—

having regard to Directive (EU) 2016/797 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 May 2016 on the interoperability of the rail system within the European Union (1),

—

having regard to Regulation (EU) No 1315/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 December 2013 on Union guidelines for the development of the trans-European transport network and repealing Decision No 661/2010/EU, and in particular Article 47(2) thereof (2) (the TEN-T Regulation),

—

having regard to Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2017/6 of 5 January 2017 on the European Rail Traffic Management System European deployment plan (3),

—

having regard to the special report of the European Court of Auditors (ECA) of 3 October 2017 entitled ‘A single European rail traffic management system: will the political choice ever become reality?’,

—

having regard to the European Green Deal,

—

having regard to the Commission communication of 9 December 2020 entitled ‘Sustainable and Smart Mobility Strategy — putting European transport on track for the future’ (COM(2020)0789),

—

having regard to the Commission’s seventh monitoring report of 13 January 2021 on the development of the rail market under Article 15(4) of Directive 2012/34/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council (COM(2021)0005),

—

having regard to Decision (EU) 2020/2228 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 December 2020 on a European Year of Rail (2021) (4),

—

having regard to its resolution of 9 June 2016 on the competitiveness of the European rail supply industry (5),

—

having regard to Rule 54 of its Rules of Procedure,

—

having regard to the report of the Committee on Transport and Tourism (A9-0181/2021),

A.

whereas the European Rail Traffic Management System (ERTMS) is the EU standard for automatic train protection, which creates an interoperable railway system in Europe;

B.

whereas four memoranda of understanding on cooperation for the deployment of the ERTMS have been signed by the Commission and European rail manufacturers, infrastructure managers and railway undertakings, with the last one being in September 2016;

C.

whereas important legislative steps have been taken, including the adoption in June 2016 of the Fourth Railway Package — which regulates rail governance issues and reinforces the role of the European Railway Agency (the Agency) as the system authority for the ERTMS — and the revision of the technical specifications for interoperability (TSIs) for the on-board and trackside control command and signalling (CCS TSI) subsystems adopted through Commission Regulation (EU) 2016/919 (6), which gives legal status to the European Train Control System (ETCS) Baseline 3 Release 2 and GSM-R (Global System for Mobile Communications — Railway) Baseline 1 specifications;

D.

whereas a new ERTMS European deployment plan (EDP) was adopted on 5 January 2017 (7), laying down the timetable for the deployment of the ERTMS on core network corridors (CNCs);

E.

whereas a fully deployed ERTMS would allow for traffic capacity to be increased by up to 30 % on existing railway infrastructure;

F.

whereas the Commission also published an ERTMS action plan (8) identifying actions to address barriers to ERTMS implementation and interoperability and aiming for a target of converting about one third of the CNCs by 2023;

G.

whereas between 2014 and 2020, the EU budget supported ERTMS deployment with an estimated total budget of EUR 2,7 billion, out of which EUR 850 million came from the Connecting Europe Facility (CEF) (9) and EUR 1,9 billion came from European Structural and Investments Funds (the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) and the Cohesion Fund) in the eligible regions;

H.

whereas the deployment of the ERTMS must involve the decommissioning of Class B system installations of ETCS trackside components along with the widespread retrofitting of rolling stocks with ERTMS on-board unit interoperable subsystems;

I.

whereas there is no legal obligation in place for Member States to adopt measures to ensure that railway undertakings invest in the ERTMS;

J.

whereas the ECA has warned that the full core network deployment of the ERTMS is currently far behind schedule and will not be completed by the 2030 deadline, citing the lack of Member State coordination as one of the primary reasons for this delay;

K.

whereas the Alvia train accident in Santiago de Compostela on 24 July 2013 caused the death of 80 people and left a further 144 injured;

L.

whereas for the new programming period, according to the EU climate tracking methodology for EU expenditure, the ERTMS accounts for 40 % of the contribution to climate and environment objectives and whereas 30 % of expenditure under the Cohesion Policy Funds and InvestEU, 37 % under the Recovery and Resilience Facility (RRF) (10) and 60 % under the CEF must be allocated to actions combating climate change;

M.

whereas the RRF establishes that 20 % of investments should be digitally oriented and whereas in its methodology for digital tagging established in Annex VII of the RRF Regulation, 100 % of investment in the ERTMS is digital;

8.

9.

10.

11.

12.

13.

14.

15.

16.

17.

18.

19.

20.

21.

22.

23.

24.

25.

26.

27.

28.

29.

30.

31.

32.

33.

34.

35.

36.

37.

38.

39.

40.

41.

42.

43.

44.

45.

46.

47.

48.

49.

50.

51.

52.

