12.8.2011   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 236/1

A.

whereas the European Transparency Initiative (ETI) was adopted by the Commission in 2005, followed by the publication of the Green Paper in 2006 with the aim of improving the transparency, openness and accountability of EU governance, and whereas providing public information on the recipients of EU funds is a cornerstone of the ETI,

B.

whereas, under the shared management system, information on beneficiaries of EU funds is managed at Member State level, and whereas, in the absence of a specific EU obligation or a strong ‘steer’ from the Commission, the level to which such information is made public differs substantially from Member State to Member State, making an EU-wide comparison difficult,

C.

whereas the disclosure of EU fund recipients enables public participation in a meaningful debate about how public money is spent, which is essential for functioning democracies,

D.

whereas no link has been established between the ETI and the more regulated and binding issue of financial controls and auditing,

E.

whereas the ETI should have a significant effect in terms of ensuring transparent partnerships in the upstream and downstream phases of the cohesion programming cycle; whereas, however, the regulations do not spell out the specific extent to which partners should be involved in the different programming processes or specify arrangements for such involvement,

F.

whereas there is insufficient prior information about Commission decisions on the funding of major projects, and thus a lack of transparency, and whereas this should be remedied,

G.

whereas the logic of transparency should go hand in hand with the process of simplifying the procedures for obtaining Structural Funds;

1.

Considers that transparency in respect of cohesion policy and its programming cycle, allocation of expenditure and access to information for potential beneficiaries of the Structural Funds are key prerequisites for achieving the overall objectives of cohesion policy, and that transparency should therefore be introduced as a guiding cross-sectoral principle in the cohesion programming and decision-making processes;

2.

Notes with satisfaction that, in compliance with the ETI requirements, interactive maps providing links to the lists of ERDF and Cohesion Fund beneficiaries available on the respective national or regional websites are published on the website of the Commission’s Directorate General for Regional Policy; calls on the Member States to promote, using suitable means, DG REGIO’s website with a view to facilitating the widest possible access to that database; notes that it remains, nevertheless, extremely difficult for interested parties to keep track of how public money is being used; invites the Commission to consult these parties to a wide extent on the possible remedies to this situation;

3.

Calls on the Commission and the Member States to make these Member State databases fully searchable and compatible, so as to facilitate an EU-wide overview of the data presented, while preserving their local relevance; is of the view that, in this respect, there is an urgent need for dual-language versions (local language(s)- one of the Commission working languages);

4.

Stresses that the usefulness of the data provided on beneficiaries needs to be improved in terms of both content and presentation; calls, therefore, on the Commission to define a more detailed and prescriptive format specifying the structure, form and content of the information to be provided; believes that providing the necessary information should also facilitate a criterion-based search with a view to obtaining an immediate picture of the elements sought;

5.

Calls for additional essential information to be provided when publishing the lists of beneficiaries and where needed the lists of stakeholders; recommends, therefore, that besides the current minimum requirements, consideration be given to including location, summaries of approved projects, types of support and a description of the project partners as elements of the disclosure of beneficiaries; asks that the data collected should appear and should be managed in a structured, comparable way to ensure its full usability and in the interest of genuine transparency; considers that this can be done without giving rise to additional expenditure;

6.

Asks that, for programmes under the European Territorial Cooperation objective, all beneficiaries – and not only the lead beneficiaries – be listed;

7.

Underlines that full compliance with the ETI requirements is necessary by means of appropriate regulations, better guidance, a warning mechanism and sanctions in cases of non-compliance as a last resort;

8.

Calls on the Commission to clarify how the ETI principles should be put into practice in operational terms at the level of operational programmes and their communication plans; stresses therefore the need to introduce clearer rules regarding the disclosure of information on the beneficiaries of funds under shared management;

9.

Underlines the need to formulate regulations and implementing rules in such a way that procedures are transparent, provide better access to the Structural Funds for potential beneficiaries and reduce administrative burdens for participants, particularly via a number of key measures such as making public the guidance notes on implementation agreed upon between the Commission and the Member States; calls on the managing authorities in the Member States to present, in transparent fashion, all stages of projects financed by the Structural Funds; reiterates its view that transparent and clear procedures are factors of good governance, and welcomes in this context the efforts made by the Commission to present simplification proposals;

10.

Notes that cross-border and transnational programmes face specific difficulties due to the different administrative culture, national regulations and languages being used in Member States, that affect not just the quantitative, but also the qualitative aspects of such initiatives; considers therefore that development of specific rules regarding transparency in coordination and cooperation among different managing authorities would be most important;

11.

Underlines that, according to the EP’s study on the ETI and its impact on Cohesion Policy, non-compliance with ETI minimum requirements relates to a lack of administrative capacity on the part of Managing Authorities rather than reluctance to provide such data; in that framework points out the need to assure that the provision of additional data and information does not result in an additional administrative burden for potential beneficiaries, especially for those already having difficulty in complying with the existing administrative and financial requirements for grants and public contracts;

12.

Points out that the requirement for additional information and data has to be matched, on the part of the European Commission, by the provision of additional technical support (workshops with the participation of Commission’s officials and local/regional staff responsible for the management of structural funds, exchange of best practices between Managing Authorities, publication of concrete guidelines) to potential beneficiaries which do not have the necessary technical capacity; considers this the only way to ensure that the participants’ efforts to comply with the additional requirements in terms of data and information provided will not result in a distortion of funds from the project implementation activities as such;

13.

Stresses the importance of accurate and timely information delivery by the Member States in the context of the control system, and thus the need to establish a link between the ETI and financial controls and auditing; reiterates its view that the early warning system (EWS) should also work closely with the Central Exclusion Database;

14.

Requests the Commission to monitor the utilisation of increased advance payments received by the Member States in accordance with the 2009 simplifications related to Regulation (EC) No 1083/2006;

15.

Reiterates its request for the provision of information regarding recoveries and withdrawals under the ETI; urges the Member States to provide this information in full, and the Commission to make it available to the budgetary authority and the public along with information on financial corrections following a confirmed case of fraud, thus ensuring high standards of credibility and responsibility vis-à-vis the European public;

16.

Urges auditors to take a tougher line on communication and information requirements, including ‘naming and shaming’ - particularly if a governmental actor is involved - and the use of financial corrections in confirmed cases of fraud;

17.

Welcomes the efforts made by the Commission and the Court of Auditors to harmonise their auditing methodologies;

18.

Highlights the fact that minimum standards of consultation are a component of the ETI, and welcomes the fact that these standards have been promoted and applied by the Commission in respect of cohesion policy; calls, however, on the Commission to allow stakeholders to give appropriate feedback on the quality of the consultation process itself; calls on regions and Member States to draw on existing EU experience in consulting interested parties;

19.

Reiterates its view that partnership is a prerequisite for transparency, responsiveness, efficiency and legitimacy in all the phases of cohesion programming and implementation, and can increase commitment to, and public ownership of, programme outputs; calls, therefore, on the Member States and managing authorities fully to involve regional and local authorities and other relevant partners more closely in all the phases of cohesion programming and implementation, including through an internet platform at national level providing visibility for existing funds and operational programmes and through good-practice promotion by other means, and to give them full access to all project documentation, with a view to making better use of their experience, knowledge and best practices;

20.

Calls for more guidance from the Commission on how to put the partnership clause into practice under current programmes, and for sufficiently binding rules on partnership in future regulatory texts, particularly as regards the involvement of regional and local authorities, i.e. elected bodies, which are essential partners in the whole process;

21.

Calls for the provision of better-targeted and regular and timely information to partner organisations, particularly those that are members of the managing structures, and for enhanced use of technical assistance to support partnership, inter alia by giving partner organisations the opportunity to take part in training events organised for delivery bodies; calls for these training events to be accessible in multimedia versions in order to broaden the target audience and to allow ex-post consultation by partner organisations; emphasises the usefulness of such a measure for the partners of the most distant regions of the Union, such as outermost regions;

22.

Calls on the Commission to publish online information in good time, and to guarantee direct access to project documentation, including JASPERS projects (application, feasibility study, cost-benefit analysis, environmental impact assessment, etc.) on major projects, as soon as possible after the Commission receives an application for funding from a Member State and before it takes any decision on financing; considers that this Commission webpage should allow the submission of comments regarding such projects;

23.

Calls for information on major projects approved or submitted for approval in the 2007-2013 programming period to be published on the internet with retroactive effect;

24.

Proposes establishing the circumstances in which unused funds may be reutilised and the responsibility of the institution deciding to reallocate such funds;

25.

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

12.8.2011   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 236/6

A.

whereas the 2011 budgetary procedure is the first of is kind under the Lisbon Treaty and whereas its single reading calls for increased cooperation and coordination with the other branch of the budgetary authority in order to reach an agreement during the conciliation procedure on all expenditure,

B.

whereas the trilogue to be held in July should aim at clearing the ground before the Council adopts its position on the draft budget, in order to identify the points of agreement in advance,

1.

Notes that the total for the draft budget (DB) for 2011 is EUR 142 576,4 million in commitment appropriations (CA) and EUR 130 147,2 million in payment appropriations (PA), leaving therefore a margin of EUR 1 224,4 million in CA and EUR 4 417,8 million in PA; notes that these total amounts represent respectively 1,15 % and 1,05 % of the EU’s forecast GNI for 2011;

2.

Is concerned by the fact that the increase in CA is only 0,77 % compared to the 2010 budget as adopted, a difference which is out of step with the widely voiced expectations of the EU budget playing a crucial role in support of Europe’s post-crisis economies; notes that PA increases by 5,85 %, but recalls that the abnormally low level of PA in 2010 provides the mathematical explanation for this increase; recalls that the multiannual financial framework (MFF) provides for ceilings of EUR 142 965 million for CA and EUR 134 280 million for PA, in current prices;

3.

Acknowledges the reduction of the discrepancy between CA and PA as compared with the 2010 budget (EUR 12 429 million compared to EUR 18 535 million), which indicates better implementation of the EU budget, but points out at the same time that the MFF provides for a difference of only EUR 8 366 million between CA and PA for 2011; recalls, in that respect, that these discrepancies create deficits in the long run and should therefore be avoided for the sake of budgetary sustainability and manageability;

4.

Points out that the bulk (70 %) of the overall margin of EUR 1 224,4 million in the DB stems from the margin under heading 2 on the preservation and management of natural resources, and that the other headings – in particular headings 1a, 3b and 4 – have very limited margins, thus proportionally reducing the capacity of the EU to react to policy changes and to unforeseen needs while maintaining its priorities;

5.

Stresses, furthermore, that the margin under heading 2 might actually be lower, as market conditions may change;

6.

Welcomes the publication by the Commission of the report on the functioning of the IIA (COM(2010)0185) and recalls, in this respect, that a proposal for substantial revision is awaited and that the difficulties encountered during previous budgetary procedures in reacting properly and satisfactorily to various challenges that have arisen render the revision of the current MFF unavoidable; recalls that it expects the Commission to make concrete proposals for a revision of the MFF before the end the first half of 2010;

7.

Draws attention to the large number of outstanding procedures with far-reaching budgetary consequences that will need to be concluded by the two branches of the budgetary authority in 2011 (budget review, setting up of the European External Action Service (EEAS), amending budgets, revision of the IIA, revision of the Financial Regulation, etc.);

8.

Takes note of the priorities set out by the Commission (namely supporting the EU economy post-crisis and adapting to new requirements, i.e. implementation of the Lisbon Treaty, new financial supervision authorities, financing of the Global Monitoring for Environment and Security (GMES) initiative, implementation of the Stockholm Programme, etc.) and questions whether the modest increase in CA compared to the 2010 budget is enough to address them;

9.

Underlines the importance of a strong reaction to the crisis and to the instability of financial markets that should involve greater funding capacity and flexibility for the EU budget; requests, in this regard, the Council and Commission to provide further detailed information on the impact that the European Financial Stabilisation Mechanism decided on at the extraordinary Ecofin Council meeting of 9 and 10 May 2010 might have on the budget of the EU; requests furthermore, in order to avoid future crises, the setting up of an efficient monitoring system including the direct provision of information to Parliament;

10.

Deplores the impossibility to clearly identify, from a budgetary point of view, the financial implications in the 2011 DB of the EU 2020 Strategy flagship initiatives, such as ‘Innovation Union’, ‘Youth on the Move’, ‘Resource efficient Europe’, ‘New skills and jobs’ and ‘Industrial policy for the globalisation era’, and expresses strong doubts regarding the capacity to ensure, in the context of the present financial framework, adequate funding for these key initiatives;

11.

Recalls that, as stated in its resolution of 25 March 2010 on priorities for the 2011 budget, youth is one of the key priorities for the 2011 budget, which should be promoted as an EU cross-cutting theme, developing synergies between different policy areas relating to youth, notably education, employment, entrepreneurship and health, while facilitating and encouraging social inclusion, empowerment, skills development and mobility for young people; points out that ‘youth’ should be seen as a broad concept encompassing the ability of individuals to change positions and status several times throughout their lives, switching without restriction between settings such as apprenticeships, academic or professional environments and vocational training, and that, to this end, one of the objectives should be to facilitate transition from the education system to the labour market;

12.

Deplores the fact that, in spite of an extremely high profile and a very high implementation rate – reaching between 95-100 % every year over the period 2007-2009 – the increase in appropriations proposed in the DB for the key youth instruments and programmes, such as Lifelong Learning, Youth in Action and Erasmus Mundus, is rather symbolic; considers that this increase does not allow the EU to adequately address this priority and therefore intends to provide further support for these programmes; recalls, in this context, that these programmes have an indisputable European added value and greatly contribute to the creation of a strong European civil society, despite the modest financial allocation that they receive;

13.

Calls for further clarification in the breakdown between operational and administrative expenditure, while acknowledging the efforts made as regards the presentation of administrative expenditure outside heading 5; notes that an already substantial amount of what is, in reality, administrative expenditure is financed from operational appropriations;

14.

Is determined to tackle the negotiations on the budget for the financial year 2011 in a constructive and open-minded manner, bearing in mind the goals of efficiency and European added value; expects in return that the other branch of the budgetary authority will adopt a cooperative approach ensuring genuine political dialogue and will depart from an ‘accounting exercise’ in which savings and contributions from Member States are given an excessively prominent place in the negotiations; recalls that the Treaty has not only modified the legal framework for the budgetary procedure, but has also introduced a new method and new deadlines for negotiating and reaching compromises;

15.

Underlines the fact that the EU budget is very limited compared to national budgets; recalls therefore the need to create synergies between the EU budget and national budgets in order to implement common EU strategies; stresses that coherence gives European policies greater impact, achieving true European added value while supporting long-term policy objectives; is convinced that the EU budget can be instrumental, in key areas, in supporting long-term investment and jobs; expects the Council to take this duly into consideration when deciding on the EU budget and to refrain from making across-the-board cuts, even if the context for national public finances is extremely difficult;

16.

Recalls its priorities as expressed in the above-mentioned resolution of 25 March 2010;

17.

Notes an increase of 4,4 % in CA (to EUR 13 437 million) and of 7 % in PA (to EUR 11 035 million (4), together with a margin of EUR 50,1 million (compared to EUR 37 million in the financial programming), stemming from decreases in appropriations for administrative and technical support expenditure (former ‘BA lines’) and for decentralised and executive agencies, and from decreases in appropriations for a number of programmes, such as Customs 2013 and CIP-Entrepreneurship and Innovation;

18.

Recalls the important role played by SMEs in ensuring recovery and boosting the EU economy; calls for enhanced support for all programmes and instruments aimed at fostering SMEs, and is concerned, in this regard, by the decrease in payment appropriations proposed for CIP-Entrepreneurship and Innovation;

19.

Recalls that the new needs to be financed under this heading (Kozloduy decommissioning programme, European financial supervision authorities, ITER, and GMES, including Parliament’s request for increased appropriations for its operational phase) were not provided for when the current MFF was adopted; stresses that the financing of these needs should not be detrimental to the financing of other heading 1a programmes and actions which are crucial to the European post-crisis recovery effort;

20.

Recalls that the European Economic Recovery Plan (EERP) is partly financed under this heading, as are a large number of multiannual programmes (CIP, FP7, TENs, Galileo/Egnos, Marco Polo II and the Progress programme) which will have reached maturity in 2011; reiterates, therefore, its request to the Commission to present the follow-up report on the implementation of the EERP, including measures entrusted to the EIB;

21.

Welcomes the increases in appropriations for the main programmes (FP7, 13,8 %; CIP, 4,4 %; Lifelong Learning, 2,6 %; TEN 16,8 %), and stresses that these programmes provide essential leverage in the EU counter-crisis economic strategy;

22.

