25.3.2010   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 76/1

A.

whereas the conflict in the Gaza Strip has further aggravated the humanitarian crisis in the area, which has reached an inhuman level, and whereas 88 % of the Gaza population is dependent on food aid,

B.

whereas the border crossings in and out of the Gaza Strip have been closed for 18 months, whereas the embargo on the movement of people and goods obstructs the delivery of humanitarian aid to the population and whereas the quantity of goods allowed into the Gaza Strip is insufficient to meet even basic humanitarian needs,

C.

whereas key public services in the Gaza Strip are facing serious shortages owing to a lack of basic materials required for their functioning, and whereas the lack of medicines and fuel at hospitals continues to endanger Palestinian lives,

D.

whereas UNRWA and WFP (World Food Programme) are playing a crucial role in providing basic goods for the population in the Gaza Strip with the full support of the international community, whereas part of the humanitarian food aid aimed at improving living conditions in the area has perished as a result of obstacles to the delivery chain, and whereas on 3 and 5 February 2009 Hamas confiscated hundreds of food parcels and thousands of blankets destined for Gaza civilians, which were returned following the suspension of all imports of aid by UNRWA into the Gaza Strip,

E.

whereas the considerable European Union financial support to the Palestinians has played an important role in the attempt to prevent a humanitarian disaster in the Gaza Strip, and whereas the Union, in spite of all obstacles, continues to provide humanitarian aid,

F.

whereas an International Conference in support of the Palestinian Economy for the Reconstruction of Gaza will be held in Sharm el-Sheikh on 2 March 2009,

1.

Recognises the sufferings of the Palestinian population in the Gaza Strip and calls for increased, immediate and unhindered humanitarian aid to them, which it is a moral duty to provide and which must be delivered without any conditions and restrictions; calls on the Israeli authorities to allow a continuous and adequate flow of humanitarian aid, which includes all the necessary materials for UNRWA and other UN and international agencies to perform their duties, and which meets the needs of the population;

2.

Calls once again for an end to the blockade of the Gaza Strip, in compliance with the Agreement on Movement and Access of 15 November 2005, for the immediate and sustainable reopening of the crossing points for people and goods, and for the prevention of the smuggling of, and illicit trafficking in, arms and ammunition;

3.

Calls for a detailed damage assessment in the Gaza Strip and an in-depth evaluation of the needs of the Gaza population which can serve as a basis for reconstruction plans;

4.

Calls for the financial, economic and social rehabilitation of the Gaza Strip, which is an essential factor for security in the region; recalls that, in line with the commitments of the international community and the Union, aid should include payments in cash to pay salaries, pensions and allowances for the most vulnerable people and families, and calls on the Israeli authorities not to hinder the bank transfer of money;

5.

Believes, inter alia with a view to the International Conference in support of the Palestinian Economy for the Reconstruction of Gaza to be held in Sharm el-Sheikh on 2 March 2009, that any sustainable reconstruction and development policy in the Gaza Strip needs a durable cease-fire supported by the resumption of serious peace negotiations between Israelis and Palestinians together with a Palestinian national reconciliation process;

6.

Stresses again that the Union's financial support to the Palestinians should not be undermined by continuous destruction, which is diminishing support for reconstruction projects amongst the European public;

7.

Calls on the Commission to draw up a comprehensive overview and evaluation of the medium- and long-term prospects for reconstruction projects in the Gaza Strip financed by the Union within the framework of PEGASE (Palestinian-European Mechanism for Management of Socio-Economic Aid) and ECHO (Humanitarian Aid Department of the European Commission) and their budgetary implications; urges other donors to make pledges at the above-mentioned International Conference and to commit to the pledges they made at the donors’ conference in Paris on 17 December 2007;

8.

Underlines once again that heading 4 of the EU budget is chronically underfinanced and that pledging additional assistance to Gaza should not be at the expense of other policies; further underlines that additional funds could be mobilised only by using all the means provided for under the Interinstitutional Agreement of 17 May 2006 between the European Parliament, the Council and the Commission on budgetary discipline and sound financial management (5);

9.

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, the Quartet Envoy to the Middle East, the President of the Palestinian Authority, the Palestinian Legislative Council, the Israeli Government and the Knesset.

25.3.2010   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 76/3

A.

whereas the fulfilment of children’s rights is key to their individual life chances as well as to making progress towards the eradication of poverty,

B.

whereas the gender roles that a society assigns to its children have a determining effect on their future: their access to food and education, their labour force participation, their status in relationships and their physical and psychological health,

C.

whereas the aims set out in the Convention on the Rights of the Child remain largely unfulfilled,

D.

whereas of the 2.2 billion children in the world, 1.9 billion (86 %) live in developing countries, and over 98 % of the children living in extreme poverty do so in developing countries,

E.

whereas every day, more than 26 000 children under the age of five die around the world, mostly from preventable causes and, on current trends, the MDG goal to reduce child deaths by two thirds will not be reached until 2045,

F.

having regard to point 9 of the action programme adopted by the Fourth World Conference on Women (which met in Beijing from 4 to 15 September 1995), which is also a fundamental principle which was set out at all international conferences concerning children’s rights in the preceding decade,

G.

whereas if the Treaty of Lisbon is ratified by all Member States, protection of the rights of the child will become a specific objective of the Union’s external policy,

H.

whereas the Commission has been mandated by the Council to analyse the impact of positive incentives on the sale of products that have been produced without using child labour, and to examine and report on the possibility of additional measures on products that have been produced using the worst forms of child labour,

I.

whereas the right of children to education is non-negotiable and education and vocational training play an important role in the strategy for the gradual elimination of child labour,

J.

whereas the commercial exploitation of children is a gross violation of their human dignity and is against the principles of social justice,

K.

whereas purchasers of goods from the developing world are in a key position to detect and refuse to purchase goods which are made wholly or in part with child labour, and can thus bring direct and effective economic pressure to bear,

1.

Welcomes the above-mentioned Commission Communication on ‘A Special Place for Children in EU External Action’ and the supplementary Staff Working Papers, as well as the accompanying Council Conclusions as important steps forward towards an EU strategy on the rights of the child;

2.

Recognises that the EU institutions have attached increasing importance to children’s rights, but underlines that much remains to be done to put the political commitments into practice, and stresses that none of the plans will be realised unless adequate funding is available;

3.

Highlights the importance of meeting the MDGs on efforts to safeguard children’s rights, and urges Member States to fulfil their pledges to provide adequate, predictable funding through timetabled budgetary aid designed to meet the 2010 benchmarks;

4.

Calls on the Union to firmly pursue the elimination of all forms of discrimination against girls (since conception) and commit adequate resources in order to overcome the subsequent asymmetries;

5.

Welcomes the four guiding principles of the Commission’s Action Plan on Children’s Rights in External Action which include a holistic and coherent child rights-based approach;

6.

Recognises that a child rights-based approach is based upon the norms and principles defined in the Convention on the Rights of the Child and directed towards their realisation;

7.

Calls on the European Community to accede to the European Convention on Human Rights and other conventions relating to the exercise of children’s rights, adoption, sexual exploitation, child labour, the protection of children in armed conflicts and child abuse;

8.

Calls on the Commission and the Member States to promote the implementation of the Convention on the Rights of the Child and the protocols thereto, and to enhance the support given to reforms of third countries’ legal systems, which are designed to protect children;

9.

Emphasises that all action for children’s rights should respect the primary role of the child’s parents and immediate family as well as primary carers and guardians, and in particular the need to improve the position of mothers;

10.

Points out, nonetheless, that it may be in the interests of a child having problems at home to be separated from his or her family temporarily as a protective measure, particularly where the parents have psychosocial or psychiatric problems or there is evidence of domestic violence, mistreatment or sexual abuse;

11.

Underlines the urgent need to pay special attention to the most vulnerable and socially excluded girls and boys, including disabled children, migrant children, children from minorities, separated or unaccompanied children and children without parental care;

12.

Underlines that in order to put the child rights-based approach into practice, the EU must undertake a thorough analysis of children’s rights, ideally when Country, Regional and Thematic Strategy Papers are adopted or reviewed, on the basis of which actions and programmes targeting children’s issues can be selected; in this respect, calls on the Commission to provide to Parliament, as early as possible or during mid-term reviews of development programmes, an overview of child-related actions and financial allocations;

13.

Stresses that children’s rights must be systematically included in the EU’s political dialogue and policy discussions with partner countries;

14.

Calls on the Commission to draw up a report examining whether the existing international agreements between the European Union and third countries already contain a legally binding clause on the protection of children’s rights and, if not, whether such a clause could be inserted into agreements;

15.

Believes that the participation of children must be institutionalised and better funded in partner countries and at EU level;

16.

Supports building up existing youth and children’s networks as sustainable platforms for engaging and consulting children, and calls on the Commission systematically to invite these networks to contribute towards the discussions on Country Strategy Papers, as well as to encourage their involvement in the development of national planning instruments;

17.

Calls on the Commission to help partner countries adopt child-friendly budgeting, especially when the European Union is providing budget support, and to develop integrated, comprehensive National Action Plans for Children with clear benchmarks, measurable targets, timelines and review and reporting mechanisms on children’s rights;

18.

Insists that the general budget support of the EU should include funds for capacity- building for relevant ministries (such as Ministries of Welfare, Health, Education and Justice) to ensure that they have the appropriate policies and tools to budget and implement services for children;

19.

Stresses that, in its external actions, the EU should strongly encourage third-country governments to comply with international children’s rights standards, in particular as regards the provision of basic social welfare services to children, such as through free food distribution in schools and nurseries, and access to health care; stresses, at the same time, that ensuring equitable access to education for children in situations of armed conflict and post-conflict situations constitutes an important investment in conflict prevention;

20.

Notes that despite the recent positive developments at EU level, the EU institutions and staff resources devoted to children’s rights remain inadequate;

21.

Recommends that in order to ensure visibility and leadership on children’s rights, an EU Special Representative should be appointed;

22.

Considers that responsibility for children’s issues should be given to an individual in each Commission Delegation, and calls on the Commission and Member States to ensure that all staff in Headquarters and Missions/Delegations are properly trained and supplied with guidance notes on how to integrate children’s rights into external actions, and manage safe and effective child participation;

23.

Calls for the protection of children’s rights under the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child to be given a central place in the Multiannual Framework of the European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights; believes that this agency should build up a network with international organisations, ombudspersons for children and non-governmental organisations, in order to benefit from their store of knowledge and experience;

24.

Welcomes the Commission’s commitment to address the violation of children’s rights such as child labour, child trafficking, child soldiers, children affected by armed conflict and all forms of violence against children, including sexual exploitation and harmful traditional practices; insists, however, that the focus should be on the root causes and prevention of violation of children’s rights;

25.

Requests that the Commission include the fight against impunity in its external actions and relations with third countries, as an important measure to prevent violations of children’s rights;

26.

Calls on the Commission and the Members States to prioritise the development of national child protection strategies and systems in partner countries which can provide children and families with support services before children are harmed;

27.

Calls on the Commission and Member States to support institutional structures in partner countries to protect and promote children’s rights, including independent ombudspersons;

28.

Believes that efforts should also be made to increase the understanding of, and respect for, children’s rights among parents and carers, as well as those who work with children such as teachers and health workers;

29.

Calls on the Council and Commission to make official birth registration a part of development cooperation policy as a basic right and an important means of protecting the rights of the child;

30.

Recognises that early childhood care and education are a child’s right - including immunisation, parenting, and access to kindergarten and nurseries - and recognises that early childhood is a time of significant development and that malnutrition and lack of care can lead to both physical and intellectual impairment;

31.

Underlines that achieving MDG 2 on universal primary school education and MDG 3 on gender parity are central to preventing violations of children’s rights;

32.

Underlines that interventions focussing specifically on girls are required in order to give them the same opportunities as boys to attend school, obtain sufficient food, be allowed to express their opinions and gain access to healthcare;

33.

Urges the Union to prioritise the right to education, especially for girl children, in aid programmes and policy dialogue with partner countries; stresses the need to fight persistent discrimination in poor families that cannot afford school fees for all their children and opt to send boys to school at the expense of girls;

34.

Stresses that education facilities and programmes need to be ‘girl friendly’, and offer, for example, alternative forms of education outside formal institutions, or flexible hours to cater for girls who take care of siblings;

35.

Stresses that investing in girls’ education is an investment that will have the greatest impact in terms of poverty eradication, reduction of population growth, lower infant and child mortality, less widespread malnutrition, rising school attendance and improving health;

36.

Emphasises that quality education should be a priority including in situations of conflict and fragility, and welcomes the Commission’s plan to address education in its humanitarian aid operations; underlines the need for operational guidelines committing the EU to including education in every stage of its humanitarian response, in line with the minimum standards outlined by the Interagency Network for Education in Emergencies, and calls for sufficient funding and staffing at EU level to implement the new policy commitment;

37.

Insists that no child should be deprived of the fundamental right to education owing to a lack of economic resources and reiterates its appeal to all governments of developing countries to draw up a clear timetable for the rapid abolition of direct and indirect school fees for basic education, while at the same time maintaining a high level of education;

38.

Emphasises that, in EU relations with third countries, projects for the development of children’s social competences, tolerance, solidarity and responsibility for their environment, especially in the context of fighting climate change, are of the utmost importance;

39.

Recalls that a political commitment to making coherent policy choices in the areas of poverty reduction, quality education and human rights, is key to reducing incentives for child labour;

40.

Calls on the European Community and Member States to provide more support to fair trade and labelling initiatives which encourage companies not to use child labour; recommends that compliance with voluntary codes of conduct regarding core labour rights should be better controlled and made transparent to European consumers; believes that public procurement contracts should be made conditional on compliance with international child labour standards;

41.

Welcomes the Council’s initiative to launch a study on the impact of positive incentives on the sale of products produced without using child labour and on possible additional measures, including trade-related measures; calls on the Commission to inform Parliament about the design, implementation and outcome of this study;

42.

Urges the Commission to propose a uniform method for labelling products imported into the European Union so as to certify that they have been manufactured without the use of child labour at each stage in the chain of production, for example, by placing the indication ‘without child labour’ on the packaging of the products in question, thereby ensuring that this system is in line with the WTO’s international trade rules;

43.

Highlights MDG 4 on reducing child mortality and MDG 6 on combating HIV/AIDS, malaria and other diseases and urges the Community and other donors to strengthen public health systems which deliver cost-effective maternal, neo-natal and child health services to whole populations, and to integrate disease-specific interventions such as the provision of anti-malarial bed nets and antiretroviral drugs into these health services;

44.

Deplores the pressures which exist to undermine policies on sexual and reproductive health rights, with the resulting increase in unwanted pregnancies and unsafe abortions for young women, and urges the EU to maintain levels of funding for the full range of sexual and reproductive health services to meet MDG 5 on improving maternal health;

45.

Notes the particularly adverse effects of the food price crisis on children, and underlines the need for broad strategies to enhance nutrition security, which means not just access to adequate food, but also access to appropriate micronutrients, safe water, hygiene and sanitation, healthcare, adequate childcare and a healthy environment;

46.

Acknowledges the European Union’s impressive policy framework to tackle the tragedy of children affected by armed conflict, and calls for enhanced monitoring, awareness-raising and training mechanisms to ensure that this is properly implemented on the ground;

47.

Believes that a child protection adviser should be part of all ESDP missions, and stresses that training for ESDP mission staff should cover child protection issues;

48.

Stresses that Disarmament, Demobilisation and Reintegration (DDR) programmes supported by ESDP missions should take specific children’s needs into consideration;

49.

Calls for special attention to be given to the needs of girl-child mothers in conflict and post-conflict situations and to refugees and internally displaced girls, as well as girls who are subjected to rape and sexual violence;

50.

Calls on the Commission to invest in programmes aiming at preventing and responding to sexual and gender-based violence against girls and boys, which should include provision of post-exposure prophylaxis (PEP) kits to prevent HIV infection, support for recovery and social reintegration services, and confidential reporting mechanisms;

51.

Underlines that the EU should also support measures to overcome stigma and discrimination, as often vulnerable girls or young women – such as those who are HIV positive, victims of rape or sexual violence, have had children through rape, or have undergone abortion – are rejected by their communities;

52.

Draws attention to the particularly difficult situation of HIV-infected children, children with AIDS and AIDS orphans; condemns, in particular, the rape of women and girls in the belief that sexual intercourse with a virgin can cure AIDS, and calls on local information campaigns to eradicate this mistaken belief and thereby offer increased protection to girls in particular;

53.

Stresses the need to comply with the UN Convention on the Protection of the Rights of All Migrant Workers and Members of Their Families, so as to guarantee the rights of children from migrant families;

54.