—

having regard to the Commission communication of 18 February 2021 entitled ‘Trade Policy Review — An Open, Sustainable and Assertive Trade Policy’ (COM(2021)0066),

—

having regard to the Commission white paper of 17 June 2020 on levelling the playing field as regards foreign subsidies (COM(2020)0253),

—

having regard to the Commission communication of 27 May 2020 entitled ‘Europe’s moment: Repair and Prepare for the Next Generation’ (COM(2020)0456),

—

having regard to the Commission communication of 20 May 2020 entitled ‘A Farm to Fork Strategy for a fair, healthy and environmentally-friendly food system’ (COM(2020)0381),

—

having regard to the Commission communication of 27 May 2020 entitled ‘Adjusted Commission Work Programme 2020’ (COM(2020)0440) and to President von der Leyen’s letter of intent to President Sassoli and Chancellor Merkel of 16 September 2020 entitled ‘State of the Union 2020’,

—

having regard to the Commission communication of 20 May 2020 entitled ‘EU Biodiversity Strategy for 2030: Bringing nature back into our lives’ (COM(2020)0380),

—

having regard to the Commission communication of 11 March 2020 entitled ‘A new Circular Economy Action Plan: For a cleaner and more competitive Europe’ (COM(2020)0098),

—

having regard to the Commission communication of 10 March 2020 entitled ‘A New Industrial Strategy for Europe’ (COM(2020)0102),

—

having regard to the Commission communication of 10 March 2020 entitled ‘An SME Strategy for a sustainable and digital Europe’ (COM(2020)0103),

—

having regard to the joint communication of the Commission and the High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy of 9 March 2020 entitled ‘Towards a comprehensive Strategy with Africa’ (JOIN(2020)0004),

—

having regard to the Commission communication of 19 February 2020 entitled ‘Shaping Europe’s digital future’ (COM(2020)0067),

—

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

—

having regard to the joint communication of the Commission and the High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy of 2 December 2020 entitled ‘A new EU-US agenda for global change’ (JOIN(2020)0022),

—

having regard to the non-paper of the Commission services of 26 February 2018 on feedback and the way forward on improving the implementation and enforcement of trade and sustainable development (TSD) chapters in EU free trade agreements and its 15-point action plan on TSD chapters,

—

having regard to the Commission communication of 14 October 2015 entitled ‘Trade for All — Towards a more responsible trade and investment policy’ (COM(2015)0497),

—

having regard to the Agreement adopted at the 21st Conference of the Parties to the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (the Paris Agreement),

—

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

—

having regard to its resolutions of 26 November 2020 on the EU Trade Policy Review (1), of 9 June 2021 entitled ‘EU Biodiversity Strategy for 2030: Bringing nature back into our lives’ (2), of 20 May 2021 entitled ‘Shaping the digital future of Europe: removing barriers to the functioning of the digital single market and improving the use of AI for European consumers’ (3), of 25 March 2021 on establishing an EU strategy for sustainable tourism (4), of 10 March 2021 entitled ‘Towards a WTO-compatible EU carbon border adjustment mechanism’ (5), of 10 March 2021 with recommendations to the Commission on corporate due diligence and corporate accountability (6), of 10 February 2021 on the New Circular Economy Action Plan (7), of 25 November 2020 entitled ‘A New Industrial Strategy for Europe’ (8), of 7 October 2020 entitled ‘Implementation of the common commercial policy — annual report 2018’ (9), of 16 September 2020 on the EU’s role in protecting and restoring the world’s forests (10), of 28 November 2019 on the climate and environment emergency (11), of 12 December 2017 entitled ‘Towards a digital trade strategy’ (12), and of 5 July 2016 on a new forward-looking and innovative future strategy for trade and investment (13),

—

having regard to the opinion of its Committee on International Trade of 15 April 2021 on the report entitled ‘EU Biodiversity Strategy for 2030: Bringing nature back into our lives’,

—

having regard to Rule 54 of its Rules of Procedure,

—

having regard to the opinions of the Committee on Development and the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development,

—

having regard to the report of the Committee on International Trade (A9-0190/2021),

A.

whereas COVID-19 has caused a global pandemic, giving rise to an unprecedented global health, economic, social and humanitarian crisis, which has created bottlenecks and disruptions of an unprecedented scale to international trade, causing it to plunge as the virus spread, slashing global production and employment, decreasing the level of foreign direct investment (FDI), and increasing geopolitical tensions;

B.

whereas the pandemic has demonstrated strategic vulnerabilities in the EU and global supply chains, including for critical raw materials, and essential medical goods such as personal protective equipment and active pharmaceutical ingredients, and has highlighted the need for enhanced resilience and diversification at global, regional and local level;

C.

whereas the COVID-19 outbreak has further increased inequalities and has added to concern among citizens about job losses in certain sectors, the changing nature of work and the pressure on workers’ wages and rights; whereas these problems must be addressed in order to retain public support for global trade;

