European Parliament legislative resolution of 25 March 2010 on the proposal for a decision of the European Parliament and of the Council repealing Council Decision 79/542/EEC drawing up a list of third countries or parts of third countries, and laying down animal and public health and veterinary certification conditions, for importation into the Community of certain live animals and their fresh meat (COM(2009)0516 – C7-0211/2009 – 2009/0146(COD))

P7_TA(2010)0069 A7-0018/2010

(Ordinary legislative procedure: first reading)

The European Parliament,

–   having regard to the Commission proposal to the European Parliament and the Council (COM(2009)0516),

–   having regard to Article 251(2) and Articles 37 and 152(4)(b) of the EC Treaty, pursuant to which the Commission submitted the proposal to Parliament (C7-0211/2009),

–   having regard to the Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament and the Council entitled ‘Consequences of the entry into force of the Treaty of Lisbon for ongoing interinstitutional decision-making procedures’ (COM(2009)0665),

–   having regard to Article 294(3) and Articles 43(2) and 168(4) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,

–   having regard to the opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee of 16 December 2009(1),

–   after consulting the Committee of the Regions,

–   having regard to Rule 55 of its Rules of Procedure,

–   having regard to the report of the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Food Safety (A7-0018/2010),

1.  Adopts the position at first reading hereinafter set out;

2.  Calls on the Commission to refer the matter to Parliament again if it intends to amend its proposal substantially or replace it with another text;

3.  Instructs its President to forward its position to the Council, to the Commission and to the national parliaments.

Position of the European Parliament adopted at first reading on 25 March 2010 with a view to the adoption of Decision No .../2010/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council repealing Council Decision 79/542/EEC drawing up a list of third countries or parts of third countries, and laying down animal and public health and veterinary certification conditions, for importation into the Community of certain live animals and their fresh meat

(As an agreement was reached between Parliament and Council, Parliament's position corresponds to the final legislative act, Decision No 477/2010/EU.)

(1) Not yet published in the Official Journal.

European Parliament resolution of 25 March 2010 on the proposal for a decision of the European Parliament and of the Council on mobilisation of the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund, in accordance with point 28 of the Interinstitutional Agreement of 17 May 2006 between the European Parliament, the Council and the Commission on budgetary discipline and sound financial management (COM(2010)0058 – C7-0041/2010 – 2010/2035(BUD))

P7_TA(2010)0070 A7-0047/2010

The European Parliament,

–   having regard to the Commission proposal to the European Parliament and the Council (COM(2010)0058 – C7-0041/2010),

–   having regard to the Interinstitutional Agreement of 17 May 2006 between the European Parliament, the Council and the Commission on budgetary discipline and sound financial management(1) (IIA of 17 May 2006), and in particular point 28 thereof,

–   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(2) (EGF Regulation),

–   having regard to the report of the Committee on Budgets and the opinion of the Committee on Employment and Social Affairs (A7-0047/2010),

A.   whereas the European Union has set up the appropriate legislative and budgetary instruments to provide additional support to workers who suffer from the consequences of major structural changes in world trade patterns and to assist their reintegration into the labour market,

B.   whereas the Union's financial assistance to workers made redundant should be dynamic and made available as quickly and efficiently as possible, in accordance with the Joint Declaration of the European Parliament, the Council and the Commission adopted during the conciliation meeting on 17 July 2008, and having due regard for the IIA of 17 May 2006 in respect of the adoption of decisions to mobilise the EGF,

C.   whereas Lithuania has requested assistance in respect of cases concerning redundancies in 49 enterprises, all operating in the furniture manufacturing sector(3),

D.   whereas the application fulfils the eligibility criteria set up by the EGF Regulation,

1.  Requests the institutions involved to make the necessary efforts to accelerate the mobilisation of the EGF;

2.  Recalls the institutions‘ commitment to ensure a smooth and rapid procedure for the adoption of the decisions on the mobilisation of the EGF, providing one-off, time-limited individual support geared to helping workers who have suffered redundancies as a result of globalisation;

3.  Underlines that the increasing number of applications for a contribution from the EGF requires that further improvements to the procedure be introduced. Therefore calls on the Commission to evaluate how the period between Member States‘ application and the payment of the financial contribution could be reduced and to report back to Parliament as soon as possible;

4.  Stresses that the European Union should use all its means to face the consequences of the global economic and financial crisis; emphasises the role that the EGF can play in the reintegration of the workers made redundant into the labour market;

5.  Stresses that, in accordance with Article 6 of the EGF Regulation, it should be ensured that the EGF supports the reintegration of the individual redundant workers into employment; reiterates that assistance from the EGF shall not replace actions which are the responsibility of companies by virtue of national law or collective agreements, nor measures restructuring companies or sectors;

6.  Calls on the Commission to include, in proposals for the mobilisation of the EGF, as well as in its annual reports, precise information on the complementary funding received from the European Social Fund (ESF) and other Structural Funds;

7.  Reminds the Commission, in the context of mobilising the EGF, not to systematically transfer payment appropriations from the ESF, since the EGF was created as a separate specific instrument with its own objectives and deadlines;

8.  Stresses that the functioning and the added value of the EGF should be evaluated in the context of the general assessment of the programmes and other various instruments created by the IIA of 17 May 2006, within the process of the 2007-2013 multiannual financial framework mid-term review;

9.  Notes that the new Commission's proposals for a decision on the mobilisation of the EGF refer to a sole Member State's application, which is in line with Parliament's requests;

10.  Approves the decision annexed to this resolution;

11.  Instructs its President to sign the decision with the President of the Council and arrange for its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union;

12.  Instructs its President to forward this resolution, including its annex, to the Council and the Commission.

ANNEX

DECISION OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL

of 25 March 2010

on mobilisation of the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund, in accordance with point 28 of the Interinstitutional Agreement of 17 May 2006 between the European Parliament, the Council and the Commission on budgetary discipline and sound financial management

THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,

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

having regard to the Interinstitutional Agreement of 17 May 2006 between the European Parliament, the Council and the Commission on budgetary discipline and sound financial management(4), and in particular point 28 thereof,

having regard to Regulation (EC) No 1927/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 December 2006 establishing the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund(5), and in particular Article 12(3) thereof,

having regard to the proposal from the European Commission,

Whereas:

(1)  The European Globalisation Adjustment Fund (EGF) was established to provide additional support to redundant workers who suffer from the consequences of major structural changes in world trade patterns and to assist them with their reintegration into the labour market.

(2)  The scope of the EGF was broadened for applications submitted from 1 May 2009 to include support for workers made redundant as a result of the global financial and economic crisis.

(3)  The Interinstitutional Agreement of 17 May 2006 allows the mobilisation of the EGF within the annual ceiling of EUR 500 million.

(4)  Lithuania submitted an application to mobilise the EGF, in respect of redundancies in the furniture manufacturing sector, on 23 September 2009 and supplemented it with additional information received on 16 October 2009. This application complies with the requirements for determining the financial contributions as laid down in Article 10 of Regulation (EC) No 1927/2006, therefore the Commission proposes to deploy an amount of EUR 662 088.

(5)  The EGF should, therefore, be mobilised in order to provide a financial contribution for the application submitted by Lithuania.

HAVE ADOPTED THIS DECISION:

Article 1

For the general budget of the European Union for the financial year 2010, the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund (EGF) shall be mobilised to provide the sum of EUR 662 088 in commitment and payment appropriations.

Article 2

This Decision shall be published in the Official Journal of the European Union.

Done at Brussels, 25 March 2010

For the European Parliament For the Council

The President The President

(1) OJ C 139, 14.6.2006, p. 1. (2) OJ L 406, 30.12.2006, p. 1. (3) EGF/2009/016 LT/Manufacture of furniture. (4) OJ C 139, 14.6.2006, p. 1. (5) OJ L 406, 30.12.2006, p. 1.

European Parliament resolution of 25 March 2010 on the proposal for a decision of the European Parliament and of the Council on mobilisation of the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund, in accordance with point 28 of the Interinstitutional Agreement of 17 May 2006 between the European Parliament, the Council and the Commission on budgetary discipline and sound financial management (COM(2010)0056 – C7-0035/2010 – 2010/2031(BUD))

P7_TA(2010)0071 A7-0048/2010

The European Parliament,

–   having regard to the Commission proposal to the European Parliament and the Council (COM(2010)0056 – C7-0035/2010),

–   having regard to the Interinstitutional Agreement of 17 May 2006 between the European Parliament, the Council and the Commission on budgetary discipline and sound financial management(1) (IIA of 17 May 2006), and in particular point 28 thereof,

–   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(2) (EGF Regulation),

–   having regard to the report of the Committee on Budgets and the opinion of the Committee on Employment and Social Affairs (A7-0048/2010),

A.   whereas the European Union has set up the appropriate legislative and budgetary instruments to provide additional support to workers who suffer from the consequences of major structural changes in world trade patterns and to assist their reintegration into the labour market,

B.   whereas the Union's financial assistance to workers made redundant should be dynamic and made available as quickly and efficiently as possible, in accordance with the Joint Declaration of the European Parliament, the Council and the Commission adopted during the conciliation meeting on 17 July 2008, and having due regard for the IIA of 17 May 2006 in respect of the adoption of decisions to mobilise the EGF,

C.   whereas Lithuania has requested assistance in respect of cases concerning redundancies in 45 enterprises, all operating in the wearing apparel manufacturing sector(3),

D.   whereas the application fulfils the eligibility criteria set up by the EGF Regulation,

1.  Requests the institutions involved to make the necessary efforts to accelerate the mobilisation of the EGF;

2.  Recalls the institutions‘ commitment to ensure a smooth and rapid procedure for the adoption of the decisions on the mobilisation of the EGF, providing one-off, time-limited individual support geared to helping workers who have suffered redundancies as a result of globalisation;

3.  Underlines that the increasing number of applications for a contribution from the EGF requires that further improvements to the procedure be introduced. Therefore calls on the Commission to evaluate how the period between Member States‘ application and the payment of the financial contribution could be reduced and to report back to Parliament as soon as possible.

4.  Stresses that the European Union should use all its means to face the consequences of the global economic and financial crisis; emphasises the role that the EGF can play in the reintegration of the workers made redundant into the labour market;

5.  Stresses that, in accordance with Article 6 of the EGF Regulation, it should be ensured that the EGF supports the reintegration of the individual redundant workers into employment; reiterates that assistance from the EGF shall not replace actions which are the responsibility of companies by virtue of national law or collective agreements, nor measures restructuring companies or sectors;

6.  Calls on the Commission to include, in proposals for the mobilisation of the EGF, as well as in its annual reports, precise information on the complementary funding received from the European Social Fund (ESF) and other Structural Funds;

7.Reminds the Commission, in the context of mobilising the EGF, not to systematically transfer payment appropriations from the ESF, since the EGF was created as a separate specific instrument with its own objectives and deadlines;
8.Stresses that the functioning and the added value of the EGF should be evaluated in the context of the general assessment of the programmes and other various instruments created by the IIA of 17 May 2006, within the process of the 2007-2013 multiannual financial framework mid-term review;
9.Notes that the new Commission's proposals for a decision on the mobilisation of the EGF refer to a sole Member State's application, which is in line with Parliament's requests;
10.Approves the decision annexed to this resolution;

11.  Instructs its President to sign the decision with the President of the Council and arrange for its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union;

12.  Instructs its President to forward this resolution, including its annex, to the Council and the Commission.

ANNEX

DECISION OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL

of 25 March 2010

on mobilisation of the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund, in accordance with point 28 of the Interinstitutional Agreement of 17 May 2006 between the European Parliament, the Council and the Commission on budgetary discipline and sound financial management

THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,

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

having regard to the Interinstitutional Agreement of 17 May 2006 between the European Parliament, the Council and the Commission on budgetary discipline and sound financial management(4), and in particular point 28 thereof,

having regard to Regulation (EC) No 1927/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 December 2006 establishing the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund(5), and in particular Article 12(3) thereof,

having regard to the proposal from the European Commission,

Whereas:

(1)  The European Globalisation Adjustment Fund (EGF) was established to provide additional support to redundant workers who suffer from the consequences of major structural changes in world trade patterns and to assist them with their reintegration into the labour market.

(2)  The scope of the EGF was broadened for applications submitted from 1 May 2009 to include support for workers made redundant as a result of the global financial and economic crisis.

(3)  The Interinstitutional Agreement of 17 May 2006 allows the mobilisation of the EGF within the annual ceiling of EUR 500 million.

(4)  Lithuania submitted an application to mobilise the EGF, in respect of redundancies in the clothing sector, on 23 September 2009. This application complies with the requirements for determining the financial contributions as laid down in Article 10 of Regulation (EC) No 1927/2006, therefore the Commission proposes to deploy an amount of EUR 523 481.

(5)  The EGF should, therefore, be mobilised in order to provide a financial contribution for the application submitted by Lithuania.

HAVE ADOPTED THIS DECISION:

Article 1

For the general budget of the European Union for the financial year 2010, the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund (EGF) shall be mobilised to provide the sum of EUR 523 481 in commitment and payment appropriations.

Article 2

This Decision shall be published in the Official Journal of the European Union.

Done at Brussels, 25 March 2010

For the European Parliament For the Council

The President The President

(1) OJ C 139, 14.6.2006, p. 1. (2) OJ L 406, 30.12.2006, p. 1. (3) EGF/2009/018 LT/Manufacture of wearing apparel. (4) OJ C 139, 14.6.2006, p. 1. (5) OJ L 406, 30.12.2006, p. 1.

European Parliament resolution of 25 March 2010 on Report on the 2009 Annual Statement on the Euro Area and Public Finances (2009/2203(INI))

P7_TA(2010)0072 A7-0031/2010

The European Parliament,

–   having regard to the Commission communication on the Annual Statement on the Euro Area and the accompanying staff working document on the Annual Report on the Euro Area, both of 7 October 2009 (COM(2009)0527 and SEC(2009)1313),

–   having regard to the Commission staff working document of 12 August 2009 on Public Finances in EMU 2009 (SEC(2009)1120),

–   having regard to the Commission communication of 14 October 2009 on Long-term sustainability of public finances for a recovering economy (COM(2009)0545),

–   having regard to the Commission recommendation of 28 January 2009 for a Council recommendation on the 2009 up-date of the broad guidelines for the economic policies of the Member States and the Community and on the implementation of Member States‘ employment policies (COM(2009)0034),

–   having regard to its resolution of 18 November 2008 on the EMU@10: The first ten years of Economic and Monetary Union and future challenges(1),

–   having regard to its resolution of 11 March 2009 on a European Economic Recovery Plan(2),

–   having regard to its resolution of 13 January 2009 on public finances in the EMU 2007-2008(3),

–   having regard to its resolution of 9 July 2008 on the ECB annual report for 2007(4),

–   having regard to Rule 48 of its Rules of Procedure,

–   having regard to the report of the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs (A7-0031/2010),

A.   whereas the Members States have experienced their deepest economic and social crisis since the beginning of the process of European integration,

B.   whereas a stable currency and sound fiscal policies have proven their worth, by mitigating the effects of the crisis on Europe,

C.   whereas fiscal and monetary policy as well as stabilisation measures in the financial sector were crucial to stabilising the European economy,

D.   whereas, through the coordination over time of fiscal policy and of anti-crisis measures in the G-20, the EU and the Member States have contributed to avoiding further deterioration,

E.   whereas the fiscal policy of many Member States was pro-cyclical,

F.   whereas a genuine EU economic policy exists only in respect of monetary policy and whereas coordination of fiscal policy, which is mainly the responsibility of the Member States, is limited,

G.   whereas the prices of oil, gas, minerals and other non-renewable resources are highly volatile, contribute to global imbalances and were a key cause of obstacles to achieving the ECB's inflation target of below, but close to, 2% in 2008; whereas those prices are expected to rise in the medium term, endangering the macroeconomic stability of the euro area,

H.   whereas Member States‘ public deficits are set to increase rapidly to about 7% of GDP in 2010, due to the combined impact of higher expenditure, through automatic stabilisers and discretionary measures to support the economy and the financial sector, and lower tax revenues; whereas a certain improvement in deficit levels is expected in 2011; whereas, however, some Member States already repeatedly failed to meet the Stability Pact criteria well before the crisis; whereas a return to sound public finance is essential and a precondition for the stability of our common currency,

I.   whereas the costs of the crisis were the key reason for the renewed deterioration of public finances, while the fiscal balances of most Member States had improved before the crisis; whereas it must be noted, however, that several Member States were running high public debts even before the crisis,

J.   whereas anti-cyclical public spending was necessary to avoid an even more severe economic downturn and is still necessary to secure economic stability; whereas, however, excessive structural budget deficits and excessive public debt are a serious obstacle to economic growth and severely restrict spending in areas such as education, care, innovation and public services,

K.   whereas the establishment of the euro area, while welcome, means that the option of flexible national exchange-rate policies is no longer available,

L.   whereas, although it is almost impossible to foresee a crisis of such exceptional dimensions, in policy plans, the Stability and Growth Pact (SGP) was designed to apply in good times and in bad, but many Member States have ignored the obligation under the SGP to prepare for bad times,

M.   whereas globalisation compels the euro area to take an effective role in global economic and financial governance,

N.   whereas the potential of the euro is insufficiently exploited at global level as the euro area has neither a properly defined international strategy nor effective international representation,

Monetary policy

1.  Is alarmed by the ongoing and expected contraction of employment in the European Union despite the exceptional efforts of monetary and fiscal policy; underlines that, in addition to the exceptional recovery measures, structural reforms must be stepped up rather than stalled, so as to make the European economy and labour market more robust and resistant to global economic turbulence;

2.  Welcomes the active and flexible monetary policy of the ECB since October 2008 in extending liquidity provisions to credit institutions;

3.  Is concerned that the extra liquidity provided by the ECB and other central banks has not been used by all banks to ease the ‘credit crunch’ faced by industry and, in particular, by small and medium-sized businesses;

4.  Welcomes the intensified cooperation between the Council, the ECB and the Eurogroup;

5.  Is concerned by the economic consequences for the euro area of a rapid fall in the value of the US dollar and the renminbi yuan, the latter artificially devalued by an unfair intervention on the part of the Chinese Government; expresses its concern about the possible emergence of a new asset bubble in Asia; calls for enhanced international macroeconomic dialogues in order to adjust exchange rates so that a more balanced world economy may be achieved;

6.  Points out that the objective of price stability can be achieved only if the root causes of inflation are properly addressed; underlines, in this context, that the increased inflation that occurred before the outbreak of the financial crisis was not caused by excessive internal demand but resulted from a surge in the prices of energy and food, commodities and financial and real assets;

7.  Underlines the fact that the discipline of wage moderation also acts as a brake on the growth of household income and thereby on private consumption; therefore warns against focusing exclusively on wage moderation as an instrument to achieve price stability and maintain competitiveness; recalls that increased global competition has already contributed to downward pressure on wages, while higher commodity prices and energy costs have reduced the purchasing power of EU consumers; emphasises that real salaries should rise in line with productivity gains, in order to guarantee long-term stability in the distribution of income;

8.  Reiterates its call for better coordination between the WTO, the IMF, the Financial Stability Board and the World Bank Group in order to combat speculation and meet the challenges posed by the economic crisis;

9.  Recalls that exchange-rate fluctuations constitute an impediment to global economic recovery and that coordination of monetary policy is essential to avoid the emergence of financial imbalances that could give rise to macroeconomic instability; calls for a world monetary conference to be organised under the auspices of the IMF as a forum for global consultation on monetary questions;

Improving coordination and cooperation on economic policy

10.  Shares the Commission's concern about significant imbalances in relation to the development of unit labour costs, rates of productivity growth, the increasingly unequal distribution of income and wealth, current accounts and interest rate spreads in the EU and in the euro area and is concerned about the absence of effective mechanisms to prevent the growth of those imbalances;

11.  As proposed in the staff working paper accompanying the Commission communication of 7 May 2008 on EMU@10: successes and challenges after 10 years of Economic and Monetary Union (COM(2008)0238), calls on the Commission to develop diagnostic tools and indicators, in order more effectively to monitor and assess relevant economic developments in the Member States, including multilateral surveillance of unit labour costs, real exchange rates, financial markets and policies affecting competitiveness;