Stresses that heading 1a includes many EU2020 strategy flagship initiatives, such as Innovation Union, Youth on the Move, Resource-efficient Europe, New Skills and Jobs, and Industrial Policy for the Globalisation Era; deplores the fact that it is impossible to identify clearly, from a budgetary point of view, the financial implications of the EU2020 strategy and expresses its doubts regarding the capacity to ensure, in the context of the current financial framework, adequate funding for these initiatives;

23.

Recalls that the priorities for 2011, with a view to the EU2020 strategy, will be financed mainly from this heading, and that the EU competences stemming from the entry into force of the Treaty are likely to have budgetary implications; emphasises that space policy, which constitutes a concrete example of an European industrial policy promoting European scientific, technological and environmental progress whilst reinforcing industrial competitiveness, requires both the EU and the Member States to make a further financial effort within the context of the GMES;

24.

Welcomes the Commission’s Youth on the Move initiative seeking to enhance the performance and international attractiveness of Europe’s higher education institutions and raise the overall standard of education and training in the EU; strongly supports the promotion of equal opportunities for all young people, no matter their educational background; wishes to stress the importance of ensuring sufficient funding for an ambitious policy in the area of education and training, including vocational training, which plays a crucial role in the EU2020 strategy; stresses that the EU bring all its resources to bear in meeting this ambitious challenge, which creates an unprecedented momentum for the development of a comprehensive EU youth policy; stresses, nevertheless, that the launch of such an over-arching flagship initiative covering a number of distinct and well-established EU programmes in this area should not lower the profile of the individual programmes;

25.

Stresses that the budgetary resources made available in the future for instruments such as the Lifelong Learning programme and cross-cutting skills, such as e-skills, international skills, entrepreneurial skills and multilingualism, should reflect the high European added value brought by those instruments and hence should be given priority in the 2011 budget;

26.

Is disappointed that tourism, which indirectly generates more than 10 % of the EU’s GDP and which has become a full competence of the EU following the ratification of the Lisbon Treaty, is not clearly identified in the 2011 DB;

27.

Notes the inclusion, for the first time, of payment appropriations for the European Globalisation Fund, and considers this an important element in the overall reflection on the management and visibility of this fund; considers, however, that these payment appropriations might not be sufficient to cover the amounts necessary for EGF applications in 2011; reiterates therefore its demand not to finance EGF applications exclusively through transfers from ESF lines and calls on the Commission to identify and use without further delay different budget lines for this purpose; stresses the need for a simplified and speedier procedure for the mobilisation of the fund (5);

28.

Takes note of the very modest increase in, or of stagnation (compared to the 2010 budget), commitment appropriations for EURES and for the three budget lines supporting industrial relations and social dialogue; believes that, in the current context of massive layoffs and restructuring due to the crisis, these lines should be reinforced;

29.

Notes that the 2011 DB provides for an increase of 3,2 % in CA to a total of EUR 50 970 million, EUR 39 891,5 million of which are for the Structural Funds (ERDF and ESF) – an amount similar to the 2010 figure – and EUR 11 078,6 million for the Cohesion Fund;

30.

Notes that this proposal is in line with the allocations set out in the MFF, taking into account the technical adjustment to the financial framework for 2011 (6) (increase of EUR 336 million), as provided for in point 17 of the IIA; understands in that respect the margin of EUR 16,9 million, stemming mostly from the technical assistance allocation and representing 0,03 % of the heading;

31.

Welcomes the 16,9 % increase in PA to EUR 42 541 million proposed for 2011, but is nevertheless concerned that payment needs have been estimated on the basis of the historical payment rates against the corresponding commitment tranches in the 2000-2006 programming period, while programme implementation was much slower at the beginning of the 2007-2013 period and will therefore need to catch up strongly, particularly in 2011;

32.

Doubts that the adjustments made, notably through the allocation of delayed payments as a ratio of expected payments in future years, are fully appropriate to address all additional payment needs stemming notably from the following:

33.

Considers moreover that adequate resources for cohesion policy are crucial in order to accelerate the recovery of the European economy and to contribute to the Europe 2020 strategy for the regions; emphasises the synergetic effects of EU macro-regional cooperation in achieving the goals of the Europe 2020 strategy and the need to allocate sufficient resources to the implementation of existing macro-regional strategies; calls, therefore, on the Commission and Council to present and adopt an amending budget without delay, should payment appropriations not be sufficient to cover needs;

34.

Requests the Commission to keep on working closely with those Member States with a low absorption rate, in order to further improve the situation regarding absorption on the ground; is aware that a slow absorption rate may jeopardise progressive implementation of EU policies;

35.

Asks to Commission also to continue its reflection on how to reshuffle the complex system of rules and requirements imposed by the Commission and/or Member States, in order to focus more on achieving objectives and less on legality and regularity, without departing from the key principle of sound financial management; stresses that such a reflection should also contribute to better drafting of the next programming period’s basic regulation; recalls in this context the November 2009 Joint Declaration on simplification and a more targeted use of structural and cohesion funds in the context of the economic crisis;

36.

Recalls that one of the main changes introduced by the TFEU is the abolition of the distinction between compulsory and non-compulsory expenditure in the budget procedure, allowing, at last, the two branches of the budgetary authority to negotiate on a equal footing on all annual appropriations; recalls that compulsory expenditure accounted for almost 34 % of the overall budget, with most of it coming under heading 2;

37.

Stresses that, over the last few years, the budgetary authority has made use of this heading to reach global agreement on the annual budgets, through use of the margin or redeployment of appropriations for use in other programmes and actions;

38.

Notes that, despite the claim that appropriations remain stable, assigned revenue is down by more than 25 % in 2011, that market support is down by almost 22 % (to EUR 3 491 million), and that appropriations for veterinary and phytosanitary measures show a fall of 7,8 %; expresses its concern about the Commission’s optimistic assumptions (in view of increased market volatility and the vulnerability of agricultural activity to health hazards) with regard to trends in agricultural markets in 2011, resulting in a reduction of around EUR 900 million in market-related expenditure; urges the Commission and the Council to carefully monitor developments in agricultural markets and to be prepared to react swiftly and effectively with the necessary safety net measures to counter adverse market developments and volatility in market prices; expresses concern also about the planned decrease in appropriations for veterinary and phytosanitary measures, in view of the need to remain vigilant with regard to animal disease eradication;

39.

Welcomes the increase in appropriations for decoupled direct aid (9,7 %), the school fruit and vegetables scheme (up 50 % to EUR 90 million), and school milk (5,3 %), as well as the appropriations earmarked for the aid for deprived persons programme; notes with satisfaction the steady decrease in export refunds since 2007 (to EUR 166 million in the 2011 DB);

40.

Welcomes the Commission’s decision to reallocate funds unspent by several Member States to other Member States successfully implementing the programme;

41.

Notes that climate action is a priority, as set out in the Europe 2020 strategy, and notes the change in the heading of Title 07 to ‘Environment and climate action’; takes note of the increase in appropriations proposed for the implementation of EU policy and legislation on climate action and a new preparatory action on mainstreaming climate action and adaptation;

42.

Welcomes the increase in CA for LIFE+ to EUR 333,5 million (up by 8,7 %) and welcomes the sharp increase in PA (24,3 %, to EUR 268,2 million) in line with improved implementation rates, not least with a view to the follow-up measures to the biodiversity strategy planned in 2010; points out that the vast environmental challenges the EU faces, including water pollution, require an additional financial effort to be made under this programme;

43.

Recalls that the specific market-support measure in the dairy sector adopted under the 2010 budget to mitigate the consequences of the dairy crisis was supposed to be a one-off action; asks the Commission to examine how the EUR 300 million in exceptional funding for the dairy sector is being used by the Member States and to forward its evaluation of this measure, together with proposals for a permanent approach and concrete proposals for dealing with price volatility in this sector;

44.

Expresses concern at the fact that the political importance of the common fisheries policy(CFP) is not adequately reflected in the draft budget for 2011; points out that the funds proposed for the development of an integrated maritime policy are not sufficient to cover the most important aspects of the launch of this new policy; stresses that a new European Union maritime policy could develop to the detriment of the existing priority areas of the CFP, in so far as their budgetary funding is concerned; stresses that such a policy will require adequate financing under more than one budget line;

45.

Notes that the overall increase in the funds pertaining to this heading (+ 12,8 %) appears to give practical effect to the ambitions in this area expressed in the Treaty of Lisbon and to the Stockholm Programme;

46.

Stresses the need to increase appropriations for the improvement of detention conditions; recalls, as stated in the Stockholm Programme, the need to provide for social inclusion measures and social resettlement programmes and to support anti-drug initiatives (involving prevention, rehabilitation and harm reduction);

47.

Takes note, in this respect, of the Commission’s communication on an Action Plan to implement the Stockholm Programme, and welcomes, in the field of immigration and support for the integration of immigrants, the proposed increase in CA for the External Borders Fund (EUR 254 million, + 22 %), the European Return Fund (EUR 114 million, + 29 %) and the European Refugee Fund (EUR 94 million, + 1,3 %);

48.

Acknowledges that the proposed decrease in appropriations for FRONTEX in 2011, despite its growing workload, stems from an updated evaluation of its unused appropriations and annual surpluses;

49.

Welcomes the adoption of the regulation on the establishment of a European Asylum Support Office (EASO) and calls on the Commission to ensure that the EASO commences its operations in good time before 2011 and that enough financial resources are made available for the office to commence its mandate;

50.

Deplores the fact that, pending the submission (scheduled for 2013) of the proposal for a regulation on EUROPOL, an EU agency financed under the EU budget since 2010, the volume of appropriations for 2011 (EUR 82,9 million) remains almost unchanged as compared to 2010 (EUR 79,7 million), despite the Stockholm Programme having called for EUROPOL to be strengthened;

51.

Notes that, despite the timetable for the development and entry into operation of the Schengen Information System II (SIS II) being uncertain, it is proposed that CA decrease only slightly from EUR 35 million to EUR 30 million, while payment appropriations increase from EUR 19,5 million to EUR 21 million; recalls that the Commission had projected EUR 27,91 million until the entry into operation of SIS II in the fourth quarter of 2011; points out that the development of the SIS II is already behind schedule and will most likely not be completed by the end of 2011; considers it necessary, given that the prospect of a migration to SIS II is growing increasingly unlikely and a replacement option is currently being prepared, to place part of these funds in the reserve, pending further analysis;

52.

Emphasises that the financing of the planned agency for the operational management of large-scale IT systems in the area of freedom, security and justice must not lead to the development of additional IT systems before SIS II or an alternative solution and VIS become operable; asks for the costs of this agency and its projects to be clearly specified;

53.

Recalls that heading 3b covers issues of key concern to the citizens of Europe, such as youth, educational and cultural programmes, public health, consumer protection, the civil protection instrument and communication policy; notes, therefore, with great concern that overall appropriations are down for a second consecutive year, with CA being reduced by 0,03 % (to EUR 667,8 million) and PA by 3,1 % (to EUR 638,9 million) as compared to the 2010 budget, leaving a margin of EUR 15,2 million;

54.

Notes that the proposed increase for some programmes (Media 2007, Culture 2007, Public Health, etc.) has been made possible by the absence of CA for several pilot projects and preparatory actions; deplores, therefore, the fact that the small margin will afford limited room for manoeuvre when taking decisions on stepping up the funding of priorities directly benefiting citizens and adopting proposals for projects and actions;

55.

Reiterates that coordinated and multidisciplinary investment in youth must be started without delay as a cross-policy theme, and that an increase in youth policy instrument funding should accordingly be proposed; deplores the lack of ambition shown by the Commission in failing properly to address this priority and confirms its intention to amend the draft budget in order to provide appropriate funding for this priority;

56.

Recalls that encouraging and promoting cooperation in the field of youth and sports is a priority for the 2011 budget and stresses that financial support for special annual events is an important tool to this end; deplores the fact that no CA have been included in the draft budget for 2011 (p.m. in CA and only EUR 2,9 million in PA), as against EUR 9,8 million and EUR 10,25 million respectively in the 2010 budget;

57.

Welcomes the launch of the European Year on Volunteering in 2011, building on the preparatory action introduced under the 2010 budget, and recalls Parliament’s and the Council’s decision to increase the overall allocation provided for in the relevant legislative act to EUR 8 million;

58.

Is concerned by the low level of appropriations – which have even decreased in some cases compared to 2010 – dedicated to programmes promoting European citizenship, communication and information for the media; believes these programmes to constitute an essential element in the shaping of a European identity and in communicating the European project to EU citizens;

59.

Regrets the decreased level of commitments for the DAPHNE programme, and points to the possible negative consequences of this on the fight against violence; calls for the continued financing of existing and new effective measures to combat all forms of violence against children, young people and women;

60.

Recalls, once again, the very tight margins available under heading 4, which do not allow the EU to react adequately to recurring and emerging crises and emergencies; points out that the increasing and unbearable discrepancy between this underfinanced heading and the Council’s new political commitments on the world stage can only be addressed by a revision of the ceiling under the existing MFF (7);

61.

Welcomes the proposed increase in appropriations for ENP South and ENP East, and more specifically for the Eastern partnership dimension of the latter; takes good note of the proposed emptying of the budget line dedicated to the EU Baltic Sea Strategy, but deplores that an equivalent amount is not dedicated to this strategy under ENP East;

62.

Calls on the Commission, with a view to fulfilling the objectives and securing effective implementation of the Eastern Partnership, to ensure that extra financial assistance is provided for the new ENPI Multi-Annual Indicative Programmes and National Indicative Programmes for the period 2011-2013 covering Eastern Partnership countries;

63.

Is extremely worried by the proposed decrease of more than 32 % in CA for financial assistance to Palestine, the peace process and UNRWA, bearing in mind the recurring need for extra funds; considers that the Commission’s statement on ‘the exceptionally high allocations of previous years [that] cannot be maintained without jeopardising the funding for other countries in the region’ reinforces the urgent need for a substantial revision of financing capacities under heading 4, and should not lead to a decrease in financial assistance which is vital for the Palestinian people, the Palestinian Authority, and UNRWA; reiterates its support for the Palestinian Authority in stepping up its institutional capacities; points out that, even if the EU were to be ready to extend its package of assistance to the Palestinians, this commitment is not open-ended, and insists that, while humanitarian aid must remain unconditional, the EU must play a political role which delivers tangible results in terms of progress towards the creation of a Palestinian state which are consistent with its significant financial assistance and economic influence in the region;

64.

Points out, in that respect, that even the use of the entire margin of heading 4 exclusively for financial assistance to Palestine would not suffice to reach the 2010 level of CA (EUR 295 million in 2010, as compared to a hypothetical EUR 270 million in 2011);

65.

Takes note of the substantial increase in appropriations (13,2 %) to cover the enlargement process, in which further progress is expected in 2011 (ongoing and potential negotiations with Croatia, Iceland, FYROM, Turkey and Western Balkans);

66.

Considers the proposed increase for DCI to be appropriate, but deplores the misleading presentation by the Commission, which flags up an increase of EUR 65 million for the environment and sustainable management of natural resources as a follow-up to the Copenhagen Accord, whereas that increase is based on the financial programming and not on the 2010 budget (the 2011 DB in fact provides for a decrease of EUR 1,2 million against this line, as compared to the 2010 budget), which is a source of concern); insists that the ‘fast start’ climate finance package must be additional and not come at the expense of existing development cooperation programmes; expresses concern regarding the coherence and visibility of the EU ‘fast start’ finance contribution, and calls on the Member States to make information available to the Commission promptly so as to ensure the full transparency and additionality of the EU contribution;

67.

Stresses the need to increase the Community budget covering measures designed to address migration phenomena, with a view to improving the management of legal migration, slowing down illegal migration and optimising the impact of migration on development;

68.

Recalls its support for the principle of financial assistance for the main ACP banana supplying countries, but reiterates its firm opposition to the financing of Banana Accompanying Measures via the use of the margin; recalls that the limited margin under the heading does not allow the financing of such measures, which were not provided for when the MFF was adopted in 2006; is also firmly opposed to any redeployment from existing instruments within heading 4 that would jeopardise existing priorities; is therefore opposed to the proposal in the draft budget to redeploy for this purpose EUR 13 million from the Development Cooperation Instrument and EUR 5 million from the Civil Protection Financial Instrument;

69.

Welcomes the proposal to amend the regulation creating an instrument for industrialised countries (ICI+), but is firmly opposed to its being financed from appropriations programmed for use under the Development Cooperation Instrument; stresses that funds earmarked for development cooperation must target poverty alleviation; is extremely dissatisfied that of the total of EUR 70,6 million in appropriations earmarked for this new instrument in the draft budget, EUR 45 million have been taken from the Development Cooperation Instrument;

70.

