19.5.2016   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 181/1

19.5.2016   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 181/2

—

having regard to the United Nations Convention against Corruption (UNCAC), opened for signature in Merida on 9 December 2003,

—

having regard to the Charter of the United Nations,

—

having regard to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights,

—

having regard to the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights,

—

having regard to the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union,

—

having regard to the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) Convention on Combating the Bribery of Foreign Public Officials in International Business Transactions, opened for signature in Paris on 17 December 1997, and to the recommendations supplementing it,

—

having regard to the Joint Communication of the High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy and the Commission to the European Parliament and the Council of 12 December 2011 on ‘Human Rights and Democracy at the Heart of EU External Action — Towards a more effective approach’ (COM(2011)0886),

—

having regard to the EU Strategic Framework on Human Rights and Democracy and the EU Action Plan on Human Rights and Democracy as adopted at the 3179th Foreign Affairs Council meeting of 25 June 2012,

—

having regard to the Commission communication to the Council and the European Parliament of 8 May 2001 on ‘The European Union’s role in promoting human rights and democratisation in third countries’ (COM(2001)0252),

—

having regard to the Commission communication to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions of 25 October 2011 on ‘A renewed EU strategy 2011-14 for Corporate Social Responsibility’ (COM(2011)0681),

—

having regard to the Council compilation of documents ‘Mainstreaming Human Rights and Gender into European Security and Defence Policy’ (1) and notably to the Council document ‘Generic Standards of Behaviour for ESDP Operations’ (doc.08373/3/2005),

—

having regard to the United Nations Millennium Declaration of 8 September 2000,

—

having regard to the Global Action Plan ‘Keeping the promise: united to achieve the Millennium Development Goals’, adopted by the UN General Assembly on 10 October 2010,

—

having regard to the Commission communication to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions of 27th February 2013 on ‘A decent life for all: Ending poverty and giving the world a sustainable future’ (COM(2013)0092),

—

having regard to the report of the European Investment Bank (EIB) entitled ‘Policy on preventing and deterring corruption, fraud, collusion, coercion, money laundering and the financing of terrorism in European Investment Bank activities’ (‘EIB Anti-Fraud Policy’) adopted in 2008,

—

having regard to the Enforcement Policy and Procedures (EPP) of the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development (EBRD), which entered into force in March 2009,

—

having regard to the Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights: Implementing the United Nations Protect, Respect and Remedy’ Framework (HR/PUB/11/04),

—

having regard to its resolution of 7 July 2011 on EU external policies in favour of democratisation (2),

—

having regard to its resolution of 11 December 2012 on a digital freedom strategy in EU foreign policy (3),

—

having regard to the EU Guidelines on Human Rights Defenders as adopted at the 2914th General Affairs Council meeting of 8 December 2008,

—

having regard to the ‘Montreux Document on pertinent international legal obligations and good practices for States related to operations of private military and security companies (PMSCs) during armed conflict’, adopted in Montreux on 17 September 2008,

—

having regard to the Council of Europe Criminal Law Convention on Corruption, opened for signature on 27 January 1999 and the Council of Europe Civil Law Convention on Corruption, opened for signature on 4 November 1999, and to resolutions (98) 7 and (99) 5, adopted by the Council of Europe’s Committee of Ministers on 5 May 1998 and 1 May 1999 respectively, establishing the Group of States against Corruption (GRECO),

—

having regard to the Jakarta Statement on Principles for Anti-Corruption Agencies, adopted on 26—27 November 2012,

—

having regard to the Paris Principles for national human rights institutions (4),

—

having regard to the OECD Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises (5),

—

having regard to the International Labour Organisation (ILO) ‘Tripartite declaration of principles concerning multinational enterprises and social policy’ (6),

—

having regard to the UN Global Compact Initiative (7),

—

having regard to the International Code of Conduct for Private Security Service Providers,

—

having regard to the Arms Trade Treaty, adopted at the United Nations Final Conference on the Arms Trade Treaty held in New York on 18—28 March 2013 (8),

—

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 (A7-0250/2013),

A.

whereas corruption can be defined as the abuse of entrusted power for individual or collective, direct or indirect personal gain, and whereas acts of corruption include the crimes of bribery, embezzlement, trading in influence, abuse of functions and illicit enrichment, as defined by the UNCAC; whereas fraud, extortion, blackmail, abuse of discretionary powers, favouritism, nepotism, clientelism and illegal political contributions are closely linked to corruption; whereas corruption may be linked to organised crime operating under collective leadership alongside official structures, particularly where the authorities fail to enforce the law;

B.

whereas corruption perpetuates and aggravates unequal, unjust and discriminatory outcomes with regard to the equal enjoyment of human rights, be these civil, political and economic or social and cultural rights; whereas corruption can have negative repercussions on the environment and affects disproportionately the most disadvantaged and marginalised groups in society, namely by barring them from equal access to political participation, public services, justice, safety, land, jobs, education, health and housing, and whereas corruption affects in particular progress towards ending discrimination, gender equality and women’s empowerment, by limiting women’s capacities to claim their rights;

C.

whereas corruption may undermine economic development by obstructing business and investment on occasion;

D.

whereas the fight against corruption is part of the good governance principle, as upheld and defined by articles 9(3) and 97 of the Cotonou Agreement;

E.

whereas acts of corruption and human rights violations typically involve the misuse of power, lack of accountability and the institutionalisation of various forms of discrimination; whereas corruption is invariably more frequent where enforcement of human rights is lacking or absent, and whereas corruption often undermines the effectiveness of the institutions and entities which normally provide checks and balances and are intended to ensure respect for democratic principles and human rights, such as parliaments, law enforcement authorities, the judiciary, legal systems and civil society;

F.

whereas corruption is generally deeply entrenched in the mentality of the societies where it permeates, and whereas all efforts to combat it should focus first and foremost on the education system, targeting people at the earliest age possible;

G.

whereas states sometimes fail to act in preventing or punishing corruption in public and private sectors, in breach of their international obligations under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, and other relevant international and regional human rights instruments;

H.

whereas corruption distorts the size and composition of government expenditure, seriously harming the state’s capacity to harness to a maximum its available resources in order fully to realise economic, social and cultural rights, and whereas corruption diverts large amounts of funding from investment in the economy, hindering the recovery of countries in economic hardship, including EU Member States;

I.

whereas corruption in high places can seriously undermine and destabilise the countries concerned and strike at the very heart of the State;

J.

whereas, according to the World Bank, corruption represents 5 % of global GDP (USD 2,6 trillion), with over USD 1 trillion paid in bribes each year; and whereas corruption adds up to 10 % of the total cost of doing business on a global basis and 25 % of the cost of procurement contracts in developing countries (9);

K.

whereas the World Bank estimates that each year USD 20-40 billion, corresponding to 20-40 % of official development assistance, is stolen from public budgets in developing countries and hidden overseas through high-level corruption (10);

L.

whereas from 2000 to 2009, developing countries lost USD 8,44 trillion to illicit financial flows, ten times more than what they received in foreign aid; whereas every year for the past decade, developing countries lost USD 585,9 billion through illicit flows; whereas the money stolen through corruption each year is enough to keep the world’s hungry fed 80times over, while bribes and theft swell the total cost of projects to provide safe drinking water and sanitation around the world by as much as 40 % (11);

M.

whereas corruption, by threatening the consolidation of democracy and enforcement of human rights, remains a fundamental cause and catalyst of conflict, widespread violations of international humanitarian law and impunity in developing countries, and whereas the status quo of corruption and illicit enrichment in positions of state power has led to power-grabbing and perpetuation of power as well as to the creation of new militias and widespread violence;

N.

whereas corruption in the judicial sector breaches the principle of non-discrimination, access to justice and the right to a fair trial and to an effective remedy, which are instrumental in the enforcement of all other human rights, and whereas corruption seriously distorts the independence, competence and impartiality of the judiciary and of the public administration, fostering distrust in public institutions, undermining the rule of law and giving rise to violence;

O.

whereas delivery of public services enables states to fulfil their international human rights obligations, ensuring the supply of water, food, health, education, housing, security and order as elements of human development, and whereas corruption in public procurement thrives in the absence of openness, transparency, information, competition, incentives, clear rules and regulations that are strictly enforced and also where there are no independent monitoring and sanctions mechanisms;

P.

whereas widespread corruption, lack of transparency, access to information and inclusive participation in decision-making prevents citizens from holding governments and political representatives to account in order to ensure that revenue related to resource and market exploration is used to ensure their human rights; whereas it is incumbent upon governments to do everything in their power to combat corruption in public and private companies;

Q.

whereas human rights defenders, media, civil society organisations (CSOs), trade unions and investigative journalists play a crucial role in the fight against corruption by scrutinising public budgets, monitoring the activities of governments and large — in particular multinational — companies, and the financing of political parties, offering capacity-building skills and expertise and demanding transparency and accountability; whereas journalists reporting on corruption and organised crime are increasingly targeted and harassed by organised crime groups, ‘parallel powers’ and the public authorities, especially in developing countries;

R.

whereas a free and independent press and media, both online and offline, are essential in ensuring transparency and scrutiny — both necessary to combat corruption — by providing a platform for the exposure of corruption and giving citizens and society access to information;

S.

whereas open data and open government empower citizens by giving them access to information about governmental budgets and expenses;

T.

whereas whistleblowers are vital in exposing corruption, fraud, mismanagement and human rights abuses, despite high personal risk, and whereas lack of protection against retaliation, controls on information, libel and defamation laws, and inadequate investigation of whistleblowers’ claims can all deter people from speaking out, and can often compromise their personal safety as well as that of their families; whereas the EU has a duty to protect them, in particular by making the most effective use possible of cooperation instruments such as the European Instrument for Democracy and Human Rights (EIDHR);

U.

whereas emergency situations and incoming aid offer opportunities for corruption due to the nature of the activities and the complexity of actions and actors executing them, and whereas these ‘opportunities’ include bribery, obstruction, extortion faced by aid agency staff, misconduct by aid agency staff, fraud, false accounting, diversion of aid received, and exploitation of the needy, and fuel a widespread sense of despair with regard to public authorities of any kind; whereas the misappropriation of humanitarian aid is a serious violation of international humanitarian law;

V.

whereas 25 % of all investigations initiated by the European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF) regard European external aid to third countries, and whereas EUR 17,5 million have been recovered as a result of these investigations (12);

W.

whereas EU aid to developing countries might be wasted without a system which does not include proper checks and balances in the beneficiary countries and the full independent monitoring of the integrity system which accompanies the use of funds;

X.

whereas the European public banks, being EU institutions (EIB) or whose majority of shareholders are EU Member States (EBRD), have allegedly been involved in corruption scandals in their operations outside of the European Union;

Y.

whereas aid donors and international financial institutions (IFIs), such as the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund (IMF), should foster effective governance reform in debtor countries and contribute to an effective fight against corruption, also by critically assessing and addressing the demonstrated risks of corruption and degradation of human rights associated with many measures imposed in the context of structural adjustment programmes (SAPs), such as the privatisation of state-owned businesses and resources;

Z.

whereas trafficking in human beings relies heavily on complex, corrupt networks that cut across all branches of government, public administration, law enforcement and the private sector in countries of origin, transit and destination of the victims, and whereas corruption weakens the actions of actors fighting trafficking, due to the corruption of police and judicial staff and in the procedures for the arrest and prosecution of traffickers and the provision of legal aid and witness protection to victims of trafficking;

AA.

whereas corruption and misconduct by armed forces, the defence sector, law enforcement authorities and peacekeeping forces causes serious risks to the lives, physical integrity, protection, liberty, and rights of citizens in developing countries, and whereas the defence sector and defence procurement continue to be characterised by unacceptable levels of corruption and are particularly shielded by secrecy on the basis of national security; whereas public procurement for the supply of security equipment should be closely scrutinised;

AB.

whereas the use of private military and security companies (PMSCs) by both public and private actors has grown exponentially over the past twenty years, and whereas, due to the nature of their activities, PMSCs are particularly vulnerable to corruption and have been accused of serious human rights abuses, despite operating mostly in a realm outside strict regulation, without the accountability to the public that is generally demanded of the armed forces;

AC.

whereas the level of implementation, use and efficiency of the mutual legal assistance and asset recovery mechanisms under Chapters IV and V of the UNCAC remain low among States Parties to the UNCAC, and whereas those States Parties are yet to fully meet their obligations under Chapter IV (‘International Cooperation’) and V (‘Asset Recovery’) of the Convention regarding international cooperation and, more specifically, are yet to sufficiently meet their mutual legal assistance obligations under Article 46 of UNCAC;

AD.

whereas the poorly regulated and opaque global trade in conventional arms and ammunition fuels conflict, corruption, poverty, human rights abuses and impunity;

AE.

whereas grand corruption in developing countries occurs mostly with the complicity and even the assistance of certain businesspeople, lawyers, financial institutions and public officials in developed countries, including in EU Member States, and whereas, in blatant disregard for anti-money laundering regulation at EU and international level, these institutions and corporations have provided the channels to launder the proceeds of corruption in developed and developing countries, to create opaque structures and to hide assets in the ‘secrecy jurisdictions’;

AF.

whereas a human rights-based approach to anti-corruption policies reinforces general awareness that, in addition to public funds, citizens’ individual rights and opportunities are affected by corruption; whereas the close association of the international anti-corruption and human rights movements will raise public awareness and demand for openness, accountability and justice, and whereas linking acts of corruption to human rights violations creates new possibilities for action, especially where corruption can be challenged using existing national, regional and international mechanisms to monitor compliance with human rights;

1.

Believes that the EU can only become a credible and influential leader in the fight against corruption if it addresses the problems of organised crime, corruption and money laundering within its own borders in an adequate manner; welcomes, in this regard, the ‘EU Anti-corruption Report’ to be issued by the Commission; hopes that the identification by the Commission of areas vulnerable to corruption in Member States will help step up anti-corruption efforts, facilitate the exchange of best practices, identify EU trends, and stimulate peer learning and further compliance with EU and international commitments; invites the Commission to present EU policy initiatives in the area of anti-corruption such as an EU Action Plan against Corruption;’

2.

Welcomes, in this regard, the renegotiation of the Savings Taxation Directive, meant effectively to end banking secrecy; considers that strengthening the regulation of, and transparency as regards, company registries and registers of trusts in all EU Member States is a prerequisite for dealing with corruption, both in the EU and in third countries; believes that EU rules should impose an obligation to register all legal structures and their beneficial ownership data, and to publish this information online, electronically tagged and in a searchable format, so that it can be accessed without charge;

3.

Is of the opinion that the EU should follow the example of the United States in enacting the Sergei Magnitsky Rule of Law Accountability Act of 2012 and adopt similar legislation at EU level, as an emblematic and operational framework establishing the link between corruption and breaches of human rights; calls, therefore, on the Council to adopt a decision establishing a common EU list of officials involved in the death of Sergei Magnitsky, in the subsequent judicial cover-up and in the ongoing and sustained harassment of his family; adds that this Council Decision should impose targeted sanctions on those officials, such as an EU-wide visa ban and a freezing order on any financial assets that they or their immediate family may hold inside the European Union; calls on the Commission to draw up an action plan, with a view to creating a mechanism for listing and imposing similar targeted sanctions against officials of third countries (including police officers, prosecutors and judges) involved in grave human rights violations and judicial ‘manipulations’ against whistleblowers, journalists reporting on corruption and human rights activists in third countries; stresses that criteria of inclusion on the list should be built up on the basis of well-documented, converging and independent sources and convincing evidence, allowing for mechanisms of redress for those targeted;

4.

Fully supports the EU’s commitment to embrace and mainstream throughout its development policies the concept of democratic ownership, that is, the effective and full participation of people in the design, implementation and monitoring of development strategies and policies of donors and partner governments; is of the opinion that such policy fosters involvement of programme beneficiaries and therefore contributes to greater monitoring and accountability in the fight against corruption; encourages the Commission and the Member States to apply the principle that their development aid programmes should be conditional on observance of international anti-corruption norms, and to introduce an anti-corruption clause into public procurement contracts as recommended by the OECD; requests that the Commission continue to foster high levels of aid transparency in digital, machine-readable formats and to use a common standard to ensure comparability both with other donors, and also, more particularly, in line with the needs of recipient governments;

5.

Stresses that, to ensure that the blending facilities expand the effectiveness of development finance, the governance of those instruments needs to be reviewed, with the aim of granting greater transparency in project selection criteria and accountability to society as a whole; recalls that establishing a critical number of minimum requirements for project selection, monitoring and evaluation could facilitate comparability and a coherent basis for information on the performance of operations; notes that progress and development impact of projects should be systematically reported to justify the use of aid resources by blending facilities, not only to the donors and the European financial institutions involved, but also to the general public;

6.

Takes the view that the Commission should impose the highest levels of integrity in the procurement processes for implementation of EU-funded projects, in particular by promoting greater accessibility to calls for tender for local organisations; stresses that a human rights-based approach to procurement benefits from the participation of a broader range of actors, namely those affected by the bidding process (such as associations of land-owners as well as disadvantaged groups); considers that a human rights-based approach to procurement also encourages authorities to empower disadvantaged groups to compete in procurement processes themselves and broaden the criteria against which companies are assessed in procurement processes; recalls that monitoring results of projects in cooperation with civil society and holding local authorities accountable is essential to determine whether EU funds are used appropriately; urges the Commission not to grant projects to contractors whose beneficial owners are not known, or who have a corporate structure that enables them to easily engage in transfer-pricing;

7.

