European Parliament legislative resolution of 7 October 2010 on the Council position at first reading with a view to the adoption of a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council extending Regulation (EC) No 883/2004 and Regulation (EC) No 987/2009 to nationals of third countries who are not already covered by these Regulations solely on the ground of their nationality (11160/4/2010 – C7-0208/2010 – 2007/0152(COD))

P7_TA(2010)0342 A7-0261/2010

(Ordinary legislative procedure: second reading)

The European Parliament,

–  having regard to the Council position at first reading (11160/4/2010 – C7-0208/2010),

–  having regard to the Commission proposal to the Council (COM(2007)0439),

–  having regard to Article 63(4) and Article 67 of the EC Treaty, pursuant to which the Council consulted Parliament (C6-0289/2007),

–  having regard to its position of 9 July 2008(1),

–  having regard to the Commission Communication to 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(7) and Article 79(2)(b) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,

–  having regard to its resolution of 5 May 2010 on the consequences of the entry into force of the Treaty of Lisbon for ongoing interinstitutional decision-making procedures (COM(2009)0665) – ‘omnibus’(2),

–  having regard to the opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee of 16 January 2008(3),

–  having regard to Rule 72 of its Rules of Procedure,

–  having regard to the recommendation for second reading of the Committee on Employment and Social Affairs (A7-0261/2010),

1.  Approves the Council position;

2.  Notes that the act is adopted in accordance with the Council position;

3.  Instructs its President to sign the act with the President of the Council pursuant to Article 297(1) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union;

4.  Instructs its Secretary-General to sign the act, once it has been verified that all the procedures have been duly completed, and, in agreement with the Secretary-General of the Council, to arrange for its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union;

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

(1) OJ C 294 E, 3.12.2009, p. 259. (2) Texts adopted, P7_TA(2010)0126. (3) OJ C 151, 17.6.2008, p. 50.

European Parliament decision of 7 October 2010 on the nomination of Lazaros Stavrou Lazarou as a Member of the Court of Auditors (C7-0188/2010 – 2010/0818(NLE))

P7_TA(2010)0343 A7-0254/2010

(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 (C7-0188/2010),

–  whereas, at its meeting of 27 September 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 (A7-0254/2010),

A.  whereas Lazaros Stavrou Lazarou 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 Lazaros Stavrou Lazarou 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 7 October 2010 on the nomination of Gijs M. de Vries as a Member of the Court of Auditors (C7-0191/2010 – 2010/0819(NLE))

P7_TA(2010)0344 A7-0255/2010

(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 (C7-0191/2010),

–  whereas, at its meeting of 27 September 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 (A7-0255/2010),

A.  whereas Gijs M. de Vries 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 Gijs M. de Vries 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 resolution of 7 October 2010 on the proposal for a decision of the European Parliament and of the Council on the 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 (application EGF/2010/003 ES/Galicia Textiles from Spain) (COM(2010)0437 – C7-0205/2010 – 2010/2136(BUD))

P7_TA(2010)0345 A7-0259/2010

The European Parliament,

–  having regard to the Commission proposal to the European Parliament and the Council (COM(2010)0437 – C7-0205/2010),

–  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 (A7-0259/2010),

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

B.  whereas the scope of the EGF was broadened for applications submitted from 1 May 2009 to include support for workers made redundant as a direct result of the global financial and economic crisis,

C.  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,

D.  whereas Spain has requested assistance in respect of cases concerning 703 redundancies in 82 enterprises operating in the NACE Division 2 Revision 14 (manufacture of wearing apparel) in the NUTS II region of Galicia,

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

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

2.  Recalls the institutions' commitment to ensuring 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 and the financial and economic crisis; emphasises the role that the EGF can play in the reintegration of workers made redundant into the labour market;

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

4.  Notes that the information provided on the coordinated package of personalised services to be funded from the EGF includes detailed information on the complementarity with actions funded by the Structural Funds; reiterates its call to present a comparative evaluation of these data in its annual reports as well;

5.  Welcomes the fact that, in the context of mobilising the EGF, an alternative source of payment appropriations to unused ESF funds has been proposed by the Commission, following the frequent reminders by the European Parliament that the EGF was created as a separate specific instrument with its own objectives and deadlines and that appropriate budget lines for transfers must therefore be identified;

6.  Notes that, in order to mobilise the EGF for this case, payment appropriations will be transferred from a budget line dedicated to the support of SMEs and innovation; regrets the severe shortcomings of the Commission when implementing programmes on competitiveness and innovation, particularly during an economic crisis which should significantly increase the need for such support;

7.  Recalls that the functioning and the added value of the EGF should be evaluated in the context of the general assessment of the programmes and various other instruments created by the IIA of 17 May 2006 within the process of the 2007-2013 Multiannual Financial Framework mid-term review;

8.  Welcomes the new format of the Commission's proposal, which presents in its explanatory memorandum clear and detailed information on the application, analyses the eligibility criteria and explains the reasons which led to its approval, which is in line with Parliament's requests;

9.  Approves the decision annexed to this resolution;

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

11.  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

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 (application EGF/2010/003 ES/Galicia Textiles from Spain)

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(3), 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(4), 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 for workers made redundant as a result of major structural changes in world trade patterns due to globalisation 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 direct 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)  Spain submitted an application to mobilise the EGF, in respect of redundancies in 82 enterprises operating in the NACE Revision 2 Division 14 (manufacture of wearing apparel) in a single NUTS II region, Galicia (ES11) on 5 February 2010 and supplemented it by additional information up to 11 May 2010. This application complies with the requirements for determining the financial contributions as laid down in Article 10 of Regulation (EC) No 1927/2006. The Commission, therefore, proposes to mobilise an amount of EUR 1 844 700.

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

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 1 844 700 in commitment and payment appropriations.

Article 2

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

Done at Brussels,

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) OJ C 139, 14.6.2006, p. 1. (4) OJ L 406, 30.12.2006, p. 1.

European Parliament resolution of 7 October 2010 on the proposal for a decision of the European Parliament and of the Council on the 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 (application EGF/2009/015 DK/Danfoss Group from Denmark) (COM(2010)0416 – C7-0200/2010 – 2010/2134(BUD))

P7_TA(2010)0346 A7-0258/2010

The European Parliament,

–  having regard to the Commission proposal to the European Parliament and the Council (COM(2010)0416 – C7-0200/2010),

–  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 (A7-0258/2010),

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

B.  whereas the scope of the EGF was broadened for applications submitted from 1 May 2009 to include support for workers made redundant as a direct result of the global financial and economic crisis,

C.  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,

D.  whereas Denmark has requested assistance in respect of cases concerning 1443 redundancies in three enterprises of the Danfoss Group operating in the NACE 2 Revision Divisions 27 and 28 in the NUTS II region of Syddanmark,

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

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

2.  Recalls the institutions' commitment to ensuring 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 and the financial and economic crisis; emphasises the role that the EGF can play in the reintegration of workers made redundant into the labour market;

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

4.  Notes that the information provided on the coordinated package of personalised services to be funded from the EGF includes detailed information on the complementarity with actions funded by the Structural Funds; reiterates its call to present a comparative evaluation of these data in its annual reports as well;

5.  Welcomes the fact that, in the context of mobilising the EGF, an alternative source of payment appropriations to unused ESF funds has been proposed by the Commission, following the frequent reminders by the European Parliament that the EGF was created as a separate specific instrument with its own objectives and deadlines and that appropriate budget lines for transfers must therefore be identified;

6.  Notes that, in order to mobilise the EGF for this case, payment appropriations will be transferred from a budget line dedicated to the support of SMEs and innovation; regrets the severe shortcomings of the Commission when implementing programmes on competitiveness and innovation, particularly during an economic crisis which should significantly increase the need for such support;

7.  Recalls that the functioning and the added value of the EGF should be evaluated in the context of the general assessment of the programmes and various other instruments created by the IIA of 17 May 2006 within the process of the 2007-2013 Multiannual Financial Framework mid-term review;

8.  Welcomes the new format of the Commission's proposal, which presents in its explanatory memorandum clear and detailed information on the application, analyses the eligibility criteria and explains the reasons which led to its approval, which is in line with Parliament's requests;

9.  Approves the decision annexed to this resolution;

10.  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;

11.  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

on the 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 (application EGF/2009/015 DK/Danfoss Group from Denmark)

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(3), 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(4), 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 for workers made redundant as a result of major structural changes in world trade patterns due to globalisation 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 direct 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)  Denmark submitted an application to mobilise the EGF, in respect of redundancies in the Danfoss Group. This application complies with the requirements for determining the financial contributions as laid down in Article 10 of Regulation (EC) No 1927/2006. The Commission, therefore, proposes to mobilise an amount of EUR 8 893 336.

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

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 8 893 336 in commitment and payment appropriations.

Article 2

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

Done at Brussels,

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) OJ C 139, 14.6.2006, p. 1. (4) OJ L 406, 30.12.2006, p. 1.

European Parliament resolution of 7 October 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 (application EGF/2009/031 DK/Linak from Denmark) (COM(2010)0417 – C7-0199/2010 – 2010/2133(BUD))

P7_TA(2010)0347 A7-0257/2010

The European Parliament,

–  having regard to the Commission proposal to the European Parliament and the Council (COM(2010)0417 – C7-0199/2010),

–  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 (A7-0257/2010),

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

B.  whereas the scope of the EGF was broadened for applications submitted from 1 May 2009 to include support for workers made redundant as a direct result of the global financial and economic crisis,

C.  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,

D.  whereas Denmark has requested assistance in respect of cases concerning 198 redundancies in the enterprise Linak operating in the electronic and mechanic sector in the NUTS II region of Syddanmark,

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

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

2.  Recalls the institutions' commitment to ensuring 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 and the financial and economic crisis; emphasises the role that the EGF can play in the reintegration of workers made redundant into the labour market;

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

4.  Notes that the information provided on the coordinated package of personalised services to be funded from the EGF includes detailed information on the complementarity with actions funded by the Structural Funds; reiterates its call to present a comparative evaluation of these data in its annual reports as well;

5.  Welcomes the fact that, in the context of mobilising the EGF, an alternative source of payment appropriations to unused ESF funds has been proposed by the Commission, following the frequent reminders by the European Parliament that the EGF was created as a separate specific instrument with its own objectives and deadlines and that appropriate budget lines for transfers must therefore be identified;

6.  Notes that, in order to mobilise the EGF for this case, payment appropriations will be transferred from a budget line dedicated to the support of SMEs and innovation; regrets the severe shortcomings of the Commission when implementing programmes on competitiveness and innovation, particularly during an economic crisis which should significantly increase the need for such support;

7.  Recalls that the functioning and the added value of the EGF should be evaluated in the context of the general assessment of the programmes and various other instruments created by the IIA of 17 May 2006 within the process of the 2007-2013 Multiannual Financial Framework mid-term review;

8.  Welcomes the new format of the Commission's proposal, which presents in its explanatory memorandum clear and detailed information on the application, analyses the eligibility criteria and explains the reasons which led to its approval, which is in line with Parliament's requests;

9.  Approves the decision annexed to this resolution;

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

11.  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

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 (application EGF/2009/031 DK/Linak from Denmark)

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(3), 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(4), 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 for workers made redundant as a result of major structural changes in world trade patterns due to globalisation 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 direct 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)  Denmark submitted an application to mobilise the EGF, in respect of redundancies in Linak A/S. This application complies with the requirements for determining the financial contributions as laid down in Article 10 of Regulation (EC) No 1927/2006. The Commission, therefore, proposes to mobilise an amount of EUR 1 213 508.

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

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 1 213 508 in commitment and payment appropriations.

Article 2

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

Done at Brussels, ...

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) OJ C 139, 14.6.2006, p. 1. (4) OJ L 406, 30.12.2006, p. 1.

1.European Parliament Decision of 7 October 2010 on discharge in respect of the implementation of the budget of the European Police College for the financial year 2008 (C7-0198/2009 – 2009/2127(DEC))

P7_TA(2010)0348 A7-0253/2010

The European Parliament,

–  having regard to the final annual accounts of the European Police College for the financial year 2008,

–  having regard to the Court of Auditors' report on the annual accounts of the European Police College for the financial year 2008, together with the College's replies(1),

–  having regard to the Council's recommendation of 16 February 2010 (5827/2010 – C7-0061/2010),

–  having regard to its Decision of 5 May 2010(2) postponing the discharge decision for the financial year 2008, and the replies by the Director of the European Police College,

–  having regard to Article 276 of the EC Treaty and Article 319 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,

–  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), and in particular Article 185 thereof,

–  having regard to Council Decision 2005/681/JHA of 20 September 2005 establishing the European Police College (CEPOL)(4), and in particular Article 16 thereof,

–  having regard to Commission Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 2343/2002 of 19 November 2002 on the framework Financial Regulation for the bodies referred to in Article 185 of Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1605/2002(5), and in particular Article 94 thereof,

–  having regard to Rule 77 of, and Annex VI to, its Rules of Procedure,

–  having regard to the second report of the Committee on Budgetary Control (A7-0253/2010),

1.  Refuses to grant the Director of the European Police College discharge in respect of the implementation of the College's budget for the financial year 2008(6);

2.  Sets out its observations in the resolution below;

3.  Instructs its President to forward this Decision and the resolution that forms an integral part of it to the Director of the European Police College, the Council, the Commission and the Court of Auditors, and to arrange for their publication in the Official Journal of the European Union (L series).

2.European Parliament resolution of 7 October 2010 with observations forming an integral part of its Decision on discharge in respect of the implementation of the budget of the European Police College for the financial year 2008 (C7-0198/2009 – 2009/2127(DEC))

The European Parliament,

–  having regard to the final annual accounts of the European Police College for the financial year 2008,

–  having regard to the Court of Auditors' report on the annual accounts of the European Police College for the financial year 2008, together with the College's replies(7),

–  having regard to the Council's recommendation of 16 February 2010 (5827/2010 – C7-0061/2010),

–  having regard to its Decision of 5 May 2010(8) postponing the discharge decision for the financial year 2008, and the replies by the Director of the European Police College,

–  having regard to Article 276 of the EC Treaty and Article 319 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,

–  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(9), and in particular Article 185 thereof,

–  having regard to Council Decision 2005/681/JHA of 20 September 2005 establishing the European Police College (CEPOL)(10), and in particular Article 16 thereof,

–  having regard to Commission Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 2343/2002 of 19 November 2002 on the framework Financial Regulation for the bodies referred to in Article 185 of Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1605/2002(11), and in particular Article 94 thereof,

–  having regard to Rule 77 of, and Annex VI to, its Rules of Procedure,

–  having regard to the second report of the Committee on Budgetary Control (A7-0253/2010),

A.  whereas the College was set up in 2001 and, with effect from 1 January 2006, was transformed into a Community body within the meaning of Article 185 of the Financial Regulation, thus coming under the provisions of the framework Financial Regulation for agencies,

B.  whereas the Court of Auditors in its report on the annual accounts of the College for the financial year 2006, qualified its opinion with regard to the legality and regularity of the underlying transactions on the grounds that the procurement procedures did not comply with the provisions of the Financial Regulation,

C.  whereas the Court of Auditors, in its report on the annual accounts of the College for the financial year 2007, qualified its opinion on the reliability of the accounts and the legality and regularity of the underlying transactions,

D.  whereas the Court of Auditors, in its report on the annual accounts of the College for the financial year 2008, added an emphasis of matter to its opinion on the reliability of the accounts, without expressly qualifying it, and qualified its opinion on the legality and regularity of the underlying transactions,

E.  whereas in its abovementioned Decision of 5 May 2010 the Parliament decided to postpone the grant of discharge for the financial year 2008,

General considerations
Recurrence of the College's major deficits

1.  Considers it unacceptable that since the College was established as an agency (2006), it struggled to meet the standards of good administration expected from a regulatory agency; stresses that since 2006 repeated audits have highlighted issues in the College's adherence to the Financial and Staff regulations, to the accounting system as well as the failings in budget management, human resources, procurement procedures and rules governing expenditure on courses; is aware that the College's improvements are expected to be complete only from 2014 when the College's Multi-Annual Plan (approved by the Governing Board in May 2010) is due to be fully implemented; is, therefore, not ready to accept that the College needs at least nine years (2006-2014) to reach an acceptable standard of good administration expected from a regulatory agency;

