—

having regard to the Agreement adopted at the 21st Conference of the Parties (COP21) to the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) in Paris on 12 December 2015 (the Paris Agreement),

—

having regard to the UN Environment Programme Emissions Gap Report 2019,

—

having regard to the special reports of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) on global warming of 1,5 oC and on the ocean and cryosphere,

—

having regard to the Commission communication of 11 December 2019 on the European Green Deal (COM(2019)0640),

—

having regard to the Commission communication of 17 September 2020 on stepping up Europe’s 2030 climate ambition (COM(2020)0562) and its accompanying impact assessment (SWD(2020)0176),

—

having regard to the European Council conclusions of 12 December 2019 and of 17-21 July 2020,

—

having regard to its resolution of 23 July 2020 on the conclusions of the extraordinary European Council meeting of 17-21 July 2020 (1),

—

having regard to the conclusions and recommendations of the European Court of Auditors in its special report No 18/2020 of 15 September 2020 entitled ‘The EU’s Emissions Trading System: free allocation of allowances needed better targeting’,

—

having regard to its resolution of 28 November 2019 on the climate and environment emergency (2),

—

having regard to its resolution of 15 January 2020 on the European Green Deal (3),

—

having regard to its position on the 2030 climate target, namely a 60 % reduction in greenhouse gas emissions compared with 1990 levels (4),

—

having regard to Rule 54 of its Rules of Procedure,

—

having regard to the opinions of the Committee on International Trade, the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs, the Committee on Budgets and the Committee on Industry, Research and Energy,

—

having regard to the report of the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Food Safety (A9-0019/2021),

A.

whereas the adverse impacts of climate change represent a direct threat to human livelihoods and terrestrial and marine ecosystems, as confirmed by the IPCC special reports on global warming of 1,5 oC and on the ocean and cryosphere; whereas these impacts are unevenly distributed, with most adverse effects being felt by poorer countries and people;

B.

whereas according to the World Health Organization (WHO), as of 2030 climate change is expected to contribute to approximately 250 000 additional deaths per year, from malnutrition, malaria, diarrhoea and heat stress;

C.

whereas the average global temperature has already risen past 1,1 oC above pre-industrial levels (5);

D.

whereas the EU and its Member States are committed under the Paris Agreement to delivering climate action on the basis of the latest available scientific evidence and now have the objective of achieving climate neutrality by 2050 at the latest;

E.

whereas over the past few decades, the EU has managed to successfully decouple territorial greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from economic growth, with GHG emissions falling by 24 %, while GDP grew by more than 60 % between 1990 and 2019; whereas this does not take into account the EU’s emissions embedded in its international trade and therefore underestimates its global carbon footprint;

F.

whereas in 2015 the ratio of imported to exported emissions in the EU was approximately 3:1, with 1,317 billion tonnes of CO2 imported and 424 million tonnes exported (6);

G.

whereas existing EU law has been effective in delivering the climate goals adopted so far; whereas the current design of the Emission Trading System (EU ETS), in particular the existing provisions on carbon leakage, has not provided effective incentives for the necessary decarbonisation of certain sectors, notably in industry, and has in some cases led to unjustified windfall profits for the beneficiary companies, as highlighted by the European Court of Auditors (7);

H.

whereas the Commission should continue its work on developing methodologies to ascertain a product’s carbon and environmental footprint, by employing a full life cycle approach and ensuring that the accounting of embedded emissions in products reflect reality as far as possible, including emissions from international transport;

I.

whereas the Commission should also study the traceability of products and services in order to identify more precisely all the impacts of their life cycles, such as the extraction and use of materials, the manufacturing process, the use of energy, and the mode of transport used, with the aim of setting up databases;

J.

whereas around 27 % of global CO2 emissions from fuel combustion currently relate to internationally traded goods (8); whereas 90 % of international goods transport is carried out at sea, leading to significant GHG emissions; whereas only GHG emissions from domestic waterborne navigation were included in the EU’s initial nationally determined contribution (NDC); whereas this is subject to revision in light of the EU’s enhanced 2030 target;

K.

whereas the COVID-19 crisis has delivered some important lessons, hence why the Commission’s proposal for a new recovery instrument — Next Generation EU — underlines the need to strengthen European autonomy and resilience and the need for short circuits, in particular shorter food supply chains;

L.

whereas it is essential that the Commission has an integrated vision of climate policies, for example by addressing emission reduction targets, such as those for maritime transport, in coordination with carbon pricing strategies;

M.

whereas ensuring effective and meaningful carbon pricing as part of a broader regulatory environment can serve as an economic incentive to develop production methods with a lower GHG footprint and can spur investments in innovation and new technologies, providing for the decarbonisation and circularity of the EU’s economy; whereas an effective Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism (CBAM) can play a role in that context;

N.

whereas trade can be an important tool to promote sustainable development and help fight climate change; whereas the EU’s single market is the world’s second-largest consumer market, putting the Union in a unique position as a global standard setter;

O.

whereas combating climate change is a factor in competitiveness and social justice and offers major potential in terms of industrial development, job creation, innovation and regional development;

P.

whereas Article XX of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) allows World Trade Organization (WTO) members to implement measures that are necessary to protect human, animal or plant life or health (b), or natural resources (g);

Q.

whereas the EU should accept that a third country can set up a CBAM if that country implements a higher carbon price;

R.

whereas US President Biden has taken a favourable stance through his electoral platform to seek to ‘impose carbon adjustment fees or quotas on carbon-intensive goods from countries that are failing to meet their climate and environment obligations’; whereas this would create a new opportunity for cooperation between the EU and the US in fighting climate change and restoring this key partnership;

S.

whereas the EU’s increased ambition on climate change should not lead to the risk of carbon leakage for European industries;

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

7.

8.

9.

10.

11.

12.

13.

14.

15.

16.

17.

18.

19.

20.

21.

22.

23.

24.

25.

26.

27.

28.

29.

30.

31.

32.

33.

34.

35.

36.

37.

38.

39.

40.

41.

42.

43.

44.

45.

46.

47.

48.

49.

—

having regard to Article 225 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,

—

having regard to the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (‘the Charter’),

—

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

—

having regard to Directive 2013/34/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 June 2013 on the annual financial statements, consolidated financial statements and related reports of certain types of undertakings, amending Directive 2006/43/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council and repealing Council Directives 78/660/EEC and 83/349/EEC (2) (‘the Accounting Directive’),

—

having regard to Directive 2014/95/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 October 2014 amending Directive 2013/34/EU as regards disclosure of non-financial and diversity information by certain large undertakings and groups (3) (‘the Non-Financial Reporting Directive’),

—

having regard to the Regulation (EU) 2017/821 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 May 2017 laying down supply chain due diligence obligations for Union importers of tin, tantalum and tungsten, their ores, and gold originating from conflict-affected and high-risk areas (4) (‘the Conflict Minerals Regulation’),

—

having regard to Directive (EU) 2017/828 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 May 2017 amending Directive 2007/36/EC as regards the encouragement of long-term shareholder engagement (5) (‘the Shareholders’ Rights Directive’),

—

having regard to Directive (EU) 2019/1937 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 October 2019 on the protection of persons who report breaches of Union law (6) (‘the Whistleblower Directive’),

—

having regard to Regulation (EU) 2019/2088 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 November 2019 on sustainability-related disclosures in the financial services sector (7) (‘the Disclosure Regulation’),

—

having regard to Regulation (EU) 2020/852 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 June 2020 on the establishment of a framework to facilitate sustainable investment, and amending Regulation (EU) 2019/2088 (8) (‘the Taxonomy Regulation’),

—

having regard to the EU Action Plan: Financing Sustainable Growth (9),

—

having regard to The European Green Deal (10),

—

having regard to the Commission Guidelines on non-financial reporting (methodology for reporting non-financial information) (11) and to the Commission Guidelines on non-financial reporting: Supplement on reporting climate-related information (12),

—

having regard to its resolutions of 25 October 2016 on corporate liability for serious human rights abuses in third countries (13), of 27 April 2017 on the EU flagship initiative on the garment sector (14) and of 29 May 2018 on sustainable finance (15),

—

having regard to the Paris Agreement adopted on 12 December 2015 (‘the Paris Agreement’),

—

having regard to the United Nations 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development, adopted in 2015, in particular the 17 Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs),

—

having regard to the 2008 United Nations ‘Protect, Respect and Remedy’ Framework for Business and Human Rights,

