the cornerstones of EU-US relations,

M.

whereas it is necessary to advance freedom and democracy in the world and to address the challenges which they pose, such as international security, the eradication of poverty, promotion of development, the need for disarmament efforts worldwide, the protection of human rights, confronting global health risks, environmental issues and energy security, combating international terrorism and organised crime, and the non-proliferation of weapons of mass destruction; whereas, as the European Security Strategy makes clear, the Transatlantic Partnership and NATO are very important for collective security,

N.

whereas it is in the interests of both partners to confront in unison common threats and challenges on the basis of existing international treaties and the effective work of international institutions, and in particular on the basis of the UN system in accordance with the UN Charter,

O.

whereas during the last few years several agreements prompted by US requirements and adopted without any involvement of Parliament, notably the PNR (Passenger Name Record) agreement, the SWIFT memorandum and the existence of the US Automated Targeting System, have led to legal uncertainty with regard to the necessary transatlantic data protection guarantees in relation to the sharing and transfer of data between the EU and the US for the purposes of fighting terrorism,

1.

Looks forward, in the light of the forthcoming US presidential election, to working with the new US President, and hopes for a strengthened US commitment to multilateralism and to peace and democracy worldwide; believes that the partnership between the EU and the United States on sensitive issues such as the global challenges of poverty and climate change needs to be reinforced; is aware that on some subjects, such as the International Criminal Court (ICC), methods applied in the fight against terrorism and the Kyoto Protocol to the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change, transatlantic differences of approach still persist; hopes that the next President of the United States engages his Administration in solving these problems;

2.

Urges the EU and the United States to work more closely together on a wide range of common policy challenges, notably in the Middle East, Iran, Iraq, Kosovo and the Western Balkans, Afghanistan and Africa, and to work together to establish an international environment conducive to improving the security and human rights situation in places such as Burma and Zimbabwe, maintaining a focus on these issues in all relevant fora, including the UNSC; calls for a common approach to relations with other major geopolitical actors;

3.

Strongly encourages both partners to agree on a joint approach to limit climate change to a maximum temperature increase of 2 °C over pre-industrialised levels through fair contributions to efforts to reduce greenhouse-gas emissions by developed and developing countries, in accordance with their different responsibilities and respective capabilities, recognises the responsibility of developed countries to take the lead; welcomes the commitments by the principal US presidential candidates to addressing greenhouse-gas emissions and to reaching international agreement by 2009 to avert dangerous climate change;

4.

Urges the United States to do its utmost to wrap up work on its domestic climate legislation by the December 2009 UN conference in Copenhagen; also invites the United States to persist in its efforts to establish a carbon trading system that in the future could be linked with the EU Emissions Trading Scheme (EU ETS), since both the environment and industry generally will be best served if the emerging carbon market mechanisms throughout the world are compatible and interoperable; welcomes, therefore, the provision in the EU ETS draft proposals to allow linking up to other mandatory cap-and-trade systems, including sub-national systems; in this context, is encouraged by the emergence of regional carbon trade systems within the United States;

5.

Welcomes the abovementioned report by the High Representative and the Commission on the security implications of climate change; urges the EU-US Summit to address this issue as a matter of priority, building on the successful Bali conference in December 2007; calls on the EU and the United States to work together to achieve an ambitious post-2012 agreement in 2009, including both mitigation and adaptation action at international level; also notes with interest the proposals under discussion in the US Congress on the creation of an International Clean Technology Fund, and encourages the Commission to open a dialogue with the US Administration on this issue;

6.

Is concerned that the very existence of the Guantanamo Bay detention centre and the practice of arbitrary arrests and extraordinary renditions continues to send out a negative signal as to how the fight against terrorism is being pursued; urges the Council to issue a clear and forceful declaration calling on the US Government to put an end to the practice of arbitrary arrests and extraordinary renditions and to request the US Government to try or release the remaining detainees and to resettle and compensate them in full compliance with international law and standards and to give clarifications regarding the existence of secret prisons outside US territory;

7.

Regrets the US administration's decision to build a new detention complex in Afghanistan, as a stark acknowledgement that the US is likely to continue to hold prisoners overseas for years to come;

8.

Reiterates its call on the Council and the Commission to finally implement the recommendations addressed to them by its Temporary Committee on Alleged use of European countries by the CIA for the transport and illegal detention of prisoners (TDIP);

9.

Calls on the United States immediately to lift the visa regime and to treat all citizens of EU Member States equally, on the basis of full reciprocity; in this context, welcomes the start of EU-US talks on the new set of US security demands to establish a visa-free regime; is of the opinion that the negotiations must be transparent, be based on reciprocity and respect EU data protection provisions;

10.

Welcomes the recognition by the United States of the European Community's competence to negotiate such an agreement and notes that matters falling within EU competence, such as security-related matters (including exchange of PNR data, extradition and legal mutual assistance), should be negotiated with the Council, and with Member States only insofar as they relate to their own nationals;

11.

Underlines that sharing of data and information can be a valuable tool in the international fight against terrorism and related crime, but stresses that the sharing of personal data must take place within a proper legal framework with clear rules and conditions, ensuring adequate protection of the privacy and civil liberties of individual citizens and providing for mechanisms for obtaining redress where necessary, and that such data sharing should be based on a binding international agreement with the full involvement of Parliament and the US Congress; stresses that the necessary data exchange should be in accordance with the existing EU-US agreement on extradition and mutual legal assistance, should comply with EC and EU data protection legislation and should be accompanied by coordination between intelligence and law enforcement agencies, including, where appropriate, at operational level, and by judicial cooperation under the EU-US agreement on extradition and mutual legal assistance;

12.

Stresses the importance of respecting fundamental rights and the rule of law in the fight against terrorism and organised crime, and urges the Commission to inform the Parliament of progress made in the negotiation of a Euro-Atlantic cooperation framework, particularly as regards the protection of personal data and private life; calls for the urgent elaboration of global data protection standards in the context of the Transatlantic Economic Council, so as to guarantee a high level of protection of personal data, and legal certainty for companies;

13.

Calls on the EU and US governments to launch an initiative within the UN in order to reform the existing practice of sanctions lists, including the establishment of due procedures for a fair hearing, statement of reasons and effective judicial protection and remedy; stresses at the same time the necessity to improve the procedures relating to the EU's ‘black list’;

14.

Reiterates its full support for the UNSC resolutions on Iran adopted under Article 41, Chapter VII, of the UN Charter, and calls on the EU and the United States to agree on a common strategy that would convince Teheran to abide by the UNSC resolutions;

15.

Welcomes the close cooperation between the EU and the United States on the Iranian nuclear issue leading, on 3 March 2008, to the adoption by the UNSC of the abovementioned Resolution 1803 (2008), which imposes new sanctions on Iran; calls on the United States, following its diplomatic success in the negotiations with North Korea, to participate directly in negotiations with Iran along with the EU, since the United States is in a position to offer additional security guarantees taking account of Iran's security concerns; stresses the importance of cooperation with the United States, Russia, China and non-aligned countries with a view to considering complementary ideas aimed at achieving a comprehensive agreement with Iran on its nuclear facilities and their use;

16.

Welcomes the recent initiative by the UNSC member countries and Germany (the P5+1) to present a new package of incentives to Iran in an effort to convince it to halt its uranium enrichment programme; calls on the United States, in the interests of finding a solution, fully to endorse negotiations with Iran within the limits of the rules and obligations of the NPT;

17.

Calls for a strengthening of the international system of treaties and regimes against the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction; stresses the need for closer cooperation between the EU and the United States in combating terrorism and the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, in compliance with international law, and for both sides to support the role that the UN must play in these areas; urges the Council to discuss with its US counterparts how to make a positive approach to future NPT Preparatory Committees (NPT PrepComs), as a first opportunity to strengthen the global non-nuclear proliferation regime in the run-up to the NPT Review Conference in 2010; underlines the need to discuss at the summit a number of nuclear disarmament initiatives based on the ‘13 practical steps’ agreed to unanimously in the 2000 NPT Review Conference; hopes that at this summit the US Administration will be willing to adopt a common strategy with the EU aimed at making progress on disarmament in terms of both weapons of mass destruction and conventional weaponry; calls on the EU and the United States to avoid the potential vacuum in the period 2009-2010, when the major agreements on disarmament will be due to be renewed; hopes that the very important agreements reached in 1999, 2000 and 2001 with Russia will be maintained; calls on the United States to ratify the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (CTBT) as a meaningful step towards reducing the operational relevance of nuclear weapons;

18.

Calls on the EU Member States and the US to work together on fresh ideas for launching a redefined and stronger EU-NATO partnership, going beyond Berlin-Plus, given the need for greater cooperation in Afghanistan; takes the view that the efforts to adjust and refine the European Security Strategy should be linked to the early phase of discussions on a new NATO Strategic Concept; underlines the importance of NATO, which remains the essential forum for security consultations between Europe and the United States, as well as the importance of the EU's common foreign and security policy in strengthening the EU's ability to confront existing and emerging 21st-century security threats; welcomes the US recognition at the Bucharest Summit that building a strong NATO alliance requires strong European defence effectiveness; recommends developing the existing relationship between NATO and the EU regarding security matters, while respecting the independent nature of both organisations;

19.

Is of the view that the US plan to establish an anti-missile system in Europe at this time may hamper international disarmament efforts; expresses concern over Russia's decision to suspend the observance of its obligations under the Treaty on Conventional Armed Forces in Europe; stresses that both issues affect the security of the peoples of Europe and should therefore not be the subject of purely bilateral discussions between the US and individual European countries; notes, in this respect, the Bucharest Summit Declaration issued at the last meeting of the North Atlantic Council of 3 April 2008, calling for a comprehensive missile defence architecture that would extend coverage to all allied territory; calls on the Council and the Member States to establish a framework designed to include all EU Member States and NATO in the debate on the matter;

20.

Looks forward to a reassessment of the security dimension of EU-US relations in the light of the outcome of the NATO Strategic Review, the update of the European Security Strategy and the arrival in office of a new US Administration;

21.

Calls for increased emergency aid to address the immediate threat to the world's poorest people posed by higher food prices; recognises, however, that money is not enough and therefore calls on the Council, the Commission and the US Congress and Administration to address structural problems such as under-investment in agriculture; calls for a coordinated global approach by the EU, the United States and multilateral organisations, which should include fairer trade rules and increased investment in agriculture in developing countries, focused on small-scale producers and women; calls on the donors to provide support and help fund safety-nets for the most vulnerable people; calls on the leaders of the EU and the United States actively to support and participate in the High-Level Task Force on the Global Food Crisis, established under the leadership of UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon;

22.

Welcomes the initiative of the US Administration to untie food aid, and sees this initiative as a first important step in reforming the entire food aid programme to take full account of the need proactively to support enhanced regional and local food security, which in the past was often undermined by tied US food aid;

23.

Calls on the Commission to raise the issue of the need to dedicate a major part of the EU-US development aid budget to agricultural research and training and exchange of best practice for farmers, in order to further develop efficient, sustainable crop systems, such as crop rotation and mixed cultivation of crops, and participatory, locally adapted, non-GMO (genetically modified organism) plant and animal breeding in order to create stability in local food supply and sound farming systems with low energy input in the long term;

24.

Regrets the decision of the US government to decrease its financial support for the UN Population Fund (UNFPA); points to the UNFPA's instrumental role in achieving a voluntary decline of fertility rates in less developed countries; believes that access to contraceptives and reproductive services, the empowerment of girls and women, and the promotion of maternal and child health are crucial strategies for slowing population growth and maintaining resource sustainability; urges, therefore, the US government to increase its funding for the UNFPA;

25.