Calls on the EU to use the thematic programme on asylum and migration, which forms part of the Instrument for Development Cooperation, to support especially vulnerable groups such as children of migrants and children in poverty;

55.

Calls on the European Union, in its external action, to pay specific attention to the situation of children facing discrimination, including children in conflict with the law and children deprived of their liberty and placed in closed institutions; stresses that children should have easier access to justice and specialised assistance, and that their age must be taken into consideration throughout the judicial proceedings by means of special protective measures;

56.

Calls on the Council and the Commission, when designing aid programmes and negotiating action plans on justice and home affairs with third countries, to address the issue of juvenile justice, having regard not only to the ratification of relevant international and regional standards but also to the effective implementation thereof;

57.

Calls on the Commission and Member States to promote policy coherence on children’s issues, incorporating consideration of children’s rights into other major policies areas such as security, climate change, migration and aid effectiveness;

58.

Calls for all EU policies with a likely effect on children in third countries to be subject to consistent child rights impact assessments prior to their adoption, as well as subsequent evaluations; underlines that children should be considered as a separate and distinct group as they are not affected in the same way as adults;

59.

Welcomes the initiative launched in the above-mentioned Council Conclusions to better coordinate and enhance the division of labour in the area of children’s rights, by mapping out existing Commission and Member State policies and activities in pilot countries;

60.

Is concerned that pilot countries have still not been identified, and calls on Member States to work closely with the Commission to ensure that this exercise is implemented quickly;

61.

Calls on the Commission to develop procedures, benchmarks and indicators to ensure that ‘mainstreamed’ children’s rights do not fall off the agenda, and shares the Commission’s view that besides ‘mainstreaming’ of children’s rights, specific actions are also needed under the geographical funds and the European Development Fund, possibly in non-focal sectors;

62.

Believes that Parliament could play a more coordinated and systematic role in the monitoring of EU commitments on children, through for example the Annual Report on Human Rights;

63.

Suggests that the interparliamentary assemblies (ACP-EU JPA, Eurolat, Euro-Mediterranean Parliamentary Assembly) invite children’s organisations of the host country to their meetings, and supports the creation of inter-regional youth fora, such as an EU-Africa Youth Platform;

64.

Instructs its President to forward this resolution to the Council and the Commission, the governments and parliaments of the Member States, the Secretary-General of the United Nations and the Co-Chairs of the ACP-EU Joint Parliamentary Assembly.

25.3.2010   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 76/11

A.

whereas the Member States are late in transposing Directive 2002/14/EC, and whereas some Member States have confined themselves to transcribing certain aspects of its minimum applicable provisions,

B.

whereas the current financial crisis will have consequences for the EU economy in terms of the restructuring, merging and relocation of undertakings at EU level,

C.

whereas the aim of Directive 2002/14/EC is to establish a general framework for informing and consulting employees about the future of the undertaking in which they are employed and for consulting them effectively in anticipation of the economic developments of that undertaking,

D.

whereas the principle of informing and consulting employees is central to the social market economy and should not be seen as an obstacle to the economic development of undertakings,

E.

whereas in the European Union there are 23 000 000 undertakings with fewer than 250 employees (accounting for 99 % of undertakings and employing over 100 000 000 people), and whereas the EU institutions have a duty to guarantee and enhance the right of employees to be informed and consulted,

1.

Acknowledges that the transposition of Directive 2002/14/EC has been significantly delayed in some Member States and that more time will therefore be needed for its evaluation; stresses, however, that in Member States where no general system for informing and consulting employees existed before the directive will have an obvious impact;

2.

Urges those Member States that have not yet correctly transposed Directive 2002/14/EC to do so as soon as possible;

3.

Considers that the action taken to this end by the Commission should allow, in close cooperation with the national authorities of the Member States concerned and the social partners, further progress and a resolution of the problems identified in connection with the interpretation of Directive 2002/14/EC and the conformity of transposition measures;

4.

Notes that some Member States, in their measures transposing Directive 2002/14/EC, have failed to take account of certain young workers, women working part-time or workers employed for short periods on fixed-term contracts; urges the Member States, accordingly, to bring their provisions governing the calculation of workforce numbers into line with the spirit and letter of the directive in order to ensure that the calculation of thresholds is always based on the actual number of workers, to the exclusion of all other conditions;

5.

Considers it desirable for the Member States, whilst respecting their national practices, to specify precisely the conditions and restrictions relating to Article 6 of Directive 2002/14/EC on confidential information and to focus on:

6.

Calls on the Member States, in their transposition measures, to:

7.

Urges those Member States that do not have effective, proportional and dissuasive sanctions, as provided for in Article 6(3) of the directive, which they can impose in the event of non-compliance with the rules governing the exercise of workers’ information and consultation rights to introduce such sanctions;

8.

Calls on all Member States which do not possess a system for the protection of employees’ representatives to establish such a system;

9.

Suggests that those Member States in which protection for employees’ representatives is traditionally guaranteed by means of an agreement negotiated between trade unions and employers’ associations provide for a high level of subsidiary protection for such employees’ representatives should the negotiations fail;

10.

Considers that it is necessary for a range of possible sanctions that Member States could take against employers that fail to comply with the right of employees to be informed and consulted under Directive 2002/14/EC to be identified and made available to Member States;

11.

Stresses that the Member States cannot invoke subsidiarity to justify not meeting their obligation to adopt sufficiently severe sanctions to dissuade employers from breaching Directive 2002/14/EC;

12.

Draws attention to the judgments of the Court of Justice of the European Communities of 8 June 1994 (10) establishing the principle that those Member States in which procedural and institutional arrangements are inadequate have an obligation to introduce suitable statutory provisions laying down appropriate administrative and judicial review procedures and appropriate, effective, proportional and dissuasive sanctions against employers who fail to meet their obligations to inform and consult employees;

13.

Calls on the Member States, pending a revision of Directive 2002/14/EC, to draw on the case law of the Court of Justice when laying down administrative or judicial review measures and sanctions against employers that fail to meet their obligations to inform and consult employees;

14.

Considers that the transposition measures adopted by the Member States must ensure that the right of employees’ representatives to be informed and consulted remains an automatic right, in line with the correct interpretation of Directive 2002/14/EC;

15.

Considers that it is necessary to lay down arrangements governing performance of the duties of employees’ representative in such a way that those duties can be carried out during working hours and remunerated accordingly;

16.

Considers that it is necessary to guarantee that representatives of public administration employees and employees in the public and financial sector enjoy the same rights to information and consultation as are granted to other employees;

17.

Considers that it is necessary to review the scope for employing direct consultation in cases where an elected or trade union representation structure exists, thereby ensuring that employers do not use direct consultation to intervene in matters covered by the right of trade unions to conduct collective bargaining, such as pay;

18.

Calls for consideration to be given to the need to revise the workforce thresholds triggering the application of Directive 2002/14/EC so that only micro-undertakings are excluded from its scope;

19.

Points out to the Member States that, although doubts persist as to precise meaning of the term ‘undertaking’ in Directive 2002/14/EC, the case law of the Court of Justice on this matter is comprehensive, and calls on the Member States to refer to that case law in their transposition measures, in order to rule out infringement actions relating to those measures;

20.

Urges the Commission to take measures as soon as possible to guarantee the effective transposition of Directive 2002/14/EC by the Member States, at the same time checking all the points in respect of which shortcomings have been noted or which have given rise to problems, such as the provisions and national practices concerning the calculation of workforce numbers, the use of the specific provisions laid down in Article 3(2) and (3) and the safeguards to be applied in connection with the confidentiality clause laid down in Article 6; calls on the Commission to initiate infringement proceedings against those Member States which have failed to transpose the directive or which have not done so correctly;

21.

Calls on the Commission to submit an evaluation report on the results achieved through the application of Directive 2002/14/EC as regards strengthening the social dialogue, the ability to anticipate, prevention and employability on the labour market, and as regards its ability to prevent administrative, legal and financial difficulties among small and medium-sized undertakings, attaching appropriate proposals where necessary;

22.

Welcomes the proposal for a Council regulation on the Statute for a European private company (COM(2008)0396), which takes into account the specific needs of small undertakings;

23.

Calls on the Commission, which is responsible for monitoring mergers and takeovers, to ensure that the rules laid down in national and Community law concerning the information and consultation of workers are complied with when decisions on mergers and takeovers are taken;

24.

Takes the view that information which could be extremely economically damaging to an undertaking, if disclosed, should be kept absolutely confidential until a final decision is taken on substantial economic issues concerning the undertaking (e.g. in the form of a letter of intent);

25.

Calls on the Commission regularly to advocate improvements to the right of employees to be informed and consulted and to place this issue on agendas for the European social dialogue, at both inter-professional and sectoral levels;

26.

Calls on the Commission to encourage the social partners to take proactive, positive steps to influence implementation at national level, for example through the dissemination of good practices;

27.

Calls on the Commission to take initiatives as soon as possible in order to boost an effective culture of cooperation between the social partners in the European Union in the field of the information and consultation of employees, taking account of the nature of the subject matter and the characteristics and size of undertakings;

28.

Notes with satisfaction that the agreement concluded between the European Community Shipowners’ Associations and the European Transport Workers’ Federation on the Maritime Labour Convention, 2006 makes reference to consultation in relation to various issues, such as risks to the health and safety of workers and the early termination of contracts;

29.

Welcomes the proposal in the Commission communication of 10 October 2007 on Reassessing the regulatory social framework for more and better seafaring jobs in the EU (COM(2007)0591), to review Directive 2002/14/EC and calls on the Commission, in so doing, to remove the possibility of derogating from Directive 2002/14/EC offered by Article 3(3) thereof;

30.

Calls on the Commission to consider the need to coordinate Directives 94/45/EC, 98/59/EC, 2001/23/EC, 2001/86/EC, 2002/14/EC and 2003/72/EC and Regulation (EC) No 2157/2001 with a view to determining what changes may be required in order to eliminate duplications and contradictions; takes the view that any changes required should be made simultaneously;

31.

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

25.3.2010   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 76/16

A.

whereas the European social model is built mainly upon a high level of services, goods and jobs generated by the social economy with the support of forecasting and innovation capacities developed by its promoters,

B.

whereas the social economy is based on a social paradigm which is in line with the fundamental principles of the European social and welfare model, and whereas the social economy plays a key role today in preserving and strengthening that model by regulating the production and supply of numerous social services of general interest,

C.

whereas the social economy models should consequently be built on to achieve the aims of economic growth, employability, training and personal services, which permeate all EU policies,

D.

whereas the wealth and stability of society derives from its diversity, and whereas the social economy actively contributes to that diversity by improving and reinforcing the European social model and by providing a distinctive business model, which enables the social economy to contribute to stable and sustainable growth,

E.

whereas social economy values are highly consistent with the common EU objectives of social inclusion and whereas decent employment, training and re-inclusion should be linked thereto; whereas the social economy has demonstrated that it can greatly improve the social status of disadvantaged people (as has been demonstrated, for example, by the microcredit cooperatives devised by Nobel Prize winner Professor Mohammed Yunus which, facilitating financial inclusion, increased women’s influence) and that it has a substantial capacity for social innovation, supporting people facing difficulties in finding solutions to their own social problems, for example as regards reconciling their professional and private life, gender equality, the quality of their family life, and their ability to care for children, elderly people and people with disabilities,

F.

whereas the social economy represents 10 % of all European businesses, with 2 million undertakings or 6 % of total employment, and has great potential for generating and maintaining stable employment, due mainly to the fact that those activities, by their very nature, are not likely to be delocalised,

G.

whereas social economy enterprises are usually small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) contributing to a sustainable economic model, under which individuals are more important than capital, and whereas such enterprises are often active in the internal market and therefore need to ensure that their activities comply with the relevant law,

H.

whereas the social economy has developed from particular organisational or legal business formations such as cooperatives, mutual societies, associations, social enterprises and organisations, foundations and other entities in each of the Member States; whereas the social economy covers a range of concepts used in the various Member States such as ‘the solidarity economy’ and ‘the third sector’, and although those concepts are not considered to form part of the social economy in all the Member States, comparable activities sharing the same features exist throughout the European Union,

I.

whereas there is a need to recognise the statute of some of the types of organisation forming part of the social economy at EU level, taking into account the rules of the internal market, in order to reduce bureaucratic obstacles to obtaining Community funding,

J.

whereas the social economy gives prominence to a business model that cannot be characterised either by its size or by its areas of activity, but by its respect for common values, namely, the primacy of democracy, social stakeholder participation, and individual and social objectives over gain; the defence and implementation of the principles of solidarity and responsibility; the conjunction of the interests of its user members with the general interest; democratic control by its members; voluntary and open membership; management autonomy and independence in relation to public authorities; and the allocation of the bulk of surpluses in pursuit of the aims of sustainable development and of service to its members in accordance with the general interest,

K.

whereas despite the increasing importance of the social economy and of the organisations that form part of it, it remains little-known and is often the target of criticism stemming from misguided technical approaches; and whereas lack of institutional visibility is one of the most important obstacles that the social economy faces in the EU and in some of its Member States, which is due in part to the peculiarities of national accounting systems,

L.

whereas Parliament’s intergroup on the social economy has undertaken detailed work,

1.

Points out that the social economy plays an essential role in the European economy, by combining profitability with solidarity, creating high-quality jobs, strengthening social, economic and regional cohesion, generating social capital, promoting active citizenship, solidarity and a type of economy with democratic values which puts people first, in addition to supporting sustainable development and social, environmental and technological innovation;

2.

Considers the social economy to be important, both symbolically and in terms of performance, for the purpose of strengthening industrial and economic democracy;

3.

Recognises that the social economy can prosper and develop its full potential only if it is able to benefit from suitable political, legislative and operational conditions and prerequisites, taking due account of the wealth of diversity among social economy institutions and the specificities thereof;

4.

Considers that social economy enterprises should not be subject to the same application of the competition rules as other undertakings and that they need a secure legal framework, based on recognition of their specific values, in order to be able to operate on a level playing field with such other undertakings;

5.

Underlines the fact that an economic system in which social economy enterprises play a more significant role would reduce exposure to speculation in financial markets on which some private companies are not subject to the supervision of shareholders and regulatory bodies;

6.

Points out that the diversity of entrepreneurial forms has been recognised in the EC Treaty and by adoption of the Statute for a European cooperative society;

7.

Points out that the Commission has repeatedly recognised the concept of the social economy;

8.

Asks the Commission to promote the social economy in its new policies and to defend the social economy’s concept of ‘a different approach to entrepreneurship’, which is driven primarily not by a profit but by social benefit motive, to ensure that the particular features of the social economy are properly taken into account in the framing of legislation;

9.

Takes the view that the European Union and the Member States should recognise the social economy and its stakeholders – cooperatives, mutual societies, associations and foundations – in their legislation and policies; suggests that those measures include easy access to credit and tax relief, the development of microcredit, the establishment of European statutes for associations, foundations and mutual societies, as well as tailored EU funding and incentives to provide better support to social economy organisations operating within market and non-market sectors, which are created for the purpose of social utility;

10.

Notes that there is a need for the recognition of European statutes for associations, mutual societies and foundations to ensure that social economy enterprises benefit from equal treatment in internal market law; considers that the withdrawal of the Commission’s proposals for regulations of the European Parliament and of the Council on the statute for a European association and on the statute for a European mutual society (COM(1991)0273) is a significant setback for the development of these forms of social economy within the European Union; therefore urges the Commission to review its work programme accordingly;

11.

Calls on the Commission to follow up the feasibility report on the statute for a European foundation which was to be published by the end of 2008 and to launch an impact assessment of the statutes for a European association and a European mutual society;

12.

Calls on the Commission and the Member States to develop a legal framework that recognises the components of the social economy;

13.

Calls on the Commission to ensure that the European private company will be a corporate form that can be adopted by all types of businesses;

14.

Calls on the Commission to establish clear rules to identify which entities can legally operate as social economy enterprises and to introduce effective legal barriers to entry so that only social economy organisations are able to benefit from financing destined for social economy enterprises or from public policies designed to encourage social economy enterprises;

15.

Calls on the Commission and the Member States to support the creation of national statistical registers for social economy enterprises, to establish national satellite accounts for each institutional sector and branch of activity and allow for this data to be collated by Eurostat, also by making use of competences available in universities;

16.

Points out that that the measurement of the social economy is complementary to the measurement of non-profit institutions (NPIs); calls on the Commission and the Member States to promote the use the UN Handbook on Non-Profit Institutions in the System of National Accounts and to prepare satellite accounts which will improve the visibility of NPIs and social economy organisations;

17.

Supports the fact that the components of the social economy should be recognised in the EU sectoral and inter-sectoral social dialogue and suggests that the process for including social economy actors in social consultations and the civil dialogue should be strongly encouraged by both the Commission and the Member States;

18.