Reiterates its intention to provide the European External Action Service with the necessary administrative means to fulfil its mission; stresses, however, that the allocation of new resources for the inclusion of personnel originating in the diplomatic services of the Member States and the cost of the necessary infrastructure should be linked to an appropriate increase in the EU budget for external action;

71.

Welcomes the increase in appropriations for the CFSP to EUR 327,4 million (CA), as provided for in the financial programming and in line with the ever more ambitious role the EU wishes to play in zones undergoing a stabilisation process or affected by conflicts and crises; takes note of the emptying of the budget line for EU Special Representatives, as provided for in connection with the setting up of the EEAS, and recalls that the specific provisions regarding the CFSP in the IIA will have to be substantially rethought in the framework of the negotiations on a revised IIA and of the adoption of a proposal on the EEAS;

72.

Takes note of the proposed increase in the draft budget for 2011, as compared to the budget for 2010, against the macro-financial assistance budget line (01 03 02); recalls that the mobilisation of this instrument for each third country falls under the ordinary legislative procedure and requests the Commission to provide further explanations on its proposed increase;

73.

Welcomes the setting up of a preparatory action on a European Voluntary Humanitarian Aid Corps, stemming from the entry into force of the TFEU (Article 214), and in line with the European year for Volunteering in 2011;

74.

Notes that total administrative expenditure for all institutions is estimated at EUR 8 266,6 million, i.e. an increase of 4,5 %, leaving a margin of EUR 149 million;

75.

Stresses that the draft estimates of each institution, together with the amending budgets presented in 2010, should take into account all the additional needs relating to the entry into force of the Lisbon Treaty, notably as regards Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions; recalls in this context the Joint Declaration of November 2009 on heading 5, which called on the institutions to make all possible efforts to finance the administrative needs related to their staff’s remuneration within the appropriations entered in their respective sections of the 2010 budget;

76.

Takes note of the 2,9 % increase in the Commission’s share of the administrative budget; notes, however, that not all costs associated with the functioning and the setting up of the EEAS are included at this stage; takes the view that any additional requests in this regard should not impact negatively on the institutions’ current activities; strongly emphasises, therefore, the need to arrive at an effective structure, with a clear definition of responsibilities, in order to avoid any overlapping of tasks and unnecessary (administrative) costs to be borne by the budget that could otherwise further worsen the financial situation under this heading;

77.

Agrees with the Commission’s approach that the 3,7 % salary adjustment proposed in 2009, which could become fully payable should the Court of Justice rule in the Commission’s favour, should be budgeted for as a matter of precaution; notes that, even when taking this high level as the basis for the future, the projected salary adjustment for the end of 2010 is still estimated at 2,2 %, in a context of economic and social crisis, and then comes down to 1,3 % for the end of 2011; asks the Commission to justify its calculations;

78.

Acknowledges the Commission’s efforts not to request any additional posts, but views with scepticism its commitment to meet all its needs, including those relating to new priorities and to the entry into force of the TFEU, merely by means of internal redeployment of existing human resources;

79.

Is deeply concerned about the fact that, in general, the Commission’s outsourcing tendencies, together with the conversion of posts into appropriations for contract agents, have led to a situation where an increasing number of staff employed by the EU are neither visible in the institutions’ establishment plans as adopted by the budgetary authority nor paid under heading 5; is therefore of the opinion that changes in Commission staff numbers should be considered on the basis of not only establishment plan posts but also other staff, including executive and decentralised agency staff where the tasks of those staff have been transferred from the Commission; considers that, although it generates savings on pay, the conversion of establishment plan posts into external staff is likely to have an impact on the quality and independence of the European civil service;

80.

Notes the 13 % decrease in the EPSO budget, which is linked to the lower level of expenditure on competitions resulting from the new system proposed in the EPSO Development Programme, but maintains that this decrease should not come at the expense of the quality, transparency, fairness, impartiality and multilingual character of all EU selection procedures; reminds EPSO that under Regulation (EC) No 45/2001 candidates have an inalienable right to access their personal data, including questions and answers, and calls on EPSO to guarantee that right; expects solid guarantees from the Commission in this respect;

81.

Welcomes the Commission’s achievement of its overall objectives in terms of recruitment of new-Member-State nationals as well as its commitment to close and regular monitoring of EU-12 recruitment in order to ensure compliance with recruitment targets as well as a balanced representation of EU-2 and EU-10 nationals in each function group;

82.

Takes note of the increased expenditure on pensions and the European Schools, in view of the generational change in the EU institutions resulting from the wave of retirements of officials born in the 1950s and the recruitment of new staff; expects the Commission to supply a more in-depth analysis of the long-term budgetary consequences of this process;

83.

Requests the Commission to specify in the remarks under the relevant budget lines the amounts budgeted for all building projects that have significant financial implications for the budget and are subject to consultation of the budgetary authority under Article 179(3) of the Financial Regulation;

84.

Recalls that, in accordance with point 46(a) of the IIA, the Commission should provide for multiannual estimates and for margins being left under the authorised ceilings;

85.

Stresses the importance of pilot projects and preparatory actions as key tools for the formulation of political priorities and for paving the way for new initiatives that might turn into EU activities and programmes improving the lives of EU citizens; confirms, therefore, already at this stage in the procedure, that it is determined to use all the means at its disposal to ensure the adoption of its proposals regarding pilot projects and preparatory actions for the 2011 budget;

86.

Recalls that the pilot projects and preparatory actions were adopted under the 2010 budget accounted for a total of EUR 103,25 million in CA across all headings; stresses that, should the budgetary authority adopt, for 2011, pilot projects and preparatory actions at a similar level and with a similar breakdown among headings, 56 % of the margin under heading 1a (and 33 % of the margin under heading 1b, 59 % under heading 3b, and 37 % under heading 4) would already be used up, even though the total amount earmarked for this purpose in the 2010 budget did not even reach the maximum amount permitted under the IIA (EUR 103,25 million as against EUR 140 million);

87.

Intends to forward to the Commission, as provided for in Annex II, part D of the IIA, a first provisional list of potential pilot projects and preparatory actions for the 2011 budget 2011, in order for the Commission to contribute to Parliament’s definition of a global and balanced final package on this issue; expects the Commission to provide a well-reasoned analysis of Parliament’s indicative proposals; stresses that this first provisional list does not preclude the formal tabling and adoption of amendments concerning pilot projects and preparatory actions during Parliament’s reading of the budget;

88.

Welcomes the overall stabilisation of EU budget expenditure on decentralised agencies at EUR 679,2 million; is aware of the fact that the establishment of new agencies requires adequate funding, as proposed for the five new (8) and three phasing-in (9) agencies; stresses that, should the tasks for any decentralised agencies (including the financial supervision authorities) be increased compared to what was originally proposed, the corresponding allocation of appropriations should be modified accordingly; disapproves, as regards the assigned revenue of fee-dependent agencies, of the Commission’s approach in increasing margins artificially;

89.

Takes note of the fact that, among the 258 new establishment plan posts for agencies, 231 will be allocated to new or starting-up agencies;

90.

Wonders why no assigned revenue at all is expected to stem from some agencies’ surpluses, and invites the Commission to update the proposed contribution from the EU budget in light of further information received, notably when agencies’ final accounts are adopted; is at the same time concerned about the persistent surpluses of some agencies at year-end, which shows poor budgetary and cash management and infringes the provisions of the framework Financial Regulation;

91.

Is convinced that the 2011-2013 financial programming for the Chemicals Agency is too optimistic and considers the it extremely unrealistic to expect the agency to be self-financing in 2011; points out that the anticipated fee income in 2011 is based on assessments carried out in 2006; asks for provision to be made for precautionary measures which would be applied if necessary;

92.

Recalls, as far as procedural aspects of the conciliation committee are concerned, that the institutions involved are supposed to reach agreement at the trilogue scheduled for July; insists that the upcoming Presidency of the Ecofin Council, which will adopt the budget, take part in this trilogue; considers the following points to be of specific interest for the trilogue due to take place on 30 June 2010:

93.

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

12.8.2011   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 236/17

A.

whereas, although derivative instruments can play a useful role in allowing the transfer of financial risks within an economy, they differ considerably depending on product type and underlying asset class with regard to risk, operational arrangements and market participants; and whereas the lack of transparency and regulation in the derivatives market played an exacerbating role in the financial crises,

B.

whereas in the future, too, firms need to be able to manage the risks inherent to their business in a targeted fashion, under their own responsibility and at comprehensible prices, and whereas, taking into account the specificities of small and medium enterprises with regard to bilateral derivatives, firms should be responsible for risk,

C.

whereas the worldwide derivative trading volume has multiplied in the last decade and, as a result, the uncoupling of economic activities and financial market products has advanced considerably,

D.

whereas the basis for international cooperation should be established in order to handle internationally traded derivatives so as to achieve international standards and information-sharing arrangements between CCPs as a minimum,

E.

whereas, at the end of June 2009, notional amounts of all types of OTC contracts stood at US$605tn, gross market values, which provide a measure of market risk, at US$25trn and gross credit exposures, which take into account bilateral netting agreement, at US$3.7trn, and whereas, in a context of excessive leverage, an undercapitalised banking system and the losses resulting from structured finance assets, OTC derivatives have helped to make large market participants mutually dependent even when they are regulated entities,

F.

whereas the huge growth in the trading volume over the past few years has led to an increased assumption of risk without actual investment in the underlying instrument and, consequently, to substantial leverage,

G.

whereas some OTC derivatives have become increasingly complex and counterparty credit risk has not always been correctly assessed and priced, and whereas there are considerable weaknesses in how derivative markets are organised and a lack of transparency, which calls for further standardisation in the legal conditions and economic purpose of instruments,

H.

whereas regulation of central counterparty clearing facilities (CCPs) must ensure non-discriminatory access by trading venues in order to ensure the fair and efficient functioning of markets,

I.

whereas in OTC transactions the identity of the involved actors/parties and the size of their exposure are not clarified,

J.

whereas many OTC derivatives markets, notably the credit default swap market, are subject to very high levels of concentration with a few major firms dominating the market,

K.

whereas the recent events involving sovereign credit default swaps used by financial speculators led to unjustified high levels of several national spreads; whereas those events and practices highlighted the need for further market transparency and for enhanced European regulation vis-à-vis trading of credit default swaps, in particular those connected to sovereign debts,

L.

whereas in order for trade repositories to play a central role in ensuring transparency for supervisors in derivatives markets, supervisors must have unfettered access to relevant repository data, and repositories must consolidate position and trade data on a global basis by asset class,

M.

whereas Parliament welcomes the Commission’s paradigm shift towards greater regulation of OTC derivatives markets, abandoning the prevailing view that derivatives need no further regulation, chiefly because they are used by experts and specialists; calls, therefore, for future legislation to secure not only transparency in the derivatives markets but also sound regulation,

N.

whereas Europe must establish a comprehensive collateralisation strategy for derivatives markets which must take into account the unique situation of business end-users in contrast to major market participants and financial institutions,

O.

whereas most derivatives used by non-financial end-users involve limited systemic risk taken individually, and for the most part serve merely to hedge real transactions, and whereas non-financial institutions are firms that do not come within the scope of the MiFID (non-MiFID firms), such as airlines, car manufacturers and commodity dealers, which have neither created a systemic risk for the financial markets nor been directly harmed by the financial crisis,

P.

whereas resilient derivative markets require a comprehensive collateralisation policy encompassing both central and bilateral clearing arrangements,

Q.

whereas non-financial small and medium-sized enterprises that use derivative instruments solely in the course of hedging their risk when conducting their principal business, should benefit from exemptions from clearing and collateralization concerning capital requirements, provided that the extent to which certain derivatives are used does not create systemic risk (subject to a requirement that the Commission should check this exemption regularly) and that the volume and nature of transactions are proportionate to, and appropriate for, the real risks faced by end users; whereas minimum standards must also be guaranteed as regards tailor-made contracts, in particular where the collateralisation of derivatives and capital requirements are concerned,

R.

whereas OTC derivatives products need proportionate regulation when used by non-financial end-users, but whereas, as a minimum, the necessary detailed transaction data must be given to the trade repositories,

S.

whereas credit default swaps (CDSs), which are financial insurance products, are currently traded without any proper regulation,

T.

whereas the CESR and ERGEG advice to the European Commission in the context of the Third Energy Package (Ref.: CESR/08-739, E08-FIS-07-04) recommends the creation of a tailor-made market integrity and transparency framework for the electricity and gas markets,

U.

whereas all the measures announced will involve close and comprehensive cooperation with the G20 countries and the US authorities in order to prevent regulatory arbitrage opportunities between countries wherever possible and to foster the exchange of information,

V.

whereas systemic risk associated with clearing houses requires robust regulatory and supervisory standards and unfettered real-time access to information on transactions for regulators,

W.

whereas derivatives prices should correspond appropriately to risk and whereas the cost of the future market infrastructure should be borne by market participants,

X.

whereas the latest dramatic rises in the sovereign bond yields of some Eurozone countries to unsustainable levels has exposed the problematic economic incentives involved in CDS contracts based on sovereign debt, and clearly shown the need to reinforce financial stability and market transparency by demanding full disclosure to regulators and supervisors and banning speculative CDS trades on sovereign debt,

Y.

notes that all transactions in derivative products denominated in an EU currency, relating to an underlying EU entity and to which an EU financial institution is party should be cleared, when eligible, and reported in clearing houses and repositories located, authorized and supervised in the EU which are covered by European laws and data protection; notes that the upcoming new regulation should set clear criteria for assessing the equivalence of CCPs and repositories located in third countries for those trades not cleared or not reported in the EU,

1.

Welcomes the Commission’s initiative for better regulation of derivatives, and in particular OTC derivatives with a view to reducing the impact of the risks in the OTC derivatives markets for the stability of financial markets as a whole, and backs the calls for legal standardisation of derivatives contracts (inter alia through regulatory incentives in the Capital Requirements Directive (CRD) regarding operational risk), the use of trade repositories and centralised data storage, the use and strengthening of central clearing houses and the use of organised trading venues;

2.

Welcomes the recent work of the OTC Regulators Forum (ORF) in response to the call from the G20 for further action to increase the transparency and robustness of the OTC derivatives markets;

3.

Calls for more transparency on pre-trade transactions for all instruments that qualify for the extensive use of organised trading venues as well as for increased post-trade trade transparency through reporting of all transactions to repositories, to the benefit of both regulators and investors;

4.

Backs the call for the compulsory introduction of CCP clearing between financial institutions for all eligible derivative products with a view to ensuring better assessment of counterparty credit risk, and supports the objective that as many eligible derivative products as possible should be traded on organised markets; calls for provision of incentives that encourage the trading of eligible derivative products on trading venues regulated by MiFID, i.e. on regulated markets and multilateral trading facilities (MTFs); notes that one criterion for clearing eligibility must be liquidity;

5.

Insists that, in future, derivative prices must better reflect risk and that the costs of the future market infrastructure must be borne by market participants and not by taxpayers;

6.

Considers that individually negotiated derivatives are required to hedge special risks and therefore opposes the compulsory standardisation of all derivatives;

7.

Calls on the Commission to use a differentiated approach to the many types of derivative products available, taking account of differing risk profiles, the extent of usage for legitimate hedging purposes, and their role in the financial crisis;

8.

Notes that, as regards regulation, a distinction must be made between derivatives used as a risk management tool for hedging a real underlying risk to which the user is exposed and derivatives used solely for speculation and believes that the making of this distinction is hampered by a shortage of information and specific figures regarding OTC transactions;

9.

Calls on the Commission to look into ways of significantly reducing the overall volume of derivatives so that the volume is proportionate to the underlying securities in order to avoid a distortion of price signals, to reduce the risk to market integrity and to cut down systemic risk;

10.

Considers it important to pay particular attention to corporate derivatives to which a financial institution is a counterparty in order to avoid abusing such contracts not as corporate risk but as financial market instruments;

11.

Calls for risk management and transparency to be strengthened, as the key instruments for greater financial market certainty, without neglecting individual responsibility for taking on risk;

12.

Notes that company-specific risks require tailor-made derivatives that can act as efficient risk management instruments adapted to individual needs;

13.

Calls on the Commission to enhance bilateral risk management standards as part of the forthcoming legislation on central clearing;

14.

