—

having regard to its resolution of 5 April 2017 on negotiations with the United Kingdom following its notification that it intends to withdraw from the European Union (1),

—

having regard to the European Council (Art. 50) Guidelines of 29 April 2017 following the United Kingdom’s notification under Article 50 TEU and to the Annex to the Council Decision of 22 May 2017, which lays down directives for the negotiation of an agreement with the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland setting out the arrangements for its withdrawal from the European Union,

—

having regard to the Commission position papers of 12 June 2017 on ‘Essential Principles on Citizens’ Rights’ and ‘Essential Principles on Financial Settlement’ and of 20 September 2017 on ‘Guiding principles for the Dialogue on Ireland/Northern Ireland’,

—

having regard to the position papers of the United Kingdom Government on the issues pertaining to the United Kingdom’s withdrawal from the European Union, and in particular that of 26 June 2017 on ‘Safeguarding the position of EU citizens living in the UK and UK nationals living in the EU’ and that of 16 August 2017 on ‘Northern Ireland and Ireland’,

—

having regard to Rule 123(2) of its Rules of Procedure,

A.

whereas there are currently around 3,2 million citizens of the remaining 27 Member States (EU-27) resident in the United Kingdom and 1,2 million citizens of the United Kingdom (‘UK citizens’) resident in the EU-27;

B.

whereas EU citizens who took up residence in another Member State did so on the basis of rights they enjoy under European Union law and on the understanding that they would continue to enjoy those rights throughout their lives;

C.

whereas the European Parliament represents all EU citizens, including UK citizens, and will act to protect their interests throughout the whole process leading to the withdrawal of the United Kingdom from the European Union;

D.

whereas, in the United Kingdom and also in some other Member States, recent administrative incidents have demonstrated that discrimination against citizens of the EU-27 in the United Kingdom and UK citizens in the EU-27 is already taking place and is having an impact on the daily lives of the citizens concerned, limiting the effective exercise of their rights;

E.

whereas an orderly withdrawal of the United Kingdom from the European Union requires that the unique position and the special circumstances confronting the island of Ireland be addressed, that the Good Friday Agreement of 10 April 1998 be preserved in all its parts and that a ‘hardening’ of the border be avoided;

F.

whereas the people of Northern Ireland who have exercised, or may exercise, their entitlement to Irish citizenship will enjoy EU citizenship and no obstacles or impediments should be put in place that would prevent them from fully exercising their rights in accordance with the Treaties;

G.

whereas the European Union and the United Kingdom should both respect in full the financial obligations resulting from the whole period of the United Kingdom’s membership of the European Union;

H.

whereas, in her speech in Florence on 22 September 2017, the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom offered some clarifications concerning citizens’ rights, the Ireland and Northern Ireland issue, the financial settlement, the need for a transitional period and prospects for future relations between the European Union and the United Kingdom;

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

7.

8.

9.

10.

11.

12.

13.

14.

15.

16.

—

having regard to Articles 2 and 3(3) of the Treaty on European Union,

—

having regard to Articles 8, 10, 153(1), 153(2) and 157 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,

—

having regard to Articles 23 and 33 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union,

—

having regard to Directive 2006/54/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 5 July 2006 on the implementation of the principle of equal opportunities and equal treatment of men and women in matters of employment and occupation (1),

—

having regard to Directive 2010/41/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 July 2010 on the application of the principle of equal treatment between men and women engaged in an activity in a self-employed capacity and repealing Council Directive 86/613/EEC (2),

—

having regard to Council Directive 92/85/EEC of 19 October 1992 on the introduction of measures to encourage improvements in the safety and health at work of pregnant workers and workers who have recently given birth or are breastfeeding (3) (Maternity Leave Directive),

—

having regard to the Commission proposal of 2 July 2008 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 position of 2 April 2009 on the proposal for a Council directive on implementing the principle of equal treatment between persons irrespective of religion or belief, disability, age or sexual orientation (4),

—

having regard to the Commission proposal of 3 October 2008 for a directive of the European Parliament and of the Council amending the Maternity Leave Directive (COM(2008)0637),

—

having regard to its position adopted at first reading on 20 October 2010 with a view to the adoption of a directive of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Council Directive 92/85/EEC on the introduction of measures to encourage improvements in the safety and health at work of pregnant workers and workers who have recently given birth or are breastfeeding and on the introduction of measures to support workers in balancing work and family life (5),

—

having regard to Council Directive 2013/62/EU of 17 December 2013 amending Directive 2010/18/EU implementing the revised Framework Agreement on parental leave concluded by BUSINESSEUROPE, UEAPME, CEEP and ETUC, following the amendment of the status of Mayotte with regard to the European Union (6),

—

having regard to the Commission proposal of 14 November 2012 for a directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on improving the gender balance among non-executive directors of companies listed on stock exchanges and related measures (Women on boards directive) (COM(2012)0614),

—

having regard to its position adopted at first reading on 20 November 2013 with a view to the adoption of a directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on improving the gender balance among non-executive directors of companies listed on stock exchanges and related measures (7),

—

having regard to its resolution of 12 March 2013 on eliminating gender stereotypes in the EU (8),

—

having regard to its resolution of 12 September 2013 on the application of the principle of equal pay for male and female workers for equal work or work of equal value (9),

—

having regard to its resolution of 20 May 2015 on maternity leave (10),

—

having regard to its resolution of 28 April 2016 on women domestic workers and carers in the EU (11),

—

having regard to its resolution of 12 May 2016 on the application of Council Directive 2010/18/EU of 8 March 2010 implementing the revised Framework Agreement on parental leave concluded by BUSINESSEUROPE, UEAPME, CEEP and ETUC and repealing Directive 96/34/EC (12),

—

having regard to its resolution of 26 May 2016 on ‘Poverty: a gender perspective’ (13),

—

having regard to its resolution of 13 September 2016 on creating labour market conditions favourable for work-life balance (14),

—

having regard to its resolution of 15 September 2016 on application of Council Directive 2000/78/EC of 27 November 2000 establishing a general framework for equal treatment in employment and occupation (‘Employment Equality Directive’) (15),

—

having regard to its resolution of 8 October 2015 on the application of Directive 2006/54/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 5 July 2006 on the implementation of the principle of equal opportunities and equal treatment of men and women in matters of employment and occupation (16),

—

having regard to its recommendation of 14 February 2017 to the Council on the EU priorities for the 61st session of the UN Commission on the Status of Women (17),

—

having regard to its resolution of 14 March 2017 on equality between women and men in the European Union in 2014-2015 (18),

—

having regard to its resolution of 4 April 2017 on women and their roles in rural areas (19),

—

having regard to the Council conclusions of 19 June 2015 on ‘Equal income opportunities for women and men: Closing the gender gap in pensions’,

—

having regard to the European Pact for gender equality for the period 2011-2020 adopted in the Council conclusions of 7 March 2011 (20),

—

having regard to the Commission recommendation of 7 March 2014 on strengthening the principle of equal pay between men and women through transparency (2014/124/EU) (21),

—

having regard to the Commission’s initiative of December 2015, ‘Roadmap: A new start to address the challenges of work-life balance faced by working families’, as well as to the public and stakeholder consultations thereon,

—

having regard to the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights (UNGPs), the first global set of guidelines on business and human rights, which were unambiguously endorsed by all UN member states at the meeting of the UN Human Rights Council of 16 June 2011; having regard to the Commission communication of 25 October 2011 on corporate social responsibility (COM(2011)0681), which encourages EU Member States to adapt the UNGPs to their national context,

—

having regard to the Commission communication of 26 April 2017 on ‘Establishing a European Pillar of Social Rights’ (COM(2017)0250),

—

having regard to the Commission communication of 26 April 2017 on ‘An Initiative to Support Work-Life Balance for Working Parents and Carers’ (COM(2017)0252),

—

having regard to the European Investment Bank Group Strategy on Gender Equality and Women’s Economic Empowerment,

—

having regard to the Commission staff working document of 3 December 2015 on ‘The Strategic engagement for gender equality 2016-2019’ (SWD(2015)0278), and in particular its Chapter 3.1, ‘Increasing female labour-market participation and the equal economic independence of women and men’,

—

having regard to the Commission’s 2017 report on equality between women and men in the European Union, and in particular to its chapter 1 on increasing female labour market participation and equal economic independence and chapter 2 on reducing gender pay, earnings and pension gaps,

