31.5.2011   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 161/1

A.

whereas a fair and realistic migration policy in the European Union, entailing the establishment of a Common European Asylum System (CEAS), must comprise an effective, sound and sustainable resettlement programme, providing a durable solution for refugees who cannot return to their country of origin and whose protection or livelihood cannot be assured in first countries of asylum,

B.

whereas resettlement serves not only a humanitarian purpose towards persons resettled, but also to relieve third countries of the burden associated with hosting large numbers of refugees and is a very useful instrument for apportioning responsibility,

C.

whereas currently only 10 Member States resettle refugees on a yearly basis, with little coordination among themselves on the resettlement priorities, causing a lack of strategic use of resettlement as an EU external policy instrument,

D.

whereas strategic use of the resettlement programme could have direct and indirect benefits not only for refugees being resettled but also for other refugees remaining in the first country of asylum, for the host country and for other countries and also with regard to all international arrangements for their protection,

E.

whereas the resettlement programme may help to make illegal immigration less attractive to refugees seeking to enter the European Union,

F.

whereas the need to show solidarity to third countries sheltering large numbers of refugees in need of international protection is a major factor and reflects the need to show solidarity within the EU also,

G.

whereas the EU share of the global resettlement of refugees remains quite modest; whereas this impacts negatively on the ambition of the EU to play a prominent role in global humanitarian affairs and in the international scene,

H.

whereas effective solidarity must be at the centre of common immigration and asylum policies among Member States, which should allow a fair share of responsibility for compliance with international obligations concerning the protection of refugees, as well as towards third countries which are heavily burdened with hosting large numbers of refugees,

I.

whereas in its 7 May 2009 Resolution, the European Parliament also called for mandatory solidarity in the resettlement of refugees within the EU in cases where, inter alia, the reception capacities of one Member State are insufficient, in order to facilitate the resettlement of beneficiaries of international protection in other Member States, providing that those concerned consent and that their fundamental rights are respected,

J.

whereas cooperation with third countries which have already carried out several programmes of resettlement should be fostered, in order to benefit, through exchange of best practices, from their experience of reception and integration measures and the general quality of resettlement initiatives,

K.

whereas both local and international, governmental and nongovernmental organisations, especially the UNHCR, should be involved in all stages of the EU Resettlement Programme, contributing with their specific information, technical expertise, logistic forecasting and experience,

L.

whereas the European Resettlement Programme must not make the process of resettlement more complicated,

M.

whereas the European Asylum Support Office (EASO) is expected to become operational in 2010; whereas it will be able to offer support to the Member States in carrying out resettlement initiatives, while ensuring coordination of policies within the EU; whereas the European Asylum Support Office must actively participate in deliberations between the Member States, the Commission and the UNHCR,

N.

whereas attention should be drawn not only to the need to involve more Member States in resettling refugees but also to the quality, sustainability and effectiveness of the resettlement, focusing on integration measures,

O.

whereas refugees should be promptly granted access to language and cultural courses and, where necessary, to medical and psychological care,

P.

whereas access to job opportunities for adults and immediate integration of minors in schools constitute an essential step with a view to the success of an effective resettlement initiative and that they should for this reason have access to educational and professional guidance services,

Q.

whereas there are several entities, in public administration (such as municipalities) as well as in civil society, varying from NGOs to charities and from schools to social services, that have the experience and expertise necessary to carry out follow-up measures,

R.

whereas cooperation with the above-mentioned entities – especially the municipalities – has been of great value in the reception and integration of refugees in countries with a consolidated practice of resettlement,

S.

whereas the priority-setting should become as flexible as possible, without ever disregarding the effective priority which must be given to the categories of most vulnerable people as indicated by the UNHCR,

T.

whereas resettlement is to be implemented as a complement to and without disregard for the other durable solutions provided for people seeking international protection in the EU, and whereas the efforts in refugee resettlement should not lessen the endeavour to guarantee fair and effective access to asylum inside the EU,

U.

whereas internal relocation programmes also play an important role and should be supported in addition to the resettlement activities dealt with by this report,

V.

whereas in its 7 May 2009 Resolution, the European Parliament also called for a scheme to reallocate beneficiaries of international protection from Member States which are faced with specific and disproportionate pressures to others, in consultation with the office of the United High Commissioner for Refugees, while ensuring that the reallocation follows non-discretionary, transparent and unequivocal rules, which must also be implemented further Parliament’s request,

W.

whereas without access to information, human resources, expert advice and permanent follow-up on the resettlement efforts, Member States which have never participated in resettlement programmes will face great difficulties in joining and it will be difficult to achieve the objective of involving more Member States,

1.

Welcomes the initiative of the Commission to propose a change to the European Refugee Fund in order to incorporate the impact of the EU Resettlement Programme;

2.

Appreciates the general objectives set out in the Communication on the EU Resettlement Programme as mentioned above and the growing attention devoted to resettlement in the overall EU asylum policy;

3.

Calls for measures to inform the Member States and local authorities of the benefits accruing from the resettlement of refugees;

4.

Recalls, however, that a budget line and financial support are not sufficient to establish a real EU-wide resettlement programme;

5.

Urges the Member States to promote the creation of private funding mechanisms and more widespread public-private initiatives so as to underpin the European Resettlement Programme;

6.

Calls for a more ambitious programme which ensures the quality and effectiveness of the resettlement, containing specific guidelines on a new model of priority-setting, incentives to attract more Member States to resettle refugees, consistency of resettlement with other EU asylum policies and standards of reception conditions and follow-up measures to be taken in each resettlement initiative;

7.

Considers that under the new financial perspectives (2013–2017) a specific envelope for resettlement should be established. Such an envelope could take the form of a dedicated resettlement fund and should provide financial support for a more ambitious resettlement programme;

8.

Welcomes the opening of the new Emergency Transit Centre (ETC) in Romania offering temporary accommodation for refugees in urgent need of resettlement and/or refugees unable to remain in their countries of first asylum; calls on the Commission to make use of this and also to promote resettlement through the Emergency Transit Centre;

9.

Welcomes the ad hoc initiatives taken by a number of Member States in accommodating refugees in urgent need of resettlement while recognising the need for such initiatives to take a more structured form;

10.

Underlines that an effective EU Resettlement Programme should provide protection and durable solutions both for long–term, protracted refugee situations and for rapid and adequate responses in case of emergency or unforeseen urgency, and that the setting of annual priorities should be such as to enable a prompt reaction to sudden humanitarian crises which might occur throughout the year;

11.

Insists on the importance of allowing the execution of fieldwork in order to prepare the resettlement of refugees, to evaluate their needs and to permit adequate planning of the future phases of resettlement, apart from the information that might be provided by the UNHCR and by NGOs and other organisations;

12.

Encourages a private-public partnership with NGOs and further social partners such as religious and ethnical organisations to contribute to the implementation of the resettlement and the promotion of voluntary work in this field;

13.

Believes that municipalities already involved, or becoming involved, in resettlement should create partnerships and twinnings with other municipalities in their home country and in the EU Member States in order to exchange their experiences in this field and strengthen cooperation across the EU;

14.

Stresses the need to establish a structured cooperation framework through measures to gather expertise and enable information collecting and sharing; stresses also that an effective EU Resettlement Programme must provide the Member States (those already participating in the programme and those that wish to participate) with access to human resources, expert advice and shared information that may be useful in any phase of the resettlement initiative; recognises that all those involved in resettlement, and especially resettled refugees, are a valuable source of information for the evaluation of resettlement initiatives;

15.

Calls for the consideration and exchange of best practices which foster efficiency between Member States, which may include the promotion of joint programmes, peer evaluation, the setting-up of joint missions, the use of common infrastructures (such as transit centres) and organisation of missions to Member States to evaluate the ongoing resettlement;

16.

Calls for the relevance of follow-up measures on the quality of reception and integration in the host Member States not to be disregarded; considers that the success of resettlement must be defined not only in terms of the physical displacement of refugees from a third country to a Member State but also in terms of the implementation of measures that allow the integration of refugees in the host country;

17.

Calls for special attention to be given to the human resources involved in any present or future EU Resettlement Programme in order to ensure a procedure which allows good practices of adaptation and integration of refugees in the host society, as experience shows that resettlement efforts need to be conducted with monitoring by appropriate officers and experts;

18.

Acknowledges the lack of structured cooperation regarding resettlement activities within the EU, which require considerable logistical preparation, such as selection and orientation missions, medical and security screenings, arrangements for travel and visas and reception and integration programmes, as mentioned in Communication COM(2009)0447;

19.

Confirms, moreover, the view that the absence of mechanisms of cooperation and coordination between Member States raises the costs of the operations related to resettlement, makes them less attractive and reduces their strategic impact;

20.

Recommends, therefore, the creation of a specific unit with proper staff allocated to carry out the necessary coordination between all the ongoing resettlement activities in the Member States;

21.

Believes that the most appropriate institutional framework for this Resettlement Unit would be within the EASO, where it could cooperate in the ambit of EU policies in the area of asylum and migration;

22.

Considers that this unit could establish close contact with the UNHCR and local NGOs, in order to obtain important information to forward to the Member States and EU institutions regarding, for instance, urgent priorities, integration techniques, etc.;

23.

Insists also that the Resettlement Unit could play an important role in the monitoring and evaluation of the effectiveness and quality of the Resettlement Programme at EU level by issuing annual reports on all the activities, based on information gathered by the institutions/authorities involved in the resettlement initiatives in the Member States;

24.

Wishes to emphasise that the Resettlement Unit should keep track of the NGOs, charities and other entities which are able to cooperate with public authorities in the process of resettlement of refugees; notes, moreover, that the above-mentioned Unit should regularly issue documents indicating the standards and criteria that these entities must comply with in order to be eligible to participate in EU resettlement schemes;

25.

Stresses that the EASO can make a very useful contribution to ensuring consistency and complementariness between the EU Resettlement Programme and other EU asylum policies;

26.

Recognises that an adequate resettlement programme requires a regular update of the nationalities and categories of refugees that should be prioritised in the resettlement process, with special regard to geographical emergencies and particularly vulnerable persons who are most in need of protection;

27.

Believes that the EU annual priorities should be established by the Commission, as proposed, with strong and effective involvement of the UNHCR and the European Parliament at all stages of the identification and assessment of candidates for resettlement;

28.

Suggests that a delegation of Members from its Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs (LIBE), Foreign Affairs (AFET) and Development (DEVE) committees participate in the yearly meeting of the resettlement expert group;

29.

Considers that an EU Resettlement Programme should include specific procedures to involve the European Parliament in the elaboration of the EU annual priorities;

30.

Encourages the EASO to assume an important role in the definition of the resettlement agenda within the EU;

31.

Defends the principle that, in line with the need for adaptability in the EU annual priorities, there should be categories which remain stable every year, so that Member States can resettle particularly vulnerable persons at any time of the year;

32.

Suggests that individual Member States may be enabled to prepare for emergency procedures in cases of unforeseen humanitarian circumstances – for instance, when refugees are under armed attack or when natural accidents or catastrophes seriously affect refugee camps; considers that these procedures would allow resettlement to take place in a short period of time, with the administrative steps being carried out either with a compressed timetable or, in certain cases, after the displacement of the refugees; recommends that this effort should be considered among the aims of the EU Resettlement Programme;

33.

Regrets that only 10 Member States currently have resettlement programmes, established without coordination among themselves;

34.

Recognises that the participation of Member States remains voluntary, given the divergences in reception conditions, collaborating partners and legal criteria that are used to decide who to resettle;

35.

Recognises that certain Member States, particularly in southern Europe, face special challenges because of their location at the external border of the Union;

36.

Calls, nevertheless, for greater incentives to encourage more Member States to participate in the EU Resettlement Programme; acknowledges that, while greater financial assistance is important, one should not undermine the contribution that the EASO can provide with regard to this aspect by helping to equalise the situation through raising the quality of services offered to refugees in Member States and offering assistance with the most efficient practices for hosting and integration;

37.

Suggests more substantial financial assistance to Member States wishing to start participating in the EU Resettlement Programme, in order to help them create a sustainable resettlement programme and to alleviate the initial burden of setting up such an initiative; suggests that, in order to avoid an excessive impact on the European Refugee Fund, the value of the financial assistance should be equalised to the other Member States after the first years of participation to the programme;

38.

Believes that it will not be possible to increase the number of refugees resettled in the EU without an administrative and expert framework to underpin the programme and the creation of permanent structures to prepare for resettlement and follow-up on the integration process;

39.

Considers that an effective EU Resettlement Programme must include provisions on follow-up measures, insisting on the quality of the resettlement in each Member State, good standards at every stage from recognition to reception and integration of the refugees;

40.

Calls on the Member States involved in the resettlement programme to evaluate their measures taken in the resettlement procedure so as to secure and improve the refugees’ integration. Member States should also follow up regularly on the refugees’ integration;

41.

Is of the opinion that governmental authorities should foster maximum cooperation with non-governmental entities (international and local NGOs, for instance) and benefit from the expertise and proximity of the latter in providing the best and most efficient initiatives for resettlement of refugees; participation by civil society in the European Resettlement Programme will underpin support and reception initiatives by the Member States and local authorities;

42.

Advocates intensive efforts on the part of all the entities involved to grant the refugees, especially the most vulnerable, access to adequate housing, health care, education, language courses and psychological assistance, as well as access to the labour market, so as to ensure successful integration;

43.

Calls on the EASO, in particular through its proposed resettlement Unit, to establish clear criteria for quality resettlement in close cooperation with the UNHCR, NGOs and local authorities and follow the resettlement of the refugees, in order to contribute to the evaluation and further improvement of the resettlement activities in the Member States;

44.

Underlines once again the role of the EASO as an entity which could raise awareness of certain shortcomings in the resettlement initiatives, assisting the Member States in finding specific solutions, and encourage better practices if provided with a permanent Resettlement Unit;

45.

Calls for the organisation of a joint annual debate of its Committees on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs and on Foreign Affairs in order to contribute to the development of the programme;

46.

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

31.5.2011   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 161/8

A.

whereas quality education and training are a must in terms of personal fulfilment of the individual, equality, fighting social exclusion and poverty, active citizenship and social cohesion,

B.

whereas improving the quality of education and training for all students in order to attain better results and competences, initially through new and more incisive policies to increase educational supply, is a priority,

C.

whereas despite some improvement in education and training performance in the European Union the majority of the EU benchmarks set out for 2010 will not be reached, whereas in particular skills levels remain inadequate and whereas one third of the population of Europe have very low-level educational qualifications,

D.

whereas, ten years after the launching of the Bologna Process, the desired convergence between the Member States regarding higher education has not been achieved,

E.

whereas education and training policies should enable all citizens, irrespective of their age, gender, health, physical, mental and psychic conditions and their linguistic, ethnic, national, religious and socio-economic background, to acquire, update and develop their skills and competences throughout their lives,

F.

whereas education and training are key elements in the successful implementation of the Renewed Social Agenda for opportunities, access and solidarity; whereas the implementation of that agenda would help to create more and better jobs and give more European citizens the opportunity to achieve their potential,

G.

whereas a continuous effort is required to ensure that women have equal access to education at all levels and that educational choices are not predetermined by gender stereotypes,

H.

whereas the full implementation of key competences needs further policy action both at the European and national level,

I.

whereas the crucial challenge for education and training in Europe is the reform of education towards a learning-centred holistic education system which prepares young people for being happy, active global citizens who are ready to enter the labour Market,

J.

whereas the implementation and further development of lifelong learning strategies remain a critical challenge for many Member States; whereas stronger focus should be given to the whole life-cycle instead of focusing on specific sectors or groups,

K.

whereas the benefits of educational investment are seen only in the long-term perspective and it is important to ensure that they are not set aside in the policy agenda; whereas we should call for EU guidance on the quality of education and training systems, and avoid budgetary restraint, or at least the resources allocated should increase and not decline; whereas the EU therefore needs to equip itself with budgetary mechanisms not tied to annual programming in the field of education and training,

L.

whereas investment in education and training, retraining and the updating and adaptation of the knowledge and skills of all is an essential precondition for emerging from the crisis and rising to the long-term challenges of global economic competiveness, employment, mobilisation and social inclusion,

M.

whereas more than 80 % of primary school teachers and 97 % of pre-school teachers in the Union are women, while in secondary education the equivalent figure is only 60 %, and in higher education and research less than 40 %,

N.

whereas the challenges faced by teachers are increasing as educational environments become more complex and heterogeneous, such as changes in information and communication technologies (ICT), financial restrictions caused by economic crisis, changes to social and family structures, and multiculturalism,

O.

whereas it will be important to implement the EU 2020 Strategic Framework for European Cooperation in Education and Training, in order to address these crucial challenges,

P.

whereas digital competences will be of increasing importance in the evolving knowledge-based economy and labour market of the EU; whereas these competences offer opportunities for economic recovery, fostering entrepreneurship, and increased access to employment,

Q.

whereas sport is one of the most effective means of combating substance abuse (smoking, alcoholism and drug-taking), as school pupils and students in higher education are one of the social groups most at risk in this regard; whereas the participation of school pupils and students in sport depends primarily on the existence of appropriate background infrastructure,

1.