Points out that social economy enterprises and organisations help to strengthen the entrepreneurial spirit, facilitate better democratic functioning of the business world, incorporate social responsibility and promote the active social integration of vulnerable categories;

19.

Stresses that employers in the social economy are significant agents of re-inclusion, and welcomes their efforts to create and maintain high-quality, good, stable jobs and to invest in workers; calls on the Commission and the Member States to support and strengthen the social economy in its role as a good employer and to respect its special status;

20.

Stresses that the social economy helps to rectify three major labour market imbalances: unemployment, job instability, and the social and labour-market exclusion of unemployed people; furthermore notes that the social economy plays a role in improving employability and creates jobs that do not normally delocalise, which contributes to meeting the Lisbon Strategy objectives;

21.

Considers that Member State support of social economy enterprises should be interpreted as a genuine investment in creating solidarity networks that can strengthen the role of local communities and authorities in developing social policies;

22.

Considers that social problems call for reflection, but that in the current circumstances, what is needed most is action; considers that most social problems should be approached through local solutions, in order to deal with practical situations and problems; considers that, in order to be effective, such action requires strict rules on coordination, which means a high level of cooperation between public authorities and social economy enterprises;

23.

Notes that because they are strongly tied to the local level, social economy enterprises enable links to be created between citizens and their regional, national and European representative bodies, and are able to contribute to EU governance that is effective for social cohesion; assesses very favourably the efforts of social economy enterprises and organisations to regroup within coordination platforms at EU level;

24.

Points out that the social economy has a key role to play in attaining the Lisbon Strategy objectives of sustainable growth and full employment, since it counteracts the numerous imbalances on the labour market, in particular by supporting female employment, and establishes and provides community care services (such as social, health, and welfare services), in addition to creating and maintaining the economic fabric of society, thus helping to promote local development and social cohesion;

25.

Is of the opinion that the European Union should take action to establish a framework for the social economy agenda as that would strengthen local and EU competitiveness and innovation capacity, given the ability of the social economy to generate stability in a context of eminently cyclical economies, by redistributing and reinvesting profits locally, where appropriate, promoting an entrepreneurial culture, linking economic activities to the local needs, sustaining activities at risk (e.g. crafts) and generating social capital;

26.

Calls on the competent authorities and the operators in the sector to assess and enhance the role of women in the social economy, both in quantitative terms, given the high rate of employment of women in all fields of the sector, including associations and voluntary work, and as regards the quality and organisational aspects of work and service provision; is concerned about the persisting problem of vertical integration, even in the social economy, which limits the participation of women in decision-making;

27.

Calls on Member State governments and local authorities and on operators in the sector to encourage and support the potential synergies which could be generated in the services sector by stakeholders in, and users of, the social economy by broadening the scope of participation, consultation and co-responsibility;

28.

Calls on the Commission to take account of the realities of the social economy when reviewing State aid policy, given that small businesses and organisations operating at local level encounter considerable difficulties in accessing funding, particularly during the current economic and financial crisis; also calls on the Commission not to obstruct national company law or fiscal provisions such as those applying to cooperatives in the banking and distribution sectors that operate on the basis of mutuality principles, company democracy, the intergenerational transmission of assets, the indivisibility of reserves, solidarity, the work ethic and business ethics;

29.

Highlights the fact that some of the social economy enterprises are micro-enterprises or small businesses that may lack the necessary resources to operate in the internal market and participate in national and EU programmes, and proposes that targeted support and instruments be put in place to enable them to improve their contribution to sustainable economic growth in the European Union, as well as to facilitate, in the event of a business crisis, the possibility of transforming enterprises into worker-owned undertakings;

30.

Calls on the Commission and the Member States to develop programmes directed towards potential and existing social enterprises offering financial support, information, advice and training and to simplify the process of establishment (including reducing the initial capital requirements for companies), in order to help them cope with an economy which is increasingly global and which is currently affected by a financial crisis;

31.

Emphasises that social economy enterprises encounter more difficulties than large companies, for example in coping with regulatory burdens, in obtaining financing, and in accessing new technology and information;

32.

Points to the importance of the social economy as regards services of general interest; points to the added value provided by public-private integrated networks, as well as to the risk of exploitation, for instance in the form of outsourcing to help public authorities cut their costs, not least by making use of contributions in the form of voluntary work;

33.

Urges the Commission to continue its work of dialogue and clarification with the parties concerned and to support the Member States with regard to services of general interest and social services of general interest and make use of the ‘bundled indicator’ method;

34.

Calls on the Commission to ensure that the features of the social economy (its aims, values and working methods) are taken into account when devising EU policies and, in particular, to incorporate the social economy into its policies and strategies in the sphere of social, economic, and enterprise development, especially in connection with the ‘Small Business Act’ for Europe (COM(2008)0394); asks that when the social economy is affected impact assessments are carried out and the interests of the social economy are respected and given priority; urges the Commission, in addition, to look again at the possibility of setting up a social economy inter-service unit linking the relevant directorates-general;

35.

Calls on the Commission to ensure that the Observatory of European SMEs systematically includes social economy enterprises in its surveys and to make recommendations for measures to assist their functioning and development; calls on the Commission also to take the necessary measures to enable social economy enterprises to be linked together and promoted by the European e-business support network;

36.

Calls on the Member States to support small and medium-sized social economy organisations with aspirations to reduce grant dependency and enhance sustainability;

37.

Calls on the Commission to invite participants in the social economy to join permanent bodies for dialogue and to participate in, and work together with, high-level expert groups likely to be concerned with issues relating to the social economy; calls on the Commission to participate in strengthening the structures for representation of the social economy at regional, national and Community level and to create a legal framework designed to promote active partnership between local authorities and social economy enterprises;

38.

Calls on the Commission to promote dialogue between public agencies and representatives of the social economy at national and Community level and thus foster mutual understanding and promote good practices;

39.

Calls on the Commission to support the EU think-tank on co-operative banks set up by the association of the sector or other financial services that might be of interest to social economy organisations which would study how these specific social economy entities have performed so far in the EU, especially during the current global credit and financial crisis, and how they will avert future risks of this kind;

40.

Calls on the Commission to investigate reactivating the budget heading specifically for the social economy;

41.

Calls for programmes to be set up that will encourage experimentation with new economic and social models, to initiate framework research programmes, by including social economy subjects in calls for proposals under the Seventh Framework Programme, to envisage the use of a ‘multiplier’ applied to the official statistics and to introduce instruments for measuring economic growth from a qualitative and quantitative point of view;

42.

Calls on the Commission and the Member States to include a social economy dimension in the establishment of Community and national policies and in EU programmes for enterprises in the fields of research, innovation, finance, regional development and development cooperation, and to support the establishment of social economy training programmes for EU, national and local administrators and to ensure the access of social economy enterprises to programmes and actions for development and external relations;

43.

Urges the Member States to make provision for training projects involving higher education, university and vocational training courses designed to create awareness of the social economy and of business initiatives based on its values;

44.

Calls on the Commission and the Member States to support the development of skills and professionalism in the sector, in order to enhance the role of the social economy in labour market integration;

45.

Calls on the Commission to devise a EU legal framework enabling territorial partnerships to be established and maintained between the social economy sector and local authorities, and to lay down criteria for the purposes of recognising and enhancing the social economy, fostering sustainable local development, and promoting the general interest;

46.

Calls on the Commission to aim for conditions which will facilitate investments in the social economy, in particular through investment funds, guaranteed loans and subsidies;

47.

Calls on the Commission to reassess:

48.

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

25.3.2010   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 76/23

A.

whereas mental health and well-being are central to the quality of life of individuals and society and are key factors in the EU’s Lisbon Strategy objectives and the revised strategy on sustainable development, and whereas the prevention, early detection, intervention and treatment of mental disorders significantly reduce the personal, financial and social consequences thereof,

B.

whereas various EU strategic documents have highlighted the importance of mental health in realising those objectives and the need for practical measures in that respect,

C.

whereas the added value of the Community’s mental health strategy lies primarily in the field of prevention and the promotion of the human and civil rights of people with mental health problems,

D.

whereas mental health problems are widespread in Europe, with one in four people experiencing mental health problems at least once in their lives, while many more are indirectly affected, and whereas the standard of mental health care varies considerably between different Member States, especially between the old Member States and some of the new Member States,

E.

whereas gender-specific aspects should be taken into account when considering the subject of mental health, and whereas more women than men suffer from mental disorders and more men than women commit suicide,

F.

whereas suicide remains a significant cause of premature death in Europe, with over 50 000 deaths a year in the EU, and whereas, in nine out of ten cases, it is preceded by the development of mental disorders, frequently depression, and whereas, moreover, the rate of suicide and attempted suicide among people who are in prison or in detention is higher than among the general population,

G.

whereas devising policies to reduce the incidence of depression and suicide goes hand in hand with the protection of human dignity,

H.

whereas, even though depression constitutes one of the most frequent and serious disorders, measures to combat it often remain inadequate, and whereas only a few Member States have implemented prevention programmes,

I.

whereas, however, there is still a lack of understanding and investment in the promotion of mental health and prevention of disorders and a lack of support for medical research and for people with mental health problems,

J.

whereas the financial cost to society of mental ill-health is estimated at between 3 % and 4 % of the Member States’ gross domestic product (GDP), and whereas in 2006 the cost to the EU of mental illness was EUR 436 000 million, and whereas most of that expenditure was made outside the health sector, primarily because of systematic absence from work, incapacity for work and early retirement and estimated costs do not in many cases reflect the additional financial burden of co-morbidity, which is more likely to affect persons with mental health problems,

K.

whereas social and economic disparities can increase mental health problems, and whereas the rates of mental ill-health are higher among vulnerable and marginalised groups, such as the unemployed, immigrants, prisoners and former prisoners, users of psychotropic substances, persons with disabilities and persons with long-term illnesses, and whereas specific actions and appropriate policies are necessary to assist their integration and social inclusion,

L.

whereas there are significant disparities between and within the Member States in the field of mental health, including with regard to the areas of treatment as well as social integration,

M.

whereas persons with mental health problems are more at risk than the rest of the population of developing a physical disease and have a lower likelihood of receiving treatment for these physical diseases,

N.

whereas, while physical and mental health are of equal importance and there is interaction between them, mental health often remains undiagnosed or underestimated and receives inadequate treatment,

O.

whereas in most Member States there has been a move away from long-term institutionalised care towards supported living in the community, and whereas, however, this process has taken place without proper planning and resourcing, without control mechanisms and often with budget cuts, which are threatening to cause re-institutionalisation of thousands of citizens with mental illness,

P.

whereas the European Mental Health and Physical Health Platform was set up in 2008, gathering high-level representatives from key organisations,

Q.

whereas the foundations for lifelong mental health are laid during a person’s first few years of life and whereas mental illness is common among young people, in whom early diagnosis and treatment is of the utmost importance,

R.

whereas the ageing of the EU’s population entails more frequent occurrence of neurodegenerative disorders,

S.

whereas the discrimination and social exclusion experienced by people with mental health problems and their families are the consequences not only of mental disorder but also of the stigma, rejection and social marginalisation they encounter, and are risk factors which impede their search for assistance and treatment,

T.

whereas the European Union has designated 2010 as the European Year for Combating Poverty and Social Exclusion,

U.

whereas research is producing new data on the medical and social dimensions of mental health, and whereas, however, there are still significant gaps and consequently care should be taken not to hamper the public or private medical research effort by imposing a series of, often onerous, administrative requirements or excessive restrictions on the use of relevant models for the development of safe and effective medication,

V.

whereas learning disabilities (mental handicap) share many of the same characteristics and give rise to the same needs as mental disorders;

W.

whereas much improvement is essential in the training of medical professionals who encounter mental illness sufferers, including medical practitioners and members of the judiciary,

X.

whereas mental health disorders are ranked first in terms of human morbidity,

1.

Welcomes the European Pact on Mental Health and Well-Being and the recognition of mental health and well-being as a basic priority for action;

2.

Firmly supports the invitation to cooperate and foster action between the EU institutions, the Member States, the regional and local authorities and the social partners on five priority areas for the promotion of the mental health and well-being of the population, including all age groups, and different genders, ethnic origins and socio-economic groups, combating stigma and social exclusion, strengthening preventive action and self-help and providing support and adequate treatment to people with mental health problems and to their families and carers; stresses that any such cooperation must fully comply with the principle of subsidiarity;

3.

Calls on the Member States to develop an awareness of the importance of good mental health, particularly among healthcare professionals and target groups such as parents, teachers, those providing social and legal services, employers, carers and, particularly, the public at large;

4.

Calls on the Member States, in cooperation with the Commission and Eurostat, to improve knowledge about mental health and about the relationship between mental health and the years of healthy life, through establishing mechanisms for the exchange and dissemination of information in a clear, easily accessible and comprehensible manner;

5.

Calls on the Commission to propose common indicators to improve the comparability of data and facilitate the exchange of best practices and cooperation between the Member States to promote mental health;

6.

Considers that the emphasis should be on the prevention of mental ill-health through social intervention, with particular focus on the most vulnerable groups; stresses that, in cases where prevention is insufficient, non-discriminatory access to therapeutic treatment should be encouraged and facilitated and that people with mental health problems should have full access to information about innovative forms of treatment;

7.

Calls on the EU to use the funding facilities available under the Seventh Framework Programme for more research in the field of mental health and well-being and the interaction between mental and physical health problems; calls on the Member States to explore the funding facilities for mental health initiatives under the European Social Fund and the European Regional Development Fund;

8.

Calls on the Member States to make optimum use of the Community and national resources available to promote mental health issues and organise awareness and training programmes for everyone in key positions to promote early diagnosis, immediate intervention and proper management of mental health problems;

9.

Calls on the Commission to conduct and publish a survey of mental illness services and mental health promotion policies across the EU;

10.

Calls on the Member States to adopt UN resolution 46/119 on ‘the protection of persons with mental illness and the improvement of mental health care’ drawn up by the United Nations Commission on Human Rights and adopted by the General Assembly of the United Nations in 1991;

11.

Calls on the Member States to give people with mental health problems the right to equal, full and appropriate access to education, training and employment, in accordance with the principles of lifelong learning, and to ensure that they receive adequate support for their needs;

12.

Stresses the need for clear and long-term planning for the provision of high-quality, effective, accessible and universal community and in-patient mental health services and for the adoption of criteria for monitoring by independent bodies; calls for better cooperation and communication between primary healthcare professionals and mental health professionals to deal effectively with problems associated with mental and physical health, by encouraging a holistic approach which takes into account the overall profile of individuals from the point of view of physical and mental health;

13.

Calls on Member States to introduce screening for mental health problems in general health services and for physical health problems in mental health services; furthermore, calls on Member States to establish a comprehensive model of care;

14.

Asks the Commission to seek and record the experiences of patients regarding side effects of medication through European Medicines Agency (EMEA) guidelines;

15.

Asks the Commission to extend the mandate of the European Centre for Disease prevention and Control (ECDC) to include mental health;

16.

Calls on the Commission to disseminate the results of the thematic conferences to be held in order to implement the goals of the European Pact and to propose a ‘European Action Plan for the Mental Health and Well-Being of Citizens and Medical Research’;

17.

Encourages the establishment of an EU Platform on Mental Health and Well-being to implement the European Pact, consisting of representatives of the Commission, the Presidency of the Council, Parliament, the WHO and service users, people with mental health problems, families, carers, non-governmental organisations, the pharmaceutical industry, academics and other relevant stakeholders, while deploring the failure to adopt a directive at European level as advocated in the above-mentioned European Parliament resolution on the Commission’s Green Paper on mental health;

18.

Calls on the Commission to keep the proposal for a European Strategy on Mental Health and Wellbeing as its long-term objective;

19.

Calls on Member States to draw up up-to-date mental health legislation which is in line with international obligations as regards human rights – equality and the eradication of discrimination, the inviolability of private life, autonomy, bodily integrity, the right to information and participation – and which codifies and enshrines the basic principles, values and objectives of mental health policy;

20.

Calls for the adoption of common European guidelines defining disability in accordance with the provisions of the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities;

21.

Calls on the Member States to implement cross-sectoral programmes for the prevention of suicide, especially among young people and adolescents, promoting a healthy lifestyle, reducing the risk factors such as easy access to pharmaceuticals, drugs, harmful chemical substances and alcohol abuse; considers that it is particularly necessary to guarantee the provision of treatment for people who have attempted to commit suicide and of psychotherapeutic treatment for the families of people who have committed suicide;

22.

Calls on the Member States to set up regional information networks between healthcare professionals, service users and people with mental health problems, their families, their educational establishments and places of work, together with local organisations and the public in order to reduce depression and suicidal behaviour;

23.

