Index 
Texts adopted
Thursday, 22 November 2012 - Strasbourg
Baltic salmon stock and the fisheries exploiting that stock ***I
 Granting delegated powers for the adoption of certain measures relating to the common commercial policy ***I
 Conservation of fishery resources through technical measures for the protection of juveniles of marine organisms ***I
 Removal of fins of sharks on board vessels ***I
 Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction
 Forthcoming World Conference on International Telecommunications (WCIT-2012) of the International Telecommunications Union
 Climate change conference in Doha (COP 18)
 Enlargement: policies, criteria and EU's strategic interest
 Situation in Gaza
 Implementation of the Common Security and Defence Policy
 EU mutual defence and solidarity clauses: political and operational dimensions
 Cyber security and defence
 Role of the Common Security and Defence Policy in case of climate-driven crises and natural disasters
 Negotiations for an EU-Kazakhstan enhanced partnership and cooperation agreement
 Small-scale and artisanal fisheries and CFP reform
 External dimension of the common fisheries policy
 Elections to the European Parliament in 2014
 Human rights situation in Iran, particularly mass executions and the recent death of the blogger Sattar Beheshti
 Situation in Burma, particularly the continuing violence in Rakhine State
 Situation of migrants in Libya

Baltic salmon stock and the fisheries exploiting that stock ***I
PDF 399kWORD 59k
Resolution
Consolidated text
Annex
Annex
Annex
European Parliament legislative resolution of 22 November 2012 on the proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council establishing a multiannual plan for the Baltic salmon stock and the fisheries exploiting that stock (COM(2011)0470 – C7-0220/2011 – 2011/0206(COD))
P7_TA(2012)0446A7-0239/2012

(Ordinary legislative procedure: first reading)

The European Parliament,

–  having regard to the Commission proposal to Parliament and the Council (COM(2011)0470),

–  having regard to Article 294(2) and Article 43(2) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, pursuant to which the Commission submitted the proposal to Parliament (C7-0220/2011),

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

–  having regard to the opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee of 18 January 2012(1),

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

–  having regard to the report of the Committee on Fisheries and the opinion of the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Food Safety (A7-0239/2012),

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 22 November 2012 with a view to the adoption of Regulation (EU) No .../2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council establishing a multiannual plan for the Baltic salmon stock and the fisheries exploiting that stock

P7_TC1-COD(2011)0206


THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,

Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular Article 43(2) thereof,

Having regard to the proposal from the European Commission,

After transmission of the draft legislative act to the national parliaments,

Having regard to the opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee(2),

Acting in accordance with the ordinary legislative procedure(3),

Whereas:

(1)  The Salmon Action Plan, adopted through the International Baltic Sea Fisheries Commission in 1997, expired in 2010. Contracting parties to the Baltic Marine Environment Protection Commission (HELCOM) have urged the Union to develop a long term plan for the management of Baltic salmon.

(2)  Recent scientific advice from the International Council for the Exploration of the Sea (ICES) and the Scientific, Technical and Economic Committee on Fisheries (STECF) state that some Baltic salmon river stocks are outside safe biological limits and that a multiannual plan should be developed at European level.

(3)  In accordance with Article 3(1)(d) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU), the Union has exclusive competence for the conservation of marine biological resources under the common fisheries policy. Since salmon is an anadromous species, conservation of the marine Baltic salmon stocks cannot be achieved if measures have not been taken to protect such stocks during their river life. Therefore, such measures are also covered by the Union's exclusive competence to ensure effective conservation of marine species throughout their whole migratory cycle and should be addressed in the multiannual plan.

(4)  Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora(4) lists salmon as a species of Union interest and measures taken pursuant to that Directive should be designed to ensure that their exploitation is compatible with a favourable conservation status. There is therefore a need to ensure that measures to protect salmon taken under this Regulation are consistent with those taken under the mentioned directive and coordinated with one another. Prohibiting fishing with drifting longlines is also an important way of improving salmon stocks, as it reduces discards of under-sized salmon. [Am. 1]

(5)  Directive 2000/60/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 October 2000 establishing a framework for Community action in the field of water policy(5), is intended to protect, conserve and enhance the aquatic environment where salmon spend part of their life cycle. The multiannual plan for Baltic salmon stock should contribute to the achievement of the objectives of Directive 2000/60/EC. Measures already requested in that Directive, such as river basin management plans, should not be duplicated in this Regulation. There is, however, a need to ensure coordination of and consistency between measures taken under this Regulation and those under the mentioned Directive for the protection and enhancement of salmon habitats in inland waters.

(6)  The Implementation Plan agreed by the World Summit on Sustainable Development at Johannesburg in 2002 states that all commercial stocks should be restored to levels that can produce maximum sustainable yield by 2015. This has been a legal requirement under the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea since 1994. ICES HELCOM deems that, for the Baltic salmon river stocks, this level corresponds to a smolt production level between 60% and 75 % of 80 % of the potential smolt production capacity for the different wild salmon rivers. Such scientific advice should constitute the basis for setting the objectives and targets of the multiannual plan. [Am. 2]

(6a)  Smolt production capacity is a rough indicator of the health of the salmon stock in any given river. It requires a series of assumptions to be in place before it is possible to use smolt production as an indicator. Moreover, the level of smolt production is affected by a number of factors rendering the correlation between smolt production and the health of the salmon stock difficult to isolate. The level of returning female salmon to rivers should therefore be used as a viable second indicator of the health of the salmon stock. [Am. 3]

(7)  Scientific advice indicates that genetic pollution of the Baltic salmon stocks may result in a decline in the survival rate and in the abundance of indigenous populations and in the erosion of the genetic capability to face diseases and changing local environmental conditions. Therefore, preserving the genetic integrity and diversity of the Baltic salmon stocks pays a crucial role in their conservation and should be included as an objective of the multiannual plan.

