30.12.2015   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 440/1

30.12.2015   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 440/2

—

having regard to Articles 174 and 176 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, which establish the objective of economic, social and territorial cohesion and define the structural financial instruments to achieve this, and provide that the European Regional Development Fund is intended to help redress the principal regional imbalances in the Union,

—

having regard to the Commission Communication of 3 March 2010 entitled ‘Europe 2020 A strategy for smart, sustainable and inclusive growth’ (COM(2010)2020),

—

having regard to its resolution of 20 May 2010 on the contribution of the Cohesion policy to the achievement of the Lisbon and the EU 2020 objectives (1),

—

having regard to its resolution of 14 December 2010 on achieving real territorial, social and economic cohesion within the EU — a sine qua non for global competitiveness? (2),

—

having regard to the Commission Communication of 9 November 2010 entitled ‘Conclusions of the fifth report on economic, social and territorial cohesion: the future of cohesion policy’ (COM(2010)0642),

—

having regard to the Commission Communication of 23 November 2010 entitled ‘An Agenda for new skills and jobs: A European contribution towards full employment’ (COM(2010)0682),

—

having regard to the Commission Communication of 16 December 2010 entitled ‘The European Platform against Poverty and Social Exclusion: A European framework for social and territorial cohesion’ (COM(2010)0758),

—

having regard to the Commission Communication of 26 January 2011 entitled ‘A resource-efficient Europe — Flagship initiative under the Europe 2020 Strategy’ (COM(2011)0021),

—

having regard to its resolution of 23 June 2011 on the state of play and future synergies for increased effectiveness between the ERDF and other structural funds (3),

—

having regard to its resolution of 8 June 2011 entitled ‘GDP and beyond: measuring progress in a changing world’ (4),

—

having regard to its resolution of 8 June 2011 on ‘Investing in the future: a new Multiannual Financial Framework (MFF) for a competitive, sustainable and inclusive Europe’ (5),

—

having regard to its resolution of 5 July 2011 on the Commission’s fifth Cohesion Report and the strategy for post-2013 cohesion policy (6),

—

having regard to its resolution of 27 September 2011 on absorption of Structural and Cohesion Funds: lessons learnt for the future cohesion policy of the EU (7),

—

having regard to the proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council, of 6 October 2011, laying down common provisions on the European Regional Development Fund, the European Social Fund, the Cohesion Fund, the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development and the European Maritime and Fisheries Fund covered by the Common Strategic Framework and laying down general provisions on the European Regional Development Fund, the European Social Fund and the Cohesion Fund and repealing Council regulation (EC) No 1083/2006 (COM(2011)0615),

—

having regard to the proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council, of 6 October 2011, on specific provisions concerning the European Regional Development Fund and the Investment for growth and jobs goal and repealing Regulation (EC) No 1080/2006 (COM(2011)0614),

—

having regard to the proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council, of 6 October 2011, on the European Social Fund and repealing Council Regulation (EC) No 1081/2006 (COM(2011)0607),

—

having regard to the proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council, of 6 October 2011, on a European Union Programme for Social Change and Innovation (COM(2011)0609),

—

having regard to its resolution of 15 November 2011 on The European Platform against Poverty and Social Exclusion (8),

—

having regard to its resolution of 9 July 2008 on the theme ‘Towards a new culture for urban mobility’ (9),

—

having regard to its resolution of 24 March 2009 on the urban dimension of cohesion policy in the new programming period (10),

—

having regard to its resolution of 23 April 2009 on an Action Plan on Urban Mobility (11),

—

having regard to its resolution of 23 June 2011 on the European urban agenda and its future in cohesion policy (12),

—

having regard to its resolution of 13 October 2005 on the urban dimension in the context of enlargement (13),

—

having regard to its resolution of 26 September 2006 on the Thematic Strategy on the Urban Environment (14),

—

having regard to the Leipzig Charter on Sustainable European Cities, approved at the Informal Ministerial Meeting on Urban Development and Territorial Cohesion held in Leipzig on 24 and 25 May 2007,

—

having regard to the Toledo Declaration for Urban Development, approved at the Informal Ministerial Meeting held in Toledo on 22 June 2010,

—

having regard to Rule 48 of its Rules of Procedure,

—

having regard to the report of the Committee on Regional Development (A7-0406/2012),

A.

whereas 80 % of European citizens live in an urban context (this figure is increasing further due to the acceleration of rural-to-urban migration flows), where there is a greater concentration of the effects of the economic crisis, and where the challenges of the fight against climate change, job creation, well-being and quality of life are played out;

B.

whereas urban areas should draw up medium-/long-term action plans in the fields of sustainable economic, social and territorial cohesion;

C.

whereas cities represent the engine of the economy, manufacturing and employment, yet at the same time are where one encounters the problems of suburbanisation, unemployment and, more generally, social exclusion and segregation, and environmental pollution;

D.

whereas strong urban areas also have a positive influence on the surrounding countryside which can thus lead to spillover effects;

E.

whereas it is necessary to rethink the concept of urban periphery to change the current trend towards spatial segregation, which gives rise to social polarisation;

F.

whereas the current transformation processes within the urban fabric produce growing expectations and problems that the state traditionally seeks to resolve, which therefore require mechanisms for innovative and integrated economic, social and territorial cohesion;

G.

whereas in many cities socio-demographic change has provoked a movement of people from their dwellings in older urban areas to new and more peripheral housing estates, urban areas on the fringes of cities or simply new towns close to big agglomerations;

H.

whereas social inequality is a challenge in many urban areas, and whereas inequalities between neighbourhoods are often due to inappropriate housing policies and to the fact that service provisions are often restricted to more affluent areas;

I.

whereas revisiting traditional approaches can become an opportunity to launch a process of urban experimentation and pathways of design, based on a reinterpretation of the planning of spaces, community needs and citizens’ involvement;

1.

Stresses that the local development model represents a key strength of the cohesion policy since decisive mobility factors encourage the selection of the best choices closest to the citizens, joint actions and more coherent, effective and efficient measures giving moreover greater visibility to community interventions in the EU areas facing more difficult challenges;

2.

Calls for a new EU regulatory phase connected to a plan to safeguard and regenerate urban areas, which — while respecting the principle of subsidiarity — may supply the legal basis required, define common and shared medium to long-term goals and optimise the use of cohesion policy funds;

3.

Hopes for actions aimed at the completion and restoration of existing parts of cities, including marginalised neighbourhoods, the functional conversion of disused spaces and redevelopment areas, the enhancement, through a dynamic development process, of the attractiveness of the places where people live, and the return to the community of strongly symbolic and historically rich spaces which have lost their original function and have become progressively neglected, while promoting cultural heritage;

4.

Asks for cultural and economic resources to be mobilised, assuming as a priority social sustainability of urban transformation, hence contributing to the urban solidarity, social inclusion and integration of vulnerable and marginalised groups in urban areas, in order to fully harness the development potential in the knowledge that processes of urban regeneration risk pushing out weaker sections of the population; underlines, therefore, the necessity to closely involve the inhabitants from the earliest stage possible;

5.

Emphasises the key role that urban areas have to play in achieving the economic, social and environmental objectives of the Europe 2020 strategy, and highlights the fact that the Union can only be globally competitive if the cohesion policy fully harnesses the development potential of all its regions and urban areas;

6.

Calls for an integrated approach which involves the interconnection of nature and the environment with history and culture and with society and commerce, ensuring the development of infrastructure, the improvement of urban spaces and the growth of the economic fabric, promoting a mixed use of the territory, via the integration of residential and non-residential works, tangible infrastructures and intangible connectivity systems;

7.

Stresses that new forms of urban regeneration are required, focusing on the need for communities to have public spaces, parks, leisure, culture and sport;

8.

Calls for participatory planning dynamics in partnership with associations and citizens to guarantee the necessary connection between general policies and specific territorial spaces, by enhancing their peculiarities, identities, memory and history and by reinforcing the sense of belonging to the community and trust in institutions;

9.

Highlights that urban regeneration and economic revitalisation are closely related and that the construction of an attractive location can become a factor in economic recovery; points out that in order to achieve this, urban regeneration should be matched with a new approach combining efforts to prevent urban decline, promote the development of needy and marginalised areas and support local economic growth and job creation, complemented by social measures;

10.

Calls for decisive actions for the fight against energy inefficiency, via the functional re-designation of buildings and the construction of more resource efficient dwellings, including for social housing; reducing congestions, contamination and noise in such a way as to make the city more competitive as regards environmental problems;

11.

Stresses the need for a strategy to preserve and make secure the urban and housing heritage in areas classified as being at high risk of earthquakes or flooding;

12.

Reiterates the need to coordinate the use of funds to ensure an integrated approach to the dysfunction of demographic development, progressive ageing and urban concentration; draws attention to the fact that structural fund projects can help provide solutions to serious problems and should focus on people and pay particular attention to the underprivileged in this society, e.g. children, young people, women and the elderly;

13.

Welcomes the steps taken to promote networks between cities and the exchange of experience and good practices; points out that these steps should be further strengthened and extended to encompass functional urban areas; calls for the expansion of existing instruments for this purpose while underlining that existing programmes and bodies should be used before new structures are created;

14.

Welcomes the provision that at least 5 % of the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) resources be made available for integrated actions for sustainable urban development, to be delegated to cities for management; emphasises that this figure is a minimum target and should be used to support the development in functional urban areas; calls on the different levels of authority to make use of new instruments such as community-led local development;

15.

Opposes rigidity in the use of the above resources in the implementation of integrated territorial investments (ITI); is of the opinion that the Member States should be given the possibility to implement the integrated actions for sustainable urban development also through a specific operational programme or a specific priority axis;

16.

Highlights that, while urban areas can make a vital contribution as growth centres and growth drivers, it is necessary to integrate local development needs when addressing the problems of suburban, neighbouring and rural areas, in order to promote a relationship that is not in conflict but is complementary and synergetic, and in order to tackle the gradual loss of the rural-urban fringe, due to the trend of urban spread, and the conversion of rural areas into building land, while developing the accessibility to public services;

17.

Calls for an improvement of the administrative capacity — e.g. through increased use of technical assistance — of local and regional authorities, and of economic and social actors, in the management of the structural funds, for the purpose of real multilevel governance, in order to ensure that objectives are met; considers it crucial that sustainable multifunctional networks, based on good practices, are developed and promoted in a way that will stimulate the formation of’ vibrant, integrated, urban-rural partnerships based on the needs of individual regions;

18.

Highlights the opportunity to create networking between pilot projects on sustainable urban development financed by the ERDF and the new multiannual Horizon 2020 programme, in order to guarantee innovative solutions and replicable strategies in urban regeneration;

19.

Is convinced that the experience of the Covenant of Mayors can form a good starting point for further developments in the pursuit of the EU 2020 Strategy objectives;

20.

Calls for a sustainable mobility management model, integrated with town planning, that comprises more public facilities and systemic logistics networks appropriate to the needs of the urban distribution of goods and services, with appropriate attention given to green transport needs;

21.

Is convinced that environmental problems like the management of waste represents a major problem that transcends merely technical aspects and has an impact on social issues; urges, further, that measures to ensure quality water supply and purification services in towns be continued, since this benefits the public and the environment at the same time;

22.

Stresses that the increase in green spaces and urban parks forms an element of extremely high value in terms of the natural, historic and cultural heritage, and contributes to regulating negative microclimate effects, a better energy budget and financial savings, increases sustainability and the quality of the urban environment, and allows social and recreational needs to be met;

23.

Hopes that, in defining the pathways for urban development, priority is given to technical materials and solutions that allow energy-saving standards in line with the objectives of the European policies;

24.

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

30.12.2015   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 440/6

—

having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular Title XVIII thereof,

—

having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1083/2006 of 11 July 2006 laying down general provisions on the European Regional Development Fund, the European Social Fund and the Cohesion Fund and repealing Regulation (EC) No 1260/1999 (1),

—

having regard to Council Decision 2006/702/EC of 6 October 2006 on Community strategic guidelines on cohesion (2),

—

having regard to its resolution of 5 July 2011 on the Commission’s fifth Cohesion Report and the strategy for post-2013 cohesion policy (3),

—

having regard to its resolution of 23 June 2011 on the state of play and future synergies for increased effectiveness between the ERDF and other structural funds (4),

—

having regard to its resolution of 8 June 2011 on ‘Investing in the future: a new Multiannual Financial Framework (MFF) for a competitive, sustainable and inclusive Europe’ (5),

—

having regard to its resolution of 23 June 2011 on European Urban Agenda and its Future in Cohesion Policy (6),

—

having regard to its resolution of 23 June 2011 on ‘Objective 3: a challenge for territorial cooperation — the future agenda for cross-border, transnational and interregional cooperation’ (7),

—

having regard to its resolution of 7 October 2010 on EU cohesion and regional policy after 2013 (8),

—

having regard to its resolution of 20 May 2010 on the contribution of the Cohesion policy to the achievement of Lisbon and the EU2020 Objectives (9),

—

having regard to its resolution of 20 May 2010 on the implementation of the synergies of research and innovation earmarked Funds in Regulation (EC) No 1080/2006 on the European Regional Development Fund and the Seventh Framework Programme for Research and Development in cities and regions as well as in the Member States and the Union (10),

—

having regard to the study published by Parliament entitled ‘Cohesion policy after 2013: a critical assessment of the legislative proposals’,

—

having regard to the Polish Presidency Conclusions of 24—25 November 2011 on the territorial dimension of EU policies and the future Cohesion Policy (11),

—

having regard to the proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 October 2011 laying down common provisions on the European Regional Development Fund, the European Social Fund, the Cohesion Fund, the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development and the European Maritime and Fisheries Fund covered by the Common Strategic Framework and laying down general provisions on the European Regional Development Fund, the European Social Fund and the Cohesion Fund and repealing Regulation (EC) No 1083/2006 (COM(2011)0615),

—

having regard to the Commission proposal of 6 October 2011 for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on specific provisions concerning the European Regional Development Fund and the Investment for growth and jobs goal and repealing Regulation (EC) No 1080/2006 (COM(2011)0614),

—

having regard to the Commission communication of 9 November 2010 entitled ‘Conclusions of the fifth report on economic, social and territorial cohesion: the future of cohesion policy’ (COM(2010)0642),

—

having regard to the Commission communication of 19 October 2010 entitled ‘The EU Budget Review’ (COM(2010)0700) and the technical annexes thereto (SEC(2010)7000),

—

having regard to the Commission communication of 6 October 2010 entitled ‘Regional Policy contributing to smart growth in Europe 2020’(COM(2010)0553),

—

having regard to the Commission communication of 31 March 2010 entitled ‘Cohesion policy: Strategic Report 2010 on the implementation of the programmes 2007-2013’ (COM(2010)0110),

—

having regard to the Commission communication of 3 March 2010 entitled ‘Europe 2020: a strategy for smart, sustainable and inclusive growth’ (COM(2010)2020),

—

having regard to ‘An agenda for a reformed cohesion policy — A place-based approach to meeting European Union challenges and expectations’, an independent report prepared at the request of Danuta Hübner, Commissioner for Regional Policy, by Fabrizio Barca (April 2009),

—

having regard to Rule 48 of its Rules of Procedure,

—

having regard to the report of the Committee on Regional Development and the opinion of the Committee on Employment and Social Affairs (A7-0421/2012),

A.

whereas cohesion policy aims to reduce disparities among EU regions by strengthening economic, social and territorial cohesion, and whereas it has been effective in promoting European integration through social and economic development;

B.

whereas the Common Provisions Regulation (CPR) sets out common rules applicable to all five European funding programmes (European Regional Development Fund (ERDF), European Social Fund (ESF), Cohesion Fund, European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EARDF), European Marine and Fisheries Fund (EMFF)) that are designed to implement cohesion, rural and fisheries policies;

C.

whereas the Common Strategic Framework looks at mechanisms to create more coordination among the funds covered by the CPR (ERDF, ESF, Cohesion Fund, EARDF, EMFF) and better integration of the funds covered by the CPR with other EU policy areas;

D.

whereas the territorial dimension is a cross-cutting aspect of cohesion policy and gives European regions the opportunity to make use of individual territorial potential in order to work towards achieving cohesion policy objectives;

E.

whereas territorial cohesion is now recognised by the Lisbon Treaty as a fundamental EU objective;

1.