The College's management in the years 2006-2009

2.  Considers unacceptable the lack of responsibility and professionalism of the former Director responsible to Parliament for the implementation of the 2008 budget; stresses the following findings reported by the Czech Presidency on 18 May 2009:

3.  Deplores the fact that the College's Governing Board did not respond properly to the former Director's managerial failings, out of concern not to harm the agency's image;

4.  Considers it unacceptable that the Governing Board decided not to take disciplinary action mainly because of the possibility of legal action by the former Director;

5.  Insists, therefore, that the Governing Board of the College must be held responsible and suggests that changes be made to prevent this situation from recurring in future; calls for a reconsideration of the position of the Commission to grant it the right to vote and to constitute a blocking minority on decisions concerning the budgetary, financial and administrative management of the agency within the Governing Boards of the College and of the other Union agencies;

Structural deficits

6.  Calls, furthermore, into question the capability of the College to fully overcome its structural problems with respect to:

7.  Suggests, therefore, examining the possibility of attaching the College to Europol as a concrete solution to the College's structural and chronic problems; suggests, also, that the Court of Auditors carry out a comprehensive review of regulatory agencies to examine, inter alia, the proportion of operating, governance and operational costs and assess ways of addressing structural or other problems, with a view to complementing the Commission's own evaluation of regulatory agencies;

Court of Auditors' position

8.  Notes that the Court of Auditors is not ready to rapidly deliver an opinion in letter form evaluating the establishment of the College's Action Plan as requested by the Parliament in paragraph 23 of its resolution(12) which forms an integral part of its Decision of 5 May 2010 on discharge for the financial year 2008; takes, nevertheless, into due account the Court of Auditors' declaration that it has already extensively reported in its specific annual reports of the years from 2006 to 2008 on the problems it has found in the College;

The College's Action Plan for 2010-2014

9.  Notes that the new Director of the College has delivered on time the Action Plan as requested in paragraph 22 of the Parliament's abovementioned resolution of 5 May 2010; regrets, nevertheless, the lack of accuracy in the description of the specific actions to be taken by the College; regrets also that most of the indicators proposed by the College are vague and do not always clearly help to assess the implementation of the objectives;

10.  Notes that, at the request of the Parliament to adopt an Action Plan, the Director of the College and its Governing Board have estimated a realistic four-year period (i.e. from 2010 to 2014) in which to meet the objectives set out in the Annex to the Parliament's abovementioned resolution of 5 May 2010; is, therefore, not ready to accept that the College needs four more years to reach an acceptable standard of good administration as expected from a regulatory agency;

11.  Requests that the Director of the College inform the discharge authority on the progress of the implementation of the Action Plan every six months;

Specific remarks
Validation of the financial procedures and new accounting system (Article 43 of the framework Financial Regulation)

12.  Voices concern at the difficulties experienced in 2008 in migrating the old accounting system to ABAC and the late implementation of a proper accounting system which still put at risk the quality of the financial information concerning the carry-overs from the previous year, the use of assigned revenue and the link with certain figures in the balance sheet for 2007; expresses its deep concern about the fact the College's actions are now delayed until 2011 due to the resignation of two key actors in the financial circuit: the Accounting Officer and the Finance and Budget Officer;

13.  Stresses that the Court of Auditors' audit of a sample of commitments (see the Court of Auditor's report on the annual accounts of the College, paragraph 15) showed that, in three cases, there was no audit trail to retrace the financial execution such that it was not possible to match their closing balances in the accounts at 31 December 2008;

14.  Stresses that, in its specific annual report for 2006, the Court of Auditors had already mentioned that the College had not established the necessary systems and procedures to enable it to prepare a financial report in compliance with the requirements of the framework Financial Regulation applicable to the Agencies;

Budgetary programming and monitoring

15.  Voices concern at the College's weaknesses in programming and monitoring the budget implementation; notes, in particular, that 31 % of the College's total budget had to be carried over in 2008; considers inadequate and vague the measures proposed by the College in this regard;

16.  Notes that already for the budget year 2007 more than 20% (EUR 0,5 million ) of the College's appropriations carried over from the preceding year were cancelled;

Financial management of the College's work

17.  Voices concern at the College's financial management of its work; notes, in particular, that for the year 2008 the Court flagged up the absence of:

Procurement control environment

18.  Voices concern at the College's constant lack of compliance with the Financial Regulation with regard to public procurement rules; notes, in particular, the irregularities in the procedure used for a public supply contract worth the equivalent of some 2% of operational expenditure in 2008;

19.  Stresses that, in its specific annual reports for the years 2006 and 2007, the Court of Auditors had already criticised the College for not having the documentation available to justify the need to purchase particular items and to explain the recourse to a particular supplier;

Expenditure verification environment

20.  Stresses the fact that the Court of Auditors identified in 2008 a large number of cases in which the administrative and financial rules governing expenditure on the organisation of courses and seminars, which accounts for a major proportion (64%) of the College's operational expenditure, were not followed; notes that the main irregularities concerned: failure to submit supporting documents in respect of the costs incurred, failure to provide confirmation of attendance and to supply original invoices and documents necessary for the reimbursement of accommodation expenses, and failure to query travel costs for experts; calls on the College to adopt measures to ensure an adequate ex-ante and ex-post verification capacity;

21.  Voices concern at the fact that, in its specific annual reports for the years 2006 and 2007, the Court of Auditors had already remarked that the budget appropriations were not used in accordance with the principle of sound financial management (Article 25 of the College's Financial Regulation);

Appropriations used to finance private expenditure

22.  Regrets that the external audit on using appropriations to finance private expenditure announced by the College and to be carried out by an external company, has not been launched yet; is, therefore, concerned about this delay which certainly will not facilitate the work of the external company;

23.  Notes that in its response following the hearing of 25 January 2010, the Director at that time announced to the members of the Committee on Budgetary Control that funds had been recovered; remarks, however, that GBP 2 320.77 on transport costs and taxis for 2007 seems not to have been recovered yet;

24.  Notes also that the amount of expenditure for the use of mobile phones and cars by staff is still not clear;

25.  Stresses the fact that, in its specific annual report for the year 2007, the Court of Auditors had already signalled that it was not feasible for the auditors to review all payments made during the year 2007 as it was not possible to quantify either the amount that was irregularly spent on private use or all the different types of private expenditure incurred;

Human resource management: reliance on interim staff for sensitive posts

26.  Is concerned that, until now, interim staff have been employed for financial work; notes that it was not until 2009 that the College issued a vacancy notice for the recruitment of an Internal Control Standards Coordinator and that the interviews for that post were then scheduled for early 2010; voices concern at the fact that two key actors in the financial circuit staff (the Accounting Officer and the Finance and Budget Officer) have recently resigned;

o
o   o

27.  Refers, for other observations accompanying its Decision on discharge, which are of a horizontal nature, to its resolution of 5 May 2010(13) on the performance, financial management and control of the agencies.

(1) OJ C 304, 15.12.2009, p.124. (2) OJ L 252, 25.9.2010, p. 232. (3) OJ L 248, 16.9.2002, p. 1. (4) OJ L 256, 1.10.2005, p. 63. (5) OJ L 357, 31.12.2002, p. 72. (6) The decision to close the accounts of the European Police College for the financial year 2008 shall be taken at a subsequent part-session, in accordance with Article 5(2)(b) first subparagraph of Annex VI to Parliament's Rules of Procedure. (7) . OJ C 304, 15.12.2009, p.124. (8) OJ L 252, 25.9.2010, p. 232. (9) OJ L 248, 16.9.2002, p. 1. (10) OJ L 256, 1.10.2005, p. 63. (11) OJ L 357, 31.12.2002, p. 72. (12) OJ L 252, 25.9.2010, p. 233. (13) OJ L 252, 25.9.2010, p. 241.

European Parliament legislative resolution of 7 October 2010 on the proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Regulation (EC) No 539/2001 listing the third countries whose nationals must be in possession of visas when crossing the external borders of Member States and those whose nationals are exempt from that requirement (COM(2010)0256 – C7-0134/2010 – 2010/0137(COD))

P7_TA(2010)0349 A7-0256/2010

(Ordinary legislative procedure: first reading)

The European Parliament,

–  having regard to the Commission proposal to Parliament and the Council (COM(2010)0256),

–  having regard to Article 294(2) and Article 77(2)(a) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, pursuant to which the Commission submitted the proposal to Parliament (C7-0134/2010),

–  having regard to Article 294(3) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,

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

–  having regard to the report of the Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs and the opinion of the Committee on Foreign Affairs (A7-0256/2010),

1.  Adopts its 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, the Commission and the national parliaments.

Position of the European Parliament adopted at first reading on 7 October 2010 with a view to the adoption of Regulation (EU) No .../2010 of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Council Regulation (EC) No 539/2001 listing the third countries whose nationals must be in possession of visas when crossing the external borders and those whose nationals are exempt from that requirement

(As an agreement was reached between Parliament and Council, Parliament's position corresponds to the final legislative act, Regulation (EU) No 1091/2010)

European Parliament resolution of 7 October 2010 on failures in protection of human rights and justice in the Democratic Republic of Congo

P7_TA(2010)0350 RC-B7-0524/2010

The European Parliament,

–  having regard to its previous resolutions on the DRC, in particular those of 17 January 2008 on the situation in the Democratic Republic of Congo and rape as a war crime(1) and 17 December 2009 on violence in the Democratic Republic of Congo(2), relating to sexual violence by armed groups and the persistence of human rights abuses in the DRC; having regard to its resolution on gender mainstreaming in EU external relations and peace-building/nation-building of 7 May 2009(3),

–  having regard to the ‘Rapport préliminaire de la mission d'enquête du Bureau Conjoint des Nations Unies aux Droits de l'Homme sur les viols massifs et autres violations des droits de l'homme commis par une coalition de groupes armés sur l'axe Kibua-Mpofi, en territoire de Walikale, province du Nord-Kivu, du 30 juillet au 2 août 2010’ (a preliminary report on mass rapes in the Democratic Republic of Congo) published on 24 September 2010,

–  having regard to the Cotonou Partnership Agreement signed in June 2000,

–  having regard to the Council conclusions of 27 October 2009 on the Great Lakes region,

–  having regard to the Council declaration of 10 October 2008 on the situation in the east of the DRC,

–  having regard to Council Joint Action 2009/769/CFSP of 19 October 2009 amending Joint Action 2007/405/CFSP on the European Union police mission undertaken in the framework of reform of the security sector (SSR) and its interface with the system of justice in the Democratic Republic of the Congo (EUPOL RD Congo),

–  having regard to the EUSEC RD Congo security sector reform mission, established in June 2005 (Council Joint Action 2005/355/CFSP of 2 May 2005 on the European Union mission to provide advice and assistance for security sector reform in the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC)),

–  having regard to UN Security Council Resolution 1856 (2008) on MONUC's mandate,

–  having regard to UN Security Council Resolution 1925 (2010), which specifies the mandate of the UN mission in the DRC (MONUSCO),

–  having regard to UN Security Council Resolutions 1325 (2000) and 1820 (2008) on women, peace and security, and UN Security Council Resolution 1888 (2009) on sexual violence against women and children in situations of armed conflict, which emphasises the responsibility of all states to put an end to impunity and to prosecute those responsible for crimes against humanity and war crimes, including those relating to sexual and other violence against women and girls,

–  having regard to the law on sexual violence adopted by the DRC Parliament in 2006, which was designed to speed up the prosecution of rape cases and impose stiffer penalties,

–  having regard to the EU Council Plan of Action on Gender Equality in Development Cooperation that should ensure that gender equality is mainstreamed throughout the EU's work with partner countries at all levels,

–  having regard to the appointment in March 2010 of a Special Representative to the UN Secretary General on Sexual Violence in armed conflict,

–  having regard to the joint statement of 27 August 2010 by Catherine Ashton, the High Representative, and Andris Piebalgs, the EU Development Commissioner, on the resurgence of violence in North Kivu, DRC,

–  having regard to the UN Secretary General's report of 23 August 2010 on the recent mass rapes of civilians by members of armed groups in eastern DRC,

–  having regard to the role of EU crisis management in the framework of implementation of UNSC resolutions 1325 and 1820 within the Common Security and Defence Policy by putting specialised gender advisors or focal points in each crisis management mission throughout the world,

–  having regard to Rule 110(4) of its Rules of Procedure,

A.  whereas Atul Khare, the UN Assistant Secretary-General for Peacekeeping, has reported to the UN Security Council that more than 500 people had been victims of mass gang rape, including young girls, women as old as 75 and baby boys and girls, from 30 July 2010 to 4 August 2010, in the eastern Congo mining district – attacks blamed on rebels and militia,

B.  whereas sexual attacks occurred in the vicinity of the UN peacekeeping camp which is located only a few miles from the town of Luvungi; whereas it appears that UN workers knew rebels had occupied Luvungi town and surrounding villages in eastern Congo the day after the attacks began on 30 July 2010 and the UN Headquarters in New York did not learn about the rapes until two weeks later,

C.  whereas the UN Mission in the DRC (MONUSCO) has a mandate under Chapter VII of the United Nations Charter to use all necessary means to carry out its protection mandate, including the effective protection of civilians, humanitarian personnel and human rights defenders under imminent threat of physical violence from any foreign or Congolese armed group, and to support government efforts to fight impunity and ensure the protection of civilians from violations of international human rights and humanitarian law, including all forms of sexual and gender-based violence,

D.  whereas, despite the presence of MONUSCO, the fighting between the Congolese army, the Mai Mai militia, the fighters of the Democratic Forces for the Liberation of Rwanda (FDLR), the Popular Front for Justice in Congo (FPJC) and the Lord's Resistance Army (LRA) has claimed the lives of 6 million people since 1998 and is still causing, either directly or indirectly, thousands of deaths, unbearable suffering, poverty and internally displaced people (IDPs) every month, while the situation in the refugee camps continues to deteriorate,

E.  whereas Congolese army soldiers have been implicated in the death and rape of hundreds of civilians; whereas rapes, forced recruitments of civilian and child soldiers and serious human rights abuses in the eastern parts of the DRC, by LRA rebel troops, FDLR combatants and the Congolese army itself, continue,

F.  whereas rape as a weapon of war has become shockingly commonplace in eastern Congo where at least 8300 rapes were reported last year, according to the United Nations, with many more going unreported; whereas, according to the UN High Commissioner for Refugees, at least 1244 women reported being raped in the first quarter of 2010, which is an average of 14 rapes per day; whereas sexual violence and gender-based violence must always be considered a war crime and a crime against humanity,

G.  whereas systematic rapes are used by a range of armed movements, including the regular army in the DRC, as part of a tactical war of terror and as a means of achieving military and economic ends; whereas women are deliberately assaulted in front of their families or all members of their village in order to put fear into society; whereas those violent acts often cost women their place in society, their ability to care for their children and their lives are often even contaminated by the AIDS virus,

H.  whereas the failure of civilian and military prosecutors to pursue impartial investigations against those responsible for human rights violation has resulted in gang rapes and sexual attacks being commonplace for the people of Congo, creating a kind of ‘acceptance’ of human rights violations in the area,

I.  whereas the Congolese army continues to have insufficient human, technical and financial resources to carry out its tasks in the eastern provinces of the DRC, coupled with a lack of discipline and appropriate training amongst its ranks, which continues to hamper its role in protecting the population and in re-establishing peace,

J.  whereas many NGOs have observed increased oppression of human rights defenders, journalists, opposition leaders, victims and witnesses in the DRC in the past year, including killings, illegal arrests, prosecutions, telephone threats and repeated summonses to the offices of the intelligence services,

K.  whereas the war criminal Bosco Ntaganda has still not been arrested and, on the contrary, has been appointed to a senior position in the joint military operations with the Congolese and Rwandan forces in the eastern DRC; whereas former Congolese leader Jean-Pierre Bemba Gombo is facing trial at the ICC for war crimes, including rape,

L.  whereas the illegal mineral trade in the DRC allows many actors to continue to buy minerals from areas controlled by rebel groups, thereby financing those rebel groups, and whereas this is a factor fuelling and exacerbating the conflict,

M.  whereas the newly adopted US ‘Conflict Minerals’ Law is an attempt to prevent American consumers from purchasing cell phones, computers and other high tech technologies that are manufactured by US companies using minerals bought from rebel-controlled mines; whereas the law also calls on US firms, including brand name consumer manufacturers of electronic and mineral processors and jewellers, to report annually to the Securities Exchange Commission if their products use any gold, tantalum, coltan or cassiterite that was either directly imported from the Democratic Republic of Congo or smuggled via the nine neighbouring countries,