—

having regard to the 2011 United Nations Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights (16) (UNGPs),

—

having regard to the OECD Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises (17),

—

having regard to the OECD Due Diligence Guidance for Responsible Business Conduct (18),

—

having regard to the OECD Due Diligence Guidance for Responsible Supply Chains in the Garment and Footwear Sector (19),

—

having regard to the OECD Due Diligence Guidance for Responsible Supply Chains of Minerals for Conflict-Affected and High-Risk Areas (20),

—

having regard to the OECD-FAO Guidance for Responsible Agricultural Supply Chains (21),

—

having regards to the OECD Due Diligence Guidance for Responsible business conduct for institutional investors (22),

—

having regard to the OECD Due Diligence Guidance for Responsible Corporate Lending and Securities Underwriting (23),

—

having regard to the 1998 ILO Declaration on Fundamental Principles and Rights at Work and its follow-up (24),

—

having regard to the 2017 ILO Tripartite Declaration of Principles Concerning Multinational Enterprises and Social Policy (25),

—

having regard to the UN booklet ‘Gender Dimensions of the Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights’ (26),

—

having regard to the French Law no. 2017-399 on a duty of vigilance of parent and ordering undertakings (27),

—

having regard to the Dutch law on the introduction of a duty of care to prevent the supply of goods and services produced using child labour (28),

—

having regard to recommendation CM/Rec(2016)3 of the Committee of Ministers to member States on human rights and business adopted by the Committee of Ministers on 2 March 2016,

—

having regard to the study of the Directorate General for External Policies of the Union of February 2019 entitled ‘Access to legal remedies for victims of corporate human rights abuses in third countries’ (29),

—

having regard to the briefings of the Directorate General for External Policies of the Union of June 2020 entitled ‘EU Human Rights Due Diligence Legislation: Monitoring, Enforcement and Access to Justice for Victims’ (30) and ‘Substantive Elements of Potential Legislation on Human Rights Due Diligence’,

—

having regard to the study prepared for the European Commission on ‘Due Diligence requirements through the supply chain’ (31),

—

having regard to the study prepared for the European Commission on ‘Directors’ duties and sustainable corporate governance’ (32),

—

having regard to the Children’s Rights and Business Principles, developed by UNICEF, the UN Global Compact and Save the Children (33),

—

having regard to the Commission’s Capital Markets Union Action Plan (COM(2020)0590),

—

having regard to the opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee on ‘Mandatory due diligence’,

—

having regard to Rules 47 and 54 of its Rules of Procedure,

—

having regard to the opinions of the Committee on Foreign Affairs, the Committee on International Trade and the Committee on Development,

—

having regard to the report of the Committee on Legal Affairs (A9-0018/2021),

A.

Whereas Articles 3 and 21 of the Treaty on European Union (TEU) state that the Union, in its relations with the wider world, is to uphold and promote its values and principles, namely the rule of law and respect and protection of human rights, and contribute to the sustainable development of the Earth, solidarity, free and fair trade as well as to the strict observance and the development of international law; whereas more specifically, the Union is to foster the sustainable economic, social and environmental development of developing countries with the primary aim of eradicating poverty; whereas the Union is to respect those principles and pursue those objectives in the development and implementation of the external aspects of its other policies;

B.

Whereas Article 208(1) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU) provides that the Union is to take account of the objectives of development cooperation in the policies that it implements which are likely to affect developing countries;

C.

Whereas the globalisation of economic activity has aggravated adverse impacts of business activities on human rights, including social and labour rights, the environment and the good governance of states; whereas human rights violations often occur at primary production level, in particular when sourcing raw material and manufacturing products;

D.

Whereas the Charter applies to all Union legislation and to national authorities when implementing Union law both in the Union and in third countries;

E.

Whereas if due diligence is implemented comprehensively, undertakings will in the long term benefit from better business conduct with a focus on prevention rather than on remediation of harm;

F.

Whereas, given that future legislation on corporate due diligence and corporate accountability for European undertakings would be expected to have extraterritorial effects, such legislation would affect the social, economic and environmental development of developing countries and their prospects of achieving their SDGs; whereas this significant impact could contribute to the Union’s policy objectives concerning development;

G.

Whereas undertakings should respect human rights, including international binding rights and the fundamental rights enshrined in the Charter, the environment and good governance and should not cause or contribute to any adverse impacts in this regard; whereas due diligence should be based on the ‘do no harm’ principle; whereas Article 21 TEU requires the Union to promote and consolidate the universality and indivisibility of human rights and fundamental freedoms, as protected by the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (ECHR) and the Charter, to ensure sustainable development and consistency between its external action and other policies; whereas the Council of the European Union has recognised that corporate respect for human rights in corporate operations and supply chains is important to achieve the UN SDGs;

H.

Whereas democracy, which protects human rights and fundamental freedoms, is the only form of government compatible with sustainable development; whereas corruption and lack of transparency greatly undermine human rights;

I.

Whereas the rights to an effective remedy and fair trial are basic human rights enshrined in Article 8 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Article 2(3) of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, as well as in Articles 6 and 13 of the ECHR and Article 47 of the Charter; whereas the Union, as part of its commitment to promote, protect and fulfil human rights worldwide, should help to promote the rights of victims of business-related human rights violations and abuses that amount to criminal offences in third countries, in line with Directives 2011/36/EU (34) and 2012/29/EU (35) of the European Parliament and of the Council;

J.

Whereas corruption in the context of judicial proceedings can have a devastating effect on the lawful administration of justice and judicial integrity, and intrinsically violate the right to a fair trial, the right to due process and the right to effective redress; whereas corruption can lead to cases of systematic violation of human rights in the business context, for example, by preventing individuals from accessing goods and services that States are obliged to provide to meet their human rights obligations or by increasing the price of such goods and services, by encouraging wrongful acquisition or appropriation by business of land, or facilitating money laundering, or by granting unlawful licences or concessions to businesses in the extractive sector;

K.

Whereas the COVID-19 crisis has exposed some of the severe drawbacks of global value chains and the ease with which certain undertakings are able to shift, both directly and indirectly, negative impacts of their business activities to other jurisdictions, in particular outside the Union, without being held accountable; whereas the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) has shown that undertakings that have taken proactive steps to address the risks related to the COVID-19 crisis in a way that mitigates adverse impacts on workers and supply chains, develop a more long-term value and resilience, improving their viability in the short term and their prospects for recovery in the medium to long term;

L.

Whereas the importance of freedom of expression and of the freedoms of association and of peaceful assembly, including the right to form and join trade unions, the right to collective bargaining and action, as well as the right to fair remuneration and to decent working conditions, including health and safety in the workplace, should be underlined;

M.

Whereas, according to ILO statistics, around the globe there are around 25 million victims of forced labour, 152 million victims of child labour, 2,78 million deaths due to work-related diseases per year and 374 million non-fatal work-related injuries per year; whereas the ILO has developed several conventions to protect workers, but their enforcement is still lacking, especially with reference to the labour markets of developing countries;

N.

Whereas the exploitation and degradation of human beings through forced labour and slave-like practices affecting millions of people, from which certain undertakings, public or private entities or persons have benefitted globally in 2019, persist; whereas the situation of an estimated 152 million children in child labour, 72 million of whom work in hazardous conditions, many of them being forced to work through violence, blackmail and other unlawful means is unacceptable and particularly worrying; whereas undertakings have the special responsibility of protecting children, in particular, and preventing any form of child labour;

O.

Whereas fundamental labour, social and economic rights are enshrined in several international human rights treaties and conventions, including the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, the ILO’s Core Labour Standards, and the European Social Charter, as well as in the Charter; whereas the rights to work, to the free choice of employment and to remuneration that ensures for employees and their families an existence worthy of human dignity are basic human rights enshrined in Article 23 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights; whereas inadequate state labour inspection, limited right to redress, excessive working hours, poverty-level wages, the gender pay gap and other forms of discrimination remain of serious concern in an increasing number of countries, notably in Export Processing Zones;

P.

Whereas the United Nations Working Group on Business and Human Rights highlighted the differentiated and disproportionate impact of business activities on women and girls and has stated that human rights due diligence should cover both actual and potential impacts on women’s rights;

Q.

Whereas the United Nations Special Rapporteur on human rights and the environment has stated that the rights to life, health, food, water and development, as well as the right to a safe, clean, healthy and sustainable environment, are necessary for the full enjoyment of human rights; whereas the Special Rapporteur has also stressed that the loss of biodiversity undermines the full enjoyment of human rights and that states should regulate harm to biodiversity caused by private actors as well as government agencies; whereas the United Nations General Assembly recognised, in its Resolution 64/292, the right to safe and clean drinking water and sanitation as a human right; whereas those rights should be covered by any possible legislation;

R.