(8)  The fishing mortality rate at sea and in rivers should result in a wild salmon stock size that produces the maximum sustainable yield in accordance with the targets and timeframes set. The fishing mortality rate at sea should be established on the basis of STECF advice.

(9)  For a more effective implementation of the plan and in order to allow for a more targeted response to the special characteristics of each salmon river stock, Member States concerned should be empowered to lay down the level of the salmon fishing mortality rate, the total allowable catches and certain technical conservation measures in their rivers in accordance with Article 2(1) TFEU.

(10)  When adopting measures in the framework of this Regulation, Member States should fully respect their international obligations, in particular those deriving from Article 66 of United Nations Convention of 10 December 1982 on the Law of the Sea(6) which requires inter alia that the state of origin of anadromous stocks and other states concerned should cooperate with regard to conservation and management of these stocks.

(11)  Provisions should be made for the periodical assessment by the Commission of the adequacy and effectiveness of Member States measures on the basis of the targets and objectives set out in the multiannual plan.

(12)  Scientific advice states that inappropriate stocking procedures may have significant implications on the genetic diversity of the Baltic salmon stock and that there. There is also a risk that the large number of reared fish released into the Baltic Sea every year is affectingcould affect the genetic integrity of the wild salmon and should be phased out. Therefore the condition of releases populations. In view of this, stocking should be subject to tighter controls. Furthermore, the conditions governing the sourcing of genetic material for the breeding and rearing of salmon stocking material, as well as the conditions governing stocking procedures, should be established in this multiannual plan, in order to ensure that stocking does not have an adverse effect on genetic diversity. [Am. 4]

(13)  The direct restocking of potential salmon rivers is considered under specific conditions to be a conservation measure; since it offers the possibility of re-establishing self-sustaining salmon populations, it has a positive effect on the overall number of salmon and on the fishery. Provisions should be made to explicitly allow direct restocking which fulfils these conditions to be eligible for funding in accordance with Article 38(2) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1198/2006 of 27 July 2006 on the European Fisheries Fund(7).

(14)  However, since releases of salmon may be at present mandatory in certain Member States and in order to give Member States time to adjust to these requirements, releases of salmon other than stocking and direct restocking should remain not continue to be allowed during a transitional period of seven years following the entry into force of this Regulationafter a ten-year period if, by the end of that period, wild smolt production has reached 80 % of the potential smolt production capacity in a given river. If that target is not reached, releases of salmon other than stocking and direct restocking may continue for a further 10 years once the Member State concerned has analysed and removed the causes of the failure to reach that target. It is possible that releases of salmon are at present mandatory in certain Member States and it is, therefore, necessary for Member States to be given time to adjust to these requirements. [Am. 5]

(15)  With a view to ensuring compliance with the measures laid down in this Regulation, specific control measures should be adopted in addition to those provided for in Council Regulation (EC) No 1224/2009 of 20 November 2009 establishing a Community control system for ensuring compliance with the rules of the common fisheries policy(8).

(15a)  In order to achieve sustainable fisheries, the trust between the stakeholders and the methods they use for communicating with one another should be improved. [Am. 6]

(16)  A substantial number of coastal vessels fishing for salmon are below 10 m in length. For this reason the use of fishing logbook, as required by Article 14 and prior notification as required by Article 17 of Regulation (EC) No 1224/2009 should be extended to cover all commercial fishing vessels and service vessels. [Am. 7]

(17)  To ensure that salmon catches are not misreported as sea trout and therefore escape proper control, it is necessary to extend the obligation to submit prior notifications in accordance with Article 17 of Regulation (EC) No 1224/2009 also to all vessels retaining on board sea trout.

(17a)  Member States should strengthen their control and prior notification systems for recreational vessels used for angling and other types of fishing, in order to ensure a simple and effective system and to promote sustainable fishing. [Am. 8]

(17b)  A minimum landing size should be established for both sea trout (Salmo trutta) and salmon (Salmo salars), in ICES subdivisions 22-32, by way of derogation from Article 14 of and Annex IV to Council Regulation (EC) No 2187/2005 of 21 December 2005 for the conservation of fishery resources through technical measures in the Baltic Sea, the Belts and the Sound(9). [Am. 9]

(18)  To provide better and more scientific data on the salmon stock, electrofishing should be permitted.

(19)  Recent scientific advice indicates that recreational salmon fisheries at sea have a significant impact on salmon stocks, even though the data available in this regard are not very precise. In particular, recreational fisheries carried out from vessels operated by undertakings offering their services for profit can potentially account for an important part of catches of Baltic salmon. To ensure that the multiannual plan functions well, it is appropriate, therefore, to introduce certain specific management measures to control such recreational fishing activities. [Am. 10]

(19a)  Establishing Internet-based reporting systems in or between Member States should be encouraged and supported in order to make reporting even easier. The information about reported catches should be publicly available. However, the specific fishing ground of the catch should not be disclosed, in order to avoid incentives for fishermen targeting this specific fishing ground. [Am. 11]

(20)  In order to achieve in an efficient way the targets set in this Regulation and to be able to react swiftly to changes in stock conditions, the power to adopt acts in accordance with Article 290 TFEU should be delegated to the Commission in respect of certain non-essential elements of this Regulation as provided for in its Articles 6, 7, 11 and 25. Those powers should include the possibility to amend the fishing mortality rate at sea, to amend the list of wild salmon rivers and certain technical information contained in the Annexes to this Regulation and to adopt measures for the Baltic river stocks, where Member States measures under the empowerment mentioned in recital 9 are not adopted or are considered ineffective.