Is of the opinion that, through clearing, collateral by adjusting capital requirements and through other regulatory tools counterparty credit risk can be reduced; supports the Commission in proposing higher capital requirements for financial institutions in the case of bilateral derivative contracts that are ineligible for central clearing, based on a risk-proportionate approach and taking into account the effects of netting, collateral, initial margin, daily portfolio reconciliations, daily margining, automated collateral movements and other bilateral counterparty risk management techniques in counterparty risk reduction;

15.

Calls for derivatives that do not meet the requirements of IFRS 39 and were therefore not assessed by an auditor to be subject to central clearing by a CCP once they exceed a threshold to be determined by the Commission; calls, furthermore, for the purposes of ensuring a clearer distinction, for checks to be carried out involving the submission of an independent assessment of OTC derivative contracts by an auditor in order to ascertain whether a non-financial institution can continue to conclude bilateral contracts;

16.

Calls on the Commission to give a strong role in the authorisation of European clearing houses to the European Securities and Markets Authority (ESMA) and considers it useful that they are supervised by this same Authority because, inter alia, there would be pooling of supervisory expertise in one body and because risk associated with a CCP will be cross-border;

17.

Believes that the access of CCPs to central bank money effectively contributes to safety and integrity of clearing;

18.

Insists that CCPs must not be organised wholly by users, that their risk management systems must not be in competition with each other, and that regulatory arrangements for clearing costs must be envisaged; calls on the Commission to address these concerns in its legislative proposal and to set governance and ownership rules for clearing houses, with regard inter alia to the independence of directors, membership and close supervision by regulators;

19.

Notes that common technical standards relating to issues such as margin calculation and information exchange protocols will form an important part of ensuring fair and non-discriminatory access by authorised trading venues to CCPs; further notes that the Commission must pay close attention to the possible development of technological differences, discriminatory practices and work-flow barriers which are harmful to competition;

20.

Calls for conduct-of-business and access rules governing CCPs to ensure non-discriminatory access by trading venues, with the issues to be addressed including discriminatory pricing practices;

21.

Backs the introduction of repositories for all derivatives positions, ideally distinguished by asset class and regulated and supervised under ESMA direction; calls for binding procedural rules to be established to prevent distortions of competition and to ensure equal interpretation in the Member States and, furthermore, for ESMA to have supreme decision-making authority in disputes; calls for the Commission to ensure that national supervisory authorities have real-time access to granular data in repositories that relate to market participants based within their jurisdiction and to data that relate to potential systemic risk that might be built up in their jurisdiction, as well as access to aggregate data from all repositories including those held in repositories based in third countries; notes that the service provided by repositories should be priced transparently in light of their utility-like function;

22.

Calls on the Commission to draw up reporting standards for all derivative products consistent with standards being elaborated at an international level, to ensure that they are communicated to central trade repositories, CCPs, exchanges and financial institutions, and to make the data accessible to the ESMA and national regulatory authorities and the ESRB when required;

23.

Calls on the Commission to develop measures to ensure that regulators are able to set position limits to counter disproportionate price movements and speculative bubbles;

24.

Asks the Commission to ensure in particular that the valuation of all derivatives that are not traded on exchange is conducted in an independent and transparent way, avoiding conflicts of interest;

25.

Considers careful clarification of all technical details to be necessary, in close cooperation with national regulators, in particular as regards standards and the distinction between financial-market products and non-financial-market products, and welcomes the fact that the Commission has already addressed this issue; calls on the Commission to involve the Council and Parliament at an early stage;

26.

Backs the Commission in its plan to establish CCPs under agreed European standards, overseen by ESMA; and demands that key market participants should not have a controlling influence on the governance and risk management of the CCPs but should be included in the risk management board; takes the view that, additionally, mechanisms to make useful contributions to the risk management process should be proposed;

27.

Insists on the need to have regulatory standards to ensure that CCPs remain resilient to a broader set of risks, including multiple participant failures, sudden sales of financial resources and rapid reduction in market liquidity;

28.

Believes that the definition of derivative categories, the creation of CCPs, the transparency register, capital charges, the setting up of independent trading venues or use of existing exchanges, exemptions for SMEs and all technical details should be decided in close cooperation with national regulators, international institutions and the future European supervisory authority, the ESMA;

29.

Calls, therefore, for clear rules of conduct and the necessary compulsory standards as regards the setting-up of CCPs (involvement of users) and the decision-making procedures and risk management systems used by them; supports the Commission in its intention to propose a regulation governing clearing houses;

30.

Backs the Commission in its intention to provide exemptions and lower capital requirements for SMEs’ bilateral derivatives if an underlying risk is being hedged, derivatives are non-significant in the balance sheet of the SME and the derived position does not create systemic risks.;

31.

Calls, as a matter of priority, for credit default swaps to be made subject to independent central clearing and for as many derivatives as possible to be settled centrally by CCPs; believes that individual types of derivative with cumulative risks should, if necessary, be authorised only conditionally or even, on a case-by-case basis, prohibited; takes the view that, in particular, sufficient capital and reserves should be required to cover CDS in the case of a credit event;

32.

Calls on the Commission to urgently and thoroughly investigate levels of concentration in OTC derivatives markets, and in particular in the credit default swap, in order to ensure that there is no risk of market manipulation or conflict of interest;

33.

Calls for the European Commission to come forward with appropriate legislative proposals to regulate financial transactions involving naked selling of derivatives in order to ensure financial stability and transparency of prices; takes the view that, pending that, credit-default swaps (CDSs) should be processed through a European CCP in order to mitigate counterparty risks, increase transparency and reduce the overall risks;

34.

Demands that CDS protection should be payable only upon production and proof of an underlying bond exposure and be limited to the amount of this exposure;

35.

Is of the opinion that all financial derivatives that concern public finances in the EU (including sovereign debt of Members States and local administration balance sheets) must be standardised and traded on exchange or other regulated trading platforms in order to promote transparency of derivatives markets for the public;

36.

Calls for a ban on CDS transactions with no underlying credit which are purely speculative transactions involving bets on credit defaults, thereby leading to an artificial rise in the cost of credit default insurance and, consequently, to increased systemic risks through actual credit defaults; calls, as a minimum, for longer holding periods in the case of short sales of securities and derivatives; calls on the Commission to consider upper risk limits for derivatives, particularly CDSs, and to agree on them with international partners;

37.

Considers that the Commission should investigate the use of position limits to combat market manipulation, most particularly at the point when a contract is approaching expiry (‘squeezes’ and ‘corners’); notes that position limits should be viewed as dynamic regulatory tools rather than absolutes, and that they should be applied when necessary by national supervisors following guidelines set by ESMA;

38.

Calls for any derivative position, whether taken by financial or non-financial institutions, above a certain threshold, to be specified by ESMA, to be centrally cleared by a CCP;

39.

Calls for the planned regulation of derivatives to include rules relating to the banning of purely speculative trading in commodities and agricultural products, and the imposition of strict position limits especially with regard to their possible impact on the price of essential food commodities in developing countries and greenhouse gas emission allowances; calls for the ESMA and the competent authorities to be given the competence effectively to tackle dysfunctions in derivatives markets, e.g. by temporarily banning naked short selling of CDS or by requiring physical settlement of derivatives and by setting position limits in order to avoid undue concentration of dealers on some market segments;

40.

Calls for any future legislative proposal on derivatives markets to follow a functional approach whereby similar activities are subject to the same or similar rules;

41.

Underlines the need for European regulation of derivatives, and calls on the Commission to coordinate its actions with Europe’s partners as far as possible, in order to secure regulation which is as internationally consistent as possible and internationally coordinated; underlines the importance of avoiding regulatory arbitrage through inadequate coordination;

42.

Calls for industry initiatives to be supported and their value acknowledged since they can, in some instances, be as appropriate as, and complementary to, legislative action;

43.

Calls for a cohesive approach within Europe in order to leverage on each financial centre’s strengths and to take the opportunity offered by this crisis to move a step further in the integration and development of an efficient European financial market;

44.

Welcomes the Commission’s intention to submit legislative proposals on clearing houses and trade repositories as early as mid-2010 and to discuss the technical details with all institutions at national and EU level, in particular the Council-Parliament legislative authority, at an early stage;

45.

Welcomes the Commission’s intention to submit legislative proposals on CDSs;

46.

Underlines the importance of reviewing regularly the effectiveness of the future legislation, in cooperation with all market participants, and of adapting these regulatory provisions where necessary;

47.

Calls for implementation of this resolution as soon as possible;

48.

Notes that not only in the case of trading commodities and agricultural products, but also in that of greenhouse gas emission allowances, it must be ensured that the market operates transparently and that speculation is curbed; calls in this regard for upper risk limits to be considered for individual products;

49.

Instructs its President to forward this resolution to the Commission, the Council, the national regulatory authorities and the European Central Bank.

12.8.2011   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 236/24

A.

whereas the internet has developed rapidly in the last 25 years and this development is forecast to continue in terms of both distribution – with the expansion of broadband – and new applications,

B.

whereas the Internet of Things (IoT) is able to meet the expectations of society and of citizens, and whereas research is needed in order to understand what those expectations are and the areas in which sensitivities about, and concern for, personal privacy and information may block applications,

C.

whereas information and communication technologies (ICT) are important in that they promote social development and economic growth and encourage research, innovation and creativity among European public and private bodies,

D.

whereas the EU should devise a common framework of reference in order to frame and strengthen rules on system governance, confidentiality, information security, ethical management, privacy, the collection and storage of personal data and consumer information,

E.

whereas the term ‘Internet of Things’ refers to the general concept of objects (both electronic artefacts and objects in everyday use) that can be read, recognised, addressed, located and/or controlled remotely through the internet,

F.

whereas the Internet of Things is expected to develop rapidly in the years ahead and thus requires safe, transparent and multilateral governance,

G.

whereas the internet of the future will go beyond the present traditional boundaries of the virtual world by being linked to the world of physical objects,

H.

whereas radio frequency identification (RFID) and other IoT-related technologies have advantages over bar codes and magnetic strips, and have many more applications, which can be interfaced with other networks – such as mobile phone networks – and could be developed still further once interfaced with sensors measuring aspects such as geolocation (e.g. the Galileo satellite system), temperature, light, pressure and g-forces; whereas the widespread introduction of RFID chips should significantly reduce their unit price as well as the cost of the respective readers,

I.

whereas RFID technology may be regarded as a catalyst and accelerator for the economic development of the information and communication industry,

J.

whereas RFID technology and other IoT-related technologies are already being applied in the manufacturing, logistics and supply-chain sectors, offer benefits in terms of product identification and traceability and have promising potential for developments in many other areas, such as health care, transport and energy efficiency, environment, retail and the fight against counterfeiting,

K.

whereas, as with all e-Health systems, the design, development and implementation of RFID-enabled systems require the direct involvement of healthcare professionals, patients and relevant committees (on data protection and ethics, for example),

L.

whereas RFID can help to increase energy efficiency and reduce greenhouse gas emissions, and offer product-level carbon accounting,

M.

whereas RFID technology and other IoT-related technologies can benefit the public in terms of quality of life, safety,security and well-being, provided that facets relating to the protection of privacy and of personal data are properly managed,

N.

whereas there is a need for sustainable, energy-efficient communication standards that focus on security and privacy and use compatible or identical protocols at different frequencies,

O.

whereas all everyday objects (such as transport cards, clothes, mobile telephones and cars) could ultimately be fitted with RFID chips, which will quickly take on major economic importance owing to the wide range of applications for which they may be used,

P.

whereas the Internet of Things will permit the networking of billions of machines, which will be able to communicate and interact with one another via wireless technologies combined with logical and physical addressing protocols; whereas the Internet of Things should, through the use of electronic identification systems and wireless mobile devices, enable digital entities and physical objects to be identified directly and conclusively so as to allow the data they contain to be retrieved, stored, transferred and continuously processed,

Q.

whereas the miniaturisation of products used in the Internet of Things involves technological challenges, such as in incorporating electronics, sensors and the power supply and RFID transmission system into a chip measuring only a few millimetres,

R.

whereas, although RFID chips will be used in a still-wider range of applications in the future, this technology raises new data-protection issues, the most significant of which is the fact that the chips are totally or well-nigh invisible,

S.

whereas industry standards are very important, whereas RFID standardisation needs to mature and whereas the RFID standard mandate assigned jointly to the CEN and the ETSI (European Standard Organisations) in 2009 will therefore contribute to more innovative products and services using RFID,

T.

whereas it is important to raise European citizens’ awareness of new technologies and their applications, including their social and environmental impact, and to promote digital literacy and e-skills among consumers,

U.

whereas the development of the Internet of Things should be inclusive and accessible to all EU citizens, and be supported by effective policies aimed at closing the digital gap within the EU and empowering more citizens with e-skills and a knowledge of their digital surroundings,

V.

whereas the benefits of IoT-related technologies must be strengthened through effective security, which is an essential feature of any development at risk of jeopardising the security of personal data and the public’s trust in those who hold information about them,

W.

whereas that the social impact of the development of the Internet of Things is unknown, and may widen the current digital divide or create a new one,

1.

Welcomes the communication from the Commission and endorses in principle the broad outlines of the action plan to promote the Internet of Things;

2.

Takes the view that the expansion of the Internet of Things will enhance person-to-thing and thing-to-thing interaction, which can bring tremendous benefits for EU citizens if it respects security, data protection and privacy;

3.

Endorses the Commission’s focus on safety, security, the protection of personal data and privacy and governance of the Internet of Things, because respect for privacy and the protection of personal data, together with openness and interoperability, is the only way IoT will gain wider social acceptance; calls on the Commission to encourage all European and international stakeholders to tackle cyber security-related threats; calls on the Commission, in this connection, to encourage the Member States to implement all existing international cyber security provisions, including the Council of Europe Convention on Cybercrime;

4.

Firmly believes that protection of privacy constitutes a core value and that all users should have control over their personal data; calls therefore for the adaptation of the Data Protection Directive to the current digital environment;

5.

Appreciates the fact that the Commission is reacting in a timely way to the new developments in this sector, thereby enabling the political system to set rules at an early enough stage;

6.

Stresses that a precondition for promoting technology is the introduction of legal provisions to reinforce respect for fundamental values and for the protection of personal data and privacy;

7.

Stresses that security and privacy issues should be addressed in the forthcoming standards, which must define different security features ensuring confidentiality, integrity or the availability of services;

8.

Calls on the Commission to coordinate its work on the Internet of Things with its overall work on the digital agenda;

9.

Calls on the Commission to conduct an assessment of the impact of using the current ‘internet’ network infrastructure for IoT applications and hardware, in terms of network congestion and data security, in order to determine whether IoT applications and hardware are compatible and appropriate;

10.

Takes the view that the development of the Internet of Things and related applications will have a major impact on the daily lives of Europeans and their habits in the years ahead, leading to a broad range of economic and social changes;

11.

Believes that it is necessary to build an inclusive Internet of Things, avoiding from the outset the risk – at both Member State and regional level – of unequal development, spread and use of IoT technologies; notes that the Commission’s communication does not give enough consideration to these issues, which should ideally be dealt with before the Internet of Things is further developed;

12.

Calls on the Commission to take account of less developed regions of the Union in the context of ICT and Internet of Things planning; calls on the Member States to secure co-financing for the implementation of these technologies and other ICT projects in such regions, so as to ensure their participation and prevent them being excluded from common European ventures;

13.

Stresses that, while the use of RFID chips can be effective in combating counterfeiting, preventing the abduction of babies from maternity wards and identifying animals, as well as in a range of other areas, it can also be dangerous and create ethical problems for individuals and for society, against which appropriate safeguards will need to be found;

14.

Stresses the importance of studying the social, ethical and cultural implications of the Internet of Things, in the light of the potentially far-reaching transformation of civilisation that will be brought about by these technologies; takes the view, therefore, that it is important for socio-economic research and political debate on the Internet of Things to go hand in hand with technological research and its advancement, and calls on the Commission to set up a panel of experts to carry out an in-depth assessment of these aspects and propose an ethical framework for the development of related technologies and applications;

15.

Points out that RFID technology and other IoT-related technologies for the intelligent labelling of products and consumer goods, and for things-to-person communication systems, can be used anywhere and in practice are quiet and unobtrusive; calls, therefore, for such technology to be the subject of further, more detailed, assessments by the Commission, covering, in particular:

and for it to be the subject of a specific European regulation, if appropriate;

16.

Stresses that the consumer has the right to privacy by opt-in and/or privacy by design, notably through the use of automatic tag disablement at the point of sale, unless the consumer expressly agrees otherwise; notes in this regard the opinion issued by the European Data Protection Supervisor; points out that consideration must be given to privacy and security at the earliest possible stage in the development and deployment of any IOT technologies; underlines that RFID applications must be operated in accordance with the rules on privacy and data protection enshrined in Articles 7 and 8 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union; calls on the Commission to reflect on citizens’ right to choose non IoT-equipped products or to disconnect from their networked environment at any time;

17.