Urges the EU to further transparency by supporting the creation of a global system to track aid pledges, in order to be able to hold donor countries to their promises of aid and to hold them accountable for the projects, institutions or groups that they support;

8.

Recalls, moreover, the need to prevent corrupt techniques such as inflation of project costs, payments for fictitious projects and workers, inappropriate and corrupt use of economic and/or industrial offsets, outright stealing of state funds, inflated travel expenses and bribes, among other things, in the implementation of EU-funded projects; insists, therefore, on the need to monitor the entire length of the EU-funding chain, including policy-making and regulation, planning and budgeting, financing, fiscal transfers, management and programme development, tendering and procurement, construction, operation and maintenance, and payment for services;

9.

Suggests that the Commission publicise the reporting mechanisms within OLAF regarding misuse of EU funds among participants in public tenders and beneficiaries of EU aid, and produce policy guidelines on the treatment of information provided by whistleblowers regarding those abuses in third countries, allowing for a proper follow-up, feedback and protection against retaliation, paying particular attention to the situation of the most vulnerable population groups, especially women, in many developing countries as they are particularly prone to be the targets of corruption and to cooperate in exposing it, but also to be more vulnerable and stigmatised for cooperating;

10.

Stresses that the EU must emphasise the importance of implementing the right to participation and the right to access information and mechanisms of public accountability such as open data as core principles of democracy in all platforms of dialogue with third countries, including in bilateral relations and at the highest level; stresses that freedom of the press and media, both online and offline are vital in this regard; suggests that the EU finance projects in third countries to support the enforcement of these principles, especially in countries going through democratisation processes, ensuring gender mainstreaming, making sure that such processes involve civil society, especially human rights defenders, trade unions, women and particularly vulnerable groups, and assisting in the formulation of laws for the effective protection of whistleblowers;

11.

Notes, in this regard, that the EU must lead by example; insists that the EU and its Member States should actively engage in international initiatives for greater budget transparency, such as the Open Government Partnership, the Open Budget Initiative and the International Aid Transparency Initiative, so as to promote such engagement from partner countries as imperatives of international human rights standards;

12.

Calls on the Commission to propose an extension of the definition of human rights defenders in the EU Guidelines on Human Rights Defenders to include anti-corruption activists, investigative journalists and, notably, whistleblowers;

13.

Points out that the EU, as a world leading donor, should follow and expand recent instances of linking the delivery of EU external aid to budget reforms towards greater transparency, access to data and participatory processes, and to harmonise guiding principles in this regard with other donors; is of the opinion that the EU should establish clear and public benchmarks and criteria, in an incentive-based approach, for recipient governments to open up their budget processes and incorporate transparency, public participation and oversight components into their efforts, through training or technical assistance; urges the EU to promote and support the development of an enabling environment for oversight bodies in developing countries (including parliaments, courts of auditors, CSOs and the media) to carry out their core functions and therefore fight corruption;

14.

Points out, on the other hand, that the EU should use the framework of ‘advanced partnerships’ with third countries to press in an effective manner those regimes that suffer from endemic corruption to adopt reforms to implement the above-mentioned principles; takes the view that political dialogue, pressure and cooperation from the EU towards the need for reform should be visible and transparent, and should integrate adequate and ambitious monitoring mechanisms; takes the view that the EU should publicly condemn the enactment of laws which restrict the freedom of the media and the activities of civil society as cornerstones of accountability and that it should draw up strategies to adapt relations with those countries so as to foster reform in a visible way; stresses the need for clearly defined and observed human rights clauses in agreements with third countries that would allow any partnership agreement to be suspended in the face of gross human rights violations;

15.

Supports increased transparency of decision-making on investments of European public money, namely in projects of the EIB and the EBRD which may have an adverse impact on human rights; urges the EIB and the EBRD to strengthen their anti-fraud and anti-corruption policies in order to ensure full transparency of investments outside of the European Union; stresses the need for the EIB and the EBRD to affirm their willingness to avoid risky investments, especially through financial intermediaries, and to adopt a risk-based approach and improved assessments of the human rights impact of the projects they support, in addition to conducting sound human rights and integrity due diligence of all of their clients’ operations; takes the view that particular attention should be paid to ensuring public participation, as well as free prior and informed consultation of communities affected, at all stages of the planning, implementation, monitoring and evaluation of projects financed; urges the Member States and the Commission to use their influence as exclusive members of the EIB, and as major shareholders of the EBRD, to foster significant reform of these institutions to allow greater democratic scrutiny of their decisions and accountability;

16.

Considers that international financial institutions, like the IMF and the World Bank Group, should conduct a corruption risk assessment in the measures proposed to debtor countries through SAPs, in addition to an assessment of the impact of the latter on human rights; takes the view that SAPs should include reforms to improve governance and transparency; insists that adequate, well-resourced and independent systems of oversight should follow the implementation of the programmes, carrying out frequent audits and inspections; adds that particular attention should be paid to land-grabbing, forced evictions, defence procurement, separate defence budgets and the financing of military and paramilitary activities in debtor countries; calls on the Member States to use their influence as members of the IMF and the World Bank to push for greater transparency and participatory mechanisms in the negotiation of SAPs and other financing programmes and to foster greater democratic scrutiny of their decisions and accountability;

17.

Calls on bilateral and multilateral financial institutions, including the World Bank Group, IMF, regional development banks, export credit agencies and private sector banks, to require extractive companies and governments to comply with the ‘Publish What You Pay’ requirements and/or EITI standards on transparency of payments as a pre-condition for all project support;

18.

Welcomes the G20 Seoul Anti-Corruption Action Plan, and believes that the momentum created should be sustained so as to ensure a coordinated international effort meant to combat corruption in key areas;

19.

Emphasises that the poorest people in developing countries, being heavily reliant on public services, are hurt disproportionally by petty corruption, including so-called ‘quiet corruption’ whereby public officials fail to deliver services or inputs that have been paid for by the government (as in the cases of absentee teachers in public schools or absentee doctors in primary clinics);

20.

Stresses that corruption creates obstacles to foreign direct investment (FDI) and discourages external actors from engaging in economic cooperation with developing countries;

21.

Believes that fighting corruption, including tax havens, tax evasion and illicit capital flights, is part of a broader effort to promote good governance, which is defined as one of the key priorities to enhance the effectiveness of EU development policy in the 2011 Agenda for Change (COM(2011)0637); emphasises the need for the full and immediate enforcement of the UN Convention against Corruption;

22.

Points out that all efforts to combat corruption should be accompanied by support for programmes meant to prevent corruption through education and awareness-raising campaigns;

23.

Recalls the commitments undertaken through the Busan Partnership for Effective Development, and calls on the EU and its Member States to implement them in order to intensify the joint efforts to fight corruption and illicit money flows;

24.

Believes that ensuring the consistency of development policies is essential in order to tackle and eradicate corruption; emphasises as well that EU assistance in the areas of fiscal governance and action on tax fraud, under the Development Co-operation Instrument (DCI) and the European Development Fund (EDF), needs to be increased;

25.

Requests Member States amend their criminal laws, where necessary, to establish jurisdiction over individuals of any nationality found on their territory who have committed acts of bribery or embezzlement of public funds, regardless of where the crime occurred, as long as the proceeds of those criminal activities are found in the Member State in question or have been laundered there, or the person has a ‘close connection’ with the Member State, namely through citizenship, residence or beneficial ownership of a company headquartered or with subsidiaries in the Member State;

26.

Points out, however, that Member States should exercise cautious judgement when providing information to third countries on individuals accused of corruption, embezzlement or tax evasion, so as not to implicate human rights defenders unjustly, as was done in the case of Ales Bialiatski;

27.

Takes the view that defamation/libel laws may deter people from reporting corruption in third countries; urges all Member States, therefore, to lead by example and to de-penalise defamation/libel laws in their legal systems, at least for cases where allegations of organised crime, corruption and money laundering in Member States and abroad are at issue;

28.

Urges the Member States, as recommended by the UNCAC, to adopt legislative and other measures to establish intentionally committed illicit enrichment — that is, a significant increase in the assets of a public official that he or she cannot reasonably explain in relation to his or her lawful income — as a criminal offence;

29.

Welcomes the Jakarta Statement on Principles for Anti-Corruption Agencies of November 2012; encourages the EU and Member States to go further and build momentum at international level on the need to address the lack of effectiveness in tackling corruption of the anti-corruption institutions created in many developing countries, mostly due to their institutional arrangements, lack of functional independence from the executive power, lack of political support, the sourcing of their finances, their rules for selecting and appointing officers and their enforcement powers;

30.

Calls on the EU and the Member States to initiate the development of international standards on the independence and effectiveness of anti-corruption authorities, drafted intergovernmentally with the aim of final adoption by the UN General Assembly, and being equivalent to, and with the same robust scope as, the Paris Principles for national human rights institutions; emphasises that these principles should be used as benchmarks of accountability through peer review performance assessments;

31.

Calls on the Commission to consolidate the cooperation pursued with other donors, and with the International Organisation of Supreme Audit Institutions, to develop capacities of Supreme Audit Institutions in aid recipient countries, in order to implement the International Standards for Supreme Audit Institutions in developing countries;

32.

Urges the EU and its Member States to foster and show support for the creation of an International Commission Against Corruption established by an international treaty or by a Protocol to the UNCAC, which would give rise to an international body of criminal investigators endowed with equivalent powers of national law enforcement and prosecution authorities to investigate and prosecute crimes of corruption in domestic territories of the signatory States, and being able also to indict individuals in national criminal courts;

33.

Invites the EU Member States to support the establishment of a UN Special Rapporteur on financial crime, corruption and human rights with a comprehensive mandate, including an objectives-oriented plan and a periodic evaluation of the anti-corruption measures taken by States; invites those Member States that have signed but not yet ratified the Council of Europe Criminal Law Convention on Corruption, opened for signature on 27 January 1999, to ratify it at the earliest possible date;

34.

Draws attention to the existence of a handbook based on the OECD Convention on Combating Bribery of Foreign Public Officials in International Business Transactions, which allows companies to take effective internal control, and ethical and compliance measures, in order to prevent and detect cross-border corruption;

35.

Requests all EU enterprises to fulfil their corporate responsibility to respect human rights in line with the UN Guiding Principles; welcomes the Commission’s readiness to develop human rights guidance for small and medium-sized enterprises; calls on the EU Member States to develop their own national plans for the implementation of the UN Guiding Principles and to insist on the need for partner countries, too, to adhere to internationally recognised corporate social responsibility standards, such as the OECD Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises and the ILO Tripartite declaration of principles concerning multinational enterprises and social policy;

36.

Calls for the development of more effective transparency and accountability standards for EU technology companies in connection with the export of technologies that can be used to violate human rights, to aid corruption or to act against the EU’s security interests;

37.

Notes that most initiatives for improving corporate practice in third countries, especially in conflict zones, such as the UN Global Compact and UN Guidelines on Business and Human Rights, do not establish common ground and proper enforcement of the guidelines, relying on companies’ voluntary initiative to comply with them; calls on the EU to take the lead in international efforts to establish such normative standards, at least within EU jurisdiction, focusing on accountability for directors of transnational corporations and redress mechanisms for victims;

38.

Urges the Commission to propose legislation requiring EU companies to ensure that their purchases do not support perpetrators of corruption, conflicts and grave human rights violations, namely by carrying out checks and audits on their raw materials supply chains and publishing the findings; takes the view that mandatory due diligence by EU companies, in line with the guidelines published by the OECD, would boost European businesses and make EU human rights and development policies more coherent, especially in areas plagued by conflict;

39.

Re-emphasises the need for the EU and the Member States to take appropriate measures, including under criminal law, to monitor and eventually sanction companies based on their territory which are involved in corruption in third countries; calls on the Commission to formulate a public list of companies which have been convicted of corrupt practices or whose company officials are being indicted for corrupt practices in Member States or third countries; is of the opinion that such listing should prohibit those companies from participating in public procurement processes or benefit from EU funds in EU Member States or third countries in the case of conviction, and until a final court decision of exoneration; highlights the fact that ‘blacklisting’ can be effective in dissuading companies from engaging in corrupt activities and provides a good incentive for them to improve and reinforce their internal integrity procedures;

40.

Welcomes the agreements reached between the European Parliament and the Council requiring companies in the extractive sector and loggers of primary forests to disclose payments to governments on a country and project basis; urges governments of all partner countries to require equivalent disclosure of payments of transnational companies registered or listed on financial markets in their jurisdiction; urges the EU to promote this standard of reporting in the context of its relations with partner countries; takes the view that the Commission, in the forthcoming revision of the legislation in question, should consider widening the scope of country-by-country reporting, so as to include transnational companies of all sectors and the reporting of more information, such as sales, assets, employees, profits and taxes;

41.

Stresses that corruption often fuels crime and contributes to conflict and fragility, and takes the view that fighting corruption should be given greater weight in EU’s conflict prevention efforts and in its actions to deal with situations of fragility;

42.

Stresses the crucial role of high standards of integrity among peacekeeping forces within the UN and the AU, namely in the context of the African Peace Facility; supports the claims for reform of the UN integrity measures system, namely the need to consolidate all investigations of misconduct by officials — including investigations in the field — into one internal oversight entity; calls, therefore, on the UN to take steps to ensure that those who are victimised by peacekeepers have the right to remedy, and to improve reporting mechanisms and the whistleblower protection policy;

43.

Stresses the need to develop and update the Generic Standards of Behaviour and the Code of Conduct for EU CSDP missions, to adequately reflect efforts against corruption both in missions and in mission areas; calls on the EU and its Member States to take steps to ensure that those who are victimised by European personnel in peace and rule of law missions have an effective right to remedy; urges the Council to set up safe and adequate reporting mechanisms and an effective whistleblower protection policy; stresses that these mechanisms must be gender-sensitive;

44.

Welcomes initiatives like the Montreux Document and the International Code of Conduct for Private Security Service Providers (ICoC); welcomes the European Union’s recent support for the Montreux Document and the high and growing number of endorsements by EU Member States; highlights, however, that there needs to be better enforcement of established principles; calls on all EU Member States to further develop their national law and regulation in line with the standards set out in the Montreux Document and recommends that they and the EU only enter into contracts with PMSCs that uphold the initiatives’ principles; calls on the EU and its Member States to support the creation of the oversight mechanism of the ICoC, which should be a compliance body capable of handling complaints and issuing dissuasive sanctions (including modifications to contracts requiring additional constraints, issuance of official warnings, financial penalties and temporary or permanent removal of the PMSC from the ICoC system) in order to ensure compliance with, and ultimately hold PMSCs accountable for, their commitments under the ICoC;

45.

Requests that the EU and the Member States support the creation of an international framework to regulate the activities of PMSCs, establishing a level playing field so that host states have the authority to regulate PMSCs and contracting states may use their power to protect human rights and prevent corruption; emphasises that such a framework must include dissuasive sanctions for violations, accountability for violators and effective access to remedies for victims, in addition to a licensing and monitoring system to require all PMSCs to submit to independent audits and participate in compulsory training of all personnel in human rights;

46.

Recommends that Member States enhance the implementation of Chapters IV (International Cooperation) and V (Asset Recovery) of UNCAC, especially to grant more efficiency to mutual legal assistance requested by third countries, notably by interpreting domestic legislation in a way which facilitates the assistance requested, by de-linking confiscation from conviction in the requesting state for the purposes of providing mutual legal assistance, and by providing their legal systems with the requisite human and financial resources so that cases can be handled properly and swiftly; urges the EU to prioritise this issue of great relevance in third countries going through democratisation processes, namely by addressing legal barriers and the lack of willingness to cooperate from financial centres within the EU, which often maintain an unresponsive and inefficient mutual legal assistance regime;

47.

Is of the opinion that the standard human rights clause introduced in all agreements with third countries should also include a commitment towards the protection and promotion of good governance;

48.

Encourages the Commission to propose in the next revision of the Cotonou Agreement the respect of good governance as an essential element of the Agreement and to widen the scope of the definition of corruption, allowing the sanctioning of breaches of the good governance clause in all serious circumstances, and not only when related to economic and sectoral policies and programmes on which the European Union is a significant partner in terms of the financial support;

49.

Welcomes the decision of the EU-Egypt and EU-Tunisia Task Forces to finalise a roadmap for the return of the illicitly acquired assets which are still frozen in a number of third countries; urges the EU and its Member States to adhere fully to the existing international norms governing asset recovery, such as Chapter V of UNCAC, the asset recovery action plan as developed by the G8 Deauville Partnership with Arab Countries in Transition, and the new legislative framework developed by the Council on 26 November 2012; considers that asset-recovery provisions will support the efforts of countries to redress the worst effects of corruption, and urges the EU and its Member States to make significant efforts aimed at facilitating the return of misappropriated assets stolen by the former regimes to the people of Arab Spring countries; stresses the importance of a human rights-based approach to the treatment of asset recovery and sovereign debt by states emerging from regimes where corruption is endemic; supports initiatives for auditing external and internal sovereign debt with a view to detect corruption and its impact on human rights; calls on the Member States to support debt audit initiatives;

50.

Calls on the EU and the Member States to provide legal and technical assistance to developing countries that wish to recover stolen assets (or assets accumulated illegally by dictatorships) that are held in the territory of the European Union;

51.