Welcomes the above-mentioned Commission Communication ‘Key competences for a changing world’;

2.

Notes that despite progress in recent years many European citizens are still not yet sufficiently skilled; points out that one in seven young people (18-24) leave school early (6 million drop-outs in EU 27), that one in four 15-year-olds have poor reading skills, that around 77 million people (nearly one third of Europe’s population aged 25-64) have no, or low, formal qualifications, that only one quarter have high-level qualifications and that too many European citizens lack ICT skills; stresses that very low skills levels are a persistent problem throughout the EU and is concerned at the rise in the number of young people who are not fully literate at the age of 15 (21.3 % in 2000, 24.1 % in 2006);

3.

Asks the Commission to continue the debate on ‘New Skills for New Jobs’; points out that, by 2020, 16 million more jobs will need high qualifications and four million more jobs will need medium qualifications, while 12 million fewer jobs will require low qualifications; points out that by 2015 a large majority of jobs, across all sectors, will require ICT skills; calls for this debate to involve all interested parties, including teachers, students, competent professional organizations, relevant NGOs and trade unions, civil society stakeholders, particularly parents’ and students’ associations, and representatives of business;

4.

Considers it vital to introduce policies seeking to improve the quality of education and training for all students and stresses that, in order for European educational systems to meet the challenge of global competitiveness, it is necessary to increase the educational opportunities available, which must be of a higher level and broader scope in order to meet the pressing demands of professional sectors and the labour market;

5.

Considers language learning crucial for facilitating young people’s access to the labour market and for promoting their mobility and equal opportunities;

6.

Calls on the Member States to implement further the European Qualifications Framework;

7.

Urges that attention be given not only to the so-called new ‘green jobs’ but also to ‘white jobs’; points out that by 2030 the proportion of those aged over 65 in relation to those aged 15-64 will increase from 26 % in 2008 to 38 % by 2030; notes that there will therefore be an increasing need for shared policies on active ageing, with particular reference to measures to promote literacy and refresh and update key skills in the field of ICT in order to overcome the digital divide, which is a growing factor in the social exclusion of the elderly;

8.

Notes that the Commission Communication on EU 2020 underlines that the ‘employment rate of women is particularly low’ (only 63 % of women are in work compared to 76 % of men) and that ‘policies to promote gender equality will be needed to increase labour force participation’; notes that consequently education and training policy needs to be targeted to close this gap in the labour market, thereby contributing to the achievement of sustainable growth and social cohesion; stresses the importance of a non-gender-based education from the youngest possible age;

9.

Calls for special attention to the need to facilitate the integration of people with disabilities, irrespective of their age, in education and training, with particular reference to the genuine integration of disabled children from an early age into educational establishments; underlines the need for proper investments and for a long-term strategy to remove any threshold in this area;

10.

Believes that all education should foster the acquisition of democratic competences by supporting student councils and allowing students to take co-responsibility for their education as enshrined in a Charter on Students Rights; in this regard, calls for a thorough debate in European society about the function and role of education and suggests that the European Citizens' Agora could be the space for such a debate;

11.

Calls on the European Commission, Member States and employers, in close cooperation with education and training providers, to encourage skills upgrading for people from disadvantaged backgrounds;

12.

Recognises that globalisation has profoundly changed Europe’s societies and recommends the inclusion of Global/Development Education within all education to enable citizens to deal with the threats and opportunities of a changing world;

13.

Considers it essential, at all levels in education and training, to establish digital and media literacy and to provide an introduction to new technologies and to teach everyone to apply expertise and critical discernment in equal measure when using modern forms of communication and media content; underlines the urgent need to improve the e-skills of all European citizens; points out that training and education in ICT, both at national and EU level, are a necessity, given the increasing importance of these skills in the evolving labour market;

14.

Highlights the importance of sufficient and high-quality support for the development of teachers’ competences and of introducing new ways of organising learning in attractive school environments;

15.

Underlines the importance of art, culture and sport in education and training and the need to pay particular attention to these subjects in pre-primary, primary and secondary education and lifelong learning; considers that, as well as developing vocational and technical abilities, cultural and social education are an integral part of education and training policy because they help develop non-academic aptitudes, thus fostering individual fulfilment and the acquisition of basic skills;

16.

Calls on the Member States to ensure there are sufficient funds for investment in sport for educational institutions and to increase the cooperation of the public and private spheres in this area;

17.

Calls on the Member States to ensure sufficient investment in education in order to guarantee accessibility to the labour market for all categories;

18.

Stresses the importance of using history and language as vehicles for the achievement of European social and cultural integration;

19.

Draws attention to the importance of high-quality early childhood education for the early acquisition of key competences, including a child’s ability to communicate both in his or her mother tongue and in the language of the host country concerned, and in particular for supporting children from disadvantaged backgrounds and with special (learning) needs in order to fight against future poverty and social exclusion;

20.

Draws attention to the importance of promoting a reading culture from pre-school onwards, and to the importance of access to reading material already at the pre-school age;

21.

Draws attention to the importance of education in one’s mother tongue including in the case of traditional minorities;

22.

Stresses the importance of multilingualism for mobility: for this reason calls on the Member States to introduce the learning of a second language at an early stage;

23.

Stresses that it is essential to put in place educational support measures for children of immigrants in order to facilitate their adjustment to the educational and social environment of the host country;

24.

Underlines the need to encourage and support actions to enhance children’s creativity from an early stage in life, thus better paving the way for a culture of innovation in Europe;

25.

Draws attention to the Barcelona targets that aimed at providing childcare by 2010 for at least 90 % of children between three years old and the mandatory school age and for at least 33 % of children under three years of age and making childcare affordable for as many people as possible;

26.

Underlines the need to continue to develop and confirm language acquisition at primary and secondary school, also with reference to immigrant children, and the importance of being taught in their mother tongue in the case of traditional minorities;

27.

Supports the idea of an educational approach that allows more regular consultation of, and greater participation by, students in the management of the educational process, active participation by students’ parents in the educational community and the development of a confidence-based relationship between students and teachers, serving to stimulate the spirit of initiative and the acquisition of social and civic skills that are essential to active citizenship;

28.

Stresses the importance of incorporating new technologies into the syllabus as a necessary learning tool in a modern educational system; supports the idea that children, at an early age under proper supervision, acquire skills enabling them to handle media content and in particular the internet with a sense of responsibility and critical discernment and considers it essential to make children aware of the issues of protection of privacy and personal data and compliance with the rules of copyright;

29.

Considers that the progress made in adapting school curricula to key competences is a positive step, but that it is vital to make further efforts, notably through the recognition and certification of skills acquired in non-formal and informal education, and to support the acquisition of key competences for those at risk of educational under-achievement and social exclusion;

30.

Calls for action to promote physical and sporting activity in schools and the creation of and participation in school championships, which will improve health, foster integration and help develop values that will contribute to the creation of positive patterns of behaviour;

31.

Advocates education and training for children from migrant families, stressing the major contribution of education to the successful integration of migrants into European society;

32.

Calls for a comprehensive strategy for key competence acquisition, ranging from reform of school curricula through to support for ongoing training and professional development of teachers, thus providing for a well-trained educational community; considers that incentives should be offered to teachers to enable them to improve their teaching and to focus on professional development;

33.

Calls on the Member States to introduce new subject combinations and materials in schools providing general education so as to enable young people with one of the most frequent learning disorders – dyslexia – to complete their studies successfully, notwithstanding their learning disability;

34.

Stresses the importance of integrated education in order to prevent social prejudices and discrimination and thus contribute to European social solidarity;

35.

Calls for enhanced mobility between higher education institutions, the business world and vocational education and training (e.g. students, teachers, employees, trainers) to promote student-centred learning and the acquisition of competences such as entrepreneurship, intercultural understanding, critical thinking and creativity, which are increasingly needed on the labour market; considers that to this end existing obstacles within the EU should be urgently addressed, with a special focus on the obstacles related to financial and recognition barriers, so as to enhance the quality of mobility experiences for all students; supports higher education quality assurance as a means to reinforce mobility for academic and research purposes and as a precondition for equal job opportunities for EU citizens;

36.

Stresses the importance of providing all young people with a solid grounding in the basic skills that are essential to promoting lifelong mobility and enabling them to deal with developments in the employment market and the emergence of new economic and social needs;

37.

Calls for research programmes to be promoted in order to strengthen the ‘knowledge triangle’ that is crucial for boosting growth and employment in the European Union;

38.

Calls on the Member States to modernise the agenda of higher education and, in particular, to coordinate curricula with the demands of the labour market;

39.

Calls on higher education institutions to modernise their courses and, in general, to accelerate the Bologna Process;

40.

Considers that higher education institutions should become more open to and prepared for all learners, in particular non-traditional learners, students with special needs and disadvantaged groups and that one of the most useful means to that end would be well-funded grant systems whereby young people from poor families could be encouraged to embark on a course of study; also considers that specific policies should be implemented by Member States in order to ensure the fundamental right to education for everyone, including young people with less financial opportunities and that a composite benchmark for equity in higher education should be explored in the future, as part of the Education and Training strategic framework;

41.

Recalls in this context the Council Conclusions (6) of May 2007 on the indicators developed for the follow-up of the Beijing Platform for Action in the areas of education and training of women, in particular higher education and research; regrets, however, that these indicators are not entirely taken into account in the monitoring of the implementation of the Education and Training 2010 work programme; encourages in this respect their use as a tool for monitoring progress towards gender equality in education and training;

42.

Notes that while progress has been made regarding women’s access to higher education, women are still under-represented in the disciplines of mathematics, sciences and technology (only 32 % of graduates are female, and 68 % are male); points out that reducing gender imbalances in these fields would contribute to a decrease in the skills shortages experienced by the EU in those sectors;

43.

Considers non-formal education as an educational field complementary to formal education and recommends that it should be treated as such in educational policy making under ET2020;

44.

Calls for increased, more effective and wider-ranging investment in higher education;

45.

Calls on the Member States to encourage partnerships (at international, national, regional and local level) between higher education institutions, universities, research centres and the business world and financial investment by the business world in higher education;

46.

Calls on Member States to allocate the necessary resources for the higher education sector, so as to make it responsive to global challenges, as a major tool for economic and social recovery following the recent downturn;

47.

Calls on the Member States to support by legislative, administrative and financial means education in their mother tongue for minorities;

48.

Insists that high-quality vocational education and training are fundamental to the supply of new professionals and essential for the ‘new skills for new jobs’ action, giving particular attention to expanding work-based learning and apprenticeships, including for young graduates on the basis of agreements between universities and businesses; further considers it important to promote study periods and traineeships for vocational training students in other European Union countries, along the same lines as the Erasmus programme for university students; calls for more support and prestige to be attached to vocational training;

49.

Stresses the need to further modernise vocational training programmes by taking into account the key competences, in order, on the one hand, to improve their quality and make them more attractive to young people while, on the other hand, making them more appropriate to the developing needs of the labour market; considers that vocational training programmes should improve the transversal key competences;

50.

Stresses the need to adopt, on the basis of existing good practice, a model for the recognition of educational credits relating to citizenship skills for young people taking part in volunteer and community service work promoted by non-profit making associations or in the context of development cooperation;

51.

Calls for improved transition between secondary vocational education and training and higher education, which ensures higher qualifications;

52.

Stresses the lifelong learning dimension of the Recommendation on Key Competences and insists that to reach its full implementation more progress is needed in the fields of vocational education and training and in adult learning, including through the legal recognition of a universal right to lifelong education;

53.

Stresses the importance of exchanges of information and of good and successful practice between Member States in the field of vocational education and training;

54.

Calls for quick action to tackle the growing number of people with low levels of reading literacy, providing particular support for local authorities, since they are most easily accessible to the public; calls on the Member States and the Commission to focus their attention on the illiterate, whose numbers are still too high, and to take resolute action to tackle this problem – including where adults are concerned;

55.

Is extremely concerned about the increasing numbers of unemployed young people, especially in the current economic crisis; urges Member States to ensure that labour markets are as flexible as possible to ensure that young people can easily find work and move between jobs;

56.

Stresses the need for improved inclusion of education providers in the development of overarching national qualifications frameworks, and for greater recognition of prior education, including that acquired on an informal or ad hoc basis;

57.

Notes that the objectives set in respect of four of the five benchmarks adopted in 2003 will not be reached; calls upon the Commission, the Member States, the regional and local authorities and other actors to examine the causes and take appropriate action to reverse the situation;

58.

Stresses the importance of an ongoing structured dialogue and consultation between those in their final stages of education and training, higher education institutions and business;

59.

Supports the objective of raising adult participation in lifelong learning from 12.5 % to 15 % by 2020, and calls for appropriate action; to this end, calls on universities to facilitate wider access to studying, diversify and broaden the student base and amend study programmes to make them attractive to adults returning to study; calls on the Commission and Member States to take even more decisive action to support and disseminate life-long learning institutions such as ‘Second Chance Schools’; calls for the gender perspective to be taken into account and promoted in the implementation of lifelong learning strategies; draws attention to the fact that universities of the third age play an essential role in life-long learning;

60.

Notes that one of the main obstacles faced by adults wanting to participate in education and training is the lack of supporting facilities for their families; therefore encourages the Member States to create supporting measures, as a means of ensuring that all students and workers with family responsibilities (e.g. childcare, or other dependants) have the opportunity to update and/or increase their skills and competences, on the basis of good practice developed in this field under European Social Fund programming, involving service and reconciliation vouchers; considers that the opportunities of e-learning in particular should be explored as these allow for greater flexibility in combining education, work and care;

61.

Encourages the European Institute for Gender Equality to take steps with a view to improving the collection and analysis of comparable data on gender equality in the field of education and training, and ensure that statistics on the relevant indicators relating to the Beijing Platform for Action are made readily available and are regularly updated;

62.

Recommends to educational and training establishments that they seek to publicise more widely their programmes that are open to adults and to simplify the administrative procedures for gaining access to these programmes;

63.

Calls upon the European Commission to take full account of the expertise of stakeholders and of their role in implementing the ET2020 strategy;

64.

Calls upon the European Commission to include non-formal education, Vocational Education and Training and school students in the upcoming Mobility Benchmark for ET2020 and to take over the Bologna Process benchmark on mobility of students;

65.