Notes that, while passive RFID tags are limited in range, active RFID tags can transmit data at much greater distances; stresses, in this connection, that clear guidelines must be laid down for each individual type of RFID;

18.

Calls on the Commission to clarify the issue of who owns and controls data that is automatically collected and interpreted;

19.

Calls on manufacturers to secure the right to ‘chip silence’ by making RFID tags removable or otherwise easily disabled by the consumer after purchase; stresses that consumers must be informed about the presence of either passive or active RFID tags, the reading range, the kind of data shared – either received or transmitted – by the devices and the use of those data, and that this information must be clearly marked on any packaging and set out in more detail in any documentation;

20.

Calls for RFID application operators to take all reasonable steps to ensure that data does not relate to an identified or identifiable natural person through any means likely to be used by either the RFID application operator or any other person, unless such data is processed in compliance with the applicable principles and legal rules on data protection;

21.

Stresses that, given that the chips attached to retail products are not intended for use outside retail outlets, it should be possible for them to be factory-fitted with devices that will deactivate them and thus limit data retention;

22.

Believes that consumers should be given the opportunity to opt-in or opt-out of the Internet of Things, including the ability to opt-out of individual IoT technologies without disabling other applications or a device as a whole;

23.

Stresses the need for the highest possible level of device security and secure transmission systems to be included in all IoT technologies in order to prevent fraud and allow proper device identity authentication and authorisation; notes the potential for identification and product fraud through the cloning of IoT tags or the interception of shared data; calls on the Commission, therefore, to ensure the development of a transparent IoT system that takes into consideration the following aspects in particular:

24.

Considers it a priority to ensure a global regulatory framework and specific timescales at European level in order to encourage and facilitate public and private investment in the field of the Internet of Things and in smart networks needed to support the development of new technologies;

25.

Notes that, while RFIDs are important, other technologies also form part of the Internet of Things; stresses that research on funding and governance issues should also be directed to these technologies;

26.

Calls on the Commission to consider using IoT applications to advance several ongoing EU initiatives such as ‘ICT for energy efficiency’, ‘smart metering’, ‘energy labelling’, ‘energy performance of buildings’ and ‘protection form counterfeit medicinal and other products’;

27.

Calls on the Commission to monitor possible new threats presented by the vulnerability of highly interlinked systems;

28.

Calls on the Commission to make further efforts to ensure that IoT-related technologies include user requirements (e.g. a traceability de-activation option) and respect individual rights and freedoms; recalls in this context the key role played by the European Network and Information Security Agency (ENISA) in ensuring the security of networks and information and, consequently, of the Internet of Things, which will help to build acceptance and trust among consumers;

29.

Takes the view that the development of new applications and the actual functioning and business potential of the Internet of Things will be intrinsically linked to the trust European consumers have in the system, and points out that trust exists when doubts about potential threats to privacy and health are clarified;

30.

Stresses that this trust must be based on a clear legal framework, including rules governing the control, collection, processing and use of the data collected and transmitted by the Internet of Things and the types of consent needed from consumers;

31.

Believes that the IoT encompasses many benefits for people with disabilities and may be a way to meet the needs of an ageing population and provide assertive care services; emphasises in this context that with the assistance of this technology, blind and visually impaired persons can experience their environment more fully through the use of electronic aids; stresses, however, that measures need to be taken to ensure privacy protection, ease of installation and operation and the provision of information to consumers about such services;

32.

Stresses that follow-up costs – such as the electricity consumption of the application and the deployment of things – must be transparent to the consumer;

33.

Believes that the Internet of Things and ICT projects in general require broad information campaigns to explain to citizens the purpose of their implementation; stresses that informing and educating society about the potential uses and clear benefits of items such as RFID is crucial in order to prevent the project being misinterpreted and failing to attract citizens’ support; underlines that, in order to make full use of the Internet of Things, for both individual and common benefit, users need to be provided with the e-skills necessary to understand these new technologies, and must be motivated and able to make proper use of them;

34.

Notes that the Internet of Things will lead to the collection of truly massive amounts of data; calls on the Commission, in this connection, to submit a proposal for the adaptation of the European Data Protection Directive with a view to addressing the data collected and transmitted by the Internet of Things;

35.

Believes that a general principle should be adopted whereby IoT technologies should be designed to collect and use only the absolute minimum amount of data needed to perform their function, and should prevented from collecting any supplementary data;

36.

Calls for a significant amount of the data shared by the Internet of Things to be made anonymous before being transmitted, in order to secure privacy;

37.

Points out to the Commission that other parts of the world, in particular Asia, are developing faster in this sector, and that a proactive approach and close cooperation with the rest of the world will therefore be necessary when drawing up rules applicable to the political system and laying down technical standards for the Internet of Things;

38.

Stresses that, in order to revive the European economy, investment must be made in new information and communication technologies in order to facilitate economic growth by enabling ever-increasing numbers of European citizens and enterprises to gain access to new systems and new applications; emphasises that Europe should be at the cutting edge of the development of internet technologies; proposes that the EU’s ICT research budget be doubled and that the budget for ICT take-up be multiplied by four in the next Financial Perspective;

39.

Underlines that research will play a key role in creating competition between providers of the computing capacity that is required for IoT applications to function in real time;

40.

Calls on the Commission to continue and increase its funding for projects under the Seventh Framework Programme (FP) in the field of the Internet of Things in order to bolster the European ICT sector, and endorses the use of the Competitiveness and Innovation Framework Programme (CIP) to promote its expansion; calls, especially, for the development of pilot projects that may have an immediate positive effect on the everyday lives of European citizens in the areas of e-Health, e-Learning, e-Commerce, e-Accessibility and energy efficiency; is concerned, however, about the red tape associated with the FP and calls on the Commission to eliminate it by re-engineering FP processes and creating a users’ board;

41.

Believes that the Internet of Things has significant potential in terms of economic and productive development, better-quality services, the optimisation of corporate logistics and distribution chains, inventory management and the creation of new employment and business opportunities;

42.

Calls on the Commission to make an assessment of any impact that its proposed strategy might have on the productivity and competitiveness of European enterprises in the international market;

43.

Believes that the Internet of Things can contribute to the facilitation of trade flows between the EU and third countries through the expansion of markets and the securing of quality guarantees for the products traded;

44.

Stresses that RFID technologies will, on the one hand, enable European industries to control the volume of goods in circulation (i.e. by producing only when necessary, thereby protecting the environment) and, on the other hand, offer an effective means of combating piracy and counterfeiting, as it will be possible to trace the goods concerned;

45.

Believes that applying new technologies to production processes will increase the resource efficiency and market competitiveness of consumer goods;

46.

Stresses that intensive international dialogue and joint action plans are needed with respect to the Internet of Things; calls on the Commission to examine the effects of the Internet of Things on international trade;

47.

Endorses the Commission’s intention to continue to monitor and assess the need for additional harmonised spectrums for specific IoT purposes, taking into consideration the different characteristics and capabilities of various electromagnetic frequency bands, and calls therefore on the Commission, when setting the Union’s coordination and harmonisation objectives through the Multiannual Radio Spectrum Policy Programmes, to take into account the needs of the Internet of Things; stresses that such spectrums should remain publicly owned, and that their use should be regulated in such a way as to encourage and help fund more technological research and development in this field; believes that unlicensed spectrum should allow the use of new technologies and services (wireless networking) to emerge so as to foster innovation;

48.

Stresses the danger of legal uncertainty in the case of cloud computing;

49.

Takes the view that the involvement of all political levels (EU, national and regional) is an essential prerequisite for the effective development and take-up of the Internet of Things; emphasises the key role that regional and local authorities and cities will play in the development of the Internet of Things, moving it beyond the purely private sphere; points also to the extensive use that local authorities can make of the Internet of Things, for example in the organisation of public transport, waste collection, the calculation of pollution levels and traffic management; calls on the Commission to consult all political levels in its work on the Internet of Things, in a spirit of multi-level governance;

50.

Notes that the information provided by IoT technologies must be traceable, verifiable, and correctable in the event that a system based on it breaks down; stresses that, as these technologies are incorporated into safety systems, such as traffic control or temperature regulation, misinformation could put lives in danger;

51.

Stresses that new technologies are critical in order to simplify transportation chains, improve the quality and efficiency of transportation, support the development of intelligent transport systems and facilitate green corridors, and that RFID can offer innovative ways of conducting business operations while enhancing customer satisfaction;

52.

Takes the view that using the Internet of Things in connection with nature can help in the development of green technologies by increasing energy efficiency and hence also environmental protection, and enhance the relationship between ICTs and nature;

53.

Calls on the Commission to strive to establish common international norms for the standardisation of RFID and other IoT technologies and their applications, with a view to facilitating interoperability and an open, transparent and technologically neutral infrastructure; emphasises that, without clear and recognised standards such as the TCP5/IP6 in the internet world, the expansion of the Internet of Things beyond RFID solutions cannot reach a global scale;

54.

Supports the proposal to adopt as swiftly as possible the Internet Protocol version 6 (IPv6) as a basis for the future expansion and simplification of the internet;

55.

Welcomes the Commission’s intention to present, in 2010, a communication on security, privacy and trust in the information society; stresses the importance of that communication and of the proposed measures for strengthening the rules on aspects relating to information security, privacy and the protection of personal data; calls on the Commission actively to involve all relevant stakeholders, including the ENISA and the European Data Protection Supervisor;

56.

Believes in the importance of ensuring that all fundamental rights – not only privacy – are protected in the process of developing the Internet of Things;

57.

Believes that the Commission should make recommendations concerning the tasks and responsibilities of public administrative, legislative and law enforcement agencies with respect to the Internet of Things;

58.

Calls on the Commission to monitor closely the implementation of the European regulations already adopted in this area and to present, by the end of the year, a timetable for the guidelines it intends to propose at EU level for improving the safety of the Internet of Things and of RFID applications;

59.

Asks the Commission to initiate a social dialogue regarding the Internet of Things, and to provide information on the positive and negative effects of the new technologies on everyday life; calls on the Commission, therefore, to engage in proactive consultation with the European industry sector, and to encourage it to play a leading role in designing and proposing innovative, standardised and interoperable technologies;

60.

Calls on the Commission to involve small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) to an adequate extent in the Internet of Things action plan;

61.

Also calls on the Commission to keep it regularly updated on developments in the dialogue with operators in this field and with stakeholders, and on the initiatives it intends to take;

62.

Believes that the Commission should explore the possibility of further reducing data roaming costs;

63.

Stresses that the governance of the Internet of Things must keep ‘red tape’ to a minimum and involve all relevant stakeholders in the decision-making process, and calls therefore for proper and adequate regulation at EU level;

64.

Calls on the Commission to contribute actively to the definition and setting of principles and rules for the governance of the Internet of Things together with its trading partners in international forums such as the World Trade Organisation;

65.

Calls on the Commission to clarify which aspects of internet governance it feels need to be regulated at this time in relation to the Internet of Things, and which system will be able to safeguard the general public interest;

66.

Calls on the Commission, therefore, to analyse issues relevant to the governance of the Internet of Things with the help of operators in the sector; also considers it vital to analyse aspects relating to Wi-Fi security systems;

67.

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

12.8.2011   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 236/33

A.

whereas the internet is a critical global means of communication with a tremendous impact on society as whole,

B.

whereas internet governance involves issues relating to protection and guarantee of fundamental rights and freedoms, access to and use of the internet and its vulnerability to cyber attack, etc.,

C.

whereas cybercrime is posing an increasing threat to societies that rely on ICT, and whereas incitement to commit terrorist attacks, hate-based crimes, and child pornography have increased and are endangering individuals including children,

D.

whereas the intersection between cybercrime, internet jurisdiction and cloud computing as an emerging internet governance aspect at the European level is of great importance,

E.

whereas aspects of internet governance concern internet addressing and other predominantly technical issues, in which areas entities such as the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN), the Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA), the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF), the Regional Internet Registries and other entities are active,

F.

whereas, in connection with internet governance, the private sector has so far had a prevailing and positive guiding role; whereas, however, the role of public bodies should be strengthened when defining overall strategy,

G.

whereas governments have an important role regarding broader governance aspects in defence of the public interest, in particular to protect and guarantee fundamental rights and freedoms, as well as regarding the security, integrity and resilience of the internet, while the private sector assumes a crucial role in providing the necessary investment, expertise and entrepreneurial initiative,

H.

whereas the global Internet Governance Forum (IGF) and various national and regional fora are important arenas for multi-stakeholder internet policy dialogue,

I.

whereas the European Parliament and the other European institutions have a long-standing commitment to the internet as an open global public good,

1.

Considers that the internet is a global public good and as such its governance should be exercised in the common interest;

2.

Recognises that the internet is essential for the practical exercise of freedom of expression, cultural diversity, media pluralism and democratic citizenship, as well as for education and access to information, thus constituting one of the principal vectors for the dissemination of democratic values in the world;

3.

Recalls that the internet has become an indispensable tool for promoting democratic initiatives, political debate, digital literacy and the dissemination of knowledge; reiterates that access to the internet both guarantees and depends upon the exercise of a number of key fundamental rights including, but not limited to, respect for private life, data protection, freedom of expression, speech and association, freedom of the press, political expression and participation, non-discrimination, education and cultural and linguistic diversity; underlines that institutions and stakeholders at all levels therefore have a general responsibility to assist in ensuring that everyone can exercise their right to participate in the information society - particularly the elderly, who face more problems in familiarising themselves with the new technologies - while simultaneously attacking the twin challenges of e-illiteracy and democratic exclusion in the electronic age;

4.

Underlines especially the need to enhance the evolution of ‘bottom-up’ approaches and of e-democracy, while simultaneously ensuring that significant safeguards are established against new forms of surveillance, control and censorship by public or private actors, so that the freedom of internet access and the protection of private life are real and not illusory;

5.

Underlines the need to protect and promote the European cultural heritage, including through the internet; takes the view that the internet plays a vital role in stimulating innovation and reducing the digital, social and cultural divide in Europe by comparison with other parts of the world; welcomes the fact that the Commission understands the importance of ‘bridging the digital divide’ and the development issues involved in internet governance; considers, however, that the focus must also be on the many older citizens in both the developed and developing world who often feel left behind in this new online world; notes that the internet can be an effective tool of social inclusion and that our older citizens must be included; urges that action be taken to promote education on the use of the resources offered by the internet and the selection of criteria on how to use those resources;

6.

Recognises that the intensified use of the internet by citizens, consumers, companies and authorities implies that this communication instrument is becoming one of the fundamental elements of the completion of the internal market within the EU; stresses in this context the need for appropriate protection of consumers and intellectual property rights holders on the internet; also stresses that internet users’ civil rights and freedoms must be guaranteed; recognises the importance of the internet as a way of providing information on and promoting consumers’ rights;

7.

Emphasises that internet governance should facilitate e-commerce and cross-border transactions by decentralising the self-regulatory roles, especially in setting entry conditions for new competitors;

8.

Calls for easier access to and development of the internet in newer Member States, particularly in rural areas, and in developing countries, through programmes funded by the European Union; further calls for these countries to be granted greater influence in shaping internet governance policy;

9.

Considers that, to safeguard the EU interest in maintaining the internet as a global public good, internet governance should be based on a broad, balanced public-private sector model, avoiding dominance by any individual entity or group of entities and attempts by state or supra-national authorities to control the flow of information on the internet, while interacting with multi-stakeholder processes on internet governance which continue to provide an effective mechanism for promoting global cooperation;

10.

Underlines that the values on which the Union is founded, as expressed in Article 2 of the Treaty on European Union, are core values and end goals of the European Union; calls on the European Commission and the Member States therefore to ensure that all activities related to internet governance comply with these values and goals, in particular in those global internet governance fora where countries whose values differ greatly from those of Europe take part; considers that, in the interest of avoiding conflict, international dialogue should be stepped up with these countries in the area of internet regulation;

11.

Considers that governments should focus on issues vital to global internet public policy as private sector leadership needs to be based on respect for public policy principles and existing legislation and otherwise adhere to a principle of non-intervention, except as may be necessary in exceptional circumstances, and that even then their action should respect fundamental human rights and the proportionality principle;

12.

Considers that governments should avoid involvement in day-to-day internet management, abstain from harming innovation and competition by unnecessary, burdensome and restrictive regulation and not try to control what is and should remain a global public property;

13.