Calls on the EU and the United States to make the MDGs the heart of international development policy; urges the Council, the Commission, the Member States and the United States to scale up their assistance to developing countries in order to maintain the credibility of their commitments to increase aid; recognises the increased commitment of the United States to development aid in general and to Africa in particular; urges the US President to use his last year in office to aim for ambitious outcomes for the G8 meeting in Japan in July 2008 and the UN MDGs summit in New York in September 2008; calls on the EU to keep the MDGs and annual timetables for achieving 0,7 % in ODA as a key point on the agenda for the European Council on 19-20 June 2008;

26.

Underlines that the resolution of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is crucial to securing peace and stability in the Middle East; reminds the parties of the commitments which they made in Annapolis to holding negotiations in good faith with a view to concluding a peace treaty by the end of 2008, resolving all outstanding issues; stresses again the importance of the Arab Peace Initiative and urges the EU and the United States to ensure the constructive involvement of Arab partners; reiterates its call on Israel to freeze all settlement activities, including natural growth, and to dismantle outposts erected since March 2001; reiterates its deep concern at the humanitarian and political crisis in the Gaza Strip and its further possible grave consequences; calls for an immediate end to the firing of rockets by Palestinian militias from the Gaza Strip into Israeli territory; fully supports the efforts by Egypt to bring about a cessation of violence and a solution that will allow for the reopening of all crossings;

27.

Welcomes the announcement that Syria and Israel are engaged in indirect peace negotiations under the auspices of Turkey;

28.

Welcomes the election of Michel Suleiman as President of Lebanon; stresses the importance of Lebanon's stability, sovereignty, independence and territorial integrity; urges the parties to fully implement the agreement reached in Doha and calls on the EU and the US to support all the efforts in this respect;

29.

Underlines that Euro-Atlantic and wider international security is closely tied to Afghanistan's future as a peaceful, democratic state that is respectful of human rights and free from the threat of terrorism; welcomes, therefore, NATO's firm and long-term commitment to Afghanistan as underlined in ISAF's (International Security Assistance Force) ‘New Strategic Vision’, as well as the comprehensive approach by the international community, bringing together civilian and military efforts, including the EU Police Mission (EUPOL) which is part of the overall EU commitment to Afghanistan and of a coordinated EU approach that includes local political guidance provided by the EU Special Representative and a reconstruction effort managed inter alia through the Commission; calls on the EU and the United States to take urgent steps to increase, improve and better coordinate their development assistance to Afghanistan, inter alia by channelling as many funds as possible to Afghan institutions and experienced non-governmental organisations;

30.

Calls on the Council to engage in a dialogue with the United States about Iraq, sharing the EU's views about its strategic role in the country, and to continue supporting the enhanced multilateralisation of the role played by the international community in Iraq by making full use of the expanded role of the UN in accordance with UNSC Resolution 1770 (2007);

31.

Underlines the ongoing common commitment to regional security and stability throughout the Balkans; praises the prompt, impartial and effective performance by the NATO's International Security Force in Kosovo (KFOR) in the face of the recent outbreak of violence in Kosovo, and stresses the need for KFOR to remain in Kosovo on the basis of UNSC Resolution 1244 (1999) in order to ensure a safe and secure environment, including freedom of movement for all people and all international presences in Kosovo; underlines in this context that the EU is playing an important role in Kosovo, welcomes the launching of EULEX in Kosovo and insists that EULEX be present on the entire territory of Kosovo;

32.

Believes that the EU and the United States must urgently deal with short-term challenges of security and longer-term challenges of Kosovo's development with a view to achieving a common objective: a functional state, a multi-ethnic society with strong, functioning institutions and respect for the rule of law; welcomes the fact that for the first time the EULEX Mission to Kosovo will include US police officers; notes that the US Administration will second a number of State Department staff and contractors to the operation in Kosovo and will cover 25 percent of the operating costs of the International Civilian Office (ICO), with the remainder coming from contributions from the European Commission, and from other states;

33.

Calls for concerted action vis-à-vis China with regard, in particular, to the urgency of finding ways to promote democracy in that country, defuse tension in cross-straits relations and facilitate the dialogue between the Beijing authorities and the Dalai Lama in order to make concrete progress on the question of Tibet;

34.

Calls on the Council to raise once again with the United States the question of the ICC as a fundamental pillar of international law; expects from the future US Government a more constructive attitude to ratifying the Statutes of the ICC and to engaging actively in the achievement of an agreement on the still outstanding definition of the crime of aggression, as provided for in Article 5.2 of the Rome Statute, in preparation for the ICC review conference in 2009;

35.

Renews its condemnation of the death penalty; calls on the US Government and all US states to abolish it; regrets the recent ruling by the US Supreme Court to uphold lethal injection, opening the way to resumed executions;

36.

Recommends that steps be taken to strengthen transatlantic relations with the United States through a new Transatlantic Partnership Agreement replacing the currently existing NTA; suggests in this regard the establishment of a regular review mechanism for such a Transatlantic Partnership Agreement, whereby experts from the EU and the United States strive constantly to improve the Transatlantic Partnership so as to exploit its full potential; underlines that only the wider involvement at all levels of the US Congress, the Parliament and national parliaments will make it possible truly to enhance the whole process and that the existing interparliamentary exchange should be gradually transformed into a de facto Transatlantic Assembly;

37.

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

26.11.2009   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 285/39

A.

whereas the Mediterranean region and the Middle East are of strategic importance to the EU and whereas there is a need for a Mediterranean policy based on solidarity, dialogue, cooperation and exchange, with a view to meeting common challenges and achieving the aim of creating an area of peace, stability and shared prosperity,

B.

whereas, at the inaugural summit of the Barcelona Process: Union for the Mediterranean to be held on 13 July 2008 in Paris, clear guidelines should be set for enhancing the multilateral relations of the EU with its Mediterranean partners, including strengthening working methods and greater sharing of responsibilities,

C.

whereas the analysis of the achievements and shortcomings of the Barcelona Process should be duly taken into consideration so that Euro-Mediterranean relations can be revisited in an efficient way and new impetus given to the Barcelona Process; whereas, in this regard, it is important to address the difficulties encountered in developing cooperation and deepening the Euro-Mediterranean Partnership, such as the persistence of conflict in the Middle East, serious political tensions in the region, for example in Western Sahara, the lack of substantial progress made in the area of democracy and human rights and the lack of public awareness of the process,

D.

whereas the overall assessment of the Barcelona Process is that despite its insufficient achievements, compared to the initial objectives, it has potential which should be optimised,

1.

Welcomes the abovementioned Communication from the Commission entitled ‘the Barcelona Process: Union for the Mediterranean’, and shares the aim of this new initiative to give fresh political and practical impetus to the multilateral relations of the EU with its Mediterranean partners by upgrading the political level of relations, through greater co-ownership and enhanced sharing of responsibilities, as well as by developing regional projects responding to the needs of citizens in the region;

2.

Considers that fresh impetus should be given to the Barcelona Process in order to raise its profile and highlight its tangible benefits for citizens and, in particular, for citizens on the southern shores of the Mediterranean;

3.

Shares the view that there is a need for a reinvigorated Barcelona Process, which should remain the central element of EU cooperation with the Mediterranean region as the only forum where all its Mediterranean partners exchange views and engage in constructive dialogue; regards the Barcelona Declaration, its objectives and areas of cooperation as a milestone in those relations; hopes that the new initiative builds on the achievements of the Euro-Mediterranean Partnership, bringing added value to the process;

4.

Calls therefore on those countries which are not part of the Barcelona Process to share the Barcelona acquis so as to move forward towards the same goals;

5.

Firmly supports the proposed development of the Barcelona Process: Union for the Mediterranean as a consolidation of the Euro-Mediterranean area based on democratic principles and respect for the rule of law and human rights, which should lead to a strong partnership in foreign and security policy;

6.

Calls on the Council and the Commission to make an assessment of the new institution and of the legal implications of this important new initiative, notably in relation to the provisions of the Treaty of Lisbon;

7.

Gives an assurance as to its readiness to cooperate on setting up an institutional framework for the Barcelona Process: Union for the Mediterranean; points out that as one arm of the budgetary authority of the EU, it will be involved in order to ensure that the new framework and its projects are a success;

8.

Welcomes the Commission's proposal to establish a co-presidency of the Barcelona Process: Union for the Mediterranean at head of State and Government and at foreign minister level, appreciating that it will enhance joint ownership of Euro-Mediterranean cooperation; welcomes the Commission's proposal that the EU Co-presidency should be held by the competent EU institutions, stresses that the Mediterranean arm of the presidency should be appointed by consensus among the Mediterranean partners and that the country holding the presidency should invite all the States participating in the Barcelona Process: Union for the Mediterranean to summits and ministerial meetings;

9.

Endorses the Commission's proposal to establish a Joint Permanent Committee, based in Brussels, of appointed representatives from all the participants in the Barcelona Process: Union for the Mediterranean, which might play an important role in improving institutional governance;

10.

Considers that the proposed new secretariat should be integrated in the Commission services, could comprise officials seconded from all participants in the process and should bring added value to existing structures so as to strengthen the administrative capacity to support the overall process;

11.

Considers that the proposed new secretariat should make the new Barcelona Process: Union for the Mediterranean more visible on the ground and that it should resolutely concentrate on regional projects and should also be able to take responsibility for whole series of tasks, with a view to good governance of the projects;

12.

Calls, however, on the Council and the Commission to require the host country of the secretariat to be committed to the democratic and human rights values of the Barcelona Process;

13.

Welcomes the Commission's proposal to strengthen relations with the EU's Mediterranean partners at political level by organising summit meetings every two years in the context of the Barcelona Process: Union for the Mediterranean, with a view to adopting political declarations and decisions on the main programmes and projects to be developed at regional level;

14.

Is of the opinion that the EMPA should be fully involved in the preparation and proceedings of these summits;

15.

Welcomes the Commission's proposal regarding the role of the EMPA, which should become an integral part of the institutional framework of the Barcelona Process: Union for the Mediterranean as its parliamentary dimension; underlines the fact that enhancement of democratic legitimacy is necessary, as is strengthening of the role of the EMPA, the only parliamentary assembly uniting the 27 EU Member States and all the parties involved in the Middle East peace process; considers that the EMPA, as a consultative body, should have the right to make proposals and assessments; supports participation in the EMPA by the parliamentary representatives of countries which are not part of the Barcelona Process;

16.

Reiterates that the development of democracy must be achieved by supporting political reforms and stresses that the credibility of the European policy of democratisation and promotion of human rights depends on strong and visible support for civil society and democratic political organisations on the southern shores of the Mediterranean; calls for a strong involvement of civil society and social partners' representatives in the institutional framework of the Barcelona Process: Union for the Mediterranean;

17.

Points out that one of the main goals of Euro-Mediterranean policy is to promote the rule of law, democracy, respect for human rights and political pluralism and considers, in this regard, that the Euro-Mediterranean Partnership has not yet produced the expected results in the area of human rights; calls therefore on the Council and the Commission to clearly enshrine the promotion of human rights and democracy in the objectives of this new initiative and to further strengthen the implementation of existing mechanisms, such as the human rights clause included in the association agreements and the creation of a mechanism implementing this clause in the new generation of agreements, the ENP bilateral action plans and the setting up of sub-committees on human rights;

18.