Whereas undertakings have in general limited awareness of the range of impacts they have on children’s rights in their operations and supply chains and the potentially life-changing consequences these can have for children;

S.

Whereas the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights and the United Nations Human Rights Council have stated that climate change has an adverse impact on the full and effective enjoyment of human rights; whereas states have an obligation to respect human rights when addressing adverse impacts caused by climate change; whereas any corporate due diligence legislation must be in line with the Paris Agreement;

T.

Whereas systemic corruption violates the principles of transparency, accountability and non-discrimination, with severe implications for the effective enjoyment of human rights; whereas the OECD Convention on Combating Bribery of Foreign Public Officials in International Business Transactions and the United Nations Convention against Corruption oblige Member States to implement effective practices aimed at the prevention of corruption; whereas provisions of the United Nations Convention against Corruption should form part of due diligence obligations in legislation;

U.

Whereas this alarming situation has highlighted the urgency regarding making businesses more responsive to, responsible and accountable for the adverse impacts they cause or contribute or are directly linked to, and prompted a debate as to how to do so, while underlining the need for a proportionate and harmonised Union-wide approach to these matters, which is also necessary to be able to achieve the United Nations (UN) SDGs;

V.

Whereas, according to the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, a large number of human rights defenders are under threat because they raise concerns about adverse human rights impacts of business operations;

W.

Whereas that debate has led, among other things, to the adoption of due diligence frameworks and standards within the United Nations, the Council of Europe, the OECD and the ILO; whereas those standards are, however, voluntary and, consequently, their uptake has been limited; whereas Union legislation should progressively and constructively build on these frameworks and standards; whereas the Union and Member States should support and engage in the ongoing negotiations to create a legally binding UN instrument on Transnational Corporations and Other Business Enterprises with respect to human rights and the Council should give a mandate to the Commission to be actively involved in those ongoing negotiations;

X.

Whereas, according to a Commission study, only 37 % of business respondents currently conduct environmental and human rights due diligence;

Y.

Whereas some Member States, such as France, and the Netherlands, have adopted legislation to enhance corporate accountability and have introduced mandatory due diligence frameworks; whereas other Member States are currently considering the adoption of such legislation, including Germany, Austria, Sweden, Finland, Denmark and Luxembourg; whereas the lack of a joint Union-wide approach in this matter may lead to less legal certainty when it comes to business prerogatives and to imbalances in fair competition which would in turn disadvantage undertakings that are proactive regarding social and environmental matters; whereas the lack of harmonised corporate due diligence legislation jeopardises the level playing field of undertakings operating in the Union;

Z.

Whereas the Union has already adopted due diligence legislation for specific sectors, such as the Conflict Minerals Regulation, the Timber Regulation, the Forest Law Enforcement, Governance and Trade (FLEGT) Regulation and the Anti-Torture Regulation; whereas those pieces of legislation have become a benchmark for targeted binding supply chain due diligence legislation; whereas the future Union legislation should support undertakings in managing and living up to their corporate responsibilities and be fully aligned with all existing sectoral due diligence and reporting obligations, such as the Non-Financial Reporting Directive, and coherent with relevant national legislation, to avoid duplications;

AA.

Whereas the Commission has proposed to develop a comprehensive strategy for the garment sector as part of the new Circular Economy Action Plan, that, by including a uniform set of standards regarding due diligence and social responsibility, could be another example of integrating a more detailed approach for a specific sector; whereas the Commission should propose further sector-specific Union legislation on mandatory due diligence, for example for sectors such as forest and ecosystem risk commodities and the garment sector;

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

7.

8.

9.

10.

11.

12.

13.

14.

15.

16.

17.

18.

19.

20.

21.

22.

23.

24.

25.

26.

27.

28.

29.

30.

31.

32.

33.

34.

—

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

—

having regard to Regulation (EU) No 305/2011 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 9 March 2011 laying down harmonised conditions for the marketing of construction products (1) (the Construction Products Regulation — CPR),

—

having regard to Regulation (EU) No 1025/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 October 2012 on European standardisation, amending Council Directives 89/686/EEC and 93/15/EEC and Directives 94/9/EC, 94/25/EC, 95/16/EC, 97/23/EC, 98/34/EC, 2004/22/EC, 2007/23/EC, 2009/23/EC and 2009/105/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council and repealing Council Decision 87/95/EEC and Decision No 1673/2006/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council (2) (the Standardisation Regulation),

—

having regard to the Commission evaluation of 24 October 2019 of Regulation (EU) No 305/2011 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 9 March 2011 laying down harmonised conditions for the marketing of construction products (SWD(2019)1770),

—

having regard to the Commission report of 24 October 2019 on the outcome of the evaluation of the relevance of the tasks set out in Article 31(4) that receive Union financing pursuant to Article 34(2) of Regulation (EU) No 305/2011 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 9 March 2011 laying down harmonised conditions for the marketing of construction products and repealing Council Directive 89/106/EEC (COM(2019)0800),

—

having regard to Regulation (EU) 2019/1020 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 June 2019 on market surveillance and compliance of products and amending Directive 2004/42/EC and Regulations (EC) No 765/2008 and (EU) No 305/2011 (3),

—

having regard to Regulation (EC) No 765/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 9 July 2008 setting out the requirements for accreditation and market surveillance relating to the marketing of products and repealing Regulation (EEC) No 339/93 (4),

—

having regard to Decision No 768/2008/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 9 July 2008 on a common framework for the marketing of products, and repealing Council Decision 93/465/EEC (5),

—

having regard to Regulation (EU) 2019/515 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 19 March 2019 on the mutual recognition of goods lawfully marketed in another Member State and repealing Regulation (EC) No 764/2008 (6),

—

having regard to its resolution of 21 October 2010 on the future of European standardisation (7),

—

having regard to the Commission communication of 30 November 2016 on clean energy for all Europeans (COM(2016)0860),

—

having regard to the European Green Deal (COM(2019)0640),

—

having regard to the Commission communication of 11 March 2020 on a new Circular Economy Action Plan for a cleaner and more competitive Europe (COM(2020)0098),

—

having regard to Rule 54 of its Rules of Procedure, as well as point (e) of Article 1(1) 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 the Internal Market and Consumer Protection (A9-0012/2021),

A.

whereas the construction industry directly provides 18 million jobs in Europe and generates 9 % of GDP (8);

B.

whereas the purpose of the Construction Products Regulation (CPR) is to remove technical barriers to trade in construction products in order to enhance their free movement in the internal market while ensuring that those products are fit for their intended use and meet their declared performance, taking into account the health, safety and environmental aspects related to their use, regardless of where they are manufactured;

C.

whereas the European system of technical regulation and standardisation has shown itself to be a driver for competitiveness and innovation, while contributing to consumer safety and reducing accident rates, making EU standards a global benchmark;

D.

whereas the slow adoption and non-citation of harmonised standards is problematic, as the adoption process is not keeping pace with developments in the sector, creating uncertainty for businesses; whereas the lack of harmonised standards and the incomplete nature of existing standards have contributed to additional national requirements for construction products that create obstacles to their free movement in the single market; whereas these requirements can be detrimental to consumers and to Member States when meeting their responsibilities with regard to structural safety, health, the protection of the environment, other construction-related matters and consumer protection;

E.

whereas the rules on construction works set by Member States should be designed and executed so as to guarantee the safety of workers and consumers and so as not to damage the environment, which may also have an impact on the requirements for construction products;

F.

whereas CPR compliance costs represent 0,6 % to 1,1 % of the construction sector’s turnover, borne mainly by manufacturers, which can be very burdensome for SMEs;

4.

5.

6.

7.

8.

9.

10.

11.

12.

13.

14.

15.

16.

17.

18.

19.

20.

21.

22.

23.

24.

25.

26.

27.

28.

29.

30.

31.

32.

33.

34.

35.

36.

37.

38.

39.

40.

41.

