—

having regard to the impact of EU cohesion policy on Northern Ireland,

—

having regard to the provisions of the 1998 Belfast Agreement (Good Friday Agreement),

—

having regard to Rule 52 of its Rules of Procedure, as well as Article 1(1)(e) of, and Annex 3 to, the decision of the Conference of Presidents of 12 December 2002 on the procedure for granting authorisation to draw up own-initiative reports,

—

having regard to the report of the Committee on Regional Development and the opinion of the Committee on Budgetary Control (A8-0240/2018),

A.

whereas EU cohesion policy in Northern Ireland operates through various instruments, including the European Regional Development Fund, the European Social Fund, the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development, the European Maritime and Fisheries Fund, the PEACE Programme for Northern Ireland and the Border Region and the cross-border Interreg programme;

B.

whereas it is clear that Northern Ireland is a region that has benefited greatly from the EU’s cohesion policy; whereas the commitment to future funding in the Commission’s draft multiannual financial framework (MFF) for 2021-2027 is very welcome;

C.

whereas, in addition to the more general cohesion policy funds, Northern Ireland has benefited in particular from special cross-border and inter- and cross-community programmes, including the PEACE Programme;

D.

whereas EU cohesion policy, particularly through the PEACE Programme, has decisively contributed to the peace process in Northern Ireland, supports the Good Friday Agreement and continues to support the reconciliation of the communities;

E.

whereas following the creation of the first PEACE Programme in 1995, more than EUR 1.5 billion has been spent with the dual aim of promoting cohesion between communities involved in the conflict in Northern Ireland and the border counties of Ireland, as well as economic and social stability;

F.

whereas the success of EU cohesion funding partly derives from the fact that it is seen as ‘neutral money’, i.e. not directly linked to the interests of either community;

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

7.

8.

9.

10.

11.

12.

13.

14.

15.

16.

17.

—

having regard to Regulation (EU) No 1303/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 December 2013 laying down common provisions on the European Regional Development Fund, the European Social Fund, the Cohesion Fund, the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development and the European Maritime and Fisheries Fund, laying down general provisions on the European Regional Development Fund, the European Social Fund, the Cohesion Fund and the European Maritime and Fisheries Fund and repealing Council Regulation (EC) No 1083/2006 (1),

—

having regard to the communication from the Commission of 15 July 2015 entitled ‘A new start for jobs and growth in Greece’(COM(2015)0400),

—

having regard to Regulation (EU) 2015/1839 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 14 October 2015 amending Regulation (EU) No 1303/2013 as regards specific measures for Greece (2),

—

having regard to Regulation (EU) 2017/825 on the establishment of the Structural Reform Support Programme for the period 2017 to 2020 (SRSP) (3),

—

having regard to the Commission staff working document of 19 September 2016 on ex post evaluations of the ERDF and Cohesion Fund 2007-2013 (SWD(2016)0318),

—

having regard to the report from the Hellenic Ministry of Economy and Development on the use of the amounts under Regulation (EU) 2015/1839 (programming period 2007-2013) (4),

—

having regard to the Oral Question to the Commission on the Implementation of Regulation (EU) 2015/1839 on specific measures for Greece (O-000100/2017 – B8-0001/2018),

—

having regard to Rule 52 of its Rules of Procedure, as well as to Article 1(1)(e) of and Annex 3 to the decision of the Conference of Presidents of 12 December 2002 on the procedure for granting authorisation to draw up own-initiative reports,

—

having regard to the report of the Committee on Regional Development (A8-0244/2018),

A.

whereas cohesion policy is an expression of solidarity and the main investment instrument of the EU, covering all regions and reducing disparities; whereas the importance of its added value and its flexibility during the economic and financial crisis have been confirmed on several occasions; whereas, with the existing budgetary resources, cohesion policy has contributed to maintaining much-needed public investment opportunities, helped to prevent the crisis from worsening and enabled Member States and regions to adopt tailor-made responses in view of increasing their resilience to unexpected events and external shocks;

B.

whereas support between 2007 and 2015 from the ERDF and the Cohesion Fund (CF) in Greece amounted to EUR 15.8 billion, equivalent to some 19 % of total government capital expenditure;

C.

whereas the economic and financial crisis had led to persistently negative growth rates in Greece, which could not be addressed by the three international rescue packages, as well as to serious liquidity problems and a lack of public funds;

D.

whereas Greece and the Greek islands have been – and continue to be – particularly hard-hit by the refugee and migration crisis and are under great pressure from the increased inflows of migrants and refugees, resulting in a huge blow to local economic activity, particularly in the area of tourism;

E.

whereas between 2007 and 2013, Greece’s GDP declined by 26 % in real terms and while the recession came to an end in 2014, growth over the following two years was less than 1 %; whereas the employment rate fell from 66 % to 53 % in 2013, implying that only over half of working-age people were in employment, while unemployment increased from 8.4 % to 27.5 % over the same period, strongly impacting the purchasing power of the Greek population and severely affecting several sectors, including health; whereas, according to the latest Eurostat data, the rate of unemployment stands at 20.8 %, with a high level of youth unemployment;

F.

whereas the Commission and the co-legislators acknowledged in 2015 that Greece has been affected by the crisis in a unique manner, which could have had a severe impact on both the finalisation of the operations under the 2000-2006 and the 2007-2013 operational programmes and the start of the implementation of the 2014-2020 cohesion policy programmes;

G.

whereas the adoption of Regulation (EU) 2015/1839 was intended to provide Greece with liquidity at a crucial moment before the implementation of programmes had come to a halt and necessary investment opportunities had been missed, as substantial amounts would have been recovered in the event of failure to complete projects from the 2000-2006 and the 2007-2013 periods;

H.

whereas Regulation (EU) 2015/1839 set out an additional initial pre-financing for the 2014-2020 programming period, of two instalments of 3.5 % each of the amount of support from the cohesion policy funds and the European Maritime and Fisheries Fund (EMFF), as well as the application for the 2007-2013 programming period of a 100 % cofinancing rate to the eligible expenditure and the early release of the last 5 % of remaining EU payments, which should have been retained until the closure of the programmes;

I.

whereas the Regulation was adopted with a view to responding as promptly as possible to a serious crisis situation and ensuring that Greece had sufficient funding to complete the projects under the 2007-2013 programming period and to start implementation under the current period;

J.

whereas according to Article 152(6)(2), Greece had to submit, by the end of 2016, a report to the Commission on the implementation of the provisions related to the application of the 100 % cofinancing rate and to the ceiling for payments to programmes at the end of the programming period;

K.

whereas the EU also paid for 95 % of the total investment cost under the 2007-2013 financing period in Greece (maximum of 85 % otherwise applicable), through the so-called ‘top-up’measure Regulation (EU) No 1311/2011;

L.

whereas a ring-fenced account was put in place in October 2015, to which all funds allocated to the financing of EU-financed projects were transferred in order to ensure that they were used solely for payments to beneficiaries and operations under the operational programmes;

M.

whereas Greece has also received support since 2011 through the Commission’s Task Force for Greece, providing technical assistance for the country’s reform process, and since 2015 through the Structural Reform Support Service providing assistance for the preparation, design, implementation and evaluation of growth-enhancing reforms; whereas Regulation (EU) 2017/825 on the establishment of the Structural Reform Support Programme (SRSP) for the period 2017 to 2020 entered into force on 20 May 2017 and marked an important moment for the commitments of the Structural Reform Support Service with the interested Member States, including Greece;

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

7.