12.  Takes note of the concern expressed by the Commission, in its annual statement on the euro area 2009, about imbalances that have accumulated within the euro area and of what the Commission identifies as two major sources of imbalance: on the one hand the growth model centred on a competitive export sector, without being sustained by domestic demand, is vulnerable and conversely, in some countries in deficit, imbalances may have taken the form of excessive domestic demand pressures, a surge in house prices and a bloated construction sector; suggests, therefore, that the Commission examine possible ways of improving effectively the economic governance of the euro area, including the setting-up of new mechanisms to prevent the renewed excessive growth of such imbalances in the future and the asymmetric shocks to which they contribute;

13.  Emphasises that the Commission states clearly, in its Annual Statement on the Euro Area 2009, that the established mechanism of policy coordination within the euro area did not work well in the crisis; shares the Commission's view that a deepening and broadening of macroeconomic surveillance is urgently needed to spur a coordinated response to the crisis;

14.  Welcomes the use of EIB funds as well as the common but different contributions of Member States to anti-cyclical public spending during the crisis, used to partly compensate for the limited size of the European budget; warns, however, against excessive recourse to the EIB, which would result in the budgetary procedure being circumvented and would prevent Parliament from giving its opinion on the trajectory of committed expenditure; recalls, therefore, that the EIB should not become a substitute for the EU budget;

15.  Agrees with the Commission that supervision and regulation of financial markets, fiscal discipline and the limiting of internal and external deficits are essential for the successful development of the EMU;

16.  Stresses the need for comprehensive application of the rules of the SGP while noting that the rules laid down in the SGP refer only to public deficit and public debt; points out that this instrument of fiscal coordination addresses only partially the major causes of economic imbalances within the euro area; considers therefore, that fiscal coordination should go beyond the current scope of the SGP;

17.  Emphasises that the current economic and financial crisis and the strengthened financial coordination among Member States that have already adopted the euro should not result in an encapsulation of the euro area;

18.  Reiterates its view that economic coordination should take the form of an integrated European economic and employment strategy on the basis of the forthcoming EU 2020 Strategy, the Integrated Guidelines, the Sustainable Development Strategy and the convergence and stability programmes;

Public finances

19.  Expresses its deep concern over the unsustainable level of public debt and its predicted rapid increase in 2010 and 2011;

20.  Stresses the importance of using effectively the new provisions in Article 136 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union in order to improve economic coordination and governance in the euro area; looks forward to the adoption of concrete proposals by the Commission and the President of the Eurogroup in this respect;

21.  Welcomes the first annual report by the European Statistical Governance Advisory Board and agrees inter alia with its conclusion that the legal underpinning of national statistical authorities‘ professional independence should be pursued in those Member States where this has not yet been done; looks forward to an assessment by the Commission (Eurostat) in the context of its annual monitoring of compliance with the Code of Practice, as stipulated in the Recommendation of the Commission on the independence, integrity and accountability of the national and Community statistical authorities (COM(2005)0217 final);

22.  Is concerned about the reduced ability of Member States to counter future economic downturns and to contribute to urgently needed investment in knowledge, the modernisation of the industrial sector and sustainable development;

23.  Agrees that, by increasing the flexibility of the framework, the revised SGP of 2005 provides appropriate tools for coordinating ‘exit strategies’ and affording sufficient room for manoeuvre during economic downturns to enable the consolidation of economic recovery; takes the view, however, that, once out of the current recession, there is a need, while complying with the reformed SGP, to strengthen the preventive arm of the pact in order to ensure that Member States refrain effectively from pro-cyclical policies during periods of growth;

24.  Stresses that, when evaluating Member States‘ stability and convergence programmes, the Commission should put considerable weight on the conclusions of its Communication on long-term sustainability of public finances for a recovering economy (COM(2009)0545);

25.  Supports the Commission's use of the excessive deficit procedure in order to reduce public deficit and emphasises the importance of properly timed ambitious, concrete and quantifiable programmes for balancing the public finances in Member States, starting in the years 2010 and 2011;

26.  Is extremely concerned at developments in the deficit situation in Greece; calls for lessons to be learnt from this situation, in future enlargements of the euro area, especially in relation to the quality of statistical data;

27.  Considers that Member States with difficulties in sustaining their public finances should, in the first instance, be responsible for resolving those difficulties, particularly by means of a more appropriate fiscal policy; calls on the Member States to accelerate the pace of their reforms through determined policy actions to fill the sustainability gaps caused by high rates of indebtedness and by costs related to an ageing population;

28.  Stresses that certain shortcomings in the construction of EMU and, to some extent, the economic policy of certain members of the euro area and of third country partners make it difficult for Member States to put their financial house in order; reiterates its conviction that the current mechanism of policy coordination within the euro area needs to be enlarged to cope, in particular, with current and future economic imbalances and divergences within the euro area; regrets, in this context, that there are no binding commitments among governments to enforce coordination in the euro area;

29.  Calls on the Commission to propose a set of measures to help Member States restore balance in their public accounts and finance public investment through:

30.  Reiterates its view that Member States‘ governments should, when determining their national budgets, take into account the Integrated Guidelines and the country-specific recommendations as well as the overall budgetary situation in the euro area; the various national fiscal calendars and the main assumptions used in the underlying forecasts should be harmonised in order to avoid disparities caused by the use of different macro-economic forecasts (concerning, for example, global growth, EU growth, the oil barrel price and interest rates) and other parameters;

31.  Calls on the Commission and the Member States to work towards the definition of tools to enhance the comparability of national budgets as regards spending in different categories;

32.  Calls on the Commission to make a concrete proposal as soon as possible as to how the financial sector should contribute to the cost of the crisis;

33.  Calls on the ECB, the Commission and the euro area Member States to encourage the process of economic and monetary integration within the EU and to support enlargement of the euro area;

34.  Calls on the ECB to support the efforts of Member States outside the euro area to adopt the euro, especially in cases where Member States have proven their ability to exercise sound and stable fiscal discipline;

Tackling resource dependency and creating more new jobs in modern, environmentally sustainable industries

35.  Recalls that the crisis is not an excuse to delay tackling climate change and environmental degradation; emphasises that delaying action could be costly in both economic and environmental terms and that increased energy and resource efficiency, coupled with conversion towards sustainable, renewable resources, is the best way to limit dependency on scarce resources while creating new jobs in modern and environmentally sustainable industries;

36.  Calls on the Member States and the Commission to increase radically the efforts in this direction and asks the ECB and the Commission to include this question in its regular economic reporting;

37.  Calls on the Eurogroup to take the necessary measures to facilitate an entry into the euro area for those Member States which are seeking to join and which fulfil the conditions for entry;

External representation of the euro area

38.  Reiterates its view that efforts to move towards a common international representation of the euro area have made little progress in spite of the crisis;

39.  Takes the view that the EMU policy agenda will be marked inter alia by the challenges posed by emerging Asian economies; regrets the lack of progress in improving external representation of the euro area despite the euro's growing global role as a reserve currency; stresses that the euro area must build an international strategy commensurate with the international status of its currency;

40.  Points out also that global imbalances related to exchange-rate fluctuations between, inter alia, the US dollar and the renminbi yuan and the euro must also be addressed in order to avoid future financial crises; invites the Eurogroup, the Council and the ECB to step up coordination of their action in the sphere of exchange rate policy accordingly;

41.  Emphasises the importance of the G-20 conclusions on global imbalances and what each economic area has to do in order to balance its economy; stresses the importance of exchange rates in the preparation of forthcoming G-20 summits; takes the view that such preparation should be more transparent within the EU and that Parliament should be kept informed;

o
o   o

42.  Instructs its President to forward this resolution to the Council, the Commission, the parliaments of the Member States, the Eurogroup, the European Central Bank and the European Investment Bank.

(1) Texts adopted, P6_TA(2008)0543. (2) Texts adopted, P6_TA(2009)0123. (3) Texts adopted, P6_TA(2009)0013. (4) Texts adopted, P6_TA(2008)0357.

European Parliament decision of 25 March 2010 on the Council recommendation on the appointment of the Vice-President of the European Central Bank (C7-0044/2010 – 2010/0813(NLE))

P7_TA(2010)0073 A7-0059/2010

(Consultation)

The European Parliament,

–   having regard to the Council's recommendation of 16 February 2010(1),

–   having regard to Article 283(2) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, pursuant to which the Council consulted Parliament (C7-0044/2010),

–   having regard to Rule 109 of its Rules of Procedure,

–   having regard to the report of the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs (A7-0059/2010),

A.   whereas by letter of 24 February 2010 the Council consulted the European Parliament on the appointment of Vítor Constâncio as Vice-President of the European Central Bank for a term of office of eight years,

B.   whereas Parliament's Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs then proceeded to evaluate the credentials of the nominee, in particular in view of the requirements laid down in Article 283(2) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union and in the light of the need for full independence of the ECB pursuant to Article 130, and whereas in carrying out this evaluation, the committee received a CV from the candidate as well as his replies to the written questionnaire that was sent out to him,

C.   whereas the committee subsequently held a two-hour hearing with the nominee on 23 March 2010, at which he made an opening statement and then responded to questions from the members of the committee,

1.  Delivers a favourable opinion to the European Council on the Council recommendation to appoint Vítor Constâncio as Vice-President of the European Central Bank;

2.  Instructs its President to forward this decision to the European Council and the Council.

(1) Not yet published in OJ.

European Parliament decision of 25 March 2010 on the nomination of Milan Martin Cvikl as a Member of the Court of Auditors (C7-0022/2010 – 2010/0810(NLE))

P7_TA(2010)0074 A7-0046/2010

(Consultation)

The European Parliament,

–   having regard to Article 286(2) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the EU, pursuant to which the Council consulted Parliament (C7-0022/2010),

–   having regard to the fact that, at its meeting of 16 March 2010, the Committee on Budgetary Control heard the Council's nominee for membership of the Court of Auditors,

–   having regard to Rule 108 of its Rules of Procedure,

–   having regard to the report of the Committee on Budgetary Control (A7-0046/2010),

A.   whereas Milan Martin Cvikl fulfils the conditions laid down in Article 286(1) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the EU,

1.  Delivers a favourable opinion on the nomination of Milan Martin Cvikl as a Member of the Court of Auditors;

2.  Instructs its President to forward this decision to the Council and, for information, the Court of Auditors, the other institutions of the European Union and the audit institutions of the Member States.

European Parliament decision of 25 March 2010 on the nomination of Rasa Budbergyté as a Member of the Court of Auditors (C7-0018/2010 – 2010/0806(NLE))

P7_TA(2010)0075 A7-0039/2010

(Consultation)

The European Parliament,

–   having regard to Article 286(2) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the EU, pursuant to which the Council consulted Parliament (C7-0018/2010),

–   having regard to the fact that, at its meeting of 15 March 2010, the Committee on Budgetary Control heard the Council's nominee for membership of the Court of Auditors,

–   having regard to Rule 108 of its Rules of Procedure,

–   having regard to the report of the Committee on Budgetary Control (A7-0039/2010),

A.   whereas Rasa Budbergyté fulfils the conditions laid down in Article 286(1) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the EU,

1.  Delivers a favourable opinion on the nomination of Rasa Budbergyté as a Member of the Court of Auditors;

2.  Instructs its President to forward this decision to the Council and, for information, the Court of Auditors, the other institutions of the European Union and the audit institutions of the Member States.

European Parliament decision of 25 March 2010 on the nomination of Kersti Kaljulaid as a Member of the Court of Auditors (C7-0016/2010 – 2010/0804(NLE))

P7_TA(2010)0076 A7-0045/2010

(Consultation)

The European Parliament,

–   having regard to Article 286(2) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the EU, pursuant to which the Council consulted Parliament (C7-0016/2010),

–   having regard to the fact that, at its meeting of 16 March 2010, the Committee on Budgetary Control heard the Council's nominee for membership of the Court of Auditors,

–   having regard to Rule 108 of its Rules of Procedure,

–   having regard to the report of the Committee on Budgetary Control (A7-0045/2010),

A.   whereas Kersti Kaljulaid fulfils the conditions laid down in Article 286(1) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the EU,

1.  Delivers a favourable opinion on the nomination of Kersti Kaljulaid as a Member of the Court of Auditors;

2.  Instructs its President to forward this decision to the Council and, for information, the Court of Auditors, the other institutions of the European Union and the audit institutions of the Member States.

European Parliament decision of 25 March 2010 on the nomination of Igors Ludboržs as a Member of the Court of Auditors (C7-0017/2010 – 2010/0805(NLE))

P7_TA(2010)0077 A7-0040/2010

(Consultation)

The European Parliament,

–   having regard to Article 286(2) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the EU, pursuant to which the Council consulted Parliament (C7-0017/2010),

–   having regard to the fact that, at its meeting of 16 March 2010, the Committee on Budgetary Control heard the Council's nominee for membership of the Court of Auditors,

–   having regard to Rule 108 of its Rules of Procedure,

–   having regard to the report of the Committee on Budgetary Control (A7-0040/2010),

A.   whereas Igors Ludboržs fulfils the conditions laid down in Article 286(1) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the EU,

1.  Delivers a favourable opinion on the nomination of Igors Ludboržs as a Member of the Court of Auditors;

2.  Instructs its President to forward this decision to the Council and, for information, the Court of Auditors, the other institutions of the European Union and the audit institutions of the Member States.

European Parliament decision of 25 March 2010 on the nomination of Szabolcs Fazakas as a Member of the Court of Auditors (C7-0019/2010 – 2010/0807(NLE))

P7_TA(2010)0078 A7-0038/2010

(Consultation)

The European Parliament,

–   having regard to Article 286(2) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, pursuant to which the Council consulted Parliament (C7-0019/2010),

–   whereas, at its meeting of 15 March 2010, the Committee on Budgetary Control heard the Council's nominee for membership of the Court of Auditors,

–   having regard to Rule 108 of its Rules of Procedure,

–   having regard to the report of the Committee on Budgetary Control (A7-0038/2010),

A.   whereas Szabolcs Fazakas fulfils the conditions laid down in Article 286(1) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,

1.  Delivers a favourable opinion on the nomination of Szabolcs Fazakas as a Member of the Court of Auditors;

2.  Instructs its President to forward this decision to the Council and, for information, the Court of Auditors, the other institutions of the European Union and the audit institutions of the Member States.

European Parliament decision of 25 March 2010 on the nomination of Ladislav Balko as a Member of the Court of Auditors (C7-0023/2010 – 2010/0811(NLE))

P7_TA(2010)0079 A7-0037/2010

(Consultation)

The European Parliament,

–   having regard to Article 286(2) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the EU, pursuant to which the Council consulted Parliament (C7-0023/2010),

–   having regard to the fact that, at its meeting of 15 March 2010, the Committee on Budgetary Control heard the Council's nominee for membership of the Court of Auditors,

–   having regard to Rule 108 of its Rules of Procedure,

–   having regard to the report of the Committee on Budgetary Control (A7-0037/2010),

A.   whereas Ladislav Balko fulfils the conditions laid down in Article 286(1) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the EU,

1.  Delivers a favourable opinion on the nomination of Ladislav Balko as a Member of the Court of Auditors;

2.  Instructs its President to forward this decision to the Council and, for information, the Court of Auditors, the other institutions of the European Union and the audit institutions of the Member States.

European Parliament decision of 25 March 2010 on the nomination of Louis Galea as a Member of the Court of Auditors (C7-0020/2010 – 2010/0808(NLE))

P7_TA(2010)0080 A7-0042/2010

(Consultation)

The European Parliament,

–   having regard to Article 286(2) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the EU, pursuant to which the Council consulted Parliament (C7-0020/2010),

–   having regard to the fact that, at its meeting of 15 March 2010, the Committee on Budgetary Control heard the Council's nominee for membership of the Court of Auditors,

–   having regard to Rule 108 of its Rules of Procedure,

–   having regard to the report of the Committee on Budgetary Control (A7-0042/2010),

A.   whereas Louis Galea fulfils the conditions laid down in Article 286(1) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the EU,

1.  Delivers a favourable opinion on the nomination of Louis Galea as a Member of the Court of Auditors;

2.  Instructs its President to forward this decision to the Council and, for information, the Court of Auditors, the other institutions of the European Union and the audit institutions of the Member States.

European Parliament decision of 25 March 2010 on the nomination of Augustyn Bronisław Kubik as a Member of the Court of Auditors (C7-0021/2010 – 2010/0809(NLE))

P7_TA(2010)0081 A7-0041/2010

(Consultation)

The European Parliament,

–   having regard to Article 286(2) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the EU, pursuant to which the Council consulted Parliament (C7-0021/2010),

–   having regard to the fact that, at its meeting of 15 March 2010, the Committee on Budgetary Control heard the Council's nominee for membership of the Court of Auditors,

–   having regard to Rule 108 of its Rules of Procedure,

–   having regard to the report of the Committee on Budgetary Control (A7-0041/2010),

A.   whereas Augustyn Bronisław Kubik fulfils the conditions laid down in Article 286(1) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the EU,

1.  Delivers a favourable opinion on the nomination of Augustyn Bronisław Kubik as a Member of the Court of Auditors;

2.  Instructs its President to forward this decision to the Council and, for information, the Court of Auditors, the other institutions of the European Union and the audit institutions of the Member States.

European Parliament decision of 25 March 2010 on the nomination of Jan Kinšt as a Member of the Court of Auditors (C7-0015/2010 – 2010/0803(NLE))

P7_TA(2010)0082 A7-0044/2010

(Consultation)

The European Parliament,

–   having regard to Article 286(2) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the EU, pursuant to which the Council consulted Parliament (C7-0015/2010),

–   having regard to the fact that, at its meeting of 16 March 2010, the Committee on Budgetary Control heard the Council's nominee for membership of the Court of Auditors,

–   having regard to Rule 108 of its Rules of Procedure,

–   having regard to the report of the Committee on Budgetary Control (A7-0044/2010),

A.   whereas Jan Kinšt fulfils the conditions laid down in Article 286(1) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the EU,

1.  Delivers a favourable opinion on the nomination of Jan Kinšt as a Member of the Court of Auditors;

2.  Instructs its President to forward this decision to the Council and, for information, the Court of Auditors, the other institutions of the European Union and the audit institutions of the Member States.

European Parliament decision of 25 March 2010 on the nomination of Eoin O'Shea as a Member of the Court of Auditors (C7-0033/2010 – 2010/0812(NLE))

P7_TA(2010)0083 A7-0043/2010

(Consultation)

The European Parliament,

–   having regard to Article 286(2) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the EU, pursuant to which the Council consulted Parliament (C7-0033/2010),

–   having regard to the fact that, at its meeting of 15 March 2010, the Committee on Budgetary Control heard the Council's nominee for membership of the Court of Auditors,

–   having regard to Rule 108 of its Rules of Procedure,

–   having regard to the report of the Committee on Budgetary Control (A7-0043/2010),

A.   whereas Eoin O'Shea fulfils the conditions laid down in Article 286(1) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the EU,

1.  Delivers a favourable opinion on the nomination of Eoin O'Shea as a Member of the Court of Auditors;

2.  Instructs its President to forward this decision to the Council and, for information, the Court of Auditors, the other institutions of the European Union and the audit institutions of the Member States.