—

having regard to the Treaty on European Union (TEU), the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union and the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (the Charter),

—

having regard to the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (UNCRPD) and its entry into force in the EU on 21 January 2011, in accordance with Council Decision 2010/48/EC of 26 November 2009 concerning the conclusion, by the European Community, of the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (1),

—

having regard to the General Comments of the UNCRPD Committee on the implementation of the UNCRPD, in particular General Comment No 2 (2014) of 22 May 2014 on accessibility, General Comment No 3 (2016) of 26 August 2016 on women and girls with disabilities, General Comment No 5 (2017) of 27 October 2017 on living independently and being included in the community, and General Comment No 6 (2018) of 26 April 2018 on equality and non-discrimination,

—

having regard to the Concluding Observations of the UNCRPD Committee of 2 October 2015 on the initial report of the European Union,

—

having regard to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights,

—

having regard to the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development (UN 2030 Agenda) and its Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs),

—

having regard to the UN Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women,

—

having regard to the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms,

—

having regard to the Council of Europe Convention on preventing and combating violence against women and domestic violence (Istanbul Convention),

—

having regard to the European Pillar of Social Rights (EPSR),

—

having regard to the Europe 2020 target relating to the fight against poverty and social exclusion,

—

having regard to Council Directive 2000/78/EC of 27 November 2000 establishing a general framework for equal treatment in employment and occupation (2) (Employment Equality Directive),

—

having regard to Council Directive 2000/43/EC of 29 June 2000 implementing the principle of equal treatment between persons irrespective of racial or ethnic origin (3),

—

having regard to the Commission proposal for a Council Directive on implementing the principle of equal treatment between persons irrespective of religion or belief, disability, age or sexual orientation (COM(2008)0426) and Parliament’s position thereon of 2 April 2009 (4),

—

having regard to Directive (EU) 2016/2102 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 October 2016 on the accessibility of the websites and mobile applications of public sector bodies (5),

—

having regard to Directive (EU) 2019/882 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 April 2019 on the accessibility requirements for products and services (6),

—

having regard to the regulations laying down the rules on the EU funding programmes under the multiannual financial framework, especially the European Social Fund (ESF), the Youth Employment Initiative (YEI), the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF), the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD), the Erasmus programme, and the Just Transition Fund, which provide EU financial assistance for improving the situation of persons with disabilities,

—

having regard to Council Directive 89/391/EEC of 12 June 1989 on the introduction of measures to encourage improvements in the safety and health of workers at work (7), in particular the employer’s obligation to ensure the safety and health of workers in every aspect related to work and the fact that they may not impose financial costs on workers in order to fulfil this obligation,

—

having regard to the Commission communication of 15 November 2010 entitled ‘European Disability Strategy 2010-2020: A renewed commitment to a barrier-free Europe’ (COM(2010)0636) (Disability Strategy),

—

having regard to the Commission staff working document of 2 February 2017 entitled ‘Progress Report on the implementation of the European Disability Strategy 2010-2020’ (SWD(2017)0029),

—

having regard to the Commission recommendation of 22 June 2018 on standards for equality bodies (8),

—

having regard to the Commission pilot project of 2013 on an EU disability card,

—

having regard to its resolution of 8 July 2020 on the rights of persons with intellectual disabilities and their families in the COVID-19 crisis (9),

—

having regard to its resolution of 18 June 2020 on the European Disability Strategy post-2020 (10),

—

having regard to its resolution of 29 November 2018 on the situation of women with disabilities (11),

—

having regard to its resolution of 30 November 2017 on the implementation of the European Disability Strategy (12),

—

having regard to its resolution of 7 July 2016 on the implementation of the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, with special regard to the Concluding Observations of the CRPD Committee (13),

—

having regard to its resolution of 20 May 2015 on the List of Issues adopted by the United Nations Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities in relation to the initial report of the European Union (14),

—

having regard to its resolution of 25 October 2011 on mobility and inclusion of persons with disabilities and the European Disability Strategy 2010-2020 (15),

—

having regard to its resolution of 6 May 2009 on the active inclusion of people excluded from the labour market (16),

—

having regard to its resolutions of 17 June 1988 on sign languages for deaf people (17), of 18 November 1998 on sign languages (18), and of 23 November 2016 on sign languages and professional sign language interpreters (19),

—

having regard to its resolution of 17 April 2020 on EU coordinated action to combat the COVID-19 pandemic and its consequences (20),

—

having regard to its resolution of 16 January 2019 on the situation of fundamental rights in the European Union in 2017 (21),

—

having regard to its resolution of 15 September 2016 on application of Council Directive 2000/78/EC of 27 November 2000 establishing a general framework for equal treatment in employment and occupation (22),

—

having regard to the relevant studies of its Policy Department A, especially the study on ‘Discrimination and Access to Employment for Female Workers with Disabilities’ of 2017, and the study on ‘Reasonable Accommodation and Sheltered Workshops for People with Disabilities: Cost and Returns of Investments’ of 2015,

—

having regard to the relevant studies of the European Parliamentary Research Service, in particular the European Implementation Assessments of 2016 entitled ‘EU Implementation of the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD)’ and ‘The obligations of the EU public administration under the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities’,

—

having regard to the growing body of case law of the Court of Justice of the European Union concerning the interpretation of Directive 2000/78/EC,

—

having regard to the Annual Report 2018 and 2019 of the European Ombudsman,

—

having regard to the European Ombudsman’s strategic inquiries into how the Commission ensures that persons with disabilities can access its websites (OI/6/2017/EA), how the Commission treats persons with disabilities under the Joint Sickness Insurance Scheme for EU staff (OI/4/2016/EA), and its decision in the joint inquiry in cases 1337/2017/EA and 1338/2017/EA on accessibility for visually impaired candidates of selection procedures organised by the European Personnel Selection Office to recruit EU civil servants,

—

having regard to the European Ombudsman’s own-initiative inquiry concerning respect of fundamental rights in the implementation of the EU cohesion policy (OI/8/2014/AN),

—

having regard to the opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee on ‘Shaping the EU agenda for disability rights 2020-2030’,

—

having regard to the thematic reports of the European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights, including their Coronavirus pandemic bulletins,

—

having regard to the Compendium of Practices on Equality Data and to the Guidelines on improving the collection and use of equality data (Equality data guidelines) prepared by the Subgroup on Equality Data of the EU High Level Group on Non-discrimination, Equality and Diversity,

—

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

—

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

—

having regard to the reports and recommendations of representative organisations of persons with disabilities, especially Autism Europe, the Bundesarbeitsgemeinschaft Inklusionsfirmen, the European Blind Union, the European Disability Forum, the European Network on Independent Living, the European Union of the Deaf, Inclusion Europe, the International Federation for Spina Bifida and Hydrocephalus and Mental Health Europe, as well as the reports and recommendations of Equinet and academics working on the rights of persons with disabilities,

—

having regard to Rule 54 of its Rules of Procedure, as well as point (e) of Article 1(1) 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 opinions of the Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs, the Committee on Women’s Rights and Gender Equality and the Committee on Petitions,

—

having regard to the report of the Committee on Employment and Social Affairs (A9-0014/2021),

A.

whereas persons with disabilities (23) (PwD) have the right to full participation in the labour market and society but their fundamental rights are often withheld in the EU; whereas they are overwhelmingly excluded from the open labour market and denied their right to engage in work on an equal basis with others or face major difficulties in achieving equal access to and equal conditions of participating in the labour market;

B.

whereas PwD continue to face multiple and intersectional discrimination and disadvantage based on their disability and their gender, race, ethnicity, age, religion or belief, sexual orientation, migration status or socioeconomic background, including their education level; whereas discrimination is present across the different phases of the work cycle, beginning with recruitment, which can lead to the social exclusion of PwD; whereas discrimination and the lack of workplace diversity cause significant human and economic costs;

C.

whereas the Charter prohibits discrimination on any ground, including that of disability, and recognises the rights of PwD (24);

D.

whereas the EU became a party to the UNCRPD in December 2010, with the Convention coming into force for the EU in January 2011; whereas the UNCRPD is binding upon the EU, its institutions and its Member States, which have a direct obligation to fully implement it, including its Article 27 on work and employment; whereas since its adoption, some, but not sufficient, progress has been made in achieving the goals of the UNCRPD;

E.

whereas the EU is, therefore, obliged to act in a manner which is compatible with the UNCRPD and the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) is obliged to interpret EU legislation, including the Employment Equality Directive, in a manner which is compatible with the UNCRPD;

F.

whereas the UNCRPD rejects the medical model of disability and endorses the human rights and the socio-contextual model of disability instead; whereas the UNCRPD demands inclusive equality for PwD; whereas the UNCRPD recognises the right of PwD to work on an equal basis with others, to choose their occupation freely, to be accepted and to work in an open, inclusive and accessible work environment;