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

31.5.2011   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 161/16

A.

whereas the European Union and the rest of the world are experiencing the severest economic crisis of the last 60 years, the real economy is experiencing its worst recession of that period, and difficult employment conditions are anticipated despite a relative upturn in the economy,

B.

whereas, irrespective of the type of company or the sector in which it operates, a number of questions related to companies’ management are important in the general context of the deontology of business conduct, such as the duty of care, transparency, corporate social responsibility, risk management, the economic sustainability of financial investment decisions, board of directors or supervisory board practices or the exercise of shareholders’ rights; whereas the recent financial crisis showed that those questions need to be considered in the light of preserving financial stability and continuously analysed in order to help find solutions allowing companies to face current challenges and to help promote economic growth and higher employment within the EU,

C.

whereas the crisis also showed close links between risk management and remuneration policy and the importance of the latter in the mechanisms governing the proper functioning of companies; for this reason risk management should be duly taken into account when devising remuneration policy so as to enable effective risk management systems to be built into a broader, balanced approach to governance, and to ensure that if incentive systems are set up, care is taken to provide appropriate risk management systems as a counterbalance,

D.

whereas companies in all sectors share a number of classes of risk, although some types of risk are sector-specific (such as risks facing companies active in the financial sector); whereas failure of effective risk management resulting from inadequate monitoring of compliance with supervision rules and misaligned incentives in remuneration policies played a central role in the recent financial crisis,

E.

whereas risk management should be understood and applied at the level of the whole organisation and not only of its individual operational units; it should also be disclosed, transparent and subject to reporting requirements,

F.

whereas any solution should ensure that, when the risk is taken, it accords with the purpose of the business and the strategy of the company with due regard to effective risk management; effective risk management should be regarded as one of the most important elements of good corporate governance in all companies,

G.

whereas one of the first steps taken by the Commission after the crisis addressed the issue of remuneration policy by complementing Commission Recommendations 2004/913/EC and 2005/162/EC, which aimed to ensure appropriate remuneration policy by setting out best practices for its design with a new recommendation as regards the regime for remuneration of directors of listed companies and by publishing a recommendation on remuneration policies in the financial services sector,

H.

whereas the degree of recommendation varies, depending on the type of company, with due regard to size, internal organisation and complexity of activities; whereas such distinctions can be made between financial (listed or not) and listed but non-financial companies, and between different sectors of the financial industry such as banking, insurance and fund management,

I.

whereas in the context of remuneration several points need to be considered, such as (i) remuneration schemes, including their structure, transparency and symmetry and the link between remuneration and incentive, (ii) the process of determining the remuneration schemes, including the definition of actors, roles and responsibilities, (iii) control over remuneration schemes, with particular attention given to shareholders, and (iv) total remuneration including salaries and pensions,

J.

whereas some aspects of principles of paramount importance contained in the recommendations remain unclear and must be put properly into practice, such as the concept of performance criteria, which should help in creating the link between pay and performance, the notion of ‘inadequate performance’ in the case of termination payments, the termination payment and variable components of remuneration in the financial services sector,

K.

whereas, given the recurring difficulties in defining the link between pay and performance, the focus should be on the effectiveness of the process in which remuneration policy is determined and on transparency, both of which should be based on sound governance defined and assessed by reference to an appropriate time-frame, oriented towards the medium to long term so as to avert dangerous, unsustainable risk management policies geared to the short term (if not the very short term), with defined, separated roles and the responsibilities of those involved,

L.

whereas any adopted solutions should not follow the one-size-fits-all principle and companies should retain flexibility in adjusting systems to their own needs,

M.

whereas ex-post assessment of the performance and remuneration policy is needed,

N.

whereas transparency proved to be an important element of good governance; whereas it should not be reduced to mere disclosure, but it should mean that companies are able to explain the choice of a particular remuneration policy,

O.

whereas disclosure of the policy on directors’ remuneration in a clear and easily understandable way should in principle benefit the process of taking decisions on remuneration policy, in particular by shareholders; such disclosure could include detailed disclosure in the annual accounts or in the remuneration report of the total remuneration and other benefits granted to individual directors,

P.

whereas the company’s objective should be constructive engagement of shareholders and employees; whereas this requires exploration of other measures for effective involvement of shareholders in shaping the company’s policy on remuneration (such as the possibility introduced in Germany for companies to seek shareholders’ approval of a tier remuneration policy through an advisory vote), in particular since shareholders are not always willing or prepared to take on a more active role; whereas this should also mean that ways should be explored of ensuring more proactive rather than reactive behaviour by shareholders vis-à-vis boards,

Q.

whereas, especially in the listed companies, non-participation by shareholders is substantial, and electronic voting should therefore be encouraged in shareholders’ meetings,

R.

whereas existing legislation on information and consultation of workers as regards management of their firms must be correctly implemented so as to make possible a genuine dialogue with management and a clear definition of the firms’ remuneration practices and objectives,

S.

whereas it falls within the legal remit of company boards to establish criteria for management remuneration and fix the levels of such remuneration,

T.

whereas voluntary standards are essential in improving boards’ performance and a review of good practices may be necessary,

U.

whereas the aim should be to create competent boards of directors and supervisory boards capable of objective and independent judgment; whereas boards’ effectiveness and efficiency should be evaluated,

V.

whereas, owing to the acknowledged weaknesses of the current system of corporate governance, a percentage ( for ex. 1/3) of the directors ( members of the board) should be professionals, remunerated, responsible and subordinated only to the shareholders; whereas their responsibility and subordination should be filtered through professional expertise,

W.

whereas, while legislating in this area might be a more difficult and time-consuming option than adoption of recommendations, the soft law approach is not satisfactory,

X.

whereas the Commission plans to follow up the recommendations with legislative proposals to bring remuneration schemes within the scope of prudential oversight, and has proposed notably to revise the Capital Requirements Directive; whereas the Commission intends to examine additional measures in relation to non-banking financial services,

Y.

whereas recommendations issued by the Commission in respect of listed companies do not necessarily represent appropriate general guidelines for developing best practices in non-listed companies,

Z.

whereas uniform and coherent implementation of any instrument adopted in this area throughout the EU and by all relevant parties is essential,

1.

Welcomes steps aiming at addressing the deontological aspects of companies’ management, which the recent financial crisis reveals are far from resolved; welcomes in this context the two recommendations issued by the Commission;

2.

Points out that the soft law approach is however not satisfactory;

3.

Welcomes therefore the Commission’s first legislative proposal allowing the EU legislator to properly address the relevant issues, i.e. the amendment of the Capital Requirements Directive;

4.

Endorses the principles which the Commission put forward in its recommendations of 30 April 2009 concerning, firstly, remuneration regimes and governance arrangements with regard to the remuneration of the directors and managers of listed companies, and, secondly, on remuneration regimes and the process of drafting and implementing remuneration policy (governance), the transparency of remuneration policy and prudential supervision (surveillance) in the financial sector, but emphasises that these recommendations have not been put into practice satisfactorily by the Member States;

5.

Maintains that the EU needs an industrial, social, and environmental model geared to the long term, consistent with the general interest – of companies, shareholders, and workers – and with a new financial architecture based on a system of prudential and deontological rules and on national and European supervisory authorities with binding powers; also believes that the financial sector should meet the needs of the real economy, help to promote sustainable growth and display the greatest possible degree of social responsibility;

6.

Recalls that, during the process of economic renewal, in addition to supporting the real economy, measures for the protection of jobs, training and working conditions are of major importance and should be taken into account by all stakeholders;

7.

Maintains that remuneration policies making for sound, sustainable governance are necessary not just for deontological reasons, but also for eminently economic reasons, given that policies of this kind have a direct impact in terms of assets and the development outlook for companies themselves as well as the economy in general, and of preserving and creating higher levels of employment;

8.

Considers that provisions on remuneration policies for directors of banks and credit institutions have to be more than mere recommendations and must hence take the form of binding measures linked to a system of oversight, the object being to ensure that the variable component of remuneration – bonuses, stock options, and incentives – does not drive companies to adopt over-risky investment and management policies which pay no heed to the fallout for the real economy;

9.

Emphasises that corporate management and remuneration policies must comply with and foster the principles of wage parity and equal treatment of women and men established by the Treaties and by EU directives;

10.

Sees the need for further European legislative action in order to solve the problem of different national remuneration rules for companies in cases where managers move from one Member State to another within a (holding) company or from one company to another company in a different Member State, or when companies make use of freedom of movement within the internal market, for example, by way of cross-border mergers;

11.

Considers it important to emphasise the general social responsibility of company boards for the sustainable, longer-term development of firms based in an EU Member State, and to expect it as a duty of such boards that they structure company directors’ remuneration in a way which reflects that aim and which is transparent to the European public;

12.

Urges the Commission to propose sector-specific amendments to financial services legislation to ensure consistency between banking and non-banking institutions in remuneration policy. Furthermore, calls on the Commission to bring forward legislative proposals in the field of company law to help address corporate governance issues and ensure consistency in remuneration policy for all types of companies;

13.

Invites the Commission to encourage and support effective implementation of measures adopted at EU level, focusing primarily on cross-border companies, and to fulfil its undertaking to submit an evaluation report on the application of both recommendations by Member States; in this context calls on the Commission to include in the evaluation report’s conclusions a schedule of appropriate legislative and non-legislative activities which might be a necessary follow-up;

14.

Calls for efficient implementation of the rules on consultation and employee participation systems opted for in the context of Directive 2001/86/EC (5) supplementing the Statute for a European Company;

15.

Sees the European company as a suitable platform for best practices with a view to embedding ethical principles in the way that transnational companies are directed and putting such principles into practical application;

16.

Calls on Member States to effectively implement measures such as the EU Shareholders’ Rights Directive to remove the obstacles to and enhance shareholders’ participation in voting, in particular with respect to cross-border voting;

17.

Calls on all stakeholders to actively engage in a review of business practices and changes in business culture;

18.

Calls for encouragement for more women to be assigned to management posts by means of a Commission recommendation to introduce a system for the filling of posts on company decision-making bodies, posts in other bodies and posts in general;

19.

Proposes that the national supervisory authorities, in assessing the independence of members of the managing bodies of undertakings more strictly, should devise more effective anti-corruption schemes, the establishment of which may not only be conducive to more ethical business management practices but may also increase the economic success of undertakings;

20.

Supports the establishment of uniform and comprehensive guidance concerning risk management, which at present seems to be addressed by various codes and standards applicable in Member States only in a fragmentary way;

21.

Stresses that, in the case of economic crimes, it is possible to bring criminal proceedings against the individual members of the board of directors responsible for these crimes;

22.

Invites the Commission to promote the utilisation of best practice guidance for unlisted companies, which is designed to take account of the specificities and differences of such companies;

23.

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

31.5.2011   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 161/21

A.

whereas investing in actions for young people is crucial for the future of European societies, especially at times when the proportion of young people in the total population is constantly decreasing,

B.

whereas all young people are an added value to society and have to be recognised as such,

C.

whereas current generations, when shaping policies of today, have a strong responsibility towards young people and future generations; whereas policy-makers and researchers need to take young people’s views into account to give them a say,

D.

whereas the European Union possesses important tools relating to youth policies, yet these tools need to be fully exploited, communicated and integrated by Member States,

E.

whereas employment means more than just paid work: it is an agent of socialisation and can be an important source of support, structure and identity formation,

F.

whereas an insecure job situation may lead young people to refrain from or to postpone starting a family, thus having an impact on demographic developments,

G.

whereas today's European youth is exposed to growing unemployment rates and is badly affected by the economic crisis, whereas in particular young people with poor qualifications are more likely to be unemployed, and whereas it is important, therefore, to ensure that young people receive the best possible training which guarantees them prompt access to and a long-term stake in the labour market,

H.

whereas equal access for all young people to high-quality education and training at all levels should be supported and opportunities for lifelong learning should be further promoted,

I.

whereas young people’s transition between education and training and the labour market should be facilitated,

J.

whereas absolute priority should be given as a matter of urgency to the problems of early school-leaving and illiteracy, in particular among adolescents and the youth prison population,

K.

whereas issues relating to health, housing and the environment are of great importance for young people and can have a serious impact on their lives and future; whereas a favourable environment should be promoted in terms of education, employment, social inclusion and health,

L.

whereas young people, while having to be able to rely upon a healthy family environment, require support in satisfying their need for autonomy and independence,

M.

whereas environmental aspects are not explicitly included in the Commission communication and in the Council Resolution, although they are crucial for young people and have a serious impact on the health, quality of life and well-being of future generations; whereas, therefore, in an EU strategy for youth environmental issues should be clearly mentioned in the fields of action,

N.

whereas active participation in society is not only an important means of empowering young people but also contributes to their personal development, to their better integration into society, to the acquisition of skills and to the development of a sense of responsibility,

O.

whereas youth work is important for the EU's youth strategy, as a worthwhile leisure activity for and to be undertaken by young people, but also in order to acquire skills and achieve personal development,

P.

whereas learning and experiencing what it means to have a stake in society fosters an understanding of and active participation in democracy and its processes,

Q.

whereas the existence of the European programmes which benefit youth should be better communicated to young people so as to enhance their participation,

R.

whereas an effective youth policy can contribute to the development of a European mentality,

1.

Welcomes the Commission Communication ‘An EU Strategy for Youth – Investing and Empowering’;

2.

Welcomes the Council Resolution on a renewed framework for European cooperation in the youth field (2010-2018);

3.

Points out that the definition of the concept of ‘youth’ varies among Member States; notes that this concept is influenced by different social circumstances and that this fact allows scope for a different approach by each Member State;

4.

Takes the view that Community programmes and funds should reflect Europe's ambitions for young people;

5.

Calls on the Member States to fully implement the provisions of the Lisbon Treaty in the area of youth policy, such as the encouragement of the participation of young people in democratic life, special attention to young sportsmen and sportswomen and the legal enforcement of the Charter of Fundamental Rights;

6.

Acknowledges that the reinforced Open Method of Coordination (OMC) with due regard for the principle of subsidiarity is an appropriate tool for cooperation on youth policy issues, despite its weaknesses, its restricted use, its legitimacy deficits, its lack of effective cooperation between ‘experts’ and elected politicians, a lack of proper integration with national priorities and the risk of ‘responsibility confusion’ between the various levels; considers that, in order to obtain long-term results, the Open Method of Coordination should be reinforced;

7.

Underlines that the Open Method of Coordination needs to be carried by a strong political will on the part of all those involved if it is to deliver maximum results; considers implementation shortcomings to be a fundamental obstacle to achieving the set goals;

8.

Recognises the importance of cooperation among institutions at local, regional, national and European level in order to achieve the objectives of this strategy and calls on the Commission, the Member States and youth representatives to play an active part in implementing a youth strategy;

9.

Urges closer cooperation on youth issues between the European Parliament, the Commission and the Council and stresses the need for more integrated cooperation with and among national parliaments within the scope of the OMC process;

10.

Welcomes the clear definition of the dual approach, the introduction of working methods and especially the clear list of implementation instruments set out by the Council; requests the involvement of the European Parliament in the definition of the priorities of the work cycles; calls for European cooperation in the youth field to be evidence-based, pertinent and concrete;

11.

Stresses the need to develop clear and user-friendly indicators both at European and national level which make it possible to improve, broaden and update our true knowledge of the condition of young people and to measure and compare progress on the implementation of commonly set objectives; underlines the importance of constant monitoring and evaluation;

12.

Points out the importance of an evaluation of the state of implementation of the EU Strategy for Youth; stresses that Member States’ progress reports in the youth field should be made publicly available in order to increase public awareness; stresses the need to monitor the way the lives of young people in Europe are developing and changing so that the actual progress made can be assessed;

13.

Considers that peer-learning should be more developed as a means of facilitating the exchange of good practice and contributing to the consistency of the actions taken at national level;

14.

Considers that in order to have a complete EU strategy for youth, the formulation of youth policies and of EU programmes and actions should go hand in hand in an accurate and transparent way; considers, in particular, that the results deriving from the implementation of EU programmes should give feedback to the formulation of youth policies and the EU strategy for youth in general, and vice versa;

15.

Stresses, further, the need for an in-depth analysis of the existing programmes already implemented in order to make effective quality management possible and, on that basis, devise any improvements which may be needed to the programmes in the future;

16.

Points out the need to mobilise and to adapt the EU programmes and social funds for youth, to facilitate access to them and to simplify the procedures for access; stresses how important it is to devise a practical, non-bureaucratic approach in this area with a view to implementing an integrated strategy to improve young people's lives; highlights the importance of young people being involved in implementing youth programmes so that their needs can be better taken into account;

17.

Stresses the important role of the Comenius, Erasmus and Leonardo da Vinci programmes in the development of European education and training policies; reiterates its political priority of considering those programmes as a cornerstone in the development of the EU youth strategy, especially for the next generation of multiannual programmes;

18.

Considers that even more effort should be made to promote the mobility of young people within Europe and that, in mobility programmes, there must be sufficient scope for and attention devoted to exchanges of young people outside formal education;

19.

Calls on the Commission, within the new mobility programmes, to devote special attention to the mobility of youth workers, and to this end calls for the special visa regime which currently exists for students to be extended to youth workers;

20.

Draws attention to the need to involve the mass media in popularising programmes for young people;

21.

Acknowledges that improving young people's lives is a cross-cutting task which must be taken into account in every policy area; encourages the European Institutions and the Member States to promote the creation of a youth sector in all departments and ministries that will help to strengthen the drafting of appropriate youth policies; also calls on the Commission to appoint ‘youth officers’ in its directorates-general and to give them further training; considers that the aim should be to assess Commission documents in the light of youth policy objectives; therefore, strongly welcomes the cross-sectoral approach as a necessary factor to achieve a maximum level of effectiveness; considers that the mainstreaming of youth issues in all fields of policy is a key factor for the success of the youth strategy;

22.

Stresses the need for the institutionalisation of intergenerational justice at European level and the adoption of this principle by Member States for the just regulation of relations between the generations;

23.

Strongly stresses that the global economic crisis is having a major impact on young people and that it should therefore profoundly influence priorities within the fields of action; considers that this should be done by identifying a range of measures to back up the social exit strategy and that special attention should be paid to the review of social safety nets and social security systems;

24.

Underlines the importance of eliminating all kinds of discrimination among young people, such as discrimination based on sex, racial or ethnic origin, religion, disability, age and sexual orientation;

25.

Stresses the importance of considering young people as a priority group in the EU's social vision;

26.

