European Parliament legislative resolution of 19 January 2012 on the proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Regulation (EC) No 810/2009 of 13 July 2009 establishing a Community Code on Visas (Visa Code) (COM(2011)0516 – C7-0226/2011 – 2011/0223(COD))

P7_TA(2012)0003 A7-0441/2011

(Ordinary legislative procedure: first reading)

The European Parliament,

–  having regard to the Commission proposal to Parliament and the Council (COM(2011)0516),

–  having regard to Article 294(2) and point (a) of Article 77(2) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, pursuant to which the Commission submitted the proposal to Parliament (C7-0226/2011),

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

–  having regard to the undertaking given by the Council representative by letter of 12 December 2011 to approve Parliament's position, in accordance with Article 294(4) 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 (A7-0441/2011),

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 19 January 2012 with a view to the adoption of Regulation (EU) No .../2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Regulation (EC) No 810/2009 establishing a Community Code on Visas (Visa Code)

(As an agreement was reached between Parliament and Council, Parliament's position corresponds to the final legislative act, Regulation (EU) No 154/2012.)

European Parliament legislative resolution of 19 January 2012 on the draft Council decision on the conclusion of the Agreement between the European Union and Georgia on protection of geographical indications of agricultural products and foodstuffs (09737/2011 – C7-0202/2011– 2011/0090(NLE))

P7_TA(2012)0004 A7-0450/2011

(Consent)

The European Parliament,

–  having regard to the draft Council decision (09737/2011),

–  having regard to the Agreement between the European Union and Georgia on protection of geographical indications of agricultural products and foodstuffs (09738/2011),

–  having regard to the request for consent submitted by the Council in accordance with Article 207(4), first subparagraph and Article 218(6), second subparagraph, point (a)(v) and Article 218(7), of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (C7-0202/2011),

–  having regard to Rules 81 and 90(7) of its Rules of Procedure,

–  having regard to the recommendation of the Committee on International Trade (A7-0450/2011),

1.  Consents to conclusion of the Agreement;

2.  Instructs its President to forward its position to the Council, the Commission and the governments and parliaments of the Member States and of Georgia.

European Parliament legislative resolution of 19 January 2012 on the draft Council decision on the accession of the European Union to Regulation No 29 of the United Nations Economic Commission for Europe on uniform provisions concerning the approval of vehicles with regard to the protection of the occupants of the cab of a commercial vehicle (13894/2011 – C7-0303/2011 – 2011/0191(NLE))

P7_TA(2012)0005 A7-0005/2012

(Consent)

The European Parliament,

–  having regard to the draft Council decision (13894/2011),

–  having regard to the request for consent submitted by the Council in accordance with the second indent of Article 4(2) of Council Decision 97/836/EC of 27 November 1997 with a view to accession by the European Community to the Agreement of the United Nations Economic Commission for Europe concerning the adoption of uniform technical prescriptions for wheeled vehicles, equipment and parts which can be fitted to and/or be used on wheeled vehicles and the conditions for reciprocal recognition of approvals granted on the basis of these prescriptions (‘Revised 1958 Agreement.’)(1) (C7-0303/2011),

–  having regard to Rule 81 of its Rules of Procedure,

–  having regard to the recommendation of the Committee on International Trade (A7-0005/2012),

1.  Consents to the draft Council decision;

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

(1) OJ L 346, 17.12.1997, p. 78.

European Parliament legislative resolution of 19 January 2012 on the draft Council decision on the position of the European Union in relation to the draft Regulation of the United Nations Economic Commission for Europe on pedestrian safety and to the draft Regulation of the United Nations Economic Commission for Europe concerning Light Emitting Diode (LED) light sources (13895/2011 – C7-0302/2011 – 2011/0188(NLE))

P7_TA(2012)0006 A7-0004/2012

(Consent)

The European Parliament,

–  having regard to the draft Council decision (13895/2011),

–  having regard to the request for consent submitted by the Council in accordance with the second indent of Article 4(2) of Council Decision 97/836/EC of 27 November 1997 with a view to accession by the European Community to the Agreement of the United Nations Economic Commission for Europe concerning the adoption of uniform technical prescriptions for wheeled vehicles, equipment and parts which can be fitted to and/or be used on wheeled vehicles and the conditions for reciprocal recognition of approvals granted on the basis of these prescriptions (‘Revised 1958 Agreement.’)(1) (C7-0302/2011),

–  having regard to Rule 81 of its Rules of Procedure,

–  having regard to the recommendation of the Committee on International Trade (A7-0004/2012),

1.  Consents to the draft Council decision;

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

(1) OJ L 346, 17.12.1997, p. 78.

European Parliament legislative resolution of 19 January 2012 on the draft Council decision on the conclusion of an Agreement between the European Union and the Government of the Republic of Indonesia on certain aspects of air services (13238/2011 – C7-0242/2011 – 2010/0132(NLE))

P7_TA(2012)0007 A7-0448/2011

(Consent)

The European Parliament,

–  having regard to the draft Council decision (13238/2011),

–  having regard to the Agreement between the European Union and the Government of the Republic of Indonesia on certain aspects of air services (10843/3/2010),

–  having regard to the request for consent submitted by the Council in accordance with Article 100(2) and Article 218(6), second subparagraph, point (a), of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (C7-0242/2011),

–  having regard to Rules 81 and 90(7) of its Rules of Procedure,

–  having regard to the recommendation of the Committee on Transport and Tourism (A7-0448/2011),

1.  Consents to conclusion of the Agreement;

2.  Instructs its President to forward its position to the Council, the Commission and the governments and parliaments of the Member States and of the Republic of Indonesia.

European Parliament legislative resolution of 19 January 2012 on the draft Council decision on the conclusion of a Memorandum of Cooperation between the European Union and the International Civil Aviation Organization providing a framework for enhanced cooperation, and laying down procedural arrangements related thereto (09138/2011 – C7-0163/2011 – 2011/0050(NLE))

P7_TA(2012)0008 A7-0391/2011

(Consent)

The European Parliament,

–  having regard to the draft Council decision (09138/2011),

–  having regard to the Memorandum of Cooperation between the European Union and the International Civil Aviation Organization (07702/2011),

–  having regard to the request for consent submitted by the Council in accordance with Article 100(2), Article 218(6), second subparagraph, point (a), Article 218(7) and the first subparagraph of Article 218(8) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (C7-0163/2011),

–  having regard to Rules 81 and 90(7) of its Rules of Procedure,

–  having regard to the recommendation of the Committee on Transport and Tourism (A7-0391/2011),

1.  Consents to conclusion of the Memorandum of Cooperation;

2.  Instructs its President to forward its position to the Council, the Commission and the governments and parliaments of the Member States and to the International Civil Aviation Organization.

European Parliament legislative resolution of 19 January 2012 on the Council position at first reading with a view to the adoption of a directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on waste electrical and electronic equipment (WEEE) (Recast) (07906/2/2011 – C7-0250/2011 – 2008/0241(COD))

P7_TA(2012)0009 A7-0334/2011

(Ordinary legislative procedure: second reading)

The European Parliament,

–  having regard to the Council position at first reading (07906/2/2011 – C7-0250/2011),

–  having regard to the opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee of 11 June 2009(1),

–  having regard to the opinion of the Committee of the Regions of 4 December 2009(2),

–  having regard to its position at first reading(3) on the Commission proposal to Parliament and the Council (COM(2008)0810),

–  having regard to the undertaking given by the Council representative by letter of 21 December 2011 to approve Parliament's position at second reading, in accordance with Article 294(8)(a) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,

–  having regard to Article 294(7) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,

–  having regard to Rule 66 of its Rules of Procedure,

–  having regard to the recommendation for second reading of the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Food Safety (A7-0334/2011),

1.  Adopts its position at second reading hereinafter set out;

2.  Approves its statement annexed to this resolution;

3.  Takes note of the Commission statements annexed to this resolution;

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

Position of the European Parliament adopted at second reading on 19 January 2012 with a view to the adoption of Directive 2012/.../EU of the European Parliament and of the Council on waste electrical and electronic equipment (WEEE)

(As an agreement was reached between Parliament and Council, Parliament's position corresponds to the final legislative act, Directive 2012/19/EU.)

Annex to the legislative resolution

Statement of the European Parliament concerning the use of implementing acts

The European Parliament declares that the provisions of this Directive regarding delegated and implementing acts are the result of a delicate compromise, which in some cases departs from Parliament's position in first reading. In order to achieve a second reading agreement, the European Parliament has therefore accepted implementing acts instead of delegated acts in certain specific cases. It underlines, however, that those provisions shall not be taken or used as a precedent for regulating similar situations in future legislative acts.

Statement of the Commission on Product Design

(WEEE Article 4)

Eco-design measures can help to facilitate meeting the targets of the Directive on waste electrical and electronic equipment in line with the Roadmap on Resource Efficiency (COM(2011)0571). The Commission will, if and when introducing new or reviewing the implementing measures adopted pursuant to Directive 2009/125/EC on products also covered by the WEEE Directive, take into account the parameters for re-use and recycling as set out in Annex 1 part 1 of the Directive 2009/125/EC, and assess the feasibility of introducing requirements on re-usability, easy dismantling and recyclability of such products.

Statement of the Commission on specific derogations from the collection targets

(WEEE Article 7)

The new WEEE Directive in Article 7(4) creates the possibility for transitional arrangements in order to address difficulties faced by a Member State in meeting the collection targets of that Article, as a result of specific circumstances. The Commission underlines that high collection targets of WEEE are important for a resource-efficient Europe and that the transitional arrangements can only be applied in exceptional circumstances. The difficulties faced and the specific circumstances on which they are based must be objective, well documented, and verifiable.

(1) OJ C 306, 16.12.2009, p. 39. (2) OJ C 141, 29.5.2010, p. 55. (3) Texts adopted, 3.2.2011, P7_TA(2011)0037.

European Parliament legislative resolution of 19 January 2012 on the Council position at first reading with a view to the adoption of a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council concerning the making available on the market and use of biocidal products (05032/2/2011 – C7-0251/2011 – 2009/0076(COD))	P7_TA(2012)0010 A7-0336/2011
CORRIGENDA COR01

(Ordinary legislative procedure: second reading)

The European Parliament,

–  having regard to the Council position at first reading (05032/2/2011 – C7-0251/2011),

–  having regard to the opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee of 17 February 2010(1),

–  having regard to its position at first reading(2) on the Commission proposal to the European Parliament and to the Council (COM(2009)0267),

–  having regard to Article 294(7) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,

–  having regard to the undertaking given by the Council representative by letter of 23 November 2011 to approve Parliament's position at second reading, in accordance with Article 294(8)(a) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,

–  having regard to Rule 66 of its Rules of Procedure,

–  having regard to the recommendation for second reading of the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Food Safety (A7-0336/2011),

1.  Adopts its position at second reading hereinafter set out;

2.  Approves its statement annexed to this resolution;

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

Position of the European Parliament adopted at second reading on 19 January 2012 with a view to the adoption of Regulation (EU) No .../2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council concerning the making available on the market and use of biocidal products

(As an agreement was reached between Parliament and Council, Parliament's position corresponds to the final legislative act, Regulation (EU) No 528/2012.)