(20a)  The Commission should ensure that Member States take the administrative or criminal measures needed to tackle the issue of illegal, unreported and unregulated fishing. [Am. 12]

(21)  The Commission, when preparing and drawing up delegated acts, should ensure a simultaneous, timely and appropriate transmission of relevant documents to the European Parliament and to the Council.

1.  In order to ensure uniform conditions for the implementation of the provisions on stocking of salmon established in Article 12 of this Regulation, implementing powers should be conferred on the Commission. Those powers should be exercised in accordance with Regulation (EU) No 182/2011 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 February 2011 laying down the rules and general principles concerning mechanisms for control by Member States of the Commission's exercise of implementing powers(10),

HAVE ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

CHAPTER I

SUBJECT-MATTER, SCOPE AND DEFINITIONS

Article 1

Subject-matter

This Regulation establishes a multiannual plan for the conservation and management of the Baltic salmon stock (‘the plan’).

Article 2

Scope

The plan shall apply to: (a) commercial and recreational fisheries in the Baltic Sea and in rivers connected with it on the territory of Member States (‘the Member States concerned’);. [Am. 13]

   (b) recreational fisheries of salmon in the Baltic Sea where such fisheries are conducted by service vessels. [Am. 14]

Article 3

Definitions

1.  For the purposes of this Regulation, the definitions laid down in Article 3 of Council Regulation (EC) No 2371/2002 of 20 December 2002 on the conservation and sustainable exploitation of fisheries resources under the Common Fisheries Policy(11), Article 2 of Directive 2000/60/EC and Article 4 of Regulation (EC) No 1224/2009 shall apply.

2.  The following definitions shall also apply:

   (a) ‘Baltic Sea’ means ICES Subdivisions 22-32;
   (b) ‘Baltic rivers’ means the rivers connected to the Baltic Sea on the territory of Member States;
   (c) ‘Baltic salmon stock’ means all salmon stocks in the Baltic Sea and in Baltic rivers, both wild and reared;
   (d) ‘wild salmon river’ means a river with self sustaining wild salmon populations with no or limited releases of reared salmon as listed in Annex I;
   (e) ‘potential salmon river’ means a river with historical wild salmon population(s) and currently no or little natural reproduction and with the potential for re-establishment of a self sustaining wild salmon population;
   (f) ‘potential smolt production capacity’ means the production capacity of smolts calculated for each river on the basis of relevant river-specific parameters;
   (g) ‘technical conservation measures’ means measures that regulate the species composition and size composition of catches as well as the impacts on components of the ecosystems resulting from fishing activities, through conditioning the use and structure of fishing gear and restrictions of access to fishing areas;
   (h) ‘stocking’ means the deliberate release of smolt or earlier life stages of reared salmon into wild salmon rivers;
   (ha) ‘recreational fisheries’ means, notwithstanding Article 4(28) of Regulation (EC) No 1224/2009, forms of fishing other than commercial fishing using any type of fishing vessel and gear for commercial and non-commercial purposes; [Am. 15]
   (i) ‘direct restocking’ means the release of smolt or earlier life stages of reared salmon into potential salmon rivers;
   (j) ‘service vessel’ means a vessel, that is operated by an undertaking offering services, including providing fishing equipment, transport and/or guidance, for the purpose of recreational fishing targeting salmon in the Baltic Sea;
   (k) ‘total allowable catches’ (TAC) means the quantity of Baltic salmon that can be taken and landed from the stock each year.

CHAPTER II

OBJECTIVES

Article 4

Objectives

The plan shall aim at ensuring that:

   (a) the Baltic salmon stock is exploited in a sustainable way according to the principle of maximum sustainable yield;
   (b) the genetic integrity and diversity of the Baltic salmon stock is safeguarded.

CHAPTER III

TARGETS

Article 5

Targets for wild salmon river stocks

1.  For wild salmon rivers which have reached 50 % of the potential smolt production capacity by ...(12), the wild smolt production shall reach 75%80 % of the potential smolt production capacity for each river by …(13)*. [Am. 16]

2.  For wild salmon rivers which have not reached 50 % of the potential smolt production capacity by …(14), the wild smolt production shall reach 50 % of the potential smolt production capacity for each river by …(15)* and 75%80 % by …(16)**. [Am. 17]

3.  After …***, the wild salmon smolt production shall be maintained at a level of at least 75% 80 % of the potential smolt production capacity in each wild salmon river. [Am. 18]

4.  Member States concerned may set, for each wild salmon river, other more stringent targets, such as those based on the number of returning spawners. [Am. 19]

Member States concerned shall provide and publish data accounts of returning female salmon to their rivers. [Am. 20]

CHAPTER IV

HARVESTING RULES

Article 6

Determining TAC in rivers

1.  The annual TAC for salmon stocks in wild salmon rivers shall not exceed the level corresponding to the fishing mortality rate referred to in paragraph 2.

2.  The fishing mortality rate for salmon stocks in wild salmon rivers shall be specified by each Member State in accordance with the targets set out in Article 5 and with the expert opinions from STECF and ICES and re-assessed regularly by those bodies when more information becomes available or the characteristics of the river are changed. For that purpose the Member States shall take account of potential smolt production capacity as calculated for each river by ICES on the basis of relevant river-specific parameters and re-assessed regularly by this body when more information becomes available or when the characteristics of the river change.