Points out that the scope of EU-Mediterranean cooperation must also extend to the other Mediterranean coastal states and stresses that the entire Mediterranean identity of other countries needs to be fully recognised;

19.

Recalls the examples of initiatives proposed by the Commission, such as sea motorways, the linking up of the Arab Maghreb motorway (AMA), the de-pollution of the Mediterranean, civil protection and the Mediterranean Solar Plan; expresses its interest in the opportunities for high-power solar thermal electricity generation in the North African desert and recommends that priority be given to discussion of this at the initial meetings of the Union for the Mediterranean; also supports other projects such as water desalination in order to facilitate access to drinking water, which is a major concern in many Mediterranean countries;

20.

Stresses the need for projects under the Barcelona Process: Union for the Mediterranean to be open to all EU Member States and Mediterranean partners interested in taking part, especially if they are stakeholders in specific projects or fields;

21.

Calls on the Commission to inform Parliament and the EMPA on a regular basis about how these regional projects are developing and to consider the proposals and evaluations submitted at parliamentary level with a view to raising the profile of the process and increasing take-up capacity and added value for citizens in the region;

22.

Underlines the fact that the EU-Mediterranean partnership cannot focus solely on economic and trade issues; points out that the three Barcelona pillars are closely linked; points out that the first pillar intended to contribute to ‘peace, stability and prosperity’, and the projected Charter for Peace and Stability have not made significant progress; stresses that the objective of creating a free-trade area and the liberalisation of trade are not goals in themselves, but have to be accompanied by a strengthening of regional cooperation as well as of social and environmental integration;

23.

Points out that economic policies must be assessed not only in terms of their contribution to growth, but also in terms of the number of jobs they are creating and their contribution to poverty reduction; in this context, underlines the need for increased EU support for Mediterranean partner State programmes with the aim of facilitating the establishment of a favourable climate for increased investment and for encouraging young people to set up small businesses, including facilitating access to microcredit; considers, in this respect, that the support of the Facility for Euro-Mediterranean Investment and Partnership (FEMIP) should be enhanced, including information campaigns;

24.

Points to its proposal for the creation of a Euro-Mediterranean Investment and Development Bank capable of attracting direct foreign investment, which the EU-Mediterranean region is lacking, and points out that participation by the Gulf States, as the first investors in the region, could contribute to realising this objective;

25.

Reaffirms the need to boost the status of women in the Mediterranean region through policies which give them a major role in their societies and by promoting gender equality; stresses that respect for traditions and customs does not need to detract from their fundamental rights;

26.

Underlines the need to propose an interesting range of cultural cooperation programmes to the EU's Mediterranean partners through increased use of ERASMUS MUNDUS and Euromed Audiovisual II (2006-2008), which should be stepped up and extended, and, in general, of the European Neighbourhood Policy Instrument (2);

27.

Instructs its President to forward this resolution to the Council, the Commission, the High Representative for the Common Foreign and Security Policy, the governments and parliaments of the Member States, and the governments and parliaments of the Barcelona Process States.

26.11.2009   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 285/43

A.

whereas the Gothenburg Strategy establishes priorities regarding the competitiveness and sustainability of the EU economy, and young farmers can play an essential role in achieving those objectives,

B.

whereas the multifunctional model of EU agriculture can be a vector for sustainable development in rural areas, thanks to the widespread presence of farm holdings,

C.

whereas progress with the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) reform has opened up new opportunities for young people with regard to many aspects of the process of setting up in farming and developing holdings, but those opportunities are not spread evenly across the EU, making a Community strategic approach difficult,

D.

whereas, while the lack of complete and recent statistics on the number of young farmers and their position in EU agriculture is lamentable, Eurostat data from 2003 indicates that the percentage of farmers in the EU aged under 35 was then only 7 % and falling, although in future food production will have to continue to increase,

E.

whereas the forthcoming review of the CAP (CAP health check) is an opportunity which should not be missed to improve the channelling of support for young farmers,

F.

whereas, with a view to meeting the challenges of energy security and security of food supply within the EU, growth and employment in all rural areas in the EU and sustainable long-term management of rural areas, young farmers need to be set up on viable holdings in a liveable environment,

G.

whereas a multifunctional approach is required and there should, in particular, be a firm policy of support for young farmers,

H.

whereas including young people in the ownership of farms is of vital importance for rural areas, since in most rural areas economic activity and the social fabric are still underpinned by agriculture,

I.

whereas a European strategy to promote business training for young farmers appears imperative,

J.

whereas young farmers have a highly dynamic approach to decision-making, are willing to take risks, to look for synergies and complementarities and to implement highly innovative planning options over and above normal agricultural practice,

K.

whereas, even though the various policies in support of young farmers are helping to breathe new life into the EU's farming sector, generational change among farm owners remains a challenge in the EU,

L.

whereas young farmers face additional problems in the agricultural sector, such as high installation costs, a heavy burden of debt, too few available holdings and too little specific training; whereas, in addition, agricultural policy is creating more and more responsibilities for entrepreneurs with regard to cross-compliance requirements relating to such matters as the environment, animal health, animal welfare, food safety and landscape management,

M.

whereas a young and dynamic farming industry is necessary as an essential element for achieving the objectives laid down by the Lisbon Strategy,

N.

whereas under the new regulation on support for rural development, programming will be possible over the period up to 31 December 2013,

O.

whereas rural areas make up 92 % of the territory of the EU, while 50 % of the population now live in urban areas and 50 % in rural areas,

P.

whereas generational change is necessary to preserve a high level of food quality and food safety within the EU as well as the EU's self-sufficiency in the future,

1.

Considers that one of the objectives of the reformed CAP should be to ensure better generational change in farming and that, with a view to its achievement, the first and second pillar instruments in support of sustainable farming and developed rural communities respectively are particularly complementary;

2.

Maintains that action to foster generational change in farming is essential in order to address the food, energy and territorial challenges facing EU farming today and in the future; considers that all such challenges cannot, if society's expectations are to be met, be addressed without a strong farming sector and a large number of farmers in the EU;

3.

Points out that the enlargement of the EU to take in new Member States has enhanced cultural diversity and made for greater product diversity, and that it provides an ideal opportunity to make EU agriculture more competitive by focusing on continuous innovation and the quality of Community products and by pointing to producers' achievements in the important area of food safety;

4.

Considers that, in planning and implementing support measures for young farmers, specific account should be taken of the situation of young farmers in the new Member States;

5.

Calls, therefore, on the Commission to come forward with proposals for the introduction of an EU quality label, which will allow consumers to easily identify products that were produced in accordance with the EU's strict environmental, animal welfare and food safety standards;

6.

Notes that, in the context of quality, diversity in production and products should be an objective;

7.

Notes that the main factor in renewing the farming industry's age profile is access to land, given its high cost;

8.

Takes the view that, in future, the CAP must seek to remove the barriers currently facing young people wishing to set up in farming, by making generational change one of its priorities;

9.

Calls, furthermore, for increased efforts to be made in explaining the European agricultural model, with its high standards in the field of the environment, animal welfare and food safety, to the public;

10.

Considers the setting up or taking over of farm holdings by young people to be a major asset to the enlarged EU;

11.

Draws attention to the continuing difficulties stemming from high setting-up costs, including agricultural property sale and rental prices and the need to invest continuously in tangible capital and human potential in order to make technological and logistical improvements, and to the fact that making technological and logistical improvements involves more than purchasing equipment and machines and that, for improvements to be made, research and access to research findings are essential;

12.

Calls on the Commission to support the Member States in creating a land bank on the basis of land freed up as a result of early retirement; takes the view that support should be provided for the joint acquisition of expensive machinery and equipment which is used infrequently by each individual farmer;

13.

Calls for a review of setting-up support, which has remained at the same level since its introduction and which no longer appears to meet farmers' needs;

14.

Emphasises the contribution made by land prices to the problems experienced by young people setting up in farming and calls on the Commission to look into the considerable increase in land prices brought about by, among other things, urban pressures and speculation;

15.

Recommends the introduction of instruments enabling priority in respect of agricultural land transfers to be given to young farmers setting up in business rather than to existing farmers wishing to increase the size of their holdings, including an early-retirement mechanism, deferred-purchase aid, phased setting-up arrangements and rental of part of the land;

16.

Notes the need to make young farmer setting-up support policies more effective as well as the importance of laying down further criteria for the ranking of beneficiaries by order of priority, taking account of objective factors;

17.

Urges the Commission, in its legislative proposal on the CAP health check, to propose that the aid for young farmers provided for in the legislation on rural development should figure among the compulsory measures included in the plans drawn up by the Member States, which should also be accompanied by an increase in the amount of setting-up support;

18.

Considers that support measures for young farmers should also support newcomers, as they can be a renewing and valuable addition to EU farming; notes, therefore, that support should primarily be channelled towards new entrepreneurs rather than to those leaving farming; stresses that support measures for the taking-over of farms must not distort competition between newcomers on the one hand and farmers' sons and daughters on the other hand;

19.

Notes that it is particularly important to prevent the desertification of disadvantaged farming areas in keeping with the EU's territorial cohesion objective, to make it easier for young farmers to set up in business in areas with a permanent natural disadvantage, such as islands and mountain areas, where development, construction and access costs are higher and where it is often necessary to diversify in order to achieve a sufficient degree of viability;

20.

Calls on the Commission to investigate the effectiveness and added value of the various national and EU measures to assist young farmers and report on the subject by 1 July 2009;

21.

Observes that many young farmers regard investment support and interest subsidies as the most effective means of encouraging their entrepreneurship and improving their competitive position; calls on the Commission and the Member States to devote appropriate attention to support and subsidies;

22.

Calls on the Commission to conduct a study into the effect that production rights, single-payment rights and premium rights have on young farmers setting up, because all such instruments are a frequent cause of conflict between generations, making it more difficult for young people wishing to set up in farming to gain access to those rights themselves; takes the view that the Commission should draw the necessary conclusions as regards management of the CAP, with a view to putting young people in a better position to set up in farming;

23.

Notes that, in order to take better account of the increased cost of taking over farms and the difficulties involved in setting up in problem farming areas, the Community aid ceiling should be raised from EUR 55 000, and the time limit for achieving compliance with the rules should be increased from three years to five years after set-up;

24.

Notes that farming is very often the last activity to survive in rural areas and that incentives for young people to set up in farming should therefore be introduced; points out, however, that, over and above the need for holdings to be viable, efforts are also required to make the rural environment a place in which people wish to live, by fostering equal access to public services (post offices, schools, public transport, health services, etc.) and maintaining normal service provision (shops and trades, childcare facilities, care facilities for the elderly, social housing, rental accommodation, etc.) and social amenities to prevent people from feeling isolated (cafés, community centres, sports centres, etc.);

25.

Stresses that arrangements enabling young farmers to leave their holdings for training, holidays, births, etc. need to be put in place;

26.

Welcomes the provision made for the granting of setting-up support to young farmers, even for partial set-ups, to be made conditional on the submission, on a voluntary basis, of a business plan, as an instrument which, over time, will enable the development of their farming and non-farming activities, linked to rural areas, on their new farms;

27.

Recommends that, as part of the incentive scheme for initial setting up, provision should be made for incentives for owners who rent farms to young farmers and/or for rent support until the tenth year after setting up;

28.

Draws attention to the difficulties experienced by young people wishing to set up in farming in gaining access to funding, and to the useful role played by subsidised loan arrangements in enabling young farmers to set up and continue in farming without incurring an excessive amount of debt;

29.