European Parliament recommendation to the Council of 25 March 2010 on the 65th Session of the United Nations General Assembly (2010/2020(INI))

P7_TA(2010)0084 A7-0049/2010

The European Parliament,

–   having regard to the proposal for a recommendation to the Council by Alexander Graf Lambsdorff on behalf of the ALDE Group on the European Union priorities for the 65th Session of the UN General Assembly (B7-0243/2009),

–   having regard to the European Parliament recommendation of 24 March 2009 to the Council on the EU priorities for the 64th session of the UN General Assembly(1),

–   having regard to the EU priorities for the 64th United Nations General Assembly adopted by the Council on 9 June 2009 (10809/09),

–   having regard to the 64th General Assembly of the United Nations (UNGA), in particular that body's resolutions on ‘Towards global partnerships’(2), ‘Women in development’(3), ‘International Strategy for Disaster Reduction’(4), ‘Harmony with Nature’(5), ‘Situation of human rights in the Islamic Republic of Iran’(6), ‘Promotion of equitable geographical distribution in the membership of the human rights treaty bodies’(7), ‘Enhancement of international cooperation in the field of human rights’(8), ‘Globalisation and its impact on the full enjoyment of all human rights’(9), ‘Strengthening United Nations action in the field of human rights through the promotion of international cooperation and the importance of non-selectivity, impartiality and objectivity’(10), ‘Promotion of a democratic and equitable international order’(11), ‘Rights of the child’(12), ‘The girl child’(13), ‘Report of the Human Rights Council’(14), ‘Protection of global climate for present and future generations of humankind’(15), ‘Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty’(16), ‘Towards a nuclear-weapon-free world: accelerating the implementation of nuclear disarmament commitments’(17), ‘Nuclear disarmament’(18), ‘Promotion of multilateralism in the area of disarmament and non proliferation’(19),

–   having regard to the United Nations Millennium Development Goals and the EU Member States‘ aid commitments to tackle hunger and poverty,

–   having regard to the forthcoming 2010 Review Conference of the Parties to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT), the reviews of the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs), the Human Rights Council (HRC) and the Peacebuilding Commission (PBC),

–   having regard to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) and to the Kyoto Protocol to the UNFCCC,

–   having regard to its resolution of 16 December 2009 on the prospects for the Doha Development Agenda (DDA) following the Seventh WTO Ministerial Conference(20),

–   having regard to its resolution of 25 November 2009 on the EU strategy for the Copenhagen Conference on Climate Change (COP 15)(21),

–   having regard to its resolution of 22 October 2009 on democracy building in the EU's external relations(22),

–   having regard to its resolution of 8 October 2009 on the effects of the global financial and economic crisis on developing countries and on development cooperation(23),

–   having regard to its resolution of 7 May 2009 on gender mainstreaming in EU external relations and peace-building/nation-building(24),

–   having regard to its resolution of 24 April 2009 on non-proliferation and the future of the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT)(25),

–   having regard to its declaration of 22 April 2009 on the ‘Say NO to Violence against Women’ campaign(26),

–   having regard to its resolution of 24 March 2009 on MDG contracts(27),

–   having regard to its resolution of 9 June 2005 on the reform of the United Nations(28),

–   having regard to Rule 121(3) and Rule 97 of its Rules of Procedure,

–   having regard to the report of the Committee on Foreign Affairs and the opinion of the Committee on Development (A7-0049/2010),

A.   whereas the UN system, with the legitimacy that stems from its global membership, continues to be central for shaping and enhancing global decision-making and facing global challenges through effective multilateralism based on international law, the principles enshrined in the UN Charter as well as the common commitment to the implementation of the goals adopted at the UN World Summit 2005,

B.   whereas the European Union is committed to multilateral cooperation and the strengthening of the United Nations system; whereas, therefore, the EU should be a driving force in the efforts to reform the organisation and continue to be a firm supporter of its important role in the international system,

C.   whereas the current structure of the UN Security Council does not reflect the realities and needs of the 21st century; whereas the UN Secretary General regards reform of the Security Council as part of the ongoing efforts to make this indispensable organ more broadly representative and efficient,

D.   whereas the EU and its Member States are the largest contributors to the UN system providing around 40 per cent of the assessed budget of the UN, over 40 per cent of the peacekeeping costs and 12 per cent of troops, as well as over half of the core funding of the UN funds and programmes,

E.   whereas, according to the Treaty of Lisbon, the European Union will now be represented in external relations and international fora by a single entity, the Vice-President of the Commission/High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy (‘the Vice-President/High Representative’) supported by a new EU diplomatic service; whereas the Treaty of Lisbon has also brought changes to the prerogatives of the Union's external policies such as the greater integration of the different components of the Union's external action, notably development policy,

F.   whereas the EU will have to succeed the EC as observer to the UN General Assembly (UNGA) and other UN bodies, as a party to a number of UN conventions, and, in a few exceptional cases such as the FAO, as a member,

G.   whereas the EU Member States recently split over whether to attend the Durban review conference on racism; whereas differences emerged in the EU's scrutiny of China's human rights performance in the UNHRC and in the vote on the Goldstone report; whereas all this has been to the detriment of the EU's influence and its capacity to assert its values in the UN,

H.   whereas increasing and uncontrolled nuclear proliferation poses an ever greater threat to the free world; whereas the reinforcement of all three pillars of the Non-proliferation Treaty (NPT), namely non-proliferation, disarmament and cooperation on the civilian use of nuclear energy, will be central at the upcoming NPT Review Conference,

I.   whereas, by supporting the Millennium Declaration on development in the year 2000, the European Union undertook to halve the incidence of extreme poverty worldwide by the year 2015, while concentrating its efforts on the progress of the eight Millennium Development Goals (MDGs),

J.   whereas a new impetus must be given by the institutional innovations on the gender architecture within the UN system in order to achieve a holistic and coherent approach to gender mainstreaming and women's empowerment,

K.   whereas negotiations on a comprehensive and legally binding international post-2012 agreement on climate change should result in an agreement in Mexico City in December 2010; whereas climate change may exacerbate the potential for conflicts over natural resources,

1.  Addresses the following recommendations to the Council:

o
o   o

2.  Instructs its President to forward this recommendation to the Vice-President/High Representative, the Council and, for information, to the Commission.

(1) Texts adopted, P6_TA(2009)0150. (2) A/RES/64/223. (3) A/RES/64/217. (4) A/RES/64/200. (5) A/RES/64/196. (6) A/RES/64/176. (7) A/RES/64/173. (8) A/RES/64/171. (9) A/RES/64/160. (10) A/RES/64/158. (11) A/RES/64/157. (12) A/RES/64/146. (13) A/RES/64/145. (14) A/RES/64/143. (15) A/RES/64/73. (16) A/RES/64/69. (17) A/RES/64/57. (18) A/RES/64/53. (19) A/RES/64/34. (20) Texts adopted, P7_TA(2009)0110. (21) Texts adopted, P7_TA(2009)0089. (22) Texts adopted, P7_TA(2009)0056. (23) Texts adopted, P7_TA(2009)0029. (24) Texts adopted, P6_TA(2009)0372. (25) Texts adopted, P6_TA(2009)0333. (26) Texts adopted, P6_TA(2009)0259. (27) Texts adopted, P6_TA(2009)0152. (28) OJ C 124 E, 25.5.2006, p. 549.

European Parliament resolution of 25 March 2010 on the Second European Roma Summit

P7_TA(2010)0085 RC-B7-0222/2010

The European Parliament,

–   having regard to Articles 8, 9, 10, 18, 19, 20, 21, 151, 153 and 157 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, which commit the Member States to ensuring equal opportunities for all citizens and improving their living and working conditions,

–   having regard to Articles 2 and 3 of the Treaty on European Union, which enable the EU to take appropriate action to combat discrimination against all citizens and promote respect for human rights,

–   having regard to its resolutions of 28 April 2005 on the situation of the Roma in the European Union(1), of 1 June 2006 on the situation of Roma women in the European Union(2), of 15 November 2007 on application of Directive 2004/38/EC on the right of EU citizens and their families to move and reside freely within the territory of the Member States(3), of 31 January 2008 on a European Strategy on the Roma(4), of 10 July 2008 on the census of the Roma on the basis of ethnicity in Italy(5), and of 11 March 2009 on the social situation of the Roma and their improved access to the labour market in the EU(6),

–   having regard to Council Directive 2000/43/EC of 29 June 2000 implementing the principle of equal treatment between persons irrespective of racial or ethnic origin(7), Council Directive 2000/78/EC of 27 November 2000 establishing a general framework for equal treatment in employment and occupation(8), Council Framework Decision 2008/913/JHA of 28 November 2008 on combating certain forms and expressions of racism and xenophobia by means of criminal law(9), which provides for the approximation of the laws and regulations which Member States should follow for offences involving racism and xenophobia, and Directive 2004/38/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the right of citizens of the Union and their family members to move and reside freely within the territory of the Member States(10), which guarantees that all citizens have the right of free movement throughout the EU, provided that they are working or seeking employment, studying, or are self-sufficient or retired,

–   having regard to the reports on Roma, racism and xenophobia in the Member States of the EU in 2009, published by the Fundamental Rights Agency(11), and to the reports by the Commissioner for Human Rights of the Council of Europe, Thomas Hammarberg,

–   having regard to the conclusions of the European Councils of December 2007 and June 2008, the conclusions of the General Affairs Council of December 2008 and the Employment, Social Policy, Health and Consumer Affairs Council's conclusions on the Inclusion of the Roma, adopted in Luxembourg on 8 June 2009,

–   having regard to the proclamation in 2005 of the Decade of Roma Inclusion and the establishment of the Roma Education Fund by a number of EU Member States, candidate countries and other countries in which the Union institutions have a significant presence,

–   having regard to the First European Roma Summit, which took place in Brussels on 16 September 2008, and to the forthcoming Second European Roma Summit, which will take place in Córdoba (Spain) on 8 April 2010 and is a key event of the Spanish Council Presidency,

–   having regard to the forthcoming report by its Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs on the ‘EU Strategy on Roma Inclusion’, which is due in late 2010,

–   having regard to the Ten Common Basic Principles on Roma Inclusion,

–   having regard to the questions of 12 February 2010 (O-0017/2010 – B7-0013/2010, O-0018/2010 – B7-0014/2010) and 24 February 2010 (O-0028/2010 – B7-0202/2010, O-0029/2010 – B7-0203/2010) to the Council and to the Commission on the Second European Roma Summit,

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

A.   whereas the 10-12 million European Roma continue to suffer serious systematic discrimination and, in many cases, severe poverty and social exclusion; whereas a majority of European Roma became EU citizens after the 2004 and 2007 enlargements, so that they and their families enjoy the right to move and reside freely within the territory of the Member States,

B.   whereas the situation of European Roma, who have long been present in many European countries, is distinct from that of European national minorities, justifying specific measures at European level,

C.   whereas many Roma individuals and communities who decided to settle in a different EU Member State to that of which they are nationals are in a particularly vulnerable position,

D.   whereas the EU has various instruments that can be used to combat Roma exclusion, such as the new opportunity provided under the Structural Funds to devote up to 2% of the total European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) allocation to housing expenditure in favour of marginalised communities, which will take effect in the course of 2010, or the existing possibilities under the European Social Fund,

E.   whereas Council Directive 2000/43/EC has not been adequately transposed or fully implemented by all the Member States,

F.   whereas the European Union has committed itself several times to actively promoting the principles of equal opportunities and social inclusion with regard to the Roma population across Europe,

G.   whereas the past year has seen a significant increase in anti-Gypsyism in the mass media and in political discourse in some EU Member States and an increasing incidence of racially motivated violence against Roma,

H.   whereas progress in combating discrimination against Roma by guaranteeing their rights to education, employment, health and housing in both Member States and candidate countries has been uneven and slow,

I.   whereas special attention should be paid to those who are facing multiple discriminations,

J.   whereas Roma representation in governmental structures and the public administration in Member States should be increased,

1.  Condemns the recent rise of anti-Gypsyism (Romaphobia) in several EU Member States, in the form of regular instances of hate speech and anti-Roma attacks;

2.  Considers that fighting discrimination against Roma, who constitute a pan-European community, requires a comprehensive approach at European level;

3.  Expresses its concerns at the discrimination suffered by Roma in education (particularly segregation), housing (particularly forced evictions and sub-standard living conditions, often in ghettos), employment (their particularly low employment rate) and equal access to healthcare systems and other public services, as well as the astoundingly low level of their political participation; calls on the Commission and the Member States to ensure that equal opportunity provisions are strictly complied with when the Operational Programmes are implemented, so that projects do not directly or indirectly consolidate the segregation and exclusion of Roma; stresses that on 10 February 2010 it adopted a report on the eligibility of housing interventions in favour of marginalised communities, which makes provision for housing interventions on behalf of vulnerable groups within the ERDF framework, and calls for rapid implementation of the revised regulation so that the Member States can make active use of this opportunity; considers, in this context, that housing is a precondition for ensuring effective social inclusion; calls on the Commission to ensure that the recently adopted Microfinance Facility is accessible to the Roma in order to support their integration into the labour market;

4.  Recognises that the issues of full citizenship for and socio-economic participation by Roma are conditioned by a history of discrimination and social stigma; considers that a mainstreaming approach to Roma inclusion needs to be complemented by proactive measures to overcome past and present discrimination; calls on the Commission to pay due attention to this aspect in its approach to Roma inclusion;

5.  Considers that the EU and the Member States share a responsibility to promote the inclusion of Roma and uphold their fundamental rights as European citizens and urgently need to step up their efforts to achieve visible results in this area; calls on the Member States and the EU institutions to endorse the measures needed in order to create a suitable social and political environment for implementing Roma inclusion measures, for example by supporting public education campaigns to increase the tolerance of the non-Roma population towards Roma culture and integration, both in their country of citizenship and in their country of European residence;

6.  Welcomes the Employment, Social Policy, Health and Consumer Affairs Council's conclusions on the Inclusion of the Roma adopted in Luxembourg on 8 June 2009, which incorporate the Common Basic Principles on Roma Inclusion and invite the Commission and the Member States to take account of them ‘when designing and implementing policies to defend fundamental rights, uphold gender equality, combat discrimination, poverty and social exclusion, and ensure access to education, housing, health, employment, social services, justice, sports and culture, and also in the EU's relations with third countries’; welcomes the request to the Commission to ‘undertake concrete steps to make Community instruments and policies relevant for Roma inclusion more effective’;

7.  Expresses deep concern that, in view of the urgency of the matter, the Commission has thus far not responded to its request of 31 January 2008 to prepare a European Strategy on the Roma, in cooperation with the Member States, with the aim of better coordinating and promoting efforts to improve the situation of the Roma population;

8.  Hence, calls once again on the Commission to develop a comprehensive European Strategy for Roma Inclusion as the instrument for combating social exclusion and discrimination of Roma in Europe;

9.  Looks forward to the Commission's communication, to be presented after the next European Roma Summit, which will examine the existing policies and instruments to improve Roma inclusion and the factors behind the unsatisfactory progress to date; calls for the communication to include clear objectives and mechanisms for the future drafting of policy on Roma;

10.  Calls on the new Commissioners to prioritise Roma-related issues covered by their portfolios, while establishing as a priority an effective system of coordination between themselves and between directorates-general to tackle Roma issues at EU level; calls on the Commission to designate one of its Commissioners as responsible for coordinating Roma policy;

11.  Encourages the EU institutions to involve Roma communities, from grassroots level up to international NGOs, in the process of developing a comprehensive EU Roma policy, including in all aspects of planning, implementation and supervision, and to draw on the experiences of the Decade of Roma Inclusion 2005-2015, the OSCE Action Plan, and the recommendations of the Council of Europe, the United Nations and Parliament itself; calls for the mobilisation of the Roma community so that inclusion policies can be implemented jointly, as they can be successful only if all parties involved fully participate in them;

12.  Calls on the Commission to take a horizontal approach to Roma issues and develop additional proposals to deliver policy coherence at European level regarding the social inclusion of Roma, to prompt Member States to make greater efforts to achieve visible results, to encourage a critical analysis of policy failures, to facilitate exchanges of best practices between Member States and to draw on all the lessons learnt from the Roma pilot project, which should feed into mainstream policies;

13.  Encourages the Summit organiser and the EU to define a clear political follow-up to the Summit conclusions, in order to avoid any repeat of previous situations where neither political conclusions nor concrete proposals were adopted; considers that the Summit should not be declarative in nature, but should focus on strategic policy commitments that demonstrate a political will to close the gap between Roma communities and majority populations;

14.  Urges the Commission and Council to make use of existing initiatives, such as the Decade of Roma Inclusion, to increase the efficacy of efforts in this area;

15.  Considers it essential that a complex development programme be established that targets simultaneously all related policy areas and makes immediate intervention possible in ghetto areas struggling with serious structural disadvantages;

16.  Stresses that anti-discrimination measures alone are insufficient as a means of facilitating the social inclusion of Roma, but that a concerted Community effort on a firm legal basis is needed to coordinate measures by institutional and societal stakeholders and to force the parties concerned to honour their own pledges; accepts also, therefore, the need for a clear legislative commitment and credible budgetary appropriations;

17.  Recommends that the Council adopt a common position on structural and pre-accession funding, reflecting the European political commitment to exploit the opportunities provided by these funds to promote Roma inclusion and to ensure that the Common Basic Principles on Roma Inclusion are taken into account in any revision of the relevant Operational Programmes, also looking ahead to the next programming period; urges the Commission to analyse and evaluate the social impact to date of investments using pre-accession and structural funds targeting vulnerable groups, to draw conclusions and to devise new strategies and rules if this is considered necessary in this field;

18.  Stresses that the candidate countries must be involved in the European-level pursuit of Roma integration as soon as possible, since accession negotiations offer an unparalleled opportunity to trigger a substantial shift in governmental attitudes towards Roma;

19.  Insists that Member States must ensure that any measures that have a direct or indirect impact on EU citizens of Roma origin are consistent with the principles set out in the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and with the Racial Equality Directive that explicitly prohibits direct and indirect discrimination; expresses concern in relation to the forced repatriation of Roma to countries in the Western Balkans where they might face homelessness and discrimination in the areas of education, social protection and employment, and calls on the Commission, the Council and Member States to ensure that fundamental rights are respected, including by providing appropriate assistance and monitoring;

20.  Highlights the precarious situation of many Roma, who, exercising their freedom of movement within the Union, have migrated within the EU; stresses that any measures taken in respect of these groups must be consistent with European standards and legislation and calls on the Commission and the Member States to establish whether there is a need for a coordinated European approach;

21.  Stresses the importance of involving local authorities in order to ensure effective implementation of efforts to promote Roma inclusion and combat discrimination; calls on the Commission to develop recommendations for the Member States with a view to encouraging local authorities to make better use of structural funding opportunities to promote Roma inclusion, including objective monitoring of project implementation;

22.  Underlines the importance of community-level organisations of Roma as a key factor in the success of social inclusion policies and the need for Roma representatives to be actively involved in all the initiatives aiming to promote their rights and the inclusion of their communities; considers that there is a need for long-term strategies to build up the professional and organisational capacity of Roma and to develop Roma human resources as a horizontal priority; stresses that the political independence and empowerment of Roma self-organisation in terms of financial, academic and human resources is vital in speeding up the social inclusion of Roma;

23.  Instructs its President to forward this resolution to the Council, the Commission, the governments and the parliaments of the Member States and the candidate countries, the Council of Europe and the OSCE.

(1) Texts adopted, P6_TA(2005)0151. (2) Texts adopted, P6_TA(2006)0244. (3) Texts adopted, P6_TA(2007)0534. (4) Texts adopted, P6_TA(2008)0035. (5) Texts adopted, P6_TA(2008)0361. (6) Texts adopted, P6_TA(2009)0117. (7) OJ L 180, 19.7.2000, p. 22. (8) OJ L 303, 2.12.2000, p. 16. (9) OJ L 328, 6.12.2008, p. 55. (10) OJ L 158, 30.4.2004, p. 77. (11) Report on Racism and Xenophobia in the Member States of the EU in 2009; European Union Minorities and Discrimination Survey, Data in Focus Report: The Roma in 2009; The Situation of Roma EU Citizens Moving to and Settling in Other EU Member States; and Housing Conditions of Roma and Travellers in the European Union: Comparative Report.

