27.1.2020

Official Journal of the European Union

C 28/2

P8_TA(2018)0243

State of play of recreational fisheries in the EU

European Parliament resolution of 12 June 2018 on the state of play of recreational fisheries in the European Union (2017/2120(INI))

(2020/C 28/02)

The European Parliament,

—	having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU), in particular Article 43 thereof,

—	having regard to its resolution of 6 July 2017 on promoting cohesion and development in the outermost regions of the EU: implementation of Article 349 of the TFEU (1),

—

having regard to Regulation (EU) No 1380/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 December 2013 on the Common Fisheries Policy, amending Council Regulations (EC) No 1954/2003 and (EC) No 1224/2009 and repealing Council Regulations (EC) No 2371/2002 and (EC) No 639/2004 and Council Decision 2004/585/EC (2),

—

having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1224/2009 of 20 November 2009 establishing a Community control system for ensuring compliance with the rules of the common fisheries policy, amending Regulations (EC) No 847/96, (EC) No 2371/2002, (EC) No 811/2004, (EC) No 768/2005, (EC) No 2115/2005, (EC) No 2166/2005, (EC) No 388/2006, (EC) No 509/2007, (EC) No 676/2007, (EC) No 1098/2007, (EC) No 1300/2008, (EC) No 1342/2008 and repealing Regulations (EEC) No 2847/93, (EC) No 1627/94 and (EC) No 1966/2006 (3),

—

having regard to Regulation (EU) No 508/2014 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 May 2014 on the European Maritime and Fisheries Fund and repealing Council Regulations (EC) No 2328/2003, (EC) No 861/2006, (EC) No 1198/2006 and (EC) No 791/2007 and Regulation (EU) No 1255/2011 of the European Parliament and of the Council (4), in particular Article 77 thereof,

—

having regard to Regulation (EU) 2017/1004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 May 2017 on the establishment of a Union framework for the collection, management and use of data in the fisheries sector and support for scientific advice regarding the common fisheries policy and repealing Council Regulation (EC) No 199/2008 (5), in particular Article 5 thereof,

—	having regard to the research study entitled ‘Marine recreational and semi-subsistence fishing – its value and its impact on fish stocks’, published by its Policy Department for Structural and Cohesion Policies in July 2017,

—	having regard to Rule 52 of its Rules of Procedure,

—	having regard to the report of the Committee on Fisheries (A8-0191/2018),

whereas the definition provided by the International Council for the Exploration of the Sea (ICES) in 2013 describes recreational fisheries as ‘the capture or attempted capture of living aquatic resources mainly for leisure and/or personal consumption. This covers active fishing methods including line, spear, and hand-gathering and passive fishing methods including nets, traps pots, and set-lines’; whereas clear definitions of recreational fisheries and marine recreational fisheries are needed, taking into account Article 55(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1224/2009, which states that ‘the marketing of catches from recreational fisheries shall be prohibited’;

whereas it is important to understand the difference between recreational fisheries and semi-subsistence fishing, because the two should be evaluated and regulated separately and it should be made clear that recreational fishing is not semi-subsistence fishing; whereas the Regulation on the Common Fisheries Policy (CFP) makes no reference to the latter; whereas the two should accordingly be evaluated and regulated separately;

C.	whereas the EU legislation only operates with a two-tier fisheries categories system, covering recreational and commercial fisheries, and thus does not recognise semi-subsistence fishing and semi-commercial fishing;

D.	whereas recreational fishing, given its magnitude, can have a significant impact on fish stocks, but regulation of the issue falls primarily within the competence of the Member States;

E.	whereas the UN Food and Agriculture Organisation has defined subsistence fishing as ‘fishing for aquatic animals that contribute substantially to meeting an individual's nutritional needs’;

F.	whereas without a clear legal distinction between recreational fisheries, semi-subsistence and semi-commercial fishing, certain illegal, unreported and unregulated (IUU) fishing may go undetected by not being counted or properly regulated;

G.	whereas there is no single agreed, clear definition of recreational fishing at EU level, and whereas this makes it very difficult to control recreational fishing, collect data on it and assess its impact on fish stocks and the environment or its economic importance;

whereas, in order to properly manage any type of fishing activity, including recreational fisheries, regular and robust data collection and time series are required in order to assess the impact on fish stocks or other marine organisms and on the environment; whereas at present such data are missing or incomplete; whereas, in addition to the direct impact on fish stocks, the further environmental impact of recreational fisheries has also been insufficiently studied;

whereas studies have demonstrated that a substantial amount of traceable plastic debris in seas, lakes and rivers has originated from water-based recreational activities such as boating, tourism and fishing; notes that litter in the form of lost recreational fishing gear can cause serious habitat degradation and ecological damage;

J.	whereas the European Maritime and Fisheries Fund (EMFF) provides financial support for data collection, including for recreational fisheries;

K.	whereas the objectives listed in Article 2 of Regulation (EU) No 1380/2013 refer to the need to achieve economic, social and employment benefits, and to restore and maintain fish stocks and other marine organisms above levels which can produce the maximum sustainable yield;

L.	whereas, according to a recent study commissioned by Parliament, the impact of recreational fisheries may vary between fish stocks, representing 2 % (mackerel) – 43 % (pollock) of total catch;

M.	whereas, in order to achieve the objectives of the CFP, fish stocks and fishing activity should be managed and balanced; whereas these objectives cannot be achieved if part of the data on catches and on the economic importance of fishing activities, including recreational fisheries, is missing;

whereas the Member States are under an obligation to collect data, including estimates of the number of recreational catches and releases of species listed under Regulation (EU) 2017/1004 and eventually included in multiannual management plans; whereas, in this regard, only some Member States have comprehensive data on the recreational fishing practised in their territory;

whereas, although a wide range of species are caught through marine recreational fishing, mandatory data collection applies to just a few species, and a more country-specific multispecies survey and analysis is therefore required; whereas recreational fisheries catches should be included in the total fishing mortality and biomass estimates;

P.	whereas the availability of data on recreational fisheries varies from region to region, with better information available about marine recreational fisheries in the North and Baltic Seas than in the Mediterranean and Black Seas or the Atlantic;

Q.	whereas the estimated number of those practising marine recreational fishing in Europe stands at between 8,7 and 9 million people, or 1,6 % of the European population, who fish for an estimated 77 million days each year;

whereas, according to Article 3(2)(6) of Regulation (EU) No 508/2014 on the EMFF, ‘fisherman’means any person engaging in commercial fishing activities, as recognised by the Member State, and whereas it is therefore necessary to find another definition to cover those engaged in recreational fishing activities, as referred to in recital A;

whereas the estimated economic impact of European marine recreational fisheries (without the value of tourist fisheries) is EUR 10,5 billion, comprising EUR 5,1 billion of direct, EUR 2,3 billion of indirect and EUR 3,2 billion of induced expenditure; whereas, in the EU alone, the amount is estimated at EUR 8,4 billion (comprising EUR 4,2 billion in direct, EUR 1,8 billion in indirect and EUR 2,5 billion in induced expenditure);

whereas there is a direct link between fish stock abundance/structure, access to fishing opportunities and the resulting employment and economic and socioeconomic impacts that it delivers; whereas it is important to evaluate the impact of all fisheries on a specific stock, as well as its economic value, in order to adopt management measures that help achieve both the environmental objective and the economic ones;

whereas marine recreational fisheries support an estimated 99 000 full-time equivalent jobs (FTEs) in Europe, comprising 57 000 direct, 18 000 indirect and 24 000 induced jobs, and generating an average economic value of EUR 49 000 per year per FTE; whereas, in the EU alone, the figure is estimated at 84 000 FTEs (50 000 direct, 15 000 indirect and 20 000 induced jobs);

V.	whereas recreational maritime tourism fishing, as well as other tourism fishing, is shown to be very important for the economy of many regions and countries, and should thus be analysed in order to better assess its value, impact and development potential;

W.	whereas all types of recreational fishing have a greater economic and social impact at local and regional level than at national level by supporting local and coastal communities through tourism, production, retail and renting of equipment and other recreational fishing related services;

whereas, in some cases, recreational catches constitute a significant portion of the total fishing mortality of the stock, and therefore should be taken into account when setting fishing opportunities; whereas, according to a recent study commissioned by Parliament, the estimated percentage contribution to total catches by maritime recreational fisheries may vary widely, depending on the targeted species – from 2 % for mackerel to 43 % for pollock;

Y.	whereas it is important to evaluate individually the different recreational fishing methods, or segments described in the ICES 2013 definition;

whereas the evaluation of the impact of recreational fisheries on fish stocks includes the retention of catches and the mortality rates of released fish; whereas the survival rate of fish caught by rod and line (catch and release fishing) is, in most instances, higher than equivalent rates for fish caught with other gear and by other practices and should be taken into consideration in these cases; whereas further information is needed on the main gear used in marine recreational fisheries so that a comparison can be made between the survival chances of discards in commercial fisheries and released fish in recreational fisheries;

AA.	whereas recreational fishing includes a variety of gears and techniques with different stock and environmental impact, and should thus be evaluated and regulated accordingly;

AB.

whereas, owing to the poor state of Northern sea bass and Western Baltic cod stocks, recreational fisheries restrictions have been introduced at EU level by setting bag limits or forbidding retention (sea bass), in order to help recover these stocks; whereas emergency management measures taken when it is thought that the status of a stock is being affected by recreational fishing do not provide the sector with the necessary visibility;

AC.	whereas certain recreational fishermen are targeting diadromous species such as salmon, trout and eel; whereas data collection on these species should be carried out in both freshwater and saltwater in order to evaluate how fish stocks change over time;

AD.

whereas the areas that are most accessible to the majority of recreational fishermen are coastal areas where, in addition to species of fish, invertebrates and seaweed are often caught as well; whereas these play a key role in the ecology of such areas; whereas the impact of catches of these species will also need to be assessed, with regard not only to the stocks concerned but also the ecosystems of which they form a part;

AE.	whereas salmon return to their natal waters, and whereas ideally they should only be targeted in the river systems where efficient control and enforcement is possible; whereas targeting salmon at sea indiscriminately removes salmon from both healthy and vulnerable populations;

AF.

whereas recreational fishing could represent a significant source of fishing mortality, while the highest estimated environmental impact for fresh-water recreational fishing is associated with the possibility of introducing non-indigenous species in the ecosystem, with little such impact in maritime recreational fishing;

AG.	whereas the CFP was established to manage commercial fisheries, with no consideration given to recreational fisheries, its peculiarities and the need for specific management instruments and planning;

AH.	whereas the environmental impacts of recreational fishing include types other than fish removal, but the lack of clear data makes it difficult to separate them from other anthropogenic sources;

AI.	whereas the UK’s withdrawal from the Union should be taken into consideration for the future management of maritime recreational fisheries, in view of the importance of this activity in the UK and its significance for shared fish stocks;

AJ.	whereas recreational fishing has many social and public health benefits, e.g. it increases participants’ life quality, encourages interaction among young people and educates people with regard to the environment and the importance of its sustainability;

Stresses the importance of collecting sufficient data on recreational fisheries, and on maritime recreational fisheries in particular, in order to properly evaluate the total fishing mortality levels for all stocks;

Underlines that recreational fishing trends are increasing in most European countries and that this type of fishing represents an important activity with societal, economic, employment and environmental effects, notably the significant impact that it can have on fish resources; highlights the fact that Member States should, therefore, ensure that such activities are conducted in a sustainable manner compatible with the objectives of the CFP;

Highlights the need to protect the artisanal fleet and ensure its survival and generational replacement in the face of the expansion of recreational activity linked to recreational ports and seasonal tourism;

Considers that data should be collected on the number of recreational fishermen, the volume of their catches and the added value which they generate in coastal communities;

Calls on the Commission to include and improve the existing provisions for recreational fishing in the new control regulation;

Urges the Commission to evaluate and, if necessary, expand data collection for recreational fisheries in order to encompass more fish stocks and other marine organisms, to draw up a feasibility study on the uniform collection of data relating to its socio-economic impact and to make the collection of such data mandatory;

Emphasises the need for improved reporting and monitoring of catches connected with recreational fisheries; recalls that in the adoption of the EU budget for 2018 Parliament approved a pilot project aimed at introducing a monthly reporting scheme for sea bass catches, and urges the Commission and the Member States to fund further monitoring projects for the species that are the most vulnerable to recreational fishing; recalls the importance of traceability and calls on the Commission to include and improve the existing provisions for recreational fishing in the new control regulation;

Calls on the Commission to conduct an impact assessment on recreational fishing in the EU; considers that the assessment of the management plans which include recreational fishing provisions should also be embedded in the Commission’s final report on the impact assessment;

Calls on the Member States to undertake the necessary technical steps to implement the current regulation on data collection and to expand it to include more stocks and aspects of recreational fisheries;

10.

Calls on the Commission to ensure that all the necessary data on recreational fisheries are regularly collected in order to provide a complete evaluation of fish stocks and other marine organisms in order to offer greater visibility to the sector; cautions that without such a comprehensive evaluation and appropriate actions taken on the basis of that evaluation, the fisheries management plans and technical measures might not achieve the objectives of Regulation (EU) No 1380/2013, nor a balance between recreational and commercial fisheries;

11.

Considers that, where recreational catches have a significant impact on the stock, they should be included as an integral part of the ecosystem and within the social and economic considerations of the multiannual management plans, for the purposes of both setting fishing opportunities and adopting relevant technical measures; calls, therefore, on the Commission, where necessary, to include recreational fishing in the multiannual management plans already adopted or about to be adopted;

12.

Underlines the fact that data collection is an obligation of the Member States; points out, however, that a proper definition of recreational fisheries would improve the quality of the data; calls on the Commission to propose a uniform definition for recreational fishing at EU level that clearly differentiates recreational from commercial and semi-substance fisheries, based on the principle that recreational catches should never be sold;

13.

Considers, on the basis of the data and the impact assessment report and taking into account Member States’ competences on recreational fisheries, that the Commission should evaluate the role of recreational fisheries in the future CFP, so that both types of maritime fishing – commercial and recreational – can be managed in a balanced, fair and sustainable manner with a view to achieving the desired objectives;

14.

Urges the Commission to provide support, including financial support, for the development of recreational fishing in the tourism sector, as an important contributor to the development of the blue economy in small communities, coastal communities and islands, particularly in the outermost regions; considers that doing so would have a positive impact on efforts to prolong the tourism season beyond the summer months; suggests that the Commission designate recreational fishing as a theme of the EDEN sustainable tourism project year and launch projects to promote recreational fishing tourism in small coastal communities under the COSME Fund;

15.

Points out that, outside the context of normal management of fishery resources based on substantive scientific data, the development of recreational fishing activities must not mean a reduction in professional fishing opportunities or a sharing of scarce resources between professional and recreational activities, especially in the case of small-scale and artisanal fishing;

16.

Recognises that recreational fishing has been practised for centuries across the EU and is an integral part of the culture, traditions and heritage of a great many coastal and island communities; notes that the different types of recreational fishing are as diverse as the cultures of the EU itself and that recognition must be given to this fact in any attempt to legislate in this area;

17.

Calls on the Commission to introduce appropriate measures in order to ensure that future provisions for the regulation of recreational fishing are appropriate and not detrimental to professional fishing activities;

18.

Highlights the need to lay down basic rules for the management of recreational fishing and suggests that a catalogue of recreational fishing activities, which should include information about fishing gear and operations and a description of fishing areas, target species and by-catches, should also be drawn up;

19.

Highlights the importance of the EMFF in helping to develop scientific capacity and guaranteeing full and reliable assessments of maritime resources for recreational fishing activities; recalls that the EMFF provides funds for data collection, and calls on the Commission to widen the future scope of the EMFF in order to provide financial support for research and analysis of the data collected;

20.

Stresses the strong and crucial need to share the data and points out that the EMFF supports data-gathering, including with regard to recreational fisheries; calls, therefore, for the Member States to take the necessary steps to gather data and urges the Commission, in addition, to further develop a common database containing comprehensive and reliable data available to researchers to enable them to monitor and assess the state of fishery resources; suggests that such measures could include the use of EMFF funding;

21.

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

(1) Texts adopted, P8_TA(2017)0316.

(2) OJ L 354, 28.12.2013, p. 22.

(3) OJ L 343, 22.12.2009, p. 1.

(4) OJ L 149, 20.5.2014, p. 1.

(5) OJ L 157, 20.6.2017, p. 1.

27.1.2020

Official Journal of the European Union

C 28/8

P8_TA(2018)0247

Modernisation of education in the EU

European Parliament resolution of 12 June 2018 on modernisation of education in the EU (2017/2224(INI))

(2020/C 28/03)

The European Parliament,

—	having regard to the Commission communication of 20 September 2011 entitled ‘Supporting growth and jobs – An agenda for the modernisation of Europe’s higher education systems’(COM(2011)0567),

—	having regard to the right to education as defined in Article 14 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union,

—	having regard to the Council conclusions of 20 May 2014 on effective teacher education (1),

—	having regard to Article 2 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU),

—	having regard to the Council conclusions of 20 May 2014 on quality assurance supporting education and training (2),

—	having regard to the Council recommendation of 20 December 2012 on the validation of non-formal and informal learning (3),

—	having regard to the Council conclusions of 18 and 19 May 2015 on the role of early childhood education and primary education in fostering creativity, innovation and digital competence (4),

—	having regard to the Commission communication of 10 June 2016 entitled ‘A New Skills Agenda for Europe – Working together to strengthen human capital, employability and competitiveness’(COM(2016)0381) and to Parliament’s resolution of 14 September 2017 on ‘A New Skills Agenda for Europe’ (5),

—	having regard to Article 2 of the Protocol to the Council of Europe Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, concerning the right to education,

—	having regard to Council of Europe Resolution 1904 (2012) on the right to freedom of choice in education,

—	having regard to the 2015 Joint Report of the Council and the Commission on the implementation of the strategic framework for European cooperation in education and training (ET 2020) entitled ‘New priorities for European cooperation in education and training’ (6),

—	having regard to Regulation (EU) No 1288/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 December 2013 establishing ‘Erasmus+’: the Union Programme for education, training, youth and sport and repealing Decisions No 1719/2006/EC, No 1720/2006/EC and No 1298/2008/EC’ (7),

—	having regard to the Paris Declaration of 17 March 2015 on promoting citizenship and the common values of freedom, tolerance and non-discrimination through education,

—	having regard to its resolution of 28 April 2015 on the follow-up of the implementation of the Bologna process (8),

—	having regard to the Commission staff working document of 10 June 2016 on ‘A new skills agenda for Europe – Working together to strengthen human capital, employability and competitiveness’(SWD(2016)0195),

—

having regard to its resolution of 2 February 2017 on the implementation of Regulation (EU) No 1288/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 December 2013 establishing ‘Erasmus+’: the Union programme for education, training, youth and sport and repealing Decisions No 1719/2006/EC, No 1720/2006/EC and No 1298/2008/EC (9),

—	having regard to the Council recommendation of 19 December 2016 entitled ‘Upskilling Pathways: New Opportunities for Adults’ (10),

—	having regard to the Commission communication of 7 December 2016 entitled ‘Improving and modernising education’(COM(2016)0941),

—	having regard to the Commission communication of 30 May 2017 entitled ‘School development and excellent teaching for a great start in life’(COM(2017)0248),

—	having regard to the Commission communication of 30 May 2017 entitled ‘A renewed EU agenda for higher education’(COM(2017)0247),

—	having regard to the Commission proposal of 30 May 2017 for a Council recommendation on tracking graduates (COM(2017)0249),

—	having regard to the Commission proposal of 5 October 2017 for a Council recommendation on a European Framework for Quality and Effective Apprenticeships (COM(2017)0563 – SWD(2017)0322),

—	having regard to the opinion of the Committee of the Regions of 30 November 2017 on ‘Modernising school and higher education’,

—	having regard to the opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee of 19 October 2017 entitled ‘New EU education strategy’,

—	having regard to the Commission proposal of 17 January 2018 for a Council recommendation on promoting common values, inclusive education, and the European dimension of teaching (COM(2018)0023),

—	having regard to the Commission proposal of 17 January 2018 for a Council recommendation on ‘Key Competences for Lifelong Learning’(COM(2018)0024),

—	having regard to the Council recommendation of 20 December 2012 on the validation of non-formal and informal learning (11),

—	having regard to the Commission communication of 17 January 2018 on the Digital Education Action Plan (COM(2018)0022),

—	having regard to the concluding report of the Social Summit for Fair Jobs and Growth, held in Gothenburg, Sweden, on 17 November 2017 (12),

—	having regard to the Council conclusions on ‘Early childhood education and care: providing all our children with the best start for the world of tomorrow’, adopted at the 3090th Education, Youth, Culture and Sport Council meeting held on 19 and 20 May 2011 (13),

—	having regard to its resolution of 14 March 1984 on freedom of education in the European Community (14),

—	having regard to the Council conclusions of 11 May 2010 on the internationalisation of higher education (15),

—

having regard to the Joint Communication of the Commission and of the High representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy to the European Parliament and the Council of 8 June 2016 entitled ‘Towards an EU strategy for international cultural relations’(JOIN(2016)0029), and to Parliament’s resolution of 5 July 2017 thereon (16),

—	having regard to Article 26 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights,

—	having regard to the Council of Europe Charter on Education for Democratic Citizenship and Human Rights Education, adopted in the framework of Recommendation CM/Rec(2010)7,

—	having regard to Article 10 of the 1979 Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women,

—	having regard to Strategic Objective B of the Beijing Declaration and Platform for Action (1995),

—	having regard to Articles 28 and 29 of the Convention on the Rights of the Child,

—	having regard to the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development, adopted in September 2015 and which entered into force on 1 January 2016, and in particular to Sustainable Development Goals 4 and 5,

—	having regard to Rule 52 of its Rules of Procedure,

—	having regard to the report of the Committee on Culture and Education and the opinions of the Committee on Employment and Social Affairs and the Committee on Women’s Rights and Gender Equality (A8-0173/2018),

A.	whereas according to Article 6(e) of the TFEU competence in the field of education and training lies with the Member States, but the European Union has a vital supportive role to play in terms of setting challenges and goal and promoting and exchanging best practices;

B.	whereas the right to education is a fundamental human right and education in all its forms and at all levels must exhibit the following interrelated and essential features: a) availability; b) accessibility; c) acceptability; and d) adaptability;

C.	whereas the European Pillar of Social Rights has as its leading priority the provision of quality and inclusive education, training and lifelong learning;

whereas achieving equal opportunities is an important function of education, and access to education must therefore be made non-discriminatory; whereas to this end, more efforts are needed to ensure that everyone, with particular regard to the most vulnerable, people with disabilities and special needs as well as disadvantaged groups, enjoys the same chances of accessing and completing education and training and of acquiring skills at all levels;

E.	whereas European education systems represent an immense wealth of cultural, social and linguistic diversity, while at the same time Member States share similar educational goals and challenges, including ensuring equal access to education for all, which can be addressed at the European level;

F.	whereas the ability of education systems to meet societal, economic and personal needs depends on their quality, accessibility, diversity, efficiency and equity, as well as on the availability of adequate human, financial and material resources;

whereas it is important to recall that education, including teacher education, has been affected by the economic and financial crisis and that public funding for education plays a fundamental role in EU education systems; whereas, therefore, continuous and increased public financial support for education, including for teachers and their working conditions, as well as for research, is crucial for ensuring free, inclusive and accessible public education;

whereas education and training should contribute to the personal development and growth of young people in order to make them proactive and responsible citizens who are ready to live and work in a technologically advanced and globalised world and provide them with the key set of competences for lifelong learning, defined as a combination of knowledge, skills and attitudes necessary for personal fulfilment and development, active citizenship and employment;

I.	whereas teaching quality is an important determinant of pupil and student outcomes, and therefore strong support for excellence as regards teaching and educators is one of the priorities for cooperation at EU level in education and training;

J.	whereas the right to education includes the freedom to set up educational establishments, on a basis of due respect for democratic principles and for the right of parents to ensure that their children are educated and taught according to their religious, philosophical and pedagogical convictions;

whereas the open method of coordination as applied to education allows Member States to create and implement a common strategy for education and training, also including the on-line platform ET 2020 (Education and Training 2020); whereas the benchmarks of this strategy are analysed and evaluated every year in the publication ‘Education and Training Monitor’, both for Member States and for the EU as a whole;

L.	whereas in the latest ‘Education and Training Monitor’, published in 2017, the Commission recognises that, despite continuous progress in reducing the number of early leavers from education and training, their number remains very high across the EU;

whereas, according to the results of the latest PISA tests, 20,6 % of European pupils face problems in the acquisition of basic skills in the areas of reading, mathematics and science, and a significant number of European citizens lack literacy skills; whereas this is cause for serious concern in terms of further learning, personal development, and adequate participation in public life and in the labour market;

N.	whereas ensuring access to quality early childhood education and care (ECEC) services for all children is key to enabling them to enjoy a positive start in life and on educational paths;

O.	whereas quality of staff is a fundamental factor for ECEC services;

whereas promoting student and staff mobility is an important part of European higher education systems, contributes to young people’s development and can stimulate economic and social progress; whereas there is a need for qualitative improvement and increased financial support with a view to expanding student and staff mobility under Erasmus+;

Q.	whereas methodological and digital innovations are a potential instrument for expanding access to content and knowledge, but cannot substitute personal contact and exchange among students and between students and teachers, nor should they be turned into the priority of educational systems;

R.	whereas gender equality is a core principle of the European Union enshrined in the Treaties and should be reflected in all EU policies, not least in the sphere of education and culture;

S.	whereas education is a powerful instrument for overcoming gender inequality and discrimination, but it may also often reproduce or exacerbate existing discrimination; whereas gender inequality in education hinders both personal development and employment and affects numerous socio-cultural fields;

T.	whereas despite the fact that women account for three fifths (57,6 %) of all graduates in higher education, the gender employment gap stood at 11,6 percentage points in 2015 (17);

Knowledge as a key economic resource and a source of citizens’ well-being

Affirms that universal quality education is an essential component of personal, cultural, social and professional development in a knowledge-based society;

Considers that safeguarding European common values and the attainment of the EU’s economic and social objectives as well of competitiveness and sustainable growth are linked to quality education through the promotion of democratic values, human rights, social cohesion, integration and individual success;

Underlines the crucial role of education in shaping the future of Europe both economically and socially, while providing for the needs of Europe’s citizens and building a community of diverse citizens united by their common core values;

Underlines that quality education and training systems promote active citizenship and common values, and as such help shape an open, inclusive, pluralist, democratic and tolerant society;

Stresses the role of education in helping learners to develop ethical and civic values and become active, responsible, open-minded members of society who are able to exercise and defend their democratic rights and responsibilities in society, value diversity, play an active role in democratic life, and take responsibility for themselves and for their communities; stresses, in this context, the importance of citizenship, civic, ethical and environmental education;

Emphasises that in order for young people to confront challenges, become active European citizens and be successful in life and the labour market while also shaping the world’s future, quality and inclusive education must provide them with the necessary knowledge, skills, media literacy and critical and autonomous thinking, as well as with democratic attitudes;

Underlines that ensuring equal access to quality inclusive education is the key to achieving continued social cohesion by combating poverty, the social exclusion of people with disadvantaged and vulnerable backgrounds, and gender stereotypes, and is therefore still the greatest aid to social mobility;

Notes that quality education can foster innovation and research relevant for and benefiting society;

Recognises the importance of education in developing cultural competences and encouraging cultural development; encourages closer synergies between the educational and cultural sectors, to be achieved by supporting an active role for culture and the arts in formal, informal and non-formal educational contexts;

10.

Notes the role that education plays in developing lifelong learning attitudes which help people to adapt to the changing demands of the modern world;

11.

Recalls that schools and educational institutions play a key role in creating and nourishing a positive attitude towards learning, also on a lifelong basis;

The changing educational reality and related challenges

12.

Believes that an all-encompassing approach to education policy, with strong political and public support, is vital to the educational reform process, and that in order to achieve these objectives it is essential to involve both society as a whole and all relevant and interested actors, including parents;

13.

Considers that effective governance and adequate funding for all educational settings, modern quality educational resources and teaching, motivated and competent teachers, and lifelong learning are crucial for achieving equity, diversity and excellence in education;

14.

Highlights the potential of new information and communication technologies (ICT) and innovation, as instruments for offering new opportunities in education, meeting individual learners’ needs more effectively (including special educational needs), and increasing flexibility in learning and teaching, personalisation and responsibility, as well fostering interactive forms of cooperation and communication;

15.

Stresses the opportunities that digitalisation and the establishment of common educational platforms offer for modern education, especially in terms of distance learning, distance education, and blended learning, which should allow more flexibility in education by tailoring it more closely to learners’ individual living situations and thereby benefiting lifelong learning, education quality, accessibility and the development of future skills; highlights the need for age-appropriate ICT and media curricula that respect child development and wellbeing and emphasise the importance of both responsible use and critical thinking;

16.

Notes that effective learning and teaching through digital technologies requires equal access, a competent level of digital skills, high-quality learning resources, training in adapting technology for pedagogical purposes, and promotion of the attitudes and motivation needed for meaningful digital participation; believes that digital and media literacy skills should be an essential part of education policies and include, among others, civic competencies and critical thinking; stresses the importance of critically assessing sources and their reliability, and of media literacy projects in this respect;

17.

Recognises that in an increasingly globalised and digitalised world innovative and relevant methods of learning, teaching and assessment are necessary, as well as an adequate educational infrastructure which enables group work and team teaching, and stimulates creative thinking and problem-solving together with other progressive educational methods; recalls the importance of involving students, teachers and other school staff in assessing whether and how learning objectives have been met;

18.

Notes that efforts are needed to adapt the educational paradigm so that it balances both a teacher- and content-centred approach, individually and specifically attuned to learners and their living circumstances, with an understanding-centred approach, combining learning methods adapted to both traditional and online learning models, thus strengthening the personalisation of the educational process and thereby increasing retention and completion rates;

19.

Highlights that educational systems should promote and develop interdisciplinary, cooperative and creative approaches and teamwork aimed at equipping pupils and students with knowledge and skills, including transversal and soft skills as well as with professional, transversal, social and civic competences;

20.

Recalls that delivering quality teaching and learning is a continuous process encompassing dialogue, a sense of sharing and questioning, and should be given priority when modernising education;

21.

Emphasises that the facilitation of equal access to quality inclusive education is essential for the independence and integration in society of learners with disabilities; calls on the Member States to facilitate access to mainstream inclusive quality education taking into account the needs of all students with all types of disabilities, which means, for instance, providing bilingual inclusive education for deaf children with regard to their special linguistic needs; calls on schools to provide both formal and informal differentiated services, and extra support, also using the potential of new technologies so that the individual needs of all learners are met; calls on the Commission to monitor schools on their non-rejection policy, and to set disability-specific indicators within the Europe 2020 strategy;

22.

Maintains that European education must seek above all to develop reasoning, reflection, and scientific curiosity; that it has to be capable of building on the foundations of an artistic, scientific, and technical humanistic culture; and that, proceeding from the practical reality of local, regional, national, and European life, it must impart the training necessary to resolve national and European problems and raise awareness of problems within the international community;

23.

Acknowledges the reality of individual differences in cognitive abilities and personality traits that interact with social and environmental factors, influencing educational outcomes; highlights, in this context, that education is more efficient, equalitarian and fair when these differences are taken into account;

24.

Acknowledges that in a competitive world it is crucial to identify and promote European talent as early as possible;

25.

Stresses that enhancing educational outcomes on average is compatible with the stimulation of excellence among talented students; notes, in this context, the importance of designing appropriate intervention programmes for enhancing psychological traits relevant for maximising people’s potential;

26.

Highlights the need to give importance to visual literacy as a new life-skill, acknowledging that in this day and age, people are communicating far more through images than through traditional means;

27.

Notes the proposal for the creation of a European Education Area, as presented at the Social Summit for Fair Jobs and Growth held in Gothenburg in 2017; recalls that this initiative should foster cooperation, mutual recognition of diplomas and qualifications, and increased mobility and growth;

28.

Supports the Council conclusions of 14 December 2017 calling for enhanced student mobility and participation in education and cultural activities, including through a ‘European Student Card’, which should facilitate recognition of university credits obtained in other Member States;

29.

Believes that Erasmus+ is the EU’s flagship programme in the field of education, and that its impact and popularity have been fully proven over the years; calls, therefore, for a substantial increase of funding for this programme in the multi-financial framework (MFF) for 2021-2027, in order to make it more accessible and inclusive and enable it to reach out to more students and teachers;

30.

Underlines that youth unemployment is a Union-wide phenomenon which is reported to stand at a rate around twice the average overall unemployment rate; expresses its concern with regard to the alarmingly high rates in Mediterranean Member States, with peaks in Spain (44,4 %), Italy (37,8 %), and Greece (47,3 % for youth unemployment and 30,5 % for young people not in employment, education or training (NEETs)), according to Eurostat;

31.

Points out that in spite of the 2 million job vacancies existing in the EU, more than 30 % of qualified young people with diplomas are in jobs that do not match their skills or aspirations, while 40 % of European employers have trouble finding people with the skills they require (18);

32.

Affirms the need for education systems at all levels to maintain a gender perspective that takes into account the needs of people suffering multiple forms of discrimination, including people with disabilities, people identifying themselves as LGBTI and people from marginalised communities;

Early childhood education and care (ECEC)

33.

Stresses that quality and accessible ECEC creates a foundation for more equitable and effective education systems, as well as ensuring individual personal development, wellbeing and the effectiveness of further learning;

34.

Highlights the great benefits for all children, especially those from disadvantaged groups, of attending ECEC, and stresses in this context the importance of guaranteeing that every child can access ECEC; notes with concern, in this regard, that in several Member States the demand for ECEC places exceeds the supply, especially for younger children;

35.

Underlines the importance of monitoring the quality of ECEC so as to allow children to develop their cognitive skills and determine whether the best interests of children are being met;

School education

36.

Sees all schools as autonomous centres for fostering critical and creative thinking and promoting democratic values and active citizenship; considers that schools should focus on helping young people to acquire the skills necessary for understanding and using available information, as well as for developing their learning autonomy and language proficiency;

37.

Points out that the specific needs of all students should be at the centre of effective school functioning, which requires the establishment of joint objectives and a clear agenda for their implementation, as well as the close collaboration of the entire school community and stakeholders, where appropriate;

38.

Considers that modern curricula should be competence-driven, should enhance personal skills and health-conscious, future-oriented life management competence, and should focus on formative assessment and physical and emotional wellbeing; believes that every student should have the possibility to fulfil his or her own intellectual potential; stresses that developing and strengthening skills is a continuous process, which operates through all levels of education and into the labour market, and that skills and competences should be taken into account both in the education process and in the recognition of educational qualifications;

39.

Underlines that mastering basic literacy and numeracy skills is fundamental to pupils’ further learning, personal development and acquisition of digital competence; stresses that the strategic framework for European cooperation in education and training (ET 2020) and the Commission’s New Skills Agenda should complement national actions and support Member States in this regard; calls on the Member States and educational institutions to reinforce basic skills through project- and problem-based learning, among other solutions;

40.

Considers that Member States should guarantee that nobody graduates from school without basic skills, including basic digital skills; underlines the fact that most jobs now require greater literacy, numeracy, digital literacy and other crucial skills and that modern education systems should therefore combine all eight key competences outlined in the Commission’s proposal for a Council recommendation on Key Competences for Lifelong Learning, which also include knowledge and attitudes; welcomes the fact that this proposal also defines digital skills as basic skills;

41.

Considers that, notwithstanding the impact of new technologies on education, the school should still remain a fundamental learning environment where potentialities are developed, and where each individual can find space and time for personal and social growth;

42.

Draws attention to the fact that granting schools more autonomy regarding curricula, assessment and finance has been shown to result in increased pupil performance, provided there is effective school governance and school-based accountability for pupils’ learning;

43.

Emphasises the positive impact of cultural diversity and multilingualism in schools on pupils’ linguistic and cognitive development, as well as on the promotion of intercultural awareness, respect and pluralism;

44.

Stresses the need to enhance the learning of languages with a view to speaking two languages in addition to one’s mother tongue, and to promote at secondary school level the teaching of at least two subjects through a non-native language;

45.

Points out that secondary school exchanges do much both to encourage pupils to acquire the abilities, skills, attitudes, and values intrinsic to dynamic European citizenship and to develop constructive critical thinking;

46.

Stresses the need to make schools more open in order to enable recognition of non-formal and informal learning and smoother transitions between different educational paths (e.g. technical and academic);

47.

Underlines that learners should be encouraged to use self-assessment techniques to measure their learning progress; encourages educational institutions to ensure that feedback tools provide reliable information by using a mix of several instruments, such as student questionnaires, focus groups and suggestions boxes;

48.

Emphasises the importance of leading an active life through sport; stresses, in this context, the need to promote and give an expanded role to physical activity and physical education in educational curricula at all levels, with enhanced possibilities for developing cooperation between educational establishments and local sports organisations; also encourages educational initiatives and extracurricular activities with a view to supporting the fulfilment of students’ individual needs and interests while also building bridges with local communities;

49.

Underlines the importance of quality education, vocational training and community and voluntary activities in contributing to raising the status of work-based vocations;

50.

Notes that a considerable number of new jobs are being created in industries relating to renewable energy, and that green sectors and occupations should be addressed in school curricula accordingly;

51.

Emphasises that information management skills, critical thinking and the ability to apply acquired knowledge are key goals of academic education;

52.

Acknowledges the need to strengthen the knowledge triangle and to improve links between research and teaching by allocating adequate resources to relevant programmes and by ensuring that students involved in research programmes are granted the financial means to carry out their research;

53.

Believes that higher education systems should be more flexible and open, and that dual training paths should be promoted in universities and further education institutions, in particular by encouraging apprenticeships, enabling the recognition of informal and non-formal learning, and ensuring smoother transitions between different levels of education, including that between vocational education and training (VET) and higher education, as well as various forms of programme delivery; stresses that the above should be based on a better understanding of the performance of graduates;

Higher education

54.

Emphasises, within the context of creating a European Education Area, the importance of supporting cooperation and building on the potential of all European higher education institutions (HEIs) and of students in order to stimulate networking, international cooperation and competition;

55.

Is of the opinion that an all-encompassing approach to internationalisation, including increased mobility for staff and students (also through traineeships and apprenticeships), and an international dimension for the curriculum and for teaching, research, cooperation and additional activities, should be an important element of EuropeanHEIs;

56.

Advocates an increased focus on interdisciplinary study programmes, and encourages the promotion, in tandem, of Science, Technology, Engineering, Art and Mathematics (STEAM) disciplines and of human and social sciences; highlights the need to encourage the participation of women and other under-represented groups in STEAM subjects and the relevant professions;

57.

Advocates that higher education must engage with society at large in order to promote innovative growth and social welfare; believes that cooperation between HEIs and external stakeholders is desirable, as the latter can contribute knowledge and expertise in the design and delivery of higher education programmes; stresses, however, that the responsibility for decision-making must always lie with students and pedagogical experts;

58.

Recognises the pivotal role played by academics and students in disseminating knowledge, empirical findings and facts to the wider public; encourages, in this respect, economically and politically independent research that is relevant to and benefits society;

59.

Highlights the role of research-based education and pedagogical research as a means of stimulating active learning, enhancing skills development, and improving teaching methodology;

60.

Underlines that learners should be encouraged to use self-assessment techniques to measure their learning progress;

The teacher as a guarantor of quality teaching

61.

Considers that teachers and their skills, commitment and effectiveness are the basis of education systems;

62.

Stresses the need to attract greater numbers of motivated candidates with sound academic or professional backgrounds and pedagogical competencies to the teaching profession; calls for fit-for-purpose selection procedures and for specific measures and initiatives to improve teacher status, training, professional opportunities, working conditions, including remuneration, that avoid unstable forms of employment, social rights, safety and protection, as well as to provide teachers with support comprising mentoring programmes, peer-to-peer learning and the sharing of best practices; calls on the Commission to encourage greater gender equality in the teaching profession;

63.

Underlines the importance of reshaping and investing in teacher education from the initial phase and throughout teachers’ professional development, in order to equip them with solid, updated knowledge, skills and competences essential for a high standard of teaching, which includes diverse teaching methods, such as distance education, enabled by digital learning technologies; stresses the importance of the continuous professional development of teachers, including the provision of lifelong learning programmes and refresher courses and of reskilling and upskilling possibilities throughout their careers, which offer practical solutions for the challenges teachers encounter in their work at classroom level, and opportunities to participate in international teacher exchanges so that an institutional learning culture is fostered;

64.

Agrees that the high-quality pedagogical, psychological and methodological training of school and tertiary education teachers and lecturers is a key condition for the successful education of future generations; emphasises, in this regard, the importance of sharing best practices and developing skills and competences through international cooperation, mobility programmes such as Erasmus+ and paid internships in other Member States;

65.

Emphasises the teacher’s key role in providing an inclusive learning environment that requires embracing a range of methods and approaches to meet diverse needs, thus enabling all pupils to be involved in the design, realisation and assessment of their learning outcomes; acknowledges the crucial function of teachers as proactive guides and mentors who teach how to evaluate information, adopt a supporting role in the face of challenges, and prepare learners for life;

66.

Considers that the involvement of teachers and school leaders in modernising education systems is vital for effective reforming processes and for motivating educational staff to further improvements in school policy;

67.

Is of the opinion that an across-the-board school policy must guarantee effective support for teachers in order to ensure the attainment of educational goals, an enabling school environment, efficient school functioning and development and collaborative governance;

68.

Acknowledges the important role of educators as well as of cooperation between parents, teachers and school authorities within formal, non-formal or informal education in supporting current and future generations; encourages, in this regard, enhanced collaboration among all relevant actors in formal, non-formal and informal learning;

69.

Is of the opinion that enhanced cooperation between schoolteachers, researchers and academics is beneficial for all related parties and results in the improvement and updating of teaching content, learning practices, and pedagogy as well as fostering innovation, creativity and new skills;

Recommendations

70.

Considers that the European Education Area should focus on achieving common goals including ensuring quality education for all, and must be created on a basis of alignment and critical assessment of existing policies and educational trends and figures both inside and outside the EU in order to ensure coherence, consistency and achievable results, while also giving new impetus to their development and respecting the principles of conferral, subsidiarity, freedom, proportionality, and institutional and educational autonomy;

71.

Believes that the European Education Area should not jeopardise or substitute the Bologna Process, and that the latter should, rather, be developed and strengthened; stresses the importance of mutual links and complementarity between the European Education Area and the European Higher Education Area;

72.

Calls on the Member States to support the creation of a European Education Area and to strengthen cooperation in developing and implementing its objectives; calls, in this regard, on the Commission to ensure the sharing of ideas and good practices with a view to achieving those goals;

73.

Supports, as a basis for increased cooperation embracing HEIs both inside and outside the EU, the creation of a European network of universities, based on a bottom-up approach and initiatives of the universities themselves, which should contribute, among others, to the European Education Area becoming a more innovative, vital, and appealing space for learning and research;

74.

Calls on the Member States to recognise education as investment in human capital, and to provide greater public funding of a transparent character for realising initiatives aimed at improving quality, inclusivity and equity in teaching and learning;

75.

Stresses that increased investment in education and training systems, as well as their modernisation and adjustment, constitute a crucial condition for social and economic progress; stresses, therefore, the importance of ensuring that social investment, especially in education and training for all, is prioritised in the forthcoming programming period of the MFF for 2020-2026;

76.

Encourages, with regard to increasing inclusiveness and ensuring freedom of educational choice, the provision of adequate financial support for schools of all categories and levels, both state schools and not-for-profit private schools, provided the curriculum offered is based on the principles enshrined in the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and complies with the legal systems and rules and regulations regarding the quality of education and the use of such funds in force in the Member State concerned;

77.

Considers that it is high time for the necessary investment to be made in educational infrastructure in less developed regions, always taking care to adapt coordinated investment to the specific features of the region concerned; stresses that, in this connection, it is particularly important to enable greater support from the European Investment Bank and the European funds for regional initiatives aimed at developing education;

78.

Calls on the Commission and the Member States to exchange experiences and best practices on public funding mechanisms and methods, including performance-based funding and competitive research funding, with a view to achieving a sustainable and transparent diversification of funding;

79.

Calls for enhanced cooperation among Member States in modernising education; urges Member States to begin implementing the principles of the European Pillar of Social Rights that offer means of reducing inequalities in Europe through education, training and lifelong learning;

80.

Stresses the role of the European Semester in promoting national reforms, namely by defining the education-related country-specific recommendations;

81.

Expects the Digital Education Action Plan to support the Member States and educational institutions in the increased, more effective and age-and development-appropriate use of state-of-the-art technology, in learning, teaching and assessment, which meets quality assurance standards; believes that any digital education plan should establish and regularly assess the connection between digital means of education and qualification frameworks based on learning outcomes;

82.

Recommends that Member States and educational institutions promote learner-centred, individualised learning methods, including tailor-made courses that are based on and combine the academic and professional experience of the learner as well as innovative methods and interaction between teachers and students, in order to support continuing education and the achievement of intended learning outcomes where students are active participants in their own learning process;

83.

Calls on the Member States to adopt a holistic approach to education and to provide learners with specific, flexible learning opportunities that can equip them with the necessary core competences for successful entry into the labour market;

84.

Calls for increased incorporation of inquiring, active, project- and problem-based learning into educational programmes at all levels, with a view to promoting cooperation and teamwork; recommends that education systems work to strengthen transversal, soft and life skills;

85.

Reiterates that the right to education must be guaranteed to every person with disabilities, from kindergarten to university, and stresses the importance of having appropriate teaching and technical equipment, appraisal measures and qualified personnel to ensure that persons with disabilities are genuinely able to enjoy this right;

86.

Supports and encourages the implementation of actions concerning the development of media literacy and critical thinking through education and training; recalls the existing commitment in this field, as outlined in the Council conclusions of 30 May 2016; calls, in this context, on the Commission to coordinate policy developments at EU level in the area of media literacy with a view to disseminating updated knowledge and best practices in this field; calls on the Commission and the Member States to develop specific measures to promote and support media and digital literacy projects, such as the pilot project on Media Literacy for All, and to develop a comprehensive media and digital literacy policy, with a particular focus on school education;

87.

Encourages the Member States to ensure opportunities to develop key competences in order to maintain and acquire skills paying special attention to basic skills, STEAM disciplines, language competencies, entrepreneurship skills, digital competences, creativity, critical thinking and teamwork; encourages the Commission and the Member States to facilitate the use of the EU Key Competences Framework in all educational settings and to enable its application to formal, non-formal, and informal learning, thus maximising its potential as a crucial tool for lifelong learning;

88.

Encourages the Member States to raise public awareness of lifelong learning and to integrate a gender perspective in developing relevant policies and programmes, with a particular focus on women with lower levels of education, in both urban and rural areas, in order to provide them with upskilling opportunities;

89.

Supports the increased EU benchmark for participation in lifelong learning; calls, in this regard, on the Commission to propose best practices recommendations with a view to achieving this ambitious goal; encourages stronger emphasis on lifelong learning at all levels of education; stresses, in this context, the role of HEIs in the realisation of a lifelong learning strategy, the education of professionally active people, the development of competences and the formation of a learning culture for people of all ages and different backgrounds;

90.

Encourages the Commission to support the Member States in developing, promoting and reinforcing training and educational programmes facilitating adult learning, and their active inclusion in the education system; recalls that adult learning and education should provide a variety of learning pathways and flexible learning opportunities, including support for people in managing their lifelong learning pathways, second chance programmes for people who have never been to school, early school leavers and school dropouts; calls on the Commission to implement commitments such as the Skills Guarantee stipulated in the EU New Skills Agenda, and to act to improve the employment opportunities of low-skilled adults in the EU;

91.

Calls on the Member States to develop intergenerational projects to facilitate understanding of the challenges elderly people face as well as providing opportunities for them to share their skills, knowledge and experience;

92.

Encourages the development of synergies and collaborations between formal, non-formal and informal education; welcomes the progress made in the last few years towards the implementation of the Council recommendation on the validation of non-formal and informal learning by 2018; calls, however, on the Member States to continue beyond 2018 with their efforts to further enhance the implementation of those recommendations, and to establish relevant legal frameworks and create comprehensive validation strategies in order to enable validation; highlights that the recognition of informal and non-formal learning, including through free online courses, is central to the idea of opening up education to the more disadvantaged;

93.

