—

having regard to the draft Commission implementing decision renewing the authorisation for the placing on the market of products containing, consisting of, or produced from genetically modified maize 59122 (DAS-59122-7) pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 of the European Parliament and of the Council on genetically modified food and feed (D054772-02),

—

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 11(3) and 23(3) 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 16 January 2018, 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 on 18 May 2017, and published on 29 June 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 Commission Decision 2007/702/EC authorised the placing on the market of food and feed containing, consisting or produced from genetically modified maize 59122 (‘GM maize 59122’); whereas, prior to that Commission decision, on 23 March 2007, 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 3 April 2007 (5) (the ‘first EFSA opinion’);

B.

whereas on 19 July 2016, Pioneer Overseas Corporation and Dow AgroSciences Ltd. (the ‘applicant’) jointly submitted an application for the renewal of the authorisation for the placing on the market of foods and feed containing, consisting of, or produced from GM maize 59122 in accordance with Articles 11 and 23 of Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003; whereas that application also covered the placing on the market of genetically modified maize 59122 in products consisting of it or containing it for uses other than food and feed as any other maize, with the exception of cultivation;

C.

whereas, on 18 May 2017, EFSA adopted a favourable opinion, in accordance with Articles 6 and 18 of Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003, which was published on 29 June 2017 (6) (the ‘second EFSA opinion’);

D.

whereas GM maize 59122 expresses CRY34Ab1 and CRY35Ab1 proteins conferring resistance to coleopteran insect pests belonging to the genus Diabrotica such as larvae of western corn rootworm and the PAT protein which confers tolerance to glufosinate-containing herbicides;

E.

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 that the Commission shall take into account any relevant provisions of Union law and other legitimate factors relevant to the matter under consideration when drafting its decision;

F.

whereas many critical comments were submitted by Member States in relation to the first EFSA opinion during the three-month consultation period (7) relating to, inter alia, the insufficient surveillance plan, the risk of exposure to BT toxins of non-target organisms, the lack of basis for the conclusion that ‘feed products from GM maize 59122 are substantially equivalent to, nutritionally equivalent to and as safe as feed products from commercial maize’ and, with regard to the 90-day rat study, the fact that GM maize 59122 was administered at only one dose level for the whole study, in breach of the recommendation in the OECD guidelines concerned;

G.

whereas, following the submission from the applicant for re-authorisation, EFSA was asked to assess data submitted by the applicant, including post-market environmental monitoring reports and 11 primary research studies published between 2007 and 2016; whereas, on the basis of its assessment of the submitted data, EFSA adopted a favourable opinion (the second EFSA opinion, as referred to above), concluding that ‘no new hazards or modified exposure and no new scientific uncertainties were identified that would change the conclusions of the original risk assessment on maize 59122’;

H.

whereas many critical comments were submitted by Member States in relation to the second EFSA opinion during the three-month consultation period (8) including, inter alia, ‘that the monitoring conducted for GM maize 59122 is unable to provide meaningful results for the current assessment and to resolve uncertainties associated with the risk assessment conducted prior to authorisation, e.g. as regards exposure of the environment’ and that ‘the monitoring approach implemented for GM maize 59122 is not in line with requirements of Annex VII of Directive 2001/18/EC’;

I.

whereas one Member State questioned why several public studies demonstrating the immunogenicity of Cry proteins in mice had not been submitted by the applicant, and therefore assessed by EFSA, and advised that concerns relating to immunogenicity and adjuvanticity of the Cry proteins expressed in GM maize 59122 should be resolved before renewal of authorisation is granted;

J.

whereas one Member State noted that the Union has approved the Convention on Biological Diversity, which places international responsibilities on both exporting and importing countries regarding biological diversity and that therefore it is important to take into account the impacts of importing the GM maize 59122 into the Union, both on Union biodiversity as well as biodiversity in the countries of cultivation;

K.

whereas glufosinate is classified as toxic to reproduction and thus falls under the exclusion criteria set out in Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council (9); whereas the approval of glufosinate expires on 31 July 2018 (10);

L.

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 (11);

M.

whereas the residues from spraying with glufosinate were not assessed in either EFSA opinion; whereas residues of glufosinate will be present on GM maize 59122 crop imported into the Union for food and feed uses;

N.

whereas it would be unacceptable from a food safety perspective, as well as highly inconsistent, to authorise the import of a glufosinate tolerant GM maize given that the authorisation for the use of glufosinate in the Union expires on 31 July 2018 due to its reproductive toxicity (12);

O.

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 16 January 2018 delivered no opinion; whereas 12 Member States voted against, while 12 Member States, representing only 38,83 % of the Union population, voted in favour, and four Member States abstained;

P.

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 (13);

Q.

whereas Parliament rejected the legislative proposal of 22 April 2015 amending Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 on 28 October 2015 at first reading (14) and called on the Commission to withdraw it and submit a new one;

R.

whereas recital 14 of Regulation (EU) No 182/2011 states that the Commission should, 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.

—

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 (OJ C 399, 24.11.2017, p. 71).

—

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 (OJ C 35, 31.1.2018, p. 19).

—

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 (OJ C 35, 31.1.2018, p. 17).

—

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) (OJ C 35, 31.1.2018, p. 15).

—

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).

—

Resolution of 6 October 2016 on the draft Commission implementing decision authorising the placing on the market of products containing, consisting of, or produced from genetically modified cotton 281-24-236 × 3006-210-23 × MON 88913 (Texts adopted, P8_TA(2016)0390).

—

Resolution of 5 April 2017 on the draft Commission implementing decision authorising the placing on the market of products containing, consisting of, or produced from genetically modified maize Bt11 × 59122 × MIR604 × 1507 × GA21, and genetically modified maizes combining two, three or four of the events Bt11, 59122, MIR604, 1507 and GA21 pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 of the European parliament and of the Council on genetically modified food and feed (Texts adopted, P8_TA(2017)0123).

—

Resolution of 17 May 2017 on the draft Commission implementing decision authorising the placing on the market of products containing, consisting of, or produced from genetically modified maize DAS-40278-9, pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 of the European Parliament and of the Council on genetically modified food and feed (Texts adopted, P8_TA(2017)0215).

—

Resolution of 17 May 2017 on the draft Commission implementing decision authorising the placing on the market of products containing, consisting of, or produced from genetically modified cotton GHB119 (BCS-GHØØ5-8) pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 of the European Parliament and of the Council (Texts adopted, P8_TA(2017)0214).

—

Resolution of 13 September 2017 on the draft Commission implementing decision authorising the placing on the market of products containing, consisting of, or produced from genetically modified soybean DAS-68416-4, pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 of the European Parliament and of the Council on genetically modified food and feed (Texts adopted, P8_TA(2017)0341).

—

Resolution of 4 October 2017 on 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 (Texts adopted, P8_TA(2017)0377).

—

Resolution of 4 October 2017 on the draft Commission implementing decision authorising the placing on the market of products containing, consisting of, or produced from genetically modified soybean DAS-44406-6, pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 of the European Parliament and of the Council on genetically modified food and feed (Texts adopted, P8_TA(2017)0378).

—

Resolution of 24 October 2017 on the draft Commission implementing decision renewing the authorisation for the placing on the market of products containing, consisting of, or produced from genetically modified maize 1507 (DAS-Ø15Ø7-1) pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 of the European Parliament and of the Council on genetically modified food and feed (Texts adopted, P8_TA(2017)0396).

—

Resolution of 24 October 2017 on the draft Commission implementing decision authorising the placing on the market of products containing, consisting of, or produced from genetically modified soybean 305423 × 40-3-2 (DP-3Ø5423-1 × MON-Ø4Ø32-6) pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 of the European Parliament and of the Council on genetically modified food and feed (Texts adopted, P8_TA(2017)0397).

—

Resolution of 24 October 2017 on the draft Commission implementing decision authorising the placing on the market of products containing, consisting of, or produced from genetically modified oilseed rapes MON 88302 × Ms8 × Rf3 (MON-883Ø2-9 × ACSBNØØ5-8 × ACS-BNØØ3-6), MON 88302 × Ms8 (MON-883Ø2-9 × ACSBNØØ5-8) and MON 88302 × Rf3 (MON-883Ø2-9 × ACS-BNØØ3-6) pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 of the European Parliament and of the Council on genetically modified food and feed (Texts adopted, P8_TA(2017)0398).

—

having regard to the draft Commission implementing decision authorising the placing on the market of products containing, consisting of, or produced from genetically modified maize MON 87427 × MON 89034 × NK603 (MON-87427-7 × MON-89Ø34-3 × MON-ØØ6Ø3-6) and genetically modified maize combining two of the events MON 87427, MON 89034 and NK603 (D054771-02),

—

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) and 19(3) 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 16 January 2018, 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 on 28 June 2017, and published on 1 August 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 13 September 2013, Monsanto Europe S.A. submitted an application for the placing on the market of foods, food ingredients and feed containing, consisting of, or produced from genetically modified (GM) maize MON 87427 × MON 89034 × NK603 to the national competent authority of Belgium in accordance with Articles 5 and 17 of Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003; whereas that application also covered the placing on the market of products consisting of or containing genetically modified maize MON 87427 × MON 89034 × NK603 for uses other than food and feed as any other maize, with the exception of cultivation;

B.

whereas the application covered, for those uses, all three sub-combinations of GM maize MON 87427 × MON 89034 × NK603;

C.

whereas GM maize MON 87427 × MON 89034 × NK603 contains two genes for glyphosate resistance and produces Cry1A.105 and Cry2Ab2 proteins which confer resistance to specific lepidopteran pests;

D.

whereas on 28 June 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 1 August 2017 (5);

E.