Calls for information to be made more widely available concerning the single European emergency call number 112, such as attempted suicide or mental crises, so as to allow rapid intervention and the provision of emergency medical assistance;

24.

Calls on the Member States to set up specific training courses for general practitioners and for the staff of psychiatric services, including doctors, psychologists and nurses, on the prevention and treatment of depressive disorders and suicide risk awareness and management;

25.

Calls on the Member States to provide support to school staff in order to develop a healthy climate, and build relationships between school, parents, health service providers and the community in order to strengthen the social integration of young people;

26.

Calls on the Member States to organise support programmes for parents, particularly for disadvantaged families, and to promote the allocation of posts for counsellors in each secondary school to assist the social-emotional needs of young people, with a special focus on prevention programmes such as self-esteem enhancement and crisis management;

27.

Stresses the need for health system planning which meets the need for specialist mental health services for children and adolescents, taking into account the move from long-term institutionalised care towards supported living in the community;

28.

Stresses the need for the early detection and treatment of mental health problems in vulnerable groups, with particular reference to minors;

29.

Proposes that mental health should be incorporated into the programmes of study of all healthcare professionals and that provision should be made for continuous education and training in that sector;

30.

Calls on Member States and the European Union to cooperate in raising awareness of the deterioriating mental health situation of children with emigrant parents and to introduce school programs aimed at helping these youngsters to cope with the psychological problems related to the absence of their parents;

31.

Declares that the workplace plays a central role in the social integration of people with mental health problems and calls for support for their recruitment, retention, rehabilitation and return to work, with the emphasis on the integration of the most vulnerable groups, including ethnic minority communities;

32.

Calls on the Member States to encourage research into the working conditions which may increase the incidence of mental illness, particularly among women;

33.

Calls on the Member States to promote and implement specific vocational training courses for people with mental health problems taking into account their abilities and potential, in order to facilitate their integration into the employment market as well as to develop workplace reintegration programmes; stresses also the need for proper training of employers and their employees to deal with the specific needs of people with mental health problems;

34.

Calls on employers to promote a healthy working climate, paying attention to work-related stress, the underlying causes of mental disorder at the workplace, and tackling those causes;

35.

Calls on the Commission to require businesses and public bodies to publish annually a report on their policy and work for the mental health of their employees on the same basis as they report on physical health and safety at work;

36.

Encourages employers, as part of their health and safety at work strategies, to adopt programmes to promote the emotional and mental health of their workers, provide support options which are confidential and non-stigmatising and introduce anti-bullying policies; calls on the Commission to disseminate positive models by publishing such programmes on the Internet;

37.

Calls on the Member States to ensure that people who are entitled to sickness or disability benefits because of mental health problems are not deprived of their right of access to employment and that they will not lose the benefits related to their disability/sickness as soon as they find a new job;

38.

Calls for the full and effective implementation by Member States of Council Directive 2000/78/EC of 27 November 2000 establishing a general framework for equal treatment in employment and occupation (3);

39.

Calls on the Member States to adopt appropriate measures to improve and maintain a high quality of life for the elderly and to promote health and active ageing through participation in community life, including the development of flexible retirement schemes;

40.

Stresses the need to promote research into prevention and care with regard to neurodegenerative disorders and other age-related mental illnesses and for any future Commission action or proposal to distinguish between Alzheimer’s disease or similar neurodegenerative disorders and other forms of mental illness;

41.

Encourages the development of an interface between research and policy in the field of mental health and wellbeing;

42.

Notes the need to assess the co-morbidity of elderly people and the need for the training of healthcare personnel to increase knowledge about the needs of the elderly with mental health problems;

43.

Calls on the Commission and the Member States, in the context of the open method of coordination on social protection and integration, to take measures to support carers and to develop guidelines for nursing and long-term care in order to help prevent maltreatment of the elderly and to allow them to live with dignity in an appropriate environment;

44.

Calls for the organisation of public information and awareness campaigns through the media, the Internet, schools and workplaces, in order to promote mental health, increase knowledge about the most common symptoms of depression and suicidal tendencies, de-stigmatise mental disorders, encourage people to seek the best and most effective assistance and promote the active integration of people experiencing mental health problems;

45.

Stresses the crucial role of the media in changing perceptions of mental illness and calls for the development of European guidelines for responsible coverage of mental health by the media;

46.

Calls on the Member States to support and encourage the empowerment of organisations which represent people with mental health problems and their carers in order to facilitate their participation in the formulation and implementation of policy and in all stages of research into mental health;

47.

Considers that de-stigmatising mental illness involves abandoning the use of invasive and inhumane practices as well as those practices based on the custodial approach;

48.

Considers that it is necessary to promote and support psychological and social rehabilitation activities delivered by small public, private or public-private residential centres which provide day-care facilities or continuous care, are similar in scale and ethos to family units and are located in an urban setting, so as to encourage residents’ integration at every stage of the therapeutic and rehabilitation process;

49.

Welcomes the Commission proposal for a new directive against discrimination on the basis of religion or beliefs, disability, age or sexual orientation beyond the employment sector and calls for the immediate adoption of this directive in order effectively to protect persons with mental health problems from discrimination;

50.

Calls on all Member States to ratify without delay the Hague Convention of 13 January 2000 on the International Protection of Adults;

51.

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

25.3.2010   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 76/30

A.

whereas the European Union wastes more than 20 % of its energy due to inefficiency and, if the saving objective of 20 % were met, the EU would use about 400 Mtoe (million tonnes of oil equivalent) less primary energy and the CO2 emissions reduction would be about 860Mt,

B.

whereas energy consumption in combination with the national energy mix, which is mainly based on conventional energy sources, remain the main source of greenhouse gas emissions in the European Union,

C.

whereas there are increasingly complex risks concerning the security and dependence of supply in connection with the import of energy sources into the EU,

D.

whereas more incentives to invest in energy efficiency during a financial crisis or recession, and in times of volatility and unpredictability in oil prices could help stimulate the economy,

E.

whereas a rise in energy prices can become one of the main causes of poverty; whereas improvements in energy efficiency are the most effective way of reducing the vulnerability of the needy,

F.

whereas improving energy efficiency is also the most cost-effective way to attain the binding emissions reduction and renewable energy targets that the EU has set for itself,

G.

whereas improving energy efficiency and exploiting the possibilities inherent therein is in the common interest of the Member States; whereas it would be advisable to apply different sets of measures to the Member States, so as to reflect their divergent economic and climatic characteristics,

H.

whereas energy efficiency measures can only achieve the desired result if they are applied in all sectoral policies,

I.

whereas, in view of the fact that several Member States have not submitted a national energy efficiency plan, the Commission must take measures to encourage more Member States to implement decisions taken in that area,

J.

whereas the international economic crisis and the increasing volatility of energy source prices are raising the profile of energy efficiency, which may considerably improve the international competitiveness of European enterprises,

K.

whereas, according to the above-mentioned Commission Communication entitled Energy efficiency: delivering the 20 % target, there is a real danger that the energy efficiency target set for 2020 will not be met,

L.

whereas under the proposal for a directive on the promotion of the use of energy from renewable sources, Member States are required to promote and encourage energy efficiency and energy savings in order to achieve more easily their renewable targets,

M.

whereas residential buildings offer an energy-saving potential of approximately 27 %,

N.

whereas there are still no legally binding targets for energy efficiency, at EU or at national level,

O.

whereas there is a visible lack of capacity for implementing energy efficiency projects,

1.

Welcomes the action plans produced by the Member States; is, at the same time, concerned that the delays in submitting the plans and the contents of a number of National Action Plans point to deficiencies which might endanger the attainment of the EU’s energy efficiency and climate protection objectives; stresses that the emphasis must now be on effective implementation of measures focusing on energy efficiency, including the development of best practices and synergies, and better information and advice on energy efficiency to end users;

2.

Considers it timely that, as part of the 2009 review of the action plans, the extent to which the legislation and the action plans cover all the possibilities for economising in the area of energy efficiency, should be examined in detail, as should the division of responsibility between the Commission, Member States and the regional and local authorities in terms of implementation and enforcement;

3.

Urges the Commission to make energy efficiency and energy savings the cornerstone of the Energy Policy for Europe; welcomes the undertaking from the Commission, in the above-mentioned Communication entitled Energy efficiency: delivering the 20 % target, to prepare a revised EU action plan on energy efficiency; calls on the Commission to make the 20 % energy efficiency target by 2020 legally binding as part of the assessment it must prepare on the progress of the Community towards this target, under Decision No 406/2009/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council on the effort of Member States to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions to meet the Community’s greenhouse gas emission reduction commitments up to 2020 (13);

4.

Welcomes the increase in the Commission’s human resources in the field of energy efficiency, which, although still insufficient to be fully operational, has resulted in an acceleration in the preparation of legislative proposals in the areas of, for example, eco-product design, the energy performance of buildings and energy labelling, the transport sector and end user installations; stresses that there is a continued need for legislation in these areas;

5.

Regards Directive 2006/32/EC as a good regulatory framework; at the same time, notes that the Directive is limited in application to the period up to 2016 and in any case is too limited in ambition to deliver the goal of at least 20 % energy efficiency improvement by 2020, so that a review in 2012, based on a comprehensive study of Member States’ experiences, is called for;

6.

Welcomes the fact that energy providers and professional associations in a number of Member States have, on the basis of the Directive, begun improving and coordinating their own smart metering systems; notes, however, that with the present regulatory framework it is unlikely that smart metering will be widely adopted by households; supports therefore the compulsory introduction of smart meters in all buildings within 10 years of the entry into force of Directive 2009/72/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council concerning common rules for the internal market in electricity and repealing Directive 2003/54/EC (14); urges the Commission to enforce more rigorously the requirements of Article 13 of Directive 2006/32/EC in order to accelerate the roll-out of smart-metering systems;

7.

Considers it necessary for the Commission to support the compulsory introduction of smart metering, to draw up a comprehensive study of Member States’ experiences in the field; considers that future rules should impose a requirement to equip consumers’ homes with readable displays alongside the metering system and that the Commission should also devote attention to rules on compatibility of metering systems and on data communication, differentiated tariffs and microproduction;

8.

Considers that provisions which reinforce the exemplary role of the public sector should be supported; considers that, in the light of rising energy costs, energy efficiency criteria should be defined for the public procurement procedures of public sector institutions;

9.

Recognises that increasing the energy efficiency of buildings has immense potential for the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions and the fight against climate change, in terms both of adaptation and of tackling the causes of climate change;

10.

Encourages Member States to make substantial use of alternative renewable energy sources such as wind, biomass, biofuels and also wave and tidal energy, where possible;

11.

Welcomes the Commission’s preparation to extend Directive 2002/91/EC as regards the standardisation of low-energy-intensive and net zero carbon buildings, and calls for EU-wide requirements on positive energy buildings, as these could reduce costs for end-users; urges that the exact timetable for standardisation and minimum levels of energy from renewables be set down for both new and existing buildings;

12.

Underlines that residential buildings are among the most energy-wasteful sectors and therefore urges that financial support at both national and Community levels for the energy performance of buildings be increased and existing financial incentives be compared with the commitments set out in the National Action Plans as part of the Commission’s review of Action Plans;

13.

Encourages in particular Member States and the regions to use Structural Funds to set up on their territories thematic networks in the framework of the Concerted Action provided for by the 2008 Intelligent Energy Europe Work Programme in order to be informed about practices of other EU regions as regards the efficient use of energy and to exchange know-how and experience in this domain;

14.

Stresses that energy policies in the National Action Plans addressing the residential sector should set as a priority the improvement of the envelope quality of dwellings where low income people reside, taking into account the fact that unpredictable fuel prices will seriously aggravate the economic situation of these households and may create serious social problems;

15.

Welcomes the on-schedule, ongoing additions to the legislation containing provisions on the labelling of equipment and minimum energy efficiency with regard to the Action Plan and Directive 2005/32/EC; considers it important that the range of equipment covered by the legislation be extended, alongside monitoring of consumer habits;

16.

Recommends that, in order to reduce the use of standby power, the Commission examine the possibility of regulating external power sources which supply multiple devices; calls on the Commission, in accordance with the provisions of Directive 2005/32/EC, to ensure that those provisions include the whole life cycle of the product in terms of energy efficiency consequences; in this regard, calls for this Directive to be supplemented with provisions concerning the whole life cycle, product liability and repairability;

17.

Considers it important that enterprises not governed by the European Emissions Trading Scheme be involved in increased energy efficiency, in particular where hidden costs or other difficulties hinder the market achievement of energy efficiency; in order to attain such efficiencies, considers it necessary – in addition to the extension of ecodesign – to introduce a ‘white certificates’ system; believes that, to enable this, the Commission should complete the relevant checks as soon as possible; notes the crucial role that energy efficiency can play in helping Member States to achieve their mandatory effort-sharing targets; underlines the particular potential for cost-effective reductions through improved energy efficiency in buildings;

18.

Welcomes Regulation (EC) No 443/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council setting emission performance standards for new passenger cars as part of the Community’s integrated approach to reduce CO2 emissions from light-duty vehicles (15) and the consultation on further legislation to improve the specific energy efficiency of vehicles; underlines the importance of stringent future emissions targets to be set as soon as possible in the interests of industry certainty; expresses disappointment that the 95g CO2 limit for 2020 called for by Parliament is not yet confirmed; notes, however, with concern that the new legislation will not offset the increasing energy demand for transport;

19.

Welcomes the drawing up of the Green Paper on Urban Mobility (COM(2007)0551) but notes that, in the absence of specific, quantifiable provisions, the efficiency reserves cannot be mobilised; calls on the Commission to examine how the promotion of energy-efficient urban mobility and development of public transport can play a greater role in structural and cohesion policy and how the efficiency of mobility can be assigned more weight in the conditions for Community cofinancing projects;

20.

Stresses that the spread of information and communication tools has made it possible to apply tolling methods for road freight transport which cover not only the high-speed road network; urges that the possibilities for uniform monitoring legislation for the internal market be studied;

21.

Welcomes the Commission proposal for the promotion of efficient cogeneration, but observes that promotion of this technology may play a role where it can contribute effectively to meeting useful heating needs; notes that in district heating systems the efficiency of the network is just as vital as the efficiency of equipment used on the consumer side; considers that, in allocating structural funding, considerably greater weight should in future be attached to the network efficiency of the existing district heating systems;

22.

Continues to find that individual sector policies run counter to the European Union’s endeavours to be energy efficient; is of the opinion that the same is also true in the current structure of structural and cohesion support;

23.

Considers that SMEs have an important role to play in improving energy efficiency but that they do not have the same capacity to comply with legislation or new standards in the energy sector; considers, therefore, that the facilities which will be created by the Small Business Act should also handle information and contacts with SMEs concerning energy efficiency;

24.

Calls on Member States to increase their level of ambition and turn their National Energy Efficiency Action Plans (NEEAPs) into a practical tool for delivery not only of their energy efficiency targets under Directive 2006/32/EC, but also for their wider and longer term targets, notably to improve energy efficiency by at least 20 % by 2020 and to meet binding national effort sharing targets for emissions reduction;

25.

Calls on the Member States to go beyond the minimum national indicative energy saving target of 9 % by 2016 in Directive 2006/32/EC and set clear interim targets to achieve the final target;

26.

Considers it necessary for the National Action Plans to formulate realistic, substantiated binding targets and to specify the measures to be put in place in order to ensure these targets are reached;

27.

Regards it as extremely important that the National Action Plans be adapted to geographical, climatic, economic structure and consumer characteristics, which can differ widely between regions;

28.

Stresses the relationship between energy and territorial cohesion, as pointed out in the Commission Green Paper on Territorial Cohesion (COM(2008)0616), in terms of the positive contribution made by energy efficiency measures to sustainable development and energy security, and the importance of a well-designed spatial strategy, and the creation of long-term solutions for all regions;

29.

Considers it necessary for the National Action Plans to reach the energy efficiency targets set in a cost-effective way and to guarantee the value added by State aid;

30.

Calls on the Member States to incorporate, in their existing structures for contacts between government agencies and the public, information on energy efficiency, best practice in those areas and consumer rights which have been established in the energy and climate sector;

31.

Considers it indispensable that, in contrast with the current practice of a number of Member States, the National Action Plans be prepared with the substantive involvement of local and regional governments, civil organisations and economic partners in order to ensure better grassroots implementation;

32.

Considers it important that the National Action Plans pay special attention to poverty caused by rising energy prices and guarantee suitable protection for those at risk of poverty; considers that improving energy efficiency and awareness is a vital and urgent task;

33.