European Parliament resolution of 25 March 2010 on priorities for the 2011 budget – Section III – Commission (2010/2004(BUD))

P7_TA(2010)0086 A7-0033/2010

The European Parliament,

–   having regard to Articles 313 and 314 TFEU,

–   having regard to the Interinstitutional Agreement (IIA) of 17 May 2006 on budgetary discipline and sound financial management(1),

–   having regard to the Commission's updated financial programming for 2007-2013, submitted in accordance with point 46 of the aforementioned IIA of 17 May 2006,

–   having regard to the European Union's general budget for the 2010 financial year,

–   having regard to the outcome of the conciliation committee meeting of 18 November 2009,

–   having regard to the report of the Committee on Budgets and the opinion of the Committee on Development (A7-0033/2010),

General budgetary aspects

1.  Notes that, for 2011, the Multiannual Financial Framework (MFF) 2007-2013 provides for an overall level of commitment appropriations (CA) of EUR 142,629 billion, representing a potential maximum increase of only 0.83% over the 2010 budget as adopted by the European Parliament (EUR 141,453 billion in CA); notes that the level of payment appropriations (PA) is set at EUR 134,263 billion, an increase of 9.2% over the 2010 budget (EUR 122,937 billion in PA); recalls that these amounts represent only about 1% of the EU's GNI and are considerably lower than the current Own Resources Decision;

2.  Points out that the discrepancy between CA and PA in the MFF amounts to EUR 8,366 billion; recalls that, despite a gap of only EUR 6,689 billion for 2010 in the MFF, the budget adopted for 2010 shows a gap of EUR 18,515 billion owing to further reductions in payments; reiterates its concerns over increased discrepancies between CA and PA, which create deficits in the long run, and stresses that it will do its utmost throughout the budgetary procedure to keep the discrepancy at a sustainable and manageable level;

3.  Recalls that, in addition to considerations regarding the MFF ceilings for the remaining years (2011-2013), the budgetary authority has been obliged to revise the MFF several times because it did not allow the EU to react properly and satisfactorily to various challenges that have arisen in recent year; reiterates its conviction that an in-depth review and revision of the MFF is an absolute necessity; asks the European Commission to publish its report on the functioning of the current IIA and on the mid-term review of the MFF on the basis of declarations 1 and 3 of the IIA of 17 May 2006 , accompanied by concrete proposals to adjust and to revise the current IIA before the end of first semester 2010;

4.  Points out that the 2011 budget is the fourth of seven under the current MFF, and emphasises that point 37 of the IIA on the use of the 5% margin of legislative flexibility now makes full sense, since the two arms of the budgetary authority have a clearer view of the shortfalls of, and positive developments in, existing programmes; recalls that, irrespective of the provisions of the IIA, ensuring an appropriate level of flexibility in the EU budget is a prerequisite for its effective implementation in a useful manner; expects the Council MFF regulation to be adopted on the basis of COM(2010)0072 final and the forthcoming IIA to be adopted on the basis of COM(2010)0073 final, to allow for greater flexibility;

5.  Points out that the strengthening of a number of policies at EU level following the entry into force of the Lisbon Treaty should logically imply additional financial capacity for the EU;

6.  In the context of the mid-term reviews of co-decided programmes, asks the Commission to provide it with an extensive overview of the budgetary implications across all headings;

7.  Welcomes the fact that, according to the July 2009 own assessment of the Commission, the majority of the activity statements supporting the 2010 Preliminary Draft Budget contained a clear and concise justification of the EU added value, and included SMART and result-related objectives and indicators; stresses, however, the need to improve the quality of expenditure-related output and to make better use of evaluation results; deplores the fact that variations in appropriations were rarely explained by the use of performance data; expects, therefore, that the Commission will improve its activity statements for 2011 accordingly;

8.  Underlines that the remaining improvements needed in this respect, notably as regards the DGs within the RELEX family and pre-accession, are crucial both in order to ensure better-informed decision-making by the budgetary authority and with a view to deriving full benefit from the introduction of activity-based budgeting and strategic planning and programming within the Commission, especially when taking into account the new tasks and challenges foreseen by the Lisbon Treaty;

Priorities for the 2011 budget

9.  Recalls that the EU, within the constraints of the MFF, was able to find some European added value on top of the national efforts made in Member States to combat the economic and financial crisis, by adopting a European Economic Recovery Plan (EERP), but notes that the overall economic situation in the EU is still not satisfactory;

10.  Stresses that youth is tremendously important both now and for the future of the EU, and that it should be given particular attention in the course of defining our mid-and long-term priorities; points out that youth is at the heart of social and inclusive strategies, and that its the innovation ability is a key resource for development and growth the EU should rely on; recalls that investing in youth and in education means investing in today and in the future, as outlined by the ‘EU Youth Strategy’, and that this coordinated and multidisciplinary investment must be started up without delay as a cross-policy theme;

11.  Stresses that youth policy must be defined broadly, encompassing the ability of individuals to change positions and status several times throughout their lives, switching without restriction among settings such as apprenticeships, academic or professional environments and vocational training; one of the objectives should be the transition from the education system to the labour market;

12.  Believes that instruments promoting the study of languages and intercultural dialogue must be introduced and form the centrepiece of public sector youth measures; these could generate an increase in awareness of European issues among the public, aimed at the acquisition of an increasingly rooted European identity;

13.  Recalls the importance of innovation and digital agenda for the economic development and job creation in Europe, and points out that special attention should be devoted to new skills, such as e-skills and entrepreneurship aspects; underlines that the priorities of Research, Innovation and Digital Agenda are crucial elements for a sustainable development in Europe and recalls the importance of some programmes, such as European Institute of Innovation and Technology, that contribute to this objective;

14.  Is convinced, in the context of the global economic slowdown, that the EU should concentrate its efforts on actively supporting innovative in particular green technologies that are making an essential contribution to overcoming the economic crisis, ensuring the markets access to SMEs and establishing the EU as a leading sustainable and competitive economy; notes that the smooth implementation of the R&D programs should be guaranteed in order to achieve this goal;

15.  Stresses in this context that SMEs play a decisive role in the development of structurally disadvantaged regions, particularly in rural areas, and thus in boosting the whole EU economy; points out therefore the need to launch more pilot projects for SMEs for the development of rural areas;

16.  Recalls, in this respect, that innovative results in research are very likely to have a decisive impact in terms of economic activity, and is of the opinion that the EU should now be fully prepared to provide the necessary financial incentives at every level of government, be it national, regional or local; believes that this European added-value, on top of national efforts to support research activities, will generate increased spill-over effects for the benefit of all the Member States;

17.  Underlines that mobility, as a freedom enshrined in the treaties and an essential condition for the functioning of a genuine internal market within the EU, must be regarded as one of the prerequisites for all support actions in favour of youth; stresses, therefore, the importance of structuring the EU budget to reflect, inter alia, the increase in youth mobility;

18.  Stresses that transport is an essential element of the European economy, enabling the mobility of persons, goods and knowledge across borders; underlines that transport is a vector of equality and social mobility, for young people in particular, since it opens up opportunities and improves exchanges in the field of knowledge and training;

19.  Is of the opinion that support for entrepreneurship and SMEs is a cornerstone of EU policy on youth and innovation; is convinced of the necessity to confirm support to all programmes and instruments aiming at fostering entrepreneurship also in rural areas, providing assistance for start-up phases of newly created enterprises and exchanging experiences among young entrepreneurs; recalls in that respect the role played by the Small Business Act facilitating access to finance and public procurement for SMEs and further promoting their skills and innovation capacities; recalls that it has put forward several pilot projects and preparatory actions in recent years with the aim of supporting young entrepreneurs, promoting interconnections between SMEs and enhancing worker mobility, and underlines that it will closely monitor the legislative proposals to be presented following the completion of these projects and actions;

20.  Bearing in mind, the important role youth will have to play in recovering from the current financial and economic crisis, believes that the promotion of equal opportunities and better facilitation of the transition from education to the integration into the labour market should be emphasised and enhanced also within the European Social Fund as the EU can no longer afford that especially the youth suffers from poverty, bad education systems and high unemployment;

21.  Recalls that 2011 has been designated as the European Year of Voluntary Activities Promoting Active Citizenship; and 2010 the European Year for combating poverty and social exclusion; points out that volunteering plays a crucial role in many sectors as varied and diverse as, inter alia, education, health, social care and development policy, and that it can provide people with new skills and competences, thereby improving their employability and contributing to social inclusion;

22.  Points out that climate change has an impact on Europe's environment, economy and society; in this context, underlines the importance of an integrated and coordinated approach on EU level to support and strengthen measures at national, regional and local level; considers it necessary to build up further appropriate policy responses and to develop a knowledge base which is also made available to other countries; reiterates its conviction that still the EU budget does not reflect satisfactorily this general context to mitigate climate change;

23.  Believes that these priorities represent a common effort to put EU citizens first, which should remain one of the EU's priorities;

24.  Emphasises the importance of transnational cooperation by regions within the Euroregions framework and their importance in deepening European integration; calls therefore for the establishment of more pilot projects to promote cross-border economic, social and cultural cooperation among regions within the EU;

25.  Welcomes the Commission working document on the future ‘EU 2020’ strategy(2), which identifies three key drivers for the EU's future while addressing the real challenges that the EU needs to face as the basis of a broad discussion of the EU economic strategy; believes that this strategy should put more emphasis on the fight against unemployment; underlines, however, in conjunction with the priorities set for the 2011 budget, that clear, proactive measures have to be taken to endow EU 2020 with more substance, especially in the field of climate change, environment and social policies, and firmly asserts that this strategy should not turn into another vague and purely indicative scoreboard for the Member States; refuses to duplicate the frustrating experience of the Lisbon Strategy, with the Council making systematic cuts to the lines supporting efforts consistent with the agreed strategy;

26.  Calls, therefore, for clear and ambitious financial commitments in the course of the budgetary procedure, in line with these priorities, in order to pave the way for the completion of the EU 2020 strategy and to demonstrate the EU's readiness to take the lead on these crucial issues; expects the Commission's proposal for the draft budget to match this ambition, and would regret a missed opportunity to start the budgetary procedure in a manner commensurate with the challenges ahead;

27.  Stresses that it intends to use all the means provided for in the IIA of 17 May 2006 to mobilise funds for these priorities, and underlines that this financial effort may necessitate the shifting of funds from other instruments or programmes; considers that this exercise should be based not only on a quantitative monitoring of the existing programmes but also on close and thorough qualitative monitoring; believes that the Committee on Budgets should rely on the work undertaken by EP specialised committees in that respect; thereby improving the quality of its spending and increasing European added value, which is essential in a context of constrained public finances;

28.  Takes the view that a clear and comprehensive presentation of the EU's budget is necessary, and intends pay close attention to the financial programming and the modifications made by recent major budgetary agreements; welcomes the Commission's improved presentation of its financial programming documents and calls for further clarification of the breakdown between operational and administrative expenditure; while recognising that this distinction might be difficult to make in some cases; recalls that adequate administrative expenditure is necessary for running the programmes;

29.  Recalls that the financing of these priorities through a possible reallocation of funds must not be detrimental to fundamental EU policies such as the cohesion, structural or common agriculture policies; points out that cohesion policy, through its unique multilevel governance structure and horizontal character, plays a central role in EU Economic Recovery Plan and is predestined to play an important role in the implementation of the EU2020 strategy, furthering subsidiarity by means of a bottom-up approach and enhancing acceptance and mobilizing support by the citizens of the Union; points out that these policies fulfil one of the founding principle of the EU, namely social inclusion and solidarity amongst Member States and regions;

30.  Underlines that it considers this first procedure under the rules of the new treaty to afford a greater opportunity to exercise full parliamentary scrutiny over the EU budget as a whole, and points out that it does not intend to curb its budgetary prerogatives;

Heading 1a

31.  Recalls that a number of policies and measures constituting the EERP are covered under this heading, together with a great number of multiannual programmes (CIP, FP7, TENs, etc.) which will have reached maturity in 2011; calls on the Commission to present a follow-up report on the implementation of the EERP including on measures entrusted to the EIB;

32.  Underlines that the priorities for 2011, in view of the EU 2020 strategy, will be financed mainly from this heading, and that the Lisbon Treaty's extension of EU competences (for example in space policy and tourism) is likely to have budgetary implications; emphasises that space policy that's seeking to promote European scientific, technological and environmental progress and industrial competitiveness needs a real financial effort from both the EU and the Member States; points out in particular the need for concrete proposals as regards to adequate financing of GMES;

33.  Takes the view that the lifelong learning programme, by focusing on education and vocational training, supports the efforts to be made with regard to youth in particular to their access to autonomy; stresses that this programme should cover the activities planned at the beginning of the programming period and integrate possible new developments, allowing, inter alia, for a clear link to be established between education and the labour market, both of which are crucial for economic development and recovery; stresses the request, already approved by the Parliament, to move forward with a specific mobility programme to promote youth first jobs called ‘Erasmus First Job’;

34.  Recalls that, in the context of Europe's economic recovery, investment in transport particularly via investment in the TEN-Ts, has a crucial role to play in driving forward growth and employment as well as in advancing Europe's economic and environmental interests; attaches in that respect high importance to investment in favour of transport safety in all modes;

35.  Recalls that the financing of other crucial elements is still pending and will need to be taken into account and agreed upon in the course of the budgetary procedure, even though they were not foreseen in the MFF for 2011: implementation of the financial supervision package consisting of the creation of a European System of Financial Supervisors (ESFS); financing for the decommissioning of the Kozloduy nuclear power plant (EUR 75 million in 2011), which was financed by the flexibility instrument in 2010; and financing of Global Monitoring for Environment and Security (EUR 10 million in 2011);

36.  Is therefore extremely worried by the sharp decrease in appropriations foreseen in the MFF, amounting to a huge drop of EUR 1,875 billion compared with the 2010 budget; understands that the financing of the EERP partially explains this situation, but remains absolutely convinced that an ambitious, consistent mid-term review of the current MFF is a sine qua non condition for an effective EU budget;

Heading 1b

37.  Takes the view that the key focus when assessing the cohesion and structural policies should be their simplification and implementation in both quantitative and qualitative terms; welcomes the submission of MCS (Management and Control Systems) descriptions by the Member States for almost all operational programmes, and the Commission's 87% approval rate by the end of 2009; expects, therefore, a considerable increase in interim payments in 2010 and 2011;

38.  Recalls that strengthening economic, social and territorial cohesion is one of the fundamental objectives of the EU as laid down in the Treaty of Lisbon; considers, therefore, that reinforcing EU cohesion policy should remain a high priority for 2011; highlights the need for a close monitoring of the N+2, N+3 rule and requests that full and updated information be delivered to the budgetary authority in time, in particular on budgetary commitments that are in danger of being cancelled;

39.  Notes that several delays have been reported in the start-up phase of the current programming period and states its concern for the low take-up rate of all EU structural funds in the past years leading to an increasing gap between commitment and payment appropriations under this Heading; calls on the Commission to work closely especially with those Member States with a low take up rate during the previous programming period, in order to improve this situation;

40.  Recalls the Joint Declaration adopted in conciliation last November, calling for a simplification of implementing procedures and urging the Member States to make use of the possibility of revising their operational programmes in order better to address the effects of the economic crisis; welcomes, in this respect, the current revision of the General Regulation on Structural Funds 2007-2013 (Regulation (EC) No 1083/2006) that aims at improving simplification in the management of the funds as well as introducing measures to enable Member States tackle the consequences of the economic crisis; requests that these provisions are implemented without further delay in the Member States; calls on the Commission to estimate the possible impact on payment appropriations of the new provisions, as well as to assess the effect of the proposed derogation from the automatic decommitment (N+2, N+3) rule on the budget;

41.  Insists that improving implementation and the quality of spending should constitute a guiding principle for achieving the optimal use of the EU budget; calls on the Commission and the Member States to gear their efforts in this direction and monitor closely the implementation of policies on the ground;

Heading 2

42.  Expresses its concern about the narrow margin in Heading 2, which could lead to the application of the financial discipline according to Article 11 of Regulation (EC) No 73/2009, if agricultural commodity prices show a similar pattern of volatility as in recent years; urges the Commission to closely monitor agriculture markets in order to prevent such a situation; argues for a sufficient margin in Heading 2 in the 2011 budget;

43.  Recalls that the second branch of the EERP – broadband internet in rural areas – is being financed under the rural development budget line in 2010 (EUR 420 million), and that no new commitments are foreseen for 2011;

44.  Recalls that the abolition of the distinction between compulsory and non-compulsory expenditure will profoundly change the traditional interinstitutional dialogue, and confirms that it intends to screen carefully all appropriations at the various stages of the procedure in view of the difficulty of anticipating changes in agricultural markets; calls, therefore, on the Commission to present its amending letter on agriculture as early as possible in order to allow constructive and efficient decision-making by the Conciliation Committee;

45.  Emphasises that the continuing process of ageing in agriculture dictates that efforts be made towards generational turnover, with a view to keeping agriculture competitive and able to meet the new environmental challenges post-Copenhagen;

46.  Expects the fight against climate change to remain high on the EU's ‘post-Copenhagen’ political agenda in 2010 and 2011, and recalls that, as part of a broader approach, sustainable development is an ongoing responsibility to the next generations; asks the Commission to provide a clear action plan and timetable for the implementation of appropriations under the EU action programme to combat climate change; underlines that the transport sector represents a great potential in the fight against climate change and calls on the Commission to give priority to measures for decarbonisation in all transport modes; recalls that the release of the reserve on this line will depend upon the Commission's proposals;

47.  Recalls that the primary goal of the CAP is to guarantee market stabilisation, provide security and ensure reasonable prices for consumers and producers and therefore calls on the Commission to provide in the 2011 budget for the necessary means to address the new needs arising from the economic crisis;

48.  Asks the Commission to report on the implementation of the measures against dairy crisis introduced in the 2010 budget, and to present a permanent approach together with concrete proposals for dealing with price volatility in dairy and other commodity markets for the future;

Heading 3a

49.  Reaffirms its intention of maintaining a level of financing commensurate with the establishment of an area of freedom, security and justice in the Union and stresses the importance of full and effective implementation, enforcement and evaluation of existing instruments in this area; considers it necessary, to that end, to re-evaluate the appropriateness of the financial instruments and means available in this area in the light of the Stockholm Programme goals, for example in the fields of migration, border control and management, data protection and anti-terrorism; recalls, in this context, that many programmes in this area will soon be subject to mid-term review, which may also necessitate reconsideration of the financial means allocated to them;

50.  Believes it essential, as part of furthering an Area of Freedom, Security and Justice, to strengthen the policy on immigration and support for the integration of immigrants. To that end, considers that action to harmonise the immigration policies of individual Member States must be viewed as a political priority for EU action, with a view to firmly balancing security demands and the defence of fundamental human rights;

51.  Intends to undertake in-depth scrutiny of the financial management of the development of the great data network systems, in particular the transition from SIS I to SIS II, which has been subject to repeated delays and setbacks, before deciding whether to maintain the level of financing foreseen for those systems and reserves the right to hold in reserve any funds pertaining to the migration to SIS II pending the outcome of further analysis and testing;

52.  Will be particularly attentive to the implementation of changes such as the bringing of EUROPOL fully within the Community sphere and the establishment of the European Asylum Support Office as well as scrutinising the financial needs of FRONTEX;

Heading 3b

53.  Recalls that this heading covers a wide range of actions in favour of youth through multiannual programmes such as Youth in Action, the Culture Programme, Europe for Citizens, annual events including Special Olympics and Erasmus Mundus(3); intends, therefore, to support those EU programmes relating to this issue that are directly relevant to the priorities for the 2011 budget, and to monitor their implementation closely in both qualitative and quantitative terms; regrets, however, that the ceiling of this heading for 2011 is only EUR 15 million above the budget adopted in 2010;

54.  Emphasises that the systematic cuts made to these programmes by the other branch of the budgetary authority are unjustified and have a counterproductive effect on the development of a ‘Europe for citizens’;

Heading 4

55.  Recalls the constant, almost unbearable pressure on the financing of the EU's activities as a global player, with its room for manoeuvre caught between low financial margins, unpredictable and ever increasing crises in third countries and a desire to affirm its priorities and responsibilities on the world stage; underlines the need to equip the Union with the necessary financial means for a consistent and adequate response to unforeseen global challenges and stresses in particular that the programmed CFSP budget for 2011might prove underestimated; regrets that any increase beyond the programmed annual envelope would put further pressure on heading 4;