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 that the Commission shall take into account any relevant provisions of Union law and other legitimate factors relevant to the matter under consideration when drafting its decision;

F.

whereas many critical comments were submitted by Member States during the three-month consultation period (6); whereas the most critical comments include the fact that the compositional analysis does not cover residues of the complementary herbicides nor its metabolites; that, due to concerns over, inter alia, studies showing an increase in the incidence of bladder stones in mice fed on MON 89034, a conclusion about the risks associated with the use of this GM organism (‘GMO’) in human or animal food cannot be drawn; that further information is required before the risk assessment can be finalised, and that no conclusions are possible with regard to sub-chronic (no 90-day study was performed), long-term, reproductive or developmental effects of the whole food and/or feed;

G.

whereas the competent authority of one Member State has drawn attention to the fact that, for the GM maize MON 87427 × MON 89034 × NK603 (treated with glyphosate) statistically significant differences with the non-GM comparator were identified for 16 grain endpoints (7) and 2 forage endpoints (8), that even more statistically different grain endpoints (42) were identified in a comparison between the GM maize not treated with glyphosate and its non-GM comparator, and that a significant decrease in the vitamin and mineral content of crops is a major concern for human and animal health given that Type B malnutrition is a global problem;

H.

whereas an independent study (9) has found that, given those statistical differences, it can be assumed that the GM maize is essentially different from its comparator with regard to many compositional and biological characteristics and that, while the changes taken as isolated data might not raise safety concerns, the overall number of effects and their strong significance should have been taken as a starting point for more detailed investigations; whereas EFSA did not undertake further studies;

I.

whereas no experimental data were provided by the applicant for the sub-combinations MON 87427 × MON 89034 and MON 87427 × NK603; whereas, while the EFSA GMO panel expects, following extrapolation of experimental data provided for the other sub-combination and single events, the two sub-combinations to be as safe as the assessed single maize events, MON 89034 × NK603 and MON 87427 × MON 89034 × NK603, no evaluation of the uncertainty relating to the extrapolation was performed; whereas this weakness may invalidate the general conclusion of the EFSA opinion and may also be in breach of EFSA’s ‘Guidance on Uncertainty Analysis in Scientific Assessment’ published in January 2018 (10); whereas authorisation should not be considered without a thorough assessment of experimental data for each sub combination of a stacked event;

J.

whereas the GMO panel of EFSA observed that the post-market environmental monitoring plan submitted by the applicant for the three-event stack maize does not include any provisions for the two sub-combinations MON 87427 × MON 89034 and MON 87427 × NK603, and therefore recommended that the applicant revise the plan accordingly; whereas, according to the monitoring plan submitted by the applicant, this recommendation has not been taken up (11);

K.

whereas one of the key purposes of the stacked event is to increase the plant’s tolerance to glyphosate (both NK603 and MON 87427 express EPSPS enzymes which confer tolerance to glyphosate); whereas, in consequence, it has to be expected that the plant will be exposed to higher and also repeated dosages of glyphosate which will not only lead to a higher burden of residues in the harvest but may also influence the composition of the plants and their agronomic characteristics; whereas this aspect was not covered in the risk assessment; whereas the residues from spraying with glyphosate were also not assessed in the EFSA opinion;

L.

whereas questions concerning the carcinogenicity of glyphosate remain; whereas EFSA concluded in November 2015 that glyphosate is unlikely to be carcinogenic and the European Chemicals Agency concluded in March 2017 that no classification was warranted; whereas, on the contrary, in 2015 the WHO’s International Agency for Research on Cancer classified glyphosate as a probable carcinogen for humans; whereas the Parliament has established a special committee on the Union’s authorisation procedure for pesticides, which will help to establish if there was undue industry influence over the Union agencies’ conclusions on glyphosate’s carcinogenicity;

M.

whereas, according to the EFSA pesticide panel, on the basis of data provided so far, conclusions on the safety of residues from spraying genetically modified crops with glyphosate formations cannot be drawn (12); whereas additives and their mixtures used in commercial formulations for spraying glyphosate can show a higher toxicity than the active ingredient alone (13); whereas the Union has already removed an additive known as POE tallowamine from the market due to concerns over its toxicity; whereas however, problematic additives and mixtures may still be permitted in the countries where this GM maize is cultivated;

N.

whereas imported GM maize is widely used for animal feed in the Union; whereas a peer-reviewed scientific study has found a possible correlation between glyphosate in feed given to pregnant sows, and an increase in the incidence of severe congenital anomalies in their piglets (14);

O.

whereas the development of genetically modified crops 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;

P.

whereas insect resistant traits of the stacked event are due to MON 89034 which expresses Bt proteins (Cry1A.105 and Cry2Ab2) conferring resistance to specific lepidopteran pests (e.g. the European corn borer (Ostrinia nubilalis)); whereas, according to an independent study, in the context of EFSA’s risk assessment, the residues from glyphosate should have also been considered to be a potent co-stressor since the impact on cells and organisms exposed to several stressors in parallel can be of great importance for the efficacy of Bt toxins (15); whereas a 2017 scientific study on the possible health impacts of Bt toxins and residues from spraying with complementary herbicides concludes that specific attention should be paid to the herbicide residues and their interaction with Bt toxins (16); whereas this was not investigated by EFSA;

Q.

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 16 January 2018 delivered no opinion; whereas 14 Member States voted against, while only 11 Member States, representing only 38,75 % of the Union population voted in favour, and three Member States abstained;

R.

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 (17);

S.

whereas Parliament rejected the legislative proposal of 22 April 2015 amending Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 on 28 October 2015 at first reading (18) and called on the Commission to withdraw it and submit a new one;

T.

whereas recital 14 of Regulation (EU) No 182/2011 states that the Commission should, 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 (OJ C 399, 24.11.2017, p. 71).

—

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 (OJ C 35, 31.1.2018, p. 19).

—

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 (OJ C 35, 31.1.2018, p. 17).

—

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) (OJ C 35, 31.1.2018, p. 15).

—

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).

—

Resolution of 6 October 2016 on the draft Commission implementing decision authorising the placing on the market of products containing, consisting of, or produced from genetically modified cotton 281-24-236 × 3006-210-23 × MON 88913 (Texts adopted, P8_TA(2016)0390).

—

Resolution of 5 April 2017 on the draft Commission implementing decision authorising the placing on the market of products containing, consisting of, or produced from genetically modified maize Bt11 × 59122 × MIR604 × 1507 × GA21, and genetically modified maizes combining two, three or four of the events Bt11, 59122, MIR604, 1507 and GA21 pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 of the European parliament and of the Council on genetically modified food and feed (Texts adopted, P8_TA(2017)0123).

—

Resolution of 17 May 2017 on the draft Commission implementing decision authorising the placing on the market of products containing, consisting of, or produced from genetically modified maize DAS-40278-9, pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 of the European Parliament and of the Council on genetically modified food and feed (Texts adopted, P8_TA(2017)0215).

—

Resolution of 17 May 2017 on the draft Commission implementing decision authorising the placing on the market of products containing, consisting of, or produced from genetically modified cotton GHB119 (BCS-GHØØ5-8) pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 of the European Parliament and of the Council (Texts adopted, P8_TA(2017)0214).

—

Resolution of 13 September 2017 on the draft Commission implementing decision authorising the placing on the market of products containing, consisting of, or produced from genetically modified soybean DAS-68416-4, pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 of the European Parliament and of the Council on genetically modified food and feed (Texts adopted, P8_TA(2017)0341).

—

Resolution of 4 October 2017 on 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 (Texts adopted, P8_TA(2017)0377).

—

Resolution of 4 October 2017 on the draft Commission implementing decision authorising the placing on the market of products containing, consisting of, or produced from genetically modified soybean DAS-44406-6, pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 of the European Parliament and of the Council on genetically modified food and feed (Texts adopted, P8_TA(2017)0378).

—

Resolution of 24 October 2017 on the draft Commission implementing decision renewing the authorisation for the placing on the market of products containing, consisting of, or produced from genetically modified maize 1507 (DAS-Ø15Ø7-1) pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 of the European Parliament and of the Council on genetically modified food and feed (Texts adopted, P8_TA(2017)0396).

—

Resolution of 24 October 2017 on the draft Commission implementing decision authorising the placing on the market of products containing, consisting of, or produced from genetically modified soybean 305423 × 40-3-2 (DP-3Ø5423-1 × MON-Ø4Ø32-6) pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 of the European Parliament and of the Council on genetically modified food and feed (Texts adopted, P8_TA(2017)0397).

—

Resolution of 24 October 2017 on the draft Commission implementing decision authorising the placing on the market of products containing, consisting of, or produced from genetically modified oilseed rapes MON 88302 × Ms8 × Rf3 (MON-883Ø2-9 × ACSBNØØ5-8 × ACS-BNØØ3-6), MON 88302 × Ms8 (MON-883Ø2-9 × ACSBNØØ5-8) and MON 88302 × Rf3 (MON-883Ø2-9 × ACS-BNØØ3-6) pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 of the European Parliament and of the Council on genetically modified food and feed (Texts adopted, P8_TA(2017)0398).

—

having regard to the Commission reasoned proposal of 20 December 2017 in accordance with Article 7(1) of the Treaty on European Union (TEU) regarding the rule of law in Poland: Proposal for a Council decision on the determination of a clear risk of a serious breach by the Republic of Poland of the rule of law (COM(2017)0835),

—

having regard to Commission Recommendation (EU) 2018/103 of 20 December 2017 regarding the rule of law in Poland, complementary to Recommendations (EU) 2016/1374, (EU) 2017/146 and (EU) 2017/1520 (1),

—

having regard to the Commission’s decision to refer Poland to the Court of Justice of the European Union under Article 258 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union for infringement of Union law by the law amending the law on the organisation of ordinary courts (2),

—

having regard to its resolution of 15 November 2017 on the situation of the rule of law and democracy in Poland (3) and to its previous resolutions on the subject,

—

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

A.

whereas its resolution of 15 November 2017 on the situation of the rule of law and democracy in Poland states that the current situation in Poland represents a clear risk of a serious breach of the values referred to in Article 2 TEU;

1.

2.

3.

4.