8.

9.

10.

11.

12.

13.

14.

15.

16.

17.

18.

19.

—

having regard to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights,

—

having regard to the European Charter of Fundamental Rights,

—

having regard to the Interinstitutional Proclamation on the European Pillar of Social Rights,

—

having regard to the European Social Charter of 3 May 1996,

—

having regard to its resolution of 15 September 2016 on the application of the Council Directive 2000/78/EC of 27 November 2000 establishing a general framework for equal treatment in employment and occupation (‘Employment Equality Directive’) (1),

—

having regard to the European Chronic Disease Alliance’s joint statement of November 2017 on “Improving the employment of people with chronic diseases in Europe”,

—

having regard to the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (UN CRPD) and its entry into force in the EU on 21 January 2011, in accordance with Council Decision 2010/48/EC of 26 November 2009,

—

having regard to its resolution of 25 November 2015 on the EU Strategic Framework on Health and Safety at Work 2014-2020 (2),

—

having regard to the 2014 joint report by the European Agency for Safety and Health at Work (EU-OSHA) and the European Foundation for the Improvement of Living and Working Conditions (Eurofound) on “Psychosocial risks in Europe – Prevalence and strategies for prevention”,

—

having regard to its resolution of 30 November 2017 on implementation of the European Disability Strategy (3),

—

having regard to its resolution of 7 July 2016 on the implementation of the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, with special regard to the Concluding Observations of the UN CRPD Committee (4),

—

having regard to the Declaration of Philadelphia of 10 May 1944 on the goals and objectives of the International Labour Organisation (ILO),

—

having regard to its resolution of 23 May 2007 on promoting decent work for all (5),

—

having regard to the Commission communication of 2 July 2008 entitled a ‘Renewed social agenda: Opportunities, access and solidarity in 21st century Europe’(COM(2008)0412),

—

having regard to the Commission report of 24 February 2011 on the implementation of the European social partners’ Framework Agreement on Work-related Stress (SEC(2011)0241),

—

having regard to the Commission communication of 21 February 2007 entitled ‘Improving quality and productivity at work: Community strategy 2007-2012 on health and safety at work’(COM(2007)0062),

—

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

—

having regard to the Anti-Discrimination Directive 2000/78/EC and case law of the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU), such as, Joined Cases C-335/11 and C-337/11 of 11 April 2013 (HK Denmark), which together establish the prohibition for employers to discriminate when long-term ill health can be assimilated to handicap, as well as the obligation for employers to make reasonable adaptations to working conditions,

—

having regard to the EU Joint Action on Mental Health and Well-being launched in 2013,

—

having regard to the EU-OSHA’s campaign entitled ‘Healthy Workplaces Manage Stress’,

—

having regard to its recent pilot project on health and safety of older workers, carried out by the EU-OSHA,

—

having regard to the EU-OSHA 2016 report entitled ‘Rehabilitation and return to work: Analysis report on EU and Member States policies, strategies and programmes’,

—

having regard to the Eurofound 2014 report on ‘Employment opportunities for people with chronic diseases’,

—

having regard to Business Europe’s 2012 paper on ‘Employers’practices for Active Ageing’,

—

having regard to Rule 52 of its Rules of Procedure,

—

having regard to the report of the Committee on Employment and Social Affairs (A8-0208/2018),

A.

whereas work-related stress is a growing problem and the second most frequently reported work-related health problem in Europe; whereas 25 % (7) of workers report that they experience work-related stress; whereas work-related stress can undermine the individual’s right to healthy working conditions; whereas work-related stress further contributes to absenteeism and low job satisfaction, negatively impacts productivity and accounts for almost half the number of working days lost each year;

B.

whereas the ageing of the European workforce presents new challenges as regards the working environment and the changed organisation of work; whereas ageing is accompanied by a higher risk of developing chronic mental and physical health problems, including disabilities and illnesses, which make prevention, reintegration and rehabilitation important policies to keep workplaces as well as pension and social security systems sustainable; whereas chronic diseases do not concern only the older population;

C.

whereas long-term work absence has a detrimental impact on mental and physical health, as well as high social and economic costs, and can prevent return to work; whereas health and wellbeing play a central role in building sustainable economies; whereas it is important to consider the serious financial impact of diseases or disabilities on families if those affected cannot go back to work;

D.

whereas while a distinction exists between disability, injury, illness and conditions associated with age, these also often overlap and require a comprehensive yet case-by-case approach on an individual basis;

E.

whereas ageing is one of the main social challenges facing the EU; whereas there is therefore a need for policies to foster active ageing to enable people to stay active and in employment until retirement age, or beyond if they so wish; whereas the older generation and its experience are indispensable for the labour market; whereas older people willing to stay in work often look for flexible or individualised working arrangements; whereas illness, disability and exclusion from work has serious financial consequences;

F.

whereas smoking, alcohol and drug abuse are among the most significant health-risk factors for the working-age population in the EU, associated as they are with both injuries and various non-communicable diseases (8); whereas 20-25 % of all workplace accidents involve people under the influence of alcohol (9), and whereas it is estimated that between 5 % and 20 % of the working population in Europe have serious problems related to their use of alcohol (10); whereas the reintegration of workers who have suffered from substance-abuse problems into quality employment presents specific challenges for employers;

G.

whereas people with disabilities or chronic diseases, or that are recovering from injury or illness, are in a vulnerable situation and should benefit from individualised support when returning to their place of work or the labour market; whereas some people with chronic conditions do not wish to, or cannot, return to work;

H.

whereas the field of occupational rehabilitation and return to work could provide valuable volunteering opportunities, for example by engaging volunteer work after retirement; whereas volunteering should be supported at any age;

I.

whereas employers first need to promote a health and safety culture in the workplace; whereas volunteering to take part in occupational safety and health (OSH) activities such as working groups could also contribute to the changing of culture;

J.

whereas work plays an important role in facilitating the recovery and rehabilitation process, given the key positive psycho-social benefits work brings to the employee; whereas good OSH practices are crucial for a productive and motivated workforce, which helps companies remain competitive and innovative, ensures workers’ wellbeing and helps maintain valuable skills and work experience, reduce staff turnover and prevent exclusion, accident and injury; whereas, therefore, the Commission is encouraged to consider whole-cost accounting in the field of active and social inclusion; whereas the adoption of appropriate and individually tailored approaches towards the reintegration of people recovering from injury or illness into quality employment is an important factor in preventing additional absenteeism or sickness presenteeism;

K.

whereas the definition of people with reduced working capacity can vary across Member States;

L.

whereas SMEs and micro-enterprises have particular needs in this regard as they have fewer of the resources needed to comply with the obligations attendant to sickness and accident prevention and, therefore, often require support in order to attain their OSH objectives; whereas, on the other hand, good OSH practices are crucial for SMEs and micro-enterprises, particularly for the sustainability of their business; whereas various EU-financed programmes offer possibilities for valuable exchange of innovations and best practices in the field of sustainable OSH;

