11.12.2012   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 380/1

—

having regard to the communication of 14 June 2010 from the Commission to the Council, the European Parliament, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions on an Action Plan on Global Navigation Satellite System (GNSS) Applications (COM(2010)0308),

—

having regard to the Council conclusions of 1 October 2010 on that action plan (14146/2010),

—

having regard to the communication of 6 October 2010 from the Commission to the Council, the European Parliament, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions entitled ‘Europe 2020 Flagship Initiative: Innovation Union’ (COM(2010)0546),

—

having regard to the Commission report of 18 January 2011 to the European Parliament and the Council, constituting the mid-term review of the European satellite radio navigation programmes (COM(2011)0005), which maintains that significant funding is needed in order to complete the satellite radio navigation infrastructure,

—

having regard to Regulation (EC) No 683/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 9 July 2008 on the further implementation of the European satellite navigation programmes (EGNOS and Galileo) (1),

—

having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1321/2004 of 12 July 2004 on the establishment of structures for the management of the European satellite radio-navigation programmes (2),

—

having regard to the Commission’s Green Paper of 8 December 2006 on Satellite Navigation Applications (COM(2006)0769),

—

having regard to Regulation (EU) No 912/2010 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 September 2010 setting up the European GNSS Agency, repealing Council Regulation (EC) No 1321/2004 on the establishment of structures for the management of the European satellite radio navigation programmes and amending Regulation (EC) No 683/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council (3),

—

having regard to its resolution of 29 January 2004 on the communication from the Commission to the European Parliament and the Council on the state of progress of the Galileo programme (4),

—

having regard to Rule 48 of its Rules of Procedure,

—

having regard to the report of the Committee on Transport and Tourism and the opinion of the Committee on Industry, Research and Energy (A7-0084/2011),

A.

whereas GNSS applications are now a central and indispensable feature of activity in every transport sector and whereas their efficient and effective operation makes transport safer, more environmentally friendly and economical,

B.

whereas transport applications account for 20 % of all GNSS applications by volume and 44 % by value, and whereas safety operations – mostly related to transport – account for a further 5 %,

C.

whereas the European Union cannot indefinitely remain dependent for the basic infrastructure required for the operation of GNSS on systems developed initially for other purposes by other countries,

D.

whereas EGNOS is a self-contained system to supplement GPS which is dependent on the availability of GPS signals in order to perform calculation and correction operations; whereas there will be no completely independent GNSS until Galileo has been deployed,

E.

whereas Europe’s EGNOS system is designed to meet substantial and varied present and future demand from industry in Europe and worldwide, for instance as regards transport safety and traceability, in keeping with the aims of Europe’s new, more proactive industrial policy, and whereas it is also compatible with and supplements GPS and the significantly more accurate Galileo system,

F.

whereas the commercial transport applications of GNSS and Galileo represent a growing global market which should be secured as far as is possible for the economic benefit of European industry and for the creation of skilled jobs,

G.

whereas GNSS will play a vital role in supporting and promoting the use of Intelligent Transport Systems (ITSs),

H.

whereas the development of GNSS applications and services is essential in order to ensure that the infrastructure investment which Galileo represents is fully exploited and that the Galileo system is developed to its full capacity,

I.

whereas investment in this sector has implications for all EU policies, and whereas its expansion and implementation will have a direct impact on the realisation of the EU 2020 Strategy and from the point of view of developing the potential of the European market in GNSS applications and services so as to create jobs and enhance Europe’s competitiveness,

J.

whereas the GNSS and Galileo projects bring considerable added value to European industrial policy and whereas it is essential to ensure their success,

1.

Welcomes the Commission communication on an Action Plan on Global NavigationSatellite System (GNSS) Applications and the series of specific sectoral, regulatory and horizontal actions proposed therein;

2.

Agrees with the Commission that a targeted action plan is, at this point, the best option for giving a further impetus to the development and application of EGNOS and Galileo, particularly in the transport field; stresses that satellite navigation systems should ensure interoperability between different systems (including conventional systems) and should also allow intermodal use in both passenger and freight transport services;

3.

Notes that, of the 15 section-specific proposals in the action plan, nine relate directly to transport and most of the others are required in order to underpin the relevant transport applications;

4.

Calls on the Commission to ensure swift certification of EGNOS for civil aviation through the competent authorities;

5.

Agrees that actions to promote the use of EGNOS and Galileo in civil aviation are a strategic requirement for the implementation of SESAR (Single European Sky ATM Research), especially as regards its use for landing procedures and at small airports;

6.

Regrets that all of the European Union is not at this time covered by EGNOS and calls for EGNOS system coverage to be extended to southern, eastern and south-eastern Europe as a matter of priority, so as to enable the system to be used throughout Europe in every transport sector, and stresses the importance of ensuring that its coverage extends to both the MEDA countries and the Middle East and Africa;

7.

Underlines the importance of GNSS in developing ITSs; points out that ITSs can provide more efficient, cleaner and safer transport solutions, and that proper implementation of a number of ITS services requires fully operational GNSS systems;

8.

Endorses the view that EGNOS and Galileo can make an important contribution to road traffic management and that an awareness campaign in that sector is required in order to increase the use made of the opportunities it provides in relation to fee collection, eCall, online booking of safe parking sites for trucks, and real-time tracking to contribute to safer and more environmentally friendly road transport;

9.

Calls therefore on the Commission to bring forward the necessary regulatory proposals to deliver GNSS added value for safety in all forms of transport, particularly on the roads, and to help improve freight transport efficiency;

10.

Urges the Commission to intensify industrial cooperation with non-EU countries with a view to promoting the development and interoperability of EGNOS and Galileo applications and services;

11.

Agrees that the Commission should make a careful appraisal of the need to amend existing legislation on digital tachographs in order to ensure that the opportunities for positioning and speed information offered by GNSS are used appropriately;

12.

Agrees that GNSS can do much to enhance the safety and efficiency of shipping and that the Commission should take steps to increase awareness and improve knowledge of possible GNSS applications in the maritime and inland waterway sectors and to have EGNOS-based applications accepted at IMO and ICAO levels;

13.

Supports the Commission’s intention of launching campaigns to raise awareness among the various stakeholders so as to give European industry the confidence to invest in the commercial potential of the EU’s satellite navigation projects;

14.

Calls on the Commission to efficiently implement the strong awareness-raising measures set out in the Action Plan, in order to secure the extensive use of EGNOS in Europe, in all application areas, and thus ensure more complex approaches;

15.

Insists that the Commission should propose, in the context of the budgetary procedure and the future multiannual financial framework (MFF), steps to ensure adequate levels of funding for GNSS research and development, as well as for implementation; stresses that EU funding in the transport sector is already sparse and that additional funding for GNSS should therefore not result in less funding for other priorities in the Common Transport Policy area; renews its call, regarding both this specific project and similar projects, such as the TEN-Ts, for the Commission to submit a multiannual financing proposal going beyond the period of the MFF, in order to provide a stable and reliable financial framework for more ambitious European projects whose scope exceeds the present bounds;

16.

Calls on the Commission to consider whether revenue from commercial Galileo activities might be assigned to the EU budget;

17.

Calls on the Commission to inform Parliament how the annual maintenance cost, estimated at EUR 800 million, will be financed once Galileo has become operational;

18.

Calls on the Commission to come forward with a comprehensive funding strategy which in addition to adequate EU and Member State contributions, could include, inter alia, co-ordinated tax incentives, simplified grant application procedures, and arrangements that could channel venture capital to SMEs and facilitate the development and marketing of EGNOS and Galileo applications, in cooperation with the European Investment Bank and the European Investment Fund;

19.

Calls on the Commission to ensure that the EUR 100 m likely to be underspent in payment appropriations for research within the Seventh Framework Programme is made available for the development of GNSS applications;

20.

Urges the Commission to examine how simplified procedures might ensure more efficient and transparent disbursement of funding in support of research in the field of GNSS-enabled transport for all, paying special attention to the needs of disabled persons and focusing in particular on SMEs;

21.

Calls on the Commission to help SMEs gain access more easily to European funding aimed at encouraging innovation related to GNSS applications, especially under the seventh and eighth framework programmes;

22.

Urges the Commission to examine what data protection concerns might arise with the use of EGNOS applications and services and to do all it can to dispel these;

23.

Notes the need for investment in research into GNSS-specific applications and services, with particular regard to the special requirements of disabled people, since such investment is of decisive importance for the proper development and use of GNSS services;

24.

Calls on the Commission to encourage initiatives aimed at developing sector-specific service centres, in particular for the maritime sector;

25.

Regrets that the shortage of funds allocated to research and innovation for applications based on EGNOS or Galileo is considerably delaying technological progress and the growth of industrial capacity, as well as environmentally effective implementation, in the European Union and therefore urges the Commission to introduce arrangements enabling small and medium-sized enterprises to gain access to funding more readily;

26.

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

11.12.2012   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 380/5

—

having regard to its decision of 20 October 2010 on the revision of the framework agreement on relations between the European Parliament and the European Commission (1) (‘the Framework Agreement’),

—

having regard to its resolution of 17 June 2010 on the EU-US air agreement (2),

—

having regard to its resolution of 5 May 2010 on the launch of negotiations for Passenger Name Record (PNR) agreements with the United States, Australia and Canada (3),

—

having regard to its resolution of 25 April 2007, concerning the establishment of a European Common Aviation Area (4),

—

having regard to its resolution of 14 March 2007 on the conclusion of the Air Transport Agreement between the European Community and its Member States, on the one hand, and the United States of America, on the other hand (5),

—

having regard to its resolution of 17 January 2006 on developing the agenda for the Community’s external aviation policy (6),

—

having regard to the Commission communication entitled ‘Developing the agenda for the Community’s external aviation policy’ (COM(2005)0079),

—

having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union and in particular Article 218 thereof,

—

having regard to Rule 48 of its Rules of Procedure,

—

having regard to the report of the Committee on Transport and Tourism (A7-0079/2011),

A.

whereas, until the entry into force of the Treaty of Lisbon, Parliament was only consulted on the conclusion of international air agreements,

B.

whereas Parliament’s consent is now required for agreements covering fields to which the ordinary legislative procedure applies,

C.

whereas, when the Commission is negotiating agreements between the Union and third countries or international organisations, Parliament shall ‘be immediately and fully informed at all stages of the procedure’ (7),

D.

whereas the Framework Agreement should ensure that the Institutions’ powers and prerogatives are exercised as effectively and transparently as possible;

E.

whereas, in that Framework Agreement, the Commission has committed itself to complying with the principle of the equal treatment of Parliament and the Council in respect of legislative and budgetary matters, in particular access to meetings and the forwarding of contributions or other information,

1.

Considers that comprehensive air agreements with neighbouring countries or significant global partners can deliver substantial benefits to passengers, freight operators and airlines, by means both of market access and of regulatory convergence to promote fair competition, including with regard to state subsidies and social and environmental standards;

2.

Recognises that horizontal agreements, aligning existing bilateral agreements with Community law, are necessary to ensure legal certainty and provide additional benefits in terms of simplification and the assurance that all Union airlines will enjoy the same rights;

3.

Points out that air safety standards are of fundamental importance for passengers, crew members and the aviation industry in general, and therefore supports the conclusion of air safety agreements with countries that have a significant aircraft manufacturing industry, given the cost savings and consistent high standards that can be achieved by minimising the duplication of assessments, tests and controls;

4.

Regrets that the Council has yet to grant the Commission a mandate to negotiate a comprehensive air agreement with important trading partners such as the People’s Republic of China and India; considers that this failure is becoming increasingly harmful to Union interests, particularly given the rapid growth of these economies;

5.

Points out the absence of important countries, such as Japan and the Russian Federation, in the Commission’s latest list of ongoing international air agreements;

6.

Expresses its concerns about the ongoing issue of Siberian overflights; calls on the Commission to make all the necessary efforts, including pursuing this issue in the context of Russia’s WTO accession negotiations, to avoid any distortion of competition between EU airlines;

7.

Emphasises that, in each negotiation, a judgment must be made about the benefits of an early agreement as compared with delaying in search of a more ambitious outcome;

8.

Points out that, when assessing comprehensive agreements that are presented for consent, Parliament will seek to apply a consistent set of standards; notes, in particular, that in carrying out that assessment Parliament will focus on the extent to which: restrictions on market access and investment opportunities are relaxed in a balanced manner; incentives are provided to maintain and enhance social and environmental standards; adequate safeguards are provided for data protection and privacy; mutual recognition of safety and security standards are included; and a high level of passenger rights is ensured;

9.

Considers that worldwide standards for data protection and privacy are urgently required, and that the criteria set out by Parliament in its resolution of 5 May 2010 provide an appropriate model for such an agreement; points out that the Union should play a pioneering role in the development of such worldwide standards;

10.

Draws attention to the growing importance of the aviation sector’s contribution to global warming, and considers that agreements should include a commitment to work together, in the framework of the International Civil Aviation Organisation, to reduce aircraft emissions, together with an objective of enhancing technical cooperation in the fields of climate science (CO2 and other climate-relevant emissions into the atmosphere), research and technology development and fuel efficiency;

11.

Emphasises that various aspects of aviation regulation, including noise restrictions and night flight limitations, should be determined at local level, in full compliance with the principles of fair competition and subsidiarity; asks the Commission to coordinate these issues at the European level, taking into account the national legislation of Member States and the ‘balanced approach’ principle, as defined by the International Civil Aviation Organisation;

12.

Calls on the Commission to use air agreements to promote compliance with relevant international legislation on social rights, in particular the labour standards enshrined in the fundamental conventions of the International Labour Organization (ILO 1930-1999), the OECD Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises (1976, revised 2000) and the 1980 Rome Convention on the Law Applicable to Contractual Obligations;

13.

Notes that, in the case of safety agreements, criteria include: full mutual recognition of certification practices and procedures; exchange of safety data; joint inspections; increased regulatory cooperation; and technical level consultations so as to resolve issues before they trigger the dispute settlement mechanism;

14.

Stresses that, in order to be able to take its decision on whether or not to grant consent at the end of the negotiations, Parliament needs to follow the process from the beginning; considers that it is also in the interests of the other Institutions that any concerns of sufficient importance to call into question Parliament’s readiness to grant consent be identified and addressed at an early stage;

15.

Recalls that the 2005 Framework Agreement already committed the Commission to provide early and clear information to Parliament during the preparation, conduct and conclusion of international negotiations; notes that the revised Framework Agreement of October 2010 states, in particular, that Parliament should receive, from the outset, regularly and, where necessary, on a confidential basis, full details of the procedure in progress at all stages of the negotiations;

16.

Expects the Commission to provide its responsible committee with information about the intention to propose negotiations with a view to concluding and amending international air agreements, and with the draft negotiating directives, draft negotiating texts and the document to be initialled, together with other relevant documents and information; expects Parliament’s role in relation to any further amendments of an international air agreement to be explicitly stipulated in the agreement;

17.

Points out that, pursuant to Article 24 of the Framework Agreement, the information mentioned above must be forwarded to Parliament in such a way that, if necessary, it can deliver an opinion; strongly urges the Commission to report back to Parliament on how its opinions are taken into account;

18.

Recognises that, when Parliament receives sensitive information about ongoing negotiations, it has an obligation to ensure that confidentiality is maintained;

19.

Notes that Parliament’s Rules of Procedure allow plenary ‘on the basis of a report from the committee responsible [to] adopt recommendations and require them to be taken into account before the conclusion of the international agreement under consideration’ (Rule 90(4));

20.

Recognises that air agreements often give a substantial role to a joint committee, particularly with regard to regulatory convergence; accepts that, in many cases, this a more flexible and effective means of decision-making than seeking to include such points in the agreement itself; underlines, nevertheless, the importance of Parliament receiving full and timely information about the work of the various joint committees;

21.

Calls on the Commission, with a view to maintaining the flow of information, to submit reports to Parliament regularly, and no less frequently than every three years, analysing the strengths and weaknesses of existing agreements; points out that this would enable Parliament to assess future agreements more effectively;

22.