—

having regard to the Treaty on European Union and the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,

—

having regard to the references made in previous reports to the state of fundamental rights in the European Union,

—

having regard to its previous resolutions and the previous resolutions of other European and international institutions and agencies,

—

having regard to the reports by national, European and international NGOs,

—

having regard to the work carried out by the European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights (FRA), the Council of Europe and the Venice Commission,

—

having regard to the case law of the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) and of the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR),

—

having regard to the work of the Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs, the Committee on Constitutional Affairs, the Committee on Women’s Rights and Gender Equality, the Committee on Employment and Social Affairs and the Committee on Petitions,

—

having regard to Council Directive 2000/43/EC of 29 June 2000 implementing the principle of equal treatment between persons irrespective of racial or ethnic origin, Council Directive 2000/78/EC of 27 November 2000 establishing a general framework for equal treatment in employment and occupation, and Directive 2013/33/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 June 2013 laying down standards for the reception of applicants for international protection,

—

having regard to the African and European leaders’ joint statement on the migrant situation in Libya of 1 December 2017 following the African Union — European Union (AU-EU) summit in Abidjan,

—

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 (A8-0025/2018),

A.

whereas the basis for European integration is the upholding and promotion of human rights, fundamental freedoms, democracy, the rule of law and the values and principles enshrined in the European Treaties, the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights and international human rights instruments;

B.

whereas Article 2 of the TEU states that the EU is founded on the values of respect for human dignity, freedom, democracy, equality, the primacy of law and human rights, including the rights of persons belonging to minorities — values which are shared by all the Member States and which must be upheld and actively promoted by the EU and each Member State individually in all their policies, both internally and externally in a consistent way; whereas Article 17 of the TEU states that the Commission must ensure the application of the Treaties;

C.

whereas respect for the rule of law is a prerequisite for the protection of fundamental rights, and whereas Member States have the ultimate responsibility to safeguard the human rights of all people by enacting and implementing international human rights treaties and conventions; whereas the rule of law and fundamental rights should be continually consolidated; whereas any attempt to undermine these principles is to the detriment not only of the Member State concerned but also of the Union as a whole;

D.

whereas the EU’s accession to the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms is a Treaty obligation under Article 6(2) of the TEU;

E.

whereas special attention should be paid to the protection of the human rights of the most vulnerable groups;

F.

whereas the aberrant governance practices seen in some Member States reflect a selective approach to the benefits and responsibilities of EU membership, and whereas the refusal by those Member States to fully uphold EU law, the separation of powers, the independence of the judiciary and the predictability of state actions is undermining the credibility of the EU as a legal area;

G.

whereas the arrival in Europe of migrants and asylum seekers continued in 2016 (1); whereas many of these migrants take extremely dangerous routes, placing their lives in the hands of traffickers and criminals, and are vulnerable to violence, abuse and exploitation; whereas, according to UNHCR data, 27 % of the migrants arriving in Europe via the Mediterranean are children; whereas, according to Unicef-IOM (International Organisation for Migration) reports, about a quarter of the adolescents surveyed in the central Mediterranean route had never been to school;

H.

whereas in 2016 racist and xenophobic reactions against refugees, asylum seekers and migrants were widespread, and whereas particularly vulnerable populations continue to experience increased levels of discrimination, violence and re-traumatisation during the asylum process;

I.

whereas the strong migratory pressure to which certain Member States have been subjected for several years requires real EU solidarity to put in place adequate reception structures for those most in need and vulnerable; whereas many migrants place their lives in the hands of smugglers and criminals and are vulnerable to violations of their rights, including violence, abuse and exploitation;

J.

whereas women and children are at higher risk of being trafficked, exploited and sexually abused at the hands of traffickers and there is therefore a need to build and strengthen child protection systems to prevent and respond to violence, abuse, neglect and exploitation of children, in line with the commitments set out in the Valletta Action Plan;

K.

whereas the ongoing wave of terrorist attacks across the EU has fuelled widespread mistrust of Muslims, both EU citizens and migrants, and whereas certain political parties are exploiting this mistrust and employing the rhetoric of cultural isolationism and hatred of those who are different;

L.

whereas the systematic use of states of emergency and extraordinary judicial and administrative measures and border controls do very little to deter terrorists, who have often been long-term residents and even citizens of EU Member States;

M.

whereas the political measures taken by a number of Member States in response to the arrival of asylum seekers and migrants include the reintroduction of internal border controls in the Schengen area, a step which is increasingly seen as permanent rather than just temporary;

N.

whereas hate speech includes all forms of expression, both online and offline, which propagate, encourage, promote or justify racial hatred, xenophobia, or prejudice against someone’s sex, race, colour, ethnic or social origin, genetic features, language, religion or belief, political or any other opinion, membership of a national minority, property, birth, disability, age or sexual orientation or other forms of hatred based on intolerance, including political parties and political leaders promoting racist and xenophobic ideas, policies, speeches and practices and spreading fake news; whereas the development of new kinds of media is making it easier to engage in online hate speech; whereas, as the Council of Europe has stated, the phenomenon of online hate speech requires further analysis and action with a view to regulating and finding new ways of combating rhetoric of this kind;

O.

whereas there is a risk that the increased levels of racial or gender-based hatred and violence and xenophobia, whether expressed in the form of hate crimes, fake news, anonymous messages spread on social networks and other internet platforms, protests or political propaganda, are starting to be seen as normal in the Member States;

P.

whereas modern societies cannot function and cannot develop without a free, independent, professional and responsible mass-media system based on principles such as fact-checking, the willingness to reflect a range of informed opinions and the protection of the confidentiality of media sources and the safety of journalists, as well as the protection of freedom of expression and means of limiting fake news; whereas public media plays an essential role in guaranteeing the media’s independence;

Q.

whereas all recent reports by international and European agencies and organisations and by civil society, including NGOs, indicate many areas of progress; whereas, nevertheless, fundamental rights violations persist in some Member States, including in terms of discrimination against minorities, corruption, toleration of hate speech, detention conditions and living conditions for migrants;

R.

whereas the EU Agency for Fundamental Rights report entitled ‘Violence against women: an EU-wide survey’, published in March 2014, found that one third of all women in Europe had experienced physical or sexual acts of violence at least once during their adult lives and that 20 % of women had experienced online harassment; whereas violence against women and gender-based violence, both physical and psychological, are widespread in the EU and are to be understood to be an extreme form of discrimination that affects women at all levels of society; whereas further measures are needed to encourage women who have been the victims of violence to report their experiences and seek assistance;

S.

whereas respect for the rights of persons belonging to minorities and the right to equal treatment is one of the EU’s founding principles; whereas approximately 8 % of EU citizens belong to a national minority and approximately 10 % speak a regional or minority language; whereas, at present, except for infringement procedures, the EU has tools of only limited efficacy to respond to systematic and institutional manifestations of discrimination, racism and xenophobia against minorities; whereas there are discrepancies among Member States in terms of recognition of minorities and respect for their rights; whereas, in spite of numerous calls on the Commission, only limited steps have been taken to ensure effective protection of minorities;

T.

whereas digital media have provided children with vast opportunities; whereas, however, children face new risks at the same time; whereas children should be educated about their fundamental rights in the digital world to make it safer for them; whereas child helplines are vital tools in cases linked to the violation of children’s rights; whereas the development of digital literacy, including media and information literacy, should be promoted as part of the basic education curriculum and from the earliest years of schooling; whereas fundamental rights should be promoted and protected online in the same way and to the same extent as in the offline world;

U.

whereas e-Government services became increasingly accessible across the EU in 2016; whereas the European e-Justice Portal allows citizens and legal practitioners to obtain information on European and national legal procedures and the functioning of justice;

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.

—

having regard to its resolution of 15 November 2011 on honeybee health and the challenges of the beekeeping sector (1),

—

having regard to the conclusions of the Agriculture and Fisheries Council (8606/11 ADD 1 REV 1) on the Commission communication on honeybee health (COM(2010)0714),

—

having regard to the European week of bees and pollination — EU Bee Week — which has been held at the European Parliament since 2012,

—

having regard to the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) report ‘Collecting and Sharing Data on Bee Health: Towards a European Bee Partnership’ of September 2017, which put into practice the European Bee Partnership,

—

having regard to Rule 52 of its Rules of Procedure,

—

having regard to the report of the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development and the opinion of the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Food Safety (A8-0014/2018),

A.

whereas the beekeeping sector is an integral part of European agriculture representing over 620 000 beekeepers in the EU (2); whereas beekeeping is widely practiced as a hobby or for own consumption purposes, as well as being pursued professionally;

B.

whereas the economic value supplied by bees involves pollination and the production of honey, honey wax and other bee products, while wooden frames or beehives, as well as apitourism, are also of great importance;

C.

whereas the beekeeping sector is vital for the EU and contributes significantly to society, both economically with around EUR 14,2 billion per year, and environmentally by maintaining the ecological balance and biological diversity, as 84 % of plant species and 76 % of food production in Europe are dependent on pollination by wild and domestic bees;

D.

whereas bees and other pollinators provide pollination and thus ensure the reproduction of numerous cultivated and wild plants, ensuring food production and food security and preserving biodiversity free of charge in Europe and in the world; whereas the importance of pollination in the EU is not sufficiently recognised and is often taken for granted, while in the US, for example, a total of EUR 2 billion is spent each year on artificial pollination; whereas Europe is home to approximately 10 % of global bee diversity; whereas according to the French National Institute for Agricultural Research, the mortality of bees would cost EUR 150 billion worldwide, or 10 % of the market value of food, which attests to the need to protect pollinating insects;

E.

whereas recent research by the UN Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO) shows that increasing the density and variety of pollinating insects has a direct impact on harvest yields and, as such, can help small-scale farmers increase their productivity by an average of 24 % overall;

F.

whereas not all countries have a beekeeper and beehive registration system that would facilitate the monitoring of developments in the sector, the market and bee health;

G.

whereas in 2004 the Commission guaranteed EUR 32 million per year to national beekeeping programmes for the sole benefit of beekeeping, and whereas by 2016 this figure had risen to 36 million, but is still far from being enough (representing only 0,0003 % of the CAP budget);

H.