Emphasises the importance of Member States including in their NEEAPs appropriate financial instruments for energy saving, as required by Article 9 of Directive 2006/32/EC; considers that these financial instruments should be designed to overcome recognised barriers to energy efficiency improvement such as the cost/benefit split between owner and tenant and the longer pay-back period required when bringing older, hard-to-treat properties up to contemporary energy efficiency standards;

34.

Considers it necessary for the National Action Plans to place special emphasis on how governments intend to promote and support energy efficiency investments on the part of SMEs; stresses, therefore, that particular account should be taken of such investments when the National Action Plans are drawn up;

35.

Notes with regret that in most Member States the funding allocated to energy efficiency projects is still insufficient and fails adequately to account for regional variances; calls on Member States and regions to focus on the implementation of their respective operational programmes on innovative measures, in order to develop cost-effective energy efficiency solutions;

36.

Stresses the need, from now on, for an effective implementation of these measures, including the development of best practices and synergies and the organisation of information exchange and coordination of the diverse and dispersed actors in the energy efficiency sector;

37.

Underlines the need for more comprehensive and clear commitments in the second National Action Plans in 2011 in order to create a favourable business environment and predictable investment conditions for market actors;

38.

Stresses that the private sector, supported by national measures, should play a prominent role in investing in and developing new, sustainable energy technologies, while also taking innovative actions to adopt an approach more focussed on energy efficiency;

39.

Stresses the strategic role of EU public authorities, in particular at regional and local level, in strengthening the implementation of the necessary institutional support for energy-efficiency initiatives, as described in Directive 2006/32/EC; recommends the strengthening of capillary information and education campaigns, for example through the use of easily understandable energy efficiency labels, and of energy-related pilot initiatives and training on the territories of those regional and local authorities who are aiming at raising citizens’ awareness and changing behaviour;

40.

Calls on the Member States to develop long-term energy efficiency awareness campaigns, focusing on efficiency in buildings, both public and private, and also on convincing the public that energy efficiency can bring them real savings;

41.

Calls on the Commission to disseminate a detailed analysis of all the first round of plans submitted so that the reasons for delays are fully known and to take strong action against further delays and omissions;

42.

Asks that the Commission examine, at Community and Member State level, the consistency of each sectoral policy with the energy efficiency objectives, considers in this context that a detailed review of Community aid schemes is indispensable;

43.

Calls on the Commission to significantly increase the proportion of the Structural Funds and the Cohesion Fund devoted under Article 7 of Regulation (EC) No 1080/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 5 July 2006 on the European Regional Development Fund (16) to improving the energy efficiency of existing housing, and to require the Member States to take full advantage of this option;

44.

Encourages Member States and the regions in particular to use Structural Funds to set up on their territories thematic networks in the framework of the Concerted Action provided for by the 2008 Intelligent Energy Europe Work Programme in order to be informed about practice in other EU regions as regards the efficient use of energy and to exchange know-how and experience in this domain;

45.

Asks the Commission for the next programming period of the Structural Funds to support energy-efficiency objectives, to reinforce priority criteria related to such objectives and to support the implementation of concrete measures and technologies for saving energy and fostering its efficient use, including through the promotion of partnerships in projects such as renovating buildings, modernising street lighting and ecological transport, modernising installations for urban heating and producing heating and electricity;

46.

Calls on the Commission to adopt the measures needed to equip Member States with the institutional capacity to prepare and implement effective National Action Plans, including official monitoring and quality control of individual measures, inter alia those arising from obligations relating to the energy certificates of buildings, and for supporting public education and training programmes in energy efficiency; calls on the Commission to establish a public database of Member States’ energy efficiency measures and/or of critical elements of their application;

47.

Calls on the Commission to establish minimum requirements for a harmonised template, methodology and evaluation process for NEEAPs; notes that this will reduce the administrative burden on Member States, ensure NEEAPs are well-founded and facilitate comparative analysis; believes that this harmonised template and methodology must require chapters by sector and must make a clear distinction between policies and actions on energy efficiency previously adopted by Member States on the one hand, and new and additional policies and actions on the other; points to the relevant provisions of the proposed directive on the promotion of the use of energy from renewable sources; stresses that the checking by the Commission and if necessary rejection of the national action plans at the moment of their submission would ensure a better quality of implementation downstream; calls for the coordination of National Action Plans and reports provided for under different legislative instruments linked with climate change objectives; calls on the Commission to cross-check the NEEAPs with other such National Action Plans and reports, including those submitted in connection with the Kyoto Protocol and the National Strategic Reference Framework documents of the Structural Funds;

48.

Calls on the Commission to develop common principles on methods to measure energy savings with due respect to the subsidiarity principle; notes that the need for quantification and verification of energy savings resulting from energy efficiency improvement measures is not only of interest within the scope of Directive 2006/32/EC, but also in relation to measuring the achievement of the 20 % energy saving objective for 2020 and any other future energy saving objectives;

49.

Urges the Commission to ensure that NEEAPs present a clear and joined-up approach, and in particular that the requirements of Directive 2002/91/EC, including any subsequent recasting, are fully integrated into the NEEAPs so that the NEEAPs propose measures that are genuinely additional to energy efficiency improvements already required under existing national and Community legislation;

50.

Urges the Commission to insist that the NEEAPs clearly state how the obligation under Directive 2006/32/EC for the public sector to play an exemplary role is to be fulfilled and if necessary to make a proposal for Community legislation which will ensure the leading role of the public sector in the area of energy efficiency investments;

51.

Invites the Commission to examine possible ways of reinforcing public procurement procedures with a set of energy efficiency conditions, to be achieved by giving priority to ‘green’ products in public contracts, including mandatory application of energy efficiency standards and mandatory inclusion of life cycle energy costs in the evaluation of investments; stresses that public authorities at all levels should be the first to set an example through the implementation of Green Public Procurement in their procedures;

52.

Calls on the Commission to study the Community resources dedicated to research and development in order to boost the resources dedicated to improving energy efficiency in the next financial perspective;

53.

Considers that the Commission should encourage those Member States which have not yet adopted their national energy efficiency plan to implement decisions which have been taken in that area;

54.

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

25.3.2010   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 76/38

A.

whereas the Commission has sought to stimulate European research on fisheries and aquaculture since the 4th Framework Programme in order to support the common fisheries policy (CFP),

B.

whereas in the 7th Framework Programme, all research on fisheries and aquaculture is incorporated in the wider context of research on agriculture (thematic area 2), whilst marine sciences and the management of coastal zones come under environmental science,

C.

whereas the code of conduct for responsible fishing of the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO) and the agreement for the implementation of the provisions of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea relating to the conservation and management of straddling fish stocks and highly migratory fish stocks both stress the need to develop research activities and the collection of data in order to improve scientific knowledge in the sector,

D.

whereas the CFP is among the Community policies most dependent on scientific research and the credibility of the measures adopted under the CFP rests on high-quality scientific opinions,

E.

whereas the CFP is founded on principles of good governance, which require that the decision-making process should be based on serious scientific opinions and should produce timely results,

F.

whereas scientific data must be taken as the basis for setting quotas and the Maximum Sustainable Yield (MSY),

G.

whereas fishermen and scientists often disagree in their estimates of the state of the sea and fish stocks,

H.

whereas the marine and maritime research strategy, while recognising the importance of continuing efforts in the various marine and maritime disciplines, focuses on improving interactions between marine research and maritime research rather than targeting research sectors that are already well established,

I.

whereas the centres of research excellence existing in the outermost regions are especially useful means of observing the marine landscape for Europe, in the context of the marine and maritime research strategy,

J.

whereas the forthcoming review of the CFP, attaching greater importance to regional and ecosystem management, requires a solid basis of scientific knowledge,

1.

Is convinced that it is necessary, in the policies pursued with regard to research, to pay greater attention to the specific problems of fisheries and aquaculture in view of the sector’s economic, social and political importance in the EU;

2.

Welcomes the fresh efforts made by the Commission through its marine and maritime research strategy to mobilise resources with a view to improved integration between marine research and maritime research;

3.

Reminds the Commission that, in accordance with Regulation (EC) No 2371/2002, it has a legal obligation to base its proposals relating to the CFP on ‘sound scientific advice and on the precautionary approach’; calls on the Commission to emphasise and make a case for the importance of scientific research into the state of the sea and fish stocks;

4.

Is concerned at the reorganisation of themes in the 7th Framework Programme, which means that research on fish production has been separated from fisheries and marine ecology, even though a clear reorientation of the CFP towards an ecosystem approach would on the contrary require a greater degree of integration;

5.

Deplores the fact that the 7th Framework Programme does not consider either fisheries or aquaculture as specific strands, and refers only to thematic area 2, ‘Food, agriculture and fisheries, and biotechnology’, which covers fisheries research, but only remotely and if interpreted in the wider sense; notes that the same applies to thematic area 6, ‘Environment (including climate change)’;

6.

Calls on the Commission to review the 7th Framework Programme when the mid-term evaluation is carried out, scheduled for 2010, taking account of this resolution and paying greater attention to the specific problems of fisheries and aquaculture;

7.

Is convinced that both policy-makers and operators in the fisheries sector have a crucial need for a more practical type of research and, given the duration of the 7th Framework Programme, it is imperative to include the objectives to be achieved;

8.

Takes the view that, owing to the absence of specific strands for fisheries and aquaculture in the 7th Framework Programme, there is not enough incentive for a sufficient number of research projects to be drawn up in these areas, which has a detrimental effect on the importance and relevance of the projects selected;

9.

Stresses that, in order to ensure the effective implementation of the CFP, specific programmes need to be put in place in the field of applied research, and their funding needs to be ensured through an adequate budget allocation; takes the view that, to this end, it is vital to include an allocation key in the 7th Framework Programme;

10.

Calls on the Commission for the funding of applied research in the field of the CFP under the 7th Framework Programme to be used as a lever to promote synergies between research efforts in the various Member States and attain the critical mass necessary to meet the great challenges of cross-thematic marine research;

11.

Recommends that, in the field of scientific marine research, priority be given not only to research to gain knowledge of the state of fish stocks but also to the ecosystemic, commercial, economic and social aspects that determine fisheries management, since all these aspects are of crucial importance;

12.

Takes the view that, in the fields of fisheries and aquaculture in particular, priority should be given to applied research whose fundamental objective should be to improve the scientific data used as a basis for legislation and fisheries management, particularly as regards recovery plans for species at biological risk;

13.

Notes a clear conflict of interest between fishermen and scientists in the short term, whereas their long-term objectives are more compatible; considers that a consensus about the state of the sea must be the basis for a fisheries policy geared to sustainability; calls on the Commission to promote better cooperation between fishermen and scientists;

14.

Calls on the Commission and the Member States to demonstrate and better convey to fishermen that it is in their interests to take into account the economic benefit that they can expect in the medium or long term in the assessment of their presumed short-term economic loss;

15.

Stresses the worrying problem of the shortage of young scientists in applied research in the fisheries sector, because careers are not very attractive compared to basic research and other scientific disciplines;

16.

Stresses the need to re-establish interesting and status-enhancing university degree courses leading on to remunerative careers for this scientific path;

17.

Is in favour of an education policy that provides greater motivation for young scientists to take up applied research in the fisheries sector, rather than basic research;

18.

Urges the Commission to promote the creation of a stable European network, based on the existing physical infrastructure in the Member States and geared to the observation of and collection of data on the marine environment, that would facilitate the exchange of information between operators in the sector and European research bodies, and would maintain the EU in a position of excellence; calls on the Commission to take particular account for this network of the research centres existing in the outermost regions;

19.

Recalls the need to standardise the various applied research models currently used in the Member States to make it easier to compare the results and facilitate the aggregation of data;

20.

Calls on the Commission to encourage the scientific community to draw up more common methodology standards in fisheries research and step up cooperation between national research institutes;

21.

Calls on the Commission to gather specific information on the way in which the dialogue between scientists and fishermen currently operates in the various Member States and to list best practices;

22.

Stresses that the Regional Advisory Councils have an important role to play in the context of applied research and asks, consequently, that it should be possible for scientists to be full members of these bodies;

23.

Notes with concern that the total amount spent by Member States on collecting data in the fisheries sector has declined constantly since 2006;

24.

Calls on the Commission and Member States to allocate the appropriations entered in the EU budget for the collection of data in the fisheries sector, in particular under budget heading 11 07 02: ‘Support for the management of fishery resources (improvement of scientific advice)’;

25.

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

25.3.2010   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 76/42

A.

whereas the right of EU citizens to establish themselves or to provide services anywhere in the EU are fundamental freedoms of the Single Market which include the right to pursue a profession, in a self-employed or employed capacity, in a Member State other than the one in which the professional qualification was obtained,

B.

whereas, pursuant to Article 3(1)(c) of the Treaty, the abolition, as between Member States, of obstacles to the free movement of persons and services is one of the activities of the Community,

C.

whereas greater mobility of persons and services between Member States and between regions is an essential element in achieving the Lisbon agenda for growth and jobs and can boost productivity by bringing fresh perspectives, ideas and skills,

D.

whereas mobility in the EU remains low, only 4 % of the workforce has ever lived and worked in another Member State and approximately 2 % currently lives and works in another Member State (7),

E.

whereas there are still major obstacles for persons wanting to work in another Member State, and 20 % of complaints received by SOLVIT in 2007 concerned the recognition of professional qualifications required to pursue a regulated profession,

F.

whereas the Commission has started infringement procedures under Article 226 of the Treaty against several Member States for failing to notify it of measures adopted in transposition of Directive 2005/36/EC,

G.

whereas recital 32 to Directive 2005/36/EC states that ‘the introduction, at European level, of professional cards by professional associations or organisations could facilitate the mobility of professionals, in particular by speeding up the exchange of information between the host Member State and the Member State of origin. This professional card should make it possible to monitor the career of professionals who establish themselves in various Member States. Such cards could contain information, in full respect of data protection provisions, on the professional’s professional qualifications (university or institution attended, qualifications obtained, professional experience), his legal establishment, penalties received relating to his profession and the details of the relevant competent authority’,

H.

whereas, in its above-mentioned resolution on the impact and consequences of the exclusion of health services from the Directive on services in the internal market, it called for the setting up of ‘a European card to provide access to information on the skills of health care professionals and to make that information available to patients’,

1.

Encourages all initiatives that aim to facilitate cross-border mobility as a means to the efficient functioning of the services and labour markets, and as a means to enhance economic growth within the EU;

2.

Underlines the responsibility of the EU to further facilitate geographic and occupational mobility by enhancing transparency in the recognition and comparability of qualifications and in guaranteeing the safety of patients and consumers;

3.

Stresses however the need for a more efficient and coordinated approach by the Commission between initiatives that aim to facilitate and stimulate the mobility of professionals between Member States, such as EUROPASS (European CV), EURES (job mobility portal) and the European Qualifications Framework (EQF), as well as between the different associated Community funded or co-funded networks involved in these issues, such as SOLVIT, IMI, EUROGUIDANCE and ENIC/NARIC;

4.

Emphasis the co-responsibility of civil society, including employers, unions, professional organisations and the competent authorities, in easing and improving mobility within the internal market;

5.

Urges those Member States that are lagging behind in transposing Directive 2005/36/EC, which should have been completed by 20 October 2007, to bring into force the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary;

6.

Calls on the Commission to take action against those Members States that have not yet transposed Directive 2005/36/EC;

7.

Calls on the Commission to assess the impact on mobility of the application of Article 7 of Directive 2005/36/EC in the report it will draw up pursuant to Article 60(2) of that Directive;

8.

Urges the Member States to strive for a more harmonised approach to the recognition of qualifications and competences, to simplify the administrative processes involved and to reduce the costs incurred by professionals;

9.

Is of the opinion that the added value of a European professional card, in addition to existing measures which aim to facilitate and stimulate mobility, needs to be established for most professions;

10.

Notes that in some regulated and harmonised professions, such as lawyers and health professionals, European professional cards are in place or in development, but that in other non- or less harmonised professions, the introduction of professional cards seems difficult since regulation varies from Member State to Member State and data on qualifications has to be validated and mutually recognised first;

11.

Points out that a European professional card could be an advantage even for non-regulated and non-harmonised professions, as it would have an information role particularly for employers and consumers, which would be the case for most liberal professions;

12.

Invites the Commission to take stock of different initiatives concerning the development of professional cards and to report to Parliament on a representative inventory;

13.

Calls on the Commission to examine the initiatives in order to see whether a European professional card, in addition to other measures, could:

is of the opinion that any further public steps should involve a well-defined description of the types of profession and specific needs that the card is supposed to cover;

14.

Is of the opinion that any professional card, if there is sufficient demand to develop one, should be as simple, easy and liberal as possible, avoiding any new bureaucratic burdens, and that it could establish a ‘common language’ in the qualifications of certain professions;

15.