Points out that corruption in the arms trade represents a large proportion of the corruption present in global transactions; welcomes the Arms Trade Treaty (ATT) adopted by the UNGA on 2 April 2013 establishing common binding standards and criteria to assess international weapons transfers; welcomes the commitment of the Member States to sign the Arms Trade Treaty at the earliest possible date, and calls on them to take a lead as well in the UN efforts for the rapid ratification and implementation of the International Arms Treaty by all UN member states; encourages the EU to ensure greater vigilance in relation to European arms manufacturers’ exports and to combat opaqueness in the arms trade sector, especially in relation to the use of intermediaries and economic/industrial offsets, in line with the Council Common Position 2008/944/CFSP of 8 December 2008 defining common rules governing control of exports of military technology and equipment;

52.

Instructs its President to forward this resolution to the Council, the Commission and the European External Action Service, to the governments and parliaments of the EU Member States, of the candidate states and of associated countries, to the Council of Europe, to the African Union, to the International Monetary Fund, to the World Bank, to the European Investment Bank, to the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development and to the United Nations.

19.5.2016   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 181/16

—

having regard to the European Union’s general budget for the financial year 2013 (1) and, in particular to the preparatory action ‘Interinstitutional system identifying long-term trends’ in the 2013 budget,

—

having regard to Financial Regulation (EU, Euratom) No 966/2012, in particular Articles 54(2)(a) and (b) and 54(e) thereof, applicable to the general budget of the Union and its rules of application,

—

having regard to the ESPAS (European Strategy and Policy Analysis System) report ‘Global Trends 2030 — Citizens in an Interconnected and Polycentric World’, produced by the European Union Institute for Security Studies (EUISS) (2),

—

having regard to Rule 48 of its Rules of Procedure,

—

having regard to the report of the Committee on Budgets and the opinions of the Committee on Regional Development and the Committee on Constitutional Affairs (A7-0265/2013),

A.

whereas we are living through a period of rapid transition — evident in relation to the dynamics of power, demographic change, climate change, urbanisation and technology, making it increasingly necessary for policy-makers in all jurisdictions to invest greater efforts in the study and monitoring of major global trends;

B.

whereas the 2010 EU budget provided, on Parliament’s initiative, for the Commission to undertake a pilot project over two years with the aim of exploring the possibility of establishing an ‘interinstitutional system identifying long-terms trends on major policy issues facing the EU’;

C.

whereas the 2012 EU budget authorised the project to go to the next phase as a preparatory action for the three years from 2012 to 2014, with the aim of putting in place, by the end of 2014, a fully functioning ‘European Strategy and Policy Analysis System’ (ESPAS) involving all relevant EU institutions, by developing ‘closer working cooperation between the research departments of the various EU institutions and bodies which are devoted to the analysis of medium- and long-term policy trends’ (3);

D.

whereas the establishment of a durable interinstitutional system at administrative level for identifying and mapping major trends likely to shape the future policy context would assist and support the EU institutions in preparing and responding to challenges and defining coherent strategic options for the years ahead;

E.

whereas such a well established and acknowledged system could provide a basis for reflection in the context of preparing the EU budget and establishing political priorities on an annual and multiannual basis and linking financial resources more directly to political objectives;

F.

whereas the empowerment of women cannot be achieved without the recognition and effective implementation of their rights; whereas ESPAS could also provide an effective analysis of the challenges faced in promoting gender equality, from political empowerment to combating all kinds of discrimination against women;

G.

whereas the first ESPAS-sponsored report, ‘Global Trends 2030 — Citizens in an Interconnected and Polycentric World’, commissioned from the EUISS, identifies several global trends that seem likely to shape the world in coming decades;

H.

whereas these trends include, notably: the growing empowerment of the individual, fuelled in part by technological change; greater stress on sustainable development against a backdrop of growing resource scarcity and persistent poverty, and compounded by the effects of climate change; and the emergence of an international system characterised by a shift of power away from states, with growing governance gaps as the traditional mechanisms for interstate relations fail to respond adequately to public demands;

1.

Believes that coherent and effective EU policy-making will depend more and more on the timely identification of those long-term global trends that have a bearing on the challenges and choices facing the Union in an increasingly complex and interdependent world;

2.

Highlights the importance of the EU institutions cooperating in an effective manner to monitor and analyse these long-term trends, as well as cooperating and networking with other actors, including the wider research community, both inside and outside the European Union, who are interested in similar issues in third countries; underlines, in this context, the importance of continuing the process of developing an effective capacity for the provision of independent, high-quality interinstitutional analysis and advice on key trends confronting policy-makers within the EU system;

3.

Points out that, in line with the principle of subsidiarity, the development of long-term socio-economic strategies and the implementation of policies in the EU is the responsibility of a variety of public organisations, such as the European institutions, government ministries, regional or local authority departments and specific agencies; highlights the fact that the economic and social partners, non-governmental organisations and other stakeholders also play a part in the development of long-term strategies alongside public bodies in the Member States and the European institutions; therefore, underlines that a multi-level governance approach should be applied;

4.

Stresses that, on account of its multiannual, long-term and horizontal character, cohesion policy is necessarily a policy with a strong forward-planning component and that, given its significant share of the EU budget, it needs to have a prominent place in all forward-looking budgetary planning;

5.

Believes that policy formulation in respect of cohesion policy and other fields depends increasingly on the timely identification of long-term global trends; notes, in this connection, various forward-looking reports such as Project Europe 2030 (the report to the European Council by the Reflection Group on the Future of the EU 2030) and ‘Global Trends 2030 — Citizens in an Interconnected and Polycentric World’, prepared by the European Union Institute for Security Studies (EUISS) as part of the European Strategy and Policy Analysis System (ESPAS) project; recommends closer coordination of such reporting initiatives;

6.

Calls for the integration of the gender perspective in the appraisal of long-term global trends and future reports as a means to fight human rights breaches, discrimination and poverty;

7.

Welcomes specifically the outcome so far of the administrative-level pilot project (2010-2011) and preparatory action (2012-2014) designed to develop a European Strategy and Policy Analysis System (ESPAS), in order to help identify long-term trends on major issues facing the Union, and strongly recommends that this process continue after the expiry of the current preparatory action; and considers that such a system should involve staff from all the relevant EU institutions and bodies, including the Committee of the Regions; believes that the reporting mechanism needs to be the subject of a discussion involving all relevant interest groups, businesses and non-governmental organisations;

8.

Urges the four institutions and bodies currently involved in the ESPAS process — the Commission, Parliament, the Council and the European External Action Service — to elaborate and sign some form of interinstitutional agreement, ideally to be concluded in the spring of 2014, with each partner undertaking to maintain and participate in the agreement on a continuing basis;

9.

Stresses the need for the participating institutions and bodies to devote the necessary staff and financial resources to the ESPAS system through each of their respective budgets, in full compliance with the Financial Regulation, and in particular Article 54(e) thereof, and in the context of the annual budgetary procedure, so as to ensure that this capability can be developed in a budgetarily neutral way in future years, underlines the need for the EU institutions to invest in staff with specific expertise to contribute fully to analysing and monitoring global trends as well as the expertise to identify options and make policy recommendations for the specific needs of each EU institution;

10.

Insists that ESPAS be steered and overseen by an appropriately composed interinstitutional board, which would set the mandate and priorities of ESPAS and designate any director or other officers, and in which Parliament will, if it chooses, be represented by Members — it being understood that, within the framework of its mandate, the detailed work of ESPAS should be carried out on an independent basis.

11.

Welcomes the intention to use the ESPAS process, and building upon its global network, to build up a global on-line repository of papers and material from multiple sources relating to medium- and long-term trends, freely open to policy-makers and citizens worldwide;

12.

Welcomes the fact that that closer administrative cooperation between the EU institutions through the ESPAS process will lead to the presentation, as part of the preparatory action, of a foresight report analysing long-term trends and their implications for the challenges and choices facing the Union during the period 2014-2019, due to be submitted for the attention of the incoming Presidents of the institutions in 2014; considers that this exercise is successful and should be repeated on at least a five-yearly basis thereafter;

13.

Believes that a permanent system — aiming to provide regular analysis of medium- and long-term trends for the EU institutions in order to encourage a more strategic approach to decision-making — should include provisions for the submission of an annual ‘strategic trends report’ to the institutions, in advance of the State of the Union debate, and the publication of the Commission’s annual work programme in order to track and assess the changing pattern of long-term trends, and also to provide specific input to the budgetary authority in the run-up to the negotiation of a post-2020 Multiannual Financial Framework (MFF), as well as for any mid-term revision of the 2014-2020 MFF;

14.

Instructs its President to forward this report to the Council, the Commission and the European External Action Service.

19.5.2016   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 181/19

—

having regard to Articles 12, 15, 16, 27, 28, 30, 31 and 33 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union,

—

having regard to Article 3(3) of the Treaty on European Union,

—

having regard to Articles 45, 81 and 146 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,

—

having regard to the judgments of the Court of Justice of the European Union in Cases C-18/02 (1), C-341/05 (2) and C-438/05 (3),

—

having regard to Rule 48 of its Rules of Procedure,

—

having regard to the report of the Committee on Legal Affairs and the opinion of the Committee on Employment and Social Affairs (A7-0291/2013),

A.

whereas the review of the Brussels I Regulation (4) was a great success, as it introduced considerable improvements to the rules on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters within the European Union;

B.

whereas the scope of that recast procedure did not include certain employment law issues;

C.

whereas the Interinstitutional Agreement of 28 November 2001 (5) provides that the recast technique is to be used for acts which are frequently amended;

D.

whereas it is important to ensure coherence between the rules governing jurisdiction over a dispute and the rules governing the law to be applied to a dispute;

E.

whereas it is also a major concern of private international law at European level to prevent forum shopping — particularly when this might occur to the detriment of the weaker party, such as employees in particular — and to ensure the greatest possible level of predictability as to jurisdiction;

F.

whereas, as a general principle, the court having the closest connection to a case should have jurisdiction;

G.

whereas a number of high-profile European court cases on jurisdiction and applicable law in relation to individual employment contracts and industrial action have led to fears that national provisions on employment law could be undermined by European rules which can lead, in certain cases, to the law of one Member State being applied by the court of another Member State (6);

H.

whereas, in view of the major importance of employment law for the constitutional and political identities of the Member States, it is important that European law should respect national traditions in this field;

I.

whereas it is also in the interest of the proper administration of justice to align the rules on jurisdiction with the rules on applicable law to the extent possible;

J.

whereas it seems appropriate to evaluate whether there is a need for changes to be made to the rules on jurisdiction in the field of employment law;

K.

whereas, in particular, with regard to industrial action, the courts of the Member State where the industrial action is to be or has been taken should have jurisdiction;

L.

whereas, with regard to individual employment contracts, it should be ensured, to the extent desirable, that the courts of the Member State which has the closest connection with the employment relationship should have jurisdiction;

1.

Congratulates the institutions on the successful review of the Brussels I Regulation;

2.

Considers that employment law issues should be further addressed by the Commission with a view to a possible future revision;

3.

Notes that one of the main principles of private international law relating to jurisdiction is the protection of the weaker party and that the objective of employee protection is spelt out in the current jurisdiction rules;

4.

Notes that employees are generally well protected by jurisdiction rules in employment matters when they are defendants in cases brought by their employers through the exclusive grounds of jurisdiction laid down in the Brussels I Regulation;

5.

Urges the Commission to assess whether the current legal framework under the Brussels I Regulation sufficiently takes into account the specificities of actions in the employment sector;

6.

Calls on the Commission to pay particular regard to the following questions:

7.

Instructs its President to forward this resolution to the Council and the Commission, and to the European Economic and Social Committee.

19.5.2016   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 181/21

—

having regard to Article 3 of the Treaty on European Union (TEU) which emphasises values common to the Member States, such as pluralism, non-discrimination, tolerance, justice, solidarity and equality between men and women, and Article 8 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU) which lays down the principle of gender mainstreaming, as it states that the Union shall in all its activities aim to eliminate inequalities, and to promote equality, between men and women,

—

having regard to Article 19 of the TFEU which refers to combating discrimination based on sex,

—

having regard to Article 23 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union,

—

having regard to the United Nations Convention of 18 December 1979 on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW),

—

having regard to the Beijing Declaration and Platform for Action adopted by the Fourth World Conference on Women on 15 September 1995, and to its resolutions of 18 May 2000 (1), 10 March 2005 (Beijing + 10) (2), and 25 February 2010 (Beijing + 15) (3),

—

having regard to the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) adopted at the Millennium Summit of the United Nations in September 2000, and in particular the MDG on promoting gender equality and empowering women as a prerequisite for overcoming hunger, poverty and disease, reaching equality at all levels of education and in all areas of work, equal control over resources and equal representation in public and political life,

—

having regard to the European Pact for Gender Equality (2011-2020), adopted by the European Council in March 2011,

—

having regard to the European Consensus on Development,

—

having regard to the European Convention on Human Rights and Biomedicine,

—

having regard to the European Union Guidelines on promoting compliance with international humanitarian law (IHL), on the death penalty, on torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, and on human rights defenders, as well as on human rights dialogues with non-EU countries, on the promotion and protection of the rights of the child, and on violence against women and girls and combating all forms of discrimination against them,

—

having regard to the Council Conclusions of 2 December 1998 establishing that the annual assessment of the implementation of the Beijing Platform for Action will be based on quantitative and qualitative indicators and benchmarks,

—

having regard to the Council Conclusions of 2 and 3 June 2005 in which the Member States and the Commission are invited to strengthen institutional mechanisms for promoting gender equality and to create a framework for assessing the implementation of the Beijing Platform for Action for more consistent and systematic monitoring of progress,

—

having regard to the Council Conclusions of 5 and 6 December 2007 on the review of the implementation of the Beijing Platform for Action by EU institutions and the Member States, as well as to the accompanying report of the Portuguese Presidency, endorsing indicators on women and poverty,

—

having regard to the Commission’s ‘Strategy for equality between women and men: 2010-2015’, presented on 21 September 2010, and the accompanying staff working document on actions to implement the strategy,

—

having regard to the Commission Staff Working Document on the EU Plan of Action on Gender Equality and Women’s Empowerment in Development (2010-2015),

—

having regard to the common declaration by EU ministers for gender equality of 4 February 2005, in the context of the 10-year review of the Beijing Platform for Action, reaffirming, inter alia, strong support and commitment to the full and effective implementation of the Beijing Declaration and Platform for Action,

—

having regard to the conclusions adopted by the UN Commission on the Status of Women at its 57th session on 15 March 2013, which for the first time in an international text specifically acknowledge the phenomenon of gender-related killings or ‘femicides’,

—

having regard to the 2011 interagency statement on ‘Preventing gender-biased sex selection’ presented by the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR), the United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA), the United Nations Children’s Fund (UNICEF), UN Women and the Word health Organisation (WHO),

—

having regard to the Declaration and Programme of Action of the 1994 Cairo International Conference on Population and Development (ICPD), the key actions for its further implementation as well as the United Nations General Assembly Resolution 65/234 on the Follow-up to the International Conference on Population and Development beyond 2014 (December 2010),

—

having regard to its resolution of 13 March 2008 on Gender Equality and Women’s Empowerment in Development Cooperation (4), in particular paragraph 37,

—

having regard to its resolution of 16 December 2010 on the Annual Report on Human Rights in the World 2009 and the European Union’s policy on the matter (5), especially paragraph 76 which emphasises the need to eliminate all forms of discrimination and violence against women and girls, including the sex-selective abortion,

—

having regard to its resolution of 13 December 2012 on the annual report on human rights and democracy in the world 2011 and the European Union’s policy on the matter (6),

—

having regard to its resolution of 11 October 2007 on the murder of women (feminicide) in Mexico and Central America and the role of the European Union in fighting the phenomenon (7);

—

having regard to Rule 48 of its Rules of Procedure,

—

having regard to the report of the Committee on Women’s Rights and Gender Equality and the opinion of the Committee on Development (A7-0245/2013),

A.

whereas ‘gendercide’ is a sex-neutral term referring to the systematic, deliberate and gender-based mass killing of people belonging to a particular sex, which is a rising but underreported problem in several countries, with lethal consequences; whereas this report specifically explores the causes, current trends, consequences and ways of combating the gender-biased sex selection practices, which also take the forms of infanticide and violence through sex selection (other terms, such as ‘femicide/feminicide’, for which a special Parliament report already exists (8), have been used to refer to the killing of women and girls as the utmost expression of discrimination and violence against women);

B.

whereas, despite recent legislation against sex-selective practices, girls are to a disproportionate degree the target of ruthless sexual discrimination, often extended to include unborn, predetermined baby girl foetuses, which are aborted, abandoned or killed, for no other reason than the fact that they are female;

C.

whereas it has been estimated that, as early as 1990,more than 100 million women were demographically ‘missing’ from the world’s population due to gendercide (9); whereas according to recent estimates this number has increased to almost 200 million women ‘missing’ from the world’s population (10);

D.

whereas gendercide is a global issue of concern not only in Asia and Europe but also in North America, Africa and Latin America; whereas gendercide is committed everywhere pregnant women, on purpose or under pressure, decide not to give birth to girl foetuses because they are considered a burden to the society;

E.