—

having regard to the reports of the European Foundation for the Improvement of Living and Working Conditions (Eurofound) entitled ‘The gender employment gap: challenges and solutions’ (2016),‘Work-life balance: creating solutions for everyone’ (2016), ‘Social partners and gender equality in Europe’ (2014), and ‘Developments in working life in Europe: EurWORK annual review’ (2014 and 2015), and to the Sixth European Working Conditions Survey (EWCS) (2016),

—

having regard to the ILO Equal Remuneration Convention of 1951, the ILO Part-Time Work Convention of 1994, the ILO Home Work Convention of 1996, the ILO Maternity Protection Convention of 2000 and the ILO Domestic Workers Convention of 2011,

—

having regard to the Agreed Conclusions of 24 March 2017 of the 61st session of the United Nations Commission on the Status of Women (CSW), entitled ‘Women’s economic empowerment in the changing world of work’,

—

having regard to the report of the UN Secretary-General’s High-Level Panel on Women’s Economic Empowerment of September 2016 entitled ‘Leave no one behind: A call to action for gender equality and women’s economic empowerment’,

—

having regard to the Beijing Platform for Action and the UN Convention on the Elimination of all forms of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW),

—

having regard to Rule 52 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 (A8-0271/2017),

A.

whereas the EU is committed to promoting gender equality and ensuring gender mainstreaming in all of its actions;

B.

whereas women’s equal participation in the labour market and in economic decision-making are both preconditions for women’s empowerment and consequences of it;

C.

whereas across the EU women remain considerably under-represented in the labour market and in management, with the overall employment rate of women still being almost 12 % lower than that of men;

D.

whereas primary barriers to women’s economic empowerment include adverse social norms, discriminatory laws or lack of legal protection, failure to equally share unpaid household work and care between men and women, and lack of access to financial, digital and property assets; whereas these barriers can be further exacerbated by intersecting discrimination (22), such as on grounds of race and ethnicity, religion, disability, health, gender identity, sexual orientation and/or socio-economic conditions;

E.

whereas structural barriers to women’s economic empowerment are the result of multiple and intersecting forms of inequalities, stereotypes and discrimination in the private and public spheres;

F.

whereas economic empowerment of women is ‘right and smart’ at the same time, first of all as it is an essential dimension of gender equality and thus a matter of fundamental human rights and second as the higher participation of women in the labour market contributes to sustainable economic development at all levels of society; whereas companies that value women and enable them to participate fully in the labour market and in decision-making are more prosperous and help to boost productivity and economic growth; whereas evidence by the European Gender Equality Institute (EIGE) indicates that improvements to gender equality would generate up to 10,5 million additional jobs by 2050 in the EU, that the EU employment rate would reach almost 80 % and that EU GDP per capita could increase by between 6,1 % and 9,6 % and boost growth by between 15 % and 45 % in the Member States by 2050;

G.

whereas the Europe 2020 strategy establishes among the EU’s targets achieving 75 % of men and women in employment by 2020 and, in particular, closing the gender gap in employment; whereas coordinated efforts will be required to facilitate women’s labour market participation;

H.

whereas in late 2015 the Commission released the Gender Action Plan 2016-2020, with women’s economic rights and empowerment as one of four ‘pivotal areas’ for action;

I.

whereas ‘reducing the gender pay, earnings and pension gaps and thus fighting poverty among women’ is one of the priorities defined by the Commission in its document ‘Strategic engagement for gender equality 2016-2019’;

J.

whereas targets are set for women’s economic empowerment across the 17 Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs);

K.

whereas an effective work-life balance has a positive impact on progressing towards an ‘equal earner/equal carer’ model between women and men, as well as on health aspects, and promotes an inclusive economic environment, growth, competitiveness, overall labour market participation, gender equality, a reduced risk of poverty, and intergenerational solidarity, and also helps address the challenges of an ageing society;

L.

whereas Eurostat findings reveal that in the EU 31,5 % of working women work part-time compared with 8,2 % of working men, and whereas just over 50 % of women work full-time, compared with 71,2 % of men, representing a full-time employment rate gap of 25,5 %; whereas caring responsibilities are reasons for inactivity for almost 20 % of economically inactive women, while this is only the case for less than 2 % of economically inactive men; whereas caring responsibilities and difficulties arising from combining work and private life mean that women are far more likely to work part-time or be economically inactive than men, which has a negative impact on their wages and pension-related income;

M.

whereas the majority of the recipients of care are usually the children, older family members or family members with disabilities of unpaid caregivers;

N.

whereas women carry out at least two and a half times more unpaid household and care work than men;

O.

whereas maternity should not be seen as an obstacle to women’s professional development and consequently to their emancipation;

P.

whereas women and men have equal rights and duties in relation to parenthood (with the exception of recovery after giving birth), bearing in mind that bringing up children should be shared and should therefore not be assigned exclusively to mothers;

Q.

whereas in 2015 the average employment rate for women with one child under the age of six was nearly 9 % lower than that for women without young children, and whereas in some Member States the difference exceeded 30 %;

R.

whereas maternity and parenthood are not acceptable grounds for discrimination against women in relation to accessing and remaining in the labour market;

S.

whereas a publicly accessible wage-mapping framework including data collection should be established with the aim of eliminating the gender pay gap by putting pressure on both the public and private sectors to assess their payment structures and redress any gender-based differences that are found, and has the potential to create a ‘culture of awareness’ which makes it socially unacceptable to have a gender pay gap in a sector or company;

T.

whereas quotas have been found to improve the performance of private companies and boost wider economic growth, in addition to bringing about better use of the talent pool in the labour force;

U.

whereas gender equality and diversity in worker representation in companies at board level is a key democratic principle which has positive economic impacts, among them inclusive strategic decision-making and reducing the gender pay gap;

V.

whereas OECD studies have shown that companies with more women on their boards experience greater profitability compared to those with all-male boards;

W.

whereas typically female-dominated sectors or roles are generally characterised by lower wages than comparable sectors or roles which are male-dominated, constituting a component of the gender pay and pension gaps, which currently stand at 16 % and 40 % respectively;

X.

whereas the ILO has developed a framework in which jobs are assessed on the basis of four factors: qualifications, effort, responsibility and working conditions, and are weighted according to their importance for the company or organisation in question;

Y.

whereas social partners have the potential to strengthen women’s economic empowerment through collective bargaining, by promoting equal pay between women and men, investing in work-life balance, encouraging women’s career development in companies, and offering information and education in the field of workers’ rights;

Z.

whereas evidence attests that wage inequalities are smaller where collective bargaining is strong (23);

AA.

whereas according to Eurostat 24,4 % of women in the EU are at risk of poverty or social exclusion, while single mothers, women over 55 and women with disabilities are at particular risk of unemployment and inactivity in the labour market;

AB.

whereas implementation of the Council of Europe Convention on preventing and combating violence against women and domestic violence (Istanbul Convention) is a prerequisite for women’s empowerment and thus gender equality; whereas gender-based violence is an unacceptable form of discrimination and a violation of fundamental rights, affecting not only women’s health and wellbeing, but also their access to employment and financial independence; whereas violence against women is one of the main impediments to gender equality, while education has the potential to reduce the risk of gender-based violence; whereas the subsequent social and economic empowerment can help women to escape situations of violence; whereas workplace violence and harassment, including sexism and sexual harassment, has serious negative consequences for all workers affected, their co-workers and their families, as well as the organisations they work in and society as a whole and may be partly responsible for women dropping out of the labour market;

AC.

whereas economic violence is a form of gender-based violence occurring in women’s everyday life, which hinders women from fulfilment of their right to freedom, reproduces gender inequality and neglects women’s role in society at large;

AD.

whereas many studies have clearly shown that cutbacks in the public sector have had a huge negative impact on women, their economic empowerment and gender equality;

AE.

whereas education, qualifications and the acquisition of skills are essential to the empowerment of women on the social, cultural and economic level, and educational opportunities are recognised as a core element for combating inequalities such as under-representation in decision-making and managerial posts and in the fields of engineering and science, thus improving the economic empowerment of women and girls;

AF.

whereas digitalisation has positive effects in terms of shaping new job opportunities and inducing a constructive shift towards more flexible work patterns, particularly for women entering or re-entering the labour market, and also in terms of achieving a better balance between caring activity and professional life for both women and men;

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

7.