3.  Member States concerned shall publish the fishing mortality rate in wild salmon rivers and the corresponding salmon TAC on the publicly accessible part of their official website set up in accordance with Article 114 of Regulation (EC) No 1224/2009 by …(17) and shall revise them annually.

4.  The Commission shall assess every three yearsyear the compatibility and effectiveness of measures taken by Member States pursuant to this Article on the basis of the objectives and targets set out in Articles 4 and 5. [Am. 21]

5.  The Commission shall be empowered to adopt delegated acts in accordance with Article 26 specifying the fishing mortality rate and/or the corresponding TAC in wild salmon rivers and/or the closure of the fishery concerned measures, if the Member States concerned do not publish such measures in accordance with paragraphs 1, 2 and 3 by the respective deadlines set.

6.  The Commission shall be empowered to adopt delegated acts in accordance with Article 26 specifying the fishing mortality rate and/or the corresponding TAC in wild salmon rivers and/or the closure of the fishery concerned, if, on the basis of an assessment carried out pursuant to paragraph 4, measures adopted by Member States are deemed not to be compatible with the objectives and targets set out in Articles 4 and 5 or are deemed to be inadequate for the attainment of those objectives and targets.

7.  The measures adopted by the Commission shall aim to ensure that the objectives and targets set out in Articles 4 and 5 are met. Upon the adoption of the delegated act by the Commission, the Member State measures shall cease to be effective.

Article 7

Determining TAC at sea

1.  The annual TAC for the salmon stocks at sea shall not exceed the level corresponding to a fishing mortality rate of 0,1.

2.  The Commission shall be empowered to adopt delegated acts, in accordance with Article 26, amending the value of the fishing mortality rate at sea referred to in paragraph 1 when there are clear indications that stock conditions have changed and/or that the existing fishing mortality rate is not appropriate to reach the objectives set out in Article 4.

3.  In case of sudden outburst of diseases, critically low post smolt survival rates or other unforeseen developments, the Council shall decide on a TAC that is lower than the TAC which would result from the fishing mortality rate referred to in paragraph 1.

Article 8

Use of the national quota by service vesselsin recreational fisheries [Am. 22]

Salmon caught at sea from service vesselsin recreational fisheries and from recreational coastal and river fisheries shall be counted against the national quota. [Am. 23]

CHAPTER IVA

MINIMUM LANDING SIZE FOR SALMON AND SEA TROUT

Article 8a

By way of derogation from Article 14 of Regulation (EC) No 2187/2005, the minimum landing size for salmon shall be 60 cm and the minimum landing size for sea trout shall be 50 cm, in each of the ICES subdivisions referred to in Article 3(2)(a) of this Regulation. [Am. 26]

CHAPTER V

TECHNICAL CONSERVATION MEASURES

Article 9

Member States measures to protect weak salmon river stocks

1.  For wild salmon rivers which have not reached 50 % of the potential smolt production capacity by ...(18), Member States concerned shall establish not later than two years after the entry into force of this Regulation national technical conservation measures, maintain and, if necessary, improve existing national technical conservation measures by …*(19). [Am. 24]

2.  Technical conservation measures referred to in paragraph 1 shall be based on river specific requirements to adequately contribute to achieving the objectives and targets set out in Articles 4 and 5. The location of such measures shall be based on best available information on salmon migration routes at sea.

Article 10

Measures to protect other salmon rivers stocks

Member States may establish national technical conservation measures in their Baltic rivers for salmon river stocks not covered by Article 9. Those measures shall contribute to achieving the objectives and targets set out in Articles 4 and 5.

The Commission shall review the State aid guidelines with a view to making it easier for Member States to compensate for damage caused by seals and cormorants. [Am. 25]

Article 11

Commission measures

1.  The Commission shall assess every three yearsyear the compatibility and effectiveness of measures taken by Member States pursuant to Articles 9 and 10, in particular where wild salmon rivers run through several Member States, on the basis of the targets and objectives set out in Articles 4 and 5. [Am. 27]

2.  The Commission shall be empowered to adopt delegated acts in accordance with Article 26 laying down such technical conservation measures as are needed, if the Member States concerned do not adopt such measures in accordance with Articles 9 within the set deadline after the date of entry into force of this Regulation.

3.  The Commission shall be empowered to adopt delegated acts in accordance with Article 26 laying down such technical conservation measures as are needed, if, on the basis of an assessment carried out pursuant to paragraph 1, Member State measures are deemed not to be compatible with the objectives and targets set out in Articles 4 and 5 or are deemed to be inadequate for the attainment of these objectives and targets.

4.  The measures adopted by the Commission shall aim at ensuring that the objectives and targets set out in Articles 4 and 5 are met. Upon the adoption of the delegated act by the Commission, the Member State measures shall cease to be effective.

CHAPTER VI

RELEASES

Article 12

Stocking

1.  Stocking of salmon may only be conducted in wild salmon river. The number of released smolts in each river shall not exceed the estimated potential smolt production capacityrivers when this is required to prevent the extermination of the riverlocal stock. [Am. 28]

2.  Stocking shall be conducted in a way that safeguards the genetic diversity and variability of the different salmon river stocks taking into account existing fish communities in the stocked river and in neighbouring rivers while maximising the effect of stocking. Smolt shall come from the nearest possible wild salmon river. [Am. 29]

2a.  Smolts for stocking shall be marked by clipping their adipose fins. [Am. 30]

3.  The Commission may establishshall adopt implementing acts by …(20), establishing detailed rules for the application of this Article by means of. Those implementing acts shall be adopted in accordance with the examination procedure referred to in Article 28(2). [Am. 31]

Article 13

Direct restocking

Direct restocking of potential salmon rivers shall only be made, provided that:

   (a) the river hasor its tributaries have free migratory waterways, appropriate water quality and habitat suitable for reproduction and growth of salmon; [Am. 32]
   (b) the purpose of direct restocking is to establish or enhance a viable self sustaining wild salmon population;
   (c) there is a pre- and post-release monitoring program with evaluation in place;
   (d) there are suitable and adequate conservation and management measures in place to facilitate the re-establishment of a self-sustaining salmon population in the river;
   (da) stocking shall be conducted in a way that safeguards the genetic diversity of the different salmon river stocks, taking into account existing fish communities in the stocked river and in neighbouring rivers, while maximising the effect of stocking; [Am. 34]
   (db) smolts for stocking shall be marked by clipping their adipose fins. [Am. 35]

The Polluter Pays principle shall be the guiding principle when rehabilitating waterways. Direct restocking in accordance with paragraph 1 shall also be deemed to be a conservation measure for the purposes of Article 38(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1198/2006. [Am. 36]

Article 13a

Origin of mature fish and smolt

Mature fish and smolt shall originate from the same wild salmon river if possible or failing that from the nearest possible wild salmon river basin. [Am. 33]

Article 14

Transitional period

Releases of salmon other than those made in accordance with Articles 12 and 13 may continue until 7 years after the entry into force of this Regulation ...(21), and shall be carefully evaluated. A river-by-river approach shall be used for the gradual phasing out. It shall be administered by Member States' local, regional and/or national agencies and shall also involve local stakeholders and make use of their competence with regards to habitat restoration and other measures. Legally binding national decisions on the use of economic resources currently used for restocking shall be redirected to support fishermen potentially adversely affected by the negative effects of a phasing-out. [Am. 37]

CHAPTER VII

CONTROL AND ENFORCEMENT

Article 15

Relationship with Regulation (EC) No 1224/2009

The control measures provided for in this Chapter shall apply in addition to those prescribed in Regulation (EC) No 1224/2009, safe where otherwise provided for in the Articles of this Chapter.

In addition, Article 55(3) of Regulation (EC) No 1224/2009, as well as Articles 64 and 65 of Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 404/2011 of 8 April 2011 laying down detailed rules for the implementation of Council Regulation (EC) No 1224/2009(22), shall apply mutatis mutandis to all recreational fisheries for salmon in the Baltic Sea. [Am. 38]

Article 16

Logbooks

By way of derogation from Article 14 of Regulation (EC) No 1224/2009 masters of Union fishing vessels of all length holding a fishing authorisation for salmon, as well as masters of service vessels used for angling and other types of fishing, shall keep a logbook of their operations in accordance with the rules set in Article 14 of Regulation (EC) No 1224/2009. [Am. 39]

Article 17

Prior notifications

By way of derogation from the introductory sentence of Article 17(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1224/2009, masters of Union fishing vessels of all lengths, as well as masters of service vessels, retaining salmon and/or sea trout on board shall notify the competent authorities of their flag Member State immediately after the completion of the fishing operation of the information listed in Article 17(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1224/2009. [Am. 40]

Article 18

Special activity authorisations

1.  Service vessels shall hold a special activity authorisation for salmon fishing, issued in accordance with Annex II of this Regulation.

2.  Member States concerned shall include special activity authorisations in the list of fishing authorisations contained in the electronic database established in accordance with Article 116(1)(d) of Regulation (EC) No 1224/2009. Furthermore, they shall include the data with regard to special activity authorisations in the computerized validation system referred to in Article 109 of Regulation (EC) No 1224/2009.

Article 19

Catch declarationdeclarations for recreational fisheries [Am. 41]

1.  The masterAll types of service vessel recreational fisheries vessels shall complete a catch declaration in accordance with Annex III and submit it report to the competent authority of the flag Member State of the service vessel by the last day of every month. [Am. 42]

2.  By the fifteenth day of each month Member States concerned shall register the information recorded in the catch declarations for the previous month in their electronic database established in accordance with Article 116(1)(f) of Regulation (EC) No 1224/2009 and in their computerised validation system referred to in Article 109 of Regulation (EC) No 1224/2009. The electronic data and the catch declarations shall be kept for 3 years.

Article 20

Landing inspections

Member States concerned shall verify the accuracy of the information recorded in the catch declarations by landing inspections. Such landing inspections shall cover a minimum of 10%20 % inspection of the total number of landings. The European Fisheries Control Agency shall carry out effective checks and shall encourage Member States to undertake more focused and targeted inspections in areas where IUU-fishing is suspected or reported to take place. [Am. 43]

Article 20a

Control of recreational fisheries

The arrangements for the control of recreational fisheries for the purposes of this Regulation shall be based in particular on Article 55 of Regulation (EC) No 1224/2009 and on Articles 64 and 65 of Regulation (EU) No 404/2011. [Am. 44]

Article 21

National control action programmes

The national control action programmes as prescribed in Article 46 of Regulation (EC) No 1224/2009 shall also contain as a minimum:

   (a) the application of technical conservation measures established in accordance with Chapter V of this Regulation;
   (b) compliance with the rules on quota uptake, activity authorisation and catch declaration by service vessels, and recreational fisheries using all types of gear; [Am. 45]
   (c) the monitoring of rules on stocking and direct restocking.

CHAPTER VIII

DATA COLLECTION

Article 22

For the purposes of data collection each juvenile salmon cohort in all wild salmon rivers may be surveyed with electrofishing before smoltification.