Notes that the high level of indebtedness and high installation costs of young farmers makes it very difficult for them to establish a good competitive position; calls on the Commission and Member States therefore to devise additional solutions to these specific problems;

30.

Takes the view that young farmers' entrepreneurialism should be supported through transparent, simpler and less cumbersome rules and through the lower costs that this would entail;

31.

Believes, therefore, that the Member States and regional authorities should examine the options for introducing or improving schemes to provide start-up capital to new farmers at preferential rates;

32.

Deplores the influence, at the same time, of speculative or structural factors preventing an adequate return from being earned on land, labour and capital, such as the security required on loans, high interest rates, legal and tax barriers, social security charges and administrative charges, and considers that suitable policy measures are necessary in order to reduce excesses and distortions of competition;

33.

Calls on the Commission and the Member States to develop new (fiscal) measures to help young farmers carry the heavy interest costs which they face following the procurement of their farms; calls on the Commission to come up with specific proposals to that end within the framework of the CAP health check;

34.

Calls for such measures in support of young farmers to be made compulsory as part of the action provided for under Axis 1 in Regulation (EC) No 1698/2005 with a view to improving the competitiveness of the farming sector;

35.

Reaffirms its opinion that rural development measures should be aimed directly at farmers;

36.

Considers that the Commission must examine specific financing for young farmers in Axes 2 and 3 of the rural development policy, for example with regard to social infrastructure and improving the employment rate among young people in rural areas;

37.

Calls for setting-up support for farmers carrying out multifunctional activities (farming and non-farming) to be extended to allow access to initial setting-up support for young farmers who carry out farming activities only, or who complement them with other income-generating activities in rural areas;

38.

Calls on the Member States to allow access to initial setting-up support for young people, both men and women, who are in a precarious situation as regards ownership and require such support to adapt their farms, either by carrying out farming activities or by complementing them with other income-generating activities, so that they provide them with a livelihood measured in terms of available income and work;

39.

Believes that young EU farmers should be able to compete with each other on a level playing field within the EU; calls, therefore, for cautious revision and subsequent implementation, of the current Article 69 of Council Regulation (EC) No 1782/2003 (3) so as to prevent any distortion of competition on the EU internal market;

40.

Calls for all agricultural and rural development policies to be made fully coherent with the objectives which the EU has set itself as part of the Lisbon Strategy, so as to enable young farmers to operate in a dynamic economic environment;

41.

Takes the view that, as part of the CAP health check, action should be taken to foster more stable and secure farm incomes — an essential pre-condition for generational change in farming — through the introduction at EU level of innovative risk and crisis-management tools to address market fluctuations and increased price volatility;

42.

Believes that priority should be given to securing genuine simplification and greater transparency in the implementation of instruments and measures for young farmers carrying out farming activities, even where they are complemented by other non-farming activities linked to rural areas which are necessary for the farm's viability;

43.

Points out that farmers who are no longer classified as young farmers but will continue to farm in the medium term and who are also facing new challenges, should not be disadvantaged;

44.

Points out that, because of the great demands on tomorrow's managers, curricular training must be systematically stepped up to ensure genuine knowledge transfer from agrarian research to farming;

45.

Considers, in respect of succession arrangements, that consideration should be given to introducing legislation that focuses more closely on keeping farms together, with a view to achieving both economies of scale and economies of scope; points out that succession arrangements involving parties who are not family members should be facilitated in order to preserve farms and to enable young entrepreneurs with an education in farming to become farmers;

46.

Takes the view that national early-retirement arrangements should apply only where the retiring farmer's holding is taken over by a young farmer, or, alternatively, that the retiring farmer should be entitled to an improved pension where this happens;

47.

Takes the view that overall setting-up and holding-development plans should include special measures relating to the statutory recognition of young farmers, thus ensuring equal social rights for men and women; considers it vital, in this regard, to maintain certain essential services in rural areas, such as crèches, kindergartens and help for mothers; draws particular attention, in this connection, to the importance of providing information about the status of partners assisting farmers;

48.

Points out that social and cultural specificity and diversity are key factors in product promotion policy, as are the identification of a specific geographical area and excellence in production methods, as illustrated by the reputation and success of agricultural products with protected designations of origin or that are labelled;

49.

Points out that food education, which young farmers can provide, fosters good eating habits for the benefit of human health and society in general, and expressly welcomes such activities as, for instance, the ‘Tellus’ programme of the European Council of Young Farmers (CEJA) and transnational model projects such as ‘Schüler auf dem Bauernhof’ (‘Pupils on farms’);

50.

Highlights the need for expert information for food science studies and dietetics in all forms of education;

51.

Believes that measures should be taken to promote the farming profession and its services to society in addition to its production activities, with a view to attracting more young people to the profession, especially young people from non-farming backgrounds;

52.

Believes that the promotion of the farming profession should also entail improved communication with the general public and hence consumers on the content of the CAP, as regards health, environmental and animal welfare requirements, the conditionality of aid, multifunctionality, EU product quality, the contribution to combating climate change, food self-sufficiency and the food challenges for a world population which is estimated to reach nine billion by 2050;

53.

Calls for Community preference to be stepped up in order to provide European consumers with guarantees in respect of the health and environmental standards of products which they buy and to provide compensation for EU farmers subject to competition from third countries that do not meet the same health, environmental and social standards;

54.

Takes the view that young farmers should be placed in the best possible position to take advantage of the opportunities provided by a greater flexibility in demand for farming-related goods and services, together with a greater opening up of emerging markets around the world with a view to the conclusion of the multilateral negotiations; considers it important, therefore, that the Commission should negotiate a WTO agreement which gives farmers enough scope to be able to continue to compete with third countries and which thus guarantees a future for young farmers; considers the inclusion of non-trade concerns to be of crucial importance in this connection;

55.

Believes that young farmers should be able to compete with foreign competitors on a level playing field; calls therefore on the Commission for priority to be given to recognition of the non-trade concerns (NTC) as import criteria in multilateral, as well as bilateral, trade negotiations;

56.

Notes that, as part of medium- to long-term planning arrangements, the new generation of farmers is shouldering responsibility with regard to combating climate change, is acting in partnership with the environment and, by providing environment-friendly energy sources, in particular by producing biomass and operating biogas plants, is actively contributing to protecting the environment and reducing CO2;

57.

Notes that young farmers face the dual challenge of implementing measures to improve farming practices and make them both more sustainable and more viable, whilst at the same time restoring agriculture's crucial role in managing environmental aspects and thereby becoming a leading player in tackling climate change; stresses that, to this end, policies and measures need to offer long-term and sustainable prospects for young farmers and financial support must be granted for their efforts to protect the environment;

58.

Notes that farming and forestry are the only economic activities which, through photosynthesis, capture carbon dioxide, which makes it all the more necessary to maintain farming activity;

59.

Stresses the importance of shifting the focus of agricultural research in line with the CAP reform, promoting technology transfers and improving farmers' access to research findings and the latest innovations relating to production methods and tools; considers it necessary for EU farmers to have better access to the results of research through the creation of networks for exchanging data obtained from research and the coordination of research at national and EU level;

60.

Notes that exchange between science and those who apply it is essential so that research findings are put into practice and research can meet the needs of the agricultural sector;

61.

Stresses that it is in the EU's interests, economically (improving productivity) and environmentally (updating knowledge of ‘green’ practices) to provide increased support for lifelong training for farmers; encourages, in particular, programmes to promote mobility among young farmers in the EU (including Leonardo); stresses, more especially, to need to set up instruments that will enable young farmers to be absent from their farms for the duration of such training;

62.

Proposes that an agricultural best-practice exchange programme be set up for young farmers;

63.

Considers it necessary to establish an exchange programme for young farmers to facilitate the pooling of best practices, as well as a training network in which information on issues such as sustainability, bio-energy, climate change and competitiveness is central; considers that this should prepare young farmers for their task in facing the new challenges in the fields of agriculture and food;

64.

Calls for the elaboration of a pilot project to facilitate an exchange programme between young farmers in developing countries and young farmers in the EU to enable them to gain firsthand understanding of the functioning of their respective markets, of their respective use of technology and their methods of adapting to the prevailing climatic conditions;

65.

Suggests that farming methods rooted in specific geographical areas and cultural traditions in the EU should be conserved, improved and promoted;

66.

Believes that the subject of the maintenance of agricultural property is closely linked to that of young farmers' setting-up arrangements and that a policy should be introduced to ensure that priority in the allocation of land is given to young farmers setting up; calls on the Commission to report on the agricultural property issue in relation to young people taking over farms;

67.

Takes the view that more effective support should be provided for the setting-up of company-based structures by introducing special measures for this type of setting-up arrangement that will not only reduce setting-up costs for the young people concerned but also enable them to organise their work in such a way as to increase the viability of farms;

68.

Recommends that more flexibility be introduced in farm setting-up and transfer procedures through the following: gradual setting-up, consideration for the validation of previous professional experience where the person wishing to set up does not have the required qualifications, waiver of the age requirement where the applicant submits a viable setting-up project, particularly in disadvantaged agricultural areas, etc.;

69.

Considers that the necessary measures should be adopted to support, accompany and advise young farmers under the initial setting-up scheme with the aim of increasing the success rate and at the same time minimising or putting an end to situations where farmers give up or even become bankrupt;

70.

Proposes the designation of a European year of urban-rural dialogue;

71.

Calls on the Commission to provide across-the-board backing for young people willing to enter farming by pursuing a reliable policy, making administrative arrangements reflect conditions on the ground, and maximising management support;

72.

Calls on the Commission to submit an interim report on the situation of young farmers, and consult the relevant young-farmer organisations in due course;

73.

Stresses that young farmers should be given support in the years following their setting-up and that a special reserve fund should be established to help them deal with unforeseeable circumstances at the time of setting up, such as damage to crops due to extreme weather or a sharp increase in costs;

74.

Calls on the Commission to study methods for sharing best practice in innovative farming techniques and farm management among new farmers throughout the EU;

75.

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

26.11.2009   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 285/51

—

on good governance, transparency and accountability in relation with the exploitation of natural resources in ACP countries (6),

—

on poverty reduction for small farmers in ACP countries ‐ in particular in the fruit, vegetable and flowers sectors (7),

—

on migration of skilled workers and its effect on national development (8),

—

on the situation in Darfur (9),

—

on elections and electoral processes in ACP and EU countries (10),

—

on the impact of foreign direct investment (FDI) in the African, Caribbean and Pacific States (11),

—

on access to healthcare and medicines, with a particular focus on neglected diseases (12),

—

on natural disasters in ACP States: EU funding for preparedness (EDF funds) and relief (ECHO funds) (13),

—

on the situation in the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC), particularly in the East of the country, and its impact on the region (14),

A.

having regard to the debates of June 2007 in Wiesbaden and November 2007 in Kigali on the latest developments in the EPA negotiations, leading to the adoption of the Kigali Declaration,

B.

whereas Parliament and the Council have adopted Regulation (EC) No 1905/2006, which provides for thematic programmes also applicable to ACP countries together with a programme of accompanying measures for ACP Sugar Protocol countries,

C.

whereas the Commissioner responsible for development and humanitarian aid made a commitment during the abovementioned JPA session in Wiesbaden to subject Country and Regional Strategy Papers for the ACP countries (relating to the period 2008-2013) to democratic scrutiny by parliaments, and this commitment is fortunately beginning to be fulfilled,

D.

whereas the revised Cotonou Agreement has just laid the foundations for enhanced, more efficient cooperation between the European Union and ACP countries, although the ratification procedure for that agreement has not been finalised,

E.

having regard to the growing importance within the JPA of issues of common interest concerning human rights, democracy, delicate situations, political consistency and the effectiveness of aid,

F.

whereas the situation in Zimbabwe deteriorated still further in 2007 and, regrettably, it was not possible to adopt a resolution on the matter during the abovementioned JPA session in Wiesbaden, to wind up a very constructive debate; whereas the Zimbabwe delegation's failure to participate in this session is very regrettable,

G.

having regard to the ongoing conflict in Darfur (Sudan) and the grave, repeated infringements of human rights, particularly the continued risk of sexual assault and rape faced by women and girls, and stressing the need for effective humanitarian aid and help for victims of sexual violence;

H.

having regard to the work of the Pan-African Parliament and the formalisation of relations between the European Parliament and the Pan-African Parliament; having regard, in particular, to the joint declaration of the Pan-African Parliament and the European Parliament with a view to the EU-Africa summit held in December 2007 in Lisbon,

I.

having regard to the increasing participation of non-governmental stakeholders in JPA sessions and the financial difficulties encountered by civil society in ACP countries in attending meetings,

J.

having regard to the excellent contributions made by the German EU Presidency and the Rwandan Government to the abovementioned JPA sessions in Wiesbaden and Kigali,

K.

having regard to the fact-finding and study missions carried out by the JPA Bureau in 2007:

1.