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

11.12.2012   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 380/9

—

having regard to the Treaty on European Union (TEU) and the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU), in particular the articles relating to research,

—

having regard to the decision No. 1982/2006/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 December 2006 concerning the 7th Framework Programme of the European Community (or European Union, since the Treaty of Lisbon) for research, technological development and demonstration activities (2007-2013) (1),

—

having particular regard to Article 7 of the above decision on monitoring, evaluation and review of FP7,

—

having regard to Article 182(2) TFEU on adaptation of the framework programme as the situation changes,

—

having regard to the Commission communication of 9 February 2011 entitled ‘Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions on the Response to the Report of the Expert Group on the Interim Evaluation of the 7th Framework Programme for Research, Technological Development and Demonstration Activities and to the Report of the Expert Group on the Interim Evaluation of the Risk-Sharing Finance Facility’ (COM(2011)0052),

—

having regard to the conclusions of the Interim Evaluation of the Seventh Framework Programme for Research Activities (FP7), including the risk-sharing finance facility, by the 3074th EU Council meeting on competitiveness (Internal Market, Industry, Research and Space) of 9 March 2011,

—

having regard to the final report of the Expert Group ‘Interim Evaluation of the 7th Framework Programme’ of 12 November 2010,

—

having regard to its resolution of 11 November 2010 on simplifying the implementation of the Research Framework Programmes (2),

—

having regard to the report of the Expert Group ‘Evaluation of the Sixth Framework Programmes for Research and Technological Development 2002-2006’ of February 2009,

—

having regard to the report of the Committee of Experts ‘Towards a world class Frontier Research Organisation - Review of the European Research Council’s Structures and Mechanisms’ of 23 July 2009,

—

having regard to the report of the Group of Independent Experts ‘Mid-Term Evaluation of the Risk-Sharing Financial Facility (RSFF)’ of 31 July 2010,

—

having regard to the report of the Committee of Experts ‘First Interim Evaluation of the Innovative Medicines Initiative Joint Undertaking’ of 20 December 2010,

—

having regard to the report of the Committee of Experts ‘First Interim Evaluation of the ARTEMIS and ENIAC Joint Technology Initiatives’ of 30 July 2010,

—

having regard to the independent panel report ‘Interim Evaluation of the Ambient Assisted Living Joint Programme’ of December 2010,

—

having regard to the opinion of the Committee of the Regions, adopted at its plenary session held on 27 and 28 January 2011, on simplifying the implementation of the Research Framework Programmes,

—

having regard to its resolution of 20 May 2010 on the implementation of the synergies of research and innovation earmarked Funds in Regulation (EC) No 1080/2006 concerning the European Fund of Regional Development and the Seventh Framework Programme for Research and Development in cities and regions as well as in the Member States and the Union (3),

—

having regard to Special Report No 9/2007 of the European Court of Auditors of 22 November 2007 concerning ‘Evaluating the EU Research and Technological Development (RTD) framework programmes – could the Commission's approach be improved?’,

—

having regard to Special Report No 8/2009 of the European Court of Auditors on networks of excellence and integrated projects in Community research policy,

—

having regard to Special Report No 2/2010 of the European Court of Auditors on the effectiveness of the Design Studies and Construction of New Infrastructures support schemes under the Sixth Framework Programme for Research,

—

having regard to the opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee of 15 September 2010 on the Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions ‘Simplifying the implementation of the research framework programmes’,

—

having regard to Rule 48 of its Rules of Procedure,

—

having regard to the report of the Committee on Industry, Research and Energy and the opinion of the Committee on Budgets (A7-0160/2011),

A.

whereas the 7th Framework Programme of the European Community for research, technological development and demonstration activities (FP7) is the largest research support instrument in the world and represents the primary tool of European Union research policy,

B.

whereas it is necessary to allow for developments resulting from the mid-term review of FP7 in the light of the numerous changes that have taken place since it was negotiated and adopted in 2006 (new institutions, new political bodies, economic crisis), and also given the scale of the financial sums available between now and when it ends,

C.

whereas the Treaty of Lisbon introduces achievement of the European research area as a specific medium of European policy,

D.

whereas the Europe 2020 strategy makes research and innovation central to smart, sustainable and inclusive growth,

E.

whereas research is the process of converting economic power into knowledge, while innovation is the reverse process of transforming knowledge into economic power,

F.

whereas the EU and its Member States must give themselves the means to respond jointly to the major societal, economic, environmental, demographic and ethical challenges facing the peoples of Europe, such as demographic ageing, health, food supply, sustainable development, the major environmental challenges etc., and whereas the resulting solutions must motivate individuals to shoulder greater responsibility for their actions,

G.

whereas investment in RDI is the best possible long-term response to the current economic and financial crisis, enabling the EU to become a society with skills that are competitive at world level,

H.

whereas Europe is competing with economic powers such as China, India, Brazil, Australia, United States of America, and Russia, and whereas our capacity to unite and coordinate our efforts, particularly in research, between the European Union and the Member States very largely determines our economic competitiveness, and hence the possibility of financing our social ambitions and meeting our commitments concerning the wellbeing of Europe's citizens and the protection of the environment,

I.

whereas R&D expenditures in Europe is low compared with other global powers, among others due to a lack of private investment and innovation friendly framework conditions; whereas the attractiveness of FP7 for the industrial sector and the use of research for the benefit of the economy are thus not fully demonstrated; whereas beyond the sums involved, there is also a clear need for better coordination and co-financing between the Union, the Member States, and the regions, with full respect for the specificities and the ethical options made by the Member States,

J.

whereas only a relatively low level of public investment in RDI is the subject of European cooperation,

K.

whereas a better relationship between the academic, research and industrial worlds is essential for research results to be better converted into products and services generating economic growth and benefits for the society as a whole,

L.

whereas FP7 should be modelled on the same general principles as European Research Area (ERA),

M.

whereas, of the EUR 54,6 billion in the programme, 25.8 billion have been committed over the first four years (2007 to 2010), i.e. 6,5 billion a year on average, and 28,8 billion remain to be committed over the last three years (2011 to 2013), i.e. 9,6 billion a year on average,

N.

whereas the years 2011 to 2013 are fragile years, requiring immediate particular attention with regard to competitiveness and social cohesion factors, of which research and innovation are essential components,

O.

whereas complexity of administrative management, considerable red tape, bureaucracy, lack of transparency, inefficiency and unjustified delays remain major handicaps for FP7 and provide important disincentives for researchers, industry and SMEs from participating in the programme and therefore achieving a quantum leap in simplification should be one of the highest priorities,

P.

whereas the target of participation of 40 % women researchers in FP7 is ambitious and the right target; whereas the current female participation of researchers in FP7 research projects is a disappointingly 25,5 %,

1.

Welcomes the quality of the expert reports on the interim evaluation of FP7 and of the risk-sharing finance facility, covering the quality of activities, implementation and the results obtained, despite the general nature of the remit given to the expert groups; points out, however, that the evaluation did not cover the overall picture made up of the actions of the Member States and those of the Union;

2.

Fails to understand the delay on the part of the Commission, which published its communication on 9 February 2011 although it had an obligation to do so no later than 2010, and regrets the weakness of the Commission communication in view of current challenges, particularly the current economic crisis situation, the sums remaining to be committed under the FP7 etc.;

3.

Asks the Commission to follow up in particular the ten specific recommendations made by the expert group;

4.

Underlines the relative nature of the conclusions drawn by the interim evaluation, seeing that the majority of FP7 funds have not yet been allocated, projects that have been initiated are still under way and others funded under the FP7 will run beyond its term;

5.

Takes the view that, despite the fact that Europe continues to lag behind the US and is losing the lead it had over the emerging economies, the results achieved by FP7 tend to demonstrate a European added-value with regard to R&D in Europe; however, calls on Commission to step up its efforts in communicating the successful results to Member States, the scientific community and European citizens;

6.

Deplores the lack of a method for evaluating how far projects funded by FP7 have advanced scientific knowledge;

7.

Calls on the Commission and the Member States to boost up their communication efforts regarding FP7 (including through the use of new technologies, such as smart research information services), facilitating access to information on participation, announcing forthcoming research challenges, and disseminating of research findings; supports the Commission's initiatives to promote open access to the results of publicly funded research, where relevant and feasible in relation to intellectual property rights;

8.

Welcomes the level of participation and excellence in project selection; regrets, however, that the success rate under this programme generally remains quite low and is a disincentive to apply, particularly for SMEs, which play an important role in turning research results in products and services; believes that simplification of administrative and financial rules, as well as projects and procedures that better fit SMEs' needs could improve this situation;

9.

Notes that an ever-growing number of objectives and themes covered and diversification of instruments has widened the scope of FP7 and reduced its capacity to serve a specific European objective;

10.

Approves the strengthening of the ‘Cooperation’ specific programme, which remains relevant given current scientific and technological challenges; stresses its role in developing RDI critical mass of a kind not achievable at national/regional level, thus demonstrating European added-value; believes that collaborative transnational research should remain a priority; recommends implementation of the ‘Future and Emerging Technologies’ scheme and extension of the use of ‘roadmaps’ to all thematic areas; asks for more flexibility in setting call themes and financial thresholds and ceilings, making a distinction between large and small projects; underlines that the current Cooperation programme is too narrow and the topics often too specific to address grand societal challenges; recommends that the next framework programme provides for calls with a broader thematic scope;

11.

Stresses that wider interdisciplinary perspectives will also be needed to tackle the growing societal challenges effectively; underlines that social sciences and humanities play a vital role in answering the grand challenges that the EU is facing; regrets that the very specific and narrow calls in the Cooperation chapter on socio-economic sciences and humanities makes it very difficult to make new and innovation research in this area;

12.

Proposes that, in order to meet the EU 2020 strategy objectives, research supported by FP7 be focussed towards addressing EU’s most pressing challenges within the sectors identified in the ‘Cooperation’ chapter of FP7: health (including clinical and preventive research and medical technologies), food and biotechnology (including food safety), ICT, nanosciences and nanotechnologies, energy (including energy efficiency, smart grids, renewable energy, CCS, the SET-PLAN and the use of biogas), environment (including climate change, water, soil, woods and forests), sustainable transport, socio-economic sciences and humanities, space and security;

13.

Proposes the reinforcement of collaborative research such as the activities funded in the specific programme ‘Cooperation’; calls for the possibility of forming smaller and medium sized projects and partner consortia that allow efficient coordination, in addition to strengthening scientific excellence; stresses that the collaborative research approach must remain the core element of the Framework Programme;

14.

Welcomes, in the ‘Ideas’ chapter, promising results obtained by the European Research Council (ERC) and its role aimed at enhancing the visibility and attractiveness of European research; regrets the lack of private sector participation and involvement in the ERC; calls on the Commission to increase funding for the ERC (which will also increase the success rate), as well as to assess the options for further improving its structures and mechanisms, including making the ERC an independent legal entity with decision-making power, directly responsible for its own scientific strategy and administrative management, which could also be used as a pilot for greater independence of other funding agencies for R&D and innovation; supports greater transparency in the process of the appointment of the Scientific Council and in the composition of the review panels; recommends that the ERC retains a strong support for individual excellent scientists; however, calls on the ERC to also provide a possibility for support of team-based projects, always provided that such projects are formed through bottom-up processes;

15.

Supports, within the framework of the ‘People’ chapter, the Marie Curie Actions, which are of great value to researchers in their career, secure individualised bottom-up research within a very broad range of topics, put an end to the ‘brain drain’, make research careers more attractive to very promising young researchers both from Europe and third countries; with a view to the relatively high oversubscription, recommends that the Marie Curie programme for mobility is continued with extended resources within FP7 to further enhance the possibilities for mobility of researchers and PhD students (including between academia and private sector or between Member States, for example by introducing a research voucher scheme with money for research following the researchers); however believes that within the Marie Currie Actions there is also room for simplification within the number of actions; regrets that most of the scientific work carried out within EU is still done under precarious working conditions;

16.

Considers that in order to increase the human resources dedicated to research in Europe, it is necessary to make professional careers in this field more attractive by eliminating administrative barriers and recognising merit and training time and work at any research centre; to this end, encourages the Commission and Member States to establish a common system to evaluate the researchers’ excellence and career, as well as to assess universities’ performance; reaffirms the importance of investing in education, training and skills development and complementing the linkages between education, research and innovation;

17.

Voices concerns regarding the heterogeneous nature of the objectives of the ‘Capacities’ chapter and the difficulties that result, notably with regard to international cooperation and the progress on the major Research Infrastructures (ESFRI); considers that there is a clear need for actions in favour of SMEs and innovative SMEs and calls on the Commission to at least maintain these actions and the budget associated with them, while taking steps to improve their implementation; considers that the ERA-NET and ERA-NET+ ‘Infrastructure’ projects and the initiatives based on Article 185 fulfil their role aimed at structuring the European Research Area (ERA);

18.

Acknowledges that ‘Joint Technological Initiatives’ (JTIs) assist the competitiveness of European industry; regrets the legal and administrative obstacles (legal personality, financial rules and in some cases also intellectual property), which may discourage a large number of key research actors and SMEs from participating; also regrets the heterogeneous governance and legal structures and the high operating costs specific to start-up of JTIs; calls on Member States to fulfil their obligations once they have agreed to co-fund JTIs; calls on the Commission to simplify rules and funding rates for similar categories of participants in all JTIs following the FP7 model, including national co-funding; asks to be more closely involved in the political oversight of these instruments in particular for ensuring an adequate balance of participation and of activities; underlies that these initiatives should not lead to the outsourcing of public funding and should remain within the legal boundaries concerning state aid and pre-competition;

19.

Asks the Commission to give Parliament clear and detailed information on the functioning of JTIs, stating in each case their legal status, the people who make up the governing board, and activities undertaken;

20.

Recognises the more systematic use of overly open calls for proposals (bottom-up approach) to ensure a long-term capacity for research; stresses the need, however, to maintain the balance between the two approaches (bottom-up and top-down), which each meet specific needs; stresses the need to consult and work together with the researchers, the industry and civil society actors, in order to set the research agendas;

21.

Believes that given, notably, the EU 2020 strategy and the objective of ‘intelligent growth’, it is necessary to identify common research areas among those which appear most promising in terms of concrete applications enabling the highest extent of sharing in an ethical context; points out that such areas could form part of a common research platform financed by the EU and supported by a common network for data exchange, which should be treated as being of major importance and priority interest;

22.

Deplores the fact that research funding is still very fragmented in Europe, with multiple sources of funding from the Member States and the Community applying different priorities, evaluation criteria, definitions and procedures, leading to unnecessary overlap, confusion, error and lack of critical mass; asks the Commission and the Council to put the issues of cooperation and coordination between the various EU and national programmes at the top of the agenda; calls on the Commission to carry out an analysis to improve the link between European and national actions, including possible coordination in the phases of formulating calls for proposals and evaluating projects, as well as the identification of national rules or laws that hinder or complicate the financial management of international research cooperation projects; asks that calls for proposals, including those of July 2011, be issued in consultation with the Member States, not duplicating or competing with national initiatives but complementing them; in this respect, considers that the ERA-Net scheme should be strengthened as a tool to support excellence and the development of criteria for quality indicators which constitutes the basis for coordination between programmes or joint ventures; suggests that FP7 should complement the efforts of actors managing national programmes involved in joint programming in order to move the RDFPs away from project management thinking towards programme management thinking, but without neglecting the management of small projects; believes that for Joint Programming to be successful, projects should be selected on the basis of excellence, tailored to the characteristics of each sector, the coordinating role of the Commission should be strengthened, and participating Member States should honour their financial commitments; asks that the last three years of FP7 be devoted to helping structure the European Research Area;

23.

Is sceptical about the fact that it is frequently only possible to fund one - and only one - proposal per call, which leads to a waste of the resources invested in preparing and evaluating excellent proposals and the non-funding of some excellent ideas; calls on the Commission to explore the possibility of funding excellent, non-selected research proposals, through an additional research budget (matching research funds) to which Member States, regional and structural funds and the private sector will contribute;

24.

Underlines the importance of the direct actions of the Joint Research Centre and their contribution to sustainable development, competitiveness and the security and safety of nuclear energy;

25.

Recognises the importance of the BSI (Black Sea Interconnection) project in terms of creating a regional research and education network in the greater Black Sea area and linking it to GEANT, and calls on the Commission to continue to support research projects in the BSR (Black Sea Region) such as HP-SEE, SEE-GRID, SCENE, CAREN and BSRN;

26.

Calls on the Commission to ensure, in the context of FP7 and the future financial framework, an appropriate level of R&D funding for Global Navigation Satellite System (GNSS) applications and services;

27.

Stresses that all research conducted within the FP7 must be conducted in accordance with fundamental rights as expressed in the European Charter; therefore, strongly urges the Commission to immediately make all documents related to INDECT (a research project funded by the FP7 aimed at developing an automated observation system that constantly monitors web sites, surveillance cameras and individual computer systems) available and to define a clear and strict mandate for the research goal, the application and the end users of INDECT; stresses that before a thorough investigation on the possible impacts on fundamental rights is made, INDECT should not receive funding from the FP7;

28.

Stresses that industry’s participation rates do not appear any higher than in previous FPs, particularly under the ‘Cooperation’ chapter; thus calls on the Commission to carry out a detailed analysis of the Programme’s capacity to better leverage private sector investment;

29.

Believes that the procedures of competitive calls for additional partners should be based on the basic premise that the companies and researchers involved have the deepest knowledge of the project and which partner it needs best and that, rather than forcing them to follow the ranking lists of the evaluation experts, the Commission should evaluate a written justification of the consortium’s choice;

30.

Welcomes the results of FP7 in favour of SMEs, as regards both the SME-support measures in the ‘Capacity’ chapter, the ‘Eurostars’ programme and the 15 % target set in the ‘Cooperation’ chapter; in order to further facilitate SME participation, calls for issuing more non-thematic calls for SMEs, opening more often a call for proposals for SME specific activities (or having a permanently open call), further simplifying the rules (including the rules for the ‘Eurostars’ programme) and shortening the time-to-grant periods; recommends that SMEs are more actively involved in the process of exploiting the achieved results;

31.

Believes that the participation of young scientists in project teams in the context of collaborative research activities by industry and science organisation should be incentivated; calls for the Commission and the Member States to take specific measures designed to increase the participation of young researchers in the framework programmes; calls on the Commission to use the mid-term review of the Seventh Framework Programme to promote the employment of young scientists by designing the rules and modes of participation in such a way as to devote a substantial portion of funding for hiring young researchers;

32.

Notes with concern the relatively modest participation of certain Member States in FP7, which does not contribute to the territorial cohesion and a balanced development in Europe; is of the opinion that a better coordination, coherence and synergy between FP7 and the Structural and Cohesion Funds, as well as a better use of the People programme, could improve the participation of under-represented Member States; believes that by using the Structural Funds to strengthen research infrastructure and foster capacity building in research and innovation, all Member States can be enabled to reach a higher level of excellence (stairway to excellence); welcomes therefore the setting up of the Synergies Expert Group (SEG), set up to find synergies between FP7, the Structural Funds and the CIP; stresses, however, the absolute need to distinguish between criteria for FP7 and Structural Funds, as the principle of excellence (under the sole management and coordination by the Commission) should prevail when allocating FP7 funding in order to ensure maximum added value to RDI in Europe; points out with satisfaction that for the period 2007-2013 within the Cohesion Funds EUR 86 billion is allocated in support for innovation (25 % of the total amount), of which the allocation for core research and technological development amounts to EUR 50 billion, equal to the total budget of FP7; stresses the importance of the territorial dimension of R&D, taking the specific needs and capabilities of the territories into account when devising policies (‘smart specialisation’); therefore, sees the involvement of regional and local authorities as crucial in enhancing the research and innovation capacity of their region; recommends that the present unspent funds remaining in the EU budget up until the end of 2013 and those programmed for the period 2014-2020 be even more strongly orientated towards innovation, science and research, both in terms of human resources, development and infrastructure;

33.