8.

9.

10.

11.

12.

13.

14.

15.

16.

17.

18.

19.

20.

21.

22.

23.

24.

25.

26.

27.

28.

29.

30.

31.

32.

33.

34.

35.

36.

37.

38.

39.

40.

41.

42.

43.

44.

45.

46.

47.

48.

49.

50.

51.

52.

53.

54.

55.

56.

57.

58.

59.

60.

61.

62.

—

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

—

having regard to Article 208 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU),

—

having regard to Article 7 of the TFEU, which reaffirms that the EU ‘shall ensure consistency between its policies and activities, taking all of its objectives into account’,

—

having regard to the Charter of the United Nations,

—

having regard to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) and other UN human rights treaties and instruments, in particular the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights adopted in New York on 16 December 1966, and the 1979 UN Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW),

—

having regard to the UN Summit on Sustainable Development and the outcome document adopted by the UN General Assembly on 25 September 2015, entitled ‘Transforming our world: the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development’ (1),

—

having regard to the European Consensus on Development,

—

having regard to the ‘Global Strategy for the European Union’s Foreign and Security Policy — Shared Vision, Common Action: A Stronger Europe’, presented in June 2016 by the Vice-President of the Commission / High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy (VP/HR) (2),

—

having regard to the Action Plan on Human Rights and Democracy 2015-2019, adopted by the Council on 20 July 2015 (3),

—

having regard to the EU Country Roadmaps for Engagement with Civil Society,

—

having regard to the Partnership Agreement between the members of the African, Caribbean and Pacific Group of States of the one part, and the European Community and its Member States, of the other part, signed in Cotonou on 23 June 2000 (the Cotonou Agreement), and to its revisions of 2005 and 2010,

—

having regard to the Code of Good Practice for Civil Participation in the Decision-Making Process, adopted by the Conference of INGOs on 1 October 2009,

—

having regard to the Berlin Declaration of the annual meeting of the Core Group of the Civil Society Platform for Peacebuilding and Statebuilding (CSPPS), which was held from 6 to 9 July 2016,

—

having regard to Regulation (EU) No 233/2014 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 March 2014 establishing a financing instrument for development cooperation (DCI) for the period 2014-2020 (4), and to Regulation (EU) No 230/2014 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 March 2014 establishing an instrument contributing to stability and peace (5),

—

having regard to Council Regulation (EU) 2015/323 of 2 March 2015 on the financial regulation applicable to the 11th European Development Fund (6) and to Declaration I of the Cotonou Agreement (‘Joint Declaration on the actors of the partnership’),

—

having regard to Article 187(2) of Regulation (EU, Euratom) No 966/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 October 2012 on the financial rules applicable to the general budget of the Union and repealing Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1605/2002 (7) (‘the Financial Regulation’),

—

having regard to the DCI Multiannual Indicative Programme 2014-2020 for the ‘Civil Society Organisations and Local Authorities’ (8),

—

having regard to the Commission communication of 12 September 2012 entitled ‘The roots of democracy and sustainable development: Europe’s engagement with Civil Society in external relations’ (COM(2012)0492),

—

having regard to the UN Human Rights Council resolution of 27 June 2016 on civil society space (9),

—

having regard to the EU Annual Report on Human Rights and Democracy in the World, and the EU’s policy for 2015,

—

having regard to its resolution of 25 October 2016 on corporate liability for serious human rights abuses in third countries (10),

—

having regard to its resolution of 4 October 2016 on the future of ACP-EU relations beyond 2020 (11),

—

having regard to the European Union’s Human Rights Guidelines, including the EU Guidelines on Human Rights Defenders, and the EU Guidelines on the promotion and protection of religion or belief, adopted by the Council on 24 June 2013,

—

having regard to the Guidelines for EP Interparliamentary Delegations on promoting human rights and democracy in their visits to non-EU countries (12),

—

having regard to the opinion of the Committee of the Regions of 9 October 2013 entitled ‘Empowering local authorities in partner countries for enhanced governance and more effective development outcomes’,

—

having regard to the opinion of the Committee of the Regions of 24 February 2015 entitled ‘A decent life for all: from vision to collective action’,

—

having regard to the report of the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights of 11 April 2016 on practical recommendations for the creation and maintenance of a safe and enabling environment for civil society, based on good practices and lessons learned (13), and to the reports of the United Nations Special Rapporteur on the rights of peaceful assembly and of association,

—

having regard to the World Economic Forum’s 2017 Global Risks Report (14),

—

having regard to its resolution of 14 February 2017 on the revision of the European Consensus on Development (15),

—

having regard to its resolution of 22 November 2016 on increasing the effectiveness of development cooperation (16),

—

having regard to its resolution of 7 June 2016 on the EU 2015 Report on Policy Coherence for Development (17),

—

having regard to the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights,

—

having regard to its resolution of 12 May 2016 on the follow-up to and review of the 2030 Agenda (18),

—

having regard to its resolution of 22 October 2013 on local authorities and civil society: Europe’s engagement in support of sustainable development (19),

—

having regard to Rule 52 of its Rules of Procedure,

—

having regard to the report of the Committee on Development and the opinion of the Committee on Foreign Affairs (A8-0283/2017),

A.

whereas Article 21 TEU states that the Union’s action on the international scene, which includes therein development cooperation, must be guided by the principles of democracy, the rule of law, the universality and indivisibility of human rights and fundamental freedoms;

B.

whereas civil society represents the third sector of a healthy and decent society, along with the public and private sectors; whereas civil society comprises non-governmental and non-profit organisations that have a presence in public life, expressing the interests and values of their members or others, based on ethical, cultural, political, scientific, religious or philanthropic considerations;

C.

whereas civil society plays a central role in building and strengthening democracy, in monitoring the power of the state, and in promoting good governance, transparency and accountability; whereas the presence of civil society organisations (CSOs) as a vital force in society is crucial, as they represent a necessary counterbalance to the powers that be by playing the role of intermediary and mediator between the population and the state, and in their capacity as guardians of democracy; whereas numerous civil society groups have been seeking to engage in constitutional reform processes so as to protect democratic principles and institutions;

D.

whereas CSOs cover a wide spectrum of human rights, including the right to development, education and gender equality, as well as carrying out activities in the social and environmental fields; whereas civil society encompasses a wide and heterogeneous range of groups and aims, including not only CSOs, but also NGOs, human rights and community groups, diasporas, churches, religious associations and communities, safeguarding the interests of the disabled, social movements and trade unions, indigenous peoples and foundations, and the representation of vulnerable, discriminated and marginalised people;

E.

whereas the Cotonou Agreement recognises civil society as a key actor within ACP-EU cooperation; whereas the expiry of the Agreement in 2020 represents an opportunity to review the partnership and further increase the participation of CSOs;

F.

whereas CSOs have become important players in global development assistance, particularly in the delivery of basic social services, public awareness, the promotion of democracy, human rights and good governance, peaceful and inclusive societies, fostering the resilience of individuals, families and local communities, countering violent extremism, and the response to humanitarian crises;

G.

whereas as recognised by international organisations in their protocols and practices, churches, religious communities and associations, together with other religion- or belief-based organisations are among the frontline and long-standing operational field actors in the provision of development and humanitarian assistance;

H.

whereas the DCI Multiannual Indicative Programme 2014-2020 for the ‘Civil Society Organisations and Local Authorities’ thematic programme includes the promotion of an enabling environment for CSOs and local authorities as a cross-cutting element; whereas the programme aims to strengthen CSOs’ voice and participation in the development process of partner countries and to advance political, social and economic dialogue;

I.

whereas the EU is the largest donor to local civil society organisations in developing countries and has been a leading actor in the protection of civil society actors and human rights defenders (HRDs) through the use and implementation of a range of instruments and policies, including the European Instrument for Democracy and Human Rights (EIDHR), the DCI thematic programme for Civil Society Organisations and Local Authorities (CSOs-LAs), the European Endowment for Democracy, the Civil Society Roadmaps implemented in 105 countries and country strategy papers;

J.

whereas there has been an expansion in the size, scope, composition and influence of civil society around the world over the past decade; whereas, at the same time, restrictions against civil society actors and activities have become increasingly repressive and forceful in a growing number of countries worldwide, both developing and developed;