56.  Points to the need for a revision of the 2006 Inter-Institutional Agreement on budgetary discipline concerning Parliament's prerogatives regarding the CFSP/CSDP budget under the Lisbon Treaty, including the need for new rules on the flexible use of the CFSP budget for civilian CSDP missions and the full transparency over military crisis management operations, in particular the use of the start-up fund;

57.  Points out that, following an amending budget for 2010, 2011 will be the first fully operational year for the European External Action Service (EEAS); intends to provide the EEAS with the necessary administrative means to fulfil its mission, especially with regard to the civil crisis management capabilities, but recalls that, under the treaty and in full accordance with the common intention to increase the EP's involvement in the shaping and management of the EU's external relations, it will fully exercise its scrutiny over the budget and budgetary control of EEAS; recalls that full budgetary transparency regarding the establishment plan of the Service needs to be ensured; emphasises that, via the abolition of unnecessary duplications, the new Service should result in economies of scale; points out, at the same time, that EU Delegations to multilateral organisations must be adequately staffed;

58.  Expresses its concerns over the scarcity of information regarding the financing of the EU's commitments to support developing countries in their fight against climate change, and recalls that this commitment was not foreseen in the MFF; strongly emphasises that the funding for these measures should be additional to the existing ODA funds;

59.  Reaffirms its firm commitment to assist the Haitian people to the largest possible extent in the aftermath of the devastating earthquake that has struck their country; asks the Commission to present, on the basis of an extensive needs assessment, the most ambitious assistance plan possible for Haiti; recalls that such a plan should not jeopardise existing commitments toward other developing and less advanced countries, and should consist of new funding sources; in that context, recalls EP's position on establishing a permanent EU civil protection force and calls once more on the Commission to make concrete proposals accordingly;

60.  Points out that the EU is currently mobilising all its resources, in addition to existing programmes, in order to support peace-building and reconstruction efforts in conflict zones, namely Georgia, Afghanistan, the Middle East and sub-Saharan Africa, and that it considers it unacceptable to trade existing priorities for new ones;

61.  Recalls the importance of appropriate funding for the stabilisation of the Western Balkans´ region, and for its gradual integration into the European Union;

62.  Emphasises that the Eastern Partnership, as a component of its neighbourhood policy, is of great significance for the EU, and reiterates its support for the proposed framework; considers it equally important to ensure an adequate financial envelope reflecting the EU's commitment vis-à-vis its southern neighbours;

63.  Recalls that the issue of the financing of ‘banana accompanying measures’, following the Geneva Agreement on trade on bananas, was not dealt with during the conciliation for the 2010 budget; expresses its strong opposition to the proposal to use heading 4 margins for such financing (EUR 25 million per year), which was not foreseen in the MFF and believes that this item deserves an appropriate multiannual financing solution;

Heading 5

64.  Wishes, in the spirit of effective and efficient spending of EU funds, carefully to evaluate the situation as regards this heading once more information has been provided about the Commission's actual requests, implied growth rates and overall room for manoeuvre under the MFF ceiling;

65.  Stresses the need to be transparent and forward-looking on a number of issues with major financial implications, such as staffing needs, pensions, a cost and energy efficient building policy, outsourcing policy and administrative versus operational functions and trends;

66.  Points out that, with respect to salaries and pensions, the increase adopted by the Council in December 2009 was 1.85%, i.e. only half of the percentage resulting from the ‘method’, and that, depending on the outcome of the court case resulting from the challenge lodged by the Commission and the European Parliament, the difference, with retroactive effect, could amount to about EUR 135 million across all the institutions;

67.  Recalls that, although the Commission's growth forecast for 2010 was limited to 0.9%, it did not include a number of administrative areas that are in fact financed outside this heading, such as technical and administrative support lines (ex-BA lines), executive agencies (outside research agencies) and administrative expenditure on decentralised agencies and direct and indirect research; asks the Commission to state its view as to the criteria to be applied in order to define total administrative expenditure, and to continue to provide a clear description of those areas outside heading 5; requests that all administrative expenditure must be included in heading 5;

68.  Calls on the Commission to present an update of the ‘screening report’ with a view to clear analysis and follow-up of staffing needs;

Decentralised agencies

69.  Encourages the Commission to continue the policy followed in recent budgetary exercises as regards the financing of decentralised agencies, notably by taking into consideration the surpluses resulting from the implementation of their budgets when deciding on the subsidies to be proposed; insists, however, that those agencies which depend to some extent on revenue generated by fees should still be able to make extensive use of assigned revenues, so as to give them the budgetary flexibility they need; welcomes the transparent presentation of the annual subsidies requested in a working document on the bodies referred to in Article 185 of Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1605/2002 to accompany the Commission's draft budget;

70.Expects the activities of the interinstitutional working group on decentralised agencies to be resumed promptly, and reaffirms its expectation that this group will manage to produce operative conclusions allowing the institutions to agree on a common approach to the establishment, management and financing of decentralised agencies, as well as their place in the institutional landscape of the Union;
The procedure for the adoption of the 2011 annual budget

71.  Stresses that the budgetary procedure for the adoption of the 2011 budget will be the first one entirely run under the new rules defined in the Treaty of Lisbon; recalls that the European Parliament, the Council and the Commission agreed on transitory measures applicable to the budgetary procedure after the entry into force of the Lisbon Treaty(4) which should apply until the necessary legal acts (the new regulation on the MFF, the revised Financial Regulation and a possible residual interinstitutional agreement) defining the rules on these matters enter into force;

72.  Considers it necessary, in order to ensure that the 2010 budgetary procedure runs smoothly, that the EP, the Council and the Commission agree on principles and modalities concerning the organisation, the preparation and the functioning of the Conciliation Committee, as foreseen in paragraph 7 of the mentioned Joint Declaration; stresses that these principles must comply with the principles defined in its resolution on the financial aspects of the Treaty of Lisbon(5) and in its resolution on transitional procedural guidelines on budgetary matters in view of the entry into force of the Lisbon Treaty(6); instructs its Committee on Budgets to negotiate these principles with the Council and the Commission;

o
o   o

73.  Instructs its President to forward this resolution to the Commission, the Council and the Court of Auditors.

(1) OJ C 139, 14.6.2006, p. 1. (2) COM(2009)0647 final. (3) As a reminder, this specific programme falls under heading 1a. (4) See Annex 5 to European Parliament resolution of 17 December 2009 on the draft general budget of the European Union for the financial year 2010 as modified by the Council (all sections). (5) Resolution of 7 May 2009. (6) Resolution of 12 November 2009.

European Parliament resolution of 25 March 2010 on the guidelines for the 2011 budget procedure, Section I – European Parliament, Section II – Council, Section IV – Court of Justice, Section V – Court of Auditors, Section VI – European Economic and Social Committee, Section VII – Committee of the Regions, Section VIII – European Ombudsman, Section IX – European Data Protection Supervisor (2010/2003(BUD))

P7_TA(2010)0087 A7-0036/2010

The European Parliament,

–   having regard to Article 314 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the EU,

–   having regard to the Interinstitutional Agreement of 17 May 2006 between the European Parliament, the Council and the Commission on budgetary discipline and sound financial management(1),

–   having regard to Council Decision 2007/436/EC, Euratom of 7 June 2007 on the system of the European Communities‘ own resources(2),

–   having regard to Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1605/2002 of 25 June 2002 on the Financial Regulation applicable to the general budget of the European Communities(3),

–   having regard to the sixth report by the Secretaries-General of the institutions on trends in heading 5 of the financial perspective, as revised in autumn 2009,

–   having regard to the Annual Report of the Court of Auditors on the implementation of the budget concerning the financial year 2008, together with the institutions‘ replies(4),

–   having regard to the report of the Committee on Budgets (A7-0036/2010),

A.   whereas, at this stage of the annual procedure, the European Parliament is awaiting the other institutions‘ estimates and its own Bureau's proposals for the 2011 budget,

B.   whereas it is useful to continue the pilot exercise on enhanced cooperation and relations between the Bureau and the Committee on Budgets for a third year, throughout the 2011 budget procedure,

C.   whereas the ceiling for heading 5 in 2011 is EUR 8 415 000 000 (representing an increase of EUR 327 000 000, or 4%, compared with 2010, including 2% for inflation),

D.   whereas the European Parliament's budget for 2010 amounts to EUR 1 607 363 235, representing 19.87% of heading 5 for this year before the revision of the 2007-2013 MFF (which lowered the ceiling of heading 5 by EUR 126 000 000 in order to contribute to the financing of the European Economic Recovery Plan), and 20.19% after that revision,

E.   whereas account needs to be taken of how each institution's share of heading 5 expenditure has evolved, and of the various reasons for significant modifications, such as the entry into force of different treaties (increasing the number of Members and/or extending the different institutions‘ tasks and competences), enlargement and other decisions entailing significant expenditure increases not foreseen at the time the financial framework was adopted,

F.   whereas the entry into force of the Lisbon Treaty will, to varying degrees, have financial implications for all the institutions, the overall magnitude of which is still unknown,

G.   whereas it is essential to monitor the situation with regard to heading 5 carefully throughout the implementation of the 2010 budget and in the run-up to the adoption of the 2011 budget,

H.   whereas particular account should be taken of the financial impact on pension systems, age-related trends and retirement, recruitment and other areas related to statutory provisions, and of the need to ensure long-term sustainability,

General framework

1.  Points out that the entry into force of the Lisbon Treaty, notably the single budget reading by each of the two arms of the budgetary authority, followed by a conciliation meeting with a view to arriving at a final budget, will require even closer cooperation and dialogue among all the institutions throughout the whole procedure, including the presentation of realistic estimates in due time;

2.  Points out that the circumstances under which the 2010 and 2011 budgets will be adopted are quite exceptional and challenging, since, on the one hand, successful implementation of the Lisbon Treaty is a major priority that will also be challenging financially, while, on the other hand, the effects of the financial crisis are still very present in many Member States, resulting in a political dilemma at EU level; recalls, in this context, that the EU budget represents less than 2.5% of total EU public expenditure; notes, furthermore, that heading 5 of the EU budget consequently corresponds to 0.14% of EU-wide public spending;

3.  Underlines the difficult situation with respect to the heading 5 expenditure ceiling for 2011, and is aware that the institutions may encounter problems in reconciling the financing of all needs with their desire to maintain budgetary discipline and self-restraint in order to comply with the multiannual financial framework; notes that a number of administrative areas are financed outside heading 5; requests that all administrative expenditure be included in that heading, and that the ceiling be revised accordingly;

4.  Insists, therefore, that developments be monitored closely before final decisions are taken; reiterates its belief that priorities will have to be set and that core activities should be prioritised;

5.  Reiterates its conviction that interinstitutional cooperation is essential in order to exchange best practices and explore further the scope for improving effectiveness and efficiency and, where possible and appropriate, identifying savings and sharing resources better; believes that useful gains could also be made by extending this concept to other areas which have not so far been considered in this context, such as EMAS, non-discrimination policies and teleworking; suggests that possibilities for using open software with sufficient safety guarantees be explored further, with clearly defined feasibility criteria and taking into account both direct and indirect costs and benefits; points out that efforts should continue in areas already under consideration, such as translation capacity and recruitment (EPSO), on the basis of actual or justifiable needs;

6.  Reiterates the importance of enhancing interinstitutional cooperation in the field of building policy; calls on the other EU institutions likewise to develop medium- and long-term buildings strategies that include the objectives set out in this resolution; stresses the need to receive in good time the information necessary for decision-making under the procedure laid down in Article 179 of the Financial Regulation, which ‘should include needs assessments and cost benefit analyses for the various alternatives, outlining the options to rent or buy, as well as transparent information concerning the alternative financing possibilities, the long-term financial consequences, and compatibility with the MFF’ (Annex 2 to EP resolution of 17 December 2009 on the draft general budget of the European Union for the financial year 2010 as modified by the Council)(5); takes the view that, in this context, cooperation with other institutions in working towards the harmonisation of such information in order to allow a comparison of building space and costs should be considered a key issue; points to the need for a specific report and possible recommendations concerning unnecessarily high maintenance, renovation and purchase costs;

7.  Points out that, with regard to the staff salaries adjustment and the pending court case, the additional cost for all the institutions may be estimated at some EUR 135 million (for the period from July 2009 to 31 December 2010) if the Court were to rule in the Commission's favour; notes that this ruling is expected in 2010, but does not exclude the possibility that it could be delayed until 2011;

European Parliament

8.  Stresses the fundamental challenge of managing a number of uncertainties – as indicated below – in relation to the 2011 budget, which will make precise forecasts and budgeting extremely difficult until the very late stages of the procedure, by which time the situation will have become clearer; calls on relevant EP bodies and the administration to make available, in due time, a set of basic scenarios able to facilitate the taking of final political decisions by affording a better understanding of the corresponding financial consequences;

9.  Recalls that the purpose of the amending letter presented to the Committee on Budgets by the Bureau in September is to take into account needs unforeseen at the time the estimates were drawn up, and stresses that this should not be seen as an opportunity to review previously agreed estimates; expects the Bureau to submit realistic requests when presenting the estimates; is prepared to examine the Bureau's proposals on a wholly needs-based and prudent basis in order to ensure the appropriate and efficient functioning of the institution;

10.  Emphasises that legislative excellence is Parliament's priority, and highlights the need to provide the institution with the necessary means to achieve it;

11.  Stresses the need for a fully integrated knowledge management system; recalls the need to organise a presentation to the Committee on Budgets on the multitude of information sources/systems available to Members, and to receive the requested information concerning the state of play of the ‘knowledge management system’, as agreed during the conciliation between the Bureau and the Committee on Budgets of 15 September 2009; is of the opinion that such a system should be made easily accessible via the internet; underlines the need to consider how this information should be made available to European citizens;

12.  Would welcome an analysis of Parliament's web TV channel, Europarl TV; requests, in particular, information about its viewing figures and viewers‘ geographical distribution and age range, in order to evaluate whether this tool has fulfilled its aims in terms of dissemination and the quality and quantity of information transmitted;

13.  Considers that measures to make the Lisbon Treaty work effectively are a crucial priority for the 2011 budget, and that this will necessitate the best possible management of available resources in order to make a success of the exercise;

14.  Points out that additional measures in this regard should nevertheless be assessed within the overall budget and the wider framework of the financial perspective; is of the opinion that an analysis of the institutions‘ respective shares over time, including any significant developments that may have justified changing those shares, might be helpful;

15.  Points out that, since 2006, Parliament has had to include expenditure not foreseen in its self-imposed 1988 declaration, such as the Statute for Members and direct and indirect expenditure related to its new role following the Lisbon Treaty; highlights the need for an open and in-depth discussion on the current, self-imposed 20% threshold, which applies to the level of the European Parliament budget; takes the view that the Bureau and the Committee on Budgets should work together to re-assess this limit before opening an interinstitutional dialogue on the issue; takes the view that, on the basis of the original MFF references negotiated in 2006 and in force since 2007, its expenditure should be established around the traditional 20% limit, taking into account the needs of the other institutions and the available margin;

16.  Cannot stress enough the fundamental principle that all Members should enjoy equal access to comprehensive, high-quality services allowing them to work and express themselves and to receive documents in their native language, in order to be able to act on behalf of their voters in the best way possible;

17.  Awaits a reply from the competent bodies as to how the concept of a zero-based budget policy, which also distinguishes between fixed and variable costs, can be applied in the context of the EP budget procedure; calls for the Bureau to submit annual estimates of these fixed costs for the years corresponding to the MFF;

18.  Points out that the ‘salary effect’ for Parliament would amount to some EUR 14 million in the event of a ruling in the Commission's favour; cannot be sure, at this stage, whether this would affect the 2010 or 2011 budget;

19.  Calls for an evaluation of the use of secretarial assistance allowances and an assessment of the total cost of the increase currently awaiting approval from both arms of the budgetary authority, prior to considering any possible further increase in the future; recalls that wider cost implications should always be assessed in relation to new measures introduced, for example when deciding on schemes for staff and accredited parliamentary assistants for both 2010 and 2011; especially underlines that, if additional assistants were to be recruited in Brussels, this would have an impact on the situation as regards office space, building maintenance and security, IT equipment, human resources for dealing with administrative tasks, and general facilities; considers that the presentation in March of the medium-term buildings strategy for its three places of work is crucial; insists on the need for long-term planning of its buildings policy in order to ensure the sustainability of the budget;

20.  Calls for the development of a medium- and long-term buildings strategy that includes the following objectives: establishment of guidelines for the planning and development of buildings; effective use of existing office and other space; an accurate needs assessment and the provision of proper working conditions for Parliament's staff and MEPs; an effective strategy for building upkeep, maintenance and renovation, so as to prevent any recurrence of incidents such as the one at Parliament in Strasbourg in 2008 or problems in relation to asbestos; a rigorous review of liability issues, including the process of determining liability, and the pursuit of claims for compensation in respect of damage for which third parties are liable, as well as strict and transparent adherence to procurement procedures; calls, too, for the medium- and long-term buildings strategy to be geared to sustainability, and for factors such as environmental friendliness, energy efficiency and health to be taken into account; insists, moreover, that mobility-related aspects, especially with regard to access for people with motor or sensory disabilities, should also be included in the objectives; points out once again that the Committee on Budgets sees the acquisition of buildings as taking priority over expensive rental or leasing arrangements;

21.  Recalls that the Bureau, in its draft estimates for Amending Budget 1/2010, proposed an additional 70 members of staff for the committee secretariats; underlines that these staff will be divided among three groups according to the expected increase in their workload for legislative activities following the entry into force of the Lisbon Treaty; considers that this breakdown should be subject to a mid-term assessment by July 2011, in order to clarify whether those services allocated more staff have been affected in real terms by the predicted increase in workload;

22.  Stresses that financial statements (fiches financières) and similar types of cost analysis are of the utmost importance for decision-making within Parliament; insists that these should be used systematically and should identify recurrent and one-off costs directly linked to the measure in question and also indicate whether there may be any financial impact on other items of expenditure;

23.  Takes the view that follow-up and analysis are important on a number of fronts with clear budgetary links, such as the restructuring of directorates-general, efficient human resources management and a professional staff policy, a cost- and energy-efficient buildings policy in terms of location, non-discrimination, EMAS, public procurement and action taken in response to budget discharge recommendations; emphasises the need for continuous follow-up and analysis of Parliament's budget implementation in general; recalls, in this context, the negative media coverage resulting from subsidies being given to relatives of Parliament staff members, and calls for the Secretariat to scrutinise in advance any subsidising of event-type activities and bring it to the attention of the committee responsible;

24.  Takes note of the audit already carried out for DG INLO and the resulting restructuring of the directorate-general; believes that the results of this audit could serve as a basis for taking further steps, such as periodic and systematic audits by certified national bodies in order to check the methodology for maintenance policy and for ensuring the safety of people and equipment in the buildings;

25.  Underlines the need to receive a complete financial statement concerning the House of European History once the architects‘ competition has been completed, as otherwise there will be no possibility of an in-depth assessment of the long-term costs in terms of Parliament's buildings strategy and budget;

26.  Points out that the necessary preparations should be made in readiness to accommodate Croatian observers with a view to possible EU enlargement;

Other institutions

27.  Calls for realistic and cost-based budget requests, which take full account of the need to manage scarce resources in an optimal way and must be presented in good time; would welcome a budgetary analysis of how the Lisbon Treaty may affect each institution in 2010/2011 and how, if applicable, any additional needs for which requests may be made are to be justified;

28.  Takes the view that it may be advisable to request information about, and to compare, the other institutions‘ systems for various types of remuneration, allowances and travel costs; points out that transparency and democratic accountability are obviously crucial;

29.  Wishes to follow up on last year's priority of better sharing of the available resources among all the institutions, including the concrete measures taken in the area of translation, and considers that the area of interpretation could also be looked at once again in this context;

30.  Invites its rapporteur for 2010 to carry out individual visits to the Council, the Court of Justice, the Court of Auditors, the European Economic and Social Committee, the Committee of the Regions, the Ombudsman and the European Data Protection Supervisor, in order to hear them before the estimates stage and to report back to its Committee on Budgets;

o
o   o

31.  Instructs its President to forward this resolution to the Council, the Commission, the Court of Justice, the Court of Auditors, the European Economic and Social Committee, the Committee of the Regions, the European Ombudsman and the European Data Protection Supervisor.

