15.12.2016   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 468/1

15.12.2016   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 468/2

—

having regard to the ongoing negotiations between the EU and Canada for a Strategic Partnership Agreement (SPA),

—

having regard to its resolution of 14 February 2006 on the human rights and democracy clause in European Union agreements (1),

—

having regard to its recent resolutions on relations with Canada, in particular those of 5 May 2010 on the EU-Canada Summit (2), of 8 June 2011 on EU-Canada trade relations (3) and of 13 June 2013 on the role of the EU in promoting a broader transatlantic partnership (4),

—

having regard to the 1976 Framework Agreement for Commercial and Economic Cooperation between the EEC and Canada (5),

—

having regard to the 1990 Declaration on transatlantic relations between the EC and Canada,

—

having regard to the 1996 Joint Political Declaration and Joint Action Plan,

—

having regard to the Communication from the Commission on EU-Canada Relations (COM(2003)0266),

—

having regard to the 2004 EU-Canada Partnership Agenda,

—

having regard to the 2011 Report to the EU-Canada Joint Cooperation Committee,

—

having regard to the outcomes of the EU-Canada inter-parliamentary meeting of April 2013,

—

having regard to Article 21 of the Treaty on European Union,

—

having regard to Rules 90(4) and 48 of its Rules of Procedure,

—

having regard to the report of the Committee on Foreign Affairs (A7-0407/2013),

A.

whereas the relations between the EU and Canada are historical, strong and built on shared interests and values; whereas the shared values of democracy and the protection of human rights should form a core part of any agreement between the two parties aiming to provide a framework for that relationship;

B.

whereas the EU and Canada have a long history of extensive political and economic cooperation, formally dating back to 1976 when the EU signed a Framework Agreement with Canada, the first with an OECD country; whereas this agreement has for a long time constituted the appropriate framework to deepen relations, enhance political association and further cooperation;

C.

whereas Canada is a consolidated parliamentary democracy; whereas Canada shares similar democratic values and principles with the EU;

D.

whereas the SPA currently under negotiation would update and revitalise the relationship between the EU and Canada and considerably contribute to the deepening of political, economic and cultural relations and the improvement of our cooperation in many areas; whereas it codifies the status of the EU and Canada as strategic partners;

E.

whereas the SPA, beyond improving the institutional structure of relations, alongside the CETA, would provide Europe’s and Canada’s citizens with tangible benefits and opportunities as long as all stakeholders are involved in the process; whereas the opening of markets and regulatory cooperation is expected to generate important economic gains and have positive effects on employment for both Canada and the EU and, in light of broadening the transatlantic partnership and given the existing NAFTA-framework, may lead to the creation of a transatlantic market, a win-win situation for all actors involved as long as current social and environmental standards are not lowered;

F.

whereas the benefits and opportunities of intensified EU-Canada relations should be equally distributed among all sections of both the European and Canadian population according to their living conditions and requirements; whereas the different economic and industrial conditions of both the EU and Canada should be recognised and whereas respect for a sustainable and responsible use of resources needs to be guaranteed;

G.

whereas on 18 October 2013 the President of the Commission and the Canadian Prime Minister reached a political agreement on the key elements of a Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement (CETA), while the negotiations on the Strategic Partnership Agreement are continuing; whereas the CETA and the SPA are complementary in strengthening the EU-Canada relationship;

H.

whereas in parallel to the negotiations on the SPA, an EU-Canada PNR agreement has been negotiated which is supposed to deepen the relationship also in the field of counter-terrorism and to provide proper safeguards against disproportionate targeting practices based on the retention of EU passenger data;

I.

whereas Canada formally withdrew from the Kyoto Protocol in 2011; whereas the EU has repeatedly called on Canada to reduce its greenhouse gas emissions in line with its international commitments;

J.

whereas the issue of a full visa waiver should be swiftly resolved ensuring that persons and enterprises from all EU Member States, including Romania and Bulgaria, have equal opportunities for cooperation with Canadian counterparts;

K.

whereas the EU-Canada strategic partnership should be duly reflected in international fora and organisations; whereas, in this connection, the Arctic Council’s decision, supported by Canada, on EU observer status is regrettable; whereas the EU has committed itself to collaborating with the Canadian authorities to resolve this issue;

1.

Addresses the following recommendations to the Council, the Commission and the European External Action Service:

2.

Instructs its President to forward this resolution containing the European Parliament’s recommendation to the Council, the Commission and the European External Action Service, the Member States and the Government and Parliament of Canada.

15.12.2016   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 468/5

—

having regard to the consultative report of July 2012 by the Committee on Payment and Settlement Systems (CPSS) and the International Organisation of Securities Commissions (IOSCO) entitled ‘Recovery and resolution of financial market infrastructures’,

—

having regard to the CPSS-IOSCO consultative report of August 2013 entitled ‘Recovery of financial market infrastructures’,

—

having regard to the reports of July 2013 by the International Association of Insurance Supervisors (IAIS) entitled ‘Global Systemically Important Insurers: Initial Assessment Methodology’ and ‘Global Systemically Important Insurers: Policy Measures’,

—

having regard to the publication of 18 July 2013 by the Financial Stability Board entitled ‘Global systemically important insurers (G-SIIs) and the policy measures that will apply to them’ (1),

—

having regard to the consultative report of August 2013 by the Financial Stability Board entitled ‘Application of the Key Attributes of Effective Resolution Regimes to Non-Bank Financial Institutions’,

—

having regard to the consultation carried out by the Commission’s services on a possible recovery and resolution framework for financial institutions other than banks,

—

having regard to Regulation (EU) No 648/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 4 July 2012 on OTC derivatives, central counterparties and trade repositories (EMIR) (2),

—

having regard to the Commission‘s proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on improving securities settlement in the European Union and on central securities depositories (CSDs) and amending Directive 98/26/EC (CSDR),

—

having regard to the Commission’s proposal for a directive of the European Parliament and of the Council establishing a framework for the recovery and resolution of credit institutions and investment firms (COM(2012)0280) (BRRD), and the report of the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs thereon (3),

—

having regard to Rule 48 of its Rules of Procedure,

—

having regard to the report of the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs (A7-0343/2013),

A.

whereas assessments of financial market infrastructure are now included in the IMF’s and World Bank’s financial sector assessment programmes;

B.

whereas effective recovery plans and resolution tools are crucial for improving the stability of the non-bank financial sector globally;

C.

whereas financial market infrastructures are organised along widely differing lines; whereas to facilitate the formulation of appropriate plans for recovery and, above all, resolution, it is necessary to make a distinction between them based on organisational complexity, geographical scope and business model;

D.

whereas while EMIR and CSDR aim to reduce systemic risk through well-regulated market infrastructure, there is a possibility of unintended consequences;

E.

whereas while mandatory central clearing contributes positively to decreasing the overall systemic risk of financial markets, it has also increased the concentration of systemic risk in CCPs, recalling that all CCPs are systemically important in their own markets;

F.

whereas the largest clearing members typically participate in more than one CCP, so that if one CCP fails others are also likely to face difficulties;

G.

whereas multiple failures of CCP members will have devastating consequences not only for financial market participants but for the societies concerned as a whole;

H.

whereas the rationale for using a CCP is to reduce counterparty risk by correctly margining products before offering to centrally clear them so that the default of any counterparty does not affect the rest of the market;

I.

whereas risk management processes show that CCPs reduce counterparty risk and uncertainty and prevent contagion;

J.

whereas EMIR does not fully address the risks arising from a CCP wrongly assessing the margin requirements for a whole product class;

K.

whereas CCPs have incentives to apply lower margins, particularly when entering new products or asset classes, in order to attract custom; whereas the effectiveness of default funds segregated by product or asset class is yet to be assessed;

L.

whereas the risks of cross-margining of products (portfolio margining) using ringfencing of assets within the default fund of a CCP are untested, and, therefore, while reducing collateral demand in the short term may reduce costs, the use of cross-margining should not jeopardise the ability of a CCP to correctly manage risk and should recognise the limitations of VaR analytics;

M.

whereas one of the key benefits that clients derive from the clearing member lies in their provision of a firewall against counterparty risk in relation to both the CCP and other clearing members;

N.

whereas the EU’s ICSDs are globally systemically important institutions as facilitators of the Eurobond market and currently operate with banking licences;

O.

whereas central clearing has increased the need for collateral management and related services which are now being performed by CSDs as well as custodian banks;

P.

whereas the impending introduction of Target2Securities has caused CSDs to explore new services;

Q.

whereas standard insolvency regimes will not provide a complete framework for treatment of client assets should a CSD fail without implementation of the Securities Law Legislation;

R.

whereas the IAIS reported in July 2013 on ‘Globally Systemic Insurance Institutions’ and concluded that, while the traditional insurance business model has proven considerably less fragile in financial crises than that of banks, nevertheless, large, highly interconnected cross-border insurers, especially those that have significant activities outside traditional underwriting such as credit and investment guarantees, can pose a significant systemic risk; whereas on the basis of the IAIS assessment method the FSB has identified nine large insurers as being systemic, of which five are headquartered in the Union;

S.

whereas while the systemic risk of an asset manager failing is not as pronounced as for critical market infrastructure, as asset managers’ business models evolve they could become more systemically important, a factor which has been addressed in FSB work on shadow banking;

1.

Calls on the Commission to prioritise recovery and resolution of CCPs and of those CSDs which are exposed to credit risk, and, when considering whether it is appropriate to develop similar legislation for other financial institutions, to differentiate appropriately between each type, giving due consideration to those which have the potential to pose systemic risks to the economy;

2.

Emphasises the importance of EU legislation following internationally agreed principles, as agreed in CPSS-IOSCO, FSB and IAIS;

3.

Stresses the importance of clear provisions for a ‘ladder of intervention’ in any recovery provisions for non-bank financial institutions under which competent authorities monitor appropriately designed indicators of financial health and have the power to intervene early in cases of financial stress of an entity and require it to take corrective measures according to a pre-approved recovery plan, in order to stave off the potentially disruptive last resort of putting such an entity into resolution;

4.

Believes that non-bank financial institutions themselves should develop comprehensive and substantive recovery plans that identify critical operations and services and develop strategies and measures necessary to ensure continued provision of critical operations and services, and that these recovery plans should be reviewed by the relevant supervisory authority; considers that the supervisory authority should be able to request changes to the recovery plan and should lead and consult with the resolution authority, which, if different, could make recommendations to the supervisor;

5.

Considers that supervisory authorities should have the power to intervene on financial stability grounds, and to require the implementation of parts of recovery plans which have not yet been activated or take other actions if necessary; the authorities should, however, also be aware of the risk of creating market uncertainty in already stressed circumstances;

6.

Takes the view that resolution and supervisory authorities in each country should strive to cooperate and keep each other informed;

7.

Believes that for groups with entities in different jurisdictions, a group resolution plan should be agreed between different resolution authorities; such plans should be based on the presumption of cooperation between authorities in different jurisdictions;

8.

Considers that resolution measures should differentiate between different services and activities which the financial market infrastructure institution in question is authorised to provide or perform;

9.

Stresses the need to avoid any conflicts between the recovery and resolution plans and the existing legislation, in particular the Financial Collateral Arrangements Directive (FCAD) and the European Market Infrastructure Regulation (EMIR), since these could lead to constraints on the recovery and resolution powers for CCPs and CSDs or prevent them from being effective;

10.

Underlines the urgent need, in the context of assessing the relevance of specific resolution regimes for market infrastructure, financial institutions and shadow banking entities, for the development of tools for effective near-time monitoring of the stock and flow of financial risk within and across corporate, sectoral and national boundaries in the Union and between the Union and other global regions; urges the Commission to ensure that the relevant data provided under banking, insurance and market infrastructure legislation is used efficiently for this purpose by the ESRB, ESAs and other competent authorities;

11.

Calls upon the Commission to ensure that CCPs have a default management strategy for all products that are cleared by the CCP as part of a wider recovery plan approved by the supervisor, with a particular focus on those products that are mandated for central clearing, as there is a higher likelihood of risk concentration in these cases;

12.

Underlines the importance of monitoring risks to CCPs arising from a concentration of clearing members, and calls on supervisors to inform the EBA of the largest 10 clearing members of each CCP so that risks such as interlinkages, contagion and the potential for failure of more than one CCP at a time can be centrally monitored and assessed;

13.

Calls on the Commission to develop tools for measuring CCPs’ intraday risk, to ensure that intraday balances held by CCPs with commercial banks for account management and payment services do not exceed predefined limits that could otherwise threaten the functioning of the CCP;

14.

Believes that in order to maintain incentives for good governance of CCPs the default waterfall established in EMIR needs to be respected such that the CCP’s pre-funded own financial resources are used before any non-defaulting members’ default fund contributions;

15.

Calls on the Commission to ensure that CCPs act in the general public interest and adopt their business strategies accordingly, in order to significantly reduce the likelihood of triggering recovery and resolution scenarios;

16.

Calls on the Commission to recognise that while the aim of ringfencing asset classes within a default fund of a CCP is to limit contagion, it is unclear whether this will be sufficient to prevent such contagion in practice, given that commercial incentives related to cross-margining could increase risk in the system; calls on the Commission to propose further measures in order to minimise this contagion risk;

17.

Calls on the Commission to ensure that sound principles are established to govern contractual arrangements between a CCP and its clearing members, as well as how clearing members pass on losses to their clients, in such a way that the clearing member’s default fund will have to be exhausted before any losses from a defaulting clearing member can be passed on to the client as part of a transparent loss allocation process;

18.

Believes that any contractual arrangements between a CCP and its clearing members should distinguish between losses arising from a member default and those arising from other reasons such as losses incurred as a result of poor investment choices by the CCP; calls on the Commission to ensure that the CCP’s risk committee is kept fully apprised of the CCP’s investments in order to maintain appropriate oversight; considers that recovery tools such as suspension of dividends and payment of variable remuneration or voluntary restructuring of liabilities through debt-to-equity conversion should be considered the most appropriate tools to be used in these circumstances;

19.

Believes that all CCPs should have in place comprehensive recovery arrangements which provide protection over and above the funds and resources required by EMIR; these recovery plans should provide protection against all foreseeable circumstances, and should be included and published as part of the CCP’s rules;

20.

Asserts that the dividing-line between recovery and resolution in the case of CCPs is when the default waterfall is exhausted, and the loss absorption capacity of the CCP has been depleted; takes the view that at this point the supervisor should actively consider the option of removing the CCP’s management board and whether to transfer critical services of the CCP or hand over operational control of the CCP to another provider; believes that the resolution authorities should be given the necessary degree of discretion in assessing the situation, as well as a certain margin of manoeuvre, enabling them to justify their decisions;

21.

Believes that in exercising such discretion the resolution authorities should apply the following very specific criteria:

22.

Stresses the need to treat ‘continuity of service’ as a key resolution objective;

23.