K.

whereas, moreover, the agenda set by institutional donors may in some cases not prioritise the real needs of the civil society actors working in the field;

L.

whereas the 2016 State of Civil Society Report considered 2015 a dismal year for civil society, with civic rights being placed under serious threat in more than a hundred countries; whereas the Sub-Saharan African and Middle East and North African (MENA) regions are particularly concerned by this report, as they are more often faced with situations of political stress, conflict and fragility;

M.

whereas an increasing number of governments are clamping down in legal or administrative terms on civil society organisations, including by imposing restrictive laws, limits on funding, strict licensing procedures and punitive taxes;

N.

whereas in developing countries, there has been a worrying increase in the number of reports of activists, CSOs staff members, HRDs, trade unionists, lawyers, intellectuals, journalists and religious leaders being persecuted, harassed, stigmatised as ‘foreign agents’, and arbitrarily arrested or detained, and in the number of victims of abuse and violence in recent years; whereas in a number of countries, this is being done with complete impunity, and at times with the support or compliance of the authorities;

O.

whereas human rights are universal and inalienable, indivisible, interdependent and interrelated; whereas civil society’s ability to act relies on the exercise of fundamental freedoms, including the right to freedom of association, peaceful assembly, expression, thought, conscience, religion or belief, and free access to information;

P.

whereas there is a link between a weakened civil society, reduced political and civic space, increased corruption, social and gender inequality, low human and socio-economic development, as well as fragility and conflicts;

Q.

whereas any credible and effective EU response in addressing shrinking civic space requires an accurate and timely assessment and understanding of the threats and factors driving the restrictions; whereas such a response also requires a coordinated approach between development and political cooperation, in order to ensure coherence between all EU external and internal instruments by projecting a common message on the importance of freely functioning civil society, as well as cooperation at local, regional and international levels;

R.

whereas the 2030 Agenda, and SDGs 16 and 17 in particular, provide for enhanced cooperation with civil society as key partner and enabler as regards the promotion, implementation, follow-up and review of the SDGs;

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

7.

8.

9.

10.

11.

12.

13.

14.

15.

16.

17.

18.

19.

20.

21.

22.

23.

24.

25.

26.

27.

28.

29.

30.

31.

32.

33.

34.

35.

36.

37.

38.

39.

40.

41.

42.

43.

44.

45.

46.

—

having regard to Articles 2, 3 and 6 of the Treaty on European Union (TEU),

—

having regard to Articles 16, 67, 70, 72, 73, 75, 82, 83, 84, 85, 87 and 88 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU),

—

having regard to Articles 1, 7, 8, 11, 16, 17, 21, 24, 41, 47, 48, 49, 50 and 52 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (CFR),

—

having regard to the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child of 20 November 1989,

—

having regard to the Optional Protocol to the Convention on the Rights of the Child on the sale of children, child prostitution and child pornography, of 25 May 2000,

—

having regard to the Stockholm Declaration and Agenda for Action, adopted at the 1st World Congress against the Commercial Sexual Exploitation of Children, to the Yokohama Global Commitment adopted at the 2nd World Congress against the Commercial Sexual Exploitation of Children, and to the Budapest Commitment and Plan of Action, adopted at the preparatory conference to the 2nd World Congress against the Commercial Sexual Exploitation of Children,

—

having regard to the Council of Europe Convention of 25 October 2007 on the Protection of Children against Sexual Exploitation and Sexual Abuse,

—

having regard to its resolution of 20 November 2012 on protecting children in the digital world (1),

—

having regard to its resolution of 11 March 2015 on child sexual abuse online (2),

—

having regard to Council Framework Decision 2001/413/JAI of 28 May 2001 on combating fraud and counterfeiting of non-cash means of payment (3),

—

having regard to the Budapest Convention on Cybercrime of 23 November 2001 (4) and the Additional Protocol thereto,

—

having regard to Regulation (EC) No 460/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 10 March 2004 establishing the European Network and Information Security Agency (5),

—

having regard to Council Directive 2008/114/EC of 8 December 2008 on the identification and designation of European critical infrastructures and the assessment of the need to improve their protection (6),

—

having regard to Directive 2002/58/EC of the European Parliament and the Council of 12 July 2002 concerning the processing of personal data and the protection of privacy in the electronic communications sector (7),

—

having regard to Directive 2011/93/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 December 2011 on combating the sexual abuse and sexual exploitation of children and child pornography, and replacing Council Framework Decision 2004/68/JHA (8),

—

having regard to the Joint Communication of 7 February 2013 to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions by the Commission and the Vice-President of the Commission / High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy, entitled ‘Cybersecurity Strategy of the European Union: An Open, Safe and Secure Cyberspace’ (JOIN(2013)0001),

—

having regard to Directive 2013/40/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 August 2013 on attacks against information systems and replacing Council Framework Decision 2005/222/JHA (9),

—

having regard to Directive 2014/41/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 3 April 2014 regarding the European Investigation Order in criminal matters (10) (the EIO Directive),

—

having regard to the judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) of 8 April 2014 (11) invalidating the Data Retention Directive,

—

having regard to its resolution of 12 September 2013 on a Cybersecurity Strategy of the European Union: An Open, Safe and Secure Cyberspace (12),

—

having regard to the Commission communication of 6 May 2015 entitled ‘A Digital Single Market Strategy for Europe’ (COM(2015)0192),

—

having regard to the Commission communication of 28 April 2015 entitled ‘The European Agenda on Security’ (COM(2015)0185) and the subsequent follow-up progress reports entitled ‘Towards an effective and genuine Security Union’,

—

having regard to the Report of the conference on jurisdiction in cyberspace held in Amsterdam on 7 and 8 March 2016,

—

having regard to Regulation (EU) 2016/679 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 April 2016 on the protection of natural persons with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data, and repealing Directive 95/46/EC (General Data Protection Regulation) (13),

—

having regard to Directive (EU) 2016/680 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 April 2016 on the protection of natural persons with regard to the processing of personal data by competent authorities for the purposes of the prevention, investigation, detection or prosecution of criminal offences or the execution of criminal penalties, and on the free movement of such data, and repealing Council Framework Decision 2008/977/JHA (14),

—

having regard to Regulation (EU) 2016/794 of the European Parliament and the Council of 11 May 2016 on the European Agency for Law Enforcement Cooperation (Europol) (15),

—

having regard to the Commission decision of 5 July 2016 on the signing of a contractual arrangement on a public-private partnership for cybersecurity industrial research and innovation between the European Union, represented by the Commission, and the stakeholder organisation (C(2016)4400),

—

having regard to the Joint Communication of 6 April 2016 to the European Parliament and the Council by the Commission and the Vice-President of the Commission / High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy entitled ‘Joint framework on countering hybrid threats: a European Union response’ (JOIN(2016)0018),

—

having regard to the Commission Communication entitled ‘European Strategy for a Better Internet for Children’ (COM(2012)0196), and to the Commission report of 6 June 2016 entitled ‘Final evaluation of the multi-annual EU programme on protecting children using the Internet and other communication technologies (Safer Internet)’ (COM(2016)0364),

—

having regard to the Europol and ENISA Joint Statement of 20 May 2016 on lawful criminal investigation that respects 21st Century data protection,

—

having regard to the Council conclusions of 9 June 2016 on the European Judicial Cybercrime Network,

—

having regard to Directive (EU) 2016/1148 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 July 2016 concerning measures for a high common level of security of network and information systems across the Union (16),

—

having regard to the ENISA’s Opinion Paper of December 2016 on Encryption — Strong Encryption Safeguards our Digital Identity,

—

having regard to the final report of the T-CY Cloud Evidence Group of the Council of Europe entitled ‘Criminal justice access to electronic evidence in the cloud: Recommendations for consideration by the T-CY’ of 16 September 2016,

—

having regard to the work of the Joint Cyber Crime Action Taskforce (J-CAT),

—

having regard to the Europol Serious and Organised Crime Threat Assessment (EU SOCTA) of 28 February 2017 and the Internet Organised Crime Threat Assessment (IOCTA) of 28 September 2016,

—

having regard to the judgment of the CJEU in case C-203/15 (TELE2 judgment) of 21 December 2016 (17),