M.

whereas negative psychosocial factors in the workplace are linked not only to health outcomes, but also to increased absenteeism and low job satisfaction; whereas individually-tailored OSH measures can enable an individual with changed work capacity to remain in employment and benefit the whole workforce; whereas while absence from work is sometimes medically necessary, there are also further negative psycho-social effects for people who spend longer time away from work and who are, as a consequence, less likely ever to return to work; whereas early coordinated care, with the employee’s wellbeing as the prime focus, is crucial to improving return-to-work outcomes and preventing long-term negative consequences for the individual;

N.

whereas the availability and comparability of data on occupational diseases at EU-level is often insufficient; whereas, according to Eurofound, roughly 28 % of Europeans report having a chronic physical or mental health problem, illness or disability (11); whereas one in four people of working age are estimated to live with longstanding health problems (12); whereas disability and ill-health can simultaneously be the causes and consequences of poverty; whereas an OECD study has found that the incomes of people with disabilities are, on average, 12 % lower than those of the rest of the population (13); whereas in some countries this income gap is as large as 30 %; whereas a study in 2013 demonstrated that 21,8 % of cancer patients aged 18-57 years old became unemployed right after being diagnosed, with 91,6 % of this group becoming unemployed 15 months after diagnosis (14); whereas a 2011 Eurostat study (15) found that among employed people who are limited in their work capabilities because of a longstanding health problem and/or a basic activity difficulty, only 5,2 % report using special working arrangements; whereas, according to the same Eurostat study, 24,2 % of those who are unemployed specify that special working arrangements would be needed to facilitate a return to work;

O.

whereas digitalisation is likely to result in major transformations in how work is organised and could help in improving the opportunities for workers with, for example, reduced physical abilities; whereas older generations are likely to face a unique set of challenges in this regard; whereas they should also benefit from these changes;

P.

whereas the right to working conditions that respect the health, safety and dignity of every worker is enshrined in the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, and good working conditions have positive value in itself; whereas everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for their health and well-being and the right to work and to just and favourable working conditions, in accordance with the Universal Declaration of Human Rights; whereas the improved health and reintegration of workers increase the overall wellbeing of society and have economic benefits to Member States, employees and employers, including older workers and individuals who have medical conditions, and help retain skills that would otherwise be lost; whereas employers, workers, families and communities benefit when work disability is transformed into work ability;

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.

—

having regard to the report of 25 February 2009 by the High-Level Group on Financial Supervision in the EU, chaired by Jacques de Larosière,

—

having regard to its resolution of 11 March 2014 with recommendations to the Commission on the European System of Financial Supervision (ESFS) Review (1),

—

having regard to the Commission staff working document of 15 May 2014 entitled ‘Economic Review of the Financial Regulation Agenda’(SWD(2014)0158),

—

having regard to the Commission report of 8 August 2014 on the operation of the European Supervisory Authorities (ESAs) and the European System of Financial Supervision (ESFS) (COM(2014)0509),

—

having regard to its resolution of 12 April 2016 on the EU role in the framework of international financial, monetary and regulatory institutions and bodies (2),

—

having regard to the Commission communication of 23 November 2016 entitled ‘Call for Evidence – EU regulatory framework for financial services’(COM(2016)0855),

—

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’ (3),

—

having regard to the Commission staff working document of 27 February 2017 entitled ‘EU equivalence decisions in financial services policy: an assessment’(SWD(2017)0102),

—

having regard to its resolution of 14 March 2018 on the framework of the future EU-UK relationship (4),

—

having regard to Rule 52 of its Rules of Procedure,

—

having regard to the report of the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs (A8-0263/2018),

A.

whereas since the financial crisis, more than 40 new pieces of EU financial legislation have been adopted, of which 15 include ‘third-country provisions’that give the Commission, on behalf of the EU, discretion to unilaterally decide whether regulatory rules in foreign jurisdictions can be considered equivalent;

B.

whereas equivalence and passporting rights are distinctly different concepts, providing different rights to and obligations for regulators, supervisors, financial institutions and market participants; whereas equivalence decisions do not confer ‘passporting rights’to financial institutions established in third countries as this concept is inextricably linked to the internal market with its common regulatory, supervisory, enforcement and judicial framework;

C.

whereas no trade agreement concluded by the EU has ever incorporated cross-border mutual access provisions on financial services;

D.

whereas there is no single framework underpinning equivalence decisions; whereas each legislative act sets out a targeted equivalence regime tailored to its policy objectives; whereas current equivalence provisions offer different approaches that allow for a range of possible benefits depending on the financial service provider and the market in which it operates;

E.

whereas equivalence is, among other things, a tool to promote international regulatory convergence, which may lead to more competition in the EU internal market on a level playing field, while preventing regulatory arbitrage, protecting consumers and investors, preserving the EU's financial stability and maintaining consistency within the internal market; whereas equivalence is also a tool to ensure fair and equal regulatory and supervisory treatment between EU financial institutions and third-country financial institutions;

F.

whereas equivalence decisions are based on the EU single rulebook and are taken on the basis of a technical assessment; whereas they should nonetheless be subject to a greater degree of scrutiny by Parliament;

G.

whereas the Commission describes equivalence as ‘a key instrument to effectively manage cross-border activity of market players in a sound and secure prudential environment with third-country jurisdictions that adhere to, implement and enforce rigorously the same high standards of prudential rules as the EU’;

H.

whereas the forthcoming withdrawal of the UK from the EU will potentially have a significant impact on the regulation and supervision of financial services, given the close relationship that currently exists between Member States in this area; whereas the negotiations for the withdrawal of the UK from the EU are still ongoing;

I.

whereas in the event that the Withdrawal Agreement, including the transition period, is agreed and ratified, financial institutions will have a longer period to adapt to Brexit; whereas, in the absence of a transition period, the Commission and the ESAs must be prepared to protect financial stability, the integrity of the internal market and the autonomy of decision-making in the EU;

J.

whereas it is necessary for the purposes of the Union's financial stability to fully consider the interconnectedness between third-country markets and the EU's single market;

K.

whereas in its resolution of 19 January 2016 on ‘Stocktaking and challenges of the EU Financial Services Regulation’, Parliament called on the Commission to ‘propose a consistent, coherent, transparent and practical framework for procedures and decisions on third-country equivalence, taking into account an outcome-based analysis and international standards or agreements’;

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.