Strongly underlines the need to give young people with disabilities effective, tailor-made support as well as real and equal opportunities in physical, sensory and cognitive access to education, employment, culture, leisure, sports, social activities and involvement in the conduct of public and civil affairs;

27.

Calls for measures to ensure respect for diversity and the successful integration of youngsters and children;

28.

Calls on the Member States to identify cross-sectoral connections between youth policies and education, training, employment, culture and other policies;

29.

Underlines the need for strong links between policies on youth and children;

30.

Encourages the Member States to intensify the interaction between the sides of the knowledge triangle (education, research, innovation) as a key element for growth and job creation; strongly recommends promoting common criteria for stronger mutual recognition of non-formal education and vocational training, for example by speeding up the adoption of the EQF system for the recognition of qualifications, transparency and the validation of skills;

31.

Calls on Member States to undertake more initiatives to invest in the right skills for jobs in demand and encourages them to link educational curricula to labour market demands, to provide legislation for short-term vocational training (where still needed) and to use, whenever possible, the validation of skills and the recognition of qualifications;

32.

Draws attention to the problem of school drop-out and the need to take measures to ensure that as high a percentage of young people as possible complete their period of compulsory education;

33.

Strongly encourages Member States, in the context of increased funding, to promote learning and training mobility for all young people, which is a key factor for gaining learning and working experience; stresses the importance of youth mobility also in regions bordering on the EU by guaranteeing broad participation in the European programmes which benefit youth;

34.

Urges Member States to do their utmost to meet the strategic objectives and to reach the benchmarks fixed under the strategic framework for European cooperation in education and training (‘ET 2020’), particularly as regards low achievers in basic skills, and early school leavers;

35.

Calls on the Member States to create sufficient channels to enable people who have left the education system to rejoin it and ensure that appropriate bridges are available for people who have followed vocational training courses to go on to higher levels of education and urges them to take measures and to offer targeted programmes for young people who have fallen behind or have left school earlier due to difficult circumstances or poor choices;

36.

Stresses the importance of providing young people with access to guidance and counselling on the transition from education to work;

37.

Calls on Member States to ensure that children and young people, irrespective of the legal status of their families, have a right to State education, helping them to achieve, with due respect for their own culture and language, the necessary command of the language of the host Member State and a knowledge of its culture as a tool for integration;

38.

Calls on Member States to ensure equal access to education for young people irrespective of social origin and financial conditions, and to guarantee equal access to education for disadvantaged young people from low-income families;

39.

Calls on the Member States to implement the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities and to make inclusive education - covering both formal and informal education - a reality;

40.

Underlines the importance of a new, effective and continuous training system for teachers in order to help young students to cope better with the challenges of our quickly changing society;

41.

Stresses the importance of promoting media literacy;

42.

Points out that education plays a fundamental role in the positive development of personal attitudes;

43.

Is extremely concerned about the increasing numbers of young people who are unemployed, under-employed or have no job security, especially in the current economic crisis; strongly supports the invitation addressed to the European Council to ensure a youth perspective in the post-2010 Lisbon and Europe 2020 Strategies and to support the continuation of initiatives in line with the overall objectives of the European Youth Pact; strongly supports the proposal to develop appropriate measures targeted at young people in the recovery plans drawn up in the economic and financial crisis plans;

44.

Underlines the essential need to attain the objectives of Europe's Lisbon Strategy for growth and jobs and considers that the renewed EU 2020 agenda should enable the EU to make a full recovery from the crisis by moving more speedily towards an innovative and job-creating economy; in this context, urges that the renewed agenda be more focused on young people;

45.

Calls on the Member States to take action against job insecurity and poor working conditions that young people experience in the labour market and to actively support the reconciliation of the worlds of employment and personal and family life;

46.

Urges the Member States to take the inter-generational dimension into account in their policies to foster employment;

47.

Calls on Member States to facilitate the access of young people to all kinds of employment in good working conditions so as to avoid a mismatch between skills and jobs that represents a waste of talent; in this respect, recommends an improvement in the quality of internships provided as well as the rights of interns by ensuring that the majority of intern programmes endow young people with qualifications and lead to paid positions;

48.

Also calls on Member States to offer more employment opportunities, to implement social protection policies for disadvantaged young people, to ensure equal opportunities for young people in the periphery and in urban centres and to give special support to young mothers;

49.

Recalls the risk of a brain drain and the negative consequences for young people's countries of origin; calls upon Member States to explore and develop youth retention strategies in countries and regions prone to outward migration, which takes diverse forms, such as brain drains, skills gap fillers and cheap, flexible, unskilled and often seasonal labour;

50.

Calls on the Member States to eliminate the cases where a disparity in income levels between young men and young women on the grounds of sex is noted;

51.

Calls on the Member States to ensure decent employment rights and social security in an era of globalisation by striking a balance between flexibility and security;

52.

Calls on the Member States to guarantee the total transferability of acquired social benefits so as not to jeopardise welfare protection for young workers who have opted for mobility;

53.

Stresses the importance of periods of practical training in companies and institutions during the period of study, which may make it easier subsequently to find a job;

54.

Suggests promoting an entrepreneurial culture among young people by improving communication on entrepreneurship, by supporting the development of European structures and networks to that end and by encouraging young people to become self-employed and to use microcredit and microfinance tools; stresses the importance of life-long learning;

55.

Supports the need for synergy between the worlds of education and industry and for advanced forms of integration between universities and businesses;

56.

Encourages the Member States to support private initiatives for young people, including through national programmes that supplement the European programmes;

57.

Draws attention to the need to draw up policies to reconcile working life and private life and encourage young people to start a family; also points out the need to ensure that young people have sufficient income so that they can take decisions independently, including the decision to start a family;

58.

Underlines that the impact of climate and environmental changes and environmental degradation have a negative impact on young people’s lives and calls for sustainable actions in this field;

59.

Calls on the Member States to include in their curricula appropriate forms of education on the prevention of health- and environment-related risks;

60.

Deeply regrets the fact that the cooperation framework makes no reference to consumer policies; takes the view that some health problems may be related to the production and marketing of unhealthy food;

61.

Underlines the need to take into account the specific vulnerability of young people and children when formulating consumer and environmental policies; stresses the need to ensure a high level of protection of young consumers through actions such as information and education campaigns;

62.

Underlines the importance of further combating the use of drugs and alcohol and tobacco-related harm and other forms of addiction, including gambling, especially by means of prevention and rehabilitation; calls on the Member States to make the most of the EU Drugs Action Plan and of the EU Strategy to support Member States in combating alcohol-related harm and other forms of addiction;

63.

Also recalls that children and young people are exposed to a multitude of scenes of a violent nature in the media; suggests that the issue be further investigated and that all the necessary measures be taken with a view to eliminating the impact on their mental health;

64.

Recommends guiding young people in their use of new technologies by means of media education policies and policies to raise awareness of the dangers inherent in their uncontrolled use;

65.

Stresses the role of informing young people about sex education issues in protecting their health;

66.

Draws attention to the continuing high level of under-age pregnancies and calls on the Commission and the Member States to make young people aware of and educate them about this problem;

67.

Calls on the Member States to ensure that immigrant children and young people, irrespective of the legal status of their families, have access to basic health care;

68.

Emphasises the role of sport as a whole set of activities promoting healthy lifestyles for young people and supporting teamwork, fair play and responsibility, and the role of information for young people in combating violence at sports grounds; calls for special programmes for young people with disabilities;

69.

Calls on the Member States, in their efforts to encourage young people to participate in sports, to take gender-specific issues into account and to provide support for less popular sports as well;

70.

Stresses the importance of promoting youth education campaigns to combat doping and support clean sport;

71.

Stresses the importance of an ongoing structured dialogue and consultation with young people; strongly encourages promoting the participation of young people and youth organisations at all levels (local, national and international) in the formulation of general policies and, in particular, of youth policy and not only that, through ongoing structured dialogue;

72.

Underlines the importance of considering the method of youth consultation, so as to ensure that a broad range of views of young people are taken into account; is in favour of the development of structures where all the actors can work together, equally influence policies and decisions and provide the means needed to create these structures;

73.

Encourages Member States to include youth organisations in the policy-making process, including at local level;

74.

Stresses the importance of representative youth representatives in the structured dialogue and recommends that the Commission consult representatives of national youth councils concerning the priority topics for young people;

75.

Agrees to the frequently addressed need for recognition of and support for youth organisations and the major contribution they make to non-formal education; calls on the Commission and the Council to encourage the Member States to set up and provide support for local youth parliaments and councils and to launch corresponding programmes;

76.

Stresses the need to involve more, and more diverse, young people, with a view to enhancing representativeness; is in favour of encouraging participation from an early age; in this respect, encourages reflection on reinforcing links between schools, youth organisations and other civil-society organisations and strongly recommends fostering stronger recognition of non-formal education;

77.

Suggests the establishment of awards schemes for young people who actively participate in society, with the ultimate purpose of establishing a culture of both rights and obligations;

78.

Stresses the need for particular efforts to encourage young people living in peripheral and rural areas and in poor neighbourhoods to actively participate in European activities; in this respect, regrets that the cooperation framework proposes no specific action in order to better communicate EU programmes to young people and notably to those who live in remote places and to those who are not organised in political, social or nongovernmental organisations; asks the Commission for a definite commitment in this regard;

79.

Underlines the need to step up efforts to ensure an effective three-way exchange of views and information between the academic, business and political communities at local, regional, national and European levels;

80.

Calls on the Member States to facilitate access to new technologies in order to boost young people’s creativity and capacity for innovation and generate interest in culture, the arts and science;

81.

Is surprised at the lack of any explicit reference to cultural issues in the Commission communication; adds that such issues cannot come down only to entrepreneurship and the use of new technologies;

82.

Welcomes the fact that the Council resolution takes into account the role played by social and cultural activities, which complements that of the education system and of families; notes that such activities also contribute decisively to the fight against discrimination and inequality and facilitate young people's access to leisure pursuits, culture and sport;

83.

Stresses the importance of supporting and recognising youth culture when the Member States allocate funds, as this is essential for developing young people's creativity;

84.

Welcomes the proposal included in the Council resolution to promote specialised training for youth workers in culture, new media and intercultural competences;

85.

Suggests including a youth perspective in policies, programmes and actions in the culture and media fields;

86.

Takes the view that cultural institutions (e.g. museums, libraries and theatres) should be encouraged to involve children and young people to a greater extent;

87.

Calls on the Commission and Council to devise a European youth pass so that young people can gain access to cultural institutions throughout the EU at a very low charge;

88.

Welcomes the decision of the Council to designate 2011 as the European Year of Volunteering and the measures set out in the Council Recommendation on the mobility of young volunteers across the European Union;

89.

Takes the view that youth volunteering should be supported, also by extending the European Voluntary Service programme, and by helping disadvantaged young people to commit themselves to volunteering;

90.

Considers that, depending on the outcome of the evaluation of the Amicus Preparatory Action, further actions of this kind should be envisaged;

91.

Takes the view that voluntary activities should not replace professional, paid employment opportunities but add value to society;

92.

Calls for the introduction and mutual recognition of a ‘European Volunteer Pass’ as an adjunct to the existing ‘European Youth Pass’; this pass would provide a record of the voluntary work performed by children and young people and could be submitted to potential employers as proof of a qualification;

93.

Welcomes the fact that 2010 is designated the European Year of Combating Poverty and Social Exclusion, especially in the context of economic and financial crisis, which is having a particularly heavy impact on young people;

94.

Holds the view that, against the background of ageing societies, intergenerational equity is a key challenge; calls on Member States to take the interests of young people and of future generations into account when formulating their policies, especially in times of economic and financial crisis;

95.

Stresses also the need to develop more outreach programmes for marginalised groups, such as young immigrants and all those with special needs (the disabled, young people who need to be reintegrated into society after a period of imprisonment, homeless people, those in casual employment, etc.);

96.

Recognises the need to raise awareness of disabled young people and calls on the European Institutions to take action to ensure that, in the future, young persons with disabilities are fully integrated;

97.

Reiterates its request to ensure gender equality from an early age and in all areas of life; therefore, particularly welcomes the fact that the Council Resolution aims at improving childcare and promoting the sharing of responsibilities between parents in order to facilitate reconciliation between professional and private life for both young women and young men;

98.

Stresses the need to make children and young people aware that discrimination is unacceptable in any form and in any area and to take resolute action to combat all forms of extremism;

99.

Recommends that priority be given in each Member State to ensuring that no young minors are denied access to social care;

100.

Stresses the importance of an inclusive digital environment; encourages Member States to develop, as part of their formal and informal education systems, concepts which guarantee access to information, education and culture and improve young people's media skills;

101.

Recommends direct development aid to measures for the benefit of young people and to combat drug use and trafficking in developing countries;

102.

Is in favour of the fostering of general interest activities that create a sense of responsibility among young people, such as volunteering for climate change, for development or for humanitarian aid; in this respect, welcomes the opportunities that the creation of a European Voluntary Humanitarian Aid Corps will give young people to participate in the humanitarian work of the EU and calls on the Member States to ensure that young people are fully aware of its existence;

103.

Encourages the Commission to further explore the possibility of enhancing international cooperation activities in youth volunteering;

104.

Calls on the Member States to develop exchanges and twinning schemes with third countries and communities in order to promote intercultural dialogue and encourage young people to embark on common projects;

105.

Calls for the improvement and extensive implementation of the Erasmus Mundus programme;

106.

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

31.5.2011   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 161/32

A.

whereas all legislation must be proportionate to the objective and should only be introduced after a full impact assessment analysing the financial burden which legislation would impose, and including a full cost benefit analysis, has been carried out,

B.

whereas simplification should benefit farmers first and foremost and not only the national authorities and payment bodies in the Member States, as has been predominantly observed,

C.

whereas a new CAP should allow farmers to concentrate on the core objective of providing safe, quality and traceable food while also supporting them to deliver non-market public goods,

D.

whereas the objective should be to reduce the implementation costs of the CAP while reducing the administrative burdens on Community producers, to enable farmers to spend more time working their land,

E.

whereas a new CAP should be sustainably competitive,

F.

whereas it is necessary to ensure clear and understandable legislation that provides legal certainty for competent authorities and farmers, and to eliminate unnecessary legislation,

G.

whereas the distribution of the single farm payment should ensure fairness,

H.

whereas a functional legal framework is necessary to manage the important legal issues involved in the CAP,

I.

whereas a new CAP should be more market-orientated, in line with the recent reforms of the common agricultural policy, and focused on reducing excessive protectionism, while keeping the tools available to assist farmers in times of severe economic volatility,

J.

whereas the new CAP should be more simple and responsive,

K.

whereas legislation should be more flexible, in order to make the CAP adapt to recognise specific regions and territories, without jeopardising the common character of the CAP,

L.

whereas the exchange of good practice should be promoted among Member States and local authorities,

M.

whereas the common agricultural policy is of central importance in the EU-27 as a means not only of ensuring an adequate supply of safe food but also of continuing to respond to such challenges as the conservation of rural areas, mountain regions, disadvantaged areas, extremely peripheral areas and the multifunctionality of European agriculture,

1.

Emphasises that the CAP should seek to harmonise regulation by removing duplication; also asks the Commission, when introducing new regulation, to simultaneously seek to remove unnecessary burdens;

2.

Urges the Commission to consult widely and regularly with agricultural stakeholders in order to better assess the impact of regulation on the ground, and to identify practical, simple and transparent rules for farmers;

3.

Underlines that further simplification of the CAP is necessary to reduce its implementation costs for EU institutions, Member States and the beneficiaries themselves; in this way, the policy will also become more understandable to farmers and taxpayers;

4.

Calls on the Commission to harmonise CAP rules by eliminating the duplication of tasks and reducing bureaucracy, with a view to increasing the competitiveness of the agricultural sector in all the Member States;

5.

Stresses that CAP measures should be proportionate to the objective and that the legislative path should be chosen only where it is genuinely justifiable, thereby avoiding a legal construction which is difficult for farmers to understand;

6.

Calls for the CAP to be outcome-driven rather than focussed on regulation and for all Member States and their regional authorities to offer more help and advice to farmers through advisory tools and through appropriate communication methods;

7.

Expects that, in line with the principles of better regulation, all future legislation will be accompanied by a full impact assessment with consideration for regulatory and administrative burdens and ensuring that any new regulation is proportionate to the aims it seeks to achieve;

8.

Believes that, where possible, Member States should allow self-certification;

9.

Considers that the Member States should have the option, in rural development plans, to introduce a flat-rate land parcels scheme, particularly for small farms, on condition that compliance with the obligations entered into is guaranteed;

10.