(1) OJ C 139, 14.6.2006, p. 1. (2) OJ L 163, 23.6.2007, p. 17. (3) OJ L 248, 16.9.2002, p. 1. (4) OJ C 269, 10.11.2009, p. 1. (5) Texts adopted, P7_TA(2009)0115.

European Parliament resolution of 25 March 2010 on Agricultural product quality policy: what strategy to follow? (2009/2105(INI))

P7_TA(2010)0088 A7-0029/2010

The European Parliament,

–   having regard to the communication from the Commission of 28 May 2009 on agricultural product quality policy (COM(2009)0234),

–   having regard to the Commission's green paper of 15 October 2008 on agricultural product quality: product standards, farming requirements and quality schemes (COM(2008)0641),

–   having regard to its resolution of 10 March 2009 on ensuring food quality including harmonisation or mutual recognition of standards(1),

–   having regard to its resolution of 9 October 1998 on quality policy for agricultural products and agri-foodstuffs(2),

–   having regard to the Commission staff working document of October 2008 on food quality certification schemes,

–   having regard to the health check for the common agricultural policy (CAP),

–   having regard to the proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on the provision of food information to consumers (COM(2008)0040),

–   having regard to Rule 48 of its Rules of Procedure,

–   having regard to the report of the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development and the opinions of the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Food Safety (A7-0029/2010),

A.   whereas the European Union has the highest quality standards for food products in the world and these high standards are demanded by Europe's consumers and represent a means of maximising added value,

B.   whereas support for small and medium-sized farms, whose production and consumption levels meet local requirements, sustains both traditional and empirical farming methods and ensures they are applied in accordance with the highest standards of quality and safety,

C.   whereas European quality products constitute a living cultural and gastronomic heritage for the Union and are an essential component of economic and social activity in many of Europe's regions, bolstering activities directly linked to local realities, especially in rural areas,

D.   whereas existing policy concerning the distribution chain affects small producers‘ chances of reaching a wide target group,

E.   whereas there is ever-increasing consumer interest not only in food safety but also in the origins and production methods of food products; whereas the EU has already responded to this trend by introducing four food quality and origin schemes, namely Protected Designation of Origin (PDO), Protected Geographical Indication (PGI), Traditional Speciality Guaranteed (TSG) and Organic Farming,

F.   whereas consumers associate these certification schemes with a guarantee of higher quality,

G.   whereas new technologies can be employed for providing detailed information on the origins and characteristics of agricultural and food products,

General remarks

1.  Welcomes the Commission's communication and the incorporation therein of several of Parliament's recommendations following the reflection process launched through the green paper on agricultural product quality; wishes to see the measures proposed by Parliament in this resolution implemented as soon as possible, so as to act effectively on the feedback received from farmers and producers during the consultation process and with a view to assessing the desirability, necessity and proportionality of the proposed regulatory framework, while taking account of the effects of the economic crisis and the need not to generate additional costs or burdens for producers;

2.  Regrets the fact that, on grounds of a simplification which could prove counterproductive, the Commission communication has only partially taken on board the requirements specified by the sectors concerned following the publication of the green paper;

3.  Emphasises that quality is a key issue for the entire food chain and an essential asset in supporting the competitiveness of European agrifood producers; considers that quality can constitute a foundation for important business advantages for European producers and can make an indirect contribution to rural development;

4.  Considers that the EU quality policy can bring about increased competitiveness and added value in the economy of Europe's regions and that quality agricultural and agri-food production is often the only chance for many rural areas with limited production alternatives; further considers quality as an engine for product diversity and a means of developing workforce skills;

5.  Calls for the strengthening of the EU quality policy, since it represents a significant incentive for producers in the Union to improve their efforts in terms of quality, food safety and respect for the environment; believes this policy can help to boost substantially the added value of the Union's agricultural and food production in an ever more globalised market;

6.  Is confident that quality policy can bring about important developments in European agriculture, quality products being an area of high output, with PGI products alone already worth more than EUR 14 billion;

7.  Considers that introducing different levels of protection for European quality designations could create unfairness, especially if the main criteria employed are economic; believes, therefore, that all geographical indications should enjoy the same degree of recognition;

8.  Considers that, given the increasingly open market, it is essential that the EU uphold, in the WTO negotiations, the principle of quality products being protected effectively through the safeguard arrangements for intellectual property;

9.  Emphasises that, in the WTO negotiations, the Commission must seek to secure an agreement on the ‘non-trade concerns’ which will ensure that imported agricultural products meet the same EU requirements, in the areas of food safety, animal welfare and environmental protection, that are imposed on agricultural products produced inside the Union;

10.  Takes the view that the new EU quality policy should be more open to products from the new Member States, which gained access to the system for registering geographical indications only a few years ago; believes that the requirements to be met in order to register a given product should be transparent and understandable not just to applicants (producers) but also to consumers;

11.  Advocates closer monitoring and more coordination between the Commission and the Member States so as to ensure that imported food products meet the EU's quality and food safety standards, as well as its environmental and social standards;

12.  Stresses the need for quality standards that ensure effective communication with consumers about the way that products have been produced and that offer incentives for improving these standards, thus contributing to wider EU policy objectives;

13.  Believes that European quality policy must be closely linked to the reform of the CAP after 2013; takes the view that, in the context of that policy, the EU needs to offer financial support with a view to obtaining agri-food production of high quality; believes that such support should take the form of developing, diversifying and stimulating access to the second pillar of the CAP, especially as regards the modernisation of farms and the creation and development of micro-businesses in the countryside; stresses that financial support for product quality development can help produce a shift towards market orientation for semi-subsistence farmers; believes that producers‘ organisations need more support, especially so as not to disadvantage small producers;

14.  Stresses that diversity should continue to be Europe's fundamental asset and that all quality products that meet the criteria laid down by the EU should be recognised and protected; considers that after 2013 the CAP should support the quality policy and, in particular, producers‘ efforts to promote more environment-friendly production methods; points out that regions are the CAP's partners and that they co-finance and manage rural development; adds that, by virtue of their geographical proximity, regions are the partners of producers and, in particular, producers of traditional and organic products; takes the view that regions should be involved in the recognition and promotion of products that carry an indication, traditional products and organic products;

EU farming requirements and marketing standards

15.  Stresses the need for formal recognition of the efforts made by European producers in meeting EU farming requirements with regard to quality, environmental, animal welfare and health standards;

16.  Calls on the Commission, in this respect, to conduct a study of the various options available for giving European producers the possibility of displaying on their products their commitment to quality, food safety and observance of all European standards of production, including the option of an EU quality logo, which should be made available exclusively to agricultural goods resulting entirely from production in the EU, and which, since it would certify compliance with the legislation subject to official controls, should in no circumstances involve any additional cost to operators or any financial or administrative burden on the Member States exercising the controls;

17.  Considers that EU agricultural products meet a quality standard in themselves, since they are produced in accordance with EU legislative provisions concerning product quality, sustainable production and environmental and health criteria (cross-compliance); in addition, the cultural landscapes of Europe are preserved through the cultivation of agricultural products; given these requirements, a ‘grown [produced or made] in Europe’ quality label should be a possibility;

18.  Considers that sectoral marketing standards play an important role in the production chain, and that consequently they should be kept; they render changes on the market transparent, enable purchasers to compare product prices, sizes and quality, and ensure a level playing-field in European competition;

19.  Supports the introduction of additional optional reserved terms, and especially the provision of a clear definition and usage of the terms ‘mountain’, ‘island’, ‘local’ and ‘low carbon’, and the adoption of EU guidelines concerning their use; further expresses support for harmonisation at Community level of the term ‘mountain’, which is currently regulated in only a few Member States; calls on the Commission to conduct a study on further developing ‘carbon-footprint’ labelling towards a more comprehensive ‘ecological-footprint’ measurement, since labels or terms which refer only to carbon levels neglect other key environmental aspects, such as impact on water resources and biodiversity;

20.  Believes it is necessary to promote the voluntary labelling of other environment-friendly and animal-friendly production methods, such as ‘integrated production’, ‘outdoor grazing’ and ‘hill farming’;

21.  Considers that products of mountain areas and GMO-free areas should be protected; calls on the Commission, therefore, to make every possible effort to ensure that such areas are appropriately protected;

22.  Calls on the Commission to launch a reflection process on the possibility of introducing quality indicators related to the social conditions of production, e.g. producers‘ incomes and contractual relations between producers, processors and marketers;

23.  Considers that there should be an indication, in the case of fresh agricultural products, of the country of origin and, in the case of single-ingredient processed products, of the place of provenance of the agricultural raw material used in the finished product, with a view to guaranteeing greater transparency and traceability and thus enabling consumers to make informed purchasing decisions;

24.  Notes that ‘place of farming’ labelling has been implemented with success in countries such as Australia and the USA and that it is already mandatory in the EU for a number of agricultural products;

25.  Points out that supplementary and specific information is voluntary and that the total labelling content must not be overloaded; takes the view that the EU quality label should remain clearly recognisable as a priority;

26.  Believes that alternative methods of providing information, e.g. via the Internet or barcodes or on the receipt, should also be considered;

27.  Calls on the Commission to carry out a thorough technical and economic study to ensure that the new legislation does not impose excessive costs on the food processing industry, in particular on small and medium-sized producers; such a study should cover the feasibility of introducing compulsory ‘place of farming’ labelling for processed products which contain ‘significant ingredients’ (meaning an ingredient of a food product that represents more than 50% of the dry weight of that food product) or ‘characterising ingredients’ (meaning the ingredient of a food usually associated with the name of the food by consumers), as defined in the proposed EU regulation on the provision of food information to consumers, Article 2;

28.  Requests that the simplification of standards and the enhancement of the credibility of the EU quality logo should complement already-existing certificates or designations of local, regional or national origin in the Member States;

29.  Calls on the Commission to maintain consistency in its proposals on agricultural product quality policy, in terms of the approach to ‘country of origin’ labelling and the proposed regulation on the provision of food information to consumers; considers that agricultural product quality policy should be implemented in a manner that takes into account the costs of new policy, as well as the specificities of particular sectors such as the processed agricultural goods sector;

Geographical indications and traditional specialities

30.  Considers the protected designations of origin and geographical indications system to be one of the CAP instruments intended to support the development of rural areas, protect the cultural heritage of regions and foster the diversification of employment in rural areas;

31.  Considers that geographical indications have considerable importance for European agriculture; is of the opinion that the three systems of registration of geographical indications (for wines, spirits and for agricultural products and foodstuffs) should be maintained as they stand at present;

32.  Believes that the current EU system for the protection of GI products should be maintained and that protection at EU level should be accorded to all GIs; also considers that parallel national or regional systems of recognition should not be established, as they could result in differing levels of protection; Takes the view that there is no need to introduce further Community-wide foodstuff certification systems, as this would devalue the existing systems and confuse consumers;

33.  Further considers that the two instruments in place – the protected designation of origin (PDO) and the protected geographical indication (PGI) – should also be kept in the future, given their high degree of recognition and success; holds that a clearer distinction, for consumers, needs to be made between PDO and PGI and that this can be achieved through an overall information and promotion effort, involving Community financial support in the context of both the international market and third countries, inter alia by increasing the percentage of Community cofinancing;

34.  Considers that the current EU rules on GIs should be supplemented to ensure full recognition and enhancement of the role played by organisations designated or recognised by the Member States as responsible for managing, protecting and/or promoting intellectual property rights conferred by registration as a GI;

35.  Considers that, on the basis of producers‘ experience, it has emerged that the management of product quality through PDO and PGI specifications and the effectiveness of protection against usurpations are not sufficient for the further development of GI products; takes the view that EU legislation should be amended so as to enable Member States to recognise and enhance the proper role of organisations which they designate or recognise as responsible for the management, protection and/or promotion of GIs and their intellectual property rights and to authorise such organisations to adapt production potential to market demands, on the basis of fair and non-discriminatory rules;

36.  Proposes enhancing the role of geographical indication owners‘ consortia(3), with a view to defining the legislation with regard to both volume management and use of geographical indications in respect of the goods produced; considers that consortia should be able to play a role in the coordination of economic operators, with a view to bringing quantities produced and placed on the market as closely into line as possible with the quantities that the market can absorb, and in promotion measures vis-à-vis farmers and consumers; considers that this would more effectively guarantee the long-term viability of the different stages of production, processing and distribution, which is essential to the life of rural areas; adds that quantity control is one of the requirements of quality control; takes the view that the definition of the role of consortia should be included in Community legislation; considers that practices and experiences identified in the various EU Member States could be recorded and used in defining the rights and duties of consortia;

37.  Considers that no additional criteria should be added to the registration process for any of those instruments, but rather that the aim should be simplification; notes that the current procedures for registration of PDOs and PGIs are complex and lengthy; urges the Commission to find ways by which this process could be speeded up;

38.  Stresses the need to streamline the processing of applications for registration, but does not support the idea of shortening the scrutiny process by arbitrarily rejecting applications which the Commission deems incomplete at an early stage; deplores the fact that, in many cases, the Commission's initial views are formed too hastily or do not fit the case in hand, owing to an imperfect understanding of the specific characteristics of a product or a local market;

39.  Calls on the Commission to conduct a study with regard to the appropriate information (labelling and all other means available) required for PDO/PGI products marketed under the private trade name of a retailer; calls for PDO and PGI registration of the producer's name to be compulsory where the product is marketed under the private trade name of a retailer;

40.  Considers that, where a product protected by a GI is used as an ingredient, the body responsible for the GI or the competent authority should be able to lay down rules governing the use of its name in the sales names of processed products, and should be authorised to carry out specific checks to verify that the GI product's characteristics, image and reputation have not been adulterated; considers that the Commission should establish clear guidelines regarding use of the names of GI products used as ingredients on the labels of processed products, so as to avoid consumers being misled;

41.  Endorses the establishment of Community rules to enable GI management bodies to lay down packaging rules for their products in order to ensure that their high quality is in no way diminished;

42.  Opposes the idea that GIs can be replaced by trademarks, as these are fundamentally different legal instruments; stresses that the differences between trademarks and GIs need to be better explained; calls for effective implementation of existing Community rules making it impossible for a trademark containing or referring to PDOs/PGIs to be registered by operators who do not represent the producers‘ organisations for such PDOs/PGIs;

43.  Further demands thorough ex-officio protection of GIs, as an obligation for authorities in all Member States; wishes to see this specifically addressed through a revision of Regulation (EC) 510/2006 of 20 March 2006 on the protection of geographical indications and designations of origin for agricultural products and foodstuffs(4) and through better definition of the control procedures applicable at all stages of the marketing of products both before and after they are placed on the market;

44.  Considers that the instrument of Traditional Specialities Guaranteed (TSG) must be kept, whilst the corresponding rules for registration need further simplification; calls, in this respect, on the Commission to review the TSG instrument, study the possibilities of speeding up the application procedure and explore possibilities for offering better product protection under this scheme, as well as any other means which may render this particular scheme more attractive to producers; recalls that TSG is a relatively recent instrument, which explains its slow development; considers that this instrument should be better communicated to producers and allowed to become a familiar tool for quality promotion in Europe;

45.  Considers that, in order to prevent the disappearance of knowledge about traditional food and how it has been prepared for generations, the Commission should consider creating a European knowledge bank for old recipes and historical food preparation methods;

46.  Supports the establishment of tools for the collective promotion and publicising of small traditional, local and artisanal products linked to specific areas and bearing a geographical name, for which PDO/PGI access procedures would be too cumbersome and costly;

47.  Recalls that some GIs are systematically counterfeited in third countries; this undermines the reputation and image of the GI product and misleads consumers; emphasises that securing protection of a GI in a third country is a long and difficult procedure for producers, since each third country may have developed its own specific protection system; invites the European Commission to support technically and financially the organisations in charge of GIs in order to facilitate the resolution of usurpation problems;

48.  Calls for greater protection of geographical indications

49.  Believes that it is essential to intensify information and promotion campaigns regarding the sui generis protection of GIs; calls on the Commission to continue to promote the GI concept with third countries, particularly by stepping up technical assistance missions in conjunction with European GI producers and/or their representative organisations;

Integrated production

50.  Believes it is necessary to promote production systems that are environment-friendly and based on a rationalisation of inputs, as is the case with ‘integrated production’;

51.  Stresses that introducing legislation at European level on integrated production would raise the profile of the efforts being made by the EU's farmers and stockbreeders in the areas of food safety, the environment and animal welfare vis-à-vis third-country imports; believes that there should simultaneously be a promotion and marketing campaign for European integrated production;

52.  Supports promoting systems for producing quality food products using sustainable criteria, as in the case of integrated production; calls for the Community regulation of this area, with a view to unifying the criteria existing in the different Member States, to be backed up by a suitable promotion campaign informing the consumer of the main features of integrated production in Europe;

Organic farming

53.  Reaffirms its belief that organic farming and integrated production offer health benefits to consumers, as well as a guarantee that the production process involved avoids environmental damage associated with the use of fertilisers, and also offers European farmers a major growth opportunity, even though it is not in itself the solution to the issue of future global food supplies; supports recent efforts to develop a new EU organic logo, applicable to all EU farmed products;

54.  Takes the view that there should be a genuine single market in organic products, towards which goal the introduction of a compulsory Community logo represents a major contribution; in this connection, expresses its support for the framework established in Council Regulation (EC) No 834/2007 of 28 June 2007 on organic production and labelling of organic products and repealing Regulation (EEC) No 2092/91(5), and hopes that, even though it has come into force only recently, it will fulfil all of its legislative potential as soon as possible;

55.  Stresses that both the Member States and the EU have the duty to promote quality products and their protection at international level; believes, in this connection, that more stringent controls are needed on organic products from third countries, in the interests of fair competition between EU and third-country organic products;

56.  Considers that the appearance of non-organic products labelled in such a way as to suggest that they are products of organic farming harms the development of a single EU market in organic products; in this connection, expresses concern at attempts to extend the scope of the organic label to food products not produced in accordance with organic farming principles;

57.  Is concerned at the growing number of private organic labels in non-food products, a rapidly expanding sector which is not covered by Council Regulation (EC) No 834/2007 of 28 June 2007 on organic production and labelling of organic products and repealing Regulation (EEC) No 2092/91; calls on the Commission to assess whether the provisions should be extended to cover this sector;

58.  Reaffirms that, in order to improve the functioning of the internal market in organic products, it is necessary to:

59.  Welcomes the creation of offices for traditional and organic products at Member State level; believes that every Member State should have bodies, whether public or private, that are recognised both by producers and consumers for purposes of promoting and validating local organic and quality production;

60.  Calls on the Commission to outline how it proposes to promote the local trading of environmentally friendly agricultural products;

Private certification systems

61.  Stresses that, as things stand, private certification systems do not provide additional information on the quality of the products concerned: rather, they are in many cases becoming a financial and administrative burden as regards farmers‘ access to the market;

62.  Calls for an inventory of all private quality certification systems which European producers are required to implement in addition to the quality specifications already imposed under EU legislation; supports the establishment of a Community Legislative Framework of Basic Principles for the transparent implementation of the private certification systems in question;

63.  Supports the Commission's initiative of drawing up guidelines for best practice for the operation of all systems related to agricultural product quality; these guidelines should be followed by the operators and should include a set of concepts aimed at helping the productive sector to develop the added value of its products, encouraging the mutual recognition of certification systems and participation by the productive sector in drawing up such systems, and promoting, through producers‘ associations, the simplification of the administrative burden of certification, with a view to reducing farmers’ costs as much as possible;

Information and promotion policy

64.  Deplores the failure of the Commission's communication to mention the need to encourage promotion measures, given their importance for ensuring the profitability of European farmers‘ efforts in terms of quality, food safety and the environment; believes that the promotion instruments currently available to the EU need to be revised so as to improve their efficiency; proposes, in this connection, extending to the EU market the promotion aids recently introduced in the wine sector;

65.  Supports European action to communicate, as extensively and as effectively as possible, the benefits of the EU's policies for food quality and safety; recommends that the Commission and Member States step up their information and promotion efforts regarding quality and food safety standards for Community products;

66.  These communication and information efforts regarding GIs and community trademarks could be pursued through public and/or private entities, individuals or organisations;

67.  Considers that, in view of the importance of the European market to GI producers, the Commission and the Member States should provide additional financial resources for promotion programmes within the internal market, while continuing to increase the budget for promotion campaigns in third countries;

68.  Stresses that information policy should be targeted not only at consumers but also at producers, since the behaviour of the latter is closely linked to their knowledge of the market and of consumers‘ appreciation of their products’ quality;

69.  Emphasises the potential role of EU funding in this area, especially by means available under the EAFRD (European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development); nonetheless stresses that credit requirements have now become tighter for small producers in the wake of the world financial crisis, and that this drastically limits their access to cofinancing as provided for under rural development programmes; suggests, in this connection, that the Commission consider harmonising the system of agricultural credits at EU level;

70.  Favours encouraging agricultural markets directly managed by farmers as points of sale for seasonal local products, since this is a means of ensuring a fair price for quality products, while also consolidating the link between the product and its locality of origin and encouraging consumers to make informed choices based on quality; believes the Member States should encourage the creation of marketing units where producers can directly introduce consumers to their products;

71.  Calls for the establishment of programmes to promote sales on the local market, with a view to supporting local and regional processing and marketing initiatives; believes this could be achieved, for instance, by producers‘ cooperatives, in view of their contribution to enhancing added value in the countryside;

o
o   o

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

(1) Texts Adopted, P6_TA(2009)0098. (2) OJ C 328, 26.10.1998, p. 232. (3) For example, the consortium in Italy, consejo regulador in Spain and organisme de défense et de gestion or détenteur d'IG in France. (4) OJ L 93, 31.3.2006, p, 12. (5) OJ L 189, 20.7.2007, p. 1.