Recognises a simplified multi-level governance system as integral to the decision-making process under cohesion policy, with collaboration necessary at every stage at European, national, regional and local level in the planning, development and execution of European funding programmes; calls on the Commission to ensure that this is reflected in the development of clear and well-defined partnership contracts;

2.

Highlights the importance of the European code of conduct for Member States, regions and local authorities during the preparation, implementation and monitoring of funding programmes; recognises that, in order to achieve such collaboration, it is important to ensure that decisions are made at the closest possible level to citizens;

3.

Emphasises that, despite significant progress towards convergence in the EU, disparities (e.g. in terms of accessibility) still exist, and are continuing to widen, between EU regions; highlights the fact that the budget for cohesion policy post-2013 must be at least maintained at its current level in order to ensure that support continues to reach areas in need of economic and social regeneration in all regions of the EU;

4.

Welcomes the Commission’s proposals to focus on measurable results delivered by cohesion policy in order to increase the sustainability of investments and guarantee the effectiveness of funding programmes; highlights the need for the focus on a results-led system to include flexibility at national, regional and local level, taking into account simplification, programming priorities and partnership, so that results-led systems are region-specific;

5.

Endorses the Commission’s overarching proposals throughout the CPR to reduce administrative burden; highlights the fact, therefore, that rules, checks and eligibility must be made clear from the outset and that successful simplification of administrative procedures can be achieved through an integrated approach to the delivery of funds;

6.

Underlines the importance, in shaping and implementing cohesion policy, of ensuring a fair balance between necessary checks on the use of funds and their effectiveness;

7.

Stresses the need to ensure a flexible approach to setting local and regional objectives, with stakeholders at regional level involved at all stages to ensure that European funding programmes meet the needs to tackle social and economic disparities;

8.

Emphasises that flexibility should extend to greater provision for projects to operate across different funds covered by the CPR and that this increased flexibility would help to simplify project delivery and increase the complementary and cross-cutting aspects of European funding;

9.

Emphasises that territorial cohesion objectives are inextricably linked to economic and social challenges and recognises that cohesion policy can make a valuable contribution to delivering on the Europe 2020 targets, especially in the fields of employment, education and poverty reduction, by introducing a territorial dimension to Europe’s growth strategy;

10.

Highlights the fact that using other funding programmes (e.g. Horizon 2020), possibly in alignment with cohesion policy funding, should also be considered when working towards Europe 2020 objectives;

11.

Recognises the increased focus on cities and urban areas as a driver of economic growth;

12.

Highlights the importance of strengthening existing urban-rural linkages and promoting new ones; emphasises that this requires a strong multi-level focus and collaboration between rural and urban stakeholders, and that the right conditions must be created through fostering partnerships and networks in order to encourage rural participation in the integrated activities of a given functional geographical entity;

13.

Highlights the need to link territorial cooperation programmes more effectively with territorial strategies and underlines the potential role of the European Grouping of Territorial Cooperation (EGTC) in achieving this;

14.

Emphasises that, due to the differing size, resources and social and economic aspects of cities and urban areas in the EU, the definition of these areas is decided at Member State level;

15.

Stresses that territorial cohesion also applies to cohesion within territories i.e. ensuring that the whole area makes an economic contribution, not just the large cities, and emphasises that the potential of small and medium-sized towns in rural areas to make a significant contribution to the region should not be overlooked;

16.

Stresses that in order to address the cross-cutting aspects of territorial cohesion with a view to producing tangible results at regional level and fully exploiting the individual potential of regions, clear and well-defined Partnership Contracts are needed; emphasises that this can only be achieved with the involvement of actors at local and regional level, so that all parties can contribute to the preparation and delivery of programmes; highlights that this is especially important when aiming to support territories that face specific challenges, such as cross-border, mountain, island and outermost regions;

17.

Welcomes CPR proposals that encourage better coordination and integration of funding programmes in order to ensure greater impact of funds, and the stronger presence of the territorial dimension of cohesion policy in the framework for 2014-2020;

18.

Emphasises that a stronger and more integrated territorial approach to European funding, with adequate capacity-building and the involvement of social and civil society partners at local and regional level, in both urban and rural settings, is a positive way of ensuring that money is directed towards addressing Europe’s long-term social and economic challenges;

19.

Stresses that improved harmonisation between cohesion policy and other policy areas outlined by the CPR will allow European regions to continue to develop economically by making use of their individual strengths;

20.

Cites as an example the Wales European Funding Office (WEFO) and its intention of integrating European funds in Wales by creating a single ‘portal’ allowing access to information on all funds covered by the CPR; underlines the potential for WEFO’s ‘portal’ to include a common platform with a single application, payments, monitoring and evaluation process for all funds covered by the CPR; emphasises that this approach would allow for easier identification of potential synergies and integration between funding streams, thus harmonising and simplifying the process of applying for European funds;

21.

Emphasises that, given the characteristics shared by the funds covered by the CPR and other funding programmes (e.g. Horizon 2020, LIFE+), the effectiveness of European funding could be enhanced by exploring the potential alignment between these funds;

22.

Welcomes the proposals for a regulatory framework with a focus on local and integrated development through ‘community-led local development’, ‘joint action plans’ and ‘integrated territorial investment’;

23.

Stresses that, following the Commission’s proposals, all investment must complement local needs and not overlap with other projects;

24.

Calls for a fully integrated approach to related delivery instruments (community-led local development (CLLD), integrated territorial investments (ITIs), joint action plans (JAPs)), allowing local partnerships to choose, according to their individual needs, different combinations of these instruments as appropriate, and for consideration to be given to the possibility of applying flexible arrangements for the purpose of concentrating resources, taking into account the specific needs of Member States and regions;

25.

Highlights the need to keep the application of the proposed instrument as simple as possible, so as to avoid adding to the administrative burden of local authorities and to keep in line with simplification objectives;

26.

Considers that institutional capacity at different levels of intervention is a significant element ensuring the successful application of the territorial approach;

27.

Highlights the example of the sub-delegation to councils in the Netherlands, which includes parts of funding programmes (e.g. ERDF) being delegated from the regional authority to local authorities, with actions implemented at local level to address local needs; stresses that allocating management responsibility to local authorities gives greater potential to integrate the best combination of funds tailored to local needs; emphasises that, with the management structures already in place at local level, this approach could benefit the delivery of ITIs at local or sub-local level;

28.

Supports the Commission’s proposals on CLLD as an important provision of the CPR which will focus on developing synergies between all funds covered by the CPR;

29.

Considers this instrument to be an excellent way of encouraging bottom-up participation from a cross-section of local community actors working towards sustainable territorial objectives; welcomes, in this connection, the further strengthening of administrative capacity at regional and local level for capacity-building actions aimed at improving the participation of both local and regional authorities and of the social partners;

30.

Recognises the past success of the Leader programme as an important tool for the delivery of rural development policy and believes that through CLLD this delivery mechanism can be instrumental in responding to local and regional challenges; supports also the use of CLLD for urban development;

31.

Calls for the Commission to clarify its proposals on CLLD in the implementation phase in order to allow potential participants to fully determine the likely purpose, scope and effect of CLLD; looks forward to the publication of a guide to CLLD for Managing Authorities;

32.

Recognises the progress made since 2007 with Fisheries Local Action Groups working with Leader Local Action Groups (LAGs) as an example of how future CLLD could combine funds at local level across the funds covered by the CPR; highlights the example of 11 local partnerships in Denmark that use both the EARDF (Leader) and the European Fisheries Fund (Axis 4) to fund projects using the same delivery system and administration;

33.

Underlines the need to look at examples such as the integrated use of EARDF and EMFF funds through CLLD in the future programming period as a way of developing synergies between all funds covered by the CPR;

34.

Supports proposals by the CPR to introduce joint action plans to allow groups of projects to be funded by more than one operational programme;

35.

Recognises joint action plans as a positive step towards results-based management, in line with one of the overarching aims of cohesion policy post-2013;

36.

Stresses the importance of ensuring that these instruments are developed alongside CLLD in order to ensure that CLLD grows into more than merely a strategic tool for local capacity development rather than an investment goal in itself, while promoting, inter alia, social inclusion and combating poverty;

37.

Calls for clarification on the scope and integration of joint action plans, and on whether they will be used to deliver entire, or only parts of, programmes;

38.

Recognises that joint action plans can offer effective assistance in achieving the balanced integration of young people into the labour market; points out, however, that excessively long decision-making processes and administrative procedures should be avoided;

39.

Welcomes the proposals for ITIs, which could provide cities with the opportunity to meet their own specific needs by drawing on funding from more than one priority axis to implement operational programmes in an integrated way;

40.

Welcomes further clarification on the scope of ITIs and the potential for the instrument, if it fits local needs, to be used also in non-urban and peri-urban areas, with the use of all the funds covered by the CPR; emphasises that the coherence of ITIs with regional sustainable development strategies has to be ensured in order to improve economic and social cohesion, not only among regions, but also among urban and non-urban areas within the regions;

41.

Highlights the example of a proposed model for ITIs from Greater Manchester, which integrates funding from as many relevant sources as possible to achieve better value from investment; highlights the fact that the development of this model is ongoing and could potentially be used to support a strategy bringing many economic and social benefits to the city region; emphasises that the proposed ITI would integrate ERDF priorities with ESF measures and that, given the increased focus of the ERDF on SMEs and innovation, there is potential for the ITI to create links with Horizon 2020 projects in the future;

42.

Welcomes the Commission’s proposals for greater use, and extension of the scope, of financial instruments through the creation of simpler and clearer rules to ensure increased effectiveness across all the five funds covered by the CPR;

43.

Highlights the potential of financial instruments, including micro-credits, to open up alternative sources of finance for a wide range of actors to complement traditional financing methods; stresses that in the future funding framework financial instruments should have the ability to lever private funding and offer flexibility to Member States and regions to tailor target sectors and implementation methods to their specific needs;

44.

Stresses that financial instruments, as mechanisms allowing cooperation between enterprises, public sector organisations and educational institutions, should also be encouraged as a means of developing an integrated approach to funding;

45.

Welcomes the proposals in the Common Strategic Framework for Partnership Contracts to outline potential alignment between the funds covered by the CPR and other funding programmes, such as the EU Framework Programme for Research and Innovation (previously FP7, now Horizon 2020), LIFE + and the Connecting Europe Facility;

46.

Recognises that, while funding programmes such as Horizon 2020 are primarily focused on excellence, Structural Funds have previously been successful in a ‘capacity-building’ role by providing funding to develop businesses or organisations that have then gone on to become partners in FP7 or Competitiveness and Innovation Programme (CIP) projects;

47.

Stresses that the existing synergies between the funds covered by the CPR and Horizon 2020 mean that both sources of funding could potentially be used while working towards complementary thematic objectives;

48.

Stresses that employment and social policies play an important role in sustainable and socially balanced territorial development and have much to contribute to reducing regional disparities and improving the well-being of all citizens while providing equal opportunities for all;

49.

Stresses that combating poverty includes combating exclusion, and that rural regions with low population density or ageing populations have to deal with insufficient provision of healthcare services, which could be offset to a certain extent by improved accessibility to broadband technologies and the promotion of telemedicine;

50.

Considers that the territorial approach should prove an effective mechanism for supporting SMEs in creating new sustainable jobs and initiating or developing vocational training programmes; considers that entrepreneurial activity aimed at growth and employment and the tapping of potential can work across administrative territorial boundaries, and calls on the Member States to improve the existing conditions for new entrepreneurs in order to better exploit their high potential for creating new sustainable jobs;

51.

Underlines the importance of creating strong synergies between cohesion policy and other EU policies, in order to safeguard the effectiveness of cohesion policy in addressing current employment and social challenges;

52.

Points out that territorial cooperation and macroregional strategies could be useful instruments for identifying and combating regional disparities, e.g. in access to education and employment, and for promoting convergence between European regions;

53.

Believes that voluntary mobility of workers and young graduates in the EU could be a solution for regional and local labour market shortages, and encourages Member States and regions to make more effective use of such mobility in order to encourage territorial development and cohesion;

54.

Considers it essential to coordinate the actions supported by the ESF at different policy levels, in order to allow an efficient territorial approach; considers it necessary, in particular, to link educational services and facilities to local labour market needs;

55.

Believes it is of paramount importance to promote exchanges of best practice between Member States, in the context of meaningful and effective long-term territorial development planning and by promoting decent and sustainable employment with a view to preventing and fighting poverty and unemployment;

56.