Recognises the value of the principle of cross-compliance as one of the key concepts of CAP direct payments, but that strong simplification is recommended, without reducing their effectiveness;

11.

Stresses the need for the CAP to be simpler, more transparent and more equitable;

12.

Points out that the simplification of the CAP need not result in less support for farmers and the dismantling of traditional market management instruments; calls for the European Union to introduce efficient mechanisms to curb price volatility with a view to the future;

13.

Stresses that simplification of the CAP must go hand-in-hand with information measures for beneficiaries, and calls on the Commission to expand and develop information measures on the common agricultural policy;

14.

Calls for the possibility of autonomous error correction which would allow recipients of payments who unintentionally broke the rules to inform the authorities without becoming liable to fines as a result;

15.

Points out that the system of fines for farmers for errors in payment claims should be commensurate with the scale of the infringement and that penalties should not be applied in the case of minor mistakes, and particularly not in the case of errors that are not the fault of the farmer;

16.

Points out that any administrative fines, including the obligation to pay back any payments obtained by the farmer, should not be based on circumstances objectively beyond the farmer’s control;

17.

Points out the problem of farmers with spouses who run separate agricultural holdings, who should therefore have separate rights and obligations with respect to claims for CAP payments;

18.

Believes that the basic aim of inspections is to give advice to farmers and put them on the right track in order to better comply with the legislative requirements with as little encumbrance as possible; inspections should, therefore, continue to be carried out by the public authorities to ensure they are independent and impartial;

19.

Emphasises that, according to the UN, global food production must increase by 70 % by 2050 to meet the demands of nine billion people;

20.

Considers that cross-compliance requirements should be laid down and should also take farm size into account so as to reduce the burden on small farms, where the risk is lower;

21.

Insists that, when Member States apply penalties to farmers for failure to comply with regulations, these penalties must be applied in a transparent, simple and proportionate manner which takes account of the realities on the ground;

22.

Considers that the statutory requirements for CC control should be easily understandable for farmers and control authorities;

23.

Believes that the fundamental objective of checks is to encourage farmers to comply more fully with the law and that yearly CC controls for statutory management requirements (SMR) could be reduced or replaced by random checks, if there have only been a few infringements in recent years;

24.

Emphasises that the requirement for follow-up checks in relation to small infringements (triviality limit) should be reduced to random samples;

25.

Considers that the use of statutory management requirements which cannot be simply controlled and are not measurable should be abolished;

26.

Considers that Member States, or regional and local authorities, as appropriate, should be allowed to reduce the inspection quota to a specific lower limit if they have a risk analysis framework that complies with Community law requirements, along with evidence of high compliance;

27.

Calls for the introduction of a risk analysis framework compliant with Community law in each Member State, with a view to reducing the inspection quota to a specific lower limit;

28.

Considers that more help and advice through efficient information and advisory tools, such as a telephone helpline or the use of the Internet, would help prevent infringements and give Member States the means to steadily reduce their inspection quota;

29.

Considers that the controls carried out – or due to be carried out – at farms by the various parties whose job or statutory duty it is to conduct them should be coordinated with a view to reducing the number of farm inspection visits;

30.

Considers that a communication plan on cross-compliance should be drawn up in order to provide as much information as possible, for both farmers and consumers, about cross-compliance requirements and the benefits arising from the public goods and services delivered by farmers whose activities comply with those requirements;

31.

Considers that the number of CC requirements should be reduced and their scope updated;

32.

Calls for the authorisation of a practicable and transparent system of indicators with the aim of simplifying the assessment instruments for CC checks and calls for abolition of the current system and of the possibility of two or more penalties being imposed for a single error; calls on the Commission to analyse the disproportion between infringements of animal identification regulations, accounting for some 70 % of all infringements, and other requirements and to make appropriate changes;

33.

Considers that a single legislative text should be drawn up on cross-compliance considers that the positive externalities generated by farms, in terms of public goods and services, should be fairly remunerated;

34.

Calls for the retention of certain hard and fast CC rules, with which the Member States are able to agree and comply;

35.

Considers that farmers must have access to workable systems that allow them easily and without needless bureaucracy to submit applications for direct payments, typically in the place in which they live;

36.

Believes that, in order to simplify the rules for the single payment scheme, the provision of the same detailed information on an annual basis should be abolished;

37.

Considers that less information need be provided with applications, as the information needed can be found in the paying agencies of Member States;

38.

Calls for more flexible payment arrangements to be permitted which make it possible to make payments even before all checks have been definitively completed;

39.

Urges the Commission to examine the definition of eligible land and its interpretation in the Member States;

40.

Believes that the current definition of agricultural activity for the purposes of single payment should be reviewed in order to ensure that claimants who are not active farmers are not eligible;

41.

Considers that the future system should take into account the principles of simplification and that simplification, transparency and fairness should be the key priorities of the CAP reform;

42.

Calls on the Commission to review the system of control and settlement of accounts;

43.

Considers that the Commission should adopt a more proportionate and, ultimately, a risk-based approach to the application of regulatory controls, the conduct of compliance audits and the imposition of financial corrections;

44.

Invites the Commission to come forward with proposals by means of which the audit and control framework for the CAP might be improved;

45.

Considers that existing major disparities of direct support between the Member States must be prevented to ensure equal treatment of farmers throughout the European Union and to avoid market and competition distortions;

46.

Recognises that, in order to cope with environmental challenges, including climate change adaptation and mitigation, farmers have an important role to play in defining the practical measures required to meet these objectives and believes that outcome agreements rather than regulation are the best mechanisms to deliver those objectives;

47.

Stresses that a reduction of the administrative burden relating to monitoring and reporting imposed on producer organisations in the fruit and vegetable sector would make these organisations more attractive to farmers and encourage them to associate and act together;

48.

Stresses that when payments are made due to an existing certification scheme (e.g. organic production and environment aid schemes), one audit only is sufficient;

49.

Notes with concern the high level of errors in applications for direct payments recorded in some Member States; stresses that these errors are attributable mainly to the orthophotographic equipment used, rather than to farmers; calls for such errors to be punished only in cases of clear attempted fraud;

50.

Considers that legislation which presents a conflict with other legislation should be regularised before being imposed on the farmer (e.g. environment legislation and single payments scheme);

51.

Considers that the definitions in rural development legislation should be reviewed and, if necessary, expanded in order to ensure consistency with direct payment legislation;

52.

Believes that transparency regarding penalties and obligations on farmers should be increased;

53.

Calls for the introduction of precisely-defined obligations on farmers with a view to eliminating the lack of transparency regarding penalties;

54.

Wishes to use a broader, long-term view of control of these schemes with more emphasis on the ultimate impact and outcome instead of focusing on specific error rates due to rural development/environmental measures;

55.

Stresses that the current complex system of indicators needs to be reviewed and simplified, and that the monitoring system, annual reports and ex-ante, mid-term and ex-post evaluations have created an overly complex system of indicators and reports;

56.

Asks the Commission to examine the use of outcome agreements as a simple and more efficient method for the delivery of public goods in the future;

57.

Calls for the introduction of a simplified and consistent system of indicators, which would implicitly result in greater ease of understanding and application, pertinent evaluations and less bureaucracy;

58.

Considers that the rules concerning eligibility of the VAT to be financed under Pillar II of the CAP, especially for activities performed by bodies governed by public law, should be harmonised with those used for the Structural Funds;

59.

Stresses that simplification of the CAP must go hand-in-hand with simplification of its implementation, and calls on the Member States to minimise the bureaucratic formalities required of potential CAP beneficiaries, especially in the area of rural development;

60.

Calls on Member States, in their national rural development programmes, to place at the disposal of potential beneficiaries systems that guarantee transparency, and to grant them the necessary time to prepare applications for financing and meet the various eligibility criteria for the aid schemes; calls on the Commission to ensure that this matter is a permanent feature of the bilateral discussions with the Member States;

61.

Urges the Commission to examine the system of animal identification used in each Member State and to work towards a uniform system of animal identification ensuring that unnecessary regulation is removed: in particular, examination of producer numbers and holding numbers, the number of registers required and the difference between producer and holding;

62.

Calls for far-reaching harmonisation of the currently very differentiated animal identification regulations;

63.

Believes that reporting on the movement of sheep and goats and the forwarding of information to databases and the authorities should be simplified as much as possible, with all communication tools being permitted, including new technologies;

64.

Considers that for sheep and goats, as for pigs, herd identification is sufficient;

65.

Calls for deferment of the obligation on the electronic identification of sheep and goats starting from 31 December 2009, given its excessive cost in a time of economic crisis;

66.

Calls for an amnesty of three years on cross-compliance penalties relating to electronic identification of sheep and goats, given that this is a new and complex technology and will require some time for farmers to become accustomed to and road-test; further, calls on the Commission to conduct a thorough review of the regulation;

67.

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

31.5.2011   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 161/38

—

of 19 April 2007 in Case C-295/05 Tragsa,

—

of 18 December 2007 in Case C-532/03 Commission v Ireland (Irish rescue services),

—

of 13 November 2008 in Case C-324/07 Coditel Brabant,

—

of 9 June 2009 in Case C-480/06 Commission v Germany (Stadtwerke Hamburg),

—

of 10 September 2009 in Case C-206/08 Eurawasser,

—

of 9 October 2009 in Case C-573/07 Sea s.r.l.,

—

of 15 October 2009 in Case C-196/08 Acoset,

—

of 15 October 2009 in Case C-275/08 Commission v Germany (Datenzentrale Baden-Württemberg),

—

of 25 March 2010 in Case C-451/08 Helmut Müller,

—

‘Evaluation of Public Procurement Directives: Markt/2004/10/D Final Report’, Europe Economics, 15 September 2006,

—

‘The Institutional Impacts of EU Legislation on Local and Regional Governments: A Case Study of the 1999/31/EC Landfill Waste and 2004/18/EC Public Procurement Directives’, European Institute of Public Administration (EIPA), September 2009,

A.

whereas the economic and financial market crisis has highlighted the vital economic importance of public procurement, whereas the effects of the crisis on local authorities are already clearly evident, and whereas at the same time public authorities can perform their tasks properly in the public interest only if they can count on the requisite legal certainty in this area and if procurement procedures are not too complex,

B.

whereas a well-functioning procurement market is essential for the internal market, in order to encourage cross-border competition, stimulate innovation, promote a low-carbon economy and achieve optimal value for public authorities,

C.

whereas public procurement law serves to ensure that public funds are managed soundly and efficiently and to give interested companies the opportunity to be awarded public contracts in a context of fair competition,

D.

whereas the 2004 revision of the public procurement directives was intended to simplify and modernise the relevant procedures, make them more flexible and establish greater legal certainty,

E.

whereas the Lisbon Treaty has incorporated into European Union primary law the first acknowledgement of the right to regional and local self-government, consolidated the concept of subsidiarity and granted both the national parliaments and the Committee of the Regions the right to bring actions before the CJEU,

F.

whereas the European Court of Justice has examined a disproportionate number of infringement cases in this area, indicating that many Member States have struggled to comply with the public procurement directives,

G.

whereas, with a view to ensuring that European policies develop in such a way as to meet the aspirations of Europe’s citizens, the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union incorporates the notion of a social market economy, a social clause and a protocol on services of general interest defining the shared values of the Union,

H.

whereas ILO Convention 94 stipulates that general public contracts shall contain clauses ensuring equitable remuneration, and labour conditions which are not less favourable than those laid down in collective agreements, for example,

1.

Deplores the fact that the aims of the 2004 revision of the public procurement directives have not yet been achieved, particularly with regard to the simplification of procurement rules and the creation of more legal certainty; expresses the hope, however, that the most recent judgments handed down by the CJEU will help to resolve the outstanding legal issues and that the number of appeal procedures will fall; calls on the Commission to have regard to, and actively to pursue, the aims of simplifying and streamlining the public procurement procedure in any review of the European rules;

2.

Further deplores the fact that the existing regulations – in combination with incomplete implementation measures at national and regional level, the plethora of soft law proposals put forward by the Commission, and the interpretation of the relevant legal provisions by European and national courts – have given rise to a complicated and confusing set of rules which is creating, in particular for public bodies, private undertakings and providers of services of general interest, serious legal problems that can no longer be overcome without incurring substantial administrative costs or seeking external legal advice; urges the Commission to remedy this situation and, as part of the ‘Better Lawmaking’ initiative, to examine the impact of soft law proposals, to restrict such proposals to key aspects and to assess them in the light of the principles of subsidiarity and proportionality, taking into account the five principles set out in the 2001 White Paper on European Governance (openness, participation, accountability, effectiveness and coherence);

3.

Points out that as a result of this development public procurers often have to prioritise legal certainty above policy needs and, given the pressure on public budgets, frequently have to award the contract or service in question to the cheapest offer rather than the most economically advantageous tender; is afraid that this will weaken the EU’s innovative base and global competitiveness; urges the Commission to remedy this situation and to develop strategic measures to encourage and empower public procurers to award contracts to the most economical, highest-quality offers;

4.

Emphasises that European initiatives in the area of public procurement must be coordinated more effectively in order to avoid jeopardising consistency with the public procurement directives or creating legal problems for those applying the rules; calls, therefore, for compulsory coordination measures within the Commission, under the lead of the Internal Market and Services Directorate-General, which is in charge of public procurement, and with the participation of the other relevant Directorates-General; calls for a uniform internet presence and regular information for the contracting authorities, with a view to making the relevant legal provisions more transparent and user-friendly;

5.

Criticises the lack of transparency with regard to the composition and work of the Commission’s internal advisory committee on public procurement (ACPP) and the role and competencies of the Advisory Committee on the Opening-Up of Public Procurement (CCO), and calls on the Commission to take steps to ensure that the composition of both this committee and the planned new advisory committee on public-private partnerships is balanced, including trade unionists and representatives of the business community, in particular SMEs, and that they work in a transparent manner; demands that the European Parliament be kept properly informed and receive all the available information at every stage and at the end of the process;

6.

Takes the view that, since public contracts concern public funds, they should be transparent and open to public scrutiny; asks the Commission for clarification with a view to ensuring legal certainty for local and other public authorities and enabling them to inform citizens of their contractual obligations;

7.

Stresses that public contracts must be awarded under transparent conditions whereby all interested parties are treated equally and the relationship between price and project performance is the ultimate criterion, so that they go to the best tender and not merely the cheapest tender;

8.

Calls on the Commission to carry out an ex-post assessment of the public procurement directives, taking account of the opinions expressed in this report; expects that review to be carried out with the full involvement of all stakeholders and in close cooperation with the European Parliament; advocates that any revision take account of the whole framework and encompass the directive on review procedures concerning the award of public contracts as well as an analysis of the national laws transposing the directive on review procedures, in order to prevent any further fragmentation of public procurement law; takes the view that the practical impact of that directive cannot yet be assessed, as it has not been transposed in all the Member States;

9.

Points out that the Lisbon Treaty, which came into force on 1 December 2009, incorporates an acknowledgement of the right to regional and local self-government into European Union primary law for the first time (Article 4(2) of the Treaty on European Union); emphasises that in several judgments the CJEU has invoked the right to local self-government and made it clear that the ‘possibility for public authorities to use their own resources to perform the public-interest tasks conferred on them may be exercised in cooperation with other public authorities’ (judgment in Case C-324/07); draws attention, further, to the CJEU Grand Chamber judgment of 9 June 2009 in Case C-480/06, which found, further, that Community law does not require public authorities to use any particular legal form in order to carry out their public service tasks on a joint basis; accordingly, regards public-public partnerships, such as cooperation agreements between local authorities and forms of national cooperation, as falling outside the scope of the public procurement directives, provided that the following criteria are all met:

10.

Points out that the Commission has clarified that not every action taken by public authorities is subject to procurement law, and that as long as European law provisions do not require the creation of a market in a certain area, it remains up to the Member States to decide whether and to what extent they want to perform public functions themselves;

11.

Points out that the CJEU’s conclusions in the aforementioned judgment not only apply directly to cooperation between local authorities but are generally valid, with the result that they can be applied to cooperation between other public contracting authorities;

12.

Points out that, in its judgment of 10 September 2009 in Case C-573/07, the CJEU found that the mere possibility of opening up the capital of a previously publicly-owned company to private investors may not be taken into consideration as a factor making competitive tendering a requirement unless the character of the public capital company changes during the period for which the contract is valid, thereby altering the fundamental conditions of the contract and necessitating a new competitive tender; notes that there have been major developments in relation to the rules in the area of public-public cooperation as a result of the CJEU’s case-law, and welcomes the recent judgements handed down by the Court in this area; calls, therefore, on the Commission and the Member States to make information about the legal implications of these judgments widely available;

13.