Emphasises that any participation of clearing members in loss allocation before removal of the CCP’s management should not involve the money or assets of direct or indirect clients, while the resolution authority, once responsible, may employ resolution tools for loss allocation such as variation margin cutting or refilling of the default fund by the non-defaulting clearing members, following the resolution plan as closely as possible;

24.

Believes that if the resolution authority had the ability to impose a stay on early termination rights which would pause the CCP for a maximum period of two days, this could permit the market to correctly re-price the contracts, thus allowing for a more orderly diffusion of risk; the availability and exercise of such a power should be carefully considered so that it is, at a minimum, conditional on the resolution authority determining that imposition of a stay is necessary in the interests of financial stability, having regard to the resolution objectives, interplay with relevant bank or other resolution regimes applicable to clearing members, default and risk management of the CCP and the impact on each of the CCP’s markets, clearing participants and financial markets generally; this would necessarily be accompanied by the power to lift the clearing obligation as a last resort after it has at least been examined whether another CCP could provide the clearing in the short term;

25.

Acknowledges that CCPs have clearing members from a large number of countries; considers, therefore, that a CCP resolution framework will be effective when it is effective in all the jurisdictions involved; believes that, consequently, national insolvency frameworks have to be updated to accommodate the new European resolution regime;

26.

Considers that central counterparties with a banking licence should be subject to a central counterparty-specific regime and not to the proposed bank recovery and resolution regime of the bank recovery and resolution directive (BRR); of particular concern in this sense is the fact that the proposed regime for banks would require them to hold an aggregate amount of debt that can be bailed-in; believes such a power would be inappropriate for central counterparties holding a banking licence because they do not tend to issue such debt instruments;

27.

Establishes that it is the responsibility of a CSD to ensure that its recovery plan clearly provides for operational continuity in reasonable crisis scenarios so that, even if other parts of its business can be disposed of, its primary settlement function as well as the other core services of the CSD can continue to be performed by the CSD or an existing third party provider, as authorised under CSDR;

28.

Calls, if no separate legislative proposal is imminent, for inclusion in the CSDR of a requirement for national competent authorities to ensure the establishment of appropriate recovery and resolution plans in line with FSB and CPSS-IOSCO international standards for all CSDs, including references to the articles of the BRR that should apply to those CSDs operating under a banking licence;

29.

Calls on the Member States, in the absence of Securities Law Legislation, to develop and coordinate their existing special administration regimes for CSDs in order to improve certainty as to how operational continuity will be maintained in a crisis, in particular by ensuring access to the registries, records or accounts of the CSD so that the resolution authority or national competent authority is easily able to identify the owners of assets;

30.

Calls on the Commission to ensure that the proposal for a recovery and resolution framework for CSDs ensures — as far as possible — the continuity of the CSDs during the recovery and resolution;

31.

Calls on the Commission to ensure that the proposal for a recovery and resolution framework for CSDs ensures continuity of the CSDs’ legislative environment, in particular by respecting the Settlement Finality Directive, Delivery versus Payment arrangements, the operation of any CSD link, and contracts with critical service providers during the recovery and resolution;

32.

Notes that in the EU there is longstanding prudential regulation for insurance; stresses the importance of a consistent and convergent approach by Member States towards the implementation of Solvency II within a reasonable time-frame as set out in Omnibus II; calls for the completion of negotiations on Omnibus II so that levels two and three of Solvency II can be finalised in a timely manner, thus keeping to a minimum the probability of resolution authorities having to step in;

33.

Calls on the Commission to closely take into account the IAIS’s work on recovery and resolution of insurers, and to consider it within the context of level two of Solvency II, Financial Conglomerates legislation, and the Insurance Mediation Directive and work with international partners to follow the timetable established by the FSB to implement the policy recommendations including requiring systemic insurers to have recovery and resolution plans as well as resolvability assessments in place, enhanced group supervision and higher loss absorbency requirements; recognises that the long-term nature of insurance liabilities, the different timescales, long run-off periods and business nature of insurance compared to banking, along with the tools available to regulators, already provide for efficient resolution practices; believes the focus should therefore be on recovery;

34.

Regrets that the IAIS and FSB have postponed the publication of guidelines on the assessment of the systemic status of and policy recommendations for reinsurers until July 2014; calls on the Commission to look carefully at the systemic risk posed by reinsurers, especially with regard to their central role in insurance risk management and their high degree of interconnectedness and poor substitutability;

35.

Calls on the Commission to assess carefully whether any asset managers should be designated as systemically important, taking into account the scope of their activity and using a comprehensive set of indicators such as: size, business model, geographical scope, risk profile, creditworthiness, and whether or not they trade on their own account and are subject to requirements regarding the segregation of the assets of their clients, as well as other relevant factors;

36.

Notes that client assets are segregated and held with custodians, and that, therefore, the ability for these assets to be transferred to another asset manager is a substantial safeguard;

37.

Believes that an effective securities law regime could mitigate many of the issues involved in case of failure of a large crossborder asset manager;

38.

Calls on the Commission to engage with the relevant international financial supervisors and authorities in order to identify any weaknesses in globally systemically important payment systems and the arrangements in place to ensure continuity of service in the event of failure;

39.

Believes that, since payment systems are at the heart of all cash transfers, it is clear that a market perturbation in such a system would have significant spillovers on other financial market actors; notes that the 1998 Settlement Finality Directive already aims to mitigate potential risks in payment systems, but considers that it does not go sufficiently into recovery and resolution, and that specific provisions therefore need to be made in order to allow payments systems to react adequately to adverse circumstances;

40.

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

15.12.2016   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 468/12

—

having regard to Title XIX, Article 189 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, as it relates to research and technological development and space policy and with particular reference to the drawing-up of a European space policy in order to promote scientific and technical progress, industrial competitiveness and the implementation of European Union policies,

—

having regard to the Commission communication of 28 February 2013 entitled ‘EU Space Industrial Policy’ (COM(2013)0108),

—

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

—

having regard to the Commission communication of 28 October 2010 entitled ‘An integrated industrial policy for the Globalisation Era — Putting Competitiveness and Sustainability at Centre Stage’ (COM(2010)0614),

—

having regard to the Commission communication of 10 October 2012 entitled ‘A Stronger European Industry for Growth and Economic Recovery’ (COM(2012)0582),

—

having regard to the Commission communication of 4 April 2011 entitled ‘Towards a space strategy for the European Union that benefits its citizens’ (COM(2011)0152),

—

having regard to the Commission communication of 14 November 2012 entitled ‘Establishing appropriate relations between the EU and the ESA’ (COM(2012)0671),

—

having regard to Council Decision 2004/578/EC of 29 April 2004 on the conclusion of the Framework Agreement between the European Community and the European Space Agency (1),

—

having regard to the Council conclusions of 11 October 2010, 31 May 2011, 2 December 2011 and 30 May 2013,

—

having regard to its resolution of 19 January 2012 on a space strategy for the European Union that benefits its citizens (2),

—

having regard to Rule 48 of its Rules of Procedure,

—

having regard to the report of the Committee on Industry, Research and Energy and the opinion of the Committee on Foreign Affairs (A7-0338/2013),

A.

whereas Article 189 TFEU gives the European Union an explicit role in drawing up a European space policy, in order to promote scientific and technical progress, industrial competitiveness and the implementation of its policies;

B.

whereas, in view of increasing competition from newly emerging space-faring nations such as China and India, the political weight of the EU Member States in national terms may no longer suffice to address the challenges ahead in this sector;

C.

whereas space policy is a key element in the Europe 2020 strategy;

D.

whereas innumerable services which are used by members of the public in everyday life are directly or indirectly dependent on the space industry, such as television, high-speed internet, navigation systems or the Europe-wide automatic emergency call system eCall;

E.

whereas the European space industry has a consolidated turnover of EUR 6,5 billion and employs over 34 500 highly skilled people, and whereas in this period of economic difficulty the importance of that industry as a sector with strong growth and innovation potential, and as a creator of jobs with high added value, should be brought to the fore;

F.

whereas at present there is still not sufficient coordination of measures in the field of space policy between the EU, the Member States and the ESA, and whereas this has resulted in duplication of structures and prevented synergies from being sufficiently exploited; stresses that the introduction of a clear governance framework in the space sector would make for huge efficiency savings;

G.

whereas the ESA, as an intergovernmental organisation, has no formal relationship with the European Parliament, so that there is no direct feedback to citizens such as otherwise exists in all fields of Union policy;

H.

whereas the space industry is investment-intensive and has unusually long development cycles, so that consistency of planning plays a decisive role for it; whereas the visibility this provides will benefit greatly from the existence of a stable regulatory framework and a clear governance framework;

I.

whereas the operation of a European launcher system could help to secure independent access to space;

J.

whereas the EU is currently dependent on non-European military GNSS, and Galileo was conceived and developed and will remain under civilian control;

K.

whereas commercial sales play a substantially more important role for the European space industry than for its main international competitors;

L.

whereas satellite-based services play an important part in providing information for the growth sectors of the digital society and contribute to achieving the aims of the EU’s Digital Agenda;

M.

whereas experts estimate that in ten years’ time the market for satellite navigation and earth observation services could have a volume of USD 300 billion, and whereas even today between 6 % and 7 % of GDP in the western EU Member States is dependent on satellite navigation;

N.

whereas, because of growing demand for wireless communication services and the physical properties of wave propagation and the associated shortage of radio frequencies, the international coordination of spectrum use is increasingly important;

1.

Welcomes the Commission communication on EU Space Industrial Policy; considers that the Commission should concentrate on a limited number of space industrial policy measures as referred to in that communication, in order to genuinely exploit the potential for growth in the space industry;

2.

Stresses that all the actors involved in the governance of future EU space policies, including the Commission, the European GNSS Agency, the ESA, the national agencies and the specialised agencies such as EUMETSAT, must be interlinked and must operate on a long-term basis;

3.

Considers that the national agencies could come up with concrete proposals in this direction so that the Commission could streamline the input coming from the Member States and define an EU vision;

4.

Stresses that the Commission must, as soon as possible, give us a clear roadmap for GMES/Copernicus and for the development and deployment of the various Satellite Sentinels, as well as the legal and operational framework proposed for this complex system;

5.

Endorses the Commission’s intention of taking steps towards the establishment of a coherent EU space regulatory framework; advocates establishing a genuine EU internal market for space products and space-based services; considers it important that policy should be formulated and developed without its implementation adversely affecting or distorting commercial market conditions; observes that competitive neutrality and transparency are both cornerstones of the development of European space policy;

6.

Observes that the Commission does not yet have a horizontal approach with a view to mainstreaming space policy and its objectives into the various fields of policy of the Union; calls on the Commission to do so in future by taking space policy into account in such fields as telecommunications, transport, environment, agriculture, safety or culture;

7.

Welcomes the statement by the Commission that space-based telecommunications, navigation and earth observation provide the EU with strategically important knowledge underpinning its external relations in the field of development assistance and humanitarian aid;

8.

Calls on the Commission to assign priority to the following aspects: institutional issues; Galileo and Copernicus; the space industry as a generator of growth and employment; impact assessment of space-related activities; independent access to space; the role of R&D; satellite communication; space surveillance and tracking; and space debris;

9.

Supports the point made by the Commission that many components of space systems are dual-use or of a military nature and are hence subject to Directive 2009/43/EC of 6 May 2009 simplifying terms and conditions of transfers of defence-related products within the Community (3), as amended by Directive 2012/47/EU of 14 December 2012 as regards the list of defence-related products, Council Regulation (EC) No 428/2009 of 5 May 2009 setting up a Community regime for the control of exports, transfer, brokering and transit of dual-use items (4), or the Common Position on arms exports; welcomes the proposal made in the communication to submit a formal report to Parliament on the dual-use export control system before the end of 2013; calls on the Commission, the Member States and the EU Council Working Party on Conventional Arms Exports (COARM) to clarify what regulatory framework should apply to each category of goods and technology;

10.

Recognises the successes which the ESA has achieved for Europe in the field of space missions in recent decades, and encourages non-ESA Member States to consider accession and increased cooperation; observes, however, that, in the long term, ways of achieving greater operational efficiency and political coordination and responsibility can be achieved by bringing the ESA and the EU closer together in their cooperation, inter alia so as to avoid duplication of activities and overlaps; calls on the Commission to investigate very carefully whether the ESA could, for example, in future be linked to the Union’s governance structures as an inter-state organisation as long as it is not felt to be appropriate to convert the ESA into a European agency;

11.

Considers that, in the meantime, the EU, in very close cooperation with the ESA, should coordinate the space policies and programmes of the Member States more than hitherto in order to adopt a genuine European approach, while ensuring that the interests of ESA and its member states are respected; observes that it is only by means of a European approach that the space industry can be given the opportunity to become, and also remain, competitive;

12.

Calls on the Commission, the Member States and the ESA to establish a form of coordination group whose members should coordinate strategies and measures in the field of space at regular meetings in order to avoid duplication of structures and develop a common approach to international issues and forums;

13.

Notes that any increase in the use of space assets by the military must not reduce or limit civilian use and possible future civilian applications; calls on the Member States and the VP/HR to initiate a review of the now outdated 1967 Outer Space Treaty, or else to create a new regulatory framework that takes account of technological progress since the 1960s;

14.

Stresses that the completion of Galileo and the continuation of Copernicus should be assigned the highest priority as the flagships of European space policy, so that the first Galileo services can in practice be opened to the public in 2014;

15.

Underlines the fact that EGNOS is the first operational European GNSS programme; calls on the Commission and the Member States to promote and implement the use of EGNOS in various areas, such as transport;

16.

Deplores the fact that, in the past, delays have occurred in establishing the European satellite navigation programme Galileo; welcomes the fact that four satellites have now been launched into earth orbit; stresses that the advantages and utility of Galileo in particular and of a European space industry in general should be communicated to society more effectively, and calls on the Commission, in conjunction with future launches of Galileo satellites, to organise high-profile public events in EU capitals to promote Galileo and its potential applications;

17.

Stresses that the EU needs to inform people, attract future engineers, spread information about EU satellite navigation and propose a set of incentives for all users in order to use Galileo and EGNOS enabled technologies;

18.

Is convinced that the aim of Full Operating Capacity (FOC), based on a constellation of 27 satellites plus a suitable number of spare satellites and adequate ground infrastructure, is a prerequisite in order to realise the added value of Galileo, in terms in particular of high precision and uninterrupted service and thus reap numerous economic and societal benefits;

19.

Regrets that not all of the EU is currently covered by the EGNOS system, and calls for that system to be extended to southern, eastern and south-eastern Europe, hence enabling its use throughout Europe;

20.

Calls on the Commission and the Member States to inform Parliament about plans to use the Copernicus programme and the public-regulated service of the Galileo programme in support of CSDP missions and operations;

21.

Observes that SMEs (not only SMEs, but nonetheless SMEs in particular) require a kind of pump-priming funding from the public sector to give them sufficient funds for long-term investment in R&D; is convinced that public funding and the existence of public customers for products and services of the space industry can drive innovation and thus generate growth and create jobs;

22.