Welcomes the steady but timid progress towards a more balanced gender participation in FP7, since diversity is important for creativity and innovation; points out that female researchers tend to work on smaller, less profiled research projects and tasks and that a highly problematic ‘glass ceiling’ seems to exist for female researchers, leading to a decrease of the share of female researchers with seniority, as also indicated by the low number of female researchers selected for the ERC advanced investigator grant; agrees that measures to boost female participation should be reinforced throughout project lifecycles (with particular attention to flexible working hours, improved child-care facilities, social security provisions and parental leave) and that the Commission should reinvigorate its approach to promoting female scientists and should aim to galvanise Member States to address gender gaps; underlines that the 40 % target for female participation in the Programme and Advisory Committees should be sensitively implemented; calls on the Commission to establish a cross-cutting committee to monitor and advice on the representation of female researchers and to develop a Gender Action Plan as recommended by the FP6 Ex Post Evaluation; calls on universities and EU Institutions to promote science as an interesting field for both sexes from early stages of education on, by promoting female researchers as role models;

34.

Calls for recognition at regional level of the important role played by intermediary organisations (such as chambers of commerce, the Enterprise Europe Network and regional innovation agencies) as a link between innovative SMEs in each region and the Commission;

35.

Believes that the programmes should be opened up to international partners; highlights that the basic principle should be that all programmes should be open for financing also of foreign groupings (given specific competencies); rejects the notion that the Commission would be better placed than researchers to determine the choice of cooperation partners;

36.

Takes the view that FP7 should affirm its international cooperation priorities; is of the opinion that the choice of target countries and subjects for international cooperation actions must be made in consultation with the Member States in order to ensure complementarities of these actions with all parties involved; reaffirms, nevertheless, that attention must be given to the cooperation with developing countries;

37.

Takes the view that the level of financing of FP7, which is credible and necessary, must at least be maintained in order to meet the great societal challenges and recalls that investment in RDI is long-term investment and is key to achieving the objectives of the Europe 2020 strategy;

38.

Believes that FP7 spending, as well as the overall research orientation, should be aligned as far as possible with the overarching policy objectives set out in the Europe 2020 strategy; believes that scientific progress on grand challenges requires medium to long-term commitment of funding instruments that support both fundamental research and collaboration with industry and other external partners;

39.

Highlights the pivotal role of research infrastructures and stresses that their development and financing (based on the ESFRI-list and including the provision of laboratory equipment and instruments and their maintenance) should be better coordinated and co-financed between FP7, EIB instruments, the Structural Funds and national and regional policies; believes that duplication of research infrastructure in different Member States should be avoided and that an open and excellence-based access to research infrastructures should be enhanced; calls for efforts to boost the financing of research infrastructures within FP7, especially where there is the greatest scope for EU added value;

40.

Considers that the beneficiaries of research infrastructure financing should clearly justify their role and their use of the equipment, laboratories and research or technical staff; to this end, believes that a monitoring and inspection system which verify compliance of the agreements should be created;

41.

Calls on the Member States and the EU to meet their financial commitments, including commitments for actions on the basis of Articles 185 and 187, under international research agreements;

42.

Calls on the Commission – in view of the objective of devoting 3 % of GDP to a research and technological development by 2020 and recognising that research and innovation provide the only sure path to economic recovery in the EU – to consider the possibility of establishing a binding interim level of funding for research and technological development amounting to around 1 % of GDP by 2015;

43.

Notes a strengthening of the ‘innovation’ dimension in future work programmes; is of the opinion that - in order for research and innovation programmes to have a clear impact on the market and society - actions should be devised that enable the optimum exploitation and commercialisation of research results, such as addressing the potential of commercialisation of research results in specific calls or in evaluation criteria in particular areas; calls on the Commission to start financing demonstration, pilot and proof-of-concept projects before the end of FP7 and to consider a financing system to award successful projects and support their introduction on the market to complement the current up-front financing; believes, also in this respect, that close coordination is needed between FP7, the CIP and Structural Funds;

44.

Notes that if FP7 is structured in such a way as to distinguish between science for science’s sake, science for competition, and science for society, there is a risk that the gradual transition from basic research to applied research and innovation will be left out of consideration; points to the need to prevent the successful implementation of integrated projects being hampered by structural rigidity;

45.

Believes that both FP7 and the future FP8 should make a greater contribution to the development of industry in Europe, and calls on the Commission and the Member States to encourage applied research;

46.

While recognising that FP7 is primarily aimed towards research and technological development, stresses the importance of devising EU policies and programmes in such a way that synergies within the entire R&D value chain (from research and education, through innovation, to job creation) are exploited to the fullest; believes that this is the only way to attain the goals set out in the ‘Innovation Union’ and to accelerate Europe’s transformation into a knowledge-based society; in this regard, while welcoming the current development of an innovation scoreboard, calls for a broad definition of innovation (including non-technological and employee driven innovation) and for the development of more effective models, methodologies and tools to measure and boost innovation, including through public procurement, standards setting and financial engineering;

47.

Acknowledges that European Technology Platforms, JTIs and PPPs contribute towards greater industry participation and calls for their consolidation in future programmes; stresses the need to ensure adequate rules for participation (including intellectual property rules) and funding rates (including funding rates for indirect costs), as well as strive for further simplification, in order to attract a larger number of SMEs, public research institutes and smaller research organisations and with that to ensure a better balance in stakeholders’ access and participation in JTIs and PPPs;

48.

Is concerned by the excessive administrative burden of FP7; stresses that simplification measures that do not require a change of regulation should be implemented as soon as possible, while respecting simplicity, stability, consistency, legal certainty, transparency, excellence and trust, and encourages the Commission to explore further simplification measures, including contributions in kind by applicants, as well as a further alignment with calculation and accounting methods used in national funding systems; calls on the Commission to take urgent measures to significantly shorten the time from application to grant, reduce bureaucratic procedures for preparing, submitting and assessing project (including through the use of an EU application portal based on the equivalent U.S. model), reduce the number of periodic financial status reports and auditing documents per reporting period, and find a better balance between research risk and control; stresses that a risk-averse culture of EU research funding would prevent financing of high-risk research ideas with the highest potential for breakthroughs, and therefore suggests that a trust-based approach with higher tolerance for risk and failure should be taken, as opposed to a purely results-based approach which could hamper innovative research; recommends a simplified interpretation and further clarification of the definition of eligible costs; supports the proposal to review the Financial Regulation to simplify procedures and calls for the revision and/or extended interpretation of the EU Staff Regulations on the issue of personal liability; calls for more precise, consistent and transparent procedural rules for audits, including by using less random sampling and more realistic criteria, such as the experience of participants and the background of errors and compliance;

49.

Reiterates the importance of introducing, without delay, procedural, administrative and financial simplification measures into current management of FP7, such as those identified in Parliament’s resolution of 11 November 2010; welcomes the Commission Decision of 24 January 2011 introducing three simplification measures, as well as the creation of the Unique Registration Facility; calls on the Commission to rapidly implement these measures in a uniform way and to investigate where additional simplification measures are still possible; regrets the serious problems of interpretation and legal uncertainty for the participants of FP7 and reiterates its wish to see current legal proceedings between the Commission and beneficiaries across all of the framework programmes settled quickly, while respecting the principle of responsible management of public money; asks the Commission to allow beneficiaries to consult the Research Clearing Committee during or after a project to clarify issues related to cost calculation, rules for participation and audits, including ex-post audits; stresses the need to preserve what works well and only change the rules which need to be adapted;

50.

Calls for measures to decrease time-to-grant targeted at improving the percentage of grants signed in less than eight months by a certain percentage in 2011 and less than six months during the remaining period;

51.

Warmly welcomes the recommendations to shorten the timeframe for adjudication and calls for an evaluation of existing instruments before the creation of any new instruments within the framework of FP7;

52.

Proposes that the Commission help public bodies to improve their management systems by carrying out assessments without financial consequences which would encourage these bodies to take a number of actions to improve their project management and implement them within a specific deadline of less than a year;

53.

Takes the view that the RSFF has acted as a decisive lever in both qualitative and quantitative terms in increasing investment in RDI at a moment of crisis when the banking sector was no longer in a position to play this role, its first years resulting in EUR 8 billion in loans, generating more than EUR 20 billion in investment;

54.

Expresses concern, however, in the light of the derisory sums allocated to research infrastructures, universities and research bodies and SMEs, in particular innovative SMEs, and also given the acknowledged geographical and sectoral imbalance in loans allocated; supports, therefore, the specific recommendations made by the expert group aimed at improving participation of certain under-represented target groups, and endorses the European Council’s conclusions of 4 February 2011, especially its call for all possible options to be explored with a view to the valorisation of intellectual property rights at the European level, in particular to ease SMEs’ access to the knowledge market;

55.

Expresses regret that RSFF projects are only running in 18 EU Member States and two associate countries, and that SMEs, universities/research bodies and research facilities are currently underrepresented in the RSFF; calls on the Commission to assess the reasons why the nine other EU Member States have not used this new facility, which has proved to contribute decisively to increasing RDI funding, and to ensure participation of all the countries concerned;

56.

Calls on the Commission and Member States to investigate the publicity regarding the availability of the RSFF loans at Member State level and ensure that potential participants have adequate information and assistance to access RSFF loans, especially in those Member States whose currency is not the Euro;

57.

Recommends that application of this innovative financial instrument be continued and intensified in FP7 and for the future in FP8, since it contributes to improving access to finance and leveraging private investment; stresses the need to ensure that these financial instruments are suitable for SMEs;

58.

Calls for the use of FP7 to take account of the different consequences in each Member State of the economic crisis for the final years of the programme (2011-2013), given the considerable sums (EUR 28.8 billion over three years) still to be programmed, the objectives to be achieved for EU 2020 and preparation for a European Research Area and the Innovation Union; calls in particular for the alignment of the FP7 programme objectives with EU strategies on Resource Efficiency, Raw Materials and the Digital Agenda;

59.

Believes that the remaining sums should not be diverted from research and used for other programmes or instruments that do not come within the research and innovation sector or the objectives and scope of FP7;

60.

Stresses the need to enhance, stimulate and secure the financing of research and development in the Union via a significant increase in relevant expenditure from 2013 onwards; is of the opinion that this increase of funding, ideally by doubling the budget, must foster sustainable growth and competition via excellence; emphasises hereby that this increase of funds must be coupled with a more result-oriented, performance-driven approach and with a radical simplification of funding procedures; supports a further collaboration and cooperation between different EU RDI programmes, for example under the title ‘Common Strategic Framework for Research and Innovation’; believes that continuity of the future programme, once established, is important for all actors involved;

61.

Stresses that it is important to consider the assessment of the results obtained in each of the areas defined as political priorities for funding, and how effective they were, in order to improve the evaluation of future programmes;

62.

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

11.12.2012   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 380/20

—

having regard to the Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions of 9 November 2010 entitled ‘Trade, Growth and World Affairs – Trade Policy as a core component of the EU's 2020 strategy’ (COM(2010)0612), and to the Communication from the Commission to the Council, the European Parliament, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions of 7 July 2010 entitled ‘Towards a comprehensive European international investment policy’ (COM(2010)0343),

—

having regard to the Joint Study by the Commission and the Government of Canada entitled ‘Assessing the costs and benefits of a closer EU-Canada economic partnership’ of October 2008 (1) and to the Joint Report on the EU-Canada Scoping Exercise of 5 March 2009 (2),

—

having regard to the EU-Canada Summit Joint Declaration regarding a comprehensive economic partnership agreement between the European Union and Canada signed in Prague on 6 May 2009 (Council doc. 09547/2009),

—

having regard to the Recommendation from the Commission to the Council of 20 December 2010 on the modification of the negotiating directives for an Economic Integration Agreement with Canada in order to authorise the Commission to negotiate, on behalf of the Union, on investment (SEC(2010)1577),

—

having regard to the Report from the Commission to the European Council of 10 March 2011 entitled ‘Trade and Investment Barriers Report 2011 – Engaging our strategic economic partners on improved market access: Priorities for action on breaking down barriers to trade’ (COM(2011)0114),

—

having regard to its earlier resolutions, in particular the resolution of 22 May 2007 on Global Europe – external aspects of competitiveness (3), the resolution of 19 February 2008 on the EU's strategy to deliver market access for European companies (4), the resolution of 20 May 2008 on trade in raw materials and commodities (5), the resolution of 4 September 2008 on trade in services (6), the resolution of 18 December 2008 on the impact of counterfeiting on international trade (7), the resolution of 5 February 2009 on enhancing the role of European SMEs in international trade (8), the resolution of 5 May 2010 on the EU-Canada Summit (9), the resolution of 25 November 2010 on human rights and social and environmental standards in international trade agreements (10), the resolution of 25 November 2010 on trade policy in the context of climate change imperatives (11), the resolution of 25 November 2010 on corporate social responsibility in international trade agreements (12), the resolution of 17 February 2011 on Europe 2020 (13) and the resolution of 6 April 2011 on future European international investment policy (14),

—

having regard to the Framework Agreement for commercial and economic cooperation between the European Communities and Canada (15) and other subsequent bilateral agreements with Canada, in particular the Agreement on customs cooperation and mutual assistance in customs matters (16), the Agreement on sanitary measures to protect public and animal health in respect of trade in live animals and animal products (17), the Agreement on trade in wines and spirit drinks (18), the Agreement on civil aviation safety (19) and the Agreement on air transport (20),

—

having regard to the revised Framework Agreement on relations between the European Parliament and the European Commission (21),

—

having regard to Articles 207(3) and 218 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,

—

having regard to Rules 115(5) and 110(2) of its Rules of Procedure,

A.

whereas the rule-based multilateral trading system established through the World Trade Organisation (WTO) continues to represent the most suitable framework for regulating and promoting fair and equitable trade by developing appropriate rules and ensuring compliance with those rules,

B.

whereas a successful conclusion of the Doha Development Agenda (DDA) is of crucial importance for the further development of the WTO; whereas such an agreement does not preclude bilateral agreements going beyond WTO commitments and being complementary to multilateral rules,

C.

whereas Canada is one of the EU's oldest and closest partners, being the first industrialised country with which – in 1976 – the EU signed a Framework Agreement for commercial and economic cooperation; whereas a number of bilateral agreements designed to facilitate stronger trade relations have been signed over the years,

D.

whereas the EU is Canada's second most important trading partner and Canada is currently the EU's eleventh most important trading partner (2009); whereas Canada is the EU's fourth largest source of foreign direct investment (FDI), while the EU is Canada’s second largest source of FDI (2008),

E.

whereas the Joint Study of 2008 demonstrated significant potential gains for both Canada and the EU from the liberalisation of their bilateral trade,

F.

whereas the private sectors in both the EU and Canada have shown strong support for an ambitious and comprehensive economic agreement and believe that advancing a closer EU-Canada economic partnership would send a powerful pro-growth signal to investors and business within the EU and Canada as well as internationally,

G.

whereas there is a general consensus that the EU-Canada economic relationship has not yet reached its full potential and that an EU-Canada free trade agreement can strongly contribute to developing and realising this by improving trade and investment flows while removing tariffs, tariff peaks and unjustified non-tariff barriers and supporting closer cooperation particularly in the fields of regulatory cooperation, labour mobility and recognition of qualifications,

H.

whereas the ongoing negotiations on a Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement (CETA) aim at a very advanced agreement, exceeding in its level of ambition any trade and economic agreement negotiated either by the EU or by Canada to date, that could reinforce the already strong bilateral trade and investment relationship even further,

I.

whereas the Commission is seeking to integrate investment protection into on-going negotiations with Canada and has proposed to the Council a modification of existing negotiating directives,

J.

whereas both the EU and Canada have declared that significant progress has been made in the CETA negotiations, with the aim of achieving an agreement by the end of 2011,

1.

Considers that the multilateral trading system, embodied in the WTO, remains by far the most effective framework for achieving free, fair and equitable trade on a global basis; reiterates its strong support for a successful conclusion of the DDA negotiations, which remains the EU's trade priority; believes that the EU and Canada can together contribute towards a successful conclusion of the DDA negotiations;

2.

Welcomes an agreement with Canada going beyond the WTO commitments and being complementary to multilateral rules, provided that the negotiations produce a balanced, ambitious, high-quality agreement that goes well beyond tariff reductions; calls for the reciprocity principle to be applied in the context of the legal remedies available in the event of commercial disputes and emphasises in particular the need to improve the protection of intellectual property rights including trademarks, patents and geographical indications and to obtain genuinely reciprocal access to the market, especially to services and public procurement markets (including at sub-federal level);

3.

Calls on the Commission, as a sign of good will, to drop its challenges against the Ontario Green Energy Act's local content requirements;

4.

Considers that the chapter on intellectual property should not negatively affect the production of generic medicines and must respect the TRIPs exceptions for public health;

5.

Notes that the Commission has chosen a ‘negative list approach’ for the liberalisation of services, but considers that this should be seen as a mere exception and not serve as a precedent for future negotiations; considers that the GATS public utilities exemption remains the most appropriate tool to guarantee universal access to public services to citizens;

6.

Expresses its concern about the continued mining of asbestos in Canada and its grave impact on workers' health; recalls that the EU has banned all use, extraction and processing of asbestos and manufacture of asbestos products; calls on Canada to take similar action in order to improve public health;

7.

On the basis of the complementarities of the two economies, points to the future potential for an increase in EU-Canada trade and investment and business opportunities arising from the CETA;

8.

Believes that the Commission's level of ambition in discussions with Canada should be balanced by an equally ambitious approach to sustainable development, in particular with respect to the level of obligations towards labour, the scope of the environment chapter and the way to address Multilateral Environmental Agreement (MEA) issues as well as the enforcement mechanism, and should support and promote initiatives to help tackle climate change, promote legally binding human rights and social and environmental standards, and promote corporate social responsibility;

9.