whereas between 2004 and 2016 the number of honey bee colonies rose by 47,8 % through the accession of new Member States, but EU funding increased by just 12 %, meaning that the available EU funding is not sufficient to maintain the bee population and appropriately assist beekeepers in renewing their bee colonies following population losses in Member States suffering high mortality rates;

I.

whereas despite this statistical increase, many professional beekeepers have ceased activity, and in some Member States the number of bee colonies has declined by as much as 50 % or more (3), owing to the effects of climate change (e.g. spring frost, drought, fires), certain chemical active substances, and disturbances within the EU’s internal market in honey; whereas numerous cases of winter losses and disorders continue to be recorded today;

J.

whereas national programmes for the apiculture sector in receipt of EU co-funding have an overall positive effect; whereas it is more likely to be the national implementation that can sometimes generate lack of confidence from the sector and therefore diminish uptake;

K.

whereas the apiculture sector suffers from a particularly serious demographic and ageing problem, with only a small percentage of beekeepers aged under 50, which jeopardises the future of the sector; whereas beekeeping represents a potential source of work and integration for young people in rural areas, since access to land is limited in many European regions;

L.

whereas good theoretical knowledge combined with practical training can help facilitate better understanding of and action to deal with the challenges ahead for bee colonies, and are therefore important; whereas beekeepers should operate in a responsible and professional way and in close cooperation with farmers in order to tackle future challenges such as climate change, natural disasters, reduction of bee foraging grounds, attacks by wild animals and from species of migratory birds in some regions (beehives are greatly exposed to such predations as beekeeping is often practised in the open air), and high administrative burdens in some Member States;

M.

whereas the National Apiculture Programmes co-funded by the EU provide participants with the opportunity to undertake research and development projects; whereas successful projects can substantially contribute to strengthening the sector and improving its capacity to resist natural and market crises; whereas knowledge transfer and the exchange of good and innovative practices provide added value to the European apiculture sector, in particular if complemented by a specific programme, such as the current ‘Erasmus for beekeepers’ under Pillar II of the CAP;

N.

whereas the practice of so-called nomadic farming has many positive aspects, but also a number of problematic ones, in particular regarding compliance with the rules to prevent hazardous situations from spreading; whereas, therefore, more careful monitoring needs to take place;

O.

whereas the currently observed increased mortality among honeybees and wild pollinators in Europe is worrying because of its negative impact on agriculture, biodiversity and ecosystems; whereas there are multiple stress factors causing increased bee mortality, which vary according to geographical area, local characteristics and climatic conditions; whereas these factors include the severe impact of invasive alien species such as Varroa destructor, the small hive beetle (Aethina tumida), the Asian hornet (Vespa velutina) and of American foulbrood, as well as animal pathogens such as nosemosis, the impact of some active substances in plant protection products and other biocides, climate change, environmental degradation, the degeneration of habitats and the progressive disappearance of flowering plants; whereas bees are dependent on agricultural land, with surface areas and crop diversity supplying their main food source, and it would therefore be useful for both beekeepers and farmers to apply a certain type of ecological focus areas called ‘beekeeping areas’, which could subsequently be widely used in all Member States, in particular during the low-flowering season;

P.

whereas beekeepers are often powerless to combat bee diseases and parasites, owing to lack of information and training and of effective means to counteract them, such as access to bee treatment medicines; whereas beekeepers are receiving support for protective measures against Varroa destructor, although those measures are not yet fully successful as research and development efforts remain inadequate regarding treatments against parasitic species, the impact of bee diets and exposure to chemical products;

Q.

whereas the obligation of beekeepers to declare diseases and parasites leads to the systematic destruction of hives and might encourage them not to declare these; whereas the medicines available on the market to treat bee diseases are limited and do not match the increased need for effective veterinary medicines; whereas several natural substances have been tested for the control of varroosis, of which three have become the basis for organic treatments, namely formic acid, oxalic acid and thymol;

R.

whereas monoculture-based farming using crop varieties and hybrids with lower nectar and pollen yields and shorter flowering periods greatly reduces both biodiversity and the extent of the areas used for bee foraging grounds; whereas British scientists have recently concluded that local and regional breeds of bees survive better in a given area than breeds of honey bees settled from elsewhere (4); whereas the long-term health and sustainability of the apiculture sector in Europe rests on ensuring the long-term health and sustainability of local honey bee ecotypes, given their diversity and ability to adapt to local environments;

S.

whereas the Intergovernmental Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES), in its report adopted on 26 February 2016, as well as the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) in its Worldwide Integrated Assessments on systemic insecticides, have warned against the decline in pollinators; whereas bees are an important indicator of environment quality;

T.

whereas beekeepers, farmers, environmentalists and citizens expect actions based on clear scientific consensus on all causes of bee mortality, including the effects of pesticide active substances (e.g. some neonicotinoids and some other systemic insecticides), as identified by EFSA;

U.

whereas the variation in scientific findings can be partially ascribed to the use of different analytical methods and research protocols; whereas lack of coordination of research into pollinators at EU level and of accessible and harmonised data between stakeholders are resulting in a proliferation of divergent or contradictory studies;

V.

whereas it is important to maintain and deepen dialogue and cooperation among all stakeholders (beekeepers, farmers, scientists, NGOs, local authorities, plant protection industries, the private sector, veterinarians and the general public), to coordinate research and to share all relevant collected data in a timely fashion;

W.

whereas there is a general demand for a common and harmonised database, including inter alia type of crop and agricultural practice, presence of pests and diseases, climate and weather conditions, landscape and infrastructure, density of bee colonies and the bee mortality rate per region, as well as for relevant digital tools and technologies that are harmless to bees, and media as suggested by the ‘European Bee Partnership’ initiative adopted in June 2017; whereas the results of the EFSA comprehensive scientific review, already delayed for more than one year, are needed to enable decisions to be made based on the most recent science; whereas clear results on all indicators of bee health are needed as soon as possible in order to stop and reduce the mortality of bees, in particular through field tests; whereas beekeepers, farmers and citizens expect the Commission to closely monitor, together with relevant EU agencies and experts from the Member States, the EFSA Guidance for assessing the impact of plant protection products on bees, and expect Member States to duly implement it;

X.

whereas honey production is also affected by weather conditions, as warm and moist weather promotes honey production, while simultaneous cold and wet weather impedes it; whereas autumn and winter losses contribute to bee colony thinning and to a decline in honey production, which can reach 50 % in some Member States, and even 100 % in some regions;

Y.

whereas attention should be paid to the varying size of the honeybee population in different agricultural areas, given that it is growing in some honey-producing countries and declining in others;

Z.

whereas the increase in bee mortality has forced beekeepers to buy new colonies more regularly, resulting in increased production costs; whereas the cost of a bee colony has increased at least fourfold since 2002; whereas replacing a bee colony can often lead to a decrease in production in the short and medium term, since new colonies are less productive when first established; whereas beekeepers never use as many bee colonies in honey production as the statistics show, since they rebuild the original number of colonies in the course of the year, at the expense of production quantity since the restocking of lost colonies also requires honey;

AA.

whereas there has been a twofold increase in the amount of honey produced and exported in some third countries over the past 15 years; whereas the EU is barely 60 % self-sufficient in honey — a figure which is not increasing — while the number of hives in the EU nearly doubled between 2003 and 2016 and the number of beekeepers increased from around 470 000 to around 620 000 during the same period; whereas in 2016 the three leading European producers of honey were Romania, Spain and Hungary, followed by Germany, Italy and Greece;

AB.

whereas every year the EU imports about 40 % of its honey; whereas in 2015 imported honey was on average 2,3 times cheaper than the honey produced in the EU; whereas the EU imports around 200 000 tonnes of honey per year, mainly from China, Ukraine, Argentina and Mexico, which is creating a serious competitive disadvantage for Europe’s beekeepers compared to producers from third countries and preventing a higher degree of self-sufficiency; whereas imported honey often does not meet the standards applied to EU beekeepers;

AC.

whereas consumers often think they are eating honey from the EU, when a proportion of that honey in fact is a blend of EU and third-country honey, while a large proportion of imported honey is adulterated;

AD.

whereas since 2002 the amount of honey from the world’s major honey-producing regions has stagnated or decreased as a result of poor bee health, while the amount of honey produced in China has doubled (to around 450 000 tonnes per year from 2012), representing more than the combined honey production of the EU, Argentina, Mexico, the US and Canada;

AE.

whereas in 2015 more than half of the EU’s imported honey came from China — around 100 000 tonnes, double the amount in 2002 — even though the number of bee colonies has declined in other parts of the world; whereas according to beekeepers’ associations and professionals a large proportion of imported honey from China might be adulterated with exogenous cane or maize sugar; whereas not all Member States are able to carry out analyses to detect irregularities in imported honey at EU external border control posts;

AF.

whereas honey is the third most adulterated product in the world; whereas adulteration does considerable harm to Europe’s beekeepers and exposes consumers to serious health risks;

AG.

whereas according to experts, the 2002 chloramphenicol problem was resolved by companies exporting honey from China not by complying with the rules but by using resin filters;

AH.

whereas at its meeting in December 2015 the Agriculture and Fisheries Council discussed quality concerns regarding honey imports and the competitiveness of the European apiculture sector; whereas following on from this the Commission ordered the centralised testing of honey;

AI.

whereas Member States’ honey samples were tested by the Joint Research Centre, which found, among other things, that 20 % of the samples taken at the EU’s external borders and on importers’ premises did not respect the honey composition and/or honey production processes laid down in the Honey Directive (2001/110/EC), and 14 % of the samples contained added sugar; whereas in spite of this, fake and adulterated honey continues to enter Europe;

AJ.

whereas according to the Codex Alimentarius, which is used in the EU, honey is a natural product to which no substance may be added and from which none may be extracted, and which should not be dried outside the hive;

AK.

whereas the imbalance in the European honey market resulting from the wholesale importation of adulterated low-cost honey has reduced the purchase price of honey in the EU’s main producer countries (Romania, Spain, Hungary, Bulgaria, Portugal, France, Italy, Greece and Croatia) by half between 2014 and 2016, and this continues to put European beekeepers in a difficult and detrimental position;