1.  Strongly condemns the mass rape and other human rights violations which took place between 30 July 2010 and 4 August 2010 on at least 500 women an children in North Kivu province by the Democratic Forces for the Liberation of Rwanda (FDLR), a Hutu rebel group, and the Mai Mai militia, as well as those in other regions of North and South Kivu;

2.  Calls on all actors to step up the fight against impunity and for an immediate end to the violence and human rights abuses in the DRC, particularly in North Kivu; stresses the need for further efforts to put an end to the activity of local and foreign armed groups in the east of the DRC;

3.  Calls on the UN and the DRC government to conduct an impartial and thorough investigation of the events, to ensure that those responsible for breaching human rights and international humanitarian law are held responsible and prosecuted in conformity with Congolese and international law;

4.  Expresses its deep concern that MONUSCO could not use its mandate and rules of engagement to provide protection against such massive rapes and other human rights abuses by armed movements in the vicinity of its peacekeeping base; recognises, nevertheless, that its presence remains necessary and calls for every effort to be made to allow it to carry out its mandate in full to protect those under threat;

5.  Calls on the UNSC, as a matter of urgency, to take all possible measures with a view to genuinely preventing any further attacks on the civilian population of the eastern provinces of the DRC and to provide medical, legal, social, humanitarian and other assistance to victims; demands the effective implementation of a new ‘code of conduct’ for MONUSCO and the creation of a follow-up group dedicated to human rights monitoring;

6.  Stresses the urgent need for a political solution to the armed conflict; calls on the DRC Government, in close collaboration with the international community and the AU, to bring security and stability to the people of eastern Congo and for all armed groups in the DRC to cease all attacks, to respect human rights and to return immediately to the peace process dialogue;

7.  Calls for an immediate increase in participation by women in all the initiatives aimed at finding solutions to the conflict in the DRC, including as mediators, negotiators and in the implementation of conflict resolution measures;

8.  Stresses that the rehabilitation and reform of the judicial system (incorporating a prevention and protection dimension and combating impunity with regard to sexual violence) and assistance for, and reintegration of, victims should be central to the aid programmes to be funded; in this context, calls for the cases of mass rape in the east of the DRC to be referred to the International Criminal Court;

9.  Stresses that a key humanitarian priority in the DRC would be the creation of a true national army; reiterates that training and payment of decent salaries are required in order to reform the Congolese army and improve discipline;

10.  Calls for the DRC Parliament to create the National Human Rights Commission as outlined in the constitution, as a first step to passing a law on the protection of victims and witnesses of human rights abuses, human rights activists, aid workers and journalists;

11.  Calls for the countries of the Great Lakes region to maintain a high level of commitment to the joint promotion of peace and stability in the region through existing regional mechanisms and to intensify their efforts on regional economic development, paying special attention to reconciliation, human security, better judicial accountability, refugee and IDP return and integration;

12.  Calls on the European Union and the Member States to support the EUSEC RD and EUPOL RD mission activities; calls for the full implementation of gender mainstreaming in Common Security and Defence operations; in this regard, requests a strong gender perspective in civilian and military missions in order to increase their operational effectiveness, as the EU can bring considerable ‘added value’ as a key actor in responding to women in armed conflict as well as in conflict prevention;

13.  Deplores the increasing acts of violence against aid workers and pays tribute to the extremely difficult work achieved by humanitarian organisations on the ground in highly insecure conditions;

14.  Welcomes the adoption of the new US ‘Conflict Minerals’ Law and asks the Commission and the Council to examine a legislative initiative along these lines; urges the DRC government to fully implement and comply with the Extractive Industries Transparency Initiative (EITI) in order to reinforce transparency and good governance in the extractive industry sector; calls on the Commission and Council to step up the fight against corruption in the DRC which further undermines human rights and contributes to their abuse;

15.  Instructs its President to forward this resolution to the Council, the Commission, the Vice-President of the Commission/High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy, the governments and parliaments of the Member States, the institutions of the African Union, the SADC, the governments of the Great Lake Regions, including the DRC and Rwanda, the United Nations Secretary-General, the UN Special Representative on sexual violence in armed conflicts, the Under Secretary-General for Humanitarian Affairs and Emergency Relief Coordinator, the United Nations Security Council and the United Nations Human Rights Council.

(1) OJ C 41 E, 19.2.2009, p. 83. (2) Texts Adopted, P7_TA(2009)0118. (3) Texts Adopted, P6_TA(2009)0372.

European Parliament resolution of 7 October 2010 on the World day against the death penalty

P7_TA(2010)0351 RC-B7-0541/2010

The European Parliament,

–  having regard to Protocol No 6 to the Convention for the protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms concerning the abolition of the death penalty, of 28 April 1983,

–  having regard to the Second Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, aiming at the abolition of the death penalty, of 15 December 1989,

–  having regard to its previous resolutions on the abolition of the death penalty, in particular that of 26 April 2007 on the initiative for a universal moratorium on the death penalty(1),

–  having regard to its resolutions of 26 November 2009 on China: minority rights and application of the death penalty(2), of 20 November 2008 on the death penalty in Nigeria(3), of 17 June 2010 on executions in Libya(4), of 8 July 2010 on North Korea(5), of 22 October 2009 on Iran(6), of 10 February 2010 on Iran(7), and of 8 September 2010 on human rights in Iran, in particular the cases of Mohammadi Ashtiani and Zahra Bahrami(8),

–  having regard to United Nations General Assembly Resolution 62/149 of 18 December 2007 calling for a moratorium on the use of the death penalty, and United Nations General Assembly Resolution 63/168 of 18 December 2008 calling for the implementation of the 2007 General Assembly resolution 62/149,

–  having regard to the UN Secretary-General's report to the General Assembly on moratoriums on the use of the death penalty, of 11 August 2010 (A/65/280),

–  having regard to the UN Secretary-General's report to the fifteenth session of the Human Rights Council on the question of the death penalty, of 16 July 2010 (A/HRC/15/19),

–  having regard to the speech of the High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy/Vice-President of the Commission delivered in the plenary of 16 June 2010 on human rights policy, recalling that the abolition on death penalty world wide was a priority for the EU and her own personal priority,

–  having regard to EP President Jerzy Buzek's declaration of 19 October 2009, making a strong appeal for the abolition of capital punishment,

–  having regard to the final declaration adopted by the 4th World Congress against the Death Penalty, held in Geneva from 24 to 26 February 2010, which calls for universal abolition of the death penalty,

–  having regard to the 2008 resolution of the African Commission on Human and Peoples' Rights, the 2009 resolution of the OSCE Parliamentary Assembly on a moratorium on the death penalty, and other regional initiatives such as those taken by the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights,

–  having regard to the revised and updated version of the EU Guidelines on the Death Penalty, adopted by the Council on 16 June 2008,

–  having regard to the World Day against the Death Penalty and the establishment of a European Day against the Death Penalty on 10 October each year,

–  having regard to Article 2 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union,

–  having regard to Rule 110(4) of its Rules of Procedure,

A.  whereas the European Union is strongly committed to working towards the abolition of the death penalty everywhere and is striving to achieve universal acceptance of this principle,

B.  whereas the EU is the leading institutional actor in the fight against the death penalty worldwide and its action in this area represents a key priority of its external human rights policy; whereas the EU is also the leading donor in support of efforts by civil society organisations around the world to brig about the abolition of the death penalty,

C.  whereas the death penalty is the ultimate cruel and inhuman and degrading punishment, which violates the right to life as enshrined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and whereas the detention conditions created by the death penalty decision amount to torture that is unacceptable to states respecting human rights,

D.  whereas various studies have shown that the death penalty has no effect on trends in violent crime,

E.  whereas evidence shows that the death penalty affects first and foremost underprivileged people,

F.  whereas the provisions of Protocols 6 and 13 to the European Convention on Human Rights prohibit Council of Europe member states from applying the death penalty,

G.  whereas the EU is working towards moratoria on the application of the death penalty by third countries and, in due course, abolition and ratification of the relevant international UN and other instruments and in particular, the Second Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, which provides for the abolition of the death penalty,

H.  whereas the abolition of the death penalty is one of the thematic priorities for assistance under the European Instrument for Democracy and Human Rights (EIDHR), which has funded over 30 projects worldwide since 1994, with an overall budget of over € 15 million,

I.  whereas, following the entry into force of the Lisbon Treaty, Parliament's consent is required for the conclusion of trade agreements and, in general, international agreements with third countries,

J.  whereas the Statute of the International Criminal Court and those of the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia, the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda, the Special Court for Sierra Leone, the Special Panels for Serious Crimes in Dili, Timor-Leste, and the Extraordinary Chambers in the Courts of Cambodia exclude the death penalty for war crimes, crimes against humanity and genocides, the most serious crimes of concern to the international community over which they have jurisdiction,

K.  whereas in 2007 and 2008 the UN General Assembly adopted the historic resolutions 62/149 and Resolution 63/168, which call for a worldwide moratorium on executions and ultimately seek the abolition of the death penalty, and in this regard highlights the fact that the number of countries supporting this resolution has increased and that, as a result, Resolution 63/168 was adopted by an overwhelming majority of 106 to 46, with 34 abstentions,

L.  whereas the Fourth World Congress Against the Death Penalty, which met in Geneva in February 2010, appealed to de facto abolitionist states to abolish the death penalty by statute, abolitionist states to incorporate the topic of universal abolition into their international relations, and international and regional organisations to support universal abolition through the adoption of resolutions for a moratorium on executions,

M.  whereas 154 states in the world have abolished the death penalty in law or in practice, and 96 of these have abolished it for any offence, 8 have retained it only for exceptional crimes such as those committed in wartime, 6 have a moratorium on executions in place and 44 are abolitionist in practice (i.e. countries that have not carried out any executions for at least 10 years or countries which have binding obligations not to use the death penalty),

N.  whereas more than 100 countries that retain the death penalty for crimes have outlawed the execution of juvenile offenders; stressing, however, that a small number of countries continue to execute child offenders in flagrant violation of the international law, in particular of Article 6(5) of the ICCPR; stressing, in particular, that Iran has the highest rate of detention of minors,

O.  whereas there are currently dozens of confirmed European nationals on death row or facing capital punishment around the world and stressing in this regard the crucial need to consolidate and strengthen the European response to the potential execution of European nationals,

P.  whereas on 23 March 2010 the President of the State Duma of the Russian Federation, Boris Gryzlov, at a meeting in Moscow with members of the Monitoring Committee of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe, said that Russia had failed to ratify the Protocol No 6 to the European Convention on Human Rights, concerning the abolition of the death penalty, in view of terrorist threats in the country,

Q.  welcoming the fact that on 11 February 2010 the Parliament of Kyrgyzstan ratified the Second Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, aiming at the abolition of the death penalty, and that on 21 May 2010 the final draft of the Constitution, which prohibits, inter alia, the death penalty and which has now been adopted, was made public by the interim Government of Kyrgyzstan,

R.  whereas 43 countries worldwide retain the death penalty and the highest number of executions took place in China, Iran and Iraq; whereas China alone carried out about 5 000 or 88% of the world total of executions; Iran put at least 402 people to death, Iraq at least 77 and Saudi Arabia, at least 69,

S.  whereas Iran is still applying death penalty by stoning, and whereas this runs contrary to the Second Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights,

T.  whereas the North Korean state authorities systematically carry out state killings and the justice system is subservient to the state, and whereas the death penalty is applied for a broad range of crimes against the state and is extended periodically by the Criminal Code, while citizens, including children, are forced to attend public executions,

U.  whereas in Japan inmates and their relatives and lawyers are kept in the dark about their fateful day until it arrives,

V.  whereas the Presidential Council of Iraq has recently ratified the death sentences of at least 900 prisoners, including women and children,

W.  underlining that Belarus remains the only European country still applying the death penalty in practice; noting that both the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe and the European Union have repeatedly urged Belarus to abolish the death penalty; whereas details about the death penalty in Belarus are secret, there are serious concerns regarding the fairness of trials and, under the Criminal Executive Code, the death penalty is carried out in private by means of shooting, the detention facility administration informs the judge about executions and the judge informs the relatives; whereas the body of an executed person is not given for burial to his or her relatives and the place of burial is not communicated,

X.  whereas 35 states out of the 50 which make up the United States of America, have the death penalty, although 4 of them have not held executions since 1976; whereas in 2009, executions increased to 52 following the termination of a de facto moratorium in force from September 2007 to May 2008 although, for the seventh consecutive year, the number of death sentences in the United States of America decreased, to 106,

Y.  welcoming the fact that some states, including Montana, New Mexico, New Jersey, New York, North Carolina and Kentucky have moved against the death penalty through measures including a moratorium on executions or its abolition, while condemning the executions of Teresa Lewis in the State of Virginia and of Holly Wood in Alabama despite evidence that both of them were mentally retarded persons, and stressing the cases of Mumia Abu-Jamal, on death row in Pennsylvania, and of Troy Davis, in Georgia,

1.  Reiterates its long-standing opposition to the death penalty in all cases and under all circumstances and emphasises once again that abolition of the death penalty contributes to the enhancement of human dignity and the progressive development of human rights;

2.  Condemns all executions wherever they take place; strongly calls on the EU and its Member States to enforce the implementation of the UN resolution on a universal moratorium on executions with a view to total abolition in all states which still practise the death penalty; calls on the Council and the Commission to take action in order to progressively restrict its use while insisting that it be carried out according to international minimum standards; expresses its deep concern regarding the imposition of the death penalty on minors and on persons with mental or intellectual disability and calls for their immediate and definitive ending;

3.  Urges the EU to use all tools of diplomacy and cooperation assistance available to it to work towards the abolition of the death penalty;

4.  Calls upon states applying the death penalty to declare an immediate moratorium on executions; further encourages countries such as China, Egypt, Iran, Malaysia, Sudan, Thailand and Vietnam to issue official statistics concerning the use of the death penalty in these countries; also urges North Korea to immediately and permanently stop public executions;

5.  Calls on Japan to shed light into its system of capital punishment;

6.  Encourages the states that have not abolished the death penalty to respect safeguards protecting the rights of those facing the death penalty, as laid down in the United Nations Economic and Social Council Safeguards; calls on the Council and the Commission to encourage those remaining countries which have not signed and ratified the Second Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights to do so, and those Member States that have not signed Protocol No 13 to the European Convention on Human Rights on the death penalty to do so;

7.  Calls on OSCE member states, in particular the United States and Belarus, to adopt an immediate moratorium on executions;

8.  Calls on Kazakhstan and Latvia to amend provisions in their national legislation that still allow for the imposition of the death penalty for certain crimes under exceptional circumstances;

9.  Strongly encourages EU Member States and all co-sponsors of the 2007 and 2008 UNGA resolutions to introduce, in the framework of a reinforced cross-regional alliance, a third resolution on the death penalty at UNGA65 which should in priority address:

10.  Calls on the OSCE participating states to encourage the Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights and OSCE Missions, in cooperation with the Council of Europe, to conduct awareness-raising activities against recourse to the death penalty, particularly with the media, law enforcement officials, policy-makers and the general public;

11.  Calls on retentionist OSCE states to treat information concerning the death penalty in a transparent manner, providing public information on the identity of individuals sentenced to death or executed and statistics on the use of the death penalty, in accordance with OSCE commitments;

12.  Urges the Council and the Commission, notably in view of the setting-up of the EEAS, to provide guidance for a comprehensive and effective European death penalty policy with regard to dozens of confirmed European nationals facing execution in third countries, which should include strong and reinforced mechanisms in terms of the identification system, the delivery of legal assistance, EU legal interventions and diplomatic representations;

13.  Further encourages the activities of non-governmental organisations working for the abolition of the death penalty, including Hands Off Cain, Amnesty International, Penal Reform International, the World Coalition Against the Death Penalty and the International Helsinki Federation for Human Rights, Sant'Egidio and Reprieve; welcomes and supports the recommendations on EU instruments in the fight against the death penalty made at the 12th EU-NGO Forum on Human Rights;

14.  Undertakes to monitor the issue of the death penalty, to raise specific cases with the relevant national authorities and to consider possible initiatives and ad hoc missions in retentionist countries, so as to urge government authorities to adopt a moratorium on executions with a view to completely abolishing them;

15.  Requests the Council and the Commission, when it comes to concluding agreements with countries that still apply the death penalty or with countries which have not signed the moratorium with a view to abolishing the death penalty to strongly encourage them to do so;

16.  Requests the High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy/Vice-President of the Commission and the Members States to continue to speak with one voice and to keep in mind that the main political content of the resolution must be the adoption of a worldwide moratorium as a crucial step towards the abolition of the death penalty;

17.  Calls in particular on the High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy/Vice-President of the Commission to demonstrate the political priority she attaches to the abolition of the death penalty by systematically raising the issue in political contacts with retentionist countries and through regular personal interventions on behalf of those at risk of imminent execution;

18.  Recalls that the full abolition of the death penalty remains one of the main objectives of the EU Human Rights policy; considers that this target will only be achieved by close cooperation between states, education, awareness-raising, efficiency and effectiveness;

19.  Encourages regional cooperation to this end; points out, for example, that Mongolia formally established a moratorium on executions in January 2010 and that, as a positive consequence of this, several retentionist countries have been considering the constitutionality of this form of punishment;

20.  Calls on the Council and Commission to identify ways in which to improve the implementation and effectiveness of the EU Guidelines on the Death Penalty during the current review of the EU's human rights policy, in particular in view of the planned revision of the Guidelines in 2011;

21.  Calls on the Council and the Commission to use the World day and the European Day against the Death Penalty to highlight, among others, the cases of Sakineh Mohamadi Ashtiani, Zahara Bahrami, Mumia Abu-Jamal, Troy Davis, Oleg Grishkovstov, Andrei Burdyko and Ebrahim Hamidi, Suliamon Olyfemi and Siti Zainab Binti Duhri Rupa;

22.  Instructs its President to forward this resolution to the High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy, the Council, the Commission, the governments and parliaments of the EU Member States, the UN Secretary-General, the President of the UN General Assembly and the governments of the UN member states.