Points out that service concessions within the meaning of Article 1(3)(b) of Directive 2004/17/EC and Article 4 of Directive 2004/18/EC are contracts in connection with which ‘the consideration for the provision of services consists either solely in the right to exploit the work or in this right together with payment’; emphasises that service concessions were excluded from the scope of the public procurement directives in order to offer contracting authorities and contractors a greater degree of flexibility; points out that in several judgments the CJEU has confirmed that service concessions are not covered by those directives, but rather by the general principles laid down in the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (ban on discrimination, principle of equal treatment and transparency), and that it must remain open to public contracting authorities to ensure the provision of services by way of a concession if they consider that to be the best method of providing the public service in question, even if the risk associated with such an operation is limited, but this limited risk is transferred in full to the concession-holder (judgment in Case C-206/08 of 10 September 2009, points 72-75);

14.

Notes the Commission communication of 19 November 2009 on the development of public-private partnerships and awaits the relevant impact assessment with great interest; expects the Commission to draw lessons from failing PPPs; emphasises that due account must be taken of both the complexity of the procedures and the differences between the Member States in terms of legal culture and practice with regard to service concessions; takes the view that the process of defining the term ‘service concession’ and establishing the legal framework governing such concessions has evolved as a result of the 2004 public procurement directives and the CJEU’s supplementary case-law; insists that any proposal for a legal act dealing with service concessions would be justified only with a view to remedying distortions in the functioning of the internal market; points out that such distortions have not hitherto been identified, and that a legal act on service concessions is therefore unnecessary as long as it is not geared to an identifiable improvement in the functioning of the internal market;

15.

Welcomes the legal clarification of the conditions under which procurement law applies to institutionalised public-private partnerships, particularly given the great importance that the Commission, in its communication of 19 November 2009, attaches to such partnerships in connection with combating climate change and promoting renewable forms of energy and sustainable transport; points out that the public procurement directives always apply if a task is to be conferred on an undertaking which is privately owned, even to a very small extent; emphasises, however, that both the Commission, in its communication of 5 February 2008, and the CJEU, in its judgment of 15 October 2009 in Case C-196/08, have made it clear that a double competitive tendering procedure is not required in connection with the award of contracts to, or the conferral of certain tasks on, newly-established public-private partnerships, but that all the following criteria must be met before a concession can be awarded without competitive tendering to a mixed public-private undertaking specially established for that purpose:

takes the view, therefore, that the matter of the application of procurement law to institutionalised public-private partnerships has been settled, and calls on the Commission and the Member States to issue statements to that effect;

16.

Emphasises, however, that the recent financial crisis has shed new light on the ways in which public-private partnerships are often financed and the financial risks shared; asks the Commission to evaluate properly the financial risks associated with the creation of PPPs;

17.

Welcomes the CJEU judgment in Case C-451/08; takes the view that the directive’s broad and ambitious aims must be borne in mind when interpreting it, but that it should not be assumed that its scope can be extended indefinitely by appealing to the purpose of the measure, since otherwise there would be a danger that all town planning activities would be subject to the directive, given that, by definition, provisions on the possible execution of building works substantially alter the value of the land in question; takes the view that in the last few years procurement law has permeated areas which are not inherently classified under public purchasing, and suggests, therefore, that the criterion of purchasing be emphasised still more strongly in the application of the rules of procurement law;

18.

Points out that the European Parliament is a party to the Germany v. Commission case brought before the CJEU on 14 September 2006 against the Commission’s interpretative communication of 1 August 2006 on the Community law applicable to contract awards not or not fully subject to the provisions of the public procurement directives, and expects a prompt ruling;

19.

Asks the Commission to evaluate the impact of the public procurement directives on micro, small and medium-sized enterprises, especially in their role as sub-contractors, and to assess, with a view to a future review of the directives, whether we need further rules on the award of sub-contracts, specifically to avoid SMEs as subcontractors being subject to worse conditions than the main contractor awarded the public contract;

20.

Calls on the Commission to simplify public procurement procedures in order to relieve both local governments and companies from spending a large amount of time and money on purely bureaucratic matters; emphasises that simplifying the procedures will facilitate SMEs’ access to such contracts and enable them to participate on a more equal and fairer footing;

21.

Takes the view that sub-contracting is a form of organisation of labour suited to the specialised aspects of the execution of works; emphasises that sub-contracting contracts must comply with all the obligations imposed on the main contractors, especially as regards labour law and safety; takes the view that, to this end, it would be advisable to establish a link between contractor and sub-contractor in terms of responsibility;

22.

Supports the systematic admission of alternative bids (or variants); points out that tender conditions, in particular the admission of alternative bids, are crucial for promoting and disseminating innovative solutions; stresses that specifications referring to performance and functional requirements and the express admission of variants give tenderers the opportunity to propose innovative solutions;

23.

Encourages the creation of a single web access portal for all information relating to public contracts, as an upstream network for all calls for tenders; notes that the aim should be to provide training and information, to direct undertakings towards contracts and to explain the applicable legislation, in particular for SMEs (which do not generally have extensive human and administrative resources with expertise in procurement-related terminology and procedures), and that specialist helpdesks could also assist them in evaluating whether they genuinely fulfil the conditions of the tender, and if so in completing their bids;

24.

Notes that SMEs have struggled to gain access to public procurement markets and that more should be done to develop an ‘SME strategy’; calls, therefore, as part of this strategy, on the Member States to work with contracting authorities to encourage sub-contracting opportunities where appropriate, to develop and disseminate best-practice techniques, to avoid overly prescriptive pre-qualifying processes, to use standards in tender documents to ensure that suppliers do not have to start from scratch, and to establish a centralised advertising portal for contracts; also calls on the Commission to take stock of Member States’ initiatives in this area and to encourage wider dissemination of the Small Business Act’s European Code of Best Practices;

25.

Encourages Member States to promote a ‘supplier development programme’, as already developed in some countries; notes that such a tool can be used to encourage dialogue between suppliers and procurers, enabling actors to meet at an early stage of a purchasing process; stresses that such a mechanism is essential for stimulating innovation and improving SMEs’ access to procurement markets;

26.

Urges the Commission to do more to secure a greater role for European SMEs in international public procurement and to intensify efforts to prevent discrimination against European SMEs by matching the specific provisions applied by some parties to the GPA (such as Canada and the USA); notes that measures to improve both transparency and access to national procurement markets would help SMEs to gain access to such markets;

27.

Calls on the Commission to secure the inclusion, in the renegotiated WTO Government Procurement Agreement (GPA), of a clause enabling the European Union to give preference to SMEs when awarding public contracts, along the lines of those already applied by other States Parties to this agreement;

28.

Draws attention to the great importance of public procurement for climate and environmental protection, energy efficiency, innovation and stimulating competition, and reiterates that public authorities should be encouraged and empowered to base public procurement on environmental, social and other criteria; welcomes the practical assistance given to public authorities and other public bodies in connection with sustainable procurement; calls on the Commission to explore the possibility of using green public contracts as a tool to promote sustainable development;

29.

Reiterates its previous call, in its report of February 2009, for the Commission to produce a handbook on pre-commercial procurement, which should illustrate practical examples of risk-benefit sharing according to market conditions; takes the view, in addition, that intellectual property rights must be vested in the companies participating in pre-commercial procurement, which would foster understanding amongst public authorities and encourage suppliers to become involved in pre-commercial procurement procedures;

30.

Welcomes the establishment of the European Commission’s EMAS helpdesk, which provides practical information and support to help companies and other organisations evaluate, report on and improve their environmental performance in the context of public procurement; calls on the Commission to consider developing a more generic online portal which could offer practical advice and support for those using the public procurement process, particularly the actors involved in complex and collaborative procurement procedures;

31.

Emphasises the lack of clarity in the area of socially responsible public procurement, and calls on the Commission to provide assistance in the form of manuals; draws attention, in this connection, to the changes in the legal framework brought about by the Lisbon Treaty and the Charter of Fundamental Rights, and looks to the Commission to implement the relevant provisions in an appropriate manner; emphasises the underlying problem that social criteria relate to the manufacturing process, so that their impact is generally indiscernible in the final product, and that globalised production systems and complex supply chains make compliance with the criteria difficult to monitor; expects, therefore, precise, verifiable criteria and a database containing product-specific criteria to be developed for the area of socially responsible public procurement as well; draws attention to the problems faced by contracting authorities, and the costs they incur, in verifying compliance with such criteria, and calls on the Commission to offer suitable assistance and to promote instruments which can be used to certify the reliability of supply chains;

32.

Calls on the Commission to make it clear that public authorities may base public procurement on social criteria such as the payment of relevant standard wages and other requirements; calls on the Commission to devise guidelines or other practical assistance for public authorities and other public bodies in connection with sustainable procurement, and urges the Commission and the Member States to organise frequent training courses and campaigns to raise awareness of this issue; supports the idea of a transparent process, involving the Member States and local authorities, with a view to developing the relevant criteria further; points out that, in the area of social criteria in particular, such a process offers good prospects for improvements;

33.

Calls on the Commission to encourage public authorities to use fair trade criteria in their public tenders and purchasing policies on the basis of the definition of fair trade set out in the European Parliament resolution of 6 July 2006 on fair trade and development and the recent Commission communication of 5 May 2009; reiterates its earlier call for the Commission to promote the use of such criteria by, for example, producing constructive guidelines on fair trade procurement; welcomes the unanimous adoption of the opinion of the Committee of the Regions of 11 February 2010 calling for a common European fair trade strategy for local and regional authorities;

34.

Calls for the development of a frequently updated database of standards, especially those relating to environmental and social criteria, to be made available to public authorities, in order to ensure that procurers have access to appropriate guidance and a clear set of rules when drawing up tenders, so that they can easily verify their compliance with the relevant standard; expects the Member States and all stakeholders to be fully involved in this process; notes that this bottom-up process should take into account the valuable experience and knowledge that often exists at local, regional and national level; draws attention, furthermore, to the negative impact which a market fragmented by the existence of numerous different regional, national, European and international labels has on innovation and research;

35.

Notes the importance of standards for public procurement in that they can help public procurers meet their targets, allowing them to use tried and tested processes to procure products and services, delivering a more cost-effective tender procedure and ensuring that procurement meets other policy objectives such as sustainability or buying from small businesses;

36.

Recognises that training and exchanges of experience between public authorities and the Commission are essential in order to overcome some of the complexities of the public procurement market; is concerned, however, that as public budgets tighten, such initiatives may be undermined; calls, therefore, on the Member States and the Commission to use the existing resources and mechanisms at their disposal, such as the peer reviews envisaged in the Services Directive, to encourage small teams of procurement experts from one region to review the activities of another EU region, which may help to build confidence and establish best practices across different Member States;

37.

Urges the Commission and the Member States to organise training courses and campaigns to raise awareness among local authorities and policy-makers, and to include other stakeholders, in particular providers of social services;

38.

Stresses that the Court of Auditors regularly indicates in its annual reports on the implementation of the EU budget, as well as in its latest annual report on the 2008 financial year, that failure to comply with EU procurement rules is one of the two most common causes of errors and irregularities in the implementation of European projects co-financed by the Structural Funds and the Cohesion Fund; emphasises, in this context, that irregularities are often caused by improper transposition of EU rules and by differences in the rules applied by Member States; calls on the Commission and the Member States to revise, in cooperation with regional and local authorities, the various sets of rules applicable to public procurement in order to unify them and simplify the whole legal framework for public procurement, in particular with a view to reducing the risk of errors and ensuring more efficient use of the Structural Funds;

39.

Takes the view that it is not only costs and complexity which can be prohibitive, but also the time needed to complete the public procurement process, along with the threat of legal action in the form of lengthy appeal procedures that are often obstructed by various actors, and hence welcomes the fact that the recovery plan makes it possible to apply accelerated versions of the procedures outlined in the public procurement directives to major public projects specifically in 2009 and 2010; calls on the Member States to make use of the procedure and to assist local and regional authorities in implementing and using these procedures, in each case in compliance with the standard public procurement rules and regulations;

40.

Calls on the Commission to consider the possibility of continuing to use accelerated procedures in connection with the Structural Funds, even beyond 2010, and extending the temporary threshold increase, with the specific aim of speeding up investment;

41.

Points out that the internal market and international markets are increasingly interlinked; takes the view, in this context, that the EU internal market legislators and EU negotiators in the field of international trade should be mindful of the possible consequences for one another when conducting their activities, and that they should adopt a coherent policy that is always directed to the promotion of EU values in procurement policies, including transparency, a principled stance against corruption and the advancement of social and human rights; invites the Committee on the Internal Market and Consumer Protection and the Committee on International Trade to hold joint briefing sessions in order to foster synergies;

42.

Stresses that a sound government procurement framework is a precondition for a fair and free competition-oriented market, and helps to fight corruption;

43.

Further points out, in the context of the European Union’s commitments in the field of international public procurement, the importance of strengthening anti-corruption mechanisms in this area, and draws attention to the need to focus efforts on ensuring transparency and fairness in the use of public funds;

44.

Urges the 22 observer states on the GPA committee to speed up the process of acceding to the GPA;

45.

Calls on the Commission to evaluate the possibility of incorporating into public procurement agreements with international partners provisions requiring compliance with the fundamental human rights obligations laid down in conventions and international agreements;

46.

While arguing strongly against protectionist measures in the field of public procurement at global level, firmly believes in the principle of reciprocity and proportionality in that area; calls on the Commission to consider imposing proportional targeted restrictions on access to parts of the EU’s procurement markets for those trading partners which benefit from the openness of the EU market, but have not shown any intention of opening up their own markets to EU companies, in order to encourage our partners to offer reciprocal and proportional market access arrangements for European companies;

47.

Draws attention to the provisions of Articles 58 and 59 of Directive 2004/17/EC; calls on the Member States to make full use of the possibility of informing the Commission of problems relating to access by their undertakings to third-country markets, and calls on the Commission to take effective measures to ensure that EU undertakings enjoy genuine access to third-country markets;

48.

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

31.5.2011   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 161/47

A.

whereas the OECD has proposed defining the concept of policy coherence for development (PCD), which means ‘working to ensure that the objectives and results of a government’s development policies are not undermined by other policies of that government, which impact on developing countries, and that these other policies support development objectives, where feasible’ (13); whereas the EU has developed a concept of PCD aimed at building synergies between EU policies, and whereas lack of political action to this end may have a negative impact on the expected result of development cooperation,

B.

recalling the European Union’s commitment to taking measures to encourage policy coherence for development, in accordance with the conclusions of the European Council in 2005 (14),

C.

whereas there is a difference between consistency among policies (avoiding contradictions among different external policy areas) and coherence for development (the obligation for all EU policies that impact on developing countries to take development objectives into account),

D.

whereas Article 208 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union establishes the reduction and, in the long term, the eradication of poverty as the primary objective of EU development policy; whereas PCD works towards the Union’s development cooperation objectives though all its policies,

E.

whereas there are clear incoherencies in the EU’s trade, agriculture, fisheries, climate, intellectual property rights, migration, finance, arms and raw materials policies; and whereas PCD can lead to poverty reduction by finding fundamental synergies among EU Policies,

F.

whereas constraints for PCD are lack of political support, unclear mandates, insufficient resources, absence of effective monitoring tools and indicators, as well as the lack of prioritisation of PCD over conflicting interests,

G.

whereas the financial contributions paid by the EU within the framework of Fisheries Partnership Agreements (FPAs) have not helped to consolidate the fisheries policies of partner countries, largely owing to a lack of monitoring of the implementation of these agreements, the slow payment of assistance, and sometimes even the failure to use this assistance,

H.

whereas the first Millennium Development Goal aims to reduce by half the proportion of people who suffer from hunger by 2015, yet whereas nearly a billion people still lack food on a daily basis, even though the planet provides enough food to meet the needs of its entire population,

I.

whereas EU export subsidies for European agricultural products have a disastrous effect on food security and the development of a viable agricultural sector in developing countries,

J.

whereas the EU is committed to reaching the UN target of giving 0,7 % of gross national income (GNI) in official development assistance (ODA) by 2015, and the interim aid target for the EU collectively is 0,56 % by 2010,

K.

whereas the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) issued a judgment in November 2008 whereby European Investment Bank (EIB) operations in developing countries must prioritise development over any economic or political objective,

L.

whereas the crisis has shown that ODA is unique in targeting the poorest countries and providing development finance in a more predictable and reliable way than other financial flows,

M.

whereas a large number of studies have shown that there are approximately EUR 900 billion per year of illicit financial flows out of developing countries, which severely hinders the fiscal revenue of developing countries and consequently their self-development capacities,

1.