Welcomes the progress made in the CETA negotiations and encourages the Commission to continue to consult with key stakeholders; even though the Joint Study demonstrated significant potential gains for both Canada and the EU, calls on the Commission to carry out as soon as possible a comprehensive sustainability impact assessment evaluating the foreseeable sectoral implications and socioeconomic consequences for the EU arising from the final agreement;

10.

Notes that competence for EU-Canada relations resides at the federal level alone, but, since the Canadian provinces and territories are responsible for implementing the treaty obligations that fall within their jurisdiction, considers essential, and welcomes, their participation in the CETA negotiations and encourages the provinces and territories to synchronise policies and procedures to allow potential gains to be maximised; considers that a successful negotiation should include explicit commitments from provincial and territorial governments;

11.

Notes, not without concern, that the Commission submitted to the Council a proposal for modifying the negotiating directives authorising the Commission to negotiate with Canada on investment without waiting for Parliament to adopt its position on the future EU investment policy in general; calls on the Commission to take fully into account the conclusion of the European Parliament on this subject in its negotiations on investment with Canada; considers that, given the highly developed legal systems of Canada and the EU, a state-to-state dispute settlement mechanism and the use of local judicial remedies are the most appropriate tools to address investment disputes; calls on the Commission to ensure that a potential investor-to-state dispute settlement mechanism does not inhibit future legislation in sensitive policy areas, such as environmental legislation, and is embedded in broader requirements as outlined in Parliament's resolution on future European international investment policy;

12.

Stresses that the investment chapter should promote high-quality investments which respect the environment and encourage good working conditions; furthermore calls for the investment chapter to respect the right of both parties to regulate, in particular in the areas of national security, the environment, public health, workers' and consumers' rights, industrial policy and cultural diversity; calls on the Commission to exclude from the scope of investment agreements sensitive sectors such as culture, education, national defence and public health;

13.

Reiterates its concern about the impact of the extraction of oil sand on the global environment due to the high level of CO2 emissions during its production process and the threat it poses to local biodiversity; expresses its belief that the CETA negotiations should not affect the EU’s right to legislate in the fuel quality directive or inhibit the ability of the Canadian authorities to introduce future environmental standards concerning the extraction of oil sands; encourages both parties to resolve any disagreements amicably and without endangering the CETA negotiations;

14.

Takes note of the recent legal developments regarding the EU's ban on seal products, in particular Canada’s request to the WTO for the establishment of a formal dispute resolution panel; expects the Commission to remain firm on the EU's stance regarding the ban on seal products, and expresses its strong hope that Canada will withdraw the WTO challenge, which runs counter to positive trade relations, prior to the need for ratification of the CETA agreement by the European Parliament;

15.

Draws the attention to different policies enacted by the EU and Canada regarding the regulation of Genetically Modified Organisms (GMOs); warns that the stricter regulations enacted in the EU could be challenged by private companies under the proposed CETA dispute-settlement mechanism;

16.

Considers that agriculture chapters will constitute an important issue for both parties in these negotiations; is concerned about possibly substantial concessions in the area of GMOs, milk and origin labelling; therefore stresses that the interests and the priorities in agriculture should be fully taken into account and calls on the Commission to negotiate an agreement which will be beneficial to EU and Canadian consumers and to the agricultural sectors on both sides as well, and ensure, within a balanced overall outcome, greater – but fair – competition among EU and Canadian suppliers to provide agricultural goods; welcomes in this context the initial commitment from both parties not to maintain, introduce or reintroduce agricultural export subsidies on the agricultural goods traded, this being a positive step in the interests of ambitious and fair negotiations, as well as the agreement to cooperate in WTO agricultural negotiations;

17.

Calls on the Commission, with a view to ensuring the consistency of EU policies, in particular those concerning overseas countries and territories (OCTs), to make sure that the interests of OCTs in relation to their strategic products are protected in the future agreement between the EU and Canada;

18.

Stresses that negotiations on sanitary and phytosanitary measures are a major issue in agricultural chapters; in this context calls on the Commission to commit itself to negotiate rules concerning them which maintain a high standard;

19.

Reminds the Council and Commission that, since the entry into force of the Lisbon Treaty, the Council has been required to obtain the consent of Parliament for all international trade agreements and both the Council and the Commission have been required to keep Parliament immediately and fully informed at all stages of the procedure; calls on the Council to provide Parliament immediately with all information in the stages of the procedure for which it is responsible, in particular concerning the negotiating directives it has adopted and any modifications thereof; calls on the Council and the Commission to keep Parliament involved at all stages of the negotiations and to take Parliament's views fully into account;

20.

Instructs its President to forward this resolution to the Council, the Commission, the governments and parliaments of the Member States and the federal Government and Parliament and provincial and territorial governments and parliaments of Canada.

11.12.2012   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 380/24

—

having regard to the International Organization of Securities Commissions (IOSCO) note of March 2009 on ‘International cooperation in oversight of credit rating agencies’,

—

having regard to the Joint Forum on ‘Stocktaking on the use of credit ratings’ in June 2009,

—

having regard to the report of the Financial Stability Board to G20 leaders entitled ‘Improving financial regulation’ of 25 September 2009,

—

having regard to the International Monetary Fund report of 29 October 2010 entitled ‘Global Financial Stability Report: Sovereigns, Funding and Systemic Liquidity’,

—

having regard to the declaration of the G20 Toronto Summit of 26 and 27 June 2010,

—

having regard to the report by the Financial Stability Board on ‘Principles for reducing reliance on CRA ratings’ of 27 October 2010,

—

having regard to the public consultation launched by the Commission on 5 November 2010,

—

having regard to Rule 48 of its Rules of Procedure,

—

having regard to the report of the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs and the opinion of the Committee on Legal Affairs (A7-0081/2011),

A.

whereas it welcomes the ongoing work at global, international and European level on the regulation of credit rating agencies (CRAs),

B.

whereas CRAs are supposed to be information intermediaries, reducing information asymmetries in the capital markets and facilitating global market access, reducing information costs and widening the potential pool of borrowers and investors, thus providing liquidity and transparency to markets and helping find prices,

C.

whereas, in recent legislation, CRAs have been assigned another role which can be classified as one of ‘certification’, reflecting the fact that ratings are increasingly embedded in regulatory capital requirements,

D.

whereas financial operators have placed excessive reliance on the judgments made by CRAs,

E.

whereas CRAs rate three different sectors, the public sector, companies and structured finance instruments, and whereas CRAs played a significant role in the build-up to the financial crisis through the assignment of faulty ratings to structured finance instruments, which had to be downgraded on average three to four notches during the crisis,

F.

whereas Regulation (EC) No 1060/2009 was the first reaction to the financial crisis and already deals with the most pressing issues, subjecting CRAs to oversight and regulation; whereas, however, it does not address all the fundamental problems and, in fact, creates some new barriers to entry,

G.

whereas the absence of regulatory certainty in this sector is putting the proper functioning of EU financial markets at risk and therefore requires the EU Commission, before coming forward with further amendments to Regulation (EC) No 1060/2009, to identify properly the gaps in the new framework and provide an impact assessment on the range of alternatives available to fill such gaps including the possibility of further legislative proposals.

H.

whereas the credit rating industry has various problems, amongst which the most important are the lack of competition, oligolistic structures and the lack of accountability and transparency; whereas a problem of the dominant rating agencies in particular is the payment model and whereas the regulatory system’s key problem is over-reliance on external credit ratings,

I.

whereas the best way to enhance competition would be to create a regulatory environment effective at promoting entry, and to undertake a deeper analysis of the current barriers to entry and other factors affecting competition,

J.

whereas, in good times, market participants tend to mistake or disregard the underlying methodology and meaning of credit ratings, which seek to pin down the probability of default,

K.

whereas the recent developments in the euro crisis have highlighted the significant role of sovereign debt ratings and both inconsistency and pro-cyclicality in the regulatory use of ratings,

L.

whereas independence of ratings from market and political interference is paramount and must be ensured whatever the new structures and business models that may emerge and in the context of economic governance and stress tests,

M.

while ratings can and do change as a result of fundamental adjustments to risk profile or new information, they should be designed to be stable and not fluctuate on the basis of market sentiment,

N.

whereas the Basel II system has resulted in excessive reliance on external ratings, leading in some cases to banks deciding against performing autonomous assessments of their exposures,

O.

whereas recent regulation of ratings in the United States, with the Dodd-Frank Act, has opted for less regulatory reliance on agencies’ judgments,

1.

Considers that, in the light of the change in the use of credit ratings, where the issuer is rated to get a preferential treatment under a regulatory framework rather than to gain access to the global capital markets, the over-reliance of the global financial regulatory system on external credit ratings has to be reduced as far as possible and in a realistic timeframe;

2.

Considers that competition biases caused by the common practice that credit rating agencies assess market participants while simultaneously obtaining orders from them, have to be reduced;

3.

Agrees with the principles set out by the Financial Stability Board in October 2010 giving general guidance on how to reduce reliance on external credit ratings, and welcomes the Commission's public consultation starting in November 2010; asks the Commission to review whether and how Member States use ratings for regulatory purposes in order to reduce the general over-reliance on them of the financial regulatory system;

4.

Points to shortcomings in the standardised approach in the Basel regulatory framework allowing regulatory capital requirements for financial institutions to be set on the basis of external credit ratings; considers it important to establish a capital adequacy framework that ensures robust internal risk assessment, better oversight of such risk assessment, and improved access to credit-relevant information; supports in this respect the increased use of the internal-ratings-based (IRB) approach provided that it is reliable and safe and that the size, capacity and sophistication of the financial institution allow for an adequate risk assessment; considers that in order to ensure a level playing field it is important that internal models respect parameters prescribed in the EU regulation and be subject to rigorous supervisory validation; considers, at the same time, that smaller and less sophisticated players with lower capacities should be able to use external ratings, if no internal credit risk assessment is viable, provided that they fulfil appropriate due diligence requirements;

5.

Points out the importance of following the developments under Basel III and the ongoing CRD IV process in this respect;

6.

Sees the need to restore investors’ ability to conduct their own due diligence as a pre-requisite for enabling increased use of proprietary internal models for credit risk assessment; suggests that banks and other financial players should use proper internal risk assessments much more often;

7.

Expresses the view that market participants should not invest in structured or other products if they cannot assess the underlying credit risk themselves, or alternatively that they should apply the highest risk weighting;

8.

Asks the European Central Bank and the national central banks to review their use of external ratings, and urges them to build up expertise in devising their own models to assess the credit standard of eligible assets used as collateral for liquidity-providing operations, and to reduce their reliance on external ratings;

9.

Asks the Commission to carefully assess the potential use of alternative instruments to measure credit risk;

10.

Is aware of the inherent conflict of interest if market participants devise internal credit risk assessments for their own regulatory capital requirements, and hence sees the need to increase supervisors’ responsibilities, capacity, powers and resources for monitoring, assessing and overseeing the adequacy of the internal models and for imposing prudential measures; considers that if an internal model cannot be appropriately assessed by the supervisor due to its complexity such a model shall not be approved for regulatory use; suggests that transparency of assumptions for independent academic assessment also has a role;

11.

States that, in order to exercise its supervisory powers effectively, the European Supervisory Authority (European Securities and Markets Authority) should have the right to conduct unannounced investigations and on-site-inspections and that, when exercising its supervisory powers, the European Securities and Markets Authority should give the persons which are subject to proceedings an opportunity of being heard in order to respect their rights of defence;

12.

Highlights the global nature of the credit rating industry and urges the Commission and Member States to work together with other G20 countries on a global approach, based on the highest standards, both in respect of CRA regulation and prudential and markets regulation with respect to reducing the over-reliance on external credit ratings, in order to preserve a level playing field and prevent regulatory arbitrage while keeping markets open;

13.

Regards the stimulation of competition, the promotion of transparency and the question of a future pay model as the most important tasks while the question of the origin of a CRA should be secondary;

14.

Reiterates that Regulation (EC) No 1060/2009 devises two systems to deal with external credit ratings from third countries and that the intention behind the endorsement regime was to allow external credit ratings from third countries deemed non-equivalent to be used in the European Union if clear responsibility was attached to an endorsing CRA;

15.

Stresses that increased competition in the sector does not automatically imply better quality of ratings and reiterates that all rating agencies must abide by the highest standards of integrity, disclosure, transparency and conflict of interest management as set out in the requirements of Regulation (EC) No 1060/2009 in order to ensure the quality of ratings and to avoid ‘rating shopping’;

16.

Asks the Commission to conduct a detailed impact assessment and viability study on the costs, benefits and potential governance structure of a fully independent European Credit Rating Foundation (ECRaF) which would expand its expertise into all three sectors of ratings; believes that the Commission should consider the start-up financing costs to cover the first three to maximum five years of the ECRaF’s work and that they need to be carefully assessed; stresses that any legislative proposals to that effect need to be formulated with considerable care in order to avoid undermining the parallel policy initiatives of reducing over-reliance on ratings and encouraging new CRAs to enter the market;

17.

Asks the Commission to produce, together with the work referred to in paragraph 9, a detailed impact assessment, viability analysis, and cost estimate for the necessary financing in this respect; is strongly of the opinion that financing costs should under no circumstances be borne by taxpayers and considers that no further funding should be provided and that the new ECRaF should be fully self-sufficient financing its own budget after the start-up period;

18.

Considers that, to ensure its credibility, the management, staff and governance structure of the new ECRaF need to be fully independent and autonomous, i.e. not bound by instructions vis-à-vis the Member States, the Commission and all other public bodies as well as the finance industry and other CRAs, and that they need to operate in accordance with amended Regulation (EC) No 1060/2009;

19.

Asks the Commission to conduct a detailed investigation into the costs, benefits and governance structure of such a network of European CRAs, including considerations of how nationally active CRAs could be encouraged to move to partnership or joint-network structures in order to draw on existing resources and staffing, thus possibly enabling them to provide increased coverage and allowing them to compete with CRAs active at cross-border level; suggests that the Commission could investigate methods of supporting networks of CRAs, but takes the view that any such network should be an industry-led initiative;

20.

Sees a potential need to support the initial set-up of such a network but considers that the network ought to be self-sufficient and profitable from its own revenue; asks the Commission to assess the necessity and potential means of start-up financing and possible legal structures for this project;

21.

Considers that the establishment of a truly independent European Credit Rating Agency should also be explored and assessed by the Commission; asks the Commission to explore particularly the issue of its staff, which should be fully independent and the issue of its resources, which should come from fees from the private financial sector;

22.

Considers that credit ratings must serve the purpose of increasing information to the market in a manner that provides investors with a consistent assessment of credit risk across sectors and countries; considers it important to enable users to better scrutinise CRAs and in this respect highlights the central role of increased transparency in their activities;

23.

Points out that, in order to enable investors to adequately assess risk and to fulfil their due-diligence and fiduciary duties, increased disclosure of information on products is necessary in the field of structured finance instruments to allow investors to make informed judgments; considers that sophisticated investors should be able to assess the underlying credits from which they can then derive the risk of a securitised product; supports the existing initiatives of the ECB and others to make more information available about structured finance instruments in this respect; calls on the Commission to assess the need to increase disclosure of information for all products in the field of financial instruments;

24.

Notes that, in addition to their rating activity, most Credit Rating Agencies issue a number of outlooks, reviews, warnings and watches which do have a significant impact on the markets; is of the opinion that they should be disclosed according to predetermined criterion and protocols that ensure transparency and confidentiality;

25.

Asks the Commission to propose a revision of Directive 2003/71/EC and Directive 2004/109/EC in order to ensure that sufficient accurate and complete information on structured finance instruments is more widely available;

26.

Considers it vital in this respect that data protection aspects are fully considered in any potential future measure;

27.

Ponders whether it would be advantageous to oblige issuers to discuss the content and method behind a structured finance instrument with a third party that is either conducting an unsolicited credit rating or devising an internal risk assessment;

28.

Reiterates the obligation on the Commission in Recital (5) of the amended Regulation (EC) No 1060/2009 regarding transparency of information; asks the Commission to conduct the necessary analysis in order to present the result with potential amendments to the legislation to Parliament and Council as part of the current review of Regulation (EC) No 1060/2009 it is undertaking;

29.

Notes the progress made on transparency and disclosure by CRA1 and CRA2; encourages the Commission to carry out an impact assessment of these regulations following the completion of the CRA registration process to highlight future areas where further disclosure for users may be beneficial;

30.

Calls for, alongside increased transparency of the rating process and its internal auditing, stronger supervision of CRAs by EU supervisory authorities and of more intrusive supervision by national supervisory authorities of the use /dependency on ratings by financial institutions;

31.

Is of the opinion that the Commission should consider whether, under certain circumstances, the use of two obligatory ratings is appropriate e.g. for structured finance instruments and for any external credit ratings used for regulatory purposes and whether the most conservative, meaning least favourable, external credit rating should be regarded as the reference for regulatory purpose; asks the Commission to produce an impact assessment on the potential use of two obligatory ratings;

32.

Considers that the costs of both ratings should be borne by the issuer and that the first external credit rating should be by a hired CRA, at the choice of the issuer, while for the second external credit rating various options for the assignment should be considered, including the possibility of assignment by the European Securities and Markets Authority (ESMA), on the basis of specific, defined and objective criteria, taking historic performance into account and supporting the establishment of new CRAs while avoiding any distortions of competition;

33.

Points out that reputation cannot be imposed by a regulator, but that every new CRA will only become accepted if it gains credibility;

34.

Is aware of the fact that market players are averse to volatile credit ratings because of the high costs involved (in related sell or buy decisions) when ratings are adjusted; considers, however, that consequently ratings tend to be procyclical and to lag behind financial market developments;

35.