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

30.12.2015   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 440/13

—

having regard to Articles 175, 212 and 222 of the TFEU,

—

having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 2012/2002 of 11 November 2002 establishing the European Union Solidarity Fund (1),

—

having regard to the Interinstitutional Agreement of 7 November 2002 between the European Parliament, the Council and the Commission on the financing of the European Union Solidarity Fund supplementing the Interinstitutional Agreement of 6 May 1999 on budgetary discipline and improvement of the budgetary procedure (2),

—

having regard to the Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions on The Future of the European Union Solidarity Fund (COM(2011)0613),

—

having regard to the report from the Commission on the European Union Solidarity Fund 2010 (COM(2011)0694),

—

having regard to the report from the Commission on the European Union Solidarity Fund — Annual Report 2008 and Report on the experience gained after six years of applying the new instrument (COM(2009)0193),

—

having regard to its position of 18 May 2006 on the proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council establishing the European Union Solidarity Fund (3),

—

having regard to the opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee on the Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions on the future of the European Union Solidarity Fund (4),

—

having regard to Court of Auditors Special Report No 3/2008 — The European Union Solidarity Fund: how rapid, efficient and flexible is it? (5),

—

having regard to Rule 48 of its Rules of Procedure,

—

having regard to the report of the Committee on Regional Development (A7-0398/2012),

A.

whereas Article 222 of the TFEU stipulates that the Union and its Member States must act jointly in a spirit of solidarity if a Member State is the victim of a natural or man-made disaster or the object of a terrorist attack;

B.

whereas the European Union Solidarity Fund (EUSF) is the main instrument for demonstrating Union solidarity by providing significant financial support for Member States or regions affected by serious disasters;

C.

whereas, where its mobilisation is necessary, the EUSF is widely seen as one of the most satisfactory instruments available to the European Union since it is the clearest, most decisive and most significant expression of European solidarity with its citizens in the face of a difficult situation;

D.

whereas the 2005 legislative proposal for a new EUSF regulation was widely supported in the European Parliament but proved unacceptable for the majority of the Member States and was finally withdrawn by the Commission;

E.

whereas the current crisis obliges Member States and the EU not to incur excessive spending;

F.

whereas a series of reports (6) have concluded that the current EUSF Regulation needs to be amended with the primary objective of making it more flexible and improving its operability, whilst complying with the subsidiarity principle;

1.

Highlights the importance of the EUSF as the main instrument allowing the European Union to respond to a serious disaster occurring within Union territory or in countries negotiating their accession to the EU;

2.

Stresses that, even though it is highly regarded by the public, the way in which it operates needs to be improved so as to make it more flexible and raise its profile, with a view to boosting the European Union’s credibility among its citizens;

3.

Highlights the importance of the aid given to Member States by the EUSF in order to ease the burden on public finances when dealing with emergencies caused by a serious disaster, which in many cases would overstretch them;

4.

Considers that the time currently taken to mobilise the fund is unacceptably long and accordingly points to the need to improve the effectiveness and speed of the administrative procedures required for its mobilisation, which entail intervention by three European institutions before approval can be granted, with the result that these procedures excessively delay and prolong the time taken to assist Member States affected by a disaster, thereby falling short of the results hoped for;

5.

Points out that the majority of applications (63 %) were submitted under the exceptional category of ‘regional disaster’, and that 66 % of them were rejected following assessment by the Commission;

6.

Takes the view that, in the case of what are considered ‘slowly unfolding’ disasters, the current provisions of the regulation pose legal and practical difficulties for mobilisation, and therefore requests that the Commission consider showing greater flexibility with regard to the deadline set for submitting applications, so that particular attention can be paid to ensuring that such damage can also be covered by the EUSF;

7.

Welcomes the Commission’s decision on the need to revise the current EUSF Regulation with the aim of improving its functioning and operation; shares the Commission’s opinion that, in view of the current economic crisis, the proposed amendment to the rules should not pose any additional burden on the budgets of either the Union or the Member States;

8.

Points out that the principle that the party responsible for damage must pay should continue to apply, so that making use of the EUSF cannot exempt those responsible for a disaster from their liability;

9.

Considers that opposition from a number of Member States, fearing that significant changes to the legal basis of this instrument would entail higher financial outgoings, is unjustified and has restricted the adjustment of the 2002 Regulation to a number of clarifications and an attempt to improve its operability; points out that, regrettably, disasters in the European Union’s regions have increased significantly in number, nature, severity and intensity since the Fund was created;

10.

Nevertheless welcomes the fact that simply making certain adjustments to the rules in force will achieve significant improvements to its operation whilst maintaining its rationale and character, which is chiefly to provide a flexible and effective instrument that can provide prompt assistance for citizens affected by a phenomenon that has serious repercussions on their living conditions and well-being;

11.

Wonders whether a clearer and more precise definition of the concept of disasters might help to reduce the scepticism felt by many of the Member States that are opposed to in-depth reform of this EU instrument;

12.

Highlights the urgent need to simplify the bureaucratic procedures necessary to mobilise this EU instrument with a view to reducing the time that elapses between the point at which the disaster occurs and the point at which the Member State or region affected receives aid, which in some cases extends for more than a year; points out, nevertheless, that this instrument was not created to provide a rapid response but to re-finance emergency operations financed initially by the public authorities in the affected country;

13.

Welcomes the Commission’s proposal to contribute to the simplification of the procedures at European level so as to reduce delays; underlines that Member States should also analyse their administrative procedures and identify and remove possible bottlenecks that might bear an obstacle to faster mobilisation of assistance to the affected regions;

14.

Calls on the Member States to cooperate closely with local and regional authorities at all stages of implementation, in order to ensure that Union assistance is visible and effective on the ground, and to promote sustainable solutions;

15.

Finds the Commission’s proposal in relation to merging grant decisions and implementation agreements between the Commission and Member States interesting and appropriate once Parliament and the Council have made the financial resources available, since it would save time and therefore allow a more rapid response;

16.

Takes the view that, given the uncertainty and unforeseeability concerning the number and severity of disasters that might occur, the EUSF should remain outside the Union budget, as is currently the case, and be mobilised when disasters happen;

17.

Endorses the idea that introducing the possibility to pay advances as soon as the affected State has applied for assistance is also a viable option for speeding up the process of making aid available to countries affected by a major disaster, and that it would help to make the EUSF more effective; takes the view that, if such a decision is taken, advances should represent a fixed percentage of the total aid that is expected to be provided and they would have to be returned to the Union budget in the event that the application was not accepted;

18.

Calls on the Commission to define the scope and area covered by the Fund clearly, removing any possible legal uncertainty as to its scope and avoiding a situation where Member States submit applications under pressure from their citizens even though they know their applications will have to be rejected;

19.

Takes the view that, where a disaster has ‘cascading’ effects, the ‘collateral’ damage should still be covered by the Fund where it has a significant impact on a region’s socio-economic structure;

20.

Stresses the need to define clearly and simply what is a disaster at regional level and to clarify the eligibility of disasters that occur at regional level, introducing a simple and objective criterion that will make it possible to assimilate them to other disasters and remove any possibility of speculative interpretation, and any doubt among applicants as to their eligibility;

21.

Takes the view that the criterion based on the income threshold could be used as a general basic criterion for all types of disaster; stresses that, in the event that it is set as an indicator for determining the eligibility of a regional disaster, it should be adjusted in line with regional GDP in the last year for which official figures are available, applying a pre-defined weighting factor which would include losses that are not quantifiable in terms of income and the direct and indirect effects that generally accompany a regional disaster, which are frequently far greater than those calculated in terms of income;

22.

Takes the view that the proposed damage threshold of 1,5 % of regional GDP at NUTS 2 level (7) for the purpose of defining the eligibility of a regional disaster would clarify expectations as regards whether or not a potential application for mobilisation of the fund will be eligible, but stresses that, given that this will produce practically the same result as the current criteria for regional disasters, virtually all such regional disasters will continue to be ineligible; points out, therefore, that such a high threshold will not provide the response that citizens expect, and will therefore not prevent frustration among the victims of a disaster, who will, on the contrary, continue to condemn the Union’s actions and accuse it of lacking sensitivity towards its citizens;

23.

Recalls that disaster prevention plays a vital role in Union’s policies and represents the cheapest way to reduce vulnerability towards disasters; underlines that EU regions should make coherent use of all the different funding opportunities for sustainable disaster prevention;

24.

Stresses that it must be clear that drought will continue to be regarded as a type of disaster that is eligible for the EUSF, with a focus on mitigating the socio-economic and environmental effects of droughts in the context of the Water Framework Directive, taking account of the fact that this is a lasting structural problem which is difficult to square with the deadlines for applications set and which has serious repercussions on the social and economic development of the regions affected; urges that, in the event of serious droughts or other slowly unfolding disasters, specific provisions should be introduced setting the date of first public authority intervention to combat the disaster, thereby allowing a rapid and legally clear response;

25.

Urges the Commission to examine and adapt the criteria so that the EUSF can respond to Mediterranean natural disasters which, partly due to climate change, represent the most serious natural disasters that have been occurring in the Union in recent years;

26.

Points out that the EUSF does not cover all the damage arising from a natural disaster, and damage covered under this instrument should therefore be properly defined in a future proposal for a regulation;

27.

Points out that it is very difficult to respond adequately, at EU level, to serious man-made crises with the existing instruments, as has been seen in the case of industrial accidents and serious public health crises, and that where such disasters occur, the Union needs to have suitable instruments to offer an appropriate response;

28.

Highlights the need for the EUSF to complement other funding instruments, such as the structural funds, when responding to natural disasters, taking advantage of the creation of synergies with these mechanisms and associated programmes;

29.

Stresses that the regions should have sufficient flexibility in the forthcoming financial framework 2014-2020, and that they should be able to redistribute the resources allocated to them so that they can boost the resources available in the event of a disaster, if they consider this necessary and appropriate, and calls on the Commission to revise the regulation in force in good time for the new financial period;

30.

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

30.12.2015   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 440/17

—

having regard to Article 225 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,

—

having regard to Article 298 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,

—

having regard to Article 41 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, which provides that the right to good administration is a fundamental right,

—

having regard to Regulation (EC) No 45/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 December 2000 on the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data by the Community institutions and bodies and on the free movement of such data (1),

—

having regard to Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 May 2001 regarding public access to European Parliament, Council and Commission documents (2),

—

having regard to the extensive case-law of the Court of Justice of the European Union, which has recognised a set of general principles of administrative law based on the constitutional traditions of the Member States,

—

having regard to its resolution of 6 September 2001 on the European Ombudsman's Special Report to the European Parliament following the own-initiative inquiry into the existence and the public accessibility, in the different Community institutions and bodies, of a Code of Good Administrative Behaviour (3),

—

having regard to Commission Decision 2000/633/EC, ECSC, Euratom of 17 October 2000 amending its Rules of Procedure by annexing a Code of Good Administrative behaviour for staff of the European Commission in their relations with the Public (4),

—

having regard to the Decision of the Secretary-General of the Council/High Representative for Common Foreign and Security Policy of 25 June 2001 on a code of good administrative behaviour for the General Secretariat of the Council of the European Union and its staff in their professional relations with the public (5),

—

having regard to the Council of Europe's Recommendation CM/Rec(2007)7 of the Committee of Ministers to member states on good administration, dated 20 June 2007,

—

having regard to the ‘Public service principles for the EU civil service’ published by the European Ombudsman on 19 June 2012,

—

having regard to the survey commissioned by the Swedish Government from the Swedish Agency for Public Management on the principles of good administration in the Member States of the European Union (6),

—

having regard to the briefing notes presented at the Conference on EU administrative law organised by the Policy Department of Parliament's Committee on Legal Affairs and the University of León (León, 27—28 April 2011),

—

having regard to the recommendations included in the working document on the state of play and future prospects for EU administrative law presented by the Working Group on EU Administrative Law to the Committee of Legal Affairs on 22 November 2011,

—

having regard to the European Added Value Assessment on a Law of Administrative Procedure of the European Union, presented by the European Added Value Unit to the Committee of Legal Affairs on 6 November 2012,

—

having regard to Rules 42 and 48 of its Rules of Procedure,

—

having regard to the report of the Committee on Legal Affairs and the opinions of the Committee on Constitutional Affairs and the Committee on Petitions (A7-0369/2012),

A.

whereas with the development of the competences of the European Union, citizens are increasingly directly confronted with the Union's administration, without always having the corresponding procedural rights which they could enforce against it in cases where such actions may prove necessary;

B.

whereas citizens are entitled to expect a high level of transparency, efficiency, swift execution and responsiveness from the Union's administration, regardless of whether they are making a formal complaint or exercising their right of petition under the Treaty, together with information as to the possibility of their taking any further action in the matter;

C.

whereas the Union's existing rules and principles on good administration are scattered across a wide variety of sources: primary law, case-law of the Court of Justice of the European Union, secondary legislation, soft law and unilateral commitments by the Union's institutions;

D.

whereas the fact that the Union lacks a coherent and comprehensive set of codified rules of administrative law makes it difficult for citizens to understand their administrative rights under Union law;

E.

whereas the existing internal codes of conduct of the different institutions have a limited effect, differ from one another and are not legally binding;

F.

whereas in its abovementioned resolution of 6 September 2001, in the belief that the same code of good administrative behaviour should apply to all Union institutions, bodies and agencies, Parliament approved with amendments the European Code of Good Administrative Behaviour drafted by the Ombudsman;

G.

whereas in the same resolution Parliament called on the Commission to submit a proposal for a regulation containing a code of Good Administrative Behaviour based on Article 308 of the Treaty establishing the European Community;

H.

whereas, as emphasised by the Ombudsman, this would help eliminate the confusion currently arising from the parallel existence of different codes for most Union institutions and bodies, would ensure that the institutions and bodies apply the same basic principles in their relations with citizens and would underline, both for citizens and for officials, the importance of such principles;

I.

whereas all actions of the Union must comply with the rule of law under a strict separation of powers;

J.

whereas the fundamental right to good administration enshrined in Article 41 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union has become legally binding as primary law;

K.

whereas rules on good administration promote transparency and accountability;

L.

whereas a pressing problem facing the European Union today is the lack of confidence on the part of citizens, which can affect its legitimacy; whereas the European Union needs to address swift, clear and visible answers to the citizens in order to respond to their worries;

M.

whereas the codification of the service principle — that is, the principle that the administration should seek to guide, help, serve and support citizens, act with appropriate courtesy and therefore avoid unnecessarily cumbersome and lengthy procedures, thus saving the time and effort both of citizens and of officials — would help to meet the legitimate expectations of citizens and benefit both citizens and the administration in terms of improved service and increased efficiency; whereas awareness of the right of Union citizens to good administration should be increased, including through the Commission's relevant information services and networks;

N.

whereas, taking into account the recommendations of the Group of States against corruption (GRECO) of the Council of Europe, a clear and binding set of rules for the Union's administration would be a positive signal in the fight against corruption in public administrations;

O.

whereas a core set of principles of good administration is currently widely accepted among Member States;

P.

whereas the case-law of the Court of Justice has developed well-established procedural principles which apply to Member States' procedures in community matters and which should a fortiori apply to direct administration by the Union;

Q.

whereas a European Law of Administrative Procedure would help the Union's administration in using its power of internal organisation to facilitate and promote the highest standards of administration;

R.

whereas a European Law of Administrative Procedure would enhance the Union's legitimacy and increase the confidence of citizens in the Union's administration;

S.

whereas a European Law of Administrative Procedure could strengthen a spontaneous convergence of national administrative law, with regard to general principles of procedure and the fundamental rights of citizens vis-à-vis the administration, and thus strengthen the process of integration;

T.

whereas a European Law of Administrative Procedure could foster cooperation and the exchange of best practices between national administrations and the Union's administration, in order to fulfil the objectives set up by Article 298 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union;

U.

whereas the entry into force of the Treaty of Lisbon has provided the Union with an appropriate legal basis for the adoption of a European Law of Administrative Procedure;

V.

whereas the legislative action requested in this resolution should be based on detailed impact assessments inter alia quantifying the cost of administrative procedures;

W.

whereas the Commission should engage in adequate consultation with all relevant actors, and should in particular make use of the special knowledge and expertise of the European Ombudsman, since it is to him that public complaints about abuses within the bodies and institutions of the Union are made;

1.