Annex to the legislative resolution

Statement of the European Parliament concerning placing on the market and use of biocidal products

The European Parliament declares that the provisions of this Regulation regarding delegated and implementing acts are the result of a delicate compromise, which in some cases departs from Parliament's position in first reading. In order to achieve a second reading agreement, the European Parliament has therefore accepted implementing acts instead of delegated acts in certain specific cases. It underlines, however, that those provisions shall not be taken or used as a precedent for regulating similar situations in future legislative acts.

(1) OJ C 347, 18.12.2010, p. 62. (2) Texts adopted of 22.9.2010, P7_TA(2010)0333.

European Parliament resolution of 19 January 2012 on the farm input supply chain: structure and implications (2011/2114(INI))

P7_TA(2012)0011 A7-0421/2011

The European Parliament,

–  having regard to its resolution of 23 June 2011 on the CAP towards 2020: meeting the food, natural resources and territorial challenges of the future(1),

–  having regard to its resolution of 7 September 2010 on fair revenues for farmers: A better functioning food supply chain in Europe(2),

–  having regard to its resolution of 18 January 2011 on recognition of agriculture as a strategic sector in the context of food security(3),

–  having regard to its resolution of 8 March 2011 on the EU protein deficit: what solution for a long-standing problem?(4),

–  having regard to the OECD preliminary report of May 2011 on ‘A Green Growth Strategy for Food and Agriculture’(5),

–  having regard to Eurostat data on price indices of the means of agricultural production (input costs) and price indices of agricultural products (output prices)(6),

–  having regard to Article 349 TFEU, which establishes a specific regime for the most remote regions,

–  having regard to the 3rd SCAR Foresight Exercise of the European Commission's Standing Committee on Agricultural Research (SCAR) on ‘Sustainable food consumption and production in a resource-constrained world’ (February 2011)(7),

–  having regard to the ‘Global Report - Agriculture at a crossroads’ by the International Assessment of Agricultural Knowledge, Science and Technology for Development (IAASTD),

–  having regard to the JRC report of 2008 on ‘Low input farming systems: an opportunity to develop sustainable agriculture’(8),

–  having regard to the JRC report of 2007 on ‘Consequences, opportunities and challenges of modern biotechnology in Europe’,

–  having regard to the JRC report of 2010 on ‘Compendium of reference methods for GMO analysis’,

–  having regard to the JRC report of 2010 on ‘Impacts of the EU biofuel target on agricultural markets and land use: a comparative modelling assessment’,

–  having regard to Directive 2009/128/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 October 2009 establishing a framework for Community action to achieve the sustainable use of pesticides(9),

–  having regard to the legislative proposals of the Commission on reform of the CAP presented on 12 October 2011 (COM(2011)0625, COM(2011)0627, COM(2011)0628, COM(2011)0629, COM(2011)0630, COM(2011)0631) and the proposal for a Single CMO Regulation,

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

–  having regard to the report of the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development (A7-0421/2011),

A.  whereas high volatility in agricultural commodity and farm input prices has increased insecurity in farm incomes and in long-term investments by farmers, especially for isolated regions, mountain regions, island regions and the most remote regions, for which the factors of distance and isolation entail high additional costs, impacting negatively on the incomes of those regions' farmers;

B.  whereas total input costs for EU farmers climbed on average by almost 40% between 2000 and 2010, while farm gate prices increased on average by less than 25%, according to Eurostat; whereas the increase in input costs within that decade reached 60% for energy and lubricants, almost 80% for synthetic fertilisers and soil improvers, over 30% for animal feed, around 36% for machinery and other equipment, almost 30% for seeds and planting stock and nearly 13% for plant protection products, highlighting the need to facilitate access to cheaper inputs for farmers, particularly from the world market;

C.  whereas higher food prices do not automatically translate into higher farm incomes, mainly due to the speed at which farm input costs increase and the growing divergence between producer and consumer prices;

D.  whereas higher production costs and difficulties in passing them down the food distribution chain are liable in the short term to jeopardise certain enterprises' survival while undermining the productive structure in certain Member States, thus worsening the trade balance in terms of imports and dependence on volatile external markets;

E.  whereas the consumer is currently also being disadvantaged in the sense that producers are unable to pass on the exponential rise in the cost of factors of production to the big retailers, who in their case pass that rise on to the consumer with their huge profit margins;

F.  whereas upward pressure on input prices is expected to rise further as a result of resource scarcity, growing demand for food in emerging economies and policies which make it harder for EU farmers to gain access to cheaper feed available on the global market;

G.  whereas food production can be regularly undermined by a range of factors including the impact of pests and diseases, availability of natural resources and natural disasters;

H.  whereas EU agriculture is currently highly dependent on input imports – mainly fossil fuels, but also animal feed and scarce soil-improving minerals such as phosphate – and is therefore vulnerable to price hikes; whereas this has raised major concerns about EU farmers' competitiveness, especially in the livestock sector;

I.  whereas the present price volatility has a European and world dimension, and it is therefore necessary to seek a specific solution at Community level for the agri-food chain, given its strategic role in the Union, while concerted action is already required at G-20 level;

J.  whereas the EU is ever more dependent on the factors of production that are required if agriculture is to be preserved in Europe; whereas it is therefore necessary to call for rapid action to reduce that dependence, by means of investments and decisions at a purely political level, so as to ensure greater self-sufficiency in food for the EU;

K.  whereas the EU is heavily dependent on fossil fuel imports: whereas increasing resource efficiency is central to the Europe 2020 Strategy and the Commission's Roadmap to a Resource Efficient Europe;

L.  whereas agricultural production in the EU is in the main oil-dependent and the food supply chain relies heavily on the availability and affordability of that fuel; whereas global oil production is expected to start to decline by on average 2-3% per year;

M.  whereas increases in crude oil prices are inextricably linked with increases in agricultural input costs, resulting in higher energy, feed and fertilizer prices, which impact on global food production;

N.  whereas the manufacture of farm fertilizers is totally dependent on the ready supply of phosphate rock; whereas its commodity price increased by 800% in 2007/2008 and its supply could peak by 2033-2035, after which it will become increasingly scarce;

O.  whereas, especially in the livestock sector, costs are also rising due to increasing phytosanitary, animal welfare, environmental protection, hygiene and food safety requirements, as a result of which the competitiveness of European producers will further decrease in comparison with those in third countries, who do not have to comply with these strict requirements;

P.  whereas the EU has set a high level of standards in food safety and human and environmental protection, which entails consequences for the time and cost of development of new practices and tools up- and downstream in the food chain;

Q.  whereas consumers, faced with a reduction in their purchasing power, are increasingly opting for products whose quality and safety standards are lower than those for products originating in the EU, and which are not traceable, especially in the case of meat;

R.  whereas on average 42% of total water supply in Europe is used by agriculture (Greece 88%, Spain 72%, Portugal 59%) and whereas costs of irrigation, channelling of water in wetland regions and drainage have increased in order to make irrigation technologies more efficient, and whereas some of the water used by agriculture returns to the natural water cycle;

S.  whereas the price of farmland and the cost of land rental directly impacts on the viability of farming and on the ability of young entrants to get established in farming;

T.  whereas the market concentration of farm input suppliers is very high, with six companies controlling nearly 75% of the agrochemicals market and three companies controlling over 45% of the seeds market; whereas this concentration contributes to maintaining high seed prices and has a substantial negative impact on crop diversity, and whereas the involvement of farmers in the development of price trends is limited; whereas there is high market concentration not only upstream but also in the food (retail) trade, which places farming under additional cost pressure;

U.  whereas the viability and competitiveness of small-scale production (minor crops) are disproportionately affected by legislative and structural changes in the input industries, and whereas more needs to be known about the impact of these changes;

V.  whereas increased fuel, fertilizer and feed prices represent the main increase in costs for farmers;

W.  whereas, in the light of extreme fluctuations in agricultural prices throughout the food chain and related financial speculation, market transparency upstream of the food chain is also essential to improve competition and resilience to price volatility;

X.  whereas long-term investments in more efficient input and resource management, including energy, soil and nutrients, water technology, seeds and agrochemicals, is needed to respond to the new economic and environmental challenges, including within the context of the Europe 2020 Strategy; whereas extension services and institutional improvements and innovations affecting the use of inputs, farmers' attitudes and skills are critically important for adopting more resource-efficient, sustainable and innovative farming systems;

Y.  whereas fermentation of slurry is desirable in terms of plant cultivation and the environment, while it is also necessary to create incentives for generating energy from biomass, a measure which will, besides, contribute to sustainable farming;

Z.  whereas there is considerable potential in farming for saving energy and costs through improved energy efficiency which could be further improved through local renewable energy production that fully exploits the potential of renewables (especially wind and solar energy, biomass, biogas, biofuels, use of waste products, etc.);

AA.  whereas crop diversification and crop rotation can contribute to climate change mitigation and provide for the sustainable use of synthetic fertilisers and pesticides;

AB.  whereas production of leguminous protein crops in the EU as well as improved grass-fed production systems would reduce the EU's protein deficit and its dependence on feed imports and could have major economic benefits for farmers, but will not be a one-size-fits-all solution to the existing multiple imbalances in the farm input supply chain and would also lead to a reduction in the production of other, more resource-efficient arable crops;

AC.  whereas farm-saved seeds can offer, in certain circumstances and for specific varieties, an alternative to commercial seeds;

AD.  whereas unsuitable storage and transport conditions cause significant quantities of agricultural commodities to be spoilt and hence disposed of, so that they are no longer available as food or feed (FAO, Global Food Losses and Food Waste, 2011);

General solutions

1.  Calls on the Commission and Member States to improve the transparency of farm input prices and guarantee that competition rules apply and be enforced throughout the upstream and downstream food market chain;

2.  Calls for greater scrutiny and better analysis, at EU and global level, of the economic fundamentals which explain rising food prices – predominantly interactions between supply and demand fluctuations, as well as increasing interactions between the price movements of energy, inputs and food commodities;

3.  Calls on the Commission to refine its analysis of the reasons behind extreme market fluctuations and seek greater clarity on the interactions between speculation and agricultural markets, as well as energy markets and food commodity prices; stresses that this should be part of the efforts to better regulate and increase transparency and the quality of information on financial markets at global and EU level, including in the upcoming review of the Markets in Financial Instruments Directive (MiFID) and the Market Abuse Directive (MAD);

4.  Calls on the Commission to encourage more efficient agronomic practices and improved, sustainable agricultural resource management, with the aim of producing stable and productive agriculture, reducing input costs and nutrient wastage and increasing innovation, resource efficiency and effectiveness and sustainability within farming systems; is convinced that this could be done within the framework of the announced European Innovation Partnership for agricultural productivity and sustainability; stresses the need for an integrated approach for farmers which brings balance in all areas of farming (production, environment, profitability, social dimension);