Emphasises the key role of parents as part of the education triangle in supporting children’s learning; highlights the benefits of parental involvement in child education for increased pupil achievement, pupils’ wellbeing and school development;

94.

Calls on the Commission to support cross-border initiatives in open learning online;

95.

Emphasises that the quality of education should be measured in terms of the degree to which a learner has acquired not only knowledge and competences, but also the ability to pursue and develop lifelong learning and creative endeavours;

96.

Supports the Commission in the creation of a scoreboard to support the development of key competences as well as competency-based education, learning and training;

97.

Calls on the Member States to fight gender stereotypes in education in order to ensure that women have the same opportunities and freedom of choice in terms of the career they wish to pursue; is concerned, in this context, at the stereotypes that persist in learning materials in some Member States and teachers’ differing behavioural expectations as between girls and boys; points out the need to incorporate the principle of gender equality into both initial and continuing teacher training, as well as in teaching practices, in order to remove any obstacles preventing students from realising their full potential irrespective of their gender; calls on the Member States, when implementing gender equality in the curricula and syllabuses of regional education systems, to pay special attention to the outermost regions, bearing in mind the high rates of violence against women recorded there; stresses that education systems at all levels need to include a gender perspective and take into account the needs of people suffering from discrimination;

98.

Urges the Member States to promote the principles of equality and non-discrimination in educational institutions, be it through formal or informal learning;

99.

Recommends that the Commission and/or the Member States establish and promote a European/national award centring on the issue of gender equality in educational institutions, with a view to encouraging best practice;

100.

Stresses that education is a key tool for social inclusion and for the improvement of skills levels and qualifications among migrants and refugees, both minors and adults; encourages, in the context, exchanging best practices on integration through education and imparting common values, improving and facilitating recognition of diplomas and qualifications, providing scholarships and establishing partnerships with universities in the countries of origin, as well as building on the valuable experience of the Education Corridors;

101.

Stresses that greater efforts should be made to ensure access to education and training at all levels for pupils from autochthonous minorities and to support educational institutions that provide services in the mother tongue of autochthonous ethnic or linguistic minorities; calls on the Commission to strengthen the promotion of programmes focused on the exchange of experiences and best practices concerning education in regional and minority languages in Europe; encourages the Member States to facilitate the development of teaching in the mother tongue of pupils and students;

102.

Encourages the Member States to increase levels of language competence by making use of good practices, such as official certification of foreign language skills acquired under a certain age;

103.

Invites the Member States and the Commission to establish a system of innovative and flexible grants for nurturing talent and artistic and sporting ability in the field of education and training; supports those Member States that are seeking to introduce scholarship schemes for students with proven educational, sporting and artistic ability;

104.

Welcomes, in this regard, the Commission communication on a new skills agenda for Europe (COM(2016)0381), which proposes solutions to skills mismatch and shortages and means of finding the right system of skills recognition; encourages the Member States, in this context, to establish quality dual systems of education (having the utmost value in terms of holistic personal growth and developing skills for lifelong learning) and vocational training in coordination with local and regional actors, and in line with the specific nature of each education system; notes the advantages and growing attractiveness of the hybrid VET system, which combines in equal measure strong school-based and work-based paths;

105.

Recommends that educational guidance should be reinforced as a vital tool for encompassing different educational systems in a flexible manner while enriching and updating knowledge and skills;

106.

Supports and encourages educational and vocational guidance as a vital educational task for the individual and social development of the young generations;

107.

Takes the view that entrepreneurship is a driver of growth and job creation and also a way to make economies more competitive and innovative, which helps to empower women;

108.

Highlights that social entrepreneurship is a growing field that can boost the economy while simultaneously alleviating deprivation, social exclusion and other societal problems; considers, therefore, that entrepreneurship education should include a social dimension and should address such subjects as fair trade, social enterprises, social responsibility of enterprises, and alternative business models such as cooperatives, in order to strive towards a more social, inclusive and sustainable economy;

109.

Calls on the Member States to focus on entrepreneurial and financial education, volunteering and foreign language proficiency in education, and also to prioritise these skills in VET programmes;

110.

Calls on the Commission and the Member States to promote the concrete employment opportunities associated with VET education and its relevance in the labour market;

111.

Calls on the Member States to develop career guidance that would facilitate the identification of pupils’ and students’ abilities and predispositions and strengthen the process of personalised teaching;

112.

Stresses the special educational situation of children and adolescents whose parents travel professionally in Europe, and calls on the Commission to conduct a study to highlight the specific situation of these children and adolescents with regard to the challenges facing them in terms of pre-school and school education;

113.

Recommends that the Commission should, acting under Article 349 TFEU, provide greater support to Member States which have outermost regions, with a view to improving their education systems at all levels;

114.

Encourages the Member States and regional authorities to regularly assess and monitor the relevance of educational policies, strategies and programmes, also taking into account feedback from teachers and learners, so as to ensure that education systems continue to address the changing needs and evolving socio-economic situation of the country concerned; recommends enhancing links between education policy and other policies so as to foster and assess the efficiency and performance of educational reforms;

115.

Reiterates the importance of monitoring the performance and impact assessments of the EU programmes targeting youth employment; stresses the importance of effective and sustainable investment;

116.

Appreciates the Commission’s activities in the field of modernisation of education systems, and in this context, calls on the Member States to be more involved in and committed to the implementation of proposed improvements;

117.

Encourages the Member States, in collaboration with the Commission, to support educational institutions in modernising reform processes by assigning specialised contact points at national and/or regional level to provide relevant information, guidance and assistance;

118.

Reiterates the need to create rights-based and gender-sensitive learning environments enabling students to learn about and stand up for human rights, including women’s and children’s rights, fundamental values and civic participation, the rights and responsibilities of citizens, democracy and the rule of law, being confident in their identity, knowing their voice is heard and feeling valued by their communities;

Early childhood education and care (ECEC)

119.

Calls on the Member States to ensure free and fair access to high-quality ECEC, and encourages them to take the necessary measures to ensure that the material and financial conditions are met to enable every child to access early childhood education without discrimination, and to provide more nursery and kindergarten places for children;

120.

Calls on the Commission to consider establishing a common European framework for ECEC, building on the principles proposed in the Quality Framework; supports setting a European benchmark for the quality of ECEC, to be designed in cooperation with teachers and professionals in the sector and in line with national or regional quality indicators;

121.

Believes that Member States should make greater efforts to encourage the governing bodies of ECEC institutions to investigate the possibility of pursuing Europe-wide projects; points out that professionals would, in that way, be able to keep track of teaching innovations and thus make pre-school education more meaningful;

122.

Maintains that early childhood institutions should not be excluded from the European Education Area; considers that these institutions should likewise promote the exchange of knowledge among Member States, especially for purposes of sharing information when implementing innovative projects;

123.

Recommends that cooperation between ECEC staff and pre-primary school teachers be increased to improve the quality of education and links between educational levels, prepare pre-schoolers for the transition to primary school, and focus on children’s development; highlights the importance of relations between ECEC providers and children’s parents and guardians, between school staff and children, and among children themselves;

124.

Encourages the Member States to increase funding for ECEC, as well as economic support and initiatives (such as tax reductions, subsidies, or waiving of fees) for parents and guardians, especially those from socio-economically disadvantaged backgrounds, in order to enable and encourage their use of ECEC services;

125.

Calls on the Member States to further invest in staff in order to attract more people to follow the relevant career path and thus ensure availability of highly qualified staff for ECEC;

126.

Calls on the Member States to reform and improve their systems with a view to achieving the Barcelona objective of having at least 33 % of children under three participating in ECEC programmes;

School education

127.

Encourages the implementation of a ‘Whole School Approach’in order to increase social inclusion, accessibility, democratic governance, quality and diversity in education, as well as to address early school leaving and the issue of NEETs, while also aiming to put learning outcomes, learners’ needs, wellbeing and involvement in school life at the core of all activity; advocates promoting and supporting democratic school students’ representative structures;

128.

Highlights that the large number of NEETs – almost 6,3 million young people aged between 15 and 24 – could be reduced by action to prevent early school leaving and by making schools more practical and connected to their local environment, as well as by developing links with local companies, local authorities, social institutions and NGOs; is of the opinion that early school leaving, which is one of the reasons for young people subsequently becoming NEETs, could be combated by tackling poverty and social exclusion; believes that it is also important to support students in finding their own learning methods, including online courses and blended learning; welcomes the implementation of relevant and engaging curricula and of strong and well-developed guidance systems, with high-quality counselling and guidance services for all students;

129.

Stresses the need to strengthen opportunities and structures for internal and external collaboration at school level, including interdisciplinary cooperation, team teaching, school clusters and interactions with actors involved in the design and implementation of learning paths, including parents; notes the importance of international exchanges and school partnerships, through programmes such as Erasmus+ and e-Twinning;

130.

Stresses that school education should also be made more flexible in order to improve response to the actual living circumstances of students, e.g. by greater use of online services, so that, for example, blended learning opportunities can also be improved;

131.

Believes that the earlier people acquire STEAM skills, the better their chances of future educational and professional success will be; therefore, encourages more STEAM initiatives at school level, and in tandem, the promotion of human and social sciences, through enhanced and differentiated cooperation with higher education and scientific research institutions, among other means;

132.

Encourages the Commission to support the development among young Europeans of language skills in formal and non-formal educational settings, by developing innovative multilingual pedagogies, sharing best multilingual pedagogical practices, and enhancing teachers’ language competences;

133.

Encourages the Member States and the Commission to support existing initiatives and develop and implement all-encompassing policies on inclusive education and strategies aimed at targeting specific needs, promoting the rights of the most vulnerable groups, creating more inclusive learning environments and furthering openness and engagement; calls on the Commission to develop, together with the European Agency for Special Needs and Inclusive Education, innovative methods and educational tools in order to foster inclusion and meet individual pupils’ needs;

134.

Recommends that the Member States integrate learning about the EU into their secondary school curricula, in order to familiarise students with the functioning of the Union, its history and the values of European citizenship;

135.

Stresses the importance of including and promoting, in school curricula and educational content, knowledge about the history of women’s emancipation, and in particular women’s suffrage, including on the occasion of symbolic anniversaries (e.g. 2018 as 100 years since women won the right to vote in Poland and Germany), in order to raise awareness with a view to promoting women’s rights within an educational framework;

136.

Emphasises the importance of health and relationships education, which must include teaching children and young people about relationships based on equality, consent, respect and reciprocity, as well as teaching about women’s and girls’ rights, including reproductive and sexual health and rights, as a tool to fight stereotypes, prevent gender-based violence and promote well-being;

137.

Encourages Red Cross training in schools for students, teachers and non-teaching staff, as an aid to learning essential first aid skills and being able to act in an emergency;

138.

Calls on the Commission and the Member States to develop a pilot scheme to support exchanges of secondary students under which they would spend at least half an academic year in another Member State;

139.

Calls on the Member States to limit to the necessary minimum the use of standardised tests as instruments to assess the level of acquired knowledge and skills;

140.

Encourages the Member States to consider adopting measures to ensure the recognition of study periods abroad that do not lead to a diploma or qualification; invites the Commission, in this regard, to propose guidelines for the recognition of study periods abroad, taking into consideration the existing best practices of Member States, the principle of mutual appreciation between educational systems, and the key competences-based approach, as well as the specificities of national educational systems and cultures;

141.

Calls on the Commission, Member States and regional authorities to address the issues of bullying, cyberbullying, harassment, addiction and violence by developing, at school level and in cooperation with the direct beneficiaries and all stakeholders (in particular teachers, parents’ associations and specialist NGOs), prevention programmes and awareness-raising campaigns embracing inclusion;

142.

Recommends that Member States, their educational institutions and the Commission engage more actively in promoting the practice of sports among pupils;

Higher education

143.

Calls for the creation of the European Education Area to be based on the potential of existing frameworks, e.g. the European Research Area, the Innovation Union and the European Higher Education Area, in such a way that they can strengthen and complement each other;

144.

Encourages the Member States to invest at least 2 % of their respective GDPs in higher education and to comply with the EU benchmark of investing 3 % of Union GDP in R&D by 2020;

145.

Suggests that Member States and regional authorities, when using national and regional resources and allocating European structural and investment funds, give priority to educational programmes and to fostering cooperation between higher education, the world of work, industry, research communities and society as a whole;

146.

Calls on the Member States to foster more inclusive and accessible mobility of students, trainees, apprentice teachers, researchers and administrative staff, since this contributes both to their personal and professional development as well as to a higher quality of learning, teaching, research and administration; advocates facilitating mobility for all through, among other measures, smooth recognition of credits and academic and professional qualifications obtained abroad, adequate funding and personal assistance, social rights guarantees, and, where appropriate, the incorporation of educational mobility as part of education programmes; notes, in this regard, the new initiatives on the part of the Commission, including the eCard to facilitate student mobility across borders;

147.

Takes the view that funding for the mobility of teaching staff and researchers needs to be increased by providing for study/research grants in addition to reimbursement of expenses, extending the duration of stays abroad, simplifying authorisation procedures, and promoting forms of teacher/researcher co-tutoring;

148.

Calls on the Commission to encourage Member States to boost mobility in adult education, as already provided for in the Erasmus+ programme;

149.

Stresses the importance of guaranteeing the mutual cross-border recognition and compatibility of qualifications and academic degrees, thus strengthening the system of quality assurance at EU level and in all countries that have joined the European Higher Education Area;

150.

Stresses the need to develop comprehensive strategies and appropriate tools for determining the quality of new modes of teaching and learning, e.g. e-learning, Massive Open On-line Courses (MOOCs) and open access resources; recognises, in this context, the role of the European Association for Quality Assurance in Higher Education (ENQA) and other relevant European networks in contributing to the establishment of quality assurance;

151.

Calls on the Commission and the Member States to promote the renewed EU agenda for higher education among HEIs, regional and local authorities and employers, with a view to addressing HEIs’ and students’ needs and the challenges facing them, creating links with local and regional actors, reaching out to local communities, fostering local and regional development and innovation, building inclusive and connected higher education systems, strengthening collaboration with the world of work, and addressing regional skills needs; also encourages HEIs to become more involved in local and regional development by participating in cooperative community projects, among other actions;

152.

Calls for fulfilment of the commitments of the New Skills Agenda, including supporting Member States in efforts to make more information available on how graduates progress in the labour market; welcomes, in this context, the proposal to set up a European graduate tracking system by 2020; considers that graduate tracking information and the collection of accurate and relevant data (not only at national but also at EU level) are essential for quality assurance and the development of quality education;

153.

Encourages the Commission to increase its efforts to narrow the research and innovation gap among Member States and regions by proposing new initiatives in the framework of the Marie Skłodowska-Curie Actions (MSCA), and to support the combination of research and teaching activities for MSCA beneficiaries who are preparing for an academic career;

154.

Suggests that the EU STE(A)M coalition should encompass a wide range of disciplines in order to prepare students for life and work in a context of dynamically changing reality;

155.

Supports the awarding of credits under the European Credit Transfer Scheme (ECTS) to students for community volunteer work, as a means of contributing to students’ professional and personal development;

156.

Emphasises that international cooperation programmes, cultural diplomacy and policy dialogues with third countries in the field of higher education not only enable knowledge to flow more freely, but also contribute to the enhancement of the quality and international standing of European higher education, while boosting research and innovation, fostering mobility and intercultural dialogue, and promoting international development in accordance with the EU’s external action objectives;

157.

Is of the opinion that future-proofed education systems should include learning for sustainability and peace-building and should be part of a broader reflection on occupational literacy in the context of the increasing digitisation and robotisation of European societies, focusing not only on economic growth but also on the personal development and improved health and wellbeing of learners;

158.

Calls on the Member States to promote cooperation between educational institutions and the world of work in order to better prepare learners to enter the labour market, as well as to take action on the need to address skills mismatches and skills shortages; encourages, in this regard, the inclusion of high-quality relevant work placements, recognised through ECTS credits, in higher education programmes and VET schemes, cooperation between higher education establishments, the world of work, the research sector and local and regional economic actors in the creation of quality dual education and vocational training systems, career guidance, apprenticeships, internships, and also reality-based training, which should be a part of vocational and higher education curricula; further calls on the Member States to secure the right of every young person in the EU to be offered a job, an apprenticeship, additional training or combined work and training;

159.

Considers that in order to ensure the provision of quality apprenticeship or traineeship placements, it is fundamental that contracts are in place delineating the roles and responsibilities of all parties and specifying the length, learning objectives and tasks corresponding to clearly identified skills to be developed, employment status, adequate compensation/remuneration, including for overtime, social protection and security schemes under the applicable national law, applicable collective agreements, or both;

160.

Underlines the need to offer proper learning and training content and decent working conditions for traineeships and apprenticeships so as to ensure their crucial role in the transition from education to professional life; stresses that traineeships and apprenticeships should never be used as a substitute for jobs, nor should trainees or apprentices be treated as cheap or even unpaid labour;

161.

Suggests that universities and training centres provide basic and further training for vocational education teachers, with contributions from experts in the work areas corresponding to the specialist fields covered by vocational courses;

The teacher as a guarantor of quality teaching

162.

Calls on the Commission and the Member States to support teachers in incorporating innovation and technology into teaching through the strengthening of their digital skills, as well as providing them with relevant resources and support, e.g. by increasing the provision of refresher training and by developing online communities and open educational resources and courses;

163.

Supports the creation of an Academy of Teaching and Learning, as a complementary facility enabling teachers to train and exchange best practices at European level, by providing a centre for online exchange, sharing experiences and mutual learning, as well as being a place for regular meetings in the form of workshops, seminars, and conferences to promote teachers’ collaboration, enhance the quality of teaching, and foster teachers’ professional development; calls on the Commission to propose a project for the creation of such an academy, based also on the know-how of the European Schoolnet Academy;

164.

Recalls the importance of pedagogical training for teaching staff in HEIs and of considering pedagogical competences as being at least of equal importance to research competences in the recruitment process; highlights the role of research-based education and pedagogical research in terms of stimulating a student-centred approach to learning and teaching, encouraging active learning, enhancing skills development, and improving teaching methodology;

165.

Calls on the Member States to introduce incentives to attract and motivate young people and qualified teachers to enter and work in the education system;

166.

Emphasises the need to recognise the professional status of ECEC employees;

167.

Calls for support for teachers delivering multilingual courses, since these are an important factor in the internationalisation of education;

168.

Highlights the role of intercultural learning as part of teacher education with a view to enhancing teachers’ intercultural competences, in order to promote European culture and common values as well as a European dimension of teaching; notes that intercultural competences are essential for working in increasingly diverse societies, as well as fostering internationalisation at school level;

169.

Is aware of the need to create synergies between the knowledge of teachers and the technological potential of pupils, in order to maximise learning outcomes;

170.

Advocates the incorporation of teacher training placements guided by trained mentors, at all stages of teacher education;

171.

Encourages teachers and school leaders to promote and take a leading role in implementing innovation in the school environment and fostering its development;

172.

Encourages HEIs to prioritise, support and reward the improvement and updating of the pedagogical knowledge of higher education teachers and researchers, including educational possibilities offered by modern technology, as a means of enhancing student achievement and teaching efficacy;

173.

Supports the development of new, innovative and ambitious teaching techniques and educational standards in order to better respond to the needs of students and HEIs, as well as to the challenges of a rapidly changing world;

o o

174.

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

(1) OJ C 183, 14.6.2014, p. 22.

(2) OJ C 183, 14.6.2014, p. 30.

(3) OJ C 398, 22.12.2012, p. 1.

(4) OJ C 172, 27.5.2015, p. 17.

(5) Texts adopted, P8_TA(2017)0360.

(6) OJ C 417, 15.12.2015, p. 25.

(7) OJ L 347, 20.12.2013, p. 50.

(8) OJ C 346, 21.9.2016, p. 2.

(9) Texts adopted, P8_TA(2017)0018.

(10) OJ C 484, 24.12.2016, p. 1.

(11) OJ C 398, 22.12.2012, p. 1.

(12) http://www.socialsummit17.se/wp-content/uploads/2017/11/Concluding-report-Gothenburg-summit.pdf

(13) https://www.consilium.europa.eu/uedocs/cms_data/docs/pressdata/en/educ/122123.pdf

(14) OJ C 104, 16.4.1984, p. 69.

(15) OJ C 135, 26.5.2010, p. 12.

(16) Texts adopted, P8_TA(2017)0303.

(17) http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php/Gender_statistics

(18) http://www.cedefop.europa.eu/en/publications-and-resources/publications/3072, and https://www.eurofound.europa.eu/sites/default/files/ef_publication/field_ef_document/ef1502en_0.pdf

27.1.2020

Official Journal of the European Union

C 28/26

P8_TA(2018)0248

Towards a sustainable and competitive European aquaculture sector

European Parliament resolution of 12 June 2018 on towards a sustainable and competitive European aquaculture sector: current status and future challenges (2017/2118(INI))

(2020/C 28/04)

The European Parliament,

—	having regard to the Commission communication entitled ‘Strategic Guidelines for the sustainable development of EU aquaculture’(COM(2013)0229),

—	having regard to Regulation (EU) No 304/2011 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 9 March 2011 amending Council Regulation (EC) No 708/2007 concerning use of alien and locally absent species in aquaculture (1),

—	having regard to Council Directive 98/58/EC of 20 July 1998 concerning the protection of animals kept for farming purposes (2),

—	having regard to Commission Regulation (EC) No 710/2009 of 5 August 2009 amending Regulation (EC) No 889/2008 laying down detailed rules for the implementation of Council Regulation (EC) No 834/2007, as regards laying down detailed rules on organic aquaculture animal and seaweed production (3),

—	having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1/2005 of 22 December 2004 on the protection of animals during transport and related operations and amending Directives 64/432/EEC and 93/119/EC and Regulation (EC) No 1255/97 (4),

—	having regard to Commission Regulation (EC) No 889/2008 of 5 September 2008 laying down detailed rules for the implementation of Council Regulation (EC) No 834/2007 on organic production and labelling of organic products with regard to organic production, labelling and control (5),

—	having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 834/2007 of 28 June 2007 on organic production and labelling of organic products and repealing Regulation (EEC) No 2092/91 (6),

—

having regard to Regulation (EU) No 1379/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 December 2013 on the common organisation of the markets in fishery and aquaculture products, amending Council Regulations (EC) No 1184/2006 and (EC) No 1224/2009 and repealing Council Regulation (EC) No 104/2000 (8),

—

—	having regard to its resolution of 4 December 2008 on the adoption of a European Cormorant Management Plan to minimise the increasing impact of cormorants on fish stocks, fishing and aquaculture (11),

—	having regard to its resolution of 17 June 2010 on a new impetus for the Strategy for the Sustainable Development of European Aquaculture (12),

—	having regard to its resolution of 8 July 2010 on the arrangements for importing fishery and aquaculture products into the EU with a view to the future reform of the CFP (13),

—	having regard to its position adopted at first reading on 23 November 2010 with a view to the adoption of Regulation (EU) No .../2011 of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Council Regulation (EC) No 708/2007 concerning use of alien and locally absent species in aquaculture (14),

—	having regard to its resolution of 8 September 2015 on untapping the potential of research and innovation in the blue economy to create jobs and growth (15),

—	having regard to its resolution of 12 May 2016 on traceability of fishery and aquaculture products in restaurants and retail (16),

—	having regard to the Commission staff working document on the application of the Water Framework Directive (WFD) and the Marine Strategy Framework Directive (MSFD) in relation to aquaculture (SWD(2016)0178),

—	having regard to the Commission document of 2015 entitled ‘Overview report: Implementation of the rules on finfish aquaculture’(DG(SANTE) 2015-7406 – MR),

—	having regard to the Commission communication of 29 June 2017 on a European One Health action plan against antimicrobial resistance (AMR) (COM(2017)0339),

—	having regard to the economic report on the EU aquaculture sector of 2016 by the Scientific, Technical and Economic Committee for Fisheries (STECF),

—	having regard to the Eurobarometer report on ‘EU consumer habits regarding fishery and aquaculture products’(2017) and the complementary analysis by the European Market Observatory for Fisheries and Aquaculture Products (EUMOFA),

—	having regard to the scientific opinion entitled ‘Food from the Oceans’produced by the High-Level Group of Scientific Advisors in November 2017,

—	having regard to the FAO Code of Conduct for Responsible Fisheries,

—	having regard to the OIE Aquatic Animal Health Code,

—	having regard to Articles 42 and 43(2) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU),

—	having regard to its resolution of 6 July 2017 on promoting cohesion and development in the outermost regions of the EU: implementation of Article 349 of the TFEU (17),

—	having regard to Rule 52 of its Rules of Procedure,

—	having regard to the report of the Committee on Fisheries and the opinion of the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Food Safety (A8-0186/2018),

whereas the aquaculture sector, including marine and freshwater fish farming, as well as farming of molluscs, crustaceans, seaweed and echinoderms, is an innovative economic sector, which is the fastest growing food production activity, and, potentially, a high-technology sector requiring structural and research investment and long-term operational and financial planning;

whereas the fish farming and shellfish industries play an important and valuable role in terms of the economy, employment and social and environmental matters with respect to improving the quality of life of the coastal and inland areas of the Union and of outermost regions and to contributing to the nutritional and food security of Europeans; whereas there are certain factors which adversely affect aquaculture production, including environmental and climate-related factors but, above all, animal predators; whereas, as shown by a number of studies, these predation issues are having a significant impact on production;

whereas the Commission communication ‘Strategic Guidelines for the sustainable development of EU aquaculture’emphasises four priority areas to be addressed in order to unlock the potential of EU aquaculture: administrative procedures, coordinated spatial planning, competitiveness, in particular by linking up the sector with science, and a level playing field;

whereas the same communication recommends that Member States should draw up multiannual national strategic plans for aquaculture that would analyse the key shortcomings and the issues needing to be resolved, set out shared objectives and, where possible, establish indicators to assess the progress made towards achieving these objectives;

E.	whereas maintaining local ecosystems and stocks must be a key priority objective, preventing the displacement and destruction of local fisheries and farming;

F.	whereas despite good intentions and efforts EU aquaculture is stagnating, in contrast with increasing growth seen in other regions of the world;

G.	whereas it is estimated that aquaculture production in the EU only covers 10 % of the domestic demand for fish and whereas more than a half of the demand for fishery products comes from imports from third countries;

H.	whereas aquaculture should be seen and treated as a form of agriculture, especially in the case of pond farming;

I.	whereas the backwardness of the outermost regions in the development of aquaculture is particularly significant;

whereas the recent opinion of the High-Level Group of Scientific Advisors on the question put to the group by Commissioner Vella, namely ‘How can more food and biomass be obtained from the ocean in a way that does not deprive future generations of their benefits?’, contains the following recommendations: ‘Mainstream a “food from the ocean”paradigm of responsible culture ... into broad EU and global systems-level policy agendas’; and: ‘Take the development of mariculture in Europe to a higher and more strategic level via a comprehensive, concerted policy framework – this includes issuing guidance on the inclusion of mariculture requirements in the implementation of the 2014 EU Directive on Marine Spatial Planning and extending technological cooperation to mariculture under sustainable fisheries partnership agreements (SFPAs) between the EU and southern partner countries’;

whereas starting up or expanding an aquaculture farm in the EU requires obtaining various permits and authorisations, and whereas the procedure for obtaining these official documents is not harmonised at EU level and is, in general, slow, complex and lacking legal certainty and economic predictability; whereas this situation risks hindering the development of the sector and could discourage business investment and result in excessive costs for the sector, in addition to indirectly encouraging imports from third countries;

whereas the most complex procedures for aquaculture operations are those related to environmental requirements (environmental impact assessments, strategic environmental assessments and surveillance procedures), but, paradoxically, the slowness and complexity of these administrative procedures do not always ensure environmental protection, indeed on the contrary sometimes making it difficult to establish socioeconomic, environmentally sustainable and quality aquaculture farms; whereas there are differences between freshwater and marine aquaculture; whereas differences in the sub-sectors of aquaculture require different practices in terms of managing stocks, feeding and reproduction; whereas the necessary consideration must be given to these differences when drawing up regulations for EU aquaculture and, in particular, sustainable environmental standards;

whereas bureaucratic complexity and delays, specifically those relating to licensing and planning, represent inaction that inevitably results in economic and socio-labour costs to potential investors in the areas in which aquaculture farms are established, with a particular impact on female and youth employment;

whereas for adequate spatial planning the different needs of the various users, together with the need to protect nature, must be taken into account and efforts must be made to reconcile them; whereas the unavailability of locations, the lack of adequate spatial planning and the conflict with other economic activities have a considerable effect on the development of EU aquaculture in some regions, since the aquaculture sector may have less weight than other ‘powerful’sectors;

O.	whereas spatial planning is one of the prerequisites for the long-term development of aquaculture and the necessary means of ensuring suitable planning locations for aquaculture, taking into account other activities in the areas concerned;

whereas EU environmental legislation is based on directives (the Marine Strategy Directive, the Birds and Habitats Directives), and whereas it is therefore left to Member States and to local and regional authorities to transpose and apply them with a certain degree of discretion; whereas, consequently, there is no uniform implementation throughout the EU and this leads to legal uncertainty for enterprises and farms and a lack of predictability for investors, and creates an uneven playing field;

Q.	whereas according to the ‘Food from the Oceans’scientific opinion, the only way to obtain significantly more food and biomass from the ocean in a short period of time is to harvest organisms at the bottom of the food chain, such as macroalgae and bivalve molluscs;

R.	whereas different national or regional legal frameworks for aquaculture can lead to businesses having different legal requirements even if they are active in the same sea basin, which in turn risks distorting competition;

whereas the examples of good cooperation on the basis of voluntary agreements and other agreements between conservationists and the sector are to be welcomed; whereas, while the positive examples of contributions by aquaculture to the maintenance of good water quality and aquatic ecosystem services are to be welcomed, it is important also to acknowledge and seek to reduce the negative impacts which aquaculture can have on the local environment and water quality; therefore encourages further innovation and initiatives to ensure a long-term sustainable and profitable sector;

T.	whereas bivalve mollusc farming and macroalgae cultivation require a balanced supply of nutritive salts in the environment;

U.	whereas, in light of the above, this kind of freshwater fish farm also qualifies as an environmental protection service safeguarding the quality and quantity of water and deserves far more recognition and support from EU decision-makers than is currently the case;

whereas EU products have to comply with a series of stringent environmental, animal health, animal welfare and consumer protection rules and standards covering production operations, feed, welfare, transport, processing and social conditions of employment, which directly affect the costs of production; whereas the result is excellent quality and sustainable products which may be more expensive and, thus often, less competitive than the imported ones, which frequently arrive on the EU market at low prices due to practices which are unsustainable from an environmental, social and labour point of view, and whose production has been accompanied by poor animal welfare and health standards;

W.	whereas some aquaculture companies depend greatly on energy resources, adding to the cost of aquaculture production;

X.	whereas the consumption of fish – a food containing proteins, fatty acids, vitamins, minerals and essential micronutrients that benefit human health – should be increased, and whereas the excellent quality of EU seafood should constitute a major competitive advantage for EU aquaculture;

Y.	whereas global consumption of fish is steadily increasing, in parallel with the global growth of the population;

whereas additionally, there is not always coherence among EU trade, social and environmental policies: for example, the EU grants Generalised Scheme of Preferences (GSP and GSP+) status to vulnerable developing countries, with the aim of allowing them to pay fewer or no duties on exports to the EU, giving them vital access to the EU market and contributing to their growth; whereas, at the same time, some of these countries, for example some Asian countries, produce aquaculture products which do not comply with the environmental, animal welfare, health, social and labour standards that EU operators must meet and which, in some cases, are in violation of human rights;

AA.	whereas the EU is also heavily dependent on the importation of fisheries products from third countries for aquaculture feed, and whereas more sustainable, alternative feed has so far been insufficiently researched and promoted;

AB.	whereas the EU’s external trade in aquaculture is in deficit and unfair competition is taking place between imported third-country and EU aquaculture products and EU produce, to the detriment of food quality and consumer health;

AC.	whereas aquaculture in third countries offers opportunities to EU investment;

AD.

whereas the differences between the products of European aquaculture compared to those of third countries in terms of quality, environmental footprint, social behaviour and respect for the welfare of animals cannot be perceived by European consumers when the information they receive about them is insufficient or inaccurate (especially in relation to country of origin, defrosting or identification of species);

AE.

whereas the EU legislation regarding information on aquatic products for the consumer is clear and whereas control thereof is the responsibility of the authorities of the Member States; whereas, however, the failure actually to provide this essential information for the consumer is generally notorious, in the case of both fishmongers and restaurants; whereas this situation of insufficient implementation undermines the competitiveness of EU aquaculture;

AF.

whereas sustainable fish farming is based on rearing healthy animals, and for this it is essential to develop specific and innovative veterinary tools, especially vaccines and antibiotics, which should be used in a responsible and restrictive manner that ensures animal and consumer health and welfare, and safe and nutritional aquaculture products, with no detriment for the environment and wild species; whereas the EU animal health regulations must also consider the particularities of aquaculture and specificities of fish species when dealing with the treatment of infections and diseases and the impact on product quality;

AG.	whereas the European One Health action plan against antimicrobial resistance (AMR) observes that immunisation through vaccination is a cost-effective public health intervention in efforts to combat antimicrobial resistance (18), which likewise applies to aquaculture;

AH.	whereas the image that European society and consumers have of aquaculture varies from one Member State to another but in general there is clearly room for improvement;

AI.

whereas although there is always room for improvement through better practices, the bad image of this activity is not always due to real problems (environmental, quality or safety aspects), but to the preconceived idea that consumers have of aquaculture; whereas a significant part of this situation is due to the belief that the real impacts of aquaculture in some third countries (developing countries) are also encountered in the EU, which is not true;

AJ.	whereas the widely varying practices with respect to aquaculture lead to significant differences in product quality, environmental impact and sanitary conditions, among others, leaving the consumer frequently uncertain of the resulting product;

AK.	whereas the poor reputation of aquaculture affects its governance by public administrations (licensing, planning, etc.), but also its marketing conditions;

AL.	whereas it is important to note the potential of freshwater aquaculture, inland aquaculture with enclosed waters, integrated multitrophic aquaculture and recirculation systems or aquaponics in urban zones for the improvement of food security and the development of rural areas;

AM.	whereas crustaceans, molluscs and aquatic plants, such as algae, are also an important resource for aquaculture;

AN.

whereas research and innovation have a fundamental role to play in unlocking the potential of sustainable aquaculture; whereas production can be sustainably increased through innovation-led expansion, the regeneration and cleaning of waters, the use of renewable energies, and energy and resource efficiency, while reducing environmental impacts and providing environmental services;

AO.	whereas EU-level standard protocols of scientific data that enable the supervision and improvement of management and production practices, as well as their environmental and health impact, are of considerable importance;

AP.	whereas the farming of native or endemic species should be given preference in order to reduce the environmental impact and make aquaculture more sustainable;

AQ.	whereas difficulties in accessing credit and a considerable time-lag between investment and first sale (in general three years or more) risk discouraging investors;

AR.	whereas the pre-financing conditions offered by banks and financial institutions are increasingly strict;

AS.

whereas the procedures, which in most cases are not sufficiently clear to users, and the plethora of documents that have to be submitted in order to obtain funding from the European Maritime and Fisheries Fund (EMFF) are discouraging for the applicant; whereas the approximately EUR 1 280 million available in the current (2014-2020) programming period is not sufficient to develop the European aquaculture sector; whereas, in addition, there is an extremely low rate of absorption by the Member States;

AT.	whereas sustainable aquaculture must take account of potential impacts on wild fish stocks and water quality, but, conversely, it also needs healthy fish stocks and excellent water quality;

AU.

whereas available data show a growing gap – estimated at 8 million tonnes – between the level of consumption of seafood in the EU and the volume of captures from fisheries; whereas sustainable aquaculture can, together with sustainable fisheries, contribute to ensuring long-term food and nutrition security, including food supplies, as well as growth and employment for Union citizens, and to meeting the growing world demand for aquatic food, providing that sustainable sources of feed are used for aquaculture activities and environmental degradation is prevented; whereas it can thus contribute to the overall objective of filling the gap between consumption and production of seafood in the EU;

AV.	whereas in aquaculture one kilogram of low-value fish can be transformed into one kilogram of high-value fish (as in the case of capelin to turbot, where the value increases from EUR 0,10 to EUR 7 per kilogram);

AW.	whereas young people are less interested in working in the aquaculture sector or investing in and developing it due to poor communication and a lack of financial prospects and stability, which make it unattractive to younger generations;

AX.	whereas sustainable aquaculture owned and managed by the community can be of socio-economic benefit to coastal peripheral regions and play a positive role in the blue economy;

AY.

whereas freshwater aquaculture accounts for 20 % of the performance of the sector in Europe as a whole, and whereas EU support should match this proportion; whereas the divergent nature of freshwater aquaculture means that it needs special rules and a separate chapter in the legislation on the EU’s common fisheries policy;

AZ.	whereas research and innovation are crucial in achieving more sustainability and competitiveness for the aquaculture sector on the EU market;

BA.

whereas freshwater aquaculture projects can also be carried out with ex-post financing, and whereas this often requires disproportionate efforts from investors, with the result that in many cases fish farmers do not dare to embark on projects; whereas the intensity of support is in most cases inadequate;

Unlock the potential of EU aquaculture

Recognises the positive effects that sustainable aquaculture, including both marine and freshwater sectors, can have on employment and the economy of the Union, in general, improving the productivity and quality of life of its coastal and inland areas; stresses the need to boost its development, diversification and innovation by promoting higher levels of production of fish, crustaceans, molluscs, algae and echinoderms from aquaculture and improving the competitiveness of such products (to improve EU aquaculture production so that it reaches at least the current global aquaculture growth rate within five years and to encourage investment in more energy-efficient and economical equipment), and increasing their consumption and contribution to food and nutrition security for EU citizens; insists that this must be done while conserving the proper functioning of the marine ecosystems so as to allow the continued practice of profitable aquaculture, commercial fisheries, and other sustainable uses of the marine environment;

Believes that the EU needs to increase its production in the aquaculture sector, in particular with the aim of reducing pressure on natural fishing grounds; takes the view that fish-based feed should be sustainably sourced and should not jeopardise the maximum sustainable yield objectives of the common fisheries policy and that nutrient loads should be controlled; stresses the importance of cooperation between researchers, the aquaculture industry, feed producers, and environmental organisations and administrations; stresses that EU aquaculture should take into account quality, sustainability, food safety, environmental aspects, and animal and human health, and should be a model in this regard; takes positive note of new initiatives with land-based aquaculture, especially in sensitive seas and EU areas with closed waters, and believes that stronger measures are needed to make aquaculture a more efficient, economically viable, socially responsible and environmentally friendly sector, fulfilling a greater share of the European demand for fish and reducing Europe’s dependence on imports;

Welcomes the Commission communication ‘Strategic Guidelines for the sustainable development of EU aquaculture’and its identification of the areas where efforts need to focus in order to unlock the potential of EU aquaculture so that it, together with sustainable fisheries, can contribute to the objective of filling the gap between consumption and production of seafood in the EU in a way that is environmentally, socially and economically sustainable;

Stresses that freshwater aquaculture is still an insufficiently explored opportunity for improving food security and developing rural areas;

Stresses that sustainable growth needs to be based on: business investment predictability and legal certainty, which can be created through more efficient administrative frameworks, improved governance transparency, clear and homogenous and simplified criteria for granting licences across the EU, common disease management procedures and access to appropriate veterinary treatments that are not harmful to animal and human health, effective spatial planning, the availability of guidance documents, exchanges of best practices, the support of the Aquaculture Advisory Council, and adequate financial support; points out that all these factors can contribute to sustainable growth;

Appreciates the conclusions and recommendations of the scientific opinion on ‘Food from the Oceans’of November 2017 relating to maritime, fisheries and aquaculture policy development and implementation in the coming years to help increase the quantity of sustainable food coming from the oceans;

Calls on the Commission to support the industry in its efforts to reduce its dependence on wild fish stocks for the production of fish feed, including through increased use of seaweed and other algae;

Calls on the Commission to encourage the further development of the emergent seaweed aquaculture sector;

Recognises the potential of aquaculture to contribute to food and nutrition security for EU citizens and the need for sustainable and healthy diets, climate-smart, animal welfare-friendly and environmentally sustainable food systems, and the circularity and resource efficiency of food systems, encouraging innovation and the empowerment of communities;

10.

Reiterates that the development of European aquaculture has to be linked to the basic and vital need for self-sufficient, safe, nutritional and sustainable food production and put higher on the EU global agenda;

11.

Calls on the Commission and the Member States to invest in research, studies and pilot projects for innovative, future-oriented, environmentally responsible aquaculture practices, including Integrated Multi-Trophic Aquaculture Systems (IMTA), Aquaponics, and Recirculation Aquaculture Systems (RAS), that reduce the impact of aquaculture farms on habitats, wild animal populations and water quality, thus contributing to an ecosystem-based approach;

12.

Asks the Commission to make a thorough analysis and ensure a proper follow-up regarding each of the recommendations of the High-Level Group of Scientific Advisors;

13.

Stresses that any sustainable European aquaculture policy must take account of the characteristics and different needs and challenges of the various types of aquaculture production and develop tailor-made measures that also account for geographic differences and the potential effects of climate change; calls, therefore, on the Commission, in the common fisheries policy post 2020, to set out individual rules tailored to the characteristics of each sub-sector;

14.

Highlights the potential of freshwater aquaculture as well as inland aquaculture with enclosed water, integrated multitrophic aquaculture and recirculation systems and aquaponics in urban areas; stresses that freshwater aquaculture is still an insufficiently explored opportunity for improving food security and developing rural areas, but that it plays an important social role by providing rural employment in the poorest areas, as well as playing an environmental role in maintaining valuable wetlands and providing a wide range of ecosystem services, which go far beyond its economic value;

15.

Stresses the importance of launching coordination instruments, study groups and EU activities, with a view to determining the cases in which mollusc production is significantly jeopardised by the predatory action of gilthead seabream (Sparus aurata), and to seeking sustainable and environmentally friendly solutions;

16.

Recognises the potential of aquaculture and the complementary processing and exporting of fish products as an indigenous industry for employment and economic benefit, especially for rural coastal and island communities;

17.

Underlines how important it is that the Water Framework Directive (WFD) and the Marine Strategy Framework Directive (MSFD) should provide protection for mollusc production areas, as laid down in the now repealed ‘Molluscs Directive’;

18.

Points out that, in an environment in which macroalgae or bivalve molluscs are to be produced, the reduction of nutrient inputs to achieve good environmental status must take into account the natural abatement capacity of the organisms being farmed or cultivated;

Simplifying administrative procedures

19.

Emphasises the vital role of local and regional authorities in the development of European aquaculture, including in implementing the multiannual strategic plans drawn up by the Member States;

20.

Stresses that the sustainable growth of aquaculture needs to be based on business investment predictability and legal certainty, which requires, notably:

(a)	simplification and acceleration of administrative procedures – less red tape – at EU, national and regional level, making the greatest possible use of information and communication technologies, while ensuring that the marine environment is not further degraded;

(b)	improved transparency and proper planning;

(c)	better coordination as regards the shared competences of the EU, the Member States and, where appropriate, regional and local authorities;

(d)	fast, clear and transparent licensing procedures accompanied by limited timelines for agreement, so as not to discourage investors;

(e)	close monitoring by the Commission of the Member States’ multiannual national strategic plans;

(f)	Commission guidelines for national strategic plans for a uniform application of the EU legislation (mainly environmental and for protecting health and ensuring that neither ecosystems nor fishing activities are harmed);

(g)	a coordinated legal framework between different regions and Member States sharing the same waters in order to ensure fair competition and efficient environmental policies;

(h)	close cooperation between the Commission and the competent authorities (national, but also local and regional) in the implementation of EU legislation (mainly sanitary and environmental) as well as supporting coordination of national or regional legislation where necessary;

(i)	mechanisms for the exchange of information and best practices between Member States, through an open method of coordination of national measures concerning business security, access to Union waters and space, and the simplification of licensing procedures;

(j)	adequate public financial support at EU and national level for sustainable and responsible aquaculture production, innovation and development;

(k)	better incorporation of the aquaculture and fisheries perspective in the Union’s trade agreements;

21.

Suggests, with regard to the administrative system, the creation, as soon as possible, of a ‘one-stop shop’, which would take on and exercise all responsibilities, allowing relevant documents to be submitted to a single administrative body; believes this would improve the relationship between the end-user and the different levels of public administration;

22.

Suggests establishing a simplified or ‘fast-track’licensing system, whereby the competent administration grants a provisional certificate permitting those operators who meet predefined criteria to commence their activities; points out that these criteria could be based on applicants’ history or on the fact that they have put forward a pioneering aquaculture project in terms of innovation and/or sustainability, or on the establishment of reserved aquaculture easement zones where uses that are incompatible with aquaculture are defined in advance;

Equity in interaction with other sectors

23.

Underlines that appropriate spatial planning should take into account all sectors (holistic approach), sustainability issues and food security, without favouring powerful economic sectors to the detriment of aquaculture; stresses that spatial planning does not necessarily have to entail the segregation of activities in certain areas, but rather balanced compatibility between them, and that this can potentially bring benefits to all;

24.

Suggests supporting a more active and important role and implication of aquaculture organisations and fisheries local action groups (FLAGs) in the decision-making process, through regionalisation, in order to ensure the best approach for each specific region;

25.

Points out due consideration must be given to the aquaculture sector’s interests and that it must be treated fairly when it interacts with other sectors, e.g. in spatial planning;

26.

Urges the Commission and the Member States to elaborate spatial planning maps in order to identify possible areas where aquaculture and other activities may coexist;

27.

Points out that spatial planning and licensing conditions are the most likely reason for the unwillingness of other important or powerful sectors to share space;

28.

Points out that, in order to ensure a level playing field in access to marine resources, the socioeconomic and environmental impact studies required for aquaculture should also affect all sectors competing with it, such as, tourism or raw materials extraction;

29.

Urges the Member States and national authorities comply with the EU legislation on waters and the regeneration and cleaning of contaminated areas;

30.

Stresses that the legislation should be adopted after consultation, on an equal basis, of all interestedparties;

Adapting the legislation to aquaculture’s needs

31.

Stresses that environmental sustainability must go hand in hand with social and economic sustainability (sustainability has three pillars), and that due consideration needs to be given to the current and potential contribution of aquaculture to food security in the Union;

32.

Welcomes the industry’s best practices and examples of good cooperation on the basis of voluntary agreements and other agreements between conservationists and the industry, including in Natura 2000 areas; welcomes the many examples of contributions by aquaculture to the maintenance of good water quality; recognises the aquatic ecosystem services delivered by the industry and calls for incentives to strengthen them; stresses that the introduction of further legal complications affecting aquaculture is undesirable from the point of view of sustainability and socio-economic development;

33.

Stresses that the EU legislation should be better adapted to aquaculture’s realities, specificities and needs in the framework of the common fisheries policy and in coherence, inter alia, with EU environmental legislation, in line with the objective of achieving a good environmental status for all marine waters by 2020 and taking into account the importance of female and youth employment in the sector;

34.

Stresses that, where implementation of EU legislation is problematic or inconsistent, guidelines on its interpretation and best practices should be issued;

35.

Reiterates that the sector should be more closely involved in decision-making;

36.

Urges the Commission to improve the limited contribution of aquaculture production to the domestic demand for fish, estimated at 10 %, and reverse the fact that more than half the Union’s demand for fish comes from imported products;

Enhancing the competitiveness of EU aquaculture within and outside our borders

37.

Calls for imported products of aquaculture to be required to meet the same environmental, food safety and socio-labour standards and respect for human rights that EU operators must meet and deplores the fact that there is still no level playing field in this domain, and that dangerous distortions of competition are a serious problem for EU operators;

38.

Highlights the current situation of European pond farmers as they are struggling with substantial losses affecting their entire stock due to predators like otters, herons and cormorants; underlines that those predators also kill the spawn of zander and carp and as a result limit significantly the breeding and reproduction of freshwater fish; calls, therefore, on the Member States to apply existing derogations in the case of herons and cormorants and calls on the Commission to carry out a review regarding the conservation status of the otter and to allow, where necessary, the removal and control of those predators;

39.

Calls for more and better origin and border controls for imported products and, at internal level, measures to combat illegal or ‘furtive’aquaculture practices that affect the internal development of the sector;

40.