Reiterates that the EU must not miss the opportunity to develop the satellite navigation downstream market, and underlines the importance of an action plan for the European GNSS Agency in order to expand the GNSS market, which will be crucial for the future of the EU economy;

23.

Recalls that new applications of satellite navigation can increase the safety, efficiency and reliability in areas including the aviation, maritime, road and agriculture sectors, road safety, fee collection, traffic and parking management, fleet management, emergency calls, goods tracking and tracing, online booking, safety of shipping, digital tachographs, animal transport, and sustainable land;

24.

Notes the fact mentioned in the communication that 60 % of electronics on board European satellites are currently imported from the US; calls for an initiative on how to protect sensitive or personal data in this context, and for use of the current public procurement process to ensure wherever possible that the purchase of space infrastructure from Member States is used as a further driver of growth in the sector;

25.

Urges the Commission, the ESA, the EDA and the Member States to identify critical technologies in the context of the joint European non-dependence process and to develop alternatives which are less dependent on third countries; recalls the risk that the US might, in the event of disagreement, close down or block European space infrastructure;

26.

Calls on the Commission and the Member States to create incentives for European industry to develop space components at European level in order to reduce dependence on imports from third countries;

27.

Observes that undertakings from outside the space industry can benefit from products derived from space research; calls on all parties concerned, therefore, to develop exchanges between actors in the space and non-space industries and to work in partnership to develop technologies which can lead to pioneering innovations for the benefit of society; stresses the value of better publicising the tangible benefits that the space industry can bring to the daily lives of Europeans;

28.

Stresses that the space-based services and robotics industries, in particular, create numerous market opportunities, above all for SMEs;

29.

Stresses that autonomous and intelligent robotic systems are key technologies for the further exploration of space; points in this context to the efficient use of European funding from Horizon 2020, particularly for operations close to the market;

30.

Stresses that a suitable pool of highly skilled employees is key to a competitive European space industry; calls therefore on all parties concerned to step up cooperation between universities and industry and to encourage young talent, in particular female talent, to commit to this sector (e.g. by establishing national graduate programmes and training schemes as well as competitions for European and non-European researchers); observes furthermore that the acquisition of talent from third countries (including by attracting back European talent) is indispensable;

31.

Stresses the importance of access to space for all Member States and of commercial sales for the European space industry; observes at the same time that access to institutional markets in third countries remains partially closed to the European industry; stresses the importance of equal initial conditions for the European industry at international level; calls on the Commission, therefore, to promote reciprocity and to ensure equal opportunities and fair competitive conditions in the context of trade agreements (e.g. TTIP);

32.

Stresses the importance of developing and operating European launchers for independent access to space; calls, therefore, on the Commission and the Member States, jointly with the ESA, to maintain and expand a European launcher system and a rocket-launching service in the long term;

33.

Considers that the European space industry should make use of existing European space infrastructure, part of which was paid for using European public funds;

34.

Welcomes, additionally, the fact that under the new Framework Programme for Research (Horizon 2020) the sum of EUR 1,5 billion is to be invested in space research and innovation; calls on the Commission, furthermore, in the context of Horizon 2020, to make part of the budget available for R&D relating to applications of satellite communication;

35.

Considers that, particularly in the field of research, greater coordination between the EU, the ESA and the Member States is needed; calls on all three parties to develop a joint ‘research roadmap’ for the period ending in 2020, and to define priorities and objectives for space policy which should be attained jointly, in order to provide consistency of planning for the actors involved, particularly in industry; stresses the importance of research cooperation with third countries;

36.

Stresses that the development of GNSS applications and services is essential in order to ensure that the infrastructure investment which Galileo represents is fully exploited and that the Galileo system is developed to its full capacity; stresses the need to ensure that the appropriate funding is provided for research and development in respect of GNSS and for its implementation; regrets the fact that the reduction in the funding allocated to research and innovation for applications based on EGNOS and Galileo is considerably delaying technological progress and the growth of industrial capacity, as well as environmentally effective implementation, in the EU, and therefore urges the Commission to introduce arrangements enabling SMEs to access funding more easily;

37.

Observes that the development of innovative applications in Europe is hampered by various obstacles; reminds the Commission, therefore, that there is an untapped market for the commercial exploitation of space-based data generated by earth observation and satellite programmes; calls on the Commission to conduct a study to identify these obstacles (such as: liability for damage caused by space objects/debris; uncertainty regarding the availability of services; reservations with regard to security and data protection; inadequate awareness of potential; and lack of interoperability), and to put forward possible proposals concerning ways of opening up such markets;

38.

Stresses that satellite communication plays an important role within the European space industry, as orders from this sector provide continuous uses for spacecraft and launchers and thus contribute to the objective of independent access to space for the EU; draws attention, in this context, to the role of independent payload capacity which becomes available when launching commercial satellites (for ‘hosted payloads’) which can be used to try out new products and technologies in space and thus helps to reduce both the costs and the time required to be able to offer new services;

39.

Stresses that satellite communication is an efficient way of providing multimedia services, also to those in industry and society whom it has hitherto been impossible to serve by means of terrestrial technologies;

40.

Stresses that satellite networks help to meet the EU Digital Agenda targets with a view to achieving total broadband internet coverage in the EU, particularly in remote areas; calls on the Commission, therefore, to ensure that, with reference to technological neutrality, the satellite internet is appropriately taken into account in the technology mix to be used to expand broadband, for example in the EU’s cohesion policy;

41.

Observes that satellite communication is taking on an increasingly important logistical function in crises such as natural disasters or in maintaining internal security, as its data and communication links are vital in situations in which no terrestrial infrastructure exists or it has been destroyed;

42.

Calls on the Commission, therefore, to analyse the current availability of, and future need for, radio frequencies for satellite communication, and to ensure at the next ITU World Radio Communications Conference that the EU’s interests and those of the satellite communication industry in the field of global and regional spectrum allocation are defended appropriately;

43.

Considers that the potential for innovation in the field of satellite communication has not by any means been exhausted; draws attention to the potential of the latest technologies, such as Laser Communication Terminals (LCT) or High Throughput Satellites (HTS), to meet the need for ever-increasing exchanges of data at ever-higher data rates;

44.

Stresses that Europe can only maintain its technological advance in satellite communication if research efforts in this field are continued at European level;

45.

Stresses that space-based infrastructure constitutes the backbone of many services used by industry and society in everyday life; observes that loss of access to this infrastructure, for example due to collisions between satellites and other space objects or debris, could impair the safety of economic actors and members of the public;

46.

Observes that space debris is a growing problem; calls on the Commission and the Member States to work towards global governance for space; calls on the Commission and the Member States, at the same time, to encourage third countries to sign the Code of Conduct for Outer Space Activities drawn up by the EU through all diplomatic channels;

47.

Calls on the Commission to support the establishment at European level, as quickly as possible, of the programme proposed at the beginning of this year to support observation and tracking of objects in space, in order to ensure greater independence from the institutions in the US that issue warnings of collisions;

48.

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

15.12.2016   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 468/19

—

having regard to the Commission communication of 27 September 2012 entitled ‘Unleashing the potential of cloud computing in Europe’ (COM(2012)0529) and the accompanying working document,

—

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

—

having regard to the Commission communication of 19 May 2010 entitled ‘A digital agenda for Europe’ (COM(2010)0245),

—

having regard to its resolution of 5 May 2010 on a new digital agenda for Europe: 2015.eu (1),

—

having regard to Decision No 243/2012/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 14 March 2012 establishing a multiannual radio spectrum policy programme,

—

having regard to the Commission’s proposal of 25 January 2012 for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data (General Data Protection Regulation) (COM(2012)0011),

—

having regard to the Commission’s proposal of 19 October 2011 for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council establishing the Connecting Europe Facility (COM(2011)0665),

—

having regard to Directive 1999/5/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 9 March 1999 on radio equipment and telecommunications terminal equipment and the mutual recognition of their conformity,

—

having regard to the work by the European Telecommunications Standards Institute (ETSI) on a cloud standards mapping,

—

having regard to Directive 2011/83/EU of Parliament and of the Council of 25 October 2011 on consumer rights, amending Council Directive 93/13/EEC and Directive 1999/44/EC of Parliament and of the Council, and repealing Council Directive 85/577/EEC and Directive 97/7/EC of Parliament and of the Council

—

having regard to Directive 1999/44/EC of Parliament and of the Council of 25 May 1999 on certain aspects of the sale of consumer goods and associated guarantees (2),

—

having regard to Directive 95/46/EC of Parliament and of the Council of 24 October 1995 on the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data (3),

—

having regard to Directive 2000/31/EC of Parliament and of the Council of 8 June 2000 on certain legal aspects of information society services, in particular electronic commerce, in the Internal Market (4),

—

having regard to Directive 2001/29/EC of Parliament and of the Council of 22 May 2001 on the harmonisation of certain aspects of copyright and related rights in the information society (5),

—

having regard to Rule 48 of its Rules of Procedure,

—

having regard to the report of the Committee on Industry, Research and Energy and the opinions of the Committee on Legal Affairs, the Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs and the Committee on the Internal Market and Consumer Protection (A7-0353/2013),

A.

whereas while remote computing services in various forms, now commonly known as ‘cloud computing’, are not new, the scale, performance and content of cloud computing constitute a significant advancement in information and communication technologies (ICT);

B.

whereas cloud computing has nonetheless attracted attention in recent years owing to the development of new and innovative large-scale business models, a strong push by cloud vendors, technological innovations and increased computing capabilities, lower prices and high-speed communications, as well as to the potential economic and efficiency benefits, including in terms of energy consumption, that cloud services offer all kinds of users;

C.

whereas the deployment and development of cloud services in sparsely populated and remote areas can contribute to reducing their isolation, while at the same time pose particularly serious challenges given the insufficient availability of necessary infrastructure;

D.

whereas the vendor benefits of cloud services consist of e.g. service fees, monetisation of underutilised and excess computing resources, economies of scale, the possibility of a captive customer base (so called lock-in effect) and secondary uses of user information, such as for advertising, with due regard for the requirements of personal data privacy and protection; whereas a lock-in effect can have competitive disadvantages that nevertheless can be dealt with through reasonable standardisation measures and better transparency on intellectual property licensing agreements;

E.

whereas the user benefits of cloud services consist of potentially lower costs, ubiquitous access, convenience, reliability, scalability and security;

F.

whereas cloud computing also entails risks for users, in particular as regards sensitive data, and users need to be aware of those risks; whereas if cloud processing is done in a particular country, the authorities of that country can have access to the data; whereas this should be taken into account by the Commission when issuing proposals and recommendations regarding cloud computing;

G.

whereas cloud services oblige users to hand over information to the cloud storage provider, a third party, raising issues relating to the continued control over and access to the information of individual users and its protection against the provider itself, other users of the same service and other parties; whereas encouragement of services which allow for the user and only the user to hold keys to the information stored, without the cloud storage providers themselves being able to access that information, could solve some of the issues pertaining to this problem;

H.

whereas the increased use of cloud services provided by a limited number of large providers means that increasing amounts of information is aggregated in the hands of those providers, thus magnifying their efficiencies but also increasing the risks of catastrophic losses of information, of centralised points of failure that could undermine the stability of the internet and of access to the information by third parties;

I.

whereas the responsibilities and liabilities of all the stakeholders involved in cloud computing services should be clarified, in particular as they apply to security and to respect of data protection requirements;

J.

whereas the market for cloud services appears bifurcated along consumer and business lines;

K.

whereas for business users, standardised cloud services can, if they meet the particular needs of the user, be an attractive means of converting capital cost to operating expense and of enabling fast availability and scaling of additional storage and processing capacity;

L.

whereas for consumers, the fact that providers of operating systems for various types of consumer devices, in particular, are increasingly steering consumers — through the use of default settings, etc. — towards using proprietary cloud services, means that these providers are creating a captive consumer-base and aggregating the information of their users;

M.

whereas the use of external cloud services in the public sector has to be weighted carefully against any increased risks with regard to information on citizens and against the ensured performance of public service functions;

N.

whereas, from a security perspective, the introduction of cloud services means that the responsibility for maintaining the security of information belonging to each individual user is shifted from the individual to the provider, thereby raising the need to ensure that service providers have the legal ability to provide secure and robust solutions for communication;

O.

whereas the development of cloud services will increase the amount of transmitted data and the demand for bandwidth, higher upload speeds and more available high-speed broadband;

P.

whereas the achievement of Europe’s digital agenda targets, in particular broadband uptake and access for all, cross-border public services and research and innovation goals, is a necessary step if the EU is fully to reap the benefits that cloud computing has to offer;

Q.

whereas there have recently been developments involving security breaches, in particular the PRISM spying scandal;

R.

whereas there is a lack of server farms on European soil;

S.

whereas the Digital Single Market is a key factor in attaining the targets of the Europe 2020 strategy, which would provide a significant boost in efforts to meet the objectives of the Single Market Act and respond to the economic and financial crisis affecting the EU;

T.

whereas EU-wide broadband provision, universal and equal access to internet services for all citizens, and a guarantee of network neutrality are the essential prerequisites for the development of a European cloud computing system;

U.

whereas the Connecting Europe Facility is intended, among other things, to increase broadband uptake in Europe;

V.

whereas cloud computing should stimulate the integration of SMEs through the reduction of market entry barriers (e.g. by decreasing IT infrastructure costs);

W.

whereas it is essential for a European cloud computing system that EU legal standards on data protection are guaranteed;

X.

whereas the development of cloud computing should help promote creativity for the benefit of both rights-holders and users; whereas, furthermore, distortions in the Single Market should be avoided in the process and consumer and business confidence in cloud computing should be boosted;

1.

Welcomes the Commission’s communication on unleashing the potential of cloud computing in Europe and approves the Commission’s ambition to develop a coherent approach to cloud services, but considers that, in order to achieve the ambitious goals set out by the strategy, a legislative instrument would have been more adequate for some aspects;

2.

Underlines that policies enabling high-capacity and secure communications infrastructure are a crucial element for all services relying on communications, including cloud services, but highlights that, owing to the limited budget of the Connecting Europe Facility, support for broadband deployment needs to be supplemented with assistance provided under other Union programmes and initiatives, including the European Structural and Investment Funds;

3.

Underlines that cloud services must offer security and reliability commensurate to the increased risks flowing from the concentration of data and information in the hands of a limited number of providers;

4.

Underlines that Union law should be neutral and, absent compelling reasons of public interest, not be adapted to either facilitate or hinder any legal business model or service;

5.

Stresses that a strategy on cloud computing should encompass collateral aspects such as the energy consumption of data centres and related environmental issues;

6.

Emphasises the vast possibilities that having access to data from any device connected to the internet offers;

7.

Stresses the obvious interest, from a dual perspective, for the EU in having more server farms on its soil: in terms of industrial policy, it would allow for enhanced synergies with the roll-out objectives for Next Generation Access Networks (NGA) set out in the digital agenda, and in terms of the Union’s data protection regime, it would foster trust by ensuring EU sovereignty over the servers;

8.