AL.

whereas the second paragraph of point (a) of Article 2(4) of the Honey Directive as amended by Directive 2014/63/EU provides that, where honey originates from more than one Member State or third country, the mandatory indication of the countries of origin may be replaced by one of the following, as appropriate: ‘blend of EU honeys’, ‘blend of non-EU honeys’ or ‘blend of EU and non-EU honeys’; whereas the indication ‘blend of EU and non-EU honeys’ is not informative enough for the consumer;

AM.

whereas many honey packagers and traders now abuse this way of indicating origin in order to conceal the real country of origin, as well as the proportion of honey from the different countries concerned, as purchasers are becoming more knowledgeable and are distrustful of foodstuffs from certain countries; whereas many large honey producer countries such as the US, Canada, Argentina or Mexico have much stricter requirements on honey labelling than the EU's simplified rules, and therefore offer much better guarantees than the EU as regards providing consumers with the necessary information;

AN.

whereas current rules do not take account of fraudulent practices affecting processed products such as biscuits, breakfast cereals, confectionery, etc; whereas the label ‘honey’ can mislead consumers in regard to the real content of the given product, as it is often used when much less than 50 % of the sugar content of the product originates from honey;

AO.

whereas the ‘European Honey Breakfast’ initiative launched in 2014 was a great success, and this excellent initiative is open to all Member States, the aim being to contribute to the education of children as regards eating healthy food such as honey and to promote the apiculture sector; whereas on 11 May 2015 Slovenia initiated, at the meeting of the Agriculture and Fisheries Council, the official recognition of 20 May as the World Bee Day to be declared by the UN, which idea was widely supported by all Member States and was endorsed by the FAO at its July 2017 Rome Conference; whereas it was agreed there that particular attention should be paid to the apiculture sector in terms of agriculture, plant protection and sustainable farming, as bees have a large impact on the ecological balance worldwide;

AP.

whereas the EU school fruit, vegetables and milk scheme programmes represent a critical tool to reconnect children with agriculture and the variety of EU agricultural products, particularly those produced in their region; whereas in addition to promoting fresh fruit and vegetables and drinking milk, these programmes allow Member States to include other local, regional or national specialties such as honey;

AQ.

whereas, although getting local producers involved in the programmes under the EU’s ‘School fruit, vegetables and milk scheme’ means an additional administrative and financial burden, the potential benefits in terms of strengthening awareness of the nutritional benefits of honey, the importance of apiculture, encouragement to increase consumption and the smooth involvement of mainly local beekeepers, could be positive for the sector and the honey chain overall; whereas local producers experience difficulties in participating in the programmes under the EU school scheme due to restrictive application of the legislation on the direct supply of small quantities of honey in some Member States; whereas it is essential to promote local production and consumption;

AR.

whereas annual honey consumption varies hugely across the Member States: while Member States in Western Europe have an average consumption of 2,5-2,7 kg per person, the figure for the Member States which joined the EU from 2004 onwards is as low as 0,7 kg in some cases; whereas the European quality schemes and particularly the geographical indication (GI) schemes are of great importance for the preservation and creation of jobs; whereas more than 30 GIs for honey have been registered so far; whereas the labels ‘European’ and ‘made in Europe’ are often associated with high-value products;

AS.

whereas honey has a positive physiological impact, particularly in terms of health, given its antiseptic, anti-inflammatory and healing properties, which could be further recognised in the future agricultural policy;

AT.

whereas numerous examples of self-organisation and direct sale from the beekeeper are showing that the sale of honey, particularly organic honey, and other beekeeping products with short supply chains and at local producers’ markets is hugely successful;

AU.

whereas urban beekeeping has gained in popularity in recent years and has the potential to increase awareness among a broader circle of citizens, including children, of the nature and benefits of beekeeping; whereas the planting of flowering plants in gardens and urban areas by the public and/or local and regional authorities also helps to enrich pollinator dietary sources;

AV.

whereas other beekeeping products such as pollen, propolis, beeswax, bee venom and royal jelly contribute significantly to citizens’ wellbeing and are used as high-quality foods and sought as part of a natural way of life; whereas they also play a key role in the healthcare and cosmetics industries, and therefore constitute an additional resource for improving the economic situation of beekeepers; whereas, however, these products are not defined in the Honey Directive, and this omission works against implementing an effective sectoral policy and impedes quality-based approaches and the fight against fraud and adulteration; whereas any Member State can decide to ban GMO cultivation on its territory in order to protect European consumers from honey contaminated by GM pollen;

AW.

whereas large quantities of honey are imported into the EU and this in many cases causes serious disturbances and even crises on the EU honey market, contributing to weakening the European beekeeping sector; whereas the apiculture sector deserves to be treated as a priority in the EU in negotiations for free trade agreements, and honey and other bee products should be classified as ‘sensitive products’;

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.

—

having regard to its resolution of 15 February 2017 on ‘Banking Union — Annual Report 2016’ (1),

—

having regard to the feedback of the Commission and the European Central Bank (ECB) on Parliament’s resolution of 15 February 2017 on ‘Banking Union — Annual Report 2016’,

—

having regard to the Commission report of 11 October 2017 on the Single Supervisory Mechanism (SSM) established pursuant to Regulation (EU) No 1024/2013 (COM(2017)0591),

—

having regard to the proposals to amend Regulation (EU) No 575/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 June 2013 on prudential requirements for credit institutions and investment firms and amending Regulation (EU) No 648/2012 (CRR), and Directive 2013/36/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 June 2013 on access to the activity of credit institutions and the prudential supervision of credit institutions and investment firms, amending Directive 2002/87/EC and repealing Directives 2006/48/EC and 2006/49/EC (CRDIV),

—

having regard to the opinion of the European Central Bank of 8 November 2017 on amendments to the Union framework for capital requirements of credit institutions and investment firms (2),

—

having regard to the report of the European Systemic Risk Board (ESRB) of 9 July 2017 on Financial Stability Implications of IFRS,

—

having regard to the Council conclusions of 17 July 2017 on the action plan to tackle non-performing loans in Europe,

—

having regard to the report of the Subgroup on Non-Performing Loans (NPLs) of the Council’s Financial Services Committee of 31 May 2017,

—

having regard to the ECB’s guidance to banks on non-performing loans of 20 March 2017, and to the public consultation on its draft addendum to this guidance of 4 October 2017,

—

having regard to the Commission’s consultation document of 10 November 2017 on statutory prudential backstops addressing insufficient provisioning for newly originated loans that turn non-performing,

—

having regard to the report of the ESRB of 11 July 2017 on resolving non-performing loans in Europe,

—

having regard to the Commission’s public consultation of 10 July 2017 on the development of secondary markets for non-performing loans and distressed assets and the protection of secured creditors from borrowers’ default,

—

having regard to the ECB’s assessment of 6 June 2017 in which it determined that Banco Popular Español S.A. was failing or likely to fail,

—

having regard to the statement of the Single Resolution Board (SRB) of 7 June 2017 on the adoption of a resolution decision for Banco Popular Español S.A.,

—

having regard to the ECB’s assessment of 23 June 2017 in which it determined that Veneto Banca and Banca Popolare di Vicenza were failing or likely to fail,

—

having regard to the SRB’s statement of 23 June 2017 on the decision not to take resolution action in relation to Banca Popolare di Vicenza and Veneto Banca,

—

having regard to the Commission’s statement of 25 June 2017 on the approval of state aid for the market exit of Banca Popolare di Vicenza and Veneto Banca under Italian insolvency law, involving the sale of some parts to Intesa Sanpaolo,

—

having regard to the Commission’s statement of 4 July 2017 on the approval of state aid to support a precautionary recapitalisation of Monte dei Paschi di Siena,

—

having regard to the February 2017 version of the ECB’s guide to the targeted review of internal models (TRIM),

—

having regard to the July 2017 draft version of the ECB’s guide to on-site inspections and internal model investigations,

—

having regard to the opinion of the European Securities and Markets Authority (ESMA) of 31 May 2017 on general principles to support supervisory convergence in the context of the UK withdrawing from the EU, as well as to its three opinions of 13 July 2017 on supervisory convergence in the areas of investment management, investment firms and secondary markets in the context of the UK withdrawing from the EU,

—

having regard to the opinion of the European Banking Authority (EBA) of 12 October 2017 on issues related to the departure of the UK from the EU,

—

having regard to the Commission communication of 20 September 2017 on reinforcing integrated supervision to strengthen Capital Markets Union and financial integration in a changing environment (COM(2017)0542) and the Commission proposals of 20 September 2017 on the review of the European System of Financial Supervision (ESFS), including the ‘omnibus’ proposal amending the governance, funding and powers of the European Supervisory Authorities (ESAs),

—

having regard to the ECB’s public consultations of 21 September 2017 on the draft guides to assessments of credit institution licence applications and of FinTech credit institution licence applications,

—

having regard to the Financial Stability Board’s total loss-absorbing capacity (TLAC) term sheet of November 2015,

—

having regard to Directive 2014/59/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 May 2014 establishing a framework for the recovery and resolution of credit institutions and investment firms and amending Council Directive 82/891/EEC, and Directives 2001/24/EC, 2002/47/EC, 2004/25/EC, 2005/56/EC, 2007/36/EC, 2011/35/EU, 2012/30/EU and 2013/36/EU, and Regulations (EU) No 1093/2010 and (EU) No 648/2012, of the European Parliament and of the Council (Bank Recovery and Resolution Directive — BRRD),

—

having regard to Regulation (EU) No 806/2014 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 July 2014 establishing uniform rules and a uniform procedure for the resolution of credit institutions and certain investment firms in the framework of a Single Resolution Mechanism and a Single Resolution Fund and amending Regulation (EU) No 1093/2010 (SRM Regulation),