Notes that CRAs shall use clear criteria to score country performance, is aware of the fact that the actual rating is not a mechanical weighting of these factors; asks the industry to clarify which methodology and judgments are used to calibrate sovereign ratings and to explain deviation from these model-generated ratings and from the forecasts of the main international financial institutions;

36.

Notes that, according to the IMF, ratings could explain up to almost 70 % of the CDS spreads; is concerned about the procyclical effects that ratings may have and demands a special consideration of these sensitive issues;

37.

Believes that, in order to reduce the negative ‘cliff effects’ in prices and spreads that rating changes imply, the regulation that hardwires buy or sell decisions to ratings should be eliminated;

38.

Considers that, as almost all information on sovereigns is available in the public domain, such information should be made more easily, consistently and comparably available so that larger and more sophisticated market players are incentivised to rely on their own judgment to assess sovereign credit risk;

39.

Believes that, given the effects that credit ratings of sovereign debt can have on the market, transparency about the methods and the reasons for decisions as well as the liability of CRAs need to be improved in this field; calls for a study to involve in this rating the future European Foundation and the future independent European Credit Rating Agency;

40.

Supports enhanced disclosure and explanation of methodologies, models and key rating assumptions adopted by credit rating agencies, also in light of the systemic impact that a downgrade on sovereign debt may produce;

41.

Considers that public information on the average of existing external credit ratings from accredited CRAs is valuable; suggests therefore establishing a European Rating Index (EURIX) which incorporates all ratings of registered CRAs that are available on the market;

42.

Supports the existence of various payment models in the industry but highlights the existence of risks of conflicts of interest which need to be addressed by appropriate transparency and regulatory means while not imposing an unwarranted model; asks the Commission, based on the recent consultation, to come forward with proposals for alternative viable payment models that involve both issuers and users; asks the Commission in this respect to pay particular attention to the potential use of the ‧investor-pays‧ model and its advantages and disadvantages in order to make ratings less prone to conflicts of interest;

43.

Takes the view that good governance in CRAs is crucial to ensure the quality of ratings and calls for full transparency from CRAs on the governance arrangements in place;

44.

Highlights that ESMA is responsible for implementing and enforcing the compliance of CRAs with Regulation (EC) No 1060/2009; considers that if external credit ratings fulfil a regulatory purpose they should not be classified as mere opinions, and that CRAs should be held accountable for the consistent application of the underlying methodology of their credit ratings; recommends therefore that CRAs’ exposure to civil liability in the event of gross negligence or misconduct be defined on a consistent basis across the EU and that the Commission should identify ways for such civil liability to be anchored in Member States’ civil law;

45.

Points out that the ultimate responsibility for an investment decision lies with the financial market participant, i.e. the asset manager, financial institution or sophisticated investor; notes that accountability will also be further supported by the central repository (CEREP) established by CRA1, which publishes data in a standardised form on the performance of ratings issued by CRAs registered within the EU, allowing investors to make their own assessment about certain CRAs, and thereby exerting more reputational pressure; points out that investors should have effective risk management capabilities subject to adequate oversight by the administration;

46.

Suggests that each registered CRA should conduct an annual review to assess its past credit rating performance and should compile this information in an accountability report for the supervisor; suggests that the ESMA should carry out random checks on accountability reports on a regular basis to ensure a high quality standard in credit ratings;

47.

Instructs its President to forward this resolution to the Council and the Commission and the governments and parliaments of the Member States.

11.12.2012   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 380/31

—

having regard to the Lisbon Treaty and the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, which entered into force on 1 December 2009,

—

having regard to the Commission communication of 8 October 2010 on Smart Regulation in the European Union (COM(2010)0543),

—

having regard to its resolution of 9 September 2010 on better lawmaking – 15th annual report from the Commission pursuant to Article 9 of the Protocol on the application of the principles of subsidiarity and proportionality (1),

—

having regard to its resolution of 21 October 2008 on better lawmaking 2006 pursuant to Article 9 of the Protocol on the application of the principles of subsidiarity and proportionality (2),

—

having regard to its resolution of 4 September 2007 on better lawmaking 2005: application of the principles of subsidiarity and proportionality – 13th annual report (3),

—

having regard to its resolution of 10 July 2007 on minimising administrative costs imposed by legislation (4),

—

having regard to its resolution of 16 May 2006 on better lawmaking 2004: application of the principle of subsidiarity – 12th annual report (5),

—

having regard to its resolution of 20 April 2004 on assessment of the impact of Community legislation and the consultation procedures (6),

—

having regard to the Interinstitutional Agreement on better law-making concluded between Parliament, the Council and the Commission on 16 December 2003,

—

having regard to the Interinstitutional Common Approach to Impact Assessments concluded between Parliament, the Council and the Commission in November 2005,

—

having regard to Special Report No 3/2010 of the European Court of Auditors,

—

having regard to the results of the study commissioned by the European Parliament on impact assessments in the EU Member States,

—

having regard to the Commission’s Impact Assessment Guidelines of 15 January 2009, and the annexes thereto (SEC(2009)0092),

—

having regard to the Commission communication of 5 June 2002 on impact assessment (COM(2002)0276),

—

having regard to the Framework Agreement of 20 October 2010 between Parliament and the Commission,

—

having regard to the Commission communication of 28 October 2010 on an Integrated Industrial Policy for the Globalisation Era: Putting Competitiveness and Sustainability at Centre Stage (COM(2010)0614),

—

having regard to the Impact Assessment Board Report for 2010 of 24 January 2011 (SEC(2011)0126),

—

having regard to the letter of 16 November 2010 from the Chair of the Committee on Women's Rights and Gender Equality to the rapporteur on the experiences gained from an impact assessment conducted concerning the effect of extending maternity leave to 20 weeks,

—

having regard to Rule 48 of its Rules of Procedure,

—

having regard to the report of the Committee on Legal Affairs and the opinions of the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs, the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Food Safety, the Committee on Industry, Research and Energy and the Committee on the Internal Market and Consumer Protection (A7-0159/2011),

A.

whereas impact assessments present a systematic evaluation of the likely effects of legislative action,

B.

whereas establishing a transparent, clear, effective and high-quality regulatory environment should be a priority objective of European Union policy,

C.

whereas impact assessments make a positive contribution to the overall enhancement of the quality of EU legislation in the interest of better lawmaking,

D.

whereas the problems arising in the transposition and implementation of current EU law are partly the result of inadequately drafted legislative texts, and whereas all European legislative bodies share the responsibility for this,

E.

Whereas the Lisbon Treaty contains horizontal social and environmental clauses (Art. 9 and 11 TFEU) which have to be taken into account in defining and implementing the Union's policies and activities and require an in-depth analysis of the social and environmental impact of any proposed legislation;

F.

whereas, when adopting new laws and simplifying and recasting existing laws, impact assessments can serve to improve the evaluation of their social, economic, environmental and health effects and their compatibility with fundamental rights, and thus help reduce bureaucracy, as well as ensure the consistency of the EU's policies in reaching the overarching objectives set by the European Council,

G.

whereas the Impact Assessment Board (IAB) is considered by the Commission to be independent although it is under the authority of the President of the Commission and is composed of high-level officials from several DGs and chaired by the Deputy Secretary-General; whereas this leads to an information bias and thus to a violation of necessary neutrality,

H.

whereas Parliament has on a number of occasions expressed support for the use of independent impact assessments in the European Union,

I.

whereas the impact assessments carried out by the Commission are inconsistent in their quality level and frequently serve rather to justify a legislative proposal than to permit an objective consideration of the facts,

J.

whereas impact assessments may be used to create unnecessary bureaucratic impediments to the further development or entry into force of European legislation and policies,

K.

whereas Parliament, the Council and the Commission in the Interinstitutional Agreement of 16 December 2003, the Interinstitutional Common Approach to Impact Assessments of November 2005, and Parliament and the Commission in the Framework Agreement of 20 October 2010, undertook to set an agenda for better lawmaking, and whereas this resolution contains concrete proposals for improving impact assessments,

L.

whereas the Commission is pursuing a new kind of approach in industrial policy, whereby all political proposals with significant effects on the economy should be analysed in detail as to their impact on competitiveness,

1.

Stresses that impact assessments are an important aid to smart and better lawmaking during the whole policy cycle which the makers of EU law should exploit more often in order to help them evaluate more effectively the economic, social, environmental and health related consequences of their policy options, as well as their impact on citizens' fundamental rights, bearing in mind that cost/benefit-analysis constitutes one criterion among others;

2.

Welcomes the Smart Regulation Communication, and emphasises that impact assessments should play a key role throughout the whole policy cycle, from design to implementation, enforcement, evaluation and to the revision of legislation; stresses the importance of well-considered and fully informed decision-making at the design stage of legislative proposals, because this can lead to both improved quality of outcomes and a shorter legislative process;

3.

Stresses the need for thorough impact assessments as a prerequisite for high-quality legislation and correct transposition, application and enforcement;

4.

Stresses that an impact assessment is in no way a substitute for political debate and the legislator’s decision-making process but merely serves to help the technical preparation of a political decision;

5.

Stresses that impact assessments need to be carried out in the early stages of policy development; emphasises that they should be completely independent and should always be based on an objective, reasoned analysis of potential effects;

6.

Stresses that, in line with the Interinstitutional Agreement on Better Lawmaking, co-legislators have undertaken to carry out impact assessments when they consider this to be appropriate and necessary for the legislative process, prior to the adoption of any substantive amendment;

7.

Considers it necessary to involve external experts from all policy areas as well as all stakeholder groups affected in the impact assessment process in order to guarantee independence and objectivity; stresses in this connection the fundamental distinction between public consultation and independent impact assessment; notes that the final outcome and the control of the methodology and quality of the impact assessment should remain with the European Union institutions in order to ensure that they are carried out to the same high standard;

8.

Calls for the maximum of transparency when drawing up impact assessments, including the early publication of comprehensive Road Maps of proposed legislation to ensure equal access to the legislative procedure for all stakeholders; considers therefore also that the Commission's current consultation period should be extended to 12 weeks;

9.

Takes the view that it should not be possible for impact assessments on projects or legislation sponsored by public administrations or their dependent undertakings to be approved by the administration concerned;

10.

Considers that it is essential that impact assessments are scrutinised by Member States ex-ante, to assess the effects of proposed legislation on national laws and public policies; calls for greater ex-post evaluation to be carried out and for further consideration of the inclusion of mandatory correlation tables to ensure that EU legislation has been correctly implemented by Member States and has met its objectives;

11.

Believes the impact assessment to be a suitable instrument for verifying the relevance of Commission proposals, and in particular compliance with the principles of subsidiarity and proportionality, and for explaining more clearly to the co-legislators and the public at large the reasons behind opting for a given measure;

12.

Stresses that the key elements of a good impact assessment are recognition of the problem, consultation of the parties concerned, definition of the objectives to be achieved and the elaboration of strategic policy options;

13.

Considers it important for new legislative proposals to be accompanied by an impact assessment; notes that this may also apply to the simplification and recasting of EU law and to delegated acts and implementing acts pursuant to Articles 290 and 291 TFEU, where appropriate;

14.

Regards the impact assessment as a ‘living document’ forming part of the lawmaking process; stresses the need to guarantee sufficient flexibility so that further impact assessments can be conducted during the lawmaking process;

15.

Calls for impact assessments to not focus exclusively on cost/benefit-analysis but to take a large number of criteria into account, in accordance with the principle of an integrated approach, in order to provide the legislator with as comprehensive a picture as possible; draws attention in this context to the economic, social and environmental aspects referred to in the interinstitutional agreement of 16 December 2003 and the common approach of 2005, which are to be combined in a single evaluation; underlines, in this respect, the need to ensure consistency between policies and activities of the EU by taking all of its objectives into account and in accordance with the principle of conferral of powers as laid down in Article 7 TFEU;

16.

Urges that, in connection with the impact assessment, a cost-benefit analysis – i.e. an examination of the cost-efficiency of all programmes and measures involving expenditure – should always be carried out, and potential implications for small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) examined; calls in this connection for the consistent application of the ‘SME test’ proposed in the 2008 Small Business Act; recalls in this context that in every law imposing burdens on SMEs there should be a careful evaluation of existing regulations with the aim at reducing the overall regulatory burden on SMEs;

17.

Calls, in the context of impact assessments, for an intensive analysis to be carried out on all new policy proposals with significant effects on industrial competitiveness; further calls for an ex-post assessment of the impact of EU legislation on the competitiveness of the European economy; notes that the Commission in fact promised such a procedure in its communication on an Integrated Industrial Policy for the Globalisation Era;

18.

Emphasises the need to learn lessons from the ex-post evaluation of existing legislation and an analysis of relevant case law of the Court of Justice, and for a proper discussion to take place on the strategic choices available in a certain policy area before new legislation is proposed;

19.

Urges that impact assessments at European level should look into the European added-value in terms of what savings will result from a European solution and/or what supplementary costs would arise for the Member States in the absence of a European solution;

20.

Believes that the impact on EU economic partnerships as well as the implications of choosing a specific European standard instead of an international standard should be taken into consideration in impact assessments;

21.

Stresses that impact assessments must fully consider the alternatives available to the legislator, which should always include a serious examination of the option of taking no action;

22.

Stresses that impact assessments must not lead to more bureaucracy and unnecessary delays in the legislative procedure; however, impact assessments must be allowed sufficient time in order to produce a reliable result; further stresses in this connection that impact assessments should not be abused as a means of holding up unwanted legislation; urges, therefore, that the technical and administrative conditions be created to ensure that impact assessments are carried out speedily and promptly, e.g. through such instruments as framework agreements, accelerated tendering procedures and the optimal use of resources;

23.

Urges, in accordance with the Best Practice principle, that use be made of experience gained in other countries where impact assessments have already been carried out for several years, in order to further improve impact assessments at EU level;

24.

Calls for impact assessments to be updated during the course of the legislative process as a whole, to enable account to be taken of changes occurring during this process;

25.

Stresses that impact assessments should not take place only before the adoption of a legislative text (ex-ante) but should also be carried out after its adoption (ex-post); points out that this is necessary in order to evaluate more accurately whether the objectives of a law have actually been achieved and whether a legal act should be amended or retained; stresses nevertheless that the ex-post evaluation should never replace the Commission's duty as "Guardian of the Treaties" to monitor effectively and in a timely manner the application of Union law by Member States;

26.

Underlines the Commission's primary responsibility for conducting high quality impact assessments of its proposals when exercising its right of initiative in accordance with the Treaty;

27.

Acknowledges that the quality of Commission impact assessments has gone up in recent years, but stresses that there is further need for improvement;

28.

Refers in this connection to the Commission’s Impact Assessment Board (IAB) founded in 2006, which is responsible for the development of Commission impact assessments;

29.

Stresses that the members of the IAB are independent only in formal terms, since they are currently appointed by and subject to the instructions of the Commission President, and cannot therefore be said to be fully independent; calls, therefore, for the members of the IAB to be scrutinized by the European Parliament and the Council prior to appointment and no longer be subject to the instructions of the Commission President; calls for the work of the IAB and experts to take place in the public remit with the highest transparency so that their independence can be verified in practice;

30.

Calls also for the involvement of experts from all policy areas as well as all stakeholder groups affected in the IAB’s work; call for these experts to come from outside the Commission and not be subject to instructions;

31.

Calls for the early and comprehensive involvement – including by means of notification and interim reports – of the European Parliament, and in particular of its relevant committees, in the whole impact assessment process and in the work of the IAB; invites the Commission to provide Parliament and the Council with two-to-four-page summaries with the full impact assessment, including when relevant an explanation for the reasons for not carrying out an impact assessment, when submitting the legislative proposal in order to verify that all relevant issues are addressed without jeopardizing the independence of the assessment by influencing the actual evaluation;

32.

Notes that, in carrying out its impact assessments, the Commission should also consult with the Member States, because the latter must later transpose the directives into national law, and national authorities usually know better how legal provisions will work in practice;

33.

Emphasises that smart regulation based on complete and objective impact assessment remains the shared responsibility of the European institutions, and that the Commission must therefore also take into account feedback received from the European Parliament, the Committee of the Regions, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Member States;

34.

Notes that, before the final adoption of an impact assessment, its preliminary results must always be subjected to an external review; calls for the findings of this review to be publicly accessible;

35.

Notes the criticism by the European Court of Auditors to the effect that the Commission sometimes undertakes legislative initiatives even though the impact assessment process has not been completed; further notes the criticism that not all policy options may receive the same level of attention; stresses that all policy options must be fully considered in the impact assessment process;

36.

Calls, in the interest of greater transparency, for the publication of the names of all experts and other participants in the impact assessment process as well as of their declaration of interests;

37.

Calls, in connection with public consultations, for the early notification of stakeholder groups concerning any planned consultation; further takes the view that stakeholder groups should be given the opportunity, as part of the public consultation process, to comment on impact assessments, and that this should take place in good time, before the Commission proposal is published;

38.

Insists that the data used by the Commission be reliable and comparable;

39.

Calls on the Commission, in its impact assessments, to look systematically at the administrative burden imposed by proposed legislation, and always to state clearly which of the options assessed eliminates the most administrative burdens or creates fewest new ones;

40.

Notes that presenting the results of an impact assessment at the same time as a legislative proposal is unhelpful, as it gives the impression that the principal aim of the impact assessment is to justify the Commission proposal; therefore advocates the early publication of documents at every stage of the legislative process, including the publication of the Commission's final impact assessment, as approved by the IAB, before inter-service consultations begins;

41.

Suggests that all completed impact assessments by the Commission should be published in a special publication series by the Commission so that they can easily be referenced and searched by the public on a dedicated website;

42.

Calls for the ex-post evaluation by the Commission of legal acts adopted; reiterates nevertheless that the ex-post evaluation should never replace the Commission's above-mentioned duty to monitor the application of Union law by Member States;

43.

Calls on the Commission to provide substantial comments on the impact assessments carried out by Parliament;

44.