—

having regard to Directive (EU) 2017/541 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 March 2017 on combating terrorism and replacing Council Framework Decision 2002/475/JHA and amending Council Decision 2005/671/JHA (18),

—

having regard to Rule 52 of its Rules of Procedure,

—

having regard to the report of the Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs and the opinion of the Committee on the Internal Market and Consumer Protection (A8-0272/2017),

A.

whereas cybercrime is causing increasingly significant social and economic damage affecting the fundamental rights of individuals, posing threats to the rule of law in cyberspace and endangering the stability of democratic societies;

B.

whereas cybercrime is a growing problem in the Member States;

C.

whereas the 2016 IOCTA reveals that cybercrime is increasing in intensity, complexity and magnitude, that reported cybercrime exceeds traditional crime in some EU countries, that it extends to other areas of crime, such as human trafficking, that the use of encryption and anonymisation tools for criminal purposes is increasing and that ransomware attacks outnumber traditional malware threats such as trojans;

D.

whereas there was an increase of 20 % in the attacks on the Commission’s servers in 2016 compared to 2015;

E.

whereas the vulnerability of computers to attack has its origins in the unique way information technology has developed over the years, the speed at which business has grown online, and lack of government action;

F.

whereas there is an ever-growing black market in computerised extortion, the use of hired botnets and hacking, and stolen digital goods;

G.

whereas the key focus of cyber-attacks continues to be malware, such as banking trojans, but attacks on industrial control systems and networks aimed at destroying critical infrastructure and economic structures as well as destabilising societies, as was the case of the ‘WannaCry’ ransomware attack of May 2017, are also growing in number and impact and thus pose an increasing threat to security, defence and other important sectors; whereas the majority of international law enforcement requests for data are related to fraud and financial crime, followed by violent and serious crime;

H.

whereas, while the constantly growing interconnectedness of people, places and things brings many benefits, it increases the risk of cybercrime; whereas devices connected to the Internet of Things (IoT), which include smart grids, connected fridges, cars, medical tools or aids, are often not as well protected as traditional internet devices and are thus an ideal target for cybercriminals, especially because the regime for security updates for connected devises is often patchy or lacking completely; whereas hacked IoT devices that have or can control physical actuators may represent a concrete threat to the lives of human beings;

I.

whereas an effective legal framework for data protection is critical for building confidence and trust in the online world, allowing consumers as well as businesses to fully reap the benefits of the digital single market and to address cybercrime;

J.

whereas companies alone cannot deal with the challenge of making the connected world more secure, and government should contribute to cyber security through regulation and the provision of incentives encouraging safer behaviour by users;

K.

whereas the lines between cybercrime, cyber espionage, cyber warfare, cyber sabotage and cyber terrorism are becoming increasingly blurred; whereas cybercrimes can target individuals, public or private entities and cover a wide range of offences, including privacy breaches, child sexual abuse online, public incitement to violence and hatred, sabotage, espionage, financial crime and fraud, such as payment fraud, theft and identity theft as well as illegal system interference;

L.

whereas the World Economic Forum’s Global Risks Report 2017 lists massive incident of data fraud and theft as one of the five major global risks in terms of likelihood;

M.

whereas a considerable number of cybercrimes remain unprosecuted and unpunished; whereas there is still significant underreporting, long detection periods allowing cybercriminals to develop multiple entries/exits or backdoors, difficult access to e-evidence, problems in obtaining it and with its admissibility in court, as well as complex procedures and jurisdictional challenges related to the cross-border nature of cybercrimes;

N.

whereas the Council in its conclusions of June 2016 highlighted that, given the cross-border nature of cybercrime as well as the common cybersecurity threats faced by the EU, enhanced cooperation and information exchange between police and judicial authorities and cybercrime experts is essential for conducting effective investigations in cyberspace and obtaining electronic evidence;

O.

whereas the invalidation of the Data Retention Directive by the CJEU in its judgment of 8 April 2014 as well as the prohibition of general, indiscriminate and non-targeted data retention as confirmed by the ruling of the CJEU in its TELE2 judgment of 21 December 2016 impose stringent limitations on the processing of bulk telecommunications data as well as on the access of competent authorities to such data;

P.

whereas the Maximillian Schrems judgment of the CJEU (19) highlights that mass surveillance is a breach of fundamental rights;

Q.

whereas the fight against cybercrime must respect the same procedural and substantive guarantees and fundamental rights, namely regarding data protection and freedom of speech, just as the fight against any other area of crime;

R.

whereas children use the internet at an increasingly early age and are particularly vulnerable to falling victim to grooming and other forms of sexual exploitation online (cyber bullying, sexual abuse, sexual coercion and extortion), misappropriation of personal data as well as dangerous campaigns intended to promote various kinds of self-harm, as in the case of ‘blue whale’, and therefore require special protection; whereas online perpetrators can find and groom victims faster via chat rooms, emails, online games and social networking sites and hidden peer-to-peer (P2P) networks remain the central platforms for child sex offenders to access, communicate, store and share child sexual exploitation material and to track new victims without being detected;

S.

whereas the growing trend of sexual coercion and extortion is still not being sufficiently studied or reported, mostly owing to the nature of the crime, which causes the victims to feel shame and guilt;

T.

whereas live distant child abuse is being reported as a growing threat; whereas live distant child abuse has the most obvious links with the commercial distribution of child sexual exploitation materials;

U.

whereas a recent study by the National Crime Agency in the UK found that younger persons who engage in hacking activities are less motivated by money and often attack computer networks to impress friends or to challenge a political system;

V.

whereas awareness about the risks posed by cybercrime has increased, but precautionary measures taken by individual users, public institutions and businesses, remain wholly inadequate, primarily due to lack of knowledge and resources;

W.

whereas the fight against cybercrime and against illegal activities online should not obscure the positive aspects of a free and open cyberspace, offering new possibilities for the sharing of knowledge and the promotion of political and social inclusion worldwide;

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

7.

8.

9.

10.

11.

12.

13.

14.

15.

16.

17.

18.

19.

20.

21.

22.

23.

24.

25.

26.

27.

28.

29.

30.

31.

32.

33.

34.

35.

36.

37.

38.

39.

40.

41.

42.

43.

44.

45.

46.

47.

48.

49.

50.

51.

52.

53.

54.

55.

56.

57.

58.

59.

60.

61.

62.

63.

64.

65.

66.

67.

68.

69.

70.

71.

72.

73.

74.

75.

76.

77.

78.

79.

80.

81.

82.

83.

84.

85.

86.

87.

88.

89.

—

having regard to the founding of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) on 8 August 1967,

—

having regard to the main legal framework for EU-ASEAN relations, namely the ASEAN-EEC Cooperation Agreement, signed in March 1980 (1),

—

having regard to the ASEAN Charter, signed in November 2007, establishing legal personality and a legal and institutional framework for ASEAN, including the creation of the Committee of Permanent Representatives (CPR) to support and coordinate the work of ASEAN,

—

having regard to the ASEAN Regional Forum (ARF), established in 1993 to foster dialogue and consultation on political and security issues and to contribute to confidence-building and preventive diplomacy in the Asia-Pacific region,

—

having regard to the various ASEAN frameworks for regional trust-building: the ARF, the ASEAN Defence Ministers’ Meeting (ADMM-Plus), the East Asia Summit (EAS), ASEAN Plus Three (ASEAN plus China, Japan and South Korea) and ASEAN Plus Six (ASEAN plus China, Japan, South Korea, India, Australia and New Zealand),

—

having regard to the trade agreements existing between ASEAN and Japan, China, South Korea, India, Australia and New Zealand,

—

having regard to the ongoing negotiations and/or the conclusion of seven Partnership and Cooperation Agreements between the European Union and certain ASEAN member states, namely Brunei Darussalam, Indonesia, Malaysia, the Philippines, Singapore, Thailand and Vietnam,

—

having regard to the negotiations for Free Trade Agreements (FTAs) under way with Indonesia and the Philippines, to the negotiations for FTAs with Malaysia and Thailand, both of which are currently on hold, to the expected conclusion of FTAs with Singapore and Vietnam in the coming months, and to the negotiations for an investment agreement with Myanmar;

—

having regard to the meeting between the Commissioner for trade, Cecilia Malmström, and the ASEAN finance ministers held in Manila on 10 March 2017,