Points out that the EU should export its sustainability standards and know-how; believes that this is especially relevant in the case of neighbouring regions that produce similar species to those produced in the EU and especially with third countries sharing the same waters as the EU;

41.

Calls on the Commission to ensure that under trade agreements with third partners preferential market access is made conditional upon respect for sustainability and animal welfare standards equivalent to those applicable in the EU;

42.

Calls on the Commission to sponsor, as part of the EU’s policy on cooperation with developing countries, support and training measures designed to help promote sustainable aquaculture and steer the awareness of aquaculture producers in those countries towards a policy on quality and higher production standards, particularly as regards the environment, hygiene and social standards;

43.

Urges that steps be taken to encourage EU investment in aquaculture projects in third countries;

44.

Calls on the Commission to continue ensuring that EU import rules are respected, including as regards farming procedures that comply with environmental, hygiene and social standards, in exporting third countries so that a level playing field can be implemented internationally; considers, at the same time, that the results of the monitoring of aquaculture processes in third countries should have a decisive influence on the renewal of export authorisations for products to the EU;

45.

Asks the Commission to assess the effects of Brexit in the field of aquaculture;

Improving consumer information

46.

Insists on full and complete implementation of the EU legislation on labelling and consumer information, both in fish markets and in the hotel, restaurant and catering sector (HORECA); believes that this is important for all fisheries products (and not only aquaculture products), both imported and EU-produced; considers that the Control Regulation should be adapted and reinforced to this end;

47.

Asks for the establishment of a specific label for the recognition of products from EU sustainable aquaculture and stresses the need for transparency for consumers also in connection with aquaculture products imported from third countries, by reinforcing traceability;

Ensuring Animal Welfare

48.

Takes the view that the strategy on slaughter should include proposals to ensure processes for developing effective parameters for humane methods of killing fish, in accordance with OIE and EFSA Guidelines, and to ensure that equipment used for slaughtering fish works in accordance with those parameters, and that effective humane slaughter of farmed fish is implemented, assessed, evaluated and certified throughout the EU;

Availability of veterinary products

49.

Points out that EU veterinary legislation must be better adapted to aquaculture’s realities and needs, taking into account different species and operating differences;

50.

Stresses that a real EU common market is required for vaccines and other veterinary products that protect animal and human health, especially for ‘minor’species;

51.

Observes that the relatively higher costs of diagnosis, antimicrobial alternatives and vaccination in comparison with widely used antibiotics are regrettably an obstacle to achieving greater use and a higher rate of vaccination, as aspired to by the action plan (19); welcomes the fact that in the action plan the Commission announces incentives to increase the uptake of diagnostics, antimicrobial alternatives and vaccines (20);

52.

Urges the Commission to establish the obligation to provide information on the use of vaccines and antibiotics in aquaculture in view of possible risks to human health and the ecosystem;

53.

Believes that the Commission and the Member States should devise practical incentives and measures, including improved implementation of or, if required, amendments to, Directive 2006/88/EC, to promote an integrated chain approach to AMR and increase the use of antimicrobial alternatives, diagnostics and vaccines in aquaculture and thereby to promote prevention, control and eradication of diseases and antibiotic resistance in aquatic animals cost-effectively and maximise the survival, growth and production efficiency of aquatic animals;

54.

Underlines the need to favour scientific research in European and national programmes on shellfish and fish health and the development of new veterinary products for aquatic species;

55.

Notes, in this vein, that antibiotic resistance is a serious problem across human and animal medicine, and calls on the Commission to limit the use of antibiotics to situations where there is a risk of an epizootic in the aquaculture establishment and not simply as a preventive measure and to assess their impact on the risk of transferring resistance to consumers;

Better promotional campaigns and communication

56.

Points out that better promotional campaigns and communication at EU level on the benefits of aquaculture and fish consumption are needed;

57.

Calls on the Commission to encourage strong and long-lasting EU generic campaigns explaining the sustainability merits of EU aquaculture products, focusing on their high quality, animal welfare and environmental standards compared to those imported from third countries, as in the case of the label ‘Farmed in the EU’;

58.

Stresses the need to encourage and finance promotion campaigns for regional quality schemes, covered by Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012, such as protected designations of origin; calls on the Commission in cooperation with the Member States to launch an EU-wide information campaign for consumers and businesses on aquaculture in general and in particular the differences between the stringent and comprehensive standards on the European market and the lower-level standards applicable to imported products from third countries, with particular emphasis on the problems caused for food safety and public health by the introduction into the Union of particularly resistant micro-organisms and AMR; stresses the value of the EU legislation on welfare of farmed fish during rearing, transport and slaughter in meeting consumers’ expectations and advertising product quality guaranteed by EU standards in comparison with third country imports;

59.

Calls on the Commission to set aside a suitable amount from the EU’s promotional budget for promoting fish and other fisheries and aquaculture products; believes that a wide-ranging marketing campaign based on common principles and covering all the Member States, set up as a collective measure and with 80-100 % support intensity, should be launched in order to increase the awareness and acceptance of EU aquaculture product;.

60.

Supports the aquaculture FLAGs of the FARNET network in the promotion of their activities at local, national and European level;

Supporting research and innovation

61.

Points out that the EMFF, which allocates EUR 1,2 billion for the sustainable development of EU aquaculture, and other sources of funding, such as Horizon 2020, provide an opportunity for innovation;

62.

Points to the importance of FLAGs, which are contributing to the development of fisheries and aquaculture in given areas by strengthening local fishery resources and encouraging innovation and diversification in fisheries and aquaculture;

63.

Calls on the Commission to support research into and the fight against the ostreid herpesvirus;

64.

Is concerned about the impact of some invasive alien species on European aquaculture; stresses the importance of scientifically based, effective and proportionate implementation of Regulation (EU) No 1143/2014 on the prevention and management of the introduction and spread of invasive alien species (IAS) in order to protect both European aquaculture and native species and ecosystems; calls on the Commission and Member States to support research and innovation with a view to combating the most problematic IAS;

65.

Urges the Commission and Member States to support the fight against the Japanese oyster borer;

66.

Stresses that Horizon 2020 and Framework Programme 9 (FP9) should continue to support aquaculture research activities that improve the competitiveness of the sector and respond to the issues highlighted in the Commission’s conference of 2016, ‘FOOD 2030’, and in the opinion of the High-Level Group of Scientific Advisors, ‘Food from the Oceans’;

67.

Believes that the Commission should consult with the European Technology and Innovation Platform (EATiP) and the Aquaculture Advisory Council on priority subjects for inclusion in the national strategic plans;

68.

Urges that investments be made in research, studies and pilot projects on aquaculture practices based on the ecosystem, in particular for outermost regions and those with demographic handicaps;

69.

Points out that cooperation between the scientific community on the one hand, and aquaculture producers and other stakeholders upstream and downstream of producers on the other, should be strengthened;

70.

Asks that, on the basis of the best scientific recommendations, standard protocols be established at EU level for the collection of data with a view to monitoring and improving aquaculture management and production practices and the social, health, economic and environmental impact of such practices, for both marine and freshwater fish farms;

71.

Calls on the Commission and the Member States to promote innovative and environmentally friendly technologies in aquaculture, such as aquaponics, in order to produce food in a sustainable and resource-efficient way and to avoid negative impacts on the environment;

72.

Calls on the Commission to encourage the exploring of opportunities to further develop seaweed aquaculture, a sector with ecological and economic value, with due regard for social and environmental sustainability;

Encouraging training and employment

73.

Calls on the Member States, wherever beneficial with support from the Commission, to guarantee appropriate vocational training in the field of aquaculture and takes note of the possibility of retraining professional fishermen in alternative methods of managing aquatic environments, thus also helping to create jobs for women and young people in rural and coastal areas and in the outermost regions, on islands, and, in general, in regions that depend to a great extent on fisheries and aquaculture activities;

Increasing the sustainability of the EU’s aquaculture sector

74.

Highlights the important role of women in the aquaculture sector and the need to adapt the legislation to this reality, and the need to give due consideration to the other activities attached to aquaculture itself, such as those developed, among other things, by fishing net weavers or packers;

75.

Notes that innovative systems aimed at breeding fish as closely as possible in keeping with the ecosystem and using natural feed have not so far had a sufficient presence on the European market; calls for the framework conditions for such systems to be improved;

76.

Believes that investments are necessary in order to use the potential and ensure the sustainability of the aquaculture sector, for protection of the environment and for the delivery of public goods, and calls therefore for an increase in funding for research, innovation and quality-orientated, sustainable production projects; calls on the Commission and the Member States to further simplify and reduce the bureaucratic burden on the aquaculture sector, including pond farmers;

77.

Underlines that encouraging cooperation between aquaculture sector research and innovation and specific University programmes will bring new ideas and boost the interest in this economic sector;

Ensuring adequate financing through the EMFF and further structural funds

78.

Welcomes the promotion of sustainable and competitive aquaculture as one of the priorities of the EMFF; expresses its concern, however, that, according to the conclusions of the study published in 2014 by the European Court of Auditors, its predecessor, the European Fisheries Fund (EFF), did not support the sustainable development of aquaculture effectively; notes that at European level the support measures were considered to have been poorly designed and supervised and to have failed to provide a sufficiently clear framework for aquaculture development; further notes that at national level the support measures had not been designed or applied correctly and the national strategic plans and their operational programmes had not provided a sufficiently clear basis for promoting aquaculture, and that the situation has not really been improved by EMFF support;

79.

Points out that education and good communication will attract young people into this sector, ensure its future and its competitiveness, and bring new technology and innovation into its development;

80.

Calls on the Commission, Parliament and the Council to increase the support intensity of investment support for freshwater aquaculture to 75 % in the post-2020 fisheries policy in order to boost the desire to invest and to provide much-needed help to fish farmers; calls in addition on the Commission to draw up, together with the European Investment Bank, an EU-level interest-rate support scheme for investing in aquaculture and financing liquid assets;

81.

Proposes also increasing EU support in the future for Research Development Innovation linked to aquaculture, with particular regard to areas affecting economic sustainability and international competitiveness such as energy- and resource-efficiency, the development of biological materials funding, reducing the burden on the environment, providing higher-level environmental services, etc.;

82.

Notes that, as a result of the delay in adopting the EMFF Regulation and approving Member States’ operational programmes, operators were not actually able to start using EMFF funds until late 2016 at best, a delay of almost three years;

83.

Calls for simplification as regards the procedure and documents that have to be submitted in order to obtain funding from the EMFF;

84.

Calls for all schemes that would prevent the promotion of aquaculture, including through other EU financial instruments (such as the ERDF), to be reviewed in a subsidy-oriented manner;

85.

Calls on the Commission to make further efforts and provide the additional help necessary to enable users of the EMFF to gain access to funding;

86.

Stresses that stronger support is needed for producer and inter-branch organisations so that they can become pillars of the CMO;

Harmonious symbiosis with fisheries

87.

Points out that no antagonism should exist between fisheries and aquaculture and that both sectors can be perfectly compatible and complementary, especially in coastal regions or islands which are highly dependent on those activities and in which artisanal fishing is practised; calls, therefore for offshore aquaculture installations to be further developed;

88.

Stresses that marine aquaculture is compatible and complementary with coastal fishing in the outermost regions, and calls on the Commission to support the development of farming and varietal-selection techniques in the warm waters of tropical or subtropical areas; calls on the Commission to highlight the role played by women in non-industrial coastal fishing and all associated activities;

89.

Calls on the Commission to allocate more financing to environmentally responsible aquaculture production methods such as closed-containment aquaculture systems in the sea (CCS) and land-based recirculation systems (RASs) in order to reduce the negative impact of aquaculture on habitats, wild fish populations and water quality;

90.

Reiterates the views it has already expressed in its resolution on the adoption of a European Cormorant Management Plan, and points out that reducing the harm caused by cormorants and other birds of prey to aquaculture farms is a major factor in production costs, and thus for their survival and competitiveness; calls on the Member States to apply the current exceptions in the case of herons and cormorants and to the Commission to review the state of conservation of the otter;

91.

Calls on the Commission, together with the Member States, to take action to drastically reduce cormorant stocks using all methods so that, on the one hand, the survival of cormorant stocks is secured and, on the other hand, no threat to other species is created and damage to the aquacultures concerned is averted;

o o

92.

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

(1) OJ L 88, 4.4.2011, p. 1.

(2) OJ L 221, 8.8.1998, p. 23.

(3) OJ L 204, 6.8.2009, p. 15.

(4) OJ L 3, 5.1.2005, p. 1.

(5) OJ L 250, 18.9.2008, p. 1.

(6) OJ L 189, 20.7.2007, p. 1.

(7) OJ L 354, 28.12.2013, p. 22.

(8) OJ L 354, 28.12.2013, p. 1.

(9) OJ L 149, 20.5.2014, p. 1.

(10) OJ L 157, 20.6.2017, p. 1.

(11) OJ C 21 E, 28.1.2010, p. 11.

(12) OJ C 236 E, 12.8.2011, p. 132.

(13) OJ C 351 E, 2.12.2011, p. 119.

(14) OJ C 99 E, 3.4.2012, p. 177.

(15) OJ C 316, 22.9.2017, p. 64.

(16) OJ C 76, 28.2.2018, p. 40.

(17) Texts adopted, P8_TA(2017)0316.

(18) European Commission (29 June 2017), ‘A European One Health action plan against antimicrobial resistance (AMR)’, p. 10.

(19) ‘A European One Health action plan against antimicrobial resistance (AMR)’, p. 15.

(20) Ibid., p. 12.

27.1.2020

Official Journal of the European Union

C 28/40

P8_TA(2018)0254

Cohesion policy and the circular economy

European Parliament resolution of 13 June 2018 on cohesion policy and the circular economy (2017/2211(INI))

(2020/C 28/05)

The European Parliament,

—	having regard to the Treaty on European Union, in particular Article 3, and the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, in particular Articles 4, 11, 174 to 178, 191 and 349 thereof,

—	having regard to the Paris Agreement, Decision 1/CP.21 and the 21st Conference of the Parties (COP21) to the UNFCCC, and the 11th Conference of the Parties serving as the Meeting of the Parties to the Kyoto Protocol (CMP11) held in Paris, France, from 30 November to 11 December 2015,

—	having regard to Articles 7(2) and 11(2) of the Paris Agreement, which recognise the local, subnational and regional dimensions of climate change and climate action,

—	having regard to the new UN Sustainable Development Goals, and in particular goal 7: to ‘ensure access to affordable, reliable, sustainable and modern energy for all’and goal 11: to ‘make cities inclusive, safe, resilient and sustainable’,

—

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) (hereinafter ‘the Common Provisions Regulation’),

—	having regard to Regulation (EU) No 1301/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 December 2013 on the European Regional Development Fund and on specific provisions concerning the Investment for growth and jobs goal and repealing Regulation (EC) No 1080/2006 (2),

—	having regard to Regulation (EU) No 1304/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 December 2013 on the European Social Fund and repealing Council Regulation (EC) No 1081/2006 (3),

—	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 (4),

—

having regard to Regulation (EU) No 1302/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 December 2013 amending Regulation (EC) No 1082/2006 on a European grouping of territorial cooperation (EGTC) as regards the clarification, simplification and improvement of the establishment and functioning of such groupings (5),

—	having regard to Regulation (EU) No 1300/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 December 2013 on the Cohesion Fund and repealing Council Regulation (EC) No 1084/2006 (6),

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

—	having regard to the Commission communication of 16 January 2018 entitled ‘Monitoring framework for the circular economy’(COM(2018)0029),

—	having regard to the Commission communication of 26 January 2017 entitled ‘The role of waste-to-energy in the circular economy’(COM(2017)0034),

—	having regard to the Commission report of 26 January 2017 on the implementation of the Circular Economy Action Plan (COM(2017)0033),

—	having regard to the Commission communication of 14 December 2015 entitled ‘Investing in jobs and growth – maximising the contribution of European Structural and Investment Funds’(COM(2015)0639),

—	having regard to the Commission communication of 2 December 2015 entitled ‘Closing the loop – An EU action plan for the Circular Economy’(COM(2015)0614),

—	having regard to the Commission communication of 2 July 2014 entitled ‘Towards a circular economy: A zero waste programme for Europe’(COM(2014)0398),

—	having regard to the Commission communication of 2 July 2014 entitled ‘Green Action Plan for SMEs: Enabling SMEs to turn environmental challenges into business opportunities’(COM(2014)0440),

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

—	having regard to the Commission communication of 13 February 2012 entitled ‘Innovating for Sustainable Growth: A Bioeconomy for Europe’(COM(2012)0060),

—	having regard to the Commission communication of 10 July 2012 on ‘Smart Cities and Communities – European Innovation Partnership’(C(2012)4701),

—	having regard to the study commissioned by the Commission of December 2017 entitled ‘Integration of environmental concerns in Cohesion Policy Funds (ERDF, ESF, CF) – Results, evolution and trends through three programming periods (2000-2006, 2007-2013, 2014-2020)’,

—	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 Common Provisions Regulation (8),

—	having regard to its resolution of 13 September 2016 on European Territorial Cooperation – best practices and innovative measures (9),

—	having regard to its resolution of 6 July 2016 on synergies for innovation: the European Structural and Investment Funds, Horizon 2020 and other European innovation funds and EU programmes (10),

—	having regard to its resolution of 9 July 2015 on resource efficiency: moving towards a circular economy (11),

—	having regard to its resolution of 19 May 2015 on green growth opportunities for SMEs (12),

—	having regard to the Smart Islands Declaration of 28 March 2017,

—	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 the Environment, Public Health and Food Safety (A8-0184/2018),

whereas local and regional authorities, which are the most conversant with the local and regional issues and are key actors for an effective implementation of cohesion policy, are also at the forefront of the transition to a circular economy; whereas a European multi-level governance model, built on active and constructive co-operation between the different levels of governance and stakeholders, together with adequate information and active involvement of citizens, is key to the achievement of this shift;

B.	whereas cities represent just 3 % of the Earth’s surface but house more than half of the world population, consume over 75 % of the global resources, and emit 60-80 % of greenhouse gas emissions and whereas 70 % of the global population is expected to move to cities by 2050;

whereas the transition to a stronger, more circular economy is both a great opportunity and a challenge for the EU, its Member States and its citizens, to modernise the European economy and guide it in a more sustainable direction; whereas it is, in particular, an opportunity for all European regions and local authorities, which are the tier of government closest to local communities; whereas it brings possibilities for development and growth to the European regions and can help them build a sustainable model that achieves economic development, transform existing sectors, improve their balances of trade and industrial competitiveness with enhanced productivity, create new, high quality, well-paid jobs and new value chains;

D.	whereas around 60 % of EU waste is currently not recycled and whereas great cost benefits and business opportunities could be created from exploring and introducing new circular business models for the benefit of EU SMEs;

E.	whereas achieving the Paris Agreement targets requires a shift to a more circular economy and is a vital contribution to the development of an economic model that has not only profit as its goal, but also protection of the environment;

whereas cohesion policy offers not only investment opportunities to respond to local and regional needs through the European Structural and Investment Funds (ESI Funds), but also an integrated policy framework to reduce developmental disparities between the European regions and to help them address the multiple challenges to their development, including through support for resource efficiency and sustainable development, as well as territorial cooperation and capacity building and also to attract and promote private investment;

whereas the current legislative framework for cohesion policy does not mention the transition to a circular economy as an objective, and whereas sustainable development is a horizontal principle for the use of the ESI Funds, as defined in Article 8 of the Common Provisions Regulation as well as in the Common Strategic Framework (Annex I), which will enable the link between existing instruments in support of circular economy projects to be strengthened;

H.	whereas many of the thematic objectives set for the ESI Funds to comply with the Europe 2020 strategy for smart, sustainable and inclusive growth, as well as the related ex ante conditionalities, are relevant to the objectives of a circular economy;

I.	whereas Article 6 of the Common Provisions Regulation makes it mandatory for operations supported by the ESI Funds to comply with applicable Union law and national law relating to the application of Union law, including especially environmental law;

J.	whereas one of the aims of the circular economy is to reduce waste going to landfill and whereas the securing and remediation of legal and illegal landfills in the Member States should be regarded as an absolute priority;

K.	whereas China banned imports of scrap plastics and unsorted paper waste from 1 January 2018, and whereas that ban will create recycling challenges for the Union, which will need to be dealt with at regional and local levels;

Role of cohesion policy in promoting the circular economy

Welcomes the efforts of the Commission to support the circular economy through cohesion policy, notably via outreach activities to assist EU Member States and regions in the uptake of cohesion policy funds for the circular economy;

Notes that, according to the Commission report on the implementation of the Circular Economy Action Plan, EU support for the 2014-2020 period for innovation, SMEs, the low-carbon economy and environmental protection amounts to EUR 150 billion and many of these areas are contributing to the achievement of a circular economy;

Notes that the analysis of the outcome of the negotiations concerning the partnership agreements and European Social Fund (ESF) operational programmes for the current programming period showed that the ESF has been used to support actions for introducing greener models of labour organisation, and actions in the green sector;

Notes, however, that, as underlined in a study commissioned by the Commission, the current policy framework does not allow the full contribution of cohesion policy to the circular economy to be captured; in this respect, points to the fact that the definition of the existing ‘Intervention Field’categories used for financial allocations does not cover the circular economy as such;

Urges the Commission to implement the planned circular economy measures, observing good regulatory practice, and stresses the need to monitor the implementing measures;

Stresses the need to implement the Commission’s commitment to a monitoring framework for the circular economy (13) with a view to increasing and evaluating progress achieved in the transition to a circular economy at EU and Member State level, while reducing the administrative burden;

Calls on the Commission to take extraordinary action to remediate areas used for the illegal discharge and landfill of hazardous waste, which is adversely affecting the health and economic and social well-being of the populations concerned;

Underlines the role played by the EU’s Framework Programme for Research and Innovation Horizon 2020 and by the LIFE Programme 2014-2020 in funding innovative projects and in supporting waste reduction, recycling and reuse projects which are relevant to the circular economy;

Appreciates that several regions have used their smart specialisation strategies to set priorities related to the circular economy and guide their investments in research and innovation through cohesion policy towards this objective, playing a fundamental role in supporting investments and infrastructure that meet the needs of SMEs; calls on the regional authorities to use this good practice as a common modus operandi and to implement these smart specialisation strategies;

10.

Welcomes the creation of a European Resource Efficiency Excellence Centre for SMEs, as well as the Circular Economy Finance Support Platform;

11.

Reiterates its view that the circular economy goes beyond waste management and includes areas such as green jobs; renewable energy; resource efficiency; the bio-economy; agriculture and fisheries policies, with their bio-based industries aiming to replace fossil fuels; water management; energy efficiency; food waste; marine litter; air quality improvement; research and development and innovation in related fields; acknowledges, however, that waste infrastructure is a crucial element for reducing linear patterns of production and consumption and that it is necessary to support innovations in the field of eco-design in order to reduce levels of plastic waste;

12.

Recalls that the basic problem that must be resolved first is the secondary materials market, as if raw materials cost less than recycled ones it is clear that the drive towards the green economy has slowed down considerably and that the use of structural funds could be lost in a vicious circle; considers, in this context, that certain ad hoc laws (such as the upcoming Commission proposal on single-use plastic products) and appropriate EU-level taxation as part of the own resources of the next multiannual financial framework can make a decisive contribution to moving towards a circular economy;

13.

Emphasises the fact that on average recycled materials only satisfy around 10 % of the EU demand for materials; recognises, with regard to new developments on global markets, especially China’s recent ban on scrap plastics and unsorted paper waste, the new potential for regions and local communities to invest into recycling infrastructure, create new greens jobs and tackle the current challenges that the EU faces;

14.

Highlights the existence and importance of the ex-ante conditionalities on ESI Funds related to, in particular, the objective of preserving and protecting the environment and promoting resource efficiency; points especially to the one on ‘promoting economically and environmentally sustainable investments in the waste sector’; regrets, however, the negligence of waste hierarchy and lack of sound environmental assessment of long-term outcomes of investments under the ESI Funds;

15.

Calls for coordination and greater cooperation between regions, SMEs and other public/private entities in order to launch new smart specialisation thematic platforms, in particular between the agri-food, energy and industrial sectors;

16.

Emphasises the importance of applying waste hierarchy as a prerequisite for achieving a circular economy, as well as the need for greater transparency in the supply chain, so that end-of-life products and materials can be monitored and recovered efficiently; furthermore recognises a negative trend of investment of ESI Funds into lower levels of the waste hierarchy, in particular mechanical biological treatment (MBT) facilities and incineration, which in some cases leads to overcapacities and long-term technological lock-in, thus jeopardising the achievement of EU recycling targets; recalls that encouraging the business community to follow the hierarchy should generate additional materials in the resource stream as well as offering potential outlets for their use in manufacturing;

17.

Recalls the new waste targets for 2025, 2030 and 2035 established in the review of EU waste legislation and underlines that the achievement of these targets requires political commitment at the national, regional and local levels as well as economic investments; calls on the Member States to make full use of available Union funds in support of such investments and underlines that these will generate significant returns in terms of economic growth and job creation;

18.

Underlines the importance of regional projects to process residual waste that is entirely non-recyclable for the purpose of producing sustainable second-generation biofuels, after careful separation or separate collection in line with the waste hierarchy;

19.

Calls on the Commission to ensure that all definitions relating to waste comply with the Waste Framework Directive and that comparable data are available on progress made by Member States and local and regional authorities;

20.

Underlines the importance of the Urban Innovative Actions initiative, which has so far approved eight innovative circular economy projects in urban authorities for ERDF funding and calls on the Commission to monitor and evaluate their implementation in order to formulate wider circular economy policies;

The circular economy as a driver for sustainable and regional development

21.

Stresses the importance of the partnership principle and the important role of all stakeholders, in particular regional and local authorities and the non-governmental sector, including SMEs and social economy enterprises, during the drawing-up of partnership agreements and operational programmes; calls for a genuine involvement of partners in policy processes, with the creation of cross-cutting partnerships, and for circular economy-related objectives to be adequately incorporated into programming documents; encourages the Member States to develop their own national strategies in this field in coordination with the EU approach to the circular economy; points to the leading role that local government can play in achieving the circular economy;

22.

Stresses the importance of the role of public-private partnerships in the design and planning of new products and services that take life cycle into account, with a view to implementing the four design models that could be used under a circular economy: designing for longevity; designing for leasing/service; designing for reuse in manufacture; designing for materials recovery;

23.

Stresses the need to change and adapt the current strategies and market models to accompany the regions in the transition towards this more sustainable form of economy, while at the same time boosting economic, industrial and environmental competitiveness;

24.

Calls for the implementation of the circular economy within the framework of the coordinated multilevel governance and partnership principle, with full transparency, the involvement of local communities and broad public participation;

25.

Highlights the need to promote greater cooperation between all the stakeholders involved in circular economy processes;

26.

Notes that projects related to the circular economy which have received cohesion policy support have brought greater benefits to more developed regions; recognises the limited administrative capacity of less developed regions and therefore calls on the Member States’ national authorities and the Commission to use all existing possibilities to provide expert assistance and to strengthen the capacity of these regions to help them increase their efforts, and to create conditions for achieving technological leapfrogging by implementing more projects that meet circular economy principles and by developing partnerships and closer cooperation with stakeholders such as materials experts, chemists, manufacturers and recyclers, particularly within the framework of the ‘Industry 2020 in the circular economy’initiative;

27.

Emphasises the estimates that a shift to biological raw materials and biological processing methods could save up to 2,5 billion tonnes of CO2 equivalent per year by 2030, thus increasing markets for bio-based raw materials and new consumer products several-fold; underlines the utmost importance of sustainable management of natural resources and the preservation of biodiversity while transforming resources into bio-based products, materials and fuels;

28.

Considers that the bioeconomy is essential for regional and local development, since it increases cohesion between regions through its potential to create jobs and growth in rural areas; calls for greater use to be made of ESI Funds for the implementation of existing innovations, through policies to encourage stakeholders, while further fostering innovation in the development of bio-based, biodegradable, recyclable and compostable materials produced from sustainably managed biofeed stocks; recalls that consistent implementation of the bioeconomy may also solve the problem of food waste; calls for better cooperation between national, regional and local authorities in creating systems and platforms that connect different actors from the food production, transportation, retail, consumer and waste sectors, as well as other concerned stakeholders, thus achieving greater synergies to create efficient solutions;

29.

Points out that, in addition to local, regional and national authorities, incentives should also be given to consumers themselves, who should be constantly informed and encouraged to change their consumer behaviour in respect of waste management and production, recycling and issues involving sustainable solutions in their everyday lives;

30.

Calls for better, easier and more transparent access to finance for local and regional authorities, including through the strengthening of their administrative capacities and through heightened cooperation with the EIB, within the framework of the European Investment Advisory Hub, to enable increased investments in green jobs, waste management, smart specialisation, further development of rural areas including as regards the necessary infrastructure and environmentally friendly technologies, the shift from fossil fuels to renewable energy sources and the local energy transition, including energy efficiency, decentralised distribution of energy, clean energy innovation and the circular economy; welcomes the fact that the EIB has provided over the past five years about EUR 2,4 billion in co-financing for circular economy projects for waste management, water management or agricultural research and development; stresses the importance of better coordination of the ESI Funds and the European Fund for Strategic Investments (EFSI) in the field of the circular economy, also with a view to ensuring that programmes include a regional approach and make better use of regional potential for sustainable energy sources;

31.

Calls on Member States, regions and local authorities to encourage the establishment of and support for reuse and repair networks, in particular those operating as social economy enterprises, to extend the life of products through reuse, repair and reutilisation, by facilitating the access of such networks to waste collection points, and by promoting the use of ESI Funds, economic instruments, procurement criteria, or other measures in this sense;

32.

Stresses that the life cycle sustainability of reuse and recycling also depends on energy consumption in transport; underlines that this applies particularly to rural areas where longer distances between points of collection and processing sites have to be covered; urges the Commission, the Member States and regional authorities to take the life cycle approach into account in their circular economy strategies for rural areas in order to avoid negative overall environmental and climate impacts;

33.

Points out that, out of a sample of 32 operational programmes reviewed for a study on the integration of environmental concerns in cohesion policy funds, nine address the circular economy and six green jobs; welcomes the existing efforts made by national and regional authorities but at the same time calls on Member States to better integrate the circular economy in their operational and regional programmes and partnership agreements; urges that support be granted to the regions to ensure as smooth as possible a transition to the circular economy;

34.

Calls on the Member States to ensure that the circular economy is suitably incorporated into educational programmes and vocational training and re-training as an interdisciplinary subject so as to shape new attitudes which will then help to define new business models and create new jobs;

35.

Calls on the national and regional authorities in charge of preparing operational programmes to more closely integrate the circular economy into territorial cooperation programmes, particularly in cross-border cooperation programmes, in order to implement cross-border solutions that can generate more efficient and cheaper results;

36.

Believes that the future planning of ESI Funds in the next programming period should be better coordinated with the national energy and climate plans for 2030, by using similar indicators to the ones contained in the Regulation on the Governance of the Energy Union when possible; asks for an ambitious and coherent strategy for Member States in order to fulfil the already existing mandatory targets at EU level on climate mitigation;

37.

Calls on Member States to seize the opportunity to further integrate the circular economy into their current operational programmes during the period of revision; believes that Commission should facilitate this process while providing assistance to Member States in analysis of the current state of play and possible areas where the circular economy and its principles could be applied and added;

38.

Considers that the role of the European Territorial Cooperation (ETC) in addressing challenges related to the implementation of the circular economy should be further enhanced; calls on Member States to foster cross-border cooperation, in particular through ETC, to implement circular economy projects; furthermore, stresses the importance of finding sustainable solutions through pre-accession agreements with non-Member Sates to tackle the ongoing challenges, especially in the domain of air pollution;

39.

Stresses the untapped potential of the on-going macro-regional strategies to help address challenges related to the implementation of the circular economy, not only in the Member States but also in third countries located in the same geographical area; stresses that those strategies should focus on priorities that would support the creation of a market for secondary raw materials for the Union; calls for the development of EU cooperation initiatives with neighbouring countries;

40.

Reiterates its views on the importance of adequate capacity building and maintenance in local, regional and national public authorities, which is also highly relevant for the transition to a circular economy; points to the important role technical assistance can play in this field; recognises that regions and urban areas play a vital role in promoting ownership of the bottom-up energy transition and are most suitable for testing and implementing integrated energy solutions in direct connection to citizens; stresses the role that ‘smart cities’initiatives can play in the circular economy by promoting green technology models as part of sustainable urban development strategies; underlines that sustainable and ‘circular’cities are an instrument for an effective circular economy;

41.

Stresses the importance of Green Public Procurement as a driver of the circular economy, with a potential market of an estimated EUR 1,8 trillion annually delivering public works, goods and services (14);

42.

Stresses the need for an energy regulatory framework that encourages citizens and energy communities to participate in the energy transition through the right to self-produce and consume, as well as through continued support schemes, guaranteed priority grid access and priority dispatch for renewable energy;

43.

Encourages regional and local authorities to further invest in educational programmes, in vocational training and requalification of workers, as well as in public awareness-raising campaigns about the benefits and advantages of all actions with the aim of implementing the circular economy through cohesion policy projects, thus increasing citizen participation and influencing consumer behaviour; underlines, in this connection, the potential of the ESF; stresses that it must encourage young entrepreneurs to move towards the circular economy, especially in regions with low levels of income and growth; underlines also that the circular economy is an opportunity for rural areas to counter depopulation, to diversify their economies and to gain security against risks; points out, in this respect, that rural areas are in need of incentives for the transition to sustainable value chains; stresses the importance of developing a specific strategy for island regions;

44.

Encourages the Commission to promote the use of Community-Led Local Development (CLLD) and Integrated Territorial Investment (ITI) to help local stakeholders combine funding streams and plan local initiatives targeted at the circular economy;

45.

Notes that 80 % of marine litter is from land-based sources; thus emphasises the importance of tackling of land and marine littering through local and regional action that has both environmental and human-health benefits; calls on Member States, regions and local authorities to focus their efforts on preventing the generation of land litter;

46.

Calls on the Commission to consider, in the context of the European Semester, the impact on the calculation of government deficits of regional and national investments co-financed through ESI Funds in projects related to the circular economy;

47.

Welcomes the proposal to revise Drinking Water Directive 98/83/EC, which will facilitate the transition to a circular economy by reducing plastic waste from bottled water, involving major energy savings and efficient management of drinking water resources;

The circular economy in post-2020 cohesion policy

48.

Calls on the Commission, for the next programming period, to develop a relevant tracking methodology with appropriate indicators to allow for a better monitoring of the contribution of cohesion policy to the achievement of a circular economy in order to offer a more precise picture of environmental and socio-economic conditions;

49.

Points out that considerable support for the completion of the transition to a circular economy is also being provided by other programmes, such as LIFE, COSME and Horizon 2020; stresses the need to improve synergies between the above-mentioned instruments in order to achieve the goals set out in the Commission’s Circular Economy Action Plan;

50.

Calls on the Commission, in the context of the new legislative proposals for the future cohesion policy framework, to develop appropriate ex-ante conditionalities related to the achievement of a circular economy; considers that circular economy strategies should be developed in partnership with the national, regional and local authorities and economic and social partners;

51.

Calls on the Commission to ensure that the Horizon 2020 programme devotes even greater attention and funding to innovation and research projects in the area of the circular economy;

52.

Stresses the importance of stepping up cohesion policy support for sustainable urban and rural development, and calls for a more prominent role to be given to circular economy-related objectives in this context; calls for innovative urban and rural actions in this field to be continued and calls on the Commission to make maximum use of lessons learnt in the 2014-2020 period when preparing proposals for the future; calls for a flexible, tailor-made approach in the implementation of the Urban Agenda, providing incentives and guidance to fully seize the potentials of cities in implementing the circular economy;

53.

Calls on the Commission to make the European Circular Economy Stakeholder Platform a place to exchange best practices to make the best possible use of cohesion policy resources for the transition to a circular economy;

54.

Emphasises the interdependence of the circular economy and climate mitigation, and thus calls for greater spending in circular economy- and climate-related investments in post-2020 cohesion policy; moreover stresses that in the next multiannual financial framework (MFF) climate-related expenditure in general should be increased in comparison with the current one;

55.

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

(1) OJ L 347, 20.12.2013, p. 320.

(2) OJ L 347, 20.12.2013, p. 289.

(3) OJ L 347, 20.12.2013, p. 470.

(4) OJ L 347, 20.12.2013, p. 259.

(5) OJ L 347, 20.12.2013, p. 303.

(6) OJ L 347, 20.12.2013, p. 281.

(7) OJ L 298, 26.10.2012, p. 1.

(8) Texts adopted, P8_TA(2017)0053.

(9) Texts adopted, P8_TA(2016)0321.

(10) OJ C 101, 16.3.2018, p. 111.

(11) OJ C 265, 11.8.2017, p. 65.

(12) OJ C 353, 27.9.2016, p. 27.

(13) Commission communication of 16 January 2018 entitled ‘Monitoring framework for the circular economy’(COM(2018)0029).

(14) ‘Buying green! – A handbook on green public procurement’, 3rd Edition, European Commission, 2016.

27.1.2020

Official Journal of the European Union

C 28/49

P8_TA(2018)0257

EU-NATO relations

European Parliament resolution of 13 June 2018 on EU-NATO relations (2017/2276(INI))

(2020/C 28/06)

The European Parliament,

—	having regard to the Treaty of Lisbon,

—	having regard to the North Atlantic Treaty,

—	having regard to the European Council conclusions of 20 December 2013, 26 June 2015, 28 June and 15 December 2016 and 9 March, 22 June and 15 December 2017,

—

having regard to the Council conclusions of 18 May 2015 and 14 November 2016 on the common security and defence policy, of 6 December 2016 on EU-NATO cooperation, of 6 March, 18 May and 17 July 2017 on the EU Global Strategy, and of 19 June and 5 December 2017 on the implementation of the common set of proposals endorsed by the EU and NATO Councils on 6 December 2016,

—

having regard to the document entitled ‘Shared Vision, Common Action: A Stronger Europe – A Global Strategy for the European Union’s Foreign and Security Policy’, presented by the Vice-President of the Commission / High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy (VP/HR) on 28 June 2016,

—

having regard to the Joint Declaration of 8 July 2016 by the Presidents of the European Council and the Commission and the Secretary-General of NATO, to the common set of 42 proposals endorsed by the EU and NATO Councils on 6 December 2016 and the progress reports of 14 June and 5 December 2017 on the implementation thereof, and to the new set of 32 proposals endorsed by both Councils on 5 December 2017,

—	having regard to the outcome of the meetings of the Foreign Affairs Council (including defence), held on 13 November 2017 and 6 March 2018, relating specifically to EU-NATO cooperation,

—	having regard to the Commission communication of 30 November 2016 to the European Parliament, the European Council, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions on the European Defence Action Plan (COM(2016)0950),

—	having regard to the joint communication of the Commission and the VP/HR of 10 November 2017 to the European Parliament and the Council on improving military mobility in the European Union (JOIN(2017)0041) and the associated Action Plan presented in March 2018 (JOIN(2018)0005),

—	having regard to the defence package presented by the Commission on 7 June 2017,

—	having regard to the NATO Secretary-General’s Annual Report 2017, released on 15 March 2018,

—	having regard to NATO Parliamentary Assembly (NATO PA) Resolution No 439 of 9 October 2017 on closer NATO-EU cooperation,

—	having regard to NATO PA Resolution No 440 of 9 October 2017 on the European defence industrial base,

—	having regard to the report of 8 October 2017 of the Defence and Security Committee of the NATO PA on NATO-EU cooperation after Warsaw, including its annex contributed by the European Parliament,

—	having regard to its resolution of 13 April 2016 on ‘The EU in a changing global environment – a more connected, contested and complex world’ (1),

—	having regard to its resolution of 22 November 2016 on the European Defence Union (2),

—	having regard to its resolutions of 23 November 2016 and 13 December 2017 on the implementation of the common security and defence policy (CSDP) (3),

—	having regard to its resolutions of 14 December 2016 and 13 December 2017 on the implementation of the common foreign and security policy (4),

—	having regard to its resolution of 16 March 2017 on ‘Constitutional, legal and institutional implications of a common security and defence policy: possibilities offered by the Lisbon Treaty’ (5),

—	having regard to Rule 52 of its Rules of Procedure,

—	having regard to the report of the Committee on Foreign Affairs (A8-0188/2018),

whereas our values, such as liberal democracy, multilateralism, human rights, peace, development and the rule of law, on which the EU and the transatlantic bond are founded, as well as the rules-based international system and European unity and cohesion are challenged in an era of geopolitical turbulence and rapid degradation of the strategic environment;

whereas the West’s two major organisations, the EU and NATO, are making progress on enhancing their cooperation in facing complex challenges, risks and threats, both conventional and hybrid, generated by state and non-state actors, coming mainly from the East and the South; whereas the accumulation of crises destabilising the European neighbourhood creates both internal and external security threats; whereas neither organisation has the full range of tools to tackle these security challenges all on its own and each would be better able to address them in cooperation with the other; whereas the EU and NATO are indispensable for ensuring the security of Europe and of their citizens;

whereas EU-NATO cooperation should not be considered a goal in itself but a way to achieve shared security priorities and goals through complementarity of missions and available means; whereas EU Member States and NATO allies have one single set of forces; whereas together they can make efficient use of resources and mobilise more effectively a broad range of existing instruments to respond to security challenges;

whereas NATO is a military alliance and the EU is not; whereas the EU is a global strategic actor and a security provider with a unique and wide array of instruments and tools at its disposal to deal with current challenges in a comprehensive manner via its various policies; whereas, according to the objectives of, and in the wake of, the Global Strategy, the EU is enhancing its responsibility for its own security and defence and its role as a partner for international peace and security as well as its ability to act autonomously, while also strengthening its contribution to NATO and fostering closer cooperation;

whereas NATO has the primary responsibility for the collective defence of its members; whereas it takes note of the NATO guideline for allies to spend 2 % of their GDP on defence within a decade to maintain an appropriate defence capability; whereas NATO, as the key security partner of the EU, remains an essential guarantee of the interoperability of the allied forces’ capabilities and of the coherence of their procurement efforts;

F.	whereas the actions of the EU and NATO should be complementary in the security dimension, to better address new, unprecedented and multifaceted security challenges; whereas common areas between the two organisations also call for closer and more efficient cooperation;

whereas the EU and NATO, both engaged in crisis management, would be more efficient in that activity if they were to act in a truly coordinated manner and make the most of their expertise and resources; whereas, as a follow-up to the EU Global Strategy, the EU is strengthening its joined-up approach to external conflicts and crises as well as responding to threats and challenges along the internal-external security nexus, using civilian or military means;

whereas at the NATO Summit in Warsaw in 2016, the Alliance and the EU outlined areas for strengthened cooperation in light of common challenges to the east and the south, including countering hybrid threats, enhancing resilience, defence capacity building, cyber defence, maritime security and exercises; whereas 42 measures to advance NATO-EU cooperation in agreed areas were approved by NATO foreign ministers in December 2016 and further areas of joint work were agreed in December 2017;

I.	whereas an EU-NATO partnership is needed to counter hybrid threats, including in countering misinformation and disinformation and bolstering resilience; whereas there needs to be a clear distinction as regards the remit and political strategies of the two institutions;

whereas there is an upsurge in Russia’s activities; whereas, while the risk of weakening the transatlantic link and solidarity between the EU Member States persists, their common, strategic approach with regard to Russia needs to be reinforced; whereas both the EU and NATO are concerned by Russia’s more assertive military behaviour; whereas political manipulation and cyberattacks are also causes of concern; whereas the EU has reacted to the Russian interference in European internal affairs violating international law and norms; whereas resilience is, and will continue to be, a key element of collective defence;

K.	whereas the Southern neighbourhood is facing unprecedented instability and represent a strategically important challenge to both EU Member States and NATO members, especially those located on the front line;

whereas cyber-attacks are becoming increasingly common and sophisticated; whereas in 2014 NATO established cyber defence as part of the Alliance’s core tasks of collective defence and in 2016 recognised cyberspace as an operational domain, next to land, air and sea; whereas the EU and NATO can complement each other’s efforts; whereas enhanced cooperation between EU Member States in the area of cybersecurity should be promoted and, in that area, there needs to be a coordinated approach by all EU Member States;

M.	whereas in December 2017 NATO and the EU decided to boost their cooperation in the fight against terrorism, primarily by increasing information exchange and improving national resilience;

N.	whereas both the EU and NATO use the same transport infrastructure in Europe, a key factor in rapid military deployment, and whereas military mobility was recently identified as a priority area of cooperation between the two organisations;

O.	whereas, according to latest polls of the Pew Research Center, public support for NATO is strong and it is rising in most NATO Member States;

A more substantive partnership

Is convinced that the EU and NATO share the same values in pursuit of international peace and security, that they face similar strategic challenges and, given their overlapping membership of 22 members, that they have converging security and defence interests, including the protection of their citizens against any threats; considers that the strategic partnership between the EU and NATO is fundamental for addressing these security challenges; underlines that EU-NATO cooperation should be complementary and respectful of each other’s specificities and roles;

Underlines openness and transparency in full respect of the decision-making autonomy and procedures of both organisations, as well as inclusiveness and reciprocity without prejudice to the specific character of the security and defence policy of any Member State, as important principles of the EU-NATO strategic partnership; stresses that cooperation with non-NATO EU Member States and non-EU NATO members is an integral part of EU-NATO cooperation;

Is convinced that for its members, NATO is the cornerstone of collective defence and deterrence in Europe; is also convinced that a stronger EU with a more effective CSDP, through multiple projects between Member States and capable of honouring the provisions of Article 42(7) of the Treaty on European Union, by which Member States can request assistance, contributes to a stronger NATO; underlines the fact that EU-NATO cooperation must also take into account the security and defence policy of those six EU Member States which are not NATO members and of those seven NATO members which are not EU members;

Strongly believes that effective responses to the full spectrum of security challenges require strategic vision, further structural adaptation and a combination of hard and soft power instruments for both the EU and NATO; underlines that time is of the essence for strengthening the EU-NATO partnership, taking into account the differences between both organisations;

Notes that, while a common European strategic culture should be further developed, achieving common threat perception will have a positive impact; is of the view that the Union must work to strengthen its strategic autonomy; encourages the EU Member States therefore to find, in cooperation with the EU institutions, a shared understanding of the evolving threat environment and continue efforts such as joint briefings, civil emergency response training and shared threat assessments; welcomes recent efforts in that direction;

Stresses that European citizens, recognising that purely national responses to terrorism and insecurity are insufficient, expect the EU to protect them from these threats and that close cooperation between the EU and NATO would allow Member States to be more complementary and more effective;

Emphasises the need to strengthen EU-NATO cooperation on missions and operations, at both the strategic and tactical level;

Stresses that the EU-NATO strategic partnership is equally fundamental for the EU’s evolving CSDP and for the future of the Alliance, as well as for EU-UK relations after Brexit;

Considers that the potential of EU-NATO relations can be further exploited and that further development and deepening of the partnership should not be limited to a common response to crises outside Europe, particularly in the neighbourhood, but also to crises on the continent;

10.

Underlines the need for working together on prevention, analysis and early warning by means of effective information sharing aimed at countering emerging threats with common actions;

11.

Considers that the EU-NATO Joint Declaration and the subsequent implementation actions mark a new and substantive phase of the strategic partnership; welcomes the tangible results in the implementation of the Joint Declaration, in particular regarding countering hybrid threats, strategic communications, coherence of output in the respective defence planning processes and maritime cooperation; encourages further progress and welcomes the new set of actions that were added on 5 December 2017, in particular those regarding counter-terrorism, military mobility and women, peace and security; welcomes the change in the culture of engagement and the smooth functioning of staff-to-staff cooperation in the implementation of each action; reiterates that although the process itself is governed by institutions, the success of the implementation of agreed common goals and actions depends on the sustained political will of all Member States; welcomes in this context the engagement also of Members of both the EU and NATO and emphasises that successful implementation of the Joint Declaration depends on the political will of all Member States throughout; considers it important to strengthen a better EU-NATO cooperation and dialogue and to ensure political will and proper resources for continued implementation and further improvement of cooperation; looks forward to a new EU-NATO declaration to be adopted at the NATO Summit in Brussels on 11-12 July 2018;

12.