whereas in Asia, and especially in China, India and Vietnam, there are particularly distorted sex ratios; whereas in 2012, 113 boys were born for every 100 girls in China, and 112 boys were born for every 100 girls in India and Vietnam (11);

F.

whereas in Europe there are particularly distorted sex ratios in some countries, given that, in 2012, 112 boys were born for every 100 girls in Albania, Armenia, Azerbaijan and Georgia (12);

G.

whereas the practice of gendercide is most often found deeply rooted in cultures exhibiting ‘son preference’, gender inequality, persisting discrimination and stereotypes against daughters, and, in some cases, in countries applying coercive government policies;

H.

whereas perceptions of ‘son preference’ are deeply rooted and constitute part of long-standing traditions relevant to issues such as property inheritance, the reliance of ageing parents on sons for economic support and security, the continuance of the family name and lineage, and a desire to be spared traditionally high dowry costs for daughters in order to avoid financial hardship;

I.

whereas inadequate social security systems, schemes and insurance options for families in several cultures may, misleadingly, lead to ‘son preference’ and to sex-selective practices;

J.

whereas sex-selective practices disrupt gender balance in societies, cause skewed population sex ratios and have economic and social impacts; whereas gender imbalance in the form of ‘excess men’ affects long-term social stability, leading to an overall increase in criminality, frustration, violence, trafficking, sex slavery, exploitation, prostitution and rape;

K.

whereas a patriarchal culture of persistent ‘son preference’ not only preserves stereotypes, democratic deficits and gender inequalities but also discriminates against women, and thus presents obstacles hindering them from fully enjoying equal treatment and equal opportunities in all areas of life;

L.

whereas the occurrence of sex-selective practises, higher rates of mortality among very young girls and lower rates of school enrolment for girls than boys, may suggest that a ‘son preference’ culture is prevailing in some societies; it is important to investigate and diagnose whether such phenomena are accompanied by further democratic deficits against girl children, such as deterioration in their access to nutrition, education, health care, sanitation facilities, safe water, medical care and social assistance, in order to find effective ways to combat them;

M.

whereas the demographic deficits of females in many countries cannot be addressed owing to a lack of reliable statistical data for monitoring births and deaths;

N.

whereas the empowerment of women will aid in promoting the behavioural and social change needed to eradicate sex-selective practices in the long term;

O.

whereas eradicating sex-selective practices is a complex process which requires a range of inter-connected approaches and methods, including specialised training for medical staff to advice and prevent sex-selective practices in the EU and worldwide;

P.

whereas advocacy, policy measures and good practices such as the ‘Care for Girls’ campaign in China, aiming at raising awareness of the value of girls, and the ‘Balika Samriddhi Yojana’ scheme in India, providing monetary incentives for educating girls from poor families, are essential to change behavioural attitudes towards girls and women;

Q.

whereas the successful example of South Korea is notable as the country has managed to reverse a highly distorted sex ratio of 114 males born for every 100 females in 1994 to 107 males born for every 100 females in 2010 (13);

1.

Stresses that gendercide remains a crime and a severe violation of human rights that necessitates effective ways to address and uproot all the fundamental causes leading to patriarchal culture;

2.

Stresses that all states and governments have an obligation to promote and safeguard human rights and to prevent discrimination as a basis for eliminating all forms of violence against women;

3.

Calls on governments to devise and apply measures that promote fundamental changes in people’s ideas about and attitudes towards women, in order to tackle harmful beliefs and behaviour which perpetuate violence against women;

4.

Calls on governments to specifically categorise feminicide or gendercide as a crime and to draw up and implement legislation so that feminicide cases are investigated, perpetrators tried and survivors ensured easy access to health care and long-term support;

5.

Underlines that according to the Council of Europe Convention on preventing and combating violence against women and domestic violence, and to the Beijing Declaration and Platform for Action, any family or societal pressure on women to pursue sex-selective abortion is considered a form of physical and psychological violence;

6.

Points out that eradicating sex-selective practices is a complex process which requires a range of inter-connected approaches and methods, from studying the root causes and cultural and socio-economic factors characteristic of countries where son/male preference exists, to campaigning for the rights and status of girls and women and introducing laws and regulations; more broadly, deems that the only sustainable way to prevent further developments in sex-selective practices is by promoting equal value of the sexes in every society;

7.

Stresses the need, and calls on the Commission, to promote a thorough scientific investigation and examination of the root causes of sex-selective practices with a view to promote research into those country-specific customs and traditions that may lead to sex selection and the long-term societal consequences of sex selection;

8.

Calls for detailed analysis of the underlying financial and economic reasons that contribute to sex-selective practices; calls, furthermore, on governments actively to address such burdens that are placed on families and that can lead to the phenomenon of a male surplus;

9.

Stresses the importance of drafting legislation against sex selection, which should include social protection packages for women, better monitoring of the implementation of the existing legislation, and a stronger focus on the cultural and socio-economic causes of the phenomenon, in order to tackle the issue in a sustainable and holistic way, upholding gender equality and encouraging active participation on the part of civil society;

10.

Calls on governments to eliminate democratic and legislative deficits, combat persisting obstacles discriminating against girl children, ensure inheritance rights for women, enforce national legislation that guarantees women equality with men before the law in all sectors of life, and provide economic, educational and political empowerment to girls and women;

11.

Calls on the Commission to support and encourage all types of initiatives to increase awareness on gender-biased discrimination, including gendercide, and to find effective ways to combat it by offering guidance, assistance, appropriate policies and funding, as part of its external relations, humanitarian aid and gender mainstreaming;

12.

Points out that the failure to empower women and girls, as well as the absence of efforts to change social norms and structures, has serious legal, ethical, health and human rights implications and potentially serious longer-term consequences that are damaging to the societies concerned;

13.

Stresses that, according to several studies, gender imbalance could lead to: increases in trafficking for the purposes of marriage or sexual exploitation: violence against women; child, early and forced marriages; and HIV/AIDS and other sexually transmitted diseases (STDs); stresses that gender imbalance thereby poses a threat to societal stability and security, and calls, therefore, for in-depth reviews of the possible health, economic and security consequences of this spiralling male surplus;

14.

Supports relevant reforms, continued monitoring and effective implementation of gender equality and non-discrimination legislation, particularly in low- and middle-income countries and transition countries;

15.

Calls on the Commission to work intensively to prevent gender-biased sex selection, not by imposing restrictions on access to reproductive health services and technology but by promoting responsible use of it, to introduce and strengthen guidelines, to provide specialised training for medical staff to advise on and prevent sex selective practices, with the rare exception of justified cases for sex-linked genetic diseases, and to prevent the use and promotion of technologies for sex-selection and/or for profit purposes;

16.

Emphasises that legislation to manage or limit sex selection must protect the right of women to have access to legitimate sexual and reproductive health technologies and services without their husbands’ authorisation, that such legislation must be implemented in an effective way, and that appropriate sanctions must be imposed on those breaking the law;

17.

Encourages closer engagement and cooperation between governments and the medical community and calls for stricter guidelines for the self-regulation of clinics and hospitals, as an active measure to prevent sex selection as a business for financial gain;

18.

Calls on the Commission and the Member States to identify clinics in Europe that conduct sex-selective abortions, provide statistics on this practice and elaborate a list of best practices for preventing them;

19.

Recognises that ensuring and promoting the rights of women and girls, by offering them equal opportunities, particularly in education and employment, is vital for tackling sexism and building a society in which the principle of gender equality becomes a reality; highlights the fact that the improvement of levels of education, employment opportunities and integrated health care services, including sexual and reproductive health care services for women, plays a vitally important role in efforts to eradicate sex-selective practices — from abortion to infanticide — and to achieve overall economic growth in developing countries and reduce poverty; underlines that the empowerment of women and the involvement of men are key to fighting gender inequality and to promoting the behavioural and social change needed to eradicate sex-selective practices in the long term;

20.

Calls, therefore, on the Commission to promote an educational and social environment in which both sexes are respected and treated equally, and in which both sexes receive recognition for their abilities and potential, without stereotypes and discrimination, while reinforcing gender mainstreaming, equal opportunities and equal partnership;

21.

Calls on the Commission, and urges relevant international organisations, to support educational programmes that empower women, enabling them to develop self-esteem, acquire knowledge, make decisions and take responsibility for their own lives, health and employment, and allowing them to live a financially independent life;

22.

Calls on the Commission, the EEAS and the governments of third countries to devise information campaigns that promote the principle of gender equality and that seek to raise awareness of the need for each member of a couple to respect the human rights of his/her partner, particularly the rights of property, employment, appropriate health care, justice and education;

23.

Recalls the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) and stresses that access to education and healthcare, including sexual and reproductive health and rights, are basic human rights; stresses the need for making special and specific reference to gendercide and sex-selection issues in dialogues and reports on the MDGs and in other experience-sharing international fora;

24.

Stresses that the ability of women to exercise of their rights is necessarily bound up with their capacity to take decisions individually and independently of their spouse, for which reason it is essential to ensure that women have access to education, work, health care, and ready access to contraception and a bank account without requiring the authorisation or consent of another person;

25.

Calls on the governments of partner countries to reduce health care costs for the treatment of children, notably girls, who sometimes die as a result of the bad or inadequate care they receive;

26.

Calls on governments to improve women’s access to health care, in particular prenatal and maternal care, education, agriculture, credit and microloans, economic opportunities and property;

27.

Calls for special emphasis to be placed on creating the conditions for solidarity in developing countries, inter alia through the establishment of pension funds, in order to reduce economic burdens on families and individuals, thus reducing their dependence on and preference towards male children;

28.

Notes that sex-selection practices still persist even in prosperous regions with literate populations;

29.

Encourages the development of support mechanisms for women and families that can provide information and advice to women about the dangers and damage of sex-selective practices and to provide counselling to support women who may be under pressure to eliminate female foetuses;

30.

Encourages civil society and government agencies to take joint action to promote information and public awareness campaigns about the negative consequences of sex-selective practices for the mother;

31.

Calls on the Commission to provide technical and financial support for innovative activities and education programmes that aim to stimulate debate and understanding of the equal value of girls and boys, using all available media and social networks, targeting and involving young people, religious and spiritual leaders, teachers, community leaders and other influential personalities, in an effort to modify the cultural perceptions of gender equality of a given society and to underscore the need for non-discriminatory behaviour;

32.

Calls for the EU to include a strong gender component, and a focus on the empowerment of women, in all its partnerships and dialogues with developing countries, as called for in the European Consensus on Development; considers, furthermore, that there is a need for gender mainstreaming in all stages of budget support, inter alia by promoting dialogue with women’s associations in developing countries and by introducing gender-differentiated indicators;

33.

Calls on the authorities of the countries concerned to improve the monitoring and statistical data collection of sex ratios, and to take action to address possible imbalances; calls, in this connection, for closer cooperation between the EU, UN agencies and other international partners and partner governments;

34.

Calls on the Commission and all relevant stakeholders to take the necessary legislative or other measures to ensure that practicing forced abortions and sex-selective surgery to terminate pregnancy without prior and informed consent or understanding of the procedure by the women involved is criminalised;

35.

Calls on governments and all relevant stakeholders to ensure that legislation on sex selection is implemented effectively and that appropriate sanctions are imposed on those breaking the law;

36.

Calls on the Commission to enhance cooperation with other international organisations and bodies such as the UN, WHO, UNICEF, OHCHR, UNFPA and UN Women to tackle sex-selective practices and to combat their root causes in all countries, and to network with governments, parliaments, various stakeholders, media, non-governmental organisations, women organisations and other community bodies in order to increase awareness of gendercide and ways to prevent it;

37.

Calls on the Commission and the EEAS to collaborate with the aforementioned international organisations to tackle sex-selective practices and to combat their root causes in all countries, and to network with governments, parliaments, various stakeholders, media, non-governmental organisations, women organisations and other community bodies in order to increase awareness of gendercide and ways to prevent it;

38.

Calls on the Commission and the EEAS, when discussing humanitarian aid packages, to prioritise gendercide as an issue to be addressed by the third countries concerned, enjoining them to commit themselves to make the eradication of gendercide a priority, to increase awareness about this issue and to press for its prevention;

39.

Calls for the EU and its partner countries to improve, through development cooperation, the monitoring and data collection of sex ratios at birth, and to take prompt action to address possible imbalances; stresses that human rights clauses relating to gender discrimination should also be included in international trade and cooperation agreements;

40.

Calls on the European Union to ensure a rights-based approach encompassing all human rights, and to include a strong focus on the empowerment and the promotion, respect and fulfilment of women's and girl's rights, including their sexual and reproductive rights and gender equality as preconditions to combat gendercide, as a key issue in the post-2015 development policy agenda;

41.

Asserts that, when implementing the specific clauses on the prohibition on coercion or compulsion in sexual and reproductive health matters agreed on at the Cairo International Conference on Population and Development, as well as the legally binding international human rights instruments, the acquis communautaire and the Union’s policy competencies in those matters, Union assistance should not be provided to any authority, organisation or programme which promotes, supports or participates in the management of any action which involves such human rights abuses as coercive abortion, forced sterilisation of women or men, or determination of foetal sex resulting in prenatal sex selection or infanticide;

42.

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

19.5.2016   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 181/29

—

having regard to the conclusions of the European Council of 28/29 June 2012 (1),

—

having regard to the conclusions of the European Council of 14/15 March 2013 (2),

—

having regard to the current interinstitutional negotiations on the future Cohesion Policy and the Multiannual Financial Framework,

—

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,

—

having regard to its resolution of 20 November 2012 with recommendations to the Commission on the report of the Presidents of the European Council, the European Commission, the European Central Bank and the Eurogroup ‘Towards a genuine Economic and Monetary Union’ (3),

—

having regard to its resolution of 23 June 2011 on the European Urban Agenda and its Future in Cohesion Policy (4),

—

having regard to its position of 12 March 2013 on the proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on common provisions for monitoring and assessing draft budgetary plans and ensuring the correction of excessive deficit of the Member States in the euro area (5),

—

having regard to its position of 12 March 2013 on the proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on the strengthening of economic and budgetary surveillance of Member States experiencing or threatened with serious difficulties with respect to their financial stability in the euro area (6),

—

having regard to its resolution of 11 March 2009 on Cohesion Policy: investing in the real economy (7),

—

having regard to its resolution of 13 March 2013 on the European Council conclusions of 7/8 February 2013 concerning the Multiannual Financial Framework (8),

—

having regard to the draft opinion of the Committee of the Regions of 6 March 2013 on ‘Synergies between private investment and public funding at local and regional levels — partnerships for economic growth and prosperity’,

—

having regard to the opinion of the Committee of the Regions of 1 February 2013 on ‘Creating greater synergies between EU, national and subnational budgets’,

—

having regard to the memo of the Committee of the Regions of 2012 on ‘Impact of budgetary austerity on local finances and investment’,

—

having regard to the note of the European Investment Bank of 14 December 2012 on ‘The impact of the recession in 2008-2009 on EU regional convergence’ (9),

—

having regard to the Occasional Papers of the Commission of December 2012 on ‘The Quality of Public Expenditures in the EU’ (10),

—

having regard to the IMF’s October 2012 World Economic Outlook,

—

having regard to Rule 48 of its Rules of Procedure,

—

having regard to the report of the Committee on Regional Development and the opinions of the Committee on Budgets and the Committee on Employment and Social Affairs (A7-0269/2013),

A.

whereas the worldwide economic and financial crisis impaired social, economic and territorial cohesion in the EU, causing higher unemployment, lower GDP and increasing regional disparities and budgetary deficits at national, regional and local level;

B.

whereas the timing and severity of the crisis has varied to a great extent throughout the EU’s regions, emphasising pre-existing structural weaknesses and bringing a serious decline in GDP growth, record unemployment rates, major impoverishment of the most vulnerable in society and a deteriorated business climate and lowered consumer confidence;

C.

whereas banks and financial markets have become increasingly reluctant to lend, as the perceived creditworthiness of sovereign and sub-national governments has deteriorated;

D.

whereas the fiscal compact has been shown to be inappropriate in facing the challenges of the crisis and a growth compact enabling significant investment across the Community is envisaged as the most viable solution, as there is a consensus today that fiscal austerity and budgetary cuts without investments do not revitalise the economy and will not create favourable conditions for job creation and economic growth;

E.

whereas the European Structural and Investment Funds are intended to promote the economic, social and territorial cohesion across the EU, reducing regional disparities, promoting convergence and stimulating development, employment and social progress through productive investment;

F.

whereas the European Structural and Investment Funds are equally expenditures earmarked for supporting smart, inclusive and sustainable growth and competitiveness and thus positively impact on the denominator of the deficit-to-GDP ratio;

G.

whereas the EU-wide collapse in public finance triggered by the sovereign debt crisis caused austerity policies to become widespread; whereas their effects on local finances have been devastating, causing several budget lines to be reduced or moderated and heavily jeopardising the financing/co-financing capacities for productive investment of national, regional and local authorities;

H.

whereas only a few states continued to support local investment, while the others, faced with the sovereign debt crisis, decided to freeze or cut financial support for investment to local authorities, with a strong tendency to centralise or introduce internal stability pact rules that have strongly reduced investment;

I.

whereas major budget cuts in important fields and sectors are one of the biggest problems facing local and regional authorities in the current period;

J.

whereas sub-national governments are key regional development actors: they represent 60 % of public investment and 38 % of consolidated government spending on ‘economic affairs’, thus including most expenditure which can influence regional development, such as that on commercial and labour affairs, agriculture, transport or R&D;

K.

whereas in the EU, investment has acted as an adjustment variable in two out of three countries, partly owing to efforts made in 2009 to combat the crises; whereas direct investment dropped in 2011 compared to 2010 in 17 Member States, in ten of which by more than 10 % in 2011 (Austria, Latvia, the Czech Republic, Slovakia, Bulgaria, Portugal, Greece, Hungary and Spain); whereas the drop in investment which began in 2010 (investment grants by central governments plunged by -8,7 %) is continuing and seems to be entering a negative spiral;

L.

whereas the level of indebtedness of sub-national governments is well below the level of indebtedness of national actors;

M.

whereas sub-national authorities are required to participate in the consolidation effort and reduce their deficits and debt while borrowing conditions have deteriorated for the financially weaker sub-national governments;

N.

whereas public investment is key to social inclusion and investment needs are substantial in many crucial sectors in the EU’s economy, such as the labour market, infrastructure, research and innovation, SMEs;

O.

whereas, after a period of increasing convergence in the EU between 2000 and 2007, convergence slowed down substantially during the recession; whereas the regions most affected were those with unsustainable and speculative investments and those with strong export manufacturing sectors;

P.

whereas the EU Structural Fund uptake arrangements are such that the Commission can reimburse interim payments only on the basis of declarations of expenditure paid out in Member States;

Q.

whereas national public co-financing under the Structural Funds in EU-27 for the 2007-2013 programming period amounts to approximately EUR 132 billion, and whereas that figure constitutes a sine qua non for proper take-up of the Funds and for investment of a high quality serving to strengthen ownership and accountability in the use of EU funding;

R.

whereas public co-financing of the programmes supported by Cohesion Policy can be jeopardised by lack of flexibility in the application of the Stability and Growth Pact (SGP), with the result that Cohesion Policy cannot be brought to bear to such useful effect to improve competitiveness and overcome the current crisis;

1.