Calls on governments to desist from imposing restrictions on internet access by way of censorship, blocking, filtering or otherwise, and from requiring private entities to do so; insists on safeguarding an open internet, where users are able to access and distribute information or run applications and services of their choice as provided for by the reformed electronic communications regulatory framework;

14.

Stresses that any restrictions deemed indispensable should be limited to the minimum necessary in a democratic society, should be based on law, and should be effective and proportionate; stresses that protection of minors must be guaranteed, and invites Member States to also take measures, for example using the public interest notice system available under Directive 2009/136/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 November 2009 amending Directive 2002/22/EC, Directive 2002/58/EC and Regulation (EC) No 2006/2004 as regards users’ rights (Citizens’ Rights Directive) (9) to enable minors to make responsible use of internet and on-line information services, and to improve the level of awareness of potential threats posed by new services;

15.

Calls for more initiatives to strengthen the safe exploration of the internet by children, to disseminate best practices worldwide, and to reinforce international cooperation in the fight against harmful and illegal content online, particularly with regard to the sexual abuse of children on the internet;

16.

Takes also into consideration the special need to protect vulnerable persons, particularly minors, through a joint action by public and private stakeholders; reiterates that when combating cybercrime and child pornography, criminal content should be deleted at the source before considering websites being blocked;

17.

Considers that, in addition to the governance principles set out by the Commission, governments should also implement the following principles:

18.

Stresses that the EU should develop a consensus implementation of the fundamental principles of internet governance and defend it firmly in international fora and bilateral relations;

19.

Welcomes the internet governance aspects of the Spanish Presidency’s ‘Granada Strategy’, and the provisions of Parliament’s report on a new Digital Agenda for Europe: 2015.eu (10) on drawing up a European Charter of Citizens’ and consumers’ rights in the digital environment and developing a ‘Fifth Freedom’ that enables the free circulation of content and knowledge;

20.

Notes the US government’s new ‘internet Policy 3.0’ announced on 24 February 2010;

21.

Stresses that the EU should address three critical public policy issues:

22.

Calls on Member States, in coordination with the Commission, to ensure protection of internet infrastructure against threats and incidents through a harmonised EU approach and by completing the establishment of national emergency response teams and cooperation mechanisms between them;

23.

Calls on the Commission and Member States to step up their efforts towards increasing the security of cyberspace within the EU as well as adequately participating in the international cooperation on this issue and stresses the need for a multi-stakeholder approach to provide a better understanding and awareness of cybercrime jurisdiction and cloud computing, based on an equal level basis and the establishment of clear obligations and responsibilities for each of the stakeholders;

24.

Stresses the importance of the security of electronic services, especially of electronic signatures, and of the need for the creation of the Public Key Infrastructure (PKI) at Pan-European level, and calls on the Commission to set up a European Validation Authorities Gateway in order to ensure the cross-border interoperability of electronic signatures and to increase the security of transactions carried out using the internet;

25.

Calls on the Commission to provide clear guidance to Member States that have not ratified and implemented the Council of Europe Convention on Cybercrime in order to engage all Member States in a cooperative effort to fight cybercrime and spam, to enhance users’ confidence and to secure the European Union’s cyberspace against all kinds of crimes and offences; urges all Member States to ratify and implement the Council of Europe Convention on Cybercrime;

26.

Calls on all Member States to ratify and implement the Council of Europe Convention on the Prevention of Terrorism which would allow the development of a basis for international cooperation in countering the terrorist use of the internet in the form of large-scale attacks on and through computer systems which threaten national security, public safety or economic well-being;

27.

Recommends in addition that the Commission and Member States work towards enhanced security and stability of the internet through measures aimed at increasing network and system diversity through the application of competition law, EU standards and procurement policy, as well as by:

28.

Stresses that the success of social networks, together with the internet’s technical capacities in terms of memory and data processing, is giving rise to problems of data retention and the use of archived data; deplores the fact, in this respect, that there is currently no ‘right to forget’ on the internet;

29.

Stresses the need to find a suitable balance between protecting users’ privacy and recording personal data;

30.

Deplores the fact that increasing use of internet networks does not yet go hand in hand with rules allowing users to manage the personal data they put on those networks;

31.

Observes that transparent and responsible internet management can play an important part in supervision of the way in which search engines handle information worldwide;

32.

Calls on the Commission to present a proposal to extend the application of Regulation (EC) No 864/2007 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 July 2007 on the law applicable to non-contractual obligations (Rome II) (11) to include violations of data protection and privacy, and on the Council to authorise negotiations with a view to concluding an international agreement enabling effective redress by EU individuals in case of violations of their rights under EU law to data protection and privacy;

33.

Supports the promotion of the ‘privacy by design’ principle, according to which privacy and data protection requirements should be introduced as soon as possible in the life cycle of new technological developments, assuring citizens a safe and user-friendly environment;

34.

Points out that website security certification is becoming necessary to give consumers greater confidence in accessing online information and services;

35.

Stresses that EU institution, bodies and Member States should coordinate their approach to internet governance in the various International bodies that deal with it, such as ICANN and its advisory bodies including the Government Advisory Committee (GAC);

36.

Stresses the role of the European Network and Information Society Agency (ENISA) in the creation of a single European information space; notes that ENISA can play an important role, in particular with respect to preventing, addressing and responding to network and information security problems, and welcomes the Commission’s forthcoming proposal for modernising ENISA;

37.

Underlines the need to further increase the effectiveness of ENISA by:

38.

Emphasises that ENISA’s support is focused on Member States with particular needs and recommends that ENISA continues developing forums for sharing of information between Member States and others;

39.

Considers that the Commission has a central role to play in initiating and coordinating all aspects relating to the internal EU organisation to ensure a coherent EU approach, including with respect to the IGF;

40.

Suggests the Commission should build capacity for genuine European civil society representation in international internet governance fora and internet standards organisations or consortia;

41.

Requests the Commission to facilitate the adoption of a coherent and comprehensive EU approach at IGF and other major internet governance events by submitting a draft EU position document well in advance of each such event to the European Parliament and Council for debate;

42.

Supports the continuation and development of the IGF model on a global, regional - including EuroDIG - and national level, by preserving its main characteristics as a non-binding multistakeholder process and remaining as open fora for dialogue and exchange of best practices between governments, civil society and the private sector and a new form of participatory democracy;

43.

Stresses the importance of co-opting Asian actors in talks on internet governance, taking account of the specific nature of the Asian market;

44.

Stresses the need also to involve end consumers in the process of creating a model of governance, placing the emphasis on cooperation between universities and the business world at local, regional and national level;

45.

Recommends improving the IGF in the following ways:

46.

Supports the work of the Commission and the Spanish and Belgian Presidencies as regards the Vilnius IGF meeting in September 2010, and calls for an increased participation of the European Parliament;

47.

Supports in general the Commission’s position in favour of the current ICANN management model based on private-sector leadership;

48.

Recognises that ICANN has succeeded in guaranteeing the stability of the Domain Name System;

49.

Supports the continuation of the recently started process by ICANN to assign domain names in alphabets different from the Latin alphabet;

50.

Calls for a new generic top-level domain for cultural organisations, outlets, media and artists, for example, ‘.culture’ or ‘.art’;

51.

Calls for greater accountability of private companies which register and distribute domain names, carrying out a service which society has become largely dependent upon; considers in this context that there is a need to establish a common set of criteria to follow, with a view to increasing transparency and ensuring that such companies take on increasing responsibilities;

52.

Calls on the.eu registrar EURid to conduct a thorough media and on-line campaign to promote the.eu domain across the Member States to facilitate the development of a European on-line environment based on the values, characteristics and policies of the European Union;

53.

Underlines the importance of the GAC in ICANN’s policy-making process and recommends that the effectiveness of the GAC is strengthened among other things through the establishment of a secretariat with adequate support capabilities; and considers it important for each EU Member State to take an active part in the work of this committee;

54.

Considers that improvements to ICANN should be made by:

55.

Endorses the Commission’s view that IANA arrangements should include mechanisms for multilateral accountability, and affirms that in future no single government should exercise a dominant influence over IANA, this function instead being subject to progressive internationalisation leading to multilateral oversight;

56.

Considers that the 2009 ‘affirmation of commitments’ can constitute a positive basis for further development of ICANN, while emphasising that:

57.

Requests the Commission to provide the European Parliament and Council with yearly reports on internet governance-related events during the preceding year, with the first such report to be provided by March 2011;

58.

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

12.8.2011   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 236/41

A.

whereas the Commission has, in its Communication ‘Reviewing Community innovation policy in a changing world’, announced a revised innovation strategy in the form of an action plan,

B.

whereas this future innovation strategy will have to be closely linked with the EU 2020 Strategy,

C.

whereas in its Communication ‘Moving the ICT frontiers - a strategy for research on future and emerging technologies in Europe’, the Commission announced a new strategy for research into future and emerging technologies (FET) with the launch of flagship initiatives,

D.

whereas, in developing a European innovation policy, it is necessary to take into account all three sides of the knowledge triangle – research, innovation and education,

E.

whereas companies’ ability to innovate depends to a great extent on access to adequate financial resources, and the credit crunch caused by the current economic crisis threatens drastically to curtail corporate capacity for innovation, in particular for small and medium- sized enterprises (SMEs),

F.

whereas innovation is the key to successfully meeting the EU’s current grand societal and environmental challenges and realising its strategic political goals in areas including enterprise, competitiveness, climate change, employment, demographic change and an inclusive society,

G.

whereas the European Union will not meet its energy and climate goals for 2020, and in particular its target to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 20 %, increase energy efficiency by 20 % and reach a share of at least 20 % of energy produced from renewable sources, without accelerating the development and widespread application of clean, sustainable and efficient energy technologies; whereas future innovation strategy should fully integrate this dimension,

H.

whereas research into emerging and future technologies (such as quantum technologies, ICT technologies inspired by biology and nanotechnologies) is a springboard for innovation through its impact on long-term competitiveness, and whereas it creates entirely new areas of economic activity, while encouraging new industries and high-technology SMEs,

I.

whereas the promotion and development of sustainable technologies are not only essential for achieving the EU climate and energy targets but will also be of tremendous value to the Union in terms of future jobs and economic growth,

J.

whereas an uneven distribution of scarce resources can hinder innovation; whereas the EU’s policy on raw materials should address the key challenges with regard to ensuring fair access,

K.

whereas, in times of increasingly scarce resources, promoting sustainable, energy-efficient technologies will improve the EU’s energy supply security,

L.

whereas demographic change will be one of the main challenges of the future, requiring, inter alia, new technological responses,

M.

whereas the EU needs to pool its resources and reinforce its strengths in those sectors of industry in which it is well placed to compete and ensure a global level playing-field,

1.

Believes that opportunities exist for closer links between research and innovation in Europe; calls on the Commission and the Member States to adopt an integrated approach to science and innovation;

2.

Advises the EU Commission that future EU innovation policy must be broad in scope, fundamentally embracing innovation in every form – not only technological innovation (affecting products and processes) but also administrative, organisational, social and work-related innovation, including innovative new business models and innovations in service provision, while taking account of the other two sides of the knowledge triangle (research and education);

3.

Stresses that innovation means first and foremost novelties that address consumers’ and market needs; asks the Commission, therefore, to ensure better recognition of the primacy of consumers’ demands as a driving force for innovation; points out that in order to counter the emergence of new forms of inequality in society, innovations should in future be measured not only in terms of their environmental and economic benefits but also by the yardstick of social added value;

4.

Underlines the fact that strengthening entrepreneurs as the drivers of innovation in Europe is a necessary prerequisite for the effective functioning of a competitive internal market based on the elimination of trade barriers and a high level of consumer protection and social cohesion;

5.

Calls on the Commission to set ambitious innovation benchmarks focusing on grand societal challenges and to cut the current fragmentation of different European initiatives;

6.

Wholeheartedly supports the Commission’s assertion that key enabling technologies and research on future and emerging technologies are vital prerequisites for enhancing the EU’s global competitiveness in a sustainable way; joins the Commission in calling on the Member States to reach agreement on the importance of using key enabling technologies in the EU; stresses in that regard that (i) key enabling technologies, such as microelectronics and nanoelectronics, photonics, biotechnology and nanotechnology,(ii) new materials, and (iii) new and future technologies can offer considerable potential for innovation and can contribute to the transition to a knowledge-based, low carbon economy;

7.

Stresses that innovation must be centred on the individual and welcomes efforts to step up the dialogue between universities and the business world, which is substantially helping to promote research and innovation, as well as the more effective use of knowledge imparted by the private sector within the universities, and to enrich academic course material in line with present-day social and business requirements;

8.

Points out that current key enabling technologies and new and future technologies must be identified in cooperation with the business world, at local, regional and national level, including SMEs, and that regional economic-policy objectives must also be taken into account; calls on the EU to ensure that the contribution of the proposed High Level Expert Group to the identification, ratification and implementation of concrete short, medium and long-term measures in support of those technologies are taken into account;

9.

Welcomes these innovation policy measures as complementing the national industrial strategies at Community level and in cross-sectoral terms, and urges the Commission to pursue that approach further;

10.

Calls on the Commission and the Member States to combine the roll-out of next generation digital networks and smart grids with innovation activities in order to fully reap their benefits; stresses in this context that sufficient funding needs to be provided, including from the Structural Funds;

11.

Stresses that investment in high-speed online networks and greater broadband penetration are basic conditions for increased and more effective dissemination of innovatory achievements and hence a narrowing of the innovation gap between EU regions;

12.

Calls on the Commission and the Member States to strengthen innovation convergence policies in order to reduce the differences between Member States;

13.

Supports the fact that a ‘European Innovation Act’ is currently being prepared by the Commission, in order to work towards a more coherent innovation strategy;

14.

Stresses the importance of ecological innovation and green enterprise, which can play a major role in linking innovation policy with sectors of key importance for the EU, resulting in major comparative advantages for the European economy;

15.

Stresses the important role played by eco-innovation, particularly in the context of raising resource efficiency;

16.

Emphasises the important role that innovation clusters will play in future EU innovation policy and stresses the potential offered in particular by knowledge clusters; welcomes the creation of special innovation and enterprise belts around universities, research institutes and scientific and technological parks; calls for consideration to be given to the possibilities of creating a uniform simplified funding and operational framework for the new innovation belts;

17.

Stresses that existing clusters – including world leaders in some fields – must be further developed, through the concerted efforts of the EU, the Member States and the regions, so that they can sustain and build on their role;

18.

Emphasises, in that regard, that any cluster-policy measures should be taken on a basis that takes account of companies’ needs, including those of SMEs, especially those of innovating SMEs, given that innovation has a key role to play in promoting enterprise;

19.

Calls on the bodies involved at Member State and EU level to improve the framework conditions for cross-border inter-cluster cooperation;

20.

Stresses the central role played by SMEs both as partners in value chains and as independent providers of innovative products;

21.

Calls for a strengthened European approach to financing innovation and to prevent the current fragmentation and short-termism; considers that the provision of adequate financial resources is vital to the development of innovation and that the EU budget for innovation should therefore be substantially increased; calls for this to be reflected in the upcoming revision of the current financial framework and in the planning process in connection with the 2014-2020 Financial Perspective; points out in that regard that the rules for eligibility for R&D funding regarding preindustrial and/or experimental R&D should be reviewed at the same time; calls on the Member States to increase their R&D funding in order to achieve the goal set in Barcelona in 2002 of spending 3 % of GDP on R&D by 2010; emphasises the importance of research and innovation funding in times of economic crisis, as this will enhance job creation in the long run; stresses the need to earmark an increased proportion of R & D programmes for innovation;

22.

Takes the view that EU expenditure on research and innovation must focus on objectives such as providing incentives for the commercial application of research findings, as well as more comprehensive information concerning funding sources and possibilities; stresses the importance of keeping transparency and equal opportunities in accessing funds on the basis of open calls for research proposals; calls on the Commission and the Member States to use structural funds to incentivise large scale innovation; highlights the need to develop social innovation financing schemes with an increased focus on social returns;

23.

Stresses that, along with bigger budgets, it is essential to achieve a critical mass; recommends the use of public procurement for this purpose and emphasises in particular that funding should be directed to those areas where the leverage effect is greatest, such as key enabling technologies and flagship initiatives for emerging and future technologies in order to generate added value for Europe; emphasises in that regard the need to capitalise on the synergies between the Framework Programmes for Research and Innovation and the Structural Funds; stresses in that regard that the different bodies managing FP7, CIP and the Structural Funds have to be aware of the possibilities offered by each of those instruments; regrets that opportunities for existing synergies in funding are still not well known; calls on regions and Member States to step up efforts to improve communication in that regard;

24.