(1) OJ C 74 E, 20.3.2008, p. 775. (2) Texts adopted, P7_TA(2009)0105. (3) OJ C 16 E, 22.1.2010, p. 71. (4) Texts adopted, P7_TA(2010)0246. (5) Texts adopted, P7_TA(2010)0290. (6) Texts adopted, P7_TA(2009)0060. (7) Texts adopted, P7_TA(2010)0016. (8) Texts adopted, P7_TA(2010)0310.

European Parliament resolution of 7 October 2010 on EU action on oil exploration and extraction in Europe

P7_TA(2010)0352 B7-0540/2010

The European Parliament,

–  having regard to Article 11 and Article 191 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,

–  having regard to the UN Convention on Biological Diversity,

–  having regard to the Natura 2000 network established by Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora (the Habitats Directive)(1) and to Directive 2008/56/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 June 2008 establishing a framework for community action in the field of marine environmental policy (the Marine Strategy Framework Directive)(2), as the primary means of protection of European marine biodiversity,

–  having regard to the targets and requirements for achieving favourable and good environmental status in European coastal and marine waters, as set out in Directive 2000/60/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 October 2000 establishing a framework for Community action in the field of water policy (the Water Framework Directive)(3) and in the Marine Strategy Framework Directive,

–  having regard to the EU Biodiversity Action Plan(4),

–  having regard to the Deepwater Horizon oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico,

–  having regard to the oil drilling rigs in EU waters,

–  having regard to the questions of 7 September 2010 to the Council and to the Commission on the implications of the Deepwater Horizon oil spill for the EU and on EU action on oil extraction and exploration in the EU (O-0122/2010 – B7-0470/2010, O-0123/2010 – B7-0551/2010),

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

A.  whereas in the light of the Deepwater Horizon oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico it is imperative for the EU and its Member States urgently to examine all aspects of oil extraction and exploration in the European Union and to take all necessary steps thereafter to ensure that such an environmental catastrophe will not occur in EU waters,

B.  whereas the highest levels of precaution, environmental protection and safety and security of oil operations in Europe are the principles of paramount importance which must underpin all EU action in this area,

C.  whereas the majority of oil drilling and exploration takes place in the waters of the North Sea,

D.  whereas EU waters also border countries that are not part of the European Union, for which EU law does not require compliance with the relevant provisions governing liability and the remedying of damage,

E.  whereas efforts are underway to extend oil drilling and exploration into deeper and more remote parts of the sea, which involve greater risks in terms of managing and monitoring operations,

1.  Expresses its solidarity with the victims of the Deepwater Horizon oil spill disaster and calls for technical advice and support to be provided by the EU in response to this disaster;

2.  Recognises the significant contribution that offshore oil and gas production in Europe can continue to make to security of supply in the EU, as well as the good safety record of the industry in Europe;

3.  Recognises the urgent need to adopt a common European, cross-border oil spill prevention and response system;

4.  Urges the Commission to submit a report at the end of the year assessing the level of environmental pollution and the biological state of the Gulf of Mexico;

5.  Calls on the Commission to follow closely the results of the investigations by the US authorities into the human, natural and technological factors which led to the disaster in the Gulf of Mexico, so as to draw all the conclusions necessary to prevent the occurrence of such events on offshore oil platforms in EU maritime and coastal waters;

6.  Calls on the Commission to develop rigorous EU-wide accident prevention policies for oil platforms, and to extend the scope of the SEVESO II Directive(5) to oil rigs;

7.  Calls on the Commission in particular to review the EU's capacity for immediate response to accidents involving offshore installations and to develop a European action plan in cooperation with Member States; notes that special attention must be given to the Arctic zone, due to its fragility and its importance in mitigating climate change; moreover notes that the Mediterranean, Baltic and North Sea area has to be taken into consideration;

8.  Welcomes the Commission's ‘stress test’ on oil drillings in EU waters; calls on it to identify any gaps and weaknesses in the regulatory framework at EU level and to make its analysis available to Parliament as early as possible;

9.  Calls on the Commission in particular to review the current legislation under which the holders of offshore oil exploitation licences can lease installations to third parties, in order to ensure that liability for damage to human life and the environment caused by accidents and disasters on offshore oil platforms may be more easily established in subsequent civil litigation;

10.  Urges the Commission, following its review of the regulatory framework, to present to Parliament as early as possible any legislative proposals it deems necessary to address identified loopholes – for example in the Environmental Liability Directive(6), the SEVESO II Directive and other European legislation – in the regulatory regime applicable to oil extraction and exploration and other forms of seabed exploitation in the EU;

11.  Considers that the current environmental liability legislation contains several important gaps and calls therefore on the Commission to consider revising the content and extending the scope of current EU legislation (including the Environmental Liability Directive, the SEVESO II Directive and the measures comprising the Erika and Third Maritime Safety Packages) and/or introducing any necessary new legislation to take into account all risks of off-shore exploitation and strengthen the rules governing liability in the event of oil accidents;

12.  Notes the absence of a compensation fund in the case of oil disasters and calls on the Commission to include compulsory financial security provisions under the Environmental Liability Directive;

13.  Urges the Commission to lower the damage threshold under the Environmental Liability Directive and to include damages caused to marine waters within its scope;

14.  Calls on the Commission, in its current review of the Environmental Impact Assessment Directive(7), to ensure that all seabed activities are subjected to a mandatory assessment, that the quality of EIAs is guaranteed and that hyper-hazardous activities such as seabed drilling are not permitted to proceed where an EIA indicates that risks cannot be satisfactorily mitigated;

15.  Considers furthermore that any legislative proposals must ensure a comprehensive legal framework which:

16.  Calls on the Commission to bring forward legislation to ensure that uniformly high safety standards apply across all EU oil platforms and drilling operations by EU and third countries, from the Atlantic Margin to the Black Sea; calls on the Commission and the Member States to work with the International Maritime Organisation (IMO), to strengthen international safety and control rules and standards;

17.  Urges the Commission to investigate the establishment of an effective system of surveillance to ‘control the controllers’, and calls for the early strengthening of inspection methods and minimum compulsory EU safety rules;

18.  Calls on the Commission to ensure that all provisions of the Environmental Impact Assessment, Strategic Environmental Assessment(8) and Habitats Directives relating to the environmental impact assessment of oil platforms are applied uniformly across the Member States;

19.  Considers that the mandate of the European Agency for Maritime Safety (EMSA) should be extended from vessels to offshore installations; calls for the conferral of any such new tasks to be reflected in the EMSA's budget and staff numbers;

20.  Calls on the Commission to publish an annual report prepared in cooperation with Member State authorities and independent experts, that should assess the technical safety and security of installations and offshore oil platforms operating in EU maritime and coastal waters;

21.  Believes that it is of the utmost importance that the Commission examine all financial and liability questions associated with offshore exploration in the EU with a view, if necessary, to the introduction of compulsory EU-wide insurance or other appropriate instruments, for example the establishment of a special European fund to be maintained by mandatory contributions from operators of offshore installations; considers that any such instrument must take full account of the responsibility of such operators, ensure that operators have sufficient insurance or other financial guarantees in place to secure restoration and compensation in relation to environmental damage caused, and provide for additional financial guarantees, for example in the form of funds, for restoration and compensation where operators' financial guarantees are not sufficient;

22.  Urges the Commission in particular to consider compulsory EU-wide insurance schemes designed to compensate affected businesses in the event of a spill;

23.  Urges the Commission to examine the decommissioning of existing drilling infrastructure, taking due account of existing international and national regulations in this area, and to clarify, if necessary by way of legislation, the responsibility of operators for ensuring safe removal and liability for any environmental damage resulting from the decommissioning of offshore infrastructure and any environmental damage arising from an offshore installation or drilling site after it has been decommissioned;

24.  Calls on the Commission to introduce a rigorous and mandatory framework for company disclosure regarding environmental, social and governance practices, and to consider measures to enhance the engagement of institutional investors with companies regarding the investment risks of poor environmental practices;

25.  Notes the report by the UK Health and Safety Executive about working conditions in the North Sea, which shows that fatal and major injury rates doubled over the past year; calls on the Commission to investigate these allegations and to take action to ensure high levels of health and safety for those working in offshore drilling;

26.  Calls on the Commission to play an active role in ensuring that activities carried out by third countries and oil extraction projects comply as fully as possible with strict environmental standards and to make provision for specific mechanisms to compensate for any damage caused by third-country offshore oil operations that border the EU;

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

(1) OJ L 206, 22.7.1992, p. 7. (2) OJ L 164, 25.6.2008, p. 19. (3) OJ L 327, 22.12.2000, p. 1. (4) SEC(2006)0607 and (2006)0621. (5) Directive 2003/105/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 December 2003 amending Council Directive 96/82/EC on the control of major-accident hazards involving dangerous substances (OJ L 345, 31.12.2003, p. 97). (6) Directive 2004/35/EC of the European Parliament and the Council of 21 April 2004 on environmental liability with regard to the prevention and remedying of environmental damage (OJ L 143, 30.4.2004, p. 56). (7) Directive 85/337/EEC, as amended. (8) Directive 2001/42/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 June 2001on the assessment of the effects of certain plans and programmes on the environment ( OJ L 197, 21.7.2001, p. 30).

European Parliament resolution of 7 October 2010 on the EU strategic objectives for the 10th Meeting of the Conference of the Parties to the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD), to be held in Nagoya (Japan) from 18 to 29 October 2010

P7_TA(2010)0353 B7-0536/2010

The European Parliament,

–  having regard to the 10th Meeting of the Conference of the Parties (COP 10) to the UN Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD), to be held in Nagoya (Japan) from 18 to 29 October 2010,

–  having regard to the questions to the Commission and to the Council on the EU strategic objectives for the 10th Meeting of the Conference of the Parties to the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD), to be held in Nagoya (Japan) from 18 to 29 October 2010 (O-0111/2010 – B7-0467/2010 – O-0112/2010 – B7-0468/2010),

–  having regard to the European Summit in Gothenburg in 2001 where it was agreed to halt the loss of biodiversity by 2010 as part of an EU Sustainable Development Strategy,

–  having regard to the European Council Conclusions of 25-26 March 2010, in particular paragraph 14,

–  having regard to the Report of the Ad Hoc Open-ended Working Group on Review of Implementation of the Convention on Biological Diversity on the work of its third meeting from 24 to 28 May 2010 and the draft Post-2010 Strategic Plan,

–  having regard to the Reports of the Ninth meeting of the Ad Hoc Open-ended Working Group on Access and Benefit-sharing, held from 22-28 March 2010, and the draft ABS Protocol (the Cali and Montreal Annexes),

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

A.  whereas the CBD is the largest global agreement on the protection of biodiversity; whereas it has been signed by 193 parties, including the 27 EU Member States and the European Union,

B.  whereas the United Nations Year of Biodiversity should offer the political momentum to strengthen implementation of all three objectives of the CBD: conservation of biodiversity, sustainable use of biodiversity, and fair and equitable sharing of the benefits arising from the use of genetic resources,

C.  whereas the World Bank estimates that 60 million indigenous people are totally dependent on forests; whereas deforestation constitutes a major impediment to the attainment of the Millennium Development Goals, owing to the loss of ecosystem services provided by forests (such as rainfall, prevention of soil erosion, and water purification),

D.  whereas the Blue Carbon Report (released by the FAO, the UNEP and the IUCN in October 2009) demonstrates that the degradation of coastal areas (through overfishing, the destruction of mangroves and eutrophication) and the destruction of marine habitats constitute a substantial threat to the ocean's capacity to absorb carbon, and are therefore a very significant source of concern for climate policy,

E.  whereas significant implementation gaps in the working programmes of the CBD need to be filled,

F.  whereas the protection of biodiversity is a key component in the attainment of the Millennium Development Goals, and whereas the 2010 biodiversity target was incorporated as a new target in 2006 under Millennium Development Goal (MDG) 7 (‘Ensure environmental Sustainability’),

G.  whereas the United Nations General Assembly declared 2010 the International Year of Biodiversity; whereas the theme of the 2010 International Day for Biological Diversity is ‘Biodiversity for Development and Poverty Alleviation’,

H.  whereas 70% of the world's poor live in rural areas and depend directly on biodiversity for their survival and well-being, and whereas the urban poor also rely on biodiversity for ecosystem services such as the maintenance of air and water quality and the breakdown of waste,

Urgency to act

1.  Is extremely concerned that neither the global 2010 biodiversity target to significantly reduce the rate of biodiversity loss nor the EU target on halting biodiversity loss have been met;

2.  Is deeply concerned about the absence of a sense of the urgency of halting the loss of biodiversity on the international political agenda;

3.  Is alarmed over the steady increase in the illegal use of genetic resources and widespread biopiracy occurring on a global scale;

4.  Emphasises that with adequate resources and political will, the tools exist for the loss of biodiversity to be reduced on wider scales; is convinced that there are many synergies in protecting the climate, achieving Millennium Development Goals and halting the loss of biodiversity;

5.  Calls for the Commission and the Member States to play a leadership role at COP 10 in order to convince all Parties that it is now urgent to act; calls therefore upon the Commission and Member States to make public their positions as soon as possible in advance of COP 10;

6.  In order to be able to play such a leadership role, strongly urges the Commission and the Member States to speak with one voice and to improve the speed and efficiency of their internal decision-making procedure so as to be able to agree quickly on an internal EU position for COP 10 and to devote more resources and time to their diplomatic efforts vis-à-vis third countries;

7.  Finds it inconsistent and regrettable that the host country Japan has prevented important advances in the protection of threatened marine species such as bluefin tuna and whales in the context of other fora, such as CITES and IWC;

Economics

8.  Underlines that ongoing studies, such as the study ‘The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity’ (TEEB), estimate that the welfare loss from biodiversity loss is currently around EUR 50 billion per year (just under 1 % of GDP), rising to EUR 14 trillion or 7 % of estimated GDP per year in 2050; underlines that, according to the TEEB study, the return on biodiversity conservation investment is up to 100 times more;

9.  Takes the view that the decisions to be taken at COP 10 need, in particular, to reflect the findings of the TEEB study and build on its recommendations, i.e. that the costs of biodiversity loss and the value of biodiversity need to be reflected in national accounts; underlines that otherwise it will not be possible to monitor the financial and economic consequences which the current biodiversity crisis will have on the economy; underlines that more regard should be given to investigating and approving market instruments, such as habitat banking and payment for ecosystem services, to help ensure adequate financial resources for biodiversity;