European Parliament resolution of 25 March 2010 on the effects of the global financial and economic crisis on developing countries and on development cooperation (2009/2150(INI))

P7_TA(2010)0089 A7-0034/2010

The European Parliament,

–   having regard to the G20 summit held in Pittsburgh on 24-25 September 2009 and the G20 summit held in London on 2 April 2009,

–   having regard to the G8 summit held in L'Aquila, Italy, on 8-10 July 2009,

–   having regard to the UN Millennium Declaration of 8 September 2000, which sets out the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) as objectives established jointly by the international community for, inter alia, the elimination of poverty and hunger,

–   having regard to the European Consensus on Development(1) and the EU Code of Conduct on Complementarity and Division of Labour in Development Policies(2),

–   having regard to the Monterrey Consensus, adopted at the International Conference on Financing for Development held in Monterrey, Mexico, on 18-22 March 2002,

–   having regard to the Paris Declaration on Aid Effectiveness and the Accra Agenda for Action,

–   having regard to the report of the International Monetary Fund (IMF) entitled ‘The Implications of the Global Financial Crisis for Low-Income Countries – An Update’ published in September 2009,

–   having regard to the report of the IMF entitled ‘Global Economic Outlook – Sustaining the Recovery’ published in October 2009,

–   having regard to the report of the IMF entitled ‘World Economic Outlook Update’ published in January 2010,

–   having regard to the report of the World Bank entitled ‘Protecting Progress: The Challenge Facing Low-Income Countries in the Global Recession’ published in September 2009,

–   having regard to the report of the World Bank entitled ‘Global Development Finance: Charting a Global Recovery 2009’ published in June 2009,

–   having regard to the report of the World Bank entitled ‘Global Economic Prospects – Crisis, Finance and Growth’ published in January 2010,

–   having regard to the 2009 European Report on Development entitled ‘Overcoming Fragility in Africa – Forging a New European Approach’ published in October 2009,

–   having regard to the study prepared by the consultancy company HTSPE entitled ‘The Aid Effectiveness Agenda: Benefits of a European Approach’, commissioned by the Commission and published in October 2009,

–   having regard to the report by the United Nations MDG Gap Task Force entitled ‘Strengthening the Global Partnership for Development in a Time of Crisis’ published in September 2009,

–   having regard to the report by UNCTAD entitled ‘Trade and Development Report, 2009’ published in September 2009,

–   having regard to the report by UNCTAD ‘The Least Developed Countries Report 2009: The State and Development Governance’,

–   having regard to its resolution of 26 November 2009 on the FAO summit and food security(3),

–   having regard to its resolution of 8 October 2009 on the effects of the global financial and economic crisis on developing countries and on development cooperation(4),

–   having regard to its hearing on the effects of the global financial crisis on developing countries and development cooperation, held on 10 November 2009, and in particular to the contribution of Professor Guttorm Schjelderup on illicit money flows and tax havens,

–   having regard to its resolution of 8 October 2009 on the Pittsburgh G20 Summit of 24 and 25 September 2009(5),

–   having regard to its resolution of 25 March 2009 on the 2007 Annual Reports of the European Investment Bank (EIB) and the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development (EBRD)(6),

–   having regard to its resolution of 16 February 2006 on new financial instruments for development in connection with the MDGs(7),

–   having regard to the joint resolution adopted by the ACP-EU Joint Parliamentary Assembly on 3 December 2009 in Luanda on the impact of the financial crisis on the ACP countries,

–   having regard to the Court of Justice's judgment of 6 November 2008 on the legal basis for Decision 2006/1016/EC(8),

–   having regard to Directive 2009/29/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 April 2009 amending Directive 2003/87/EC so as to improve and extend the greenhouse gas emission allowance trading scheme of the Community(9),

–   having regard to the Commission communication of 8 April 2009 entitled ‘Supporting developing countries in coping with the crisis’ (COM(2009)0160),

–   having regard to the Commission staff working paper of 5 April 2005 entitled ‘New Sources of Financing for Development: A Review of Options’ (SEC(2005)0467),

–   having regard to the General Affairs and External Relations Council conclusions of 18 and 19 May 2009 on supporting developing countries in coping with the crisis,

–   having regard to the Commission communication of 15 September 2009 entitled ‘Policy Coherence for Development – establishing the policy framework for a whole-of-the-Union approach’ (COM(2009)0458) and to the General Affairs and External Relations Council conclusions of 17 November 2009 on policy coherence for development and the operational framework of aid effectiveness,

–   having regard to the UN Conference on the World Financial and Economic Crisis and its impact on development and to the UN General Assembly's endorsement of the outcome of the conference by means of Resolution 63/303 of 9 July 2009,

–   having regard to the Conference on Innovative Financing held in Paris on 28 and 29 May 2009 and the International Conference on Development Financing held in Doha between 28 November and 2 December 2008,

–   having regard to the recommendations of the Commission of Experts of the President of the UN General Assembly on Reforms of the International Monetary and Financial System, published in March 2009,

–   having regard to Rule 48 of its Rules of Procedure,

–   having regard to the report of the Committee on Development and the opinions of the Committee on International Trade and the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs (A7-0034/2010),

A.   whereas emerging and developing economies expanded by only 2.1% in 2009 compared to a 6.1% growth rate in 2008,

B.   whereas global trade in goods is expected to drop by 17% in 2009, while investment in trade and infrastructure is faltering as a consequence of the credit crunch, and whereas the least developed countries have been especially hard hit by the crisis,

C.   whereas the international financial institutions are stretching to meet the needs of developing countries and will face serious lending constraints unless more capital is raised,

D.   whereas the effects of the global crisis on the middle-income developing countries should not be overlooked,

E.   whereas the gaps in regulation, supervision and control of the financial sector, the shortcomings of the supervision and fast alert mechanisms in place, as well as certain policies of international financial institutions, have caused and accelerated a systemic crisis of global dimensions, necessitating a review of existing paradigms, which should include international compensation and burden sharing,

F.   whereas tax havens offer a place to hide money, providing incentives to undermine good governance, particularly in relation to taxation and the rule of law; whereas illicit capital flows from developing countries are estimated at USD 641-941 billion, thus corresponding to roughly 10 times the value of global development assistance,

G.   whereas worldwide corruption has now grown to such an extent that it is costing USD 50 billion, according to Transparency International's 2008 annual report, equivalent to nearly half the total volume of worldwide ODA and to the investment needed to attain the objectives in the field of drinking water and public health,

H.   whereas the European Union is the largest aid donor, providing approximately 60% of global aid flows in 2008, and the Commission predicts that there will be a USD 22 billion shortfall on Official Development Assistance (ODA) commitments in 2009,

I.   whereas the decline in output of advanced economies brought about by the global crisis will inevitably lead to a drop in the volume of ODA at a time when external aid is of paramount importance to developing countries,

J.   whereas virtually all EU pledges (99%) are from existing commitments; EUR 8.8 billion is frontloaded, meaning there is a danger that less development assistance will be available in the coming years;

K.   whereas a European approach to aid effectiveness could bring efficiency gains amounting to EUR 3-6 billion per year for the period 2010 to 2015,

1.  Is acutely aware that the past two years have seen a succession of global crises (food, energy, climate, financial, economic and social) which have serious impacts on industrialised and emerging countries, but devastating implications for the poor population groups in developing countries, with over 200 million workers being exposed to extreme poverty worldwide and more than a sixth of the world's population suffering from hunger;

2.  Stresses that it is the EU's obligation to assist developing countries in coping with the burdens of the global economic crisis and climate change, for which they are not responsible; urges the Member States, in this respect, fully to fulfil their ODA commitments towards developing countries;

3.  Calls for reinforcement of the commitments to achieving the MDGs by 2015 and asks for greater coordinated action in view of the 2010 MDG review; calls on all Member States to show the maximum support for, and to agree on a common position towards, the 2010 United Nations MDG Summit;

4.  Calls upon Member States to deliver fully on their ODA commitments, both bilateral and multilateral;

5.  Asks Member States to increase ODA volumes in order to reach their collective target of an ODA/gross national income (GNI) ratio of 0.56% by 2010 and the target of 0.7% ODA/GNI for 2015; asks furthermore that they accelerate efforts to improve aid effectiveness through implementation of the Paris Declaration and the Accra Agenda for Action by coordinating their actions more effectively, improving the predictability and sustainability of aid systems, accelerating the rate at which they provide aid, untying aid and increasing the take-up capacity of aid beneficiaries; supports the new international initiative for aid transparency, which seeks to improve the availability and accessibility of information on aid, thus increasing its legitimacy and making it possible to ensure that it is used in the most effective manner to combat poverty; calls on all Member States which have not yet done so to endorse this initiative;

6.  Stresses that while fulfilment of the ODA commitments is imperative it is not sufficient in terms of tackling the development emergency, and reiterates its call to the Commission for active promotion of existing innovative development-financing instruments and for urgent identification of additional innovative sources of finance;

7.  Notes with concern the reduction in ODA efforts for public health – in particular sexual and reproductive health rights – which is crucial to attaining the MDGs; points out that a healthy, strong workforce is a precondition for economic development;

8.  Calls on the Commission to press ahead with the reform of international development cooperation;

9.  Stresses that ongoing reform of the international aid architecture should not result in backtracking on what has been achieved so far for development and must not become a smokescreen for Member States seeking to renege on their pledges;

10.  Takes the view that the volume of development assistance funding alone does not provide a sufficient basis for judging the effectiveness and efficiency of the EU's development assistance measures;

11.  Takes the view that priority should continue to be given to overcoming the financial and economic crisis;

12.  Stresses the need to continue to provide assistance and constantly to adapt it to new realities and circumstances;

13.  Stresses that the global economic crisis has necessitated enhanced development cooperation in terms of both quantity and quality;

14.  Stresses that the credit crunch, uncertainty caused by the depressionary cycle and the drop in international trade, investment and remittances by migrant workers are the channels by which the crisis has been transmitted from the developed countries to the developing countries, and that in all these areas, the Union needs to adopt initiatives and assert its presence on the international stage in a concerted, comprehensive and coherent manner;

15.  Calls on the Council and Commission, when monitoring their development cooperation instruments and policies, also to take care to minimise unintended consequences for the economies of developing countries, such as increasing dependence on development assistance transfers, with negative repercussions on growth, wages and employment and the emergence of rent-seeking structures and corruption;

16.  Calls on the Council and the Commission to improve the coordination of bilateral and multilateral development cooperation, since shortcomings in this area constitute one of the main factors undermining the effectiveness of development assistance;

17.  Recognises that the gaps in regulation, supervision and control of the financial sector, as well as certain policies of international financial institutions, made it impossible to prevent the crisis, amplifying instead its negative effects; underlines that, contrary to what happened in developed countries, such conditions have sharply reduced the capacity of developing countries to react to the economic slowdown through the adoption of fiscal stimulus measures;

18.  Stresses that a comprehensive response must be provided to the economic and financial crisis, that no financial institution, market segment or jurisdiction must be exempt from regulation or supervision and that the transparency and accountability of all parties must form the bedrock of a new brand of international financial governance;

19.  Welcomes on the one hand the improved borrowing facilities for low-income countries provided by the IFIs with a higher level of pro-poor spending and emphasis on poverty reduction and pro-growth spending in developing countries; expresses, however, major concern about the possibility and threat of a rise in the indebtedness of developing countries and a further crisis in relation to the viability of the debt, and calls on governments to take urgent action to reform the IFIs;

20.  Calls on the Commission to look into the implementation of the proposal by the World Bank to establish a vulnerability fund to finance food security, social protection and human development;

21.  Asks the leaders of the G20 to act, without delay, on the commitment made at the September 2009 summit in Pittsburgh to reform the global development architecture and, within this framework, shift at least 5% of the IMF quota shares to emerging and developing economies and at least 3% of the World Bank voting shares to developing and transition countries;

22.  Stresses the need to reform world economic governance in order to ensure better representation of developing countries in decision-making forums; proposes, to this end, that the G20 should be expanded to include at least one representative of the developing countries, in particular of the least developed countries, who could be the President-in-Office of the G77;

23.  Calls on the Commission and Member States to devote particular attention to the promotion and protection of decent work and action to combat gender discrimination and child labour, adhering to the recommendations made on this subject by the International Labour Organisation, whose role should be expanded;

24.  Stresses the need to move to an international system of governance that will protect the most vulnerable people and countries, especially those hardest hit by the crisis and with ineffective or no safety nets;

25.  Notes that the IMF's membership has approved a USD 250 billion allocation of special drawing rights (SDRs) and that only USD 18 billion of SDRs will go to developing countries; urges the Member States and the international community to explore the Soros proposal that the wealthy countries should allocate their SDRs to a fund for global public goods, such as the fight against climate change and the eradication of poverty;

26.  Calls on the Council and the Commission to take steps to bring about the increase in funding for international financial institutions agreed at the G20 summit;

27.  Asks the Council and the Commission to advocate an ambitious reform of the IMF;

28.  Calls for stronger macroeconomic cooperation within the G20, a more powerful role for the United Nations system and reform of international financial institutions to ensure a concerted response to the crisis and its effects in developing countries;

29.  Regrets that the financial sector has not fully learned the lessons implicit in this unprecedented crisis, despite benefiting from enormous state bailouts; welcomes in this regard the commitment of the G20 leaders at the September 2009 summit in Pittsburgh to ensure that the financial sector compensates for the costs of the crisis so far borne by taxpayers, other citizens and public services in both advanced economies and developing countries;

30.  Firmly believes that taxing the banking system would be a fair contribution from the financial sector to global social justice; calls also for an international levy on financial transactions to make the overall tax system more equitable and to generate additional resources for financing development and global public goods, including adaptation of developing countries to cope with and mitigate climate change and its impact;

31.  Urges the Commission to present a communication on how a tax on international financial transactions can, inter alia, help to achieve the MDGs, correct global imbalances and promote sustainable development worldwide;

32.  Calls for a report to be prepared by the IMF for the next G20 meeting on the contribution to be made by the financial system towards paying for the burdens associated with the various government interventions, looking at all the direct and indirect burdens imposed on public finances and, in particular, their impact on the budgets of developing countries;

33.  Notes with great concern that developing countries are expected to face a financial shortfall of USD 315 billion in 2010 and that mounting fiscal distress in the most vulnerable countries is imperilling USD 11.6 billion of core spending in education, health, infrastructure and social protection; considers it appropriate, therefore, to explore the grounds for an agreement with creditor countries to establish a temporary moratorium or debt cancellation for the poorest countries to enable them to implement countercyclical fiscal policies to mitigate the severe effects of the crisis; proposes that efforts be made to facilitate arrangements for transparent debt arbitration;

34.  Welcomes the initiatives of Member States on the implementation of voluntary levies on aviation and maritime emissions to contribute to financing the costs of mitigation and adaptation to climate change in developing countries and invites all Member States to consider implementing similar levies;

35.  Calls upon the Member States and the Commission, in accordance with its resolution of 21 October 2008, to agree, within the European Union Emission Trading System framework, to devote at least 25% of the revenues generated from the auctioning of carbon dioxide emission allowances to support developing countries effectively, using public investment, in coping with climate change;

36.  Calls on the Commission and the Member States to support all action to combat climate change, which is hitting developing countries hardest, and, in this connection, to step up the transfer of appropriate technologies;

37.  Invites the Commission and the Member States to pay further attention to the link between the environmental crisis and the development crisis, and urges them to make sustainable development and ‘green growth’ strategic priorities for the EU; urges the EU to allocate additional money for its commitments to fighting climate change in developing countries, also taking into account the increasing number of environmental refugees;

38.  Welcomes the European Council's commitment in October 2009 not to undermine the MDGs with regard to combating climate change; urges the Council to agree, as soon as possible and in the framework of the Copenhagen summit conclusions and the G20 compromises, on firm financial commitments that enable developing countries to cope with deteriorating climatic conditions and to ensure that assistance needed as a result of the economic crisis will not lead to a relapse into external over-indebtedness;

39.  Stresses the pivotal importance of migrant remittances as capital flows directly into the hands of the target populations in developing countries, who can rapidly put such monies to use for pressing needs; asks Member States and recipient countries to facilitate the delivery of remittances and to work towards reducing their costs;

40.  Welcomes the commitment of the G8 leaders at the July 2009 summit, held in L'Aquila, Italy, to reduce the cost of remittance transfers from 10% to 5% within five years; believes that enhanced market competition and a broader regulatory framework are essential measures to alleviate the costs connected with remittance transactions, while accelerating the adoption of new technologies and promoting financial inclusion for the poor in developing countries;

41.  Supports the creation of joint public-public and public-private initiatives for development, based on a public lead with private donors‘ support and in line with partner countries’ priorities, as a means of increasing responsible and sustainable direct investment in developing countries and facilitating technology transfer;

42.  Recalls the crucial role of civil-society organisations, local authorities and decentralised cooperation in coping with the consequences of the economic crisis and development processes; calls on the Commission accordingly to make decentralisation a priority sector for European aid funding in developing countries;

43.  Welcomes the approval of the ‘Vulnerability FLEX’ mechanism to support eligible African, Caribbean and Pacific (ACP) countries in coping with the social consequences of the crisis and urges that the funds be disbursed rapidly; reaffirms, however, its concern about how the Commission will fill the funding gap caused in future years by frontloading budget support;

44.  Regards trade as a main driver of economic growth and poverty reduction in developing countries and calls upon the EU and the Member States to leverage their international influence to ensure that development remains at the heart of the Doha Round negotiations and that a successful, fair and development-oriented conclusion of the Doha Round is achieved, while enhancing the pro-poor focus of EU Aid for Trade policy;

45.  Stresses that, pursuant to Article 208 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, the EU must ensure that its policies on trade, security, migration, agriculture and other fields serve, on the one hand, coherently to benefit developing countries and, on the other hand, to promote an equitable international financial and trading system which is favourable to development;

46.  Recalls that the principle of policy coherence for development (PCD), which is specified in the EU Treaties, is a key concept for attaining the MDGs; urges the EU accordingly to develop a trade policy which is consistent and coherent with the achievement of the MDGs; calls for the elaboration of robust legal mechanisms to ensure that the EU is held accountable for its commitments towards policy coherence;

47.  Calls for better coherence of development aid and other policies of the EU; notes that, for example, marketing EU-subsidised agricultural products may run counter to creating sound markets for the products of poor local farmers and thus may negate efforts made by projects which try to enhance local agriculture;