The Commission may adopt implementing acts laying down detailed conditions for conducting electrofishing based on the latest scientific information. Those implementing acts shall be adopted in accordance with the examination procedure referred to in Article 28(2). [Am. 46]

Article 22a

No later than ...(23), the Commission shall forward to Parliament and the Council the findings of scientific research conducted into the impact of predators, in particular seals and cormorants, on the Baltic salmon stock. On the basis of those research findings the Commission shall draw up a plan for managing populations of predators that have an impact on the Baltic salmon stock, which shall be brought into force no later than in 2016. [Am. 47]

Article 22b

No later than …(24), the Commission shall forward to Parliament and to the Council the findings of the scientific research conducted in respect of the discards and by-catch of salmon in all relevant Baltic Sea fisheries. [Am. 48]

CHAPTER IX

FOLLOW-UP

Article 23

Member States reporting

1.  Member States concerned shall report to the Commission on the technical conservation measures adopted in accordance with Chapter V and their fulfilment of the objectives set out in Article 5 in the third year after the entry into force of this Regulation and then every third yearon …(25)* and every year thereafter. [Am. 49]

2.  Member States concerned shall report to the Commission on the implementation of this Regulation and on the fulfilment of the objectives set out in Article 5 in …(26) and then every sixththird year. The Member State report shall in particular provide information on the following:

[Am. 50]

   (a) the development of the national fishery including the share of catches between offshore waters, coastal waters and rivers and between commercial fishermen, undertakings of service vessels and other recreational fishermen;
   (b) for each wild salmon river, the production of parr and smolt and the best available estimate of the potential smolt production capacity;
   (c) for each wild salmon river stock, the available genetic information;
   (d) the activity of stocking and direct restocking of salmon;
   (e) the implementation of the national control action programme referred to in Article 46 of Regulation (EC) No 1224/2009.

Article 24

Evaluation of the plan

The Commission shall, on the basis of the reporting by Member States as referred to in Article 23 of this Regulation and on the basis of scientific advice, evaluate the impact of the management measures on the Baltic salmon stock and on the fisheries exploiting that stock in the year following that in which it receives the Member States reports.

CHAPTER X

AMENDMENTS TO ANNEXES

Article 25

Amendments to Annexes

1.  The Commission shall be empowered to adopt delegated acts, in accordance with Article 26, amending the list of wild salmon rivers listed in Annex I in order to keep it up to date with recent scientific information.

2.  The Commission shall be empowered to adopt delegated acts, in accordance with Article 26, amending Annexes II and III to ensure that control is effective.

CHAPTER XI

PROCEDURAL PROVISIONS

Article 26

Exercise of delegated powers

1.  The power to adopt delegated acts is conferred on the Commission subject to the conditions laid down in this Article.

2.  The power to adopt delegated acts referred to in Articles 6, 7, 11 and 25 shall be conferred on the Commission for an indeterminate period of time.

3.  The delegation of power referred to in Articles 6, 7, 11 and 25 may be revoked at any time by the European Parliament or by the Council. A decision to revoke shall put an end to the delegation of the power specified in that decision. It shall take effect the day following the publication of the decision in the Official Journal of the European Union or at a later date specified therein. It shall not affect the validity of any delegated acts already in force.

4.  As soon as it adopts a delegated act, the Commission shall notify it simultaneously to the European Parliament and to the Council.

5.  A delegated act adopted pursuant to Articles 6, 7, 11 and 25 shall enter into force only if no objection has been expressed either by the European Parliament or the Council within a period of two months of notification of that act to the European Parliament and the Council or if, before the expiry of that period, the European Parliament and the Council have both informed the Commission that they will not object. That period shall be extended by two months at the initiative of the European Parliament or of the Council.

Article 27

Revocation of empowerment

Where a Member States concerned have not established or published, by the set deadline, the measures set out in Articles 6 or 11, or where such measures are deemed inadequate and/or ineffective following the assessment carried out in accordance with Article 6(4) or 11(1), the empowerment of the Member State concerned referred to in Articles 6 or 11 shall be revoked by the Commission. A decision to revoke shall put an end to the delegation of the power specified in that decision. It shall take effect the day following the publication of the decision in the Official Journal of the European Union or at a later date specified therein. [Am. 51]

Article 28

Committee procedure

1.  The Commission shall be assisted by the Committee for Fisheries and Aquaculture established by Article 30 of Regulation (EC) No 2371/2002. That committee shall be a committee within the meaning of Regulation (EU) No 182/2011.

2.  Where reference is made to this paragraph, Article 5 of Regulation (EU) No 182/2011 shall apply.

CHAPTER XII

FINAL PROVISIONS

Article 29

Entry into force

This Regulation shall enter into force on the twentieth day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.

This Regulation shall apply from ....

This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.

Done at ...,

For the European Parliament

The President

For the Council

The President

ANNEX I

Wild Salmon Rivers in the Baltic Sea

Finland

–  Simojoki

Finland/Sweden

–  Tornionjoki/Torneälven

Sweden

–  Kalixälven, Råneälven, Piteälven, Åbyälven, Byskeälven, Rickleån, Sävarån, Ume/Vindelälven, Öreälven, Lögdeälven, Emån, Mörrumsån, Ljungan

Estonia

–  Pärnu, Kunda, Keila, Vasalemma

Latvia

–  Salaca, Vitrupe, Peterupe, Irbe, Uzava, Saka

Latvia/Lithuania

–  Barta/Bartuva

Lithuania

–  Nemunas river basin (Zeimena)

ANNEX II

MINIMUM INFORMATION FOR THE Special activity authorisations

1.  VESSEL DETAILS

Name of vessel(27)

Flag state

Port of registration (Name and national code)

External marking

International radio call sign (IRCS(28))