G.

whereas in line with the definition and requirements under the UNCRPD, reasonable accommodation focuses on the specific needs of an individual, while positive actions apply to a whole group of persons subject to potential discrimination; whereas both are necessary to safeguard the achievement of workplace diversity and to ensure that PwD can equally exercise their right to work; whereas there is a lack of clear EU guidelines concerning reasonable accommodation, which is not sufficiently understood by employers and is often unavailable or insufficient; whereas reasonable accommodation of the needs of workers with disabilities has an essential impact on their job quality and career prospects and the sustainability of work;

H.

whereas one of the key aspects of the employment of PwD is their participation in community life and the transition from institutional to community-based support; whereas the process of deinstitutionalisation in the Member States needs to be finalised, as PwD have the right to live in the community and to be fully included in it; whereas the progress in deinstitutionalisation is uneven across the Member States and despite the introduction of policies and the allocation of substantial funding in the EU, there are still one million people living in institutions;

I.

whereas the Employment Equality Directive (‘the Directive’), which entered into force in 2000, is currently the key EU legal instrument to provide protection against discrimination for PwD; whereas safeguarding equality and non-discrimination is a shared competence between the EU and its Member States;

J.

whereas the Directive is only in partial alignment with the UNCRPD, as it does not embrace the human rights model of disability, it does not address discrimination based on assumed or future disability, it does not target intersectional discrimination, it does not require Member States to adopt positive action measures, it is limited to the field of employment, occupation and vocational training and does not extend to all areas of life as required by the UNCRPD, it does not tackle freedom of movement for the purpose of employment, it does not require the creation of independent monitoring mechanisms, it does not provide for the systemic involvement of PwD and their representative organisations in the monitoring process, and it lacks the obligation to gather disaggregated data;

K.

whereas the Directive does not legally require Member States to designate an equality body to work on discrimination on the ground of disability, which is highly problematic since equality bodies play a central role in the implementation of equal treatment directives on the grounds under their mandate, such as gender, and race and ethnic origin;

L.

whereas collection of comparable data on equality is vital for evidence-based policy- and decision-making; whereas there is a lack of official statistics, in particular on PwD living in institutional care settings and on characteristics such as their race/ethnic origin or sexual orientation, which has also been pointed out in the Equality data guidelines; whereas Regulation (EU) 2019/1700 (25) will significantly remedy the situation relating to household survey data on employment, data disaggregated by types of disability and data on country of origin (first and second generation), and envisages pilot studies on persons in institutions; whereas gaps will continue to persist and should be remedied;

M.

whereas only 50,6 % of PwD are in employment (48,3 % of women and 53,3 % of men) compared with 74,8 % of persons without disabilities (26); whereas PwD living in institutions or considered to be unable to work are excluded from these statistics (27); whereas these figures do not reveal the type, quality and conditions of employment, for example whether employment is provided in the open labour market, and if an employee status with the enjoyment of labour rights and the provision of a minimum wage is guaranteed; whereas PwD are a diverse group and are often subject to intersectional discrimination, the cumulative effects of which have a tangible impact on employment;

N.

whereas in certain Member States PwD are overwhelmingly employed in sheltered workshops; whereas such sheltered workshops should aim to serve inclusion, rehabilitation and transition to the open labour market as soon as possible; whereas sheltered workshops are often a segregated environment in which workers with disabilities do not have an employee status, labour rights, or a guaranteed minimum wage; whereas this clearly constitutes a violation of the UNCRPD; notes that in some Member States, sheltered workshops are currently used as a transition to the open labour market; whereas European level research into the characteristics and diversity of sheltered workshops, sometimes also termed sheltered employment, could help to identify best practice, improve the debate and ensure compliance with EU legislation and the UNCRPD; whereas inclusive models of supported employment may, if rights-based and recognised as employment, respect the rights of PwD and serve inclusion and transition into the open labour market;

O.

whereas the rate of unemployment of PwD (17,1 %) is almost twice that of the general population (10,2 %) (28), and the unemployment of PwD lasts longer than that of the persons without disabilities, regardless of qualifications;

P.

whereas the rate of unemployment is highest among young PwD (those aged between 16 and 24), at 24,9 % compared to 16,6 % in the general population; whereas this difference is inextricably linked to education opportunities;

Q.

whereas women with disabilities, who constitute 16 % of the total population of women and 60 % of the overall population of PwD in the EU, continue to face multiple and intersectional discrimination in all areas of life; whereas the economic inactivity rate among women with disabilities is over two thirds higher than that of the total population of women of working age (16-64 years); whereas only 20,7 % of women with disabilities are in full time employment, compared to 28,6 % of men with disabilities;

R.

whereas women mostly have the responsibility for taking care of the household, and account for the large majority of caregivers for persons with disabilities; whereas single mothers who look after children with disabilities are at serious risk of falling victim to poverty and social exclusion; whereas age discrimination affects all age groups, together with possible stereotypes and barriers; whereas elderly women with disabilities are often the sole carers for family members with disabilities; whereas this has a direct effect on their vulnerability to poverty and social exclusion, as well as on their access to jobs and their professional development, and may negatively affect their employment conditions;

S.

whereas there are more than 30 million blind and partially-sighted persons in wider Europe; whereas the average unemployment rate among them is 75 % — and even higher among women — leading to their social exclusion and poverty (29); whereas there are approximately one million deaf sign language users in the EU and 51 million hard-of-hearing people, many of whom are also sign language users whose unemployment is underreported and inadequately researched; whereas there are approximately seven million people with intellectual disabilities in the EU whose employment level is considerably lower than the average (30); whereas estimates indicate that across Europe, only around 10 % of persons on the autism spectrum are employed, mostly in part-time and low-paid jobs, in under-qualified positions or in sheltered settings (31);

T.

whereas among PwD, 29,5 % of women and 27,5 % of men are at risk of poverty and social exclusion in the EU compared to 22,4 % of the population as a whole; whereas PwD are more likely to face in-work poverty than those without disabilities (11 % as opposed to 9,1 %) due to the extra costs of their disability, such as healthcare, logistical and human support, their loss of disability entitlements once in work and the fact that they earn less than their colleagues in an equivalent role and are less likely to get a promotion (32); whereas the risk of poverty is emphasised for those declaring more severe levels of disability;

U.

whereas a disproportionate number of PwD are homeless and PwD run an increased risk of becoming homeless; whereas homeless people may develop a disability, such as amputated limbs, due to the risks arising from their living conditions;

V.

whereas, due to the cumulative effects of intersectional discrimination, Roma PwD are assumed to face more barriers, experience higher levels of unemployment, more severe poverty and less access to education and services than their peers without disabilities (33);

W.

whereas LGBTI PwD face added obstacles to employment, with 16 % reporting having been denied jobs or promotions because of their identity, compared with 10 % of LGBTI staff in general; whereas one in four LGBTI PwD have been subjected to derogatory remarks, bullying and abuse and were outed without consent (34);

X.

whereas a recent EU-wide survey of PwD shows that 96 % find that access to the open labour market is inadequate or that it requires improvement, while only 10 % find that the existing legislation is adequate to protect PwD against discrimination in the open labour market, and 18 % were not aware of the existence of legislation in their country which would protect them against discrimination (35);

Y.

whereas this data demonstrates that the EU Disability Strategy 2010-2020 did not place enough emphasis on employment of PwD and the intersectional discrimination they face;

Z.

whereas harassment in the workplace, including sexual harassment and retaliation for speaking up, hinders access to work and employment, job retention and equal career paths, in particular for women with disabilities;

AA.

whereas disadvantage, exclusion and discrimination against PwD in the labour market are not a standalone challenge but are interrelated with the lack of inclusive education, including in early childhood; lifelong learning, including vocational training; the barriers, segregation and discrimination present in the fields of housing and health; and the lack of accessibility of transport and other services and products; whereas a complex approach and comprehensive measures are therefore needed to remedy the situation;

AB.

whereas measures to promote mental well-being and prevent mental ill-health and psychosocial disabilities in the workplace are crucial;

AC.

whereas the accessibility of workplaces, transport and support services, in particular personal assistance, and society at large is essential for PwD to effectively enjoy their right to independent living and their right to work; whereas the Member States should also support the creation of a barrier-free built environment; whereas once transposed, Directive (EU) 2019/882 on the accessibility requirements for products and services will provide a significant improvement for a barrier-free society, and whereas its transposition therefore needs to be timely and closely monitored;

AD.

whereas removing benefits as soon as PwD commence paid work is a high-risk, high-stress policy, a major obstacle to access to work, and socially unjust because it does not factor in the higher costs of living with a disability;

AE.

whereas the different definitions of disability, the diversity of disability assessment and the various and often unclear classification methods applied across Member States, as well as the lack of mutual recognition of disability status, hinder freedom of movement within the EU for PwD;

AF.

whereas awareness raising is essential to enable employers and workers to act and react adequately, on the basis of knowledge of their obligations and rights in the area of non-discrimination;

AG.

whereas new technologies, notably AI systems, have the potential to develop efficient, accessible and non-discriminatory hiring processes, but non-inclusive technological developments could represent a risk of adding new barriers and forms of discrimination; whereas Article 9 of the UNCRPD requires accessible information as well as access to communication technologies and systems on an equal basis with others;

3.