10.  Stresses the importance of developing and refining methods to accurately assess the financial value of eco-services and to thus determine the cost of biodiversity loss; considers that this would provide valuable data to inform policy makers, develop awareness-raising campaigns and contribute to the wider public debate;

11.  Underlines that biodiversity and ecosystems deliver collective benefits and must be regarded as common goods; notes with concern, however, that local communities often receive little or no payment for the services they help to generate, despite being those hit hardest by the loss of biodiversity and the collapse of ecosystem services; urges decision-makers in Nagoya, therefore, to define policy tools aimed at addressing this unequal distribution of benefits derived from nature, and to develop ways of providing financial and technical support to communities and individuals committed to sound management of natural resources;

CBD Strategic Plan
Overall Mission by 2020 and Vision for 2050

12.  Urges the Commission and the Member States to support an ambitious overall CBD Mission for 2020: to halt the loss of biodiversity and to share the values and benefits of biodiversity and ecosystem services equitably; urges the Commission and the Member States to commit to a Vision for 2050 ensuring that ecosystems are protected, valued and restored;

Strategic Goals and the 2020 Headline Targets

13.  Calls on the Commission and the Member States to support measurable, ambitious, realistic and time-bound sub-targets, in particular to ensure that by 2020:

Indicators

14.  Underlines the necessity to adopt concrete indicators based on scientific data in order to measure the progress towards the strategic goals and targets;

15.  Welcomes the implementation within the EU of tools like the Biodiversity Information System for Europe (BISE) portal and the Biodiversity Baseline established by the European Environment Agency; takes the view that they are comparable tools that could increase the efficiency of international agreements and action taken under the Convention;

Access to genetic resources and benefit sharing (ABS)

16.  Notes that, without a successful conclusion of negotiations on the international ABS regime at COP 10 resulting in a Protocol to the CBD with legally binding and non-binding provisions, a wider agreement on the Post-2010 Strategic Plan of the Convention may not be achieved;

17.  Reconfirms the principle that life forms and living processes must not be subject to patents; underlines, therefore, the need to maintain a ‘breeders’ exemption' in accordance with the UPOV Convention;

18.  Emphasises that the ABS Protocol must provide for transparency, legal certainty and predictability as regards access to genetic resources, and fair and equitable sharing of the benefits arising from the utilisation of genetic resources, their derivatives and traditional knowledge associated with genetic resources;

19.  Calls on the Commission and Member States to support the inclusion in the Protocol of the principle of free, prior and informed consent of indigenous and local communities regarding access to traditional knowledge associated with genetic resources;

20.  Recognises that traditional knowledge associated with genetic resources is relevant to the conservation and sustainable use of biodiversity as well as for the fair and equitable sharing of the benefits arising from the utilisation of genetic resources and therefore needs to be adequately addressed in the ABS Protocol, in line with the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples;

21.  Calls therefore upon the Commission and the Council to accept the Cali draft text on benefit-sharing arising from publicly available traditional knowledge, on benefit-sharing from the use of derivatives of genetic resources, on the monitoring, tracking and reporting the utilisation of genetic resources as well as the provisions on mutually agreed terms between users and providers of genetic resources;

22.  Acknowledges the interdependence of countries with regard to genetic resources for food and agriculture and their importance for worldwide food security and therefore the need to take into account these genetic resources in the negotiations on the international ABS regime;

23.  Recognises the differences in views regarding the retroactive application of future ABS protocol and urges the Parties to find practicable and fair solutions in order to accommodate legitimate concerns;

Thematic programme of work – marine and coastal biodiversity

24.  Calls on the Commission and the Member States to strongly advocate the importance of making further progress in identifying and protecting ecologically or biologically significant areas and species in marine areas within and beyond national jurisdiction;

Thematic programme of work – protected areas

25.  Recognises that there has been substantial progress in the implementation of the Programme of Work on Protected Areas (PoWPA); underlines nevertheless that much remains to be done to fully implement this programme;

26.  Urges the Commission and the Member States to ensure that at COP 10 priority is given to strengthening adequate support and management of protected areas, as well as to communicating the benefits of protected areas to key decision-makers and to request, if appropriate, an increase of funds;

27.  Emphasises that, as a principle included in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the European Commission, the UN and the states involved in the legal protocols for the assignment of natural parks and protected areas, should include a legal provision that guarantees juridical and legal protection for the land property rights of indigenous people as traditional land owners, the preservation of their social activities and the traditional use of their land and gives formal recognition to their rights in current management models;

28.  Emphasises that in the declarations for protected areas and in the strategies for conservation it is necessary to create a protocol which includes the definition of the integral tropic systems, including water;

Biodiversity and climate change

29.  Emphasises the need to include biodiversity safeguards in climate policies and to maximise co-benefits between the two objectives; stresses, further, that financial contributions for biodiversity conservation have a positive effect in practice on climate change adaptation and mitigation strategies, especially as most national adaptation plans submitted in the context of the UNFCCC, and especially those of developing countries, give emphasis to ecosystem resilience; therefore calls for further efforts to enhance synergies and links between biodiversity and climate policies, in particular between the UNFCCC and the CBD; in this context calls for the CBD secretariat to be given a mandate to contribute to the work under the UNFCCC;

30.  Confirms the vital importance of biodiversity and resilient ecosystems for climate change mitigation and adaptation, given the fact that terrestrial and marine ecosystems currently absorb around half of anthropogenic CO2 emissions;

31.  Emphasises the need to protect ecosystem resilience by taking measures to prevent the widespread release of genetically modified organisms, taking into full account the provisions of the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety;

Integrating biodiversity into development policy

32.  Welcomes the establishment of an Intergovernmental Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES), which should follow the model laid down by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC);

33.  Emphasises that programmes aimed at the protection of biodiversity and poverty reduction must address the priorities of the poor and put more emphasis on locally based environmental management, guaranteed access to biodiversity resources, land reform and acknowledgement of customary tenure;

34.  Calls on the Member States and the Commission to give new impetus to the Global Climate Change Alliance and its support facility in order to boost developing countries' capacity-building and knowledge base on the expected impacts of biodiversity loss, and to integrate it effectively into development plans and budgets; calls on the EU to make full use of the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment in its development cooperation strategy;

35.  Recalls that 80% of the people in the world rely on traditional, plant-based medicine, and that biodiversity can help alleviate the national costs of providing medical supplies in many developing countries, since it offers the necessary basis for traditional medicines and many synthetic drugs; urges COP-10, therefore, to take steps to counter biopiracy; underlines that protection of biodiversity is directly linked to the achievement of Millennium Development Goal (MDG) 6;

36.  Calls for the Commission's regional and country strategy papers to include specific measures aimed at the formal recognition of rural and indigenous peoples' right to manage natural resources and benefit from them;

37.  Is convinced that the reform of subsidies (in the agriculture, fisheries and energy sectors) within the EU is pivotal for development policy coherence, in order to avoid harming biodiversity and ecosystem services; recalls, at the same time, that the potential for removing harmful subsidies in developing countries (especially in the fuel, food and water sectors) must be coupled with compensatory mechanisms for the poor, who may be adversely affected by their immediate removal;

38.  Supports the use of the national biodiversity strategies and action plans (NBSAPs) in order to integrate the contribution of biodiversity to development and poverty alleviation;

39.  Underlines the importance of biodiversity in mitigating the incidence of diseases such as malaria, which has been demonstrated to be less prevalent in still-forested areas, where there is a greater variety of birdlife;

40.  Underlines that organic production contributes to soil, water and biodiversity conservation, while providing the diversity necessary for healthy nutrition; urges, therefore, that investment in sustainable agriculture be increased with a view to improving food security and reducing poverty;

Biofuels

41.  Underlines the need for a recommendation on biofuels to be adopted at COP 10; recalls that is extremely important to assess direct and indirect impacts of biofuels on biodiversity; underlines, further, that certification and sustainability criteria need to be established for biofuels;

Invasive alien species

42.  Where urgent measures are concerned, draws attention to the need to prioritise action against invasive species, which are already causing severe imbalances in ecosystems, with extremely negative consequences for biodiversity as a whole;

Financing

43.  Underlines the need to drastically increase the global funding for biodiversity, notably through existing funding sources, as well as new and innovative sources, including new and innovative market-based instruments;

44.  Calls therefore upon the Commission and Member States to publicly announce their financial commitments for the implementation of the objectives of the CBD well in advance of COP 10;

45.  Is convinced that public spending alone will not suffice to reach the CBD biodiversity target and underlines the importance of corporate social responsibility to also take into account biodiversity;

46.  Given the findings of the TEEB study, calls for COP 10 to also be used as an opportunity to send a message to the private sector about the economic benefits of joining in the fight to preserve biodiversity;

47.  Stresses, however, that the Decision on Business Engagement should include not only voluntary commitments but also obligations, especially for the provision of and access to information and for the consideration of indigenous peoples and local communities in the establishment of ongoing dialogue;

48.  Urges the Commission and the Member States to develop innovative systems for payment for ecosystem services and mobilising private financing, and to implement these systems whilst ensuring a maximum level of protection for the ecosystems concerned;

49.  Stresses, however, that such systems should be informed by the lessons of the recent financial crisis, as well as the shortcomings of carbon emission trading schemes; stresses, further, that consideration of these limitations should be explicitly mentioned in the mandate of the Special Working Group on Financial Innovation;

50.  Takes the view that climate funding instruments, such as REDD+, fast-track financing, CDM and JI should be reformed to contain biodiversity and human and indigenous rights safeguards and to provide for biodiversity co-benefits where possible;

51.  Stresses, further, that reforms must include new UN definitions for forests on a biome basis, reflecting the wide-ranging differences in biodiversity as well as carbon values of different biomes, while clearly distinguishing between native forests and those dominated by tree monocultures and non-native species; urges, therefore, the Commission and Member States to work in this direction in the Subsidiary Body for Scientific and Technological Advice (SBSTA);

52.  Underlines the need to find solutions to integrate external costs, such as the damage done to biodiversity or the costs incurred to support biodiversity, in the final price of products on the market;

Synergies between the three Rio Conventions

53.  Takes the view that synergies between the three Rio Conventions on Biodiversity (CBD), Climate Change (UNFCCC) and Desertification (UNCCD) should be enhanced;

54.  Calls on the Commission and Member States to actively support the idea of having a high-level meeting of the three Rio Conventions as part of the Rio+20 summit in 2012;

Intergovernmental Science Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES) and knowledge sharing

55.  Welcomes the agreement reached by governments in June 2010 in Busan to create an Intergovernmental Science Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES); calls on the Commission and the Member States to ensure that the IPBES is effectively established as early as possible in 2011; considers that, as the contribution of IPBES will depend on the quality of research undertaken in the EU and internationally, it is of the utmost importance that the EU and the Member States ensure sufficient resources for biodiversity research;

56.  Calls for improving and better sharing of knowledge and technologies relating to biodiversity, its value and functioning;

A coordinated approach

57.  Insists that in international trade agreements sustainability of the products being traded is a key element; underlines in this regard the need to integrate ‘non-trade concerns’, including production methods and respect for biodiversity, in any future WTO agreement;

58.  Encourages the Commission and Member States to integrate the environmental element in their relations with third countries and to continue the ‘Green Diplomacy’;

59.  Urges the Commission and Member States to ensure that the updated ‘2010’ headline target from the CBD Strategic Plan, to be adopted at CBD COP 10 in Nagoya, is further incorporated as the updated target for Millennium Development Goal (MDG) 7 and supported as integral to achieving these vital goals by their 2015 deadline; emphasises that it is vital that the Commission and Member States recognise the many synergies and interdependencies between all the MDGs and treat them as one package;

o
o   o

60.  Instructs its President to forward this resolution to the Council, the Commission, the governments and parliaments of the parties to the CBD and the CBD Secretariat.

European Parliament resolution of 7 October 2010 on Basel II and revision of the Capital Requirements Directives (CRD 4) (2010/2074(INI))

P7_TA(2010)0354 A7-0251/2010

The European Parliament,

–  having regard to the Capital Requirements Directives(1) and to Directive 2009/111/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 September 2009 amending Directives 2006/48/EC, 2006/49/EC and 2007/64/EC as regards banks affiliated to central institutions, certain own funds items, large exposures, supervisory arrangements, and crisis management(2),

–  having regard to the Commission proposal for a directive of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Directives 2006/48/EC and 2006/49/EC as regards capital requirements for the trading book and for re-securitisations, and the supervisory review of remuneration policies (COM(2009)0362),

–  having regard to the Commission staff working document of 26 April 2010 on possible further changes to the Capital Requirements Directive,

–  having regard to the Basel II agreement(3),

–  having regard to the Basel Committee on Banking Supervision's consultative documents on strengthening the resilience of the banking sector(4) and on an international framework for liquidity risk measurement, standards and monitoring(5),

–  having regard to the Financial Stability Board's papers,

–  having regard to the communiqués issued by the G20 at its Washington, London and Pittsburgh summits,

–  having regard to its resolution of 15 June 2010 on OTC derivatives(6),

–  having regard to the announcement on higher global minimum capital standards made by the Group of Governors and Heads of Supervision on 12 September 2010,

–  having regard to the communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee, the European Court of Justice and the European Central Bank on an EU Framework for Cross-border Crisis Management in the Banking Sector (COM(2009)0561) and the accompanying staff working document (SEC(2009)1407,

–  having regard to the communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the European Central Bank on bank resolution funds (COM(2010)0254),

–  having regard to Commission Regulation (EC) No 1126/2008 of 3 November 2008 adopting certain international accounting standards in accordance with Regulation (EC) No 1606/2002 of the European Parliament and of the Council (7),

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

–  having regard to the report of the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs (A7-0251/2010),

A.  whereas strong, stable and efficient financial markets and institutions are crucial to meeting the financing needs of the EU's various economic actors and to boosting growth and employment, innovation and the competitiveness of the European economy; whereas the financing function is especially important for economic recovery; whereas regulatory reform in the financial sector should aim for financial stability and sustainable growth,

B.  whereas the revised, more stringent, capital requirements should be adopted with due regard to the economic cycle and ongoing economic recovery,

C.  whereas the Basel Committee does not make it possible to take account of all stakeholders or the principle of reciprocity,

D.  whereas all financial markets, actors and instruments must be supervised and regulated, as must all systemically important financial infrastructures such as payment, clearing and settlement systems, mechanisms and platforms and the associated provision of custodial services, in order to preserve financial stability, which is a crucial public good; whereas the crisis has highlighted the fact that bank capital has been clearly insufficient regarding solvability and solvency,

E.  whereas prudential standards must be strengthened and properly enforced and shortcomings concerning the quality and amount of capital, liquidity management, the weaknesses of internal models and the pro-cyclical nature of Basel II and the CRD that have been revealed by the crisis must be addressed,

F.  whereas it is necessary to expand the crisis management minimum intervention toolbox available to supervisors,

G.  whereas a clear separation or firewalling between retail and investment banking must be strived for in order to make sure that insured deposits are not used as collateral for trading activities,

H.  whereas the new standards should take into account a bank's size and risk profile and its business model,

I.  whereas, however, due account must be taken of the cumulative impact of the relevant elements of the revised Basel II framework and of other regulatory initiatives on the real economy and on economic growth,

J.  whereas unprecedented market and regulatory failures prompted the G20 to decide at its meetings in London, Pittsburgh and Toronto to increase the quality of capital, strengthen risk coverage, mitigate pro-cyclicality, introduce forward-looking provisioning for credit losses, discourage excessive leverage and introduce a leverage ratio supplementary to the Basel II risk-based framework with a view to migrating to Pillar 1 treatment, and to strengthen liquidity standards,

K.  whereas Europe applies the CRD to all credit institutions and investment firms operating under a variety of business models; whereas other countries restrict the application of the Basel II rules to a certain number of banks having a specific business model; whereas such differences in scope of application raises concerns as regards compatibility, a level playing field and the risk of potential regulatory arbitrage,

L.  whereas there are important European specificities, such as the fact that the corporate sector in Europe is predominantly financed through bank lending; whereas the revised Basel rules must take due account of such specificities; whereas it would be desirable for bank lending to be more targeted at specialised fields such as SME lending and for larger companies to be encouraged to issue bonds directly to investors,