5.  Calls on the Commission to further support sustainable and productive agriculture, in order to meet environmental and food challenges, as well as ensuring that it remains profitable and competitive in the world market;

6.  Welcomes the European Food Prices Monitoring Tool set up by Eurostat and the setting-up of the High Level Forum for a better functioning of the food supply chain, which must include the input sector operating upstream and should deliver better transparency on input price development and contribute to improved farm gate prices; insists that regular reports on progress made and concrete proposals should be transmitted to and discussed with the European Parliament;

7.  Considers that primary producers cannot fully benefit from increased output prices as they are being ‘squeezed’ between, on the one side, low farm gate prices due to the strong positions of processors and retailers, and high input prices due to increased concentration of input companies on the other side;

8.  Calls on the Commission to better evaluate the impact of EU legislation on the sustainability and competitiveness of European agriculture; believes that, in particular, consideration should be given to the costs of complying with legislation and the impact that this has on the availability of inputs as well as on the prices of those inputs;

9.  Calls on national and European competition authorities to address the abuses of the dominant position of agribusiness traders, food retailers and input companies and to apply EU antitrust legislation, in particular in the fertilisers sector, where farmers face tremendous difficulties in forward-buying essential fertilisers; considers that European competition authorities (DG Competition, etc.) should therefore carry out a full sector inquiry to challenge all anti-competitive practices;

10.  Stresses that all action in this field requires a prior definition, which must be conceptually objective and rigorous, of abusive, unfair and anti-competitive practices, so as to enable the necessary specific forms of regulation and monitoring;

11.  Urgently calls on the Commission to undertake an in-depth study into the differences in approach between the 27 national competition authorities and policies and to encourage solutions which involve all partners in the food production chain and which prevent dominant positions of one or a mere few parts of the input or output chain, which often occur at the expense of the agricultural producer;

12.  Believes it is necessary to introduce a system for the effective control of such practices, either by administrative or by legal means, and to create a mechanism for the assessment and monitoring of Member States by the Commission, while also introducing penalties of a sufficiently deterrent and timely nature;

13.  Stresses also the need for an EU-wide system for exchanging information on good practices in nutrient, energy and natural resources and the management of other inputs in order to achieve greater effectiveness and efficiency of inputs;

14.  Calls for the new CAP to include specific support measures for better and more efficient resource management and for sustainable practices which reduce input use and costs and improve farmers' ability to adapt to price volatility, including measures to support short input and food chains;

15.  Welcomes the Commission's increased focus on Europe's bioeconomy; calls for a substantial part of the next research framework programme to be earmarked for R&D in the efficient use and management of farm-inputs management and improving agronomic efficiency; stresses that the results of research must be translated into the practical enhancement of agricultural production through training and capacity-building for farmers; stresses the need for better collaboration between the public and private sectors, as well as farmers' organisations, in this regard, thereby delivering practical applications on the ground which could improve and modernise the industry;

16.  Calls on the Commission and the Member States to look further at the role that producers' organisations and cooperatives could play in organising collective purchases of farm inputs, with a view to strengthening farmers' negotiating positions vis-à-vis the upstream industry;

17.  Calls on the Commission to better inform farmers and consumers about the need for more efficient management of energy, water and natural resources throughout the food chain, so as to significantly reduce waste of resources and food;

18.  Recognises that sustainable growth is one of the key priorities of the Europe 2020 Strategy and that the Union's dependence on fossil fuels exposes it to shocks in these markets; reiterates the need to replace this dependence on finite resources with sufficiently robust alternatives, mindful of the balance between maintaining food production and promoting energy creation;

Energy

19.  Calls on the Commission and the Member States to promote investments in energy saving and renewable (wind, solar, biomass, biogas, geothermic etc.) energy production on-farm or in local partnership projects (wind, solar, biogas, geothermic etc.) promoted by local stakeholders with a special focus on using waste and by-products;

20.  Emphasises the importance of manure processing, which not only provides renewable energy but also reduces environmental pressure and is a substitute for artificial fertiliser in the form of mineral concentrates; calls on the Commission, in order for manure to be considered as an energy source, to recognise processed manure as a substitute for artificial fertiliser in the Nitrates Directive;

21.  Urges the Commission and the Member States to make sure that public support measures for biomass and agro-fuels – including biogas – do not contribute to unsustainable competition for resources between food and energy production, which must be organised sustainably;

22.  Calls on the Commission and the Member States to help generate new revenue for farmers by facilitating the integration of energy and heat produced from renewable farm sources into private and public energy systems and grids;

23.  Considers that efficient measures for on-farm and local energy saving and management should be made available throughout the EU via rural development programmes and the optional ‘greening’ measures of the future of the CAP;

24.  Calls on the Commission to analyse energy costs in the various existing farm systems and the associated input providers, processing industry and distribution systems in relation to productivity and output, taking into account energy efficiency and use of sustainable energy sources to respond to the new challenges;

Soil improvers and plant protection products

25.  Calls for efficient measures and incentives such as crop diversification, including planting of legumes and crop rotation adapted to local conditions, in the CAP reform after 2013, given the positive effect they have on climate change mitigation, soil and water quality and the ability of farmers to reduce their input costs;

26.  Calls furthermore on the Commission and Council to include investments in precision farming in an optional EU-wide list of ‘greening’ measures to be rewarded within the CAP, as these innovative practices (such as GPS-based soil monitoring) have similar positive effects on climate change mitigation, soil and water quality and farmers' finances (with significantly reduced use of fertilisers, water, soil improvers, plant protection products and pesticides, which will reduce input costs for farmers);

27.  Stresses that EU agricultural production is dependent on the import of phosphate rock for the manufacture of fertilisers, with the majority of it mined in five countries worldwide; calls on the Commission to address this issue;

28.  Calls on the Commission and the Member States to encourage – subject to thorough investigation of their possible usage, adequate treatment of potentially harmful substances and strict controls – the recycling of nutrients (especially phosphate and nitrogen) from waste streams and, in particular, recycling waste as part of a cascade process after using it to produce thermal energy; stresses that liquid manure which meets the quality requirements imposed by law on fertilisers and is intended to be processed for that purpose is not a waste product, even if it has previously been fermented in an agricultural biogas plant;

29.  Calls on the Commission to better evaluate the impact of the loss of plant protection products on the competitiveness and sustainability of European agriculture, looking in particular at the suitability of products still available and the impact on prices with fewer competing products on the market;

30.  Calls on the Commission to consider ways of guaranteeing the future viability of minor crops and minor uses whilst ensuring complete compatibility and coherence with the common agricultural policy and involving all those associated with the food supply chain;

Animal feed

31.  Repeats its calls for the Commission to swiftly submit to Parliament and the Council a report on the possibilities and options for increasing domestic protein crop production in the EU; stresses that, while increasing domestic protein crop production will yield some benefits, it is unlikely to have a significant impact on the import of feed from outside the EU; believes therefore that other avenues will need to be explored in the short term to address the protein deficit in the EU, and points specifically to the fundamental role of soya imports; calls on the Commission to make sure that these measures do not endanger the EU's overall objective of security of food supply in terms of productivity and output levels;

32.  Stresses again the need to introduce in the new CAP suitable measures and instruments to support those farmers cultivating protein crops, thereby potentially reducing the EU's crop protein deficit and price volatility while also improving agricultural practices and soil fertility;

Seeds

33.  Calls on the Commission and the Member States, in the context of the forthcoming revision of Regulation (EC) No 2100/94 on Community plant variety rights, to maintain the possibility for farmers to use farm-produced and farm-processed seed as laid down in Article 14(1) and (2) of this Regulation, given the economic, cultural and environmental benefits and contribution to agro-biodiversity this practice can bring; calls in this context for a fair and balanced examination of both the plant breeding rights and the current restrictions on the use of farm-saved seed with the aim of improving and simplifying the legal framework and to ensure an adequate balance between the need for innovation and the preservation and enhancement of crop diversity as well as the improvement of the livelihoods of small- and medium-scale farmers;

34.  Notes the importance of research projects that study the breeding of plant varieties which retain their characteristics in the long term and encourages Member States and the Commission to support such projects in addition to promoting measures to encourage the cultivation of local fodder crops such as flax, triticale and spring vetch (Vicia Lathyroides), etc.;

35.  Calls on the Commission to consider setting up a European bank for seeds in order to store and preserve the genetic variety of plants, combat biodiversity loss, and link crop diversity to the cultural heritage of the Member States;

36.  Calls, in the light of the upcoming Rio+20 global conference, for a new EU initiative on the conservation, sustainable use and quality marketing of agro-biodiversity, in order to increase added value from farming;

Land prices and land rent

37.  Calls on the Commission to conduct a study into the impact that land lease and increased costs for land purchase and lease are having on farming sectors in the EU Member States;

38.  Stresses that Single Farm Payment entitlements, where based on historical values or when tradable without land, can be bought up at inflated values by investors and speculators for the purposes of an income stream as opposed to active farming; notes that the distortions created act as a substantial input cost and entrance barrier for new farmers; calls on the Commission, Parliament and the Member States and regions to ensure that CAP reform adequately addresses these problems, and that payment entitlements are available for all farmers for the purposes of active production;

39.  Calls on the Commission to draw up a report on the impact of land use for infrastructure development, housing and buffer zones on agricultural holdings' costs;

Water

40.  Calls on the Commission to work, as part of the CAP reform and the Water Framework Directive, towards better irrigation and water drainage and storage systems for agriculture that use water more efficiently and that include improving water storage capacities in soils, water harvesting in dry areas and water drainage in moist areas, as a way of reducing the use of fresh water and also as a precaution against changes in rainfall patterns due to climate change;

41.  Calls on the Commission to work towards solutions to drainage problems which take account of factors such as heavy rainfall, low-lying areas and stagnant water;

42.  Draws in this regard the Commission's attention to the positive effect that precision farming has on water use (through GPS-based monitoring of soil conditions and weather forecasts) and demands that investments in these and other innovative solutions which decrease the use of inputs such as water, fertilisers and plant protection products can be covered by ‘greening’ options of the future CAP;

43.  Calls on the Commission and the Member States to improve the management and reallocation of water rights and to enhance multifunctional agro-ecosystems and agro-forestry systems;

44.  Calls for greater support for training farmers in efficient water management , drainage and irrigation, including practical tools for water storage and measures to prevent nutrient losses or salinisation and paludification, as well as improved water pricing and water administration schemes at local and regional level, in order to help prevent the wastage of water and reduce input costs in the long term;the checking of water pipes should also be encouraged to ensure that water leakage does not have a significant impact on production costs and product quality;

o
o   o

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

(1) Texts adopted, P7_TA(2011)0297. (2) OJ C 308 E, 20.10.2011, p. 22. (3) Texts adopted, P7_TA(2011)0006. (4) Texts adopted, P7_TA(2011)0084. (5) http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/38/10/48224529.pdf. (6) http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/portal/page/portal/statistics/search_database. (7) http://ec.europa.eu/research/agriculture/conference/pdf/feg3-report-web-version.pdf. (8) http://agrienv.jrc.ec.europa.eu/publications/pdfs/LIFS_final.pdf. (9) OJ L 309, 24.11.2009, p. 71.