Requests the Commission to submit, on the basis of Article 298 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, a proposal for a regulation on a European Law of Administrative Procedure, following the detailed recommendations set out in the Annex hereto;

2.

Confirms that the recommendations respect fundamental rights and the principle of subsidiarity;

3.

Considers that the requested proposal does not have financial implications;

4.

Instructs its President to forward this resolution and the accompanying detailed recommendations to the Commission and the Council, to the European Ombudsman and to the parliaments and governments of the Member States.

30.12.2015   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 440/23

—

having regard to Article 225 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,

—

having regard to Articles 9 and 151 and Article 153(1)(e) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,

—

having regard to Articles 14, 27 and 30 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union,

—

having regard to the assessment of the European added value of an Union measure on information and consultation of workers, anticipation and management of restructuring process, carried out by the European Added Value Unit of the European Parliament and transmitted to the Committee on Employment and Social Affairs on 19 November 2012 (1),

—

having regard to ‘Managing change — Final report of the High Level Group on economic and social implications of industrial change, set up by the Luxembourg Employment Summit of November 1997’ (2),

—

having regard to Council Recommendation 92/443/EEC of 27 July 1992 concerning the promotion of participation by employed persons in profits and enterprise results (including equity participation) (3),

—

having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 2157/2001 of 8 October 2001 on the Statute for a European Company (SE) (4),

—

having regard to Council Directive 98/59/EC of 20 July 1998 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to collective redundancies (5),

—

having regard to the Council Directive 2000/78/EC of 27 November 2000 establishing a general framework for equal treatment in employment and occupation (6),

—

having regard to Council Directive 2001/23/EC of 12 March 2001 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to the safeguarding of employees’ rights in the event of transfers of undertakings, businesses or parts of undertakings or businesses (7),

—

having regard to Council Directive 2001/86/EC of 8 October 2001 supplementing the Statute for a European company with regard to the involvement of employees (8),

—

having regard to Directive 2002/14/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 March 2002 establishing a general framework for informing and consulting employees in the European Community (9),

—

having regard to Council Directive 2003/72/EC of 22 July 2003 supplementing the Statute for a European Cooperative Society with regard to the involvement of employees (10),

—

having regard to Directive 2004/25/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 April 2004 on takeover bids (11),

—

having regard to Directive 2005/56/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 October 2005 on cross-border mergers of limited liability companies (12),

—

having regard to Directive 2009/38/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 May 2009 on the establishment of a European Works Council or a procedure in Community-scale undertakings and Community-scale groups of undertakings for the purposes of informing and consulting employees (13),

—

having regard to the Commission communication of 31 March 2005 on ‘Restructuring and employment: Anticipating and accompanying restructuring in order to develop employment: the role of the European Union’ (COM(2005)0120) and the opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee of 14 December 2005 (14),

—

having regard to the Commission communication on the Social Agenda (COM(2005)0033),

—

having regard to Council Decision 2010/707/EU of 21 October 2010 establishing guidelines for the employment policies of the Member States (15),

—

having regard to the Commission communication on ‘An Integrated Industrial Policy for the Globalised Era Putting Competitiveness and Sustainability at Centre Stage’ (COM(2010)0614),

—

having regard to the Commission communication entitled ‘Towards a Single Market Act’ (COM(2010)0608 final/2),

—

having regard to the Commission communication on ‘An Agenda for New Skills and Jobs’ (COM(2010)0682),

—

having regard to the Commission Green Paper on ‘Restructuring and anticipation of change: what lessons from recent experience?’ (COM(2012)0007),

—

having regard to its resolution of 15 December 2011 on the Mid-term review of the European Strategy 2007-2012 on occupational health and safety (16),

—

having regard to the Commission communication entitled ‘Towards a job rich recovery’ (COM (2012)0173),

—

having regard to its resolution of 26 May 2005 on the Social Agenda for the period 2006-2010 (17),

—

having regard to the own-initiative Opinion of 25 April 2012 of the European Economic and Social Committee on Cooperatives and restructuring (18),

—

having regard to its resolution of 10 May 2007 on strengthening European legislation in the field of information and consultation of workers (19),

—

having regard to its resolution of 9 March 2011 on an Industrial Policy for the Globalised Era (20),

—

having regard to the Commission communication of 20 September 2011 on a ‘Roadmap to a Resource Efficient Europe’ (COM(2011)0571),

—

having regard to the Commission communication of 8 March 2011 entitled ‘A Roadmap for moving to a competitive low carbon economy in 2050’ (COM(2011)0112),

—

having regard to the findings of research and surveys by the European Foundation for the Improvement of Living and Working Conditions,

—

having regard to Rules 42 and 48 of its Rules of Procedure,

—

having regard to the report of the Committee on Employment and Social Affairs (A7-0390/2012),

A.

whereas restructuring is not a new phenomenon but a practice which happens more frequently due to economic challenges and whereas, in recent years, it has become more prevalent as well as taking many different forms, intensifying in some sectors and spreading to others, with unforeseeable consequences for the economic and social fabric of the Member States;

B.

whereas the global economic crisis triggered in 2008 requires companies and their employees to make necessary changes to safeguard competitiveness and jobs, and whereas that crisis has been significantly worsened by financial speculation in the financial sector, speeding up the rate of change sharply, thereby increasing, to an alarming extent, the pressure on workers, territories and all levels of government for structural adjustments;

C.

whereas, as a result of radical changes in economic strategies, the last 30 years have seen a massive shift in wealth from the real to the financial economy; and whereas the situation of those who create all the goods and provide all the services, but who bear the full brunt of the economic crisis, needs to be improved;

D.

whereas restructuring becomes an issue for stakeholders only at a late stage, most often when redundancies are being considered;

E.

whereas, when restructuring, it is the immediate and easily perceptible impact on employment that attracts most attention, while the adverse effect on working conditions and worker's health is not properly recognised and tackled;

F.

whereas the multiple and diverse stakeholders involved in restructuring are isolated and rarely cooperate over the long-term;

G.

whereas, as consistently highlighted in recent policy papers from the Commission, especially the Europe 2020 Strategy and the Industrial Policy Communication of 28 October 2010, ‘Better anticipating and managing restructuring would help employees and companies to adapt to transitions imposed by excess capacities and by modernisation and structural adjustment’. […] ‘Management and employees' representatives are the key players to agree on restructuring strategies at company level. Policy interventions should accompany such restructuring to avoid social hardship and promote new skills and jobs, thus minimising mass redundancies and the decline of entire regions or the relocation of entire industries, by facilitating economic conversion and professional transition’;

H.

whereas the crisis has led to a new economic governance at Union level, through the annual growth survey and semester and whereas that new economic governance may itself lead to restructurings and thus requires the involvement of social partners;

I.

whereas there is a need to prepare workers in a timely manner for a shift towards a resource efficient, climate-friendly economy, and whereas that development has huge employment potential, but will give rise to the restructuring of unsustainable sectors and companies;

J.

whereas the number of jobs lost was almost double the number of jobs created in the third quarter 2011, this trend is likely to increase in view of the announcement of major restructurings in strategic fields;

K.

whereas more than 6,4 million jobs were lost in the construction and manufacturing sectors between 2008 and 2011;

L.

whereas all the Member States in which relatively few workers have been made redundant since the start of the crisis have very well developed industrial relations systems which accord workers and their representatives a relatively great many rights in the areas of consultation, information and codetermination, arrangements which have led to joint agreements being concluded at works' level on the basis of laws and collective agreements;

M.

whereas, as stated in the Annual Growth Survey: advancing the Union’s comprehensive response to the crisis, ‘the positive export performance of some Member States shows that success in global markets relies on wider factors such as sector specialisation, innovation, and skills levels that enhance real competitiveness’; whereas, against the specific background of the crisis, undertakings in some Member States have taken a long-term approach and have made every effort to retain their well-trained and highly experienced workers;

N.

whereas Union undertakings may find it difficult to be successful on world markets merely by undercutting their competitors’ prices, rather than by developing good products, processes and services;

O.

whereas employees in unsustainable sectors should be provided with assistance and training to make the transition to green jobs;

P.

whereas there is a danger that the good practices identified in the wake of the crisis, in particular by the ILO, will be largely disregarded and not used to address future crises; whereas, therefore, Union institutions should investigate and document such good practices, so that they can also be used when restructuring is carried out;

Q.

whereas, in its Communication on An Agenda for New Skills and Jobs of 23 November 2010, the Commission also recognises that ‘adaptability and pro-activity when moving jobs or occupations may however be hampered by insecurity because transitions bear a potential hazard of unemployment, lower wages and social insecurity; whereas positive transitions along people’s career paths are therefore essential in order to adapt constantly, maintaining and increasing employability while providing security for individuals and fluidity in labour markets.’;

R.

whereas, in cases of restructuring where redundancies are unavoidable, vulnerable categories of workers, including younger and older workers are more often targeted for redundancy than other age groups, even when this constitutes age discrimination under the relevant Union legislation;

S.

whereas, as stated in the Commission communication entitled ‘Towards a Single Market Act’, ‘the sense of disillusionment felt by some towards the internal market may also be the result of the perception that successive liberalisations have been carried out at the expense of the social rights acquired by various economic operators.’; ‘The Lisbon Treaty, and the affirmation of the concept of a “highly competitive social market economy” as one of its key objectives, require “the Union” to adopt a more all-embracing view of the single market. Economic freedoms and freedoms of collective action must be reconciled. New life must be breathed into the social dialogue, making it more likely to lead to legislation “by and for” the social partners, as explicitly provided for by the Lisbon Treaty.’; ‘Beyond purely reactive approaches to the economic and financial crisis, pre-emptive strategies have allowed businesses and their employees to ward off industrial disputes through the proactive management of restructuring operations. This is a precondition for economic success and is a social requirement, since it enables resources to be redistributed to emerging sectors and opens new windows of opportunity for workers when their jobs are at risk.’; whereas a Union act for restructuring exercises would make for an environment based on mutual trust;

T.

whereas the deepening of the single market leads to extra competition which can lead to restructuring; whereas the Union should take responsibility for this process by setting the framework to alleviate the social consequences;

U.

whereas the ‘Orientations for reference in managing change and its social consequences’ drawn up by the social partners in October 2003 have, however, not been followed by any legislative measure although they have been followed by two cycles of national seminars held by the social partners in the framework of their pluriannual work programmes; whereas these are still largely unknown not only from the national and sectorial social partners' organisations, but also, and more importantly, from companies and their workers' representatives; whereas, however, timely and effective observance of the principles enshrined in those Orientations and resulting also from many other studies and reports would be of great importance; whereas, since company practices in this field are frequently reactive rather than proactive, they intervene too far downstream of the decision-making process and do not involve external entities that could play a role in attenuating its social impact either sufficiently or in a sufficiently timely manner;

V.

whereas the Commission has looked for concrete contributions on how to further develop policy in this area through its Green Paper on Restructuring and anticipation of change: what lessons from recent experience?, in which it recognises that ‘technological change and innovation may force adjustment strategies for companies and labour, but there are also indications that innovation, combined with research and education can build an effective way to pull Europe out of the crisis’;

W.

whereas cooperatives manage restructuring in a socially responsible manner and their specific cooperative governance model, based on joint ownership, democratic participation and members’ control, as well as the ability of cooperatives to rely on their own financial resources and support networks, explain why cooperatives are more flexible and innovative in managing restructuring over time, as well as in creating new business;

X.

whereas, in spite of the strong statements referred to above, the Commission has delivered disappointing responses to parliamentary resolutions on information, consultation and restructuring that highlight the need for urgent and concrete steps in this area as well as to requests coming from other relevant economic and social players;

Y.

whereas this resolution is without prejudice to information obligations resulting from other Union and national law; whereas, insofar as Union and national law so provide, information procedures should be fully used to implement the recommendations laid down in the present resolution;

Z.

whereas this resolution is without prejudice to employment protection obligations and obligations related to employment termination resulting from national law;

AA.

whereas there are currently large differences in national law concerning the responsibilities of employers towards their employees in the process of restructuring; whereas, European social partners have been consulted twice in the previous decade and the Commission has failed to act;

AB.

whereas good and effective information and consultation in relation to restructuring means that the relevant measures should be taken several months prior to the proposed restructuring, that they should also cover dependent companies and that they should include the prompt provision of retraining courses in order to help make undertakings and the Union more competitive, thereby sending out a message of certainty and transparency to Union citizens and investors at a time of crisis;

AC.

whereas companies which fail to adapt to changing circumstances will be unable to keep pace with their competitors in the long term; whereas companies, workers and sectors tend to be in the best position to gauge their own restructuring needs; whereas each Member State is involved in different restructuring processes and the repercussions are different in each country;

AD.

whereas the Commission, with a view to helping workers and undertakings prepare for change more effectively, has conducted detailed research and studies into the phenomenon of restructuring itself and the supervision of sectors of the economy, including a series of studies of the way employment will change between now and 2020 (21); whereas this prospective analysis has been carried out in conjunction with independent researchers, the social partners and the other Union institutions, such as the European Parliament, and Union agencies and bodies, such as the European Monitoring Centre for Change (22) of the European Foundation for the Improvement of Living and Working Conditions and the European Centre for the Development of Professional Training;

AE.

whereas Regulation (EC) No 1927/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 December 2006 on establishing the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund (23) is currently being revised;

1.