48.  Is convinced that a balanced, fair and development-oriented conclusion of the Doha Round would aid the economic recovery from the crisis and could contribute to poverty alleviation in developing countries, the creation of good-quality jobs and the reduction of consumer prices; is therefore deeply concerned by the lack of progress in the Doha Round negotiations;

49.  Points out that, in order to achieve greater financial stability and improve the functioning of the global trade system within the WTO, progress needs to be made towards a new international monetary and financial system which is based on multilateral rules that address the specific problems of developing countries and which falls within the United Nations framework;

50.  Recalls that the Aid for Trade strategy is aimed at helping developing and least-developed countries to negotiate, implement and benefit from trade agreements, to expand their trade and to accelerate poverty eradication; asks the Commission and the Member States to ensure that commitments to the EU-wide target of EUR 2 billion per year by 2010 are met; requests the Commission to present detailed information and figures on the budget lines used for financing trade-related assistance and Aid for Trade (in addition to budget line 20 02 03) and for all Aid for Trade financing coming from the EU budget;

51.  Reaffirms the fact that Economic Partnership Agreements (EPAs) should be designed as pro-development tools and should not be regarded simply as international trade instruments; urges the Commission to work towards a rapid conclusion of the negotiations, while taking into account the ways in which EPA provisions may impact on the ability of ACP countries to cope with the crisis;

52.  Notes that the significant decrease in export revenues in many developing countries, and in particular in the least developed countries, has reduced the growth and development of the South; calls on the Commission – when negotiating and implementing trade agreements, in particular the Economic Partnership Agreements – to strengthen EU policy coherence for development and, inter alia, the promotion of decent work, wealth and job creation and to ensure adequate asymmetry and transitional periods in trade commitments as well as respect for the priorities of each country and adequate consultation of key actors and civil society;

53.  Takes the view that developing countries, which are particularly dependent on development cooperation funding and are highly export-oriented, have been hit hardest by the crisis up to now, since financial flows from North to South are increasingly drying up and the internal markets of many developing countries are too weak to offset the decline in exports;

54.  Asks the Commission to conduct an assessment of the export dependency of ACP countries and its compatibility with development goals in country strategy papers;

55.  Notes the Agreement on the Global System of Trade Preferences (GSTP), a mechanism established by 22 developing countries to reduce tariffs and other barriers to the export of goods traded between them, in an attempt to boost South-South trade and to make it more independent from global trade turbulence;

56.  Believes that protectionism is no sound response to the crisis and reinforces its call upon the EU to do its part by reducing trade barriers and trade-distorting Union and other subsidies that cause so much harm to developing countries;

57.  Takes the view that EU development policy should respect both the interests of the EU and those of developing countries and considers that the reciprocal opening-up of markets, which should not be achieved at the expense of economic stability in developing countries, requires equivalent supervisory and regulatory frameworks; asks the Commission, the Council and the EIB to make the provision of microcredit to SMEs and small-scale farmers a priority of development cooperation, thus fostering sustainable regional economic structures;

58.  Calls on the Commission to secure measures taken in pursuit of its long-term objectives for development, while preparing for sustained development as well as humanitarian aid during the period when the burden of the crisis on developing countries is worst;

59.  Emphasises that the scale, depth and complexity of the financial crisis reflect the lack of connection between the development of finance and the real economy, the existence of escalating global imbalances and worsening environmental problems on the planet, which must be corrected in order to put the economic system on the path of global sustainable development;

60.  Expresses great concern that the negative impact of tax havens may be an insurmountable hindrance to economic development in poor countries, encroaching on the sovereignty of other countries, harming the efficiency of financial markets and of resource allocation, undermining national tax systems and increasing the costs of taxation, creating incentives to engage in economic crime, and damaging private income, good governance and economic growth, thus preventing developing countries from investing in public services, education, social security and human welfare;

61.  Stresses that tax havens and off-shore centres encourage tax avoidance strategies (for instance, through transfer mispricing), tax evasion and illicit capital flight; underlines, in particular, that tax fraud in developing countries leads to an annual loss of tax revenue corresponding to 10 times the amount of injected development aid from developed countries; urges the Member States, therefore, to make the fight against tax havens, tax evasion and illicit capital flights from developing countries one of its overriding priorities; reiterates in this context its conviction that the automatic exchange of information should be globally extended and implemented within a multilateral framework;

62.  Notes that there are dozens of tax havens worldwide which are used even by some OECD-based companies in order to avoid paying taxes to those developing countries where they have profitable activities or to their home countries; asks the Commission to report on how the automatic exchange of information can be globally extended, how sanctions for uncooperative tax havens and their users could be implemented, and how country-by-country reporting on profits and taxes paid can become a rule for transnational companies in the EU;

63.  Acknowledges that tax-information exchange agreements do not eliminate the harmful structures of ring-fenced tax systems or the absence of public registries, nor enforce the delivery of accounts, auditing or the preservation of records; welcomes the efforts of the G20 and the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) to take steps against tax havens, but notes and regrets that the established criteria, tax-information exchange agreements and existing procedures will not be sufficient to tackle the problem of tax havens and illicit financial flows; calls upon the OECD, the G20 and the EU to adopt more stringent criteria for the identification of tax havens and to work towards an internationally binding multilateral automatic tax-information exchange agreement envisaging countermeasures in the event of non-compliance;

64.  Calls upon the EU, its Member States and the international financial institutions to support developing countries in building up their revenue side and to support capacity building in taxation;

65.  Notes that half of all illicit financial flows out of developing countries are related to the mispricing of trade and reinforces its call for a new, binding, global financial agreement which forces transnational corporations, including their various subsidiaries, automatically to disclose profits made and taxes paid, on a country-by-country basis, so as to ensure transparency about sales, profits and taxes in every jurisdiction where they are located;

66.  Calls on the Commission actively to promote corporate social and environmental responsibility (CSR) in order to permit effective monitoring of the impact – social, environmental and in terms of respect for human rights – of the operations of transnational undertakings and their subsidiaries in developing countries;

67.  Notes with concern that further deterioration of the economic wellbeing of developing countries could lead to unacceptably high levels of unemployment and increased economic migration; adds that such migration flows could lead to a ‘brain drain’ from developing nations and damage their future economic growth;

68.  Notes the need for real improvement in the banking systems in developing countries as a concrete measure to secure investments and the development and growth of the financial sector, migrant remittances and commercial and any other relevant exchanges, leading to social cohesion and political and economic stability;

69.  Welcomes the Stolen Asset Recovery (StAR) initiative by the United Nations Office of Drugs and Crime and the World Bank to help developing countries in the fight against corruption, criminal activities and tax evasion and calls on Member States to ratify the United Nations Convention Against Corruption;

70.  Stresses the importance of supporting developing countries in building up effective capacities to increase, in their own interest, the fight against corruption and to enhance the rule of law, good governance and transparency in their public finances, in order to improve budget predictability, implementation and control; stresses the importance of parliamentary oversight of public finances; insists upon the need to improve international accounting standards, to prevent tax avoidance and tax evasion practices, including by requiring transnational companies to draw up financial reports on a country-by-country basis;

71.  Welcomes the EIB's enforcement of its existing policy towards Offshore Financial Centres; requests the EU, the Member States and the EIB to take up a vanguard role in the fight against tax havens by adopting rules of public procurement and disbursement of public funds which prohibit any company, bank or other institution registered in a tax haven from benefiting from public funds; calls on the EIB to consider, as part of its enhanced guidelines, the need for companies and financial intermediaries to report on their activities on a country-by-country basis;

72.  Notes that the EIB has made efforts to ensure that its guarantees and investments are not executed through tax havens; asks the EIB to take the necessary additional measures to ensure that this does not happen indirectly; asks the EIB to report on the implementation of its offshore financial centres policy; asks the EIB to be particularly vigilant when setting conditions or conditionality criteria, so as to be in line with EU policy objectives and with the ILO concept of ‘decent work’, thus ensuring maximisation of the aid and the inclusion of local businesses, and supporting the fight against corruption; takes the view that the EIB should focus its recruitment policy in favour of environmental and development expertise;

73.  Recognises the current mid-term review of the EIB's external lending activity and cooperation arrangements – to be completed in 2010 and in which Parliament acts as co-legislator – as a major opportunity to increase the EIB's role in development cooperation, with the priority objective of attaining the MDGs by 2015; considers that, in this connection, priority should be assigned to projects targeting poverty reduction;

74.  Deplores the downward trend in investment in agriculture in developing countries since the 1980s and urges the Commission to make food security a priority in the Union's development policies and therefore to increase support for agriculture, particularly food production, and rural development;

75.  Considers that one of the major obstacles to economic development in developing countries lies in the limited access which potential entrepreneurs enjoy to credit and microcredit; stresses moreover that, in most cases, credit guarantees are not available; calls on the Commission and the EIB, therefore, hugely to increase credit and microcredit access programmes;

76.  Asks the Commission and the Member States to support measures to ease developing countries‘ access to credit, including the substantial capitalisation of multilateral development banks and the creation of a framework to allow the licensing of a diversity of financial services providers to meet local citizens’ needs;

77.  Invites the Commission to give full consideration to the recommendations expressed in this report while drafting the proposal for a decision on the EIB's external lending mandate following the mid-term review;

78.  Instructs its President to forward this resolution to the Council, the Commission, the Member States, the UN organisations, the IMF and the World Bank and the IMF and World Bank Governors from the EU Member States, as well as the G20 countries.

(1) OJ C 46, 24.2.2006, p. 1. (2) Council Conclusions 9558/07, 15 May 2007. (3) Texts adopted, P7_TA(2009)0102. (4) Texts adopted, P7_TA(2009)0029. (5) Texts adopted, P7_TA(2009)0028. (6) Texts adopted, P6_TA(2009)0185. (7) OJ C 290 E, 29.11.2006, p. 396. (8) Case C-155/07 Parliament v Council, OJ C 327, 20.12.2008, p. 2. (9) OJ L 140, 5.6.2009, p. 63.

European Parliament resolution of 25 March 2010 on the ECB Annual Report 2008 (2009/2090(INI))

P7_TA(2010)0090 A7-0010/2010

The European Parliament,

–   having regard to the Annual Report 2008 of the European Central Bank (ECB),

–   having regard to Article 113 of the EC Treaty,

–   having regard to Article 15 of the Protocol on the Statute of the European System of Central Banks and of the European Central Bank annexed to the Treaty,

–   having regard to the Treaty of Lisbon, amending the Treaty on European Union and the Treaty establishing the European Community,

–   having regard to its resolution of 2 April 1998 on democratic accountability in the third phase of EMU(1),

–   having regard to the Commission communication of 7 October 2009, ‘Annual Statement on the Euro Area 2009’ (COM(2009)0527), and the Commission staff working document accompanying that communication (SEC(2009)1313/2),

–   having regard to the Commission's September 2009 interim economic forecast,

–   having regard to the Commission proposal of 23 September 2009 for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on Community macro prudential oversight of the financial system and establishing a European Systemic Risk Board (COM(2009)0499),

–   having regard to the Commission proposal of 23 September 2009 for a Council decision entrusting the European Central Bank with specific tasks concerning the functioning of the European Systemic Risk Board (COM(2009)0500),

–   having regard to Rule 48 of its Rules of Procedure,

–   having regard to the report of the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs (A7-0010/2010),

A.   whereas the financial and economic crisis has seen the worst global economic decline since the 1930s, whose repercussions will continue to have a major impact on countries‘ economic and social fabric for years to come,

B.   whereas in 2008 the real GDP of the euro area grew by only 0.7% owing to the financial and economic crisis, and GDP is expected to have decreased considerably in 2009,

C.   whereas in 2008 the average annual inflation rate was 3.3%, peaking at 4.0% in summer 2008, the highest rate recorded since the introduction of the euro, and whereas inflation subsequently fell to negative rates in summer 2009,

D.   whereas the average general government deficit in the euro area increased from 0.6% of GDP in 2007 to 1.9% in 2008, and, by mid-October 2009, twenty Member States were subject to an excessive deficit procedure,

E.   whereas the average government debt ratio in the euro area increased from 66.2% of GDP at the end of 2007 to 69.6% at the end of 2008, and whereas that ratio is expected to increase further in the coming years,

F.   whereas in 2008 the exchange rate of the euro against the US dollar fluctuated sharply, peaking at USD 1.60 in July and reaching USD 1.25 in October, but subsequently rose to USD 1.50 in October 2009,

G.   whereas the ECB kept interest rates unchanged in the first half of 2008, before raising them in July 2008 by 25 basis points to 4.25%, and lowering them incrementally during the last quarter of 2008 to 2.5%, and then 1% in 2009,

H.   whereas, in response to the financial crisis, the ECB significantly enlarged liquidity provisions to banks in the euro area and took a number of non-standard measures to improve the impaired functioning of money markets; whereas similar liquidity-enhancing facilities were provided only to a certain number of Member States not in the euro area,

Introduction

1.  Welcomes Slovakia to the euro area and takes note of its successful entry;

2.  Points out that membership of the European Union is a precondition for euro membership;

3.  Welcomes the fact that the Treaty of Lisbon gives the ECB the status of an EU institution; believes that this increases the responsibility of Parliament, as the primary institution through which the ECB is accountable to European citizens;

The ECB's response to the financial crisis

4.  Notes that 2008 was the year in which, in response to the disastrous economic and financial crisis and its far-reaching repercussions, the ECB had to take some of the toughest decisions it has faced since its inception;

5.  Notes that the ECB's economic projections, like those of the IMF and other international institutions, failed to forecast the severity of the downturn in 2008;

6.  Notes that the ECB continued to respond to the financial crisis by assisting Member States by maintaining and extending its liquidity provisions to credit institutions; recommends that the ECB extend such liquidity outside the euro area to assist those Member States which have been worst hit by the financial crisis;

7.  Expresses disappointment that some commercial banks did not pass on interest rate cuts to their customers, and that this approach was particularly prevalent when the ECB's interest rates reached their lowest levels;

8.  Welcomes the fact that the ECB has broadened its normal approach to monetary policy and taken a number of special measures, such as gearing the provision of liquidity to actual demand and making liquidity available for longer periods;

9.  Notes that the ECB's interest rate cuts were less radical than those made by other central banks, including the US Federal Reserve and the Bank of England in the UK, and compared with what many economic observers expected at the time;

10.  Expresses disappointment that the extra liquidity injected by the ECB did not sufficiently ease the credit crunch faced by industry, particularly small and medium-sized businesses, and was instead used by some banks to improve their margins and cover losses;

11.  Regrets that the Member States have not followed the ECB's advice to make bank support programmes subject to conditions jointly established at European level concerning dividend and bonus payments, support for economic activity, especially SMEs, and transactions effected in tax havens;

12.  Agrees with the ECB that the increasing complexity of financial instruments, alongside a certain lack of transparency of financial institutions, supervisory failure by regulators and gaps in financial market regulation, has contributed to heightened systemic risk; adds that this has contributed to an increasing lack of public confidence in financial institutions;

13.  Requests the views of the ECB on the setting-up of a clearing house for instruments such as credit default swaps (CDS) within the euro area;

14.  Draws the attention of the ECB to the risk that fresh speculative bubbles may be triggered, particularly on the commodities market; urges it to warn governments without delay;

15.  Concurs with the ECB about the need to learn lessons from the crisis, in particular that management of risk and liquidity in the financial system, and the transparency of financial markets and institutions must be improved if a similar crisis is not to be repeated; recalls that global imbalances related to exchange rate fluctuations between the euro and third-country currencies, such as the US dollar and the renminbi-yuan, must also be addressed to avoid financial crises in the future;

16.  Welcomes the steps taken by the ECB to propose a detailed ‘exit strategy’ from its monetary easing, to be implemented as and when necessary; insists that timing and policy coordination between Member States are essential in this regard; in that connection, welcomes the fact that most of these measures will automatically cease to apply if the economic situation steadily improves;

17.  Recommends that any moves to increase interest rates should be made with the utmost caution so as not to endanger future economic growth;

18.  Considers that Member States should maintain their fiscal stimulus measures to protect jobs, encourage investment and stimulate growth and that they should revoke those measures once there is a sustainable return to growth, at which time they should address excessive public deficits;

Economic and monetary stability

19.  Shares the ECB's concerns about divergences between economies in the euro area and the way in which the crisis has affected different countries, particularly those with pre-existing structural inefficiencies, high unit labour costs, current account deficits and debt;

20.  Calls on all Member States in the euro area to take note that, for genuine economic and monetary union to exist, participation in the euro area cannot be regarded as an end in itself, and stresses the need for structural reforms; adds that failure to undertake such reforms would jeopardise the credibility and sustainability of the Stability and Growth Pact;

Governance and decision making

21.  Points out that, during a period marked by a high degree of exchange rate volatility, the euro has increased its strength, particularly against the US dollar and the renminbi-yuan, and expresses concern that this could have a detrimental effect on the competitiveness of the euro area;

22.  Recommends that the ECB enhance the transparency of its work in order to increase its legitimacy and predictability, in particular by publishing the minutes of the meetings of the Governing Council, in accordance with the practices of the US Federal Reserve System, the Bank of England and the Bank of Japan; takes the view that such transparency is also needed as regards the internal models used to value illiquid collateral and as regards the valuations assigned to specific securities offered as collateral;

23.  Reaffirms its support for the quarterly monetary dialogue between Parliament and the ECB; adds that the dialogue is an important mechanism for scrutinising the workings of the ECB and contributing to its public accountability and transparency;

24.  Highlights the independence of the ECB, to which the procedure for appointing its Executive Board contributes; considers that this could be enhanced by use of the new legal status conferred on the ECB under the Lisbon Treaty and the existing ECB Statute to make candidates proposed by the Council subject to a vote by the European Parliament;

25.  Undertakes to set up a selection board made up of outside experts which would make it possible in 2010 to select a number of candidates for the post of Executive Board member; points out that those selected would then be summoned to a hearing by the European Parliament's Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs, which would formalise the European Parliament's consultative role in the evaluation of the candidates; this would lead to the adoption by the European Parliament in plenary sitting of a resolution to be forwarded to the Council before it issues its recommendation to the Member State governments;

26.  Considers that the crisis has demonstrated that markets are prone to systemic risks; welcomes the proposal to establish a European Systemic Risk Board (ESRB), which will provide early warnings about future risks and imbalances in financial markets; notes that the ESRB must react promptly and effectively to an incipient systemic risk; notes that a qualitative definition of ‘systemic risk’ must exist to allow the effective functioning of the ESRB; therefore calls on the ECB to establish clear models and definitions and, more generally, to give full support to the effective functioning of the ESRB; adds that any new tasks conferred upon the ECB with regard to the ESRB should not compromise the independence of the ECB in any way;

27.  Notes the role played by the Eurogroup in developing closer coordination of economic policies within the euro area; consequently, welcomes the conferral by the Lisbon Treaty of legal personality on the Eurogroup; further recommends that the ECB continue to participate fully in the informal meetings between Eurogroup members;

The external dimension of the euro

28.  Welcomes the fact that the euro has contributed to an increase in cross-border provision of financial services in the euro area, and therefore contributed to a highly integrated money market;

29.  Notes that the status of the euro as an international currency continues to rise, with 26.5% of global currency reserves held in euro at the end of 2008;

30.  Believes that the growing international status of the euro will offer advantages and responsibilities on the world stage; believes that this will continue to encourage Member States outside the euro area and third countries to seek membership of the euro area;

31.  Feels that Parliament should work with the ECB and with the other EU institutions in order to continue to enhance the role of the euro area on the world monetary and financial stage;

32.  Considers that, in expressing its vision for the future of the international monetary system, the European Union should draw inspiration from the process which made possible the adoption of the euro;

33.  Considers that the ECB, the national central banks and the Governing Council must recognise and fulfil their social responsibility towards their staff and the general public and take greater account of the memorandum on social aspects drawn up by the Standing Committee of European Central Bank Unions;

o
o   o

34.  Instructs its President to forward this resolution to the Council, the Commission, the Eurogroup and the European Central Bank.

(1) OJ C 138, 4.5.1998, p. 177.