4.

5.

6.

7.

8.

9.

calls on the Member States to support companies that offer targeted positive action measures to tackle multiple disadvantage; calls on the Member States to exchange best practices in order to identify and apply a targeted mix of measures to support equal employment of PwD;

10.

11.

12.

13.

14.

15.

16.

17.

18.

19.

20.

21.

22.

23.

24.

25.

26.

27.

28.

29.

30.

31.

32.

33.

34.

35.

36.

37.

38.

39.

40.

41.

42.

43.

44.

45.

46.

47.

48.

—

having regard to Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2021/52 of 22 January 2021 amending Implementing Regulation (EU) No 540/2011 as regards the extension of the approval periods of the active substances benfluralin, dimoxystrobin, fluazinam, flutolanil, mecoprop-P, mepiquat, metiram, oxamyl and pyraclostrobin (1),

—

having regard to Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 October 2009 concerning the placing of plant protection products on the market and repealing Council Directives 79/117/EEC and 91/414/EEC (2), and in particular the first paragraph of Article 17 and Article 21 thereof,

—

having regard to the opinion delivered on 10 December 2020 by the Standing Committee on Plants, Animals, Food and Feed,

—

having regard to Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2015/408 of 11 March 2015 on implementing Article 80(7) of Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council concerning the placing of plant protection products on the market and establishing a list of candidates for substitution (3),

—

having regard to Articles 11 and 13 of Regulation (EU) No 182/2011 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 February 2011 laying down the rules and general principles concerning mechanisms for control by Member States of the Commission’s exercise of implementing powers (4),

—

having regard to its resolution of 13 September 2018 on the implementation of the Plant Protection Products Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009 (5),

—

having regard to Rule 112(2) and (3) of its Rules of Procedure,

—

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

A.

whereas dimoxystrobin was included in Annex I to Council Directive 91/414/EEC (6) on 1 October 2006 by Commission Directive 2006/75/EC (7) and has been deemed to be approved under Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009;

B.

whereas a procedure to renew the approval of dimoxystrobin under Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 844/2012 (8) has been ongoing since 2013;

C.

whereas the approval period of the active substance dimoxystrobin, which was originally due to end on 30 September 2016, was already extended by 16 months by Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1136/2013 (9), and subsequently by further periods of one year by Commission Implementing Regulations (EU) 2018/84 (10), (EU) 2018/1796 (11) and (EU) 2019/2094 (12), and has now again been extended by one year by Implementing Regulation (EU) 2021/52, which extends the approval period to 31 January 2022;

D.

whereas the Commission has failed in Implementing Regulation (EU) 2021/52 to explain the reasons for the extensions other than by stating: ‘Due to the fact that the assessment of those substances has been delayed for reasons beyond the control of the applicants, the approvals of those active substances are likely to expire before a decision has been taken on their renewal’;

E.

whereas Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009 aims to ensure a high level of protection of both human and animal health and the environment, and at the same time to safeguard the competitiveness of Union agriculture; whereas particular attention should be paid to the protection of vulnerable groups of the population, including pregnant women, infants and children;

F.

whereas the precautionary principle should apply, and Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009 provides that substances should only be included in plant protection products where it has been demonstrated that they present a clear benefit for plant production and that they are not expected to have any harmful effect on human or animal health or any unacceptable effects on the environment;

G.

whereas Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009 provides that in the interest of safety the approval period for active substances should be limited in time; whereas the approval period should be proportionate to the possible risks inherent in the use of such substances, but, in the case of the active substances that are subject to Implementing Regulation (EU) 2021/52, it is clear that no such proportionality exists;

H.

whereas the Commission and Member States have the possibility and responsibility to act in accordance with the precautionary principle when the risk of harmful effects on health has been identified but scientific uncertainty persists, by adopting provisional risk management measures that are necessary to ensure a high level of protection of human health;

I.

whereas, more specifically, Article 21 of Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009 provides that the Commission may review the approval of an active substance at any time, especially where, in the light of new scientific and technical knowledge, it considers that there are indications that the substance no longer satisfies the approval criteria provided for in Article 4 of that Regulation, and whereas this review may lead to the withdrawal or amendment of the approval of the substance;

J.

whereas, in 2015, dimoxystrobin was placed on the ‘list of candidates for substitution’ by Implementing Regulation (EU) 2015/408 because the Acute Reference Dose (ARfD) for that active substance is significantly lower than that of the majority of the approved active substances within its group of substances, and because it is to be considered as having endocrine-disrupting properties that may cause adverse effects in humans;

K.

whereas, according to point 3.6.5 of Annex II to Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009, an active substance cannot be approved when it is considered to have endocrine-disrupting properties that may cause adverse effects in humans, unless the exposure of humans to that active substance in a plant protection product, under realistic proposed conditions of use, is negligible, that is, the product is used in closed systems or in other conditions excluding contact with humans and where residues of the active substance concerned on food and feed do not exceed the default value set in accordance with point (b) of Article 18(1) of Regulation (EC) No 396/2005 of the European Parliament and of the Council (13);

L.

whereas it is unacceptable that a substance which is known to meet the cut-off criteria for active substances that are mutagenic, carcinogenic and/or toxic for reproduction, or that have endocrine-disrupting properties, which are established to protect human health and the environment, continues to be allowed for use in the Union, thereby putting human health and the environment at risk;

M.

whereas applicants can take advantage of the automatic system built into Commission working methods, which immediately extends the approval periods of active substances if the risk reassessment has not been finalised, by deliberately prolonging the reassessment process by providing incomplete data and asking for more derogations and special conditions, which leads to unacceptable risks for human health and the environment since, during this time, exposure to the hazardous substance continues;

N.

whereas in its resolution of 13 September 2018 on the implementation of the Plant Products Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009, Parliament called on the Commission and Member States ‘to ensure that the procedural extension of the approval period for the duration of the procedure, pursuant to Article 17 of the Regulation, will not be used for active substances that are mutagenic, carcinogenic, toxic for reproduction and therefore in category 1A or 1B, or active substances that have endocrine disrupting characteristics and are damaging to humans or animals, as is currently the case for substances such as flumioxazine, thiacloprid, chlorotoluron and dimoxystrobin’;

O.

whereas Parliament has already objected to the previous extension of the approval period of dimoxystrobin in its resolution of 18 December 2019 (14), and the Commission has failed to give a convincing response to that resolution and has also failed to properly demonstrate that another extension would not exceed its implementing powers;

P.

whereas following the previous extension in 2019 of the approval periods of 10 active substances, including dimoxystrobin, under Implementing Regulation (EU) 2019/2094, the approval of only one of those substances has not been renewed, while under Implementing Regulation (EU) 2021/52, the approval periods of the remaining nine substances have been extended again, many of them for the third or fourth time and two of them for as much as the sixth time;

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

7.

8.

9.

10.