Notes with great concern the clear pattern of rising regional inequality in the EU today, with many relatively poor regions in the New Member States and Southern Europe and a majority of rich regions in Central and Northern Europe, and even within Member States and regions; underlines, in this context, the prime importance of EU’s Cohesion Policy as the main tool for investment aimed at convergence and sustainable development in the EU;

2.

Stresses that the local economy is a key recovery factor for communities, and that this is important in the current crisis situation; highlights, in this context, the economic and social effects of the social economy in improving social cohesion at local level; calls on the Member States to provide funding opportunities for the social economy through the Structural Funds for the 2014-2020 period;

3.

Reiterates the importance of Cohesion Policy as the Union’s main investment instrument, playing a central role in fighting the crisis, reducing imbalances and engaging the EU and its regions on a path of sustainable growth; underlines the special role of the European Social Fund (ESF) in supporting social investment and implementing the Europe 2020 strategy, in particular by contributing to high levels of sustainable employment and productivity and, at the same time, effectively combating poverty and social exclusion as well as increasing social cohesion; hence underlines the importance of securing sufficient budgetary provisions in the context of the MFF negotiations to the Structural and Investment Funds, noting in particular their key share of investment in areas such as employment, innovation, sustainable development, the low-carbon economy and support to SMEs;

4.

Points out that Cohesion Policy proved resilient to the crisis, adapting its programmes and funding instruments and thus providing greater flexibility and making a crucial contribution in areas where investment is needed for economic modernisation and improved competitiveness and for reducing geographical disparities;

5.

Highlights the role played by several sub-national authorities in rebalancing the budget by keeping up the level of public investment and co-financing new projects and providing a leverage effect, especially when private investment is low; underlines the fact that at a time of recession and weak growth, sustainable public procurement and the capacity to finance/co-finance and incur commitments for investment are crucial in order to maintain growth potential;

6.

Is concerned that the prolonged austerity measures and the strict economic governance carried out in 2011 and 2012, implying increased pressure and cuts on public budgets, risks reducing the scope for local policies targeted at fulfilling Europe 2020;

7.

Stresses the need to restore and improve financial capacity, at sub-national level and to provide adequate technical assistance, especially in implementing locally led complex joint projects in order to secure public investment for programmes and projects aimed at boosting sustainable growth, combating social exclusion and restoring the social fabric, providing adequate health and social services and securing jobs, especially at regional and local level; maintains that the specific additional allocation for the outermost regions should not be subject to thematic concentration and be used to offset the additional costs linked to the characteristics and constraints referred to in Article 349 of the TFEU, that are incurred in the outermost regions; notes, furthermore, that the specific additional allocation may also be used to help finance operating aid and expenditure covering public service obligations and contracts in the outermost regions;

8.

Stresses the need to further strengthen the administrative capacity of regional and local authorities, and for further efforts to reduce the red tape which also adversely affects these authorities in their role as beneficiaries and restricts their capacity to implement EU-funded projects;

9.

Asks the institutions to improve the existing provisions so that regions in certain Member States that are particularly hard-hit by the financial crisis may further improve their capacity to absorb structural and cohesion funds and prevent the anticipated huge decommitments;

10.

Calls for further simplification of the rules and for increased flexibility and transparency in the programming and management of the Structural Funds, which will allow better project implementation and quicker and more appropriate responses to social challenges and threats;

11.

Welcomes the Commission’s 2012 Report on Public Finances in the EMU and especially the chapter on Fiscal Decentralisation in the EU, which highlights the soundness of a fiscal federalist model that devolves revenue-raising as well as expenditure responsibilities to sub-state authorities; asks the Commission to include such a chapter on the state of sub-state public finances and reforms in next year’s report on Public Finances in the EMU;

12.

Highlights the need for greater synergies between national, sub-national, and European public spending budgets through clear establishment of the roles and responsibilities of the different budgetary authorities at EU, Member State and sub-State level, including being clear about the role and rationale for EU policy and funding intervention, keeping to the payment periods fixed in the Late Payment Directive 2011/7/EU, respecting subsidiarity and the budgetary rights of local and regional authorities (their role in decision making and scrutiny), i.e. their democratic accountability to the communities that elect them, and ensuring the autonomy of each level of governance in determining priorities and spending; asks the Commission to provide clear factual data on how the role of the EU budget in leveraging investments at different levels could be enhanced;

13.

Strongly supports increased transparency and simplification of budgetary processes at all levels of governance (including identifying sources of EU funding explicitly within national and sub-state budgets), as well as ensuring the availability of data at EU level on the spending profiles of EU funding programmes at regional level (where this is possible) but also clarifying how priorities and funding are aligned at EU, Member State and sub-state level towards agreed EU-level priorities;

14.

Stresses the importance of adapting to ongoing budgetary constraints across Europe, while continuing to invest in the future; reminds Member States that the challenge is not to spend more but to spend more efficiently;

15.

Welcomes the fact that the application of financial instruments is being extended under the Cohesion Policy to all thematic objectives and all European Structural and Investment Funds; asks the Commission to come up with a thorough analysis and assessment of the potential of the new means and sources of financing to support investment for growth, such as the bond market, the risk-sharing instrument and the use of innovative financial instruments; calls on the Commission and the European Investment Bank (EIB) to come up with innovative ways to finance the long-term investments of local and regional authorities including through attracting private capital; emphasises the key role played by EIB loan schemes in financing projects of European interest, and calls for greater coordination and synergy to be established between such schemes and the Structural Funds;

16.

Underlines the significance of Jessica in supporting sustainable urban development and the regeneration of urban areas through financial engineering mechanisms, and calls for its wider use in the future programming period;

17.

Stresses the role that local and regional authorities could play in achieving the Europe 2020 objectives of smart, sustainable and inclusive growth; reiterates the importance of the partnership between central authorities and regional and local authorities in setting priorities and providing the necessary co-financing for the implementation of programmes as a prerequisite for achieving maximum effect with limited resources in seeking to achieve these objectives; highlights, in this context, the importance of the new instrument for community-led local development, which would allow action groups at local level to develop and implement local strategies for smart, sustainable and inclusive growth; calls on the Member States to provide for such opportunities as part of the ongoing programming process, so as to make use of local action groups’ great potential for innovation; emphasises the importance of local and regional authorities and, where applicable, the social partners and other relevant partners in the programming, implementation, monitoring and evaluation of the Structural Funds and the preparation of the partnership agreements, which could result in better linkages between EU, national, regional and local strategies;

18.

Expresses the belief that thematic concentration on a small number of priorities is necessary; stresses, however, that flexibility is required to allow Member States and regions to respond as effectively as possible to common targets, while also respecting territorial, economic and social specificities,

19.

Strongly reiterates its opposition to the introduction of macroeconomic conditionality in the Cohesion Policy 2014-2020, which would penalise regions and social groups already weakened by the crisis, with a suspension of payments possibly having disproportionate effects in several Member States and especially in regions, despite their full participation in the efforts to equilibrate public budgets, and which would only serve to weaken states in financial difficulty and undermine solidarity efforts that are essential to preserving a macroeconomic balance within the Union; takes the view, moreover, that a punitive approach of this kind might not be understood by the public at large and could add to public distrust at a time when people are already being hit hard by the crisis and the effects of austerity policies;

20.

Believes that in a period of retrenchment in public financing, there has to be a rethink regarding the principle of additionality, which should be implemented in line with the European economic governance framework, and hopes that this point will be discussed in the negotiations on Cohesion Policy after 2013;

21.

Notes the IMF’s recent comments that austerity weakens countries in which it is applied unthinkingly, the reason being that when the global economic outlook is poor, precipitate government deficit reduction hampers recovery in the short term by lowering tax receipts and hence further exacerbating the deficit; agrees with the IMF that the emphasis, instead of being confined to fiscal consolidation, should be broadened with a view to balancing consolidation with growth;

22.

Welcomes the proposal from some Member States that the MFF negotiations should cover the subject of a ‘review clause’ for the years 2015 and 2016, whereby budgets could be increased while they were being implemented, in order to promote youth employment, SMEs, and other key sectors;

23.

Invites the Commission and the Member States to exploit all margins of flexibility existing within the preventive arm of the Stability and Growth Pact (SGP) to balance productive and sustainable public investment needs with fiscal discipline objectives; considers that this could be done, for example, by excluding the aggregate volumes of national co-financing under the European Structural and Investment Funds from the limits imposed by the Stability and Growth Pact, by basing calculations for the purposes of the Pact on a Member State’s net cash requirements, as opposed to gross requirements, that is to say, net of the taxes payable on real expenditure (most importantly VAT), or by phasing the two sources of programme financing (European and national) according to different timetables, so that the funding would be wholly European during the first years of a programme and come entirely from national sources during the final years, on the assumption that the individual Member State concerned would, by that point, have managed to achieve tangible results in terms of the policy of containing the debt-to-GDP ratio;

24.

Calls on the Commission to ensure that public expenditure incurred by Member States to co-finance programmes supported by the Structural Funds is not included in the public or equivalent structural expenditure taken into account under partnership agreements for the purpose of ascertaining that the Stability and Growth Pact is being complied with, given that the latter expenditure constitutes an obligation deriving directly from the observance of additionality; calls, therefore, for public expenditure related to the implementation of programmes co-financed by the European Structural and Investment Funds to be completely excluded from the definition of SGP structural deficits because this is expenditure devoted to achieving the goals of Europe 2020 and supporting competitiveness, growth and job creation, especially where youth employment is concerned;

25.

Invites the Commission to report on the scope for possible action within the boundaries of the existing EU fiscal framework in order to address further the issue of separating current spending and investment in the budget deficit calculations so as to avoid public investments with long-term net benefits being calculated as negative;

26.

Urges the Commission and the Member States to take into consideration in the context of the current negotiations on the future Economic and Monetary Union, all margins of flexibility in the macro-economic governance framework in order to allow for productive investment, in particular by rethinking the relationship between the Stability and Growth Pact and productive public investment and excluding public expenditure related to the implementation of programmes co-financed by the Structural and Investment Funds in the framework of growth-friendly policies from the budgetary surveillance rules under the Stability and Growth Pact;

27.

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

19.5.2016   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 181/35

—

having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU),

—

having regard to the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea of 10 December 1982,

—

having regard to the resolutions of the UN General Assembly on fisheries, and in particular to paragraph 157 of Resolution 66/68 regarding the obligations of developed states towards least developed states and small island developing states,

—

having regard to the 1995 Agreement for the Implementation of the Provisions of the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea of 10 December 1982 relating to the conservation and management of straddling fish stocks and highly migratory fish stocks,

—

having regard to the FAO International Plan of Action for the Management of Fishing Capacity, endorsed by the FAO Council in November 2000 (IPOA-Capacity),

—

having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1005/2008 of 29 September 2008 establishing a Community system to prevent, deter and eliminate illegal, unreported and unregulated fishing (IUU fishing) (1),

—

having regard to the Agreement on Port State Measures to Prevent, Deter and Eliminate Illegal, Unreported and Unregulated Fishing approved by the FAO Conference at its Thirty-sixth Session on 22 November 2009,

—

having regard to its resolution of 22 November 2012 on the external dimension of the Common Fisheries Policy (2),

—

having regard to the Commission’s Joint Communication to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions of 21 March 2012 entitled ‘Towards a renewed EU-Pacific development partnership’ (3),

—

having regard to the Convention on the Conservation and Management of Highly Migratory Fish Stocks in the Western and Central Pacific Ocean, to which the EU has been a contracting party since 25 January 2005 by virtue of Council Decision 2005/75/EC (4),

—

having regard to Council Decision 2006/539/EC of 22 May 2006 on the conclusion, on behalf of the European Community, of the Convention for the Strengthening of the Inter-American Tropical Tuna Commission (IATTC) established by the 1949 Convention between the United States of America and the Republic of Costa Rica (5),

—

having regard to the Convention on the Conservation and Management of High Seas Fisheries Resources in the South Pacific Ocean (6), approved on behalf of the European Union by virtue of Council Decision 2012/130/EU (7) and creating the South Pacific Regional Fisheries Management Organisation (SPRFMO),

—

having regard to Council Decision 2011/144/EU of 15 February 2011 on the conclusion of the Interim Partnership Agreement between the European Community, of the one part, and the Pacific States, of the other part (8),

—

having regard to the Partnership Agreement between the members of the African, Caribbean and Pacific (ACP) Group of States of the one part, and the European Community and its Member States, of the other part, signed in Cotonou on 23 June 2000 (9) (the Cotonou Agreement),

—

having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 215/2008 of 18 February 2008 on the Financial Regulation applicable to the 10th European Development Fund (10),

—

having regard to the Partnership Agreement between the European Community and the Federated States of Micronesia on fishing in the Federated States of Micronesia (11),

—

having regard to the Fisheries Partnership Agreement between the European Community, on the one hand, and the Republic of Kiribati, on the other (12),

—

having regard to the Fisheries Partnership Agreement between the EU and Solomon Islands (13),

—

having regard to the Commission Decision of 15 November 2012 on notifying the third countries that the Commission considers as possible of being identified as non-cooperating third countries pursuant to Council Regulation (EC) No 1005/2008 establishing a Community system to prevent, deter and eliminate illegal, unreported and unregulated fishing, (14)

—

having regard to Rule 48 of its Rules of Procedure,

—

having regard to the report of the Committee on Fisheries and the opinion of the Committee on Development (A7-0297/2013),

A.

whereas in order to implement policy coherence for development, EU policies which have an impact on fisheries in Pacific ACP (PACP) countries — i.e. fisheries, trade and development policies — should be implemented in a way that ensures that they contribute to the sustainable fisheries development objectives established by PACP countries; whereas such an approach should be incorporated in the forthcoming renewal of the Cotonou Agreement or the instruments successive to that Agreement;

B.

whereas the EU has to seek policy coherence for development on the basis of Article 208(1) TFEU, according to which ‘the Union shall take account of the objectives of development cooperation in the policies that it implements which are likely to affect developing countries’;

C.

whereas the EU is the second leading donor in this region after Australia, channelling its assistance through the European Development Fund (EDF), and whereas despite fisheries resources being the main source of wealth of the Pacific ACP countries and the only resource common to them all, and although the countries of the Western and Central Pacific have repeatedly expressed their intention to make tuna fishing the driver for the social and economic development of the region, only 2,3 % of assistance under the 10th EDF is devoted to fisheries-related activities;

D.

whereas bilateral and multilateral trade agreements negotiated by the EU should be preceded by impact assessments, in particular with respect to the conservation of marine living resources and the consequences of the agreements for the local populations; whereas such bilateral and multilateral agreements should be guided by the conclusions of such impact assessments;

E.

whereas, in the current negotiations on the Economic Partnership Agreement (EPA) between the EU and the ACP countries aimed at adapting the generalised system of preferences arising from the Cotonou Agreement to WTO rules, fisheries products have a crucial role as regards access both to European markets and to resources and good fisheries governance with the aim of achieving sustainable development;

F.

mindful of the danger posed by the derogation on rules of origin provided for in Article 6(6) of Protocol II on rules of origin annexed to the interim partnership agreement between the European Community and the Pacific States and the resulting risks of unfair competition in the European market for fishery products;

G.

whereas it is in the EU’s interest to develop relations with the Pacific region and to cooperate in order to achieve the goal of development, taking as a basis the conservation of fishery resources, the promotion of sustainable fisheries development and the fostering of transparent fisheries management;

H.