Notes the regular common briefings delivered by the VP/HR and the NATO Secretary-General in the EU’s Foreign Affairs Council and NATO’s North-Atlantic Council (NAC), respectively, and continued regular meetings between the EU’s Political and Security Committee and the NAC;

13.

Welcomes the re-affirmation of US commitment to NATO and European security; recalls the fact that the EU and the United States are key international partners and that this partnership is also asserted through NATO; underlines the value of bilateral relations between EU Member States and the US; strongly believes that strengthening EU-NATO cooperation reinforces the transatlantic bond and that NATO’s ability to fulfil its missions is linked to the transatlantic relationship; notes, therefore, that recent political developments could have an impact on the strength of the transatlantic relationship; notes that the US, which generally encouraged and welcomed the substantive developments in EU defence, should continue efforts for a better understanding of European strategic interests, including the development of European defence capabilities; stresses that the EU’s efforts to achieve strategic autonomy strengthen the Alliance’s security environment;

14.

Welcomes NATO’s Enhanced Forward Presence in NATO’s Eastern flank; welcomes NATO’s deployment of four multinational battlegroups in Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania and Poland, being led by the United Kingdom, Canada, Germany and the United States respectively; considers that EU-NATO cooperation should be further strengthened on the Eastern and Southern flanks for the security of both organisations and that Russian penetration also into Eastern flank countries, by hybrid or conventional means, should be prevented and countered appropriately; underlines that the current infrastructure in Europe, which is mainly West-East oriented, should be complemented by the development of a new North-South dimension, responding to the requirements for military mobility; stresses that efforts on military mobility should contribute to the effective implementation of CSDP missions and operations and to the Alliance’s defence posture; considers that roads, bridges and railroads should be upgraded so as to allow for the fast deployment of military personnel and equipment;

15.

Emphasises in this regard the importance of improving NATO’s rapid reinforcement capabilities through improving EU and national infrastructure, removing bureaucratic and infrastructural barriers to the swift movement of forces and by pre-positioning military equipment and supplies, which enhances our collective security;

16.

Welcomes the launch of Permanent Structured Cooperation (PESCO); stresses its potential to strengthen the European contribution within NATO; believes that it can increase synergies and effectiveness, and that it is a crucial step for improving EU security and defence capabilities as well as the potential performance of the European NATO members, and is convinced that a stronger EU and NATO reinforce each other;

17.

Highlights PESCO’s complementarity to NATO and that it should be a driver for further EU-NATO cooperation in the development of capabilities as it aims to strengthen the EU’s defence capacities and, in general, to make CSDP more effective and relevant for responding to today’s security and military challenges; emphasises the importance of transparency and communication about PESCO to the United States and other NATO members in order to avoid any misconceptions;

18.

Underlines that the next EU-NATO Joint Declaration should insist that the capabilities developed multinationally by EU Member States, including under PESCO, and NATO members be available for both EU and NATO operations; highlights that the recent decisions by the EU (Coordinated Annual Review on Defence (CARD), PESCO, European Defence Fund (EDF)) aimed at ensuring that Europeans take greater responsibility for their own security contribute to strengthening NATO, as well as ensuring fair transatlantic burden-sharing, while keeping in mind the objective of together addressing common security challenges, avoiding unnecessary duplication and developing coherent, complementary and interoperable defence capabilities; considers that the development of common standards, procedures, training and exercises should be considered an important enabler for more efficient EU-NATO cooperation;

19.

Notes that after Brexit, 80 % of NATO’s defence spending will be non-EU and three out of four battalions in the east will be led by non-EU countries;

20.

Urges the EU and NATO to organise regular strategic level exercises with the participation of the top political leadership of both organisations; welcomes, in this regard, the Estonian exercise EU CYBRID 2017 where, for the first time, the Secretary-General of NATO participated in an EU exercise;

Main areas of cooperation

21.

Notes that security threats have become more hybrid and less conventional, and that international cooperation is required to tackle them; calls for the EU and NATO to further build resilience and to develop shared situational awareness of hybrid threats; encourages the EU and NATO to coordinate their crisis response mechanisms in order to provide coherent responses to hybrid threats; welcomes the recent joint inauguration of the Helsinki-based Hybrid Centre of Excellence by the NATO Secretary-General and the VP/HR and encourages EU Member States to create Hybrid Excellence Centres, drawing on the example of the centre in Helsinki; welcomes in this regard the separate but parallel exercises, PACE17 and CMX17, which were held in 2017 and through which EU and NATO staff respectively tested their respective procedures for communicating and sharing information during an unfolding fictitious hybrid threat; applauds the concerted action by Western allies in response to the suspected Russian chemical attack in the UK;

22.

Considers that the forthcoming EU-NATO Joint Declaration should welcome the progress made and call for the practical implementation of all the proposals adopted by both institutions; believes that more efforts are needed with regard to the implementation of the many commitments already made;

23.

Believes, in this context, that the initiatives to strengthen the Europe of Defence should benefit both organisations, thereby enabling EU Member States to strengthen their strategic autonomy and to be able to intervene militarily together in a credible way; recalls that these initiatives are complementary to those of NATO;

24.

Considers it important also to ensure the implementation of the principles of inclusiveness, reciprocity and full respect of the decision-making autonomy of both organisations, as provided for by the Council conclusions of 5 December 2017;

25.

Welcomes the successful 2017 parallel and coordinated crisis management exercise, which provided a useful platform for sharing best practices; looks forward to examining the lessons learned as well as to continued cooperation on joint exercises between both the EU and NATO, including the EU-led exercise planned in 2018;

26.

Notes that current procedures for sharing classified information between the two organisations remain cumbersome and inefficient; considers that both organisations face similar strategic challenges and, implicitly, will be dealing with the consequences together; believes that – by building mutual trust – cooperation in the exchange of classified information and intelligence analysis must be improved, including in the field of counterterrorism; emphasises that the EU will have to increase its capacity by providing more EU staff with security clearance, dedicated training for working with classified information and by investing in secure communications; is of the opinion that fostering reciprocity and a ‘need-to-share’approach to the exchange of appropriate information would also benefit missions and operations of both organisations; is of the view that the Parallel and Coordinated Intelligence Assessment could be used in fighting hybrid threats more effectively together;

27.

Invites the EU and NATO to enhance their cooperation on strategic communication, including by strengthening the partnership between the NATO Strategic Communications Centre of Excellence and the European External Action Service (EEAS) StratCom division;

28.

Welcomes the new EU Hybrid Fusion Cell and its interaction with NATO’s Hybrid Analysis Cell in sharing situational awareness and by exchanging analysis of potential hybrid threats;

29.

Is convinced that cooperation and the exchange and sharing of information are crucial in the area of cybersecurity and recognises the progress that has been made in this area; stresses the need to improve cyber incident prevention, detection and response; invites both organisations to coordinate their monitoring activities and to exchange cyber defence-related data where appropriate, thereby facilitating EU-NATO intelligence efforts; encourages the EU and NATO to enhance their operational cooperation and coordination and to foster interoperability by sharing best practices on means, methods and processes used to attribute cyberattacks; considers the increase of information sharing between the EU and NATO a priority in order to enable the identification of all responsible cyberattack sources and the carrying out of consequent legal actions; considers it important also to harmonise training activities and to cooperate on Research & Technology in the cyber domain; welcomes the arrangement between the EU’s Computer Emergency Response Team and the NATO Computer Incident Response Capability; believes that within the new mandate frame of the European Union Agency for Network and Information Security (ENISA), new activities related to cyber defence cooperation can capture NATO’s interest;

30.

Considers it important to ensure the complementarity and avoid unnecessary duplication of maritime capacity-building efforts in order to safeguard maritime security more efficiently; welcomes increased EU-NATO operational cooperation and coordination, including the sharing of situational awareness based on the experience gained in the Mediterranean and the Horn of Africa, thus seeking further opportunities for mutual logistical support and information exchange between the staff of both organisations concerning operational activities, including activities relating to irregular migration;

31.

Welcomes enhanced tactical and operational cooperation, including through direct links between NATO’s Allied Maritime Command and Frontex, as well as between Operation Sea Guardian and EUNAVFOR MED Operation Sophia, helping the EU and its missions to stem irregular migration and to counter illegal trafficking networks, including the illegal trafficking of arms; notes that NATO can provide, upon request, logistical support and other capabilities such as re-fuelling at sea and medical support; notes that this follows successful EU-NATO cooperation between Operation Ocean Shield and EUNAVFOR Operation Atalanta in combatting piracy off the Horn of Africa;

32.

Encourages further EU-NATO synergies in the field and further improvements, particularly in the coordination of intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance (ISR) efforts;

33.

Reiterates that the EU initiatives aimed at strengthening European security and defence should also help ensure that those EU Member States which are members of NATO meet their NATO commitments; considers that being both an EU Member State and a NATO member should not be detrimental to any state; similarly, stresses that certain EU Member States’ non-membership of NATO should mean that they have different European Defence Union obligations; stresses that EU Member States should be capable of launching autonomous military missions also where NATO is not willing to act or where EU action is more appropriate;

34.

Welcomes the continuing trend of increased defence spending among NATO members; encourages all EU Member States which are also members of NATO to make substantive progress towards achieving expenditure of 2 % of GDP on defence, with 20 % of this on major new equipment; considers that EU Member States committed to NATO’s defence spending guidelines should consider allocating a specified sum, within the 20 % guideline on procurement, towards research and development in order to guarantee that a minimum expenditure is made towards innovation, which in turn can create a ‘spillover’of technologies to the civil sector;

35.

Recalls the appeal of the EU-NATO Joint Declaration of Warsaw to members to ‘facilitate a stronger defence industry and greater defence research’; strongly believes that the members of the EU and NATO need to cooperate and seek synergies on strengthening and developing their technological and industrial base in order to respond to capability priorities, notably through the annual coordinated defence review and the defence planning process of NATO; considers it important that effective and balanced transatlantic defence technological and industrial cooperation should be a strategic priority for both organisations; supports the measures envisaged under the EDF to encourage joint research and development of European capabilities; considers that increased commitment to research and capability planning can lead to more efficiency;

36.

Reiterates the need to ensure coherence of output and timelines between the EU’s Coordinated Annual Review on Defence, the Capability Development Plan and the respective NATO processes, such as the NATO Defence Planning Process; highlights the need to ensure that the multinational initiatives in capability development of both the EU and NATO are complementary and mutually reinforcing; underlines that the capabilities used in CSDP and developed under PESCO remain owned by the Member States, who can also make them available to other frameworks;

37.

Stresses the need to address, in close cooperation between the EU and NATO, the physical and legal obstacles to the swift and rapid movement of military personnel and assets within and beyond the EU in order to ensure, whenever necessary, frictionless movement of equipment and forces across Europe, including the usability of critical infrastructure such as roads, bridges and railroads, notably through the implementation of the action plan presented by the VP/HR and the Commission on the basis of the roadmap developed by the EU Member States in the framework of the European Defence Agency; urges EU Member States to quickly follow up and make use of the momentum that has been generated so far; stresses the need for compatible defence capacities to facilitate EU- and NATO-wide deployment and cooperation; recommends to the EU and NATO to address also the mobility of non-EU NATO forces on the European territory;

38.

Considers that the EU and NATO should do more together to bolster the resilience, defence and security of the neighbours and partners of both organisations; strongly supports the fact that assistance to neighbouring and partner countries for building their capacities and fostering resilience, including on counterterrorism, strategic communication, cyber defence, ammunition storage and security sector reform, is a common objective, particularly in three pilot countries (Bosnia and Herzegovina, Moldova and Tunisia);

39.

Recalls that it is in the interest of both the EU and NATO to address security issues in both the Western Balkans and in the EU’s Neighbourhood and cooperate in certain particular areas; welcomes EU and NATO efforts to provide political and practical support to countries in the Western Balkans, Eastern Europe and the South-Caucasus; suggests that EU Member States continue these efforts to ensure continued democratic development and security sector reform; underlines that cooperation between the EU and NATO and the Western Balkan countries is pivotal in addressing security threats to the continent as a whole;

40.

Stresses the importance of the principles enshrined in the Vienna Document, in particular the principle of openness and transparency; welcomes in this regard the openness of EU and NATO military exercises and joint exercises to international observers;

41.

Reiterates the important role of women in CSDP and NATO missions, in particular in dealing with women and children in conflict areas; welcomes the fact that both the EU and NATO have recognised this important role; recommends that the EU and NATO proactively promote gender diversity in their structures and operations;

42.

Emphasises the need for the EU to ensure a close security and defence relationship with the United Kingdom after Brexit, acknowledging that the UK will remain a lead contributor to European defence as both a NATO member and European nation, while no longer being a member of the EU;

o o

43.

Instructs its President to forward this resolution to the European Council, the Council, the Commission, the VP/HR, the Secretary-General of NATO, the EU agencies in the security and defence fields, the governments and national parliaments of the EU Member States and the NATO Parliamentary Assembly.

(1) OJ C 58, 15.2.2018, p. 109.

(2) Texts adopted, P8_TA(2016)0435.

(3) Texts adopted, P8_TA(2016)0440 and P8_TA(2017)0492.

(4) Texts adopted, P8_TA(2016)0503 and P8_TA(2017)0493.

(5) Texts adopted, P8_TA(2017)0092.

27.1.2020

Official Journal of the European Union

C 28/57

P8_TA(2018)0258

Cyber defence

European Parliament resolution of 13 June 2018 on cyber defence (2018/2004(INI))

(2020/C 28/07)

The European Parliament,

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

—

—	having regard to the European Council conclusions of 20 December 2013, 26 June 2015, 15 December 2016, 9 March 2017, 22 June 2017, 20 November 2017 and 15 December 2017,

—	having regard to the Commission’s communication of 7 June 2017 entitled ‘Reflection Paper on the Future of European Defence’(COM(2017)0315),

—	having regard to the Commission’s communication of 7 June 2017 entitled ‘Launching the European Defence Fund’(COM(2017)0295),

—	having regard to the Commission’s communication of 30 November 2016 on the European Defence Action Plan (COM(2016)0950),

—

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

—	having regard to the Commission staff working document of 13 September 2017 entitled ‘Assessment of the EU 2013 Cybersecurity Strategy’(SWD(2017)0295),

—	having regard to the EU Cyber Defence Policy Framework of 18 November 2014,

—	having regard to the Council conclusions of 10 February 2015 on cyber diplomacy,

—	having regard to the Council conclusions of 19 June 2017 on a framework for a joint EU diplomatic response to malicious cyber activities (‘cyber diplomacy toolbox’),

—

having regard to the Joint Communication of the Commission and the High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy of 13 September 2017 to the European Parliament and the Council on Resilience, Deterrence and Defence: Building strong cybersecurity for the EU (JOIN(2017)0450),

—	having regard to ‘Tallinn Manual 2.0 on the International Law Applicable to Cyber Operations’ (1),

—	having regard to Directive (EU) 2016/1148 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 July 2016 concerning measures for a high common level of security of network and information systems across the Union (2),

—	having regard to the work of the Global Commission on the Stability of Cyberspace,

—	having regard to the Commission’s communication of 28 April 2015 entitled ‘The European Agenda on Security’(COM(2015)0185),

—	having regard to the Joint Communication of the Commission and the High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy of 6 April 2016 to the European Parliament and the Council on the Joint Framework on countering hybrid threats – a European Union response (JOIN(2016)0018),

—	having regard to its resolution of 3 October 2017 on the fight against cybercrime (3),

—

having regard to the Joint Declaration of the Presidents of the European Council and the Commission and of the Secretary-General of NATO of 8 July 2016, to the common sets of proposals for the implementation of the Joint Declaration endorsed by the EU and NATO Councils on 6 December 2016 and 5 December 2017, and to the progress reports on the implementation thereof of 14 June and 5 December 2017,

—	having regard to its resolution of 22 November 2012 on Cyber Security and Defence (4),

—	having regard to its resolution of 22 November 2016 on the European Defence Union (5),

—

having regard to the Commission’s proposal of 13 September 2017 for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on ENISA, the ‘EU Cybersecurity Agency’, and repealing Regulation (EU) No 526/2013, and on Information and Communication Technology cybersecurity certification (‘Cybersecurity Act’) (COM(2017)0477),

—	having regard to its resolution of 13 December 2017 on the Annual Report on the implementation of the Common Foreign and Security Policy (CFSP) (6),

—	having regard to its resolution of 13 December 2017 on the Annual Report on the implementation of the Common Security and Defence Policy (CSDP) (7),

—	having regard to Rule 52 of its Rules of Procedure,

—	having regard to the report of the Committee on Foreign Affairs (A8-0189/2018),

A.	whereas cyber and hybrid challenges, threats and attacks constitute a major threat to the security, defence, stability and competitiveness of the EU, its Member States and its citizens; whereas cyber defence clearly incorporates both military and civilian dimensions;

B.	whereas the EU and the Member States face an unprecedented threat in the form of politically motivated, state-sponsored cyber attacks as well as cyber crime and terrorism;

C.	whereas cyber space is widely recognized as the fifth operational domain by the military enabling the development of cyber defence capabilities; whereas debates are held whether to recognize cyber space as the fifth domain of warfare;

whereas the mutual defence clause, Article 42(7) of the TEU, provides a mutual obligation of aid and assistance by all means of power in case of an armed aggression on a territory of a Member State; whereas this shall not prejudice the specific character of the security and defence policy of certain Member States; whereas the solidarity clause, Article 222 of the TFEU, complements the mutual defence clause by providing that EU countries are obliged to act jointly where an EU country is the victim of a terrorist attack or a natural or man-made disaster; whereas the solidarity clause implies the use of both civilian and military structures;

whereas while cyber defence remains a core competence of the Member States, the EU has a vital role to play in providing a platform for European cooperation, and in ensuring that these new endeavours are closely coordinated at an international level and within the transatlantic security architecture from the start, to avoid gaps and inefficiencies that mark many traditional defence efforts; whereas we need to do more than enhance our cooperation and coordination; whereas we have to ensure effective prevention by stepping up the ability of the EU to detect, defend and deter; whereas a credible cyber defence and deterrence is needed to achieve effective cyber security for the EU while ensuring that those states that are least prepared do not become easy targets of cyber attacks, and whereas a substantial cyber defence should be a necessary part of the CSDP and the development of the European Defence Union; whereas we are in a situation of permanent shortage of highly qualified cyber defence specialists; whereas close coordination on protecting armed forces against cyber attacks is a necessary part of the development of an effective CSDP;

whereas EU Member States are often subject to cyber attacks conducted by hostile and dangerous state and non-state actors against civilian or military targets; whereas current vulnerability is due mainly to the fragmentation of European defence strategies and capabilities, allowing foreign intelligence agencies to repeatedly exploit the security vulnerabilities of IT systems and networks essential to European security; whereas Member State governments have often failed to inform relevant stakeholders in good time to allow them to address vulnerabilities in their products and services; whereas these attacks require urgent reinforcements and the development of European offensive and defensive capacities at civilian and military levels in order to avoid the possible cross-border economic and societal impact of cyber incidents;

G.	whereas the lines between civil and military interference become blurry in cyber space;

whereas many cyber incidents are made possible by the lack of resilience and robustness of private and public network infrastructure, by poorly protected or secured databases and by other flaws in the critical information infrastructure; whereas only few Member States take responsibility for the protection of their respective network and information systems, and the associated data, as part of their respective duty of care, which explains the overall lack of investment in training and state-of-the art security technology, and of the development of appropriate guidelines;

I.	whereas the rights to privacy and data protection are laid down in the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights and in Article 16 of the TFEU, and are regulated by the EU’s General Data Protection Regulation, which entered into force on 25 May 2018;

J.	whereas an active and efficient cyber policy is one that is capable of deterring enemies as well as of disrupting their capabilities and pre-empting and degrading their ability to attack;

whereas several terrorist groups and organisations use cyber space as a low-cost tool for recruitment, radicalisation and the dissemination of terrorist propaganda; whereas terrorist groups, non-state actors and transnational criminal networks use cyber operations to raise funds anonymously, gather intelligence and develop cyber arms to wage cyber terror campaigns, to disrupt, damage or destroy critical infrastructure, to attack financial systems and to pursue other illegal activities that have implications for the security of the European citizens;

whereas the cyber deterrence and defence of Europe’s armed forces and critical infrastructure have become crucial issues in debates about defence modernisation, Europe’s common defence efforts, the future development of armed forces and their operations, and the strategic autonomy of the European Union;

whereas several Member States have invested substantially in setting up well-staffed cyber commands to meet these new challenges and improve their cyber resilience, but much more needs to be done as it is becoming more and more difficult to counter cyber attacks at Member State level; whereas the cyber commands of the respective Member States vary in their offensive and defensive mandates; whereas other cyber defence structures vary broadly among the Member States and often remain fragmented; whereas cyber defence and deterrence are activities that can best be tackled cooperatively at European level and in cooperation with our partners and allies, as its operational domain recognises neither national nor organisational boundaries; whereas military and civilian cyber security is closely related, and more synergy between civilian and military specialists is therefore needed; whereas private companies have substantial expertise in this field, raising fundamental questions about governance and security, and about the ability of states to defend their citizens;

N.	whereas there is an urgent need to strengthen the EU’s capabilities in the field of cyber defence, given the lack of a timely response to the changing cyber security landscape; whereas rapid response and adequate preparedness are key elements in ensuring security in this area;

whereas both Permanent Structured Cooperation (PESCO) and the European Defence Fund (EDF) are new initiatives with the necessary scope to foster an ecosystem that can provide opportunities for SMEs and start-up companies, and to facilitate cooperative projects in the cyber defence domain, and both will contribute to shape the regulatory and institutional framework;

P.	whereas Member States participating in PESCO have committed themselves to ensuring that cooperation efforts on cyber defence – such as information sharing, training and operational support – will continue to grow;

Q.	whereas among the seventeen projects selected for PESCO, two projects are in the field of cyber defence;

whereas the EDF needs to support the global competitiveness and innovativeness of the European defence industry, by investing in digital and cyber technologies, as well as to facilitate the development of smart solutions by providing opportunities for SMEs and start-up companies to participate in this effort;

whereas the European Defence Agency (EDA) has launched a number of projects to meet Member States’ need to develop their cyber defence capabilities, including projects on education and training such as the Cyber Defence Training and Exercises Coordination Platform (CD TEXP), Demand Pooling for Cyber Defence Training and Exercise support by the private sector (DePoCyTE) and the Cyber Ranges project;

T.	whereas there are other ongoing EU projects on situational awareness, malware detection and information sharing (the Malware Information Sharing Platform (MISP) and the Multi-Agent System For Advanced persistent threat Detection (MASFAD));

U.	whereas capacity-building and training needs in the area of cyber defence are substantial and increasing, and are most efficiently met cooperatively at EU and NATO levels;

whereas CSDP missions and operations, like all modern organisational endeavours, are deeply reliant on functioning IT systems; whereas cyber threats to CSDP missions and operations can exist at different layers, ranging from the tactical layer (CSDP missions and operations) and operational layer (EU networks) to the broader layer of global IT infrastructure;

whereas command and control systems, information exchange and logistics rely on classified and unclassified IT infrastructure, especially at the tactical and operational level; whereas these systems are attractive targets for malicious actors seeking to attack missions; whereas cyber attacks may have serious repercussions for EU infrastructure; whereas cyber attacks against, in particular, the EU’s energy infrastructure would have serious repercussions, and must therefore be guarded against;

whereas it is well understood that cyber defence should be duly considered at all stages of the planning process for CSDP missions and operations, that it requires constant monitoring, and that adequate capabilities need to be available to mainstream it fully into mission planning and to continuously provide the necessary critical support;

Y.	whereas the European Security and Defence College (ESDC) network is the only European training provider for the CSDP structures, missions and operations; whereas, according to current plans, its role in pooling European training capacities in the cyber domain is to be increased substantially;

Z.	whereas the Declaration of NATO’s 2016 Warsaw Summit recognised cyber space as a domain of operations in which NATO must defend itself as effectively as it does in the air, on land and at sea;

AA.

whereas the EU and NATO have contributed to improving Member States cyber defence capabilities through dual-use research projects coordinated by the EDA and NATO, and by improving Member States cyber resilience through support provided by the European Union Agency for Network and Information Security (ENISA);

AB.

whereas in 2014 NATO established cyber security operations as part of its collective defence, and in 2016 recognised cyber space as an operational domain together with land, air and sea; whereas EU and NATO are complementary partners in building their cyber resilience and cyber defence capabilities; whereas cyber security and defence is already one of the strongest pillars of cooperation between the two, and a critical field in which both have unique capacities; whereas in the EU-NATO Joint Declaration of 8 July 2016 the EU and NATO agreed to a broad agenda of cooperation; whereas four out of 42 proposals for closer cooperation concern cyber security and defence, with further proposals aimed at addressing hybrid threats in a broader sense; whereas this has been complemented by a further proposal regarding cyber security and defence presented on 5 December 2017;

AC.

whereas the UN Group of Governmental Experts on Information Security (UNGGE) has concluded its last round of deliberation; whereas even though it was unable to produce a consensus report in 2017, the 2015 and 2013 reports apply, including the recognition that existing international law, and in particular the Charter of the United Nations, is applicable and is essential to maintaining peace and stability, and to promoting an open, secure, peaceful and accessible ICT environment;

AD.

whereas the recently launched framework for a joint EU diplomatic response to malicious cyber activities, the EU cyber diplomacy toolbox – aimed at developing the EU’s and Member States’ capacities in order to influence the behaviour of potential aggressors – foresees the use of proportionate measures within the CFSP, including restrictive measures;

AE.

whereas different state actors – Russia, China and North Korea among others, but also non-state actors (including organised crime groups) inspired, hired or sponsored by states, security agencies or private companies – have been involved in malicious cyber activities in pursuit of political, economic or security objectives that include attacks on critical infrastructure, cyber espionage and mass surveillance of EU citizens, aiding disinformation campaigns and distributing malware (Wannacry and NotPetya, etc.) limiting access to the internet and the functioning of IT systems; whereas such activities disregard and violate international law, human rights and EU fundamental rights while jeopardising democracy, security, public order and the strategic autonomy of the EU, and should therefore lead to a joint EU response, such as using the framework for a joint EU diplomatic response, including the use of restrictive measures envisaged for the EU cyber diplomacy toolbox, such as, in the case of private companies, fines and restricted access to the internal market;

AF.

whereas such large scale attacks against ICT infrastructure have been made several times in the past, including in Estonia in 2007, in Georgia in 2008 and, currently almost on a daily basis, in Ukraine; whereas offensive cyber capabilities are also being employed against EU and NATO Member States at an unprecedented scale;

AG.

whereas cyber security technologies, relevant to both the military and the civilian domain, are ‘dual-use’technologies that offer many opportunities for developing synergies between civilian and military actors in a number of areas, such as encryption, security and vulnerability management tools, intrusion detection and prevention systems;

AH.	whereas the development of cyber technologies will in the coming years affect new fields such as artificial intelligence, the internet of things, robotics and mobile devices, and all these elements may also have security implications for the defence domain;

AI.	whereas the cyber commands established by several Member States can make a substantial contribution to the protection of vital civilian infrastructure, and whereas cyber defence-related knowledge is often equally useful in the civilian domain;

Capability development for cyber defence and deterrence

Underlines that a common cyber defence policy, and a substantial cyber defence capability, should constitute core elements in the development of the European Defence Union;

Welcomes the initiative of the Commission for a cyber-security package to foster EU cyber resilience, deterrence and defence;

Recalls that cyber defence has both military and civilian dimensions, and that this means that an integrated policy approach, and close cooperation between military and civilian stakeholders, is required;

Calls for a coherent development of cyber capacities across all EU institutions and bodies, as well as in the Member States, and for providing needed political and practical solutions to overcoming the remaining political, legislative and organisational obstacles to cooperation on cyber defence; regards regular and enhanced exchange and cooperation between relevant public stakeholders in cyber defence, at EU and national level, as crucial;

Strongly emphasises that, in the framework of the emerging European Defence Union, the cyber defence capabilities of Member States should be at the forefront and, as far as it is possible, integrated from start to ensure maximum efficiency; urges, therefore, the Member States to cooperate closely in the development of their respective cyber defence, using a clear roadmap, thereby feeding into a process coordinated by the Commission, the European External Action Service (EEAS) and the EDA with a view to better streamlining cyber defence structures across the Member States, implementing available short-term measures urgently and fostering the exchange of expertise; is of the opinion that we should develop an European secure network for critical information and infrastructure; recognises that strong attribution capabilities are an essential component of effective cyber defence and cyber deterrence, and that effective prevention would require the development of substantial further technological expertise; urges the Members States to increase financial and personnel resources, in particular experts in cyber forensics, in order to improve the attribution of cyber attacks; underlines that such cooperation should also be implemented through the enhancement of ENISA;

Recognises that many Member States consider possession of their own cyber defence capabilities to be at the core of their national security strategy and to constitute an essential part of their national sovereignty; stresses, however, that owing to the borderless nature of cyber space, the scale and knowledge required for truly comprehensive and effective forces ensuring the goal of strategic autonomy of the EU in cyber space is beyond the reach of any single Member State, requiring, therefore, an intensified and coordinated response on the part of all Member States at EU level; notes, against this background, that the EU and its Member States find themselves under time pressure regarding the development of such forces, and need to act immediately; notes that due to EU initiatives such as the digital single market, the EU is well placed to take a leading role in developing European cyber defence strategies; reiterates that development of cyber defence at EU level must enhance the EU’s capability to protect itself; welcomes, in this regard, the proposed permanent mandate of, and strengthened role for, ENISA;

Urges the Member States, in this context, to make the best possible use of the framework provided by PESCO and the EDF to propose cooperation projects;

Takes note of the hard work done by the EU and its Member States in the field of cyber defence; notes in particular the EDA projects on cyber ranges, the Cyber Defence Strategic Research Agenda and the development of deployable cyber situation awareness packages for headquarters;

Welcomes the two cyber projects to be launched in the framework of PESCO, namely the Cyber Threats and Incident Response Information Sharing Platform and the Cyber Rapid Response Teams and Mutual Assistance in Cyber Security; stresses that these two projects focus on a defensive cyber policy that builds on the sharing of cyber threat information through a networked Member State platform and the establishment of Cyber Rapid Response Teams (CRRTs), allowing Member States to help each other to ensure higher level of cyber resilience and to collectively detect, recognise and mitigate cyber threats; calls on the Commission and Member States to build on the PESCO projects on national CRRTs and on mutual assistance in cyber security by establishing a European CRRT tasked with coordinating, detecting and countering collective cyber threats in support of the participating Member States’ efforts;

10.

Notes that the EU’s capability to develop cyber defence projects hinges on its control of technologies, equipment, services, data and data processing, and on its reliance on a trusted industry stakeholder base;

11.

Recalls that one aim of the effort to improve the homogeneity of command systems is to ensure that the available command assets are interoperable with those of non-EU NATO countries, as well as with those of occasional partners, and to guarantee a smooth exchange of information so as to speed up the decision-making loop and keep control of information in a cyber-risk context;

12.

Recommends that ways be found to complement NATO Smart Defence projects (e.g. the Multinational Cyber Defence Capability Development, the Malware Information Sharing Platform (MISP) and the Multinational Cyber Defence Education & Training (MNCDE&T));

13.

Recognises the developments being made in areas such as nanotechnology, artificial intelligence, big data, e-waste and advanced robotics; urges the Member States and the EU to give particular attention to the possible exploitation of these areas by hostile state actors and organised crime groups; calls for the development of training and capabilities aimed at protecting against the emergence of sophisticated criminal schemes such as complex identity frauds and the counterfeiting of goods;

14.

Emphasises the need for more terminological clarity about security in cyber space, as well as for a comprehensive and integrated approach, and joint efforts, to counter cyber and hybrid threats, to detect and eradicate online extremist and criminal safe havens, by strengthening and increasing information sharing between the EU and EU agencies such as Europol, Eurojust, EDA and ENISA;

15.

Underlines the growing role of artificial intelligence in both cyber offence as well as defence; urges the EU and the Member States to pay special attention to this area, both in the course of research and in the practical development of their cyber defence capabilities;

16.

Strongly emphasises that with the deployment of unmanned aerial vehicles, whether armed or not, additional measures should be taken to reduce their potential cyber vulnerabilities;

Cyber defence of CSDP missions and operations

17.

Emphasises that cyber defence should be considered an operational task for CSDP missions and operations, and that it should be included in all CSDP planning processes to ensure that cyber security is constantly considered throughout the planning process, thereby reducing cyber vulnerability gaps;

18.

Recognises that planning a successful CSDP mission or operation requires substantial cyber defence expertise as well secure IT infrastructure and networks, both at operational headquarters and within the mission itself, in order to conduct a thorough threat assessment and provide adequate protection in the field; calls on the EEAS, and on the Member States providing headquarters for CSDP operations, to strengthen the cyber defence expertise provided to EU missions and operations; notes that there is a limit to how well any CSDP mission can be prepared to protect itself from cyber attacks;

19.

Stresses that all CSDP mission and operation planning needs to be accompanied by a thorough assessment of the cyber threat-landscape; notes that the threat taxonomy prepared by ENISA provides a suitable template for such an assessment; recommends the creation of a cyber-resilience assessment capability for CSDP HQs;

20.

Recognises, in particular, the importance of keeping the cyber footprints and attack surfaces of CSDP missions and operations to the necessary minimum; urges the planners involved to take this into account from the start of the planning process;

21.

Acknowledges the EDA Training Needs Analysis, which has brought up major shortfalls in cyber defence skills and competencies among decision makers, not only in the Member States, and welcomes the EDA initiatives on senior decision maker courses within Member States in support of CSDP mission and operation planning;

Cyber defence education and training

22.

Notes that a streamlined EU cyber defence education and training landscape would significantly mitigate threats, and calls on the EU and the Member States to increase their cooperation in education, training and exercises;

23.

Strongly supports the Military Erasmus Programme and other common training and exchange initiatives aimed at enhancing the interoperability of the armed forces of the Member States and the development of a common strategic culture through an increased exchange of young military personnel, bearing in mind that such interoperability is necessary among all Member States and NATO allies; believes, however, that exchanges for training and education in the field of cyber defence should go beyond this initiative and include military personnel of all ages and from all ranks as well as students from all academic centres of study on cyber security;

24.

Stresses that there is a need for more experts in the cyber defence domain; calls on the Member States to facilitate cooperation between civil academic institutions and military academies to bridge this gap with a view to creating more possibilities in the field of cyber defence education and training, and to devote more resources to specialised cyber operational training, including on artificial intelligence; calls on the military academies to integrate cyber defence education into their curricula, thereby helping to increase the cyber talent pool available for CSDP mission needs;

25.

Calls on all Member States to sufficiently and proactively inform, raise awareness and advise companies, schools and citizens about cyber security and the main digital threats; welcomes, in this regard, cyber guides as a tool to guide citizens and organisations towards a better cyber security strategy, boost cyber security knowledge and improve cyber resilience across the board;

26.

Notes that, given the need for more specialised personnel, the focus of the Member States should not only be on recruitment of competent armed forces personnel, but also on the retention of needed specialists;

27.

Welcomes the implementation – by 11 member states (Austria, Belgium, Germany, Estonia, Greece, Finland, Ireland, Latvia, the Netherlands, Portugal and Sweden) of the Cyber Ranges Federation project – of the first of four cyber defence projects launched under the EDA Pooling and Sharing agenda; calls on the other Member States to join this initiative; calls on the Member States to promote greater mutual availability of virtual cyber defence training and cyber ranges; notes, in this regard, that the role of ENISA and its expertise should be also considered;

28.

Believes that such initiatives contribute to improving the quality of education in the cyber defence field at EU level, in particular through the creation of wide-ranging technical platforms and the establishment of a community of EU experts; believes that European armed forces can broaden their appeal by providing comprehensive cyber defence training to attract and retain cyber talent; stresses the need to identify weaknesses in the computer systems of both the Member States and the EU institutions; recognises that human error is one of the most frequently identified weaknesses in cyber security systems, and calls, therefore, for regular training of both military and civilian personnel working for EU institutions;

29.

Calls on the EDA to launch the Cyber Defence Training and Exercise Coordination Platform (CD TEXP) to support the Cyber Ranges Federation as soon as possible, with a focus on strengthening cooperation on harmonised requirements, fostering cyber defence research and technology innovations, and collectively assisting third countries in building their capacities to create resilience in cyber defence; calls on the Commission and the Member States to complement these initiatives with a dedicated European centre of excellence for cyber defence training to provide expert training for the most promising recruits, in support of the participating Member States’ cyber training;

30.

Welcomes the establishment, within the ESDC, of the Cyber Defence Education, Training Exercise and Evaluation Platform (ETEE) with a view to upscaling the training and education opportunities within the Member States;

31.

Encourages more exchanges of situational awareness through table-top cyber exercises and the coordination of respective capability-development efforts in order to achieve greater interoperability and better prevention and response to future attacks; calls for such projects to be conducted with NATO allies, the armed forces of EU Member States and other partners with extensive experience in countering cyber attacks in order to develop operational readiness, common procedures and standards to comprehensively face different cyber threats; welcomes, in this regard, the EU’s involvement in cyber exercises such as the Cyber Offence and Defence Exercise (CODE);

32.

Recalls that resilient cyber space requires impeccable cyber hygiene; calls on all public and private stakeholders to conduct regular cyber hygiene trainings for all members of their staff;

33.

Recommends that the exchange of expertise and lessons learned be increased between the armed forces, police forces and other state bodies of the Member States actively involved in the fight against cyber threats;

EU-NATO cooperation on cyber defence

34.

Reiterates that, on the basis of their common values and strategic interests, the EU and NATO have a special responsibility and capacity to address the increasing cyber security and cyber defence challenges more efficiently, and in close cooperation, by looking for possible complementarities, avoiding duplication and acknowledging their respective responsibilities;

35.

Calls on the Council, working with other relevant EU institutions and structures, to consider ways of providing, at soon as possible, Union-level support for integrating the cyber domain into Member States military doctrines, in a harmonised manner and in close cooperation with NATO;

36.

Calls for the implementation of those measures that have already been agreed upon; calls for new initiatives to further cooperation between EU and NATO to be identified, taking into account as well the possibilities of cooperating within the NATO Cooperative Cyber Defence Centre of Excellence (CCD COE) and the NATO Communications and Information (NCI) Academy, which aim to increase cyber defence training capabilities in IT and cyber systems, as regards both software and hardware; notes that this could include a dialogue with NATO on the possibility of the EU joining the CCD COE with a view to increasing complementarity and collaboration; welcomes the recent creation of the European Centre of Excellence for Countering Hybrid Threats; urges all relevant institutions and allies to regularly discuss their activities in order to avoid overlaps and encourage a coordinated approach towards cyber defence; believes that it is crucial to stimulate, on the basis of mutual trust, the exchange of cyber threat information among the Member States and with NATO;

37.

Is convinced that increased cooperation between EU and NATO is important and useful in the area of cyber defence as a means to prevent, detect and deter cyber attacks; calls, therefore, on both organisations to increase their operational cooperation and coordination, and to expand their joint capacity-building efforts, in particular in the form of joint exercises and training for civilian and military cyber defence staff and through the participation of Member States in NATO smart defence projects; considers it vital that the EU and NATO step up the sharing of information in order to enable the formal attribution of cyber attacks, and consequently enable the imposition of restrictive sanctions to those responsible; urges both organisations to cooperate more closely as well on the cyber aspects of crisis management;

38.

Welcomes the exchange of concepts for integrating cyber defence requirements and standards into the planning and conduct of missions and operations with the aim of fostering interoperability, and expresses the hope that this will be followed up by more operational cooperation to ensure the cyber defence aspect of respective missions and the synchronisation of operational approaches;

39.

Welcomes the arrangement between the EU’s Computer Emergency Response Team (CERT-EU) and the NATO Computer Incident Response Capability (NCIRC), aimed at facilitating the exchange of information, logistical support, shared threat assessments, personnel acquisition and the sharing of best practices, all to ensure the ability to respond to threats in real time; stresses that it is important to encourage information exchanges between CERT-EU and NCIRC and to work towards increasing the level of trust; believes that there is an assumption that information held by CERT-EU could be of use to cyber defence research and to NATO, and that this information should therefore be shared, provided that full conformity with EU data protection legislation is ensured;

40.

Welcomes the cooperation between the two organisations on cyber defence exercises; notes the participation of EU representatives in the annual Cyber Coalition Exercise; recognises the progress that the EU’s participation – via the Parallel and Coordinated Exercises (PACE) 17 in NATO Crisis Management Exercise 17 – represents, and welcomes, in particular, the inclusion of a cyber defence component; urges both organisations to intensify these efforts;

41.

42.

Notes that there is substantial scope for a more ambitious and concrete cyber defence cooperation programme that goes beyond the conceptual level of cooperation in the context of specific operations; urges both organisations to implement, in practice and effectively, all that already exists, and to present more ambitious proposals for the next review of the implementation of the Joint Statement;

43.

Welcomes the NATO Industry Cyber Partnership (NICP), established in 2014, and calls for EU engagement in cooperative NICP efforts with a view to connecting the NATO-EU cooperation effort with that of industry leaders specialised in cyber technologies with the aim of advancing cyber security through continued collaboration, with particular focus on: training, exercises and education for NATO, EU as well as industry representatives; EU and industry inclusion in NATO Smart Defence projects; collaborative information sharing and best practices for preparedness and recovery between NATO, EU and industry; pursuit of jointly developed capabilities for cyber defence; and collaborative responses to cyber incidents when and where appropriate;

44.

Notes the ongoing work on the Proposal for a Regulation revising ENISA Regulation ((EU) No 526/2013) and laying down a European ICT security certification and labelling framework; calls on ENISA to sign an agreement with NATO to increase their practical cooperation, including the sharing of information and participation in cyber defence exercises;

International norms applicable to cyber space

45.

Calls for mainstreaming cyber defence capabilities into the CFSP and the external action of the EU and its Member States as a cross-sectional task, and calls for closer coordination on cyber defence between the Member States, the EU institutions, NATO, the United Nations, the United States and other strategic partners, in particular as regards rules, norms and enforcement measures in cyber space;

46.

Regrets that, after several months of negotiations, the 2016-2017 UN Group of Governmental Experts (UNGGE) was unable to produce a new consensus report; recalls that, as recognised by the 2013 report, existing international law and the United Nations Charter in particular – which prohibits the threat or use of force against the political independence of any state including coercive cyber operations intended to disrupt the technical infrastructure essential to the conduct of official participative procedures, including elections, in another state – applies and should be enforced in cyber space; notes that the 2015 UNGGE report lists a set of norms of responsible state behaviour, including the prohibition for states to conduct or knowingly support cyber activities contrary to their obligations under international rules; calls on the EU to assume a leading role in the ongoing and future debates on, and implementation of, international norms in cyber space;

47.

Notes the relevance of the Tallinn Manual 2.0 as a basis for a debate and as an analysis of how existing international law can be applied in cyber space; calls on the Member States to start analysing and applying what the experts have stated in the Tallinn Manual, and to agree on further voluntary norms of international behaviour; notes, in particular, that any offensive use of cyber capabilities should be based on international law;

48.

Confirms its full commitment to an open, free, stable and secure cyber space, which respects the core values of democracy, human rights and the rule of law, and where international disputes are settled by peaceful means on the basis of the UN Charter and principles of international law; calls on the Member States to promote further implementation of the common and comprehensive EU approach to cyber diplomacy and existing cyber norms, and to draw up, together with NATO, EU-level criteria for, and definitions of what constitutes, a cyber attack so as to improve the EU’s ability to quickly come to a common position following an internationally wrongful act in the form of a cyber attack; strongly supports the implementation of the 2015 UNGGE report’s voluntary, non-binding norms of responsible state behaviour in cyber space, encompassing respect for privacy and the fundamental rights of citizens, and the creation of regional confidence-building measures; supports, in this context, the work of the Global Commission on the Stability of Cyberspace to develop proposals for norms and policies to enhance international security and stability and to guide responsible state and non-state behaviour in cyber space; endorses the proposal that state and non-state actors should not conduct, or knowingly allow, activity that intentionally and substantially damages the general availability or integrity of the public core of the internet, and therefore the stability of cyber space;

49.

Recognises that a majority of the technological infrastructure is owned or operated by the private sector and that close cooperation, consultation, and inclusion of the private sector and civil society groups through multi-stakeholder dialogue is therefore essential to ensuring an open, free, stable and secure cyber space;

50.

Recognises that, owing to difficulties in enforcement, bilateral agreements between states do not always bring expected results; considers, therefore, that building coalitions within groups of like-minded countries willing to generate consensus constitutes an effective way of complementing multi-stakeholder efforts; stresses the important role that local authorities have to play, in the process of technological innovation and data sharing, when it comes to stepping up the fight against crime and terrorist activities;

51.

Welcomes the adoption by the Council of the framework for joint EU diplomatic responses to malicious cyber activities, the so-called EU Cyber Diplomacy Toolbox; supports the possibility for the EU to take restrictive measures against adversaries attacking its Member States in cyber space, including the imposition of sanctions;

52.

Calls as well for a clear proactive approach towards cyber security and cyber defence, and for the strengthening of the EU’s cyber diplomacy as a cross-sectional task in the EU’s foreign policy and its capacities and instruments across the board, so that they can effectively reinforce EU norms and values, as well as pave the way for a consensus on rules, norms and enforcement measures in cyber space globally; notes that building cyber resilience in third countries contributes to international peace and security, ultimately making European citizens safer;

53.

Considers that cyber attacks such as NotPetya and WannaCry are either state directed or are conducted with the knowledge and approval of a state; notes that these cyber attacks, which cause serious and lasting economic damage as well as pose a threat to life, are clear breaches of international law and legal norms; believes, therefore, that NotPetya and WannaCry represent breaches of international law by, respectively, the Russian Federation and North Korea, and that the two countries should face commensurate and appropriate responses from the EU and NATO;

54.

Calls for Europol’s Cybercrime Centre to become a focal point for law enforcement divisions and government agencies dedicated to cyber crime, the primary responsibility of which would be to manage the defence of both the eu. domains and critical infrastructure of the EU networks during an attack; emphasises that such a focal point should also be mandated to exchange information and provide Member States with assistance;

55.

Emphasises the importance of the development of norms regarding privacy and security, encryption, hate speech, disinformation and terrorism threats;

56.

Recommends that each Member State embrace the obligations to assist any other Member States under cyber attack and to ensure national cyber accountability in close cooperation with NATO;

Civil-military cooperation

57.

Calls on all stakeholders to reinforce knowledge transfer partnerships, implement appropriate business models and develop trust between companies and defence and civilian end-users, as well as to improve the transfer of academic knowledge into practical solutions, in order to create synergies and port solutions between the civilian and military markets – in essence a European single market for cyber security and cyber-security products, based on transparent procedures and in respect of EU and international law, with the view to preserving and strengthening the EU’s strategic autonomy; notes the pivotal role that private cyber-security firms play in early warning and attribution of cyber attacks;

58.

Strongly emphasises the importance of R&D, in particular in the light of the high-level security requirements in the defence market; urges the EU and the Member States to give more practical support to the European cyber security industry and other relevant economic actors, to reduce bureaucratic burdens, in particular for SMEs and start-ups (key sources of innovative solutions in the area of cyber defence), and to promote closer cooperation with university research organisations and large players with a view to reducing dependencies on cyber security products from external sources and to creating a strategic supply chain inside the EU to enhance its strategic autonomy; notes, in this context, the valuable contribution that can be made by the EDF and other instruments under the Multiannual Financial Framework (MFF);

59.

Encourages the Commission to integrate cyber defence elements into a network of European cybersecurity competence and research centres, also in view of providing sufficient resources to dual use cyber capabilities and technologies within the next MFF;

60.

Notes that the protection of public and other civil critical infrastructure assets, in particular information systems and associated data, is a vital defence task for Member States and, in particular, for the authorities in charge of information systems security, and that it should be part of the remit of either the national cyber defence structures or the said authorities; stresses that this will require a level of trust, and the closest possible cooperation, between military actors, cyber defence agencies, other relevant authorities and the affected industries, which can only be achieved by clearly defining the duties, roles and responsibilities of the civilian and military actors, and urges all stakeholders to take this into account in their planning processes; calls for more cross-border cooperation, with full respect for EU data protection legislation, on law enforcement related to taking down malicious cyber activity;

61.