European Parliament resolution of 19 January 2012 on the imbalances in the food supply chain

P7_TA(2012)0012 RC-B7-0006/2012

The European Parliament,

–  having regard to its resolutions of 8 July 2010 on the future of the Common Agricultural Policy after 2013(1), 18 January 2011 on the recognition of agriculture as a strategic sector in the context of food security(2), 23 June 2011 on the CAP towards 2020: Meeting the food, natural resources and territorial challenges(3), 5 July 2011 on a more efficient and fairer retail market(4),

–  having regard to the Commission Communication entitled ‘Better functioning of the food supply chain in Europe’ (COM(2009)0591), and to the various working documents annexed thereto, and to its resolutions of 7 September 2010 on Fair Income for Farmers: better functioning of the food supply chain in Europe(5) and 19 January 2012 on the farm input supply chain(6),

–  having regard to Directive 2011/7/EU on combating late payment in commercial transactions(7),

–  having regard to the Commission Decision of 30 July 2010 establishing the High-Level Forum for a Better Functioning Food Supply Chain(8),

–  having regard to the final recommendations of the High-Level Group on the Competitiveness of the Agro-Food Industry of 17 March 2009 and the conclusions of 29 March 2010 on a better functioning of the supply chain food in Europe,

–  having regard to the Eurostat data on price indices of the means of agricultural production (input costs) and price indices of agricultural products (output prices)(9),

–  having regard to its Declaration of 19 February 2008 on the need to investigate and correct the abuses of power by large supermarkets operating in the European Union(10) and its resolution of 26 March 2009 on food prices in Europe(11),

–  having regard to the 2008 Joint Research Centre report entitled ‘Low input farming systems: an opportunity to develop sustainable agriculture’(12),

–  having regard to the report entitled ‘Agribusiness and the right to food’ of the United Nations Special Rapporteur on the Right to Food,

–  having regard to Rule 115(5) and Rule 110(4) of its Rules of Procedure,

A.  whereas the Commission communication on a better functioning of the food supply chain (COM(2009)0591) identified significant imbalances in bargaining power, which translate into unfair trading practices, such as late payments, unilateral contract modifications, unfair contract terms, restricted access to the market, lack of information on price formation, uneven distribution of profit margins throughout the food chain, abuses of market power by suppliers or buyers, such as cartels and resale price maintenance, and buying alliances, among others;

B.  whereas the level of concentration of very large retailers in the European Union is adversely affecting producers and other suppliers, because it is resulting in growing imbalances of power between contracting parties; whereas agricultural producers and processors are suffering a progressive loss of bargaining power vis-à-vis price levels along the value chain - from primary production, through processing to the final consumer; whereas excessive concentration is leading to a decline in product diversity, cultural heritage, retail outlets, jobs and livelihoods;

C.  whereas farmers' income problems are continuing to worsen and the prices paid by consumers for products is not reflected in the prices paid to farmers for their production, which is undermining farmers' capacity to invest and innovate and might prompt many of them to leave the land;

D.  whereas the loss of bargaining power, the increase in production costs and the impossibility of recovering those costs along the food distribution chain may endanger the survival of agricultural holdings, thereby potentially weakening the long-term productive potential in Member States and exacerbating their dependence on external markets;

E.  whereas balanced commercial relations would not only improve the functioning of the food supply chain, but also benefit farmers, through increased competitiveness, and ultimately also consumers;

F.  whereas recent food and commodity price volatility has raised serious concerns about the functioning of European and global food supply chains and has increased the insecurity of farm incomes and in long-term investments by farmers;

G.  whereas not even consumers are benefiting from low farm-gate prices owing to the progressive loss of bargaining power of farmers in the food chain, particularly as quality requirements, labour rights and environmental and animal welfare standards - which European farmers must observe - are often not applied in the same way to imported agricultural products;

H.  whereas the competition authorities in a number of Member States have found that there are four key areas where the imbalances in the food supply chain are particularly problematical: the unilateral imposition of contractual terms; discounting practices; penalties; and payment terms;

1.  Emphasises that the problem of imbalances in the food distribution chain has a clear European dimension, which calls for a specific European solution, given the strategic importance of the agri-food chain to the European Union; points out that the food supply chain, agriculture, the agri-food industry and food distribution account for 7% of total employment in the EU and are worth EUR 1400 billion per year - a figure greater than that for any other manufacturing sector in the EU - and that the share of agricultural value added from the food supply chain dropped from 31% in 1995 to 24% in 2005 in the EU-25;

2.  Draws attention to the ongoing work of the High-Level Forum for a Better Functioning Food Supply Chain, in particular its Business-to-Business platform; asks to be formally and regularly informed about the progress of the work and the decisions taken;

3.  Supports the good work of the Experts' Platform on B2B contractual practices of the High-Level Forum for a Better Functioning Food Supply Chain, in particular in defining, listing and assessing what constitutes a manifestly unfair commercial practice, based on data and concrete examples; calls for strong support for initiatives to foster dialogue between parties on this issue; welcomes the fact that stakeholders have agreed on principles to govern good practices, as presented to the High-Level Forum on 29 November 2011, and urges them to take implementing measures;

4.  Calls on the Commission to propose robust EU legislation - where necessary and without distorting the proper functioning of the markets - to guarantee fair and transparent relationships between producers, suppliers and distributors of food products, and to properly implement the rules already in force, not least because the latest agricultural income figures from Eurostat show that, since 2009, there has been an 11,6% drop in farm incomes at EU level, whilst total input costs for EU farmers increased on average by almost 40% between 2000 and 2010;

5.  Calls on the Commission and Member States to continue urgently to address the problem of unfair distribution of profits within the food chain, especially with regard to adequate incomes for farmers; recognises that in order to stimulate sustainable production systems farmers need to be compensated for their investments and commitments in these areas; emphasises that power struggles must give way to cooperative relationships;

6 Points out that agricultural policy must enable small and medium-sized farmers, including family farmers, to earn a reasonable income, to produce sufficient food of appropriate quality at affordable prices, to create jobs, to promote rural development and to ensure environmental protection and sustainability;

7.  Insists that the Member States should play an active role in supporting existing and in establishing new consultation forums, with proper representation of the actors along the food chain, so as to promote dialogue and establish guidelines to bring about fairer, more balanced relationships; points out that such official consultations help to protect producers and suppliers and ward off retaliatory measures from the distribution sector;

8.  Calls on national and European competition authorities and other regulatory authorities involved in production and commerce to take action against abusive buyer practices on the part of dominant wholesalers and retailers which systematically put farmers in an extremely unequal bargaining position;

9.  Calls strongly for a clear, rigorous and objective definition of abusive and unfair practices, including tighter definitions of concepts and clearer delimitation, in line with the mandate issued to the Commission by its resolution on a more efficient and fairer retail market, so that such practices are subject to specific regulation, supervision and objective sanctions;

10.  Highlights the following as a non-exhaustive list of practices about which producers have raised concerns in relation to the functioning of the food supply chain:

11.  Calls for the establishment of a framework to effectively control these practices, first by launching a full-sector inquiry, through administrative or judicial means, and then by introducing a system of evaluation and monitoring operated by the Member States and coordinated by the Commission, with dissuasive sanctions applied effectively and in good time;

12.  Calls, with regard to contractual conditions and abusive commercial practices, for the introduction of better means to ensure that payment deadlines are complied with, taking into account the provisions of the Late Payments Directive, and for new instruments to be put in place to minimise and to harmonise at European level the length of time between delivery and the moment at which payment is actually received by suppliers; stresses, in this context, that solutions are urgently required to deal with the specific problems encountered by producers of perishable goods with short shelf-lives, who face major cash flow difficulties;

13.  Notes the measures in the Commission's draft proposals for the reform of the CAP which are intended to strengthen the position of farmers in the food supply chain through the provision of support to producer organisations and inter-branch organisations and by promoting short chains between producers and consumers, such as markets for local produce; believes that strengthening the position of farmers through better internal organisation and a more professional approach will help to ensure that they receive a fairer share of the added value;

14.  Welcomes the Commission's recommendation on cooperation between the Member States concerning exchanges of best practices on notification of contractual practices, and the preparation of sets of standard contracts;

15.  Calls on the Commission to improve the European Price Monitoring Tool and develop a user-friendly, transparent and multilingual interface which allows consumers and stakeholders to compare prices of basic foodstuffs within a certain Member State and between different Member States at each stage in the food supply chain and which also takes into account differences in costs of living in the Member States;

16.  Calls on the Commission to clarify the application of competition rules in agriculture, with the aim of providing farmers and their inter-branch organisations with tools that will make it possible to improve their negotiating position; calls for an assessment of and changes to existing EU competition law, with a view to ensuring that greater account is taken of the harmful effects of vertical concentration on the entire food supply chain, instead of there being a narrow focus on the relative positions of various companies on the market and distortions of competition being viewed solely on the basis of their detrimental effect to consumers;

17.  Calls on the Commission better to coordinate the work of its various services, so as to be able to play a more effective role in price monitoring throughout the food chain and in monitoring retail dynamics and relative market shares throughout the EU; calls for the creation of an independent Food Trading Ombudsman to liaise with the relevant trade and competition authorities and with national food trading Ombudsmen in each Member State, in order to coordinate and share information; considers, furthermore, that the European Ombudsman and the various national Ombudsmen should be responsible for ensuring compliance with the relevant legislation and recommending timely and appropriate sanctions;

18.  Calls on the Commission to conduct an in-depth study into the differences in approach between the 27 national competition authorities and policies and to encourage solutions which involve all partners in the food production chain and prevent abuses of dominant positions in one or a restricted number of parts of the input or output chain, which often occur at the expense of the agricultural producer;

19.  Believes that an EU-wide information campaign informing farmers of their contractual rights and of the most common illegal, unfair and abusive contractual and commercial practices, as well as of the means available to them to report abuses, should be prioritised;

20.  Considers that the solution to tackling the imbalances in the food distribution chain includes self-regulation but also requires regulation and adjustments to competition law; stresses that Member States should promote the development of best practices and/or codes of conduct in partnership with all stakeholders, bringing together producers, industry, suppliers, retailers and consumer representatives, and making the best possible use of existing synergies;