—

having regard to the 9th Asia-Europe Parliamentary Partnership Meeting (ASEP9), held in Ulaanbaatar (Mongolia) on 21 and 22 April 2016,

—

having regard to the Nuremberg Declaration on an EU-ASEAN Enhanced Partnership of March 2007 and its Plan of Action of November 2007,

—

having regard to the Bandar Seri Begawan Plan of Action to Strengthen the ASEAN-EU Enhanced Partnership (2013-2017), adopted in Brunei Darussalam on 27 April 2012,

—

having regard to the Joint Communication by the Commission and the High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy to the European Parliament and the Council of 18 May 2015, entitled ‘The EU and ASEAN: a partnership with a strategic purpose’ (JOIN(2015)0022),

—

having regard to the Foreign Affairs Council conclusions on EU-ASEAN relations of 22 June 2015,

—

having regard to the Bangkok Declaration on Promoting an ASEAN-EU Global Partnership for Shared Strategic Goals of 14 October 2016,

—

having regard to the accession of the European Union to the Treaty of Amity and Cooperation in Southeast Asia (TAC) in Phnom Penh on 12 July 2012 (2),

—

having regard to the 11th Summit of the Asia-Europe Meeting (ASEM11) held in Ulaanbaatar (Mongolia) on 15 and 16 July 2016,

—

having regard to the Asia-Europe Foundation (ASEF), established in February 1997 to provide a forum for non-governmental dialogue,

—

having regard to the ASEAN-EU Programme of Regional Integration Support (APRIS), the ASEAN Regional Integration Support Programme (ARISE), and the Regional EU-ASEAN Dialogue Instrument (READI) in support of the harmonisation of policies and regulations in non-trade-related sectors,

—

having regard to the ASEAN Economic Community Blueprint agreed in 2007,

—

having regard to the 14th ASEAN summit held in 2009 and to the establishment of a roadmap for creating the ASEAN single market (ASEAN Economic Community (AEC)), the ASEAN Political-Security Community (APSC) and the ASEAN Socio-Cultural Community (ASCC),

—

having regard to the 28th and 29th ASEAN Summits held in Vientiane (Laos) on 6 and 7 September 2016 and to the 30th ASEAN Summit held in Manila (Philippines) from 26 to 29 April 2017,

—

having regard to the 24th meeting of the ASEAN-EU Joint Cooperation Committee (JCC), held on 2 March 2017 in Jakarta (Indonesia),

—

having regard to the ASEAN Community Vision 2025, adopted at the 27th ASEAN Summit held in Kuala Lumpur (Malaysia) from 18 to 22 November 2015, and to the announcement of the establishment, on 31 December 2015, of the ASEAN Economic Community, aiming to create an internal market for over 600 million people,

—

having regard to the 11th East Asia Summit (EAS) held in Vientiane (Laos) on 8 September 2016, bringing together the leaders of 18 countries — the ASEAN member states, China, Japan and South Korea (ASEAN+3), India, Australia and New Zealand (ASEAN+6), and Russia and the US,

—

having regard to the first ASEAN Human Rights Declaration of 18 November 2012 and to the establishment of the ASEAN Intergovernmental Commission on Human Rights (AICHR) in 2009,

—

having regard to ASEAN Parliamentarians for Human Rights (APHR), a body founded in 2013 with the objective of promoting democracy and human rights in all ASEAN member states,

—

having regard to the ASEAN Institute for Peace and Reconciliation (AIPR),

—

having regard to the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women, the Convention on the Rights of the Child and the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, which have been ratified by all ASEAN member states,

—

having regard to the ‘Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights: Implementing the United Nations “Protect, Respect and Remedy” Framework’, adopted by the UN Human Rights Council on 16 June 2011,

—

having regard to the ASEAN Convention Against Trafficking in Persons, Especially Women and Children, signed by all ASEAN member states in November 2015,

—

having regard to the UN Human Rights Council’s Universal Periodic Reviews (UPRs), in which all ASEAN member states have participated,

—

having regard to its recent resolutions on ASEAN, in particular that of 15 January 2014 on the future of EU-ASEAN relations (3),

—

having regard to its recent resolutions on ASEAN member states, in particular those of 9 June 2016 on Vietnam (4), of 17 December 2015 on the EU-Vietnam Framework Agreement on Comprehensive Partnership and Cooperation (resolution) (5), of 17 December 2015 on the EU-Vietnam Framework Agreement on Comprehensive Partnership and Cooperation (consent) (6), of 8 June 2016 on the EU-Philippines Framework Agreement on Partnership and Cooperation (consent) (7), and of 8 June 2016 on the EU-Philippines Framework Agreement on Partnership and Cooperation (resolution) (8),

—

having regard to its recent human rights urgency resolutions on ASEAN member states, in particular those of 14 September 2017 on Myanmar, in particular the situation of Rohingyas (9), of 21 May 2015 on the plight of Rohingya refugees, including the mass graves in Thailand (10), of 15 December 2016 on the situation of the Rohingya minority in Myanmar (11), of 7 July 2016 on Myanmar, in particular the situation of the Rohingya (12), of 14 September 2017 on Cambodia, notably the case of Kem Sokha (13), of 9 June 2016 on Cambodia (14), of 26 November 2015 on the political situation in Cambodia (15), of 9 July 2015 on Cambodia’s draft laws on NGOs and trade unions (16), of 6 October 2016 on Thailand, notably the situation of Andy Hall (17), of 8 October 2015 on the situation in Thailand (18), of 17 December 2015 on Malaysia (19), of 19 January 2017 on Indonesia (20), of 15 June 2017 on Indonesia (21), of 15 September 2016 (22) and 16 March 2017 (23) on the Philippines, and of 14 September 2017 on Laos, notably the cases of Somphone Phimmasone, Lod Thammavong and Soukane Chaithad (24),

—

having regard to Rule 52 of its Rules of Procedure,

—

having regard to the report of the Committee on Foreign Affairs (A8-0243/2017),

A.

whereas this year we celebrate the 50th anniversary of ASEAN, the 60th anniversary of the Treaties of Rome, and the 40th anniversary of EU-ASEAN formal relations;

B.

whereas the ASEAN region has emerged as one of the world’s most dynamic and fastest-growing, particularly in terms of the economy, technology and research, has a geopolitically and geo-economically strategic position, has rich resources, is pursuing a goal of increased economic integration and an ambitious Sustainable Development Goals (SDG) agenda, notably on education, and is a strong advocate of multilateralism; whereas closing the development gap within ASEAN will be vital in pursuing further integration and ensuring security, stability and the protection of social, economic and political rights;

C.

whereas the integration processes of the EU and ASEAN are different, arising from different contexts and having different visions and missions; whereas each follows its own logic but the two are comparable, as both rules-based organisations have been fostering peaceful coexistence, regional integration, and international cooperation and development, and have aimed at building trust among their members for many decades; as such, the EU is a unique type of partner for ASEAN;

D.

whereas the two regions have attained a considerable level of interaction, and EU-ASEAN relations are comprehensive and cover a wide range of sectors including trade and investment, development, economic matters and political affairs; whereas ASEAN is the EU’s third trading partner and the EU ASEAN’s second, with annual bilateral trade in goods worth more than EUR 200 billion, and the EU is the first provider of foreign direct investment (FDI) in the ASEAN region; whereas for European undertakings ASEAN represents a gateway to the wider region; whereas over the period 2014 to 2020 the EU and its Member States are the first provider of development assistance in the region and the EU has pledged over EUR 3 billion to reduce poverty and address development gaps in low-income ASEAN countries;

E.

whereas the EU experience has in the past served as a source of inspiration for other regional integration processes;

F.

whereas the EU has consistently supported the work of ASEAN and in particular the ASEAN Secretariat, and has, in recognition of ASEAN’s importance, appointed a dedicated EU Head of Delegation to ASEAN who took office in 2015;

G.

whereas at present the integration processes in both regions are being challenged but are at the same time opening up new opportunities; whereas the EU is facing several crises; whereas ASEAN, in spite of the goal of fostering ASEAN centrality, saw intra-ASEAN trade decline in 2016 and has been beset with problems, including diverging foreign policy orientations and spillover effects from domestic problems relating to threats to democracy and the rule of law, inter-religious relations, ethnic minorities, social inequalities and human rights violations, including with crossborder implications;

H.

whereas the EU has determined that it will place human rights at the centre of its relations with third countries;

I.

whereas in December 2014 the EU granted GSP+ status to the Philippines, as the first ASEAN country to enjoy such trade preferences; whereas this enables the Philippines to export 66 % of its products tariff-free to the EU;

J.

whereas the withdrawal of the US from the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) may give new impetus to negotiations for a Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership (RCEP); whereas a more assertive China is launching initiatives such as ‘One Belt, One Road’ that challenge all countries in the neighbourhood and beyond;

K.

whereas tensions in the South China Sea (SCS) constitute a threat and a risk to security and stability in the region; whereas the most worrying trend is the militarisation of the SCS; whereas the ASEAN-China Dialogue on a Code of Conduct remains ASEAN’s primary mechanism for exchanges with China on the SCS; whereas Chinese activities — from military patrols and drills to construction activities, in disregard of the principles outlined in the Declaration on the Conduct of Parties in the South China Sea of 2002 — remain an issue of concern;

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

7.