—

having regard to Article 3 of the Treaty on European Union (TEU) and Articles 4, 162, 174 to 178 and 349 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU),

—

having regard to Regulation (EU) No 1303/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 December 2013 laying down common provisions on the European Regional Development Fund, the European Social Fund, the Cohesion Fund, the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development and the European Maritime and Fisheries Fund and laying down general provisions on the European Regional Development Fund, the European Social Fund, the Cohesion Fund and the European Maritime and Fisheries Fund and repealing Council Regulation (EC) No 1083/2006 (1),

—

having regard to Regulation (EU) No 1299/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 December 2013 on specific provisions for the support from the European Regional Development Fund to the European territorial cooperation goal (2),

—

having regard to Regulation (EC) No 1082/2006 on a European grouping of territorial cooperation (EGTC) (3),

—

having regard to Directive 2011/24/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 9 March 2011 on the application of patients’ rights in cross-border healthcare (4),

—

having regard to the Commission communication of 20 September 2017 entitled ‘Boosting growth and cohesion in EU border regions’(COM(2017)0534),

—

having regard to the Commission staff working document of 20 September 2017 accompanying the Commission communication entitled ‘Boosting growth and cohesion in EU border regions’(SWD(2017)0307),

—

having regard to its resolution of 13 March 2018 on lagging regions in the EU (5),

—

having regard to its resolution of 17 April 2018 on strengthening economic, social and territorial cohesion in the EU: the 7th report of the European Commission (6),

—

having regard to its resolution of 13 June 2017 on building blocks for a post-2020 EU cohesion policy (7),

—

having regard to its resolution of 13 June 2017 on increasing engagement of partners and visibility in the performance of European Structural and Investment Funds (8),

—

having regard to its resolution of 18 May 2017 on the right funding mix for Europe’s regions: balancing financial instruments and grants in EU cohesion policy (9),

—

having regard to its resolution of 16 February 2017 on investing in jobs and growth – maximising the contribution of European Structural and Investment Funds: an evaluation of the report under Article 16(3) of the CPR (10),

—

having regard to the opinion of the Committee of the Regions of 8 February 2017 on Missing transport links in border regions (11),

—

having regard to its resolution of 13 September 2016 on Cohesion Policy and Research and Innovation Strategies for Smart Specialisation (RIS3) (12),

—

having regard to its resolution of 13 September 2016 on European Territorial Cooperation – best practices and innovative measures (13),

—

having regard to its resolution of 10 May 2016 on new territorial development tools in cohesion policy 2014-2020: Integrated Territorial Investment (ITI) and Community-Led Local Development (CLLD) (14),

—

having regard to the conclusions and recommendations of the High Level Group monitoring simplification for beneficiaries of ESI Funds,

—

having regard to Rule 52 of its Rules of Procedure,

—

having regard to the report of the Committee on Regional Development and the opinion of the Committee on Culture and Education (A8-0266/2018),

A.

whereas the EU and its immediate neighbours in the European Free Trade Association (EFTA) count 40 internal land borders and EU internal border regions, and these regions cover 40 % of the Union’s territory, account for 30 % of the EU’s population and produce almost one third of EU GDP;

B.

whereas border regions, especially those with lower population density, tend to face worse conditions for social and economic development and generally perform less well economically than other regions within the Member States, and their full economic potential is untapped;

C.

whereas physical and/or geographical barriers also contribute to restricting economic, social and territorial cohesion between border regions, both within and outside the EU, particularly in the case of mountain regions;

D.

whereas, in spite of the efforts already undertaken, obstacles – consisting of mainly administrative, linguistic and legal barriers – still persist and hamper growth, economic and social development and cohesion between and within the border regions;

E.

whereas it was estimated by the Commission in 2017 that the removal of only 20 % of the existing obstacles in the border regions would bring about an increase in their GDP of 2 %, or around EUR 91 billion, which would translate into approximately one million new jobs; whereas territorial cooperation, including cross-border cooperation, has been widely acknowledged to bring genuine and visible added value, in particular to citizens of the EU living along internal borders;

F.

whereas the total number of cross-border workers and students active in another EU country is approximately 2 million, of which 1.3 million are workers, representing 0.6 % of all employees across the EU-28;

G.

whereas in the current multiannual financial framework (MFF), 95 % of Trans-European Transport Networks (TEN-T) and Connecting Europe Facility (CEF) funds go to the core corridors of the TEN-T, while small projects on the comprehensive network and interventions linking up with the TEN-T network, although essential to solving specific problems and to the development of cross-border connections and economies, are often not eligible for co-financing or for national financing;

H.

whereas the Commission also intends to present its stance on the internal maritime border regions;

I.

whereas multiple challenges faced by the external border regions of the EU, including the outermost regions, rural areas, areas affected by industrial transition and regions in the Union which suffer from remoteness, insularity or other severe and permanent natural or demographic handicaps as per Article 174 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU), would also merit a stance being adopted by the Commission;

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.

—

having regard to Articles 2 and 3 of the Treaty on European Union (TEU) and Articles 8, 10, 19 and 157 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU),

—

having regard to the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, which entered into force with the adoption of the Treaty of Lisbon in December 2009 (1), and, in particular, Articles 1, 20, 21, 23 and 31 thereof,

—

having regard to the 2014 report by the European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights (FRA) entitled ‘Violence against women: an EU-wide survey’ (2),

—

having regard to Directive 2006/54/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 5 July 2006 on the implementation of the principle of equal opportunities and equal treatment of men and women in matters of employment and occupation (3),

—

having regard to Council Directive 2004/113/EC of 13 December 2004 implementing the principle of equal treatment between men and women in the access to and supply of goods and services, which defines and condemns harassment and sexual harassment (4),

—

having regard to the Gender Equality Index of the European Institute for Gender Equality (EIGE),

—

having regard to the EIGE publication of June 2017 entitled ‘Cyber violence against women and girls’,

—

having regard to the EU Presidency Trio declaration of 19 July 2017 by Estonia, Bulgaria and Austria on equality between women and men,

—

having regard to the United Nations legal instruments in the field of human rights and notably of women’s rights, such as the Charter of the United Nations, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the International Covenants on Civil and Political Rights and on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW) and its Protocol, and the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment,

—

having regard to other UN instruments on sexual harassment and violence against women, such as the Vienna Declaration and Programme of Action of 25 June 1993 adopted by the World Conference on Human Rights, the Declaration by the United Nations General Assembly on the Elimination of Violence against Women of 20 December 1993, the Resolution on crime prevention and criminal justice measures to eliminate violence against women of 21 July 1997, the reports by the UN Special Rapporteurs on violence against women, and General recommendation No 19 by the CEDAW committee,

—

having regard to the Beijing Declaration and Platform for Action adopted by the Fourth World Conference on Women on 15 September 1995, and to the subsequent outcome documents adopted at the UN Beijing +5 (2000), Beijing +10 (2005), Beijing +15 (2010) and Beijing +20 (2015) special sessions,

—

having regard to Directive 2012/29/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 October 2012 establishing minimum standards on the rights, support and protection of victims of crime, and replacing Council Framework Decision 2001/220/JHA (5) (the Victims’ Rights Directive),

—

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

—

having regard to the Framework Agreement on Harassment and Violence at Work of 26 April 2007 between ETUC/CES, BUSINESSEUROPE, UEAPME and CEEP,

—

having regard to the report of the European Network of Equality Bodies (EQUINET) entitled ‘The Persistence of Discrimination, Harassment and Inequality for Women. The work of equality bodies informing a new European Commission Strategy for Gender Equality’, published in 2015,

—

having regard to the EQUINET report entitled ‘Harassment on the Basis of Gender and Sexual Harassment: Supporting the Work of Equality Bodies’, published in 2014,