Urges that a European professional card should not have a negative effect on cross-border mobility, and should only be used as proof of the right to move without being a condition for such movement; emphasises that specific groups should not be excluded from offering their services in other Member States, and that especially for people with fewer or less specific qualifications, the card should not create new obstacles;

16.

Emphasises that the use of one or more European professional cards should allow for diversity, for instance to accommodate differences between professions or differences between Member States; considers that the professions themselves should finance the development and implementation of a European professional card, if felt appropriate;

17.

Underlines that, in the event of the profession concerned already having a national professional card, it would, for practical reasons, be appropriate for the functions of the national card to be integrated into the European professional card;

18.

Emphasises that information on a European professional card should be reliable, validated and updated by the competent national authorities; is of the opinion that, where appropriate, information contained in EUROPASS CVs could also be included on the European professional card;

19.

Stresses that access to the data contained on the card should comply with the highest standards of the protection of privacy;

20.

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

25.3.2010   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 76/46

A.

whereas the primary objective must be the protection of biodiversity, including the conservation of species,

B.

whereas animal welfare must always be taken into consideration,

C.

whereas there are, nonetheless, issues of food security and supply, particularly for communities that have traditionally engaged in whaling,

D.

whereas the ‘deliberate disturbance, capture or killing’ of all whale species is currently prohibited in Community waters under the Habitats Directive,

E.

whereas almost one in four cetacean species are currently regarded as under threat, with nine species listed as either endangered or critically endangered, and the status of many species and populations remains unclear,

F.

whereas, although some whale populations have achieved some degree of recovery since the introduction of the moratorium, others have not and their ability to adapt to changing environmental conditions remains unknown,

G.

whereas the moratorium was originally intended to last until an adequate management scheme was put in place and to allow adequate time for depleted stocks to recover,

H.

whereas not all members of the IWC subscribe to the moratorium,

I.

whereas the moratorium does not, in any event, cover the killing of whales for scientific purposes,

J.

whereas the number of whales killed under Special Permit has actually increased since the introduction of the moratorium,

K.

whereas the IWC (in over 30 resolutions) and a number of NGOs and other bodies have expressed deep concern that current Special Permit whaling is ‘contrary to the spirit of the moratorium on commercial whaling’ (IWC2003-2); the meat from such whaling should not be used for commercial purposes,

L.

whereas, despite recent improvements, the methods by which whales are killed still fall short of the desired standard,

M.

whereas cetaceans are endangered not only by hunting but also by climate change, pollution, ship strikes, fishing gear, sonar and other hazards,

N.

whereas the above-mentioned Council decision relied only on Article 175 of the EC Treaty and related only to the above-mentioned meeting of the IWC in Santiago, Chile, in June 2008,

1.

Warmly welcomes the above-mentioned Commission Communication on Community action in relation to whaling and the decision on whaling, which was adopted by qualified majority at the Council; and supports the maintenance of the global moratorium on commercial whaling and a ban on international commercial trade in whale products; seeks to end ‘scientific whaling’ and supports the designation of substantial regions of ocean and seas as sanctuaries in which all whaling is indefinitely prohibited;

2.

Calls on the Council to adopt a new common position under Article 37 as well as Article 175 of the EC Treaty;

3.

Believes that the conservation of whales and other cetaceans depends ultimately on the development of measures that are the subject of sufficiently broad agreement to be implemented effectively;

4.

Calls on the Council, the Commission and those Member States participating in the Working Group to work toward the achievement of such an agreement;

5.

Believes that discussions in the Working Group should be the subject of the greatest possible transparency;

6.

Hopes that the Working Group will address the issue of lethal whaling for scientific purposes in order to find a basis for eliminating it;

7.

Respects the need for a limited amount of hunting to be done by those traditionally engaged in it for the purposes of sustenance, but calls for much greater emphasis on research into and the employment of humane killing methods;

8.

Calls for any such hunting to take place only with clear quotas based on the advice of the IWC Scientific Committee and regulated under strict controls incorporating full recording and reporting to the IWC;

9.

Calls also for the establishment, in suitable locations around the world, of more Marine Protected Areas in which whales would receive special protection;

10.

Notes that the Habitats Directive, which defines the Community position with respect to whales (and dolphins), would not allow the resumption of commercial whaling in respect of any stock of whales in EU waters;

11.

Draws attention to the need to use more selective fishing gear to avoid by-catches of other species, particularly cetaceans;

12.

Considers that the tragic history of commercial whaling, combined with the numerous threats currently faced by whale populations (including, inter alia, incidental catches in fishing operations, collisions with vessels, global climate change and ocean noise pollution), dictates that the EU must promote, in key international fora, in a coordinated and coherent way, the highest level of protection for whales at a global level;

13.

Calls also for threats to the cetacean population arising from climate change, pollution, ship strikes, fishing gear, anthropogenic ocean noise (including sonar, seismic surveys and vessel noise) and other hazards to be tackled outside such protected areas;

14.

Considers that the Commission should, in advance of global action, bring forward further proposals to counter such threats in respect of Community waters and Community vessels;

15.

Takes the view that the Commission should define a revised regulatory framework for the practice of whale-watching that protects the economic and social interests of coastal regions where this activity is carried out, taking account of its recent development;

16.

Instructs its President to forward this resolution to the Council and the Commission, the governments and parliaments of the Member States, the International Whaling Commission, the Regional Advisory Councils, the Advisory Committee on Fisheries and Aquaculture and the Regional Fisheries Management Organisations to which the EU belongs.

25.3.2010   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 76/49

A.

whereas the audiovisual sector makes an important contribution to the European creative and knowledge economy and plays a central role in promoting cultural diversity and pluralism in the European Union,

B.

whereas the convergence of information society services and media services, networks and devices sets new challenges in terms of adapting the existing legal framework with its rights and obligations in many areas, and offers a host of new opportunities,

C.

whereas the transparency and the availability of reliable and comparable information concerning the European audiovisual market can make operators in the sector, especially SMEs, more competitive, by improving the understanding of the industry’s potential, and canbe to the benefit of users,

D.

whereas the European Audiovisual Observatory (the ‘Observatory’) thus contributes to the competitiveness of the European audiovisual industry by collecting and disseminating detailed information about the audiovisual sector,

E.

whereas the Observatory provides a wide variety of products including online services, publications and databases, which have proved to be of great value for both industry and policy makers, at national and Community level,

F.

whereas Community action to support the competitiveness of the audiovisual industry will contribute to achieving the objectives set by the Lisbon strategy,

1.

Recognises that the Observatory is the only pan-European public service organisation dedicated to gathering and distributing information on the European audiovisual industry and plays a vital role by providing detailed information on the sector to both public and private bodies in the field;

2.

Stresses that the convergence of information society services and media services, networks and devices has raised new challenges for research in the audiovisual sector, which should be reflected in the Observatory’s activities;

3.

Reiterates that multimedia and new technologies will play an ever greater role in the audiovisual sector and that the Observatory must, in due course, strengthen its capacity to follow these new developments in order to continue to play an important role in the sector;

4.

Emphasises that the Observatory must be provided with the resources necessary to continue realising its objectives, thereby effectively keeping step with new developments in multimedia and new technologies;

5.

Calls on the Observatory in this respect to extend its activities to cover more specifically the latest challenges that are created by media convergence and new developments, giving particular attention to the analysis of the impact of digitalisation on the film and audiovisual industry in general and the analysis of online audiovisual services, mobile TV and video games;

6.

Stresses the importance of contact and co-ordination with national regulators and stakeholders in the audiovisual media sector in order to guarantee added value;

7.

Welcomes the Observatory’s publication on copyright and other related rights and suggests that the Observatory cover these issues systematically and, also as far as possible in the light of the UNESCO Convention on Cultural Diversity (4), extend its coverage to include the issue of tax and labour law in the audiovisual sector in Europe;

8.

Calls on the Observatory, as an expert body, to make suggestions and provide policy options which could serve as a basis for European policy, having regard to best practices in the audiovisual media field in other parts of the world with equivalent developments (such as Asia or North America);

9.

Welcomes the Observatory’s investigation into the significance of audiovisual works from third countries on the European market and recommends an analysis on developing models of cooperation with partners from third countries on the implementation of the UNESCO Convention on Cultural Diversity and the abovementioned Audiovisual Media Services Directive with respect to the ‘European works’ under Article 1(n) of that Directive and including the Media International pilot project;

10.

Recognises the cultural differences between Member States which may result in different ways of dealing with harmful or offensive audiovisual material, especially vis-à-vis minors, while taking into account the minimum harmonisation in the field of protection of minors laid down in the Audiovisual Media Services Directive and the actions taken under the Safer Internet Plus programme which aims to promote safer use of the internet and new online technologies, particularly for children, and to combat illegal content and content not wanted by the end-user;

11.

Calls on the Observatory, in this respect, to monitor the different (legal) instruments and to develop policy options;

12.

Encourages the wider dissemination of the Observatory’s publications through an intensified communications policy in order to promote awareness of its activities;

13.

Welcomes the planned overhaul of the Observatory website which ought to reflect the latest and highest standards in multimedia and technology, and supports the planned efforts to improve its design and interactivity which will make it more informative and more user friendly;

14.

Recognises that whilst some specific areas, such as media literacy, are not currently within the field of activity of the Observatory, exploration of such issues should be envisaged;

15.

Encourages the Observatory to provide, in cooperation with its members, more data on the availability of specific audiovisual services such as subtitling, audio description and sign language, designed to assist people with disabilities;

16.

Instructs its President to forward this resolution to the Council, the Commission and the governments and parliaments of the Member States as well as the Council of Europe and the European Audiovisual Observatory.

25.3.2010   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 76/51

A.

whereas its resolution of 14 February 2007 addressed a series of 46 detailed recommendations to Member States, the Council and the Commission,

B.

whereas since the adoption of its resolution of 14 February 2007, a series of developments have taken place in Member States, including:

C.

whereas on 3 February 2009 the Commissioner for Justice, Freedom and Security stated in Parliament that he had undertaken a series of actions to implement Parliament’s recommendations, including writing to the authorities of Poland and Romania to ask them to clarify in full the position regarding the alleged existence of secret prisons on their soil, and issuing a communication proposing new measures in the field of civil aviation,

D.

whereas extraordinary rendition and secret detention are contrary to international human rights law, the UN Convention against Torture, the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms and the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, and whereas the US authorities are currently reviewing these practices,

E.

whereas those kidnapped in some Member States under the extraordinary rendition programme have been flown to Guantánamo or to other states by the US authorities on military or CIA flights, which have often flown over EU territory and in some cases have also made stopovers in certain Member States; whereas those taken to third countries have undergone torture in local prisons,

F.

whereas some Member States have approached the US authorities requesting the release and repatriation of persons who have undergone extraordinary rendition and who are their nationals or who were previously resident on their territory; whereas officials of some Member States have had access to prisoners in Guantánamo or in other detention centres and have also interrogated them to verify the charges brought against them by the US authorities, thus legitimating the existence of such detention facilities,

G.

whereas its resolution of 14 February 2007 stated, and subsequent events have confirmed, that several Member States had been involved in, or had cooperated actively or passively with the US authorities in, the CIA’s and US military’s illegal transportation of prisoners to, and/or their detention in, Guantánamo and the ‘secret prisons’ acknowledged by President Bush – as proven by some recently disclosed information concerning governments’ authorisations of US requests for over-flight and by government information on secret prisons – and that Member States bear a particular share of political, moral and legal responsibility for the transportation and detention of those imprisoned in Guantánamo and in secret detention facilities,

H.

whereas the US Senate ratified the EU-US Agreements on Extradition and Mutual Legal Assistance, ratified by all the Member States except Italy,

I.

whereas the executive orders issued by President Obama on 22 January 2009, though a considerable step forward, do not seem to fully address the issues of secret detention and abduction or that of the use of torture,

1.

Denounces the lack of action taken so far by the Member States and the Council to shed light on the extraordinary rendition programme and to implement Parliament’s recommendations; deplores the lack of satisfactory answers given by the Council to Parliament on 3 February 2009;

2.

Calls on the Member States, the Council and the Commission to fully implement the recommendations made by Parliament in its resolution of 14 February 2007 and to assist in ascertaining the truth by opening inquiries or collaborating with the competent bodies, by disclosing and providing all relevant information, and by ensuring effective parliamentary scrutiny of the action of secret services; asks the Council to disclose all relevant information concerning the transportation and illegal detention of prisoners, including in the framework of the Working Party on Public International Law (COJUR); calls on Member States and EU institutions to cooperate with all competent international bodies, including UN and Council of Europe bodies, and to transmit to Parliament any relevant information, parliamentary inquiry report or judgment;

3.

Calls on the European Union and the United States to strengthen transatlantic dialogue on a new common approach to tackling terrorism based on the common values of respect for international human rights law, democracy and the rule of law, in a framework of international cooperation;

4.

Believes that the EU-US Agreements on Extradition and Mutual Legal Assistance constitute a relevant tool for legally sound law enforcement and judicial cooperation in the fight against terrorism; welcomes, therefore, their ratification by the US Senate and calls on Italy to ratify them as soon as possible;

5.

Welcomes the issuing by President Obama of three executive orders on closing the Guantánamo detention centre, halting the proceedings of military commissions, ending the use of torture and shutting secret prisons abroad;

6.

Highlights the fact, however, that some ambiguities persist as to the continuation of a limited number of rendition schemes and of secret detention facilities, and is confident that clarifications will be made as to the closure and prohibition of all other secret detention facilities directly or indirectly managed by US authorities in the US or abroad; recalls that secret detention is in itself a serious violation of basic human rights;

7.

Reaffirms that, according to Article 14 of the UN Convention against Torture, any victim of an act of torture has an enforceable right to redress and to fair and adequate compensation;

8.

Welcomes the forthcoming visit to the United States, on 16 and 17 March 2009, by the Commissioner for Justice, Freedom and Security, the Czech Presidency and the EU Counter-Terrorism Coordinator, and calls on the EU representatives to raise the issue of extraordinary rendition and of secret detention facilities, as these are serious violations of international and European human rights law; calls on the Justice and Home Affairs Council of 26 February 2009 to take a firm stance on this, and to discuss the issue of the closure of Guantánamo and the resettlement of detainees, taking into due consideration Parliament’s resolution of 4 February 2009 on the subject;

9.

Calls on the European Union, the Member States and the US authorities to investigate and provide full clarification about the abuses and violations of international and national law on human rights, fundamental freedoms, the prohibition of torture and ill-treatment, enforced disappearance and the right to a fair trial committed in connection with the ‘war against terror’, so as to establish responsibility for secret detention centres - including Guantánamo - and the extraordinary rendition programme, and to ensure that such violations will not recur in the future and that the fight against terrorism is pursued without breaching human rights, fundamental freedoms, democracy and the rule of law;

10.

Calls on the Council, the Commission and the EU Counter-Terrorism Coordinator, after the visit of the EU delegation to the US, to report to Parliament on the application of the Agreements on Extradition and on Mutual Legal Assistance, as well as on EU-US cooperation in the field of anti-terrorism while ensuring full respect for human rights, so that the competent committee can address these issues in a report drafted inter alia on the basis of paragraph 232 of its resolution of 14 February 2007;

11.

Instructs its President to forward this resolution to the Council, the Commission, the High Representative for the Common Foreign and Security Policy, the EU Counter-Terrorism Coordinator, the governments and parliaments of the Member States, the NATO Secretary-General, the Secretary-General and President of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe, the United Nations Secretary-General and the President and Congress of the United States of America.

25.3.2010   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 76/54

A.

whereas a clear definition of the common interests of the EU is essential in order to attain the goals of the EU’s external action and in particular those of its CFSP,

B.

whereas whenever the EU has spoken with one voice it has enjoyed substantial authority, achieved tangible results and exercised considerable influence on the course of events, an influence commensurate with its economic power,

C.

whereas the CFSP, which now relies on a wide range of consolidated operational tools, is entering a new stage, marked by an increased emphasis on strategic thinking and clearly prioritised action,

D.

whereas, in order to improve the effectiveness and consistency of its action on a global stage, the EU needs, first and foremost, the foreign policy tools provided for by the Lisbon Treaty; whereas, none the less, all the practical possibilities offered by the current Treaties, coupled with a strong common political will, should be used to strengthen the institutional coherence of the EU’s external action,

E.

whereas the Council and the Commission have already taken initiatives towards promoting greater synergy and consistency between themselves; whereas Parliament should therefore undertake similar efforts to avoid internal fragmentation in the area of external relations,

1.

Reiterates that the CFSP must be underpinned and guided by the values which the EU and its Member States cherish, notably democracy, the rule of law and respect for the dignity of the human person, for human rights and for fundamental freedoms, as well as the promotion of peace and effective multilateralism;

2.