Welcomes the increased attention and commitment to PCD by the Commission, the Council and the Member States, as demonstrated by the biennial reporting;

2.

Reaffirms its own commitment to enhance PCD in the EU and in its parliamentary work;

3.

Stresses that the European Union is by far the biggest aid donor in the world (EU aid rose to EUR 49 billion in 2008, representing 0,40 % of GNI), and that aid volumes are expected to increase to EUR 69 billion in 2010 to meet the collective promise of 0,56 % of EU GNI made at the G8 Gleneagles Summit in 2005; points out that this would release an additional EUR 20 billion for development objectives;

4.

Recalls the adoption, in October 2007, of the EU Strategy on Aid for Trade, with a commitment to increase the collective EU trade-related assistance to EUR 2 billion annually by 2010 (EUR 1 billion from the Community and EUR 1 billion from the Member States);

5.

Calls on the developing countries, especially those that benefit most from EU aid, to ensure good governance in all public matters, and especially in the management of aid received, and urges the Commission to take all necessary steps to ensure transparent and efficient aid implementation;

6.

Welcomes the PCD Work Programme 2010-2013 as a guideline for the EU institutions and Member States, and acknowledges its role as an early warning system for upcoming policy initiatives; welcomes also the interlinkages between the different policy fields;

7.

Recalls the responsibility of the European Union in taking into account the interests of developing countries and their citizens;

8.

Considers that all EU policy areas with an external impact must be designed to support and not contradict the fight against poverty and the achievement of the Millennium Development Goals, as well as the fulfilment of human rights, including gender equality and social, economic and environmental rights;

9.

Stresses the need to take relevant aspects of Policy Coherence for Development into account in bilateral and regional trade agreements and multilateral trade agreements firmly anchored in the rules-based WTO system, and in this connection urges the Commission and the Member States to actively engage with all other relevant WTO partners that can contribute to bringing about a balanced, ambitious and development-oriented outcome to the Doha Round in the very near future;

10.

Underlines the fact that the so-called ‘Singapore issues’, such as liberalisation of services, investment and government procurement, the introduction of competition rules and stronger enforcement of intellectual property rights, do not serve the aim of achieving the eight Millennium Development Goals;

11.

Insists that the European Union, the Member States and the EIB assume a leading role in this and make investments through tax havens less attractive by adopting rules on public procurement contracts and the granting of public funds that prevent any company, bank or other institution registered in a tax haven from benefiting from public funds; with a view to this, asks the Commission and the Member States to use the mid-term review of EIB external lending activity to make concrete improvements to its capabilities for evaluating the beneficiaries of its loans and to ensure that its investments in developing countries actually contribute to eradicating poverty by providing annual reports on their progress;

12.

Calls on the Commission and Member States to give an overall assessment of the fisheries agreements with third countries, so as to ensure that the European Union's external policy in the field of fisheries is completely consistent with its development policy, while strengthening European Union partner countries’ capacity to guarantee sustainable fishing in their waters, enhancing food security and local employment in the sector;

13.

Recalls that EU access to fish stocks in third countries should not in any way be a condition for development assistance to those countries;

14.

Urges the Commission to include, in addition to social clauses, human rights clauses in all FPAs to enable the European Union to use appropriate measures where known human rights violations take place in third countries that have signed FPAs with the EU;

15.

Recalls that 75 % of the world’s poor population lives in rural areas, but that only 4 % of ODA is dedicated to agriculture; calls on the Commission, Member States and developing countries, therefore, to put the issue of agriculture at the top of their development agendas;

16.

Is concerned about the negative impact on development in third countries of financial institutions aimed principally at tax avoidance; asks the Commission to step up cooperation on fiscal governance, particularly with the countries listed in Annex 1 to its legislative proposal of 24 April 2009 (A6-0244/2009), which receive European development funds;

17.

Welcomes the recommendation contained in the conclusions of the Council meeting of 14 May 2008 to include a clause on good governance in the tax area in trade agreements, since this constitutes the first step in the fight against fiscal measures and practices that encourage tax evasion and fraud; asks the Commission to include such a clause immediately in its negotiations on future trade agreements;

18.

Calls on the Commission and the ACP countries to continue their dialogue on migration in order to strengthen the principle of circular migration and its facilitation by granting circular visas; stresses that respect for human rights and the equitable treatment of nationals of ACP countries is seriously compromised by bilateral readmission agreements with transit countries, in a context of externalisation by Europe of the management of migration, which do not guarantee respect for the rights of migrants and which may result in ‘cascade’ readmissions which jeopardise their safety and their lives;

19.

Urges the Council to reach a rapid, comprehensive agreement on the proposal for amendment of the directive on taxation of savings income, particularly in relation to the countries listed in Annex 1 to this legislative proposal which receive European development funds;

20.

Stresses the need to include the EDF, which is the main financing instrument for EU development cooperation, in the framework of PCD; confirms its support for the full budgetisation of the EDF in the context of democratic parliamentary control and of transparency in its implementation, taking into account in particular the increasing importance of implementation of the EU development policies setting up specific facilities (as in the case of the EU-Africa Strategy);

21.

Invites the Commission not only to monitor economic growth objectives, but to look particularly at reducing inequalities in income distribution both within individual developing countries and globally. Particular attention should be paid to increasing participative processes of sustainable self-development through forms of association such as cooperatives and PRA (Participatory Reflection and Action), which are based on consensus and participation by local communities and which therefore provide more effective organisational models with a more long-term impact, promoting the role of the social economy in development;

22.

Invites the Commission to promote development assistance actions that, taking account of the effects of the financial crisis, can prevent a rise in insecurity and conflict, global political and economic instability, and an increase in forced migration (‘refugees from hunger’);

23.

Calls on developing countries to provide basic public services and guarantee access to land, including credit for small-scale farmers, in order to promote food security and the fight against poverty, which help to reduce the concentration of large farms and the intensive exploitation of resources for speculation, with the destruction of the ecosystems, calls furthermore on the Commission to support the abovementioned policies;

24.

Invites the Commission to assess the impact of the digital divide between rich and poor nations, looking particularly at the risk of information technologies being instrumental in discrimination, since they marginalise those who, for social, economic or political reasons, cannot access these new products, which are ushering in the new information revolution;

25.

Asks for clear mandates to assess PCD, for clear and precise operational goals, and for detailed procedures to carry out this exercise;

26.

Underlines the crucial need to approach PCD as a long-term endeavour so as to secure lasting support for PCD; stresses the importance of a timely assessment of policies to avoid negative impacts on developing countries; to this end, asks for the impact of the activities of European and non-European private players to be assessed, paying particular attention to multinationals;

27.

Calls for the assessment, by comparative analysis, of the approach, methodology and results of cooperation and aid policies outside Europe and relative levels of international collaboration, looking particularly at China’s intervention in Africa;

28.

Stresses that the Council’s decision to focus on five broad areas for the PCD exercise in 2009 must not replace the monitoring of the 12 traditional policy areas - Trade, Environment, Climate Change, Security, Agriculture, Bilateral Fisheries Agreements, Social Policies (employment), Migration, Research/Innovation, Information Technologies, Transport, and Energy; calls on the Commission, furthermore, to identify incoherencies whenever European policies have a negative impact on development and to suggest that it provide solutions; calls on the Commission to create mechanisms for including new policy areas that do not fit satisfactorily into the existing 12, such as raw materials;

29.

Recalls its vital international commitments to the 0,7 % ODA/GNP target for 2015, which must be devoted exclusively to poverty eradication; expresses its concern that the ‘ODA-plus approach’ may dilute the EU's ODA contribution to the fight against poverty; is concerned that funds raised with the ‘ODA-plus approach’ have no legal commitment to poverty eradication or to assisting with the achievement of the Millennium Development Goals;

30.

Is concerned that the capital outflow from developing countries into the EU caused by incoherent policies under the ‘ODA-plus approach’ is not mentioned and that the damage inflicted on developing countries by unfair tax competition and illegal capital outflow is not taken into account;

31.

Is concerned that the ‘ODA-plus approach’ only focuses on the financial inflows from the EU to the South and overlooks the financial outflows from the South to the EU, which gives a misleading picture of the direction of the financial flows;

32.

Asks the Commission to further clarify the whole-of-the-Union approach and its impact on the EU’s development policy; expresses concern that this approach could be integrated into the next Financial Perspective;

33.

Calls on European members of the OECD’s DAC to reject any attempt to broaden the ODA definition designed to include the ‘Whole of the Union’ and ‘ODA+’ approaches recently proposed by the European Commission, as well as non-aid items such as financial flows, military spending, debt cancellation, particularly cancellation of export credit debts, money spent in Europe on Students and refugees;

34.

Recognises that the fulfilment of the ODA commitments is imperative but still not sufficient to tackle the development emergency, and reiterates its call upon the Commission to identify as a matter of urgency additional innovative sources of finance for development, and to present proposals for the introduction of an international financial transaction tax to generate additional resources in order to overcome the worst consequences of the crisis and to keep on track towards the achievement of the MDGs;

35.

Firmly reminds the Commission and Member States that ODA has to remain the backbone of the European development cooperation policy aiming at eradicating poverty; therefore, underlines that if innovative sources of development financing are to be widely promoted, they must be additional, used in a pro-poor approach and cannot be used to replace ODA in any circumstances;

36.

Fears that, in most developing countries, most of the MDG targets will not be met by 2015; urges the Member States, therefore, to reach their collective target and proceed to binding legislation and to issue annual timetables to meet the promises they have made; welcomes, with this in mind, the ‘Draft International Development Bill’ presented by the UK Government in January 2010;

37.

Recalls that, in accordance with the EU institutional framework, it proposes to appoint a standing rapporteur for ‘policy coherence for development’, with the mandate of following up, and informing the DEVE Committee of, incoherencies in EU policies;

38.

Calls on the Commission to use systematic, clear benchmarks and regularly updated indicators in order to measure PCD, for example the Sustainable Development Indicators, as well as to enhance transparency vis-à-vis the European Parliament, aid recipient States and civil society;

39.

Calls on developing countries to create country-specific indicators on PCD in line with the EU general indicators, in order to assess real needs and achievements in terms of development;

40.

Takes the view that, if actions and measures within the EU’s development policy do not respect the principles and objectives laid down in Article 208 of the Lisbon Treaty and the EU’s external action listed in Article 21 of the Treaty on European Union, these constitute a breach of an obligation for which an action may be brought before the Court of Justice of the European Union under Articles 263 and 265 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union;

41.

Emphasises the importance of coherence between trade and development policies for better development and tangible implementation, and welcomes in this respect the EU 2009 Report on Policy Coherence for Development (COM(2009)0461);

42.

Reiterates the need for coherence between trade policy and other (environmental and social) policies, notably in regard to trade agreements containing incentives for the production of biofuels in developing countries;

43.

Reiterates the importance of coherence between trade and development policies and stresses that the implementation of the Sustainable Development Chapters in the trade agreements should serve as an opportunity for the European Commission to promote good governance and the application of fundamental European values;

44.

Considers the recent EU decision to re-establish export subsidies for milk powder and other dairy products, which in the main subsidise agro business in Europe at the cost of poor farmers in developing countries, a blatant violation of the core principles of policy coherence for development, and calls on the Council and Commission to revoke that decision immediately;

45.

Calls for the cessation of export subsidies; to this end, recalls the commitment made in Doha in 2001 by all WTO members to conclude a Development Round of negotiations aiming at rectifying the existing imbalances in the trade system, putting trade at the service of development, and contributing to poverty eradication and the achievement of the Millennium Development Goals;

46.

Calls on the Commission, in order to ensure that DG Trade has a coherent mandate for trade negotiations, to take due account of Parliament's preconditions for giving its consent to the conclusion of trade agreements;

47.

Calls on the Commission to take every measure available to it to ensure that, while the Sugar Protocol is ending and the EU reform of the sugar regime is taking place, it safeguards its relevant partners against any temporary upheavals in the market;

48.

Proposes further to develop existing EU instruments for lowering customs tariffs such as the GSP/GSP+ System and chapters in FTAs and EPAs, and further to integrate internationally agreed labour and environmental standards into those instruments;

49.

Calls again on the Commission to make full use of the GSP and GSP + mechanisms for building institutional capacity in developing countries in order to enhance their own internal coherence in drawing up development strategies;

50.

Stresses that systematic consultation of labour organisations and trade unions on the implementation of social and environmental standards in non-EU countries, notably before the conclusion of EPAs or the granting of GSP +, would ensure a better coherence in trade policies benefiting sustainable development in developing countries;

51.

Recognises that according to the Commission's Aid for Trade (AfT) monitoring report 2009 (COM(2009)0160 final, p. 30), the EU's AfT commitments to the African, Caribbean and Pacific (ACP) States fell from EUR 2 975 million in 2005 to EUR 2 097 million in 2007, that the ACP's share of the EU's overall AfT commitments fell from 50 % to 36 % over the same period, and that this is not consistent with prior promises to prioritise poverty eradication and development;

52.

Welcomes, in this connection, all the existing initiatives in the area of trade with developing countries at EU and WTO levels, in particular the Everything But Arms (EBA) initiative, GSP and GSP+, the asymmetry and transitional periods in all existing European Partnership Agreements (EPAs) and the Aid-for-Trade Work Programme 2010-2011, and calls for the revision of the last of these, with a view to giving it greater leverage to foster sustainable growth;

53.

Recognises the important role that the EU's GSP+ system can play in encouraging good governance and sustainable development within developing countries, and encourages the Commission to ensure that this tool is effective and that ILO and UN conventions are properly implemented on the ground;

54.

Reiterates that the EU should support those developing countries which use the ‘flexibilities’ built into the TRIPS Agreement in order to be able to provide medicines at affordable prices under their domestic public health programmes;

55.

Welcomes the safeguard clause on food security drafted into the Economic Partnership Agreements, and encourages the Commission to ensure its effective implementation;

56.

Deplores the TRIPS+ provisions included in the CARIFORUM-EC Economic Partnership Agreement, and in the agreements that are being negotiated with the countries of the Andean Community and Central America, provisions which create barriers to access to essential medicines;

57.

Urges the Commission to end its present TRIPS-plus approach in EPA negotiations regarding pharmaceuticals and medicines, to allow developing countries to provide medicines at affordable prices under domestic public health programmes;

58.

Points out that any measures in ACTA negotiations to strengthen powers of cross-border inspection and seizure of goods should not harm global access to legal, affordable and safe medicines;

59.

Is worried about recent cases of EU Member States’ custom authorities seizing generic medicines in transit in European ports and airports, and underlines that such behaviour undermines the WTO Declaration on Access to Medicine; asks the EU Member States concerned to put a swift stop to this practice; calls on the Commission to assure Parliament that the currently negotiated ACTA does not prevent access to medicine for developing countries;

60.

Believes that the climate change challenge must be addressed through structural reforms, and calls for a systematic climate change risk assessment of all aspects of policy planning and decision making, including in trade, agriculture and food security; demands that the result of this assessment be used to formulate clear and coherent country and regional strategy papers, as well as in all development programmes and projects;

61.

Welcomes the Commission's recent comments to the effect that it will look again at Regulation (EC) No 1383/2003, which has had unintended consequences for the transit through the EU of generic medicines which were ultimately destined for developing countries;

62.

Believes that initiatives such as the Unitaid patent pool for HIV/Aids medicines can help bring coherence to the EU's health and intellectual property policies;

63.

Welcomes the Commission's support for proposals to help indigenous communities to exploit and benefit from their traditional knowledge and genetic resources;

64.

Welcomes the Commission's comments to the effect that the EU could lower tariffs on environment-friendly goods with like-minded countries in the event that an agreement cannot be found within the WTO;

65.

Supports the Commission in facilitating the transfer of technology to developing countries, specifically low-carbon and climate-resilient technology which is essential for climate change adaptation;

66.

Acknowledges the economic importance of remittances to developing countries, but stresses the need to address the issue of ‘brain drain’ in the implementation of bilateral trade agreements, in particular within the health sector;

67.

Highlights the work done by many civil society organisations on tax evasion by EU multinationals in developing countries and asks the Commission to take their recommendations into account in future negotiations;

68.

Welcomes the mechanisms to enhance PCD within the Commission, namely the inter-service consultation system, the Impact Assessment process, the Sustainability Impact Assessment, the Interservice Quality Support Group and, where appropriate, the Strategic Environmental Assessment; asks, however, which criteria DG Development used when deciding to overturn incoherent policy initiatives and asks for greater transparency as regards the outcome of inter-service consultations; calls for the information gathered in the Impact Assessments to be made available to the European Parliament in a more comprehensible form, and for the European Parliament, the national parliaments and the parliaments of the developing countries to be more closely involved in these mechanisms;

69.