Welcomes the fact that in 2007 the JPA provided a framework for an open, democratic and in-depth dialogue on the negotiation of EPAs between the EU and the ACP countries, as shown by the adoption of the Kigali Declaration;

2.

Stresses the concerns expressed by the JPA about several aspects of the negotiations, with regard to both form and substance; points out that the debate has continued since the adoption of EPAs with the Caribbean and interim agreements with certain countries and regions;

3.

Is concerned about the establishment of a new body in the context of EPAs, i.e. the parliamentary committee, without the relationship between this body and the JPA being made clear; calls for conflicts of competence or pointless friction in this area to be avoided; at the same time welcomes this parliamentary dimension given to the EPA and is strongly convinced that the JPA will start implementing this dialogue at parliamentary level immediately by means of its regional meetings;

4.

Welcomes the commitment made by the Commissioner responsible for development and humanitarian aid during the abovementioned JPA session in Kigali to subject Country and Regional Strategy Papers for the ACP countries (relating to the period 2008-2013) to democratic scrutiny by parliaments and welcomes the work already done by certain ACP parliaments in examining these papers;

5.

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

6.

Calls on the parliaments of the ACP countries to demand that their governments and the Commission involve them in the process of preparation and implementation of the Country Strategy Papers concerning cooperation between the EU and their country (relating to the period 2008-2013);

7.

Calls on the Commission to supply all available information to the parliaments of the ACP countries and to provide them with assistance in this process of democratic control, in particular by supporting their capacities;

8.

Calls on the ACP parliaments to exercise close parliamentary scrutiny in respect of the European Development Fund (EDF); highlights the privileged position of the JPA in this debate and calls on it to continue to insist that those parliaments which have not yet done so should ratify the revised Cotonou Agreement in order to benefit from EDF 10;

9.

Calls on the Commission to provide for measures to fill the funding gap between the implementation of EDF 9 and EDF 10;

10.

Reaffirms that it supports the JPA's request, as expressed at its 9th session held in April 2005, for a suitable percentage of EDF appropriations to be assigned to education and to the political training of parliamentarians and political, economic and social leaders, in the interest of a sustainable consolidation of good governance, the rule of law, democratic structures and interaction between government and opposition in pluralistic democracies based on free elections;

11.

Welcomes the increasingly parliamentary, and hence political, nature of the JPA, together with the increased commitment of its members and the quality of its debates, which contributes decisively to the ACP-EU partnership;

12.

Considers that the abovementioned JPA resolutions on the situation in Darfur, and on the situation in the DRC, are significant examples of this enhanced dialogue;

13.

Considers that the JPA, which is a forum for debate between EU and ACP parliamentarians, plays a positive role in political dialogue and in the quest for a global, inclusive agreement for peace and development for the people of Darfur;

14.

Calls on the JPA to contribute to the international community's awareness-raising effort with regard to the conflicts affecting North Kivu and several regions in the east of the DRC, to promote a negotiated political solution to the crisis and to support any action which such a negotiated solution might propose;

15.

Calls on the JPA to pursue and deepen dialogue with the Pan-African Parliament and the parliaments of regional organisations, owing to the importance of regional integration to the peace and development in ACP countries;

16.

Welcomes the debate that took place on the situation in Somalia during the abovementioned JPA session in Kigali, which shows that the JPA can serve as a forum in which to tackle such complex issues; regrets, however, that the situation in Somalia has not improved, and continues to be a ‘forgotten crisis’;

17.

Regrets that the JPA was not sufficiently consulted in the drafting of the Joint EU-Africa Strategy, and hopes that the JPA will be actively involved in the implementation of that strategy;

18.

Welcomes the fact that the regional meetings provided for in the Cotonou Agreement and the JPA Rules of Procedure may at last be held as from 2008; hopes that these meetings will give rise to a genuine exchange of views on regional issues, including conflict prevention and resolution, and that EU policies will help to strengthen regional cohesion; stresses that these meetings are particularly timely as regards the negotiation, conclusion and implementation of EPAs and that this should be a key focus; welcomes the organisation of the first regional meeting in April 2008 in Windhoek, Namibia;

19.

Encourages the JPA to strengthen the role of its Committee on Political Affairs in order to make it a true forum for conflict prevention and settlement in the context of the ACP-EU partnership, and to that end to make the debates on urgent situations in given countries more general; welcomes the work done in the area of good governance, as well as the elections and electoral processes in the ACP and EU countries, and encourages close collaboration between the activities of ACP and EU parliamentarians as election observers within the framework of EU election observation missions;

20.

Notes with satisfaction the desire expressed by the JPA Committee on Economic Development, Finance and Trade to deal with issues relating to food security, especially at a time when the World Food Programme is sounding the alarm due to the rise in prices, the consequences of climate change and the decline in world food stocks;

21.

Highlights the importance of the report on the effectiveness of aid adopted at the abovementioned Kigali JPA session and urges the JPA to hold an in-depth debate on the concept of official development aid, budgeting issues and forms of alternative funding in development cooperation;

22.

Stresses the role played by the JPA Committee on Social Affairs and the Environment with regard to the migration of skilled workers and neglected diseases and supports its decision to study the impact of structural adjustment programmes;

23.

Notes with satisfaction the growing participation of non-governmental stakeholders in JPA sessions and the fact that events taking place on the sidelines of these sessions are now making a positive contribution; calls on the JPA, the EU and the ACP countries to encourage, from a financial and technical point of view, the participation of the civil societies of ACP countries in this work; considers the request and proposals aimed at achieving this that are to be put to the JPA Bureau in September 2008 to be a constructive development;

24.

Instructs its President to forward this resolution to the Council and Commission, the ACP Council, the JPA, the parliaments of the ACP countries and the governments and parliaments of the Federal Republic of Germany and the Republic of Rwanda.

26.11.2009   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 285/55

A.

whereas a well-functioning integrated financial market is a necessary precondition for the achievement of the Lisbon agenda which aims to provide the European Union with the most competitive and dynamic knowledge-based economy in the world, capable of sustainable economic growth with more and better jobs,

B.

whereas an essential role is played by retail banks in passing on, as appropriate, monetary policy conditions to the market, particularly to small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) and consumers,

C.

whereas in order to complete the Financial Services Action Plan and deliver its full benefits to consumers and retailers, there is a need to improve retail financial services,

D.

whereas access to basic banking services, such as opening a bank account, is a right for every citizen,

E.

whereas the retail banking sector is important to the EU economy in terms of growth and employment and to consumers and SMEs,

F.

whereas difficulties relating to the harmonisation of consumer policy in the European Union and the inherent complexity of financial products persist,

G.

whereas Community competition policy is important for the completion of the internal market and the good functioning of a real level playing field for all actors,

H.

whereas the diversity of legal models and business objectives of financial entities in the retail banking sector (banks, savings banks, cooperatives, etc.) is a fundamental asset to the EU's economy which enriches the sector, corresponds to the pluralist structure of the market and helps to increase competition in the internal market,

I.

whereas there is a need to balance a high degree of consumer protection with the proper functioning of the internal market,

1.

Supports the integrated approach of the Commission, which comprises supporting internal market policies with well-targeted sector inquiries; regrets, nevertheless, the timing of the sector inquiry and the fact that there has been no examination of how monetary policy conditions are passed on to the retail market; encourages the Commission to follow up its work once the Capital Adequacy Directive, the Single Euro Payment Area (SEPA), the Payment Services Directive and the Consumer Credit Directive will have demonstrated their effects in practice;

2.

Regrets that the sector inquiry on retail banking does not take sufficient account of the specificities of the strictly regulated banking sector and the importance of culture, habits and language in consumer choices and protection available for financial products; considers that the lack of consumer mobility in the European Union is often dictated by the long-term relationship of trust which is frequently established between bank and consumer; is concerned that the Commission's assessment of market integration builds on too few economic indicators and may consequently fail duly to reflect the characteristics of the retail banking sector;

3.

Recalls that competition policy is a powerful tool for completing the internal market but that aiming for more competition should neither lead to weakened risk management in the banking sector nor endanger the stability of a particularly crucial and strategic sector of the world economy; emphasises that market and consumer confidence are both essential for the further development of financial services, and that promoting consumer information relating to financial services is necessary to strengthen the role of consumers as market participants;

4.

Points out that a highly fragmented regulatory framework is an impediment to the development of the cross-border supply of banking services; supports, therefore, the Commission initiative to reopen its assessment of Directive 2002/65/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 September 2002 concerning the distance marketing of consumer financial services (7), which must also involve a review of the directives on electronic commerce (8) and electronic signatures (9) in order to enable these effectively to achieve their stated aims;

5.

Takes the view that even the implementation of money laundering legislation may constitute an obstacle to consumer mobility in terms, for example, of the opening of cross-border current accounts, given the varying requirements relating to identification and verification that the banks must fulfil; calls on the Commission to assess the impact on consumer mobility of the rules laid down in money laundering legislation;

6.

Requests the Commission to work towards facilitating consumer mobility and to monitor Member States' progress in allowing consumers more easily to change provider, thus reinforcing healthy competition between providers; would like to see, to the greatest extent possible, no disruption of service even when closing a current account or changing provider and to avoid any costly duplication of services;

7.

Urges that the simplification of the financial service regulations and the dismantling of barriers to consumer mobility should not lead to lower standards of consumer protection in the Member States;

8.

Recommends permitting only fully justified charges for closing accounts, if any, in order to encourage mobility and competition; encourages the banking industry to develop best practices on swift and efficient procedures for account switching, taking into account both the duration of the procedure and the associated costs; is of the opinion that switching current accounts should cause no harm to consumers; opposes any unnecessary contractual terms that impede consumer mobility;

9.

Underlines that, as regards product-tying, a clear distinction must be made between product combinations favourable to both consumer and bank and common to all branches of the economy on the one hand, and practices resulting in unfair competition on the other;

10.

Considers that access to basic financial services, such as opening a bank account, is a right and calls on the Commission to identify the obstacles to the exercise of that right and the best practices of operators in the retail financial sector in that respect;

11.

Is of the opinion that information for consumers is fundamental for ensuring competition among banks; requests information that is of a better quality, more readable and hence accessible to consumers; is of the opinion that, for the time being, it is too often time-consuming and onerous for consumers to obtain such information;

12.