M.  whereas a ‘one size fits all’ approach that does not take into account banks' specific risk profiles and the diversity of the European banking sector is detrimental to the European banking industry and consequently may harm economic growth and economic recovery,

N.  whereas, as the EU is currently undergoing an extensive financial regulation reform, there must be consistency between reforms and, moreover, implementation calendars should take into account the cumulative impact of the measures on the real economy and should not hamper economic recovery,

O.  whereas convergence towards a single set of high-quality global accounting standards is essential in order to maintain a level playing field and ensure comparability of data globally; whereas such standards must be appropriately upgraded to take account of the lessons learned from the crisis,

P.  whereas the need for strict obedience to the ‘substance-over-form’ principle shall be taken into account by all relevant authorities in order to avoid inappropriate results,

Q.  whereas international convergence between reporting for accounting purposes and reporting for regulatory and tax purposes is essential in order to ensure that supervisors and investors are provided with the same transparent and clear information, and whereas dual reporting should be minimised; whereas this does not preclude prudential filters, providing they are presented in all accounts,

R.  whereas banks should focus more on core businesses serving the real economy; whereas the Basel Committee and the Commission should encourage this,

S.  whereas reforms included in the Basel II revision must go hand-in-hand with structural reforms to bank supervision, as advocated by the European Parliament, and, eventually, a route for the drawing up and consistent implementation of Pillar 2-type measures,

General issues

1.  Welcomes the G20 commitment to increase the quality and quantity of capital, introduce liquidity management standards, address pro-cyclicality and upgrade the overall prudential standards in response to the financial crisis;

2.  Welcomes the efforts made by the Basel Committee and the Commission; stresses however that new capital requirement rules should be drafted and implemented with care and their impacts should also be analysed in the wider regulatory overhaul framework;

3.  Has concerns about structural deficits and imbalances in the current proposal, as well as the risk of harming economic recovery and economic growth; takes the view that, considering the current economic situation, it will be necessary to monitor that banks are not passing on the cost of the forthcoming proposal to end-users of financial services;

4.  Stresses the need to strengthen the interaction between the supervisory review process (Pillar2) and disclosure (Pillar 3) by making the results of stress tests and capital add-ons available to the public;

5.  Recalls the important specificities of the European banking sector, such as the variety of business models operating under different legal forms and the fact that the European corporate sector is predominantly financed through bank lending, and calls therefore for a comprehensive examination of the micro- and macro-economic consequences of the proposed new rules;

6.  Urges the Basel Committee as well as the Commission to take proper account of such specificities and of the different types of risk affecting the banking sector; stresses the need to clearly differentiate between investment and traditional retail banking services, as well as transaction services, in the revised Basel II rules;

7.  Calls on the Commission to be more pro-active in the process of reforming the Basel II rules, to actively promote and safeguard European interests, to coordinate the approaches of the Member States in order to achieve the best outcome for the European economy and to provide Parliament with regular reports on the status of ongoing negotiations and actively involve it in the negotiating processes;

8.  Acknowledges the importance of international cooperation and coordination with the aim of achieving an international level playing field and avoiding regulatory arbitrage; points out, however, that that aim should not place the European economy and European banking sector at a competitive disadvantage, and believes that the diversity of the banking sector should be preserved;

9.  Underlines that a recovery of the European economy requires dynamic financial markets able to finance investment and innovation; warns against rules and requirement that would create a new credit crunch, destabilising economic development and European labour markets;

10.  Stresses that the full commitment of all parties engaged in the Basel and G20 processes to a clear and coherent implementation calendar is a precondition for successful reform, ensuring an international level playing field and avoiding regulatory arbitrage; urges the Commission and the Basel Committee to ensure that the standards agreed are implemented in a synchronised manner;

11.  Recalls that the Basel II Agreement, and its upcoming revision, is meant to be a global standard; is therefore very much concerned that limitations laid down in various national laws adopted in response to the crisis (in particular in the US Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act, limiting recognition of external ratings) would result in a serious fragmentation of the application of this global standard; urges, therefore, the Basel Committee as well as the Commission to thoroughly assess and draw consequences of such legislation for the implementation of Basel II and the negotiations on the revision of Basel II, and urges the Commission to report to Parliament on the results;

12.  Urges the Commission to clarify the role of external ratings for liquidity buffer and to make sure that any alternative criteria which may be considered do not restrict the range of buffer-eligible assets; urges, furthermore, that any alternative criteria that may be agreed should replace external ratings rather than being used in addition to them, so as to ensure an international level playing field;

13.  Urges the Commission to intensify its transatlantic financial regulatory dialogue with the US;

14.  Underlines that the implementation timetable must reflect the overall impact of the revised standards on the industry, on its capacity for lending to the real economy and on the recovery process in Europe; notes the calendar revision announced by the Basel Committee in order better to ensure a smooth transition to the new standards;

15.  Recalls the need to involve Parliament, as the democratically elected European body, in the negotiations, and urges the Commission and the Basel Committee to take the necessary steps to involve it on a permanent base;

16.  Recalls its concern about the limitations of assumptions concerning correlations made by banks that underlie aspects of the methodology for calculating regulatory capital; stresses, in this context, the importance of proper supervisory oversight and monitoring of internalised assessment by banks, using the IRB approach; notes, furthermore, that care must be taken not to introduce perverse incentives;

17.  Calls on the Commission to continue to further integrate EU supervision of the banking sector by establishing the new European Financial Supervisory System and European Systemic Risk Board;

18.  Calls on the Commission, for a proper assessment to be made, prior to their implementation, of the revised Basel II rules' likely impact on the real economy, with a special focus on SME financing and on banking sector resilience in stress situations;

19.  Deems it necessary to expand the crisis management minimum intervention toolbox available to supervisor beyond the provisions of Article 136 of Directive 2006/48/EC to include at least the power to: require that adjustments be made to capital, liquidity, the business mix and internal processes; recommend or impose changes of management; limit the terms of banking licenses; impose living wills; impose a total or partial sale; create a bridge bank or a good bank/bad bank split; require swaps of debt for equity with appropriate haircuts; impose profit and dividend retention requirements and restrictions in order to consolidate capital requirements and ensure that shareholders pay before taxpayers; restructure and transfer assets and liabilities to other institutions with the objective of ensuring the continuity of systemically important operations; lay down criteria for valuing impaired assets; take temporary public control; wind up failed banks;

20.  Calls on the Commission to create incentives for the banking sector to manage risk and profit with a view to long-term outcomes and to encourage banks to keep an active and ongoing interest in loans on their own books, without undue reliance on securitisation or off-balance sheet structures, and to fully consolidate off-balance sheet entities like SPVs;

21.  Notes that long term investments, such as energy distribution infrastructure, rely on securitisation;

22.  Proposes that the Basel Committee, the International Organisation of Securities Commissions (IOSCO), the International Accounting Standards Board (IASB), etc. should be incorporated into a global structure – possibly the IMF – in order to establish proper organisation of the world of finance and to ensure that all stakeholders are involved in drawing up the rules and that there is sufficient capacity for checking that they are implemented;

23.  Is of the view that the issue of ‘too-big-to-fail’ financial institutions must be addressed, and therefore that capital requirements and counter-cyclical buffers should be proportionate to the size, level of risk and business model of a financial institution;

Quality of capital

24.  Supports the initiative to increase the quality and level of capital in response to the crisis, and notes the Basel Committee's decision of 12 September 2010 to raise minimum capital requirements, introduce a conservation buffer and substantially increase the proportion of common equity; recalls that this issue is intimately linked to accounting rules, thus implying a consistent approach, having in mind as well global convergence;

25.  Notes the decision of the Basel Committee from (end) July 2010 to allow some prudent recognition of minority interests, deferred tax assets and investments in other financial institutions; is of the view that further adjustments might be appropriate;

26.  Underlines that, in order to guarantee a level playing field and not to disadvantage any business models of non-joint stock companies, in particular cooperatives, mutuals and savings banks, capital must, irrespective of the legal form taken, be defined in a balanced manner on the basis of the quality of capital instruments (i.e. permanence, loss absorbance, flexibility of payment);

27.  Urges the Basel Committee and the Commission, when defining eligible capital instruments, to take proper account of the needs and particularities of non-joint stock companies (i.e. cooperatives, mutuals and savings banks), which account for a large portion of the European banking industry;

28.  Urges the Commission to review the proposed eligibility criteria for core tier 1 capital and to restrict the catalogue to those criteria which are necessary to ensure the quality of capital (i.e. permanence, loss absorbance, flexibility of payment);

29.  Urges the Basel Committee and the Commission to ensure that, in consolidated capital calculations, both risk and capital are taken into account in a balanced and prudent manner, that, in particular, capital received from minorities that has been directly contributed to credit institutions within the same banking group should be appropriately recognised (i.e. minority interest), and that holdings of regional cooperative and savings banks in their central institutions are not hampered (i.e. no deduction from own funds);

30.  Emphasises the important role contingent capital played during the crisis; calls on the Commission and the Basel Committee to recognise the role of flexible contingent capital in crisis situations and to monitor market acceptance of convertible instruments;

31.  Calls on the Commission to take proper account of existing differences between tax and accounting balance sheets, in order to avoid any possible competitive disadvantages;

32.  Asks the Basel Committee and the Commission to clarify the treatment of reciprocal financial cross-holding agreements;

33.  Asks the Commission to consider a balanced treatment between unrealised gains and losses, in order to contain volatility and pro-cyclicality;

34.  Calls on the Commission to conduct a comprehensive survey of capital instruments before and after the crisis, in order to assess the importance of specific capital instruments and their relevance in a crisis situation;

Liquidity standards

35.  Considers developing high-quality liquidity standards to be a key part of the crisis response; is of the view that liquidity standards should be sufficiently differentiated to take account of the particularities of a bank's business model and risk profile; takes the view that there should be recognition of the fact that the risk of a given asset may vary over time and mechanisms through which this is addressed;

36.  Notes that maturity transformation inherently exposes banks to long/short liquidity risk;

37.  Is of the view that, in order not to disadvantage banks recognised as financial conglomerates which have a holding in insurance companies, the double counting of own funds between banks and insurance companies must be addressed under the current regime of the Financial Conglomerates Directive;

38.  Urges the Basel Committee and the Commission to reconsider the calibration of the liquidity and funding ratios;

39.  Is of the view that a ‘liquidity coverage ratio’ should take greater account of the risk of concentration of eligible assets in any liquidity buffer, and should encourage diversification and discourage excessive concentration into one particular asset class, including government debt; considers that liquidity buffers should be made up, as far as possible, of assets that remain highly liquid in periods of high stress and that such a ratio, when properly designed, will improve institutions' resilience to liquidity risk;

40.  Calls on the Commission to make sure that, in its forthcoming proposal on the CRD 4 revision, off-balance sheet liabilities are covered by liquidity standards;

41.  Calls, in the event of any structural liquidity standard being set (i.e. net stable funding ratio), for proper recognition of stable sources of funding specific to Europe (i.e. Pfandbriefe); is of the view that the national authorities of the host Member States should have access to information on the liquidity situation of the branch in any case;

42.  Asks the Commission to define the criteria for high-quality liquid assets taking into account the definition of European Central Bank eligible assets for monetary policy operations (repo facility);

43.  Urges the Commission to include all eurozone sovereign debt as high-quality liquid assets, regardless of its specific rating, thus reducing the disproportional impact of rating agency actions;

44.  Draws attention, however, to the likelihood that high-quality liquid assets will quickly become illiquid in times of high stress, and therefore calls for credit institutions to conduct stress tests going beyond the liquidity coverage ratio and net stable funding ratio;

45.  Calls on the Commission and the Basel Committee to take proper account of legal entities within a group or network of banks in connection with liquidity requirements; calls for transactions and commitments within such groups or networks to be treated in a risk-sensitive manner and, where appropriate, differently from transactions and commitments between third parties;

Counter-cyclical measures

46.  Welcomes the effort to limit excessive credit growth and the risk of credit bubbles;

47.  Is concerned about the possible pro-cyclical nature of a fixed bank-specific capital conservation buffer as currently proposed; is of the view that both capital conservation buffers and counter-cyclical buffers should be able to absorb losses during a period of stress; is of the view that, in order to make the buffers effective, they should be designed and developed in parallel;

48.  Welcomes the attempt to identify a set of harmonised macro-economic variables in order to build efficient counter-cyclical buffers;

49.  Recognises the benefits of forward-looking provisioning (expected-loss approach) as a possible additional measure to reduce pro-cyclicality and encourage recognition of expected credit losses with regard to the business cycle;

50.  Deems that the forthcoming European Banking Authority should play a leading role in the drawing up and implementation of measures relating to capital requirements and counter-cyclical capital buffer standards at EU level;

51.  Calls for international convergence between reporting for accounting and reporting for regulatory purposes, in particular as regards an expected-loss approach in disclosed profit, so as to take account of the lessons learned from the crisis and ensure that the same set of clear and transparent rules is used when generating information for supervisors and investors; cautions about the need to minimise dual reporting; considers that such efforts should build upon and further investigate innovations such as a regulatory page or prudential filters in accounts;

52.  Points out that counter-cyclical regulation requires harmonised criteria in order to ensure comprehensive and careful monitoring of the financial markets and the market environment by supervisory authorities, including, amongst other things, full exchange of information, synchronisation of regulatory actions and real-time monitoring of exposure and risk, including through a requirement for audit trails on all financial-market transactions;

Leverage ratio (LR)

53.  Notes , given the complexity of the financial system, the concept of a LR as a useful, simple and hard-to-manipulate backstop against the building of excessive leverage and excessive risk taking; cautions that a single, flat-rate leverage ratio needs, in order to be effective, to be weighted in such a way as to capture the differences in credit institutions' business models and risk profiles;

54.  Is of the view that such a ratio, in order to be effective, must include all off-balance sheet items and derivatives, must be clearly defined, simple and comparable internationally and should take into account regulatory netting and the different accounting standards existing internationally;

55.  Is concerned, however, that, taken alone, a crude LR would fail to take sufficient account of risk and would penalise entities providing traditional low-risk banking services (such as retail, corporate and real-estate financing and transaction banking services) or economies where the corporate sector is financed predominantly through lending; underlines, therefore, the importance of supervisory authorities monitoring leverage changes as well as overall leverage levels, since significant changes may be indicative of incremental risk; is also concerned that, taken alone, a ‘crude’ (undifferentiated) LR might create adverse incentives to shift financial assets into more risky exposures;

56.  Asks the Basel Committee and the Commission to assess properly the leverage ratio options applicable to Tier 1 and Tier 2, taking due account of the specificities of the EU banking industry;

57.  Asks the Basel Committee and the Commission also to explore the possibility of setting backstop limits for business lines, RWAs and portfolios; believes that the measurement of assets as either net or gross amounts should be considered in this context;

58.  Asks the Basel Committee and the Commission furthermore to explore proportionality within a crude LR through the use of threshold triggers for regulatory intervention;

59.  Notes the Basel Committee's decision to have a monitoring period in Pillar 2 with a view to migrating to a Pillar 1 treatment; urges the Commission to include a review clause in the CRD 4 legislative proposal;

60.  Notes that the leverage ratio is a necessary tool to measure banks' total exposure, but urges the Commission to devise regulatory tools aimed at limiting effectively excessive leverage (in particular, excessive reliance on short-term and wholesale funding);

61.  Calls for further consideration to be given to alternative forms of leverage ratio in Pillar 2; points out that a leverage ratio could, for example, have a flexible margin and supervisory authorities would have the discretion to act upon the breach of the limit;

62.  Urges the Commission to ensure that a leverage ratio does not lead to inappropriate securitisation of the kind highlighted by the financial crisis, or to substitutes and less credit, especially for lending in the real economy (these being likely ways for banks to reduce their leverage ratio);

Counterparty credit risk (CCR)

63.  Calls for enhanced standards as regards stress tests, back tests and addressing wrong-way risk, as well as assessments of long-term social and environmental risks arising from companies and projects receiving bank loans;

64.  Urges the Basel Committee and the Commission to explore alternatives that will better address the credit value adjustment risk arising from the deterioration of the credit quality of banks' counterparties;

65.  Consider that credit default swaps (CDSs) should not be used to bypass capital requirements;

66.  Calls for counterparty credit risk treatment to be risk-proportionate and for capital charges to be higher for non-centrally cleared transactions than for transactions through a central counterparty (CCP), provided that such CCPs meet high-level requirements to be defined in European legislation while taking into account standards agreed at international level, with due regard for the potential costs for the corporate sector of using derivatives to hedge its commercial activities; calls for the highest standards to be incentivised in the case of bilateral clearing;

67.  Underlines the fact that the crisis has shown that interconnectedness between financial institutions is greater than interconnectedness between financial institutions and corporates, and takes the view that capital requirements for CCR should be stricter for exposures of financial institutions to other financial institutions and should also reflect the dynamic nature of this risk over time; stresses that careful monitoring of interconnectedness is necessary in order to detect any concentration of transactions between large players and to take subsequent regulatory measures regarding CCR;

o
o   o

68.  Instructs its President to forward this resolution to the Council, the Commission, the governments and parliaments of the Member States, the Euro Group and the European Central Bank.