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

(1) OJ C 351 E, 2.12.2011, p. 103. (2) Texts adopted, P7_TA(2011)0006. (3) Texts adopted, P7_TA(2011)0297. (4) Texts adopted, P7_TA(2011)0307. (5) OJ C 308 E, 20.10.2011, p. 22. (6) Texts adopted, P7_TA(2012)0011. (7) OJ L 48, 23.2.2011, p. 1. (8) OJ C 210, 3.8.2010, p.4. (9) http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/portal/page/portal/statistics/search_database. (10) OJ C184 E, 6.8.2009, p. 23. (11) OJ C 117 E, 6.5.2010, p. 180. (12) http://agrienv.jrc.ec.europa.eu/publications/pdfs/LIFS_final.pdf

European Parliament resolution of 19 January 2012 on a space strategy for the European Union that benefits its citizens (2011/2148(INI))

P7_TA(2012)0013 A7-0431/2011

The European Parliament,

–  having regard to Title XIX, Article 189, of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union relating to research and technological development and space policy, referring in particular to the drawing up of a European space policy in order to promote scientific and technical progress, industrial competitiveness and the implementation of European Union policies,

–  having regard to the Commission Communication of 3 March 2010 entitled ‘Europe 2020 – A strategy for smart, sustainable and inclusive growth’ (COM(2010)2020),

–  having regard to its resolution of 16 June 2010 on EU 2020(1),

–  having regard to the Commission Communication of 28 October 2010 entitled ‘An Integrated Industrial Policy for the Globalisation Era – Putting Competitiveness and Sustainability at Centre Stage’ (COM(2010)0614),

–  having regard to its resolution of 9 March 2011 on an Industrial Policy for the Globalised Era(2),

–  having regard to the Commission Communication of 4 April 2011 entitled ‘Towards a space strategy for the European Union that benefits it citizens’ (COM(2011)0152),

–  having regard to the Council Conclusions of 31 May 2011 entitled ‘Towards a space strategy for the European Union that benefits its citizens’,

–  having regard to the Commission White Paper of 11 November 2003 entitled ‘Space: a new European frontier for an expanding Union: An action plan for implementing the European Space policy’ (COM(2003)0673),

–  having regard to Decision 2004/578/EC of 29 April 2004 on the conclusion of the Framework Agreement between the European Community and the European Space Agency(3),

–  having regard to the Commission's Report ‘Mid-term review of the European satellite radio navigation programmes’ (COM(2011)0005),

–  having regard to its resolution of 8 June 2011 on the mid-term review of the European satellite navigation programmes: implementation assessment, future challenges and financing perspectives(4),

–  having regard to its resolution of 20 June 2007 on the financing of the European programme of satellite radionavigation (Galileo) under the Interinstitutional Agreement of 17 May 2006 and the multiannual financial framework 2007-2013(5),

–  having regard to the Commission Communication of 29 June 2011 entitled ‘A budget for Europe 2020’ (COM(2011)0500),

–  having regard to Regulation (EC) No 683/2008 on the further implementation of the European satellite navigation programmes (EGNOS and Galileo)(6),

–  having regard to the Commission Communication entitled ‘Global Monitoring for Environment and Security (GMES): we care for a safer planet’ (COM(2008)0748),

–  having regard to the Commission Communication entitled ‘Global Monitoring for Environment and Security (GMES): Challenges and Next Steps for the Space Component (COM(2009)0589),

–  having regard to Regulation (EU) No 911/2010 of 22 September 2010 on the European Earth monitoring programme (GMES) and its initial operations (2011 to 2013)(7),

–  having regard to Regulation (EU) No 912/2010 setting up the European GNSS Agency(8),

–  having regard to the Commission Communication entitled ‘Action Plan on Global Navigation Satellite System (GNSS) Applications’ (COM(2010)0308),

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

–  having regard to the report of the Committee on Industry, Research and Energy and the opinions of Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Food Safety and the Committee on Transport and Tourism (A7-0431/2011),

A.  whereas Article 189 TFEU gives the European Union an explicit role in drawing up a European space policy, in order to promote scientific and technical progress, industrial competitiveness and the implementation of its policies;

B.  whereas space policy is a key element of the Europe 2020 strategy and an integral part of the flagship initiative on industrial policy;

C.  whereas satellite communication services are already at the service of EU governments and citizens;

D.  whereas it supports the objectives of a smart, sustainable and inclusive economy, by creating highly skilled jobs, providing commercial outlets, stimulating innovation and improving citizens' well-being and security;

E.  whereas space is of strategic importance for Europe and a key element for its independent decision-making and action;

F.  whereas the European space industry has a consolidated turnover of EUR 5,4 billion and employs over 31 000 highly skilled people;

G.  whereas the European satellite communications sector is a fundamental element for sustaining a healthy European space industry as more than half of the European industry turnover is derived from producing or launching telecommunications satellites;

H.  whereas the European Parliament has consistently given its full support to the European GNSS, implemented through the Galileo and EGNOS programmes, aiming at improving the everyday life of European citizens, ensuring Europe's autonomy and independence, and acquiring a significant share in the worldwide high-tech market dependent on satellite navigation;

I.  whereas the EU is currently dependent on the American Global Positioning System (GPS), with activities accounting for roughly 7% of GDP relying on this system, and given that Galileo is expected to offer advantages compared to the American GPS system, such as improved accuracy, global integrity, authentication and guarantee of service, as well as to give the Union strategic autonomy; taking note of the importance that the Galileo can have in order to improve competitiveness and quality of many services in Europe;

J.  whereas increased programme costs, due among other things to inaccurate cost forecasts and inadequate cost management strategies, mean that the current budget can only fund the deployment of Initial Operating Capacity (IOC);

K.  whereas the Commission has submitted a proposal for the financing of Galileo under the 2014-2020 multiannual financial framework, but the framework does not include financing for the GMES programme, which thus puts the future of this programme seriously at risk;

L.  whereas, before a decision is made on a further financial commitment from the EU budget in the next multiannual financial framework, a clear and detailed assessment of all the possible technical options and related costs and benefits for both Galileo and GMES programme needs to be presented by the Commission;

M.  whereas GMES is also an European-led flagship programme at the service of European citizens, supplying geo-information to assist the public institutions in the implementation of policies including environmental management, risk management and protection of citizens; whereas the GMES programme must guarantee continuous access to information on the environment and security issues based on permanent space-based observation and in-situ infrastructures, making the best possible use of the resources available in Europe;

N.  whereas the continued existence of a competitive, high-tech space industry supported by an ambitious R&D programme and additional activities, space exploration, the security of space infrastructure and international cooperation are key aspects of a successful space policy;

O.  whereas, as pointed out by the Commission, independent access to space must be ensured so the European space policy objectives can be achieved;

P.  whereas European industrial know-how is of key importance for a successful space policy and a crucial role is played by major European programmes in European integration and competitiveness;

Objectives of a European space strategy

1.  Welcomes the Commission's Communication entitled ‘Towards a space strategy for the European Union that benefits its citizens’ as the first step towards a comprehensive and user-driven European Union space policy serving the interests of its citizens, its policies and its diplomacy; believes the European Union should focus its efforts on the development of downstream space services for the benefit of the citizens and aiming at improving policy-making and its implementation; considers that the adequate use of space programmes such as Galileo and GMES would lead to significant savings for the sectors involved and downstream benefits to regions and local communities;

2.  Considers it important that space policy is a realistic policy aimed at improving the everyday lives of European citizens, enabling new economic growth, fostering innovation potential and supporting world class scientific progress; stresses that space solutions relying on state of the art technologies and a competitive European industrial base are vital to address today's important societal challenges, such as natural disasters, resources and climate monitoring, to develop the telecommunications sector and to foster relevant applications in the fields of climate change policies, land-use planning, environment management, agriculture, maritime safety, fisheries and transport;

3.  Notes the important role of satellite networks in achieving total coverage of the EU with broadband internet by 2013, thus helping to meet the EU Digital Agenda targets;

4.  Welcomes the Commission's intention of drawing up a space policy specifically tailored to the sub-sectors of the industry; emphasises, in that connection, that this policy should be coordinated not only with the ESA and the Member States, but also with the European Parliament;

5.  Considers that the European Union is responsible for coordinating and consolidating national space policies and programmes with a view to establishing a coherent European approach in cooperation with all relevant stakeholders; stresses that such an approach should aim at supporting a solid, competitive and independent European industrial base and consolidate an industrial policy which is capable of conceiving, developing, launching, operating and exploiting space systems in the medium and long term, including financial and legislative mechanisms;

6.  Welcomes the objectives of the strategy in terms of strengthening Europe's space infrastructure and providing more support for research in order to increase the technological independence of Europe's industrial base, encourage cross-fertilisation between the space sector and other industrial sectors and stimulate innovation as the engine of European competitiveness;

7.  Notes, however, that, whilst the Commission communication identifies priority areas of action, they remain in part somewhat vague; stresses that they should be made clearer and that an assessment of all the technical options and related costs, risks and benefits, and of the social implications, should be given, including all possible impacts on the European Union's industrial base and European industrial policy; points out that a European space programme should focus on areas of European added value and avoid dispersion of efforts or duplications with activities undertaken by the ESA;

8.  Stresses the need for clear governance in relation to space policy, making optimal use of the skills available in Europe, with effective supervisory and coordination mechanisms, in order to harmonise priorities and ensure the sound management of resources derived from national funding and from the European Union, the ESA and other European agencies dealing with space and of significance to the EU;

9.  Notes that the seven Space Councils to date have made only one passing reference to transport in Europe and that the significance of space policy for transport has not been given detailed consideration in the deliberations of the Space Councils as reflected in their outcomes of proceedings;

10.  Stresses the need for a greater understanding of the dependence on space of essential sectors and encourages the Member States and the Commission to promote the importance of space;

11.  Recalls that the transport sector has a key role to play in achieving the EU 20-20-20 targets in CO2 emissions and energy consumption as well as the objectives of the Europe 2020 strategy and that sustainable growth cannot be achieved without an efficient transport sector;

12.  Considers that a space strategy for the European Union is necessary to ensure that space technology contributes fully to safer and more efficient traffic management and traffic control across all transport modes;

13.  Agrees with the Commission that Europe must maintain independent access to space to be able to achieve its established objectives in carrying out its space policy and continue to benefit from the spin-offs from space applications; therefore encourages the Commission to put forward specific proposals in the strategic area of launch vehicles, in particular by giving them special attention in the context of industrial policy in the space sector;

14.  Stresses the particular importance of space launches in the context of space policy and emphasises the need for fresh European political impetus in this regard, given the critical financial situation currently facing the launch sector across the globe;

Flagship Galileo and GMES projects

15.  Considers that Galileo is one of the European Union's flagship programmes as well as being the first satellite navigation system in the world designed for civilian use, and could enable the Union to remain independent in a strategically important field;

16.  Calls on the Commission to duly complete the legislative and financial framework, particularly with regard to the establishment of a financial framework for 2014 - 2020, an approach on effective governance, Galileo services and rules on responsibility; stresses, in this connection, with a view to making Galileo operational and being ready to fully exploit it, the need to:

17.  Believes that IOC capable of providing initial services should be completed by 2014 at the latest to ensure that Galileo does indeed become the second GNSS constellation of reference for receiver manufacturers; welcomes the launch on 21 October 2011, from Europe's Space Port in Kourou, of two operational in-orbit validation satellites;

18.  Is convinced that the aim of Full Operating Capacity (FOC), based on a constellation of 27 satellites plus a suitable number of spare satellites and adequate ground infrastructure, is a prerequisite in order to attain the added value of Galileo in terms of authentication, high precision and uninterrupted service and therefore to reap the economic and societal benefits; fears that Galileo could lose its lead if the system is not completed in time and if the marketing and internationalisation of services are not carried out in an appropriate manner; believes that clear and unambiguous support from all European institutions for achieving FOC is needed to convince users and investors of the EU's long-term commitment;

19.  Considers that the financing plan to be adopted for Galileo needs to be such as to ensure that long-term needs are able to be met and continuity is provided, including with regard to operating, maintenance and replacement costs;

20.  Urges the Commission and the EU GNSS Agency (GSA) to put much more effort into raising awareness of GNSS among potential users and investors, promoting the use of GNSS-based services, as well as identifying and concentrating the demand for these services in Europe;

21.  Is strongly convinced that additional funding for GNSS can only be secured if awareness of the costs and benefits for the EU economy and society brought by GNSS is raised considerably among decision-makers and the wider public; applauds the introduction of concrete initiatives, such as the annual Galileo Masters competition for ideas;

22.  Points out that EGNOS is a real, operational programme; is convinced of the necessity to fully exploit this programme and make use of its applications in practice; draws attention to the importance of the EGNOS system covering the whole of the EU, with a view to consolidating the common market, and emphasises the need to expand that system in southern, eastern and south-eastern Europe, the Mediterranean region, Africa and the Arctic;

23.  Stresses that Galileo and EGNOS are instrumental in the creation of a Single European Sky and for the further development of safe and cost-effective air traffic management in Europe, and therefore calls for the setting of an ambitious and firm timetable, along with stable financing of research and innovation, which will ensure technological progress and the growth of industrial capacity, and also for the facilitation of SME access to financing, with a view to implementing both programmes as a precondition for a timely launch of the Single European Sky, the latter being a vital strategic step towards furthering European integration and strengthening the European common market;

24.  Considers that promoting the use of EGNOS and Galileo in civil aviation is a strategic requirement for the implementation of SESAR, especially as regards its use for landing procedures and at small airports;

25.  Calls on the Member States to reconfirm their commitment to EU space projects, such as SESAR, which will prove vitally important for future growth and jobs across various sectors;

26.  Calls on the Commission and the Member States to guarantee transparency in financing and cooperation between military and civil space-use strategies;

27.  Underlines that Galileo and EGNOS are vital for efficient and environmentally-sustainable road traffic management, road-use fee collection systems, eCall and real time tracking systems, and future digital tachographs;

28.  Emphasises that surveying dangerous and polluting goods transport should be a priority within satellite-based observation and navigation systems;

29.  Considers that GMES is also a European Union flagship programme playing a key role in earth observation; underlines the importance of GMES's contribution to achieving Europe 2020 objectives and to supporting growth and the green economy, as well as long-term investments in technology and infrastructure; reaffirms the importance of GMES as an essential tool in combating climate change and environmental degradation; notes that, through the acquisition and analysis of information at national, regional and global level, GMES will allow the extraction of precise and useful data for: atmospheric, marine and land monitoring, civil protection, risk prevention, early warning systems, emergency management and recovery operations following environmental, natural or man-made disasters, maritime and costal surveillance, agricultural development, water and soil management and regional planning, making use of innovative environmental assessment and reporting technology capable of combining spatial and in-situ data;

30.  Urges the Commission to complete the legislative framework and put forward a proposal for effective governance of the different levels of development and management of the programme by drawing on the expert knowledge held by public bodies in the EU, including EU agencies, and by the private sector, for the development and coordination of user-driven services; urges the Commission and the other institutions to include financing for GMES in the multiannual financial framework for 2014-2020; reiterates that inclusion of GMES funding in the multiannual financial framework would avoid wasting investment to date in the Seventh Framework Programme of Research in the field of services and information; points out that the lack of a financing plan providing long-term economic support will mean that investment made to date has been fruitless; believes that asking the Member States to continue to cover the costs of the launch and annual maintenance of the programme would lead in the long term to greater costs, disparity of access to resulting information and benefits for European citizens, a likely temporary suspension of the programme itself, subsequent interruption in data provision, and ultimately a dependence on non-European space infrastructure, placing the sector-related industries in a precarious economic situation;

31.  Underlines that the costs relating to GMES are already covered until 2013, totalling EUR 3 billion (approximately EUR 2.3 billion for the satellites and EUR 700 million for related services) and that it is estimated that the programme's operational costs for the period 2014-2020 will average EUR 850 million per year; calls on the Commission to promote public-private partnership and attract more private-sector capital;

32.  Calls on the Commission to propose a long-term governance and financing plan based on the examination of all possible options and to establish an operational organisation securing the proper management and the provision of data from the services in order to perpetuate the current success of the programme and to achieve its objective of being fully operational as from 2014; takes the view that this should be coupled with a common European data policy to ensure open access and availability of existing data; believes it is important to establish the agreements to be put in place with national agencies in order to maximise the interoperability, continuity and governance of the system; considers it necessary to ensure that distinctions are made on the one hand between scientific use and commercial use and on the other between the ESA's development activities and the deployment, operations and systems development activities which require European structures and specific competences;

33.  Acknowledges the social benefits to users of GMES services, for whom continuity and sustainability are of the essence if they are to derive maximum advantage from the observation infrastructures offered by the programme;

Secure Space to Achieve Security and Defence Objectives

34.  Supports the discussions being held by the Commission on strengthening the ‘security’ component of the GMES programme with regard to the monitoring of borders, support for the European Union‘s external action, maritime surveillance, complex emergencies, humanitarian aid and civil protection, etc., taking account of the sensitivity of the data being handled and the need to protect privacy and other citizen's rights;

35.  Believes that space policy should also include policies on the security of critical European space infrastructure and on the safe recovery of disused equipment; recognises the increasing dependence of the European economy, policies and society on space infrastructure and stresses that space infrastructure as critical infrastructure is essential for strengthening the autonomy of European decision-making; considers that the creation of a European Space Situational Awareness system would help protect critical European space infrastructure against the risks of collisions between spacecraft or with space debris or near-Earth objects, plus the risks associated with space meteorology; believes that the creation of all new European programmes should be based on existing capacity, skills and infrastructure, which have required investment on the part of each of the Member States, and should develop current capacity where there are gaps;

36.  Considers that maximum use of satellite communication services will directly support the competitiveness of European manufacturing industry, foster the industrial base in Europe and respond to the following key policy objectives:

Boosting Research and Innovation

37.  Considers that the European Union needs a solid knowledge and technological base to make the best possible use of space-related applications for the benefit of its citizens, if it is to act independently and have a competitive space industry capable of competing under fair conditions with non-European ones; stresses that a legislative, administrative and financial framework is essential if industry is to invest in research and innovation; believes that the EU needs to invest to ensure guaranteed European access to space and orbital infrastructure;

38.  Stresses the importance of a research and innovation strategy in the area of space policy which ensures technological progress, industrial development and EU competitiveness and creates jobs in the EU; considers that a European R&D policy for space must ensure the availability of needed technologies with the appropriate maturity and the required level of non-dependence, and at competitive conditions; calls on the Commission to draw up a strategic agenda in order to ensure consistency between the efforts of the European Union in the field of R&D and those of the ESA and the Member States concerning all necessary technologies, skills and double sources needed to achieve competitiveness, European independence, access to international markets and reduction of risks for European programmes;

39.  Considers it necessary to establish mechanisms and programmes to boost the market for applications and services derived from the Galileo/EGNOS and GMES programmes, as well as the telecommunications sector and services that co-employ different space services, so as to effectively meet citizens' needs;

40.  Considers, furthermore, in order to strengthen European independence and competitiveness, that it is necessary, at affordable conditions, to retain autonomy in terms of access to space, favouring the use of European launchers and transporters and verifying the suitability of operational and industrial organisation in relation to joint requirements, and therefore encourages the Commission to make concrete proposals for the strategic launch vehicles sub-sector, inter alia by paying particular attention to this sector in the space industrial policy;

41.  Calls on the Commission to appropriately address financial and practical requirements in future research framework programmes; considers in particular that research and development of space-related applications should be integrated as key enabling technologies for the different sectoral research areas such as climate change, environment, transport, agriculture, etc., rather than in a separate space theme;

42.  Asks the Commission to examine, in cooperation with the ESA, options for space exploration, indicating the potential costs and benefits; considers in this connection that a joint strategy should be developed with international partners through a cooperation agreement based on the general consensus of all stakeholders and with reasonable contributions from the European Union;

International Cooperation

43.  Reiterates that international cooperation for peaceful purposes is a basic value of the European Union and is at the heart of its policies; considers that international cooperation should promote European technology, infrastructure and services, scientific, technical and industrial excellence, optimal data access for European users, knowledge sharing and interoperable development of applications useful for meeting the great societal challenges that Europe and the world are currently facing; points out that the European Union should be a leader in the space field and maintain a substantial strategic role at world level, particularly in the international negotiations on the Space Situational Awareness System and space exploration; stresses that work in the space policy sector may be made more effective through industrial cooperation and sharing of investment in major programmes, such as the International Space Station;

44.  Stresses the importance of ensuring an adequate EU role in responding to future disasters within and outside the EU;

45.  Calls on the Commission to draw up an international cooperation strategy, in collaboration with the Member States and the ESA, in order to strengthen dialogue in the space policy field with strategic partners (the United States, the Russian Federation and Japan) and explore the possibility of establishing a similar dialogue with other emerging powers such as China, India and Brazil;

46.  Reminds the European Union's policy makers that the greater part of the world's institutional markets are unfortunately not open to international competition and that the international competition envisaged must be based on conditions that make fair trade possible;

47.  Points out that international cooperation, although desirable, particularly with regard to research, must be reciprocal and of mutual benefit; regrets that our main space competitors' institutional markets are closed to foreign industries, including European industries;

Relations between the European Union and the ESA

48.  Points out that, pursuant to Article 189 TFEU, the European Union should establish appropriate relations with the ESA so as to define their mutual responsibilities and avoid any overlapping of their roles or investment;

49.  Considers that the growing involvement of the European Union in the space sector calls for its relations with the ESA and the national agencies to be redefined, taking account of the fact that the technical and planning expertise developed by the ESA and the national agencies are essential to maintaining the technological capacity and the competitiveness of European industry at a high level, and that the European Union could concentrate on the operations, the development and the continuity of the space systems that it needs, as well as on the international expansion of markets and on users' requests;

50.  Calls on the Commission to fulfil its political leadership and supervisory role vis-à-vis organisations which act on its behalf;

o
o   o

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

(1) OJ C 236 E, 12.8.2011, p. 57. (2) P7_TA(2011)0093. (3) OJ L 261, 6.8.2004, p. 63. (4) P7_TA(2011)0265. (5) OJ C 146E, 12.6.2008, p. 226. (6) OJ L 196, 24.7.2008, p. 1. (7) OJ L 276, 20.10.2010, p. 1. (8) OJ L 276, 20.10.2010, p. 11.