Calls on all Member States to focus national cyber security strategies on the protection of information systems and associated data, and to consider the protection of this critical infrastructure as part of their respective duty of care; urges the Member States to adopt and implement strategies, guidelines and instruments that provide reasonable levels of protection against reasonably identifiable levels of threat, with costs and burdens of the protection proportionate to the probable damage the parties concerned risk facing; calls on the Member States to take appropriate steps to oblige legal persons under their jurisdictions to protect personal data under their care;

62.

Recognises that, owing to the changing environment of cyber threats, a stronger and more structured cooperation with police forces could be advisable, especially in some critical areas, e.g. when tracking threats under headings such as cyber jihad, cyber terrorism, radicalisation on line and the funding of extremist or radical organisations;

63.

Encourages close cooperation between EU agencies such as EDA, ENISA and the European Cybercrime Centre in a cross-sectoral approach aimed at promoting synergies and avoiding overlaps;

64.

Calls on the Commission to develop a roadmap for a coordinated approach to European cyber defence, including an update of the EU Cyber Defence Policy Framework to ensure that it remains fit for purpose as the relevant policy mechanism for achieving the EU’s cyber defence objectives, in close cooperation with the Member States, the EDA, Parliament and the EEAS; notes that this process has to be part of a broader strategic approach to the CSDP;

65.

Calls for cyber security capacity-building through development cooperation, as well as constant education and cyber-awareness training, taking into account that in the coming years millions of new internet users will go online, most of them in developing countries, thus strengthening the resilience of countries and societies vis-à-vis cyber and hybrid threats;

66.

Calls for international cooperation and multilateral initiatives to build stringent cyber defence and cyber security frameworks to counter state capture by corruption, financial fraud, money laundering, the financing of terrorism, and to tackle the challenges posed by cyber terrorism and by cryptocurrencies and other alternative payment methods;

67.

Notes that cyber attacks such as NotPetya spread quickly, thereby causing indiscriminate damage, unless there is widespread resilience globally; believes that cyber defence training and education should form part of the EU’s external action and that building cyber resilience in third countries contributes to international peace and security, ultimately making European citizens safer;

Institutional reinforcement

68.

Calls on the Member States to engage in more ambitious cooperation in the cyber domain within PESCO; suggests that the Member States launch a new PESCO cyber cooperative programme with a view to supporting quick and effective planning, command and control of present and future EU operations and missions; notes that this should lead to better coordination of operational capacities in cyber space, and may lead to the development of a common cyber defence command when the European Council so decides;

69.

Repeats its call on the Member States and the VP/HR to present an EU white book on security and defence; calls on the Member States and the VP/HR to make cyber defence and deterrence a corner stone of the white book, covering both the protection of the cyber domain for operations laid down in Article 43 TEU and the common defence laid down in Article 42(7) TEU;

70.

Notes that the new PESCO cyber cooperative programme should be led by high-ranking military as well as civilian staff from each Member State, on a rotating basis, and be accountable to the EU ministers of defence, in the PESCO format, and to the VP/HR, in order to foster the principles of trust among the Member States and the EU institutions and agencies when sharing information and intelligence;

71.

Repeats its call for the creation of an EU Council on Defence based on the existing EDA ministerial Steering Board and the PESCO format of the EU ministers of defence, in order to guarantee the prioritisation and operationalisation of resources, and effective cooperation and integration, among the Member States;

72.

Recalls the need to ensure that the European Defence Fund is kept on, or even boosted in the next MFF, with a sufficient budget earmarked for cyber defence;

73.

Calls for increased resources to modernise and streamline cyber security and intelligence dissemination between the EEAS/European Union Intelligence and Situation Centre (INTCEN), the Council and the Commission;

Public-private partnerships

74.

Recognises that private companies play a key role in preventing, detecting, containing and responding to cyber security incidents, not just as providers of technology but also as providers of non-IT services;

75.

Recognises the private sectors role in preventing, detecting, containing and responding to cyber security incidents, along with its role in stimulating innovation in cyber defence, and calls, therefore, for enhanced cooperation with the private sector to ensure shared insights of EU and NATO requirements and assistance in helping to find common solutions;

76.

Calls on the EU to perform a comprehensive review of software, IT and communications equipment and infrastructure used in the institutions in order to exclude potentially dangerous programmes and devices, and to ban the ones that have been confirmed as malicious, such as Kaspersky Lab;

o o

77.

Instructs its President to forward this resolution to the European Council, the Council, the Commission, the Vice-President of the Commission / High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy, the EU agencies in the fields of defence and cyber security, the NATO Secretary-General and the national parliaments of the Member States.

(1) Cambridge University Press, February 2017, ISBN 9 781 316 822 524, https://doi.org/10.1017/9781316822524.

(2) OJ L 194, 19.7.2016, p. 1.

(3) Texts adopted, P8_TA(2017)0366.

(4) OJ C 419, 16.12.2015, p. 145.

(5) Texts adopted, P8_TA(2016)0435.

(6) Texts adopted, P8_TA(2017)0493.

(7) Texts adopted, P8_TA(2017)0492.

27.1.2020

Official Journal of the European Union

C 28/71

P8_TA(2018)0259

Russia, notably the case of Ukrainian political prisoner Oleg Sentsov

European Parliament resolution of 14 June 2018 on Russia, notably the case of Ukrainian political prisoner Oleg Sentsov (2018/2754(RSP))

(2020/C 28/08)

The European Parliament,

—	having regard to its previous resolutions on Russia, in particular its resolution of 16 March 2017 on the Ukrainian prisoners in Russia and the situation in Crimea (1),

—	having regard to the statement of 25 May 2018 by the Spokesperson of the European External Action Service (EEAS) on the cases of several detainees in or from the illegally-annexed Crimea and Sevastopol,

—	having regard to the exchange of views in the Foreign Affairs Council on Russia of 16 April 2018,

—

having regard to the Order of 19 April 2017 of the International Court of Justice on the request for the indication of provisional measures submitted by Ukraine in the case concerning Application of the International Convention for the Suppression of the Financing of Terrorism and of the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (Ukraine v Russian Federation),

—

having regard to Article 5 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and Article 7 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, both of which provide that no one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment and to which the Russian Federation is a party,

—	having regard to the United Nations Declaration on Human Rights Defenders, adopted by the UN General Assembly on 9 December 1998,

—	having regard to the Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War,

—	having regard to Rules 135(5) and 123(4) of its Rules of Procedure,

A.	whereas the Ukrainian filmmaker Oleg Sentsov, who opposed the illegal annexation of the Crimean Peninsula by Russia, was arrested in May 2014 in connection with alleged activities conducted in Crimea; whereas he was treated as Russian citizen despite holding Ukrainian citizenship;

B.	whereas in the case of Oleg Sentsov there have been allegations of torture and severe mistreatment leading to the illegal extraction of depositions that have subsequently been given legal value;

C.	whereas on 25 August 2015 Oleg Sentsov was sentenced by a court the jurisdiction of which the EU does not recognise, in breach of international law and elementary standards of justice;

D.	whereas Oleg Sentsov, who currently serves out a sentence in Russia’s northernmost prison in Labytnangi, Yamalo-Nenets, announced an indefinite hunger strike on 14 May 2018;

E.	whereas the number of political prisoners in Russia has increased significantly in recent years; whereas the Human Rights Centre Memorial, which was awarded the Sakharov Prize in 2009, published a list on 29 May 2018 with the names of 158 political prisoners;

F.	whereas Oyub Titiev, the Chechnya office director at the Human Rights Centre Memorial, was arrested by local police on 9 January 2018 and charged with drug possession; whereas these charges have been denied by Mr Titiev and denounced as fabricated by NGOs and other human rights defenders;

G.	whereas the arrest of Oyub Titiev is part of a worrying trend of arrests, attacks, intimidations and discreditations of independent journalists and human rights defenders;

H.	whereas human rights defenders and civil society actors, particularly Crimean Tatars, have faced threats, intimidation and arrests;

I.	whereas the use of torture, and cruel and degrading treatment has been reported in various cases; whereas to date, these allegations have not been investigated in an appropriate way; whereas torture has been used to obtain confessions and support false evidence of guilt;

J.	whereas many of the prisoners and detainees have faced harsh and inhumane conditions in prisons, causing physical and psychological risks to their health; whereas there are prisoners who require urgent medical attention and treatment;

whereas restrictive Russian legislation regulating political and civil rights has been extended to temporarily occupied Crimea, resulting in the drastic curtailment of the freedoms of assembly, expression, association, access to information, and religion, as well as in credible reports of intimidation, enforced disappearances and torture;

whereas arbitrary arrests, enforced disappearances, censorship and bans on peaceful gatherings have become an everyday reality in Crimea; whereas several Crimean Tatars have been arrested, are under investigation or prosecuted; whereas Crimean lawyers providing legal assistance to these arrestees, human rights defenders reporting on cases of politically-motivated enforced disappearance in Crimea and journalists reporting on the situation of Crimean Tatars have also been targeted;

whereas occupation authorities in Crimea have systematically and deliberately suppressed freedom of speech in Crimea, pushing out independent media and creating obstacles to the work of professional journalists; whereas on 22 March 2018, citizen journalist and Crimean Tatar activist Nariman Memedeminov, who covered wrongdoings of occupation authorities, was detained by Russian security forces and arrested on the grounds of wrongful accusations; whereas on 21 May 2018, Russian security forces detained another citizen journalist, Server Mustafaiev, after a search in his house in Russia-occupied Crimea, in particular on religious grounds;

N.	whereas Russia loses a substantial number of cases in the European Court of Human Rights and fails to implement the judgments delivered;

whereas the Russian Federation, as a full member of the Council of Europe, the Organisation for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) and the United Nations, has committed itself to the principles of democracy, the rule of law and respect for fundamental freedoms and human rights; whereas, as a result of numerous serious violations of the rule of law and the adoption of restrictive laws in recent years, there are grave concerns about Russia’s compliance with its international and national obligations; whereas the European Union has repeatedly offered additional assistance and expertise to help Russia to modernise and abide by its constitutional and legal order, in line with Council of Europe standards;

whereas according to the Russian law on ‘foreign agents’, NGOs that receive foreign funding and are engaged in ‘political activity’must apply for inclusion on a special government list of foreign agents subject to additional and close scrutiny by the government, and are required to state in all publications, press-releases and reports that these have been produced by a foreign agent;

Q.	whereas, in reaction to the illegal annexation of Crimea and the hybrid war launched against Ukraine, the EU has adopted a series of step-by step restrictive measures against Russia;

Demands that the Russian authorities immediately and unconditionally release Oleg Sentsov and all other illegally detained Ukrainian citizens in Russia and on the Crimean peninsula; recalls that currently there are in total more than 70 (2) Ukrainian political prisoners in Russia and in occupied Crimea;

Demands the immediate and unconditional release of Oyub Titiev, Director of the Human Rights Centre Memorial in the Chechen Republic, and all other political prisoners in the Russian Federation;

Demands that the Russian authorities cease the intimidation and harassment of the Human Rights Centre Memorial, its staff and other human rights defenders, and allow them to carry out their human rights work;

Underlines that the treatment of all prisoners must meet international standards and that all detainees should have access to legal counsel, to their families, to their diplomatic representatives and to medical treatment; stresses that the Russian authorities and judicial personnel bear full responsibility for the safety and wellbeing of those detained, especially in Crimea, in line with the Fourth Geneva Convention;

Reminds Russia of the importance of full compliance with its international legal obligations, as a member of the Council of Europe and the Organisation for Security and Cooperation in Europe, and with the principles of fundamental human rights and the rule of law enshrined in the European Convention on Human Rights and in the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights;

Stresses that freedom of assembly in the Russian Federation is granted under Article 31 of the Russian Constitution and under the European Convention on Human Rights, to which Russia is a signatory, obliging the Russian authorities to respect this freedom;

Urges the Russian authorities at all levels to recognise the crucial role of human rights defenders as pillars of democracy and watchdogs of the rule of law, and to publicly condemn all attacks against human rights defenders, particularly in the Chechen Republic;

Expresses its solidarity with the Ukrainian filmmaker, political activist and political prisoner Oleg Sentsov, who began a hunger strike on 14 May 2018 to press for the release of illegally detained compatriots, and is concerned about the effects of the hunger strike on Oleg Sentsov’s health; recalls that Oleg Sentsov, who was arrested in Crimea shortly after Russia took control over the Black Sea peninsula in 2014 and then sentenced on the basis of testimony received under torture, is now serving a 20-year sentence on multiple terrorism charges in a high-security prison camp in the Yamal Nenets region in Russia’s far north;

Deplores the fact that another convict in the case, Oleksandr Kolchenko, has been sentenced to ten years in prison;

10.

Notes that another illegally detained Ukrainian citizen, Volodymyr Balukh, is on hunger strike since 19 March 2018;

11.

Calls on the responsible Russian authorities and medical services to give these imprisoned individuals proper medical attention and to respect medical ethics, including by not imposing force feeding or any unwanted treatment that may amount to torture and other forms of ill treatment;

12.

Expresses its deep concern that many of the Ukrainian political prisoners, such as Mykola Karpiyuk, Volodymyr Prysych, Oleksiy Chirniy and Yevhen Panov, have been seriously tortured;

13.

Expresses its deep concern regarding the worrying trend of arrests, attacks, intimidations and discreditations of independent journalists and human rights defenders working in Russia, in particular in Chechnya; highlights the significance of civil society and of organisations such as Memorial, and the message that civil society activists everywhere must be free to exercise their most basic rights of freedom of thought and expression; calls on the Chechen and Russian authorities to abide by their domestic legislation and international commitments and uphold the rule of law;

14.

Expresses serious concern about the climate of impunity that allows these acts to take place, and calls for the development of legal and other measures to prevent, monitor and effectively prosecute perpetrators of such violence, in cooperation with civil society; underlines the fact that Russia and its Government carries the ultimate responsibility for investigating these acts, bringing the perpetrators to justice and protecting all Russian citizens from unlawful abuse;

15.

Draws attention to the fact that Russian authorities in occupied Crimea detained several Crimean Tatars in May 2018, including Sever Mustafayev, Edem Smailov and family members of the political prisoner Nuri Primov;

16.

Condemns Russia’s violations of international law in occupied Crimea, including the enforcement of Russian legislation, the heavy militarisation of the Crimean peninsula, which threatens the regional security, and the massive and systematic human rights violations targeting, in particular, ethnic Ukrainians and Crimean Tatars;

17.

Welcomes the release of Crimean Tatar leaders Akhtem Chiygoz and Ilmi Umerov, who were sentenced to prison by Russian courts in the temporarily occupied Ukrainian territory of Crimea in September 2017, and who were allowed by the Russian authorities to leave the peninsula on 25 October 2017; extends its gratitude to all those who worked for their release, including Russian human rights organisations such as Memorial;

18.

Reminds the Russian authorities that in their de facto capacity as occupying power exercising effective control over Crimea, they are fully responsible for the protection of Crimean citizens from arbitrary judicial or administrative measures, and, in the same capacity, they are bound by international humanitarian law to ensure the protection of human rights on the peninsula;

19.

Emphasises that Russian courts, whether military or civilian, are not competent to judge acts committed outside the internationally recognised territory of Russia, and points out that judicial proceedings in such cases cannot be regarded as legitimate;

20.

Reiterates its serious concerns about the ‘foreign agent’law and the way it is being implemented; considers that the definition of ‘political activity’carried out by NGOs that accept foreign funding is so broad as to allow, in practice, government control over just about any organised activity relating to public life;

21.

Urges Russia to ensure unconditional and unimpeded access to international human rights observers and monitoring missions; calls on international organisations such as the United Nations, the Council of Europe and the Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe to monitor the human rights situation in Crimea more closely and to take appropriate measures;

22.

Calls on the European Union’s Special Representative for Human Rights to pay continuous attention to the human rights situation on the Crimean peninsula and in the non-government controlled areas of eastern Ukraine;

23.

Calls on the Council and the Member States to remain firm and united in their commitment to the agreed sanctions against Russia and to prolong them, and to consider targeted measures against the individuals responsible for the detention and trial of the political prisoners;

24.

Underlines that is important that the Delegation of the European Union to Russia and the embassies of EU Member States monitor the trials of human rights defenders;

25.

Calls on the Presidents of the Council and the Commission, as well as on the Vice-President of the Commission / High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy (VP/HR), to continue to follow the cases of non-compliance of international legal obligations closely and to raise these issues in different formats and meetings with Russia;

26.

Reiterates its call on the VP/HR, and on the EEAS, to ensure that all cases of persons prosecuted for political reasons are raised in EU-Russia human rights consultations, when resumed, and that Russia’s representatives in these consultations are formally requested to respond in each case and to report back to Parliament on their exchanges with the Russian authorities;

27.

Urges the VP/HR and the EEAS to ensure that the Union seeks every opportunity, within the boundaries of Russian domestic law, to continue to engage with and support Russian civil-society organisations, including those working to promote the values of democracy, human rights and the rule of law;

28.

Calls on the EU to make a statement to condemn human rights violations in Russia and the attempt to hide them under the cover of the FIFA World Cup;

29.

Instructs its President to forward this resolution to the Vice-President of the Commission / High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy, the Council, the Commission, the governments and parliaments of the Member States, the Council of Europe, the Organisation for Security and Cooperation in Europe and the President, Government and Parliament of the Russian Federation.

(1) Texts adopted, P8_TA(2017)0087.

(2) The non-exhaustive list includes: Teimur Abdullaiev, Uzeir Abdullaiev, Taliat Abdurakhmanov, Rustem Abiltarov, Zevri Abseitov, Muslim Aliiev, Refat Alimov, Kiazim Ametov, Ernes Ametov, Ali Asanov, Marlen Asanov, Volodymyr Balukh, Ali Bariev, Enver Bekirov, Memet Belialov, Oleksii Bessarabov, Rustem Vaitov, Resul Velilyaev, Valentyn Vygovskii, Pavlo Hryb, Mykola Dadeu, Konstatin Davydenko, Bekir Dehermendzhi, Mustafa Dehermendzhi, Emil Dzhemadenov, Arsen Dzhepparov, Dmitrii Dolgopolov, Volodymyr Dudka, Andriy Zakhtei, Ruslan Zeitullaiev, Server Zekiriaiev, Timur Ibragimov, Rustem Ismailov, Yevgenii Karakashev, Mykola Karpiyuk, Stanislav Klykh, Andriy Kolomiiets, Oleksandr Kolchenko, Oleksandr Kostenko, Emir-Usein Kuku, Hennadii Limeshko, Serhii Litvinov, Enver Mamutov, Nariman Memedeminov, Remzi Memetov, Emil Minasov, Igor Movenko, Seiran Muradosilov, Seiran Mustafaiev, Server Mustafaiev, Yevhen Panov, Nuri Primov, Volodymyr Prysych, Ismail Ramazanov, Fevzi Sagandzhi, Ferat Saifullaiev, Aider Saledinov, Seiran Saliiev, Enver Seitosmanov, Oleg Sentsov, Oleksii Sizonovich, Vadym Siruk, Edem Smailov, Oleksandr Steshenko, Oleksii Stohniy, Renat Suleimanov, Anna Sukhonosova, Roman Sushchenko, Roman Ternovsky, Ruslan Ametov, Asan Chapukh, Oleksii Chirnii, Hlib Shablii, Mykola Shiptur, Dmytro Shtyblikov, Oleksandr Shumkov, Viktor Shur.

27.1.2020

Official Journal of the European Union

C 28/85

P8_TA(2018)0262

Structural and financial barriers in the access to culture

European Parliament resolution of 14 June 2018 on structural and financial barriers in the access to culture (2017/2255(INI))

(2020/C 28/11)

The European Parliament,

—	having regard to Article 27 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights,

—	having regard to Article 15 of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights,

—	having regard to the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, and in particular Articles 22 and 25 thereof,

—	having regard to its resolution of 12 May 2011 on unlocking the potential of cultural and creative industries (1),

—	having regard to its resolution of 12 September 2013 on promoting the European cultural and creative sectors as sources of economic growth and jobs (2),

—	having regard to its resolution of 13 December 2016 on a coherent EU policy for cultural and creative industries (3),

—	having regard to its resolution of 10 April 2008 on cultural industries in Europe (4),

—	having regard to its resolution of 7 June 2007 on the social status of artists (5),

—	having regard to its resolution of 12 May 2011 on the cultural dimensions of the EU’s external actions (6),

—	having regard to its resolution of 26 February 2004 on the role of schools and school education in maximising access to culture (7),

—	having regard to its resolution of 19 January 2016 entitled ‘Towards a Digital Single Market Act’ (8),

—	having regard to its resolution of 8 September 2015 entitled ‘Towards an integrated approach to cultural heritage for Europe’ (9),

—	having regard to its resolution of 19 January 2016 on the role of intercultural dialogue, cultural diversity and education in promoting EU fundamental values (10),

—	having regard to its resolution of 10 April 2008 on a European agenda for culture in a globalising world (11),

—	having regard to its position of 1 June 2017 on the proposal for a Council directive amending Directive 2006/112/EC, as regards rates of value added tax applied to books, newspapers and periodicals (12),

—	having regard to its resolution of 5 May 2010 on the communication ‘Europeana – the next steps’ (13),

—	having regard to its resolution of 25 October 2011 on mobility and inclusion of people with disabilities and the European Disability Strategy 2010-2020 (14),

—	having regard to its resolution of 30 November 2017 on implementation of the European Disability Strategy (15),

—

having regard to its resolution of 2 March 2017 on the implementation of Regulation (EU) No 1295/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 December 2013 establishing the Creative Europe Programme (2014 to 2020) and repealing Decisions No 1718/2006/EC, No 1855/2006/EC and No 1041/2009/EC (16),

—	having regard to the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (UNCRPD), and in particular Article 30 thereof on participation in cultural life, recreation, leisure and sport,

—	having regard to Goal 11 of the UN 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development, signed in September 2015, which proposes making cities and human settlements inclusive, safe, resilient and sustainable,

—	having regard to the Convention on the Protection and Promotion of the Diversity of Cultural Expressions, adopted by the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation (UNESCO) on 20 October 2005,

—	having regard to the Council of Europe Framework Convention on the Value of Cultural Heritage for Society (Faro Convention) of 27 October 2005,

—	having regard to Regulation (EU) No 1295/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 December 2013 establishing the Creative Europe Programme (2014 to 2020) and repealing Decisions No 1718/2006/EC, No 1855/2006/EC and No 1041/2009/EC (17),

—	having regard to the Council Resolution of 16 November 2007 on a European Agenda for Culture (18),

—	having regard to the Council conclusions of 23 December 2014 on a Work Plan for Culture (2015-2018) (19),

—	having regard to the EU Work Plan for Culture for the period 2015-2018,

—	having regard to the Council conclusions of 18 and 19 May 2015 on cultural and creative crossovers to stimulate innovation, economic sustainability and social inclusion (20),

—	having regard to the Council conclusions of 31 May 2016 on the role of Europeana for the digital access, visibility and use of European cultural heritage (21),

—	having regard to the Council Resolution of 6 May 2003 on accessibility of cultural infrastructure and cultural activities for people with disabilities (22),

—	having regard to the joint communication by the Commission and the High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy of 8 June 2016 to the European Parliament and the Council entitled ‘Towards an EU strategy for international cultural relations’(JOIN(2016)0029),

—	having regard to the Commission report on the implementation of the European Agenda for Culture (COM(2010)0390),

—	having regard to the Commission Green Paper of 27 April 2010 entitled ‘Unlocking the potential of cultural and creative industries’(COM(2010)0183),

—	having regard to the Commission proposal for a decision of the European Parliament and of the Council on a European Year of Cultural Heritage (2018) (COM(2016)0543),

—	having regard to the Commission communication of 26 September 2012 entitled ‘Promoting cultural and creative sectors for growth and jobs in the EU’(COM(2012)0537),

—	having regard to the Commission communication of 18 December 2012 on content in the Digital Single Market (COM(2012)0789),

—	having regard to the Commission communication of 22 July 2014 entitled ‘Towards an integrated approach to cultural heritage for Europe’(COM(2014)0477),

—	having regard to the 2012 report by the working group of the EU Member States’ experts on access to culture,

—	having regard to the results of Eurobarometer surveys Nos 399, ‘Cultural access and participation’, and 466, ‘Cultural heritage’,

—	having regard to the results of the Eurostat statistical surveys (‘Culture statistics’) for 2016,

—	having regard to Rule 52 of its Rules of Procedure,

—	having regard to the report of the Committee on Culture and Education (A8-0169/2018),

whereas Article 27 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights states that ‘everyone has the right freely to participate in the cultural life of the community, to enjoy the arts and to share in scientific advancement and its benefits’, and whereas access to culture and opportunities for creative expression are important for the existence of a democratic society founded on freedom of expression and equality;

B.	whereas the Faro Convention recognises the right to cultural heritage and calls for the development of innovative ways to manage heritage so that public authorities can cooperate with other actors, including associations and private individuals;

C.	whereas Article 22 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union calls for respect for cultural diversity and Article 25 recognises the right of the elderly to participate in cultural life;

D.	whereas culture has a strong impact on the promotion, understanding and development of solidarity between European and trans-European communities;

E.	whereas the constitutions of most EU Member States directly or indirectly refer to culture and access to it;

whereas the EU can complement and encourage cultural policies, while under Article 167 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU) authorities at national, regional and local level remain the main bodies in charge of cultural policies in the EU, in accordance with the subsidiarity principle;

G.	whereas any kind of barrier that obstructs access and full participation for individuals or communities in cultural processes and cultural ecosystems inhibits the development of truly democratic and inclusive societies;

H.	whereas culture gives European citizens greater opportunities to develop personal, social, creative and intercultural skills;

whereas, according to UN estimates, half the world’s population, namely 3,5 billion people, currently live in cities; whereas by 2030 nearly 60 % of the world’s population will live in urban areas; whereas it is therefore necessary to lay down strategies with effective policies to resolve the issues still present and to ensure enough time to make changes in order to create truly inclusive urban spaces;

whereas Recommendation 2006/962/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 December 2006 on key competences for lifelong learning (23) includes cultural awareness and expression among the basic competences necessary for personal fulfilment and development, active citizenship, social inclusion and employment;

K.	whereas the Commission communication of 10 May 2007 entitled ‘A European Agenda for Culture in a Globalising World’(COM(2007)0242) stressed the need to facilitate access to culture and cultural works, as well as to promote cultural diversity;

L.	whereas the future of cultural innovation in the EU depends on investment in creative resources, knowledge and talent;

M.	whereas the Work Plan for Culture (2015-2018) adopted by the Council in December 2014 identifies as priorities accessible and inclusive culture and the promotion of cultural diversity;

N.	whereas one of the objectives of the EU and its Member States should be the reduction of social and economic inequalities in order to promote an inclusive society in which everyone can participate; whereas a strong, dynamic and diversified cultural sector is fundamental to an inclusive society;

whereas participation in cultural activities is a means of creating a sense of belonging to a society; whereas the construction of a social identity is closely linked to cultural participation; whereas participation in cultural activities could contribute to higher self-esteem and a better quality of life, particularly for individuals who are experiencing some kind of marginalisation as a result of unemployment or illness or for any other reason;

P.	whereas an inclusive cultural sector is one which allows everyone the same opportunities to participate and develop their creative skills, regardless of their socio-economic, cultural or religious background or of any disability;

Q.	whereas in many regions, public libraries and community cultural institutions are frequently visited by citizens and are often the sole access points for information and culture, particularly in rural or remote regions;

R.	whereas new digital technologies could have an influence on the management of the cultural sector, dialogue and the creation of new audiences, and the dissemination of cultural activities;

S.	whereas new digital technologies and online platforms offer crucial opportunities for increasing levels of participation and cultural creation;

T.	whereas people from third countries are under-represented in different cultural areas in the EU; whereas this also affects people with a disability;

whereas the report of the working group of the EU Member States’ experts on access to culture (24) defines access in terms of enabling new audiences to benefit from the available cultural offer; whereas this implies reaching new audiences or citizens and bringing them closer to cultural heritage and other cultural resources;

V.	whereas digital technologies have changed the ways in which people access, produce, disseminate and use cultural content;

W.	whereas the Europeana platform, which was launched in 2008, has become a common European cultural project that facilitates digital access to Europe’s cultural heritage;

X.	whereas one of the specific objectives of the Creative Europe programme is to reach new audiences and improve access to cultural and creative works in the Union and beyond, with particular focus on children, young people, people with disabilities and under-represented groups;

Y.	whereas initiatives exist at Community level and in the Member States aimed at providing better access to cultural infrastructure and cultural activities for people with disabilities;

Z.	whereas the diversity of tax procedures and systems within the EU creates difficulties for the mobility of artists and of cultural workers in general, by generating excessive red tape which is often disproportionate to the actual, modest revenue resulting from their activities;

AA.

whereas the development of reliable, comparable and up-to-date cultural statistics, which are the basis of sound cultural policymaking, is one of the cross-cutting priorities of the Work Plan for Culture 2015-2018, which underlines the economic potential of the cultural and creative industries and their impact on social wellbeing;

AB.	whereas access to qualitative research and comparative data resources enables the effective monitoring and analysis of the cultural, economic and social impact of cultural policies;

AC.	whereas culture helps to promote a society based on knowledge and the sharing of experiences and world history;

AD.	whereas around 8,4 million people are employed in the EU’s cultural sector (accounting for 3,7 % of the total workforce) (25), and whereas their potential in terms of economic growth is still only incompletely realised;

AE.	whereas those who endeavour through cultural production to contribute to the expression of their identity and to widen and sustainably develop access to culture face difficulties and challenges;

Cultural access and participation

Stresses that it recognises access to culture as a fundamental right of all citizens, in accordance with Article 27 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which recognises participation in cultural life as one of the fundamental human rights; points out, furthermore, that this right is enshrined in the Faro Convention, which recognises the right to participate in cultural life, and promotes the role of cultural heritage in building peaceful and democratic societies; calls, therefore, on the signatory Member States to speed up the process of ratification, and on other states which are not signatories to sign the Convention, taking up the unique opportunity provided by the European Year of Cultural Heritage;

Points to the importance of a holistic application of the concept of accessibility and its value as a tool for ensuring that every person who is a user of culture and cultural locations and initiatives is taken into consideration in the broadest and fullest sense and that, as a result, account is taken of the specific needs of people with disabilities, with a view to ensuring that they enjoy equal opportunities, true social inclusion and active participation in society;

Stresses the undeniable importance of an active and accessible cultural sector for the development of an inclusive society and the strengthening of a common core of universal values and active European citizenship, which are fundamental to enable citizens to fruitfully and meaningfully participate in public life, while at the same time promoting Europe’s cultural heritage and developing European cultural and linguistic diversity; calls, therefore, on the Member States, and on the Union within its sphere of competence, to develop and implement the necessary specific measures in order to guarantee access to and participation in cultural life;

Encourages inclusion and diversity as an integral part of planning, organisational development and recruitment in the cultural sector at European, national and regional level; also encourages Member States to carry out systematic monitoring of the measures that are directed towards this objective;

Recalls the importance of the EU’s role in promoting and facilitating better coordination of cultural policies at all levels; notes that only on this basis will it be possible for operators across the EU to develop a comprehensive and effective policy to promote access to and participation in culture, and to frame culture as an essential element of the European integration project;

Considers access to culture and cultural participation as a cross-cutting issue, and therefore stresses the importance of coordinating cultural policy with other policy areas such as education, social, economic, regional, foreign, digital and media policies;

Recommends that Member States develop a cultural action strategy aimed at children and young people;

Recognises the promotion and achievement of inclusive and meaningful access to culture as one of the priorities on the political agenda, and calls for the mainstreaming of accessibility and cultural participation aspects into other policy areas, as this will not only make a positive contribution to those areas, but will also have an impact on cross-sectoral and synergistic cooperation in the spirit of Article 167 TFEU;

States that the compendium of national cultural policies as designed and managed by the Council of Europe and a platform of experts has been a very useful tool for cultural policies in Europe and beyond; regrets, however, that since 2011 there has been little progress on data collecting and, especially, data analysis, and therefore recommends that the Council proceeds with a review of present content, including also the local and regional levels of cultural policies;

10.

Highlights that the concepts of access to culture and participation in culture are closely connected; notes that strategies for strengthening cultural access and participation should be implemented through the identification of under-represented groups and the designing and implementing of initiatives or programmes aimed at increasing their participation and removing existing barriers;

11.

Stresses the need to gather information on the participation of disabled people in cultural activities;

12.

Regrets that financial barriers still prevent citizens, especially those belonging to the most disadvantaged groups, from fully enjoying their fundamental right to participate in cultural life and access to culture, and that this hinders the effective realisation of that fundamental right;

13.

Recalls the importance of developing platforms for the sharing and exchange of experiences at regional, national and European level;

14.

Stresses the importance of guaranteeing a quality cultural offer to all citizens as a basis for promoting active, democratic and inclusive citizenship;

Financial barriers

15.

Stresses that steady and continuous public funding plays a fundamental role in ensuring a vibrant cultural scene and remains an indispensable instrument for supporting cultural activities in the EU so that they can achieve their economic potential, for contributing to sustainable growth and social cohesion, and for financing cultural infrastructure; calls, therefore, on the Commission and the Member States, within their respective spheres of competence, to devote an appropriate part of their budgets to public support for culture and to strengthen synergies with the ERDF and other cultural support funds, including programmes facilitating research and innovation and the available cohesion policy tools;

16.

Calls on the Commission and the Member States to ensure that public funding of culture is not reduced, regardless of possible future economic difficulties that a Member State might be facing;

17.

Regrets that economic downturns have usually resulted and still too often result first and foremost in cuts in public spending on culture and have a negative impact on budgets for cultural activities;

18.

Recalls that investment in the cultural and creative sectors is a means of unlocking the significant and still undervalued potential of those sectors to foster cultural diversity and social innovation, while at the same time generating sustainable economic prosperity and quality jobs, and that such investment also has a direct impact on the development of new skills, digitisation, entrepreneurship, innovation and the formulation of new business models, as well as strengthening the competitiveness of the European cultural and creative sectors, seizing possibilities and gaining access to new international opportunities, markets, and audiences; considers, therefore, that the private sector plays a key role that is complementary to public investment, and calls on the Member States to consider implementing legislative measures that provide for a tax credit for contributions of money by private entities to support culture;

19.

Points out that fragmentation, low added value and the activities of numerous self-employed men and women in the creative sector, recalling that these activities are generally regarded as interesting pursuits, must not result in the cultural/creative industry being a model for poorly paid work or work with poor social cover; proposes, therefore, developing robust review processes for good work in the creative sector;

20.

Stresses that public access to cultural goods and services and support for cultural production and expression strengthen the creative economy, contributing to a country’s development;

21.

Points out that the lack of funding of cultural industries would be reduced by means of tax incentives for private sponsorship;

22.

Draws attention to the problems over international income taxation that artists all over Europe have to face, and therefore recommends a standard model that will be of benefit to employees and self-employed individuals and which will prevent double taxation;

23.

Calls for investment in micro-businesses in order to encourage creativity and innovation, thus promoting regional and local development;

24.

Stresses that the high price of cultural goods and services is one of the barriers to participation in culture highlighted by respondents to the Eurobarometer and Eurostat surveys (26); strongly recommends that in this context Member States and regions undertake actions targeting specific audiences, particularly students, large families and the elderly, with the aim of removing financial barriers to access;

25.

Stresses that high insurance costs for exhibition objects and performances are also responsible for high entrance or ticket prices for museums, theatres and galleries and often make it impossible for smaller structures to develop their programmes in accordance with their audiences and ambitions, a situation resulting in an ever-growing gap between smaller structures that are close to their audience, and bigger, internationally recognised institutions;

26.

Stresses the role that appropriate fiscal policies for the cultural and creative sectors can play in enhancing access to culture and participation in culture; notes, however, that indirect support for cultural heritage through the introduction of reduced VAT rates cannot replace direct subsidies; calls for better coordination of national cultural policies and VAT rates, as a tool to stimulate cultural participation;

27.

Recalls the importance of Member States looking into the possibility of a more coherent taxation policy as regards revenues, for cultural workers and artists who spend short periods of time in different countries and can thus be subject to different rules and administrative procedures for every single performance, workshop or residence; suggests that a minimum of harmonisation to support artists’ and cultural workers’ mobility should be considered a priority in order to encourage diversity of creation and culture throughout the EU and beyond, instead of creating barriers in the form of red tape that is out of proportion to the actual revenues obtained from cultural work;

28.

Encourages the Member States and public institutions to invest in the decentralisation of the exhibition of cultural activities, whether through building infrastructure in remote regions or through different temporary cultural exhibitions; encourages private cultural institutions to also invest in geographic decentralisation;

29.

Welcomes the proposal to amend the VAT Directive which would allow Member States to apply the same VAT rate to e-publications and printed publications; considers that the distinction between VAT rates applied to physical and electronic publications is anachronistic and unsustainable in the digital age; calls on the Council to adopt the Commission’s proposal on this matter without undue delay;

30.

Stresses the importance of conciliation between private and professional life to accessing, enjoying and participating in different cultural activities;

Educational barriers and challenges

31.

Stresses that educational level is one of the most important factors having a significant impact on the level of participation in culture; stresses that a higher level of education translates into a higher level of participation in cultural events (27); stresses that the humanities, language learning in schools and cultural education are an integral part of general education, as they help reduce social disparities, and thus require the same funding as STEM subjects;

32.

Stresses that knowledge is conceived as a product of cultural interactions that influence and reflect individuals who incorporate cultural imprinting;

33.

Encourages an interactive and inclusive community-based approach to developing cultural and educational policies in order to increase cultural interest and participation, promote Europe’s cultural heritage and develop European cultural and linguistic diversity;

34.

Notes that lack of interest is one of the most frequently mentioned barriers to cultural participation among respondents to Eurostat and Eurobarometer surveys (28); stresses, in this context, that supporting demand, understood as building interest and understanding of culture through formal, non-formal and informal education, should be a priority task in terms of increasing access to and participation in culture;

35.

Recommends the mainstreaming of the European Student Card and that free access to EU cultural institutions should be added to its benefits;

36.

Recalls the fundamental role of schools and families as key platforms for bringing young people into contact with culture and shaping cultural needs and competences; calls on the Member States to take steps towards the greater integration of cultural and artistic education into school curricula, in both formal and informal education;

37.

Stresses the importance of Member States, in close collaboration with regional and local authorities and by means of funding and/or subsidies, ensuring music lessons in state schools;

38.

Recommends that the Member States consider education as one of the most important cultural activities, since promoting demand means, above all, providing people with the skills and knowledge to allow them to appreciate the arts; recalls that cultivating interest in culture is more effective if done at a young age, and considers that culture should accordingly be given more space on school curricula and that more human resources and materials should be made available in order to reach this objective; calls for schools to be given funding for visits to museums and other cultural institutions, since this will simultaneously promote interest in culture and youth participation and provide additional resources for cultural institutions;

39.

Stresses the importance of state education systems in introducing children to the diversity of the world of culture, thus helping to train new audiences and to disseminate culture; also stresses the importance of different cultural institutions developing partnerships with local schools at local, regional and national level;

40.

Encourages the Member States and regional and local authorities to support out-of-school cultural education programmes intended for everyone, and particularly for underprivileged children and young people, through programmes aimed at introducing them to different artistic expressions or at helping them become more aware of the existing cultural heritage;

41.

Stresses the role of local cultural institutions, including cultural centres and libraries, as key actors in overcoming barriers to accessing and participating in culture; calls, therefore, on the Member States to actively support such cultural institutions;

42.

Calls for a greater appreciation and understanding of the social role of public libraries and cultural community institutions, particularly in rural or remote regions, not only through increasing public funding, but also through forming partnerships and providing them with the adequate ICT and human resources with access to training, thus turning them into institutions that can improve people’s lives and encourage local development;

43.

Highlights that establishing partnerships is fundamental in attracting potential audiences for artistic activities and that this could be achieved, for instance, through cooperation with organisations representing students, migrants or disabled people so as to appropriately respond to their interests and needs;

44.

Stresses the importance of supporting initiatives at national, regional and local level that promote contact, collaboration and the exchange of experiences between traditional arts, cultural institutions and different multicultural or minority organisations, as well as between professional and amateur cultural sectors;

45.

Recommends the development of a coherent strategy for supporting educational projects proposed by cultural institutions; stresses that these projects are tools supporting and building awareness, cultural competences and intercultural knowledge, thus serving as a starting-point for the long-term involvement of the public in cultural activities;

46.

Encourages the Member States to set up leisure-time programmes for young people in cultural institutions;

47.

Calls on the Commission and the Member States to adopt measures to ensure more widespread access to cultural institutions and to develop a comprehensive European strategy concerning access to public spaces, particularly relating to culture in the urban built environment, as in the cases of museums, theatres, cinemas, libraries, concert halls, etc.;

48.

Calls on the Member States to encourage the creation of study or internship grants for students related to state or private educational networks, in cultural or cultural management institutions;

Structural barriers

49.

Draws attention to the often lower cultural participation rates among the rural population, which are structurally conditioned (29), and, in this context, to the role of small local cultural centres, transport infrastructure and support for sustainable cultural tourism in facilitating access to cultural institutions;

50.

Stresses that the European cultural heritage is unique in the world for its diversity and richness, and highlights that cultural tourism has a huge potential for contributing to a sustainable economy as well as fostering social cohesion and inclusion; calls, therefore, on the Member States to increase their efforts and investments in order to develop a sustainable and long-term cultural tourism policy;

51.

Calls for greater investment in the cultural sector in order to boost local economies and promote cultural tourism; notes that cultural tourism, in synergy with science, the primary sector and artisanal and industrial centres, as well as mobility, are decisive factors in creating a closer and more humanistic Europe;

52.

Suggests greater investment in access to culture for the outermost, mountain and remote regions, in order to create decentralised cultural opportunities;

53.

Notes the need for further action to improve access to a cultural infrastructure with no technological or physical barriers and to cultural activities and media for people with disabilities; calls on the Member States and the Commission, within their respective spheres of competence, to continue to work towards the integration of people with disabilities through culture and to make efforts to remove existing barriers;

54.

Recognises the need for participative methods of managing cultural heritage based on an approach that focuses on local communities, in order to intercept demand and involve larger sections of the public, taking particular account of young people, people with disabilities and under-represented and marginalised groups;

55.

Asks the Member States and the cultural institutions that depend on them to ensure a cultural offer that is accessible to everyone, with specific measures for certain population groups, such as children and young people, the elderly, disabled people or migrants, among others;

56.

Highlights the need for greater investment by the Member States in the implementation of the universal touch reading and writing code (the Braille system) in a wide variety of cultural infrastructures and technologies; calls for greater investment in the production of audio books, magazines and newspapers, and the use of sign language in theatre productions;

57.

Points out the need to remove obstacles to the mobility of artists and cultural professionals, primarily tax obstacles; stresses the impact of these activities on expanding Europe’s cultural offer; commends the Creative Europe programme for contributing to the success of cultural mobility and professionals in the sector and for encouraging the dissemination of quality cultural events and projects;

58.

Recalls that barriers to access to culture are more apparent at local level, which is why there should be greater investment in different cultural mobility projects with a view to enabling the development and cohesion of local communities;

59.

Calls on the Commission to consider the mobility of European artists and artists from third countries as an asset for the promotion of peace, the sharing of visions and the deconstruction of social and cultural stereotypes;

60.

Recalls that language barriers can have an adverse effect on cultural demand, and calls, therefore, for greater multilingualism in cultural productions;

61.

Recommends that the Member States undertake the necessary measures to facilitate transport and access to cultural institutions for disabled people and people with reduced mobility;

Digital barriers and challenges

62.

Is convinced that digital tools, when properly used and implemented and where accompanied by a consistent level of digital literacy, can help to overcome barriers to access to culture caused by factors including unfavourable geographical location, disability, social background, language and lack of time or financial resources; points out that, without this entailing disinvestment in the geographic decentralisation of cultural activities, digital tools can also be a means of overcoming social or mental barriers; considers, therefore, that in this context digital education should form part of the learning process from an early age, so as to develop adequate knowledge and skills;

63.

Recommends that the Commission draw up a consistent digital strategy aimed at cultural infrastructures and activities in order to strengthen their capacities;

64.

Notes the problem of digital exclusion and stresses the need to combat it; recalls, in this context, that digitisation requires cultural and educational institutions and the recipients themselves to acquire new competences, skills and knowledge; stresses, in particular, the need to build capacity for the use of new digital technologies in cultural institutions and to adapt them to the challenges of technological change;

65.

Stresses that the digitisation and online accessibility of cultural material in Europe should be implemented on a basis of full respect for creators and intellectual property rights; considers that, in this regard, intellectual property rights should not hamper the general public goal of increasing access to, and favouring the dissemination of, creative content, information and knowledge; insists further on the urgent need to settle a secure digital environment enabling artists and creators to be duly remunerated for their work, and to ensure a fair remuneration for cross-border access;

66.

Calls on the Commission to continue giving priority to innovative approaches to audience development and audience involvement, including through new technologies, within the framework of EU programmes, in particular the Creative Europe programme and its subsequent iterations;

67.

Calls on the Member States to take audience development into account in their cultural and digital strategies, and to support the use of digital technologies in order to facilitate access to cultural content;

68.

Recognises the contribution made by the Europeana platform and the Member States’ institutions to the digitisation and accessibility of cultural content; calls, in the context of the European Year of Cultural Heritage, for ongoing support and better resources for the project and the promotion of public access to digital cultural heritage resources and services; demands a real restructuring of the site to better comply with advanced technologies, as well as a genuine communication policy that is in line with the richness of the content gathered on the site;

69.

Emphasises the need to collect and manage cultural data in the context of digital recipients, so as to enable cultural organisations to better understand the needs of recipients and to develop a coherent approach to the digital audience;

70.

Notes that cultural content plays a leading role as regards the acceptance by the wider public of the new technologies concerned and the development of the e-skills and media literacy levels of Europe’s citizens;

o o

71.

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

(1) OJ C 377 E, 7.12.2012, p. 142.

(2) OJ C 93, 9.3.2016, p. 95.

(3) Texts adopted, P8_TA(2016)0486.

(4) OJ C 247 E, 15.10.2009, p. 25.

(5) OJ C 125 E, 22.5.2008, p. 223.

(6) OJ C 377 E, 7.12.2012, p. 135.

(7) OJ C 98 E, 23.4.2004, p. 179.

(8) OJ C 11, 12.1.2018, p. 55.

(9) OJ C 316, 22.9.2017, p. 88.

(10) OJ C 11, 12.1.2018, p. 16.

(11) OJ C 247 E, 15.10.2009, p. 32.

(12) Texts adopted, P8_TA(2017)0233.

(13) OJ C 81 E, 15.3.2011, p. 16.

(14) OJ C 131 E, 8.5.2013, p. 9.

(15) Texts adopted, P8_TA(2017)0474.

(16) Texts adopted, P8_TA(2017)0062.

(17) OJ L 347, 20.12.2013, p. 221.

(18) OJ C 287, 29.11.2007, p. 1.

(19) OJ C 463, 23.12.2014, p. 4.

(20) OJ C 172, 27.5.2015, p. 13.

(21) OJ C 212, 14.6.2016, p. 9.

(22) OJ C 134, 7.6.2003, p. 7.

(23) OJ L 394, 30.12.2006, p. 10.

(24) Report entitled ‘Policies and good practices in the public arts and cultural institutions to promote better access to and wider participation in culture’, October 2012.

(25) Eurostat, Culture statistics – cultural employment (2017), http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php/Culture_statistics_-_cultural_employment

(26) Eurobarometer 399.

(27) Eurostat, Culture statistics, 2016 edition, pp. 116-136; Eurostat data from 2015 – EU Survey on Income and Living Conditions (EU-SILC).

(28) Eurobarometer 399, Eurostat (data from 2015 EU Survey on Income and Living Conditions (EU-SILC)).

(29) Eurostat (data from 2015 EU Survey on Income and Living Conditions (EU-SILC)).