—

having regard to the draft Commission implementing decision authorising the placing on the market of products containing, consisting of or produced from genetically modified cotton GHB614 × T304-40 × GHB119 pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 of the European Parliament and of the Council (D070621/02,

—

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

—

having regard to Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 503/2013 on applications for authorisation of genetically modified food and feed in accordance with Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 of the European Parliament and of the Council and amending Commission Regulations (EC) No 641/2004 and (EC) No 1981/2006 (2),

—

having regard to the vote of the Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health referred to in Article 35 of Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 on 11 January 2021, at which no opinion was delivered,

—

having regard to Articles 11 and 13 of Regulation (EU) No 182/2011 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 February 2011 laying down the rules and general principles concerning mechanisms for control by Member States of the Commission’s exercise of implementing powers (3),

—

having regard to the opinion adopted by the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) on 21 June 2018, and published on 25 July 2018 (4)

—

having regard to its previous resolutions objecting to the authorisation of genetically modified organisms (‘GMOs’) (5),

—

having regard to Rule 112(2) and (3) of its Rules of Procedure,

—

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

A.

whereas, on 30 September 2014, Bayer CropScience AG (‘the applicant’) submitted an application for the placing on the market of foods, food ingredients and feed containing, consisting of or produced from genetically modified cotton GHB614 × T304-40 × GHB119 (‘the GM cotton’) in accordance with Articles 5 and 17 of Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003; whereas the application also covered the placing on the market of products containing or consisting of the GM cotton for uses other than food and feed, with the exception of cultivation;

B.

whereas, on 21 June 2018, EFSA adopted a favourable opinion, which was published on 25 July 2018;

C.

whereas the GM cotton is derived from crossing three genetically modified (‘GM’) cotton events, and confers tolerance to herbicides containing glufosinate and glyphosate (the ‘complementary herbicides’) as well as producing two insecticidal proteins (‘Bt’ or ‘Cry’ toxins): Cry1Ab and Cry2Ae, which are toxic to certain lepidopteran larvae feeding on cotton (6);

D.

whereas while the human consumption of cottonseed oil may be relatively limited in Europe, it can be found in a wide variety of food products, including dressings, mayonnaise, fine bakery wares, chocolate spreads and chips; whereas cotton is fed to animals mainly in the form of cottonseed cake/meal or as full fat cottonseeds (7); whereas cotton is also consumed in the form of cotton flour by humans;

E.

whereas Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 states that GM food or feed must not have adverse effects on human health, animal health or the environment, and requires the Commission to take into account any relevant provisions of Union law and other legitimate factors relevant to the matter under consideration when drafting its decision; whereas such legitimate factors should include the Union’s obligations under the United Nations (UN) Sustainable Development Goals (‘SDGs’), the Paris Climate Agreement and the UN Convention on Biological Diversity (‘UN CBD’);

F.

whereas Implementing Regulation (EU) No 503/2013 requires an assessment of whether the expected agricultural practices influence the outcome of the studied endpoints; whereas, according to that Implementing Regulation, this is especially relevant for herbicide resistant plants; whereas, furthermore, the different sites selected for the field trials shall reflect the different meteorological and agronomic conditions under which the crop is to be grown;

G.

whereas, field trials for the compositional and agronomic assessment of the GM cotton were conducted in the United States at only eight sites, but not in other relevant cotton producing areas; whereas only data from one year, 2012, were used to produce data on the relevant meteorological conditions under which the plants may be grown;

H.

whereas, glufosinate and glyphosate were not used in the high doses that may be expected in the context of increasing weed resistance;

I.

whereas EFSA failed to request further studies, e.g. field trials lasting for more than one season and from sites in other cotton producing regions; whereas, furthermore, no data were generated representing more extreme environmental conditions, such as those caused by climate change, even though it has been shown that environmental factors can impact the expression of Bt toxins (8);

J.

whereas a number of studies show that herbicide-tolerant GM crops result in a higher use of complementary herbicides, in large part because of the emergence of herbicide-tolerant weeds (9); whereas, as a consequence, it has to be expected that the GM cotton will be exposed to both higher and repeated doses of glufosinate and glyphosate, and that therefore a higher quantity of residues may be present in the harvest;

K.

whereas questions concerning the carcinogenicity of glyphosate remain; whereas EFSA concluded in November 2015 that glyphosate was unlikely to be carcinogenic and the European Chemicals Agency concluded in March 2017 that no classification was warranted; whereas, on the contrary, in 2015, the International Agency for Research on Cancer, the specialised cancer agency of the World Health Organization, classified glyphosate as a probable carcinogen for humans;

L.

whereas, according to EFSA, toxicological data allowing a consumer risk assessment to be performed for several break-down products of glyphosate relevant for GM glyphosate-tolerant crops are missing (10);

M.

whereas glufosinate is classified as toxic to reproduction 1B and therefore meets the ‘cut-off criteria’ set out in Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council (11); whereas the approval of glufosinate for use in the Union expired on 31 July 2018 (12); whereas the GM cotton has been made doubly tolerant to glufosinate, allowing even higher doses to be used on the plants;

N.

whereas studies show that glyphosate and glufosinate can severely impact the microbiome (13), and consequently the long term toxicity (mixed toxicity) of whole food and feed of the Bt toxins on the intestinal gut from spraying with glyphosate and glufosinate should first be assessed before any conclusion can be reached on health impacts and food safety;

O.

whereas assessment of herbicide residues and their break-down products found on GM plants is considered outside the remit of the EFSA Panel on Genetically Modified Organisms (EFSA GMO Panel) and is therefore not undertaken as part of the authorisation process for GMOs; whereas this is problematic since the way in which complementary herbicides are broken down by the GM plant concerned, and the composition and thus toxicity of the break-down products (‘metabolites’), can be impacted by the genetic modification itself (14);

P.

whereas Cry1Ab and Cry2Ae proteins produced in Escherichia coli (E. coli) and B. thuringiensis respectively were used to conduct the safety studies, rather than proteins produced by the GM plant itself (15), meaning that the assessment of toxic effects is based on the assumed equivalence of Bt toxins produced artificially in bacteria with the plant produced Bt toxins; whereas, however, in order to adequately take into account synergistic effects, assessments should not solely be based on tests with transgenic Bt toxins produced in microbial systems;

Q.

whereas, furthermore, little significance can be attributed to toxicological tests conducted with proteins in isolation, due to the fact that Bt toxins in GM crops, such as maize, cotton and soybeans, are inherently more toxic than isolated Bt toxins; whereas this is because protease inhibitors (PI), present in the plant tissue, can increase the toxicity of the Bt toxins by delaying their degradation; whereas this phenomena has been demonstrated in a number of scientific studies, including one conducted for Monsanto 30 years ago which showed that even the presence of extremely low levels of PI enhanced the toxicity of Bt toxins up to 20-fold (16);

R.

whereas those effects have never been taken into account in EFSA risk assessments, even though they are relevant for all Bt plants approved for import or cultivation in the Union; whereas risks arising from this enhanced toxicity due to the interaction between PI and Bt toxins, to humans and animals consuming food and feed containing Bt toxins cannot be ruled out;

S.

whereas a number of studies show that side effects have been observed that may affect the immune system following exposure to Bt toxins and that some Bt toxins may have adjuvant properties (17), meaning that they can increase the allergenicity of other proteins with which they come into contact;

T.

whereas assessment of the potential interaction of herbicide residues and their metabolites with Bt toxins is considered outside the remit of the EFSA GMO Panel and is therefore not undertaken as part of the risk assessment; whereas this is problematic since residues from spraying with glyphosate and glufosinate are known to disturb the microbiome which, for example, may enhance immune reactions in combination with Bt toxins (18);

U.

whereas, unlike the use of insecticides, where exposure is at the time of spraying and for a limited time afterwards, the use of Bt GM crops leads to continuous exposure of the target and non-target organisms to Bt toxins;

V.

whereas the assumption that Bt toxins exhibit a single target-specific mode-of-action can no longer be considered correct and effects on non-target organisms cannot be excluded (19); whereas an increasing number of non-target organisms are reported to be affected in many ways; whereas 39 peer-reviewed publications that report significant adverse effects of Bt toxins on many ‘out-of-range’ species are mentioned in a recent overview (20);

W.

whereas a range of non-target organisms in the Union could be exposed to Bt toxins via spillage, waste and manure resulting from the import of Bt crops; whereas no effects on non-target organisms were evaluated in the risk assessment;

X.

whereas the risk assessment did not consider the development of resistance in the target pests to Bt toxins, possibly resulting in the use of less environmentally safe pesticides or increased doses and the number of applications to the GM crop in the country of cultivation; whereas, the United States Environmental Protection Agency is planning to phase out many Bt corn hybrids, as well as some Bt cotton varieties, in the next three to five years, due to the growth in insect resistance to such crops (21);

Y.

whereas, while it has been claimed that the use of Bt crops leads to a decrease in the use of insecticides, a recently published United States study (22), finds that ‘several analyses on the influence of Bt crops on pesticide-use patterns do not seem to have considered seed treatments and so may have overstated reductions in insecticide use (especially “area treated”) associated with Bt crops’;

Z.

whereas the Union is party to the UN CBD, which makes it clear that both exporting and importing countries have international responsibilities regarding biological diversity;