Requests the Commission, pursuant to Article 225 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, to submit as soon as possible and after consulting the social partners, a proposal for a legal act on information and consultation of workers, anticipation and management of restructuring, following the detailed recommendations set out in the Annex hereto;

2.

Confirms that the recommendations respect fundamental rights and the principle of subsidiarity; further confirms that the recommendations respect the principle of proportionality, entrepreneurial freedom and the right to property;

3.

Confirms the relevance of strong social dialogue based on mutual trust and shared responsibility, as the best instrument with which to seek consensual solutions and common outlooks when predicting, preventing and managing restructuring processes;

4.

Calls on the Commission to assess whether it is necessary to take steps at Union level to supervise the activities of companies in order to prevent abuse of any kind with prejudicial effects, particularly on workers;

5.

Calls on the Commission to ensure that dismissals are seen as a last resort after having considered all possible alternatives, without this diminishing the competitiveness of enterprises;

6.

Considers that the requested proposal will have no financial implications;

7.

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

30.12.2015   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 440/38

—

having regard to its resolution of 10 May 2012 on maritime piracy (1),

—

having regard to its resolution of 15 January 2009 on the situation in the Horn of Africa (2),

—

having regard to its resolution of 10 March 2010 on the 2008 Common Foreign and Security Policy Annual Report (3),

—

having regard to its resolution of 11 May 2011 on the 2009 Common Foreign and Security Policy Annual Report (4),

—

having regard to its resolution of 12 September 2012 on the Annual Report from the Council to the European Parliament on the Common Foreign and Security Policy (5),

—

having regard to the Council conclusions on the Horn of Africa of 14 November 2011, and, in particular, to the Strategic Framework set out in their annex,

—

having regard to the European Security Strategy and to the paper of 14 March 2008 from the High Representative and the Commission to the European Council entitled ‘Climate change and international security’,

—

having regard to the final report of the European Union Electoral Observation Mission on the Ethiopian elections of 23 May 2010,

—

having regard to the adoption of a constitution for Somalia by 825 members of the National Constituent Assembly on 1 August 2012; having regard to the democratic election on 11 September 2012 of a new Somali president as part of the transition process,

—

having regard to the Council conclusions on the Common Security and Defence Policy of 1 December 2011 and 23 July 2012,

—

having regard to the UN Security Council resolutions on the situation in Somalia, in particular resolution 2067 (2012),

—

having regard to the African Union Mission to Somalia (AMISOM), its strategic concept dated 5 January 2012 on establishing a presence in the four sectors, and to UN Security Council Resolution 2036 (2012) requesting the African Union to ‘increase AMISOM’s numbers from 12 000 to a maximum of 17 731 uniformed personnel, comprising troops and personnel from trained police units’,

—

having regard to UN Security Council resolution 1820 (2008), on women, peace and security,

—

having regard to the UN report of 25 January 2011 and the 25 proposals it contains put forward by Jack Lang, the Special Adviser to the UN Secretary-General on legal issues related to piracy off the coast of Somalia; having regard to the follow-up reports by Jack Lang, including the report on the modalities for the establishment of specialised Somali anti-piracy courts of 15 June 2011, and the report of the Secretary-General on specialised anti-piracy courts in Somalia and other States in the region of 20 January 2012;

—

having regard to the Joint Africa-EU Strategy,

—

having regard to Rule 48 of its Rules of Procedure,

—

having regard to the report of the Committee on Foreign Affairs and the opinion of the Committee on Development (A7-0408/2012),

A.

whereas the Horn of Africa is one of the most food-insecure regions in the world and millions of people living in the region are undernourished and at risk of famine; whereas this geographical region includes countries which are among those with the lowest health standards in the world; whereas it is also one of the world’s poorest regions and one of those most lacking in governance; whereas human insecurity and food insecurity in particular compound acute humanitarian crises in the region; whereas the international community has failed to take preventive steps to address the issues of human security, drought and famine there;

B.

whereas the region has a long history of conflicts, and whereas there is a relationship between conflict, poverty and underdevelopment; whereas sustainable development cannot be achieved in an environment characterised by tensions, armed conflicts and unstable government institutions, while at the same time poverty and underdevelopment operate as conflict-generating factors; whereas climate change is likely to further exacerbate the situation in the region, where severe droughts have already become more frequent;

C.

whereas prolonged instability in the Horn of Africa leads to consequences for the security of the neighbouring countries and the entire continent and, given the existence of terrorist networking in the region, may come to affect the security of other regions, such as Europe, the Arabian peninsula and South Asia;

D.

whereas the vicious circle of insecurity, instability, poverty and bad governance can only be successfully and effectively addressed through a comprehensive and holistic approach committed to achieving development in the countries of the region in a sustainable form; whereas the Horn of Africa exemplifies the development-security nexus, being a region where criminal activity, especially terrorism and piracy, flourishes as a consequence of extreme poverty and bad governance or absence of state governance;

E.

whereas there is a threefold European and wider international interest in the security situation in the Horn of Africa, relating to: firstly, the threat posed by international terrorism and the funds channelled to terrorist organisations from piracy and kidnappings; secondly, the economic threat to international trade and the need to facilitate the safe passage of shipping; and thirdly, the need to assist the UN in its objectives, for example in protecting World Food Programme vessels in the region;

F.

whereas the EU’s commitment to the region is informed by both its geostrategic importance and the desire to support the people of the Horn and lift them out of poverty; whereas in order to do so and achieve lasting peace, the EU has committed itself to supporting efforts at both regional level — e.g. through IGAD (the Intergovernmental Authority for Development) and the African Union — and national level to consolidate peace and justice on the basis of the principles of inclusion, the rule of law and respect for human rights;

G.

whereas IGAD remains an insufficiently developed instrument for the enhancement of cooperation, integration and security at regional level; whereas there is a need for IGAD to play a central role in the political and security architecture of the Horn of Africa, as well as in conflict prevention and political and economic integration in the region, with a view to committing and anchoring the countries of the region to a common political and economic agenda;

H.

whereas a continuous belt of insecurity and instability stretching from the Atlantic Ocean to the Indian Ocean would also boost drug-trafficking activities across the southern Atlantic and in Latin America and the Caribbean, as well as encouraging trafficking in arms and people, opening up new trafficking routes and creating opportunities to smuggle drugs to both Europe and the Arabian peninsula;

I.

whereas competition among states in the region for natural resources, in particular fossil fuels and water, and competition to provide infrastructural access to ports for oil- and gas- producing states as well as access to the sea for landlocked states could further fuel tensions in the region and lead to chronic instability;

J.

whereas long-term viable stability in the Horn of Africa can only be built on strong and accountable democratic institutions, the rule of law and respect for human rights, in particular freedom of expression, and on better economic prospects for society at large;

K.

whereas it is essential to actively nurture pockets of stability in the region, tackle poverty, and promote economic recovery as a means of restoring failed states; whereas there can be no security without development and no development without security;

L.

whereas Al-Shabaab’s violent insurgency, the lack of state governance in Somalia, the threat posed by continuous piracy activities off the coast of Somalia, the tensions and potential conflicts between Sudan and South Sudan, the conflict-prone regions of Abiyei and Darfur, the political transition in Ethiopia following the death of Prime Minister Meles Zenawi, the tensions between Ethiopia and Eritrea and Somalia, the tensions between Eritrea and Djibouti, and the terrorist activities of the Lord’s Resistance Army (LRA) all contribute to making the Horn of Africa one of the most conflict-prone regions in the world, the results being immense human suffering, internal displacement of people, the worsening of humanitarian crises, and the obstruction of sustainable social and economic development as well as of democracy and the rule of law;

M.

whereas as the fight against Al-Shabaab in Somalia makes incremental advances there is an increasing risk that terrorist activities and destabilisation may move to other parts of Somalia, or further afield in parts of Africa previously not affected

N.

whereas ongoing political instability and conflict in Somalia have virtually destroyed any prospects of sustainable economic development in the region; whereas the lack of stable democratic and economic prospects for the population, particularly the young, together with the absence of democracy, the rule of law, governance or human security, provide fertile ground for encouraging criminal activities, including piracy and drug smuggling, while helping sustain terrorist groups such as Al-Shabaab; whereas it is essential to address such issues in a comprehensive fashion building on all the EU’s external action instruments, and to complement any such action through the establishment of specialised Somali anti-piracy courts once viable state structures are in place in Somalia;

O.

whereas the Transitional Federal Government of Somalia (TFG) has failed to create a stable and inclusive administration capable of promoting consensus among its various ethnic and political components; whereas the new Somali government must receive full support from the international community so that it can take on the challenges facing Somalia and restore sustainable political, democratic, ethnic and social stability;

P.

whereas fishing vessels from many countries have taken advantage of the chaos in Somalia to fish in the Somali 200-nautical mile zone since 1990, undermining the livelihood of Somali fishermen;

Q.

whereas according to the UNHCR there are over one million Somali refugees scattered throughout the Horn of Africa, mainly in Kenya and Ethiopia, and 1,3 million internally displaced people (IDPs) within Somalia; whereas internal conflict, Al-Shaabab terrorism and consecutive drought crises are at the core of the phenomenon of exodus and displacement of people in Somalia, tangibly affecting the whole region;

R.

whereas two events of great significant for the region took place on 20 August 2012: firstly, the death of the Prime Minister of Ethiopia, Meles Zenawi, and secondly, the establishment of the first formal parliament in Somalia in more than two decades; whereas the swearing-in of a new Parliament and the election of a new President of Somalia, Hassan Sheikh Mohamud, on 10 September 2012 represented a historic moment and an important step towards improving peace and security, demonstrating that the situation in Somalia is not irreversible;

S.

whereas Ethiopia, Djibouti, Kenya and Uganda have provided military and political support for the efforts to achieve stability in the region, especially through the African Union mission in Somalia (AMISOM), thereby working for a viable solution for security and stability in the region which is African-owned and African-led, with the active support of the international community; whereas the African Union is a valuable partner for peace and stability in the region;

T.

whereas the security and military situation in Somalia remains dangerous and unpredictable; whereas AMISOM has been able to push back the Islamist militia Al Shabaab and has deployed 100 soldiers in Baidoa; whereas Kenya has recently intervened militarily in South-Central Somalia, but was unable to decisively defeat Al Shabaab; whereas the Ethiopian National Defence Forces intervened in the Hiraan region and the Bay region in February 2012; whereas human rights abuses, torture, arbitrary detentions and summary executions, as well as unlawful reprisal attacks against civilians committed by Ethiopian forces and militias loyal to the TFG have been reported by Human Rights Watch; whereas neighbouring Eritrea has been accused by the UN Sanctions Monitoring Group of providing weapons, training and financial support to Al Shabaab, thus violating a UN arms embargo;

U.

whereas an end to the crisis in Somalia, while dependent on the stability brought by the African Union operations in the country, can only come about through the preservation of and support for social and political stability, meaning that the parties involved in the military operations will also have a major responsibility in supporting the local authorities with all means necessary for the period following the cessation of military operations;

V.

whereas no international military action can, of itself, establish security, stability and lasting peace unless it is accompanied by a programme for democratic development;

W.

whereas the death of the Ethiopian Prime Minister Meles Zenawi is likely to have profound national and regional consequences, creating an opportunity for the new leadership to open up the political space, repeal repressive laws and engage in an all- inclusive political dialogue for a democratic transition; whereas to create an inclusive, democratically-elected government in Ethiopia is the only way to prevent the spreading of instability, radicalism and unrest in the country, which threatens Ethiopia’s role in counter-terrorism;

X.

whereas in the parliamentary elections of May 2010 the EPRDF won 545 of the 547 seats contested, prompting the EU Electoral Observation Mission to declare that the elections did not meet international standards;

Y.

whereas Ethiopia receives more foreign aid from the US and the EU than any other country in Africa;

Z.

whereas, after 20 years of independence under the rule of President Isaias Afewerki, Eritrea is one of the most repressive and closed countries in the world, with a tremendously poor human rights record which includes the imprisonment, torture and killing of its citizens; whereas on 5 July 2012 the UN Human Rights Council adopted a resolution strongly condemning the continued widespread and systematic violations of human rights committed by the Eritrean authorities, the severe restrictions on freedom of opinion and expression, and the forced conscription of citizens for indefinite periods, also appointing a Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in Eritrea in order to break with the country’s isolation and investigate and report on abuses; whereas the Swedish-Eritrean citizen Dawit Isaak has been kept incommunicado in jail without trial in Eritrea for the last 11 years;

AA.

whereas on 26 September 2012 the Presidents of Sudan and South Sudan signed a long- awaited cooperation agreement, providing for the resumption of oil flows from the south through the north, demilitarisation of the buffer zone along the border, the reopening of crossborder trade and freedom of movement for citizens of both countries; whereas the two countries have yet to agree on the status of Abyei and other disputed areas;

AB.

whereas South Sudan faces serious political, economic and security challenges, especially concerning intercommunal violence and lack of solid governance structures; whereas the ongoing civilian disarmament process known as ‘Operation Restore Peace’ which began in March 2012 in response to the intercommunal violence in Jonglei state has reportedly resulted in abuses perpetrated by army forces against civilians;

AC.

whereas peace remains elusive in Sudan’s western region of Darfur and in the southern states of South Kordofan and Blue Nile; whereas human rights organisations continue to report indiscriminate bombings in civilian areas by government forces, extrajudicial killings, arbitrary arrests, mass looting and destruction of property; whereas the ongoing violence has triggered a lasting and worrying humanitarian crisis;

AD.

whereas access to the people remains a major problem in the Horn of Africa countries as far as dealing with the humanitarian emergency there is concerned;

AE.

whereas the Commission is about to raise to EUR 158 million the total amount of humanitarian aid granted this year to the populations that have been victims of the drought in the Horn of Africa countries;

AF.

whereas at the international Pledging Conference held in Addis Ababa the main African Union member states undertook to release almost USD 350 million for the countries affected by the drought;

AG.