27.1.2020

Official Journal of the European Union

C 28/101

P8_TA(2018)0267

Negotiations for a new EU-ACP Partnership Agreement

European Parliament resolution of 14 June 2018 on the upcoming negotiations for a new Partnership Agreement between the European Union and the African, Caribbean and Pacific Group of States (2018/2634(RSP))

(2020/C 28/13)

The European Parliament,

—

having regard to the Partnership Agreement between the members of the African, Caribbean and Pacific Group of States of the one part, and the European Community and its Member States, of the other part, signed in Cotonou on 23 June 2000 (the Cotonou Agreement), and to its revisions of 2005 and 2010 (1),

—	having regard to the Georgetown Agreement of 1975 setting up the ACP Group, and to its revision of 1992 (2),

—	having regard to its resolution of 4 October 2016 on the future of ACP-EU relations beyond 2020 (3),

—	having regard to its resolution of 22 November 2016 on increasing the effectiveness of development cooperation (4),

—	having regard to the Commission recommendation of 12 December 2017 for a Council Decision authorising the opening of negotiations on a Partnership Agreement between the European Union and countries of the African, Caribbean and Pacific Group of States (COM(2017)0763),

—	having regard to the joint communication from the Commission and the High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy of 22 November 2016 on a renewed partnership with the countries of Africa, the Caribbean and the Pacific (JOIN(2016)0052),

—

having regard to the joint consultation paper of the Commission and the High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy of 6 October 2015 entitled ‘Towards a new partnership between the European Union and the African, Caribbean and Pacific countries after 2020’(JOIN(2015)0033),

—	having regard to the United Nations Summit on Sustainable Development and the outcome document adopted by the UN General Assembly on 25 September 2015 entitled ‘Transforming our world: the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development’, and to the 17 Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs),

—	having regard to the joint statement of 7 June 2017 by Parliament, the Council, the representatives of the governments of the Member States meeting within the Council, and the Commission on the New European Consensus on Development – Our World, Our Dignity, Our Future,

—	having regard to the opinions of the European Economic and Social Committee of 7 December 2017 on a renewed partnership with the African, Caribbean and Pacific countries, and of 12 May 2016 on the future of the EU’s relations with the ACP Group of countries,

—	having regard to the 7th and 8th Summits of ACP Heads of State and Government held in Malabo (13-14 December 2012) and Port Moresby (4 May 2016) respectively,

—	having regard to the 103rd and 105th ACP-EU Joint Council of Ministers meetings held in Dakar (26-27 April 2016) and Brussels (3-4 May 2017) respectively,

—	having regard to the EU-African Union Summit held in Abidjan on 29-30 November 2017,

—	having regard to the report of the ACP Eminent Persons Group of March 2016 on the future of the ACP beyond 2020,

—	having regard to its resolution of 6 October 2015 on the role of local authorities in developing countries in development cooperation (5),

—	having regard to the declaration of the 8th Summit of ACP Heads of State and Government of the ACP Group of States of 1 June 2016,

—	having regard to its resolution of 11 February 2015 on the work of the ACP-EU Joint Parliamentary Assembly (6) and to the resolutions adopted by the ACP-EU Joint Parliamentary Assembly,

—	having regard to the declaration of the ACP-EU Joint Parliamentary Assembly of 21 December 2016 on the parliamentary dimension of the post-Cotonou ACP-EU relations (7),

—	having regard to the statement by the Co-Presidents of the ACP-EU Joint Parliamentary Assembly of 9 December 2015 on the future of ACP-EU relations (8),

—	having regard to Articles 208 and 218 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU),

—	having regard to the Interinstitutional Agreement of 13 April 2016 on Better Law-Making,

—	having regard to the questions to the Council and the Commission on the upcoming negotiations for a new Partnership Agreement between the European Union and the African, Caribbean and Pacific Group of States (O-000043/2018 – B8-0025/2018 and O-000044/2018 – B8-0026/2018),

—	having regard to the motion for a resolution of the Committee on Development,

—	having regard to Rules 128(5) and 123(2) of its Rules of Procedure,

whereas the strength and acquis of the Cotonou Agreement are based on a number of unique characteristics, such as its legally binding nature, its comprehensiveness – with its three pillars of development cooperation, political cooperation, and economic and trade cooperation – and its large budget in the form of the European Development Fund (EDF);

B.	whereas the ACP-EU partnership has played an important role in progress towards achieving the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs), despite the EU’s failure to reach the objective of allocating 0,7 % of its gross national income (GNI) to official development assistance (ODA);

C.	whereas the ACP-EU partnership has made a significant contribution to the eradication of poverty, to the integration of ACP States into the global economy, and as a more effective global player in multilateral trade and climate negotiations;

D.	whereas the ACP-EU partnership has improved market access for ACP States and EU Member States and promoted greater mutual understanding of positions, values and norms through political dialogue among them;

whereas although the ACP-EU partnership contributed greatly to the advancement of the MDGs, progress towards the objectives of poverty eradication and integration of ACP States into the world economy has been insufficient to date, given that half the ACP States are still among the world’s least developed countries (LDCs) and that together they account for less than 5 % of global trade and around 2 % of global GDP;

whereas the establishment of the African Union, the Joint Africa-EU Strategy, the Joint Caribbean-EU Partnership Strategy and the EU-Pacific Strategy exemplify the EU’s increasingly regional approach to addressing issues of common interest and concern, such as peace and security, terrorism and migration;

G.	whereas peace, security and political stability are prerequisites for sustainable development;

H.	whereas the common foundation and regional compacts must take into account regional and continental specificities, in line with the principles of subsidiarity and complementarity;

whereas the ACP has identified three pillars for negotiation, namely:

—	Trade, investment and services,

—	Development cooperation, science and technology, and research and innovation,

—	Political dialogue and advocacy;

whereas political dialogue on essential elements, as referred to in Articles 8 and 96 of the Cotonou Agreement, is a concrete and legal means of upholding the common values of the ACP-EU partnership and promoting democracy, good governance and human rights, which are fundamental for sustainable development;

K.	whereas there is a clear need to ensure that human rights conditionality is maintained and political dialogue strengthened in the new agreement;

whereas, despite the clear recognition of the role of national parliaments, local authorities, civil society and the private sector in the 2010 revision of the Cotonou Agreement, their participation in deliberations on ACP-EU policies and activities, including in programming, follow-up and evaluation processes, has been limited;

M.	whereas political dialogue has largely been used at a late stage of political crises and not as a preventative measure;

N.	whereas civil society organisations are facing increasingly restrictive legislation and other obstacles that limit their activities and space;

O.	whereas technical capacity in many ACP states for handling matters in the area of taxation is a constraint on both domestic revenue mobilisation and participation in international tax cooperation;

whereas the EDF is financed through direct contributions from EU Member States and is not subject to normal EU budgetary rules; whereas Parliament does not have any power over the EDF budget other than in granting discharge for disbursements already made, nor does it have formal scrutiny rights over EDF programming;

Q.	whereas the reinforcement of the parliamentary dimension of the ACP-EU partnership and the strengthening of its consultative role should be key elements of the new partnership;

whereas the frequency and variety of ACP-EU Joint Parliamentary Assembly (JPA) meetings has enabled consistent dialogue between the European Parliament and ACP Members, thus consolidating its legitimacy and strengthening parliamentary diplomacy; whereas the JPA has been used as a model of parliamentary diplomacy in various political fora;

Welcomes the main aspects and overall architecture of future cooperation between the ACP Group of States and the European Union proposed by the Commission in its recommendation for a Council Decision authorising the opening of negotiations on a future Partnership Agreement;

Insists that the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development, the SDGs and the European Consensus on Development must be at the heart of the renewed ACP-EU partnership;

Welcomes the fact that attainment of the SDGs is considered a key objective, but regrets the lack of concrete implementation measures in the proposed compacts; stresses the need to mainstream cross-cutting issues such as environmental sustainability, climate change objectives, gender issues and social justice into all policies, plans and interventions across the future agreement;

Welcomes the fact that the Commission’s proposal for a new partnership agreement is open to external partners;

Recalls that the very first SDG is the eradication of poverty, which remains a key problem in most ACP States; stresses, therefore, that the fight against poverty must remain a central element of the future agreement;

Notes that the Commission has largely taken into account Parliament’s view and that the common foundation and regional compacts will be legally binding to an equal extent, as requested by Parliament;

Recalls that the future partnership agreement will include the principles of equity, mutual respect and mutual interest;

Insists that the essential elements of the Cotonou Agreement – respect for human rights, fundamental freedoms, democratic principles and the rule of law, and good governance – be maintained as the basis for cooperation post-2020 and be part and parcel of the foundation agreement and the regional compacts and protocols; calls on the Commission and the Council to explicitly include, in the human rights part of the mandate, freedom from discrimination on grounds of sex, racial or ethnic origin, religion or belief, disability, age, sexual orientation or gender identity, as well as sexual and reproductive health and rights, as set out in the 1995 Beijing Platform of Action and the outcomes of the review conferences;

Stresses the need to address the question of human rights and governance on the basis of existing international legal instruments, laws, principles and mechanisms established by regional and pan-African governance bodies, with a view to strengthening ownership;

10.

Recalls that the future partnership between ACP States and EU Member States must incorporate the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development and should contribute to its implementation at all levels;

11.

Calls on EU and ACP negotiators to include in the common foundation part of the agreement a clear provision on the full implementation by all parties of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court;

12.

Insists on the need to ensure coherence between the principles laid down in the common foundation and the regional priorities defined in the compacts, and stresses that the foundation should include explicit reference to accountability, monitoring and review mechanisms in the case of non-compliance; underlines that the accountability of the parties towards citizens and civil society should also be ensured, and that the joint institutions should provide for mechanisms to enable civil society and citizens to report cases of breaches of human rights obligations and other essential elements;

13.

Reiterates to all parties to the negotiations that political dialogue is a fundamental part of the Cotonou Agreement and that it must remain a central and legal pillar in the overarching framework and at the regional level of the new agreement;

14.

Underlines that political dialogue is an integral part of the partnership and a valuable basis for improving the situation of the peoples of the partner countries; calls, therefore, for improved monitoring of the human rights situation in these countries and stresses that monitoring must be inclusive, transparent and participatory; stresses the importance of ensuring meaningful involvement of civil society in the dialogue at all levels;

15.

Recalls that the political dialogue must be balanced and based on mutual respect;

16.

Stresses that EU and ACP cooperation should provide for a peer review mechanism for monitoring progress and gaps in implementing the SDGs on a regular basis, involving parliaments, local authorities and civil society, and regular evaluation of and public reporting on respect for human rights and other essential elements; believes that the implementation of the 2030 Agenda and the SDGs requires legitimacy, proximity, subsidiarity and a high level of participation by local authorities and non-state actors if it is to be effective; calls for better communication and dialogue in order to deepen the relationship between ACP and EU countries;

17.

Reiterates that Economic Partnership Agreements (EPAs) constitute a basis for regional cooperation and are instruments for development and regional integration; calls, therefore, for their full integration into the new ACP-EU Agreement;

18.

Calls for the enhancement of the political clout of the ACP-EU partnership on the global scene, so that partners can be more effective global players;

19.

Calls for clear provisions in the future agreement that regulate the role and responsibilities of the private sector; stresses, in particular, the need for enterprises involved in development partnerships to abide by the principles of corporate social responsibility throughout the lifecycle of projects, including by respecting the UN Global Compact, the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights, the International Labour Organisation core labour standards, environmental standards and the UN Convention Against Corruption; highlights the need for both EU and ACP states to draw up national plans to implement the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights, and the due diligence provisions in particular;

20.

Recalls that the mobilisation of domestic resources through taxation is the most important source of revenue for financing sustainable development; regrets that measures to combat illicit financial flows and tax evasion are not given a prominent place in the draft mandate; calls on the negotiating parties to include in the new agreement ambitious provisions on financial and technical assistance to developing countries to cope with emerging global standards on fighting tax evasion, including the automatic exchange of information, information on beneficial ownership of companies and on public country-by-country reporting of multinationals to stop base erosion and profit shifting, based on G20 and OECD models; calls on the parties, furthermore, to commit to supporting the creation of a legally binding UN intergovernmental body on tax cooperation;

21.

Regrets that the draft negotiating mandate envisions no provisions on ensuring a sustainable development dimension for agriculture, despite the huge challenges faced by ACP farmers as a result of climate change; calls on the negotiating parties to include support schemes for sustainable agricultural practices in the new agreement;

22.

Calls for increased civil society involvement in political dialogue, programming and implementation and support for capacity-building by civil society; underlines the importance of involving civil society in the political dialogue, particularly in the case of local groups directly affected by policies; underlines, in this regard, the threat of shrinking space for civil society in some countries and the need to include groups such as minorities, young people and women that are unable to organise their interests or that are not recognised by their government despite a legitimate democratic interest;

23.

Stresses that the engagement of civil society should be built around recognition of the different roles it plays, and that its role as a fully-fledged actor in the agreement should be scaled up;

24.

Underlines that the principles of effective development cooperation need to be fully incorporated into the new ACP-EU partnership agreement and that provisions to ensure country ownership, a focus on results, the inclusiveness of the development process, transparency and mutual accountability must be cornerstones of the agreement and the regional protocols; underlines the need to ensure a geographically balanced approach to aid allocation with a substantial focus on least developed and fragile states; considers that making aid allocation conditional on cooperation with the EU on migration issues is not compatible with agreed development effectiveness principles;

25.

Stresses that the renewed EU and ACP cooperation/partnership should ensure more effective joint action to tackle the various challenges facing the world today, such as combating terrorism and organised crime;

26.

Reiterates that the future agreement must provide an opportunity to enhance commitments and respect for policy coherence for development (PCD), and should include mechanisms to systematically monitor PCD; recalls, in this regard, the role played by the EU delegations in the promotion of PCD and stresses the need for them to conduct dialogues on a regular basis at country level;

27.

Underlines the importance of crowding in private sector investment, facilitating the long-term development of local capital markets and levering limited ODA budgets to maximise impact and finance the SDGs;

28.

Reiterates the importance of strengthening the parliamentary dimension of the future agreement, guaranteeing real consultative power for the future overarching JPA and ensuring that it provides for open, democratic and comprehensive parliamentary dialogue; requests that its legal and operational autonomy be guaranteed; demands that the JPA be closely associated with the implementation of the agreement and regularly consulted in all matters of importance to the partnership; believes that the JPA should be fully involved in the negotiations for the future partnership;

29.

Calls for further efforts to improve JPA scrutiny of development programming;

30.

Is convinced that regular meetings are needed, at least annually, at ACP-EU level to ensure the continuity and stability of the partnership and to allow for regular reporting on, and peer reviews of, progress towards the SDGs and respect for human rights and other essential elements of the agreement, as called for by Parliament;

31.

Recommends, therefore, that the JPA be aligned with the new regional structure, keeping the focus on the work in the regional fora and closely involving the national and regional parliaments; considers that the ACP-EU Council and the JPA should meet regularly, but less frequently than at present, in plenary session, in the EU and an ACP State alternately, but that the session should not be dependent on the Council being convened; calls on the EU Member State holding the EU Council presidency to involve itself more deeply in the preparation, organisation and hosting of JPA sessions;

32.

Requests that meetings between EU and ACP Members of Parliament at the level of the regional compacts be held at least once a year in each region and be complemented by a multi-stakeholder forum involving non-state actors, including civil society, young people and the private sector;

33.

Is convinced that the Pan-African Parliament needs to become a strong pillar within the future EU-Africa compact, notably vis-à-vis and alongside the future EU-Africa council; calls, in this respect, on the Commission and its ACP counterparts to publish textual proposals on the parliamentary dimension and role of the Pan-African Parliament at an early stage of the negotiations and to consult with the Pan-African Parliament and the European Parliament respectively in this regard;

34.

Recalls that Parliament must be kept informed fully and immediately at all stages of the negotiating procedure, in line with Article 218(10) TFEU, and reiterates the need to agree on improved practical arrangements for cooperation and information sharing throughout the full life-cycle of international agreements; invites the Council and the Commission, furthermore, to inform the JPA fully and promptly about the negotiations;

35.

Calls on the Council of the European Union to publish the mandate as adopted by the Council; calls on the ACP Group of States to do likewise for its mandate.

36.

Instructs its President to forward this resolution to the Council, the Commission, the ACP Council, the Vice-President of the Commission/High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy, the African Union Commission, the Pan-African Parliament and the Bureau of the ACP-EU Joint Parliamentary Assembly.

(1) http://www.europarl.europa.eu/intcoop/acp/03_01/pdf/mn3012634_en.pdf

(2) http://www.wipo.int/edocs/trtdocs/en/acp/trt_acp_3.pdf

(3) Texts adopted, P8_TA(2016)0371.

(4) Texts adopted, P8_TA(2016)0437.

(5) OJ C 349, 17.10.2017, p. 11.

(6) OJ C 310, 25.8.2016, p. 19.

(7) OJ C 170, 30.5.2017, p. 36.

(8) http://www.europarl.europa.eu/intcoop/acp/2015_acp2/pdf/1081264en.pdf

27.1.2020

Official Journal of the European Union

C 28/108

P8_TA(2018)0268

Monitoring the application of EU law 2016

European Parliament resolution of 14 June 2018 on monitoring the application of EU law 2016 (2017/2273(INI))

(2020/C 28/14)

The European Parliament,

—	having regard to the Treaty on European Union (TEU) and in particular Articles 1, 2 and 3 thereof,

—	having regard to the Commission’s 33rd Annual Report on monitoring the application of EU law (2015) (COM(2016)0463),

—	having regard to the Commission’s 34th Annual Report on monitoring the application of EU law (2016) (COM(2017)0370),

—	having regard to the Commission report entitled ‘EU Pilot Evaluation Report’(COM(2010)0070),

—	having regard to the Commission report entitled ‘Second Evaluation Report on EU Pilot’(COM(2011)0930),

—	having regard to its resolution of 6 October 2016 entitled ‘Monitoring the application of Union law: 2014 Annual Report’ (1),

—	having regard to the Commission communication of 21 December 2016 entitled ‘EU law: Better results through better application’(C(2016)8600),

—	having regard to the Commission communication of 20 March 2002 on relations with the complainant in respect of infringements of Community law (COM(2002)0141),

—	having regard to the Commission communication of 2 April 2012 on updating the handling of relations with the complainant in respect of the application of Union law (COM(2012)0154),

—	having regard to the Commission communication of 11 March 2014 on a new EU Framework to strengthen the Rule of Law (COM(2014)0158),

—	having regard to the Commission communication of 19 May 2015 entitled ‘Better regulation for better results – An EU agenda’(COM(2015)0215),

—	having regard to the Framework Agreement on relations between the European Parliament and the European Commission (2),

—	having regard to Council Decision 2001/470/EC of 28 May 2001 establishing a European Judicial Network in civil and commercial matters (3),

—	having regard to the Interinstitutional Agreement between the European Parliament, the Council of the European Union and the European Commission of 13 April 2016 on better law-making (4),

—	having regard to its resolution of 10 September 2015 on the 30th and 31st annual reports on monitoring the application of EU law (2012-2013) (5),

—	having regard to its resolution of 25 October 2016 with recommendations to the Commission on the establishment of an EU mechanism on democracy, the rule of law and fundamental rights (6),

—	having regard to its resolution of 9 June 2016 for an open, efficient and independent European Union administration (7) and its resolution of 15 January 2013 with recommendations to the Commission on a Law of Administrative Procedure of the European Union (8);

—

having regard to the Commission communications of 27 May 2016 on delivering the benefits of EU environmental policies through a regular Environmental Implementation Review (COM(2016)0316) and of 3 February 2017 entitled ‘The EU Environmental Implementation Review: Common challenges and how to combine efforts to deliver better results’(COM(2017)0063),

—	having regard to the European Pillar of Social Rights,

—	having regard to Rules 52 and 132(2) of its Rules of Procedure,

—	having regard to the report of the Committee on Legal Affairs and the opinions of the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Food Safety, the Committee on Constitutional Affairs, the Committee on Women’s Rights and Gender Equality and the Committee on Petitions (A8-0197/2018),

A.	whereas Article 17 of the TEU defines the fundamental role of the Commission as ‘guardian of the Treaties’;

whereas Article 2 of the TEU stipulates that the Union is founded on the values of respect for human dignity, freedom, democracy, equality, the rule of law and respect for human rights, including the rights of persons belonging to minorities; and whereas proper implementation of EU law is therefore essential to achieving the EU policy goals defined in the Treaties and secondary legislation; whereas Article 8 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU) gives the Union the task of eliminating inequalities and promoting equality between men and women through all its activities;

whereas, according to Article 2 of the TEU and Article 21 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (CFREU), equality between women and men is one of the core values on which the EU is founded, and whereas, in all its activities, the Union shall aim to combat all forms of discrimination, eliminate inequalities and promote equal opportunities and equal treatment;

whereas Article 3 of the TEU stipulates that the aims of the Union are, inter alia, to promote peace, its values and the well-being of its peoples and to work for the sustainable development of Europe based on balanced economic growth and price stability, a highly competitive social market economy, aiming at full employment and social progress, and a high level of protection and improvement of the quality of the environment, and that the Union shall combat social exclusion and discrimination, and promote social justice and protection, equality between women and men, solidarity between generations and protection of the rights of the child;

whereas, according to settled case law of the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU), the Member States must supply the Commission with clear and precise information on the way in which they transpose EU directives into national law; and whereas, according to the Joint Political Declaration of 28 September 2011 between the Commission and the Member States (9) and the Joint Political Declaration of 27 October 2011 of the European Parliament, the Council and the Commission (10), Member States may, when notifying national transposition measures to the Commission, also be required to provide documents explaining how they have transposed directives into national law;

whereas pursuant to Article 4(3) of the TEU and Articles 288(3) and 291(1) of the TFEU, the Member States have the primary responsibility for transposing, applying and implementing EU law correctly and within the time limits set, and for providing sufficient remedies to ensure effective legal protection in the fields covered by EU law;

G.	whereas the correct application of EU law guarantees the benefits of Union’s policies to all European citizens and a level playing field for businesses;

whereas, following the adoption in December 2016 of its communication entitled ‘EU law: Better results through better application’, the Commission has decided to concentrate on cases where Member States fail to communicate transposition measures, where those measures incorrectly transpose directives, or where Member States fail to comply with a judgment of the CJEU (under Article 260(2) of the TFEU), seriously damage EU financial interests or encroach on EU exclusive powers;

I.	whereas according to Article 6(1) of the TEU, the CFREU has the same legal value as the Treaties, and is addressed to the institutions, bodies, offices and agencies of the Union and to the Member States when they are implementing Union law (Article 51(1) of the CFREU);

whereas EU Pilot procedures are intended to make for closer and more coherent cooperation between the Commission and the Member States so as to remedy breaches of EU law at an early stage through bilateral dialogue in order, wherever possible, to avert the need to resort to formal infringement proceedings;

whereas it is necessary – in response to the current democratic deficit and with reference to its resolution of 25 October 2016 with recommendations to the Commission on the establishment of an EU mechanism on democracy, the rule of law and fundamental rights – to establish a new mechanism providing a single and coherent framework and building on existing instruments and mechanisms, which should be applied in a uniform manner to all EU institutions and all Member States;

L.	whereas, however, under the new policies adopted by the Commission to ensure compliance with EU law, the aim of the EU Pilot is not to prolong the infringement procedure, which is itself a means of entering into problem-solving dialogue with a Member State;

whereas, in order to ensure a more strategic and effective approach to enforcement in dealing with infringements, the Commission has decided, as indicated in its communication entitled ‘Better results through better application’, to launch infringement procedures without relying on the EU Pilot mechanism unless recourse to it is deemed useful in a given case;

N.	whereas in 2016, the Commission received 3 783 new complaints reporting potential breaches of EU law, with Italy (753), Spain (424) and France (325) being the Member States against which the most complaints were filed;

whereas, according to Article 258(1) and (2) of the TFEU, the Commission shall deliver a reasoned opinion to a Member State when it considers that the latter has failed an obligation under the Treaties, and may bring the matter before the CJEU if the Member State in question does not comply with the opinion within a deadline set by the Commission;

P.	whereas in 2016, the Commission launched 847 new infringements procedures for late transposition of directives;

Q.	whereas in 2016, 95 infringement cases were still open, in response to which the CJEU ruled on the failure to comply on the part of the Member States involved;

whereas in its resolution of 25 October 2016 on the establishment of an EU mechanism on democracy, the rule of law and fundamental rights, Parliament requested that the Commission submit by September 2017, on the basis of Article 295 of the TFEU, a proposal for the conclusion of a Union Pact for democracy, the rule of law and fundamental rights (EU Pact for DRF) in the form of an interinstitutional agreement laying down arrangements facilitating the cooperation between the Union institutions and the Member States in the framework of Article 7 of the TEU;

whereas the Framework Agreement on relations between the European Parliament and the European Commission provides for sharing of information concerning all infringement procedures based on letters of formal notice, but does not cover the informal EU Pilot procedure which precedes the opening of formal infringement proceedings;

whereas Article 41 of the CFREU defines the right to good administration as the right of every person to have his or her affairs handled impartially, fairly and within a reasonable time by the institutions, and whereas Article 298 of the TFEU stipulates that, in carrying out their missions, the institutions, bodies, offices and agencies of the Union shall have the support of an open, efficient and independent European administration;

whereas in its communication of 3 February 2017 on the EU Environmental Implementation Review (EIR), the Commission claims to have laid out a structured and comprehensive dialogue with the Member States about the implementation of EU environmental legislation, and offers, without prejudice to its enforcement powers under the EU Treaties, to facilitate the Member States’ efforts through a new dedicated framework;

V.	whereas Article 157 of the TFEU allows, and its Article 19 enables, legislation to combat all forms of discrimination, including on the basis of gender;

whereas the EU and its Member States have committed themselves, in Declaration No 19 annexed to the Final Act of the Intergovernmental Conference which adopted the Treaty of Lisbon, ‘to combat all kinds of domestic violence […], to prevent and punish these criminal acts and to support and protect the victims’;

whereas EU legislation against trafficking in human beings, in particular women and children, has been adopted on the basis of Articles 79 and 83 of the TFEU; whereas the Rights, Equality and Citizenship Programme finances, among other things, measures contributing to the eradication of violence against women;

Y.	whereas a number of EU directives, in particular those focused on gender equality, are not being implemented properly in a number of Member States, leaving people of different genders unprotected against discrimination in the areas of access to employment, goods and services;

Z.	whereas gender-based discrimination intersects with other types of discrimination, including discrimination on the grounds of race and ethnicity, religion, disability, health, gender identity, sexual orientation, age and/or socio-economic condition;

AA.

whereas 33 % of women in the EU have experienced physical and/or sexual violence and 55 % have been sexually harassed, 32 % in the workplace; whereas women are particularly vulnerable to sexual, physical and online violence, cyber bullying and stalking; whereas more than half of female murder victims are killed by a partner or relative; whereas violence against women is one of the world’s most widespread human rights violations, regardless of the age, nationality, religion, education or financial and social status of the victim, representing a major hindrance to equality between women and men; whereas the phenomenon of femicide is not decreasing in Member States;

AB.

whereas the EU LGBT survey found that lesbian, bisexual and transgender women face a huge risk of discrimination on the basis of their sexual orientation or gender identity; whereas 23 % of lesbians and 35 % of transgender persons have been physically/sexually attacked or threatened with violence at home or elsewhere (in the street, on public transport, at the workplace, etc.) at least once in the last five years;

AC.

whereas the application and enforcement of EU gender equality law in the Member States has been found to entail specific problems related to the transposition and application of the relevant directives, such as substantive deficiencies in legislation and its inconsistent application by national courts;

AD.

whereas institutions and mechanisms for gender equality are often marginalised in national governmental structures, being divided between different policy areas and hampered by complex mandates as well as lacking adequate staff, training and data and sufficient resources, and experiencing insufficient support from political leaders;

AE.

whereas, according to the comparative analysis of non-discrimination law in Europe published in 2017 by the European network of legal experts in gender equality and non-discrimination, in the vast majority of countries serious concerns still persist around perception and awareness, as individuals are often not informed of their rights to protection against discrimination or of the existence of protection mechanisms; whereas, according to this analysis, with regard to the enforcement of the EU anti-discrimination directives, further issues of concern have arisen, such as the lack of (or too restrictive) legal standing of organisations and associations as regards engaging in proceedings on behalf, or in support of, victims of discrimination, and restrictive application of the shift of the burden of proof, as well as a number of barriers to effective access to justice, and these are acting as obstacles that effectively hinder citizens from being able to fully enjoy and protect their rights deriving from the provisions of anti-discrimination law;

AF.	whereas the Gender Equality Index 2017 of the European Institute for Gender Equality (EIGE) shows only marginal improvements, making it clear that the EU remains far from achieving gender equality, with the overall score now being 66,2 out of 100, just four points higher than ten years ago;

AG.

whereas, as regards the sphere of decision-making, the aforementioned gender equality data show an improvement of almost ten points over the past decade, with the score now standing at 48,5, but this area still has the lowest attainment score of all; whereas this adverse figure primarily reflects the uneven representation of women and men in politics and points to a democratic deficit in EU governance;

AH.	whereas the Eurofound report on the gender employment gap estimates that this gap is costing the EU around EUR 370 billion per year, corresponding to 2,8 % of EU GDP;

AI.	whereas, according to Eurofound’s Working Conditions Survey, the composite indicator of paid and unpaid working time shows that when paid and unpaid working hours are computed, women work longer hours;

AJ.	whereas, despite the EU’s commitment to gender equality in decision-making, the management boards of the EU agencies are seriously lacking in gender balance, and show persisting patterns of gender segregation;

AK.

whereas the feminisation of poverty is a fact in the EU, and whereas the proper and full application and enforcement of EU equality and gender equality laws should go hand in hand with policies targeting the very high rates of unemployment, poverty and social exclusion among women; whereas the lack of equality policies and the deficient implementation of gender and equality law further endangers women and increases the risk of poverty and social marginalisation by excluding them from the labour market;

AL.

whereas proper implementation of the existing legislation is essential for advancing equality between women and men; whereas even though the recast Directive 2006/54/EC clearly prohibits both direct and indirect discrimination, and despite the fact that women attain on average a high level of education, the gender pay gap still stood at 16,3 % in 2015;

AM.	whereas the principle of gender equality needs to be an essential part in the monitoring of the application of existing EU legislation;

AN.	whereas the collection of data, if possible disaggregated by gender, is substantially important for evaluating the progress made so far in the application of EU law;

Welcomes the Commission’s decision (11) to respond to infringements promptly, and supports its efforts to resolve implementation problems informally; calls on the Commission to improve the EU Pilot problem-solving system;

Expresses its concern at the increase in the total number of infringement procedures in 2016, making the figure for such cases the highest to have been recorded in the past five years;

Welcomes the Commission’s 2016 Annual Report on monitoring the application of EU law, and notes that, according to this report, the four fields in which the greatest number of transposition infringement proceedings were opened against Member States in 2016 were the environment, justice and consumers, taxation, and the internal market;

Recalls that the right to petition Parliament is a cornerstone of European citizenship, as enshrined in Articles 20 and 227 of the TFEU and Article 44 of the CFREU, ranking second in importance to citizens according to recent surveys; underlines the importance of petitions as a means for citizens and residents to feel involved in the activities of the Union and to express their concerns about instances of misapplication or violation of EU law and on potential lacunae, while at the same time highlighting these deficiencies in the hope of a rapid and effective solution to the problems raised; shares the view of the Commission that the work done to ensure the effective enforcement of existing EU law needs to be recognised as being of equivalent importance to the work devoted to developing new legislation; calls on the Commission to improve, in this respect, its handling of petitions addressed by providing timely and in-depth answers;

Draws attention to the study commissioned by Parliament’s Committee on Petitions to Policy Department C entitled ‘Monitoring the implementation of EU law: tools and challenges’, and welcomes its concrete recommendations to Parliament for action; draws attention to the recently published study commissioned to Policy Department C entitled ‘Effective Access to Justice’, following the recurrent allegations that emerged from the handling of several petitions; endorses the Commission’s proposal to foster judicial training in EU law for the different Member States in order to ensure consistency in the rulings and thus equal enforcement of rights across the Union;

Welcomes the increased transparency and the provision of more statistical information in the Commission report of 2016, when compared to previous reports; regrets the fact, however, that it does not provide any precise information on the number of petitions that have led to the initiation of EU Pilot or infringement procedures, and asks the Commission to provide this specific piece of information; notes with regret that neither Parliament nor the petitioners are involved in these procedures; reiterates its call on the Commission to share with Parliament information on all EU Pilots opened and infringement procedures initiated in order to improve transparency, reduce the time frame for dispute settlement through the Committee on Petitions, build trust in the EU project and, ultimately, enhance the legitimacy of the EU Pilot procedure, especially where infringement procedures are concerned; invites the Commission to systematically communicate its decisions and the different steps taken by the College of Commissioners and to publish the agenda and the main outcomes of package meetings; acknowledges the CJEU’s ruling on cases C-39/05 P, C-52/05 P and C-562/14 P of May 2017, according to which documents within the EU Pilot procedure should not be disclosed publicly if there is a risk that such disclosure would affect the nature of the infringement procedure, alter its progress or undermine the objectives of that procedure; calls on the Commission to disclose documents exchanged with the Member States when this risk ceases to exist, namely after EU pilot procedures are closed; supports, in this regard, the suggestion of the European Ombudsman on the timeliness and transparency of EU Pilot pre-infringement cases; stresses the importance of keeping all actors concerned informed, and of bringing more transparency to the EU Pilot processes; regrets the lack of commitment shown by the Commission when responding to the concerns raised in EU Pilot procedures by MEPs and calls on the Commission to inform the Committee on Petitions of any significant new steps of the investigation and ongoing dialogue with Member States when open petitions are concerned; reiterates its call on the Commission to include in its annual report the rate of implementation of both EU regulations and directives;

Considers that the large number of infringement procedures shows that ensuring the timely and correct application of EU legislation in the Member States remains a serious challenge and priority, bearing in mind the new, more strategic and effective approach to enforcement adopted by the Commission for 2016; considers that some of those infringements could be the result of the lack of resources dedicated to public administration in some Member States;

Underlines the fact that the number of new complaints is at its highest since 2011, representing a 67,5 % increase over the past year, with a record number of 3 783 new complaints and a decrease in rates of resolution, that, in addition, 1 657 infringement cases remained open at the end of 2016, while 986 infringement cases were opened in 2016, among which 847 concern late transposition; notes with concern that 95 infringement cases are still open after a Court ruling because the Commission considered that the Member States concerned had not yet complied with the judgements under Article 258 of the TFEU, and that, overall, the areas of ‘employment’and ‘justice and consumers’are the most affected, followed by the internal market, industry, entrepreneurship and SMEs, taxation and customs, and the environment;

Welcomes the fall in the number of new EU Pilot files opened in 2016 (790 compared with 881 in 2014) and the fact that this number has reached the lowest level since 2011, even though the Commission does not undertake any EU Pilot procedures in the event of late transposition of directives; notes, however, that the resolution rate fell slightly compared with 2015 (from 75 % to 72 %); asks the Commission to provide clarification on its priority-setting with regard to its enforcement policy, according to which it states that it will focus its enforcement action where it can make a real difference, and on its policy priorities when pursuing cases that reveal systemic weakness in a Member State’s legal system;

10.

Notes that the Commission’s commitment to be more strategic in enforcing EU law recently led to the closure of infringement cases for political reasons; calls on the Commission, therefore, to explain the considerations behind such decisions in future monitoring reports;

11.

Stresses that most EU Pilot files that have led to formal infringement procedures mainly concerned policy areas pertaining to the environment, the internal market, industry, entrepreneurship and SMEs, energy, and taxation and customs; notes as well that Hungary, Germany, Spain and Poland had the highest number of EU Pilot files pursued through infringement procedures;

12.

Recognises that the primary responsibility for the correct implementation and application of EU law lies with the Member States, but points out that this does not absolve the EU institutions of their duty to respect primary EU law when they produce secondary EU law, even more so in the field of the rule of law and fundamental rights with regard to the CFREU;

13.

Points out that the proper implementation and application of EU law is essential for delivering EU policy in terms of the principle of equality between women and men, as enshrined in the Treaties, and for encouraging and fostering mutual trust between public institutions, both at EU and national level, as well as between institutions and citizens, recalling also that trust and legal certainty both serve as a basis for good cooperation and the effective application of EU law;

14.

Is concerned that that there are still significant shortcomings in the implementation and enforcement of EU environmental legislation in some Member States, particularly in the areas of waste management, waste water treatment infrastructure and compliance with air quality limit values;

15.

Underlines the important role that social partners, civil society organisations, European citizens and other stakeholders play in monitoring and reporting shortcomings in the transposition and application of EU law by Member States; welcomes, therefore, the greater responsiveness among citizens about the implementation of EU legislation, including the crucial role of whistle-blowers in the private and public sector; stresses that EU citizens, as of right, must be the first to be made aware in a clear, effectively accessible, transparent and timely manner whether and which national laws have been adopted in transposition of EU laws, and which national authorities are responsible for ensuring they are correctly implemented;

16.

Notes the importance attached by the Commission to the timely and correct transposition of EU law into national legislation, and the existence of clear internal framework provisions requiring Member States to accord priority to this objective, so as to avoid infringements of EU law, while ensuring that individuals and undertakings are able to benefit from the effective and efficient implementation thereof;

17.

Points out, however, that unrealistic deadlines for the implementation of legislation may make it impossible for Member States to comply, implying tacit acceptance of late implementation; urges the EU institutions to agree on a more realistic timetable for the implementation of regulations and directives, taking due account of the time needed for verification and consultation; considers that the Commission should submit reports, summaries and legislative revisions on the dates agreed on by the co-legislators and in line with the legal provisions applicable;

18.

Points out that there were 70 directives to transpose in 2016, up from 56 in 2015; expresses concern at the sharp increase in the number of new late transposition infringements from 543 to 847; regrets that, at the end of 2016, 868 late transposition infringement cases were still open, a 67,5 % increase compared to the 518 cases open at the end of 2015;

19.

Expresses concern that, as in 2015, the Member States failed to deliver on all their commitments to provide explanatory documents together with the measures they had taken to transpose directives into national legislation; considers that, in view of the uneven quality of many of the explanatory documents submitted, the Commission should provide more assistance to Member States in preparing them and in drawing up correlation tables;

20.

Underlines the fact that failure to ensure timely and correct transposition of the existing EU legislation – addressing the principles of equal opportunities for and equal treatment of men and women in matters of education, employment and occupation, equal pay for equal work, and equal treatment of women and men in access to and supply of goods and services – as well as of the existing provisions to improve work-life balance and to end all forms of violence against women and girls, ultimately deprives citizens and businesses of the benefits to which they are entitled under EU law;

21.

Emphasises the fact that the EU has been set up as a Union based on the rule of law and respect for human rights (Article 2 of the TEU); notes that, in implementing EU legislation, Member States must comply fully with the fundamental rights enshrined in the Treaties and in the CFREU; reiterates that careful monitoring of the acts and omissions of Member States, and of EU institutions, is of the utmost importance;

22.

Reiterates its concern at the number of petitions to Parliament and complaints to the Commission concerning issues supposedly resolved by the Commission;

23.

Highlights the importance of safeguarding the integrity of the EU legal order, which includes primary and secondary legislation and soft law; calls, for this reason, for the timely adoption of the legislative and non-legislative initiatives required to make the European Pillar of Social Rights a reality for citizens; calls on the Commission to exert the most transparency and coherence possible in its efforts to create a new framework dedicated to the proper implementation of EU legislation, such as the EIR; calls on the Commission to consider creating such a framework specifically dedicated to fair and balanced development, employment, social affairs and inclusion affairs in relation to the European Pillar of Social Rights;

24.

Reiterates its call on the Commission, following its resolution of 25 October 2016, to submit a proposal for the conclusion of a Union pact for democracy, the rule of law and fundamental rights (EU Pact for DRF), thus effectively bundling its relevant annual thematic reports with the outcome of existing monitoring mechanisms and periodic assessment tools, to be presented in due time; recalls that the Commission, as Guardian of the Treaties in full respect for the principles of good and effective administration laid down by Articles 298 of the TFEU and Articles 41 and 47 of the CFREU, has a duty to monitor and assess the correct implementation of Union law, and the respect given the principles and objectives enshrined in the Treaties, by the Member States and all the Union institutions and bodies, and to respect its commitment to actively help Member States transpose and implement certain directives and regulations; recommends, therefore, that this task be taken into consideration within the aforementioned DRF policy cycle from 2018 onwards, its relevant annual thematic reports – with the outcome of existing monitoring mechanisms and periodic assessment tools –to be presented in due time;

25.

Recalls that, on several occasions, Parliament has called on the Commission to monitor, direct and support the implementation of environmental legislation and policies more proactively;

26.

Welcomes the Commission’s commitment to actively help Member States transpose and implement European legislation by preparing implementation plans for certain directives and regulations;

27.

Considers that, given that it is jointly responsible for ensuring the implementation and enforcement of EU law in accordance with the Interinstitutional Agreement and its relevant function of political control over the Commission conferred by Article 14 of the TEU, Parliament should be automatically notified about every EU Pilot opened and infringement initiated, and should be granted adequate access to documents relating to these two kinds of procedures, particularly when they arise from petitions, while respecting the necessary confidentiality provisions for the successful handling of cases;

28.

Proposes that Member State representatives be more present during discussions of petitions in the Committee on Petitions;

29.

Notes the unsatisfying level of application of EU law among Member States, as illustrated by the high number of complaints sent to the Commission and the important flow of petitions addressed to Parliament; welcomes the intention of the Commission, as expressed in its communication of December 2016 to increase its use of preventive tools such as package meetings, implementation guidelines, experts groups AND specialised networks (including the SOLVIT network), and to support capacity-building in the Member States to enforce EU law; calls on the Commission to use the provisions of Article 197 of the TFEU to implement this renewed enforcement policy in full partnership with Member States and the European institutions; calls on the Commission to improve its handling of petitions addressed by providing timely and in-depth answers;

30.

Notes that while 95 infringement cases are still open, and while the CJEU has ruled on Member States’ failure to comply, in only three of these cases have the Commission brought the matter before the Court pursuant to Article 260 of the TFEU; considers that it is of utmost importance to ensure full and timely execution of the Court’s decisions and, when necessary, to make full use of the provisions of Article 279 of the TFEU to prevent any undermining of EU law and of the CJEU’s authority; calls on the Commission to address this situation and to report regularly to Parliament on progress made in this regard;

31.

Highlights the fact that all EU institutions are bound by the EU Treaties and the CFREU (12);

32.

Recommends that any inter-parliamentary debate on democracy, the rule of law and fundamental rights shall include civil society and civic participation, e.g. through petitions transmitted to Parliament and the European Citizens Initiative;

33.

Stresses that memoranda of understanding concluded between EU institutions and Member States are not considered EU acts pursuant to Article 288 of the TFEU;

34.

Stresses the crucial importance of efficiency, transparency and accountability in the drafting and application of EU law by the EU institutions; emphasises in particular the principle of democratic accountability – and the role that Parliament plays in ensuring it – as well as the right of EU citizens to justice and good administration, as stipulated in Articles 41 and 47 of the CFREU; points out that these rights and principles require citizens to be given adequate easy access to drafts of the legal acts that concern them; recalls that these same rights and principles should also be of paramount importance to the Member States when proposing draft acts aiming at implementing EU law;

35.

Calls on the Commission to enhance, where possible and necessary, EU financial resources, such as the European Social Fund, dedicated to ‘enhancing institutional capacity of public authorities and stakeholders and efficient public administration’with a view to promoting social welfare and economic development, and to enhance the effectiveness of beneficial legislation; calls on the Commission to make full use of Article 197 of the TFEU to help enhance the capacity of the Member States to implement and enforce EU law;

36.

Calls on the Commission to develop instruments designed to help Member states recognise transposition problems, address them at an early stage of the infringement procedure and find joint solutions;

37.

Recalls that the legislation giving rise to the most flagrant infringement proceedings is the result of directives; recalls that regulations are directly and compulsorily applicable in all the Member States; calls, therefore, on the Commission to make use of regulations as far as possible whenever it considers issuing legislative proposals; considers that such an approach could mitigate the risk of over-regulation;

38.

Recalls that preliminary rulings help clarify the manner in which the law of the European Union is to be applied; considers that recourse to this procedure allows for a uniform interpretation and implementation of EU legislation; calls, therefore, on the Commission to follow more effectively the fulfilment of the obligation of national courts to seek a preliminary ruling by the CJEU, as stated in Article 267 of the TFEU; encourages, therefore, national courts, in the event of doubt, to refer questions to the CJEU and thereby prevent infringement proceedings;

39.

Calls on the Commission to pay particular attention to its control over the implementation of Council Directive (EU) 2016/1164 of 12 July 2016 laying down rules against tax avoidance practices that directly affect the functioning of the internal market (13), and to launch infringement proceedings where necessary, particular vigilance given to incorrect or bad application;

40.

Welcomes the Commission’s continued efforts to enforce EU environmental rules in order to ensure a level playing field for all Member States and economic operators, and to address shortcomings in the implementation and enforcement of EU environmental legislation, including by resorting to infringement proceedings if necessary; underlines, however, the known limitations in the effectiveness of EU environmental rules and, in particular, the Environmental Liability Directive (ELD); calls on the Commission to take note of Parliament’s resolution of 26 October 2017 (14) on the implementation of the ELD; points out that, in certain Member States, the right to a healthy environment is being undermined by shortcomings in the implementation and enforcement of EU environmental legislation, particularly when it comes to the prevention of damage to air and water, waste management and wastewater treatment infrastructure; stresses that full implementation of EU environmental legislation could save the EU economy EUR 50 billion each year in, above all, health costs and direct costs to the environment;

41.

Emphasises that the EU’s acquis also comprises international agreements concluded by the EU; notes with serious concern that EU environmental rules may not be in compliance with the Aarhus Convention on Access to Information, Public Participation in Decision-Making and Access to Justice in Environmental Matters (‘the Aarhus Convention’) (15) by not granting sufficient access to justice to environmental organisations and members of the public; calls, therefore, on the Commission to pay attention to the findings and recommendations of the Aarhus Convention Compliance Committee (16) and of the Council position of 17 July 2017 (17), and to explore ways and means to comply with the Aarhus Convention in a way that is compatible with the fundamental principles of the Union legal order and with its system of judicial review;

42.

Calls on the Commission to pay particular attention to the implementation of measures adopted in the area of asylum and migration, so as to ensure that they comply with the principles enshrined in the CFREU, to work with the Member States to overcome any difficulties they may encounter in that implementation and to launch the necessary infringement proceedings where relevant; notes with concern that certain Member States are disregarding their obligations with regard to asylum and migration, in particular where relocation of asylum seekers is concerned; underlines the need to address the lack of solidarity between some Member States with regard to asylum and migration, so that all Member States meet their obligations; calls on the Member States to tackle the rise in trafficking in human beings for the purpose of labour exploitation or sexual exploitation;

43.

Calls on the Commission to respond effectively to the developing migration and security situation and to enforce the European Agenda on Migration and the related implementation packages efficiently; asks the Member States to implement the Return Directive (2008/115/EC) (18) correctly and to report regularly on the implementation of the European Agenda on Migration;

44.

Calls on the Commission to check the compatibility of the zero-hour contracts with EU employment legislation, including the Part-Time Workers Directive as many petitions have been received in 2016 relate to precarious work;

45.

Welcomes the fact that the report acknowledges the role of Parliament in calling the Commission’s attention to shortcomings in the application of EU law in Member States by means of parliamentary questions and petitions; points out that closer scrutiny by national parliaments of their respective governments, when the latter are involved in the law-making process, will foster more effective application of EU law, as envisaged in the Treaties;

46.

Expresses concern that, given the incongruent translations of many directives into the EU’s official languages, it is likely that different language versions result in disparate interpretations of the respective texts and in differences in their transposition in the Member States; deplores the fact that such differences in the transposition and legal interpretation of directives may not be uncovered systematically, but only when clarified by rulings of the CJEU;

47.

Recalls that national parliaments have an essential role to play in both the pre-legislative scrutiny of draft EU legal acts and the post-legislative scrutiny of the correct implementation of EU law by the Member States; calls on national parliaments to pursue this role proactively;

48.

Considers that, in line with the Commission’s efforts to produce better and more effective EU legislation, the application of the subsidiarity and proportionality principles should always be taken into account;

49.

Reiterates its call for the creation, within the relevant Directorates-General (DG IPOL, DG EXPO and DG EPRS), of an autonomous system for ex-post assessment of the impact of the main EU laws adopted by Parliament under codecision and in accordance with the ordinary legislative procedure;

50.

Calls on the Commission to pay particular attention to its control over the implementation of EU legislation laying down rules against corruption practices that directly affect the functioning of the internal market, and to take the appropriate measures to tackle such phenomena;

51.