AA.

whereas Member States submitted many critical comments to EFSA during the three-month consultation period (23); whereas those critical comments include that data and data analyses provided on phenotypic evaluation, composition and toxicity is insufficient, that the compositional analysis did not take into account residues nor metabolites of the complementary herbicides, and that the applicant’s proposal for an environmental monitoring plan does not meet the objectives defined in Annex VII of Directive 2001/18/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council (24) and that it does not relate the monitoring activities to relevant protection goals; whereas one Member State competent authority rejected the proposal to place the GM cotton on the market on the basis that the previous evaluations for the three single events were insufficient to ensure a high protection of human health;

AB.

whereas a 2017 report by the UN’s Special Rapporteur on the right to food found that, particularly in developing countries, hazardous pesticides have catastrophic impacts on health (25); whereas UN SDG Target 3.9 aims by 2030 to substantially reduce the number of deaths and illnesses from hazardous chemicals and air, water and soil pollution and contamination (26); whereas authorising the import of the GM cotton would increase demand for this crop treated with a herbicide that is toxic to reproduction and that is no longer authorised for use in the Union, thereby increasing the exposure of workers in third countries; whereas the risk of increased worker exposure is of particular concern in relation to herbicide-tolerant GM crops, given the higher volumes of herbicides used;

AC.

whereas the vote on 11 January 2021 of the Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health referred to in Article 35 of Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 delivered no opinion, meaning that the authorisation was not supported by a qualified majority of Member States; whereas 13 Member States (representing 35,52 % of the Union population) voted against authorisation, whilst only 10 Member States (representing 27,49 %) voted in favour; whereas 4 Member States (representing 37 %) abstained;

AD.

whereas the Commission recognises that the fact that GMO authorisation decisions continue to be adopted by the Commission without a qualified majority of Member States in favour, which is very much the exception for product authorisations as a whole but has become the norm for decision-making on GM food and feed authorisations, is problematic;

AE.

whereas, in its eighth term, the European Parliament adopted a total of 36 resolutions objecting to the placing on the market of GMOs for food and feed (33 resolutions) and to the cultivation of GMOs in the Union (three resolutions); whereas, in its ninth term, the European Parliament has already adopted 16 objections to placing GMOs on the market; whereas there was not a qualified majority of Member States in favour of authorising any of those GMOs; whereas the reasons for Member States not supporting authorisations include lack of respect for the precautionary principle in the authorisation process and scientific concerns relating to the risk assessment;

AF.

whereas despite its own acknowledgement of the democratic shortcomings, the lack of support from Member States and the objections of Parliament, the Commission continues to authorise GMOs;

AG.

whereas no change of law is required for the Commission to be able not to authorise GMOs when there is no qualified majority of Member States in favour in the Appeal Committee (27);

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

7.

8.

9.

10.

11.

12.

13.

14.

15.

—

European Parliament resolution of 10 October 2019 on the draft Commission implementing decision authorising the placing on the market of products containing, consisting of or produced from genetically modified maize MZHG0JG (SYN-ØØØJG-2), pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 of the European Parliament and of the Council (Texts adopted, P9_TA(2019)0028).

—

European Parliament resolution of 10 October 2019 on the draft Commission implementing decision renewing the authorisation for the placing on the market of products containing, consisting of or produced from genetically modified soybean A2704-12 (ACS-GMØØ5-3) pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 of the European Parliament and of the Council (Texts adopted, P9_TA(2019)0029).

—

European Parliament resolution of 10 October 2019 on the draft Commission implementing decision authorising the placing on the market of products containing, consisting of or produced from genetically modified maize MON 89034 × 1507 × MON 88017 × 59122 × DAS-40278-9 and genetically modified maize combining two, three or four of the single events MON 89034, 1507, MON 88017, 59122 and DAS-40278-9 pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 of the European Parliament and of the Council (Texts adopted, P9_TA(2019)0030).

—

European Parliament resolution of 14 November 2019 on the draft Commission implementing decision renewing the authorisation for the placing on the market of products containing, consisting of or produced from genetically modified cotton LLCotton25 (ACS-GHØØ1-3) pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 of the European Parliament and of the Council (Texts adopted, P9_TA(2019)0054).

—

European Parliament resolution of 14 November 2019 on the draft Commission implementing decision renewing the authorisation for the placing on the market of products containing, consisting of or produced from genetically modified soybean MON 89788 (MON-89788-1) pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 of the European Parliament and of the Council (Texts adopted, P9_TA(2019)0055).

—

European Parliament resolution of 14 November 2019 on the draft Commission implementing decision authorising the placing on the market of products containing, consisting of or produced from genetically modified maize MON 89034 × 1507 × NK603 × DAS-40278-9 and sub-combinations MON 89034 × NK603 × DAS-40278-9, 1507 × NK603 × DAS-40278-9 and NK603 × DAS-40278-9 pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 of the European Parliament and of the Council (Texts adopted, P9_TA(2019)0056).

—

European Parliament resolution of 14 November 2019 on the draft Commission implementing decision authorising the placing on the market of products containing, consisting of or produced from genetically modified maize Bt11 × MIR162 × MIR604 × 1507 × 5307 × GA21 and genetically modified maize combining two, three, four or five of the single events Bt11, MIR162, MIR604, 1507, 5307 and GA21 pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 of the European Parliament and of the Council (Texts adopted, P9_TA(2019)0057).

—

European Parliament resolution of 14 May 2020 on the draft Commission implementing decision authorising the placing on the market of products containing, consisting of or produced from genetically modified soybean MON 87708 × MON 89788 × A5547-127, pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 of the European Parliament and of the Council (Texts adopted, P9_TA(2020)0069).

—

European Parliament resolution of 11 November 2020 on the draft Commission implementing decision authorising the placing on the market of products containing, consisting of or produced from genetically modified maize MON 87427 × MON 89034 × MIR162 × NK603 and genetically modified maize combining two or three of the single events MON 87427, MON 89034, MIR162 and NK603, and repealing Commission Implementing Decision (EU) 2018/1111 pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 of the European Parliament and of the Council (Texts adopted, P9_TA(2020)0291).

—

European Parliament resolution of 11 November 2020 on the draft Commission implementing decision authorising the placing on the market of products containing, consisting of or produced from genetically modified soybean SYHT0H2 (SYN-ØØØH2-5), pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 of the European Parliament and of the Council (Texts adopted, P9_TA(2020)0292).

—

European Parliament resolution of 11 November 2020 on the draft Commission implementing decision authorising the placing on the market of products containing, consisting of or produced from genetically modified maize MON 87427 × MON 87460 × MON 89034 × MIR162 × NK603 and genetically modified maize combining two, three or four of the single events MON 87427, MON 87460, MON 89034, MIR162 and NK603, pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 of the European Parliament and of the Council (Texts adopted, P9_TA(2020)0293).

—

European Parliament resolution of 17 December 2020 on the draft Commission implementing decision authorising the placing on the market of products containing, consisting of or produced from genetically modified soybean MON 87751 × MON 87701 × MON 87708 × MON 89788, pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 of the European Parliament and of the Council (Texts adopted, P9_TA(2020)0365).

—

European Parliament resolution of 17 December 2020 on the draft Commission implementing decision authorising the placing on the market of products containing, consisting of or produced from genetically modified maize MON 87427 × MON 89034 × MIR162 × MON 87411 and genetically modified maize combining two or three of the single events MON 87427, MON 89034, MIR162 and MON 87411 pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 of the European Parliament and of the Council (Texts adopted, P9_TA(2020)0366).

—

European Parliament resolution of 17 December 2020 on the draft Commission implementing decision renewing the authorisation for the placing on the market of products containing, consisting of or produced from genetically modified maize MIR604 (SYN-IR6Ø4-5) pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 of the European Parliament and of the Council (Texts adopted, P9_TA(2020)0367).

—

European Parliament resolution of 17 December 2020 on the draft Commission implementing decision renewing the authorisation for the placing on the market of products containing, consisting of or produced from genetically modified maize MON 88017 (MON-88Ø17-3) pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 of the European Parliament and of the Council (Texts adopted, P9_TA(2020)0368).

—

European Parliament resolution of 17 December 2020 on the draft Commission implementing decision renewing the authorisation for the placing on the market of products containing, consisting of or produced from genetically modified maize MON 89034 (MON-89Ø34-3) pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 of the European Parliament and of the Council (Texts adopted, P9_TA(2020)0369).