D.

whereas the COVID-19 outbreak risks creating a set-back in the worldwide fight against climate change, yet we need global action and cooperation to develop policies and streamline climate action in internal and external policy, as the vaccine alone will not be sufficient to address the social, environmental and economic crisis caused by COVID-19;

E.

whereas though the European Union has substantially reduced its domestic greenhouse gas emissions, those embedded in imports have been constantly rising, thereby undermining the Union’s efforts to reduce its global greenhouse gas emission footprint;

F.

whereas international trade in goods and services is set to increase by 8.4 % in 2022 according to International Monetary Fund estimates (14) and trade policy must play a full roll in the recovery from the COVID-19 pandemic; whereas the Commission communication on the Trade Policy Review must be complemented by continued dialogue and transparency with the European Parliament, which will play a key role in its implementation, as well as by a strategy to increase EU resilience and strategic autonomy, including tailored policy measures and instruments in the area of domestic production, nearshoring, diversification of suppliers and stockpiling;

G.

whereas the EU, as the world’s largest trading bloc and with its extensive network of trade agreements, is the biggest actor on the world trading scene and finds itself in a unique position to cooperate globally, drive the implementation of EU standards, values and sustainability frameworks in partner countries, and secure the sustainable recovery of the world economy, in line with the European Green Deal and the Paris Agreement;

H.

whereas the divisions within the World Trade Organization (WTO) and the urgent need for its reform have complicated the coordinated efforts to keep global supply chains open, and the priority must now be to rebuild trust in multilateral institutions as entities able to deliver global answers, by rapidly moving forward on the discussions on the WTO trade and health initiative;

I.

whereas it is important for there to be close cooperation between the WTO and other international bodies, notably the World Health Organization (WHO), the UN institutions and the World Bank, in order to tackle the crisis in a comprehensive manner, paying special attention to the health and economic implications in developing countries;

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

7.

8.

9.

10.

11.

12.

13.

14.

15.

16.

17.

18.

19.

20.

21.

22.

23.

24.

25.

26.

27.

28.

29.

30.

31.

32.

33.

34.

35.

36.

37.

38.

39.

40.

41.

42.

43.

44.

45.

46.

47.

48.

49.

50.

51.

52.

53.

54.

55.

56.

57.

58.

59.

60.

61.

62.

63.

64.

65.

66.

67.

68.

69.

70.

71.

—

having regard to Articles 15, 126, 174, 175, 177, 208, 209, 271, 308 and 309 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU) and to Protocol No 5 to the Treaties on the Statute of the European Investment Bank (EIB),

—

having regard to the climate strategy and new lending policy in the energy sector adopted by the EIB in November 2019,

—

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 14 January 2020 entitled ‘Sustainable Europe Investment Plan — European Green Deal Investment Plan’ (COM(2020)0021),

—

having regard to the Commission proposal for a regulation of 14 January 2020 establishing the Just Transition Fund (COM(2020)0022),

—

having regard to its resolution of 15 January 2020 on the European Green Deal (1),

—

having regard to the EIB Financial Report for 2019, published on 5 May 2020,

—

having regard to the EIB Activity Report for 2019 entitled ‘The Green Thread’, published on 7 May 2020,

—

having regard to the adoption of the Climate Bank Roadmap by the EIB Board of Directors on 11 November 2020 and to the EIB’s new climate strategy of November 2020,

—

having regard to the report on EIB Operations Inside the European Union 2019, published on 3 September 2019,

—

having regard to the report on EIB-supported projects outside the EU in 2019 entitled ‘Global reach: the impact of the EIB beyond the European Union’, published on 10 December 2020,

—

having regard to the EIB’s Financial Report and Statistical Report for 2019, published on 5 May and 7 May 2020,

—

having regard to the EIB’s Audit Committee Annual Reports, Fraud Investigations Activity Report and Complaints Mechanism Report for 2019,

—

having regard to the EIB Group Risk Management Disclosure Report for 2019, published on 6 July 2020,

—

having regard to the EIB’s approval of the ratification of the Paris Agreement by the EU of 7 October 2016,

—

having regard to the UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs),

—

having regard to the Commission communication of 13 March 2020 on a coordinated economic response to the COVID-19 outbreak (COM(2020)0112),

—

having regard to Regulation (EU) 2020/460 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 March 2020 amending Regulations (EU) No 1301/2013, (EU) No 1303/2013 and (EU) No 508/2014 as regards specific measures to mobilise investments in the healthcare systems of Member States and in other sectors of their economies in response to the COVID-19 outbreak (Coronavirus Response Investment Initiative) (2),