Calls on its committees to make more consistent use of the parliamentary impact assessment, an instrument which is already available; recalls that there is a specific budget line to cover the carrying out of impact assessments; considers recourse to a parliamentary impact assessment particularly necessary when substantive changes to the initial proposal have been introduced;

45.

Further recalls that impact assessments need not form part of a time-consuming study but may also take the form of limited studies, workshops and expert hearings;

46.

Takes the view that a standard citation should systematically be included by Parliament in its legislative resolutions, by which a reference is made to consideration of all impact assessments conducted by the EU institutions in the areas relevant to the legislation in question;

47.

Notes that Parliament and its committees already possess the machinery with which to scrutinise the Commission's impact assessments; considers that a presentation of the impact assessment by the Commission to the relevant committees would be a valuable addition to the scrutiny undertaken in the Parliament; notes that such scrutiny may also take a number of other forms, including complementary impact assessments, more detailed analyses, the review of Commission impact assessments by external experts and the holding of special meetings with independent experts; stresses that the work of its policy departments in this area should develop in a consistent manner;

48.

Stresses that Parliament impact assessments should be regarded as a corrective to the Commission’s impact assessments;

49.

Calls for Commission impact assessments to be examined systematically and as early as possible at parliamentary, and in particular at committee, level;

50.

Stresses that the decision to carry out a parliamentary impact assessment must be taken in Parliament’s relevant committee with the participation of the rapporteur; urges that its Rules of Procedure be amended so as to enable one quarter of the committee’s members to order an impact assessment to be carried out;

51.

Encourages all its committees, before considering a legislative proposal, to hold an in-depth discussion with the Commission on the impact assessment;

52.

Stresses that impact assessments carried out during the course of the parliamentary legislative process are also important; urges that Parliament should examine the possibility of an impact assessment where substantial amendments are made at any stage of the legislative process; notes, however, that this should not lead to long delays;

53.

Calls in addition for individual Members to have the scope to request small studies to provide them with relevant facts or statistics in areas relating to their parliamentary work, and suggests that such studies may be undertaken by the European Parliament's library to complement its current functions;

54.

Calls therefore for Parliament to adopt plans for its library to provide members with this service; stresses that any plans should be based on the best practices of parliamentary libraries, including those of Member States, and should be carried out, according to strict rules and in full cooperation with the research function serving committees;

55.

Stresses the importance of a uniform impact assessment mechanism for the quality and coherence of its own policy formation;

56.

Calls, therefore, for the establishment of an integrated impact assessment process within the European Parliament; proposes in this context that a common impact assessment procedure be developed on the basis of a common system and methodology used by all committees;

57.

Urges that this should take place under the aegis of an autonomous structure which makes use of the Parliament's own resources, for instance by involving the library and the policy departments, and includes external experts, such as seconded officials from national impact assessment facilities, on an ad hoc basis for individual impact assessments, which would be answerable to the European Parliament through a supervisory board consisting of members;

58.

Calls for the necessary administrative infrastructure to be created to this end, making sure that any such infrastructure is budget neutral, by making use of existing resources;

59.

Stresses that long-term deliberations should take place on the prospects of a common approach to impact assessments by the European institutions; recalls that the interinstitutional agreement of 16 December 2003 and the interinstitutional common approach to impact assessments of November 2005 already called for a common methodological approach to impact assessments in the European institutions;

60.

Regrets that the Commission opposes the idea of a common approach to impact assessment by the European institutions;

61.

Notes that the Council has hitherto made very little use of impact assessment as an instrument; calls therefore on the Council too to make more intensive use of impact assessments, in line with the above-mentioned interinstitutional common approach to impact assessments, in order to improve the quality of its contribution to EU legislation; emphasises that smart regulation based on complete and objective impact assessment remains the shared responsibility of the EU institutions and of the Member States;

62.

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

11.12.2012   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 380/39

—

having regard to Articles 2, 3, 6 and 21 of the Treaty on European Union,

—

having regard to Articles 7, 9, 145-161, 206-209 and 215 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU),

—

having regard to Articles 5, 12, 14, 15, 16, 21, 23, 26, 27, 28, 29, 31, 32, 33, 34 and 36 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union,

—

having regard to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1948) and other United Nations instruments in the field of human rights, in particular the Covenants on Civil and Political Rights (1966) and on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (1966), the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (1965), the Convention on the Elimination of all Forms of Discrimination against Women (1979), the Convention on the Rights of the Child (1989), the International Convention on the Protection of the Rights of All Migrant Workers and Members of Their Families (1990) and the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (2006) (1),

—

having regard to the United Nations ‘Protect, Respect and Remedy’ Framework for business and human rights proposed by the Special Representative of the Secretary-General on human rights and transnational corporations and other business enterprises, Professor John Ruggie, endorsed unanimously by the UN Human Rights Council in 2008 (resolution 8/7), the recently released guiding principles for implementing the framework (2) and the Foreign Affairs Council conclusions of 8 December 2009 which note the important role of business in achieving full respect for human rights and reiterate the Council’s full support for the work of the UN Special Representative (3),

—

having regard to the last report by John Ruggie, the Special Representative of the Secretary-General of the United Nations, on the issue of human rights and transnational corporations and other business enterprises (2),

—

having regard to the European Social Charter, in particular Articles 5, 6 and 19 thereof (4),

—

having regard to the European Convention on the Legal Status of Migrant Workers (5),

—

having regard to the conventions of the International Labour Organisation, in particular the eight fundamental conventions on freedom of association and the effective recognition of the right to collective bargaining (Conventions Nos 87 and 98), on the elimination of all forms of forced or compulsory labour (Conventions Nos 29 and 105), on the elimination of discrimination in respect of employment and occupation (Conventions Nos 100 and 111) and on the effective abolition of child labour (Conventions Nos 138 and 182) (6),

—

having regard also to the ILO conventions on labour clauses (public contracts) (Convention No 94) and on collective bargaining (Convention No 154) (7),

—

having regard to the ILO’s Decent Work Agenda and Global Jobs Pact, adopted by a worldwide consensus on 19 June 2009 at the International Labour Conference (8),

—

having regard to the Declaration on Social Justice for a Fair Globalisation adopted by consensus of the 183 Member States of the ILO on 10 June 2008 (9),

—

having regard to the Marrakesh Agreement Establishing the World Trade Organization (WTO) (10), and the Declaration adopted at the fourth ministerial conference held in November 2001 in Doha, in particular Paragraph 31 (11),

—

having regard to the General Agreement on Trades in Services, in particular Article 1(2)(d) thereof, the so-called MODE 4 (12),

—

having regard to the report of the World Commission on the Social Dimension of Globalisation ‘A Fair Globalisation: Creating Opportunities For All’ (13),

—

having regard to the ‘Leaders’ Statement’ of the G20 summit held in Pittsburgh on 24-25 September 2009 (14),

—

having regard to the most recent updates on OECD Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises (15),

—

having regard to Regulation (EC) No 1927/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 December 2006 on establishing the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund (16) as well as amending Regulation (EC) No 546/2009,

—

having regard to Directive 96/71/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 December 1996 concerning the posting of workers in the framework of the provision of services (17) (the PWD),

—

having regard to its resolution of 20 September 1996 on the Commission communication on the inclusion of respect for democratic principles and human rights in agreements between the Community and third countries (18) and its resolution of 14 February 2006 on the human rights and democracy clause in European Union agreements (19),

—

having regard to its resolution of 25 October 2001 on openness and democracy in international trade (20), calling for the WTO to respect the fundamental social standards of the International Labour Organisation (ILO), and the EU’s acceptance of the ILO’s decisions, including any calls for sanctions in connection with serious breaches of fundamental social standards,

—

having regard to its resolution of 23 May 2007 on promoting decent work for all (21), calling for the promotion of decent work through inclusion of social standards in EU trade agreements, particularly bilateral agreements,

—

having regard to its resolution of 15 November 2005 on the social dimension of globalisation (22),

—

having regard to its resolution of 5 July 2005 on the exploitation of children in developing countries, with a special focus on child labour (23),

—

having regard to its resolution of 6 July 2006 on fair trade and development (24),

—

having regard to its resolution of 22 May 2007 on ‘Global Europe - external aspects of competitiveness’ (25) in response to the Communication from the Commission to the Council and the European Parliament entitled ‘Global Europe: Competing in the World. A contribution to the EU’s Growth and Jobs Strategy’ (COM(2006)0567),

—

having regard to its resolutions of 30 May 2002 on the Commission Green Paper on promoting a European framework for corporate social responsibility (26) and of 15 January 1999 on EU standards for European enterprises operating in developing countries: towards a European Code of Conduct (27),

—

having regard to its resolution of 13 March 2007 on corporate social responsibility: a new partnership (28),

—

having regard to its resolution of 25 November 2010 on corporate social responsibility in international trade agreements (29),

—

having regard to its resolutions on economic partnership agreements with ACP regions and countries, and particularly those of 26 September 2002 (30), 23 May 2007 (31) and 12 December 2007 (32),

—

having regard to the Council conclusions of 14 June 2010 on child labour (33),

—

having regard to the European Council conclusions of 16 September 2010 on ‘A changing world: a challenge for the EU’ (34),

—

having regard to the Commission Communication entitled ‘The Social Dimension of Globalisation - the EU’s policy contribution on extending the benefits to all’ (COM(2004)0383),

—

having regard to the renewed European Social Agenda of 2 July 2008 (COM(2008)0412),

—

having regard to the Commission Communication entitled ‘Promoting decent work for all – the EU contribution to the implementation of the decent work agenda in the world’ (COM(2006)0249),

—

having regard to the public consultation on disclosure of non-financial information by companies launched by DG Internal Market and Services, the Financial Reporting Unit (35),

—

having regard to the Commission Communication entitled ‘Trade, Growth and World Affairs: Trade Policy as a core component of the EU’s 2020 strategy’ (COM(2010)0612),

—

having regard to the generalised system of preferences (GSP), in force since 1 January 2009, which grants duty-free access or a tariff reduction for an increased number of products and also includes a new incentive for vulnerable countries faced with specific trade, financial or development needs (36),

—

having regard to all of the agreements between the European Union and non-member states,

—

having regard in particular to the Partnership Agreement between the members of the African, Caribbean and Pacific Group of States (ACP) and the European Union, signed in Cotonou on 23 June 2000, and its revisions in 2005 and 2010 (37),

—

having regard in particular to the conclusion of the negotiations between the EU, Colombia and Peru on signature of a Multi-Party Trade Agreement (38),

—

having regard to the hearing on ‘Application of Social and Environmental Standards in Trade Negotiations’ which Parliament held on 14 January 2010,

—

having regard to Rule 48 of its Rules of Procedure,

—

having regard to the report of the Committee on Employment and Social Affairs and the opinions of the Committee on Development and the Committee on International Trade (A7-0172/2011),

A.

whereas the EU’s high standards for social protection and human rights protection are decisive requisites of the European Union when negotiating on trade relations with non-member states,

B.

whereas the protection of economic and social rights is an obligation for all Member States and all other States arising from the Universal Declaration of Human Rights of the United Nations, and whereas this includes the right of everyone to form and to join trade unions for the protection of his or her interests,

C.

whereas the core ILO conventions are recognised internationally as a basis for fair international trade and whereas, regrettably, not all Member States totally respect them,

D.

whereas it is in the interest of the Union to conclude bilateral trade agreements for the profit of the Union and the trading partners as long as both sides respect the rights enshrined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights,

E.

whereas the attitude of all Member States has clearly to reflect the principles of the European social model when social questions and cooperation among the Member States based on the open method of coordination are at stake,

F.

whereas democracy and the rule of law require strong and free trade unions, workers’ associations and social movements, and whereas these can only exist in a democratic community where the separation of powers prevails,

G.

whereas some developing countries say that they are under pressure to give up their comparative advantage when the Union requests compliance with international labour standards,

H.

whereas the 2008 ILO Declaration on Social Justice for a Fair Globalisation, adopted by consensus of the 183 ILO Members, states that the violation of fundamental principles and rights at work cannot be invoked or otherwise used as a legitimate comparative advantage and that labour standards should not be used for protectionist trade purposes,

I.

whereas some non-member countries attempt to enforce MODE4 (39) when negotiating trade agreements with the EU,

J.

whereas many businesses shoulder their corporate social responsibility (CSR) and seek to ensure compliance with social and environmental standards within their sphere of influence, for example by acceding to the UN Global Compact or participating in voluntary industry initiatives,

K.

whereas the principles underpinning CSR, which are fully recognised at international level, whether by the OECD, the ILO or the United Nations, concern the responsible behaviour expected of undertakings and presuppose, first of all, compliance with the legislation in force, in particular in the areas of employment, labour relations, human rights, the environment, consumer interests, transparency vis-à-vis consumers and the fight against corruption;

L.

whereas the adoption of a recommendation on CSR and encouraging its respect should be a reality at EU level,

M.

whereas globalisation facilitates workers’ mobility between Member States and to non-member countries,

N.

whereas the role of the ILO in setting new standards is not respected, despite the involvement of the ILO in the G20, the global recognition of the Decent Work Agenda and the inclusion of employment and decent work in Millennium Development Goal No 1,

O.

whereas unconditional respect for the right of association and effective collective bargaining should be recalled,

P.

whereas the Decent Work Agenda should be promoted,

Q.

whereas it is extremely important to prevent all sorts of wage discrimination, according to the principle of the right to equal pay for equal work claimed in Article 23 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights,

R.

whereas the mid-term evaluation of the EU’s generalised system of preferences (GSP) (40) shows that the GSP+ trade regime, which requires that the beneficiary countries ratify and effectively implement specified international conventions in the fields of human rights, core labour standards, sustainable development and good governance, had a significant positive effect on gender equality in these countries,

S.

whereas social protection of workers should be promoted,

T.

whereas the ratification and application of ILO conventions classified by the ILO as up to date have to be promoted with a view to achieving a progressively increasing coverage of the four pillars of decent work, which are employment, social protection, social dialogue and rights at work, with a special emphasis placed on the social governance conventions No 81 and No 129 on labour inspection, No 122 on employment policy and No 144 on tripartite consultations,

U.

whereas the European Social Agenda of 2 July 2008 (COM(2008)0412) called for EU Member States to make renewed efforts to ratify and apply ILO conventions classified by the ILO as up to date, with a view to setting an example to partners in the world,

V.

whereas the effective application of international labour standards is negatively affected in many countries by weak labour administrations and social partners’ lack of capacity,

W.

whereas the ILO’s Global Employment Trends 2011 estimates that in 2009, globally, 50,1 % of all workers, i.e. 1,53 billion, were in vulnerable employment (41) and whereas the financial and economic crisis has stopped and reversed the drop in vulnerable employment as recorded before 2008,

X.

whereas the ILO’s World Social Security Report 2010 states that over 50 % of all workers have no social protection and whereas there is renewed interest in extending social protection coverage including the promotion of the social security systems,

1.

Recalls that the EU aims to become the leading entity in the world as regards social policy by promoting social objectives globally; emphasises the important role of the European Parliament originating from the Lisbon Treaty, which strengthens its influence significantly;

2.

Recalls also that, when perusing Community policies and objectives, the horizontal social clause of Article 9 TFEU has to be taken into account, for example regarding Article 46, Article 49 TFEU or EU trade policy, the Community cannot ignore general interest requirements (42);

3.

Recalls further that Article 7 TFEU requires consistency of EU policy and that the legislator has to take into account all of the EU’s objectives and has to act in accordance with the principle of conferral of powers, meaning that it has to strike the correct balance between the various objectives and/or interests when adopting an act with a specific legal basis (43);

4.

Urges Member States to comply with the core ILO conventions, especially as regards the abolition of barriers to freedom of association and collective bargaining created by encouraging bogus self-employment or forcing individuals to renounce collective agreements;

5.

Calls on parties to Free Trade Agreements (FTAs) to commit themselves, in accordance with the obligations deriving from membership of the ILO and the ILO Declaration on Fundamental Principles and Rights at Work and its Follow-up, adopted by the International Labour Conference at its 86th Session in 1998, to respecting, promoting and realising, in their laws and practices, the principles concerning fundamental rights, namely:

6.

Recalls that the EU is seen, on a worldwide basis, as a magnet and an attractive partner because of the unique combination of economic dynamism with a social model;

7.

Emphasises that the European social model offers equal opportunities in education, training and the labour market as well as equal access to social services as major pillars of economic success;

8.

Considers that failure to comply with basic international social standards constitutes a form of social and environmental dumping detrimental to European enterprises and workers;

9.

Asks the Commission and the Member States to cooperate with international organisations on improving the social dimension of globalisation, having as reference the European social model;

10.

Stresses the importance of coherent action on social protection inside and outside the Union;

11.

Suggests developing a dialogue with all interested parties stressing the importance of social issues and focusing on the implementation and enforcement of pragmatic and sustainable solutions; stresses in this respect the importance of raising the awareness of the social partners concerning their rights and obligations;

12.

Considers it necessary to enhance the role of the relevant international institutions (particularly the ILO, WTO, OECD and the United Nations) and seek their cooperation in the development, implementation and promotion of basic international social standards and corresponding penalties;

13.

Advocates that the Union refrains from trade agreements with countries which do not respect human rights and core labour standards;

14.

Supports the creation of tools for a sustainable dialogue with partner countries that is based on mutual respect, seeks the development of partner countries’ – especially developing countries’ – own resources and enables them to develop economic sectors with care;

15.

Calls also on the Commission, during the negotiations, to adapt the level of its requirements to the degree of development of each partner country; proposes in this context that the Commission draws up a list of additional standards, which should be introduced gradually and flexibly, taking account of the economic, social and environmental situation of the partner concerned;

16.

Considers that, both in the territory of the partner country and in the Member States, the implementation of these basic standards should be subject to continuous monitoring by independent bodies and that their non-enforcement or infringement, established on the basis of predetermined criteria, should be penalised by means of effective and transparent procedures;

17.