Recognises that there is a tension between preventing information overload and providing consumers with sufficient information; favours information quality over quantity; calls on the Commission, therefore, to invite consumer organisations to define which information they deem to be essential to enable consumers to make appropriate choices;

13.

Requests the Commission to work towards ensuring that the industry, as a supplement to existing national provisions, provides consumers, before they open an account, with a succinct compilation detailing all costs, including closing costs, if any, in a way that is comparable across the European Union; calls on the Commission to propose appropriate legislation in the event that the industry fails to respect its commitment;

14.

Welcomes the Commission's study of the regulatory landscape for retail investment products and trusts that this will lead to better disclosure of costs, risks and conditions and thereby provide useful cross-border comparisons;

15.

Recommends the creation of a single EU standard for providing information to the costumer by the supplier on their basic products, related costs and conditions in order to allow an easy and transparent comparison where tied products do not allow at the moment; calls for disclosure upon request of value chain costs of retail financial products to ensure level playing field for competition; suggests to the industry to work on the feasibility of setting up a EU-wide research engine to allow easy and free cross-border comparison;

16.

Calls for the development of financial education programmes aimed at increasing the awareness of consumers as regards their money-management options;

17.

Supports the efforts made by the Commission and the financial services industry to raise consumers' level of knowledge about financial services products and run educational programmes in that area, as the information supplied by financial service product providers must also be understood and used by the consumer;

18.

Recalls the importance of developing financial education as a complement to adequate consumer protection, especially in the field of retail banking (for instance as regards loans, mortgages, diversified and safe saving and investment); calls on the Member States and the banking sector to take and coordinate measures to raise financial literacy among citizens, including children, young people, employees and retired people, with a view to educating and empowering consumers in order to enable them to seek better, cheaper and more appropriate products and services and to foster competition, quality and innovation within the banking industry; recalls that confident investors can provide additional liquidity for capital markets;

19.

Asks Member States to consider setting up an institution of independent national ombudsmen responsible for financial services;

20.

Stresses the importance of reliable credit and fraud data for banks and other credit providers, accessible on a fair and transparent basis; insists, nevertheless, on the necessity to protect consumers' personal data; requests the Commission to identify obstacles to data sharing and to make proposals for the interoperability of data registers while respecting consumers' private lives and their rights of access and rectification; considers that consumers should be informed in the event of cross-border credit data inquiries relating to them; welcomes the Commission's intention to establish a group of experts on credit histories in order to assist the Commission in the preparation of measures in that regard;

21.

Calls on the Commission to intensify its work on credit intermediaries (agents or brokers) in order to ensure consumer protection and avoid opaque practices which are particularly damaging to more vulnerable groups of consumer; welcomes the Commission's commitment, in this context, to publish a study analysing the EU credit intermediation market, reviewing its regulatory framework and examining whether any provisions are detrimental to consumers;

22.

Requests the Commission to clarify and harmonise the responsibilities and liabilities of credit intermediaries following the principle ‘same business, same risks, same rules’, since problems often arise in the sale, administration and enforcement of financial services agreements; points out that an undifferentiated ‘one-size-fits-all’ approach would adversely affect product diversity; draws the Commission's attention to the difference between information, which has to be clear, concise, readable and cost-free on the one hand, and tailor-made client advisory services on the other;

23.

Welcomes the Commission's further examination of the cooperation among banks in order to assess where such cooperation could result in economic and consumer benefits and whether it could lead to a restriction of competition; underlines, however, that cooperation among banks, for example credit institutions operating in decentralised networks, can result in benefits for the economy and consumers and that, therefore, a careful analysis and an unbiased approach are necessary;

24.

Is of the opinion that savings and cooperative banks, as well as other credit institutions, contribute substantially to the financing of the local economy and the development of the endogenous potential of regions and facilitate access to financial services for all consumers; stresses that the pluralism of the banking markets and the diversity of providers are pre-conditions for competition throughout the EU banking market provided that there is no distortion of competition and a level playing field is guaranteed for all market participants on the principle, ‘same business, same risks, same rules’;

25.

Maintains that non-discriminatory cooperation between independent credit entities, which, as they are still competing with each other, is more efficient and ensures greater interoperability and variety of services to the end consumers, can help the sector to function and contribute to achieving the above objectives;

26.

Is confident that the SEPA and the Payment Services Directive should provide solutions for the fragmentation and lack of competition identified by the sector inquiry concerning payment infrastructures; recalls that the first phase of the SEPA entered into force on 28 January 2008 and requires integrated clearing and settlement platforms, operating on the basis of the same rules and technical standards; emphasises that the access criteria to SEPA should be fair and transparent, and that governance should take into account all stakeholders in the system, not just financial institutions; recalls also that the Payment Services Directive provides that there should be no discrimination as regards access to payments systems other than that necessary to safeguard against risk and protect financial and operational stability; points out that under the principle of neutrality of Community policies, no single method of payment should be favoured over another, and the costs related to the use of the various payments systems should be transparent so that consumers can choose their method of payment in full knowledge of the facts;

27.

Calls on the Commission to investigate whether the transposition of the Payment Services Directive is reducing the number of providers of payment settlement services and to take immediate steps if major providers develop a monopoly position that might reduce competition;

28.

Notes that the Commission and many national competition authorities have stated on numerous occasions that multilateral interchange fees (MIFs) are not prohibited per se under Article 81 of the EC Treaty; notes, nevertheless, that the Commission recently focused on the compatibility of a MIF system with Community competition law; recommends that the Commission propose clear guidelines and indications to correct market imperfections; reminds the Commission of the importance of legal certainty for market participants as well as new market entrants to develop and innovate their services;

29.

Believes in a strong need for better clarification concerning the methodology and rules for the management of MIFs for card payments and for the mechanism to calculate interbanking fees for automated teller machines and non-card payments; recalls that direct debit and credit transfer schemes, such as those under the SEPA, support services that are jointly offered by two payment service providers and jointly requested by two consumers, creating economic benefits thanks to so-called network effects; suggests that the Commission establish and communicate to all stakeholders the criteria for the definition by market operators of a the methodology to be used to calculate all MIFs, to which the Commission should have regard in order to ensure a real level playing field and the enforcement of all competition rules;

30.

Reminds the Commission that it is as important to focus on fees and prices, as it is to achieve greater transparency of the industry in communicating to consumers the characteristics of payment products and services and their rights and obligations as users, thus stimulating more competition in the market;

31.

Instructs its President to forward this resolution to the Council, the Commission, the European Central Bank and the Committee of European Banking Supervisors.

26.11.2009   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 285/61

A.

whereas citizens' assent to European integration depends on the tangible benefits that they derive from it; whereas all citizens must therefore share fairly the benefits of the internal market,

B.

whereas retail banking plays a decisive role in the proper transmission of monetary policy conditions to the market, in particular to consumers and small and medium-sized businesses (SMEs),

C.

whereas under the Treaty of Lisbon, the European economic model is a sustainable social market economy,

D.

whereas in recent years the integration of the internal market in financial services has made encouragingly rapid progress as regards large businesses, but the internal market in financial services for consumers and SMEs still has room for improvement,

1.

Welcomes the Green Paper, which covers banking, insurance and pension products, and its aims to deliver tangible benefits for consumers by securing greater choice and lower prices, enhancing their confidence and empowering them;

2.

Notes that not only consumers but also SMEs are less inclined to take up cross-border financial services; underlines the need to ensure that the advantages of the internal market for financial services also benefit small businesses; points out, however, that this does not imply extending consumer protection law to SMEs; underlines, furthermore, that a comprehensive retail strategy includes a wide range of measures, consumer protection law being only one of the relevant areas;

3.

Considers that, especially on the demand side, the provision of financial services to consumers and SMEs is, to a large extent, local, due to linguistic and cultural factors and people's preference for personal contact; recognises, at the same time, the opportunities presented by facilitating retail market access on the supply side; encourages consumers and SMEs, therefore, to take advantage of the gains in competition and supply that cross-border financial services can offer;

4.

Emphasises that the internal market for retail financial services can be created only by measures that provide a secure environment for both the demand and the supply side, including as regards the conditions for redress; considers it crucial that such measures should open the way for new products, services and market actors;

5.

Emphasises the need to examine and define a framework and national mandates for cooperation among national supervisory authorities to provide practical solutions for supervision of cross-border retail financial groups within a short time frame; favours colleges of supervisors dealing with multi-jurisdictional financial conglomerates;

6.

Supports the Commission in its aim only to pursue initiatives that demonstrably offer citizens tangible benefits, are soundly justified by thorough cost-benefit analyses and have been subject to well-conducted impact studies; agrees that cross-border activity is crucial to increase competition, which usually creates more choice, lower costs and more dynamic development;

7.

Points out that a well-conducted impact study must always include a component correctly ascertaining the original market conditions; emphasises that the integration and competitiveness of a market and the impact of an initiative should be assessed not by means of a single indicator alone but on the basis of the largest possible number of measurements; calls on the Commission to take account not only of the price and range of choice on offer but also of the quality of services and the social and cultural context;

8.

Notes that of the legislative approaches currently available, targeted full harmonisation, which implies full harmonisation of those key elements that are deemed essential, is the appropriate approach for the development of cross-border business and consumer protection, and thus the integration of the retail market; considers that for those elements where harmonisation is not feasible, mutual recognition of different national rules should apply;

9.

Is aware that the notion of a 28th regime, such as the common frame of reference, has been raised as a possible new approach to European regulation, to enable cross-border users access to pan-European financial products with a uniformly high consumer protection standard; calls on the Commission to put forward a time-frame for a thorough investigation into whether a 28th regime may be feasible, in the event of demand on the part of the financial services industry or consumers, and in the event that it could produce positive results; stresses that, in any event, a 28th regime should form no obstacle to new services and products;

10.

Is critical regarding the idea of the standardisation of products by means of legislation, if this undermines the aim of greater product diversity; considers that in order to improve comparability of competing financial products, legal harmonisation, for example of information or prudential requirements, is the way forward;

11.

Considers that in some cases, self-regulation of the financial services industry can be effective; emphasises that, in particular in those specific cases, self-regulation should be encouraged and its implementation thoroughly monitored; calls on the financial services industry to work steadily towards the aims of the Green Paper by self-regulation and thus reduce the need for legislation;

12.

Points out that a particular duty of care needs to apply to the marketing of savings and old-age pension products, as the decisions that consumers take in that regard are normally decisions of great importance to them;

13.

Stresses that, for the creation of an internal market for financial services for consumers and SMEs, the establishment of Community-wide competition and cross-border provision of financial services are among the basic preconditions; points out that lower prices, more choice and greater quality are what mainly follow from healthy competition between financial services providers; stresses that financial services directives favouring SMEs bring benefits only if there is effective competition between retail financial service providers;

14.

Welcomes the initiative of the payments industry to create the Single Euro Payments Area, but emphasises that such a system should lead to greater transparency, especially concerning interchange fees;

15.

Reminds the Commission that effective competition between financial service providers is secured by having a large number of market participants competing under equal conditions and a constant flow of consumer-relevant information; draws attention to its resolution on consolidation in the financial services industry, in which it states that the pluralistic structure of the EU banking market, where financial institutions take diverse legal forms in accordance with their diverse business aims, is an asset to the European social market economy, consumers and the stability of the financial markets;

16.

Notes the important role that mutual insurers play in the EU insurance market, with 68 % of insurance companies with a 25 % market share, serving more than 230 million European citizens; stresses that current tools to develop business in the internal market are not compatible with the mutual corporate structure;

17.