—

having regard to the Commission proposals of 23 November 2016 for a directive of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Directive 2014/59/EU on loss-absorbing and recapitalisation capacity of credit institutions and investment firms and amending Directive 98/26/EC, Directive 2002/47/EC, Directive 2012/30/EU, Directive 2011/35/EU, Directive 2005/56/EC, Directive 2004/25/EC and Directive 2007/36/EC (COM(2016)0852), and for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Regulation (EU) No 806/2014 as regards loss-absorbing and recapitalisation capacity for credit institutions and investment firms (COM(2016)0851),

—

having regard to the opinion of the European Central Bank of 8 November 2017 on revisions to the Union crisis management framework (3),

—

having regard to the European Court of Auditors’ Special Report of 19 December 2017 entitled ‘Single Resolution Board: Work on a challenging Banking Union task started, but still a long way to go’,

—

having regard to the Commission’s withdrawal of the proposal on structural measures improving the resilience of EU credit institutions (COM(2014)0043),

—

having regard to the Commission document of 27 April 2017 entitled ‘April infringements package: key decisions’ (MEMO/17/1045),

—

having regard to the EBA Risk Dashboard, the ESMA Report on Trends, Risks and Vulnerabilities No 2 (2017), the ESRB Risk Dashboard, the ESRB Annual Report 2016, the ESRB Review of Macro-prudential Policy in the EU of April 2017,

—

having regard to Directive (EU) 2017/2399 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2017 amending Directive 2014/59/EU as regards the ranking of unsecured debt instruments in insolvency hierarchy,

—

having regard to Article 107(3) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU),

—

having regard to its resolution of 19 January 2016 on stocktaking and challenges of the EU Financial Services Regulation: impact and the way forward towards a more efficient and effective EU framework for Financial Regulation and a Capital Markets Union (4),

—

having regard to the Commission communication on the application, from 1 August 2013, of state aid rules to support measures in favour of banks in the context of the financial crisis (‘Banking Communication’) (5),

—

having regard to Directive 2014/49/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 April 2014 on deposit guarantee schemes (DGSD),

—

having regard to the Five Presidents’ Report of 22 June 2015 on completing Europe’s Economic and Monetary Union,

—

having regard to the Commission proposal of 24 November 2015 for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Regulation (EU) No 806/2014 in order to establish a European Deposit Insurance Scheme (‘EDIS’) (COM(2015)0586),

—

having regard to the Commission communication of 24 November 2015 entitled ‘Towards the completion of the Banking Union’ (COM(2015)0587),

—

having regard to the ECOFIN Council conclusions of 17 June 2016 on a roadmap to complete the Banking Union,

—

having regard to the Commission communication of 11 October 2017 on completing the Banking Union (COM(2017)0592),

—

having regard to the ESRB EU Shadow Banking Monitor No 2 from May 2017,

—

having regard to the ESRB report of March 2015 on the regulatory treatment of sovereign exposures,

—

having regard to Rule 52 of its Rules of Procedure,

—

having regard to the report of the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs (A8-0019/2018),

A.

whereas on an unconsolidated basis, the total number of credit institutions in the euro area stood at 5 073 at the end of 2016, down from 5 474 at the end of 2015 and from 6 768 at the end 2008, amounting to a 25 % decrease over the period from 2008 to 2016; whereas on a consolidated basis, the total number of credit institutions in the euro area stood at 2 290 at the end of 2016, down from 2 904 in 2008 and 2 379 at the end of 2015 (6); whereas, however, it is desirable to include a reference to how the proportion of too-big-to-fail banks has changed over the same period;

B.

whereas there is great dispersion of the total amount and ratios of non-performing loans (NPLs) between Member States, and there are substantial differences across banks in those countries with the highest NPL ratios; whereas the stock of NPLs stood at EUR 1 trillion in total according to the ESRB report of July 2017 entitled ‘Resolving non-performing loans in Europe’; whereas, according to the EBA’s quarterly Risk Dashboard, Europe’s main banks reported a weighted average NPL Ratio (NPLs, gross of impairments, divided by total loans) of 4,47 % as of 30 June 2017; whereas this ratio has shown a declining trend for the last 30 months;

C.

whereas, according to a recent study by the European Securities and Markets Authority (ESMA), the derivatives market in the European Union has a total notional value of EUR 453 000 billion;

D.

whereas the Banking Union needs reinforcement as it is a fundamental objective for the euro area’s financial stability and an indispensable building block of a genuine Economic and Monetary Union; whereas further efforts are needed to complete the Banking Union, as it remains incomplete as long as it lacks a fiscal backstop for the SRF and a third pillar, this being a European approach to deposit re-/insurance; whereas the ECB’s president, Mario Draghi, has repeatedly stated that EDIS remains a fundamental pillar of the Banking Union; whereas a completed Banking Union is fundamental to break the sovereign-banks nexus; whereas efforts have to be enhanced to move from bail-out to bail-in; whereas risks in certain national banking systems remain insufficiently addressed; whereas current favourable economic conditions constitute a window of opportunity to push necessary reforms to complete the Banking Union;

E.

whereas a proper clean-up of bank balance sheets after the crisis has been delayed, still hampering economic growth; whereas overall the capital and liquidity ratios of EU banks have improved over the last years, while there are still banks, including large ones, that remain undercapitalised; whereas risks to financial stability remain but have already been substantially reduced since the start of the establishment of the Banking Union; whereas the institutional and regulatory framework of European banks has been fundamentally reinforced;

F.

whereas participation in the Banking Union is open to Member States that have not yet adopted the euro; whereas no EU Member State has so far decided to participate on that basis; whereas several Member States are discussing the possibility of joining the Banking Union; whereas different financial institutions see advantages in being situated within the Banking Union;

G.

whereas our work on the capital markets union should not move away pressure from the completion of our work on the banking union, which is still a prerequisite for financial stability in the bank-reliant landscape of the European Union;

H.

whereas the primary responsibility of banks is to provide finance to the real economy;

I.

whereas the ECB needs some flexibility in carrying out its supervisory activities, but far-reaching decisions of principle must ultimately be left to the European legislator;

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.

—

having regard to the 1999 International Convention for the Suppression of the Financing of Terrorism,

—

having regard to its resolution of 27 October 2016 on the situation in Northern Iraq/Mosul (1) and its resolution of 30 April 2015 on the destruction of cultural sites perpetrated by ISIS/Daesh (2),

—

having regard to the EU Global Strategy for Foreign and Security Policy,

—

having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1210/2003 of 7 July 2003 concerning certain specific restrictions on economic and financial relations with Iraq and repealing Regulation (EC) No 2465/96 (3),

—

having regard to the United Nations Global Counter-Terrorism Strategy and UN Security Council resolutions 1267 (1999), 1373 (2001), 1989 (2011), 2133 (2014), 2199 (2015), 2253 (2015) and 2368 (2017),

—

having regard to Directive (EU) 2015/849 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 May 2015 on the prevention of the use of the financial system for the purposes of money laundering or terrorist financing, amending Regulation (EU) No 648/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council, and repealing Directive 2005/60/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council and Commission Directive 2006/70/EC (4),

—

having regard to the proposal for a directive of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Directive (EU) 2015/849 on the prevention of the use of the financial system for the purposes of money laundering or terrorist financing and amending Directive 2009/101/EC (COM(2016)0450),

—

having regard to the Manama declaration on countering terrorist finance of 9 November 2014,

—

having regard to the Financial Action Task Force (FATF) Best Practices on Targeted Financial Sanction related to Terrorism and Terrorist Financing,

—

having regard to the FATF statement of 24 October 2014 on countering the financing of the Terrorist Organisation Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant (ISIL) and to the FATF report of February 2015 on the Financing of ISIL,

—

having regard to the eleventh Security Union Progress Report, published by the Commission on 18 October 2017,

—

having regard to the Global Counterterrorism Forum (GCTF) Addendum to the Algiers Memorandum on Good Practices on Preventing and Denying the Benefits of Kidnapping for Ransom by Terrorists of September 2015,

—

having regard to the G7 Taormina Statement of 26 May 2017 on the fight against terrorism and violent extremism,

—

having regard to the newly established Special Committee on Terrorism,

—

having regard to Article 16 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU),

—

having regard to Articles 7 and 8 of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights on personal data protection,

—

having regard to Council Regulation (EU) 2015/827 of 28 May 2015 amending Regulation (EU) No 36/2012 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Syria (5),

—

having regard to the Commission action plan of February 2016 for strengthening the fight against terrorist financing,

—

having regard to the Europol EU Terrorism Situation and Trend Report (TE-SAT) for 2017,

—

having regard to the report of 26 June 2017 from the Commission to the European Parliament and the Council on the assessment of the risks of money laundering and terrorist financing affecting the internal market and relating to cross-border activities (COM(2017)0340),

—

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 (6),

—

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 (7),

—

having regard to the proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 July 2017 on the import of cultural goods (COM(2017)0375),

—

having regard to the ninth Security Union Progress Report, published by the Commission on 27 July 2017,

—

having regard to the Commission communication of 18 October 2017 to the European Parliament, the European Council and the Council entitled ‘Eleventh progress report towards an effective and genuine Security Union’ (COM(2017)0608),

—

having regard to Rule 113 of its Rules of Procedure,

—

having regard to the report of the Committee on Foreign Affairs (A8-0035/2018),

A.

whereas one of the key elements of the fight against terrorism is to cut off its sources of financing, including through the hidden circuits of fraud and tax evasion, money laundering and tax havens;

B.

whereas some financing may come from within European countries for use elsewhere by terrorist organisations, while other funding comes from outside Europe, in order to finance radicalisation and actual terrorist acts; whereas the external and internal dimensions of the fight against terrorism are interlinked, whereas cutting off the sources of financing of terrorism should be part of an EU broader strategy integrating both external and internal security dimensions;

C.

whereas modern communication networks, and crowdfunding in particular, have proven to be a cheap and efficient way of generating funds to finance terrorist activities or manage the jihadi network; whereas terrorist groups have been able to gather additional funds for their activities, using phishing attacks and identity theft or purchasing stolen credit cards details in online forums;

D.