Underlines the importance of digital literacy among all citizens, and urges the Member States to develop concepts of how to promote the safe use of internet services, including cloud computing;

9.

Emphasises that, given the economic potential of the cloud for increasing Europe’s global competitiveness, it can become a powerful instrument for growth and employment;

10.

Stresses, therefore, that the development of cloud services, in the absence or insufficient availability of broadband infrastructure, risks widening the digital divide between urban and rural areas, which will make territorial cohesion and regional economic growth still harder to achieve;

11.

Highlights that the Union faces multiple, simultaneous pressures on GDP growth at a time when the scope to stimulate growth from public funds is limited by high debt and deficit levels, and calls on the European institutions and the Member States to mobilise every possible growth lever; notes that cloud computing can become a transformative development in all sectors of the economy, with special relevance in areas such as health care, energy, public services and education;

12.

Stresses that unemployment, including youth and long-term unemployment, has reached unacceptably high levels in Europe and is likely to remain high in the near future, and that determined and urgent action is needed at all political levels; notes that e-skills and digital education actions in cloud computing development can, consequently, be of extraordinary importance in order to tackle the rising unemployment, especially among young people;

13.

Underlines the need for greater e-skills among users and for training to show the benefits that cloud computing can offer; recalls the need to create more qualification schemes for specialists managing cloud computing services;

14.

Highlights that SMEs are at the heart of the EU’s economy and that more actions are needed to promote the global competitiveness of EU SMEs and to set the best possible environment for the uptake of new promising technological developments, such as cloud computing, which can have a high impact on the competitiveness of EU businesses;

15.

Insists on the positive impact of cloud computing services on SMEs, in particular those established in remote or outermost areas or facing economic difficulties, as such services contribute to the reduction of fixed costs for SMEs by allowing the rental of computing power and storage, and calls on the Commission to consider an appropriate framework allowing SMEs to increase their growth and productivity, as SMEs can benefit from reduced upfront costs and better access to analytics tools;

16.

Encourages the Commission and the Member States to communicate the economic potential of cloud computing to SMEs in particular;

17.

Points out that the EU must take advantage of the fact that this technology is at a relatively early stage and must work towards developing it in order to benefit from the economies of scale which it is expected to offer, thereby revitalising the Union’s economy, particularly in the ICT sector;

18.

Stresses that the internal market should remain open to all providers complying with Union law, as the global free flow of services and information increases the competitiveness of and opportunities for Union industry and benefits Union citizens;

19.

Regrets the indications of massive, pervasive and indiscriminate governmental access to information related to Union users stored in third-country clouds, and calls for cloud service providers to be transparent about how they manage the information that consumers make available to them through the use of cloud services;

20.

Insists that, in order to counter the risk that information is accessed directly or indirectly by foreign governments, where such access is not allowed under Union law, the Commission shall:

21.

Welcomes the Commission’s intention to establish an EU-wide certification system that would provide an incentive for developers and providers of cloud computing services to invest in better privacy protection;

22.

Calls on the Commission, in cooperation with Union industry and other stakeholders, to identify areas where a specific Union approach could prove particularly attractive globally;

23.

Emphasises the importance of ensuring a competitive and transparent Union market in order to provide all Union users with secure, sustainable, affordable and reliable services; calls for a simple, transparent method to identify security flaws in such a way that service providers on the European market have a sufficient and appropriate incentive to remedy such flaws;

24.

Underlines that all cloud providers operating in the Union must compete on an even playing field, with the same rules applicable to all;

25.

Stresses that the take-up of cloud services by the public sector has the potential to reduce costs for public administrations and provide more efficient services to citizens, whilst the digital leverage effect to all sectors of the economy would be extremely beneficial; points out that the private sector can also take advantage of those cloud services for the procurement of innovative solutions;

26.

Encourages public administrations to consider safe, reliable and secure cloud services in IT procurement, while underlining their particular responsibilities with respect to protection of information relating to citizens, accessibility and continuity of service;

27.

Calls, in particular, on the Commission to consider making use of cloud services, where appropriate, in order to provide an example to others;

28.

Calls on the Commission and the Member States to speed up the work of the European Cloud Partnership;

29.

Calls on the Commission and the Member States to make cloud computing a priority area for research and development programmes, and to promote it in the public administration sector as an innovative e-government solution of public interest, as well as in the private sector as an innovative tool for business development;

30.

Stresses that the use of cloud services by public authorities, including by law enforcement authorities and EU institutions, requires special consideration and coordination between the Member States; recalls that data integrity and security must be guaranteed and unauthorised access, including by foreign governments and their intelligence services without a legal basis under Union or Member State law, prevented; stresses that this also applies to the specific processing activities of certain essential non-governmental services, in particular the processing of specific categories of personal data, such as by banks, insurance companies, pension funds, schools and hospitals; stresses, furthermore, that all of the aforementioned is of particular importance if data is being transferred (outside the European Union between different jurisdictions); takes the view, therefore, that public authorities, as well as non-governmental services and the private sector, should, as far as possible, rely on EU cloud providers when processing sensitive data and information until satisfactory global rules on data protection have been introduced, ensuring the security of sensitive data and of data bases held by public entities;

31.

Calls on the Commission to take the lead in promoting standards and specifications supporting privacy-friendly, reliable, highly interoperable, secure and energy-efficient cloud services as an integral part of a future Union industrial policy; stresses that reliability, security and protection of data is needed for consumer confidence and competitiveness;

32.

Stresses that standards are based on examples of best practices;

33.

Insists that standards should enable easy and complete data and service portability, and a high degree of interoperability between cloud services, in order to increase rather than limit competitiveness;

34.

Welcomes the mapping of standards that has been entrusted to ETSI, and highlights the importance of continuing to follow an open and transparent process;

35.

Calls on the Commission to ensure that consumer devices do not make use of cloud services by default and are not restricted to specific cloud service provider;

36.

Calls on the Commission to ensure that any commercial agreements between telecommunications operators and cloud providers are fully compliant with EU competition law and that they allow consumers full access to any cloud service, using an internet connection offered by any telecommunications operator;

37.

Reminds the Commission of its as yet unexploited prerogative, under Directive 1999/5/EC (the RTTE Directive), to require that equipment incorporates safeguards protecting users’ information;

38.

Calls on the Commission and the Member States to raise consumer awareness of all risks related to the use of cloud services;

39.

Calls on the Commission to ensure that consumers, when prompted to accept or otherwise offered a cloud service, are first given the information necessary for an educated decision, particularly when it comes to the jurisdiction covering the data stored in these cloud services;

40.

Stresses that the information thus provided should identify, among other things, who the ultimate provider of the service is and how the service is financed; stresses, furthermore, that if the service is financed by using users’ information to target advertising or enable others to do so, this should be disclosed to the user;

41.

Stresses that the information should be in a standardised, portable, easily comprehensible and comparable format;

42.

Calls on the Commission to explore appropriate measures to develop a minimum acceptable level of consumer rights in relation to cloud services, covering issues such as privacy, data storage in third countries, liability for data losses and other matters of significant interest to consumers;

43.

Calls on the Commission and the Member States to adopt specific measures on the use and promotion of cloud computing in relation to open access and open educational resources;

44.

Urges the Commission to take action to further harmonise laws across the Member States in order to avoid jurisdictional confusion and fragmentation and to ensure transparency in the digital single market;

45.

Calls on the Commission to review other EU legislation to address gaps related to cloud computing; calls, in particular, for clarification of the intellectual property rights regime and for a review of the Unfair Commercial Practices Directive, the Unfair Contract Terms Directive and the E-Commerce Directive, which are the most relevant pieces of EU legislation that apply to cloud computing;

46.

Calls on the Commission to establish a clear legal framework in the field of copyright content in the cloud, especially with regard to licensing regulations;

47.

Acknowledges that the advent of the storage of copyright works by cloud computing services should not compromise the right of European right holders to receive fair compensation for the use of their work, but questions whether these services can be considered to be on par with traditional and digital recording and storage media and equipment;

48.

Calls on the Commission to investigate the different types of cloud computing services, how the cloud storage of copyrighted works affects the royalties systems and, more specifically, the ways in which private copying levies that are relevant for certain types of cloud computing services are imposed;

49.

Calls on the Commission to promote the development, jointly with stakeholders, of decentralised services based on free and open-source software that would help harmonise practices across cloud providers and enable EU citizens to regain control over their personal data and communication, for example by means of point-to-point encryption;

50.

Stresses that, owing to uncertainties regarding applicable law and jurisdiction, contracts are the main tools for establishing relations between cloud providers and their customers, and that there is therefore a clear need for common EU guidelines in that field;

51.

Calls on the Commission to work together with the Member States to develop EU best practice models for contracts, or ‘model contracts’, that will ensure complete transparency by providing all terms and conditions in a very clear format;

52.

Calls on the Commission to develop, together with stakeholders, voluntary certification schemes for provider security systems which would help to harmonise practices across cloud providers and which would make clients more aware of what they should expect from cloud service providers;

53.

Stresses that, owing to jurisdiction problems, EU consumers are in practice unlikely to be able to seek redress from cloud services providers in other jurisdictions; calls, therefore, on the Commission to provide adequate means of redress in the consumer services area, since there is a strong imbalance of power between consumers and providers of cloud computing;

54.

Calls on the Commission to ensure the speedy implementation of Alternative Dispute Resolution and Online Dispute Resolution and to make sure that consumers are equipped with adequate means of collective redress against security and privacy breaches as well as against illegal contract provisions for cloud services;

55.

Regrets the current lack of effective remedies for users in case of breach of contract;

56.

Calls for systematic consumer information regarding the processing activities of personal data to be included in contract proposals, as well as for users’ consent to be compulsory before the terms of a contract may be changed;

57.

Calls on the Commission, within the framework of its expert group discussions, to require cloud providers to include in contracts certain key clauses guaranteeing the quality of the service, such as obligations to update software and hardware where necessary, to determine what happens if data is lost, and to determine the time it would take to resolve a problem, or how rapidly the cloud service could take down offending materials, should the cloud user make such a request;

58.

Recalls that where a cloud provider uses the data for a purpose other than that agreed on in the service agreement, or communicates data or uses it in a way contrary to the terms of the contract, he should be considered data controller and should be held liable for the infringements and breaches incurred;

59.

Stresses that cloud services agreements must set out, in a clear and transparent manner, the duties and rights of the parties concerning data processing activities by cloud providers; points out that the contractual arrangements shall not entail a waiver of the safeguards, rights and protections afforded by Union data protection law; urges the Commission to come forward with proposals to restore the balance between cloud service providers and their customers as regards the terms and conditions used by cloud services, including provisions to:

60.

Highlights that the role of the cloud service provider under current Union legislation needs to be determined on a case-by-case basis, as providers can be both data processors and data controllers; calls for the terms and conditions for all users to be improved through the development of international best practice models for contracts and through the clarification of where the service provider stores data and under which area of law within the EU;

61.

Highlights that particular attention must be given to situations in which the imbalance in the contractual situation between the customer and the cloud provider leads the customer to enter into contractual arrangements imposing standard services and a contract to be signed in which the provider defines the purposes, conditions and means of the processing (6); stresses that, in such circumstances, the cloud provider should be considered data controller and become jointly liable with the customer;

62.

Takes the view that access to a safe internet is a fundamental right of every citizen and that cloud computing will continue to play an important role in this aspect; reiterates, therefore, its call on the Commission and the Council unequivocally to recognise digital freedoms as fundamental rights and as indispensable prerequisites for enjoying universal human rights;

63.

Reiterates that, as a general rule, the level of data protection in a cloud computing environment must not be inferior to that required in any other data-processing context;

64.

Stresses that Union data protection law, since it is technologically neutral, already now fully applies to cloud computing services operating in the EU and must, therefore, be fully respected; stresses that the opinion of the Working Party of the Article 29 (WP29) on Cloud Computing (7) should be taken into account as it provides clear guidance for the application of Union data protection law principles and rules to cloud services, such as the concepts of controller/processor, purpose limitation and proportionality, integrity and data security, the use of subcontractors, allocation of responsibilities, data breaches and international transfers; underlines the need to close any gaps in the protection as regards cloud computing in the ongoing review of the Union data protection legal framework based on further guidance by the European Data Protection Supervisor and the WP29;

65.

Recalls its serious concern about the recent unveiling of US National Security Agency surveillance programmes, and of similar programmes operated by intelligence agencies in various Member States, in the recognition that, should the information available up to now be confirmed, these programmes entail a serious violation of the fundamental right of EU citizens and residents to privacy and data protection, as well as of the right to private and family life, the confidentiality of communications, the presumption of innocence, freedom of expression, freedom of information, and the freedom to conduct business;

66.

Reiterates its serious concerns about the compulsory direct disclosure of EU personal data and information, processed under cloud agreements, to third country authorities by cloud providers subject to third country laws or using storage servers located in third countries, and about direct remote access to personal data and information processed by third-country law enforcement authorities and intelligence services;

67.

Regrets that such access is usually attained by means of direct enforcement by third countries authorities of their own legal rules, without recourse to international instruments established for legal cooperation such as mutual legal assistance (MLA) agreements or other forms of judicial cooperation;

68.

Stresses that such practices raise questions of trust as regards non-EU cloud and online service providers, and as regards third countries that do not rely on international instruments for legal and judicial cooperation;

69.

Expects the Commission and the Council to take such measures as are necessary to solve this situation and to ensure the respect of the fundamental rights of EU citizens;

70.

Recalls that all companies providing services in the EU must, without exception, comply with EU law and are liable for any breaches;

71.

Stresses that cloud services that fall under third country jurisdiction should provide users located in the EU with a clear and distinguishable warning of the possibility that their personal data may be subject to intelligence and law enforcement surveillance by third country authorities under secret orders or injunctions, followed, where applicable, by a request for the data subject’s explicit consent for the processing of personal data;

72.

Urges the Commission, when negotiating international agreements that involve the processing of personal data, to take particular note of the risks and challenges that cloud computing poses to fundamental rights, in particular — but not exclusively — the right to private life and to the protection of personal data, as laid down in Articles 7 and 8 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union; urges, furthermore, the Commission to take note of the negotiating partner’s domestic rules governing the access of law enforcement and intelligence agencies to personal data processed through cloud computing service, in particular by demanding that such access for law enforcement and intelligence authorities only be granted with full respect for the due process of law and on an unambiguous legal basis, as well as the requirement that the exact conditions of access, the purpose of gaining such access, the security measures put in place when handing over data and the rights of the individual, as well as the rules for supervision and for an effective redress mechanism, be specified;

73.