—

having regard to its resolution of 17 April 2020 on EU coordinated action to combat the COVID-19 pandemic and its consequences (3),

—

having regard to its resolution of 13 November 2020 on the Sustainable Europe Investment Plan — How to finance the Green Deal (4),

—

having regard to the European Council conclusions of 11 December 2020 on the multiannual financial framework (MFF) and Next Generation EU, COVID-19, climate change, security and external relations,

—

having regard to special report no 03/2019 of the European Court of Auditors (ECA) entitled ‘European Fund for Strategic Investments: Action needed to make EFSI a full success’, published on 29 January 2019,

—

having regard to the EIB Activity Report for 2020 entitled ‘Crisis Solutions’, published on 20 January 2021,

—

having regard to special report no 12/2020 of the ECA entitled ‘The European Investment Advisory Hub — Launched to boost investment in the EU, the Hub’s impact remains limited’, published on 12 May 2020,

—

having regard to its resolution of 16 January 2020 on institutions and bodies of the Economic and Monetary Union: preventing post-public employment conflicts of interest (5),

—

having regard to the letter from the Ombudsman to the President of the EIB of 22 July 2016 on conflict of interest issues and the reply from the President of the EIB of 31 January 2017,

—

having regard to the decision of the Ombudsman in case 2168/2019/KR on the European Banking Authority’s decision to approve the request from its Executive Director to become CEO of a financial lobby group,

—

having regard to the 2019 report by Counter Balance entitled ‘Is the EIB up to the task in tackling fraud and corruption? Challenges for the EU Bank’s governance framework’,

—

having regard to Rule 54 of its Rules of Procedure,

—

having regard to the opinions of the Committee on Development and the Committee on Budget,

—

having regard to the report of the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs (A9-0200/2021),

A.

whereas under Article 309 TFEU and in line with the case law of the Court of Justice of the European Union, the EIB is tasked with contributing to the achievement of the Union’s objectives, including through various investment instruments such as loans, equities, guarantees, risk-sharing facilities and advisory services;

B.

whereas under Article 18 of its Statute, the EIB must ensure that its funds are employed as rationally as possible in the interests of the Union;

C.

whereas the EIB is the public lending arm of the European Union and one of the biggest multilateral financial institutions in the world; whereas, as a consequence, the EIB is the EU’s natural partner for the implementation of financial instruments, in close cooperation with national and multilateral financial institutions;

D.

whereas the EIB took on a significant role in mobilising finance for the economy, in particular small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs), following the economic fallout caused by the COVID-19 pandemic which began in 2020;

E.

whereas the EIB plays an important role in the EU’s strategy to tackle climate and environment related challenges, as outlined by the Commission, with EUR 350 billion of additional investment needed annually to achieve the updated 2030 climate and energy targets;

F.

whereas the EIB committed in 2019 to support the objectives of the European Green Deal, align all its financing activities with the goals of the Paris Agreement and become the ‘EU Climate Bank’;

G.

whereas the EIB Board of Directors has approved the Climate Bank Roadmap for 2021-2025;

H.

whereas the EIB has started the review process of its 2011 transport lending policy, with the goal of supporting accessible, efficient, green and safe transport;

I.

whereas support for SMEs and mid-caps (companies of medium-size value) is a fundamental public policy goal of the EIB; whereas in 2020 alone, the EIB Group supported over 425 000 SMEs and mid-caps with new financing; whereas support for SMEs accounted for 40 % of overall EIB signature volume;

J.

whereas EIB investment has the capacity to support the social sector, including health, education and housing;

K.

whereas in 2020 the EIB approved loans worth EUR 10,23 billion for projects outside the Union, including EUR 2,3 billion in least developed countries (LDCs);

L.

whereas the high-level group of wise persons on the European financial architecture for development released its final report on 7 October 2019, in which it outlined the three following possible options for building the future European Climate and Sustainable Development Bank: a) building on the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development (EBRD) and the external financing activities of the EIB; b) pulling together the external activities of the current EU financial institutions in a new financial institution with mixed ownership; c) transferring all external activities of the EIB into an EIB subsidiary with significant other shareholders; whereas the Council conclusions of December 2019 indicated that only options a) and c) should be explored; whereas the results of feasibility studies on each option, which were supposed to be delivered in autumn 2020, still have not been delivered;

M.

whereas the EIB Group is currently working to develop counterparty alignment guidelines with environmental and sustainability objectives;

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

7.

8.

9.

10.

11.

12.

13.

14.

15.

16.

17.

18.

19.

20.

21.

22.

23.

24.

25.

26.

27.

28.

29.

30.

31.

32.

33.

34.

35.

36.

37.

38.

39.

40.

41.

42.

43.

44.

45.

46.

47.

48.

49.

50.

51.

52.

53.

54.

55.

56.