European Parliament resolution of 19 January 2012 on how to avoid food wastage: strategies for a more efficient food chain in the EU (2011/2175(INI))

P7_TA(2012)0014 A7-0430/2011

The European Parliament,

–  having regard to Articles 191 and 192 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, relating to preserving, protecting and improving the quality of human health and the environment,

–  having regard to Directive 2008/98/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 19 November 2008 on waste and repealing certain Directives(1),

–  having regard to its resolution of 6 July 2010 on the Commission Green Paper on the management of bio-waste in the European Union(2),

–  having regard to its resolution of 7 September 2010 on fair revenues for farmers: a better-functioning food supply chain in Europe(3),

–  having regard to its resolution of 18 January 2011 on recognition of agriculture as a strategic sector in the context of food security(4),

–  having regard to its resolution of 23 June 2011 on the CAP towards 2020: meeting the food, natural resources and territorial challenges of the future‘(5),

–  having regard to its resolution of 5 July 2011 on a more efficient and fairer retail market(6),

–  having regard to the preparatory study on food waste across EU 27 – DG Environment, European Commission (2010),

–  having regard to the FAO study (2011) on global food losses and food waste,

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

–  having regard to the report of the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development and the opinions of the Committee on Environment, Public Health and Food Safety and the Committee on Internal Market and Consumer Protection (A7-0430/2011),

A.  whereas every year in Europe a growing amount of healthy, edible food – some estimates say up to 50% – is lost along the entire food supply chain, in some cases all the way up to the consumer, and becomes waste;

B.  whereas a study published by the Commission estimates annual food waste generation in the 27 Member States at approximately 89 million tonnes, or 179 kg per capita, varying considerably between individual countries and the various sectors, without even considering agricultural food waste or fish catches returned to the sea; whereas total food waste will have risen to approximately 126 million tonnes (a 40% increase) by 2020 unless additional preventive actions or measures are taken;

C.  whereas 79 million people are still living below the poverty line in the European Union – in other words, more than 15% of EU citizens earn less than 60% of average earnings in their country of residence; whereas, of these, 16 million have received food aid from charitable institutions;

D.  whereas the disturbing figures disclosed by the FAO, according to which 925 million people around the world are currently at risk of undernourishment, make the prospect of achieving the Millennium Development Goals, including halving poverty and hunger by 2015, even more remote;

E.  whereas, according to the FAO study, the anticipated rise in the world's population from 7 billion to 9 billion will necessitate at least a 70% increase in food supplies by 2050;

F.  whereas world grain production has risen from 824 million tonnes in 1960 to around 2,2 billion tonnes in 2010, 27 million tonnes being added to production every year; whereas, if global agro-production continues to follow this trend, the increase in grain production by 2050 compared with today's figures will be sufficient to feed the world's population; whereas, in the meantime, as post-harvest losses amount to about 14% of total production and another 15% is lost in distribution and in household waste, three-fifths of the total supply increase needed by 2050 could be achieved if we simply stopped wasting food;

G.  whereas reducing food waste is a significant preliminary step in combating hunger in the world, responding to the increase in demand predicted by the FAO and improving people's nutritional levels;

H.  whereas less food waste would mean more efficient land use, better water resource management, and positive repercussions for the whole agricultural sector worldwide, as well as boosting the fight against undernourishment in the developing world;

I.  whereas food waste has not just ethical, economic, social and nutritional but also health and environmental implications, since unconsumed food mountains make a major contribution to global warming and food waste produces methane, which as a greenhouse gas is 21 times more powerful than carbon dioxide;

J.  whereas there is minimal wastage of food by consumers in developing countries; and whereas any food waste in those countries is mainly due to financial and technical limitations along the entire food production chain;

K.  whereas in Europe and North America, in the previous decades, when food production was abundant, food waste was not a policy priority, which led to an overall increase in food waste along the food supply chain; whereas in Europe and North America food waste occurs predominantly at the retail and consumption stage, as opposed to in the developing world, where production, harvest, processing and transport are the stages where losses are most common;

L.  whereas, according to recent studies, for every kilogram of food produced, 4,5 kg of CO2 are released into the atmosphere; whereas in Europe the approximately 89 Mt of food wasted produce 170 Mt CO2 eq./yr, broken down thus: food industry 59 Mt CO2 eq./yr, domestic consumption 78 Mt CO2 eq./yr, other 33 Mt CO2 eq./yr; whereas the production of the 30% of food which ends up not being consumed accounts for an additional 50% of use of water resources for irrigation, while producing a kilogram of beef requires 5-10 tonnes of water;

M.  whereas the threat to food security is accompanied by mirror-image rich-world scourges such as obesity, cardiovascular illnesses and cancers arising from a diet overrich in fats and proteins, the result being that the world's overfed population numbers as many as the underfed and malnourished;

N.  whereas the recent fall in factors of production is in contradiction with the need to increase the food supply in the EU;

O.  whereas support given to developing countries to improve the efficiency of their food supply chains can not only directly benefit the local economies and sustainable growth in those countries but can also, indirectly, aid the global balance of trade in agricultural products and the redistribution of natural resources;

P.  whereas the exchange of good practices at European and international level, as well as assistance for developing countries, are of major importance in combating food waste worldwide;

Q.  whereas a growing number of Member States are embarking on awareness-raising initiatives to inform the public about the causes and effects of food waste, ways of reducing it and how to promote a scientific and civic culture guided by the principles of sustainability and solidarity;

R.  whereas food waste occurs across the entire food supply chain from the agricultural production stage, to the storage, processing, distribution, management and consumption stages;

S.  whereas the players in the food supply chain are chiefly responsible for food security and addressing avoidable food waste where possible;

T.  whereas some Member States ban food being sold at below cost price, robbing retailers of the opportunity to sell unsold fresh food at a cheaper price to consumers towards the end of the day and contributing further to waste in the food chain;

U.  whereas the recently adopted Regulation on Food Information to Consumers clarifies that foods with a ‘use by’ date should be considered unsafe after the expiry of that date;

V.  whereas the High Level Forum for a Better Functioning Food Supply Chain and the European Sustainable Consumption and Production Roundtable are working towards improving efficiency and sustainability along the food supply chain;

1.  Believes food security to be a basic human right that is achieved through the availability, accessibility, use and temporal stability of healthy, sufficient, adequate and nutritious food; stresses that world food production is conditioned by a number of factors, including the finite nature of natural resources vis-à-vis the rising global population and the limited access to food of the most vulnerable strata;

2.  Calls on the Council, the Commission, the Member States and players in the food supply chain to address as a matter of urgency the problem of food waste along the entire supply and consumption chain and to devise guidelines for and support ways of improving the efficiency of the food supply chain sector by sector, and urges them to prioritise this within the European policy agenda; calls on the Commission, in this context, to raise awareness of the ongoing work in both the High Level Forum for a Better Functioning Food Supply Chain and the European Sustainable Consumption and Production Roundtable, including with regard to recommendations on how to tackle food waste;

3.  Is concerned about the fact that a considerable amount of food is being discarded on a daily basis, despite being perfectly edible and that food waste gives rise to both environmental and ethical problems and economic and social costs, which pose internal market challenges for both business and consumers; calls on the Commission, therefore, to analyse the causes and effects of the disposal, wastage and landfilling annually in Europe of approximately 50% of the food produced and to ensure that this includes a detailed analysis of the waste as well as an assessment of the economic, environmental, nutritional and social impacts; asks the Commission, furthermore, to take practical measures towards halving food waste by 2025 and at the same time preventing the generation of bio-waste;

4.  Points out that food waste has a number of causes: overproduction, faulty product targeting (unadapted size or shape), deterioration of the product or its packaging, marketing rules (problems of appearance or defective packaging), and inadequate stock management or marketing strategies;

5.  Calls on the Commission to assess the impact of a policy of enforcement with regard to food waste; hopes that a waste treatment enforcement policy right along the food chain will be adopted by applying the ‘polluter pays’ principle;

6.  Considers that, in order to reduce food waste as much as possible, it is necessary to involve all participants in the food supply chain and to target the various causes of waste sector by sector;calls on the Commission, therefore, to make an analysis of the whole food chain in order to identify in which food sectors food waste is occurring most, and which solutions can be used to prevent food waste;

7.  Urges the Commission to cooperate with the FAO in setting common targets to reduce global food waste;

8.  Notes that the issue of food waste should be addressed from the standpoint of resource efficiency and calls on the Commission to deliver specific initiatives targeting food waste under the Resource-Efficient Europe flagship initiativein order to ensure that this issue receives as much attention and is the subject of as much awareness raising as the issue of energy efficiency, since both are equally important for the environment and our future;

9.  Calls on the Commission to create specific food waste prevention targets for Member States, as part of the waste prevention targets to be reached by Member States by 2014, as recommended by the 2008 Waste Framework Directive;

10.  Considers it vital to reduce food waste along the entire food chain, from farm to fork; stresses the need to adopt a coordinated strategy followed by practical action, including an exchange of best practice, at European and national level, in order to improve coordination between Member States with a view to avoiding food waste and in order to improve the efficiency of the food supply chain; believes that this could be achieved by promoting direct relations between producers and consumers and shortening the food supply chain, as well as by calling on all stakeholders to take greater shared responsibility and encouraging them to step up coordination in order to further improve logistics, transport, stock management and packaging;

11.  Calls on the Commission, Member States and stakeholders to exchange best practices, combining knowledge from relevant forums and platforms such as the EU Retail Forum on Sustainability, the European Food Sustainable Consumption and Production Roundtable, the High Level Forum for a Better Functioning Food Supply Chain, the Informal Member States Network ‘Friends of Sustainable Food’, the Consumer Goods Forum, etc;

12.  Calls on the Commission, when drawing up development policies, to support measures aimed at reducing waste along the entire food supply chain in developing countries where production methods, post-harvest management, processing and packaging infrastructure and processes are problematic and inadequate; suggests encouraging the modernisation of this agricultural equipment and infrastructure in order to reduce post-harvest losses and extend the shelf-life of food; believes, further, that improving the efficiency of the food supply chain can help the countries concerned achieve food self-sufficiency;

13.  Calls for the retargeting of support measures at EU level regarding the distribution of food products to the Union's least-favoured citizens, Community aid for the supply of milk and dairy products to schoolchildren, and the programme for encouraging the consumption of fruit in schools, with a view to preventing food waste;