Welcomes the creation of the European Institute of Innovation and Technology (EIT) that has been established to stimulate and deliver world-leading innovation by bringing together higher education, research and business around a common goal; stresses the major contribution which can be made by the EIT in providing incentives for innovation programmes and the important role it can play in that respect; urges the Commission to draw up the budget of the EIT in such a way as to ensure that the funding allocated, together with funds from other sources, can achieve the critical mass necessary in order to meet and fully investigate the essential challenges facing EU societies;

25.

Stresses the need for guidelines to guarantee the competitive allocation and prompt utilisation of funding and the introduction of an award scheme for projects which have a major immediate economic impact;

26.

Emphasises that Europe should be at the cutting edge in the development of internet technologies and ICT low-carbon applications; proposes that the EU ICT research budget be doubled in the next Financial Perspective;

27.

Underlines the point that innovation policy should be coordinated with other EU and national policies (including industrial, environmental and consumer policy), bearing in mind that the approaches identified should be flexible enough to be adapted to different national and regional circumstances;

28.

Regrets that efforts to simplify EU research and innovation instruments have not been successful, and that procedures are still far too complex and time-consuming, which particularly hampers participation by SMEs in these programmes;

29.

Considers that, in the interests of user-friendliness and transparency, it is necessary to prevent overlap and duplication of effort between support programmes, resulting from poor coordination of the various operational levels; calls on the Commission to investigate whether the EU aid instruments for SMEs could in future be combined under the umbrella of one Directorate-General such as DG Enterprise; considers that this would make them easier to project and would offer potential beneficiaries a one-stop shop;

30.

Calls, likewise, on the Commission to ensure that the EU regulatory framework supports innovation rather than constituting a barrier to change and that there is effective cooperation among the relevant internal services and directorates-general with the help of a structure such as the envisaged task force in order to give coherent and comprehensive consideration to innovation issues; insists that this should lead to less fragmented EU instruments in the field of innovation policy;

31.

Calls likewise on the Member States effectively to coordinate initiatives by the national bodies responsible;

32.

Emphasises that the EU bodies’ joint efforts should be directed at bridging the gaps between research and innovation and between product marketability and commercialisation; stresses that the framework programmes need interfaces with each other or cross-programme connectivity between research and innovation-related measures;

33.

Calls on the Commission to develop new innovation indicators which are better suited to increasingly knowledge-based service economies, and to adapt the existing ones, so that the European innovation scoreboard does not just give a comparative analysis of the Member States’ innovation capacity but can also identify the strengths and achievements as well as weaknesses of EU innovation measures;

34.

Stresses the importance of more comprehensive information concerning suitable funding channels and sources and of reliable data concerning alternative forms of funding, such as licensing agreements, so as to make undertakings more willing to invest;

35.

Emphasises that, alongside public funding, more stimulus must be provided for financing from the private sector;

36.

Emphasises the importance of the better harmonisation of access to EU funds for all participants in order to improve participation by SMEs in the governance structures and activities of Joint Technology Initiatives;

37.

Calls on the Commission to put forward, in the action plan for innovation, practical measures to improve innovative companies’ access to financing; emphasises in that regard the need to take into account the differing funding requirements and innovation intensity of companies during their different start-up and growth phases;

38.

Emphasises the need to create conditions whereby risk capital will be more readily available, taking into account the needs of SMEs, and to extend the EIB’s risk-sharing finance facility (RSFF); calls on the Commission to investigate what steps can be taken to achieve a risk-sharing arrangement that is acceptable for all the actors involved and thus stimulate private investment in the field of innovation;

39.

Calls on the relevant Member-State and EU bodies to develop proven SME financing tools such as microcredits, venture capital for people seeking to invest in innovative enterprises, business angels to sponsor business projects by e.g. young researchers, loans and guarantees and to create tax, financial, business and administrative incentives for investment, since this would reduce the risk of company relocation because of unfavourable framework conditions for state aid and motivate companies to employ human resources for purposes of research and innovation, thus boosting the development of new products and services;

40.

Stresses the importance of providing for a minimum allocation of funds for SMEs in the open calls published under the Research and Innovation initiatives, following the same commitment adopted for the FP7 (15 % of the resources in the Cooperation programme);

41.

Calls on the Commission, in accordance with the principles of the single market, to adjust the existing EU rules on state aid so as to support investment in urgently needed new technologies and to secure the Union’s long-term competitiveness and a global level playing field; particularly urges the Council and the Commission to take into consideration the key enabling technologies initiative while revising the EU rules on state aid and thus make it possible for the Member States to create national incentive systems to promote key enabling technologies;

42.

Stresses the importance of Joint Technology Initiatives satisfying certain criteria in terms of size and governance structures and of carrying out a periodical impact assessment of approved JTIs in terms of their contribution to the competitiveness of the European industry;

43.

Welcomes, in that context, the fact that the Community framework for State aid for research and development and innovation is to be reviewed in 2010;

44.

Considers that enhanced support for innovation must always be accompanied by a reduction in the red tape confronting applicants; calls on the Commission to eliminate red tape by re-engineering Framework Programme processes and by creating a users’ board;

45.

Calls on the relevant EU bodies to improve – especially for SMEs – the framework conditions for protection of intellectual property, especially patents, their cost as well as their quality being a key factor in innovation;

46.

Regrets, in this connection, the lack of a true internal market for innovations in the EU, and calls on the Commission and the Member States to coordinate their efforts in this area, notably where prompt agreement on a Community patent and a single patent court system are concerned, and stresses the importance of standardisation for the development of innovative products;

47.

Recommends the promotion of modern IP policies that foster innovation, such as patent pooling, common patent platforms, and full rights licences;

48.

Emphasises, in that regard, the significance for the European economy of developing an SME-friendly Community patent, in tune with the Union's policies on innovation;

49.

Notes the increasing use of patents as securities for bank financing, but that banks often lack the technical knowledge to be able to correctly assess the value of patents when lending; calls therefore on the Commission to investigate whether the EU should provide support for the development of valuation standards;

50.

Stresses the importance of programmes to encourage SMEs to make use of technological developments and research staff;

51.

Stresses that the three sides of the knowledge triangle – education, research and innovation – must not be separated; calls, to that end, for investment in training and further training for skilled staff not to be cut, as this investment is crucially important given the impact of innovation capacity on EU competitiveness; emphasises the need to make conditions as attractive as possible to researchers and their skilled workers, also in relation to their mobility, so that the EU can hold its own in global competition; stresses that this goes along with improving the working conditions of female researchers;

52.

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

12.8.2011   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 236/48

A.

whereas reducing and eradicating poverty is the EU's primary development policy objective under the Lisbon Treaty, as well as being both a moral obligation and in the EU's own long-term interests,

B.

whereas both the EU, as the world's largest donor, and its Member States need to play a leading role at the September MDG meeting and adopt an ambitious, united position that can work as a driving force with a view to achieving the MDGs on time,

C.

whereas the EU is currently some EUR 20 billion short of its MDG spending commitments,

D.

whereas some EU Member States are scaling back their aid budgets,

E.

whereas the value of global financial transactions has attained 70 times world GNI,

F.

whereas unpredictable aid can be detrimental to recipient countries, and whereas better quality aid could release an extra EUR 3 billion a year for the development budgets of the EU and of its Member States (12),

G.

whereas 82 % of new IMF lending has gone to European-area countries, while least-developed countries (LDCs) would benefit from receiving a greater amount of new IMF lending,

H.

whereas, although the G20 is more representative than the G8, the UN remains the most inclusive forum for addressing global governance issues,

I.

whereas inconsistencies in EU policies must not undermine the impact of development funding,

J.

whereas remittances contribute at least USD 300 billion a year to developing countries’ economies (13),

K.

whereas, although there has been encouraging progress on some MDGs, all eight MDGs are currently off-target and only a resolute display of political will can enable the MDGs to be met in the five years remaining before the 2015 deadline,

L.

whereas some LDCs are on track to meet no MDGs,

M.

whereas the recent food and fuel crises, coupled with the global economic downturn and climate change, have led to set-backs in relation to the last decade's progress on poverty reduction,

N.

whereas land ownership creates incentives for individuals, families and communities to take control of their own development and ensure food security at a local level,

O.

whereas mitigating climate change in developing countries could cost around USD 100 billion a year by 2020 (14), and the economic downturn at least as much again (15),

P.

whereas the situation in ‘middle-income’ developing countries should not be overlooked when reviewing the MDGs, since these countries continue to require assistance on the way to reaching their full development potential,

Q.

whereas industrialised nations are mainly responsible for climate change and the financial and economic crisis,

R.

whereas the numbers of working poor and those in vulnerable jobs are on the rise,

S.

whereas a lack of peace and security, democracy and political stability often prevents poor countries from fulfilling their full development potential,

T.

whereas corruption destroys productivity, creates instability and deters foreign investment,

U.

whereas illicit capital flows from developing countries are estimated at USD 641 billion to USD 941 billion, and whereas these outflows undermine developing countries’ capacity to generate their own resources and allocate more funds to poverty reduction (16),

V.

whereas, although major progress has been made towards some of the health MDGs, the three health MDGs – and in particular maternal mortality – are the most off track,

W.

whereas 13 % of all maternal deaths in developing countries are due to unsafe abortions, and whereas this figure is much higher in Africa (17),

X.

whereas funding for family planning on a per-woman basis has fallen away sharply over the last decade,

Y.

whereas, even if we achieve all the MDGs, there will still be poverty-related challenges and suffering in poor countries,

Z.

whereas failing to meet our MDG promises will mean continued suffering for millions of poor people, and will seriously erode trust between north and south,

1.

Expects the June 2010 European Council to agree on an ambitious, united EU position ahead of September's UN MDG meeting, and to lead to new, results-oriented, additional, transparent and measurable commitments;

2.

Calls on the Member States to meet the obligations to which they agreed as part of the European Consensus on Development;

3.

Points out that achieving the MDGs must remain a key objective for the European Union; emphasises that poverty reduction through the achievement of the MDGs must be recognised unambiguously as the overarching framework for EU development policy and that this must be reflected clearly in all relevant policy – including trade policy – and legislative proposals; believes that the MDGs should not be seen as a technical matter which will be resolved simply by providing more money or trade opportunities without identifying and tackling the underlying causes of poverty;

4.

Stresses that the figures given in the recent UN report entitled ‘Rethinking Poverty’ are not only alarming, but a clear indication that the risk of not meeting the Millennium Development Goals is real;

5.

Calls on all the Member States to meet their 0,7 % aid promises by 2015 at the latest;

6.

Calls on the EU and the Member States to introduce enhanced accountability measures concerning their commitment to give 0,7 % of GNI as aid by 2015, including setting up an ‘ODA Peer Review’ process which would, within the Foreign Affairs Council, assess progress towards the 0,7 % target by 2015, culminating in a report to the European Council and the European Parliament;

7.

Calls on all the Member States to introduce development aid measures and issue multiannual timetables for meeting the MDG targets; asks the Commission to ensure that official development assistance (ODA) is fully transparent, and accordingly asks it to publish the amounts spent on ODA by the Member States;

8.

Calls on the EU and the OECD not to broaden the definition of development aid (ODA) or count debt cancellation or other non-ODA financial flows as aid spending;

9.

Calls on all the Member States actively to crack down on tax havens, tax evasion and illicit financial flows, within the G20 and UN framework, and to promote greater transparency, including systematic disclosure of profits made and taxes paid and a country-by-country reporting system to enable developing countries to keep their own resources for their development;

10.

Calls on the EIB to review its policy on offshore financial centres on the basis of more stringent criteria than the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) listing for the definition of prohibited and monitored jurisdictions, and to ensure its implementation and provide annual reports on progress;

11.

Calls on all the Member States and the international community to take action to make remittances cheaper;

12.

Calls on all the Member States to support UN initiatives and take measures to increase lender and borrower responsibility in the context of sovereign debt transactions;

13.

Calls on all Member States and the international community to make renewed efforts to ease the debt burden of LDCs with a track record of accountability, transparency and good governance;

14.

Calls on the EU to provide significant funding to help poor nations fight the effects of climate change and the economic crisis; insists that these funds be genuinely additional to existing aid commitments;

15.

Calls on all the Member States to commit to allotting significantly more resources to development cooperation and emergency aid under the next Financial Perspective and European Development Fund;

16.

Calls on the European Commission to use its existing instruments of cooperation with developing countries, including the ENP Action Plans, the Eastern Partnership, GSP and GSP+, further to define and implement practical steps designed to facilitate the achievement of the MDGs;

17.

Calls on all the Member States significantly to increase the amount of aid provided through budget support, particularly via MDG contracts, but insists that democracy, human rights, governance and other essential criteria be met and that there be more and better monitoring and audits;

18.

Calls on all the Member States to ensure that the EU continues to work through a wide array of existing financial instruments at global and country levels in addition to budget support, including the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria, and through other relevant organisations and mechanisms, in particular civil society organisations and communities;

19.

Calls on all the Member States to continue to improve donor coordination by untying all their aid, in accordance with the Paris and Accra declarations, thereby reducing the over-fragmentation of aid budgets qui est impératif à la cohérence et au déliement de l'aide; also recognising that different Member States can offer expert knowledge in various geographical areas and development sectors;

20.

Calls on the European Commission and the Member States to ensure that primary responsibility for programming development funds and setting priorities remains within the remit of the Development Commissioner in the EU’s new institutional set-up;

21.

Calls on the EU to take concrete action against poverty by adopting a coherent policy encompassing the areas of trade and development cooperation as well as its common agricultural and fisheries policies, in order to avoid direct or indirect negative impacts on developing countries’ economies;

22.

Calls on the EU to uphold the principle of food security in developing countries and to urge all players to comply with this principle during the current WTO negotiations;

23.

Believes that achieving the Millennium Development Goals requires measures to foster access to land, water and biodiversity resources and measures to foster a policy of local support for sustainable smallholding agriculture;

24.

Calls on the EU to ‘development-proof’ its fisheries agreements so that they take full account of social and economic impacts on local communities, notably through long-term EU sectoral support and a mechanism whereby ship-owners cover a fair share of the costs of access for the EU fleet;

25.

Calls on the EU not to pressure poor countries, through its trade policy, into opening up vulnerable market sectors when their level of development precludes them from competing fairly on the global stage, while enhancing the pro-poor focus of the EU Aid for Trade policy;

26.

Calls on the EU to fight for a timely, development-focused conclusion to the Doha WTO round;

27.

Calls for a climate change risk assessment to be systematically incorporated into all aspects of policy planning and decision-making, including trade, agriculture and food security; demands that the result of this assessment be used to formulate clear guidelines on sustainable development cooperation policy;

28.

Stresses that there is a need for an effective global response to the problem of climate change, whereby industrialised countries shoulder their responsibility and take the lead in combating greenhouse gas effects, which will threaten the MDGs if not addressed;

29.

Calls on the EU and the Member States, which are parties to the Protocol on Strategic Environmental Assessment to the Espoo Convention, to comply fully with the Protocol's provisions when helping to develop programmes and public projects in developing countries;

30.

Is convinced that trade may be a powerful engine for economic growth, although trade alone cannot solve development problems; believes that the slow progress of the Doha Round negotiations is hampering the international trading system’s contribution to the MDGs; stresses that a positive conclusion of the Doha Round could contribute to delivering an economic stimulus package at global level; takes note of the host of studies by UNCTAD and other institutions showing that extensive trade liberalisation in the LDCs has seldom translated into sustained and substantial poverty reduction, and has contributed to a decline in developing countries’ terms of trade, in particular those of African countries;

31.

Stresses the importance of efforts to facilitate the integration of developing countries into the world economy; reiterates that openness to trade and support for supply capacity are important elements in any coherent development strategy, and that trade-related technical assistance initiatives represent an additional tool for tackling poverty eradication and underdevelopment;

32.

Recalls that improving the trade capacity of developing and least-developed countries may help them to acquire the trade-related skills and infrastructure needed to implement and benefit from WTO agreements, expand their trade, take advantage of new and existing trade opportunities, implement new agreements and adapt to a changing external trading environment;

33.

Welcomes existing initiatives at EU and WTO level in the area of trade with developing countries, in particular the Everything But Arms (EBA) initiative, GSP and GSP +, as well as the principle of asymmetry and transitional periods negotiated in all existing European Partnership Agreements (EPAs), and asks the Commission to consolidate this policy strategy; points out that the GSP system provides more stability, predictability and trading opportunities for its users; notes that additional preferences are granted (through the GSP regime) to countries that have ratified and effectively implemented key international conventions on sustainable development, social rights and good governance;

34.