whereas the Horn of Africa, and especially Somalia, were hit by a severe famine crisis due to drought which resulted in a serious humanitarian crisis affecting more than 12 million people in the region, including over 7,5 million in Somalia; whereas the famine crisis not only caused the deaths of many people, especially children, but also led to a large-scale refugee flow to neighbouring Kenya and Ethiopia; whereas the Commission increased its humanitarian aid allocation from EUR 9 million in 2008 to EUR 46 million in 2009, but then reduced the amount to EUR 35 million in 2010 and EUR 30 million in 2011; whereas it subsequently revised the allocation upwards, to EUR 77 million, but only following the huge drought of summer 2011;

AH.

whereas any significant improvement in the humanitarian situation in the Horn of Africa will be interconnected with all other aims pursued by the Union in the region, and any sustainable resolution of the different conflicts plaguing the region therefore has to take account of the needs of internally displaced persons and the ongoing refugee crisis and its causes, including structural food insecurity, conflict and climate effects, also paying specific attention to the most vulnerable population groups such as women and children;

AI.

whereas the significant donors and political actors in the region include not only traditional political and development actors such as the EU, the US and international organisations such as the UN and the World Bank, but also Turkey, Egypt, the Gulf Cooperation Council states (in particular Qatar), and the Organisation of Islamic Cooperation; whereas China has been playing a key role in promoting infrastructural development and economic capabilities in the Horn of Africa by providing ad hoc soft loans which are not conditional on countries undertaking effective reforms and often act as an inducement for privileged access to natural resources and market access in the country concerned;

AJ.

whereas the EU is the main provider of international support and humanitarian aid in the Horn of Africa, and contributes to development and security there, both on land and at sea;

AK.

whereas the establishment of a secure environment for trade and transport is the main path towards stabilisation and development in the region, both on land and at sea;

AL.

whereas the sale of illegal ivory has become one of the most important sources of income for militias such as Al-Shabaab, as well as for official military forces, following an enormous increase in demand from Asian countries; whereas according to CITES, elephant poaching levels are the worst in a decade and recorded ivory seizures are at their highest levels since 1989;

AM.

whereas, according to a report by the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), vast numbers of illegal shipments of toxic waste, the contents of which are leaking, have been dumped along the coast of Somalia, in total disregard of the health of the local population or the conservation of the environment; whereas, according to the same report, the waste dumped at sea partly originates from the EU and is irreversibly damaging human health and the environment in the region, in flagrant violation of human rights;

AN.

whereas all eight Millennium Development Goals are currently off-target in the region, and only a resolute display of political will make it possible to achieve some progress in the three years remaining before the 2015 deadline;

AO.

whereas irrationality and political extremism take root in situations of poverty or famine; whereas, fourteen months after the UN officially announced the existence of the first famine of the 21st century in the Horn of Africa, the humanitarian situation has shown a relative improvement but still remains critical;

AP.

whereas progress on poverty reduction has suffered setbacks in the Horn of Africa owing to the food and fuel crises, as well as the global economic and financial crisis and the impact of climate change;

AQ.

whereas in March 2012 the FAO estimated that more than eight million people were in need of assistance in the Horn of Africa (including 3,2 million in Ethiopia, 2,5 million in Somalia, 2,2 million in Kenya and 180 000 in Djibouti); whereas in 2011 the region suffered its worst drought in 60 years, which affected over 13 million people, forcing hundreds of thousands from their homes and killing tens of thousands more;

AR.

whereas the work of the International Criminal Court in the Horn of Africa in bringing perpetrators to justice and fighting impunity is being hampered by certain individual countries in the region;

AS.

whereas in order to continue its humanitarian work and invest in recovery efforts in Somalia, Kenya and Ethiopia, UNICEF needs a total of USD 273 million for 2012, of which, as of the end of July 2012, it had received only 33 %;

1.

Welcomes the EU strategy for the Horn of Africa, and in particular its comprehensive approach based on tackling the security and stability concerns, enforcing the rule of law and ensuring due process, which must include functioning law enforcement mechanisms and procedures as well as an independent judicial system, whilst addressing the underlying causes thereof, in particular through developmental and humanitarian strategies based on clear objectives; urges the full implementation of the EU Strategic Framework for the Horn of Africa and supports its five prongs based on:

stresses the importance of promoting sustainable economic growth in the region and reducing poverty, by responding to the basic needs of people;

2.

Stresses that any sustainable solution to the myriad of conflicts in the region can only succeed if it establishes the principles of good neighbourliness overcoming rivalry and border disputes, non-interference and cooperation among states, sustainable development with and equitable and fair sharing of access to resources, with economic opportunity for all without discrimination; notes that this requires transformative efforts in terms of peace-building, mediation and reconciliation, as well as the end of impunity, in cooperation with the International Criminal Court, and full respect for international humanitarian law including the unimpeded access of humanitarian assistance to the population, as well as for human rights; notes that the Union has a role to play, in close coordination with regional bodies, in assisting these processes, fighting the proliferation of small arms and light weapons and facilitating the demobilisation, disarmament and reintegration of former combatants, but stresses that ultimately the people of the Horn of Africa themselves are the only actors who can enable the region to attain durable peace, stability, and prosperity, together with accountable government and the rule of law;

3.

Welcomes the appointment of the European Union Special Representative (EUSR) for the Horn of Africa, as called for by Parliament in its aforementioned resolution of 10 May 2007 on the Horn of Africa; urges the HR/VP and the Commission to actively support the work of the EUSR by ensuring adequate financial and human resources and direct access to CSDP structures and missions, as well as to Commission development and humanitarian aid policy structures and programmes; recalls that in its resolution the European Parliament asked the EUSR for the Horn of Africa to submit regular reports to Parliament; welcomes, in this regard, the EUSR’s regular reports to Parliament, and invites him to continue the dialogue and exchanges of views with its Members on a regular basis; also welcomes the appointment of a EUSR for Sudan and South Sudan; believes that with a view to securing full consultation and coordination of action, the two Special Representatives should be consulted on a regular basis by the competent programming services for the financial instruments for the external action of the EU and should provide them with regular political and strategic advice; points out the value of regular dialogue and coordination between the two EUSRs and the heads of the EU delegations in the region;

4.

Takes the view that more resources could be invested in IGAD in order to promote a system of good governance, as well as effective political dialogue and consensus-building mechanisms in and among all its member states; calls on the EU to facilitate this role by further engagement in their process of building their internal capacity; recalls that it will be of the utmost importance to promote a regional institutional framework for dialogue and coordination among the countries of the region, with particular reference to Ethiopia, Kenya and Uganda as the key regional players, who will need to continue to coordinate efforts and pursue shared objectives; further recalls that IGAD could provide an adequate framework for dialogue and coordination regarding the exploitation of vital natural resources such as water;

5.

Asks the Commission to consider assisting and supporting all the African countries that are involved militarily in the peacekeeping effort in the Horn of Africa countries, particularly in Somalia;

6.

Welcomes the EU’s decision to provide additional support to AMISOM, in order to allow it to fulfil its mandate and reach a total troop strength of 17 731, as authorised by the UN;

7.

Believes that the results secured by AMISOM in its fight against Al-Shabaab, such as regaining control of Kismayo, confirm the strategic importance of supporting the African Union; stresses, therefore, the importance of promoting the AU's process of institution- building, capacity-building and good governance, as well as its response capabilities, including at crisis management and military level; welcomes the establishment of an EU Delegation to the African Union in Addis Ababa;

8.

Calls, as a matter of urgency, for assistance to be granted to the legal and prison systems of those countries that have cooperated with the EU in the transfer of piracy suspects (Kenya, the Seychelles and Mauritius), as well for as support for the Somali authorities to ensure that they have the judicial capacity and legal due processes according to international law, in particular human rights law, enabling them to handle captured pirates and Al-Shabaab militants; underlines the importance, at the same time, of offering captured pirates a process of rehabilitation and social reintegration;

9.

Deplores the fact that, in spite of the EU aid provided to strengthen the rule of law in the region, the existence of transfer agreements between the Union and third countries (Kenya, the Seychelles and Mauritius), and the bilateral agreements between the Seychelles, Puntland and Somaliland on the repatriation of convicted pirates, as well as the various relevant international legal frameworks, numerous pirates and other criminals either have not yet been arrested or have been arrested but then released for lack of firm evidence or political will to prosecute them;

10.

Strongly welcomes the UN report dated 25 January 2011 highlighting 25 proposals made by Jack Lang, Special Adviser to the UN Secretary-General on legal issues related to piracy off the coast of Somalia; also welcomes the relevant follow-up reports by Jack Lang such as the report on the modalities for the establishment of specialised Somali anti-piracy courts of 15 June 2011 and the report of the Secretary-General on specialised anti-piracy courts in Somalia and other states in the region of 20 January 2012; urges the HR/VP, the EUSR and the three HoMs and HoDs to act on the proposals made by Jack Lang as a matter of priority and to develop an strategy for the EU’s contribution to the international approach to criminal justice on the territory of Somalia;

11.

Reiterates its call on the Member States, in cooperation with Europol and INTERPOL, to investigate and trace money flows and confiscate the sums paid in ransom to pirates, since there are indications that this money could be transferred to bank accounts worldwide, including in banks in Europe, and also to identify and dismantle the organised criminal networks that reap the profits of such acts; calls on the Council to facilitate further cooperation between EU NAVFOR on the one hand, and Europol and Interpol on the other;

12.

Urges all countries in the region to collaborate with the ICC, and recalls the binding obligation of those which have signed and ratified the Rome Statute; also welcomes the recent developments in the ICC allowing research and investigations to be conducted in countries that are not party to or have not ratified the Rome Statute;

13.

Calls on the European institutions to remain vigilant and active in response to the political transition under way in Ethiopia and the first steps towards democracy in Somalia;

14.

Considers it desirable to seize the opportunity presented by the opening-up of the succession to the late Ethiopian Prime Minister Meles Zenawi, who died on 20 August 2012, the election of the new Somali President, and the approach of the Kenyan legislative elections in 2013, in order to:

15.

Welcomes the conclusion, at the end of the period stipulated in the AU Peace and Security Council Roadmap as enshrined in UN Security Council Resolution 2046 (2012) of an agreement between Sudan and South Sudan on oil resources; hopes that this agreement will also finally resolve, at the earliest possible date, the problem of transit arrangements for oil from South Sudan;

16.

Welcomes the important contribution made by EU-NAVFOR Operation ATALANTA in the effort to fight piracy and improve maritime security off the coast of Somalia; underlines its role in protecting World Food Programme chartered vessels delivering aid to Somalia and other vulnerable vessels, as well as supplies to AMISOM; welcomes the Council decision of 23 March 2012 prolonging EU-NAVFOR Atalanta to December 2014 and extending its mandate to target the operational bases of pirates onshore; urges the Member States to ensure that EU-NAVFOR ATALANTA is properly supported with adequate surveillance and patrol ships, since the current gains in the fight against piracy are reversible, as well as with the means for the international community to pursue pirates and their financiers and networks, recognising that the most effective counter-piracy measures have in fact been the on-board vessel protection measures introduced by shipping companies; welcomes, in this context, the recent calls from the maritime industry for the regulation of private maritime security companies, and calls on the International Maritime Organisation, flag states and the maritime industry to work together in order to further develop and implement clear, consistent and enforceable internationally agreed standards regarding the use of privately contracted armed security personnel on board ships, and for private maritime security companies to act in strict adherence with those standards;

17.

Notes the importance of cooperation between EU NAVFOR and the other international missions operating in the area, notably the AMISOM land-based operation, and considers that good relations and close cooperation, including information-sharing, are the key towards ensuring a stable Somalia; recalls that EU-NAVFOR ATALANTA and NATO’s Operation Ocean Shield can only successfully deter and contain piracy if a comprehensive strategy is put in place in the Horn of Africa, and particularly in Somalia, to address the reasons that draw Somalis into piracy and criminal activity for income; notes that NATO’s current counter-piracy mission, Operation Ocean Shield, has had success with two shorter counter-piracy operations, dating from October 2008, to protect WFP shipping;

18.

Welcomes the decision of 12 December 2011 by the Foreign Affairs Council to establish a regional maritime capacity-building initiative, known as EUCAP Nestor, in order to strengthen the maritime and judicial capabilities and training of coastal police forces and judges, in consultation with and with the consent of the local communities in five countries in the Horn of Africa and the western Indian Ocean; calls on all Member States to staff the new mission without delay with competent civilian and military personnel; calls for close coordination with other initiatives, including the EU’s MARSIC project, under the Critical Maritime Routes Programme sponsored by the Instrument for Stability and the regional Maritime Security Programme (MASE), initiated by the countries of the Eastern and Southern Africa and Indian Ocean region and supported by the EU, and aimed at tackling piracy on land and enhancing judicial capacities to arrest, transfer, detain and prosecute piracy suspects; believes that only by enhancing the coastal security capabilities of the riparian countries, addressing the root causes of piracy on land and encouraging adherence to the BMP4 Best Management Practices for shipping and improved standards for the maritime security industry, will the international community be able to achieve the wider goal of stability and security for the region and therefore reduce the need for naval patrols in the area;

19.

Welcomes the decision of July 2011 to extend and refocus the mandate of the EU Training Mission (EUTM) based in Uganda; nevertheless, calls for better screening and monitoring of the conduct and accountability of all recruits trained by EUTM in order to ensure that minors or individuals affiliated with militant groups are not accepted into the programme, that they are integrated into the Somali armed forces, and that any defections are immediately notified and investigated; also calls on the EU to assume a role in the close monitoring of the payment chain for training forces, so as to ensure that the payments reach their intended beneficiaries and generate motivation, allegiance and commitment, thereby also ensuring that the ability to take ownership remains with the future security forces of Somalia;

20.

Underlines the need for close strategic coordination among all security-related actors, in particular EU-NAVFOR ATALANTA, EUTM Somalia and EUCAP Nestor, as well as NATO (Operation Ocean Shield), the US-led taskforce CTF-151, the UN and AMISOM; notes the existence of international coordination mechanisms such as the Contact Group on Piracy off the Coast of Somalia (CGPCS) in New York and the Shared Awareness and Deconfliction (SHADE) mechanism in Bahrain; welcomes, therefore, the Council decision of 23 March 2012 to activate, for an initial two-year period, the EU Operations Centre in order to coordinate and increase synergies between the three CSDP missions in the Horn of Africa, as well as the Brussels-based structures, in the context of the Horn of Africa Strategy and in liaison with the EU Special Representative for the Horn of Africa;

21.