Underlines that the EU must use the CFSP to fight for the common interests of its citizens, including their right to live in peace and security in a clean environment and to have diversified access to vital resources such as energy;

3.

Strongly believes that the EU can make an impact only if it speaks with one voice, if it is equipped with appropriate instruments, if it further strengthens its cooperation with the UN, and if it is granted the robust democratic legitimacy which results from informed scrutiny by both the European Parliament and national parliaments acting at their respective levels and in accordance with their own mandates; believes in this respect that members of the committees on foreign affairs and defence of national parliaments should be invited by the European Parliament to meet it regularly in order to scrutinise, on the basis of appropriate analytical tools and methodologies, the main developments in the CFSP; takes the view that fresh efforts should be made to raise the awareness of EU citizens with regard to the CFSP;

4.

Is also of the opinion that Parliament’s structures and organisation should be reviewed in order to pool together and better exploit all expertise in matters relating to CFSP, so as to provide a more effective and coherent contribution to the development of a more strategic and democratic CFSP;

5.

Regrets the fact that the CFSP budget is seriously under-funded and recalls that, in order to be credible and respond to the expectations of EU citizens, the CFSP must be allocated resources commensurate with its objectives and specific targets;

6.

Welcomes the regular holding of CFSP consultation meetings between Parliament and the Presidency of the Council as provided for by the above-mentioned Interinstitutional Agreement; stresses, nevertheless, that these meetings should be understood as an opportunity to exchange views on the forthcoming needs, on the intended actions in the field of CFSP and on medium and long-term strategies of the EU in third countries;

7.

Would welcome more information from the Council on the activities financed by the Council’s budget or via the ATHENA mechanism, and particularly on how the appropriations concerned complement the funds for CFSP actions under the EU budget;

8.

Requests that the CFSP budget be fully transparent to the budgetary and discharge authority; reiterates its concerns about the practice of carrying over unspent appropriations under the CFSP chapter, and calls on the Commission to inform Parliament in due time about internal transfers, especially since most of the CFSP missions concerned, not least the EU Monitoring Mission (EUMM) in Georgia or the EU Rule of Law Mission (EULEX) in Kosovo, are of a sensitive political nature and address well publicised crises;

9.

Notes with satisfaction that, for the first time, the Council’s report systematically refers to the resolutions adopted by Parliament; regrets, however, that the Council does not engage in a substantive dialogue on the views advanced by Parliament, nor does it refer to those resolutions in operational documents such as joint actions or common positions;

10.

Is of the opinion that, rather than content itself with providing an exhaustive catalogue of the activities carried out, the Council’s annual report should provide the opportunity to establish a dialogue with Parliament aimed at developing a more strategic approach to the CFSP, based on the identification of the main challenges, and defining priorities and objectives for future action;

11.

Therefore urges the Council to reconsider the general rationale and the specific format of the report in order to ensure that it includes an in-depth assessment of the EU’s policy towards third countries or regional blocs and the EU’s response to humanitarian and security crises, as well as specific proposals for future action;

12.

Believes that the coming months will provide a unique opportunity for the EU to work out a new transatlantic agenda with the new US administration, covering strategic issues of common concern, such as a new, more inclusive and more effective global governance based on stronger multilateral organisations, the financial crisis, the establishment of a new set of Euro-Atlantic institutions and of a deep and comprehensive transatlantic market, measures to tackle climate change, energy security, the promotion of a durable peace in the Middle East, the situation in Iran, Iraq and Afghanistan, the fight against terrorism and organised crime, nuclear non-proliferation and disarmament, and the Millennium Development Goals;

13.

Believes that the CFSP should continue to focus on upholding human rights, on promoting peace and security in Europe’s neighbourhood and at global level, on support for effective multilateralism and respect for international law, on the fight against terrorism, on non-proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and disarmament, and on climate change and energy security, since these issues constitute the greatest challenges to our planet and hence directly relate to the concerns of European citizens;

14.

In relation to the kidnapping and murder of hostages by Islamic terrorists, underlines the need for enhanced cooperation and coordination of anti-terrorist policy as between EU Member States, the US and NATO, aiming in particular at improving the effectiveness of rescue operations launched with a view to saving hostages’ lives;

15.

Calls on the Council to pursue with determination the recommendations made by Parliament for the development of a common European external energy policy, in particular by promoting EU cohesion in negotiations with energy suppliers and transit countries and defending EU common interests, by developing effective energy diplomacy and more efficient mechanisms for responding to crisis situations and, finally, by ensuring the diversification of energy supplies, sustainable energy use and the development of renewable energy sources;

16.

Welcomes the fact that the current revision of the ESS takes into account new security challenges, such as energy security, climate change and cyber-security, and aims at improving the quality of implementation of the strategy itself; notes in this context the debate initiated by the Council, the European Parliament and Member States’ national parliaments on the future of European security; emphasises that, far from pursuing a radically new architecture, those discussions, involving the EU, Russia, the USA and non-EU member states of the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe, should build on the achievements and values of the EU, as expressed in Article 11 of the Treaty on European Union and embodied by the Helsinki Final Act and the Charter of Paris;

17.

Believes also that the war in Georgia confirms the need for further development, within the framework of the revision of the ESS, of EU preventive diplomacy, matched by adequate crisis-prevention tools, including the Instrument for Stability, contingency planning and reliable long-term funding, and the need to make full use of the EU’s capabilities and experience in managing disasters and crises;

18.

Recalls that the consolidation of the post-status Kosovo is essential for the achievement of stability in the Western Balkans; welcomes, therefore, the consensus reached in the UN Security Council on 26 November 2008, which has allowed the deployment of EULEX throughout Kosovo, and urges the Council, in cooperation with the UN Interim Administration Mission in Kosovo (UNMIK), to achieve a clear working relationship and a smooth handover between the two missions in the area of the rule of law; calls on EULEX to deliver quick results in the area of the fight against organised crime and the prosecution of those accused of war crimes; furthermore, expresses its support for the work of the EU Special Representative in Kosovo and encourages him to continue to implement his mandate and to promote a spirit of pragmatic cooperation between the authorities in Priština and those in Belgrade, for the benefit of the Serb communities living in Kosovo;

19.

Reasserts that the EU’s objective in Bosnia and Herzegovina (BiH) remains to ensure a stable, peaceful and multi-ethnic country irreversibly on track to EU membership; encourages BiH’s political leaders to implement the agreement reached on 8 November 2008 in order to rapidly address the remaining objectives and conditions set by the Peace Implementation Council for the transition from the Office of the High Representative to the EU Special Representative’s office by mid-2009; expresses its concern at the possible disengagement on the part of the international community from BiH; believes in fact that the end of international involvement can only take place in full agreement with the BiH authorities and once BiH finally becomes a stable state with well-functioning institutions;

20.

Reiterates its conviction that incentives for European Neighbourhood Policy partner countries to conduct reforms need to be strengthened, and takes the view that the recent crisis in the South Caucasus has clearly demonstrated the need for a stronger EU presence in its eastern neighbourhood; therefore supports the approach pursued by the Commission in its communication of 3 December 2008 on an Eastern Partnership (COM(2008)0823), which aims at establishing a comprehensive and deep free trade area, the progressive removal of all obstacles to the free movement of persons (including, eventually, visa-free travel) and cooperation in all aspects of security, especially energy security; is of the opinion that the Eastern Partnership and the Black Sea Cooperation should reinforce each other, thus creating an area of peace, security, stability and respect for territorial integrity; takes the view that the partnership should be matched by a doubling of EU financial assistance and by a strong political dimension of which EURONEST, the proposed joint parliamentary assembly comprising Members of the European Parliament and of the parliaments of the neighbourhood, should be an integral part;

21.

Supports the Council’s decision to re-engage with the authorities of Belarus, whilst continuing the dialogue with all democratic forces in the country, provided the Belarusian authorities respond positively to this offer by making tangible progress in terms of respect for democratic values, the rule of law, human rights and fundamental freedoms; is of the opinion that, on this basis, a step-by-step cooperation based on strict conditionality should be developed, thus gradually involving Belarus in the Eastern Partnership; urges the Council and the Commission to take effective steps without any further delay in order to facilitate visa procedures for Belarusian citizens, including the lowering of costs for their entry into the Schengen Area;

22.

Commends the French Presidency of the Council for ensuring that the EU has played a key role in bringing an end to the war in Georgia; calls on the EU, and in particular on its Special Representative for the crisis in Georgia, to uphold the principle of Georgia’s territorial integrity and respect for minorities, whilst endeavouring to reach a settlement which provides for efficient mechanisms for the safe return of internally displaced persons and refugees and for effective monitoring of the region’s security;

23.

Urges the Council to insist on full implementation of the ceasefire agreement and to ensure that EU monitors are granted full access to all areas affected by the conflict, in compliance with the EUMM’s mandate; attaches great importance to being regularly and fully informed about the reports drawn up by the EUMM;

24.

Is of the opinion that the EU should closely monitor, and commit itself to contributing to the resolution of, other potential conflicts in this part of the European neighbourhood, including by establishing contacts and opening channels of communications with all relevant regional actors; emphasises in this respect that close cooperation with Turkey should be established;

25.

Believes that the EU’s partnership with Russia must be based on a coherent strategy and a clear commitment by both sides to acting in a manner which fully respects international law and their bilateral and multilateral agreements; in line with the Presidency conclusions of the European Council of 1 September and 15-16 October 2008, underlines that Russia must comply with the commitments it entered into under the agreements of 12 August and 8 September 2008; is convinced, therefore, that Russia’s agreement to allow international observers to monitor the situation in South Ossetia and Abkhazia and its full compliance with the terms of the 6-point plan are necessary for the normalisation of EU-Russia relations; also takes the view that no strategic partnership is possible if the values of democracy, respect for human rights and the rule of law are not fully shared and respected; calls on the Council to place those values at the core of the ongoing negotiations for a new Partnership and Cooperation Agreement with Russia;

26.

Regrets the deterioration of the situation in the Middle East and the heavy toll in civilian lives caused by the armed conflict in the Gaza Strip, compounded by the lack of substantial progress in the peace process; warns of the expiry of the deadline agreed at the 2007 Annapolis Conference and is convinced of the added value that strengthened transatlantic cooperation can bring to the Annapolis process; believes that the EU should assume a strong and visible political role in the region, commensurate with the financial resources it has made available, in particular to address the dramatic humanitarian crisis in the Gaza Strip; calls on the Council to pursue its efforts to achieve a permanent ceasefire in the Gaza Strip, in compliance with UN Security Council Resolution 1860 (2009), so as to allow the start of peace negotiations between Israel and the Palestinian people, in coordination with other regional actors; urges the Council to consider all means to promote a lasting peace in the region, including the deployment of an ESDP (European Security and Defence Policy) mission;

27.

Welcomes the Council’s intention to renew the mandate of the EU Police Mission in the Palestinian Territories, and believes that more robust support for the development of the rule of law and policing capacity is still required; furthermore, takes note of the decision by the Council to extend the mandate of the EU Border Assistance Mission in Rafah and its determination and readiness to reactivate that mission; believes that this determination should result in concrete initiatives to restore freedom of movement in the Palestinian territories;

28.

Is satisfied with the progress achieved at the Euro-Mediterranean Ministerial Summit in Marseilles on 3 and 4 November 2008 in further defining the institutional framework of the Union for the Mediterranean; is of the opinion that human rights, peace, security and development concerns in the Mediterranean region cannot be pursued in isolation; stresses that political and cultural dialogue, economic relations, management of migration flows, environmental policies and security – including the fight against terrorism – must all form a substantive part of the Euro-Mediterranean agenda; calls on the Council and the Commission to include a significant and appropriate role for Turkey in the Union for the Mediterranean; considers it essential for the Euro-Mediterranean Parliamentary Assembly to be integrated into the structure of the Union for the Mediterranean in order to provide its parliamentary dimension;

29.

Believes that the EU should strengthen its engagement with Iraq and, in cooperation with the Iraqi Government and the UN, should support the process of developing democratic institutions, the rule of law and respect for human rights as well as fostering the reconciliation process not only within Iraq but also as between Iraq and its neighbours; welcomes the extension of the EU Integrated Rule of Law Mission for Iraq (EUJUST LEX) and the progress made in preparing the first ever trade and cooperation agreement between the EU and Iraq;

30.

Calls on the EU to develop a more effective and comprehensive relationship with Iran which, besides dealing with the nuclear issue, should also cover trade and energy cooperation, regional stability and, last but not least, good governance and respect for human rights;

31.

Considers that the EU should promote a new approach to Afghanistan and should coordinate with the new US administration with a view to opening the door to negotiations between the Afghan Government and those elements that are willing to accept the constitution and relinquish violence; notes that assistance should focus more on the rule of law, good governance, the provision of basic services (with particular attention being paid to health) and economic and rural development, including through the promotion of real alternatives to opium production;

32.

Is concerned about the deterioration of the security situation in Afghanistan; reiterates the urgent need to overcome institutional obstacles and improve cooperation between the EU and NATO in order to facilitate the operation of the EU Police Mission in Afghanistan (EUPOL); believes that the EU and the USA should better coordinate their respective initiatives in the area of police reform; welcomes the commitment by the Member States to increasing the number of EUPOL staff and calls for their swift deployment; is convinced that the success of the operation is of great importance for the future of the transatlantic alliance and that, with this in mind, all Member States should make a greater commitment to stability in Afghanistan;

33.

Calls on the Council to widen the agenda with Africa, to cover a broader range of policies than is currently the case, and to make it a priority for EU external action;

34.

Believes that EU support for the UN in eastern Chad remains important, as part of a region-wide solution for Darfur; notes that European Union Force Chad (EUFOR Chad) will wind down as planned and hand over its operations to a UN-led mission; calls on the Council to facilitate a smooth transition and to consider, in a coordinated fashion, how the EU can assist the currently overstretched UN Department for Peacekeeping Operations in the deployment of the UN mission;

35.

Is gravely concerned by the dire humanitarian situation in Somalia; calls on the EU to consider how it can assist the UN, in close coordination with the African Union, in expeditiously tackling this security, political and humanitarian challenge; draws attention to the growing threats from piracy off the Somali coast and welcomes, in this regard, the decision taken by the EU to launch a maritime ESDP operation;

36.

Is concerned by the stepping-up of violence and conflict in the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC), which could result in a major humanitarian crisis; calls on all the parties, including government troops, to cease the indiscriminate violence and violations of human rights involving the civilian population, to re-engage in the peace negotiations launched in Goma and Nairobi and to endorse the programme adopted by the DRC National Assembly; believes that the EU’s engagement in the DRC must go beyond the technical assistance provided by the EU Security Sector Reform Mission (EUSEC RD Congo) and the EU Police Mission (EUPOL RD Congo) and must result in the provision of tangible support to the UN peacekeeping mission, which has so far proved unable to stop the violence;

37.

Welcomes the significant reduction of tension in the Taiwan Straits area and the ongoing dialogue between Beijing and Taipei concerning bilateral interactions and Taiwan’s meaningful participation in international organisations; strongly supports the Council’s declaration of 19 September 2008, which reiterates its support for Taiwan’s participation in specialised multilateral forums including the grant of observer status where Taiwan’s membership is not possible;

38.

Takes note of the fact that EU-China economic relations have experienced steady growth and that people-to-people contacts have grown in scope and scale; at the same time, remains gravely concerned by the lack of willingness on the part of the Chinese authorities to tackle numerous human rights violations and to ensure that the people enjoy basic rights and freedoms; in this context, expresses its profound disappointment over the reasons given for the decision of the Chinese authorities to postpone the 11th EU-China summit; notes that a new EU-China summit is planned for the first half of 2009 and hopes that on that occasion progress can be made in all areas of cooperation;

39.

Deplores the decision of the Chinese authorities to end the talks with the representatives of the Dalai Lama, and reminds them of undertakings given after the tragic events of March 2008 before the Olympic Games; once again calls on the Council to appoint a special envoy for Tibetan issues in order to follow the situation closely and to facilitate the resumption of dialogue between the parties;

40.

Recalls the proposal made in its resolution of 15 November 2001 on a global partnership and a common strategy for relations between the European Union and Latin America (6), subsequently repeated in its resolutions of 27 April 2006 (7) and 24 April 2008 (8), adopted with a view to the EU-LAC (Latin America and the Caribbean) summits held in, respectively, Vienna and Lima, to draw up a Euro-Latin American Charter for Peace and Security which, on the basis of the UN Charter, would allow for joint political, strategic and security-related actions and initiatives; calls on the Council and the Commission to take active steps to realise this ambitious goal;

41.

Welcomes efforts leading to the conclusion of bi-regional association agreements with Latin America, the first agreements of this kind to be concluded by the EU;

42.