8.

9.

10.

11.

12.

13.

14.

15.

16.

17.

18.

19.

20.

21.

22.

23.

24.

25.

26.

27.

28.

29.

30.

—

having regard to the draft Commission regulation amending Annex II to Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009 by setting out scientific criteria for the determination of endocrine disrupting properties (D048947/06 (‘draft regulation’),

—

having regard to Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 October 2009 concerning the placing of plant protection products on the market and repealing Council Directives 79/117/EEC and 91/414/EEC (1), in particular Articles 4(1) and 78(1)(a) thereof and the second paragraph of point 3.6.5. and point 3.8.2. of Annex II thereto,

—

having regard to the judgment of the General Court of the Court of Justice of the European Union of 16 December 2015 (2), and in particular paragraphs 71 and 72 thereof,

—

having regard to its resolution of 8 June 2016 on endocrine disruptors: state of play following the judgment of the General Court of the European Union of 16 December 2015 (3),

—

having regard to the Commission communication of 15 June 2016 on endocrine disruptors and the draft Commission acts setting out scientific criteria for their determination in the context of the EU legislation on plant protection products and biocidal products (COM(2016)0350),

—

having regard to the summary report of the Standing Committee on Plants, Animals, Food and Feed held in Brussels on 28 February 2017,

—

having regard to its resolution of 14 March 2013 on the protection of public health from endocrine disrupters (4),

—

having regard to Article 5a(3)(b) of Council Decision 1999/468/EC of 28 June 1999 laying down the procedures for the exercise of implementing powers conferred on the Commission (5),

—

having regard to the motion for a resolution of the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Food Safety,

—

having regard to Rule 106(2), (3) and (4)(c) of its Rules of Procedure,

A.

whereas, in accordance with point 3.8.2. of Annex II to Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009, an active substance is only to be approved if it is not considered to have endocrine disrupting properties that may cause adverse effects on non-target organisms, unless the exposure of non-target organisms to that active substance under realistic proposed conditions of use is negligible (cut-off criterion for the environment);

B.

whereas, in accordance with the second paragraph of point 3.6.5. of Annex II to Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009, the Commission is to present to the Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health a draft of the measures concerning specific scientific criteria for the determination of endocrine disrupting properties by 14 December 2013;

C.

whereas the Standing Committee on Plants, Animals, Food and Feed delivered a positive opinion on the draft regulation on 4 July 2017, with three Member States voting against, and four Member States abstaining;

D.

whereas the last paragraph of the draft regulation stipulates that ‘if the intended plant protection mode of action of the active substance being assessed, consists of controlling target organisms other than vertebrates via their endocrine systems, the effects on organisms of the same taxonomic phylum as the targeted one, shall not be considered for the identification of the substance as having endocrine disrupting properties with respect to non-target organisms’;

E.

whereas the General Court in its judgment in case T-521/14 clearly stated that ‘la spécification des critères scientifiques pour la détermination des propriétés perturbant le système endocrinien ne peut se faire que de manière objective, au regard de données scientifiques relatives audit système, indépendamment de toute autre considération, en particulier économique’ (6) (paragraph 71);

F.

whereas it is not scientific to exclude a substance with an intended endocrine mode of action from being identified as an endocrine disrupter for non-target organisms;

G.

whereas the draft regulation can therefore not be considered to be based on objective scientific data related to the endocrine system, as required by the Court; whereas the Commission thereby exceeds its implementing powers;

H.

whereas the actual intention of this last paragraph is clearly spelled out in the summary report of the Standing Committee on Plants, Animals, Food and Feed held in Brussels on 28 February 2017, which states that ‘furthermore, the rationale behind the provision on active substances with intended endocrine mode of action (below called growth regulators (GR)) was explained. […] The provision on GR allows that the cut-off criteria will not be applied to substances with an intended endocrine mode of action […]’;

I.

whereas this last paragraph effectively creates a derogation from the cut-off criterion laid down in point 3.8.2. of Annex II to Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009;

J.

whereas it is apparent from recitals 6 to 10 and Article 1(3) of Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009 that, when addressing the complex issue of setting the rules on approving active substances, the legislature had to strike a delicate balance between the different and potentially conflicting objectives, namely agricultural production and the internal market, on the one hand, and the protection of health and the environment, on the other;

K.

whereas the General Court stated the following in the judgment referred to above: ‘Dans ce contexte, il importe de relever que, en adoptant le règlement no 528/2012, le législateur a procédé à une mise en balance de l’objectif d’amélioration du marché intérieur et de celui de la préservation de la santé humaine, de la santé animale et de l’environnement, que la Commission se doit de respecter et ne saurait remettre en cause […]. Or, dans le cadre de la mise en œuvre des pouvoirs qui lui sont délégués par le législateur, la Commission ne saurait remettre en cause cet équilibre, ce que cette institution a d’ailleurs en substance admis lors de l’audience’ (7) (paragraph 72);

L.

whereas this was echoed by Parliament in its resolution of 8 June 2016, which stresses that ‘the General Court ruled that the specification of scientific criteria can only be carried out in an objective manner on the basis of scientific data related to the endocrine system, independently of any other consideration, in particular economic ones, and that the Commission is not entitled to change the regulatory balance laid down in a basic act via the application of powers delegated to it pursuant to Article 290 [of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU)]’;

M.

whereas the same limitations of power apply to the Commission in the context of an implementing act under the regulatory procedure with scrutiny;

N.

whereas, according to the Commission communication of 15 June 2016, ‘the issue faced by the Commission in this exercise is to establish criteria to determine what is or is not an endocrine disruptor for the purposes of plant protection products and biocidal products — not to decide how to regulate these substances. The regulatory consequences have already been set by the legislator in the legislation on plant protection products (2009) and biocidal products (2012)’;

O.

whereas the cut-off criterion laid down in point 3.8.2. of Annex II to Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009 constitutes an essential element of the regulation;

P.

whereas, in accordance with long-standing case law, the adoption of regulatory elements that are essential to a given matter is reserved to the EU legislature and may not be delegated to the Commission;

Q.

whereas the Commission has exceeded its implementing powers by modifying an essential regulatory element of Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009, contrary to the recognition of its limits of power in the Court hearing in case T-521/14, contrary to its assertions in the Commission communication of 15 June 2016 and contrary to the fundamental Union principle of the rule of law;

R.

whereas, even if the developments in scientific and technical knowledge were to provide valid grounds for introducing a derogation as regards the approval conditions of substances with an intended endocrine mode of action, such a derogation could only be introduced through a legislative procedure to amend Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009 in accordance with Article 294 TFEU;

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

—

having regard to the draft Commission implementing decision authorising the placing on the market of products containing, consisting of, or produced from genetically modified soybean FG72 × A5547-127 pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 of the European Parliament and of the Council on genetically modified food and feed (D051972),

—

having regard to Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 September 2003 on genetically modified food and feed (1), and in particular Articles 7(3), 9(2), 19(3) and 21(2) thereof,

—

having regard to the vote of the Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health referred to in Article 35 of Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003, on 17 July 2017, where no opinion was delivered,

—

having regard to Articles 11 and 13 of Regulation (EU) No 182/2011 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 February 2011 laying down the rules and general principles concerning mechanisms for control by Member States of the Commission’s exercise of implementing powers (2),

—

having regard to the opinion adopted by the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) on 1 March 2017, and published on 6 April 2017 (3),