Stresses its serious concerns about the work carried out within the Council of Europe’s Cybercrime Convention Committee with a view to developing an additional protocol on the interpretation of Article 32 of the Convention on Cybercrime of 23 November 2001 on ‘trans-border access to stored computer data with consent or where publicly available’ (8) in order to ‘facilitate its effective use and implementation in the light of legal, policy and technological developments’; calls on the Commission and the Member States, in view of the forthcoming consideration by the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe, to ensure the compatibility of the provision of Article 32 of the Convention on Cybercrime, and its interpretation in the Member States, with fundamental rights, including data protection and, in particular, the provisions on trans-border flows of personal data, as enshrined in the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights, the EU data protection acquis, the European Convention of Human Rights and the Council of Europe Convention on the Protection of Individuals with Regard to Automatic Processing (‘Convention 108’), which are legally binding upon the Member States; calls on the Commission and the Member States to reject firmly any measure that would put the application of these rights at risk; is alarmed by the fact that should such an additional protocol be endorsed, its implementation could result in unfettered remote access by law enforcement authorities on servers and computer systems located in other jurisdictions, without recourse to MLA agreements and other instruments of judicial cooperation put in place to guarantee the fundamental rights of the individual, including data protection and due process;

74.

Underlines that particular attention must be paid to SMEs which increasingly rely on cloud computing technology when processing personal data, and which may not always have the resources or the expertise to address security challenges adequately;

75.

Stresses that the qualification of data controller or processor needs to be reflected in an appropriate manner by the actual level of control it has over the means of processing, in order that the responsibilities for the protection of personal data with the use of cloud computing are clearly allocated;

76.

Stresses that all the principles laid down in EU data protection law, such as fairness and lawfulness, purpose limitation, proportionality, accuracy and limited data retention periods, must be taken fully into account by cloud computing service providers when processing personal data;

77.

Underlines the importance of having effective, proportionate and dissuasive administrative sanctions that may be imposed on cloud computing services that do not comply with EU data protection standards;

78.

Stresses that, in order to define the most appropriate safeguards to implement, the data protection impact of each cloud computing service must be assessed on an ad hoc basis;

79.

Stresses that a European cloud service provider should always act in conformity with EU data protection law, even if this conflicts with instructions by a client or controller established in a third country, or when the data subjects concerned are (solely) residents of third countries;

80.

Stresses the need to address the challenges raised by cloud computing at an international level, in particular as regards government intelligence surveillance and necessary safeguards;

81.

Stresses that EU citizens subject to intelligence surveillance by third country authorities should benefit from at least the same safeguards and remedies as are available to citizens of the third country concerned;

82.

Regrets the approach in the Commission’s communication whereby it fails to mention the risks and challenges attached to cloud computing, and urges the Commission to continue its work on cloud computing by developing a more holistic communication on cloud computing that takes into account the interests of all stakeholders, and that contains, alongside a standard reference to the protection of fundamental rights and compliance with data protection requirements, at least the following:

83.

Calls on the Commission to explore the adequacy of a review of the EU-US Safe Harbour Agreement, in order to adapt it to technological developments, especially with regard to aspects linked to cloud computing;

84.

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

15.12.2016   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 468/30

—

having regard to the Commission staff working document of 23 April 2013 on the Evaluation Report of the Body of European Regulators for Electronic Communications (BEREC) and its office (SWD(2013)0152),

—

having regard to the Commission communication of 19 May 2010 entitled ‘A Digital Agenda for Europe’ (COM(2010)0245),

—

having regard to Article 114 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,

—

having regard to its resolution of 5 May 2010 on ‘a new Digital Agenda for Europe: 2015.eu’ (1),

—

having regard to the framework for electronic communications,

—

having regard to Regulation (EC) No 1211/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 November 2009 establishing the Body of European Regulators for Electronic Communications (BEREC) and the Office (2),

—

having regard to Rule 119(1) of its Rules of Procedure,

—

having regard to the report of the Committee on Industry, Research and Energy and the opinion of the Committee on Budgets (A7-0378/2013),

A.

whereas the Body of European Regulators for Electronic Communications (BEREC) was created to contribute to shaping technical and policy orientations for the completion of the internal market, with the twin aims of giving regulators the utmost possible independence and making their implementation of the regulatory framework more consistent throughout the EU;

B.

whereas the evaluation report appreciates and recognises the worth of BEREC and the BEREC Office, notably with respect to the Article 7/7a procedures and in the areas of net neutrality and international roaming;

C.

whereas only a short period of time has passed since BEREC and the BEREC Office were created;

D.

whereas the completion of the internal market is a continual process best served by improving regulation across individual national markets, and whereas the most robust and sustainable way to achieve this (thereby ensuring that regulatory decisions are seen as having legitimacy within national markets) is through the ‘bottom-up’ approach currently represented by BEREC;

E.

whereas BEREC can only be effective if its independence from the Member States and the EU institutions is guaranteed;

F.

whereas national considerations may complicate the definition of common positions, making agreement more difficult;

G.

whereas BEREC plays a fundamental role in enhancing the consistent application of the EU regulatory framework in all Member States, which is essential for the successful development of an internal market in electronic communications networks and services;

H.

whereas recent initiatives taken at national level, particularly with regard to spending review processes, could affect the implementation of the independence principle;

I.

whereas national regulatory authorities (NRAs) are not homogeneous, given that they sometimes have very different powers within their home countries, some dealing only with market regulation while others also deal with aspects such as market regulation, net security, privacy, domain register, spectrum and user services;

J.

whereas it is possible that optimal use is not being made of the BEREC Office at present;

K.

whereas some of the Union agencies based in other countries also have a satellite office in Brussels;

L.

whereas most of the expert working group meetings were held in Brussels or hosted by an NRA, and whereas videoconferencing should be developed;

M.

whereas consumer benefit is one of the main goals of the internal market in electronic communications;

N.

whereas decisions taken by BEREC at European level should create European added value;

1.

Considers that the evaluation report is, overall, relevant and balanced;

2.

Considers that time is needed to fully develop the requisite cooperation, coordination and informal aspects of regulation;

3.

Considers that there is still room for improvement in the functioning of BEREC and the BEREC Office, while acknowledging the limited resources available; stresses, however, that the use of the new procedure under Article 7/7a of Directive 2009/140/EC on a common regulatory framework for electronic communications networks and services has worked effectively, justifying the two-tier set-up;

4.

Emphasises that BEREC is the smallest EU agency, with an EU budget contribution of only EUR 3 768 696 and 16 authorised posts under the EU budget in 2013, primarily providing administrative support for the BEREC structure, which is composed of national regulatory authorities;

5.

Recalls the opinion of the Committee on Budgets of 29 May 2008 on the proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council establishing the European Electronic Communications Market Authority (COM(2007)0699 — C6-0428/2007 — 2007/0249(COD)), by which the establishment of a new agency was rejected;

6.

Considers that NRAs play an important role within the regulatory system, as national markets have immutable differences related to network topology and also differ with respect to consumer demand patterns, demographics, etc.; stresses that in order to ensure structured cooperation within the EU, and thus a correctly functioning single market, it is essential to have independent, sector-specific and properly resourced regulators;

7.

Considers that BEREC plays a crucial role within the regulatory system as the entity tasked with aligning national factual and regulatory differences with a view to completing the internal market in electronic communications;

8.

Recommends that BEREC’s role, in particular its relationship with NRAs, be better defined, and strengthened by broadening its responsibilities so as to facilitate the definition of common positions with a view to enhancing the internal market approach, including by evaluating the efficiency of current cooperation with NRAs and the Commission under the Article 7/7a procedures;

9.

Considers that greater harmonisation of the tasks carried out by NRAs in the Member States, giving them competence for relevant aspects directly related to security and resilience in the internal market in electronic communications, could contribute to better functioning of BEREC and greater predictability for market actors;

10.

Calls on the Member States and the Commission to ensure that the independence of NRAs at national and European level is strengthened, not weakened, as this is the only way to ensure the overall independence of BEREC;

11.

Considers that the roles and structure of BEREC and the BEREC Office should be adapted according to the level of completion of the internal market in electronic communications;

12.

Calls on the Commission to guarantee BEREC’s independence from the EU institutions in future proposals relating to the scope and mission of BEREC;

13.

Considers that BEREC should act in the interests of the European public, and that the mechanisms for accountability to the European Parliament, as the only EU institution directly elected to represent the interests of the European public, should be strengthened;

14.

Recommends that BEREC strengthen its internal accountability by clearly defining its objectives in its annual work programme and presenting in its annual report its achievements and progress on the basis of those objectives;

15.

Deems it to be of the utmost importance for the coherence and consistency of BEREC's work to better prioritise its tasks and to foster communication with all interested stakeholders at the development stage of its annual work programme;

16.

Considers that BEREC should have more room to take strategic decisions, meaning, among other things, that BEREC should produce its own analysis and studies enabling it to take such decisions, so that the decision-making process is more top-down and independent;

17.

Emphasises that BEREC’s advisory role upstream of legislative proposals affecting the electronic communications sector should be made methodical;

18.

Considers that BEREC's external communication should be clarified and improved in order to encourage stakeholder involvement at all levels of policymaking;

19.

Recommends formalising the role of the Independent Regulators Group (IRG) in Brussels, while ensuring that it does not duplicate the tasks entrusted to the BEREC Office;

20.

Recommends that greater use be made of teleworking, videoconferencing and other remote working techniques enabled by electronic communications, in order to cut costs and reduce the carbon footprint;

21.

Recommends that the Commission and the Member States ensure that adequate financing is made available for BEREC and for the NRAs;

22.

Considers that the location of the BEREC Office is not a barrier to monitoring the EU institutions’ day-to-day work on electronic communications, which is a matter of special interest to BEREC, and that it will not hamper the efficient use of the BEREC Office, provided that greater use is made of electronic communications strategies;

23.

Considers that the mission of the BEREC Office should be revised, reinforced and defined more precisely, taking particular account of the outcome of the BEREC audit on this matter;

24.

Recommends that the necessary changes be made, and the necessary resources considered, to enable the BEREC Office to support BEREC’s substantive work more effectively and efficiently, rather than simply providing administrative support;

25.

Considers that any discussions on the location of the BEREC Office should be conducted with a view to reinforcing its independence from the EU institutions and the Member States and with due regard to the principle of equal geographical distribution of the seats of the EU’s institutions, agencies and other entities;

26.

Considers that greater consolidation is needed to enable operators to exploit economies of scale more fully, and that BEREC should have a prominent role to play in that process;

27.

Considers that a clear and stable legislative framework is needed for a better internal market that will result in increased competition and improved services for consumers;

28.

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

15.12.2016   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 468/33

—

having regard to the proposal for a Council Regulation on defining criteria determining when recovered paper ceases to be waste pursuant to Article 6(1) of Directive 2008/98/EC on waste (COM(2013)0502),

—

having regard to the JRC scientific and technical report entitled ‘End-of-waste criteria for waste paper: technical proposals’, published in March 2011,

—

having regard to Directive 2008/98/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council on waste and repealing certain Directives (1), and in particular Article 6(1) thereof,

—

having regard to Regulation (EC) No 1013/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council on shipments of waste (2), and in particular Article 49 thereof,

—

having regard to Commission Decision 2011/753/EU establishing rules and calculation methods for verifying compliance with the targets set in Article 11(2) of Directive 2008/98/EC (3), and in particular Article 2(2) thereof,

—

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

—

having regard to the opinion delivered on 9 July 2012 by the committee referred to in Article 39 of Directive 2008/98/EC,

—

having regard to Article 5a(4)(e) of Council Decision 1999/468/EC of 28 June 1999 laying down the procedures for the exercise of implementing powers conferred on the Commission (4),

—

having regard to Rule 88(2), (3) and (4)(c) of its Rules of Procedure,

A.

whereas defining end-of-waste criteria in accordance with Directive 2008/98/EC can be an important instrument to promote recycling and a market for secondary raw materials, and can thereby improve resource efficiency;

B.

whereas the proposed Council regulation stipulates that waste paper with a non-paper component equal to or less than 1,5 % of air dry weight shall cease to be waste when it is destined for the use of paper fibres for paper manufacturing, subject to certain additional criteria;

C.

whereas multi-material paper with a non-paper content of more than 30 % of air dry weight shall count in its totality as non-paper component; whereas a typical multi-material paper container contains just 30 % or less of non-paper components (24 % of polyethylene, 6 % of aluminium) and would thus not count as a non-paper component; whereas, as a result, a waste paper stream could contain any amount of multi-material paper containers (with their high content of non-paper components as well as non-negligible residual content of liquids, food and other organic material attached thereto) and would be seen no longer as waste but as a product;

D.

whereas, under Article 3(17) of Directive 2008/98/EC, ‘recycling’ is defined as ‘any recovery operation by which waste materials are reprocessed into products, materials or substances whether for the original or other purposes’;

E.

whereas the draft regulation defines the end-of-waste point as the point when the recovered paper is destined for the use of paper fibres for paper manufacturing, thus placing it before the actual reprocessing in the paper mill; whereas this conflicts with the existing definition of ‘recycling’, which requires reprocessing of waste materials;

F.

whereas such waste material obtained after collection and sorting has only been pre-processed (not reprocessed) and cannot be used without further reprocessing;

G.

whereas defining end-of-waste before recycling has actually taken place would cause problems in relation to a vast body of existing Community legislation such as that relating to eco-labels, public procurement, eco-design and REACH in which, hitherto, ‘recycling’ has been referred to as resulting in a ready-to-be-used recycled product and, furthermore, contradicts Article 2(2) of Commission Decision 2011/753/EU, in which ‘pre-processing’ is clearly differentiated from ‘final recycling’;

H.

whereas, pursuant to Article 6(1) of Directive 2008/98/EC, certain specified waste shall cease to be waste when it has undergone a recovery operation (including recycling) and complies with specific criteria to be developed in accordance with the conditions laid down in that article; whereas those conditions include: a) that the substance or object complies with the existing legislation and standards applicable to products (Article 6(1c)); and b): that the use of the substance or object will not lead to overall adverse environmental or human health impacts (Article 6(1d));

I.

whereas the threshold for the non-paper component of 1,5 % is based on the European standard EN 643; whereas according to the JRC study this standard ‘is a central element in waste paper trade’ and ‘specifies a list of European standard grades of waste’; whereas reliance on this standard for setting end-of-waste criteria clearly violates Article 6(1)(c) of Directive 2008/98/EC, which explicitly refers to ‘standards applicable to products’, and not to standards applicable to waste;

J.

whereas relevant paper product standards such as ISO 1762 for inorganic impurities, ISO 5350/1 and 5350/2 for visible dirt and ISO 624 for extractives (low molecular weight carbohydrates) require a purity level of 1 ppm — 15 000 times lower than the level proposed;

K.

whereas the inclusion of multi-material paper goes against the explicit recommendation in the JRC study, which excluded layered waste paper from the scope of end-of-waste criteria on the grounds of the additional intrinsic environmental risk arising from it should the material be exported, especially outside the EU;

L.

whereas, as is stated in Article 49(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1013/2006, in the case of exports outside the EU the competent authority of dispatch in the Union shall require and endeavour to secure that any waste exported is managed in an environmentally sound manner in the third country of destination, inter alia by being able to demonstrate that the facility which receives the waste will be operated in accordance with human health and environmental protection standards that are broadly equivalent to those established in the EU legislation;

M.

whereas if used paper, including multi-material waste paper, is granted end-of-waste status before it has even been properly recycled, then such material can be traded freely on global markets and the safeguards of the Waste Shipment Regulation with regard to environmentally sound management will no longer apply; whereas exempting waste streams with a high degree of non-paper materials — which moreover could go well beyond the 1,5 % threshold owing to the discounting of current multi-material paper — from the requirements of the Waste Shipment Regulation clearly risks violating Article 6(1d) of Directive 2008/98/EC, which states that use of the substance shall not lead to overall adverse environmental impacts;

N.

whereas the proposed management system to demonstrate compliance with the criteria referred to in Article 3 of the draft Council Regulation, and in particular the provision that the non-paper materials in consignments of multi-material paper are destined for recovery, is likely to be nearly impossible to implement for a waste that has ceased to be waste and is thus freely traded, possibly changing hands many times, and in any case no longer requires environmentally sound treatment of the material concerned;

O.

whereas stimulating increased global trade in such alleged ‘end-of-waste’ paper by circumventing the environmental and health protection safeguards would not only have an additional negative environmental impact during transport, but could also lead to a decrease in the European paper recycling rate due to reduced availability of waste paper, so that paper manufacturers might have to substitute it at least partially with more virgin fibre-based production in Europe, with higher energy input and related CO2 emissions, which would again conflict with the criterion of avoiding overall adverse environmental impacts;

P.

whereas the Commission communication on a ‘resource-efficient Europe’ includes a strategy to make the EU a ‘circular economy’, based on a recycling society with the aim of reducing waste generation and using waste as a resource; whereas further improvement of recycling rates in the EU risks being seriously undermined by the proposed ‘end-of-waste’ criteria, and the current proposal would thus not comply with Article 6(1d) of Directive 2008/98/EC;

1.