whereas around half the tuna caught in the world are taken in the waters of the Western and Central Pacific, of which 80 % are in the Exclusive Economic Zones (EEZs) of island states and only 20 % in international waters;

I.

whereas the most recent stock assessments conducted by the WCPFC Scientific Committee in 2012 indicate no overfishing of either skipjack tuna (Katsuwonus pelamis) or yellowfin tuna (Thunnus albacares) in its regulatory area, but indicate overfishing of big-eye tuna (Thunnus obesus); whereas mortality among juvenile big-eye tuna in purse seine fisheries, particularly where related to fish aggregating devices, is of great concern;

J.

whereas despite slightly improved fisheries monitoring, control and surveyance in the Pacific, the sustainability of the region’s resources is being threatened by a major rise in the number of purse-seiners (mainly from Asia and the island states), the increase in the fishing effort, and illegal fishing;

K.

whereas the EU’s approach in the field of fisheries in the Pacific should be to actively support the current regional efforts to address overcapacity and improve fisheries management;

L.

whereas the Pacific has a tradition of regional agencies and structures for the management of tuna fisheries, such as the Pacific Islands Forum Fisheries Agency (FFA) and the subregional body Parties to the Nauru Agreement (PNA);

M.

whereas the vessel day scheme (VDS) was introduced by the Parties to the Nauru Agreement in 2008 in an attempt to manage access to PNA waters, limit fishing effort in those waters and maximise the benefits derived from the fishery by Pacific small island developing states;

N.

whereas the excessive effort of the parties is a reality, and discussions are taking place within the WCPFC on a new Conservation and Management Measure for the following years, where the limits on effort are being addressed;

O.

whereas the United States signed a multilateral agreement with the Pacific States in 1988, and that agreement, which is currently being renegotiated, guarantees access to around 20 % of the fishing days in the region;

P.

whereas the vessel day scheme (VDS) needs to be fully transparent and its provisions need to be improved and implemented by all its members, to enable it to fulfil its objectives and ensure full compatibility of measures taken both in the EEZs and on the high seas;

Q.

whereas the access costs for long-distance fleets are expected to continue to increase significantly in coming years, given that they are an important source of income for countries in the area; whereas the cost of a fishing day as decided at the annual meeting of the PNA was set at a minimum of USD 6 000 for 2014;

R.

whereas the fisheries partnership agreements signed by the EU, including those with the countries of the Pacific Region, have traditionally been based on a limitation of vessel numbers with an indicative reference tonnage, and this has led to disparities owing to the introduction of the VDS by the PNA and their desire to apply the VDS to partnership agreements with the EU;

S.

whereas a well-designed and properly enforced vessel day scheme has the potential to provide the means to prevent further increases in effort in the region;

T.

whereas, in its relations with third countries, the EU has established cooperation and compliance in the field of IUU fishing as a prerequisite for the conclusion of fisheries partnership agreements; whereas Article 38(9) of Regulation (EC) No 1005/2008 on the combating of IUU fishing states that the Commission shall not enter into negotiations to conclude such partnership agreements with countries that do not cooperate in this respect;

U.

whereas EPAs should include a specific reference to the implementation of the IUU regulation, rather than simply general wording on the need to combat IUU fishing, and should not be concluded with third countries identified as ‘non-cooperating’;

V.

whereas the Commission, in its decision of 15 November 2012, notified Fiji and Vanuatu, among others, as possible non-cooperating countries in terms of the IUU Regulation, owing to their lack of deterrent measures and penalties against IUU vessels flagged in those countries and to their not having implemented the recommendations of the regional fisheries organisations;

W.

whereas historically, the fishing operations of Europe’s purse-seiner fleet have mainly been conducted in the Central Pacific, both in international waters and in the EEZ of Kiribati, as well as those of Tuvalu, Tokelau and Nauru, on the basis of private-sector agreements;

X.

whereas, however, besides the Fisheries Partnership Agreement with Kiribati, the EU has also negotiated such agreements with certain countries of the Western Pacific, but these have not entered into effect, as the Agreement with the Federated States of Micronesia was not ratified by that country’s parliament and the negotiations to renew the Agreement with the Solomon Islands have been at a standstill since 2012;

Y.

whereas the Commission has completed prior assessments with the Cook Islands and Tuvalu with a view to launching negotiations on fisheries agreements with those countries, and whereas the corresponding memoranda of understanding have been signed as a prerequisite for requesting negotiating mandates from the Council;

Z.

whereas the European External Action Service has to date lacked fisheries staff in its delegation in Fiji;

1.

Urges the Commission to ensure coherence among all the Union policies affecting the Pacific region, as required by Article 208 TFEU, and specifically those on fisheries, trade and development, and to enhance potential synergies with a view to achieving a multiplier effect that maximises the benefits both for the states of the Pacific region and for the EU Member States, while also promoting the international dimension, boosting the EU’s strategic presence, raising the profile of the EU in the Western and Central Pacific, and contributing to the sustainable exploitation of Pacific resources;

2.

Believes that within the framework of future, post-Cotonou relations with the Pacific ACP countries, the fisheries strategy should have a regional focus that bolsters the position and role of the EU in the Western and Central Pacific region;

3.

Calls on the Commission to ensure that the 11th EDF takes this strategy into account and also reflects the possibility of increasing the percentage of sector-specific assistance for addressing fishing communities’ needs (including enhancing their contribution to local food security) and developing fishery infrastructure for landing and processing catches locally, since fishing is one of the region's main economic resources;

4.

Welcomes the recent addition to the EU Delegation in Fiji of staff specifically responsible for fisheries matters, and hopes that this will help establish a permanent specialist link in the field of fisheries with the countries of the region;

5.

Calls, also, for greater coordination and complementarity with other actors in the region in relation to development assistance, in keeping with the Cairns Compact of August 2009; welcomes the holding on 12 June 2012 of the second EU-PIF ministerial meeting, which has strengthened the EU-Pacific political dialogue, in particular in the fields of fisheries and development, thereby ensuring that actions taken in these areas by the EU and countries in the region will be more effective;

6.

Stresses the need for distant water fleets to contribute, in cooperation with Pacific countries, to reducing fishing pressure on tropical tuna stocks, including by substantially reducing mortality levels for juvenile big-eye tuna, a stock of great economic importance to the region and one which is currently overfished;

7.

Highlights the importance of establishing a fisheries strategy for the Western and Central Pacific, given the relevance of this region from a fisheries standpoint and its value to the Union’s fleet and the EU market and fish processing industry, as well as of providing legal certainty for the vessels operating there;

8.

Notes that the EU’s strategy for accessing resources in the EEZs of the countries in the region by way of fisheries cooperation agreements has not worked properly except in the case of Kiribati, and considers that a new framework for close and advantageous relations between the various parties involved is needed in order to revitalise and consolidate those agreements;

9.

Considers that part of the problem is that the EU has held unsuccessful negotiations on agreements with the countries of the Western Pacific, which is where the EEZs of the Solomon Islands and the Federated States of Micronesia are located, rather than directing its efforts towards the Central Pacific, where the Union’s purse-seiner fleet has traditionally centred its operations;

10.

Welcomes warmly the fact that the Commission has completed prior assessments with the Cook Islands and Tuvalu with a view to launching negotiations on fisheries partnership agreements, and that the corresponding memoranda of understanding have been signed as a prerequisite for requesting negotiating mandates from the Council;

11.

Considers this new negotiating approach to be more in line with the regional focus repeatedly called for by Parliament, especially with reference to fisheries of highly migratory species; calls on the Commission to ensure compliance with the WCPFC provisions in the case of negotiations with parties to the PNA and other Pacific ACP countries;

12.

Notes that the EU's approach to the Pacific should assist developing states, and small island developing states in particular, in their efforts to secure a greater share of the benefits from the sustainable exploitation of straddling and highly migratory fish stocks and should also help strengthen regional efforts to sustainably conserve and manage fisheries for such stocks, as called for by the UNFSA Review Conference;

13.

Expresses its concern at the existence of IUU fishing in the area, and, while acknowledging that there have been some improvements in fisheries governance, considers that insufficient progress has been made, especially as regards the introduction of basic tools to combat IUU fishing;

14.

Calls on the Commission to include an explicit reference to the IUU Regulation (EC) No 1005/2008 in the provisions of the EPA negotiated with the Pacific countries;

15.

Calls on the ACP states to continue to play an active part within the RFMOs, and to keep their civil societies and socio-professional organisations regularly informed about decisions concerning fisheries;

16.

Calls on the Commission to provide for the establishing of a longer-term strategy for access for the EU fleet to the EEZs of the countries of the region, based on a regional framework agreement between the EU and the countries of the Western and Central Pacific, negotiated with the Forum Fisheries Agency (FFA) and centring on the following aspects:

17.

Stresses that the final stage in this process should be exclusively regional in its focus, i.e. it should take the form of a multilateral fisheries cooperation agreement with the EPA signatory countries that grants the Union fleet access to the EEZs of those countries;

18.

Recommends that the Commission bear in mind this fisheries strategy for the Pacific region and the specific characteristics of the island states when it comes to the revision of the Cotonou Agreement;

19.

Underlines the need for Parliament to be adequately involved in the preparation and negotiating process and the long-term monitoring and assessment of the functioning of bilateral agreements according to the provisions of the TFEU; insists that Parliament be immediately and fully informed, on an equal footing with the Council, at all stages of the procedure related to FPAs, pursuant to Articles 13(2) and 218(10) TFEU; recalls its conviction that Parliament should be represented by observers at the Joint Committee meetings envisaged in the fisheries agreements; insists that civil society observers, including both EU and third-country fisheries representatives, should also attend those meetings;

20.

Instructs its President to forward this report to the Council, the Commission and the European External Action Service.

19.5.2016   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 181/41

—

having regard to the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea of 10 December 1982 (UNCLOS),

—

having regard to the 1995 Agreement for the Implementation of the Provisions of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea of 10 December 1982, relating to the conservation and management of straddling fish stocks and highly migratory fish stocks,

—

having regard to the Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO) code of conduct for responsible fisheries, adopted in October 1995 by the FAO Conference,

—

having regard to the Convention on the Protection of the Black Sea against Pollution, signed in Bucharest in April 1992,

—

having regard to the Convention for the Protection of the Marine Environment and the Coastal Region of the Mediterranean and its Protocols, signed in Barcelona in February 1976 and amended in Barcelona in June 1995,

—

having regard to the Strategic Action Plan for the Environmental Protection and Rehabilitation of the Black Sea, adopted in Sofia in April 2009,

—

having regard to Directive 2008/56/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 June 2008 establishing a framework for community action in the field of marine environmental policy (Marine Strategy Framework Directive) (1),

—

having regard to the Commission proposal for a directive of the European Parliament and of the Council establishing a framework for maritime spatial planning and integrated coastal management (COM(2013)0133),

—

having regard to [Part VII on External Policy] of Regulation (EU) No […]/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of […] on the Common Fisheries Policy (2),

—

having regard to its resolution of 20 January 2011 on an EU strategy for the Black Sea (3),

—

having regard to its resolution of 13 September 2011 on current and future management of Black Sea fisheries (4),

—

having regard to its resolution of 22 November 2012 on the external dimension of the common fisheries policy (5),

—

having regard to the Commission communication to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions of 10 October 2007 entitled ‘An Integrated Maritime Policy for the European Union’ (COM(2007)0575),

—

having regard to its resolution of 21 October 2010 on an Integrated Maritime Policy (IMP) — Evaluation of progress made and new challenges (6),

—

having regard to the Commission communication to the Council and the European Parliament of 11 September 2009 entitled ‘Towards an Integrated Maritime Policy for better governance in the Mediterranean’ (COM(2009)0466),

—

having regard to the European Neighbourhood Policy and related funding Instruments;

—

having regard to the Commission communication to the European Parliament and the Council of 8 September 2010 entitled ‘Marine Knowledge 2020 — Marine data and observation for smart and sustainable growth’ (COM(2010)0461),

—

having regard to the ENPI Mediterranean Sea Basin Programme for cross-border cooperation 2007–2013, adopted by the Commission on 14 August 2008,

—

having regard to the Commission communication to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions of 13 September 2012 entitled ‘Blue growth — Opportunities for marine and maritime sustainable growth’ (COM(2012)0494),

—

having regard to Rule 48 of its Rules of Procedure,

—

having regard to the report of the Committee on Fisheries and the opinion of the Committee on Development (A7-0288/2013),

A.

whereas by 2025 urban development in the Mediterranean may reach a level of 60 %, with a third of the population concentrated in coastal areas, thus doubling the demand on water and on fishing resources;

B.

whereas the Mediterranean Sea carries 30 % of the world’s maritime traffic;

C.

whereas the Mediterranean and the Black Sea have specific characteristics from an oceanographic, fisheries, environmental and socio-economic perspective;

D.

whereas the management of maritime and coastal areas is complex and involves various private and public authorities;

E.

whereas the Mediterranean and Black Sea basins have a very low water renewal rate (80-90 years and 140 years respectively) and are therefore extremely sensitive to marine pollution;

F.

whereas approximately 75 % of the fish stocks of the Mediterranean Sea are overexploited;

G.

whereas legal regimes governing access by vessels to national fisheries vary according to the nationality of the vessel;

1.

Expresses its concern over greater competition for fewer stocks and marine resources, leading to the creation of regional tensions and possible disputes between coastal states about maritime areas; calls, in that context, for increased efforts at regional, national, and EU levels towards enhancing the regulation of access to resources;

2.

Urges all littoral states to intensify their efforts to phase out overfishing in the Mediterranean and Black Sea, as dwindling fish stocks will increase the potential for conflicts in this area;

3.

Strongly believes that the peaceful settlement of disputes concerning maritime areas and the delimitation of maritime boundaries, in conformity with the rights and obligations of Member States and third countries under EU and international law, in particular the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea, is an essential element of good governance of the oceans;

4.

Believes that marine management in the Mediterranean and the Black Sea requires a greater degree of political cohesion and cooperation among the coastal states concerned; underlines the important role of bilateral cooperation and international agreements, given that the majority of the Black Sea and Mediterranean countries are not EU Member States and hence not subject to EU legislation;

5.

Welcomes the Commission’s role in promoting a more solid and structured dialogue with non-Member States bordering the Mediterranean and the Black Sea for the management of shared stocks in these basins; encourages the Commission to intensify its efforts to this end following a regional approach;

6.

Believes that marine management in the Mediterranean and the Black Sea region presents opportunities for international relations and for effective governance of the region;

7.

Emphasises that the competition for reduced levels of fish stocks and marine resources may become a source of friction with third countries; urges the EU and the Member States to work together to ensure the monitoring, control, security and safety of coastal and territorial waters, exclusive economic zones (EEZs), the continental shelf, and maritime infrastructure and marine resources; notes that the EU should maintain a high political profile in this respect and should seek to preclude international discord;

8.

Urges the EU to use its diplomatic resources to promote dialogue between Member States and third countries, so as to ensure that they value the principles of the EU Common Fisheries Policy, and to monitor compliance with its rules; stresses that candidate countries to EU accession, in particular, should respect EU fisheries policy principles as well as the relevant EU and international laws applying to fishing activities;

9.

Notes that of the 21 Mediterranean states, three have neither signed nor ratified the UNCLOS; asks the Commission to urge these countries, in particular candidate countries for EU accession, to become parties to the convention and to implement UNCLOS as an integral part of the EU regulatory framework for maritime affairs;

10.

Calls on the Commission and third countries to develop a regional approach to fish conservation and fishing in Mediterranean and Black Sea waters, taking into account the cross-border dimension of fishing and the migratory nature of some species; stresses, in this regard, the significant role of the General Fisheries Commission for the Mediterranean (GFCM) in ensuring a level playing field and as a regional forum for ensuring sustainable fisheries in the Black Sea;

11.

Emphasises the need for environmental protection and sustainable development in these basins, and for enhanced efforts towards marine governance and control, in accordance with international law — in particular UNCLOS — as a means of contributing to enhanced environmental protection of coastal and marine space;

12.

Believes that an Integrated Maritime Policy, and in particular maritime spatial planning, can play a central role in preventing conflicts between EU Member States as well as with third countries;

13.

Encourages the Member States to introduce integrated coastal zone management and maritime spatial planning — as regards offshore wind power generation, the laying of underwater cables and pipelines, maritime transport, fisheries and aquaculture and the creation of restocking areas — under the Blue Growth strategy and within the framework of existing agreements with neighbouring countries, including third countries, that lie on the same regional sea;

14.

Encourages the establishment of maritime zones, in particular exclusive economic zones and protected maritime areas, which will not only improve fisheries conservation and management beyond territorial waters but will also promote sustainable fisheries resources, facilitate the control of and fight against IUU (illegal, unreported and unregulated) fishing, as well as improve marine management within these basins; stresses the need for the EU to provide adequate guidance, coordination and support to Member States in this respect;

15.

Calls on the Commission to consider these issues further in view of ensuring the coherence of relevant EU policy areas, in particular the Common Fisheries Policy and the Integrated Maritime Policy, and to promote this coherence — and a level playing field — both within the EU and with neighbouring partner countries, through enhanced cooperation and dialogue;

16.