14.  Notes that there is confusion around the definition of the expressions ‘food waste’ and ‘bio-waste’; believes that ‘food waste’ is generally understood to mean all the foodstuffs discarded from the food supply chain for economic or aesthetic reasons or owing to the nearness of the ‘use by’ date, but which are still perfectly edible and fit for human consumption and, in the absence of any alternative use, are ultimately eliminated and disposed of, generating negative externalities from an environmental point of view, economic costs and a loss of revenue for businesses;

15.  Notes that there is no harmonised definition of food waste in Europe; calls on the Commission, therefore, to put forward a legislative proposal defining the typology of ‘food waste’ and in this context also to establish a separate definition of food residuals for biofuels or biowaste, which are separate from ordinary food waste since they are reutilised for energy purposes;

16.  Believes that all Member States should make it possible for retailers to substantially reduce the price of fresh food to below the cost of production when it is close to its sell-before date, in order to reduce the amount of unsold food discarded and to offer a possibility for consumers with a lower disposable income to buy high-quality food at cheaper prices;

17.  Wishes to point out that agriculture, by its very nature, is resource-efficient and can play a fundamental and pioneering role in combating food waste; urges the Commission, therefore, to include ambitious measures to this effect in its next legislative proposals on agriculture, trade and distribution of foodstuffs; hopes for joint action by way of investment in research, science, technology, education, advice and innovation in agriculture with a view to reducing food waste and educating and encouraging consumers to behave more responsibly and deliberately to prevent food waste;

18.  Is of the opinion that quality requirements regarding appearance, whether imposed by European or national legislation or by internal company rules, which stipulate the size and shape of fresh fruit and vegetables in particular, are at the basis of many unnecessary discards, which increase the amount of food wasted; asks stakeholders to recognise and explain the nutritional value of agricultural products of imperfect size/shape in order to reduce discards;

19.  Calls on the Commission to develop guidance on the implementation of Article 5 of the Waste Framework Directive (2008/98/EC), which defines by-products, given that the lack of legal clarity under EU legislation regarding the distinction between waste and non-waste could hinder the efficient use of by-products;

20.  Calls on the Commission, the Member States, processors and retailers to develop guidelines to address avoidable food waste and to implement greater resource efficiency in their section of the food supply chain, to continuously work to improve processing, packaging and transporting so as to cut down on unnecessary food waste;

21.  Urges the Commission and the Member States to encourage the exchange of best practice and promote awareness-raising campaigns to inform the public of the value of food and agricultural produce, the causes and effects of food waste and ways of reducing it, thereby fostering a scientific and civic culture guided by the principles of sustainability and solidarity; calls Member States to encourage the introduction of food education courses, at all levels of education, including colleges, explaining for example how to store, cook and dispose the food, thereby encouraging better behaviours; stresses the important role played by local authorities and municipal enterprises, in addition to retailers and the media, in providing information and support to citizens on preventing and reducing food waste;

22.  Welcomes the initiatives already taken in various Member States aimed at recovering, locally, unsold and discarded products throughout the food supply chain in order to redistribute them to groups of citizens below the minimum income threshold who lack purchasing power; stresses the importance of the exchange of best practices in this connection between Member States, as also of initiatives at local level; points out in this regard the valuable contribution made, on the one hand, by volunteers in sorting and distributing such products and, on the other, by professional companies that are developing anti-waste systems and measures;

23.  Calls on retailers to engage with food redistribution programmes for citizens who lack purchasing power and to implement measures allowing for products nearing expiry to be discounted;

24.  Welcomes the work of companies and professional partnerships in the public, private, academic and community sectors in devising and implementing, at European level, coordinated action programmes to combat food waste;

25.  Considers that investing in methods leading to a reduction in food waste could result in a reduction in the losses incurred by agri-food businesses and, consequently, in a lowering of food prices, thus potentially also improving the access to food by poorer segments of the population; calls on the Commission to determine ways and means of better involving agri-food businesses, wholesale markets, shops, distribution chains, public and private caterers, restaurants, public administrations and NGOs in anti-waste practices; encourages for this purpose the use of the internet and new technologies; notes, in this context, the importance of setting up a Knowledge and Innovation Community (KIC) for food focussed inter alia on preventing food wastage; calls on the Commission to ask the agri-food sector and stakeholders to assume their share of the responsibility for the food waste problem, in particular by providing a variety of portion sizes and thus to assess the benefits of offering more bulk food products and to take better account of single-person households in order to reduce food waste and thereby consumers' carbon footprint;

26.  Calls on the Member States to create economic incentives for limiting food waste;

27.  Stresses that the GHG emissions associated with the production, packaging and transportation of food that is thrown away are needless additional emissions; notes that improving the efficiency of the food supply chain, so as to prevent food waste and eliminate edible food waste, is a key step towards climate change mitigation;

28.  Calls on the Commission to consider possible amendments to the public procurement rules on catering and hospitality services so that, all other conditions being equal, when contracts are awarded, priority is given to undertakings that guarantee that they will redistribute free of charge any unallocated (unsold) items to groups of citizens who lack purchasing power, and that promote specific activities to reduce waste upstream, such as giving preference to agricultural and food products produced as near as possible to the place of consumption;

29.  Calls on the Commission to set an example by addressing food waste within the EU institutions, and to take the necessary measures as a matter of urgency to reduce the particularly large quantity of food discarded every day in the canteens of the various EU institutions;

30.  Calls on the Commission to assess and encourage measures to reduce food waste upstream, such as dual-date labelling (‘sell by’ and ‘use by’), and the discounted sale of foods close to their expiry date and of damaged goods; notes that the optimisation and efficient use of food packaging can play an important role in preventing food waste by reducing a product's overall environmental impact, not least by means of industrial eco-design, which includes measures such as varying pack sizes to help consumers buy the right amount and discourage excessive consumption of resources, providing advice on how to store and use products, and designing packaging in such a way as to increase the longevity of goods and maintain their freshness,.always ensuring that appropriate materials which are not prejudicial to health or to the durability of products are used for food packaging and preservation;

31.  Calls on the Commission, in cooperation with the Member States, to issue recommendations regarding refrigeration temperatures, based on evidence that non-optimal and improper temperature leads to food becoming prematurely inedible and causes unnecessary waste; underlines the fact that harmonised levels of temperature throughout the supply chain would improve product conservation and reduce food waste for products transported and sold cross-border;

32.  Recalls the results of the survey conducted by the Commission (Consumer Empowerment in the EU – SEC(2011)0469), according to which 18 % of European citizens do not understand the ‘best before’ label; asks the Commission and the Member States, therefore, to clarify the meaning of the date labels (‘best before’, ‘expiry date’ and ‘use by’) in order to reduce consumers' uncertainty regarding food edibility and to disseminate accurate information to the public, notably the understanding that the minimum durability ‘best before’ date is related to quality, while the ‘use by’ date is related to safety, in order to help consumers make informed choices; urges the Commission to publish a user-friendly manual on the use of food close to expiry dates, while ensuring food safety in donation and animal feed, and building on best practices by stakeholders in the food supply chain, in order, for instance, to match supply and demand more quickly and effectively;

33.  Calls on the Member States to encourage and support initiatives geared to stimulating sustainable small- and medium-scale production that is linked to local and regional markets and consumption; acknowledges that local markets are environmentally sustainable and contribute to the stability of the primary sector; asks that the common agricultural policy earmark, in the future, the necessary funding to promote stability in the primary sector, for example by means of direct sales, local markets and all measures to promote low or zero food miles;

34.  Calls on the Member States to ensure that small local producers and local producer groups can take part in public procurement procedures for the implementation of specific programmes promoting, in particular, the consumption of fruit and dairy products in schools;

35.  Urges the Council and the Commission to designate 2014 the European Year against Food Waste, as a key information and awareness-raising initiative for European citizens and to focus national governments' attention on this important topic, with a view to allocating sufficient funds to tackle the challenges of the near future;

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

(1) OJ L 312, 23.11.2008, p. 3. (2) OJ C 351 E, 2.12.2011, p. 48. (3) OJ C 308 E, 20.10.2011, p. 22. (4) Texts adopted, P7_TA(2011)0006. (5) Texts adopted, P7_TA(2011)0297 . (6) Texts adopted, P7_TA(2011)0307.

Declaration of the European Parliament of 19 January 2012 on combating algal blooms

P7_TA(2012)0015 P7_DCL(2011)0041

The European Parliament,

–  having regard to Article 191 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, which stipulates that Union policy on the environment shall contribute to preserving, protecting and improving the quality of the environment, as well as protecting human health,

–  having regard to Directive 2000/60/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council establishing a framework for Community action in the field of water policy,

–  having regard to Rule 123 of its Rules of Procedure,

A.  whereas algal blooms, which are linked to eutrophication in coastal waters and estuaries, occur along all of Europe's coasts (along the Channel, the Atlantic, the North Sea, the Baltic and the Mediterranean);

B.  whereas these blooms cause serious damage to the good ecological status of the waters concerned, to public health and to the economic dynamism of the areas involved;

C.   whereas a European solution needs to be sought in order to address phenomena like this, which transcend national borders;

1.  Calls on the Commission to draw up, under Directive 2000/60/EC, a European action plan on combating algal blooms that is based on the exchange of best practice and cooperation with those affected by these phenomena;

2.  Instructs its President to forward this declaration, together with the names of the signatories(1), to the Council and the Commission and to the governments and parliaments of the Member States.

(1) The list of signatories is published in Annex 1 to the Minutes of 19 January 2012 (P7_PV(2012)01-19(ANN1)).

Declaration of the European Parliament of 19 January 2012 on the establishment of the Pact of Islands as an official European initiative

P7_TA(2012)0016 P7_DCL(2011)0037

The European Parliament,

–  having regard to Rule 123 of its Rules of Procedure,

A.  whereas islands are highly dependent on imported fossil fuels, facing higher fuel costs, but are also an opportunity for research, demonstration and development of renewable energies and energy efficiency actions,

B.  whereas islands are vulnerable to climate change because of their high levels of biodiversity and fragile ecosystems,

C.  whereas renewables are in abundance and their development can have a significant impact on alleviating islands' permanent structural handicaps, providing socio-economic benefits to their inhabitants,

1.  Congratulates the communities and peripheral regions that have signed the Pact with the aim of going beyond the objective of the EU 2020 Strategy, reducing CO2 emissions in their respective territories by at least 20%;

2.  Calls on the Commission to continue providing its support to European island communities with a view to achieving the sustainability objectives of the EU;

3.  Insists on the presence of distinctive and explicit references to insular sustainability in the EU framework programmes and policy texts in keeping with Article 174 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the EU;

4.  Insists that incentives are created for all islands to adhere to the Pact and participate in islands' networking;

5.  Underlines the necessity of mobilising the appropriate financial resources to support the functioning of the Pact process, based on the model of the Covenant of Mayors, Smart Cities and other similar EU initiatives;

6.  Instructs its President to forward this declaration, together with the names of the signatories(1), to the Commission.

(1) The list of signatories is published in Annex 2 to the Minutes of 19 January 2012 (P7_PV(2012)01-19(ANN2)).