—

having regard to the proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Regulation (EU) No 182/2011 laying down the rules and general principles concerning mechanisms for control by Member States of the Commission’s exercise of implementing powers (COM(2017)0085, COD(2017)0035),

—

having regard to its previous resolutions objecting to the authorisation of genetically modified organisms (4),

—

having regard to the motion for a resolution of the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Food Safety,

—

having regard to Rule 106(2) and (3) of its Rules of Procedure,

A.

whereas on 10 December 2013 Bayer Crop Science LP and M.S. Technologies LLC submitted an application for the placing on the market of foods, food ingredients and feed containing, consisting of, or produced from genetically modified soybean FG72 × A5547-127 to the national competent authority of the Netherlands, in accordance with Articles 5 and 17 of Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003; whereas that application also covered the placing on the market of genetically modified soybean FG72 × A5547-127 in products consisting of it or containing it for uses other than food and feed in the same way as any other soybean, with the exception of cultivation;

B.

whereas on 1 March 2017 the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) adopted a favourable opinion in accordance with Articles 6 and 18 of Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003, which was published on 6 April 2017 (5);

C.

whereas Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 states that genetically modified food or feed must not have adverse effects on human health, animal health or the environment, and requires the Commission to take into account any relevant provisions of Union law and other legitimate factors relevant to the matter under consideration when drafting its decision;

D.

whereas soybean FG72 × A5547-127 was developed to confer tolerance to isoxaflutole- (5-cyclopropylisoxazol-4-yl 2-mesyl-4-trifluoromethylphenyl ketone), glyphosate- (N-(phosphonomethyl) glycine) and glufosinate (l-phosphinothricin) ammonium-based herbicides; whereas tolerance to those herbicides is achieved by expression of the HPPD W336 (4-hydroxyl phenyl-pyruvate-dioxygenase), 2mEPSPS (5-enolpyruvylshikimate-3-phosphate synthase) and PAT (phosphinothricin acetyl-transferase) proteins, respectively;

E.

whereas many critical comments were submitted by Member States during the three-month consultation period (6); whereas the most critical comments include the observation that, in the absence of a 90-day sub-chronic toxicity test, no conclusion on the risks relating to the use of this GMO in human and animal feed can be drawn, that information provided on composition, phenotypic evaluation and toxicology is insufficient, that conclusions reached on equivalence between the GMO and the conventional soybean, and on food and feed safety, based on this information are premature, and that this GMO soybean has not been tested with the scientific vigour needed to establish its safety;

F.

whereas an independent study concludes that the risk assessment by EFSA is not acceptable in its present form since it does not identify knowledge gaps and uncertainties and fails to assess toxicity or the impact on the immune system and the reproductive system (7);

G.

whereas glyphosate’s current authorisation expires on 31 December 2017 at the latest; whereas questions on the carcinogenicity of glyphosate remain; whereas EFSA concluded in November 2015 that glyphosate is unlikely to be carcinogenic and the European Chemicals Agency (ECHA) concluded in March 2017 that no classification was warranted; whereas, on the contrary, in 2015 the WHO’s International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) classified glyphosate as a probable carcinogen for humans;

H.

whereas glufosinate is classified as toxic to reproduction and thus falls under the ‘cut-off criteria’ set out in Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 October 2009 concerning the placing of plant protection products on the market (8); whereas the approval of glufosinate expires on 31 July 2018 (9);

I.

whereas isoxaflutole is likely to be carcinogenic to humans (10), is toxic to some aquatic organisms and to non-target plants, and it and its degradation products and metabolites contaminate water easily; whereas such concerns have resulted in restrictions on its use (11);

J.

whereas the application of the complementary herbicides is part of regular agricultural practice in the cultivation of herbicide-resistant plants and it can therefore be expected that residues from spraying will always be present in the harvest and are inevitable constituents; whereas it has been shown that herbicide-tolerant genetically modified crops result in higher use of complementary herbicides than their conventional counterparts (12);

K.

whereas the residues from spraying with the complementary herbicides were not assessed by EFSA; whereas it, therefore, cannot be concluded that genetically engineered soybeans sprayed with isoxaflutole, glyphosate and glufosinate are safe for use in food and feed;

L.

whereas the development of genetically modified crops that are tolerant to several selective herbicides is mainly due to the rapid evolution of weed resistance to glyphosate in countries that have relied heavily on genetically modified crops; whereas more than 20 different varieties of glyphosate-resistant weeds have been documented in scientific publications (13); whereas glufosinate resistant weeds have been observed since 2009;

M.

whereas the vote of the Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health, referred to in Article 35 of Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003, on 17 July 2017 delivered a ‘no opinion’; whereas 15 Member States voted against, only 10 Member States, representing only 38,43 % of the Union population, voted in favour, and three Member States abstained;

N.

whereas the vote of the appeal committee on 14 September 2017 delivered a ‘no opinion’; whereas 15 Member States voted against, only 11 Member States, representing 38,69 % of the Union population, voted in favour, and two Member States abstained;

O.

whereas on several occasions the Commission has deplored the fact that, since the entry into force of Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003, authorisation decisions have been adopted by the Commission without the support of the Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health and that the return of the dossier to the Commission for final decision, which is very much the exception for the procedure as a whole, has become the norm for decision-making on genetically modified food and feed authorisations; whereas that practice has also been deplored by Commission President Juncker as not being democratic (14);

P.

whereas Parliament rejected the legislative proposal of 22 April 2015 amending Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 on 28 October 2015 at first reading (15) and called on the Commission to withdraw it and submit a new one;

Q.

whereas recital 14 of Regulation (EU) No 182/2011 states that the Commission will, as far as possible, act in such a way as to avoid going against any predominant position which might emerge within the appeal committee against the appropriateness of an implementing act, especially on sensitive issues such as consumer health, food safety and the environment;

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

7.

8.

9.

10.

—

Resolution of 16 January 2014 on the proposal for a Council decision concerning the placing on the market for cultivation, in accordance with Directive 2001/18/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council, of a maize product (Zea mays L., line 1507) genetically modified for resistance to certain lepidopteran pests (OJ C 482, 23.12.2016, p. 110).

—

Resolution of 16 December 2015 on Commission Implementing Decision (EU) 2015/2279 of 4 December 2015 authorising the placing on the market of products containing, consisting of, or produced from genetically modified maize NK603 × T25 (Texts adopted, P8_TA(2015)0456).

—

Resolution of 3 February 2016 on the draft Commission implementing decision authorising the placing on the market of products containing, consisting of, or produced from genetically modified soybean MON 87705 × MON 89788 (Texts adopted, P8_TA(2016)0040).

—

Resolution of 3 February 2016 on the draft Commission implementing decision authorising the placing on the market of products containing, consisting of, or produced from genetically modified soybean MON 87708 × MON 89788 (Texts adopted, P8_TA(2016)0039).

—

Resolution of 3 February 2016 on the draft Commission implementing decision authorising the placing on the market of products containing, consisting of, or produced from genetically modified soybean FG72 (MST-FGØ72-2) (Texts adopted, P8_TA(2016)0038).

—

Resolution of 8 June 2016 on the draft Commission implementing decision authorising the placing on the market of products containing, consisting of, or produced from genetically modified maize Bt11 × MIR162 × MIR604 × GA21, and genetically modified maizes combining two or three of those events (Texts adopted, P8_TA(2016)0271).

—

Resolution of 8 June 2016 on the draft Commission implementing decision as regards the placing on the market of a genetically modified carnation (Dianthus caryophyllus L., line SHD-27531-4)) (Texts adopted, P8_TA(2016)0272).

—

Resolution of 6 October 2016 on the draft Commission implementing decision renewing the authorisation for the placing on the market for cultivation of genetically modified maize MON 810 seeds (Texts adopted, P8_TA(2016)0388).

—

Resolution of 6 October 2016 on the draft Commission implementing decision authorising the placing on the market of genetically modified maize MON 810 products (Texts adopted, P8_TA(2016)0389).

—

Resolution of 6 October 2016 on the draft Commission implementing decision concerning the placing on the market for cultivation of genetically modified maize Bt11 seeds (Texts adopted, P8_TA(2016)0386).

—

Resolution of 6 October 2016 on the draft Commission implementing decision concerning the placing on the market for cultivation of genetically modified maize 1507 seeds (Texts adopted, P8_TA(2016)0387).