57.

58.

59.

60.

61.

62.

63.

64.

65.

66.

67.

68.

69.

70.

71.

72.

73.

74.

75.

76.

77.

78.

79.

80.

81.

82.

83.

84.

85.

86.

87.

88.

89.

90.

91.

92.

93.

94.

95.

96.

97.

98.

99.

100.

101.

102.

103.

104.

105.

106.

107.

108.

109.

110.

111.

—

having regard to the European Investment Bank (EIB) Group 2019 Activity Report,

—

having regard to the EIB Group Financial Report 2019 and the EIB Group Statistical Report 2019,

—

having regard to the EIB Group Sustainability Report 2019 and its accompanying EIB Group Carbon Footprint Report,

—

having regard to the Report on the implementation of the EIB Group Transparency Policy in 2019,

—

having regard to the EIB Complaints Mechanism Report 2019,

—

having regard to the Annual Report 2019 on EIB Activity in Africa, the Caribbean, the Pacific, and the Overseas Countries and Territories,

—

having regard to the Audit Committee Annual Report for the year 2019,

—

having regard to the EIB Investment Report 2019/2020: accelerating Europe’s transformation,

—

having regard to the EIB Group Corporate Governance Report 2019,

—

having regard to the Fraud investigations Activity Report 2019,

—

having regard to the EIB Group Operational Plan 2019,

—

having regard to the 2019 EFSI Report from the European Investment Bank to the European Parliament and the Council,

—

having regard to European Court of Auditors (ECA) Special Report no 03/2019 of 29 January 2019 entitled ‘European Fund for Strategic Investments: Action needed to make EFSI a full success’ (1),

—

having regard to ECA Special Report no 12/2020 of 12 May 2020 entitled ‘The European Investment Advisory Hub — Launched to boost investment in the EU, the Hub’s impact remains limited’,

—

having regard to the European Investment Advisory Hub Report 2019,

—

having regard to the Commission’s evaluation of Decision No 466/2014/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 April 2014 granting an EU guarantee to the European Investment Bank against losses under financing operations supporting investment projects outside the Union (SWD(2019)0333), and the executive summary thereof (SWD(2019)0334), published on 13 September 2019,

—

having regard to Articles 3 and 9 of the Treaty on European Union,

—

having regard to Articles 15, 126, 174, 175, 208, 209, 271, 308 and 309 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU), to Protocol No 5 thereto on the Statute of the EIB and to Protocol No 28 thereto on economic, social and territorial cohesion,

—

having regard to the Rules of Procedure of the European Investment Bank,

—

having regard to Regulation (EU) 2015/1017 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 June 2015 on the European Fund for Strategic Investments, the European Investment Advisory Hub and the European Investment Project Portal and amending Regulations (EU) No 1291/2013 and (EU) No 1316/2013 — the European Fund for Strategic Investments (2),

—

having regard to the Commission report of 28 May 2019 on the management of the guarantee fund of the European Fund for Strategic Investments (EFSI) in 2018 (COM(2019)0244),

—

having regard to the Tripartite Agreement of September 2016 between the European Commission, the European Court of Auditors and the European Investment Bank,

—

having regard to its resolution of 10 July 2020 on control of the financial activities of the European Investment Bank — annual report 2018 (3),

—

having regard to Rule 54 of its Rules of Procedure,

—

having regard to the report of the Committee on Budgetary Control (A9-0215/2021),

A.

whereas the EIB is treaty-bound to contribute to EU integration, economic and social cohesion and regional development through dedicated investment instruments such as loans, equities, guarantees, risk-sharing facilities and advisory services;

B.

whereas the primary objective of the EIB, according to Article 309 TFEU, is to contribute to the balanced and steady development of the internal market in the interest of the Union, by facilitating the financing of projects for developing less developed regions, and projects of common interest to several Member States which are of such a size or nature that they cannot be entirely financed by the various means available in the individual Member States;

C.

whereas the EIB Group is treaty-bound to contribute to EU integration and regional development, in accordance with Article 309 TFEU and Protocol 28;

D.

whereas the EU has experienced severe underinvestment since the financial crisis while facing an urgent investment demand to cope with the required green and digital transformation of the economy and society;

E.

whereas the EIB adopted a new Energy Lending Policy in November 2019 and a Climate Bank Roadmap in December 2020;

F.

whereas the EIB is expected to play a key role in financing the European Green Deal through the Sustainable European Investment Plan;

G.

whereas the EIB is expected to support a fair green transition through the Just Transition Mechanism;

H.

whereas public policy goals such as territorial and social cohesion, sustainable development, and tackling (youth) unemployment, poverty and social exclusion should be the core focus and targets of the Bank in its task of contributing to the balanced and steady development of the internal market;

I.

whereas from 2014 to 2019, the Bank provided more than EUR 100 billion of financing in cohesion regions;

J.

whereas the EIB is considering becoming the first Multilateral Development Bank to be aligned with the Paris Agreement and the Council already asked the EIB and the EBRD to present these plans for future discussions;

K.

whereas safeguards against fraud, including tax fraud and money laundering, and against the financing of terrorism risks and corruption have to be duly included in the EIB’s due diligence and contractual conditions;

L.

whereas the EIB plays an important role outside the EU through its external lending activities as the biggest multilateral financial institution in the world;

M.

whereas the EIB plays a central role in the efforts of the EU to ensure the implementation of the Agenda for Sustainable Development;

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

7.