Opposes adoption of the Council regulation on defining criteria determining when recovered paper ceases to be waste pursuant to Article 6(1) of Directive 2008/98/EC on waste;

2.

Considers that the draft Council regulation is not compatible with the aim and content of the basic act;

3.

Considers that the draft Council regulation exceeds the implementing powers conferred on the Commission under the basic act;

4.

Considers that the Commission has not properly assessed the impacts of the draft regulation on paper recycling, on the waste paper value chain, on shipments of waste paper and on the overall effects of the draft regulation on the environment; encourages the Commission to reconsider the draft Regulation and improve the proposed end-of-waste criteria in light of the objections raised in this resolution;

5.

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

15.12.2016   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 468/36

—

having regard to the Charter of Fundamental Rights, in particular Articles 1, 14, 15, 21, 23, 24, 25, 34 and 35,

—

having regard to international human rights law, notably the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination; the 1992 UN Declaration on the Rights of Persons Belonging to National or Ethnic, Religious and Linguistic Minorities; the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women; and the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child,

—

having regard to European conventions protecting human rights and fundamental freedoms, notably the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (ECHR); the European Social Charter and the related recommendations of the European Committee of Social Rights; the Framework Convention for the Protection of National Minorities of the Council of Europe; and the Council of Europe Convention on preventing and combating violence against women and domestic violence,

—

having regard to Articles 2, 3 and 6 of the Treaty on European Union and Articles 8, 9 and 10 of the Treaty of the Functioning of the European Union,

—

having regard to the Commission Communication on an EU Framework for National Roma Integration Strategies up to 2020 (COM(2011)0173) and the European Council Conclusions of 24 June 2011,

—

having regard to the Commission Communication on National Roma Integration Strategies: a first step in the implementation of the EU Framework (COM(2012)0226),

—

having regard to the Proposal for a Council Recommendation on effective Roma integration measures in the Member States (COM(2013)0460),

—

having regard to the Commission Communication on steps forward in implementing national Roma integration strategies (COM(2013)0454),

—

having regard to Council Directive 2000/43/EC (1) of 29 June 2000 implementing the principle of equal treatment between persons irrespective of racial or ethnic origin,

—

having regard to Council Directive 2000/78/EC (2) of 27 November 2000 Establishing a General Framework for Equal Treatment in Employment and Occupation,

—

having regard to the Commission's proposal for a Council Directive on implementing the principle of equal treatment between persons irrespective of religion or belief, disability, age or sexual orientation (COM(2008)0426),

—

having regard to its resolution of 1 June 2006 on the situation of Roma women in the EU (3),

—

having regard to its resolution of 9 March 2011 on the EU strategy on Roma inclusion (4),

—

having regard to the EU Fundamental Rights Agency (FRA) Analysis of Roma survey results by gender, provided by the FRA following a request made under Rule 126,

—

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 Employment and Social Affairs (A7-0349/2013),

A.

whereas the Strategy for Equality between women and men 2010-2015 requires the Commission to ‘support the promotion of gender equality in the implementation of all aspects of the Europe 2020 Strategy’ and whereas the Council conclusions on an EU Framework for National Roma Integration Strategies (NRIS) demand ‘a gender perspective to be applied in all policies and actions for advancing Roma inclusion’;

B.

whereas Roma women often face multiple and intersectional discrimination on the grounds of gender and ethnic origin — which is more intense than that against Roma men or non-Roma women — and have limited access to employment, education, health, social services and decision-making; whereas Roma women are often victims of racism, prejudice and stereotypes that have a negative impact on their real integration;

C.

whereas Roma women are subject to patriarchal and sexist traditions that prevent them from exercising their freedom of choice in fundamental issues of their lives such as education, work, sexual and reproductive health and even marriage; whereas discrimination against Roma women cannot be justified by tradition, but must be addressed while respecting tradition and diversity;

D.

whereas the risk of poverty for Roma women exceeds that of Roma men and whereas Roma families with four or more children are at greatest risk of poverty in the EU;

E.

whereas commonly used indicators tend to neglect problems such as in-work poverty, energy poverty, violence against women and girls, the poverty of large families and single parents, child poverty, and the social exclusion of women;

F.

whereas older Roma women are exposed to a higher risk of poverty due to the majority of them having worked in the informal economy without remuneration or social security affiliation;

G.

whereas the overwhelming majority of Roma adults classified as ‘inactive’ are women and — partly due to the traditional labour division between women and men and due to racism and sexism existing within European labour markets — the number of active-aged Roma women in paid employment is only about half that of Roma men, with the figures being similar in terms of self-employment;

H.

whereas data from all countries show that Roma women face severe exclusion in the field of employment as well as discrimination in the workplace when looking for employment and when in work; whereas Roma women also remain excluded from the formal economy and are hampered by limited education opportunities, inadequate housing, poor healthcare, traditional gender roles and general marginalisation as well as discrimination from majority communities; whereas the national reports for implementing the EU Framework for NRIS still do not focus adequately on the aspect of gender equality;

I.

whereas it is significantly harder for mothers of large families or single mothers to work further away from their homes and families in disadvantaged rural areas;

J.

whereas the literacy rate and educational performance of Roma women fall significantly short of both that of Roma men and non-Roma women, and whereas the majority of Roma girls are early school leavers and a significant proportion of them has never attended school;

K.

whereas the economic crisis has had a negative impact on the health and wellbeing of Roma women, aggravating their long unacceptable situation, with more than a quarter of all Roma women being limited in their daily activities by health problems;

L.

whereas the lack of respect for comprehensive sexual and reproductive rights, including access to contraception, is an obstacle to Roma women’s empowerment and gender equality and leads to unplanned pregnancies, including teenage pregnancies, which disrupts the education and job opportunities of girls; whereas early motherhood is largely a consequence of the lack of appropriate access to social services and inadequate health structures which have not addressed the needs of Roma women;

M.

whereas due to their low socio-economic status and the discrimination they perceive in health care, Roma women are unaware of most of their rights and resort to medical services much less than the majority of the population;

N.

whereas Roma women and girls are disproportionately affected by several diseases — including HIV/AIDS — but prevention programmes for them are commonly under-prioritised and under-financed, and the accessibility of screenings remains low;

O.

whereas extreme poverty, gender inequality and internal discrimination expose Roma women to a higher risk of trafficking, prostitution, domestic violence and exploitation, while facing additional obstacles in accessing protection;

P.

whereas a large number of Roma women have been victims of domestic violence at the hands of their husbands, in-laws and other family members; whereas the great majority of violence and human rights abuses against Roma women goes unreported due to the fact that violence against women is still accepted in patriarchal societies as a legal exercise of power but also due to the fact that perpetrators of violence against women are rarely held accountable for their acts, which discourages women from seeking legal help;

Q.

whereas acts of violence against Roma women are frequently committed by authorities in all EU Member States in the form of deep discrimination and clear breaches of the European Convention on Human Rights which can take different forms, such as collecting and storing data in registries on Roma people and children solely on the basis of ethnic background, or the eviction of hundreds of people without offering any adequate alternative housing or support, which are shameful and callous acts that completely ignore Member States’ international human rights obligations;

R.

whereas all EU Institutions and Member States bear a responsibility to eradicate violence against women and girls and, likewise, to end impunity, bringing perpetrators of hate crime, hate speech, discrimination and violence against Roma women and girls to justice;

S.

whereas Council Directive 2000/43/EC prohibits discrimination on grounds of race and ethnic origin; whereas about 30 infringement proceedings have been opened by the Commission against Member States for not adequately transposing the Race Equality Directive into national legislation;

1.

Stresses that NRIS must focus on empowering Roma women to take control of their own lives by becoming visible agents of change within their communities and by raising their voices to influence policies and programmes affecting them, as well as on reinforcing Roma women’s socio-economic resilience, i.e. their ability to adapt to the rapidly changing economic environment, through effectuating savings and preventing the running-down of assets;

2.

Welcomes the Commission’s 2012 progress report (5) and the proposal for a Council recommendation of 26 June 2013 on effective Roma integration measures in the Member States (6), with a special focus on access to employment, housing, education, and healthcare, which calls on Member States to introduce positive actions and to mainstream Roma integration strategies in their fight against poverty and social exclusion;

3.

Calls on those Member States which have received, in addition, country-specific recommendations under the European Semester on Roma-related issues, to implement these recommendations swiftly and to fight discrimination, including at the workplace, to involve civil society — including Roma organisations — in decision-making, and to allocate not only EU but also national and other funds in order to deliver on the commitments of their national Roma integration strategies (NRIS);

4.

Regrets that despite the adoption of its resolution on the situation of Roma women in 2006 and the 10 Common Basic Principles on Roma Inclusion by the Council, in which one of the principles relates to gender awareness, the vulnerable situation of Roma and Traveller women has, in practice, remained unaddressed by European and national policy makers;

5.

Stresses that the efficiency of the EU Framework for NRIS could be significantly increased by enhanced involvement of the Commission, based on its potential to improve the quality of regulations and other instruments, encourage greater policy coherence and promote the overarching goals of the Framework;

6.

Calls on Member States to develop National Action Plans in the four key priority areas: health, housing, employment, and education, with specific goals and targets, funding, indicators and timeframes; evaluate progress by measuring implementation outcomes;

7.

Calls on Member State governments and local authorities to involve Roma women, through women’s organisations, Roma NGOs and relevant stakeholders, in the preparation, implementation, evaluation and monitoring of the NRIS and to create links between gender equality bodies, women’s rights organisations and social inclusion strategies; further calls on the Commission to address gender equality in a consistent manner when implementing the EU 2020 Strategy and national reform programmes;

8.

Calls on the Commission to present a ‘flowchart’ of the EU Roma inclusion process, covering achievements, objectives, the specific measures used to attain these objectives, the state of play as regards implementation measures and the next steps;

9.

Calls on the Member States to combat the spatial segregation, forced evictions and homelessness faced by Roma men and women, and to set up effective and transparent housing policies;

10.

Calls on the Commission and Member States to ensure that the fundamental rights of Roma women and children are respected, and that — also by means of awareness-raising campaigns — Roma women and girls are aware of their rights under existing national legislation on gender equality and discrimination, and to further combat patriarchal and sexist traditions;

11.

Calls on the Commission to specify the institutional division of tasks and responsibilities among involved organisations, forums and bodies, and to clearly define the role of these stakeholders — such as the EC Roma Task Force, the Network of National Contact Points, the European Roma Platform, the EU Agency for Fundamental Rights and its ad-hoc working group on Roma inclusion — in the supervision, control and coordination of the EU Framework for NRIS;

12.

Calls on the Commission to support NRIS by seeking common, comparable and reliable indicators and by developing a Dashboard of EU Roma inclusion indicators in order to present clear and unambiguous data against which progress can be measured as well as to meet the requirement of effective monitoring;

13.

Calls on Member States to ensure that austerity measures do not impact disproportionately on Roma and Traveller women and that budget decisions are underpinned by human rights principles;

14.

Calls on the Commission to urge Member States to present outcome indicators, baselines and numerical headline targets in their national strategies for the main priority areas, against which progress can be measured;

15.

Calls on the Commission and Member States to ensure that disaggregated data for gender and ethnicity are collected by all administrations and used to inform policy development; points out that collection of data must be carried out in line with the relevant human rights principles;

16.

Calls on Member States to match their national policy commitments by allocating proper financial resources for the implementation of NRIS, and to reflect their inclusion strategies in the national budgetary policies;

17.

Calls on the Commission and Member States to establish a proper framework for consultation, peer learning and the sharing of experience among policy-makers and Roma organisations and to launch structured dialogue to include Roma organisations and NGOs in the planning, implementation, monitoring and evaluation of European, national and local Roma inclusion strategies;

18.

Calls on Member States to ensure equality in civil rights and equal access to healthcare services, education, employment and accommodation while respecting human rights, the principle of non-discrimination and being compatible with nomadism where relevant;

19.

Calls on the Commission and Member States to include the Integrated Territorial Investment and Community-led Local Development instruments in their partnership contracts, to mobilise them for underdeveloped micro-regions and deprived territories, and to include Community-led Local Development in the set of operational programmes to be developed;

20.

Calls on the Commission and Member States to ensure the adoption and implementation of specific and comprehensive anti-discrimination legislation in line with international and European standards in all Member States, ensuring that anti-discrimination bodies are equipped to promote equal treatment and have complaint mechanisms which are accessible to Roma women and girls;

21.

Calls on Member States to place greater emphasis on the territorial aspects of social inclusion in their national strategies, and to target the most deprived micro-regions by means of complex, integrated development programmes;

22.

Calls on Member States to also focus on the urban dimension of cohesion policy, giving special consideration to cities that are disproportionately affected by social imbalances such as unemployment, social exclusion and polarisation and assist them in developing their infrastructure in order to exploit their potential contribution to economic growth and strengthen the links between urban and rural areas with a view to promoting inclusive development;

23.