Notes that there are signs that the LRA may be expanding its range, drawing more countries into the fight and putting more children at risk; recalls that the fight against the LRA and the hunt for its leader, Joseph Kony, have been heavily reliant on funding, equipment and logistical support from the US; calls on the EU to coordinate with the US for any additional assistance required in the fight against the LRA, under AU oversight;

22.

Denounces the lack of implementation of the CITES regulations; calls on the Commission and Council to promote the creation of a system of certification and control of ivory imports into the EU, similar to the successful Kimberley process;

23.

Welcomes the EU strategy for the Horn of Africa, encompassing as it does not only security and humanitarian policy but also longer-term development policy and the MDG objectives; underlines the importance of this longer-term vision of development policy, and calls on the Commission and the Member States to coordinate their policies in this respect and to employ joint programming for the various countries and the region as soon as possible;

24.

Believes that a stable and secure Horn of Africa would have positive political and security impacts beyond the region, also in terms of investment and secure shipping routes in the Indian Ocean; takes the view, therefore, that a reflection on strategies to promote security and stability in the region and on coordination to provide the necessary financial resources to implement a comprehensive approach should be started at G-20 level; notes in this regard the positive experience of the Somalia conference held in London in February 2012, and encourages the HR/VP to explore the possibility of a similar conference in 2013;

25.

Believes that the Horn of Africa should also be perceived in terms of having strong economic potential, particularly mineral and agricultural; calls, therefore, on the Council, the Commission, the EEAS and the EIB, in coordination with other multilateral donors and financial institutions, to identify projects of common interest for the countries of the region, which could promote cooperation and positive interdependence, e.g. in the areas of energy supply, including renewable energy, and natural resources, including water; stresses the importance of crossborder trade, access to international markets, port infrastructure and the provision of adequate corridors for access to ports for landlocked countries, as vital elements for the long-term economic development of the Horn of Africa; calls on the Commission to carry out an in-depth analysis of the dimension and impact in economic, environmental and social terms of practices of land-renting to third countries in the Horn of Africa, and to propose possible safeguard strategies and mechanisms;

26.

Takes the view that boosting regional security and combating terrorism and piracy, while essential, must not eclipse the absolute necessity of supporting as a first priority the eradication of poverty in the region, particularly since the EU has an obligation under its founding Treaty to take account of the objectives of development cooperation — foremost among which are the reduction and eradication of poverty — in the policies that it implements which are likely to affect developing countries (Article 208(1) TFEU); notes that all the countries of the Horn of Africa are developing countries, and as such — apart from Sudan and South Sudan, which have not signed the Cotonou Agreement — have received EUR 2 billion in development aid (of which EUR 644 million went to Ethiopia alone) for indicative national and regional programmes under the 10th EDF (2008-2013); notes that, over the same period, again under the 10th EDF, the East Africa, Southern Africa and Indian Ocean region is receiving EUR 619 million, partly for the Inter-Governmental Authority on Development (IGAD), the aim being to eradicate poverty in the countries of the region and help them attain the Millennium Development Goals; recalls, finally, that the African Peace Facility, a sub-instrument of the EDF, gives financial support to AMISOM;

27.

Takes the view that, as the world’s main development aid and humanitarian aid distributor in the region, thanks in part to the centralisation of its diplomatic activity in the EEAS and the EUSR, the success of Operation Atalanta, and the diplomatic and military presence in the region of certain Member States, the EU (the Member States and the Commission) could do more to eradicate the endemic poverty in the region and the pockets of anarchy and lawlessness that exist there;

28.

Considers it desirable to seize the opportunity presented by the election on 10 September 2012 of the new Somali President Hassan Sheikh Mohamud, with a view to working — helped by the Strategic Framework for the Horn of Africa and with the support in the region of the EUSR, as well as that of the EEAS and national diplomats and of the African Union — in favour of the establishment of normal diplomatic and economic relations between Ethiopia and Eritrea and of the resolution of the Somali crisis, since this would benefit the development of the whole region; notes that the Great Lakes region, which borders the western fringes of the Horn of Africa, is also one of the most unstable in the world, including some severely underdeveloped countries that are plagued by armed violence — e.g. the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) — and even by wars with one or more of their neighbours — e.g. the tensions between the DRC and Rwanda, which is part of the Horn of Africa in the wider sense; stresses that in implementing the European strategy for the Horn of Africa we cannot ignore its possible repercussions for the much-needed development of the neighbouring regions (notably the Great Lakes region, Central Africa and Southern Africa).

29.

Welcomes, in the interests of both regional development aid and humanitarian aid, the new plan for the Horn of Africa proposed by the Commission in 2012 known as SHARE (Supporting Horn of Africa Resilience), which seeks to be an instrument linking short-term humanitarian aid to long-term development in order to break the vicious circle of crises afflicting the region; fully supports the Commission in this project to strengthen the link between relief, rehabilitation and development (LRRD); calls for the EU to work through this programme towards the provision of diverse livelihood opportunities and better access to markets and information, so as to boost household incomes for pastoralist, agropastoralist, riverine, coastal, urban and periurban populations, to improve access to basic social services, and to aim to offer reliable and predictable levels of support for chronically and seasonally at-risk populations;

30.

Welcomes the new EU SHARE programme, which aims to increase the resilience of the countries of the Horn of Africa in respect of the various threats they have to face; stresses, however, that this programme should be coordinated with the EU strategy for the Sahel, which has to face the same challenges (terrorism, drugs, climate change, influxes of refugees and displaced persons, etc);

31.

Takes the view that it is important to support agriculture, pastoralism and cattle breeding in the Horn of Africa countries, and welcomes the important work done by various NGOs in these spheres;

32.

Calls on the Commission to support all programmes for access to water as a fundamental right and a common asset of humanity, and to support public and private partnerships for access to drinking water;

33.

Insists that whenever possible assistance by the EU in the Horn of Africa should not take the form of direct budgetary support, but should be granted in order to achieve specific targets on the basis of clear performance indicators; considers that when assistance has to take the form of budgetary support, this should be made conditional on the attainment of specific objectives; believes that programmes directed at supporting the EU Strategy for the Horn of Africa should be able to benefit from the blending of resources, i.e. that funding for such programmes should be open to other international donors on the basis of clear common standards, so as to facilitate a coordinated, uniform approach by all donors and minimum risk of conflicting approaches or duplication; considers that, similarly, the EU should be able to participate in the funding of third-party programmes in the region, provided full respect for the rules on EU financial assistance to third countries can be ensured;

34.

Calls on the EU and its Member States to continue to provide neutral, impartial and independent humanitarian assistance to vulnerable populations, and to support the countries of the region in strengthening their national capacities through disaster risk reduction strategies and long-term development cooperation programmes in the areas of drought-preparedness, agriculture, rural development and food security;

35.

Stresses that, while the food crisis in the Horn of Africa (as in the Sahel) is attributable to repeated droughts, crop failures and rising prices, other very significant factors, aside from these cyclical elements (although drought can today be considered to be structural), should also be taken into account, such as the breakdown of communities and the headlong rush to promote the export of agricultural products, to the detriment of food sovereignty and of agricultural production for domestic consumption and sale;

36.

Stresses that respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms constitutes an invariable element of the foundations of the Union’s engagement with third-country partners; is therefore deeply concerned at the reports of arbitrary arrests, mistreatment of prisoners and violence against demonstrators, as well as repressive measures against political opposition including censorship and the arbitrary detention of journalists and activists that have occurred across the region; calls on all authorities in the Horn to respect these fundamental principles and release all political prisoners unconditionally;

37.

Expresses its deep concern over the ‘land grab’ in Africa, which risks undermining local food security and increases famine; calls on the Horn of Africa governments and the EU to assess the current impact of farmland acquisition on rural poverty and the present famine crisis; urges the Commission to integrate the ‘land grab’ issue into its policy dialogue with developing countries, with a view to implementing policy coherence;

38.

Is concerned at the allegations of illegal waste dumping by EU companies and criminal networks; recalls that illegal waste dumping is of major concern to Somalis living along the coastline; calls on the HR/VP and the Commission to commission, as a matter of urgency, a full investigation by an independent body, including the collection of evidence and samples and, depending on the outcome of the research, to consider the possibility of legal action, including compensation claims, on the part of European companies, EU Member States and the EU;

39.

Recognises that it is vital that independent and impartial humanitarian assistance is maintained for all conflict-affected populations in the Horn of Africa and that adequate funding is continued, particularly for Somalia; stresses that any reduction in assistance could see the Somali people slide back into humanitarian crisis; stresses the need, in addition to humanitarian assistance, to build on efforts such as the EU’s Supporting the Horn of Africa’s Resilience (SHARE) initiative, in order to ensure resilience and improve the livelihoods of local people;

40.

Stresses that human rights, especially the rights of women, children, LGBT people and religious minorities, have long been neglected in the region, and notes that sectarian Islamism has spread in parts of the Horn of Africa and is threatening minority freedoms;

41.

Underlines the importance of European support for civil society; calls on the Commission and the Member States to ensure coordinated support for civil society both within individual countries and at crossborder and regional level;

42.

Stresses the importance of providing continuous assistance to South Sudan for the purposes of creating and sustaining an effective civil society; strongly believes that the new instrument for the promotion of democracy and human rights should include ad hoc financing lines for the Horn of Africa; believes that consideration should be given to extending the Endowment for Democracy to countries in the Horn of Africa;

43.

Welcomes the agreements reached between Sudan and South Sudan on resuming oil exports and border demilitarisation, and calls on both countries to respect them; calls on each of the two countries to cease harbouring or supporting rebel groups from the other; urges further negotiations on the delimitation of the borders between the two countries, in order to avoid further outbreaks of conflict which would jeopardise the recent agreement, and recommends that both leaders continue talks in order to reach agreement on the status of Abyei and other disputed areas, in line with the AU Roadmap and UN Security Council Resolution 2046 and as soon as possible; congratulates ex-President Mbeki’s High Level Panel, which was part-financed by the EU, on the successes it has achieved, with AU support, in negotiating and mediating between Sudan and South Sudan; calls on the EUSR for Sudan and South Sudan to coordinate with the heads of delegation in Sudan and South Sudan so as to ensure that the EU’s engagement, political efforts and assistance maintain a very high degree of visibility;

44.

Welcomes the memorandums of understanding concluded separately between the Sudanese Government and the Sudan People’s Liberation Movement North (SPLM-N), together with the UN, the African Union and the Arab League, with a view to allowing humanitarian aid to get through to civilians in the states of Blue Nile and South Kordofan;

45.

Is concerned at the resurgence of violence in Jonglei state in South Sudan, which is jeopardising the progress made on re-establishing peace and security in the region; supports the investigation requested by UNMISS, and calls for those responsible for the violence to be punished; calls on the Government of South Sudan to:

stresses the importance of the EU’s continuous assistance to South Sudan with a view to providing capacity-building for the country’s public administration and law enforcement authorities, creating and sustaining an effective civil society and promoting good governance; urges the EU to press for the ratification of key international human rights treaties by South Sudan and assist the country’s authorities in their implementation; condemns the reported abuses against civilians by the military forces in the demilitarisation process, and calls on the South Sudanese Government to conduct an independent investigation into the events in order to hold the soldiers involved accountable and ensure reparations for the victims;

46.

Strongly condemns all acts of violence committed against civilians in violation of international humanitarian law and human rights law in Sudan; urges the EU and the international community to agree on an unified approach to addressing the protection of civilians and ending human rights violations, particularly in Darfur, Southern Kordofan and Blue Nile; calls on the Government of Sudan and the SPLM/North to enter immediately into direct talks with a view to agreeing on a complete cessation of hostilities and reaching a political settlement on the basis of the 28 June 2011 Framework Agreement, as stipulated in UN Security Council Resolution 2046; stresses the importance of keeping international actors in the conflict zones, and urges the Sudanese authorities to ensure their safety, along with that of civilians; recalls the EU’s and Member States’ responsibilities concerning enhanced support for and cooperation with the International Criminal Court in implementing the arrest warrants taken out against Ahmad Muhammad Harun, Ali Muhammad Ali Abd-Al-Rahman, Abdel Rahim Mohammed Hussein and President Omar Hassan Ahmad Al Bashir;

47.

Is concerned at the deteriorating health situation of the estimated 170 000 Sudanese refugees, more than half of whom are children, in the four camps in Upper Nile state and the camp in Unity state, where the risks of infection, diarrhoea and malaria are sharply increasing, with malnutrition as an aggravating factor;

48.

Condemns any support provided by either Sudan or South Sudan to any armed group other than their respective regular armed forces;

49.

Takes note of the outcome of the 20 August 2012 presidential elections in Somalia; urges all political actors in Somalia to commit to democracy, the rule of law and human rights, as the only way out of the vicious cycle of poverty, underdevelopment and insecurity; stresses that the end of the TFG’s mandate is a key test of the potential of Somalia to move towards a functioning state and of its capacity to rebuild strong, democratic and truly representative institutions; believes it will be crucial to facilitate an inclusive political dialogue in Somalia and promote consensus-building processes to support the new government; calls on the new Federal Government and the new President Hassan Sheikh Mohamud to work towards reconciliation among the Somali people by building on the Garowe Agreement, in order to establish the new federal state and begin the long but important process of delivering peace, security and democracy for all Somalis;

50.

Welcomes the recent swearing-in of the first formal parliament of Somalia in over 20 years, and hopes this will mark the first step in a transition towards a more representative parliamentary democracy; notes the fact that the 30 % quota for female members of parliament has almost been met, recalling that the meaningful participation of women across all sectors of public life is important for successful efforts of conflict resolution and peace-building;

51.

Welcomes the end of the transition in Somalia as an opportunity for renewal; salutes the work of the roadmap signatories, the traditional elders, the National Constituent Assembly, the new Federal Parliament and the Technical Selection Committee, for their roles in ending the transition period in Somalia; welcomes the commitment of the outgoing President to support and work with President Hassan Sheikh Mohamud; urges all political actors in Somalia to cooperate with the new authorities; welcomes President Hassan Sheikh’s vision for Somalia and his intention to ensure the formation of inclusive, broad-based governing institutions, stabilisation, the rule of law and good governance, economic recovery, peace-building and reconciliation, public service delivery, and improved relations between Somalia and the rest of the world; urges him to respect his commitment to transparent and accountable governance, to fighting corruption at all levels, and to ensuring inclusive dialogue and setting up representative and accountable institutions at national, regional, district and local levels, in accordance with the Provisional Constitution of Somalia;

52.