Considers that these standards should be applied in full and that neither free zones nor host country agreements can be used to escape them;

18.

Asks the Commission and the Member States to cooperate with the partner countries to fight gender discrimination and all forms of violence against women and make gender equality a reality inside and outside the Union in accordance with the principles of the Millennium Development Goals and the Beijing Platform for Action; calls in this respect on the Commission and the Member States to implement measures that will significantly consolidate the juridical and social position of women to harness their potential contribution to economic and social development;

19.

Welcomes the promotion of gender equality in the developing countries and territories by means of the current and future GSP trade agreements; requests that the ratification and effective implementation of international conventions on gender equality shall be prerequisites in all external trade and economic partnership agreements;

20.

Calls furthermore on the Commission and the Member States to cooperate with each other and with the partner countries to protect vulnerable groups and to fight not only gender discrimination but also discrimination on grounds of racial or ethnic origin, religion or belief, disability, age and sexual orientation; draws particular attention to people who face multiple discrimination and disadvantages in order to tackle the root causes of poverty;

21.

Calls on the Commission and the Member States to make the elimination of child labour and respect for children’s rights a priority in trade agreements, dialogues with other countries and in development cooperation and notes that the private sector has a key role to play in respecting children’s rights; takes the view that measures to combat child labour should include the creation of decent jobs for adults while enabling children to receive a suitable education; asks furthermore for an EU child labour hotline to be set up where citizens can report all companies that make use of child labour anywhere in the world; considers that this hotline should have a small but sufficient capacity enabling it to publish an annual report on its findings;

22.

Emphasises that the Union’s expenditure in the context of development cooperation, association or stability agreements and trade agreements brings about unique chances to assist the partner countries in putting in place viable education, vocational training, labour market institutions and a social protection floor for greater social and economic security and, consequently, greater welfare;

23.

Insists that the Commission and the Member States, in the context of development cooperation and external assistance, support the implementation of decent work programmes that reflect national needs and priorities regarding employment and social policy and are based on a tripartite agreement (employers, workers, governments); asks further the Commission and the Member States to better integrate social and employment objectives in economic and trade sectors under development cooperation and external assistance;

24.

Asks the Commission and the Member States to cooperate with partner countries in improving the quality of the skills of citizens, skills that are relevant to new jobs and employment, as a catalyst for stability, prosperity, inclusive societies and good governance, especially in the EU neighbourhood;

25.

Calls for the creation of social attachés in the new External Action Service to increase its efficiency in the area of social policy and, in particular, to ensure that decent work for all is implemented as a central policy objective;

26.

Recognises that, although the international trend on bilateral trade agreements is gradually moving towards a greater acceptance of labour and social standards linked to trade agendas, FTAs still generally contain few references to social standards; regrets that the EU does not have a homogenous formula for a ‘social clause’ to be inserted in all bilateral trade agreements; urges the EU to incorporate a social clause in line with other internationally agreed and recognised standards (i.e. ILO core labour standards) into all EU external trade agreements, including those coming within the ambit of the WTO;

27.

Recalls that the existing practices of the WTO need to be made equally beneficial for both developing and developed countries;

28.

Recalls that the competition policy and social policy must be combined and stresses that the European social model shall under no circumstances be weakened in favour of competitiveness and alleged economic advantages; reiterates that the European social model needs to be an example for workers protection in developing countries;

29.

Recalls that the EU has set itself the objective of not only becoming a pole of excellence on corporate social responsibility but also of promoting CSR in its external policies; acknowledges the Commission’s efforts in promoting CSR best practices among European companies operating abroad, but stresses that it should take better account of the importance of certifications and labels that demonstrate the compliance of enterprises with CSR principles;

30.

Takes the view that CSR is a useful and non-binding form of commitment on the part of multinational companies; recommends, further, targeted promotion of CSR through, inter alia, the ISO 26000 Standard, the UN Global Compact or the OECD Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises, and by linking CSR to wider initiatives promoting decent work in a sector, in communities, at country and regional level such as the ILO Better Work and SCORE programme involving workers, employers, authorities and other relevant stakeholders;

31.

Stresses that no directive regulating CSR and enforcing respect for it should be adopted at EU level;

32.

Believes that the Commission should, in its future communication on the internationalisation of SMEs’ activities, propose measures that help support and promote SME initiatives in the field of CSR which respect the ‘think small first’ principle and take account of their specific circumstances;

33.

Calls on the Commission and the Member States to seek to ensure that the OECD Guidelines on Multinational Enterprise are strengthened in their current update, maintaining and enhancing their application to ‘specific instances’ and introducing best practice for ‘National Contact Points’ (NCPs), including a review of how the European Union could better undertake its obligations on NCP through the European External Action Service’s delegations;

34.

Points out that CSR should address new areas such as the organisation of work, equal opportunities and social inclusion, anti-discrimination measures, the development of lifelong education and training; emphasises that CSR should cover, for example, quality of work, equal pay and career prospects and the promotion of innovative projects so as to assist the shift towards a sustainable economy;

35.

Requests the Commission and the Member States to encourage business enterprises domiciled in the EU to respect human rights, including economic and social rights, and the environment throughout their global operations, in particular those conducted by their subsidiaries and other related legal entities;

36.

Stresses that compliance with strict environmental standards by businesses from the EU in third countries should be regarded as just as important as respect for the rights of employees, as damage to the environment almost always also jeopardises the health of employees, destroys farmland, fishing grounds and other economic resources, and thus deprives many people of the basis for their subsistence;

37.

Emphasises that, given the size of their share of international trade, European companies and their subsidiaries and subcontractors play a key role in the promotion and dissemination of social and labour standards worldwide, and that they should therefore act in accordance with European values and internationally recognised standards; considers that it would be right and proper for European enterprises which relocate their production to countries with less stringent social obligations to be held liable, including before European courts, for any damage and negative externalities affecting local populations;

38.

Calls on the Commission to introduce amendments to its Proposal for a Regulation on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters (2010/0383 (COD)) to enable claimants to sue a subsidiary domiciled in a third country, together with the European parent corporation, through the creation of additional grounds of jurisdiction;

39.

Calls on the Commission to advocate the incorporation of a CSR dimension into multilateral trade policies, both in the international forums which have supported the concept of CSR, in particular the OECD and the ILO, and in the WTO in the post-Doha context;

40.

Calls on the Commission to systematically include a chapter on sustainable development, containing a legally binding CSR clause, in the free trade and investment agreements it negotiates with third countries;

41.

Proposes that this CSR clause cover compliance with the ILO’s eight core conventions and four priority conventions and also provide incentives for enterprises to enter into CSR commitments and an obligation of diligence for enterprises and groups of enterprises, i.e. an obligation to take proactive measures to identify and prevent any violation of human or environmental rights, corruption or tax evasion, including in their subsidiaries and supply chains (i.e. their sphere of influence);

42.

Calls upon all Member States to respect and promote the core labour standards of the ILO, to comply with the agreements signed to date in the social field and to apply in practice the principles therein relating to workers’ rights;

43.

Stresses that repeated infringements of core labour standards have been reported in several countries with GSP-Plus status, but which did not however lead to the suspension of preferences; considers that the failure to enforce conditionality undermines the EU’s ambition to promote social policy and core labour standards globally and goes against the principle of policy coherence development;

44.

Welcomes the ILO’s international labour standards supervisory system, which is unique at international level and helps to ensure that countries implement the conventions they ratify; stresses that, in the event of a problem, the ILO should assist countries through social dialogue and technical assistance;

45.

Calls upon the Commission to promote closer cooperation by the WTO with the ILO, making it possible for the ILO to submit expert reports to the WTO during trade disputes, in order to achieve labour standards and decent work mainstreaming in WTO activities and prevent the jeopardising of social development;

46.

Is of the opinion that Union policies should focus on individuals as well as on institutions in regard to human capital development and labour market reforms;

47.

Expresses concern over the practice of some non-member countries using the MODE4 process for their trade activities; calls rather upon the Commission and the Member States to aim to structure international migration in a way that will avoid exploitation and brain drains;

48.

Supports initiatives that enhance the development of social partner dialogue and cooperation within the partner countries and transnationally and asks the Commission to further develop the existing programmes, focusing on those aiming at empowering social partners’ institutional capacity for policy development and implementation;

49.

Advocates the implementation of freedom of association for trade unions and the right to bargain collectively without exemption in order to enforce, improve and defend decent work conditions;

50.

Recalls the EU guidelines on various human rights issues, which represent a strong political signal that these are priorities for the Union; asks the Council therefore to adopt similar guidelines based on the eight core ILO conventions, to be used as a pragmatic instrument of the EU that helps to better advance the Union’s external social policy; reiterates that respect for international human rights law remains a binding obligation on all companies according to the Universal Declaration;

51.

Asks the Commission and the Member States for the development of a proactive approach to address the social consequences of adjustments and restructuring related to globalisation;

52.

Welcomes the organisation of G20 meetings at the level of social ministers, and calls for the Commission to take an active part in them; regrets that, in general, the follow-up at EU level remains unsatisfactory;

53.

Asks the Commission and the Member States to integrate employment, social and environmental policies, including gender equality aspects, into all negotiations on global economic governance structures and macro-economic dialogues;

54.

Calls on the Commission and the Member States to encourage good governance in the financial, tax and judicial areas, as a way of enhancing the social dimension of globalisation;

55.

Requests from the Commission a recommendation to EU Member States in favour of the implementation and ratification of ILO conventions classified by the ILO as up to date, in order to improve workers’ rights and working conditions within the Union and in the partner countries, aiming at a fair and inclusive globalisation through greater coherence in the external dimension of Member States’ economic and social policy; asks the Commission in the same sense to encourage the Member States to conduct regular reviews to examine the implications of economic, financial and trade policies;

56.

Considers that the proliferation of international regulators creates urgent issues relating to the consistency and effectiveness of the international legal order, particularly as regards the protection of workers’ rights and fundamental rights;

57.

Proposes that the redefinition of global governance should be geared to greater integration of regulatory bodies into the legal order of the United Nations and greater respect for the principles espoused by its specialised agencies, particularly the ILO and WHO;

58.

Instructs its President to forward this resolution to the Council, the Commission and the governments and parliaments of the Member States.

11.12.2012   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 380/51

—

having regard to Articles 208 to 211, and 290 and 291 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU),

—

having regard to Regulation (EC) No 1905/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 December 2006 establishing a financing instrument for development cooperation (1) (Development Cooperation Instrument – DCI),

—

having regard to the Millennium Declaration of 8 September 2000, setting out the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) as criteria established collectively by the international community for the elimination of poverty,

—

having regard to the joint statement by the Council and the representatives of the governments of the Member States meeting within the Council, the European Parliament and the Commission on European Union Development Policy: ‘The European Consensus’ signed on 20 December 2005 (2),

—

having regard to the joint Declaration on Democratic Scrutiny and Coherence of External Actions and the Commission Declaration on Democratic Scrutiny and Coherence of External Actions attached to the Interinstitutional Agreement on budgetary discipline and sound financial management (3),

—

having regard to the declarations by the Commission entered in the minutes of the Council formally adopting the common position of the Council on the adoption of DCI (4), and in particular the ‘Commission Declaration concerning Article 5 DCI’,

—

having regard to letter D (2007) 303749 of 5 March 2007 from the then Chair of the Committee on Development, Josep Borrell Fontelles, to then Commissioners Ferrero-Waldner and Michel (5),

—

having regard to letter A (2007) 5238 of 26 March 2007 from then Commissioner Ferrero-Waldner to the then Chair of the Committee on Development, Josep Borrell Fontelles (6),

—

having regard to the ‘Reporting Directives for the Creditor Reporting System’ of the Development Assistance Committee of the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD/DAC) (7),

—

having regard to the Judgment of the Court of Justice of 23 October 2007 in Case C-403/05 (European Parliament v Commission of the European Communities) Action for annulment of Commission decision approving a project relating to border security in the Philippines (Decision adopted on the basis of Regulation (EEC) No 443/92),

—

having regard to Regulation (EC) No 1337/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 December 2008 establishing a facility for rapid response to soaring food prices in developing countries (8),

—

having regard to the Presidency Conclusions of the European Council of 29-30 October 2009 (Doc. 15265/2009),

—

having regard to the Council Decision of 26 July 2010 establishing the organisation and functioning of the European External Action Service (EEAS) (9),

—

having regard to the Communication from the Commission of 19 October 2010 on the ‘EU Budget Review’ (COM(2010)0700),

—

having regard to the Green Paper from the Commission of 19 October 2010 on ‘The future of EU budget support to third countries’ (COM(2010)0586),

—

having regard to the Green Paper from the Commission of 10 November 2010 on ‘EU development policy in support of inclusive growth and sustainable development: Increasing the impact of EU development policy’ (COM(2010)0629),

—

having regard to its resolution of 15 February 2007 on the draft Commission decisions establishing Country Strategy Papers and Indicative Programmes for Malaysia, Brazil and Pakistan (10),

—

having regard to its resolution of 7 June 2007 on the draft Commission decision establishing Regional Strategy Papers and Regional Indicative Programmes for Mercosur and Latin America (11),

—

having regard to its resolution of 21 June 2007 on the draft Commission decision establishing a Regional Strategy Document 2007-2013 and a Multiannual Indicative Programme for Asia (12),

—

having regard to its resolution of 12 July 2007 on the democratic scrutiny of the implementation of the financing instrument for development cooperation (DCI) (13),

—

having regard to its resolution of 25 October 2007 on the draft Commission decision establishing a Special Measure 2007 for Iraq (14),

—

having regard to its resolution of 9 July 2008 on the draft Commission decisions establishing Annual Action Programmes for Brazil for 2008 and for Argentina for 2008 (15),

—

having regard to its resolution of 15 March 2007 on local authorities and development cooperation (16),

—

having regard to the Communication from the Commission on ‘Local authorities: actors for development’ (COM(2008)0626),

—

having regard to the Structured Dialogue launched in 2010 by the Commission with the aim to involve civil society organisations (CSOs) and local authorities (LAs) in EC development cooperation,

—

having regard to its resolution of 6 May 2009 on the draft Commission decision establishing the 2009 Annual Action Programme for Non-State Actors and Local Authorities in Development (Part II: Targeted Projects) (17),

—

having regard to its position of 3 February 2011 on the Council position at first reading with a view to the adoption of a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Regulation (EC) No 1905/2006 establishing a financing instrument for development cooperation (18),

—

having regard to its position of 3 February 2011 on the Council position at first reading with a view to the adoption of a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Council Regulation (EC) No 1905/2006 establishing a financing instrument for development cooperation (19),

—

having regard to its position of 3 February 2011 on the Council position at first reading with a view to the adoption of a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Council Regulation (EC) No 1934/2006 establishing a financing instrument for cooperation with industrialised and other high-income countries and territories (20),

—

having regard to Rule 48 of its Rules of Procedure,

—

having regard to the report of the Committee on Development (A7-0187/2011),

A.

whereas, according to Article 2(1) of the DCI, the overarching objective of cooperation under that instrument is ‘the eradication of poverty in partner countries’, including ‘pursuit of the Millennium Development Goals’ (MDGs),

B.

whereas, according to Article 2(4) of the DCI, all the measures under geographic programmes and 90 % of the expenditure foreseen under thematic programmes must fulfil the criteria for Official Development Assistance (ODA) established by the OECD/DAC,

C.

whereas according to Commission calculations, only 0,2 % of the commitments financed under the DCI thematic programmes between 2007 and 2009 do not fulfil the ODA criteria,

D.

whereas, in accordance with Council Decision 1999/468/EC (the ‘Comitology decision’) (21), Parliament launched in 2007 a process of democratic scrutiny of the implementation of Regulation (EC) No 1905/2006, including all Country Strategy Papers (CSPs), Regional Strategy Papers (RSPs), Thematic Strategy Papers (TSPs) and Multiannual Indicative Programmes, and most of the Annual Action Programmes (AAPs),

E.

whereas, in accordance with the joint Declaration on Democratic Scrutiny and Coherence of External Actions and the Commission Declaration on Democratic Scrutiny and Coherence of External Actions attached to the Interinstitutional Agreement on budgetary discipline and sound financial management, the Commission committed itself ‘to take due account of the position of the European Parliament when implementing the strategies’,

F.

whereas the principles of ownership, participation and good governance call for a multi-stakeholder approach in which the various development partners, i.e. local authorities or non-state actors, act in a complementary and coherent manner; and whereas it is important, however, to make a clear distinction between the specific role of local authorities and that of non-state actors, in terms of their spheres of competence, legitimacy and democratic control, experience in the management of local affairs and involvement in the implementation of public policies,

G.

whereas EU funding for international cooperation with Africa comes from four geographic instruments: the EDF for African ACP countries, the TDCA for South Africa, the ENPI for five North African states, and the DCI for the thematic programmes,

H.

whereas the Commission undertook to endeavour to ensure that 20 % of its allocated assistance under country programmes covered by the DCI would be dedicated, by 2009, to basic and secondary education and basic health, through project, programme or budget support linked to these sectors, taking an average across all geographic areas,

I.

whereas the EU has committed itself to the collective target of spending 0,7 % of its gross national income (GNI) on ODA by 2015,

J.

whereas the Earth Summit 2012 aims to secure renewed political commitment to sustainable development, to assess progress towards internationally agreed goals on sustainable development and to address new and emerging challenges,

K.

whereas Article 290 of the TFEU states that a legislative act may delegate to the Commission the power to adopt non-legislative acts of general application to supplement or amend certain non-essential elements of the legislative act,

1.

Welcomes the Commission’s willingness to honour its commitment to enter into a regular dialogue with Parliament on the implementation of the DCI; acknowledges the efforts made to keep Parliament’s DCI working groups informed about how its comments on strategy papers have been taken into account in drawing up AAPs;

2.