—

having regard to the Istanbul Convention on preventing and combating violence against women and domestic violence, in particular Articles 2 and 40 thereof (6), and to Parliament’s resolution of 12 September 2017 on the proposal for a Council decision on the conclusion, by the European Union, of the Council of Europe Convention on preventing and combating violence against women and domestic violence (7),

—

having regard to its resolutions of 20 September 2001 on harassment at the workplace (8), of 26 November 2009 on the elimination of violence against women (9), of 5 April 2011 on priorities and outline of a new EU policy framework to fight violence against women (10), of 15 December 2011 on the mid-term review of the European strategy 2007-2012 on health and safety at work (11), of 25 February 2014 with recommendations to the Commission on combating Violence Against Women (12) and the accompanying European Added Value Assessment of November 2013, and of 24 November 2016 on the EU accession to the Istanbul Convention on preventing and combating violence against women (13),

—

having regard to its resolutions of 14 March 2017 on equality between women and men in the European Union in 2014-2015 (14), of 10 March 2015 on progress on equality between women and men in the European Union in 2013 (15), and of 24 October 2017 on legitimate measures to protect whistle-blowers acting in the public interest when disclosing the confidential information of companies and public bodies (16),

—

having regard to its resolution of 26 October 2017 on combating sexual harassment and abuse in the EU (17),

—

having regard to the European Trade Union Confederation report entitled ‘Safe at home, safe at work – Trade union strategies to prevent, manage and eliminate work-place harassment and violence against women’,

—

having regard to the report for the Meeting of Experts on Violence against Women and Men in the World of Work (3-6 October 2016), organised by the International Labour Organisation,

—

having regard to the study by the Inter-Parliamentary Union entitled ‘Sexism, harassment and violence against women parliamentarians’, published in 2016 (18),

—

having regard to the study entitled ‘Bullying and sexual harassment at the workplace, in public spaces, and in political life in the EU’, published by its Directorate-General for Internal Policies in March 2018 (19),

—

having regard to Rule 52 of its Rules of Procedure,

—

having regard to the report of the Committee on Women’s Rights and Gender Equality (A8-0265/2018),

A.

whereas gender equality is a core value of the EU, recognised in the Treaties and the Charter of Fundamental Rights; whereas gender-based violence stems from an unequal balance of power and responsibilities in relationships between men and women and is linked to patriarchy and persisting gender-based discrimination;

B.

whereas elderly people, especially older single women, represent a particularly vulnerable social group when facing psychological and physical harassment and bullying;

C.

whereas sexual harassment is defined in Directive 2002/73/EC as ‘where any form of unwanted verbal, non-verbal or physical conduct of a sexual nature occurs, with the purpose or effect of violating the dignity of a person, in particular when creating an intimidating, hostile, degrading, humiliating or offensive environment’;

D.

whereas that definition should be redrafted in the light of social and technological developments and attitudes, which have all evolved and changed over time;

E.

whereas the fight against harassment on grounds of pregnancy and motherhood is necessary in order to achieve a true work-life balance for women;

F.

whereas sexual harassment is a form of violence and is the most extreme, yet persistent, form of gender-based discrimination; whereas some 90 % of victims of sexual harassment are female and approximately 10 % are male; whereas, according to the EU-wide FRA study of 2014 entitled ‘Violence against women’, one in three women have experienced physical or sexual violence during their adult lives; whereas up to 55 % of women have been sexually harassed in the EU; whereas 32 % of all victims in the EU reported that the perpetrator was a superior, colleague or customer; whereas 75 % of women in professions requiring specific qualifications or in senior management jobs have been sexually harassed; whereas 61 % of women employed in the service sector have been subjected to sexual harassment; whereas, overall, 5-10 % of the European workforce is at any one time being subjected to bullying at the workplace;

G.

whereas both sexual and psychological harassment are prohibited in employment at EU level, including in relation to access to employment, vocational training and promotion, and come under health and safety considerations;

H.

whereas it is the responsibility of the EU institutions and agencies to keep improving the mechanisms in place by implementing the most efficient rules in order to raise awareness of the definition of sexual harassment and protect workers;

I.

whereas cases of sexual harassment are significantly underreported due to low social awareness of the issue, fear and shame associated with talking to other people about the topic, fear of dismissal, difficulties in obtaining evidence, insufficient reporting, monitoring and victim-protection channels, and the normalisation of violence;

J.

whereas reporting sexual harassment at work can in many cases lead to the victim’s dismissal or isolation within the workplace; whereas less serious offences, when left unchallenged, provide motivation for more serious offences;

K.

whereas bullying and sexual harassment continue to represent serious problems in a variety of social settings, including the workplace, public spaces, virtual spaces such as the internet, and political life, and are increasingly being carried out using new technologies, for example websites or social networks, enabling perpetrators to feel safe under cover of anonymity;

L.

whereas in the context of emerging new forms of organisation of work and social life and a blurring of the boundaries between private, professional and social life, negative behaviour towards individuals or social groups may intensify; whereas workplace bullying can very often take a variety of forms, occurring within both vertical relationships (perpetrated by a superior or by subordinates) and horizontal relationships (perpetrated by work colleagues on the same rung of the hierarchy);

M.

whereas sexual and psychological harassment are phenomena that involve victims and perpetrators of all ages, educational and cultural backgrounds, incomes and social statuses, and whereas this phenomenon has physical, sexual, emotional and psychological consequences for the victim; whereas gender stereotypes and sexism, including sexist hate speech, offline and online, are root causes of many forms of violence and discrimination against women and prevent women’s empowerment;

N.

whereas the Victims’ Rights Directive defines gender-based violence as a violation of the fundamental freedoms of the victim and includes sexual violence (including rape, sexual assault and harassment); whereas female victims of gender-based violence and their children often require special support and protection because of the high risk of repeat victimisation, intimidation and retaliation connected with such violence;

O.

whereas violence in the world of work is often addressed in a piecemeal fashion, which mainly focuses on more visible forms, such as physical violence; whereas, however, sexual and psychological harassment can have even more destructive effects on the individual concerned;

P.

whereas the acts of sexism and resulting sexual harassment to which women may be subjected in the workplace are a contributing factor in driving them out of the labour market, which has an adverse effect on their economic independence and family income;

Q.

whereas women who are victims of harassment and violence in rural and remote areas in the EU usually have more difficulty obtaining full assistance and protection from aggressors;

R.

whereas the effects of both physical and verbal harassment, including such acts perpetrated online, are harmful not only in the short term, but also in the long term, and can include, for example, stress and severe clinical depression and even drive victims to suicide, as has been shown by the increase in reports of such cases; whereas, in addition to negative health outcomes, bullying and sexual harassment in the workplace also have negative impacts on an individual’s career, on organisations and on society, such as increased absenteeism, reduced productivity and service quality, and the loss of human capital;

S.

whereas EU law requires Member States and EU institutions and agencies to ensure that an equality body is in place to provide independent assistance to victims of harassment, conduct independent surveys, collect relevant, disaggregated and comparable data, conduct research on definitions and classifications, publish independent reports and make recommendations on matters of employment and training, on access to and the supply of goods and services, and for the self-employed;