Reminds the Member States and the EU institutions that ensuring timely and proper application of the legislation in the Member States remains a priority for the EU; stresses the importance of upholding the principles of conferral, subsidiarity and proportionality, pursuant to Article 5 of the TEU, as well as the principle of equality before the law, with a view to better monitoring of the application of EU law; recalls the importance of raising awareness of the provisions of the existing directives tackling various aspects of the principle of equality between women and men and of delivering on it in practice;

52.

Encourages the EU institutions to fulfil at all times their duty to respect primary EU law when establishing the provisions of secondary EU and soft law, developing policies and signing agreements or treaties with institutions outside the EU, to assist Member States by all means available in their efforts to transpose EU legislation in all areas and to respect the values and principles of the Union, especially with respect to recent developments in Member States;

53.

Agrees with the Commission’s view that individual complainants play an essential role in identifying wider problems with the enforcement and application of EU law affecting the interests of citizens and businesses;

54.

Stresses that the lack of a coherent and comprehensive set of codified rules of good administration across the Union makes it difficult for citizens and businesses to easily and fully understand their rights under Union law; emphasises, therefore, that codifying rules of good administration in the form of a regulation setting out the various aspects of the administrative procedure – including notifications, binding time limits, the right to be heard and the right for every person to have access to his or her file – is tantamount to reinforcing citizens’ rights and transparency; believes that this regulation would bring more accessibility, clarity and coherence to the interpretation of existing rules, for the benefit of citizens and businesses and of the administration and its officials;

55.

Recalls that in its resolutions of 15 January 2013 and 9 June 2016, Parliament called for the adoption of a regulation on an open, efficient and independent EU administration under Article 298 of the TFEU, and notes that this request has not been followed up by a Commission proposal; calls, therefore, once again on the Commission to come forward with a legislative proposal on a European law of administrative procedure, taking into account the steps taken so far by Parliament in this field;

56.

Stresses that the inadequate integration of environmental considerations into other policy areas is one of the root causes of poor implementation of environmental legislation and policy;

57.

Underlines the need to maintain a high level of environmental protection, as well as of health and food safety;

58.

Stresses that effective enforcement of EU rules in the fields of health, food safety and the environment is important for European citizens since it influences their day-to-day lives and serves the general interest;

59.

Calls on the Commission to monitor closely environment-related infringement cases with a cross-border dimension, especially in the area of clean air legislation, including correct transposition and application of EU law in future Member States; calls, furthermore, on the Commission to inform complainants in an appropriate, transparent and timely manner of the arguments provided by the states concerned in reaction to the complaint;

60.

Notes that the number of infringement proceedings concerning the environment fell in 2016 compared with 2015, but is concerned that there was an increase in the number of procedures in the area of health and food safety, and calls on the Commission to bring particular attention to bear on this point;

61.

Highlights the fact that equality between women and men is a core principle of the EU that needs to be mainstreamed in all policies;

62.

Underlines the fundamental role of the rule of law in terms of providing legitimacy to any form of democratic governance; stresses that this is a cornerstone of the Union legal order and, as such, is consistent with the concept of a Union based on the rule of law;

63.

Recalls that the principle of equality – in terms of equal pay for equal work – has been enshrined in the European Treaties since 1957 (see Article 157 of the TFEU), and highlights the fact that Article 153 of the TFEU allows the EU to act in the wider area of equal opportunities and equal treatment in matters of employment and occupation;

64.

Notes with appreciation that the CJEU’s broad interpretation of the concept of equal pay for equal work, as articulated in its rulings and in its extensive case law on the relevant article, has certainly broadened the possibilities of combating both direct and indirect gender discrimination as regards pay, and of narrowing the gender pay gap, but stresses that more remains to be done to eliminate the persisting gender pay gap in the EU;

65.

Is deeply saddened that the introduction of legal principles outlawing inequality in pay between men and women has not proved sufficient on its own to eradicate the persisting gender pay gap; stresses that recast Directive 2006/54/EC requires that the Member States ensure that all provisions of collective agreements, wage scales, wage agreements and individual employment contracts that are contrary to the principle of equal pay shall be or may be declared null and void, or may be amended;

66.

Stresses that both the Member States and the Commission should pay attention to the implementation of EU law, especially the provisions concerning equality in terms of payment; reiterates the importance of mainstreaming the principle of equality between women and men in a number of EU directives and considers alternative instruments to be valuable tools for the correct implementation of EU law; recalls the importance of raising awareness of the provisions of the existing directives tackling various aspects of the principle of equality between women and men and of delivering it in practice; highlights that collective bargaining may allow for the further application of EU law on equal pay for equal work between women and men, parental leave, working conditions and working hours, including a weekly common day of rest, to achieve work-life balance for women and men and to improve their situation on the labour market;

67.

Recalls its resolution of 15 January 2013 calling for the adoption of an EU regulation on a European law of administrative procedure under Article 298 of the TFEU; notes with disappointment that the Commission has failed to follow up on Parliament’s call on it to submit a proposal for a legislative act on a law of administrative procedure;

68.

Recognises the importance of collecting data, if possible disaggregated by gender, for evaluating the progress made in advancing women’s rights;

69.

Regrets the shortcomings of the Commission’s approach to animal welfare, ignoring as it does the serious inconsistencies reported by a large number of citizens who have exercised the right of petition; reiterates its call for the launching of a new strategy at EU level to bridge all the existing gaps and ensure full and effective protection of animal welfare through a clear and comprehensive legislative framework that fully meets the requirements of Article 13 of the TFEU;

70.

Calls on the Commission to examine thoroughly the petitions relating to the differing quality of food products from the same brand in different Member States; urges the Commission to put an end to unfair practices and to ensure that all consumers are treated equally;

71.

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

(1) Texts adopted, P8_TA(2016)0385.

(2) OJ L 304, 20.11.2010, p. 47.

(3) OJ L 174, 27.6.2001, p. 25.

(4) OJ L 123, 12.5.2016, p. 1.

(5) OJ C 316, 22.9.2017, p. 246.

(6) Texts adopted, P8_TA(2016)0409.

(7) OJ C 86, 6.3.2018, p. 126.

(8) OJ C 440, 30.12.2015, p. 17.

(9) OJ C 369, 17.12.2011, p. 14.

(10) OJ C 369, 17.12.2011, p. 15.

(11) OJ C 18, 19.1.2017, p. 10.

(12) Judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Union of 20 September 2016 in Joined Cases C-8/15 P to C-10/15 P, Ledra Advertising Ltd (C-8/15 P), Andreas Eleftheriou (C-9/15 P), Eleni Eleftheriou (C-9/15 P), Lilia Papachristofi (C-9/15 P), Christos Theophilou (C-10/15 P), Eleni Theophilou (C-10/15 P) v European Commission and European Central Bank (ECLI:EU:C:2016:701).

(13) OJ L 193, 19.7.2016, p. 1.

(14) Texts adopted, P8_TA(2017)0414.

(15) OJ L 124, 17.5.2005, p. 4.

(16) ACCC/C/2008/32 (EU), Part II, adopted 17 March 2017.

(17) OJ L 186, 19.7.2017, p. 15.

(18) OJ L 348, 24.12.2008, p. 98.

27.1.2020

Official Journal of the European Union

C 28/121

P8_TA(2018)0256

Negotiations on the modernisation of the EU-Chile Association Agreement

European Parliament recommendation of 13 June 2018 to the Council, the Commission and the Vice-President of the Commission / High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy on the negotiations on the modernisation of the EU-Chile Association Agreement (2018/2018(INI))

(2020/C 28/15)

The European Parliament,

—	having regard to Articles 2 and 3 and to Title V, in particular Articles 21 and 36, of the Treaty on European Union (TEU), as well as to Part Five of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU),

—	having regard to Article 218 of the TFEU,

—	having regard to the existing Association Agreement between the Republic of Chile and the European Union,

—	having regard to the launch on 16 November 2017 of negotiations between the European Union and Chile on a modernised association agreement,

—	having regard to the Council’s adoption on 13 November 2017 of the negotiating directives for this agreement,

—	having regard to the Joint Declaration of the 25th meeting of the EU-Chile Joint Parliamentary Committee of 22 January 2018,

—	having regard to its recommendation of 14 September 2017 to the Council, the Commission and the European External Action Service on the negotiations of the modernisation of the trade pillar of the EU-Chile Association Agreement (1),

—	having regard to its resolution of 13 September 2017 on EU political relations with Latin America (2),

—	having regard to the EU-CELAC Civil Society Forum Declaration of 11 May 2015 entitled ‘Equality, rights and democratic participation for the peoples of Europe and Latin America and the Caribbean’,

—	having regard to Rules 108(4) and 52 of its Rules of Procedure,

—	having regard to the report of the Committee on Foreign Affairs (A8-0158/2018),

A.	whereas Chile and the EU are united by shared values and close cultural, economic and political ties;

B.	whereas Chile and the EU are close partners in tackling regional and global challenges, such as climate change, international security, sustainable development and global governance;

C.	whereas Chile is a strong advocate of democracy and human rights, free and open trade and multilateralism; whereas it is also a key member of the Pacific Alliance, the Organisation of American States (OAS), and the Union of South American Nations (UNASUR), and a high-income country and OECD member;

whereas Chile has been a major player in regional affairs, for example as a guarantor country in the Colombian peace process and the Santo Domingo talks between the Venezuelan Government and opposition; whereas Chile withdrew from the Venezuelan talks as the minimum conditions for democratic presidential elections and institutional normalisation were not reached;

whereas a Framework Participation Agreement for Chile’s participation in EU crisis management operations has been in place since January 2014; whereas Chile participates in EUFOR ALTHEA in Bosnia and Herzegovina as well as a number of UN peacekeeping operations, reflecting its commitment to global peace and security;

whereas the recent parliamentary and presidential elections have once again demonstrated the stable and mature nature of Chilean democracy; whereas Chile has benefited from strong economic growth and has been one of South America’s fastest-growing economies in recent decades; whereas reform efforts in the country are still ongoing;

G.	whereas the recent decriminalisation of abortion under certain circumstances has demonstrated an increased openness in Chilean society towards the empowerment of women and girls;

H.	whereas in the 2016 Human Development Index, Chile is placed in the category of very high human development and ranks as the first Latin American country and number 38 in the world, above seven EU Member States;

whereas the existing Association Agreement has been instrumental in deepening EU-Chile political relations and substantially increasing trade and investment flows; whereas continued respect for the rule of law and a stable legal and political framework enables both Chile and the EU to exercise free enterprise and fosters an adequate investment environment that includes safeguards on the principle of legal certainty;

whereas the EU and Chile have concluded more ambitious and comprehensive agreements with other partners in recent years; whereas a modernisation of the EU-Chile Association Agreement therefore has the potential to significantly deepen the existing relationship, including relations in the areas of foreign affairs and security;

K.	whereas the future Association Agreement between the EU and Chile must fully reflect the transformative nature of the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development and the role of international development cooperation towards the achievement of the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs);

whereas an updated Association Agreement, together with the agreements with Mexico and Mercosur that are currently being (re-)negotiated, would reinforce the EU’s role as a key ally of Latin America, at a time when other players are increasingly trying to gain influence in the region, such as China and Russia;

M.	whereas the EU-Chile Joint Parliamentary Committee (JPC) has repeatedly expressed its support for the modernisation of the Association Agreement, most recently in the Joint Declaration adopted at its 25th meeting on 22 January 2018;

Recommends the following to the Council, the Commission and the Vice-President of the Commission / High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy (VP/HR):

General principles

(a)

to considerably strengthen cooperation between Chile and the EU, two like-minded partners in an environment of new uncertainty in international relations, on the basis of our shared values and principles of democracy, the fight against climate change, ensuring gender equality, the rule of law, good governance, respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms;

(b)	to ensure that the modernised agreement with Chile is ambitious, comprehensive and balanced, delivering tangible benefits for the citizens, businesses and economies of both sides; to ensure that it is a frontrunner among the most advanced agreements the EU has concluded with third countries;

(c)

to strengthen the human rights dimension of EU-Chile cooperation in the light of the 2016-2020 EU-Chile human rights strategy; to include a joint commitment to the protection and promotion of human rights, fundamental freedoms, gender equality, and the rights of minorities, such as the LGBTI community, and indigenous people, with enforceable mechanisms for monitoring, regular reporting and dispute settlement; to encourage Chile to find a solution to matters with the native Mapuche people and other indigenous people; to continue the practice of including a human rights clause in all future Association Agreements; to continue the regular dialogue between the EU and Chile on human rights, with the aim of strengthening the institutional framework and public policies to promote human rights, including through multilateral cooperation;

(d)	to encourage Chile to ensure due process of law and fair judicial proceedings in full accordance with international standards;

(e)	to aim to foster sustainable socio-economic development, fight poverty and reduce inequality levels in the light of Chile’s commitment to attaining the SDGs under the 2030 Agenda;

(f)	to support Chile in improving educational standards and educational programmes, ensuring people with the lowest incomes have full access to higher education; to strengthen the link between universities and the labour market, bridging skill mismatches and promoting youth employment;

(g)	to encourage the protection of social and environmental rights, and to ensure an effective implementation of the conventions of the International Labour Organisation (ILO) and the eradication of forced and child labour;

Multilateralism and regional and international cooperation

(h)

to strengthen dialogue and cooperation on regional and global challenges, such as organised crime, drug trafficking, rising inequality, migration, terrorism and climate change, including the implementation of the 2030 Agenda; to support cooperation between the EU and Chile on the management of migration and to establish readmission mechanisms, including for stateless persons and nationals from third countries;

(i)	to recall the importance of the multilateral agenda and that any bilateral negotiation must not undermine the ambition to achieve progress multilaterally;

(j)	to contribute to the strengthening of multilateralism and international cooperation in order to promote international security and tackle global challenges effectively; to enhance coordination on the positions taken by both sides in international organisations and fora;

(k)

to encourage Chile to continue supporting regional integration and cooperation schemes, most importantly the Pacific Alliance, in view of its encouraging results as a real and active driver of economic integration between the members of the region, but also UNASUR and the Community of Latin American and Caribbean States (CELAC); to examine the possibility of the EU gaining an observer status in the Pacific Alliance;

Political dialogue and cooperation

(l)	to provide for meaningful regular dialogue on all matters of relevance, building on and extending the existing formats; to mobilise available resources through the Partnership Instrument (PI) with a view to achieving strategic objectives;

(m)

to provide for a close cooperation in the area of security and defence, particularly regarding conflict prevention, crisis management, maritime security, disarmament and non-proliferation; to enable an enhanced participation of Chile in EU common security and defence policy (CSDP) missions and operations;

(n)

to allow for increased cooperation in the fight against terrorism, organised crime and cybercrime, and on the prevention of radicalisation and cross-border crime, without undermining civil liberties and fundamental rights; to take action in the context of the global fight against terrorism by stepping up mechanisms, measures and bodies for global and regional cooperation in accordance with international law and the principles of the Charter of the United Nations;

(o)	to enhance cooperation on the fight against corruption, money laundering and tax evasion; to include provisions on tax good governance and transparency standards that reaffirm the parties’ commitment to implementing international standards in the fight against tax avoidance and tax evasion;

(p)

to recall that corruption undermines human rights, equality, social justice, trade and fair competition, thereby impeding economic growth; to include specific sections outlining clear and strong commitments and measures to combat corruption in all its forms and to implement international standards and multilateral anti-corruption conventions;

(q)

to facilitate mobility between the EU and Chile; to enhance youth and student exchanges, scholarship programmes and training courses, including through the ERASMUS+ programme; to make further efforts towards the full mutual recognition of academic qualifications and the modernisation, accessibility and internationalisation of higher education;

(r)	to promote the transfer of scientific and technological knowledge and step up cooperation in the field of research and cooperation, making full use of existing programmes, such as Horizon 2020;

(s)

to promote and strengthen relations in the field of international cooperation, building on the Memorandum of Understanding on International Cooperation signed in 2015; to create innovate mechanisms that broaden and strengthen triangular and regional cooperation with third parties within and outside Latin America through programmes such as EUROsociAL+ and Euroclima+, and cooperation on drug policies such as COPOLAD;

(t)	to develop a methodology to show the effects of the modernised agreement on men and women and to use its results as a basis for designing policies to achieve gender balance;

(u)

to reaffirm the joint commitment to the Paris Climate Agreement and to the 2030 Agenda, and to provide for close cooperation between the EU and Chile on environmental protection and the fight against climate change; to strengthen the partnership regarding technical and policy cooperation in key environmental areas, including CO2 emissions in international transport, the conservation of biodiversity, and sustainable production and consumption; to encourage enhanced cooperation on the circular economy in order to improve resource efficiency, a sustainable use of natural resources, eco-innovation and water management; to increase support for projects to mitigate the effects of climate change;

(v)	to strengthen cooperation on research and development and on the use of the EU Copernicus programme in the field of satellite earth observation data for environmental purposes;

(w)	to foster cultural cooperation and to support diaspora both in Chile and the EU, with the objective of supporting foreign investments in both the EU and Chile;

(x)	to reaffirm access to water as a human right;

Institutional provisions

(y)

to ensure that the Association Agreement is built upon strong parliamentary participation, strengthening the current provisions and mechanisms of cooperation to enable increased input into and scrutiny of its implementation, notably through the existing inter-parliamentary format of the JPC; to provide for the possibility of the JPC requesting relevant information on the implementation of the Association Agreement;

(z)

to ensure the appropriate involvement of civil society both during the negotiations and in the implementation phase of the Association Agreement, including but not limited to the Joint Consultative Committee; stresses the need to establish an institutionalised mechanism to enable political dialogue involving civil society organisations in both regions;

(aa)

to keep Parliament immediately and fully informed at all stages of the negotiations, in line with Article 218(10) of the TFEU; this includes providing Parliament with negotiating texts and minutes of each negotiating round; welcomes, in this regard, the decision of the Council of 22 January 2018 to publish the negotiating mandate given to the Commission and the VP/HR in November 2017;

(ab)	to take the recent publication of the negotiating directives as an important precedent and to commit to publishing all negotiating directives for international agreements in the future;

(ac)	to expedite the negotiations on the Association Agreement with a view to enabling its ratification by Parliament before the end of the current European legislature;

(ad)	to ensure respect, at all levels, for the long-standing practice of not provisionally applying the new agreement until Parliament has given its consent;

Instructs its President to forward this recommendation to the Council, the Commission and the Vice-President of the Commission / High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy, and to the President, Government and Parliament of the Republic of Chile.

(1) Texts adopted, P8_TA(2017)0354.

(2) Texts adopted, P8_TA(2017)0345.

27.1.2020

Official Journal of the European Union

C 28/126

P8_TA(2018)0244

Clearing obligation, reporting requirements and risk-mitigation techniques for OTC derivatives, and trade repositories ***I

Amendments adopted by the European Parliament on 12 June 2018 on the proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Regulation (EU) No 648/2012 as regards the clearing obligation, the suspension of the clearing obligation, the reporting requirements, the risk-mitigation techniques for OTC derivatives contracts not cleared by a central counterparty, the registration and supervision of trade repositories and the requirements for traderepositories (COM(2017)0208 – C8-0147/2017 – 2017/0090(COD)) (1)

(Ordinary legislative procedure: first reading)

(2020/C 28/16)

Amendment 1

AMENDMENTS BY THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT (*1)

to the Commission proposal

(1) The matter was referred back for interinstitutional negotiations to the committee responsible, pursuant to Rule 59(4), fourth subparagraph (A8-0181/2018).

(*1) Amendments: new or amended text is highlighted in bold italics; deletions are indicated by the symbol ▌.

Proposal for a

REGULATION OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL

amending Regulation (EU) No 648/2012 as regards the clearing obligation, the suspension of the clearing obligation, the reporting requirements, the risk-mitigation techniques for OTC derivatives contracts not cleared by a central counterparty, the registration and supervision of trade repositories and the requirements for trade repositories

(Text with EEA relevance)

THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,

Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular Article 114 thereof,

Having regard to the proposal from the European Commission,

After transmission of the draft legislative act to the national parliaments,

Having regard to the opinion of the European Central Bank (1),

Having regard to the opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee (2),

Acting in accordance with the ordinary legislative procedure (3),

Whereas:

(1)

Regulation (EU) No 648/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council (4) was published in the Official Journal of the European Union (EU) on 27 July 2012, and entered into force on 16 August 2012. The requirements it contains, namely central clearing of standardised over-the counter (OTC) derivative contracts; margin requirements; operational risk mitigation requirements for OTC derivative contracts that are not centrally cleared; reporting obligations for derivative contracts; requirements for central counterparties (CCPs) and requirements for trade repositories (TRs) contribute to reducing the systemic risk by increasing the transparency of the OTC derivatives market and reducing the counterparty credit risk and the operational risk associated with OTC derivatives.

(2)

A simplification of certain areas covered by Regulation (EU) No 648/2012, and a more proportionate approach to those areas, is in line with the Commission's Regulatory Fitness and Performance (REFIT) programme which emphasises the need for cost reduction and simplification so that Union policies achieve their objectives in the most efficient way, and aims in particular at reducing regulatory and administrative burdens without prejudice to the overarching objective of preserving financial stability and reducing systemic risks .

(3)	Efficient and resilient post-trading systems and collateral markets are essential elements for a well-functioning Capital Markets Union and they deepen the efforts to support investments, growth and jobs in line with the political priorities of the Commission.

(4)

In 2015 and 2016, the Commission carried out two public consultations on the application of Regulation (EU) No 648/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council. The Commission also received input on the application of that Regulation from the European Securities and Markets Authority (‘ESMA’), the European Systemic Risk Board (‘ESRB’) and the European System of Central Banks (‘ESCB’). It appeared from those public consultations that the objectives of Regulation (EU) No 648/2012 were supported by stakeholders and that no major overhaul of that Regulation was necessary. On 23 November 2016, the Commission adopted a review report in accordance with Article 85(1) of Regulation (EU) No 648/2012. Although not all the provisions of Regulation (EU) No 648/2012 are fully applicable yet and therefore a comprehensive evaluation of that Regulation is not yet possible, the report identified areas for which targeted action is necessary to ensure that the objectives of Regulation (EU) No 648/2012 are reached in a more proportionate, efficient and effective manner.

(5)	Regulation (EU) No 648/2012 should cover all financial counterparties that may present and important systemic risk for the financial system. The definition of financial counterparties should therefore be amended.

(6)

Certain financial counterparties have a volume of activity in OTC derivatives markets that is too low to present an important systemic risk for the financial system and ▌ too low for central clearing to be economically viable. Those counterparties, commonly referred to as small financial counterparties (SFCs) , should be exempted from the clearing obligation while remaining subject to the requirement to exchange collateral to mitigate any systemic risk. The excess of the clearing threshold for at least one class of OTC derivative by a SFC should however trigger the clearing obligation for all classes of OTC derivatives given the interconnectedness of financial counterparties and the possible systemic risk to the financial system that may arise if those derivative contracts are not centrally cleared.

(7)

Non-financial counterparties are less interconnected than financial counterparties. They are also often active in only one class of OTC derivative. Their activity therefore poses less of a systemic risk to the financial system than the activity of financial counterparties. The scope of the clearing obligation for non-financial counterparties should therefore be narrowed, so that those non-financial counterparties are subject to the clearing obligation only with regard to the asset class or asset classes that exceed the clearing threshold ▌.

(7a)	Since financial counterparties and non-financial counterparties present different risks, it is necessary to develop two distinct clearing thresholds. In order to take into account any development of financial markets, those thresholds should be updated regularly.

(8)

The requirement to clear certain OTC derivative contracts concluded before the clearing obligation takes effect creates legal uncertainty and operational complications for limited benefits. In particular, the requirement creates additional costs and efforts for the counterparties to those contracts and may also affect the smooth functioning of the market without resulting in a significant improvement of the uniform and coherent application of Regulation (EU) No 648/2012 or of the establishment of a level playing field for market participants. That requirement should therefore be removed.

(9)

Counterparties with a limited volume of activity in the OTC derivatives markets face difficulties in accessing central clearing, be it as a client of a clearing member or through indirect clearing arrangements. The requirement for clearing members to facilitate indirect clearing services on reasonable commercial terms is therefore not efficient. Clearing members and clients of clearing members that provide clearing services directly to other counterparties or indirectly by allowing their own clients to provide those services to other counterparties should therefore be explicitly required to do so under fair, reasonable, non-discriminatory and transparent commercial terms.

(10)

It should be possible to suspend the clearing obligation in certain situations. First, that suspension should be possible where the criteria on the basis of which a specific class of OTC derivative has been made subject to the clearing obligation are no longer met. That could be the case where a class of OTC derivative becomes unsuitable for mandatory central clearing or where there has been a material change to one of those criteria in respect of a particular class of OTC derivative. A suspension of the clearing obligation should also be possible where a CCP ceases to offer a clearing service for a specific class of OTC derivative or for a specific type of counterparty and other CCPs cannot step in fast enough to take over those clearing services. Finally, the suspension of a clearing obligation should also be possible where that is deemed necessary to avoid a serious threat to financial stability in the Union.

(11)

Reporting historic transactions has proven to be difficult due to the lack of certain reporting details which were not required to be reported before the entry into force of Regulation (EU) No 648/2012 but which are required now. This has resulted in a high reporting failure rate and poor quality of reported data, while the burden of reporting those transactions is significant. There is therefore a high likelihood that those historic data will remain unused. Moreover, by the time the deadline for reporting historic transactions becomes effective, a number of those transactions will have already expired and, with them, the corresponding exposures and risks. To remedy that situation, the requirement to report historic transactions should be removed.

(12)

Intragroup transactions involving non-financial counterparties represent a relatively small fraction of all OTC derivative transactions and are used primarily for internal hedging within groups. Those transactions therefore do not significantly contribute to systemic risk and interconnectedness, yet the obligation to report those transactions imposes important costs and burdens on non-financial counterparties. All transactions between affiliates within the group where at least one of the counterparties is a non-financial counterparty should therefore be exempted from the reporting obligation, regardless of the place of establishment of the non-financial counterparty .

(13)

The requirement to report exchange-traded derivative contracts (‘ETDs’) imposes a significant burden on counterparties because of the high volume of ETDs that are concluded on a daily basis. The Commission public consultation on fitness check on supervisory reporting, which was published on 1 December 2017, aims to gather evidence on the cost of compliance with existing supervisory reporting requirements at Union level, as well as on the consistency, coherence, effectiveness, efficiency, and the Union added value of those requirements. This consultation provides an opportunity for authorities to assess ETD reporting holistically alongside all existing and future regulatory reporting regimes, allows authorities to take into account the new reporting environment following the implementation of Regulation (EU) No 600/2014▌ (5) and provides the possibility to make proposals to effectively reduce ▌ burden on market participants who are required to report ETD transactions. The Commission should take those findings into consideration in order to propose future changes to the reporting requirements under Article 9(1) in relation to ETD reporting▌.

(14)

To reduce the burden of reporting for small non-financial counterparties not subject to the clearing obligation , the financial counterparty should be solely responsible, and legally liable, for reporting a single data set with regard to OTC derivative contracts entered into with a non-financial counterparty that is not subject to the clearing obligation ▌as well as for ensuring the accuracy of the details reported. To ensure that the financial counterparty has the data needed to fulfil its reporting obligation, the non-financial counterparty should provide the details relating to the OTC derivative transactions that the financial counterparty cannot be reasonably expected to possess. However, it should be possible for a non-financial counterparty to choose to report its OTC derivative contracts. In that case the non-financial counterparty should inform the financial counterparty accordingly and be responsible and legally liable for reporting that data and for ensuring its accuracy.

(15)

The responsibility for reporting other derivative contracts should also be determined. It should therefore be specified that the management company of an undertaking for collective investment in transferable securities (‘UCITS’) is responsible, and legally liable, for reporting on behalf of that UCITS with regard to OTC derivative contracts entered into by that UCITS as well as for ensuring the accuracy of the details reported. Similarly, the manager of an alternative investment fund (‘AIF’) should be responsible, and legally liable, for reporting on behalf of that AIF with regard to OTC derivative contracts entered into by that AIF as well as for ensuring the accuracy of the details reported.

(16)

To avoid inconsistencies across the Union in the application of the risk mitigation techniques, supervisors should approve risk-management procedures requiring the timely, accurate and appropriately segregated exchange of collateral of counterparties, or any significant change to those procedures, before they are applied.

(16a)

In order to avoid international regulatory divergence and bearing in mind the particular nature of the trade in such derivatives, the mandatory exchange of variation margins on physically settled foreign exchange forwards and physically settled foreign exchange swap derivatives should only apply to transactions between the most systemic counterparties, namely credit institutions and investment firms.

(16b)

Post-trade risk reduction services, such as portfolio compression, can lead to a reduction of systemic risk. By reducing risks in existing derivatives portfolios, without changing the overall market position of the portfolio, they can lower counterparty exposures and counterparty risk associated with a build-up in gross outstanding positions. ‘Portfolio compression’ is defined in Article 2 (1) of Regulation (EU) No 600/2014 and excluded from the scope of the Union trading obligation established in Article 28 of Regulation (EU) No 600/2014. In order to align this Regulation with Regulation (EU) No 600/2014 where necessary, taking into account the differences of these two Regulations and the potential to circumvent the clearing obligation, the Commission, in cooperation with ESMA and ESRB, should assess which post-trade risk reduction services could be granted an exemption from the clearing obligation.

(17)

To increase transparency and predictability of the initial margins and to restrain CCPs from modifying their initial margin models in ways that could appear procyclical, CCPs should provide their clearing members with tools to simulate their initial margin requirements and with a detailed overview of the initial margin models they use. This is consistent with the international standards published by the Committee on Payments and Market Infrastructures and the Board of the International Organization of Securities Commissions, and in particular with the disclosure framework published in December 2012 (6) and the public quantitative disclosure standards for central counterparties published in 2015 (7), relevant for fostering an accurate understanding of the risks and costs involved in any participation in a CCP by clearing members and enhancing transparency of CCPs towards market participants.

(18)

Uncertainties remain as to what extent assets held in omnibus or individual segregated accounts are insolvency remote. It is therefore unclear in which cases CCPs can with sufficient legal certainty transfer client positions where a clearing member defaults, or in which cases CCPs can, with sufficient legal certainty, pay the proceeds of a liquidation directly to clients. To incentivise clearing and to improve access to it, the rules relating to insolvency remoteness of those assets and positions should be clarified.

(19)

The fines ESMA can impose on trade repositories under its direct supervision should be effective, proportionate and dissuasive enough to ensure the effectiveness of ESMA’s supervisory powers and to increase the transparency of OTC derivatives positions and exposures. The amounts of fines initially provided for in Regulation (EU) No 648/2012 have revealed insufficiently dissuasive in view of the current turnover of the trade repositories, which could potentially limit the effectiveness of ESMA's supervisory powers under that Regulation vis-à-vis trade repositories. The upper limit of the basic amounts of fines should therefore be increased.

(20)

Third country authorities should have access to data reported to Union trade repositories where certain conditions guaranteeing the treatment of those data are fulfilled by the third country and where that third country provides for a legally binding and enforceable obligation granting Union authorities direct access to data reported to trade repositories in that third country.

(21)

Regulation (EU) 2015/2365 of the European Parliament and of the Council (8) allows for a simplified registration procedure for trade repositories that are already registered in accordance with Regulation (EU) No 648/2012 and wish to extend that registration to provide their services in respect of securities financing transactions. A similar simplified registration procedure should be put in place for the registration of trade repositories that are already registered in accordance with Regulation (EU) 2015/2365 and wish to extend that registration to provide their services in respect of derivative contracts.

(22)

Insufficient quality and transparency of data produced by trade repositories makes it difficult for entities that have been granted access to those data to use them to monitor the derivatives markets and prevents regulators and supervisors from identifying financial stability risks in due time. To improve data quality and transparency and to align the reporting requirements under Regulation (EU) No 648/2012 with those of Regulation (EU) 2015/2365 and Regulation (EU) No 600/2014, further harmonisation of the reporting rules and requirements is necessary, and in particular, further harmonisation of data standards, methods, and arrangements for reporting, as well as procedures to be applied by trade repositories for the validation of reported data as to their completeness and accuracy, and the reconciliation of data with other trade repositories. Moreover, trade repositories should grant counterparties, upon request, access to all data reported on their behalf to allow those counterparties to verify the accuracy of those data.

(22a)

Afin de réduire la charge administrative et d’accroître l’appariement des transactions, l’AEMF devrait instaurer une norme commune de déclaration aux référentiels centraux au niveau de l’Union. Les CCP et autres contreparties financières se voyant déléguer de plus en plus d’obligations de déclaration, un format unique améliorerait l’efficacité pour tous les participants.

(23)

In terms of the services provided by trade repositories, Regulation (EU) No 648/2012 has established a competitive environment. Counterparties should therefore be able to choose the trade repository to which they wish to report and should be able to switch trade repositories if they so choose. To facilitate that switch and to ensure the continued availability of data without duplication, trade repositories should establish appropriate policies to ensure the orderly transfer of reported data to other trade repositories where requested by an undertaking subject to the reporting obligation.

(24)

Regulation (EU) No 648/2012 establishes that the clearing obligation should not apply to pension scheme arrangements (PSAs) until a suitable technical solution is developed by CCPs for the transfer of non-cash collateral as variation margins. As no viable solution facilitating PSAs to centrally clear has been developed so far, that temporary derogation should be extended to apply for a further two years in respect of the very large majority of PSAs . Central clearing should however remain the ultimate aim considering that current regulatory and market developments enable market participants to develop suitable technical solutions within that time period. With the assistance of ESMA, EBA, the European Insurance and Occupational Pensions Authority (‘EIOPA’) and ESRB, the Commission should monitor the progress made by CCPs, clearing members and PSAs towards viable solutions facilitating the participation of PSAs in central clearing and prepare a report on that progress. That report should also cover the solutions and the related costs for PSAs, thereby taking into account regulatory and market developments such as changes to the type of financial counterparty that is subject to the clearing obligation. ▌ The Commission should be empowered to extend that derogation for one additional year, if it considers that a solution was agreed on by the stakeholders and additional time is needed for its implementation .

(24a)

Small PSAs, in addition to those classified as small financial counterparties, do not present the same risks as larger PSAs and it is appropriate to allow them a longer exemption from the clearing obligation. For such PSAs, the Commission should extend the exemption from that obligation to three years. If, by the end of that period, the Commission considers that the small PSAs have made necessary effort to develop appropriate technical solutions for participating in central clearing and that the adverse effect of centrally clearing derivative contracts on the retirement benefits of pensioners remains unchanged, the Commission should be able to extend the derogation by two additional years. After the exemption lapses, small PSAs should be subject to this Regulation in the same way as all other entities within its scope of application. Due to the lower volumes of derivative contracts concluded by small PSAs, it is to be expected that they will not exceed the thresholds triggering the clearing obligation. As a result, even after the exemption lapse, most small PSAs would still not be subject to the clearing obligation.

(24b)

The exemption for PSAs should continue to apply from the date of entry into force of this Regulation and if this Regulation enters into force after 16 August 2018, should also apply retroactively to all OTC derivative contracts executed after that date. The retroactive application of this provision is necessary to avoid a gap between the end of the application of the existing exemption and the new exemption, since both serve the same purpose.

(25)

The power to adopt acts in accordance with Article 290 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union should be delegated to the Commission in respect of specifying the conditions under which commercial terms relating to the provision of clearing services are considered to be fair, reasonable, transparent and non-discriminatory, and in respect of the extension of the period in which the clearing obligation should not apply to PSAs.

(26)

To ensure uniform conditions for the implementation of this Regulation, and in particular with regard to the availability of information contained in the Union trade repositories to the relevant authorities of third countries, implementing powers should be conferred on the Commission. Those powers should be exercised in accordance with Regulation (EU) No 182/2011 of the European Parliament and of the Council (9).

(27)

To ensure consistent harmonisation of rules on risk mitigation procedures, registration of trade repositories and reporting requirements, the Commission should adopt draft regulatory technical standards developed by EBA, EIOPA and ESMA regarding the supervisory procedures to ensure initial and ongoing validation of the risk-management procedures that require the timely, accurate and appropriately segregated collateral, the details of a simplified application for an extension of the registration of a trade repository that is already registered under Regulation (EU) 2015/2365, the details of the procedures to be applied by the trade repository to verify compliance with the reporting requirements by the reporting counterparty or submitting entity, the completeness and accuracy of the information reported and the details of the procedures for the reconciliation of data between trade repositories. The Commission should adopt those draft regulatory technical standards by means of delegated acts pursuant to Article 290 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union and in accordance with Articles 10 to 14 of Regulation (EU) No 1093/2010 of the European Parliament and of the Council (10), Regulation (EU) No 1094/2010 of the Parliament and of the Council (11) and Regulation (EU) No 1095/2010 of the Parliament and of the Council (12).

(28)

The Commission should also be empowered to adopt implementing technical standards developed by ESMA by means of implementing acts pursuant to Article 291 of the Treaty of the European Union and in accordance with Article 15 of Regulation (EU) No 1095/2010 with regard to the data standards for the information to be reported for the different classes of derivatives and the methods and arrangements for reporting.

(29)

Since the objectives of this Regulation, namely to ensure the proportionality of rules that lead to unnecessary administrative burdens and compliance costs without putting financial stability at risk and to increase the transparency of OTC derivatives positions and exposures, cannot be sufficiently achieved by the Member States but can rather, by reason of their scale and effects, be better achieved at Union level, the Union may adopt measures, in accordance with the principle of subsidiarity as set out in Article 5 of the Treaty on European Union. In accordance with the principle of proportionality, as set out in that Article, this Regulation does not go beyond what is necessary in order to achieve those objectives.

(30)	The application of certain provisions of this Regulation should be deferred to establish all essential implementing measures and allow market participants to take the necessary steps for compliance purposes.

(31)	The European Data Protection Supervisor was consulted in accordance with Article 28(2) of Regulation (EC) No 45/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council (13) and delivered an opinion on […].

(32)	Regulation (EU) No 648/2012 should therefore be amended accordingly,

(32a)

The clearing obligation for derivatives laid down in Regulation (EU) No 648/2012 and the trading obligation for derivatives laid down in Regulation (EU) No 600/2014 should be aligned where necessary and appropriate. Therefore, the Commission should prepare a report on the changes made to the clearing obligation for derivatives in this Regulation, in particular regarding the scope of entities subject to the clearing obligation as well as the suspension mechanism, that should also be made to the trading obligation for derivatives set out in Regulation (EU) No 600/2014.

HAVE ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

Article 1

Regulation (EU) No 648/2012 is amended as follows:

(-1)

In Article 1, paragraph 4 is replaced by the following:

“4. This Regulation shall not apply to:

(a)	central banks and other public bodies charged with or intervening in the management of the public debt;

(b)	the Bank for International Settlements;

(c)	multilateral development banks, as listed in Article 117(2) of Regulation (EU) No 575/2013. ”;

(-1a)

In Article 1, paragraph 5, point a is deleted;

(1)

In Article 2, point (8) is replaced by the following:

“(8)

‘financial counterparty’means an investment firm authorised in accordance with Directive 2014/65/ EU of the European Parliament and of the Council (14), a credit institution authorised in accordance with Directive 2013/36/EU , an insurance or reinsurance undertaking authorised in accordance with Directive 2009/138/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council (15), a UCITS authorised in accordance with Directive 2009/65/EC except if that UCITS is related to an employee share purchase plan ,, an institution for occupational retirement provision within the meaning of Article 6(a) of Directive 2003/41/EC, an AIF as defined in Article 4(1)(a) of Directive 2011/61/EU, which is either established in the Union or managed by an alternative investment fund manager (AIFM) authorised or registered in accordance with Directive 2011/61/EU, except if that AIF is related to an employee share purchase plan, and, where relevant, its AIFM is established in the Union; and a central securities depository authorised in accordance with Regulation (EU) No 909/2014 of the European Parliament and of the Council (16) ▌;;

(2)

Article 4 is amended as follows:

(a)

In paragraph 1, point (a) is amended as follows:

(i)

points (i) to (iv) are replaced by the following:

“(i)	between two financial counterparties that are subject to the conditions in the second subparagraph of Article 4a(1);

(ii)	between a financial counterparty that is subject to the conditions in the second subparagraph of Article 4a(1) and a non-financial counterparty that is subject to the conditions in the second subparagraph of Article 10(1);

(iii)

between two non-financial counterparties that are subject to the conditions in the second subparagraph of Article 10(1);

(iv)

between, on the one hand, a financial counterparty that is subject to the conditions in the second subparagraph of Article 4a(1) or a non-financial counterparty that is subject to the conditions in the second subparagraph of Article 10(1), and, on the other hand, an entity established in a third country that would be subject to the clearing obligation if it were established in the Union;”;

(b)

in paragraph 1, point (b) is replaced by the following:

“(b)

they are entered into or novated either:

(i)	on or after the date from which the clearing obligation takes effect; or

ii)	on or after the date from which both counterparties meet the conditions set out in point (a). ”;

(c)

the following paragraphs are inserted:

“3a. Clearing members and clients which provide clearing services, whether directly or indirectly, shall provide those services under fair, reasonable and non-discriminatory and transparent commercial terms. Such clearing members and clients shall take all reasonable steps designed to identify, prevent, manage and monitor conflicts of interest within a group of affiliated entities, in particular between the trading unit and the clearing unit, that may adversely affect the fair, reasonable, non-discriminatory and transparent provision of clearing services.

Clearing members or clients shall be permitted to control the risks connected to the clearing services offered.

3b. In order to ensure the consistent application of this Article, ESMA shall develop draft regulatory technical standards specifying the conditions under which commercial terms for clearing services, referred to in paragraph 3a, are considered to be fair, reasonable, non-discriminatory and transparent.

ESMA shall submit the draft regulatory technical standards referred to in the first subparagraph to the Commission by ... [six months following the date of entry into force of this amending Regulation].

The Commission is empowered to supplement this Regulation by adopting the regulatory technical standards referred to in the first subparagraph in accordance with Articles 10 to 14 of Regulation (EU) No 1095/2010. ”;

(3)

The following Article 4a is added :

“Article 4a

Financial counterparties subject to a clearing obligation

1. A financial counterparty taking positions in OTC derivative contracts may calculate, annually, its aggregate month-end average position for the previous 12 months ▌in accordance with paragraph 3.

Where the financial counterparty does not calculate its position or the result of that calculation exceeds the clearing thresholds specified pursuant to Article 10(4)(b), the financial counterparty shall:

(a)	immediately notify ESMA and the relevant competent authority thereof;

(b)	be subject to the clearing obligation referred to in Article 4 for future OTC derivative contracts, irrespective of the asset class or asset classes for which the clearing threshold has been exceeded; and

(c)	clear the contracts referred to in point (b) within four months of becoming subject to the clearing obligation.

2. A financial counterparty that has become subject to the clearing obligation in accordance with paragraph 1 and subsequently demonstrates to the relevant competent authority that its aggregate month-end average position for the previous 12 months ▌no longer exceeds the clearing threshold referred to in paragraph 1, shall no longer be subject to the clearing obligation set out in Article 4.

2a. Where a previously exempt financial counterparty becomes subject to the clearing obligation in accordance with paragraph 1, it shall clear its OTC derivative contracts within four months of becoming subject to that clearing obligation.

3. In calculating the positions referred to in paragraph 1, the financial counterparty shall include all OTC derivative contracts entered into by that financial counterparty or entered into by other entities within the group to which that financial counterparty belongs.”;

(4)	In Article 5(2), point (c) is deleted;

(4a)

In Article 6, paragraph 2, after point d the following point is added:

“ (da)

within each class of OTC derivatives referred to in point (d) , the details of the contract types for which relevant CCPs have been authorised to clear and the date at which those CCPs have become authorised to clear those contracts ;”;

(5)	In Article 6(2), point (e) is deleted;

(6)

The following Article 6b is added :

“Article 6b

Suspension of clearing obligation in situations other than resolution

1. In circumstances other than those referred to in Article 6a(1), ESMA may request that the Commission temporarily suspend the clearing obligation referred to in Article 4(1) for a specific class of OTC derivative or for a specific type of counterparty where one of the following conditions is met:

(a)	the class of OTC derivative is no longer suitable for central clearing on the basis of the criteria referred to in the first subparagraph of paragraph 4 and in paragraph 5 of Article 5;

(b)	a CCP is likely to cease clearing that specific class of OTC derivative and no other CCP is able to clear that specific class of OTC derivative without interruption;

(c)	the suspension of the clearing obligation for a specific class of OTC derivative or for a specific type of counterparty is necessary to avoid or address a serious threat to financial stability in the Union and that suspension is proportionate to that aim.

For the purposes of point (c) of the first subparagraph, ESMA shall consult the ESRB prior to the request referred to therein.

Where ESMA requests that the Commission temporarily suspend the clearing obligation referred to in Article 4(1), it shall provide reasons and submit evidence that at least one of the conditions laid down in the first subparagraph is fulfilled. The Commission shall without delay inform the European Parliament and the Council of ESMA's request.

1a. A suspension request by ESMA as referred in paragraph 1 of this Article may be requested by a competent authority designated in accordance with Article 22. Where the competent authority requests that ESMA submit a suspension request, it shall provide reasons and submit evidence that at least one of the conditions laid down in the first subparagraph of paragraph 1 is fulfilled.

ESMA shall, within 48 hours of receipt of a request by the competent authority and based on the reasons and evidence provided by the competent authority, either request that the Commission suspend the clearing obligation for the specific class of OTC derivative or for the specific type of counterparty referred to in paragraph 1, or reject the competent authority’s request. ESMA shall inform the competent authority concerned of its decision and provide a detailed reasoning explaining it.

2. The request referred to in paragraph 1 shall not be made public.

3. The Commission shall, within 48 hours of the request referred to in paragraph 1 and based on the reasons and evidence provided by ESMA, either suspend the clearing obligation for the specific class of OTC derivative or for the specific type of counterparty referred to in paragraph 1, or reject the requested suspension. The Commission shall inform ESMA of its decision and shall provide a detailed reasoning explaining it.The Commission shall thereafter transmit that information without delay to the European Parliament and the Council.

4. The Commission’s decision to suspend the clearing obligation ▌shall be published in the Official Journal of the European Union, on the Commission’s website and in the public register referred to in Article 6.

5. A suspension of the clearing obligation pursuant to this Article shall be valid for a period not exceeding one month from the date of the publication of that suspension in the Official Journal of the European Union.

6. Where the grounds for the suspension continue to apply , the Commission, after consulting ESMA and the ESRB , may extend the suspension referred to in paragraph 5 for one or more periods of one month, which shall not cumulatively exceed 12 months from the end of the initial suspension period. An extension of the suspension shall be published in accordance with Article 4.

For the purposes of the first subparagraph, the Commission shall notify ESMA and inform the European Parliament and the Council of its intention to extend a suspension of the clearing obligation. ESMA shall issue an opinion on the extension of the suspension within 48 hours of that notification.”;

(7)

Article 9 is amended as follows:

(a)

paragraph 1 is replaced by the following:

“1. Financial counterparties, non-financial counterparties that meet the conditions referred to in the second subparagraph of Article 10(1) and CCPs shall ensure that the details of any derivative contract they have concluded and of any modification or termination of the contract are reported in accordance with paragraph 1a to a trade repository registered in accordance with Article 55 or recognised in accordance with Article 77. The details shall be reported no later than the working day following the conclusion, modification or termination of the contract.

The reporting obligation shall apply to derivative contracts which ▌were entered into on or after 12 February 2014.

Notwithstanding Article 3, the reporting obligation shall not apply to OTC derivative contracts within the same group where at least one of the counterparties is a non-financial counterparty or would be qualified as a non-financial counterparty if it were established in the Union, provided that:

(a)	both counterparties are included in the same consolidation on a full basis;

(b)	both counterparties are subject to appropriate centralised risk evaluation, measurement and control procedures; and

(c)	the parent undertaking is not a financial counterparty .”;

(b)

the following paragraphs 1a and 1b are inserted:

“1a. The details of derivative contracts referred to in paragraph 1 shall be reported as follows:

▌

(b)

▌the details of OTC derivative contracts concluded between a financial counterparty and a non-financial counterparty that do not meet the conditions referred to in the second subparagraph of Article 10(1) shall be reported as follows:

(i)

financial counterparties shall be solely responsible and legally liable for reporting a single data set , as well as for ensuring the accuracy of the details reported. To ensure that the financial counterparty has all the data needed to fulfil the reporting obligation, the non-financial counterparty shall provide the financial counterparty with the details relating to the OTC derivative contracts concluded between them, which the financial counterparty cannot be reasonably expected to possess . The non-financial counterparty is responsible for ensuring that those details are accurate.