Asks that the ‘aid for trade’ strategy benefit all developing countries, and not only those agreeing to a greater liberalisation of their markets; during trade negotiations, notably in the context of Economic Partnership Agreements, calls on the Commission not to impose, against the wishes of developing countries, the opening of negotiating chapters on the ‘Singapore issues’ and financial services, and not to enter into agreements of this type unless these countries have first set up an appropriate national regulatory and supervisory framework;

70.

Asks the Commission to include legally binding social and environmental standards systematically in trade agreements negotiated by the European Union, in order to promote the objective of trade working for development;

71.

Asks the Commission to start the impact assessments earlier, i.e. before the drafting process of policy initiatives is already far advanced and to base them on existing or specially conducted evidence-based studies, and to systematically include social, environmental and human rights dimensions, since a prospective analysis is most useful and practical given the lack of data and the complexities of measuring PCD; asks the Commission to include the results of the impact assessments in the Development Cooperation Instrument (DCI)'s Regional and Country Strategy Papers, together with suggestions for a follow-up;

72.

Expresses its concern that, out of 82 impact assessments conducted in 2009 by the Commission, only one was dedicated to development; stresses the need for a systematic approach to PCD performance measuring; therefore calls on the Commission to give to its unit for forward-looking studies and policy coherence in DG DEV a central role in enhancing the consideration of PCD;

73.

Calls on the Commission to involve the European Parliament in the process of the Commission’s PCD report, e.g. in terms of the questionnaire, better timing, and taking account of Parliament’s own initiative reports;

74.

Asks the Commission to involve the EU Delegations in its PCD work by appointing PCD focal points responsible for PCD in each Delegation to monitor the impact of EU policy at partner-country level; asks for inclusion of PCD in staff training; calls on the Commission to publish annually the results of field consultations to be conducted by EU delegations; to this end, calls on the Commission to ensure that the EU delegations have sufficient capacity to broadly consult local governments, parliaments and to guarantee opportunities for active participation by non-state actors and civil society on the issue of PCD;

75.

Suggests that European Commission staff and members of Council delegations working in the field of PCD be trained with a view to raising their awareness of that policy goal;

76.

Calls on the Commission to give the Commissioner for Development sole responsibility for country allocations, Country, Regional and Thematic Strategy papers, National and Multiannual Indicative Programmes, Annual Action programmes and the implementation of aid in all developing countries, in close cooperation with the High Representative and the Humanitarian Aid Commissioner, in order to avoid incoherent approaches within the College and the Council;

77.

Calls on the Member States and their national parliaments to promote PCD through a specific working programme with binding timetables, in order to improve the European PCD work programme, as well as aid efforts, whilst ensuring that this agenda does not run counter to partner countries’ development strategies;

78.

Suggests including PCD in the DCI midterm review, especially in the relevant thematic programmes;

79.

Suggests inclusion of specific PCD commitments in every Presidency’s work programme;

80.

Suggests that the Council improve the work of existing structures for enhancing PCD, for example by having more joint meetings of the working groups and making the work programme publicly accessible;

81.

Suggests drafting a biennial EP report on PCD; suggests to all its committees that they draft reports that address their respective development perspectives;

82.

Underlines the importance of inter-committee cooperation in the European Parliament; to this end, suggests that, when a sensitive issue regarding PCD is discussed by a committee, the other relevant committees are closely associated, and that when a committee organises an expert hearing on a sensitive issue concerning PCD, the other relevant committees must take part in organising the hearing;

83.

Asks for institutional clarification regarding the Commission's Communication on Policy Coherence (COM(2009)0458) concerning an enhanced partnership and dialogue with the developing countries on the topic of PCD; asks whether this enhanced partnership would also include a mechanism for advising developing countries what they themselves can do to promote PCD and a plan for capacity building at country level to perform PCD assessments;

84.

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

31.5.2011   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 161/58

A.

whereas in recent years the European Union has created a system of social rules in road transport by adopting Regulation (EEC) No 3821/85 and Regulation (EC) No 561/2006, together with Directive 2006/22/EC, in order to increase safety on the roads and to ensure fair competition,

B.

whereas the penalty systems in the Member States of the European Union have evolved historically, and therefore show wide disparities, with fines in extreme cases that can be as much as ten times higher in one country than in another,

C.

whereas the legal position with regard to international transport operations has become very hard for undertakings and especially for drivers to understand; whereas the Member States face major challenges in transposing the regulations as required and whereas the current situation is not compatible with the single market,

D.

concerned at the reports of shortcomings affecting digital tachographs which make them highly vulnerable to tampering,

1.

Welcomes the Commission report on analysing the penalties for serious infringements against the social rules in road transport, as provided for in the legislation of the Member States; regrets, however, that because of incomplete data from some Member States the report does not constitute a comprehensive analysis of the current situation in Europe; asks the Commission to call on the Member States to supply the missing data;

2.

Notes that the Commission report is based on the categorisation of infringements according to the new Annex III to Directive 2006/22/EC, without taking account of the deadline for implementation laid down in Article 2(1) of Commission Directive 2009/5/EC;

3.

Calls therefore on the Commission to submit an updated and complete report on the implementation of the new Annex III to Directive 2006/22/EC before the end of 2010;

4.

Points out that in past reporting periods there have been significant delays, so that, for example, the current report of 3 August 2009 (the 24th report from the Commission analysing the penalties for serious infringements against the social rules in road transport) deals only with data from 2005 and 2006, and hence can draw hardly any conclusions about the current state of harmonisation of the social rules for road transport users;

5.

Calls on the Commission and the Member States to do their utmost to ensure that the objectives set out in Article 17 of Regulation (EC) No 561/2006 are fulfilled more quickly, so that more recent statistics are available for future harmonisation measures;

6.

Points out that Annex IV to Regulation (EC) No 1071/2009 also contains a list of serious infringements within the meaning of this Regulation; therefore considers that a harmonised categorisation of serious infringements against the social rules is extremely necessary;

7.

Notes that the differences in penalties for serious infringements against the social rules in road transport as provided for in the legislation of the Member States concern not only the level of fines, but also the types and the categorisation of the penalties;

8.

Points out that these differences can be explained by economic and geographical factors, as well as the Member States’ differing legal systems in criminal matters and their differing policy approaches to road safety;

9.

Notes that the social rules in road transport, in particular Regulation (EEC) No 3821/85 and Regulation (EC) No 561/2006, together with Directive 2006/22/EC, afford the Member States a great deal of scope for interpretation; regrets that the many imprecise formulations in the European rules necessarily result in a failure to achieve uniform transposition into national law in the Member States; takes the view that to achieve further harmonisation we first need uniform and binding interpretation of these Regulations and the Directive;

10.

Regrets that some Member States do not provide for differentiation of penalties according to the seriousness of the infringement; calls on the Member States to adopt national legislation that has an effective, proportionate and dissuasive effect and that takes due account of how serious an infringement is;

11.

Emphasises that an effective, balanced and dissuasive penalty system can only be based on clear, transparent and comparable penalties across the Member States; calls on the Member States to find legislative and practical ways of reducing the in some cases very substantial differences in the type and level of penalties applied;

12.

Calls on the European Commission, after consulting inspection bodies and representatives of the transport sector, to come up with a uniform and binding interpretation of the Regulation on driving and resting hours. The inspection bodies should take this interpretation into account;

13.

Takes the view that to achieve further approximation of the types of penalties and of the levels of fines, a categorization of fines linked to a categorization of penalties is needed, and minimum and maximum penalties for each infringement against the social rules in road transport should be laid down; stresses that in streamlining penalties the need for fair fines to be proportionate in the different Member States in accordance with objective criteria (such as GNP or geographical factors) must be balanced by an effective deterrent against serious infringements;

14.

Points out that the new Annex III to Directive 2006/22/EC introduced by Commission Directive 2009/5/EC should be evaluated as the foundation for a uniform approach to categorising infringements against the social rules in road transport as laid down in the legislation of the Member States; urges the Member States to adopt the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary for rapid transposition of Commission Directive 2009/5/EC;

15.

Also recalls that the Treaty of Lisbon has inserted in the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union a new Article 83(2) on the approximation of criminal laws and regulations of the Member States; calls on the Commission to examine these new legislative means in the field of judicial cooperation in criminal matters and to submit, within twelve months, a report to the Council and the European Parliament on the possible harmonisation measures, including aspects relating to road safety and the cross-border application of fines, if it has not already done so;

16.

Welcomes the fact that pursuant to Article 22(4) of Regulation (EC) No 561/2006 the Commission has prepared ‘guidelines’ to support the Member States in the national interpretation and application of this Regulation; notes, however, that the guidelines are not legally binding and have therefore not achieved their aim of uniform transposition in the Member States;

17.

Considers that, in order to achieve an internal market in transport and to increase legal certainty for drivers and hauliers, the interpretation of the application of social legislation should be harmonised; with this in mind calls on the Commission, in cooperation with Corte, Tispol and Euro Contrôle Route, to submit proposals seeking to put an end to the discriminatory application of social legislation in road transport; highlights in this connection the need for a common, article-by-article interpretation of the application of Regulation (EC) No 561/2006 and Regulation (EEC) No 3821/85;

18.

Calls on the Member States to take account of these guidelines in implementing the social rules so as to ensure that harmonised transposition is achieved;

19.

Stresses that unfair competition can be avoided and road transport safety guaranteed only by consistent and non-discriminatory enforcement of the applicable legislation; emphasises that a harmonised and effective approach to checks is essential for the transposition of the social rules in road transport;

20.

Points out that the traffic situation, in terms of infrastructure, volume of traffic and congestion, varies widely between the Member States and therefore considers that these factors, inter alia, could be taken into account in determining the frequency of checks, bearing in mind that one of their main purposes is to ensure compliance with social welfare rules;

21.

Believes that the Commission should develop and promote such harmonised approaches to checks and take regulatory action so as to remove obstacles to the European single market and improve road safety; calls on the Commission, in order to achieve these objectives, to create an effective and appropriate coordination instrument at the European level;

22.

Calls on the Commission to draw up recommendations and European minimum standards for the training of inspection bodies and for coordinating cooperation between the inspection bodies; asks the Commission to improve the collection of statistical information so as to enable more meaningful analysis of the effectiveness of enforcement and promote a harmonised approach by the Member States to enforcement issues;

23.

Calls on the Member States always to train their enforcement staff in the latest developments in data collection and, in implementing common standards, to work closely with the European Commission in order to promote a harmonised approach to checks, thus creating legal certainty;

24.

Takes the view that more frequent and thorough checks must be made both at the roadside and at the premises of undertakings; calls on the Commission to ensure that the Member States respect the amount of checks to be organised, as referred to in Article 2(3) of Directive 2006/22/EC; calls on the Commission to inform the European Parliament of the further steps it intends to take with regard to these checks;

25.

Calls on the Commission to submit, as soon as possible, a report on the checks made on the shortcomings affecting digital tachographs and the steps taken to prevent their vulnerability;

26.

Underlines that the digital tachograph, based on Regulation (EEC) No 3821/85, should be improved as an instrument for checking: the Commission should investigate how to achieve faster downloading of data from the digital tachograph by the controlling authorities;

27.

Draws attention to the Disproportionate Fines Complaint Desk set up by Euro Contrôle Route, and calls on drivers and hauliers to apply to this complaint desk in the event of disproportionate application of social legislation for road transport;

28.

Considers that an easily understandable brochure in all official languages of the European Union would be useful for undertakings and for lorry drivers; stresses that this brochure should give the drivers and undertakings concerned more information about the relevant social rules and the penalties applicable to infringements in the various Member States; considers that such information should also be made available to undertakings and drivers from third countries; draws attention to the value of using intelligent transport systems to provide drivers with such information in real time;

29.

Is convinced that in the context of using modern information and communication technologies and intelligent transport systems, the possibility should exist for businesses and drivers to obtain information on the social rules in force and the penalties for infringing them;

30.

Calls on all the Member States to reinforce cooperation on the basis of existing structures such as Euro Contrôle Route and in this way to improve coordination of common checks, exchange of best practice and joint organisation of training programmes for control bodies;

31.

Considers that all available technology should be used to inform lorry drivers, including those coming from neighbouring countries, in real time about the relevant social rules and the penalties applicable to infringements in the various Member States, for example with the use of GPS or other tools available;

32.

Calls on the Member States to establish an appropriate infrastructure, including a sufficient number of safe parking spaces and services, on the European road network so that drivers can in fact comply with the provisions on driving times and rest periods and so that checks can be carried out efficiently; points out that the security aspect must be of particular importance in the case of these facilities; calls on the Commission periodically to publish, in the most appropriate format, the facilities available, both public and private, across the European road network, providing information on the services on offer for road sector professionals;

33.

Calls on the Commission and the Member States to encourage and finance schemes for the construction of secure parking areas, since these are indispensable if drivers are to respect the provisions of Regulation (EC) No 561/2006;

34.

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

31.5.2011   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 161/62

A.

concerned that corruption undermines the rule of law, leads to the misuse of EU funds provided by the taxpayer, and distorts the market, having played a role in the current economic crisis,

B.

whereas the Union has ratified the UN Convention against Corruption, and 78 % of Union citizens agree that corruption is a major concern in their country (Eurobarometer, December 2009),

C.

having regard to the emphasis placed by Parliament on combating corruption in its resolution on the Stockholm Programme regarding freedom, security and justice,

D.

noting the International Day against Corruption (9 December), on which this declaration is launched,

1.

Urges the European institutions to adopt a comprehensive anti-corruption policy and create a clear mechanism for monitoring the situation in the Member States on a regular basis;

2.

Calls on the Commission to provide all necessary resources to implement this monitoring mechanism and ensure that its conclusions and findings are followed up effectively;

3.

Calls on the Commission and the relevant Union agencies to take all necessary measures and provide sufficient resources to ensure that EU funds are not subject to corruption, and to adopt dissuasive sanctions where corruption and fraud are found;

4.

Instructs its President to forward this declaration, together with the names of the signatories (1), to the Council, the Commission, and the Member States.

31.5.2011   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 161/63

A.

whereas, under Article 31 of Regulation (EC) No 1333/2008, the Commission may, until the establishment of the Community lists of food additives provided for in Article 30 of that Regulation, adopt measures to amend the Annexes to, inter alia, Directive 95/2/EC,

B.

whereas Annex IV to Directive 95/2/EC contains a list of food additives that may be used in the European Union and prescribes the conditions for their use,

C.

whereas, in addition, the general criteria for the use of food additives were laid down in Annex II to Directive 89/107/EEC and since that Directive has been repealed and replaced by Regulation (EC) No 1333/2008, the relevant criteria are now to be found, inter alia, in Article 6 of that Regulation, which concerns general conditions for inclusion and use of food additives in Community lists,

D.

whereas Article 6 of that Regulation provides that a food additive may be permitted for use in the EU only if it meets certain conditions including, under paragraph 1(c), that it does not mislead the consumer, and under paragraph 2, that it has advantages and benefits for consumers,

E.

whereas Article 6 of that Regulation also provides, in paragraph (1)(a), that a food additive may only be permitted for use if it does not pose a safety concern to the health of the consumer,

F.

whereas furthermore, Regulation (EC) No 178/2002 (which is known as ‘the General Food Law Regulation’) and in particular Article 8 thereof, provides inter alia that food law shall aim at the protection of the interests of consumers and shall provide a basis for consumers to make informed choices in relation to the foods they consume, and that it shall aim at the prevention of practices which may mislead the consumer,

G.

whereas the draft Commission Directive, and in particular recital 25 and point (3)(h) of the Annex thereto, provides for the inclusion in Annex IV to Directive 95/2/EC of an enzyme preparation based on thrombin with fibrinogen as a food additive for reconstituting food,

H.

whereas thrombin, whilst derived from the edible parts of animals, has the character of a ‘meat-glue’ and its purpose as a food additive is to bind together separate meat pieces in order to produce a single meat product,

I.

whereas the purpose of the use of thrombin therefore is to present pieces of meat to consumers as a single meat product, and therefore the risk of misleading the consumer is obvious,

J.

whereas recital 25 of the draft Commission Directive itself recognises that the use of thrombin with fibrinogen as a food additive could mislead the consumer as to the state of the final food,

K.

whereas point (3)(h) of the Annex to the draft Commission Directive provides for the inclusion of bovine and/or porcine thrombin in the list of permitted food additives under Annex IV to Directive 95/2/EC in pre-packed meat preparations and pre-packed meat products for the final consumer to a maximum of 1mg/kg, to be used together with fibrinogen and under the condition that the food shall bear the information ‘combined meat parts’ in the proximity of its sales name,

L.