Stresses the importance of stock assessments, and calls for enhanced cooperation among scientific institutes in both basins, including the exchange of scientific data and the sharing of information; believes that the EU should promote, stimulate and facilitate cooperation and joint work between EU scientific teams and their counterparts in other involved non-Member States; welcomes, in this respect, the ‘Marine Knowledge 2020’ initiative, which aims to make data on the marine environment available to a large number of potentially interested parties, including public, industrial, educational and research bodies and civil society;

17.

Calls for an enhanced system of monitoring, control and surveillance of fishing activity within an integrated perspective to enhance ecosystem conservation in both basins, in accordance with EU and international law, in particular UNCLOS, thereby contributing to the long-term sustainable exploitation of fish stocks and to combating IUU fishing in a more effective way;

18.

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

19.5.2016   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 181/45

—

having regard to Articles 2, 3, 6 and 21 of the Treaty on European Union,

—

having regard to Articles 153, 191, 207 and 218 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,

—

having regard to Articles 12, 21, 28, 29, 31 and 32 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union,

—

having regard to the EU Strategic Framework and Action Plan on Human Rights and Democracy of 25 June 2012,

—

having regard to the Protocol on the Accession of the People’s Republic of China to the World Trade Organisation of 23 November 2001,

—

having regard to its resolution of 23 May 2012 on ‘EU and China: Unbalanced Trade?’ (1) and to the report of July 2011 by its Directorate-General for External Policies on trade and economic relations with China,

—

having regard to its resolution of 14 March 2013 on EU-China relations (2),

—

having regard to the generally accepted principles and practices (GAPP) known as the Santiago Principles, which were adopted in October 2008 by the International Monetary Fund’s International Working Group of Sovereign Wealth Funds,

—

having regard to the joint statement issued on the occasion of the 13th EU-China Summit held in Brussels on 20 September 2012,

—

having regard to the Commission communication entitled ‘Trade, Growth and World Affairs — Trade Policy as a core component of the EU’s 2020 strategy’ (COM(2010)0612) and to Parliament’s resolution of 27 September 2011 on a new trade policy for Europe under the Europe 2020 strategy (3),

—

having regard to its resolution of 13 December 2011 on trade and investment barriers (4),

—

having regard to its resolution of 6 April 2011 on the future European international investment policy (5),

—

having regard to its resolutions of 25 November 2010 on corporate social responsibility in international trade agreements (6), on human rights, social and environmental standards in international trade agreements (7) and on international trade policy in the context of climate change imperatives (8),

—

having regard to the Commission communication entitled ‘EU — China: Closer partners, growing responsibilities’ (COM(2006)0631) and its accompanying policy paper ‘Competition and Partnership — A policy paper on EU-China trade and investment’ (COM(2006)0632),

—

having regard to its resolution of 5 February 2009 on enhancing the role of European SMEs in international trade (9),

—

having regard to its recent decision introducing publishing requirements for extractive and logging industries concerning their payments to governments (10),

—

having regard to the joint decision by the EU and China, taken at the 14th EU-China Summit held in February 2012 in Beijing, to launch negotiations on a bilateral investment agreement,

—

having regard to Rule 110(2) of its Rules of Procedure,

A.

whereas trade between the EU and China has been growing rapidly and continuously in the last three decades, reaching a peak of total trade of EUR 433,8 billion in 2012, and whereas the imbalance in bilateral trade has been in China’s favour since 1997; whereas this trade deficit amounted to EUR 146 billion in 2012, compared with EUR 49 billion in 2000;

B.

whereas the EU’s foreign investment stock in China in 2011 amounted to EUR 102 billion, while China’s foreign investment stock in the EU in the same year amounted to EUR 15 billion; whereas in 2006 China’s foreign investment stock in the EU amounted to only EUR 3,5 billion;

C.

whereas the Treaty of Lisbon made foreign direct investment (FDI) an exclusive competence of the Union;

D.

whereas 26 EU Member States have individual bilateral investment agreements in force with China; whereas the EU has not yet developed a sustainable long-term industrial policy that would be a driver for its offensive and defensive interests in the framework of its new foreign investment policy;

E.

whereas even with a rise in labour costs of 10 % per annum in recent years, China is still among the top three markets worldwide for investment;

F.

whereas the development goals expressed in China’s 12th five-year plan and the Europe 2020 strategy, respectively, include a large number of shared interests and common challenges; whereas a higher level of integration and technological exchange between the EU and the Chinese economies could lead to synergies and mutual benefits;

G.

whereas there should be a level playing-field for public and private companies;

H.

whereas this investment agreement is the first to be negotiated by the EU on the basis of its overall competence following the entry into force of the Treaty of Lisbon; whereas the negotiations on this investment agreement, including market access, have the potential to generate great interest as well as possible public concern, and should therefore be conducted with the highest possible level of transparency in order to enable the necessary parliamentary oversight, thus fulfilling one of the preconditions for the necessary consent of the European Parliament to the outcome of the negotiations;

I.

whereas investors must comply with both the laws of the host country and the provisions of any agreement concluded by the EU and China once it enters into force in order to benefit fully from the best possible protection of their investments;

J.

whereas the poor implementation or non-implementation by China of certain fundamental social and labour rights and environmental standards, which are, however, internationally recognised, are among the causes of the present imbalance in trade flows between the EU and China, which could be even further exacerbated by deeper investment relations if progress is not achieved in the implementation of those rights and standards; whereas the investment agreement should therefore not have the effect of further lowering social and environmental standards in China, but should, on the contrary, contribute to the improvement thereof as a precondition, leading to a more balanced and mutually beneficial trade and investment relationship;

K.

whereas an investment agreement should also include investor obligations, including with regard to respect for trade union and other labour rights, transparency and protection of the environment, as defined in the law of each of the two parties, and should be concluded in compliance with World Trade Organisation (WTO) rules and other relevant international agreements and core conventions signed and ratified by the parties; whereas investment agreements should not cover investments in specially created zones that provide for the circumvention of labour rights and standards and other legal requirements;

L.

whereas goods for export to the EU which are produced in forced labour camps, such as under the Re-education through Labour (RTL) system, generally known by the name Laogai, should not benefit from investments made under this bilateral investment agreement;

M.

whereas the Commission and the Council have committed to ensuring that EU investment policy takes account of the principles and objectives of the Union’s external action, including human rights, and have committed to delivering as from 2013;

N.

whereas, since an investment agreement with China would substantially upgrade EU-China economic relations, it should also make a contribution to upgrading the EU-China political dialogue, notably on such issues as human rights — in the framework of an effective and results-oriented human rights dialogue — and the rule of law, with a view to keeping political and economic relations on a parallel track, in accordance with the spirit of the Strategic Partnership;

O.

whereas investors and investments should strive, through their management policies and practices, to be in line with the development objectives of the host states and local levels of government where the investment is located;

1.

Welcomes the strengthening of economic relations between the EU and China; calls on the EU and on China to pursue a well-balanced relationship of partnership, regular high-level dialogue, and mutual benefits rather than engaging in confrontational competition;

2.

Points out that China, having acceded to the WTO in 2001, should place more emphasis on liberalising its trade and opening its market in order to ensure a more level playing- field, and should accelerate removal of the artificial impediments that companies face in accessing the Chinese market;

3.

Notes that European enterprises deplore the existence of numerous tariff and non-tariff barriers to the Chinese market, such as certain forms of discrimination against foreign operators, as well as the complexity of the tariff structure and the technical barriers to trade;

4.

Welcomes the inclusion of market access in the negotiating mandate; believes that a reassurance on the part of China that market access will be included in the negotiations should constitute a precondition for launching them;

5.

Stresses the need to explicitly include both FDI and portfolio investments in the negotiating process;

6.

Notes that Chinese enterprises perceive the Union generally as a stable investment environment, but deplore what they see as the EU’s remaining export subsidies for European agricultural products and the existence of certain trade barriers to the EU market, such as technical obstacles to trade and barriers erected to block third-country investment in certain Member States, and that they are calling for the removal of the remaining unjustified barriers and the facilitation of investment in the Member States; recalls, however, that a security review mechanism to scrutinise foreign investments was recently set up in China and that the use of such mechanisms by both parties may be based on legitimate grounds; points out that the EU and China may have legitimate security concerns that justify total or partial exclusion of some sectors from foreign investment on a temporary or long-term basis;

7.

Points out that currently the main form in which foreign companies are allowed to set up in China is through joint ventures, which are often associated with the transfer of strategic technologies that promote China’s competitive development to the detriment of European industry; is convinced that further openness on the part of China towards other legal regulations allowing foreign investors to set up, combined with due protection of intellectual property rights (IPRs), industrial property, brands and geographical indications of products, is crucial and would be mutually beneficial, as well as fostering a greater degree of integration of the European and Chinese economies on the basis of a more strategic approach to economic cooperation that is oriented, among other things, towards environment-friendly technology and innovation;

8.

Is convinced that better protection of IPRs and effective implementation of related rules in China would greatly promote the objective of the EU and of other foreign investors of investing, sharing new technological capabilities and updating existing technologies in that country, in particular with regard to environmentally sound technologies;

9.

Welcomes the efforts made by the Chinese authorities to improve respect for IPRs since China’s accession to the WTO, but still deplores their inadequate protection in China and considers regrettable the lack of specific means available to European businesses, particularly SMEs, to counter IPR infringements effectively;

10.

Is concerned about the unreliability of China’s judicial system, which fails to enforce contractual obligations, and about the lack of transparency and uniformity in the application of the regulatory regime governing investments;

11.

Urges the Commission to negotiate an ambitious and balanced EU-China investment agreement that seeks to create a better environment for EU investors in China and vice versa, including improved access to the market, in order to increase the level of reciprocal capital flows and guarantee transparency regarding governance of companies, both state-owned and private, which invest within the partner economy; recommends the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) guidelines on corporate governance as a reference document; insists also on better law enforcement in order to ensure fair competition between public and private actors, curtail corruption and enhance the legal certainty and predictability of the business climate in China;

12.

Underlines the importance of establishing, through this agreement, the preconditions for fair competition between the EU and China; recommends, to this end, that the Commission negotiate strong and binding provisions on transparency and fair competition so that a level playing-field also applies to state-owned enterprises and sovereign wealth funds’ investment practices;

13.

Calls for the agreement currently being negotiated to cover both market access and investor protection;

14.

Stresses that nothing in the investment agreement should reduce the policy space of the parties and their capability to legislate in order to pursue legitimate and justified public policy purposes while trying not to nullify the benefits accruing from the commitments of the parties; emphasises that guaranteeing the rule of law for all EU and Chinese investors and citizens must remain the priority;

15.

Calls on the Commission to ensure full transparency with regard to sovereign wealth funds;

16.

Notes that a clear timeframe of negotiations should be established, and reasonable and meaningful transitional periods considered;

17.

Considers that the investment agreement with China should be based on best practices drawn from Member States’ experiences, contribute to greater coherence and include the following standards:

18.

Reaffirms that with a view to the successful conclusion of the negotiations, quality must always prevail over speed;

19.

Notes that the investment protection agreement should include clear definitions of the investment and investor to be protected, and that purely speculative forms of investment should not be protected;

20.

Calls for the agreement to be compatible with multilateral obligations under the General Agreement on Trade in Services (GATS) so as to fulfil the criteria for an economic integration agreement;

21.

Welcomes the fact that the expected improvement in legal certainty will help SMEs to invest abroad, and stresses that SMEs’ voice must be heard during the negotiations (including through the involvement of the EU’s new SME Centre in China, the EU’s IPR SME Helpdesk and the EU Chamber of Commerce in China), so that the agreement to be concluded fosters the internationalisation of those SMEs that are willing to access the other party’s market;

22.

Stresses that a precondition for the conclusion of the agreement should be the inclusion of a strong commitment by the parties to sustainable and inclusive development, in its economic, social and environmental dimensions and in relation to investment, in order to build up a more balanced trade and investment relationship between the EU and China that is not based mainly on low labour costs and poor environmental standards in China;

23.

Stresses that investment agreements concluded by the EU must not be in contradiction with the fundamental values that the EU wishes to promote through its external policies and must not undermine the capacity for public intervention, in particular when pursuing public policy objectives such as social and environmental criteria, human rights, the fight against counterfeiting, security, workers’ and consumers’ rights, public health and safety, industrial policy and cultural diversity; calls for the inclusion of the respective specific and binding clauses in the agreement;

24.

Requests that in this agreement, as in the case of the other trade commitments into which the EU has entered, protecting public services should remain a key principle;

25.

Underlines the fact that the future development of the EU-China investment agreement must be based on mutual trust and full compliance with WTO obligations; deplores the huge levels of public subsidisation of certain sectors with growth potential, including solar panels, and calls on the Commission to ensure that the injurious effects of such dumping and subsidisation are completely removed in order to speed up the negotiations;

26.

Recommends, with regard to market access, that both parties commit to appropriate phasing-in periods and transitional arrangements for certain sectors in order to ease the path to full or partial liberalisation therein; acknowledges also that both parties may not be able to make commitments in certain sectors; calls, in this context, for the exclusion of cultural and audiovisual services from the negotiations on market access, in line with the relevant provisions of the EU Treaties; stresses the need to address interventionist industrial policies, inadequate protection of IPRs, ambiguities in the substance and the application of the rules, and other non-tariff and technical barriers to trade;

27.

Considers that, since it is difficult to access Chinese markets owing to the preponderance of state-run companies, the agreement must, if it is to be balanced, be viewed as a key opportunity to establish a level playing-field for both state-run and private-sector companies;

28.

Stresses the need for the agreement to ensure the EU’s capability to exclude certain strategic sectors from Chinese investors;

29.

Stresses that the agreement should allow the parties, and in the case of the EU, its individual Member States, to define and implement key policies for the promotion and protection of cultural diversity;

30.

Stresses that the agreement must promote investment which is sustainable and inclusive, and respects the environment, particularly in the area of extractive industries, and encourages good-quality working conditions in the enterprises targeted by the investment;

31.

Calls for a clause stating that an investor shall provide a potential host state party with any information that party may require concerning the investment in question, for purposes of decision-making in relation to the investment or solely for statistical purposes, while the state party shall protect any confidential business information from any disclosure liable to prejudice the competitive position of the investor or the investment;

32.

Stresses the need for the future agreement to include provisions on the transparency and governance of state-run companies and sovereign wealth funds, based on the Santiago Principles, which were adopted under the auspices of the IMF and define the principles applicable to the governance and institutional structure of sovereign wealth funds and to the transparency of their investment strategies;

33.

Reiterates its call for an effective corporate social responsibility clause in line with the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights; affirms that investors should, respectively, apply the ILO Tripartite Declaration on Multinational Enterprises and Social Policy and the OECD Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises, as well as specific or sectoral international standards of responsible practice where these exist; calls for binding social and environmental clauses as part of a fully fledged sustainable development chapter that is subject to a dispute settlement mechanism; calls on both parties to implement a sustainable and inclusive investment strategy that includes a corporate social responsibility clause with concrete guidelines for investors, as well as an efficient assessment methodology for public authorities overseeing the resulting investments in terms of their social and environmental impact;

34.

Stresses that the agreement must oblige Chinese investors in the EU to comply with European social standards and social dialogue arrangements;

35.

Underlines the need for the EU-China bilateral investment agreement to deliver on both sustainable growth and job creation, and to foster synergies and positive spill-over effects with other regional trade and investment agreements to which the EU or China is a party;

36.

Calls on the Commission to complement its impact assessment by also assessing the impact of the EU-China investment agreement on human rights, as it has committed to do under the Strategic Framework and Action Plan on Human Rights and Democracy;

37.

Takes the view that the agreement must include a provision stating that all investors are obliged to comply fully with the law of the host party at the local, regional, national and, where applicable, supranational level, and that investors failing to respect the rule of law shall be subject to civil actions for liability in the judicial process of the relevant jurisdiction for any unlawful acts or decisions made in relation to the investment, in particular in cases where such acts or decisions lead to significant environmental damage, personal injuries or loss of life;

38.

Insists that the agreement should include a clause which prohibits the watering-down of social and environmental legislation in order to attract investment, and ensures that neither party may fail to effectively enforce the relevant legislation through a sustained or recurring course of action or inaction, as an encouragement for the establishment, acquisition, expansion or retention of an investment in its territory;

39.

Insists that the EU-China bilateral investment agreement must comply with the EU acquis, including the social and environmental legislation in force, and that neither party may fail to effectively enforce its legislation in these areas, so that all provisions of this agreement encourage the lawful establishment, acquisition, expansion or retention of an investment in the respective territory of both parties, and foster best entrepreneurial practices and business fair play;

40.

Insists on the need for the agreement to require compliance by foreign investors with EU data protection standards;

41.

Expresses its deep concern regarding the level of discretion of international arbitrators to make a broad interpretation of investor protection clauses, thereby leading to the ruling-out of legitimate public regulations; demands that the arbitrators appointed by the parties in the context of a dispute be independent and impartial, and that the arbitration provided follow a code of conduct based on the rules adopted by the UN Commission on International Trade Law (UNCITRAL), on those of the International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes (ICSID) or on any other international agreements and standards recognised and agreed to by the parties;

42.

Considers that the agreement should include, as a key priority, effective state-to-state and investor-to-state dispute settlement mechanisms in order, on the one hand, to prevent frivolous claims from leading to unjustified arbitration, and, on the other, to ensure that all investors have access to a fair trial, followed by enforcement of all arbitration awards without delay;

43.