Calls on the HR/VP and the EUSR for the Horn of Africa to critically review the Djibouti Peace Process and to consider deploying a team of mediators whose members are trusted by a large spectrum of Somali actors, including women’s associations and have the capacity to bring a wide range of Somali actors to the negotiation table; calls on the HR/VP to initiate a process for Somali civil society actors within and outside the country which would allow for the regular and continued discussion of possible solutions to the political problems in the country; calls on the HR/VP to bring these two processes together, taking as an example the successful peace process of 2000-2005 in Sudan;

53.

Welcomes the recent peace initiative of the Somali government offering civilian jobs and training for defecting Al Shabaab rebels; welcomes the recent endorsement of an ambitious constitution which promises equal rights for ‘all citizens, regardless of sex, religion, social or economic status, political opinion, clan, disability, occupation, birth or dialect’, outlaws female genital mutilation, and establishes a Truth and Reconciliation Commission; is concerned, however, that in a country plagued by decades of internecine feuds the new constitution does not address the issue of the division of power and resources between the centre and the regions', and calls for closer cooperation with the new authorities in order to address these issues;

54.

Calls on the Somali authorities to give priority to institution-building and to establishing, as a matter of urgency, an accountable, transparent and integrative police force, since this will consolidate trust of the population in the new government; commends, in this regard, the valuable contribution that EUTM Somalia is making to the country’s security forces; trusts in Member States’ ongoing support for the work of the CSDP mission, which is striving to instil awareness of respect for human rights, gender dynamics and the rule of law in the Somali military; notes that the development of stable, accountable and inclusive Somali institutions has to go beyond the security forces and be Somali-led and owned if Somalia is to become a viable state;

55.

Stresses that viable and inclusive economic structures and a system of revenue-sharing for future oil and gas exploitation between the regions and the federal level, for the benefit of the whole population, will be essential for the long-term sustainability of Somalia as a functioning federal state; urges the international community not to repeat the mistakes made in the past in concentrating assistance on the federal institutions in Mogadishu at the expense of Somalia’s regions, given that the latter can play a crucial role in the decentralised delivery of basic services and stability to the population; calls on the EU to mobilise all resources during the present ‘window of opportunity’, in order to assist regional entities in Somalia in this vital process of democratic transition; given the latest political and security developments in Somalia, encourages the Member States and the HR/VP, in close cooperation with the legitimate Somali authorities, the African Union and IGAD, as well as the US government, to consider a Security Sector Reform (SSR) mission once the situation on the ground permits;

56.

Recognises that peace in Somalia must be a bottom-up process; stresses that the EU must ensure that its strategy allows for local efforts to build peace and resolve disputes to be sufficiently supported and made a national and regional priority; also recalls that local legitimacy will help the emergence of governing institutions in Somalia that offer long- term prospects for stability;

57.

Recalls that the African Union has deployed AMISOM, a military mission to Somalia, which has been mandated by the UN Security Council and which is desperately seeking to enlist more countries as troop contributors;

58.

Stresses the need for the EU to play, in close cooperation with the US and the African Union, a key role in the future of Somalia;

59.

Urges the international community, in cooperation with the ICRC and the Red Crescent, to implement and develop in Somalia, as soon as possible, health facilities, healthcare centres and therapeutic nutrition centres for outpatients;

60.

Welcomes the establishment of a Local Stability Fund, which aims in particular to coordinate international aid in the newly liberated and accessible areas in the south of Somalia;

61.

Deeply regrets that, since December 2011 alone, 13 journalists and media workers have been killed in government-controlled areas of Somalia and that no progress has been made in the prosecution of these cases; underlines the importance of securing freedom of expression, and urges the new Government and President to adopt measures to provide better protection for journalists and carry out credible investigations into these killings;

62.

Urges the EU and all regional and international partners to take the most of the opportunity created by the emergence of a new government in Somalia which, coupled with the apparent decline of the Al-Shaabab surge in the country, provides for potential to open a new political era in Somalia; stresses, therefore, the need for the international community, and especially the EU, to be ready to provide support to legitimate and democratic authorities in the field of institutional capacity building, SSR and DDR, and to support civil society; urges the HR/VP to make sure that EU action in Somalia fosters a free and open society that respects and upholds human rights, especially the rights of women and minorities, enables the empowering of women and ensures gender balance in all sectors of society;

63.

Underlines the very positive example of Somaliland, which has demonstrated its capacity to develop and consolidate its democratic, economic and administrative structures over more than twenty years and create a sustainable democratic process; notes that Somaliland has so far been very successful in consolidating security and stability on its territory and in cooperating in the fight against piracy and terrorism; expresses concern, however, that should Al-Shabaab regroup in its mountainous border regions, Somaliland may become vulnerable; stresses, therefore, that it is essential to support Somaliland in the fight against terrorism, including such measures as promoting economic diversification and building capacity for youth employment in order to curtail recruitment amongst the young; points out the importance for Somaliland of promoting economic and social development in the region as a way to counter the radicalisation of areas of instability on its territory; calls on the Commission and the EEAS to support Somaliland in enhancing its development prospects and promoting its economic and social stability; stresses that in the quest for a solution for the long-term stability and security of Somalia it is important to evaluate the positive example of Somaliland’s stability;

64.

Welcomes the strong statement of support for the new federal institutions of Somalia made by the HR/VP at the UN General Assembly Mini-Summit on Somalia held in New York and, in particular, her commitment to a four-year process of consolidation of the new federal institutions and regional administrations, as well as to an international conference on Somalia in 2013; calls on Somaliland and the other federal entities to play a full and supportive role in negotiating their legal and political relationship with the new federal institutions in Somalia, with a view to achieving a sustainable, stable and prosperous Somali federal state;

65.

Points out the key role of Ethiopia for the political and economic stability of the entire region; notes that in his inaugural speech, Hailemariam Desalegn, the new Prime Minister of Ethiopia, stressed the importance of strengthening human rights and democratic institutions in the country, in order to help develop a democratic culture and full respect for human rights in the country; believes that the emergence of a new Ethiopian government provides the opportunity to engage Ethiopia on all issues of common interest or concern, including those where there may have been a divergence of opinions in the past, and stresses the importance of supporting Ethiopia in its path to a new democratic system, through positive dialogue and partnership; supports Ethiopia in its fight against terrorism, but stresses that this fight should be pursued in a framework of full respect for fundamental rights;

66.

Hopes that under the leadership of Prime Minister Hailemariam Desalegn, appointed on 21 September 2012, Ethiopia will engage in a process of genuine democratic transition in order to realise its strong democratic potential, putting an end to interference with religious freedom and civil society freedoms; calls on the European External Action Service, the EUSR for the Horn of Africa and the EUSR for Human Rights to engage with Ethiopia on human rights as a matter of priority so that it can seize the opportunity of the ongoing political transition to institute a truly democratic transition, built on the centrality of human rights and fundamental freedoms, freedom of the media and full recognition of freedom of expression; urges the EU and the international community to remain vigilant and active in response to the political transition under way in Ethiopia, to promote the strengthening of democratic institutions and to tie political, military and development assistance to concrete democratic reforms, which must include the release of all prisoners of conscience, such as Eskinder Nega and other journalists, human rights and development activists and opposition figures, the admission of the UN special rapporteurs on human rights on a basis of unhindered access to all regions and detention facilities, the repeal or amendment of the Charities and Societies Proclamation and the Anti-Terrorism Proclamation, and the return of opposition politicians in exile; calls on the EU to find innovative and secure ways to assist, financially and politically, the struggling civil society in Ethiopia and engage in close dialogue with the opposition, both in Ethiopia and in exile;

67.

Notes that Ethiopia currently has neither an independent judiciary nor an independent media, as a result of a concerted campaign to undermine and obstruct the judges, control the media, intimidate the opposition and silence human rights organisations;

68.

Points out that numerous journalists have been prosecuted under the anti-terrorism law of 2009; deplores the recent campaign of legal harassment that has culminated in the Federal Supreme Court sentencing blogger Elias Kifle in absentia to life imprisonment, and Wubishet Taye, deputy editor of a local newspaper, and columnist Reeyot Alemn, to 14 years in prison; welcomes, however, the pardon recently granted to the Swedish journalists Martin Schibbye and Johan Persson after the death of Prime Minister Meles Zenawi; urges the new government to extend the same clemency to all victims of arbitrary justice;

69.

Stresses the great potential of the Grand Renaissance Blue Nile Dam project in the Benishangul-Gumuz region in Ethiopia, for the production of clean energy and the economic development of the entire region; supports the international panel of experts established between Ethiopia, Sudan and Egypt for this project, and calls for a closer understanding for the sharing of water resources from the Nile and of the energy produced by the hydroelectric power plant linked to the dam;

70.

Calls on the Government of Ethiopia to formally endorse the Boundary Commission’s delimitation decisions between Eritrea and Ethiopia as final and binding, in accordance with UNSC Resolutions 1907 (2009) and 2023 (2011), as well as with the relevant AU and IGAD resolutions; calls, therefore, on the Eritrean Government to agree to engage in dialogue with Ethiopia in order to address the process of disengagement of troops from the border and physical demarcation in accordance with the Boundary Commission’s decisions, bearing in mind the importance of keeping communities together, as well as the normalisation of relations with Ethiopia, including the reopening of the border; calls on the international community to engage with Eritrea and defend the interests and needs of the Eritrean people, while pressing the regime and the military to allow access to international organisations, prepare the long-promised elections and open up political space in the country; emphasises that all EU assistance which does not pursue humanitarian objectives should be made strictly conditional on a commitment by the Eritrean authorities to facilitate a democratic transition and the improvement of the human rights situation in the country, with transparent and tangible benchmarks, as well as of the basic needs of the Eritrean people; calls on Eritrea to desist from providing any support for armed groups which undermine peace and reconciliation in Somalia and, more generally, regional stability; calls for freedom of speech, the press and religion, as well as the introduction of free and fair elections and democracy in the country; calls for the immediate release of political prisoners, including the jailed journalist Dawit Isaac, who has been imprisoned without trial for over 4 000 days;

71.

Instructs its President to forward this resolution to the Council and Commission, the EEAS and the Member States, the EU Special Representative for Sudan, the EU Special Representative for the Horn of Africa, the EU Member States, the Government of Turkey, the Congress of the United States, the State Department of the United States, the African Union Commission, the Pan-African Parliament, the Governments and Parliaments of the Intergovernmental Authority on Development (IGAD), and the authorities of Somaliland.

30.12.2015   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 440/55

—

having regard to the 1992 Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD),

—

having regard to the 2010 Nagoya Protocol to the CBD on Access to Genetic Resources and the Fair and Equitable Sharing of Benefits Arising from their Utilisation,

—

having regard to the 2001 International Treaty on Plant Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture,

—

having regard to the 2002 Patent Cooperation Treaty,

—

having regard to the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples adopted by the General Assembly on 13 September 2007,

—

having regard to the 1989 ILO Indigenous and Tribal Peoples Convention (No 169),

—

having regard to the International Convention for the Protection of New Varieties of Plants, as revised at Geneva on 19 March 1991,

—

having regard to the 1995 WTO Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights,

—

having regard to the 2002 International Treaty on Plant Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture (ITPGR) and the 2011 WHO framework regarding influenza viruses,

—

having regard to Directive 98/44/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 July 1998 on the legal protection of biotechnological inventions (1),

—

having regard to its resolution of 7 October 2010 on the EU strategic objectives for the 10th Meeting of the Conference of the Parties to the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD), to be held in Nagoya (Japan) from 18 to 29 October 2010 (2),

—

having regard to the Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions entitled ‘Our life insurance, our natural capital: an EU biodiversity strategy to 2020’ (COM(2011)0244),

—

having regard to the activities and reports of the WIPO Intergovernmental Committee on Intellectual Property and Genetic Resources, Traditional Knowledge and Folklore,

—

having regard to the Report of the Meeting of the Group of Technical and Legal Experts on Traditional Knowledge Associated with Genetic Resources in the Context of the International Regime on Access and Benefit-Sharing (UNEP/CBD/WG-ABS/8/2, 2009),

—

having regard to the study requested by Parliament’s Committee on Development, entitled ‘Intellectual Property Rights on genetic resources and the fight against poverty’ (2011),

—

having regard to the 1971 Ramsar Convention on Wetlands,

—

having regard to the 1973 Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES),

—

having regard to Rule 48 of its Rules of Procedure,

—

having regard to the report of the Committee on Development and the opinions of the Committee on International Trade and the Committee on Legal Affairs (A7-0423/2012),

A.

whereas 70 % of the world’s poor living in rural and urban areas depend directly on biodiversity for their survival and well-being;

B.

whereas the main aims of the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) are to foster the conservation and sustainable use of biodiversity and to address the obstacles impeding its use;

C.

whereas genetic resource (GR) providers and holders of related traditional knowledge (TK) frequently belong to developing countries rich in biodiversity;

D.

whereas national access and benefit sharing (ABS) legislation, adopted as part of the CBD process, emerged as a response to the practices of bioprospecting and biopiracy;

E.

whereas a common definition of biopiracy is the industrial practice of privatising and patenting the traditional knowledge or genetic resources of indigenous peoples, without obtaining authorisation from or providing compensation to source countries;

F.

whereas the CBD and its Nagoya Protocol requires bioprospectors to obtain ‘prior informed consent’ (PIC) from and reach ‘mutually agreed terms’ (MAT) with countries of origin or indigenous and local communities in relation to TK associated with GR, and to share the benefits from bioprospecting with them;

G.

whereas the evolving ABS regime under the CDB operates in a complementary fashion with the WTO and its Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (WTO-TRIPS), the World Intellectual Property Organisation (WIPO), the Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO), the International Union for the Protection of New Varieties of Plants (UPOV) and the World Health Organisation (WHO);

H.

whereas ABS governance is also reflected in a number of human rights instruments, including the 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the 1966 International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the 1966 International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights;

I.

whereas Article 27(3)(b) of the WTO-TRIPS entitles governments to exclude from patentintability plants, animals and ‘essentially’ biological processes, while microorganisms and non-biological and microbiological processes are eligible for patenting;

J.

whereas biodiversity provides a great range of ecosystem services, such as local water, food provision, materials for sustaining livelihoods and climate regulation; and whereas environmental degradation poses new challenges for the conservation and sustainable utilisation of a wide range of species and GRs as a base for food security and sustainable agricultural development;