Points out that a statute for a European mutual society would allow mutual insurers to operate at the same level as other insurance undertakings, in particular in a cross-border situation, thus increasing the offer of insurance products; emphasises that mutual organisations, because of their governance, which directly involves their customers, contribute to increased overall consumer confidence in the EU financial markets; strongly believes that the participative design of governance of mutual organisations is capable of increasing customer awareness of and participation in the financial markets;

18.

Notes that real and fair competition can arise only on a level playing field; concludes that any legislation must follow the principle ‘same business, same risks, same rules’; points out, however, that in the financial services sector, product design is particularly influenced by the regulatory environment and an that undifferentiated ‘one-size-fits-all’ approach would adversely affect product diversity; stresses, thus, the importance of differentiating according to the type of product; is convinced, however, that comparable transparency and disclosure requirements for competing investment products, are needed, in particular, at the point of sale; regrets that, so far, the issue of complex financial products has not been properly addressed; calls upon the Commission, therefore, to address unjustified inconsistencies and other shortcomings of the regulatory framework concerned;

19.

Urges the Commission to present proposals to streamline regulatory requirements with respect to the distribution and organisation of comparable retail products and information thereon; is of the opinion further that such proposals should be based upon the principles laid down in Directive 2004/39/EC (6) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 April 2004 on markets in financial instruments such as those of ‘best advice’ and ‘know your customer’;

20.

Regrets that cross-border providers of financial services incur high costs and suffer from legal uncertainty as a result of differing legal provisions and practices of national supervisory authorities; calls on the Lamfalussy committees to step up their work establishing uniform EU standards; advocates, in particular, agreement on simple and practical standard forms for reporting and approval procedures;

21.

Considers that the development of Internet services changes the prospects for EU financial markets and presents an opportunity to take the lead in the development of retail services; calls on the Commission and the Member States to promote e-commerce and the electronic signature further; calls on the Commission and the Member States, moreover, to assess whether the money laundering directive (7) is hindering the remote provision of services and how such a situation might be remedied;

22.

Recognises the great importance of financial service intermediaries (agents and brokers), in providing financial services from other Member States to consumers and SMEs; calls on the Commission to ensure a framework that will strengthen that industrial sector; reiterates that any framework for that sector must follow the principle ‘same business, same risks, same rules’, while avoiding an ill-adapted ‘one-size-fits-all’ approach; stresses that any provision for intermediaries must ensure legal certainty for agents and brokers, as well as the protection of consumers, for example from dubious sales practices; emphasises, furthermore, that rules should also be established for the training of financial services intermediaries and advertising and sales consultancies;

23.

Recalls the importance of developing financial education as a complement to adequate consumer protection; calls on the Member States and all the stakeholders to take and coordinate measures to raise financial literacy among citizens — including children, young people, employees and retired people — with a view to empowering and educating consumers to seek better, cheaper and more appropriate products and services, enhance competition, quality and innovation within the industry, and build up financially literate consumer organisations able to counterbalance the role of business, in the process of preparing regulation; recalls that citizens who are confident investors can provide additional liquidity to capital markets;

24.

Points out that differences in tax law constitute one of the greatest obstacles to the internal market for finance services; reminds the Member States of their great responsibility in this area;

25.

Drawing lessons from certain recent cases of turmoil in the retail banking sector, such as the cases involving Northern Rock, IKB, Sachsen LB and Société Générale, recognises that remuneration systems in banks should be reshaped on the basis of long-term objectives and guidelines by supervisory authorities in order to combat more efficiently the moral hazard phenomenon and strengthen the role of prudent risk management systems;

26.

Emphatically draws attention to the importance of enabling credit institutions and credit data agencies to have non-discriminatory cross-border access to credit data and fraud-data registers; encourages banks to use the information on credit data available, especially in order to facilitate client mobility, which would in turn encourage healthy competition; stresses, however, that, at the same time, optimal protection of consumer data must be guaranteed as well as consumers' right to inspect and, if necessary, correct their personal data;

27.

Urges the Commission to clarify the legal status and supervisory framework of non-banking consumer credit providers such as those that are accessible only through the Internet and/or by text message;

28.

Stresses the importance of reliable data for granting bank loans, which should be made available on the basis of fair, transparent criteria;

29.

Urges the Commission to support cooperation in the insurance industry on promoting market access; calls on the Commission to extend Regulation (EC) No 358/2003 beyond 2010;

30.

Considers that abolishing the requirement to appoint a fiscal representative when taking up activities in another Member State should take place only once the legal framework defining supervisory competences and responsibilities of cross-border operations is in place;

31.

Supports the Commission in its endeavours to scrutinise all national legally binding provisions of general interest for their compliance with Community law;

32.

Calls on the Commission to resume its work on a statute for a European mutual society by initiating a feasibility study for that legislative project;

33.

Emphasises that, while calling for Community law on retail financial services, always to aim for very high standards of consumer protection, all market operators — including consumers and investors — need to be fully aware of the basic financial market principle that any opportunity for a higher return is reflected by a higher risk, and that risk is an indispensable element of any functioning financial market; stresses, further, that a good compromise between a high level of consumer protection and flawlessly functioning internal market mechanisms should be sought; takes the view that the Commission should encourage national initiatives which impart an understanding of finance, in order to ensure an accurate grasp of the ‘risk-return’ principle and the specific characteristics of financial instruments;

34.

Recognises that although retail financial demand today is primarily domestic, Internet and e-banking have become key instruments for consumers wishing to undertake cross-border retail financial activities; calls, therefore, upon all stakeholders to promote the development of such services, while ensuring, at the same time, the security of electronic correspondence, particularly in relation to consumers;

35.

Stresses, however, that consumers who do not have access to these technologies or who find them difficult to use, for example because of their age, should not be forgotten;

36.

Is of the opinion that the simplification of financial service regulations and the dismantling of barriers to customer mobility should not lead to lower standards of consumer protection in the Member States;

37.

Recalls its resolution of 11 July 2007, in particular the recommendation contained therein for the creation of a European budget line to finance financial market expertise in consumer and SME organisations;

38.

Agrees that consumers who wish to change financial service provider must be free to do so at any time, subject only to minimum legal barriers and costs, and that contract clauses governing such a change of provider must be drafted in transparent, easily comprehensible language and be explicitly brought to the attention of consumers;

39.

Supports the Commission's initiatives to raise the level of financial literacy and realises the need for information to do so, but, at the same time, recognises the tension between preventing information overload and providing consumers with sufficient information; favours quality over quantity; calls on the Commission, therefore, to invite consumer organisations to determine which information they deem to be essential to allow consumers to make appropriate choices; underlines that a clear distinction should be drawn between information and advice;

40.

Emphasises that consumers need confidence and proper knowledge to select the right financial product; emphasises, further, that coordinated efforts at national and European level are therefore needed to improve levels of financial literacy in all Member States;

41.

Requests that consumers should have access to out-of-court alternative dispute resolution (ADR) mechanisms to resolve disputes on retail financial services issues both at national and cross-border level; calls on the Commission to promote best-practices for ADR;

42.

Calls on Member States to promote consumer awareness and knowledge of the financial dispute resolution network of national out-of-court complaint schemes in the European Economic Area countries (FIN-NET); underlines that FIN-NET should play a key role in coordinating public information in all Member States on access to redress and ADR mechanisms, particularly in relation to cross-border financial services;

43.

Recalls the fact that conventional court litigation will remain an important dispute resolution mechanism; calls on the Commission, therefore, to examine the effect on cross-border retail financial services of Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 of 22 December 2000 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgements in civil and commercial matters (8);

44.

Supports finding a coherent solution at European level which provides consumers with access to balanced new forms of collective redress for the settlement of cross-border complaints related to retail financial products; suggests evaluating the impact of systems recently established at national level;

45.

Stresses the need to ensure access to financial services for all interested parties; urges financial service providers, therefore, to offer at least a credit-based giro account to consumers expressing an interest;

46.

Instructs its President to forward this resolution to the Council, the Commission, the European Central Bank, the Committee of European Banking Supervisors, the Committee of European Insurance and Occupational Pensions Supervisors, and the Committee of European Securities Regulators.

26.11.2009   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 285/67

A.

whereas rheumatic diseases are chronic complaints which cause pain, suffering and disability,

B.

whereas 30 % to 40 % of people have musculoskeletal symptoms, and whereas such symptoms affect over 100 million people in Europe,

C.

whereas rheumatic diseases represent the main cause of disability and premature retirement among workers,

D.

whereas it is estimated that people over 65 will account for up to one-quarter of the European population by 2030, and whereas a majority of people over 70 present chronic or recurrent rheumatic symptoms,

E.

whereas the adoption of social and health policies based on an analysis of the needs of those with rheumatic diseases would reduce the economic and social costs associated with such diseases (1 to 1,5 % of GNI in developed countries),

1.

Calls on the Commission and the Council to:

2.

Instructs its President to forward this declaration, together with the names of the signatories, to the Council, the Commission and the parliaments of the Member States.