T.

whereas women in the EU are not equally protected against gender-based violence and sexual and psychological harassment owing to differing policies and legislation across the Member States; whereas judicial systems do not always provide sufficient support to women; whereas the perpetrators of gender-based violence are often already known to the victim, and whereas, in many cases, the victim is in a position of dependence, which exacerbates their fear of reporting the violence;

U.

whereas all Member States have signed the Istanbul Convention, but not all have ratified it, and whereas this delay is impeding the full implementation of the Convention;

V.

whereas sexism and the sexual and psychological harassment of women parliamentarians is real and widespread; whereas the perpetrators of harassment and violence not only belong to the ranks of political opponents, but can also be members of the same political party, as well as religious leaders, local authorities, and even family members;

W.

whereas politicians, as elected representatives of citizens, have a crucial responsibility to act as positive role models in preventing and combating sexual harassment in society;

X.

whereas the legitimacy of women in the political sphere is still sometimes challenged, and whereas women are victims of stereotypes, which discourage them from engaging in politics, a phenomenon that is particularly conspicuous wherever women in politics are less represented;

Y.

whereas neither all national and regional parliaments, nor all local councils have specific structures and internal rules in place establishing proper channels for ensuring the safe, confidential lodging and treatment of harassment complaints; whereas training on sexual and psychological harassment should be compulsory for all staff and members of parliament, including the European Parliament;

Z.

whereas domestic violence is also a workplace issue, as it can impact on the victim’s work participation, work performance and safety;

AA.

whereas sexual and psychological harassment not only take place at work, but also in public spaces, including in formal and informal educational settings, in healthcare and leisure facilities, in the streets and on public transport;

AB.

whereas cyber stalking and cyber harassment involve the use of information and communications technologies to stalk, harass, control, or manipulate a person; whereas cyber harassment is a particular problem for young women due to their greater use of these mediums; whereas 20 % of young women (between the ages of 18 and 29) in the EU-28 have experienced cyber harassment;

AC.

whereas a 2016 study found that more than half the women polled had experienced some form of sexual harassment in UK workplaces, but that four in five had not reported the harassment to their employer (20);

AD.

whereas new technologies also have the potential to be an ally in analysing, understanding and preventing instances of violence;

AE.

whereas women, young women in particular, are being subjected to bullying and sexual harassment involving the use of new technologies, for example websites and social networks, sometimes organised through secret forums or groups on social media; whereas such acts include rape threats, death threats, hacking attempts, and publication of private information and photos; whereas, in the context of the widespread use of online and social media, an estimated one in ten girls had already experienced a form of cyber violence, including cyberstalking and harassment, by the age of 15; whereas women who have a public role, among others journalists and in particular LGBTI and disabled women, are a prime target for cyberbullying and online violence, and whereas some have had to leave social networks as a result, having experienced physical fear, stress, concentration problems, fear of going home and worry for loved ones;

AF.

whereas prevention of harassment in working environments can only be achieved when both private and public companies create a culture in which women are treated as equals and employees treat one another with respect;

AG.

whereas research has shown that harassment is rife in workplaces where men dominate management and women have little power, such as the entertainment and media industries, but that it also happens in technology and law companies, sales and many other sectors if male-dominated management teams tolerate sexualised treatment of workers; whereas companies with more women in management have less sexual harassment;

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.

—

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

—

having regard to Articles 21(1) and 22 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union,

—

having regard to the 2003 UNESCO Convention for the Safeguarding of the Intangible Cultural Heritage,

—

having regard to Directive 2003/98/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 November 2003 on the re-use of public sector information (1),

—

having regard to Directive 2013/37/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 June 2013 amending Directive 2003/98/EC on the re-use of public sector information (2),

—

having regard to Decision (EU) 2015/2240 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 November 2015 establishing a programme on interoperability solutions and common frameworks for European public administrations, businesses and citizens (ISA2 programme) as a means for modernising the public sector (3),

—

having regard to the Council resolution of 21 November 2008 on a European strategy for multilingualism (2008/C 320/01) (4),

—

having regard to the Council decision of 3 December 2013 establishing the specific programme implementing Horizon 2020 – the Framework Programme for Research and Innovation (2014-2020) and repealing Decisions 2006/971/EC, 2006/972/EC, 2006/973/EC, 2006/974/EC and 2006/975/EC (5),

—

having regard to the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (UN CRPD), ratified by the EU in 2010,

—

having regard to the Commission communication of 18 September 2008 entitled ‘Multilingualism: an asset for Europe and a shared commitment’(COM(2008)0566),

—

having regard to the Commission communication of 26 August 2010 entitled ‘A Digital Agenda for Europe’(COM(2010)0245),

—

having regard to the Commission communication of 11 January 2012 entitled ‘A coherent framework for building trust in the Digital Single Market for e-commerce’(COM(2011)0942),

—

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

—

having regard to the opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee on the communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions ‘A Digital Agenda for Europe’(COM(2010)0245) (6),

—

having regard to the Recommendation concerning the Promotion and Use of Multilingualism and Universal Access to Cyberspace adopted by the UNESCO General Conference at its 32nd session in Paris on 15 October 2003,

—

having regard to the Special Eurobarometer 386 report entitled ‘Europeans and their Languages’, published in June 2012,

—

having regard to the Presidency conclusions of the Barcelona European Council of 15 and 16 March 2002 (SN 100/1/02 REV 1),

—

having regard to its resolution of 17 June 1988 on sign languages for the deaf (7),

—

having regard to its resolution of 14 January 2004 on Preserving and promoting cultural diversity: the role of the European regions and international organisations such as UNESCO and the Council of Europe (8), and to its resolution of 4 September 2003 on European regional and lesser-used languages – the languages of minorities in the EU – in the context of enlargement and cultural diversity (9),

—

having regard to its resolution of 24 March 2009 on Multilingualism: an asset for Europe and a shared commitment (10),

—

having regard to its resolution of 11 September 2013 on endangered European languages and linguistic diversity in the European Union (11),

—

having regard its resolution of 7 February 2018 on protection and non-discrimination with regard to minorities in the EU Member States (12),

—

having regard to the study by the European Parliamentary Research Service (EPRS) and Scientific Foresight Unit (STOA) entitled ‘Language equality in the digital age – Towards a Human Language Project’, published in March 2017,

—

having regard to Rule 52 of its Rules of Procedure,

—

having regard to the report of the Committee on Culture and Education and the opinion of the Committee on Industry, Research and Energy (A8-0228/2018),

A.

whereas language technologies can make communication easier for the deaf and hard of hearing, the blind and visually impaired and those with dyslexia and whereas, for the purposes of this report, ‘language technology’refers to technology that supports not only spoken languages, but also sign languages, recognising that sign languages are an important element of Europe’s linguistic diversity;

B.

whereas the development of language technologies (LTs) covers many research areas and disciplines, including computational linguistics, artificial intelligence, computer science and linguistics, with applications such as natural language processing, text analytics, speech technology and data mining, among others;

C.

whereas according to the Special Eurobarometer report 386 entitled ‘Europeans and their languages’, just over half of Europeans (54 %) are able to hold a conversation in at least one additional language, a quarter (25 %) are able to speak at least two additional languages and one in ten (10 %) are conversant in at least three;