(ii)

notwithstanding point (i), non-financial counterparties who have already invested to put in place a reporting system may choose to report the details of their OTC derivative contracts with financial counterparties to a trade repository. In that case, the non-financial counterparties shall inform the financial counterparties with which they have concluded OTC derivative contracts of their decision beforehand. The responsibility and legal liability for reporting and for ensuring the accuracy of those details shall in this situation remain with the non-financial counterparties.

(ba)

in the case of OTC derivative contracts concluded by a non-financial counterparty that is not subject to the conditions referred to in the second subparagraph of Article 10(1) with an entity established in a third-country that would be a financial counterparty if established in the Union, such a non-financial counterparty shall not be required to report pursuant to Article 9 and shall not be legally liable for reporting or ensuring the accuracy of the details of such OTC derivative contracts where:

(i)	the concerned third-country legal regime for reporting has been deemed equivalent pursuant to Article 13 and, the third-country financial counterparty has reported such information pursuant to its third-country legal regime for reporting;

(ii)

the concerned third-country legal regime for reporting has not been declared equivalent pursuant to Article 13, the third-country financial counterparty chooses to be subject to, as if it were a financial counterparty established in the Union, to the requirements of this Article and registers itself with ESMA.

ESMA shall make make a Union-wide register of the third-country financial counterparties that choose to be subject to this Article in accordance with point (ii) publicly available on its website;

(c)	the management company of a UCITS shall be responsible for reporting the details of OTC derivative contracts to which that UCITS is a counterparty as well as for ensuring the accuracy of the details reported;

(d)	the manager of an AIF shall be responsible for reporting the details of OTC derivative contracts to which that AIF is a counterparty as well as for ensuring the accuracy of the details reported;

(e)

counterparties and CCPs that report OTC derivative contracts to a trade repository shall ensure that the details of their derivative contracts are reported accurately and without duplication.

Counterparties and CCPs subject to the reporting obligation referred to in paragraph 1 may delegate that reporting obligation.

1b. ESMA shall develop draft regulatory technical standards specifying the details to be provided by a third-country financial counterparty for its registration with ESMA referred to in point (ba)(ii) of the first subparagraph of paragraph 1a.

ESMA shall submit those draft regulatory technical standards to the Commission by ... [six months following the date of entry into force of this amending Regulation].

(c)

paragraph 6 is replaced by the following:

“6. To ensure uniform conditions of application of paragraphs 1 and 3, ESMA shall, in close cooperation with the ESCB , develop draft implementing technical standards specifying:

(a)

the data standards and formats for the information to be reported, which shall include at least the following:

(i)	global legal entity identifiers (‘LEIs’);

(ii)	international securities identification numbers (‘ISINs’);

(iii)

unique trade identifiers (‘UTIs’);

(b)	the methods and arrangements for reporting;

(c)	the frequency of the reports;

(d)	the date by which derivative contracts are to be reported, including any phase-in for contracts entered into before the reporting obligation applies.

In developing those draft technical standards, ESMA shall take into account international developments and standards agreed upon at Union or global level, and their consistency with the reporting requirements laid down in Article 4 of Regulation (EU) No 2015/2365 (*1) and Article 26 of Regulation (EU) No 600/2014.

ESMA shall submit those draft implementing technical standards to the Commission by [ 12 months after the entry into force of this amending Regulation].

Power is conferred on the Commission to adopt the implementing technical standards referred to in the first subparagraph in accordance with Article 15 of Regulation (EU) No 1095/2010.;

(8)

In Article 10, paragraphs 1 to 4 are replaced by the following:

“1. A non-financial counterparty taking positions in OTC derivative contracts may calculate, annually, its aggregate month-end average position for the previous 12 months ▌in accordance with paragraph 3.

Where the non-financial counterparty does not calculate its position or the result of the calculation referred to in the first subparagraph exceeds the clearing thresholds specified pursuant to paragraph 4(b), that non-financial counterparty shall:

(a)	immediately notify ESMA and the authority designated in accordance with paragraph 5 thereof;

(b)	where it has not calculated its position , be subject to the clearing obligation referred to in Article 4 for future OTC derivative contracts in all asset classes and to the requirements set out in Article 11(3) ;

(ba)

where the result of the calculation referred to in the first subparagraph exceeds the clearing thresholds specified pursuant to point (b) of paragraph 4, be subject to the clearing obligation referred to in Article 4 for future OTC derivative contracts in the asset class or asset classes for which the clearing threshold has been exceeded and exempted from the requirements set out in Article 11(3) in the other asset class or asset classes for which the clearing threshold has not been exceeded ;

(c)	clear the contracts referred to in point (b) within four months of becoming subject to the clearing obligation.

2. A non-financial counterparty that has become subject to the clearing obligation in accordance with the second subparagraph of paragraph 1 and subsequently demonstrates to the authority designated in accordance with paragraph 5 that its aggregate month-end average position for the previous 12 months ▌no longer exceeds the clearing threshold referred to in paragraph 1 shall no longer be subject to the clearing obligation set out in Article 4.

3. In calculating the positions referred to in paragraph 1, the non-financial counterparty shall include all the OTC derivative contracts entered into by the non-financial counterparty or by other non-financial entities within the group to which the non-financial counterparty belongs, which are not objectively measurable as reducing risks directly relating to the commercial activity or treasury financing activity of the non-financial counterparty or of that group.

4. In order to ensure consistent application of this Article, ESMA shall develop draft regulatory technical standards, after consulting the ESRB and other relevant authorities, specifying:

(a)	criteria for establishing which OTC derivative contracts are objectively measurable as reducing risks directly relating to the commercial activity or treasury financing activity referred to in paragraph 3; and

(b)	values of the clearing thresholds, which are determined taking into account the systemic relevance of the sum of net positions and exposures per counterparty and per class of OTC derivatives.

ESMA may develop distinct clearing thresholds for financial and non-financial counterparties taking into account the interconnectedness of financial counterparties and their higher systemic risk.

After conducting an open public consultation, ESMA shall submit those draft regulatory technical standards to the Commission by 30 September 2012 and shall regularly update them.

Power is delegated to the Commission to adopt the regulatory technical standards referred to in the first subparagraph in accordance with Articles 10 to 14 of Regulation (EU) No 1095/2010.

After consulting the ESRB and other relevant authorities, ESMA shall periodically review the thresholds referred to in point (b) and, where necessary, in particular to ensure increased participation in central clearing , propose regulatory technical standards to amend them.”;

(8a)

In Article 11, the following paragraph is inserted:

“1a. The requirements referred to in paragraph 1 of this Article shall not apply to intragroup transactions as referred to in Article 3 where one of the counterparties is a non-financial counterparty which is not subject to the clearing obligation in accordance with the second subparagraph of Article 10(1).”;

(8b)

In Article 11, paragraph 3 is amended as follows:

“3. Financial counterparties shall have risk-management procedures in place that require timely, accurate and appropriately segregated exchange of collateral with respect to OTC derivative contracts that are entered into on or after 16 August 2012. Non-financial counterparties as referred to in Article 10 may not apply risk-management procedures that require timely, accurate and appropriately segregated exchange of collateral with respect to OTC derivative contracts that are in the asset class or asset classes for which the clearing threshold has not been exceeded.”;

(9)

Paragraph 15 of Article 11 is amended as follows:

(a)

Point (a) is replaced by the following:

“(a)	the risk-management procedures, including the levels and type of collateral and segregation arrangements referred to in paragraph 3, as well as related supervisory procedures to ensure initial and ongoing validation of those risk-management procedures;”;

(b)	The first sentence of subparagraph 2 is replaced by the following: “The ESAs shall submit those common draft regulatory technical standards to the Commission by [12 months after the entry into force of this amending Regulation].”;

(10)

In Article 38, the following paragraphs 6 and 7 are added:

“6. A CCP shall provide its clearing members with a simulation tool allowing them to determine the amount, on a gross basis, of additional initial margin that the CCP may require upon the clearing of a new transaction. That tool shall only be accessible on a secured access basis and the results of the simulation shall not be binding.

7. A CCP shall provide its clearing members with information on the initial margin models it uses. That information shall meet all of the following conditions:

(a)	it clearly explains the design of the initial margin model and how it operates;

(b)	it clearly describes the key assumptions and limitations of the initial margin model and the circumstances under which those assumptions are no longer valid

(c)	it is documented.”;

(11)

In Article 39, the following paragraph 11 is added:

“11. Member States’ national insolvency laws shall not prevent a CCP from acting in accordance with paragraphs 5 to 7 of Article 48 with regard to the assets and positions recorded in the accounts referred to in paragraphs 2 to 5 of this Article. ”;

(12)

Article 56 is amended as follows:

(a)

paragraph 1 is replaced by the following:

“1. For the purposes of Article 55(1), a trade repository shall submit either of the following to ESMA:

(a)	an application for registration;

(b)	an application for an extension of the registration where the trade repository is already registered under Chapter III of Regulation (EU) No 2015/2365.”;

(b)

paragraph 3 is replaced by the following:

“3. To ensure a consistent application of this Article, ESMA shall develop draft regulatory technical standards specifying the following:

(a)	the details of the application for the registration referred to in paragraph 1(a);

(b)	the details of a simplified application for the extension of the registration referred to in paragraph 1(b).

ESMA shall submit those draft regulatory technical standards to the Commission by [12 months after the entry into force of this amending Regulation].

Power is delegated to the Commission to adopt the regulatory technical standards referred to in the first subparagraph in accordance with Articles 10 to 14 of Regulation (EU) No 1095/2010.”;

(c)

paragraph 4 is replaced by the following:

“4. To ensure uniform conditions of application of paragraph 1, ESMA shall develop draft implementing technical standards specifying the following:

(a)	the format of the application for registration referred to in paragraph 1(a);

(b)	the format of the application for an extension of the registration referred to in paragraph 1(b).

With regard to point (b) of the first subparagraph, ESMA shall develop a simplified format.

ESMA shall submit those draft implementing technical standards to the Commission by [9 months after the entry into force of this amending Regulation].

Power is conferred on the Commission to adopt the implementing technical standards referred to in the first subparagraph in accordance with Article 15 of Regulation (EU) No 1095/2010.”;

(12a)

In Article 62, paragraph 5 is deleted.

(12b)

In Article 63, paragraph 1 is replaced by the following:

“1. In order to carry out its duties under this Regulation, ESMA may conduct all necessary on-site inspections at any business premises or property of the legal persons referred to in Article 61(1). Where the proper conduct and efficiency of the inspection so require, ESMA may carry out the on-site inspection without prior announcement.”;

(12c)

In Article 63, paragraph 2 is replaced by the following:

“2. The officials and other persons authorised by ESMA to conduct an on-site inspection may enter any business premises or property of the legal persons subject to an investigation decision adopted by ESMA and shall have all the powers as referred to in Article 62(1). They shall also have the power to seal any business premises and books or records for the period of, and to the extent necessary for, the inspection.”;

(12d)

In Article 63, paragraph 8 is deleted.

(12e)

In Article 64, paragraph 4 is amended as follows:

“4. When submitting the file with the findings to ESMA, the investigation officer shall notify the persons who are subject to the investigations. Such persons shall be entitled to have access to the file, subject to the legitimate interest of other persons in the protection of their business secrets. The right of access to the file shall not extend to confidential information or to ESMA’s internal preparatory documents.”;

(12f)

In Article 64, paragraph 8 is replaced by the following:

“8. ESMA shall refer matters for criminal prosecution to the appropriate authorities for investigation and possible criminal prosecution where, in carrying out its duties under this Regulation, it finds that there are serious indications of the possible existence of facts that it knows to be liable to constitute criminal offences under the applicable law. In addition, ESMA shall refrain from imposing fines or periodic penalty payments where it is aware that a prior acquittal or conviction arising from identical fact or facts which are substantially the same has already acquired the force of res judicata as the result of criminal proceedings under national law.”;

(12g)

In Article 65(1), the second subparagraph is deleted.

(13)

Article 65(2) is amended as follows:

(a)	in point (a), “EUR 20 000”is replaced by “EUR 200 000”;

(b)	in point (b), “EUR 10 000”is replaced by “EUR 100 000”;

(c)

the following point (c) is added:

“(c)	for the infringements referred to in Section IV of Annex I, the amount of the fines shall be at least EUR 5 000 and shall not exceed EUR 10 000.”;

(13a)

In Article 67(1), the following subparagraph is added:

“The first subparagraph shall not apply if urgent action is needed in order to prevent significant and imminent damage to the financial system or significant and imminent damage to the integrity, transparency, efficiency and orderly functioning of financial markets, including the stability or the accuracy of data reported to a trade repository. In such a case, ESMA may adopt an interim decision and shall give the persons concerned the opportunity to be heard as soon as possible after taking its decision.”;

(14)

In Article 72, paragraph 2 is replaced by the following:

“2. The amount of a fee charged to a trade repository shall cover all reasonable administrative costs incurred by ESMA for its registration and supervision activities and be proportionate to the turnover of the trade repository concerned and the type of registration and supervision exercised.”;

(15)

The following Article 76a is inserted:

“Article 76a

Mutual direct access to data

1. Where necessary for the exercise of their duties, relevant authorities of third countries in which one or more trade repositories are established shall have direct access to information in trade repositories established in the Union, provided the Commission has adopted an implementing act in accordance with paragraph 2 to that effect.

2. Upon submission of a request by the authorities referred to in paragraph 1, the Commission may adopt implementing acts, in accordance with the examination procedure referred to in Article 86(2), determining whether the legal framework of the third country of the requesting authority fulfils all of the following conditions:

(a)	trade repositories established in that third country are duly authorised;

(b)	effective supervision of trade repositories and effective enforcement of their obligations takes place in that third country on an ongoing basis;

(c)	guarantees of professional secrecy exist and those guarantees are at least equivalent to those laid down in this Regulation, including the protection of business secrets shared with third parties by the authorities;

(d)	trade repositories authorised in that third country are subject to a legally binding and enforceable obligation to grant to the entities referred to in Article 81(3) direct and immediate access to the data.”;

(16)

In Article 78, the following paragraph 9 and 10 are added:

“(9) A trade repository shall establish the following procedures and policies:

(a)	procedures for the effective reconciliation of data between trade repositories;

(b)	procedures to ensure the completeness and accuracy of the reported data;

(c)	policies for the orderly transfer of data to other trade repositories where requested by the counterparties or CCPs referred to in Article 9 or where otherwise necessary.

(10) To ensure a consistent application of this Article, ESMA shall develop draft regulatory technical standards specifying:

(a)	the procedures for the reconciliation of data between trade repositories;

(b)	the procedures to be applied by the trade repository to verify the compliance by the reporting counterparty or submitting entity with the reporting requirements and to verify the completeness and accuracy of the information reported under Article 9.

ESMA shall submit those draft regulatory technical standards to the Commission by ... [12 months after the entry into force of this amending Regulation].

Power is delegated to the Commission to adopt the regulatory technical standards referred to in the first subparagraph in accordance with Articles 10 to 14 of Regulation (EU) No 1095/2010.”;

(17)

Article 81 is amended as follows:

(a)

the following point (q) is added to paragraph 3:

“(q)	the relevant authorities of a third country in respect of which an implementing act pursuant to Article 76(a) has been adopted;”;

(b)	the following paragraph 3a is inserted: “3a. A trade repository shall provide counterparties and CCPs referred to in the second subparagraph of Article 9(1a) with the information reported on their behalf.”;

(c)

paragraph 5 is replaced by the following:

“5. In order to ensure consistent application of this Article, ESMA shall, after consulting the members of the ESCB, develop draft regulatory technical standards specifying the following:

(a)	the information to be published or made available in accordance with paragraphs 1 and 3;

(b)	the frequency of publication of the information referred to in paragraph 1;

(c)	the operational standards required to aggregate and compare data across repositories and for the entities referred to in paragraph 3 to access that information;

(d)	the terms and conditions, the arrangements and the required documentation under which trade repositories grant access to the entities referred to in paragraph 3.

ESMA shall submit those draft regulatory technical standards to the Commission by [ 12 months after the entry into force of this amending Regulation].

In developing those draft technical standards, ESMA shall ensure that the publication of the information referred to paragraph 1 does not reveal the identity of any party to any contract.

Power is delegated to the Commission to adopt the regulatory technical standards referred to in the first subparagraph in accordance with Articles 10 to 14 of Regulation (EU) No 1095/2010.”;

(18)	Article 82(2) is replaced by the following: “2. The delegation of power referred to in Article 1(6), Article 4(3) Article 64(7), Article 70, Article 72(3), Article 76a and Article 85(2) shall be conferred to the Commission for an indeterminate period of time.”;

(19)

Article 85 is amended as follows:

(a)

paragraph 1 is replaced by the following:

‘1. By ... [˘three years following the date of entry into application of this amending Regulation] the Commission shall assess the application of this Regulation and prepare a general report. The Commission shall submit that report to the European Parliament and the Council, together with any appropriate proposals.’

(aa)

the following paragraph inserted:

“1a. By ... [three years after the date of entry into force of this amending Regulation], ESMA shall submit a report to the European Parliament, to the Council and to the Commission analysing the impact on market participants of the changes introduced by Regulation (EU) 2018/... [this amending Regulation] to the reporting regime. That report shall in particular assess the take-up and implementation of the respective provisions allowing the delegation of reporting to financial counterparties and requiring reporting of contracts by CCPs and investigate whether those new provisions have had the intended effect of reducing the reporting burden for smaller counterparties. It shall also investigate how those new provisions have affected the competition between trade repositories and whether and to what extent they have resulted in a less competitive environment and less freedom of choice for clearing members and their clients.” ;

(b)

paragraph 2 is replaced by the following:

“2. By [one year following the date of entry into force of this amending Regulation ], and every year thereafter until ... two years following the date of entry into force of this amending Regulation], the Commission shall prepare a report assessing whether viable technical solutions have been developed for the transfer by PSAs of cash and non-cash collateral as variation margins and the need for any measures to facilitate those technical solutions.

ESMA shall, by [six months following the date of entry into force of this amending Regulation], and every year thereafter until ... [two years following the date of entry into force of this amending Regulation], in cooperation with EIOPA, EBA and the ESRB, submit a report to the Commission, assessing the following:

(a)

whether CCPs, clearing members and PSAs have undertaken an appropriate effort and developed viable technical solutions facilitating the participation of PSAs in central clearing by posting cash and non-cash collateral as variation margins, including the implications of those solutions on market liquidity and procyclicality and their potential legal or other implications ;

(b)	the volume and the nature of the activity of PSAs in cleared and uncleared OTC derivatives markets, per asset class, and any related systemic risk to the financial system;

(c)	the consequences of PSAs fulfilling the clearing requirement on their investment strategies, including any shift in their cash and non-cash asset allocation;

(d)	the implications of the clearing thresholds referred to in Article 10(4) for PSAs;

(e)	the impact of other legal requirements on the cost differential between cleared and uncleared OTC derivative transactions, including margins requirements for uncleared derivatives and the calculation of the leverage ratio carried out pursuant to Regulation (EU) No 575/2013;

(f)	whether any further measures are necessary to facilitate a clearing solution for PSAs.

The Commission shall adopt a delegated act in accordance with Article 82 to extend the three-year period referred to in Article 89(1) once, by two years, where it concludes that no viable technical solution has been developed and that the adverse effect of centrally clearing derivative contracts on the retirement benefits of future pensioners remains unchanged.”;

(c)

paragraph 3 is replaced by the following:

“3. By ... [two years following the date of entry into force of this amending Regulation] ▌ the Commission shall either :

(a)	submit a proposal for a binding solution, other than permanent or further temporary exemptions of PSAs from the clearing obligation, if it considers that no solution has been found by stakeholders; or

(b)	adopt a delegated act in accordance with Article 82 to extend the two year period referred to in Article 89(1) once, by one year, only if it considers that a solution was agreed on by the stakeholders and that additional time is needed for the implementation of that solution ; or

(c)	allow the exemption to lapse, while encouraging stakeholders to implement their solution beforehand if it considers that a solution has been found. ”

▌

(ca)

the following paragraphs are inserted:

“3a. By ... [three years following the date of entry into force of this amending Regulation], the Commission shall adopt a delegated act in accordance with Article 82 to extend the three year period referred to in Article 89(1a) once, by two years, only if it considers that the small PSAs referred to in Article 89(1a) have made the necessary efforts to develop appropriate technical solutions and that the adverse effect of centrally clearing derivative contracts on the retirement benefits of pensioners remain unchanged;

3b. ESMA shall by ... [12 months after the date of entry into force of this amending Regulation] submit a report to the Commission, assessing whether the list of financial instruments that are considered highly liquid with minimal credit and market risk, in accordance with Article 47, could be extended and whether this list could include one or more money market funds authorized in accordance with in Regulation (EU) 2017/1131. ”;

(e)

the following paragraphs are added:

“6. By ... [six months after entry into force of this amending Regulation], the Commission shall, after consulting ESMA, submit a report to the European Parliament and to the Council on the alignment of the trading obligation for derivatives under Regulation (EU) No 600/2014 with changes made under Regulation (EU) 2018 /... [this amending Regulation] to the clearing obligation for derivatives, in particular the scope of entities subject to the clearing obligation as well as the suspension mechanism. Where such an alignment is deemed necessary and appropriate, the report shall be accompanied by a legislative proposal introducing the necessary changes.

7. ESMA shall, by ... [18 months following the date of entry into force of this amending Regulation], in cooperation with EIOPA and EBA, submit a report to the Commission, assessing whether the principle of fair, reasonable, non-discriminatory and transparent commercial terms referred to in Article 4(3a) has been effective in facilitating access to clearing.

The Commission shall, by ... [two years after the date of entry into force of this amending Regulation], present a report to the European Parliament and the Council assessing whether the principle of fair, reasonable, non-discriminatory and transparent commercial terms has been effective in facilitating access to clearing and proposing, where necessary, improvements to that principle. That report shall consider the findings of the report referred to in the first subparagraph and be accompanied by a legislative proposal, where appropriate.

8. By ... [12 months after the date of entry into force of this amending Regulation] the Commission shall prepare a report assessing whether trades directly resulting from post-trade risk reduction services, including portfolio compression, should be exempted from the clearing obligation referred to in Article 4(1). In this report the Commission shall take into account in particular, the extent to which they mitigate risks, in particular counterparty credit risk and operational risk, as well as the potential for circumvention of the clearing obligation and the potential to disincentive central clearing. The Commission shall submit that report to the European Parliament and the Council, together with any appropriate legislative proposals.

To assist the Commission in the elaboration of the report mentioned in the first subparagraph, ESMA shall, by ... [six months after the date of entry into force of this amending Regulation], in cooperation with the ESRB, submit a report to the Commission, assessing whether trades directly resulting from post-trade risk reduction services including portfolio compression should be exempted from the clearing obligation. That report shall investigate portfolio compression and other available non-price forming post-trade risk reduction services which reduce non-market risks in derivatives portfolios without changing the market risk of the portfolios, such as rebalancing transactions. It shall also explain the purposes and functioning of such post-trade risk reduction services, the extent to which they mitigate risks, in particular counterparty credit risk and operational risk, and assess the need to clear such trades, or to exempt them from clearing, in order to manage systemic risk. It shall also assess to what extent any exemption from the clearing obligation for such services discourages central clearing and may lead to counterparties circumventing the clearing obligation.

9. Based inter alia on the findings of the Commission public consultation on fitness check on supervisory reporting published on 1 December 2017 and on the report submitted by ESMA pursuant to the second subparagraph, the Commission shall, by [12 months following the entry into force of this amending Regulation], review and report on the application of Article 9(1a). The Commission shall submit that report to the European Parliament and the Council, together with any appropriate legislative proposal. When reviewing the application of Article 9(1a), the Commission shall assess whether the obligation to report transactions under Article 26 of Regulation (EU) No 600/2014 creates unnecessary duplication of transaction reporting for non-OTC derivatives and whether the requirement to report non-OTC transactions under Article 9(1a) could be reduced without undue loss of information with a view to simplifying the reporting chains for non-OTC derivatives for all counterparties, in particular for non-financial counterparties not subject to the clearing obligation referred to in the second subparagraph of Article 10(1).

ESMA shall, by ... [six months after entry into force of this amending Regulation], in cooperation with the ESRB, submit a report to the Commission, assessing the following:

(a)	the consistency between the reporting requirements for non-OTC derivatives under Regulation (EU) No 600/2014 and under Article 9 of this Regulation, both in terms of details of the derivatives contract reported and access to data by the relevant entities;

(b)	whether it is possible to align the reporting requirements for non-OTC derivatives under Regulation (EU) No 600/2014 and under Article 9 of this Regulation, both in terms of details of the derivatives contract reported and access to data by the relevant entities; and

(c)	the feasibility of simplifying the reporting chains for all counterparties, including all indirect clients, taking into account the need for timely reporting and the acts and measures adopted pursuant to Article 4(4) of this Regulation and Article 30(2) of Regulation (EU) No 600/2014. ”

(20)

In Article 89, the first subparagraph of paragraph 1 is replaced by the following:

“1. Until ... [two years following the date of entry into force of this amending Regulation], the clearing obligation set out in Article 4 shall not apply to OTC derivative contracts that are objectively measurable as reducing investment risks directly relating to the financial solvency of PSAs, and to entities established to provide compensation to members of PSAs in case of a default of a PSA.

PSAs, CCPs and clearing members shall make their best efforts to contribute to the development of technical solutions that facilitate the clearing of such OTC derivative contracts by PSAs.

The Commission shall set up an expert group made up of representatives of PSAs, CCPs, clearing members and other relevant parties to such technical solutions to monitor their efforts and assess the progress made in the development of technical solutions that facilitate the clearing of such OTC derivative contracts by PSAs. That expert group shall meet at least every six months. The Commission shall consider the efforts made by PSAs, CCPs and clearing members when drafting its reports pursuant to the first subparagraph of Article 85(2). ”;

(20a)

In Article 89, the following paragraph is inserted:

“ 1a. Notwithstanding paragraph 1, until ... [three years following the date of entry into force of this amending Regulation], the clearing obligation set out in Article 4 shall not apply to OTC derivative contracts that are objectively measurable as reducing investment risks directly relating to the financial solvency of the PSAs belonging to the category of small PSAs, and to entities established to provide compensation to members of those PSAs in case of a default of such a PSA.

The Commission shall adopt a delegated act in accordance with Article 82 to supplement this Regulation by determining which PSAs can be considered to be small PSAs in accordance with the first subparagraph of this paragraph, taking into account that the small PSA category shall not represent more than 5 % of the OTC derivative contracts entered into by PSAs. ”;

(21)	Annex I is amended in accordance with the Annex to this Regulation.

Article 2

This Regulation shall enter into force on the twentieth day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.

This Regulation shall apply from ... [five months after the entry into force of this amending Regulation].

Notwithstanding the second paragraph of this Article , Article 1(7)(d), and paragraphs 8, 10, and 11 of Article 1 shall apply from [▌six months after the date of entry into force of this amending Regulation] and Article 1(2)(c), Article 1(7)(e), Article 1(9), points (b) and (c) of Article 1(12) and Article 1(16) shall apply from [▌18 months after the date of entry into force of this amending Regulation].

If this Regulation enters into force after 16 August 2018, then Article 89(1) shall apply retroactively to all OTC derivative contracts executed by PSAs after 16 August 2018 and before the date of entry into force of this Regulation.

This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.

Done at …,

For the European Parliament

The President

For the Council

The President

(1) OJ C […], […], p. […].

(2) OJ C […], […], p. […].

(3) Position of the European Parliament of ... (OJ ...) and decision of the Council of ...

(4) Regulation (EU) No 648/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 4 July 2012 on OTC derivatives, central counterparties and trade repositories (OJ L 201, 27.7.2012, p. 1).

(5) Regulation (EU) No 600/2014 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 May 2014 on markets in financial instruments and amending Regulation (EU) No 648/2012 (OJ L 173, 12.6.2014, p. 84).

(6) http://www.bis.org/cpmi/publ/d106.pdf

(7) http://www.bis.org/cpmi/publ/d125.pdf

(8) Regulation (EU) 2015/2365 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 November 2015 on transparency of securities financing transactions and of reuse and amending Regulation (EU) No 648/2012 (OJ L 337, 23.12.2015, p. 1).

(9) 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 (OJ L 55, 28.2.2011, p. 13).

(10) Regulation (EU) No 1093/2010 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 24 November 2010 establishing a European Supervisory Authority (European Banking Authority), amending Decision No 716/2009/EC and repealing Commission Decision 2009/78/EC (OJ L 331, 15.12.2010, p. 12).

(11) Regulation (EU) No 1094/2010 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 24 November 2010 establishing a European Supervisory Authority (European Insurance and Occupational Pensions Authority), amending Decision No 716/2009/EC and repealing Commission Decision 2009/79/EC (OJ L 331, 15.12.2010, p. 48).

(12) Regulation (EU) No 1095/2010 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 24 November 2010 establishing a European Supervisory Authority (European Securities and Markets Authority), amending Decision No 716/2009/EC and repealing Commission Decision 2009/77/EC (OJ L 331, 15.12.2010, p. 84).

(13) Regulation (EC) No 45/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 December 2000 on the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data by the Community institutions and bodies and on the free movement of such data (OJ L 8, 12.1.2001, p. 1).

(14) Directive 2014/65/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 May 2014 on markets in financial instruments and amending Directive 2002/92/EC and Directive 2011/61/EU (OJ L 173, 12.6.2014, p. 349).

(15) Directive 2009/138/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 November 2009 on the taking-up and pursuit of the business of Insurance and Reinsurance (Solvency II) (OJ L 335, 17.12.2009, p. 1).

(16) Regulation (EU) No 909/2014 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 July 2014 on improving securities settlement in the European Union and on central securities depositories and amending Directives 98/26/EC and 2014/65/EU and Regulation (EU) No 236/2012 (OJ L 257, 28.8.2014, p. 1).”

(*1) Regulation (EU) 2015/2365 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 November 2015 on transparency of securities financing transactions and of reuse and amending Regulation (EU) No 648/2012 (OJ L 337, 23.12.2015, p. 1).”

ANNEX

Annex I is amended as follows:

(1)

In Section I, the following points (i), (j) and (k) are added:

“(i)	a trade repository infringes Article 78(9)(a) by not establishing adequate procedures for the reconciliation of data between trade repositories;

(j)	a trade repository infringes Article 78(9)(b) by not establishing adequate procedures to ensure the completeness and accuracy of the reported data;

(k)	a trade repository infringes Article 78(9)(c) by not establishing adequate policies for the orderly transfer of data to other trade repositories where requested by the counterparties and CCPs referred to in Article 9 or where otherwise necessary.”;

(2)

In Section IV, the following point (d) is added :

“(d)	a trade repository infringes Article 55(4) by not notifying ESMA in due time of material changes to the conditions for its registration.”.

27.1.2020

Official Journal of the European Union

C 28/165

P8_TA(2018)0264

Use of vehicles hired without drivers for the carriage of goods by road ***I

Amendments adopted by the European Parliament on 14 June 2018 on the proposal for a directive of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Directive 2006/1/EC on the use of vehicles hired without drivers for the carriage ofgoods by road (COM(2017)0282 – C8-0172/2017 – 2017/0113(COD)) (1)

(Ordinary legislative procedure: first reading)

(2020/C 28/26)

Amendment 1

Proposal for a directive

Recital 2

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(2)

The use of hired vehicles can reduce the costs of undertakings carrying goods on their own account or for hire and reward and at the same time increase their operational flexibility. It can therefore contribute to an increase in the productivity and competitiveness of the undertakings concerned. Moreover, as hired vehicles tend to be younger than the average fleet, they are also safer and less polluting.

(2)

Such use of hired vehicles can reduce the costs of undertakings carrying goods on their own account or for hire and reward whilst increasing their operational flexibility. That use of hired vehicles can therefore contribute to an increase in the productivity and competitiveness of the undertakings concerned. Moreover, since hired vehicles tend to be younger than the average fleet, they may often be safer and less polluting.

Amendment 2

Proposal for a directive

Recital 3

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(3)

Directive 2006/1/EC does not enable undertakings to fully benefit from the advantages of using hired vehicles. That Directive allows Member States to restrict the use by their undertakings of hired vehicles with a maximum permissible laden weight of more than six tonnes for own account operations. Moreover, Member States are not required to allow the use of a hired vehicle on their respective territories if the vehicle has been registered or put into circulation in compliance with the laws in a Member State other than the one of establishment of the undertaking hiring it.

(3)

Directive 2006/1/EC does not enable undertakings to fully benefit from the advantages of using hired vehicles. That Directive allows Member States to restrict the use, by the undertakings established within their territories , of hired vehicles with a maximum permissible laden weight of more than six tonnes for own account operations. Moreover, Member States are not required to allow the use on their respective territories of a hired vehicle that has been registered or put into circulation in compliance with the laws in a Member State other than the one of establishment of the undertaking hiring it.

Amendment 3

Proposal for a directive

Recital 4 a (new)

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(4 a)

Member States should not be allowed to restrict the use on their respective territories of a vehicle hired by an undertaking duly established on the territory of another Member State, provided that the vehicle is registered and complies with operating standards and safety requirements, or put into circulation in compliance with the laws of any Member State and authorised to be operated by the Member State of establishment of the undertaking responsible.

Amendment 4

Proposal for a directive

Recital 5

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(5)

The level of road transport taxation still differs considerably within the Union. Therefore, certain restrictions, which also indirectly affect the freedom to provide vehicle hiring services, remain justified for the purpose of avoiding fiscal distortions. Consequently, Member States should have the option to limit, subject to the conditions laid down in this Directive and within their respective territories, the length of time an established undertaking can use a hired vehicle registered or put into circulation in another Member State . They should also be allowed to limit the number of such vehicles being hired by an undertaking established within their territories.

Amendment 5

Proposal for a directive

Recital 5 a (new)

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(5a)

In order to enforce these measures, the information on the registration number of the hired vehicle should be provided in the Member States’ national electronic registers as established by Regulation (EC) No 1071/2009. Competent authorities of the Member State of establishment that are being informed of the use of a vehicle which the operator has hired and which is registered or put into circulation in compliance with the laws in another Member State should inform the competent authorities of that other Member State thereof. Member States should use the Internal Market Information System (IMI) to that end.

Amendment 6

Proposal for a directive

Recital 6 a (new)

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(6a)	In order to maintain operational standards, meet safety requirements and ensure decent working conditions for drivers, it is important for carriers to have guaranteed access to assets and direct support infrastructure in the country in which they are performing their operations.

Amendment 7

Proposal for a directive

Recital 7

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(7)	The implementation and effects of this Directive should be monitored by the Commission and be documented by it in a report. Any future action in this area should be considered in light of that report.

(7)

The implementation and effects of this Directive should be monitored by the Commission and be documented by it in a report at the latest three years after the date of transposition of this Directive. The report should take due account of the impact on road safety, on tax revenues and on the environment. The report should also assess all infringements of this Directive, including cross-border infringements. The need for future action in this area should be considered in light of that report.

Amendment 8

Proposal for a directive

Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 1 – point a – point ii

Directive 2006/1/EC

Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point a

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(a)	the vehicle is registered or put into circulation in compliance with the laws of a Member State;

(a)	the vehicle is registered or put into circulation in compliance with the laws of any Member State, including operating standards and safety requirements ;

Amendment 9

Proposal for a directive

Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 1 – point b

Directive 2006/1/EC

Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point b

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(b)	the following paragraph 1a is inserted:

‘1a. Where the vehicle is not registered or put into circulation in compliance with the laws of the Member State where the undertaking hiring the vehicle is established, Member States may limit the time of use of the hired vehicle within their respective territories. However, Member States shall in such a case allow its use for at least four months in any given calendar year.’

deleted

Amendment 10

Proposal for a directive

Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 2

Directive 2006/1/EC

Article 3 – paragraph 1

Text proposed by the Commission		Amendment
Member States shall take the necessary measures to ensure that their undertakings may use hired vehicles for the carriage of goods by road under the same conditions as vehicles owned by them, provided that the conditions laid down in Article 2 are satisfied.		1. Member States shall take the necessary measures to ensure that undertakings established within their territories may use hired vehicles for the carriage of goods by road under the same conditions as vehicles owned by them, provided that the conditions laid down in Article 2 are satisfied.

Amendment 11

Proposal for a directive

Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 2

Directive 2006/1/EC

Article 3 – paragraph 1 a (new)

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

1a. Where the vehicle is registered or put into circulation in compliance with the laws of another Member State, the Member State of establishment of the undertaking may:

(a)

limit the time of use of the hired vehicle within its respective territory provided that it allows the use of the hired vehicle for at least four consecutive months any given calendar year; in which case the contract of hire may be required not to last longer than the time limit set by the Member State;

(b)

limit the number of hired vehicles that can be used by any undertaking, provided that they allow the use of at least a number of vehicles corresponding to 25% of the overall goods vehicle fleet owned by the undertaking on 31 December of the year preceding the request for authorisation; in which case an undertaking that has an overall fleet of more than one and less than four vehicles, shall be allowed to use at least one such hired vehicle.”

Amendment 12

Proposal for a directive

Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 2 a (new)

Directive 2006/1/EC

Article 3 a (new)

Text proposed by the Commission

Amendment

(2a)	the following Article 3 a is inserted

“Article 3a

1. The information on a hired vehicle's registration number shall be entered in the national electronic register as defined in Article 16 of Regulation (EC) No 1071/2009 (*1).

2. Competent authorities of the Member State of establishment of an operator that are informed of the use of a vehicle which that operator has hired and which is registered or put into circulation in compliance with the laws of another Member State shall inform the competent authorities of that other Member State thereof.

3. The administrative cooperation provided for in paragraph 2 shall be by means of the Internal market Information System (IMI), established by Regulation (EU) No 1024/2012 (*2).

Amendment 13

Proposal for a directive

Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 3

Directive 2006/1/EC

Article 5 a – paragraph 1

Text proposed by the Commission		Amendment
By [insert the date calculated 5 years after the deadline for transposition of the Directive], the Commission shall submit a report to the European Parliament and the Council on the implementation and effects of this Directive. The report shall include information on the use of vehicles hired in a Member State other than the Member State of establishment of the undertaking hiring the vehicle. On the basis of this report, the Commission shall assess whether it is necessary to propose additional measures.		By … [ 3 years after the deadline for transposition of this amending Directive], the Commission shall submit a report to the European Parliament and the Council on the implementation and effects of this Directive. The report shall include information on the use of vehicles hired in a Member State other than the Member State of establishment of the undertaking hiring the vehicle. The report shall pay particular attention to the impact on road safety, and on tax revenues, including fiscal distortions, and on the enforcement of cabotage rules in accordance with Regulation (EC) No 1072/2009. On the basis of this report, the Commission shall assess whether it is necessary to propose additional measures.

Amendment 14

Proposal for a directive

Article 2 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 1

Text proposed by the Commission		Amendment
Member States shall bring into force the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with this Directive by [insert the date calculated 18 months following the entry into force ] at the latest . They shall communicate to the Commission the text of those provisions without delay.		Member States shall bring into force the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with this Directive by … [20 months after the date of entry into force of this Directive] . They shall communicate to the Commission the text of those provisions without delay.

(1) The matter was referred back for interinstitutional negotiations to the committee responsible, pursuant to Rule 59(4), fourth subparagraph (A8-0193/2018).

(*1) Referring to Article 16 of Regulation (EC) No 1071/2009 taking into account the extension of the information to be recorded as proposed by the Commission.

(*2) OJ L 316, 14.11.2012, p. 1. ”

		ISSN 1977-091X
Official Journal of the European Union		C 28

English edition	Information and Notices	Volume 63 27 January 2020

	III Preparatory acts
	EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT
2020/C 28/16	P8_TA(2018)0244 Clearing obligation, reporting requirements and risk-mitigation techniques for OTC derivatives, and trade repositories ***I Amendments adopted by the European Parliament on 12 June 2018 on the proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Regulation (EU) No 648/2012 as regards the clearing obligation, the suspension of the clearing obligation, the reporting requirements, the risk-mitigation techniques for OTC derivatives contracts not cleared by a central counterparty, the registration and supervision of trade repositories and the requirements for trade repositories (COM(2017)0208 – C8-0147/2017 – 2017/0090(COD)) 1 1	126
	Proposal for aRegulation of the European Parliament and of the Councilamending Regulation (EU) No 648/2012 as regards the clearing obligation, the suspension of the clearing obligation, the reporting requirements, the risk-mitigation techniques for OTC derivatives contracts not cleared by a central counterparty, the registration and supervision of trade repositories and the requirements for trade repositories	127
2020/C 28/17	P8_TA(2018)0245 Common rules in the field of civil aviation and the European Union Aviation Safety Agency ***I European Parliament legislative resolution of 12 June 2018 on the proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on common rules in the field of civil aviation and establishing a European Union Aviation Safety Agency, and repealing Regulation (EC) No 216/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council (COM(2015)0613 – C8-0389/2015 – 2015/0277(COD))	149
	P8_TC1-COD(2015)0277Position of the European Parliament adopted at first reading on 12 June 2018 with a view to the adoption of Regulation (EU) .../2018 of the European Parliament and of the Council on common rules in the field of civil aviation and establishing a European Union Aviation Safety Agency, and amending Regulations (EC) No 2111/2005, (EC) No 1008/2008, (EU) No 996/2010, (EU) No 376/2014 and Directives 2014/30/EU and 2014/53/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council, and repealing Regulations (EC) No 552/2004 and (EC) No 216/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council and Council Regulation (EEC) No 3922/91	150
2020/C 28/18	P8_TA(2018)0246 CO2 emissions from and fuel consumption of new heavy-duty vehicles ***I European Parliament legislative resolution of 12 June 2018 on the proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on the monitoring and reporting of CO2 emissions from and fuel consumption of new heavy-duty vehicles (COM(2017)0279 - C8-0168/2017 – 2017/0111(COD))	151
	P8_TC1-COD(2017)0111Position of the European Parliament adopted at first reading on 12 June 2018 with a view to the adoption of Regulation (EU) 2018/... of the European Parliament and of the Council on the monitoring and reporting of CO2 emissions from and fuel consumption of new heavy-duty vehicles	152
2020/C 28/19	European Parliament legislative resolution of 13 June 2018 on the draft European Council decision establishing the composition of the European Parliament (00007/2018 – C8-0216/2018 – 2017/0900(NLE)) (Consent)	154
2020/C 28/20	P8_TA(2018)0250 Insolvency proceedings: updated annexes to the Regulation ***I European Parliament legislative resolution of 13 June 2018 on the proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council replacing Annex A to Regulation (EU) 2015/848 on insolvency proceedings (COM(2017)0422 – C8-0238/2017 – 2017/0189(COD))	155
	P8_TC1-COD(2017)0189Position of the European Parliament adopted at first reading on 13 June 2018 with a view to the adoption of Regulation (EU) 2018/... of the European Parliament and of the Council replacing Annexes A and B to Regulation (EU) 2015/848 on insolvency proceedings	156
2020/C 28/21	European Parliament legislative resolution of 13 June 2018 on the draft Council decision on the conclusion on behalf of the European Union of the Agreement between the European Union and Iceland on supplementary rules in relation to the instrument for financial support for external borders and visa, as part of the Internal Security Fund, for the period 2014 to 2020 (09228/2017 – C8-0101/2018 – 2017/0088(NLE)) (Consent)	157
2020/C 28/22	European Parliament legislative resolution of 13 June 2018 on the draft Council decision on the conclusion, on behalf of the Union, of the Agreement between the European Union and the Swiss Confederation on supplementary rules in relation to the instrument for financial support for external borders and visa, as part of the Internal Security Fund, for the period 2014 to 2020 (06222/2018 – C8-0119/2018 – 2018/0032(NLE)) (Consent)	158
2020/C 28/23	European Parliament legislative resolution of 13 June 2018 on the draft Council decision on the putting into effect of the remaining provisions of the Schengen acquis relating to the Schengen Information System in the Republic of Bulgaria and Romania (15820/1/2017 – C8-0017/2018 – 2018/0802(CNS)) (Consultation)	159
2020/C 28/24	P8_TA(2018)0255 Further macro-financial assistance to Ukraine ***I European Parliament legislative resolution of 13 June 2018 on the proposal for a decision of the European Parliament and of the Council providing further macro-financial assistance to Ukraine (COM(2018)0127 – C8-0108/2018 – 2018/0058(COD))	160
	P8_TC1-COD(2018)0058Position of the European Parliament adopted at first reading on 13 June 2018 with a view to the adoption of Decision (EU) 2018/... of the European Parliament and of the Council providing further macro-financial assistance to Ukraine	161
2020/C 28/25	P8_TA(2018)0263 Proportionality test before adoption of new regulation of professions ***I European Parliament legislative resolution of 14 June 2018 on the proposal for a directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on a proportionality test before adoption of new regulation of professions (COM(2016)0822 – C8-0012/2017 – 2016/0404(COD))	163
	P8_TC1-COD(2016)0404Position of the European Parliament adopted at first reading on 14 June 2018 with a view to the adoption of Directive (EU) 2018/… of the European Parliament and of the Council on a proportionality test before adoption of new regulation of professions	164
2020/C 28/26	Amendments adopted by the European Parliament on 14 June 2018 on the proposal for a directive of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Directive 2006/1/EC on the use of vehicles hired without drivers for the carriage of goods by road (COM(2017)0282 – C8-0172/2017 – 2017/0113(COD)) 11	165
2020/C 28/27	European Parliament resolution of 14 June 2018 on the Commission delegated regulation of 2 March 2018 amending Delegated Regulation (EU) 2017/118 establishing fisheries conservation measures for the protection of the marine environment in the North Sea (C(2018)01194 – 2018/2614(DEA))	172

Contents		page

	EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT 2018-2019 SESSION Sittings of 11 to 14 June 2018 The Minutes of this session have been published in OJ C 178, 23.5.2019 . TEXTS ADOPTED	1

	I Resolutions, recommendations and opinions
	RESOLUTIONS
	European Parliament
2020/C 28/02	European Parliament resolution of 12 June 2018 on the state of play of recreational fisheries in the European Union (2017/2120(INI))	2
	RESOLUTIONS
2020/C 28/03	European Parliament resolution of 12 June 2018 on modernisation of education in the EU (2017/2224(INI))	8
2020/C 28/04	European Parliament resolution of 12 June 2018 on towards a sustainable and competitive European aquaculture sector: current status and future challenges (2017/2118(INI))	26
2020/C 28/05	European Parliament resolution of 13 June 2018 on cohesion policy and the circular economy (2017/2211(INI))	40
2020/C 28/06	European Parliament resolution of 13 June 2018 on EU-NATO relations (2017/2276(INI))	49
2020/C 28/07	European Parliament resolution of 13 June 2018 on cyber defence (2018/2004(INI))	57
2020/C 28/08	European Parliament resolution of 14 June 2018 on Russia, notably the case of Ukrainian political prisoner Oleg Sentsov (2018/2754(RSP))	71
2020/C 28/09	European Parliament resolution of 14 June 2018 on the human rights situation in Bahrain, notably the case of Nabeel Rajab (2018/2755(RSP))	76
2020/C 28/10	European Parliament resolution of 14 June 2018 on the situation of Rohingya refugees, in particular the plight of children (2018/2756(RSP))	80
2020/C 28/11	European Parliament resolution of 14 June 2018 on structural and financial barriers in the access to culture (2017/2255(INI))	85
2020/C 28/12	European Parliament resolution of 14 June 2018on Georgian occupied territories 10 years after the Russian invasion (2018/2741(RSP))	97
2020/C 28/13	European Parliament resolution of 14 June 2018 on the upcoming negotiations for a new Partnership Agreement between the European Union and the African, Caribbean and Pacific Group of States (2018/2634(RSP))	101
2020/C 28/14	European Parliament resolution of 14 June 2018 on monitoring the application of EU law 2016 (2017/2273(INI))	108
	RECOMMENDATIONS
2020/C 28/15	European Parliament recommendation of 13 June 2018 to the Council, the Commission and the Vice-President of the Commission / High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy on the negotiations on the modernisation of the EU-Chile Association Agreement (2018/2018(INI))	121