(1) Directive 2006/48/EC (OJ L 177, 30.6.2006, p. 1) and Directive 2006/49/EC (OJ L 177, 30.6.2006, p. 201). (2) OJ L 302, 17.11.2009, p. 97. (3) Basel II: International Convergence of Capital Measurement and Capital Standards: A Revised Framework - Comprehensive Version of June 2006, http://www.bis.org/publ/bcbs128.htm. (4) Basel Committee's consultative proposals to strengthen the resilience of the banking sector, 17 December 2009, http://www.bis.org/press/p091217.htm. (5) Basel Committee's consultative proposals on an international framework for liquidity risk measurement, standards and monitoring from 16.12.2009, http://www.biz.org/publ/bcbs165.htm, (6) Texts adopted, P7_TA(2010)0206. (7) OJ L 320, 29.11.2008, p. 1.

European Parliament resolution of 7 October 2010 on health care systems in sub-Saharan Africa and global health (2010/2070(INI))

P7_TA(2010)0355 A7-0245/2010

The European Parliament,

–  having regard to Article 25 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which recognises health as a fundamental right,

–  having regard to the right of every individual to enjoy the best possible state of physical or mental health he or she is capable of attaining,

–  having regard to the 1987 Bamako initiative and its objective of ‘Health for All by 2000’,

–  having regard to the Alma-Ata Declaration of 1978 defining the notion of primary health care,

–  having regard to the Ottawa Charter for Health Promotion of 1986,

–  having regard to the proposal from the International Children's Emergency Fund, endorsed by the WHO in 1987, seeking to revive the policy of primary health care and combat child mortality,

–  having regard to the 1988 Abidjan Platform on ‘Strategies to support mutual health organisations in Africa’,

–  having regard to the United Nations Millennium Development Goals (MDG) of 2000, concerning in particular human development (health and education), water and energy, rural development, agriculture and food security, and, more specifically, goals 1, 4, 5, 6 and 8,

–  having regard to the Cotonou Agreement of 23 June 2000, revised on 25 June 2005,

–  having regard to the European Union's priorities as defined in December 2005 in the ‘European Consensus on Development’,

–  having regard to the Ouagadougou international conference of 2008 on primary health care and health systems in Africa and the undertaking given by the Heads of State present to increase the resources allocated to health to a minimum level of 15 % of national budgets,

–  having regard to the declarations by the West African Economic and Monetary Union (WAEMU) seeking to introduce universal sickness insurance for the region's populations and its regulation (No 7/2009) of 26 June 2009 on social mutual schemes in the WAEMU region,

–  having regard to the 10th European Development Fund for the period 2008-2013 and the Council decision of December 2005,

–  having regard to the Declaration of Paris of March 2007 following the ‘Consortium’ Conference (G8, ILO, WHO, WB, IMF, OECD) on health insurance cover,

–  having regard to the priorities of the EU-Africa Fiduciary Fund laid down in April 2007 and, in particular, those relating to the development of infrastructure networks in Africa,

–  having regard to the global initiative for an ‘International Health Partnership’ launched in London on 5 September 2007, seeking to improve coordination of external aid at bilateral and multilateral level,

–  having regard to the G8 Summit of June 2007 and the launch of the initiative ‘Providing for health’ for the development of sustainable, equitable and ‘pro-poor’ health financing systems with universal coverage,

–  having regard to the European Union's new financing instrument for development cooperation (DCI),

–  having regard to the special report of the Court of Auditors of the European Union (10/2008) on EC development assistance to health services in sub-Saharan Africa,

–  having regard to the African Union/European Union joint strategy on health, drawn up in Lisbon in December 2007,

–  having regard to the Presidency/Commission unofficial joint document adopted at the informal meeting of development ministers of September 2008 in Bordeaux on sickness insurance cover and the financing of health systems in the developing countries,

–  having regard to the 2008 Algiers Declaration on health research,

–  having regard to the 2008 Ethekwini Declaration on hygiene and sanitation,

–  having regard to the Libreville Declaration of August 2008 on health and the environment in Africa,

–  having regard to the 2008 Bali Declaration on waste management for human health,

–  having regard to the conclusions of the October 2008 Oslo conference on the Guiding Principles on Internal Displacement as a means of ensuring observance of the rights of internally displaced persons, i.e. persons displaced against their will as the result of conflict, persecution, natural disasters or development projects, irrespective of whether they have crossed a state border,

–  having regard to the objectives laid down by EuropAID for the period 2009-2013,

–  having regard to the study of customary law carried out by the International Committee of the Red Cross, identifying health as a customary right which must be respected under international humanitarian law,

–  having regard to the declaration of the ‘Association internationale de la mutualité’ (June 2009) on the role of mutual provision in universal health care systems,

–  having regard to the work undertaken by the STEP I and II programme (Strategies and tools against social exclusion and poverty) of the International Labour Office, seeking to combat social exclusion, reduce poverty and promote decent work through innovative strategies to extend social protection,

–  having regard to the Yaoundé Declaration of September 2009, approved by the members of the Concertation between actors in the development of mutual health organisations in Africa, expressing the view that mutual health organisations are an appropriate response for achieving the goal of universal coverage in low- and middle-income countries,

–  having regard to the adoption in April 2009 by the United Nations Chief Executives Board of the global initiative for a ‘social protection floor’, based on a coherent and structured set of essential social transfers and basic social services, including health, to which all citizens should have access,

–  having regard to the work of the ACP-EU Joint Parliamentary Assembly of 3 December 2009 and in particular its resolution on agricultural problems and climate change which can only have an adverse effect on public health, and to the Climate For Development in Africa initiative,

–  having regard to the Commission communication of 31 March 2010 on the EU role in global health (COM(2010)0128),

–  having regard to the conclusions of the 3011th meeting of the Council of Foreign Affairs Ministers of 10 May 2010 on the role of the European Union in global health,

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

–  having regard to the report of the Committee on Development (A7-0245/2010),

A.  whereas vertical health funds have succeeded in reducing the mortality rates from major diseases such as tuberculosis, malaria, and others, and whereas these efforts must be continued,

B.  whereas the international community, including the EU, must support states in the implementation of national health policy, whereby publicly funded health services accessible to everyone must be placed at the centre of these efforts,

C.  whereas basic health systems must tackle all health problems and whereas, therefore, both the horizontal and vertical approaches are necessary and complementary,

D.  whereas, under a properly structured horizontal approach, insurance systems can be developed (mutual health organisations, micro-health insurance, etc.) where beneficiaries become actors in their own health,

E.  whereas, in Africa as elsewhere, health is not a commodity and whereas non-profit making approaches to health insurance should be pursued based on the values of solidarity and democracy,

F.  whereas many initiatives seeking to establish sickness insurance schemes emerged in Africa during the 1990s and the social dynamic they reflect must be supported,

G.  whereas there are differences in the terminology used in countries where, respectively, English, French and African languages are spoken and the underlying concepts are not always the same, some countries referring to ‘mutual health organisations’ (‘mutuelles de santé’), others to ‘community-based health insurance’ (‘assurance maladie à base communautaire’) and others to ‘health micro-insurance’ to denote a wide range of mutually supportive risk-sharing schemes designed to cover health service costs in part or in full,

H.  whereas the term ‘mutual’ emphasises the social dynamic and joint initiative of a group of members, while the concept of ‘insurance’ implies (1) payment of contributions in advance, i.e. before risks materialise, (2) risk sharing and (3) a guarantee; and mutual organisations may be defined, in accordance with the 1998 Abidjan Platform, as independent, non-profit organisations based on solidarity and democratic participation, whose aim, mainly through their members' contributions, is to improve access to quality health care for members and their families in the form of providence and mutual aid,

I.  whereas people living in certain social and humanitarian circumstances do not always appreciate the concept of providence and do not therefore see the point of contributing to insurance against health risks that may not materialise – particularly so where a whole range of NGOs can offer parallel provision of health care and medicines free of charge,

J.  whereas members of the diaspora from sub-Saharan Africa have become aware, in various host countries where mutual health organisations are well developed, that such schemes are useful and beneficial; and whereas many members of the diaspora remain in close contact with their countries of origin,

K.  whereas there is no ‘one size fits all’ health care system applicable to Africa, as is the case in Europe, where differences exist between universal social security systems on the one hand, and compulsory social insurance systems on the other,

1.  Points out that health is a reflection of the socio-economic level, democracy and good governance of states;

2.  Points to the influence on the economy of the sub-Saharan countries of external factors such as international market rules, cooperation policies, the financial crisis, climate change, and the policies pursued by major pharmaceutical companies and major international financial institutions;

3.  Stresses that these external factors can radically reduce the margin for manoeuvre of states wishing to provide good governance and can have a profound effect on the health of their populations;

4.  Points out that the universal right to health is a transversal right which cuts across various legal areas, such as health and welfare law, labour law and civil law;

5.  Reminds the international community of its commitments to the Millennium Development Goals, and the EU of its undertaking to step up support for health services in sub-Saharan Africa;

6.  Points out that women have the right to exercise full control over matters relating to their reproductive health, as regards procreation, contraception, abortion or sexually transmitted diseases; condemns the fact that they are still subject to genital mutilation and extreme violence, while rape remains a weapon of war; pleads, therefore, for women's right to access health care in these matters, thanks to a horizontal approach, and asks for a diagonal approach to support, giving priority to this health area;

7.  Points out that every child has the right to have access to vaccination and immunisation programmes; points out, too, that 8.8 million children under the age of five (half of them in sub-Saharan Africa) are still dying every year of preventable or curable illnesses;

8.  Points out that pneumonia and diarrhoea are the main causes of infant mortality in sub-Saharan Africa;

9.  Is concerned that private organisations receiving EU funding and providing health care services for African populations may, under the influence of religious movements, restrict certain types of reproductive health care and preventive treatment;

10.  Emphasises that, in the area of reproductive health, private organisations receiving EU funding must provide health care services in accordance with fundamental rights and the principles of human dignity and personal freedom;

11.  Condemns the proliferation of sects which exploit the credulity of the most vulnerable populations to provide pseudo-health care, while the authorities do nothing to intervene;

12.  Is alarmed at the growing commoditisation of health care and the emergence of a two-speed medical system in countries experiencing political difficulties and shortcomings as regards good governance;

13.  Supports the often admirable work done by non-governmental organisations working in conflict-torn regions, but points out that emergency efforts of this kind cannot be a lasting solution and are no substitute for sustainable health and insurance systems;

14.  Emphasises the important role of non-governmental players, including faith-based organisations and their non-profit private hospitals, in improving public health and promoting health education;

15.  Calls on the Commission to promote the strengthening of national health systems, inter alia by taking an approach that acknowledges the crucial importance of the public interest and the need for public-private partnerships – including the non-profit sector – in the health field, based on criteria relating to effectiveness, fairness and efficiency, in order to achieve sustainable, lasting results;

16.  Notes that a large part of the population of sub-Saharan Africa, particularly in rural areas, is unable to afford heath care or drugs, even of the generic kind;

17.  Is deeply concerned about the circulation on the African market of medicines that are past their sell-by date, adulterated or counterfeit, and about the inadequate response of national authorities and the international community;

18.  Is concerned by the severe shortage of well-trained medical staff and the fact that many doctors do not remain in their own countries; suggests that doctors be offered multi-entry visa arrangements to enable them to pursue training in Europe while continuing to be based in Africa;

19.  Deplores the shortage of qualified health professionals – doctors, nurses and pharmacists – in many African countries, and the fact that many such professionals are recruited by European states, which are thus depriving the African countries of a precious development resource;

20.  Emphasises the steady increase in the incidence, in developing countries, of the devastating disease of cancer in children and calls on the Commission to encourage information campaigns promoting early diagnosis and effective treatment;

21.  Welcomes the fact that, despite the social, economic and political difficulties they face, many sub-Saharan countries are attempting to introduce policies that will improve or allow access to health care for their populations, albeit of a basic type; calls on the Commission to undertake a comprehensive evaluation of the results achieved in terms of improving health (maternal and infant mortality), using the general budget support mechanism; also calls for consideration to be given to other funding mechanisms;

22.  Points out the importance of education about health and hygiene as an aspect of health policies;

23.  Considers it necessary for states to organise functional health services which are socially efficient and affordable, while also dealing with health care demand issues and thus the role of mutual health organisations within the health system; notes that this calls for the prior introduction of a civil registration system;

24.  Stresses the key role of local authorities in improving prevention and making health care more accessible;

25.  Welcomes the success achieved by vertical funds in proving attractive to donors and the progress made in combating major pathologies such as AIDS, tuberculosis, malaria, poliomyelitis and other serious diseases; stresses, however, that this vertical approach can under no circumstances be a substitute for a sustainable horizontal approach to basic health care;

26.  Points out that a horizontal approach to basic health systems, with the participation of the public authorities, but also numerous other actors, is the only way of producing a long-term and sustainable improvement in the living and health conditions of populations;

27.  Stresses that it is unlikely in the short term that these states will be able to fund national health care systems from their tax revenues alone and that a mixed funding system must be found; and points out that co-financing is a useful lever for promoting partner countries' ownership of projects;

28.  Welcomes the diagonal approach adopted by some vertical funds, which have decided to devote part of their resources to consolidating the health care systems of the countries affected by the pathologies targeted; also notes the need to promote health-related cooperation based on twinnings and regular exchanges – including the use of telemedicine – between hospitals and government and non-government agencies working in the health sector in Northern and Southern countries, with a focus on training local health workers;

29.  Believes that strategic alliances need to be forged among the main parties involved at local, national and international levels and that institutional dialogue between government, service providers and mutual insurance organisations is vital in defining health policy and shaping the way it is introduced;

30.  Shares the WHO's view that the extension of healthcare must necessarily be associated with a system of social security based on prepayment and sharing, rather than direct payment by users, and that reforms aimed at establishing universal cover are a prerequisite for fairer health provision;

31.  Believes that the introduction of a health insurance scheme can help to place a health system on a sound financial footing and that every effort should be made to structure such schemes effectively at local level;

32.  Recognises that two major systems exist which can deliver health care for free at the point of need, namely universal social security systems through tax funding and compulsory social insurance systems;

33.  Considers that health insurance schemes must be based on solidarity and tailored to the cultural, social and political context in which they operate; accordingly, they should not be a mere transposition of an imported model or an unchanged colonial legacy;

34.  Considers that health insurance schemes must provide universal access to health care and must be non-profit making and participatory;

35.  Considers that a health insurance scheme can help to guide and influence the health policy of the state in which it operates, to the advantage of its beneficiaries;

36.  Considers that mutual health organisations are the best way of creating a social dynamic based on the values of solidarity and providing universal access to health care;

37.  Considers that mutual health organisations play an important role in improving social cohesion and in facilitating advocacy of quality health care access and genuine public participation in the planning and implementation of health policies, while combining well with formal social protection schemes;

38.  Notes that mutual health organisations have been able to tailor insurance provision to the socio-economic characteristics of populations in an informal economy which remain excluded from formal schemes and commercial insurance and that as a result they are an appropriate solution for achieving the goal of universal coverage in low- and middle-income countries;

39.  Notes that the main objective of mutual health organisations is not to take the place of the state but to offer an alternative, enabling the obstacles to health care access to be overcome and providing improved access to quality health care for all citizens regardless of their income, while encouraging to state to reinvest in this area;

40.  Encourages the efforts being made by certain states which, aware of local circumstances and needs, are supporting initiatives for specific sections of society (e.g. farmers, coffee growers and women's or neighbourhood groups), ethnic groups or communities, or traditional-type schemes such as tontine funds;