D.

whereas there are 24 official languages and more than 60 national, regional and minority languages in the European Union, in addition to migrant languages and, under the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (UNCRPD), the various state-recognised sign languages; whereas multilingualism presents one of the greatest assets of cultural diversity in Europe and, at the same time, one of the most significant challenges for the creation of a truly integrated EU;

E.

whereas support for local communities, such as indigenous, rural or remote communities, in overcoming geographical, social and economic obstacles to broadband access is a crucial prerequisite for an efficient, EU multilingualism policy;

F.

whereas multilingualism comes under the scope of a series of EU policy areas, including culture, education, the economy, the digital single market, lifelong learning, employment, social inclusion, competitiveness, youth, civil society, mobility, research and the media; whereas more attention needs to be paid to removing barriers to intercultural and interlinguistic dialogue, and to stimulating mutual understanding;

G.

whereas the Commission acknowledges that the Digital Single Market must be multilingual; whereas no common EU policy has been proposed to address the problem of language barriers;

H.

whereas LTs are used in practically all everyday digital products and services, since most use language to some extent, especially all internet-related products such as search engines, social networks and e-commerce services; whereas the use of LTs also has an impact on sectors of fundamental importance to the everyday well-being of European citizens, such as education, culture and health;

I.

whereas cross-border e-commerce is very low, with just 16 % of European citizens having purchased online from other EU countries in 2015; whereas language technologies can contribute to future European cross-border and cross-language communication, boost economic growth and social stability and reduce natural barriers, thereby respecting and promoting cohesion and convergence, and strengthening the EU’s competitiveness worldwide;

J.

whereas technological development is increasingly language-based and has consequences for growth and society; whereas there is an urgent need for more language-aware policies and for technological, but also genuinely multidisciplinary, research and education on digital communication and LTs and their relationship with growth and society;

K.

whereas fulfilling the Barcelona objective of enabling citizens to communicate well in their mother tongue plus two other languages would give people more opportunities to access cultural, educational and scientific content in digital form and to participate as citizens, in addition to accessing the digital single market; whereas additional means and tools, especially those provided by language technologies, are key to managing European multilingualism properly, and to promoting individual multilingualism;

L.

whereas there have been substantial breakthroughs in artificial intelligence and the pace of development in language technologies has been fast; whereas language-centric artificial intelligence offers new opportunities for digital communication, digitally enhanced communication, technology-enabled communication, and cooperation in all European languages (and beyond), giving speakers of different languages equal access to information and knowledge, and improving IT network functionalities;

M.

whereas the common European values of cooperation, solidarity, equality, recognition and respect should mean that all citizens have full and equal access to digital technologies, which would not only improve European cohesiveness and well-being but also enable a multilingual Digital Single Market;

N.

whereas the availability of technological tools such as video games or educational applications in minority and lesser-used languages is pivotal for the development of language skills, especially in children;

O.

whereas the speakers of lesser-spoken European languages need to be able to express themselves in culturally meaningful ways and to create their own cultural content in local languages;

P.

whereas the emergence of methods such as deep learning, based on increased computational power and access to vast amounts of data, are making language technologies a real solution for overcoming language barriers;

Q.

whereas language barriers have a considerable impact on the construction of the European identity and the future of the European integration process; whereas the EU’s decision-making and policies should be communicated to its citizens in their mother tongue, both online and offline;

R.

whereas language makes up a very large part of the ever-increasing wealth of big data;

S.

whereas an enormous amount of data is expressed in human languages; whereas the management of LTs could enable a wide range of innovative IT products and services in industry, commerce, government, research, public services and administration, reducing natural barriers and market costs;

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

7.

8.

9.

10.

11.

12.

13.

14.

15.

16.

17.

18.

19.

20.

21.

22.

23.

24.

25.

26.

27.

28.

29.

30.

31.

32.

33.

34.

35.

36.

37.

38.

39.

40.

41.

42.

43.

44.

45.

46.

—

having regard to the Forest Law Enforcement, Governance and Trade (FLEGT) Action Plan (September 2001) and the FLEGT Voluntary Partnership Agreements (VPAs) with third countries,

—

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

—

having regard to Regulation (EU) No 995/2010 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 October 2010 laying down the obligations of operators who place timber and timber products on the market (1) (the EU Timber Regulation),

—

having regard to the 2011 Busan Partnership for Effective Development,

—

having regard to the 2015-2030 United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs),

—

having regard to the Paris Agreement reached at the 21st Conference of Parties of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (COP21),

—

having regard to the final report of the Commission study entitled ‘The impact of EU consumption on deforestation: Comprehensive analysis of the impact of EU consumption on deforestation’ (2013),

—

having regard to the draft feasibility study on options to step up EU action against deforestation, commissioned by the Commission’s Directorate General for Environment (2017),

—

having regard to the Commission’s communication of 17 October 2008 entitled ‘Addressing the challenges of deforestation and forest degradation to tackle climate change and biodiversity loss’ (COM(2008)0645),

—

having regard to the Consumer Goods Forum of 2010, a global industry network of retailers, manufacturers and service providers, which adopted a target of achieving zero net deforestation in its membership’s supply chains by 2020,

—

having regard to the 2011 Bonn Challenge, which is a global effort to bring 150 million hectares of the world’s deforested and degraded land into restoration by 2020, and 350 million hectares by 2030,

—

having regard to the Tropical Forest Alliance 2020,

—

having regard to the New York Declaration on Forests and Action Agenda of 2014,

—

having regard to the 2016 Council conclusions on forest law enforcement, governance and trade,

—

having regard to the Amsterdam Declaration ‘Towards Eliminating Deforestation from Agricultural Commodity Chains with European Countries’ of December 2015,

—

having regard to the Commission’s Trade for All strategy (2015),

—

having regard to the UN’s Programme on Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation (REDD+) mechanism,

—

having regard to the UN Strategic Plan for Forests 2017-2030 (UNSPF), which defines six Global Forest Goals and 26 associated targets to be achieved by 2030,

—

having regard to the UN Convention to Combat Desertification, adopted on 17 June 1994,

—

having regard to the development by the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) of national sustainable commodity platforms,

—

having regard to the Bilateral Cooperation Mechanism on Forest Law Enforcement and Governance (BCM-FLEG) with China (2009),

—

having regard to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights of 1966,

—

having regard to the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights of 1966,

—

having regard to the American Convention on Human Rights of 1969,

—

having regard to the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights of 1987,

—

having regard to the International Labour Organisation (ILO) Convention No169 on Indigenous and Tribal Peoples of 1989,

—

having regard to the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP) of 2007,

—

having regard to the 2012 Voluntary Guidelines on the Governance of Tenure (VGGT) of the Food and Agriculture Organisation of the United Nations (FAO),

—

having regard to the FAO’s 2014 Principles on Responsible Investment in Agriculture and Food Systems,

—

having regard to the most recent Planetary Boundaries report,

—

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

—

having regard to the Convention on Biological Diversity of 1992 and the associated Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety of 2000 and Nagoya Protocol on Access to Genetic Resources and the Fair and Equitable Sharing of Benefits Arising from their Utilisation of 2010,