List of signatories

Adamos Adamou, Vittorio Agnoletto, Gabriele Albertini, Alexander Alvaro, Jan Andersson, Georgs Andrejevs, Alfonso Andria, Laima Liucija Andrikienė, Emmanouil Angelakas, Roberta Angelilli, Kader Arif, Stavros Arnaoutakis, Francisco Assis, Robert Atkins, John Attard-Montalto, Jean-Pierre Audy, Margrete Auken, Inés Ayala Sender, Liam Aylward, Pilar Ayuso, Maria Badia i Cutchet, Enrique Barón Crespo, Katerina Batzeli, Edit Bauer, Zsolt László Becsey, Ivo Belet, Irena Belohorská, Monika Beňová, Sergio Berlato, Giovanni Berlinguer, Slavi Binev, Šarūnas Birutis, Jana Bobošíková, Herbert Bösch, Vito Bonsignore, Josep Borrell Fontelles, Victor Boștinaru, Costas Botopoulos, Bernadette Bourzai, John Bowis, Emine Bozkurt, Iles Braghetto, Frieda Brepoels, Elmar Brok, Danutė Budreikaitė, Udo Bullmann, Nicodim Bulzesc, Ieke van den Burg, Colm Burke, Philip Bushill-Matthews, Cristian Silviu Bușoi, Philippe Busquin, Jerzy Buzek, Milan Cabrnoch, Mogens Camre, Luis Manuel Capoulas Santos, Carlos Carnero González, David Casa, Paulo Casaca, Michael Cashman, Françoise Castex, Pilar del Castillo Vera, Giusto Catania, Alejandro Cercas, Giulietto Chiesa, Ole Christensen, Luigi Cocilovo, Carlos Coelho, Dorette Corbey, Giovanna Corda, Titus Corlățean, Thierry Cornillet, Jean Louis Cottigny, Jan Cremers, Corina Crețu, Gabriela Crețu, Brian Crowley, Magor Imre Csibi, Daniel Dăianu, Joseph Daul, Dragoș Florin David, Chris Davies, Antonio De Blasio, Bairbre de Brún, Arūnas Degutis, Véronique De Keyser, Panayiotis Demetriou, Gérard Deprez, Proinsias De Rossa, Marie-Hélène Descamps, Harlem Désir, Nirj Deva, Mia De Vits, Agustín Díaz de Mera García Consuegra, Jolanta Dičkutė, Koenraad Dillen, Giorgos Dimitrakopoulos, Alexandra Dobolyi, Brigitte Douay, Mojca Drčar Murko, Bárbara Dührkop Dührkop, Árpád Duka-Zólyomi, Constantin Dumitriu, Maria da Assunção Esteves, Edite Estrela, Harald Ettl, Jill Evans, Robert Evans, Göran Färm, Carlo Fatuzzo, Claudio Fava, Szabolcs Fazakas, Emanuel Jardim Fernandes, Fernando Fernández Martín, Anne Ferreira, Elisa Ferreira, Ilda Figueiredo, Věra Flasarová, Karl-Heinz Florenz, Alessandro Foglietta, Nicole Fontaine, Glyn Ford, Juan Fraile Cantón, Armando França, Monica Frassoni, Duarte Freitas, Ingo Friedrich, Sorin Frunzăverde, Milan Gaľa, Gerardo Galeote, Vicente Miguel Garcés Ramón, Iratxe García Pérez, Jean-Paul Gauzès, Evelyne Gebhardt, Bronisław Geremek, Lidia Joanna Geringer de Oedenberg, Roland Gewalt, Claire Gibault, Neena Gill, Robert Goebbels, Bogdan Golik, Bruno Gollnisch, Ana Maria Gomes, Donata Gottardi, Hélène Goudin, Genowefa Grabowska, Dariusz Maciej Grabowski, Vasco Graça Moura, Martí Grau i Segú, Louis Grech, Lissy Gröner, Elly de Groen-Kouwenhoven, Françoise Grossetête, Lilli Gruber, Pedro Guerreiro, Umberto Guidoni, Zita Gurmai, Cristina Gutiérrez-Cortines, Catherine Guy-Quint, David Hammerstein, Małgorzata Handzlik, Marian Harkin, Joel Hasse Ferreira, Gyula Hegyi, Jeanine Hennis-Plasschaert, Edit Herczog, Mary Honeyball, Richard Howitt, Alain Hutchinson, Iliana Malinova Iotova, Mikel Irujo Amezaga, Marie Anne Isler Béguin, Carlos José Iturgaiz Angulo, Lily Jacobs, Anneli Jäätteenmäki, Lívia Járóka, Rumiana Jeleva, Karin Jöns, Jelko Kacin, Filip Kaczmarek, Ioannis Kasoulides, Piia-Noora Kauppi, Tunne Kelam, Glenys Kinnock, Dieter-Lebrecht Koch, Eija-Riitta Korhola, Magda Kósáné Kovács, Miloš Koterec, Rodi Kratsa-Tsagaropoulou, Wolfgang Kreissl-Dörfler, Ģirts Valdis Kristovskis, Urszula Krupa, Wiesław Stefan Kuc, Helmut Kuhne, Sepp Kusstatscher, Stavros Lambrinidis, Vytautas Landsbergis, Romano Maria La Russa, Henrik Lax, Johannes Lebech, Roselyne Lefrançois, Lasse Lehtinen, Bogusław Liberadzki, Marie-Noëlle Lienemann, Kartika Tamara Liotard, Alain Lipietz, Pia Elda Locatelli, Antonio López-Istúriz White, Andrea Losco, Astrid Lulling, Elizabeth Lynne, Marusya Ivanova Lyubcheva, Jules Maaten, Linda McAvan, Mary Lou McDonald, Mairead McGuinness, Edward McMillan-Scott, Jamila Madeira, Toine Manders, Ramona Nicole Mănescu, Vladimír Maňka, Erika Mann, Diamanto Manolakou, Marian-Jean Marinescu, Sérgio Marques, David Martin, Jean-Claude Martinez, Miguel Ángel Martínez Martínez, Jan Tadeusz Masiel, Antonio Masip Hidalgo, Marios Matsakis, Maria Matsouka, Mario Mauro, Manolis Mavrommatis, Manuel Medina Ortega, Erik Meijer, Íñigo Méndez de Vigo, Emilio Menéndez del Valle, Willy Meyer Pleite, Rosa Miguélez Ramos, Marianne Mikko, Miroslav Mikolášik, Francisco José Millán Mon, Gay Mitchell, Nickolay Mladenov, Claude Moraes, Javier Moreno Sánchez, Eluned Morgan, Luisa Morgantini, Elisabeth Morin, Roberto Musacchio, Cristiana Muscardini, Joseph Muscat, Riitta Myller, Pasqualina Napoletano, Juan Andrés Naranjo Escobar, Robert Navarro, Cătălin-Ioan Nechifor, Catherine Neris, James Nicholson, Angelika Niebler, Raimon Obiols i Germà, Jan Olbrycht, Seán Ó Neachtain, Gérard Onesta, Dumitru Oprea, Josu Ortuondo Larrea, Siiri Oviir, Reino Paasilinna, Athanasios Pafilis, Justas Vincas Paleckis, Marie Panayotopoulos-Cassiotou, Marco Pannella, Pier Antonio Panzeri, Dimitrios Papadimoulis, Atanas Paparizov, Neil Parish, Ioan Mircea Pașcu, Aldo Patriciello, Béatrice Patrie, Vincent Peillon, Alojz Peterle, Tobias Pflüger, Willi Piecyk, Rihards Pīks, João de Deus Pinheiro, Józef Pinior, Gianni Pittella, Francisca Pleguezuelos Aguilar, Zita Pleštinská, Rovana Plumb, Anni Podimata, Zdzisław Zbigniew Podkański, Bernard Poignant, Adriana Poli Bortone, Mihaela Popa, Nicolae Vlad Popa, Miguel Portas, Bernd Posselt, Christa Prets, Pierre Pribetich, Vittorio Prodi, Luís Queiró, Bilyana Ilieva Raeva, Miloslav Ransdorf, Poul Nyrup Rasmussen, Vladimír Remek, Karin Resetarits, José Ribeiro e Castro, Teresa Riera Madurell, Frédérique Ries, Giovanni Rivera, Michel Rocard, Zuzana Roithová, Luca Romagnoli, Raül Romeva i Rueda, Dagmar Roth-Behrendt, Mechtild Rothe, Libor Rouček, Martine Roure, Leopold Józef Rutowicz, Eoin Ryan, Guido Sacconi, Tokia Saïfi, Aloyzas Sakalas, Katrin Saks, José Ignacio Salafranca Sánchez-Neyra, María Isabel Salinas García, Antolín Sánchez Presedo, Manuel António dos Santos, Jacek Saryusz-Wolski, Luciana Sbarbati, Christel Schaldemose, Pál Schmitt, Inger Segelström, Adrian Severin, José Albino Silva Peneda, Brian Simpson, Kathy Sinnott, Marek Siwiec, Peter Skinner, Nina Škottová, Csaba Sógor, Søren Bo Søndergaard, Bogusław Sonik, María Sornosa Martínez, Sérgio Sousa Pinto, Jean Spautz, Bart Staes, Grażyna Staniszewska, Dirk Sterckx, Catherine Stihler, Ulrich Stockmann, Theodor Dumitru Stolojan, Daniel Strož, Margie Sudre, László Surján, Eva-Britt Svensson, Hannes Swoboda, József Szájer, Konrad Szymański, Csaba Sándor Tabajdi, Antonio Tajani, Hannu Takkula, Charles Tannock, Andres Tarand, Salvatore Tatarella, Britta Thomsen, Silvia-Adriana Țicău, Gary Titley, Patrizia Toia, Ewa Tomaszewska, Witold Tomczak, Georgios Toussas, Antonios Trakatellis, Catherine Trautmann, Kyriacos Triantaphyllides, Evangelia Tzampazi, Vladimir Urutchev, Inese Vaidere, Johan Van Hecke, Anne Van Lancker, Daniel Varela Suanzes-Carpegna, Ioannis Varvitsiotis, Yannick Vaugrenard, Bernadette Vergnaud, Alejo Vidal-Quadras, Kristian Vigenin, Oldřich Vlasák, Dominique Vlasto, Sahra Wagenknecht, Graham Watson, Henri Weber, Renate Weber, Åsa Westlund, Anders Wijkman, Glenis Willmott, Iuliu Winkler, Bernard Wojciechowski, Janusz Wojciechowski, Corien Wortmann-Kool, Luis Yáñez-Barnuevo García, Anna Záborská, Mauro Zani, Andrzej Tomasz Zapałowski, Tatjana Ždanoka, Dushana Zdravkova, Gabriele Zimmer, Jaroslav Zvěřina, Tadeusz Zwiefka

26.11.2009   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 285/69

1.

Approves the Commission proposal;

2.

Calls on the Council to notify Parliament if it intends to depart from the text approved by Parliament;

3.

Asks the Council to consult Parliament again if it intends to amend the Commission proposal substantially;

4.

Instructs its President to forward its position to the Council and the Commission.

26.11.2009   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 285/70

A.

whereas Draft amending budget No 3 to the general budget 2008 covers the following items:

B.

whereas the purpose of Draft amending budget No 3/2008 is to formally enter these budgetary adjustments in the 2008 budget,

C.

whereas the Council included in Draft amending budget No 3/2008 the savings made on salaries and pensions and the funding of the so-called Microsoft monitoring mechanism,

1.

Recalls that the appropriations for Joint Undertakings are paid from the operational budget of the programme concerned;

2.

Points out that the Microsoft monitoring mechanism is exclusively financed by the savings in salaries and pensions in Heading 5;

3.

Regrets that the Council unexpectedly reduced budget line 26 02 01, thus introducing a new element, without any discussion with Parliament; expects these savings to be used to fund the priorities of Parliament in Heading 1a;

4.

Asks the Commission to avoid including the funding linked to instruments such the EU Solidarity Fund or the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund in draft amending budgets together with other issues in future in order to avoid any delay in the decision and delivery;

5.

Adopts Draft amending budget No 3/2008 unamended;

6.

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

26.11.2009   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 285/71

A.

whereas Draft amending budget No 4 to the general budget 2008 aims to enter in the 2008 budget the surplus of the 2007 financial year, amounting to EUR 1 528 833 290,

B.

whereas the main elements of this surplus are an over-registering in revenue of EUR 72 957 868,80 and an under-spending in expenditure of EUR 1 579 386 212,59, and a negative balance of monetary exchange of -EUR 123 510 791,35,

C.

whereas the under-spending of payment appropriations, compared to the years before, has further decreased,

D.

whereas for Heading 1, the under-spending of payment appropriations in 2007 (4) amounted to EUR 648 million, for Heading 2 to EUR 361 million, for Heading 3 to EUR 241 million, for Heading 4 to EUR 362 million and for Heading 5 to EUR 903 million,

1.

Takes note of Preliminary draft amending budget No 4/2008 devoted solely to the presentation of the accounts for the 2007 financial year;

2.

Adopts Draft amending budget No 4/2008 unamended;

3.

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

26.11.2009   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 285/72

1.

Approves the initiative of the Federal Republic of Germany as amended;

2.

Calls on the Council to amend the text accordingly;

3.

Calls on the Council to notify Parliament if it intends to depart from the text approved by Parliament;

4.

Calls on the Council to consult Parliament again if it intends to amend the initiative of the Federal Republic of Germany substantially;

5.

Instructs its President to forward its position to the Council and the Commission, and the government of the Federal Republic of Germany.

26.11.2009   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 285/74

1.

Approves the Commission proposal as amended;

2.

Calls on the Commission to alter its proposal accordingly, pursuant to Article 250(2) of the EC Treaty;

3.

Calls on the Council to notify Parliament if it intends to depart from the text approved by Parliament;

4.

Asks the Council to consult Parliament again if it intends to amend the Commission proposal substantially;

5.

Instructs its President to forward its position to the Council and the Commission.