41.  Notes that various countries such as Burundi, Burkina Faso, Cape Verde, Senegal, Benin, Rwanda, Tanzania, Ghana, Nigeria, Guinea and Cameroon are introducing systems which sometimes differ widely, but which are bearing fruit;

42.  Expresses the need for systems to adjust to the values of solidarity and to African culture, the concept of family being widespread in Africa, something which raises the question of the number of beneficiaries to be covered by mutual aid schemes if they are organised on western lines;

43.  Emphasises that there could be a role for members of the diaspora from sub-Saharan Africa in helping to raise awareness in their countries of origin about the benefits of mutual health insurance and the adoption of such schemes;

44.  Stresses the need for interdependency between insurance schemes and the way in which horizontal health care is structured, as populations will not see the value of paying contributions unless access to health care and medicines is guaranteed;

45.  Firmly believes that populations need to be informed about insurance through appropriate awareness campaigns.

46.  Calls for the Commission's programmes to continue to place emphasis on specific projects targeting socio-economic health determinants in the form of drinking water, road infrastructure, food security, decent living and working conditions, protection of the environment, and measures to combat climate change;

47.  Calls on the Member States and on European laboratories, in accordance with the provisions of the TRIPS Agreement, to negotiate a ‘partnership approach’ respecting patent protection in developed markets and covering voluntary licensing agreements, support for health programmes, technology transfer arrangements and an increase in local production capacity with a view to reducing the price of medicines in low-income countries (through tiered or differential pricing);

48.  Asks the EU not to include in EPAs provisions on intellectual property rights that place further obstacles in the way of access to essential medicines; points out that, under the 2001 Doha Declaration on the TRIPS Agreement and Public Health, the EU is committed to putting public health before commercial interests, and asks it to use the framework of the EPAs to help the ACP countries implement the flexibility provisions of the Doha Declaration;

49.  Calls on the Commission to provide transparent financial health indicators for the different countries, including the cost of disease in terms of treatment and incapacity for work, child and maternal mortality rates, population size, income levels, etc.;

50.  Calls on the Commission to support the horizontal health model and to include in its health policy principles the role to be played by mutual health organisations as a health protection mechanism in combination with other methods in helping to extend health cover;

51.  Calls on the Commission to ensure access to health care systems for certain groups that have difficulty accessing health care, such as pastoralists;

52.  Calls on the Commission to adopt a firm stance at the meeting of the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria to be held in New York in October 2010 and to embark on specific projects for the period 2011-2013;

53.  Calls on the Commission to supplement its aid for vertical funds with recommendations designed to encourage ‘diagonal’ measures to support basic health care in the countries concerned; calls likewise on the Commission to make recommendations to the vertical funds with a view to their drawing up medium-term exit strategies for partner countries in line with the progress made in achieving the objectives for which they were set up;

54.  Calls on the Commission to ensure greater coherence in external relations policies by developing a communication on social protection in development cooperation, as suggested by the Council in its Conclusions on Promoting Employment through EU Development Cooperation (21 June 2007); takes the view that this communication should be tied to a concrete, time-bound action plan with dedicated resources;

55.  Asks the Commission to support the introduction of health cards in the EU's partner countries and to work with the countries concerned – at regional level if necessary – to ensure that resources are available to meet the needs in this field;

56.  Calls on the Commission to include actions undertaken in the context of humanitarian aid for health care in its efforts to strengthen the horizontal health care system, and to give consideration to the LRRD approach (linking relief, rehabilitation and development);

57.  Calls on the European Union to make the most of the potential offered by mutual health organisations for organising health demand and to support the many existing mutualist initiatives designed to promote access to health care;

58.  Calls on EU Member States, according to their varying areas of expertise, to provide more technical and financial support to developing country governments for the implementation and extension of social protection systems;

59.  Urges the Commission, Member States and international financial institutions such as the EIB to support the development and financing of mutual health insurance systems, e.g. by providing credit guarantees, (co-)funding investments in clinics and funding all or part of health workers' salaries;

60.  Calls on EU insurance companies, banks and the mutualist movement in the EU to take initiatives to transfer their vast knowledge and know-how, acquired in more than two centuries of insurance history, to new insurance systems in developing countries; calls on the Commission to actively support and facilitate such initiatives;

61.  Calls on the EU actively to support the development of permanent basic health infrastructure – hospitals, dispensaries and pharmacies – as well as the training of qualified health workers and access to medicines;

62.  Calls on the Commission to ensure that European policies on reproductive health are properly promoted among all associations receiving EU funds;

63.  Calls on the Council to put pressure on the Member States to honour their financial commitments in the area of cooperation assistance; deplores, in particular, the failure of certain governments to allocate 0,56 % of their GDP to international cooperation;

64.  Calls on all the Member States and the Commission to allocate at least 20 % of all development spending to basic health and education, to increase their contributions to the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria and their funding for other programmes designed to strengthen health systems, and to prioritise maternal health and efforts to combat infant mortality;

65.  Calls on the Commission to comply with the remarks and recommendations addressed to it by the Court of Auditors (Report 10/2008) with regard to the development aid it provides for health services in sub-Saharan Africa as part of its commitments aimed at achieving the Millennium Goals, which must under all circumstances be attained by 2015;

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

European Parliament resolution of 7 October 2010 on EU cohesion and regional policy after 2013

P7_TA(2010)0356 B7-0539/2010

The European Parliament,

–  having regard to the Communication from the Commission ‘EUROPE 2020 - A strategy for smart, sustainable and inclusive growth’ (COM(2010) 2020),

–  having regard to the Conclusions of the European Council of 25-26 March 2010,

–  having regard to the conclusions of the European Council of 17 June 2010 (EUCO 13/10) and in particular its adoption of the Europe 2020 strategy,

–  having regard to the position paper endorsed by the Committee on Regional Development at its meeting of 13 July 2010,

–  having regard to the Council conclusions on the Strategic Report of 2010 by the Commission on the Implementation of the Cohesion Policy Programmes adopted at the 3023rd Foreign Affairs Council meeting in Luxembourg on 14 June 2010,

–  having regard to the question of 14 July 2010 to the Commission on EU cohesion and regional policy after 2013 (O-0110/2010 – B7-0466/2010),

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

1.  Insists that cohesion policy which aims at reducing disparities between the levels of development of European regions and mobilising growth potential to achieve economic, social and territorial cohesion has proved to be essential to the process of European integration, that it is a policy with European added value, facilitating the pursuit of modernisation and sustainable growth as well as demonstrating European solidarity, and that in conformity with the spirit of the Treaties, these characteristics require an EU-wide regional policy implemented throughout the entire territory of the Union and embracing all the European regions;

2.  Notes that the current accumulation of long- and short-term challenges(1) that the European Union faces entails the adoption of an adapted EU 2020 strategy capable of creating a framework favourable to stable and sustainable economic growth and job creation in Europe; stresses the fact that cohesion policy implementation is indispensable for the success of this strategy, while always remaining an independent policy providing a framework for establishing strong synergies between all European policies;

3.  Rejects any attempt to renationalise the policy; considers, furthermore, that, as the present financial framework has an important impact on regional development, it is necessary for the regional dimension to be fully considered in the proposed review of the EU budget and the future Financial Framework, and that a strong and well-financed EU regional policy is a condition sine qua non for achieving social, economic and territorial cohesion;

4.  Draws attention to the fact that in accordance with the provisions of the Treaty of Lisbon territorial cohesion implies a targeted approach to territorial development, ensuring polycentric development, by creating synergies and avoiding the sectoral dispersion of regional policy resources, to which end there must also be sufficient flexibility to accommodate regional specificities and support regions which are lagging behind in their efforts to overcome their socioeconomic difficulties; considers that the outermost regions, border regions, regions with specific geographical features and other regions facing specific development challenges must continue to benefit from specific provisions;

5.  Underlines the necessity to use past experience, examples of best practices and successful past Community initiatives in order to adopt a more focused approach to the urban dimension of cohesion policy; stresses further the fact that cities play a dynamic role in regional economic development, giving a positive economic stimulus to the surrounding rural areas, and considers, therefore, that in the next programming period financial resources should be allocated for investments in urban as well as suburban projects and takes the view that the application of an appropriate instrument should be considered in order to achieve these objectives;

6.  Stresses the fact that multi-level governance is one of the key principles of cohesion policy and is fundamental to ensuring the quality of the decision-making process, strategic planning and implementation of objectives; considers therefore that in future an integrated approach to policy implementation should be mandatory; further considers that the principle of subsidiarity in its strengthened and widened form as defined in the TFEU, as well as a better defined partnership principle, and transparency are essential elements for the correct implementation of all EU policies and should be reinforced accordingly;

7.  Is of the opinion that the basic design of current objectives should remain and territorial cooperation, which has a clear European added value, should be enhanced, while other measures, including earmarking and good practices, should be assessed and common problems and their solutions identified: considers that these measures could include the setting of common objectives and the rational use of shared resources and that spending should be concentrated on core priorities which constitute European added value;

8.  Calls for the architecture of post-2013 cohesion policy to offer a simple, fair and transparent transition regime taking into account past experiences and the latest trends in the social and economic situation of the regions concerned, as well as enabling them to continue on their paths towards growth and development;

9.  Considers that GDP must remain the main criterion for determining eligibility for regional policy assistance, while other measurable indicators might be added if they are proved to be relevant, leaving room for national authorities to apply, at the appropriate level of decision-making, other indicators which take into account the specific attributes of regions and cities;

10.  Insists that the European Social Fund should remain in the framework of the regulation on general provisions on the cohesion policy funds, but needs its own rules;

11.  Calls for rural development, in the framework of the 2nd pillar of the CAP, to be coordinated with cohesion development objectives and be managed at regional level to ensure that it is adapted to needs;

12.  Would prefer cohesion policy and its delivery system to be more result-oriented and aim at increased efficiency and effectiveness, establishing an optimal balance between quality of performance and financial control; points out that this requires significant improvements in monitoring and evaluation systems, increased efficiency in administrative capacity and error reduction levels as well as the identification of objective and measurable indicators that are comparable across the EU;

13.  Shares the view that simplification of policy implementation has to continue and be accompanied by the simplification of national and regional procedures; in this context, stresses the need to establish the correct balance between procedural simplicity and efficiency and good financial management, in the hope that cohesion policy will therefore become a user-friendly policy, with increased visibility;

14.  Encourages the use of financial engineering instruments, revolving funds and global grants, and calls for simplified access to risk capital and micro-finance; believes that Member States should make greater use of the available technical assistance resources to enhance the capacities of local and regional authorities and other stakeholders, in particular NGOs and SMEs;

15.  Is of the opinion that regional development policy is at the heart of the Union's economic, social and territorial development and therefore merits a formal ministerial structure to provide a political platform, and that the management and policy design role of the Commission should also be enhanced;

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

(1) See Regions 2020, An Assessment of Future Challenges for EU Regions, Commission Staff Working Document, November 2008.

European Parliament resolution of 7 October 2010 on the future of the European Social Fund

P7_TA(2010)0357 B7-0535/2010

The European Parliament,

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

–  having regard to the conclusions of the European Council of 25 and 26 March 2010,

–  having regard to the conclusions of the European Council of 17 June 2010 (EUCO13/10), and in particular its adoption of the Europe 2020 strategy,

–  having regard to the 2010 OECD report concerning the role of education during this time of crisis,

–  having regard to the Council conclusions on the Strategic Report of 2010 by the Commission on the Implementation of the Cohesion Policy Programmes adopted at the 3023rd Foreign Affairs Council meeting in Luxembourg, 14 June 2010,

–  having regard to Article 6(e) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFUE),

–  having regard to Article 156 TFEU,

–  having regard to Article 162 TFEU,

–  having regard to Rule 110(2) of its Rules of Procedure,

1.  Notes the key role played by the European Social Fund (ESF) in improving employment and job opportunities, promoting the adaptation of workers' skills to the demands of the labour market, and workers' integration into the labour market, and reinforcing social inclusion;

2.  Draws attention to the four Employment Guidelines adopted by the European Parliament and welcomes the fact that the objectives include promoting employment and combating poverty in the context of integration/reintegration into working life through training;

3.  Emphasises that substantive progress towards achieving the Europe 2020 targets and objectives, in particular in the field of employment and social affairs, is essential if the strategy is to be credible;

4.  Believes that the Europe 2020 targets and objectives can be achieved by use of this instrument with a view to supporting SMEs and adjusting education systems and vocational education and training (VET) to the needs of SMEs;

5.  Believes that a stronger focus on properly functioning labour markets and on social conditions is vital in order to boost growth and productivity and improve employment performance in Europe;

6.  Believes also that, in order to achieve the Europe 2020 targets, considerable emphasis needs to be put on updatin education systems and VET, on decent work, including the fight against precarious and undeclared work, on gender equality and the creation of conditions for reconciling work and private life, and on ensuring that people currently excluded from the labour market can gain access to it;

7.  Considers that the ESF must be strengthened as the main engine underpinning the Europe 2020 strategy; stresses the importance of Member States' using the ESF to invest in skills, employment, training and retraining activities with a view to creating more and better jobs;

8.  Considers that the efficacy of the ESF depends on its ability to adapt to the various problems emerging from local and territorial specificities; therefore encourages a bottom-up approach in the identification of its aims;

9.  Considers that sustainable economic growth and job creation policies in Europe are preconditions for achieving social and territorial cohesion;

10.  Draws attention to the fact that, while territorial cohesion is important, there is an even greater need to maintain efforts to achieve social cohesion in accordance with the letter and spirit of the Treaties, in particular Article 9 TFEU;

11.  Stresses that EU regional policy and EU social policy are interrelated and that both are vital to the success of the Europe 2020 strategy, and calls on the Commission to provide a clear framework for establishing strong synergies between all European policies and the structural funds;

12.  Stresses that economic, social and territorial cohesion should be strengthened by improving employability and job opportunities, encouraging a high level of employment and ensuring more and better jobs;

13.  Emphasises, therefore, the importance of undertaking all possible efforts to ensure that EU policies and instruments work together in a coordinated and mutually supportive manner so as to help people in Europe find quality jobs, progress in their careers, get out of poverty by means of working life inclusion through training, avoid all forms of social exclusion and, in general, gain from the benefits of future growth;

14.  Recognises that the structural funds largely remain the main funding instrument for the pursuit of social objectives, and asks the Commission to promote synergies with other programmes and to support coherence across the multiannual framework programmes, such as Daphne, Progress, the Public Health Programme, and the ‘Europe for citizens’ programme;

15.  Calls on the Commission to strengthen the structural funds' potential through simplification especially of controls, flexibility and improvement of procedures and follow-up, emphasising the social integration dimension, with the aims of helping Member States to optimise the output of social and employment policies and creating sustainable growth; stresses that the ESF needs to be made more transparent as regards the allocation of funds, in order to give real visibility to European Union efforts in favour of employment;

16.  Underlines the importance of the ESF as a key tool in combating unemployment and in improving education and life-long vocational training for employees – especially in the current employment crisis – as well as combating poverty and exclusion;

17.  Is of the opinion that the role of the ESF in improving workers' employability and adaptability must be strengthened; calls on the Commission to consider all possible policy options for boosting the contribution of the ESF in the context of the future architecture of the structural funds, in order to enhance the social model of the European Union; believes that there are considerable advantages in maintaining the ESF under the basic regulation on general provisions on the funds, but with its own rules;

18.  Considers that, as a result of the free movement of persons in the internal market, new problems are emerging in some parts of the EU, particularly in larger cities, in connection with the provision of emergency social protection for people unable to support themselves, and that this is putting pressure on private (charitable) and public services which provide emergency assistance, for example for the homeless or for marginalised groups in society;

19.  Emphasises that the partnership principle contributes to transparency and simplification and that partners therefore need to be empowered to fulfil their role properly; stresses the need to further strengthen the partnership approach by providing ESF support for capacity-building and training of partners;

20.  Considers that the ESF has a key role in promoting the social dimension of economic growth and the active participation of citizens in society and the labour market, thus furthering equal opportunities for all as a vector for social and intergenerational solidarity and the creation of a more inclusive society, with the aim of reducing poverty;

21.  Considers that the outcomes of the 2010 European Year for Combating Poverty and Social Exclusion could help the Commission to target ESF support more effectively in combating poverty and social exclusion in the EU by supporting better education for future jobs;

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