Calls on Member States to strengthen gender mainstreaming when implementing their NRIS, by applying a gender equality perspective to all policies and practices affecting Roma women and to link their implementation to existing gender equality strategies, in particular by eliminating the gender pay and pension gaps within Roma communities and by making the eradication of violence against women and girls explicit objectives and taking real action to this end;

24.

Calls on the Council, the Commission and Member States to ensure that specific measures relating to women's rights and gender mainstreaming are included in the NRIS, that they take account of the gender perspective and the situation of multiple and intersectional discrimination faced by Roma women, especially as regards employment, health, housing and education, and that the assessment and annual monitoring conducted by the Commission and, in particular, the Fundamental Rights Agency, take account of women's rights and the gender equality perspective in each section of the NRIS; requests that these findings be presented to the European Parliament;

25.

Calls on the Commission and on Member States to ensure that the NRIS reflect Roma women’s specific rights and needs and to develop concrete indicators for their implementation, follow-up and monitoring based on, for example, the United Nations Development Programme’s Gender-related Development Index (GDI) which looks at aspects such as long and healthy life, knowledge and decent standard of living and the Gender Empowerment Measure (GEM) which includes political participation and decision-making, economic participation and decision-making and power over economic resources; calls on the Commission and on Member States to use gender budgeting as one of the tools to mainstream gender;

26.

Calls on Member States to develop a national monitoring and evaluation framework for the NRIS that covers aspects such as budget monitoring and other forms of civil society monitoring (carried out by national NGOs, NGO networks or umbrella organisations), expert assessment (carried out by independent experts with proven expertise in the field), and administrative monitoring;

27.

Calls on the Commission and Member States to conduct gender impact assessments when designing the specific measures of their NRIS;

28.

Calls on the Commission to introduce more effective instruments for measuring the actual socio-economic situation of Roma women, by incorporating the quantification of the ‘economics of life’ and recognition of the informal economy into its ‘beyond GDP’ project, for example; calls on the Commission, furthermore, to develop and monitor gender-specific indicators for the NRIS and social inclusion policies;

29.

Invites NGOs operating in the field in Member States to draw up personalised action plans which aim to help women and young people to find employment, to provide psychological counselling to encourage Roma people to participate in education and vocational training and to identify their personal skills and abilities to improve social inclusion in the labour market; to mediate between providers of training/retraining and employers on the one hand, and Roma women/Roma population on the other hand; to boost education uptake by Roma women and girls by granting subsidies and scholarships, while respecting the principle of equal opportunities, taking account of the fact that girls marry at a younger age than boys;

30.

Calls on Member States to use their measures to explicitly target Roma women in extreme socio-economic deprivation and to focus simultaneously on at-risk groups by preventing and tackling impoverishment;

31.

Calls on Member States to increase the number and visibility of Roma and Traveller programmes and beneficiaries, including specific support to Traveller and Roma organisations working to promote women’s empowerment and NGO access to structural funds;

32.

Calls on the Commission and on the Member States to develop financial mechanisms for supporting civil society and community monitoring of social inclusion policy, initiatives and projects regarding Roma and Traveller women;

33.

Calls on the Commission and Member States to introduce a child poverty reduction target into the EU Roma inclusion process, to mainstream children’s rights in social inclusion measures, to monitor progress from the perspective of child poverty, and to identify and develop priority actions in the field;

34.

Underlines that preventing marginalisation must begin in infancy; considers it essential to adopt an approach which targets different generations of women in order to put an end to the intergenerational transmission of poverty;

35.

Calls on Member States to include in their NRIS tailored programmes the active inclusion of Roma women in the labour market by guaranteeing access to high quality education programmes for Roma women and girls and by making life-long learning available so that marketable skills can be acquired; calls on Member States to include capacity building and the empowerment of Roma women as a horizontal objective in all priority areas of the NRIS and to promote political participation policy by supporting the active participation of Roma women at local, national, and European level;

36.

Calls on Member States to establish positive action measures to facilitate access to jobs in public administration for Roma women and men;

37.

Calls on Member States to develop specific measures targeting large families (with four or more children) and single parent households that facilitate entry to the labour market by considering tailored welfare arrangements, extending childcare facilities and ensuring that Roma children are integrated into local schools and childcare facilities and have full and equal access to compulsory education, thereby counteracting social exclusion and ghettoisation;

38.

Calls on Member States to ensure equal access to quality and affordable childcare and early childhood education, childhood development services and parent partnership education for Roma children, to reintroduce the Barcelona targets for childcare and to develop accessible, affordable and high quality care services for the whole life cycle;

39.

Calls on Member States to take all necessary measures to prevent the dismissal of employees during pregnancy or motherhood, and to consider recognising the raising of children as a period counting towards pension entitlements;

40.

Calls on Member States to examine the obstacles to self-employment faced by Roma women, to enable accessible, fast and inexpensive registration by Roma women entrepreneurs and to develop micro-loan schemes targeting small business start-ups and entrepreneurs with simple, entrepreneur-friendly administrative procedures, including technical assistance and back-up measures and special licences for recognising a range of seasonal and temporary jobs as ‘paid work’ which contributes to social security payments; further calls on Member States and local authorities to mobilise the European microfinance facility for employment and social inclusion;

41.

Calls on Member States to develop targeted and integration-oriented measures in the field of unemployment support, (retraining, job creation and placement with wage support, social security support, tax allowances, etc.) instead of the current, almost exclusive focus on public work programmes;

42.

Calls for support and promotion of the integration of the Roma population into the labour market; observes that, in order to differentiate labour administration services and measures and to develop guidance processes, support staff and case managers with a Roma background are needed;

43.

Calls on the Commission and the Member States to create a specific education mentoring and support system through community-based education and social services from early childhood to university for Roma youth, paying particular attention to gender issues;

44.

Calls on the Member States to make full use of the opportunities offered by the Structural Funds, in particular the European Social Fund (ESF), to improve both the education and the employment prospects for the Roma to give them a real chance of social inclusion and escape persistently high rates of poverty; urges the Member States to monitor progress on a regular basis, in particular with respect to the education and training of young Roma, especially women;

45.

Invites Member States to combat stereotypes, in order to prevent the anathematisation of this ethnic group which discourages employers from employing Roma people and which leads to discrimination within public administration and schools and has a negative impact on relations with the authorities and job seeking;

46.

Reiterates the fact that Roma education gaps have an important gender dimension, since the literacy rate of Roma women averages 68 %, compared to 81 % for Roma men, and the primary school enrolment rate among Roma girls is just 64 %, a gap which is also seen in enrolment rates for vocational qualifications; observes, however, that there are major differences between Member States in these statistics;

47.

Calls on the Member States to develop specific programmes to ensure that Roma girls and young women stay in primary, secondary, and higher education, and also to put in place special measures for teenage mothers and early school leaver girls, to support uninterrupted education in particular, subsidising their entry onto the labour market, and providing work-based training; further calls on Member States and the Commission to take these measures into account when coordinating and evaluating the NRIS;

48.

Calls on the Member States to develop anti-discrimination strategies in order to prevent and condemn racist behaviour in public services and within the labour market in particular, ensuring that Roma women and men's rights in the labour market are firmly upheld;

49.

Calls on the Commission and on the Member States to invest resources into attracting ‘non-traditional learners’ to continue their education and to support NGOs and programmes whose goal is to boost the inclusion of non-traditional learners in education and adult learning programmes;

50.

Calls on Member States to promote networks of Roma students, to encourage solidarity between them, to increase the visibility of successful cases and to overcome the isolation of Roma students;

51.

Calls on Member States to encourage the participation of Roma families in schools, to assess the schools in which Roma children and young people study, and to make all necessary changes to ensure the educational integration and achievement of all; points out that specific measures should target Roma girls, based on successful cases which have been validated by the academic community;

52.

Requests the Commission and Member States to allocate funds for building schools, kindergartens and nurseries with more places so that the Roma children can participate in classes with other, non-Roma, children without being discriminated against and left outside the education system or rejected by teachers on account of their ethnic origin;

53.

Calls on the Commission and Member States to introduce systematic training programmes on gender sensitivity and cultural specificities for social services and healthcare providers;

54.

Emphasises that the education of Roma girls helps to improve the lives of Roma people in many ways as it is, among other things, a crucial condition for increasing the employability of Roma women, facilitating their access to the labour market and providing some income security, as well as being essential to overcome poverty and social exclusion; observes, furthermore, that increasing teachers’ knowledge of Roma culture helps to reduce exclusion; calls, therefore, on the Member States to combat segregation, to ensure more inclusive and accessible education and culturally sensitive teaching methods involving school assistants with a Roma background and parents, while viewing the improvement of professional skills to match the demands of the labour market as a priority;

55.

Calls on the Commission and Member States to identify Roma women as an explicit target group of their health initiatives, especially with respect to diseases that are strongly linked to the female hormonal system and/or poverty, such as osteoporosis, musculoskeletal problems and central nervous system illnesses; urges, furthermore, to make breast and cervical cancer screening and prevention — including vaccines against human papillomaviruses — fully accessible and to aim at initiating healthcare for pregnant women already in their first trimester of pregnancy;

56.

Calls on Member States to ensure access to health, notably through the participation of Roma women’s NGOs in the design, implementation, and evaluation of healthcare programmes and to ensure that Roma women and girls can make their own choices about their sexuality, health, and maternity by promoting family planning, access to the full range of sexual and reproductive health care services and sexual education, and protecting children and adolescents from sexual abuse and early marriages, preventing infant and maternal mortality and the phenomenon of forced sterilisation;

57.

Calls on Member States to facilitate and promote the gender balanced participation of Roma communities in the design, implementation, monitoring and evaluation of disease prevention, treatment, care and support programming, as well as in reducing stigmatisation and discrimination in the healthcare system;

58.

Calls on Member States and local and regional authorities to develop and implement policies to guarantee that all Roma women, even those from the most excluded communities, have access to primary, emergency and preventive healthcare services and to organise training activities for healthcare workers in an effort to eliminate prejudice against Roma;

59.

Calls on Member States to investigate, ban and prosecute direct and indirect discrimination against Roma women in exercising their fundamental rights and in accessing public services, and to prevent any further discrimination; stresses the importance of conducting awareness-raising campaigns to combat discrimination and eliminate racist stereotypes of Roma, and Roma women in particular;

60.

Calls on the Commission and the Member States to include Roma and particularly Roma women as a specific target group in the operational programmes and the rural areas development programmes for the next programming period;

61.

Calls on the Commission to publish an evaluation report on the implementation of Council Directive 2000/43/EC in each Member State; likewise calls on the Commission to draw up specific recommendations for each Member State in order to include also the gender dimension within the directive;

62.

Calls upon the Council to reach an agreement on the Equal Treatment Directive on implementing the principle of equal treatment between persons, irrespective of religion or belief, disability, age or sexual orientation, so as to ensure that all the grounds of discrimination and multiple discrimination are made illegal in all spheres of life; likewise calls on all EU institutions to ensure that intersectional discrimination is included in this directive;

63.

Calls on Member States to address all forms of violence against women, such as domestic violence, sexual exploitation and human trafficking, with special regard to Roma women, and to support victims by including specific objectives to tackle the trafficking of Roma women in the NRIS, ensuring proper resources for related public services and providing assistance also through mainstream services, such as health, employment and education; furthermore urges the Commission to support governmental and civil society initiatives to address these problems, while guaranteeing the fundamental rights of victims;

64.

Calls on Member States to work with Roma women to set up empowerment strategies that recognise their intersectional identity and promote activities that counteract gender stereotypes, targeting women, men, girls and boys;

65.

Points out that arranged marriage, child marriage and forced marriage are still prevalent as ‘traditional practices’, underlines that these practices are human rights violations which not only have a significant impact on the health of Roma girls, increasing the risk of complications during pregnancy and delivery, but which also expose girls to sexual abuse and exploitation, as well as precluding educational and employment opportunities;

66.

Calls on Member States to ratify and implement the Council of Europe Convention on Action against Trafficking in Human Beings and to fully transpose the provisions of Directive 2011/36/EU on preventing and combating trafficking in human beings and protecting its victims (7), in particular by strengthening identification, protection and assistance to victims, with special emphasis on children;

67.

Requests European solutions from the Member States and the Commission for Roma people’s problems, taking into consideration their right of free movement as European citizens, and the need for collaboration between Member States to resolve the issues faced by this ethnic group;

68.

Calls on the Commission and Member States to encourage the exchange of information and best practices on the integration of Roma women in all areas of society;

69.

Recommends that the Member States take the necessary steps to stop the practice of young Roma women being given away in arranged marriages, which constitute a moral affront to their dignity;

70.

Calls on Member States to urgently address the needs of older Roma women as they are one of the most vulnerable groups and lack adequate income and require access to healthcare and long-term care as they age;

71.

Urges the Commission to launch a comprehensive strategy to combat violence against women as requested by Parliament in several resolutions; calls upon the Commission to deliver legal instruments, including a European directive to combat gender-based violence;

72.

Calls for the Roma language and culture to be developed and promoted, for administrative structures concerned with Roma affairs to be developed, for Roma policy and its implementation to be reinforced, and for participation in international cooperation on Roma issues to be increased;

73.