Calls on the Commission to enhance the development content of current WTO and bilateral FTA negotiations;

35.

Recalls that the Aid for Trade strategy is aimed at supporting poor and vulnerable countries in developing the basic economic infrastructure and tools they need to harness trade as an engine of economic growth and development; welcomes the Commission’s statements that the EU has already met its target of committing EUR 2 billion to trade-related assistance (TRA) by 2010, since total support for TRA from the EU and its Member States reached EUR 2,15 billion in 2008 (EUR 1,14 billion from the Member States and EUR 1,01 billion from the EU), and notes that important results have also been achieved in respect of the wider Aid for Trade Agenda – including transport and energy, the productive sectors and trade-related adjustment; calls on the Commission, nevertheless, to present detailed information (including figures) on the budget lines used to finance trade-related assistance and Aid for Trade;

36.

Urges the Commission and the Member States to pay more attention to, and to support, the LDCs in order to increase total EU funding for Aid for Trade, which has not seen substantial increases recently; takes the view that, as regional integration becomes increasingly important in the context of the EU Aid for Trade agenda, efforts to complete the ACP regional Aid for Trade packages should be stepped up; takes the view that there is room for improvement in aid effectiveness by increasing joint analysis, joint response strategies and joint delivery of Aid for Trade measures;

37.

Takes the view that the South-South dimension is becoming a fast-growing component of world trade, may become increasingly relevant in ensuring the development of the poorest countries and should be encouraged and supported;

38.

Calls on the EU to maintain an integrated, comprehensive approach to the MDGs, recognising that all individual goals and targets are interlinked and establishing minimum requirements for the achievement of poverty eradication;

39.

Calls on all the Member States and the Commission to allocate at least 20 % of all development spending to basic health and education, to increase their contributions to the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria and increase their funding for other programmes designed to strengthen health systems, and to prioritise maternal health and efforts to combat infant mortality;

40.

Calls on developing countries to spend at least 15 % of their national budgets on health care and to enhance their health care systems;

41.

Calls on the EU and developing countries to promote free access to health and education;

42.

Calls on all the Member States and the Commission to reverse the worrying decline in funding for sexual and reproductive health and rights in developing countries and to support policies on voluntary family planning, safe abortion, treatment of sexually transmitted infections and the provision of reproductive health supplies consisting of life-saving drugs and contraceptives, including condoms;

43.

Asks the Commission, the Member States and developing countries to address MDG 5 (on improving maternal health), MDG 4 (on child mortality) and MDG 6 (on HIV/AIDS, malaria and tuberculosis) in a coherent and holistic way, along with MDG 3 (on gender equality and women's empowerment);

44.

Demands that Country and Regional Strategy Papers emphasise the need for legislation combating violence and discrimination against women, encourage women's participation in the decision-making process and further highlight the need for gender-sensitive policies;

45.

Reiterates that the EU should support those developing countries which use the so-called flexibilities built into the TRIPS Agreement in order to be able to provide medicines at affordable prices under their domestic public health programmes; stresses that those agreements which guarantee access to generic medicines must not be undermined by free-trade agreements;

46.

Calls on the EU to channel at least half its aid into the LDCs and to target the neediest groups in those countries, focusing especially on women, children and people with disabilities, and to mainstream more effectively the interests of vulnerable groups in its development strategies;

47.

Supports, in this context, the Commission’s proposal to reallocate funding to the most off-track countries in the framework of the 2010 mid-term review of ACP programmes;

48.

Calls on the EU and developing countries to pay particular attention to the rights of minorities and insists that the EU insert non-negotiable human rights and non-discrimination clauses into its international agreements, inter alia with regard to discrimination based on gender, racial or ethnic origin, religion or belief, disability, age, sexual orientation and towards people living with HIV/AIDS;

49.

Calls on the EU and partner governments to increase investment in farming and food security to levels that guarantee freedom from hunger for all, looking particularly at urgent hunger needs, small-scale farming and social protection programmes;

50.

Calls on the Commission to promote land ownership as a tool for reducing poverty and guaranteeing food security, by strengthening property rights and facilitating access to credit for farmers, small businesses and local communities;

51.

Expresses deep concern about the current acquisition of farmland (particularly in Africa) by government-backed foreign investors, which may undermine local food security and have serious, far-reaching consequences in developing countries; urges the UN and the EU to address the adverse impact of farmland acquisition (including the expropriation of small farmers and unsustainable use of land and water), by recognising the population’s right to control farmland and other vital natural resources;

52.

Calls on the Member States and the Commission to step up their efforts to combat child labour, both by supporting specific programmes and through guidelines on development policies and international trade;

53.

Calls on EU and developing country governments robustly to support the ILO's Global Jobs Pact and to apply effectively all aspects of the Decent Work Agenda;

54.

Calls on the Commission to monitor workers’ social protection, social dialogue and core labour standards in developing countries and, where necessary, to offer incentives and apply sanctions through trade agreements and all other available instruments;

55.

Calls on the World Bank and the IMF to allocate a fairer share of voting rights to under-represented nations, ensuring that borrowers and lenders have equal shares of votes in the short term, and that lending does not undermine principles of ownership, as committed to in Paris and Accra;

56.

Calls on the IMF to increase low-income countries’ levels of access to its concessional facilities, and to increase Special Drawing Rights allocations for LICs according to their needs;

57.

Intends, when codeciding the upcoming revision of the European Investment Bank's external mandate, to ensure that it fulfils its development obligations, and to gear its resources more closely to the needs of developing countries, including mutually effective pro-poor lending facilities;

58.

Calls on all the Member States and the international community to ensure that the UN remains the forum of choice for addressing issues relating to global governance and poverty issues;

59.

Calls on EU and AU authorities to invest renewed political will in the Africa-EU strategic partnership, and to commit the specific resources that will enable it to achieve its full potential;

60.

Calls on the EU and the international community to promote and support democracy, peace, the rule of law and corruption-free administration in developing countries;

61.

Calls on the EU and the international community to make an exceptional effort to support public administration in developing countries, with the specific aim of fighting corruption and creating an administrative environment that is transparent, impartial and fair, while also recognising the essential role of non-state actors and of civil society;

62.

Calls on all developing countries urgently to sign the UN Convention against Corruption, to take practical steps to implement its provisions effectively, and to establish mechanisms for monitoring progress;

63.

Recognises the need for developing countries to improve international accounting standards in order to prevent tax avoidance and tax evasion practices, thereby achieving better global fiscal governance;

64.

Calls on developing countries to involve parliaments, local government, civil society and other non-state actors at all stages of policy formulation and implementation;

65.

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

66.

Recognises the vital link between security and development, and notes with concern the lack of progress made in achieving peaceful solutions to frozen conflicts in the EU's neighbourhood and beyond, urging the EU to review its efforts in this area;

67.

Calls on the EU to enter into an ambitious, constructive dialogue with all traditional and emerging donors in order to ensure that the MDGs are achieved and that poverty reduction remains at the top of the global agenda;

68.

Instructs its President to forward this resolution to the Council, the Commission, the governments and parliaments of the Member States and the Secretary-General of the United Nations.

12.8.2011   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 236/57

A.

whereas, considering the persisting gravity of the financial, economic and social crisis, the expectations regarding the new EU 2020 strategy to be approved by the European Council in June 2010 are very high,

B.

whereas many Member States are still facing rising unemployment, which may eventually affect up to 28 million people in the EU in the absence of an adequate policy response over the medium term, thereby generating immense social and human difficulties; whereas the crisis has been wiping out millions of jobs and has aggravated employment insecurity,

C.

whereas a more sustainable pattern of production, distribution and consumption is a fundamental requirement in the face of climate change, the loss of biodiversity and the depletion of natural resources,

D.

whereas the Commission communication and the Council statements on aspects of the content of the EU 2020 strategy, such as the headline targets, flagship proposals, bottlenecks and indicators, have been of a very general nature and the Commission therefore urgently needs to come forward with more detailed plans to clarify how these initiatives will be implemented successfully, and to present such plans to Parliament,

E.

whereas, in order to achieve results, European tasks and responsibilities must be shared in a well orchestrated way between European, national, regional and local levels of governance, all levels of governance must be of the highest quality and accountability, and all the important drivers of change – businesses and universities working in partnership with local and regional authorities and civil society – should play a key role in the new delivery mechanism,

F.

whereas it is important to consider the demographic crisis and its consequences, and future generations ought not to be sacrificed to maintain the established benefits of a previous generation,

1.

Expresses its disappointment at the main elements of the new EU 2020 strategy agreed by the European Council on 26 March 2010; urges the European Council to draw lessons from the current crisis and to define a truly far-sighted, ambitious and coherent strategy;

2.

Calls for the EU 2020 strategy to pursue a broad political concept for the future of the EU as a competitive, social and sustainable Union putting people and the protection of the environment at the centre of policy making;

3.

Takes the view that Member States should step up their economic performance by introducing structural reforms in order to optimise public expenditure, decrease bureaucracy, empower citizens, encourage entrepreneurship and innovation, make legislation more SME-friendly and provide people with the opportunity to maximise their potential;

4.

Recognises that, to prevent the responses to the euro crisis resulting in a lengthy period of economic stagnation, the Union should, at the same time, implement a strategy to accelerate sustainable economic growth, alongside reforms aimed at restoring and improving competitiveness;

5.

Deplores the fact that the European Council conclusions do not take into account the need to reflect the current fragile recovery process fully in a new 2020 strategy, by formulating a coherent policy agenda and comprehensively integrating macroeconomic policy into the strategy to ensure that it is not undermined by necessary budgetary consolidation;

6.

Deplores the fact that Parliament, as a representative institution of the citizens of Europe, has not been consulted on the indicators that are the basis of the EU 2020 National Reform Programme; urges the Council to endorse the key elements of the EU 2020 strategy at its June meeting but insists that it should not adopt final decisions on the key instruments, targets and indicators of the EU 2020 strategy without having properly consulted Parliament as soon as possible; in the same spirit, takes the view that national parliaments, regions, municipalities, the social partners and NGOs should be actively involved in defining and implementing the strategy;

7.

Notes the five headline targets agreed by the European Council on employment rate, research and development, greenhouse gas emissions, education levels and social inclusion; stresses that these headline targets should be formulated in the framework of a consistent and coherent sustainable development strategy combining the economic, social and environmental policy agendas;

8.

Emphasises that the single market is one of the main drivers of European growth and that it still needs to be fully completed; points out, too, that the persistence of certain obstacles to the free circulation of people, goods, services and capital calls for a further effort on the part of all European institutions so as to create a fair, better, more competitive and more effective single market;

9.

Emphasises that it is important to keep free trade and access to the global market at the core of policy making and to eschew any movement towards protectionism, as innovative entrepreneurs and companies can thrive in a free and global market;

10.

Stresses that bolder initiatives are needed to complete the single market and to win greater public acceptance for it; therefore welcomes the report drafted by Mario Monti, which, like Parliament’s resolution of 20 May 2010 (2), contains interesting proposals for building consensus and delivering a stronger single market;

11.

Believes that, in order to establish an effective single market, the Commission must produce a clear set of political priorities through the adoption of a ‘Single Market Act’, which should cover both legislative and non-legislative initiatives designed to create a highly competitive social market economy;

12.

Emphasises that the EU should stimulate and encourage SMEs and entrepreneurship, which are crucial to job conservation and creation, that it should reduce administrative and regulatory burdens and simplify rules so that SMEs can grow more rapidly by freely commercialising their products/services to the 500 million consumers who make up the EU single market, and that it must further reduce red tape; likewise, stresses the importance of achieving full implementation of the Small Business Act through political efforts at all levels;

13.

Underscores the fact that SMEs are the backbone of the social market economy, creators of jobs and essential players in reinvigorating sustainable economic growth, and that priority should therefore be given to further efforts in the area of reform, such as SME-friendly legislation, creating a vibrant environment for start-ups, encouraging entrepreneurship and improving access to finance; is furthermore of the opinion that the EU 2020 strategy should include targets and initiatives to encourage increased average levels of equity and venture capital in companies;

14.

Points out that micro-businesses can often help in combating unemployment, and setting up a business is often a way to succeed despite social inertia, that the first pre-condition for the development of SMEs is their ability to raise adequate funds for their activities, and that maintaining guarantee mechanisms for SMEs, dynamic second markets and a banking sector that promotes economic activity in Europe are prerequisites for the development of SMEs;

15.

Reiterates that high-quality employment should be a key priority in a 2020 strategy and that a stronger focus on properly functioning labour markets and on social conditions is vital to improve employment performance; calls, therefore, for a new agenda to promote decent work, ensure workers’ rights throughout Europe and improve working conditions;

16.

Believes that the new strategy must put more emphasis on decent work, including the fight against undeclared work, and on ensuring that people who are currently excluded from the labour market can gain access to it;

17.

Believes that the new strategy should encourage labour markets which improve incentives and conditions for people at work while, at the same time, increasing the incentives for employers to recruit and retain staff;

18.

Urges the Commission and the Member States to retain the overall target of 3 % of GDP for R&D; calls on the Member States to make better use of the potential for synergy between cohesion-policy funding and R&D funding and to ensure that these instruments translate into innovation that delivers real benefits to society;

19.

Emphasises that major R&D projects, key energy infrastructure investments and the new EU competence on space policy, as well as EU innovation policy, require solid, credible and sustainable EU financial support if the Union’s key 2020 objectives are to be met;

20.

Points out that Europe must further strengthen its potential in terms of skilled workers, science, research and technology, and thus its capacity to innovate, as key aspects of competitiveness, and that the knowledge triangle must remain at the heart of the EU 2020 strategy;

21.

Takes the view that, to make European research more efficient, it is crucial that existing structures are better streamlined and that a more research-friendly and innovation-friendly investment climate is created in both the public and the private sector; calls on the Commission to put forward practical measures to improve access to financing, and especially the availability of risk capital;

22.

Deplores the fact that the European Council's headline targets on greenhouse gas emissions, renewables and energy efficiency lack ambition and, in this respect, are not geared towards leadership in a world which is facing climate change and serious natural resource depletion and where global ecosystems are on the verge of collapse; calls, therefore, for the immediate and simultaneous adoption of the following binding targets for the EU:

23.

Notes the headline target on improving education; deplores the absence of numerical targets and urges the European Council to set a 100 % target for secondary education, as well as clear qualitative targets and indicators for primary and secondary education;

24.

Asks Member States to adopt the ambitious targets set out in the Commission's communication on EU 2020 so that, by 2020, school drop-out rates should be below 10 % of the age cohort and at least 40 % of the population should have completed tertiary or equivalent education;

25.

Stresses the need for robust lifelong-learning policies whereby training opportunities should be encouraged and should be available to individuals throughout their professional life; points out that it will be necessary to maintain the number of active people on the labour market and to strengthen social inclusion;

26.

Insists that the EU 2020 strategy should include a target for reducing poverty in the EU by half, and points out that a majority of Europeans currently living in poverty, or at risk of poverty, are women, in particular older women, migrant women, single mothers and carers;

27.

Welcomes the European Council proposals on social inclusion, particularly and as a priority through the reduction of poverty, and stresses the need for clear targets and initiatives; considers this goal as one of the main objectives of the EU 2020 strategy; calls for an ambitious long-term strategy against poverty, with far-reaching targets for poverty reduction, social inclusion – including for women, children and the elderly – and for combating in-work poverty; stresses the need for a target for reducing the number of jobless households;

28.

Deplores the fact that the headline targets defined by the European Council do not include gender equality; calls for a programme for gender equality to eradicate the existing pay gap between men and women and to ensure full participation by women in the labour market and in politics, while promoting women's career opportunities; stresses the need for better conditions with a view to reconciling work and family life;

29.

Considers that successful implementation of the new flagship ‘Innovation Union’ initiative is vital in order to boost the knowledge-based economy; calls on the Commission to increase the total financial envelope earmarked for research and innovation in the Community budget;

30.

Underlines the importance of simplifying research and development funding and cutting red tape, so that knowledge-driven businesses can maximise their effectiveness and new employment opportunities can be encouraged;

31.

Urges the Commission to improve conditions for innovation, e.g. by introducing the single EU patent; argues that well-intended programmes aimed at boosting competitiveness and shaping a sustainable economy are not working properly, and believes that SMEs, universities and businesses should be encouraged to participate in European programmes;

32.

Considers that explicit targets should be set for SME-compatible funding tools, to guarantee digital interoperability and accessibility, and that they should clearly include EU targets for eco-innovation;