whereas that financing can be used in three ways: for terrorist attacks requiring large-scale funding; for other attacks which, although their effects are equally brutal, require smaller amounts of money; and for financing propaganda that can inspire ‘lone wolf’ attacks that may require very little pre-planning or money; whereas the response must be effective in addressing all these situations;

E.

whereas legally sourced financing can be diverted by the recipient to third parties, individuals, groups, companies or entities with links to terrorist activity;

F.

whereas given that terrorism is a global crime, the effective response to it must also be a global and holistic one, with coordination between financial institutions, law enforcement agencies and judicial bodies and exchange of relevant information on natural and legal persons and suspicious activity being absolutely vital, bearing in mind that the protection of personal data and respect for privacy are important fundamental rights;

G.

whereas, as a result of data leaks in recent years, awareness about the links between money laundering and tax evasion on the one hand and organised crime and financing of terrorism on the other has increased considerably, and whereas these issues have become a major focus of international political concern; whereas, as acknowledged by the Commission, recent media reports have also linked large-scale VAT and excise fraud with organised crime, including terrorism (8);

H.

whereas almost all Member States’ jurisdictions have criminalised terrorist financing as a distinct offence;

I.

whereas financial data are a significant tool for gathering intelligence in order to analyse terrorist networks and how to better disrupt their operations; whereas there is a continuing need for adequate enforcement of legislation to prevent money laundering and financing of terrorism; whereas there is a need for comprehensive and preventive strategies based on the exchange of basic information and improved cooperation among financial intelligence units, intelligence agencies and law enforcement agencies involved in combating the financing of terrorism; whereas this information should cover evolving trends in international finance such as Bitmap, SWIFT coding, cryptocurrency and its corresponding regulatory mechanisms; whereas tackling the financing of terrorism globally must entail global standards of transparency with respect to ultimate beneficial owners of corporate entities, trusts and similar arrangements, in order to shine a light on financial opacity, which facilitates the laundering of criminal proceeds and the financing of terrorist organisations and actors;

J.

whereas there is a need for a formalised European platform within existing structures — which thus far has existed on an informal basis — to centralise the collection of information, which is currently spread out among 28 Member States, and through which Member States can provide information on their levels of engagement and progress in combating financing of terrorism; whereas this exchange of information should be proactive;

K.

whereas a number of international non-profit organisations, charities, other foundations, networks and private donors, which have or claim to have social or cultural goals, laid the foundation for the financial capacities of ISIS/Daesh, Al-Qaeda and other jihadist organisations and act as a cover for abusive practices; whereas surveillance and the gathering of intelligence about these organisations, their funders, their activities and their links with actors in the EU, which are often extensive, is therefore vital; whereas their support for the expansion of jihadist radicalism in Africa, the Middle East, Asia and Europe should be blocked; whereas this expansion at EU borders and in our neighbouring and partner countries is particularly alarming; whereas the full implementation of the FATF recommendations in these areas by the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) and its member states is of crucial importance to the fight against global terrorism;

L.

whereas Al-Qaeda’s global fundraising network is built on donations to charities and NGOs, which communicate with donors through social media and online forums; whereas accounts have also been used to ask supporters for donations to the cause of jihad; whereas, in recent years, several smart phone applications have been developed by terrorist organisations to maximise the outreach and encourage donations from supporters, most of them located in Gulf countries;

M.

whereas micro-states and states with a poor track record in the rule of law are particularly vulnerable and at risk of becoming hotspots for the financing of terrorism;

N.

whereas intelligence suggests that institutions and individuals in the Gulf are providing financial and logistical support to ISIS/Daesh, Al-Qaeda and other radical groups; whereas without this funding many of these terrorist groups would not be self-sufficient;

O.

whereas ISIS/Daesh and Al-Qaeda have become financially self-reliant; whereas ISIS/Daesh and Al-Qaeda are attempting to channel their money to Syria and Iraq via oil exports and investment in businesses, including through money and professional couriers, illegal fund transfers and money and professional services; whereas ISIS/Daesh and Al-Qaeda are laundering the proceeds of their criminal activities by buying businesses and assets of all kinds; whereas ISIS/Daesh and Al-Qaeda are also laundering the proceeds of stolen antiquities and smuggled art pieces and artefacts, by selling them abroad, including in markets in Member States; whereas illicit trade in goods, firearms, oil, drugs, cigarettes and cultural objects, among other items, as well as trafficking in human beings, slavery, child exploitation, racketeering and extortion, have become ways for terrorist groups to obtain funding; whereas the increasing links between organised crime and terrorist groups constitute a growing security threat to the Union; whereas these sources could allow ISIS/Daesh and Al-Qaeda to continue funding future criminal acts after their territorial collapse in Syria and Iraq;

P.

whereas an international ransom ban has been established under a series of international commitments underpinned by UN Security Council resolutions and domestic laws; whereas in practice the UN ban lacks the support of key signatories who prioritise the immediate preservation of life over their counter-terrorism commitments, and in doing so allow the financing of terrorist organisations;

1.

2.

—

having regard to the 62nd session of the UN Commission on the Status of Women, its priority theme of ‘Challenges and opportunities in achieving gender equality and the empowerment of rural women and girls’ and its review theme of ‘Participation in and access of women to the media, and information and communications technologies and their impact on and use as an instrument for the advancement and empowerment of women’,

—

having regard to the Fourth World Conference on Women, held in Beijing in September 1995, the Declaration and Platform for Action for the empowerment of women adopted in Beijing and the subsequent outcome documents of the UN Beijing + 5, + 10, + 15 and + 20 Special Sessions on new actions and initiatives to implement the Beijing Declaration and Platform for Action, adopted on 9 June 2000, 11 March 2005, 2 March 2010 and 9 March 2015 respectively,

—

having regard to Article 157(4) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,

—

having regard to its resolution of 9 September 2015 on empowering girls through education in the EU (1),

—

having regard to its resolution of 8 March 2016 on the situation of women refugees and asylum seekers in the EU (2),

—

having regard to its resolution of 14 February 2017 on promoting gender equality in mental health and clinical research (3),

—

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

—

having regard to the UN resolution entitled ‘Transforming our world: the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development’, adopted at the UN Sustainable Development Summit on 25 September 2015 in New York,

—

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 (5),

—

having regard to the 1979 UN Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW),

—

having regard to General recommendation No 34 (2016) of the Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women on the rights of rural women,

—

having regard to the Council of Europe Convention on preventing and combating violence against women and domestic violence (Istanbul Convention), and to its resolution of 12 September 2017 (6) on EU accession thereto,

—

having regard to the Paris Agreement of 12 December 2015,

—

having regard to Rule 113 of its Rules of Procedure,

—

having regard to the report of the Committee on Women’s Rights and Gender Equality (A8-0022/2018),

A.

whereas equality between women and men is a fundamental principle of the Union, as recognised in the Treaties and the Charter of Fundamental Rights;

B.

whereas the fifth UN Sustainable Development Goal (SDG5) is to achieve gender equality and empower all women and girls throughout the world, and should be fully integrated into the 2030 Agenda in order to achieve progress in all the SDGs and targets; whereas the SDGs include a goal to ‘double the agricultural productivity and incomes of small-scale food producers, in particular women’;

C.

whereas the Union and its Member States must be at the forefront of the empowerment of women and girls, and have a duty to work towards the achievement of full gender equality in the Union, and to promote this goal in all external relations;

D.

whereas social and economic circumstances and living conditions have changed substantially in recent decades and differ quite considerably between the various countries;

E.

whereas the lack of governmental action against gender inequality puts current and future achievements in the field at risk; whereas addressing traditional gender power relations, stereotypes and beliefs is key to ensuring women’s empowerment and poverty eradication;

F.

whereas the discrimination suffered by women also affects rural women; whereas the majority of women in the world live in rural areas and are therefore more exposed to multiple forms of discrimination on the basis of age, class, ethnicity, race, disability and gender identity;

G.

whereas women’s participation in the labour market in rural areas includes a wide range of jobs that go beyond conventional agriculture;

H.

whereas the work of rural women is often paid less than the work of men for the same output, is often formally unrecognised, as with unpaid care work, for example, and is not reflected in the number of women who are farm owners; whereas, however, women are key actors in achieving the transformational economic, environmental and social changes necessary for sustainable development;

I.

whereas rural women, who are often the primary care providers in their families and communities, encounter numerous difficulties in accessing childcare and elderly care for their families, which results in a disproportionate burden borne by women and hinders their integration into the labour market; whereas the provision of quality care services is essential for women and promotes work-life balance;

J.

whereas rural women encounter numerous difficulties in accessing adequate public health services owing to limited mobility and a lack of access to transport or means of contacting transport (for example, a mobile phone); whereas there is a need for comprehensive health services which address the physical, mental and emotional well-being of rural women (for example, to respond to gender-based violence); whereas access to sexual and reproductive health rights and education is more limited in rural areas;

K.

whereas retaining populations in rural areas, devoting particular attention to areas with natural constraints, is essential for society as whole, as the conservation of the environment and the landscape depend on it;

L.

whereas there is a direct link between gender inequality and environmental degradation;

M.

whereas climate change and its consequences have a particular and disproportionate negative impact on rural women and girls; whereas rural women are also powerful actors of change towards a more sustainable and ecologically sound agriculture and can play an important role in the creation of green jobs; whereas providing equal access for women farmers to land and other productive resources is key to achieving gender equality, food security and effective climate policies;

N.

whereas young women in rural areas continue to suffer from inequality and multiple forms of discrimination; whereas measures are needed to promote effective equality between men and women so that there are more work opportunities, including self-employment and in the science, technology, engineering and maths (STEM) sector, which enable them to remain in rural environments, thereby ensuring generational renewal and the survival of the agricultural sector and rural areas;

O.

whereas the agricultural sector, in which women play an important role, is key to the vitality of rural areas, and to enhancing generational renewal, social cohesion and economic growth; whereas agriculture should provide safe, nutritious and healthy food; whereas the agricultural sector should also contribute to the diversification of the landscape, to mitigating climate change and to preserving biodiversity and cultural heritage;