Takes the view that the agreement should provide for state-to-state dispute settlement procedures and for investor-state dispute settlement mechanisms that are set within a suitable legal framework and subject to strict transparency criteria;

44.

Calls for the EU and China jointly to establish an early-warning mechanism in order to give themselves a chance to solve proactively any incipient dispute on trade or investment at the earliest possible stage using all appropriate measures, including soft power and trade diplomacy;

45.

Considers also that the agreement should include provisions for out-of-court dispute settlement in order to foster swift, affordable and amicable dispute resolution between parties that freely decide to have recourse to it;

46.

Suggests that precise definitions of flexible dispute-settlement mechanisms such as mediation be provided in the agreement as regards, for example, the duration, cost and implementation of the solutions agreed by the parties;

47.

Expresses its view that, once concluded and fully ratified, an EU-China investment agreement would replace all existing bilateral investment agreements between individual EU Member States and China, in line with Union law;

48.

Recommends that negotiations be opened only on condition that formal approval has first been given by China’s State Council for market access to be included in the investment agreement;

49.

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

19.5.2016   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 181/52

—

having regard to its resolution of 17 February 2011 on Europe 2020 (1),

—

having regard to Article 3(5) of the Treaty on European Union and Article 7 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, which establish, respectively, that ‘in its relations with the wider world, the Union shall […] contribute to […] the strict observance and the development of international law’ and that ‘the Union shall ensure consistency between its policies and activities’,

—

having regard to its resolution of 11 May 2011 on the annual report from the Council to the European Parliament on the main aspects and basic choices of the Common Foreign and Security Policy (CFSP) in 2009 (2),

—

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 (3),

—

having regard to its resolution of 14 March 2013 on EU-China Relations (4),

—

having regard its resolution of 25 November 2010 on human rights and social and environmental standards in international trade agreements (5),

—

having regard to its resolution of 5 February 2009 on enhancing the role of European SMEs in international trade (6),

—

having regard to its resolution of 18 December 2008 on the impact of counterfeiting on international trade (7),

—

having regard to its resolution of 4 September 2008 on trade in services (8),

—

having regard to its resolution of 20 May 2008 on trade in raw materials and commodities (9),

—

having regard to its resolution of 19 February 2008 on the EU’s strategy to deliver market access for European companies (10),

—

having regard to its resolution of 22 May 2007 on Global Europe — external aspects of competitiveness (11),

—

having regard to its resolution of 7 July 2005 on relations between the EU, China and Taiwan and security in the Far East (12),

—

having regard the Communication from the Commission entitled ‘Trade, Growth and World Affairs — Trade Policy as a core component of the EU’s 2020 strategy’ (COM(2010)0612),

—

having regard to the Communication from the Commission entitled ‘Global Europe: competing in the world. A contribution to the EU’s Growth and Jobs Strategy’ (COM(2006)0567),

—

having regard to the Commission’s Trade and Investment Barriers Report 2013, published on 28 February 2013 (COM(2013)0103),

—

having regard to the question to the Commission on EU-Taiwan trade relations (O-000093/2013 — B7-0509/2013),

—

having regard to Rules 115(5) and 110(2) of its Rules of Procedure,

A.

whereas the rule-based multilateral trading system, established through the World Trade Organisation (WTO), is the most suitable framework to achieve open and fair trade worldwide; whereas it is essential, however, to understand that bilateral agreements are also part of the same common international affairs toolbox;

B.

whereas the EU remains fully committed to achieving a balanced and fair outcome for the Doha Development Agenda (DDA) as its preferred approach, and whereas progressing in parallel with bilateral trade agreements with other industrialised countries is also a valid option;

C.

whereas the total amount of bilateral trade between EU and Taiwan has increased more than twelvefold in the past two decades, exceeding EUR 40 billion in 2011;

D.

whereas Taiwan is the EU’s seventh largest trading partner in Asia and 23rd largest trading partner in the world;

E.

whereas in 2010 the EU accounted for 31,5 % of all foreign direct investment (FDI) flows and 21 % of FDI stocks in Taiwan, and was the largest foreign investor in the country;

F.

whereas the overall trade relationship between the EU and Taiwan is currently performing well below its potential;

G.

whereas open and fair trade is a powerful means of creating more growth and well-being, building on the comparative advantages of each economy and the potential synergies flowing from greater economic integration and new inputs into knowledge-driven economies;

H.

whereas duties are already at generally low levels between the two trade partners; whereas the EU and Taiwan have a regular structured dialogue addressing trade and investment matters of common interest and concern; whereas, within this framework, four technical working groups have been set up to deal with IPR-, TBT- and SPS-related issues and the pharmaceutical sector;

I.

whereas, despite relatively low tariffs, bilateral trade volumes between the EU and Taiwan lag behind the bulk of the EU’s trade exchanges with its other main trading partners;

J.

whereas the ICT industry is a high-added-value sector and a source of growth in both the EU and Taiwan, especially with respect to further development of smart products and services;

K.

whereas the EU and Taiwan can further deepen their economic relations in a way that is genuinely of mutual benefit, also with a view to tackling common societal challenges;

L.

whereas Taiwan has been a full member of the World Trade Organisation (WTO) since 2002 and is also a full member of Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) and the Asian Development Bank;

M.

whereas Taiwan’s accession to the WTO Government Procurement Agreement (GPA) in July 2009 was a substantial and positive step, which will enable it not only to benefit from reciprocal opening-up of GPA markets but also to improve efficiencies on its home market;

N.

whereas Taiwan and the People’s Republic of China (PRC) have adopted a constructive approach contributing to the conclusion of 19 agreements signed between the Straits Exchange Foundation — for Taiwan — and the Association for Relations Across the Taiwan Straits — for the PRC; whereas these agreements include the Cross-Straits Economic Cooperation Framework Agreement (ECFA) and Intellectual Property Rights (IPR) Agreement signed on 29 June 2010 as well as Investment Agreement and Customs Cooperation Agreement signed on 9 August 2012;

O.

whereas other constructive alternatives have led Taiwan to conclude 31 Bilateral Investment Agreements (BIAs) with third countries, including with Japan on 22 September 2011, and an Economic Cooperation Agreement with New Zealand on 10 July 2013, to resume its talks on a Trade and Investment Framework Agreement (TIFA) with the United States on 10 March 2013, and to be currently negotiating an investment agreement with the Republic of Korea and a free trade agreement with Singapore (ASTEP);

P.

whereas the Taipei Economic and Cultural Representative Office in the United States and the American Institute in Taiwan have agreed on Joint Statements on Principles for International Investment and on ICT services; whereas, similarly, Taiwan has concluded comprehensive income tax agreements with 25 countries, including nine EU Member States;

Q.

whereas closer economic ties with Taiwan do not in any way contradict the EU’s ‘one China’ policy, given that China and Taiwan respectively joined the APEC in 1991 and acceded to the WTO in 2002;

1.

Considers that the multilateral trading system, embodied by the WTO, remains by far the most effective framework for achieving open and fair trade worldwide; believes that the EU and Taiwan should contribute to the advancement of multilateral trade negotiations;

2.

Considers that, while the EU is working on upgrading its economic relations with China, it should consider the possibility of doing the same with Taiwan in order to consistently pursue the path of giving support to Taiwan’s democratic system, social pluralism and good record in respecting human rights and the rule of law;

3.

Considers, therefore, that the EU should respond positively to Taiwan’s willingness to launch parallel negotiations for bilateral agreements on investment protection and market access in order to strengthen further the legal certainty of investments, and increase the volume and quality of investment flows;

4.

Believes that the decision to start such negotiations with Taiwan should be based on economic reasons, and should not be interlinked with an assessment of relations between the EU and the People’s Republic of China;

5.

Underlines the fact that Parliament is in favour of agreements on investment protection and market access with Taiwan, which would lead to deepening the existing economic relations between the EU and Taiwan;

6.

Considers that EU-Taiwan agreements on investment protection and market access have the true potential to lead to a win-win situation, which will be beneficial to both economies;

7.

Notes that any agreement should duly take into account SMEs and improve their ability to invest abroad;

8.

Recalls also that the EU and Taiwan already have a well integrated economic relationship, generally low customs duties on both sides and a well structured dialogue, involving regular meetings to solve bilateral trade and investment issues;

9.

Stresses that the agreement should include a strong commitment by the parties to sustainable and inclusive development in economic, social and environmental terms, with regard to investment;

10.

Stresses that investment agreements concluded by the EU must respect the capacity for public intervention, in particular when pursuing public policy objectives such as social and environmental standards, human rights, security, workers’ and consumers’ rights, public health and safety and cultural diversity; calls for specific clauses on these objectives to be included in the agreement;

11.

Recommends that, with regard to market access, both parties be allowed to exclude certain sectors from their liberalisation commitments in order to protect strategic national interests;

12.

Reiterates its call for an effective corporate social responsibility clause and effective social and environmental clauses;

13.

Stresses that the agreement must oblige foreign investors in the EU to abide by European social standards and social dialogue requirements;

14.

Calls on the Commission to start talks for such agreements between the EU and Taiwan;

15.

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

19.5.2016   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 181/56

—

having regard to its previous resolutions on Syria, in particular those of 16 February 2012 (1), 13 September 2012 (2), 23 May 2013 (3) and 12 September 2013 (4), and on refugees fleeing armed conflict,

—

having regard to the Foreign Affairs Council conclusions on Syria of 23 January, 18 February, 11 March, 22 April, 27 May, 24 June, 9 July and 22 July 2013; having regard to the European Council conclusions on Syria of 8 February 2013,

—

having regard to the statements by the Vice-President of the Commission/High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy (VP/HR), Catherine Ashton, of 21 August 2013 on the latest reports of use of chemical weapons in Damascus, of 23 August 2013 on the high urgency of a political solution to the Syrian conflict (reflecting the agreed position of the EU on Syria of 7 September 2013), of 10 September 2013 on the proposal to place Syria’s chemical weapons under international control, and of 14 September 2013 following the US-Russian agreement on chemical weapons in Syria, as well as to the statements made by the VP/HR during Parliament’s plenary debate in Strasbourg on 11 September 2013,

—

having regard to the statements made by the Commissioner for International Cooperation, Humanitarian Aid and Crisis Response, Kristalina Georgieva, on Syrian refugees and the EU’s response, in particular her statement of 3 September 2013 on the latest figure regarding refugees fleeing from the Syrian crisis, and to the ECHO (Humanitarian Aid and Civil Protection) situation reports and factsheets on Syria,

—

having regard to the remarks made by the UN High Commissioner for Refugees, António Guterres, at the Informal Meeting of the Justice and Home Affairs Council in Vilnius, on 18 July 2013 (5),

—

having regard to the Security Council briefings on Syria issued by the Under-Secretary-General for Humanitarian Affairs and Emergency Relief Coordinator, Valerie Amos, in particular that of 18 April 2013,

—

having regard to the joint statement of the Ministerial Meeting of Syria Bordering Countries organised by the UN High Commissioner for Refugees on 4 September 2013,

—

having regard to the UN Human Rights Council resolutions on Syria,

—

having regard to the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms,

—

having regard to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights of 1948,

—

having regard to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, the Convention on the Rights of the Child and the Optional Protocol thereto on the Involvement of Children in Armed Conflict, and the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, to all of which Syria is a party,

—

having regard to Articles 78, 79 and 80 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,

—

having regard to the Geneva Conventions of 1949 and the additional protocols thereto,

—

having regard to Rule 110(2) of its Rules of Procedure,

A.

whereas up to 20 September 2013 the Office of the UN High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) had registered a total of 1 929 227 Syrian refugees in neighbouring countries and in North Africa; whereas the total number of refugees, including those unregistered, is estimated at 2 102 582; whereas according to the same sources 76 % of the Syrian refugee population are women and children; whereas 410 000 Syrian refugee children are of primary school age (between 5 and 11); whereas according to the UN Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA) the number of internally displaced persons (IDPs) as at 9 September 2013 was 4,25 million;

B.

whereas according to the UNHCR the number of refugees (including those awaiting registration) present in receiving countries as at 20 September 2013 was as follows: Turkey, 492 687; Lebanon, 748 608; Jordan, 531 768; Iraq, 190 857; Egypt, 124 373; Morocco, Algeria and Libya, 14 289 (registered); whereas thousands of Syrians are fleeing on a daily basis to neighbouring countries and the UN Syria Regional Response Plan is projecting a total of 3,5 million refugees from Syria by the end of 2013;

C.

whereas asylum claims in the EU from Syrians have continued to increase in 2013, with a total of 52 037 asylum claims having been made since the beginning of the conflict in 2011 in the EU and its closest neighbours (Switzerland and Norway);

D.

whereas, within the EU-28, Germany (14 842) and Sweden (14 083) have received 59 % of the claims lodged; whereas, while other countries have experienced significant increases in applications, only one other Member State has received more than 2 000 claims (the UK, with 2 634);

E.

whereas there is a lack of fully accurate and reliable data about the total number of Syrians coming to Europe, and of information on the numbers seeking asylum in European countries and the number present overall; whereas, according to the UNHCR, despite these gaps, and the fact that statistics and data on adjudication practices in respect of asylum claims in EU Member States have flaws, there are indications that gaps in the protection of Syrians within the EU persist;

F.

whereas the Syrian refugee crisis constitutes a first test for the newly revised Common European Asylum System (CEAS);

G.

whereas EU legislation already provides some tools, such as the Visa Code (6) and the Schengen Borders Code (7), making it possible to grant humanitarian visas;

H.

whereas the Member States should be encouraged to make use of the funds that will be available under the Asylum and Migration Fund and of the funds available under the Preparatory Action ‘Enable the resettlement of refugees during emergency situations’, which covers, among other things, the following measures: supporting persons already recognised as refugees by the UNHCR; supporting emergency action in the case of groups of refugees, identified as priorities, who are under armed attack and who face conjunctures of extreme vulnerability and of a life-threatening nature; providing, where needed, extra financial support during emergencies to the UNHCR and to its liaison organisations in the Member States and at EU level;

I.

whereas the latest tragedy off Lampedusa, on 3 October 2013, left 130 migrants dead, with hundreds of others missing; whereas tens of thousands of migrants have died trying to reach the EU; pointing once more to the need to do everything possible to save the lives of people in danger and to the need for Member States to abide by their international sea-rescue obligations;

1.

Is deeply concerned about the ongoing humanitarian crisis in Syria and the heavy strain it is putting on neighbouring countries; expresses concern that the exodus of refugees continues to accelerate with no sign of the outflow ending soon;

2.

Praises the efforts and solidarity of the authorities of those countries and the generosity of their populations in assisting refugees from Syria;

3.

Welcomes the open-door policy of Syria’s neighbouring countries and urges them to keep their borders open to all refugees fleeing Syria;

4.

Expresses concern that a growing number of Syrians are risking their lives by embarking on dangerous boat crossings across the Mediterranean to the EU;

5.

Welcomes the fact that the EU and its Member States have committed more than EUR 1 billion in humanitarian and non-humanitarian assistance to Syrians inside and outside Syria; notes that the EU is the largest humanitarian donor to the Syrian crisis; calls also on the EU to monitor the distribution of that funding;

6.

Calls for the EU to continue its generous funding of humanitarian and non-humanitarian efforts in response to the needs of people in Syria and refugees from Syria in neighbouring countries;

7.

Encourages the Member States to address acute needs through resettlement in addition to existing national quotas and through humanitarian admission; encourages the Member States to make use of the funds still available under the preparatory action/pilot project on resettlement;

8.

Calls for the international community, the EU and the Member States to continue providing support in response to this exceptional humanitarian crisis and to commit themselves to providing effective assistance to Syria’s neighbouring countries;

9.

Calls for the EU to convene a humanitarian conference on the Syrian refugee crisis, with priority being given to actions directed at host countries in the region (in particular Lebanon, Jordan, Turkey and Iraq) in order to support them in their effort to host ever-growing refugee populations and maintain an open-door policy; stresses that such a conference should involve all EU institutions and civil society organisations and focus on humanitarian efforts and on strengthening the EU’s role and involvement in the diplomatic efforts to help end the conflict in Syria;

10.

Stresses the importance at this stage of exploring concretely whether, how and when Member States could do more to reinforce their protection response to Syria; points to the need for solidarity and for proactive strengthening of the overall protection response in the EU through enhanced cooperation, information sharing, capacity building and policy dialogue;

11.

Welcomes the general consensus existing among Member States that Syrian nationals should not be returned to Syria; stresses, however, that a more coherent approach and greater solidarity with Member States facing particular pressure are needed in the reception of refugees from Syria; calls on the Member States to make sure that all the provisions of the different instruments of the CEAS are correctly implemented;

12.

Calls on the Member States to explore all existing EU laws and procedures for providing safe entry into the EU in order to temporarily admit Syrians fleeing their country; notes that legal entry into the EU is preferable to more dangerous irregular entry, which could entail human trafficking risks; notes that some of the Member States have granted Syrians either permanent residency (e.g. Sweden) or temporary admission (e.g. Germany);

13.

Reminds the Member States that Syrians fleeing the conflict who are seeking international protection should be referred to competent national asylum authorities and have access to fair and efficient asylum procedures;

14.

Calls for the EU to take appropriate, responsible measures regarding a possible influx of refugees into its Member States; calls on the Commission and the Member States to continue monitoring the current situation and to work on contingency planning, including the possibility of applying the Temporary Protection Directive (8), if and when conditions demand it;