8.

9.

10.

11.

12.

13.

14.

15.

16.

17.

18.

19.

20.

21.

22.

23.

24.

25.

26.

27.

28.

29.

30.

31.

32.

33.

34.

35.

36.

37.

38.

39.

40.

41.

42.

43.

44.

45.

46.

47.

48.

49.

50.

51.

52.

53.

54.

55.

56.

57.

58.

59.

60.

61.

62.

63.

64.

—

having regard to the draft Commission implementing decision authorising the placing on the market of products containing, consisting of or produced from genetically modified soybean DAS-81419-2 pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 of the European Parliament and of the Council (D073421/01,

—

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

—

having regard to the vote of the Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health referred to in Article 35 of Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003, on 17 May 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 (2),

—

having regard to the opinion adopted by the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) on 26 October 2016, and published on 5 December 2016 (3),

—

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

—

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 9 February 2012, Dow Agro Sciences Ltd submitted an application to the national competent authority of the Netherlands for the placing on the market of foods, food ingredients and feed containing, consisting of or produced from genetically modified soybean DAS-81419-2 (‘the GM soybean’), in accordance with Articles 5 and 17 of Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 (‘the application’); whereas the application also concerned the placing on the market of products containing or consisting of the GM soybean for uses other than food and feed, with the exception of cultivation;

B.

whereas, on 26 October 2016, EFSA adopted a favourable opinion, which was published on 5 December 2016, in relation to that application;

C.

whereas the GM soybean has been developed to produce two synthetically derived Bt toxins, Cry1F and Cry1Ac, which confer resistance to certain lepidopteran species, and to be resistant to the herbicide glufosinate (5);

D.

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 (6); whereas, as a consequence, it has to be expected that the GM soybean will be exposed to both higher and repeated doses of glufosinate, and that therefore a higher quantity of residues may be present in the harvest;

E.

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 (7); whereas the approval of glufosinate for use in the Union expired on 31 July 2018 (8);

F.

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;

G.

whereas, due to specific agricultural practices in the cultivation of herbicide-tolerant GM plants, there are specific patterns of applications, exposure, occurrence of specific metabolites and emergence of combinatorial effects that require special attention; whereas those were not considered by EFSA;

H.

whereas toxicological tests for GM authorisations are carried out with isolated Bt toxins; whereas 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 phenomenon 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 (9);

I.

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;

J.

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 (10), meaning that they can increase the allergenicity of other proteins with which they come into contact;

K.

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 glufosinate are known to disturb the microbiome which, for example, may enhance immune reactions in combination with Bt toxins (11);

L.

whereas Member State competent authorities submitted comments to EFSA during the three-month consultation period (12); whereas critical comments include the feedback that the submitted data concerning pest and disease pressure are insufficient for a detailed analysis of ecological interaction of the GM soybean with the environment, that the applicant only refers to substantial unintended losses of the GM soybean during loading and unloading as a route for environmental exposure and that other routes of exposure of the environment by waste materials from processing or use of the soybean (e.g. manure, faeces from animals fed the GM soybean) were not specifically assessed and that the proposed monitoring plan does not address relevant questions for the general surveillance of human and animal health and cannot be regarded as sufficiently elaborated;

M.

whereas the vote on 17 May 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;

N.

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;

O.

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 18 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;

P.

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;

Q.

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 (13);

R.

whereas Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 provides 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 (CBD);

S.