Notes that, in particular during the mid-term review, the dialogue between the Commission and Parliament as part of the democratic scrutiny exercise has helped to avoid the adoption of strategy papers containing ultra vires provisions and to bring strategy papers into line with the requirements of the DCI regulation and in particular the ODA eligibility principles;

3.

Finds it regrettable that several of Parliament’s concerns raised during the democratic scrutiny process, in particular regarding a lack of focus on poverty and the MDGs, have not been sufficiently taken into account by the Commission;

4.

Finds it regrettable that, while the European Consensus on Development (2005) and the DCI emphasise the importance of ownership, the involvement of national parliaments in drawing up Country Strategy Papers has, in practice, been poor; finds it regrettable that the Commission has not adequately implemented the provisions of Articles 19, 20 and 33 of Regulation (EC) No 1905/2006 on consultation with non-state actors and local authorities;

5.

Notes that a ‘pro-growth’ strategy should not be confused with a long-term development strategy that entails the financing of long-term objectives such as health, education, access to energy in rural areas, support for small farmers, etc.;

6.

Finds it regrettable that, in response to its resolutions highlighting non-observance of the requirement laid down in Article 2(4) of the regulation to fulfil the ODA eligibility criteria, the Commission amended or withdrew only three of 11 draft implementing measures concerned;

7.

Finds it regrettable that the committee set up under Article 35 of the DCI did not react to Parliament’s resolutions signalling that the Commission had exceeded its implementing powers; notes with concern that the substantive scrutiny work carried out by Parliament did not receive any echo from the representatives of the Member States in the DCI Committee, and urges the Member States to assume their responsibilities and to ensure, in close collaboration with Parliament, that the measures proposed by the Commission comply fully with the DCI prescriptions;

8.

Requests the Commission to indicate, in order of priority and with their respective weight, the criteria it has used for the allocation of funds between the DCI countries and regions and to the various sectors of activity within each geographic and thematic programme;

9.

Considers that many country and regional strategy papers do not allocate sufficient resources to the DCI’s overarching goal of poverty eradication in the context of sustainable development, and that many documents do not indicate clearly how far the proposed actions will contribute to the MDGs targets;

10.

Draws particular attention to the ODA eligibility requirement for the geographic programmes under the DCI and urges the Commission and the EEAS to ensure full compliance with this legal obligation in every case;

11.

Points out that policy coherence for development, development ‘ownership’ and the non-fragmentation of aid are essential for ensuring aid effectiveness;

12.

Stresses that the EU continues to need a specific financing instrument for development cooperation, which targets exclusively developing countries and explicitly pursues the objectives defined in Article 208 TFEU; insists that the annual figures for ODA in the next Multiannual Financial Framework (MFF) period should increase in real terms to reach the collective target of spending 0,7 % of GNI on ODA by 2015;

13.

Emphasises that full compliance with ODA criteria, and in particular with the OECD/DAC requirement that ‘each transaction is administered with the promotion of the economic development and welfare of developing countries as its main objective’ (22), must remain a condition for all measures to be funded as part of geographic programmes under the new instrument; calls for a more stringent ODA quota for thematic programmes than under the current DCI, especially for programmes on ‘migration and asylum’, in respect of which the Commission did not demonstrate clearly how activities funded in the context of border controls are eligible as ODA according to the OECD/DAC criteria;

14.

Stresses that achievement of the MDGs must remain the prime objective of the instrument for the period until 2015; urges the Commission to ensure that EU aid continues to be consistent with the internationally agreed objectives and targets for development which will be adopted by the United Nations and other competent international organisations for the post-2015 period;

15.

Acknowledges the need for non-ODA cooperation with many developing countries for the provision of global public goods; believes that this kind of cooperation should be regulated and that funds should be channelled via one or more separate instruments, so as to ensure transparency and to protect the distinctive nature of development cooperation as an autonomous policy domain in the area of external relations; insists, in line with the commitment made at the European Council of 29-30 October 2009, that financing for climate change should not undermine or jeopardise the fight against poverty and continued progress towards the MDGs, and that the scarce ODA funds available for poverty reduction should not be diverted for non-development purposes in developing countries; stresses that the OECD definition of ODA should not be altered and calls on the Commission to ensure that no development projects financed by the EU conflict with global efforts to mitigate climate change and that all such projects are climate proof, particularly large infrastructure projects or projects in small islands which will be the first to suffer the consequences of climate change;

16.

Expresses its concern, at a time of serious public budget constraints, about the strong focus placed on private sector investment as a means to leverage more development finance resources; points out that development cooperation is the only external action policy (besides humanitarian aid) which has not been designed to serve EU interests but rather to defend the interests of the most marginalised and vulnerable populations on this planet; therefore, urges the Commission to ensure that any public finance used to support private sector investment in the South is not diverted from already under-funded sectors (as in the case of the programmes for non-state actors and local authorities for instance), and that such support will effectively enable the development of the domestic private sector and small and medium enterprises in low-income countries;

17.

Agrees that a differentiated approach to the diverse group of developing countries is needed, and that traditional financial aid may become less relevant for emerging countries; considers that aid for emerging countries, while promoting sustainable economic growth, should still focus on reinforcing the partner country’s fiscal policy and promoting mobilisation of domestic revenue which should lead to the reduction of poverty and of aid dependency;

18.

Urges the Commission to provide enhanced support for assisting developing and emerging countries in tax reforms, with the aim of supporting effective, efficient, fair and sustainable tax systems; calls on the Commission to effectively integrate the principles of good governance in tax matters into the programming, implementation and monitoring of country and regional strategy papers, while taking the necessary measures to enforce country-by-country reporting by transnational companies;

19.

Stresses that the future development cooperation instrument should continue to cover all developing countries of the geographic regions to which it applies, according to the OECD/DAC list of developing countries;

20.

Calls for closer coordination between the Commission and Member States so as to achieve the Treaty prescription of Article 210 TFEU, and supports the development of joint European strategy papers; believes that all EU programming documents for each country and region should include detailed and up-to-date donor matrices, as well as a special chapter on EU aid effectiveness, specifying actions taken to increase donor coordination, harmonisation and complementarity and to improve the division of labour among donors and particularly among EU Member States;

21.

Reiterates its call for the European Development Fund (EDF) to be brought into the EU budget, which would simplify procedures and increase the effectiveness and efficiency of EC aid; insists that this should not lead to any reduction in the global amounts of funding at EU level for the DCI and for the EDF, nor in the total amount of funding made available at EU level for ODA;

22.

Believes that support for vulnerable groups (women, people with disabilities, young and unemployed people, indigenous people), as well as for gender mainstreaming and for addressing other ‘cross-cutting’ issues, must be enhanced; insists that the DCI successor instrument requires clear benchmarks in programming documents to ensure that the impact of EU intervention in these areas can be measured;

23.

Stresses that the involvement of local authorities in development policies is essential for achieving the MDGs and ensuring good governance; points out, in particular, that local authorities have a critical role to play in areas such as education, combating hunger, health, water, sanitation, social cohesion and local economic development, etc.; deems it essential, therefore, to upgrade their role in the next financial instrument, in line with the principle of development ownership;

24.

Underlines the need for a regular and structured dialogue between the Commission, the EEAS, non-state actors (NSAs) and local authorities (LAs) on the programming, implementation and evaluation of strategy papers; emphasises therefore the need to take the conclusions of the Structured Dialogue into account in future financial instruments;

25.

Stresses the need for flexibility provisions which allow the EU to respond to changes in terms of needs and priorities; suggests an examination of the EDF model of limited country envelopes of non-programmed aid as a possible model for the future development cooperation instrument; stresses, however, that funds used in a more flexible manner must pursue genuine development objectives;

26.

Considers that the new development cooperation instrument should provide a basis for targeted and more flexible aid to situations of fragility; believes that the new financial architecture should help to ensure proper linkage of relief, rehabilitation and development (LRRD) through flexibility and complementarity of the funding mechanisms;

27.

Calls for a benchmark of 20 % of spending under geographic programmes to be allocated to basic social services as defined by the United Nations in the MDGs (indicator 8.2 for goal 8: ‘Develop a global partnership for development’);

28.

Insists on strict eligibility criteria for budget support; insists that the Commission must refrain from using budget support in countries where transparency in public spending cannot be assured, that budget support must always be accompanied by actions to develop the receiving country’s parliamentary control and audit capacities and to increase transparency and public access to information, and that civil society should be involved in monitoring budget support;

29.

Recognises the important roles that civil society plays in development, such as acting as a watchdog in relation to government to ensure accountability, and calls for adequate funding to be directed towards civil society in developing countries;

30.

Repeats its call for the Commission to produce a comprehensive financial analysis covering general budget support, support by sector, support by project and support of any other kind granted to local government; stresses that having this global picture would make support granted to local government more consistent and improve governance in partner countries;

31.

Notes that all thematic programmes under the DCI have proven their relevance, and emphasises that it is imperative to maintain both thematic and geographic programmes, but calls for some refocusing in the light of new challenges, such as the global financial and economic crisis, the global food crisis, climate change and special needs of fragile states and states in transition;

32.

Points out that migration is an area in which there is a clear need to prioritise policy coherence for development over short-term EU migration considerations, mostly aimed at fighting illegal immigration; highlights that development funds for migration should not be used for strengthening border management and combating illegal immigration; insists that any future thematic programme on migration must be fully aligned with the EU’s development objectives and that the core funding under this programme must fulfil the ODA eligibility criteria; in particular, stresses that projects dealing with South-South migration should be given priority within the thematic programme;

33.

Stresses that a new thematic programme on ‘Investing in People’ must focus on – but not be limited to – the achievement of those MDGs which are most off-track, with particular attention to countries and regions with critical MDG indicators; emphasises that basic education and alphabetisation are the starting point for the process of awareness raising and for development ownership; therefore calls for the programme to include a focus on education as a tool for emancipation and participation;

34.

Believes that the new instrument should provide for a differentiated approach to funding for civil society organisations and local authorities, and also avoid pointless competition between the two types of actor; stresses the need to address the problem of the current programme’s over-subscription; calls for the results of the Structured Dialogue to be fully reflected in the future thematic programme and the proposed aid modalities;

35.

Points out that one of the reasons why the MDGs have not been fulfilled is the failure to recognise the contributions of the environment, natural resources and ecosystems to human development and poverty elimination; notes with concern that, while current European ODA allocates only 3 % of total spending to environmental issues, an additional problem is that a part of the EU and Member States’ funding to developing countries is invested in projects that foster climate change, rather than mitigate it; stresses that policy coherence for development must be improved in the area of climate change, especially in relation to climate funding and mainstreaming of climate change concerns into EU development cooperation;

36.

Points out that the Court of Auditors concluded in its ‘Special Report 6/2006’ that the EU has made only limited progress since 2001 in mainstreaming the environment in its development cooperation, as Country Strategy Papers did not take sufficient account of environmental issues; accordingly, urges the Commission to ensure that environmental issues are better mainstreamed and systematically monitored throughout all external policies and financial instruments, especially in the face of the current challenges of climate change and biodiversity loss;

37.

Reiterates that Article 290 TFEU is fully applicable to the DCI, and therefore emphasises that application of the delegated acts procedure is compulsory for those decisions which fulfil the criteria of Article 290 TFEU, including on the establishment of general objectives, priorities, expected results and financial allocations;

38.

Instructs its President to forward this resolution to the Council and the Commission and to the governments and parliaments of the Member States.

11.12.2012   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 380/59

—

having regard to the Green Paper from the Commission of 1 July 2010 on policy options for progress towards a European Contract Law for consumers and businesses (COM(2010)0348),

—

having regard to Commission Decision 2010/233/EU of 26 April 2010 setting up the Expert Group on a Common Frame of Reference in the area of European contract law (1),

—

having regard to the Communication from the Commission of 11 July 2001 on European Contract Law (COM(2001)0398),

—

having regard to the Communication from the Commission of 12 February 2003 entitled ‘A more coherent European Contract Law – An Action Plan’ (COM(2003)0068),

—

having regard to the Communication from the Commission of 11 October 2004 entitled ‘European Contract Law and the revision of the acquis: the way forward’ (COM(2004)0651),

—

having regard to the report from the Commission of 23 September 2005 entitled ‘First Annual Progress Report on European Contract Law and the Acquis Review’ (COM(2005)0456) and to the report from the Commission of 25 July 2007 entitled ‘Second Progress Report on the Common Frame of Reference’ (COM(2007)0447),

—

having regard to the Communication from the Commission of 22 October 2009 on Cross-Border Business to Consumer e-Commerce in the EU (COM(2009)0557),

—

having regard to its resolution of 3 September 2008 on the common frame of reference for European contract law (2),

—

having regard to its resolution of 12 December 2007 on European contract law (3),

—

having regard to its resolution of 7 September 2006 on European contract law (4),

—

having regard to its resolution of 23 March 2006 on European contract law and the revision of the acquis: the way forward (5),

—

having regard to its resolutions of 26 May 1989 (6), 6 May 1994 (7), 15 November 2001 (8) and 2 September 2003 (9) on the issue,

—

having regard to Rule 48 of its Rules of Procedure,

—

having regard to the report of the Committee on Legal Affairs and the opinions of the Committee on Internal Market and Consumer Protection and the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs (A7-0164/2011),

A.

whereas the initiative on European contract law, which seeks to address Single Market problems created, inter alia, by divergent bodies of contract law, has been under discussion for many years,

B.

whereas, in the wake of the global financial crisis, it appears more important than ever to provide a coherent European contract law regime in order to realise the full potential of the internal market, and thus help meet our Europe 2020 goals,

C.

whereas the Single Market remains fragmented, owing to many factors, including failure to implement existing Single Market legislation,

D.

whereas greater study is needed to further understand why the internal market remains fragmented and how best to address these problems, including how to ensure implementation of existing legislation,

E.

whereas in the above-mentioned Green Paper the Commission sets out a range of options for a European Contract Law instrument which could help develop entrepreneurship and strengthen public confidence in the Single Market,

F.

whereas the Expert Group set up to assist the Commission in preparing a proposal for a Common Frame of Reference (CFR) has started work, together with a stakeholders' round table,

G.

whereas the divergence of contract law at national level does not constitute the only obstacle for SMEs and consumers in respect of cross border activities since they face other problems including language barriers, different taxation systems, the question of the reliability of online traders, limited access to broadband, digital literacy, security problems, demographic composition of the population of individual Member States; privacy concerns; complaint handling, and intellectual property rights etc.,

H.

whereas, according to a Commission survey of 2008, three-quarters of retailers sell only domestically, and cross-border selling often takes place in a few Member States only (10),

I.

whereas it is necessary to distinguish between conventional cross-border transactions and e-commerce, where specific problems exist and the transaction costs are different; whereas it is also necessary for the purposes of future impact assessments, to carefully and precisely define how transaction costs are made up,

J.

whereas it is clear that the application of foreign (consumer) law to cross-border transactions under the Rome-I Regulation (11) has been seen to entail considerable transaction costs for businesses, in particular for SMEs, which, in the UK alone have been estimated at EUR15 000 per business and per Member State (12),

K.

whereas more information is required concerning the transaction costs resulting from the application of Article 6(2) and Article 4(1), point (a) of the Rome-I Regulation, bearing in mind that Rome I has only been applied since December 2009,

L.

whereas such transaction costs are perceived as being one of the important obstacles to cross-border trade, as confirmed by 50 % of European retailers already trading cross-border interviewed in 2011 who stated that harmonisation of the applicable laws in cross border transactions across the EU would increase their level of cross-border sales, and 41 % said that their sales would not increase; whereas, in comparison, among retailers not selling across border, 60 % said that their level of cross-border sales would not increase in a more harmonised regulatory environment, and 25 % said it would increase (13),

M.

whereas some of the most evident impediments that consumers and SMEs face with regard to the Single Market are complexity in contractual relations, unfair terms and conditions of contracts, inadequate and insufficient information and inefficient and time-consuming procedure,

N.

whereas it is of paramount importance that any initiative from the EU will have to answer real needs and concerns of both businesses and consumers; whereas these concerns also extend to legal/linguistic problems (provisions of standard terms and conditions for small businesses in all EU languages) and the difficulties in enforcing contracts across borders (provisions of autonomous EU measures in the field of procedural law),

O.

whereas a Commission study estimated that the online market remains fragmented: in a survey, 61 % of 10 964 test cross-border orders failed, and that cross-border shopping appears to increase consumers’ chances of finding a cheaper offer (14) and of finding products not available domestically online (15), whereas the figure of 61 % seems to be very high and to warrant further study, verification and assessment,

P.

whereas gradual harmonisation does not effectively overcome obstacles in the internal market resulting from diverging national contract laws, any measures in this field must be based on clear evidence that such an initiative would make a real difference which cannot be achieved through other less intrusive means,

Q.

whereas a common European Contract Law would benefit consumers and in particular contribute to more and easily accessible cross-border trade within the internal market,

R.

whereas the negotiations on the Consumer Rights Directive (16) illustrated just how difficult it is to harmonise consumer law applied to contracts without undermining the common commitment to a high level of consumer protection in Europe and what limits this imposes on the process,

S.

whereas any steps taken in the area of European contract law must take into account mandatory national rules, and must be coherent with the expected Consumer Rights Directive, which will have a significant impact on the content and on the level of harmonisation of a possible future instrument in the field of European Contract Law; whereas it would be necessary to constantly and carefully monitor its implementation in the next months in order to define which should be the scope of the optional instrument (OI),

T.

whereas any end product in the field of European Contract Law must be realistic, feasible, proportionate and properly thought through prior to being amended, if necessary, and formally adopted by the European co-legislators,

1.

Supports action to address the range of barriers faced by those who wish to enter into cross-border transactions in the Internal Market and considers that, along with other measures, the European Contract Law project could be useful for realising the full potential of the internal market, entailing substantial economic and employment benefits;

2.

Welcomes the open debate on the Green Paper and urges the relevant Commission departments to carry out a thorough analysis of the outcome of this consultation process;