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 United Nations, the Secretary General of NATO, the Chairman-in-office of the OSCE, the President of the OSCE Parliamentary Assembly, the Chairman of the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe and the President of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe.

25.3.2010   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 76/61

1.

Points out that the European Union needs to develop its strategic autonomy through a strong and effective foreign, security and defence policy in order to promote peace and international security, to defend its interests in the world, to protect the security of its own citizens, to contribute to effective multilateralism, to advance respect for human rights and democratic values worldwide, and to safeguard world peace;

2.

Recognises the need for the EU to pursue these objectives through multilateral cooperation in international organisations, above all the United Nations, and through partnerships with other key players in accordance with the United Nations Charter, the principles of the Helsinki Final Act and the objectives of the Paris Charter;

3.

Reiterates the need for a reform of the United Nations Organization in order to make it capable of fully meeting its responsibilities and acting effectively in providing solutions to global challenges and responding to key threats;

4.

Reiterates the importance of the transatlantic relationship and recognises the need for coordination of actions between the ESDP and NATO, but at the same time stresses the need for a more balanced partnership, without competition and with respect for each others’ autonomy and mutual understanding where there are diverging strategic considerations;

5.

Considers that many of the new threats are not simply military and cannot be tackled by military means alone;

6.

Notes that this policy has to combine the use of both civilian and military assets and capabilities, and that it requires close and seamless cooperation between all stakeholders;

7.

Embraces the concept of the ‘responsibility to protect’, adopted by the UN in 2005, and the concept of ‘human security’, which is based on the primacy of the individual and not of the state; underlines that these concepts entail both practical consequences and strong political guidelines for the strategic orientation of European security policy in order to be able to act effectively in crises; highlights, nevertheless, that there is neither an automatic obligation nor the means available for the EU to deploy ESDP missions, be they civilian or military, in all crisis situations;

8.

Stresses that the pooling of efforts and capabilities at the EU level is crucial in overcoming the combined effects of the increasing costs of defence equipment and the existing limits on defence spending;

9.

Notes that a common defence policy in Europe requires an integrated European Armed Force which consequently needs to be equipped with common weapon systems so as to guarantee commonality and interoperability;

10.

Stresses that transparency and cost-efficiency, as well as parliamentary accountability and observance of international human rights law and humanitarian law, are crucial in order to ensure public support for European defence; stresses in this connection the particular importance of effective parliamentary scrutiny of the ESDP in the form of close cooperation between the European Parliament and the parliaments of EU Member States;

11.

Considers that the updated ESS and the future new NATO Strategic Concept should be mutually coherent and that this should be reflected in the Declaration which will be adopted on the occasion of the summit marking the 60th anniversary of NATO, to be held in Strasbourg and Kehl on 3 and 4 April 2009;

12.

Stresses that full and timely implementation of the ESS is of key importance;

13.

Welcomes the Council’s report on the implementation of the ESS; notes, however, that because many of the goals of the ESS in 2003 remain largely unfulfilled, the EU – reinforced by the Treaty of Lisbon – should play a more decisive role in boosting the legitimacy, transparency and effectiveness of the institutions of global governance;

14.

Welcomes the launch of the above-mentioned ESDP operation Atalanta against piracy off the Somali coast; reminds the Council, the Commission and the EU Member States, however, that the reasons for the problem of piracy in that region are deeper rooted, including as they do poverty in a failed state, and demands more profound European actions to tackle those problems;

15.

In relation to the kidnapping and murder of hostages by Islamic terrorists, underlines the need for enhanced cooperation and coordination of anti-terrorist policy as between EU Member States, the USA and NATO, aiming in particular at improving the effectiveness of rescue operations launched with a view to saving hostages’ lives;

16.

Strongly reiterates its call for all necessary guarantees to be provided through the ESS and the ESDP so as to ensure the successful implementation of UN Security Council resolutions on women and peace and security, namely resolutions 1325 of 31 October 2000 (S/RES/1325) and 1820 of 19 June 2008 (S/RES/1820), in furthering women’s equal participation in all matters and decisions concerning peace and security and categorising the systematic use of sexual violence against women in conflict situations as a war crime and a crime against humanity; regrets that progress on gender equality in ESDP operations is happening far too slowly;

17.

Points out that, all too often, thinking in the Member States remains confined within the framework of national security interests and that the common responsibility for protecting joint European interests is thus neglected; regards this approach as counterproductive and urges Member States to widen their thinking in order to make the EU a more important player on the international scene, providing for more effective European security arrangements;

18.

Considers it necessary, therefore, to define the EU’s common security interests; stresses that only if it has a clear idea of its common interests can the EU make its common policy more coherent and effective;

19.

Is of the opinion that, in addition to the challenges identified in the ESS as adopted in 2003, the security interests of the Union include the protection of its citizens and its interests inside the EU as well as abroad, the security of its neighbourhood and the protection of its external borders and critical infrastructure, as well as the improvement of its cyber security, the security of energy supply and sea lanes, the protection of its space assets and protection against the consequences of climate change;

20.

Notes that the EU recognises an international order founded on effective multilateralism on the basis of international law, and that this is an expression of Europeans’ conviction that no nation can face the new threats on its own;

21.

Considers that the European Union must define more clearly its ambitions concerning its role in the world; is of the opinion that the European Union should not try to become a superpower like the United States but that it should guarantee its security, work for stability in its neighbourhood, and contribute to a multilateral global system of security within the framework of the United Nations, ensuring respect for international law and effective crisis and conflict prevention, as well as post-conflict management and resolution;

22.

Stresses that the EU gives priority to crisis prevention in the ESDP; points out that security and the rule of law are indispensable preconditions for development and long-term stability;

23.

Notes that the 2003 ESS highlights the main threats faced by the EU (terrorism, proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, regional conflicts, state failure and organised crime) and identifies strategic objectives, which have become the basis for substrategies;

24.

Congratulates the recent French EU Presidency for its initiatives concerning ESDP; takes note of the High Representative’s above-mentioned report of 11 December 2008 on the implementation of the ESS as endorsed by the European Council, and welcomes the fact that many recommendations from Parliament’s previous reports on the ESS and the ESDP have been taken up, particularly as regards:

25.

Welcomes the Council’s commitment to the idea that the EU should actually be capable in the years ahead, within the framework of the level of ambition established, inter alia of deploying 60 000 men in 60 days for a major operation, within the range of operations envisaged within the headline goal for 2010, and, within the civilian headline goal for 2010, of planning and conducting simultaneously:

26.

Deplores, however, the unclear manner in which the conclusions concerning the ESS and ESDP are presented (in four documents instead of one); regrets the often vague wording used, which fails to describe a real strategy; criticises the fact that the Council has not acceded to Parliament’s demand for a White Paper and that it is therefore unlikely that a fruitful, wide-ranging public debate will be initiated;

27.

Further deplores the fact that demands made in Parliament’s previous reports on the ESS and the ESDP have not been considered by the Council, above all:

28.

Suggests that the ESS should be reviewed every five years at the beginning of a new EU legislative period;

29.

Regrets the relative lack of progress since 2003 in strengthening EU cooperation in defence; therefore calls once again for a White Paper to be drawn up on European security and defence as a tool to be used to initiate a wide-ranging public debate and to ensure that the ESS is implemented in an efficient way;

30.

Regrets that, despite extensive preparation but in consequence of a loss of momentum caused by the impasse over the Lisbon Treaty, the revision of the ESS has resulted not in a new strategic orientation but merely in a report expressing day-to-day policy concerns as these arise; notes that the range of threats has been expanded to cover, inter alia, cyber security and piracy; welcomes innovative aspects of the revision such as its focus on climate change, energy security (including, in the nuclear field, support for a multilateral nuclear fuel cycle and a multilateral treaty banning the production of fissile material for nuclear weapons) and the International Arms Trade Treaty as well as other disarmament treaties such as the new Oslo Convention on Cluster Munitions;

31.

Finds it unacceptable that there was only limited parliamentary debate and no public debate before the adoption of the report proposing revision of the ESS;

32.

Considers that the violent escalation of the hitherto frozen conflicts in South Ossetia and Abkhazia, and the subsequent recognition of the independence of those provinces by Russia, underscores the urgent need to invest in durable political solutions for such conflicts in our neighbourhood; reiterates its view that the conflicts in the Caucasus cannot be resolved by military means and its firm condemnation of all those who resorted to violence during the conflict; emphasises that the further development of the EU’s strategic partnership with Russia needs to include meaningful dialogue on security, based on the stated commitment of both parties to their shared values, respect for international law and territorial integrity, and commitment to, and the fulfilment of, obligations under the Helsinki Final Act;

33.

Stresses that the security dimension of EU-Russia relations and the role of the CFSP and the ESDP cannot be seen in isolation from the wider European security architecture, which includes NATO, the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE) and international arrangements such as the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty and the Treaty on Conventional Armed Forces in Europe; considers that relevant developments in this wider security structure should be addressed in dialogue with both Russia and the United States, and asks the Council to adopt an open and constructive attitude towards possible talks between the EU, the United States, Russia and non-EU OSCE member states with a view to renewing transatlantic consensus on security, taking the Helsinki Final Act as a basis;

34.

Welcomes the concerted action taken by the EU to mediate between Russia and Georgia in response to the challenge posed by the war in Georgia; points out that the rapid reaction and unity of the European Union, which led to the signing of a ceasefire agreement and the rapid deployment of a monitoring mission under the ESDP, has demonstrated its capacity for crisis management and common action; commends the recent French EU Presidency for its positive role in maintaining a common European approach;

35.

Welcomes the Council’s decision of 2 December 2008 to establish an independent commission headed by the EU to examine the causes of the conflict in Georgia;

36.

Notes the concerns expressed by the Baltic states and takes note of the clear confirmation by NATO and its member states of the continuing validity of their commitments under Article 5 of the North Atlantic Treaty;

37.

Welcomes the fact that NATO has decided once again to use existing channels of communication and that the NATO-Russia Council is to be reactivated;

38.

Considers that both the EU and NATO should pursue a frank and realistic dialogue with Russia covering such matters as regional security, energy, missile defence, non-proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, limitation of armed forces and space policy;

39.

Considers it important to enhance a multilateral dialogue on security issues within the framework of the Euro-Atlantic Partnership Council;

40.

Points out that, due to its geopolitical position, its military power and political weight, its energy wealth and its economic potential, Russia is of strategic importance for Europe;

41.

Stresses that the EU has to have the means to implement its policies, and that, in addition to strengthening its diplomatic capacities, it therefore needs both civilian and military capabilities in order to strengthen the ESDP and to fulfil its responsibilities in the world;

42.

Points out that, since its creation, 22 missions have been carried out within the framework of the ESDP, including 16 civilian missions; stresses the importance of the civilian components of the ESDP; welcomes in this connection the establishment of the Civilian Planning and Conduct Capability within the Council of the European Union; calls on the Member States to redouble their efforts to make qualified personnel available for civilian ESDP missions; stresses in this connection the importance of the civilian headline goal 2010;

43.

Also emphasises that, with most of the emphasis being placed on the military dimension of the ESDP, progress in the area of civil capabilities and conflict prevention is far too slow and that, in this area, new dynamics need to be proposed as a matter of urgency by both the Council and the Commission;

44.

Calls for the further development of the Peace-building Partnership into a European Civil Peace Corps;

45.

Is of the opinion that the EU should continue to build its capabilities on the basis of the civilian and military headline goals; notes that it should endeavour to make a force of 60 000 soldiers permanently available; reaffirms its proposal that the Eurocorps should be the core of this force, if necessary reinforced by additional maritime and air capacities; welcomes the agreement concluded between Germany and France on maintaining the Franco-German Brigade at joint locations; furthermore, considers that the EU should make an adequate number of police officers, judges and prosecutors permanently available; finds it confusing that the EU Battlegroup concept and specific scenarios for potential missions do not seem to lead to the Battlegroups being used in the EU’s external operations;

46.

Points out that the EU Member States together spend more than EUR 200 000 000 000 per year on defence, which is more than half the defence expenditure of the United States; remains deeply concerned about the lack of efficiency and coordination in the utilisation of those funds; therefore urges that greater efforts be made to eliminate unnecessary duplication between Member States, namely through specialisation, pooling and sharing of existing capabilities, and joint development of new ones; commends the European Defence Agency (EDA) for the excellent work it has performed so far and calls on EU Member States to take full advantage of the EDA’s potential;

47.

Stresses that capability needs are often technologically very similar or even identical for armed forces operations, border surveillance, protection of critical infrastructure and disaster management; emphasises that this creates new opportunities to exploit synergies and enhance interoperability between armed forces and security forces;

48.

Strongly requests that the EU and its Member States focus their efforts on common capabilities which can be used for both defence and security purposes; in this context, considers satellite-based intelligence, surveillance and warning equipment, unmanned air vehicles, helicopters and telecommunication equipment and air and sea transport to be crucial; demands a common technical standard for protected telecommunications and ways of protecting critical infrastructure;

49.

Welcomes the decision taken by the Steering Board of the EDA on 10 November 2008 on the establishment of a European Air Transport Fleet and takes note of the Declaration of Intent on participation in this initiative, signed by the Defence Ministers of twelve EU Member States;

50.

Considers it necessary to allow the use of the Galileo and GMES (Global Monitoring for Environment and Security) systems for security and defence purposes;

51.

Approves the dynamic further development of cooperation between national armed forces so that they become increasingly synchronised; proposes that this process and the armed forces be given the name ‘SAFE’ – Synchronised Armed Forces Europe;

52.

Considers that SAFE provides sufficient room for manoeuvre for neutral EU Member States as well as those bound by military alliances, for those which already work closely together and for those which are still reluctant to do so; proposes an opt-in model for the organisation of SAFE based on more intensive voluntary synchronisation;

53.

Approves the idea of a European statute for soldiers within the framework of SAFE governing training standards, operational doctrine and freedom of operational action, issues relating to duties and rights, as well as the level of equipment quality, medical care and social security arrangements in the event of death, injury or incapacity;

54.

Approves in respect of SAFE the principle of a Europe-wide division of labour in military capabilities;

55.

Advocates closer European cooperation in the area of training, maintenance and logistics as a crucial prerequisite for greater efficiency in defence spending;

56.

Is of the opinion that the EU’s capacity for autonomous foreign and security policy action should be improved through goal-oriented enhancement of its analysis, planning, leadership and intelligence capacities; in this context, welcomes the decision of the European Council to work towards establishing an integrated civilian and military strategic planning structure for ESDP operations and missions;

57.

Likewise welcomes the decision of the European Council to set up an informal EU-NATO high-level group which will be tasked with strengthening cooperation between the two organisations in a pragmatic manner;

58.

Calls for the setting-up of an autonomous and permanent EU Operational Headquarters with the capacity to undertake strategic planning and to conduct ESDP operations and missions;

59.

Supports the idea of creating a Council of Defence Ministers in order to make the various national defence policies more coherent, thus boosting the respective national contributions to the ESDP; stresses the objective of full parliamentary scrutiny of ESDP missions and operations, including by the European Parliament;

60.

Strongly supports the reinforcement of a European defence and security market by means of adoption of the Commission’s legislative proposals for public procurement and intra-Community transfers, and suggests further initiatives to achieve this objective, in particular in the areas of security of supply and security of information;

61.

Welcomes in this connection the adoption of Council Common Position 2008/944/CFSP of 8 December 2008 defining common rules governing control of exports of military technology and equipment (8), which transforms the Code of Conduct on Arms Exports into a legally binding instrument; furthermore, welcomes the fact that EU Member States remain free to adopt more stringent measures on an individual basis;

62.

Recalls that common weapons systems should be provided through a strong European defence industry which will be capable of satisfying the current and future requirements of the European Armed Force and will enable Europe to become self-sufficient and independent;

63.

Demands an increase in Community funding for security research and the creation of joint research programmes involving the Commission and the EDA;

64.

Considers it particularly important to strengthen the European Security and Defence College and to transform it into permanent structure which will further enhance the development of a specifically European security culture; urges the Commission to continue funding EU-level training activities in the field of civilian crisis management beyond 2009;

65.

Calls for further initiatives concerning common training and common standards for personnel who are to be deployed and to work together in civilian and military operations, increased interaction between the armed forces and civilian personnel of EU Member States, coordination of crisis-related training, exchange programmes among armed forces in Europe and the opening-up of armies to citizens of other EU Member States;

66.

Strongly supports successful European programmes such as the Eurofighter, which will serve as the backbone of the fighter capability of five European air forces in the coming decades; considers, for this reason, that the EU Member States should encourage and support such initiatives;

67.

Instructs its President to forward this resolution to the Council, the Commission, the parliaments of the Member States and the Secretaries-General of the United Nations, the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe and the Council of Europe.