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 (14); 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 (15); whereas authorising the import of the GM soybean 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;

T.

whereas deforestation is a major cause of biodiversity decline; whereas emissions from land-use and land-use change, mostly due to deforestation, are the second biggest cause of climate change after burning fossil fuels (16); whereas the Paris Climate Agreement and the Strategic Plan for Biodiversity 2011-2020 adopted under the UN CBD and the Aichi Biodiversity Targets promote sustainable forest management, protection and restoration efforts (17); whereas UN SDG 15 includes the target of halting deforestation by 2020 (18); whereas forests play a multifunctional role that support the achievement of most UN SDGs (19);

U.

whereas soya production is a key driver of deforestation in the Amazon, Cerrado and Gran Chaco forests in South America; whereas 97 % and 100 % of soya cultivated respectively in Brazil and Argentina is GM soya (20); whereas the vast majority of GM soybeans authorised for cultivation in Brazil and Argentina are also authorised for import into the Union; whereas the GM soybean is already authorised for cultivation in Argentina and Brazil (21);

V.

whereas a recent peer-reviewed scientific study found that the Union is the region with the largest carbon footprint in the world associated with soya imports from Brazil, 13,8 % larger than that of China, the largest soya importer, due to a larger share of emissions from embodied deforestation (22); whereas another recent study found that approximately a fifth of the soya exported to the Union from Brazil’s Amazon and Cerrado regions, mostly for animal feed, may be ‘contaminated with illegal deforestation’ (23);

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

7.

8.

9.

10.

11.

12.

13.

—

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).

—

European Parliament resolution of 11 March 2021 on 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 (Texts adopted, P9_TA(2021)0080).

—

European Parliament resolution of 11 March 2021 on the draft Commission implementing decision authorising the placing on the market of products containing, consisting of or produced from genetically modified maize MZIR098 (SYN-ØØØ98-3), pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 of the European Parliament and of the Council (Texts adopted, P9_TA(2021)0081).

—

having regard to the draft Commission implementing decision authorising the placing on the market of products containing, consisting of or produced from genetically modified soybean DAS-81419-2 × DAS–44406–6, pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 of the European Parliament and of the Council (D073422/01,

—

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

—

having regard to the vote of the Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health referred to in Article 35 of Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003, on 17 May 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 (2),

—

having regard to the opinion adopted by the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) on 15 October 2020, and published on 20 November 2020 (3),

—

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

—

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 2 March 2016, Dow AgroSciences Ltd submitted an application to the national competent authority of the Netherlands in accordance with Articles 5 and 17 of Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003; whereas the application covered the placing on the market of foods, food ingredients and feed containing, consisting of or produced from genetically modified soybean DAS-81419-2 x DAS-44406-6 (‘the GM soybean’); whereas the application also covered the placing on the market of products containing or consisting of the GM soybean for uses other than food and feed, with the exception of cultivation;

B.

whereas, on 15 October 2020, EFSA adopted a favourable opinion, which was published on 20 November 2020, in relation to that application;

C.

whereas the GM soybean has been developed to confer resistance to three groups of herbicides: glyphosate, 2,4 dichlorphenoxyacetic acid (2,4-D) and other related phenoxy herbicides (AAD-12) and glufosinate, as well as resistance to lepidopteran pests through the expression of Bt toxins, Cry1F and Cry1Ac (5);

D.

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 (6); whereas, as a consequence, it has to be expected that the GM soybean will be exposed to both higher and repeated doses of glufosinate, glyphosate and 2-4,D, and that therefore a higher quantity of residues may be present in the harvest;

E.

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;

F.

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 (7); whereas the approval of glufosinate for use in the Union expired on 31 July 2018 (8);

G.

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 driven by the genetic modification itself (9);

H.

whereas, due to specific agricultural practices in the cultivation of herbicide-tolerant GM plants, there are specific patterns of applications, exposure, occurrence of specific metabolites and emergence of combinatorial effects that require special attention; whereas these were not considered by EFSA;

I.

whereas it therefore cannot be concluded that consumption of the GM soybean is safe for human and animal health;

J.

whereas toxicological tests for GM authorisations are carried out with isolated Bt toxins; whereas 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 (10);

K.

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;

L.

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 (11), meaning that they can increase the allergenicity of other proteins with which they come into contact;

M.

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 glufosinate are known to disturb the microbiome which, for example, may enhance immune reactions in combination with Bt toxins (12);

N.

whereas Member State competent authorities submitted comments to EFSA during the three-month consultation period (13); whereas critical comments included that the currently available tools for monitoring horizontal gene transfers in natural environments are inadequate to capture rare events and that the applicant is ignoring the potential for creating genetic variability by the transfer of mutated pat, epsps and cry gene variants or fragments thereof, that the data provided to show the human and animal safety of the GM soybean on the basis of its substantial equivalence to conventional soybean are not conclusive and that the combined environmental effects of cry toxins need further research in order to rule out any risk to the environment;

O.

whereas the vote on 17 May 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;

P.

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;

Q.

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 18 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;

R.

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;

S.

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 (14);

T.

whereas Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 provides 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 (CBD);

U.