—

having regard to the final report of the High-Level Expert Group on Sustainable Finance,

—

having regard to the Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights, endorsed by the UN Human Rights Council in 2011, as well as to the OECD’s Guidelines on Multinational Enterprises, updated in 2011,

—

having regard to its resolution of 4 April 2017 on palm oil and deforestation of rainforests (2),

—

having regard to its resolution of 25 October 2016 on corporate liability for serious human rights abuses in third countries (3),

—

having regard to the statement from civil society representatives on the EU’s Role in Protecting Forests and Rights of April 2018,

—

having regard to the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC) Global Programme for Combating Wildlife and Forest Crime,

—

having regard to its resolution of 12 September 2017 on the impact of international trade and the EU’s trade policies on global value chains (4),

—

having regard to Rule 52 of its Rules of Procedure,

—

having regard to the report of the Committee on Development and the opinions of the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Food Safety and the Committee on International Trade (A8-0249/2018),

A.

whereas biologically diverse forests contribute substantially to climate change mitigation and adaptation and to conserving biodiversity;

B.

whereas 300 million people live in forests and 1.6 billion people rely directly on forests for their livelihood, including more than 2 000 indigenous groups; whereas forests play a key role in the development of local economies; whereas forests are home to an estimated 80 % of all terrestrial species and constitute, therefore, an important reservoir of biodiversity; whereas, according to the FAO, around 13 million hectares of forest are lost each year;

C.

whereas deforestation and forest degradation occur for the most part in the southern hemisphere and tropical forests;

D.

whereas forests prevent land degradation and desertification and thereby reduce the risk of floods, landslides and drought;

E.

whereas forests are vital for sustainable agriculture and improve food security and nutrition;

F.

whereas forests also provide essential ecosystem services that support sustainable agriculture by regulating water flows, stabilising soils, maintaining soil fertility, regulating the climate, and providing a viable habitat for wild pollinators and predators of agricultural pests;

G.

whereas forest products account for 1 % of the world’s GDP;

H.

whereas forest restoration is one of the strategies vital to limiting global warming to 1.5 degrees; whereas all governments should accept their responsibilities and take measures to reduce the costs of greenhouse gas emissions in their own country;

I.

whereas deforestation and forest degradation is the second leading human cause of carbon emissions and accounts for nearly 20 % of global greenhouse gas emissions;

J.

whereas wood fuel is still the most important forest product in developing countries and the most important energy source in many African and Asian countries; whereas in sub-Saharan Africa, four out of five people still use wood for cooking;

K.

whereas primary forests are rich in biodiversity and store 30 to 70 percent more carbon than logged or degraded forests;

L.

whereas clear, consistent and up-to-date information on forest cover is crucial for effective monitoring and law enforcement;

M.

whereas while FLEGT-VPAs have proved valuable in helping to improve forest governance, they still have many flaws;

N.

whereas FLEGT-VPAs focus on industrial logging, while the vast majority of illegal logging stems from artisanal logging and timber from farms;

O.

whereas FLEGT-VPAs have too narrow a definition of ‘legality’, sometimes leaving aside crucial issues related to land tenure and rights of local people;

P.

whereas FLEGT-VPAs, REDD + and certification have remained separate initiatives, which should be further coordinated;

Q.

whereas the implementation of FLEGT objectives depends heavily on major producing, processing and trading countries such as China, Russia, India, South Korea and Japan, and their commitment to fighting against illegal logging and trade in illegal timber products, and whereas bilateral political dialogues with these partners have produced limited results to date;

R.

whereas the aim of the EU Timber Regulation (EUTR) is to ensure that no illegal timber is placed on the EU market; whereas a 2016 review of the EUTR concluded that the implementation and enforcement of the regulation were incomplete; whereas a public consultation was launched at the start of this year on possible changes to the EUTR’s scope;

S.

whereas protected areas should be at the heart of any strategic approach to wildlife conservation; whereas they should act as secure and inclusive economic development poles, based on sustainable farming, energy, culture and tourism, and lead to the development of good governance;

T.

whereas public-private partnerships play an important role in the sustainable development of parks in sub-Saharan Africa, respecting the rights of forest communities;

U.

whereas corruption and weak institutions represent major obstacles to the protection and preservation of forests; whereas a 2016 joint report by the UN Environment Programme (UNEP) and INTERPOL (5) identifies forest crimes as being among the five most salient challenges to achieving the SDGs and states that illegal logging represents between 15 and 30 % of the global legal trade; whereas, according to the World Bank, affected countries lose an estimated USD 15 billion each year to illegal logging and timber trade;

V.

whereas forest crime can take several forms, namely illegal exploitation of high-value endangered wood species (CITES listed); illegal logging of timber for building material and furniture; illegal logging and laundering of wood through plantation and agricultural front companies to supply pulp for the paper industry and utilisation of the vastly unregulated wood fuel and charcoal trade to conceal illegal logging within and outside of protected areas;

W.

whereas urbanisation, misgovernance, large-scale deforestation for agriculture, mining and infrastructure development are causing severe human rights violations with devastating impacts on forest peoples and local communities, such as land grabbing, forced evictions, police harassment, arbitrary arrest and the criminalisation of community leaders, human rights defenders and activists;

X.

whereas the UN’s Agenda 2030 sets the target of halting and reversing deforestation and forest degradation by 2020; whereas this commitment is reiterated in the Paris Climate Agreement and should not be deferred;

Y.

whereas SDG 15 explicitly mentions the need for good forestry management, while forests can play a role in helping to achieve many of the other SDGs;

Z.

whereas REDD+ has brought environmental and social benefits in many developing countries, from biodiversity conservation to rural development and the improvement of forest governance; whereas, however, it has been criticised for putting pressure on forest communities;

AA.

whereas there is a growing body of evidence that securing community tenure rights leads to reduced deforestation and more sustainable forest management;

AB.

whereas agriculture accounts for 80 % of deforestation worldwide; whereas livestock farming and large industrial soy and palm oil plantations, in particular, are major drivers of deforestation, particularly in tropical countries, due to growing demand for these products in developed countries and emerging economies and the expansion of industrial agriculture worldwide; whereas a Commission study in 2013 found that EU-27 was the largest global net importer of embodied deforestation (between 1990 and 2008); whereas the EU therefore has a decisive role to play in combating deforestation and forest degradation, particularly with regard to its demand and its due diligence requirements in relation to agricultural commodities;

AC.

whereas soy expansion has led to social and environmental problems, such as soil erosion, water depletion, pesticide contamination and forced displacement of people; whereas indigenous communities have been among those most affected;

AD.

whereas the expansion of palm oil plantations has led to massive forest destruction and social conflicts that pit plantation companies against indigenous groups and local communities;

AE.

whereas in recent years, the private sector has shown a growing engagement towards forest protection and whereas over 400 companies have committed to eliminating deforestation from their products and supply chains in accordance with the New York Declaration on Forests, focusing in particular on commodities such as palm oil, soy, beef and timber; whereas public measures aimed at agricultural products nevertheless remain relatively rare;

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.