P.

whereas nutrition plays a significant role in the development and well-being of girls; whereas poor nutrition leads to physical and mental problems such as stunting, infertility, listlessness, fatigue and poor concentration, thereby reducing women’s economic potential and impacting on the well-being of the wider family and community;

Q.

whereas rural women need to be able to participate in decision-making bodies in the public sphere; whereas balanced representation is essential to achieving equality;

R.

whereas, with regard to risk prevention in the workplace, men and women are exposed to different factors; whereas, for example, calculations to evaluate the harmful effects of chemicals are often based on the physiques of men — who generally have greater muscle mass — and even disregard specific recommendations for pregnant or breastfeeding women; whereas, therefore, different factors need to be taken into account for adopting measures to ensure women’s health in agriculture;

S.

whereas discrimination also affects women in the media sector; whereas the media play a crucial role for all of society and it is desirable, therefore, that women — who represent at least 50 % of society — are fairly involved in creating media content and decision-making in media organisations;

T.

whereas the role of the media sector is crucial for the promotion of gender equality, since the media not only reflect but also create role models and standards of conduct, thus shaping public opinion and culture in a significant way;

U.

whereas media coverage contributes to a broad understanding among all layers of society of the complexity of the situations of women and men;

V.

whereas women and children are disproportionately impacted by conflict, accounting for the highest proportion of refugees either in camps or on the move in search of safety;

W.

whereas in many societies women do not have equal entitlement to land and property through legal means, which exacerbates poverty and limits their economic development;

X.

whereas trans women face disproportionate discrimination on the basis of their gender identity;

Y.

whereas stronger support for sexual and reproductive health and rights is a pre-condition for gender equality and women’s empowerment;

Z.

whereas social norms with regard to the roles of women and men place women in a situation of greater vulnerability, particularly in relation to their sexual and reproductive health, and in the light of harmful practices such as FGM or child, early and forced marriages;

(a)

to reconfirm its unwavering commitment to the Beijing Platform for Action;

(b)

to support mothers who are entrepreneurs in rural areas as they face specific challenges; stresses that fostering entrepreneurship among these women may not only entail a successful reconciliation of work-life balance, but also serve to stimulate new job opportunities and better quality of life in rural areas, and to encourage other women to put their own projects into practice;

(c)

to put an end to all forms of discrimination against all women and girls everywhere and to combat all forms of violence, which represent serious violations of their fundamental rights, violations which are in turn a direct consequence of such discrimination;

(d)

to involve all governments and require them to draw up programmes aimed at eliminating sexual and gender-based violence and harmful practices, such as child, early and forced marriage and female genital mutilation and human trafficking;

(e)

to call on the Member States to fight gender stereotypes and invest in women’s and girls’ access to tailor-made education, lifelong learning and vocational training, especially in rural areas, particularly in STEM, as well as entrepreneurship and innovation, as these areas are important tools for achieving the SDGs, and to promote equality in the agricultural and food sectors, as well as in tourism and other industries in rural areas;

(f)

to develop policies aimed at eradicating poverty and ensuring an adequate standard of living for particularly vulnerable groups, including women and girls, especially through social protection systems;

(g)

to promote information, technical assistance measures and the exchange of good practices between Member States concerning the establishment of a professional status for assisting spouses in farming, enabling them to enjoy individual rights, including, in particular, maternity leave, social insurance against accidents at work, access to training and retirement pension rights;

(h)

to eliminate the gender pay gap, the lifetime remuneration (earnings) gap and the pensions gap;

(i)

to call on the Member States and regional and local authorities to guarantee universal access to adequate childcare and elderly care in rural areas;

(j)

to call on the Member States and regional and local authorities to provide affordable, high-quality facilities and public and private services for everyday life, especially in rural areas and with particular regard for health, education and care; notes that this would require the inclusion of rural childcare infrastructure, healthcare services, educational facilities, care homes for elderly and dependent people, sickness and maternity replacement services and cultural services;

(k)

to ensure gender mainstreaming, as a tool for integrating the principle of equality between women and men, and combating discrimination, into all policies and programmes by means of adequate financial and human resources;

(l)

to mobilise the necessary resources to achieve equality by mainstreaming gender into all policies and actions, including through gender budgeting, as a tool for integrating the principle of equality between women and men, and combating discrimination;

(m)

to ensure the full involvement of Parliament and its Committee on Women’s Rights and Gender Equality in the decision-making process regarding the EU’s position at the 62nd session of the UN Commission on the Status of Women;

(n)

to recall that the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women introduces the obligation to eliminate direct and indirect discrimination against women through legal, political and programmatic measures in all areas of life and that Article 14 of the convention is the only international obligation that addresses the specific needs of women in rural areas;

(o)

to ensure that rural women and girls have accessible, affordable and high-quality formal and informal education, including training, which should enable them to acquire new or to develop existing management, financial literacy, economic, marketing, and business skills, as well as citizenship, civil and political education, and technological and sustainable agriculture training; to ensure that women have the same opportunities and freedom of choice regarding the career they wish to pursue;

(p)

to ensure that rural women and girls can easily access credit and productive resources, and that they receive support on their entrepreneurial and innovation initiatives;

(q)

to safeguard the right of and access to high-quality universal healthcare which takes into account the physiological differences between women and men, and which is tailor-made for the needs of rural women and girls, particularly with regard to sexual and reproductive health and rights;

(r)

to condemn all forms of violence against women and to ensure that victims living in rural and remote areas are not deprived of equal access to assistance;

(s)

to improve the effectiveness, transparency and democratic nature of international, national, regional and local institutions which support and strengthen the roles of rural women, ensuring their presence through equal participation;

(t)

to facilitate the transition of rural women from the informal to the formal economy, and to recognise that women in rural areas work in a variety of fields and are often agents of change towards sustainable and ecologically sound agriculture, food security and the creation of green jobs;

(u)

to plan and implement climate-resilient agricultural policies which take due account of the specific threats faced by rural women as a result of natural or man-made disasters;

(v)

to guarantee the participation of rural women and girls in decision-making regarding the planning of and response to all stages of disasters and other crises, from early warning to relief, recovery, rehabilitation and reconstruction, and to guarantee their protection and safety in the event of disasters and other crises;

(w)

to take all the necessary measures to ensure that rural women enjoy a safe, clean and healthy environment;

(x)

to provide high-quality, accessible infrastructure and public services for rural women and communities and to invest in their development and maintenance;

(y)

to facilitate digital development, as it can significantly contribute to creating new jobs, by simplifying entry into self-employment, boosting competitiveness and tourism development and creating a better balance between work and family life;

(z)

to support the establishment and ongoing activities of local community groups, which should meet periodically to discuss development-related issues and challenges and to take constructive action;

(aa)

to call on the Member States, the social partners and civil society to support and promote the participation of women in decision-making and in the governing bodies of professional, business and trade union associations and organisations in the areas of rural policies, health, education and agriculture, as well as in management and representation bodies through an equal presence;

(ab)

to recognise and support the active role of women in rural areas and their contribution to the economy as entrepreneurs, heads of family businesses and promoters of sustainable development;

(ac)

to ensure rural women’s ownership rights, in particular of farm holdings and inheritance of land, which is an important tool for their economic empowerment and for enabling them to fully participate in and benefit from rural development;

(ad)

to ensure rural women’s access to productive resources, e-platforms, markets, marketing facilities and financial services; to promote local, regional and traditional markets, including food markets, which are places where women generally have more opportunities to sell their products directly, leading to greater economic empowerment;

(ae)

to promote the employment of women in the STEM sector, particularly in positions which contribute to the circular economy and the fight against climate change;

(af)

to develop employment policies, services and programmes to address the precarious situation of rural women, who often work in the informal sector and who can face multiple forms of intersectional discrimination on the basis of sex, age, class, religion, ethnicity, disability or gender identity; to provide tailored assistance and support for their needs and interests;

(ag)

to establish programmes to ensure that women and their families have access to universal social protection systems which have an impact on their future retirement situation and thus reduce the pensions gap, which is multifaceted in nature;

(ah)

to collect gender-disaggregated data and develop statistics on the values, situations, conditions and needs of rural women in order to enable adequate policies to be drawn up; to monitor the situation of women in rural areas on a regular basis;

(ai)

to urge the ratification and implementation of the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, including Article 6 thereof on ‘Women with disabilities’; to ensure the accessibility of goods, infrastructure and services;

(aj)

to call on the Commission, the Member States and regional and local governments to provide affordable, high-quality facilities and public and private services geared towards everyday life in rural areas, and to create the necessary conditions to improve the work-life balance for women in rural areas, in particular by guaranteeing suitable care facilities for dependants, accessible healthcare and public transport;

(ak)

to stress the importance of including safeguards in EU policies on the living and working conditions of women hired as seasonal agricultural workers, especially as regards the need for them to be given social protection, health insurance and healthcare; to encourage regional, local and national authorities and other institutions to guarantee the fundamental human rights of migrant and seasonal workers and their families, especially of women and vulnerable people, and to foster their integration into the local community;

(al)

to ensure access to reliable high-speed broadband internet infrastructure and services; to invest in and promote the use of new technologies in rural areas and agriculture; to acknowledge the important social, psychological and economic benefits thereof; to insist on the development of a holistic approach (the ‘digital village’); to promote equal opportunities in access to and training in the use of these technologies;

(am)

to devote attention to women’s presence and advancement in the media sector and to non-stereotypical media content;

(an)

to encourage public media organisations to establish their own equality policies providing for a balanced representation of men and women in decision-making bodies;

(ao)

to ensure that the growing sexualised portrayal of women and girls in the media is combated effectively, with due respect for freedom of expression;

(ap)

to encourage media organisations to prevent procedures of an organisational culture which is often uncongenial to a work-life balance;

(aq)

to tackle the gender pay gap in the media sector through anti-discrimination measures, ensuring equal pay for equal work between women and men;

(ar)

to take all the necessary measures against acts of violence against investigative journalists, devoting particular attention paid to female journalists, who are often more vulnerable;