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 (15); 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 (16); whereas authorising the import of the GM soybean 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;

V.

whereas deforestation is a major cause of biodiversity decline; whereas emissions from land-use and land-use change, mostly due to deforestation, are the second biggest cause of climate change after burning fossil fuels (17); whereas the Paris Climate Agreement and the Strategic Plan for Biodiversity 2011-2020 adopted under the UN CBD and the Aichi Biodiversity Targets promote sustainable forest management, protection and restoration efforts (18); whereas UN SDG 15 includes the target of halting deforestation by 2020 (19); whereas forests play a multifunctional role that support the achievement of most UN SDGs (20);

W.

whereas soya production is a key driver of deforestation in the Amazon, Cerrado and Gran Chaco forests in South America; whereas 97 % and 100 % of soya cultivated respectively in Brazil and Argentina is GM soya (21); whereas the vast majority of GM soybeans authorised for cultivation in Brazil and Argentina are also authorised for import into the Union; whereas the GM soybean is already authorised for cultivation in Argentina and Brazil (22);

X.

whereas a recent peer-reviewed scientific study found that the Union is the region with the largest carbon footprint in the world associated with soya imports from Brazil, 13,8 % larger than that of China, the largest soya importer, due to a larger share of emissions from embodied deforestation (23); whereas another recent study found that approximately a fifth of the soya exported to the Union from Brazil’s Amazon and Cerrado regions, mostly for animal feed, may be ‘contaminated with illegal deforestation’ (24);

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

7.

8.

9.

10.

11.

12.

13.

—

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).

—

European Parliament resolution of 11 March 2021 on 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 (Texts adopted, P9_TA(2021)0080).

—

European Parliament resolution of 11 March 2021 on the draft Commission implementing decision authorising the placing on the market of products containing, consisting of or produced from genetically modified maize MZIR098 (SYN-ØØØ98-3), pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 of the European Parliament and of the Council (Texts adopted, P9_TA(2021)0081).

—

having regard to the draft Commission implementing decision authorising the placing on the market of products containing, consisting of or produced from genetically modified maize 1507 × MIR162 × MON810 × NK603 and genetically modified maize combining two or three of the single events 1507, MIR162, MON810 and NK603, pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 of the European Parliament and of the Council (D073423/01,

—

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

—

having regard to the vote of the Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health referred to in Article 35 of Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003, on 17 May 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 (2),

—

having regard to the opinion adopted by the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) on 25 November 2020, and published on 13 January 2021 (3),

—

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

—

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 8 December 2015, Pioneer Overseas Corporation (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 maize 1507 × MIR162 × MON810 × NK603 (‘the stacked GM maize’) 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 stacked GM maize for uses other than food and feed, with the exception of cultivation;

B.

whereas, in addition, the application covered the placing on the market of products containing, consisting of or produced from 10 sub-combinations of those single transformation events constituting the stacked GM maize; whereas six sub-combinations of the stacked GM maize have already been authorised; whereas the draft Commission implementing decision covers the remaining four sub-combinations;

C.

whereas, on 25 November 2020, EFSA adopted a favourable opinion, which was published on 13 January 2021;

D.

whereas the stacked GM maize is derived from crossing four genetically modified maize events, and confers tolerance to herbicides containing glufosinate, and glyphosate as well as producing three insecticidal proteins (‘Bt’ or ‘Cry’ proteins): Cry1F, Cry1Ab and Vip3Aa20 which are toxic to certain lepidopteran pests (5);

E.

whereas for the four sub-combinations covered by the draft Commission implementing decision, the applicant did not provide any experimental data;

F.

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 (6); whereas, as a consequence, it has to be expected that the stacked GM maize 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;

G.

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;

H.

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 (7); whereas the approval of glufosinate for use in the Union expired on 31 July 2018 (8);

I.

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 driven by the genetic modification itself (9);

J.

whereas, due to specific agricultural practices in the cultivation of herbicide-tolerant GM plants, there are specific patterns of applications, exposure, occurrence of specific metabolites and emergence of combinatorial effects that require special attention; whereas those were not considered by EFSA;

K.

whereas it therefore cannot be concluded that consumption of the stacked GM maize or its sub-combinations is safe for human and animal health;

L.

whereas, under Regulation (EC) No 396/2005 of the European Parliament and of the Council (10), which aims to ensure a high level of consumer protection, specific maximum residue levels (MRLs) should be set for food and feed produced in third countries, when the use of pesticides results in levels of residues different from those resulting from agricultural practice within the Union; whereas this is indeed the case for imported herbicide-tolerant GM crops because of the increased volumes of herbicides used vis-à-vis non-GM crops;

M.

whereas, however, according to a 2018 EFSA review of the existing MRLs for glyphosate, available data were insufficient to derive MRLs and risk assessment values for glyphosate in relation to GM maize with an EPSPS modification (11); whereas the stacked GM maize has the EPSPS modification (12);

N.

whereas toxicological tests for GM authorisations are carried out with isolated Bt toxins; whereas 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 (13);

O.

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;