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

15.12.2016   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 468/45

—

having regard to its resolution of 13 June 2012 on the situation in Sudan and South Sudan (1),

—

having regard to its resolution of 5 July 2011 on the future of EU budget support to developing countries (2),

—

having regard to its resolution of 25 October 2011 on the 4th High Level Forum on Aid Effectiveness (3),

—

having regard to its resolution of 18 December 2008 on development perspectives for peace-building and nation building in post-conflict situations (4),

—

having regard to the fact-finding mission of its Committee on Development to South Sudan in July 2011,

—

having regard to the final report of the European Union Election Observation Mission on the Southern Sudan Referendum 9-15 January 2011 (5),

—

having regard to the Partnership Agreement between the Members of the African, Caribbean and Pacific Group of States (ACP), and the European Union and its Member States, signed in Cotonou on 23 June 2000 (6), first amended in Luxembourg on 25 June 2005 (7) and again amended in Ouagadougou on 22 June 2010 (8),

—

having regard to the declaration by the Co-Presidents of the ACP-EU Joint Parliamentary Assembly on the situation in Sudan and South Sudan, issued in Horsens (Denmark) in May 2012 (9),

—

having regard to the declaration by the EU and its Member States on the Republic of South Sudan’s independence of 9 July 2011 (10),

—

having regard to the Council conclusions of 22 July 2013 on Sudan and South Sudan (11),

—

having regard to the statement of 5 July 2012 by Commissioner Georgieva on Sudan and South Sudan (12),

—

having regard to the Directorate-General for Humanitarian Aid’s humanitarian implementation plan (HIP) for Sudan and South Sudan for 2013 and the modification thereof (13),

—

having regard to the statements by the Spokesperson for High Representative Catherine Ashton of 18 June 2013 on the deadly attack on a United Nations Interim Security Force for Abyei (UNISFA) peacekeeper in Southern Kordofan (14); of 1 May 2013 on the conflict in Sudan’s Southern Kordofan and Blue Nile states (15); and of 8 January 2013 on the recent closure of civil society organisations in Sudan (16),

—

having regard to the statement issued locally by the EU Delegation on 25 July 2013, following the dismissal by the President of the entire Government of the Republic of South Sudan (17),

—

having regard to the Dili Declaration: A new vision for peace-building and state-building of 10 April 2010 (18),

—

having regard to the Deal for Engagement in Fragile States presented at the Fourth High Level Forum on Aid Effectiveness in Busan in December 2011 (19),

—

having regard to the OECD’s 2011 Report on International Engagement in Fragile States — Republic of South Sudan (20),

—

having regard to the World Development Report 2011: Conflict, Security, and Development (21),

—

having regard to the Report of the African Union High-Level Implementation Panel on Sudan and South Sudan (AUHP) published on 31 July 2013 (22),

—

having regard to the statement of 8 March 2013 by the Spokesperson for the UN Secretary-General on the establishment of the Safe Demilitarized Border Zone between Sudan and South Sudan and the activation of the Joint Border Verification and Monitoring Mechanism (23),

—

having regard to the resolution adopted by the UN Human Rights Council on technical assistance and capacity-building for South Sudan in the field of human rights’ on 27 June 2013 (A/HRC/21/L.7/Rev.1),

—

having regard to the Framework Agreement on the Political and Security Arrangements in the Blue Nile and Kordofan States signed on 28 June 2011 (24),

—

having regard to the conclusions of reports of the High Commissioner for Human Rights presented to the Human Rights Council at its 21st and 23rd sessions (25),

—

having regard to the agreements concluded in Addis Ababa between the Republic of the Sudan and the Republic of South Sudan on 27 September 2012 (26),

—

having regard to Amnesty International’s 2013 report on the human rights situation in South Sudan (27),

—

having regard to the Human Rights Watch report ‘This old man can feed us, you will marry him’ (28),

—

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

—

having regard to Rule 48 of its Rules of Procedure,

—

having regard to the report of the Committee on Development and the opinions of the Committee on Foreign Affairs and the Committee on Women’s Rights and Gender Equality (A7-0380/2013),

A.

whereas UN Security Council Resolution 1996 (2011) welcomed the establishment of the Republic of South Sudan on 9 July 2011 and whereas the United Nations General Assembly voted on 14 July 2011 to admit South Sudan as a member state (A/RES/65/308);

B.

whereas the belt of insecurity, under-development and poor governance across the Sahel to the Horn of Africa can only be addressed through a comprehensive approach;

C.

whereas the newly created South Sudan is also one of the poorest countries in the world, with 50 % of the population living below the poverty line; whereas, having emerged from a war and being situated in an unstable region, it is in danger of failing if the international community and local actors fail to cooperate in developing a joint strategy to turn it into a democratic and inclusive state;

D.

whereas certain measures have been taken in the context of the Security Sector Reform (SSR), such as the establishment of the South Sudanese National Police Service (SSNPS), the National Security and Disarmament Council (NSDC) and the Demobilisation and Reintegration Council (DRC);

E.

whereas the prosperity and the viability of the new state of South Sudan depends to a large extent on constructive and peaceful relations with all neighbouring countries, in particular the Republic of the Sudan, and on the capability of these two countries to resolve their differences and to agree on and implement viable solutions, in particular regarding border conflicts, oil revenue, the final status of Abyei, national debt and citizenship;

F.

whereas state-building and overcoming fragility require a long-term perspective and solid, predictable and stable engagement by the international community;

G.

whereas, while the new country faces a great number of serious challenges, South Sudan has made considerable progress in relation to the key development indicators since the Comprehensive Peace Agreement of 2005 was enacted, including a six-fold increase in primary school enrolment, a 25 % decrease in infant mortality and the establishment of key state institutions at federal and state level;

H.

whereas children are the primary victims of the insecurity and conflict affecting South Sudan; whereas sexual violence is being perpetrated against children and women, and children are being recruited by armed groups;

I.

whereas the scope of democratic reconstruction is broadened when more women are involved in conflict resolution processes and political decision-making;

J.

whereas South Sudan is highly reliant on oil production, which accounts for approximately 88 % of national revenue, and is currently entirely dependent on the Republic of Sudan for its export; whereas this overreliance puts the country's economy at risk, but is also used to exert pressure on the new country, and is causing further tensions and even conflict, particularly with Sudan and between ethnic groups, as has been the case over the past two years; whereas South Sudan has concluded agreements with neighbouring Kenya, Ethiopia and Djibouti to explore the possibility of two new pipelines linking its oil fields to the Gulf of Aden and the Indian Ocean;

K.

whereas the suspension of oil production by the South Sudanese Government for over a year and the closure of the oil pipes in Sudan have deprived the country of one of its principal sources of income and plunged it into a major financial crisis leading to continued harsher austerity;

L.

whereas the 2013 Resource Governance Index, while acknowledging an ‘ambitious legal framework designed to promote transparent governance of the oil sector’, ranks South Sudan 50th out of 58 countries owing to its authorities having failed to release information about the sector and to establish proper monitoring and auditing mechanisms;

M.

whereas the international community has given important political and material support to South Sudan’s independence and viability, as well as its economic and social development and whereas the EU has played a very positive role in this connection; whereas the EU and its Member States pledged, on the occasion of South Sudan’s independence, to develop a close and long-term partnership with the Republic of South Sudan and its people;

N.

whereas on 23 May 2011, the Council approved a financial package of EUR 200 million for South Sudan to provide the funding for the EU’s contribution to the Joint Country Strategy Paper (Response Strategy) for South Sudan 2011-2013;

O.

whereas the international community and international humanitarian organisations have been very responsive to the need to relieve the suffering of people in the region, even though they are barred from certain areas by rebel groups and by the Sudanese Government, and whereas the EU has provided and continues to provide substantial levels of humanitarian aid, including EUR 110 million in 2012 alone;

P.

whereas the prospects for longer-term development and state-building in South Sudan are inextricably linked with regional interdependence in the Horn of Africa, not least in terms of addressing security concerns with neighbouring Sudan (including in the Darfur, Kurdofan and Blue Nile regions) and investing in economic integration with other regional partners;

Q.

whereas South Sudan is one of the very first countries in which joint programming between the European External Action Service (EEAS) and the Commission and EU Member States, aligned with the South Sudan Development Plan, has been put into practice in the form of a Single EU Country Strategy Paper, agreed on in December 2011, comprising a total of EUR 830 million in development aid;

R.

whereas South Sudan has not yet acceded to the Cotonou Agreement, with the Government of South Sudan voicing concerns about potential implications for its relations with the Republic of the Sudan; whereas accession to the Cotonou Agreement would not oblige South Sudan to accede immediately to the Rome Statute; whereas this reluctance to accede to the Cotonou Agreement is leading to problems in programming EU aid from 2014 onwards under the 11th European Development Fund, which could potentially result in South Sudan losing out, not only in terms of national allocations, but also with a view to regional funds and substantial European Investment Bank (EIB) resources which would enhance its infrastructure and regional economic integration; whereas by ratifying the Cotonou Agreement, South Sudan could also increase its capacity to attract European private sector investments; whereas the additional financial facilities to which South Sudan could have access following accession to the Cotonou Agreement could equally help with the implementation of the Addis Ababa Agreement;

S.

whereas the Council appointed Ms Rosalind Marsden as the European Union Special Representative (EUSR) for Sudan in August 2010 and subsequently enlarged and extended her mandate, but in June 2013 only agreed to a four-month extension until 31 October 2013 in order to integrate it into the mandate of the EUSR for the Horn of Africa, despite her outstanding work and her important role in leveraging the EU’s various tools and influence on the developments in the region; whereas without a designated EU Special Representative for Sudan/South Sudan, the EU will be side-lined in international negotiations and efforts;

T.

whereas the European Union has provided support for the African Union High-Level Panel, which includes the former South African President Thabo Mbeki as chair, and for the UN missions, namely the United Nations Mission in Sudan (UNMIS), the United Nations Mission in the Republic of South Sudan (UNMISS), the United Nations-African Union Mission in Darfur (UNAMID) and the United Nations Interim Security Force for Abyei (UNISFA);

U.

whereas a ‘New Deal for Engagement in Fragile States’ was formulated by the G7+ group of states (including South Sudan) and the International Dialogue on Peace Building and State Building (IDPS) and then endorsed by the EU, along with 36 countries, at the Fourth High Level Forum on Aid Effectiveness in Busan in December 2011;

V.

whereas an Economic Partners Forum was held in Washington in April 2013 at which a ‘new deal compact’ was announced, setting out framework provisions regarding further international development aid commitments for South Sudan;

W.

whereas external efforts made with regard to state-building and development can only be successful if the leadership of South Sudan is committed to and will be capable of developing accountable, responsive, and inclusive governance, and overcomes short-term or clientelistic interests; whereas South Sudan is not yet included in most governance indicators and there is still very little quantitative data available on the extent of corruption in the country; whereas the international community, both private and public, does not tolerate corruption and therefore needs to ensure that the provision of aid or investment does not lead to or encourage harmful practices;

X.

whereas a social security net is lacking and access to services such as health care, electricity and water remains extremely limited; whereas, according to some estimates, only one third of the population has access to clean water and whereas water access issues have exacerbated communal conflicts;

Y.

whereas South Sudanese women and girls face the highest maternal mortality rate in the world and one in seven women in South Sudan will die during or just after childbirth (29); whereas the main causes of maternal mortality are infection and/or haemorrhaging, and South Sudan faces a serious lack of basic medical equipment and qualified nurses and midwives;

Z.

whereas it is estimated that 48 % of girls aged between 15-19 years are forced into marriage in South Sudan and whereas 12-year-old girls have reportedly been forced into marriage, thereby directly affecting the enrolment of girls at school, with girls representing only 39 % of pupils at primary school and 30 % at secondary school;

AA.

whereas the belief that females are the property of their father or husband is entrenched in the dowry system that exists in South Sudan;

AB.

whereas domestic violence is considered an entrenched social norm throughout South Sudan and whereas 82 % of women and 81 % of men believe that a woman should tolerate domestic violence and keep the problem within the family (30);

AC.

whereas the illiteracy rate is estimated at over 80 % (the highest rate of female illiteracy in the world), with girls accounting for only 25 % of school pupils, representing the lowest rate of female access to education in the world; whereas there is a shortage of teachers;

AD.

whereas there is a shortage of teachers and a serious need for people with vocational qualifications, as well as a need for education and training colleges to produce a skilled workforce;

AE.

whereas the vast expanse of arable land in South Sudan means that agriculture not only has great potential in terms of lucrative commercial and local job creation prospects in the country, but it could also help alleviate food shortages in South Sudan itself and, in the longer term, meet the needs of neighbouring countries;

AF.

whereas women are key to reducing food and nutrition insecurity, and can help boost agricultural productivity;

AG.

whereas South Sudan has practically no permanent road, rail or inland waterway transport infrastructures; whereas it is necessary to develop these infrastructures to boost the country’s economic growth, as well as trade, market access and job creation;

AH.

whereas the number of landmines and undetonated ordnance still buried in South Sudan since the civil war is estimated to be in the millions;

AI.

whereas internal security remains one of the critical challenges for South Sudan, with several low intensity conflicts giving rise to a serious humanitarian situation; whereas abuses by South-Sudanese security forces, including extra-judicial killings, rape and torture during civilian disarmament campaigns, have been reported repeatedly; whereas the post-2005 efforts in the field of demobilisation, disarmament, and reintegration have stalled and whereas an acceptable retirement scheme for veterans is lacking;

AJ.

whereas the population faces major risks in terms of food insecurity, affecting 4,1 million South Sudanese in 2013; whereas access to health services is very limited, there is a shortage of medical personnel and supplies, and there is evident humanitarian need among the people displaced by conflict; whereas the rate of mortality of under-fives is very high and the maternal mortality rate is the highest in the world;

AK.

whereas in 2013 South Sudan dropped 12 places in the Reporters Without Borders World Press Freedom Index to 124th out of 180 countries ranked;

AL.

whereas viable long-term stability in the Horn of Africa can only be built on strong institutions, a proper role and place for civil society, the rule of law and respect for human rights, in particular freedom of expression, as well as strong economic prospects for society in general; whereas the separation of Sudan and South Sudan has reportedly led to religious conflict; whereas a number of refugees have fled from Sudan to the largely Christian South Sudan; whereas the estimated number of refugees moving from Sudan to South Sudan in June 2013 was 263 000 (31);

AM.

whereas journalists have frequently been threatened, arrested and detained without charge; whereas security forces have been reported to harass and illegally detain journalists; whereas the South Sudanese authorities have failed to carry out prompt, effective and impartial investigations into attacks on journalists, or cases such as the killing of the government critic and journalist Isaiah Abraham;

AN.

whereas weaknesses in the justice system give rise to serious human rights violations; whereas there is a clear need for specialised training in the field of human rights for the legal profession; whereas in order to address impunity, it is necessary to increase knowledge of core human rights instruments, which will contribute to their application; whereas there is an almost total lack of legal aid in the criminal justice system;

AO.

whereas South Sudan’s official language is English but it is not generally spoken, and most of the South Sudanese population is illiterate; whereas English is the predominant language in the public services and the legal system, in private-sector companies and in the country’s major media outlets; whereas South Sudan’s various ethnic groups speak, in total, more than 60 languages and dialects; whereas language is a key factor in national cohesion and therefore an appropriate language policy is important;

AP.

whereas South Sudan will continue to uphold capital punishment unless amendments in this connection are introduced into the country’s constitution;

AQ.

whereas the high prevalence of child marriage, with nearly half of all girls in South Sudan between the ages of 15 and 19 being married, creates an environment in which there is increased vulnerability to physical, sexual, psychological, and economic abuse;

AR.

whereas equitable participation of women in the public sphere is a constitutional right supported by a mandated quota of 25 %; whereas despite the commitment of the Government of South Sudan to increase the participation of women in the public sector, progress has been limited on this point; whereas the effective engagement of the women of South Sudan in peace making, governance and economic development can help consolidate peace and security for the country;

1.

Welcomes the most recent signs of eased tensions between the governments of South Sudan and the Republic of the Sudan, demonstrated during the visit of the South Sudanese President to the Republic of the Sudan in early September 2013, and the statements of good will on both sides on this occasion; underlines that the economic and social development of both countries depends to a large extent on peaceful and collaborative relations between the two countries;

2.

Calls on the governments of both countries and the international community to continue and intensify efforts to resolve the outstanding issues left unresolved following the expiration of the 2005 Comprehensive Peace Agreement and South Sudan’s independence in July 2011, which are still obstacles to good neighbourly relations, and to abstain entirely from the use of threats and military force and the support of irregular armed forces in the region;