2.  AUTHORISATION HOLDER, VESSEL OWNER AND MASTER(29)

Name and address of natural or legal person

3.  VESSEL CHARACTERISTICS

Engine power (kW)(30)

Tonnage (GT)

Length overall

4.  FISHING CONDITIONS

1.  Date of issue:

2.  Period of validity:

3.  Conditions of authorisation including, where appropriate, species, zone and fishing gear:

ANNEX III

CATCH DECLARATIONS

Each Member State concerned shall issue for its service vessels an official form to be completed as catch declaration. This form shall contain, as a minimum, the following information:

   (a) Reference number of special activity authorisation issued in accordance with Article 18;
   (b) Name of the natural or legal person holding the special activity authorisation issued in accordance with Article 18;
   (c) Name and signature of the master of the service vessel;
   (d) Date and time of departure and arrival to port and duration of fishing trip;
   (e) Place and time of landing by fishing trips;
   (f) Gear used by fishing operations;
   (g) Quantities of fish landed by species and by fishing trips;
   (h) Quantities of fish discarded by species and by fishing trips;
   (i) Area of catches by fishing trips expressed as ICES statistical rectangles.

(1) OJ C 68, 6.3.2012, p. 47.
(2) OJ C 68, 6.3.2012, p. 47.
(3) Position of the European Parliament of 22 November 2012.
(4) OJ L 206, 22.7.1992, p. 7.
(5) OJ L 327, 22.12.2000, p. 1.
(6) OJ L 179, 23.6.1998, p. 1.
(7) OJ L 223, 15.8.2006, p. 1.
(8) OJ L 343, 22.12.2009, p. 1.
(9) OJ L 349, 31.12.2005, p. 1.
(10) OJ L 55, 28.2.2011, p. 13.
(11) OJ L 358, 31.12.2002, p. 59.
(12)* Date of entry into force of this Regulation.
(13)** Seven years after the date of entry into force of this Regulation.
(14)* Date of entry into force of this Regulation.
(15)** Five years after the date of entry into force of this Regulation.
(16)*** Twelve years after the date of entry into force of this Regulation.
(17)* One year from the date of entry into force of this Regulation.
(18)* Date of entry into force of this Regulation.
(19)** Two years after the entry into force of this Regulation.
(20)* Three years after the entry into force of this Regulation.
(21)* 10 years after the entry into force of this Regulation.
(22) OJ L 112, 30.4.2011, p. 1.
(23)* Three years after the entry into force of this Regulation.
(24)* Three years after the entry into force of this Regulation.
(25)** One year after the entry into force of this Regulation.
(26)* Three years after the date of entry into force of this Regulation.
(27) For vessels having a name.
(28) For vessels requested to have an IRCS.
(29) Indicate for each person applicable.
(30) In accordance with Council Regulation (EEC) No 2930/86 (OJ L 274, 25.9.1986, p. 1).


Granting delegated powers for the adoption of certain measures relating to the common commercial policy ***I
PDF 453kWORD 64k
Resolution
Consolidated text
Annex
European Parliament legislative resolution of 22 November 2012 on the proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council amending certain regulations relating to the common commercial policy as regards the granting of delegated powers for the adoption of certain measures (COM(2011)0349 – C7-0162/2011 – 2011/0153(COD))
P7_TA(2012)0447A7-0096/2012

(Ordinary legislative procedure: first reading)

The European Parliament,

–  having regard to the Commission proposal to Parliament and the Council (COM(2011)0349),

–  having regard to Article 294(2) and Article 207 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, pursuant to which the Commission submitted the proposal to Parliament (C7-0162/2011),

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

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

–  having regard to the report of the Committee on International Trade (A7-0096/2012),

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 22 November 2012 with a view to the adoption of Regulation (EU) No .../2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council amending certain regulations relating to the common commercial policy as regards the granting of delegated and implementing powers for the adoption of certain measures [Am. 1]

P7_TC1-COD(2011)0153


THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,

Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular Article 207 thereof,

Having regard to the proposal from the European Commission,

After transmission of the draft legislative act to the national parliaments,

Acting in accordance with the ordinary legislative procedure(1),

Whereas:

(1)  A number of basic regulations relating to the common commercial policy provide that acts are to be adopted on the basis of the procedures set out in Council Decision 1999/468/EC of 28 June 1999 laying down the procedures for the exercise of implementing powers conferred on the Commission(2).

(2)  An examination of legislative acts in force which were not adapted to the regulatory procedure with scrutiny before the entry into force of the Treaty of Lisbon is necessary in order to ensure consistency with the provisions introduced by that Treaty. It is appropriate, in certain cases, to amend such acts in order to grant delegated powers to the Commission pursuant to Article 290 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU). It is also appropriate, in some cases, to apply certain procedures set out in Regulation (EU) No 182/2011 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 February 2011 laying down the rules and general principles concerning mechanisms for control by Member States of the Commission’s exercise of implementing powers(3). [Am. 2]

(3)  The following regulations should therefore be amended accordingly:

   Council Regulation (EEC) No 3030/93 of 12 October 1993 on common rules for imports of certain textile products from third countries(4),
   Council Regulation (EC) No 517/94 of 7 March 1994 on common rules for imports of textile products from certain third countries not covered by bilateral agreements, protocols or other arrangements, or by other specific Community import rules(5),
   Council Regulation (EC) No 953/2003 of 26 May 2003 to avoid trade diversion into the European Union of certain key medicines(6),
   Council Regulation (EC) No 673/2005 of 25 April 2005 establishing additional customs duties on imports of certain products originating in the United States of America(7),
   Council Regulation (EC) No 1342/2007 of 22 October 2007 on administering certain restrictions on imports of certain steel products from the Russian Federation(8),
   Council Regulation (EC) No 1528/2007 of 20 December 2007 applying the arrangements for products originating in certain states which are part of the African, Caribbean and Pacific (ACP) Group of States provided for in agreements establishing, or leading to the establishment of, Economic Partnership Agreements(9),
   Council Regulation (EC) No 55/2008 of 21 January 2008 introducing autonomous trade preferences for the Republic of Moldova and amending Regulation (EC) No 980/2005 and Commission Decision 2005/924/EC(10),
   Council Regulation (EC) No 732/2008 of 22 July 2008 applying a scheme of generalised tariff preferences for the period from 1 January 2009 to 31 December 2011 and amending Regulations (EC) No 552/97, (EC) No 1933/2006 and Commission Regulations (EC) No 1100/2006 and (EC) No 964/2007(11),[Am. 3]
   Council Regulation (EC) No 1340/2008 of 8 December 2008 on trade in certain steel products between the European Community and the Republic of Kazakhstan(12),
   Council Regulation (EC) No 1215/2009 of 30 November 2009 introducing exceptional trade measures for countries and territories participating in or linked to the European Union's Stabilisation and Association process(13).[Am. 4]

(4)  In order to ensure legal certainty, it is necessary that the procedures for the adoption of measures which have been initiated but not completed before the entry into force of this Regulation are not affected by this Regulation,

HAVE ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

Article 1

The Regulations listed in the Annex to this Regulation are hereby adapted, in accordance with the Annex to Article 290 TFEU or to the applicable provisions of Regulation (EU) No 182/2011. [Am. 5]

Article 2

References to provisions of the Regulations referred to in the Annex shall be construed as being made to those provisions as amended by this Regulation.

Article 3

This Regulation shall not affect the procedures for the adoption of measures provided for in the Regulations referred to in the Annex which have been initiated but not completed before the entry into force of this Regulation.

Article 4

This Regulation shall enter into force on the 30th day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.

This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.

Done at,

For the European Parliament

The President

The President

For the Council

ANNEX

List of Regulations falling under the common commercial policy and adapted to Article 290 TFEU or to the applicable provisions of Regulation (EU) No 182/2011.

1.  Council Regulation (EEC) No 3030/93 of 12 October 1993 on common rules for imports of certain textile products from third countries(14)

As regards Regulation (EEC) No 3030/93, in order to ensure the appropriate functioning of the system for the management of imports of certain textile products, the power to adopt acts in accordance with Article 290 TFEU should be delegated to the Commission in respect of necessary changes to the annexes to that Regulation. Moreover, implementing powers should be conferred on the Commission to adopt the measures necessary for the implementation of that Regulation in accordance with Regulation (EU) No 182/2011.

Accordingly, Regulation (EEC) No 3030/93 is amended as follows:

-1.  Throughout Regulation (EEC) No 3030/93, references to ‘Article 17’ are replaced by ‘Article 17(2)’. [Am. 7]

-1a.  The following recitals 15a and 15b are inserted:"

Whereas in order to ensure the appropriate functioning of the system for the management of imports of certain textile products, the power to adopt acts in accordance with Article 290 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union should be delegated to the Commission in respect of amending the Annexes, granting additional opportunities for imports, introducing or adapting quantitative limits and introducing safeguard measures and a surveillance system in accordance with this Regulation. It is of particular importance that the Commission carry out appropriate consultations during its preparatory work, including at expert level. The Commission, when preparing and drawing up delegated acts, should ensure a simultaneous, timely and appropriate transmission of relevant documents to the European Parliament and to the Council. The Commission should provide full information and documentation concerning its meetings with national experts within the framework of its work on the preparation and implementation of delegated acts. In this respect, the Commission should ensure that the European Parliament is duly involved, drawing on best practices from previous experience in other policy areas in order to create the best possible conditions for future scrutiny of delegated acts by the European Parliament; [Am. 6]

Whereas, in order to ensure uniform conditions for the adoption of certain measures for the implementation of this Regulation, implementing powers should be conferred on the Commission. Those powers should be exercised in accordance with Regulation (EU) No 182/2011 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 February 2011 laying down the rules and general principles concerning mechanisms for control by Member States of the Commission's exercise of implementing powers*;

* OJ L 55, 28.2.2011, p.13.“.

[Am. 8]

1.  In Article 2, paragraph 6 is replaced by the following:

“6.  The Commission shall be empowered to adopt delegated acts in accordance with Article 16a in order to adapt the definition of quantitative limits laid down in Annex V and the categories of products to which they apply, where this proves necessary to ensure that any subsequent amendment to the combined nomenclature (CN) or any decision amending the classification of such products does not result in a reduction of such quantitative limits.

"

2.  In Article 6, paragraph 2 is replaced by the following:"

2.  The Commission shall be empowered to adopt delegated acts in accordance with Article 16a to amend the annexes so as to remedy the situation referred to in paragraph 1, due respect being given to the terms and conditions contained in the relevant bilateral agreements.

Where a delay in the imposition of measures would cause damage which would be difficult to repair and therefore imperative grounds of urgency so require, the procedure provided for in Article 16b shall apply to delegated acts adopted pursuant to this paragraph.

"

3.  Article 8 is amended as follows:

   (a) The first paragraph is replaced by the following:"
The Commission shall be empowered to adopt delegated acts in accordance with Article 16a to grant additional opportunities for imports during a given quota year, where, under particular circumstances, imports over and above those referred to in Annex V are required in respect of one or more categories of products.
Where a delay in the imposition of measures would cause damage which would be difficult to repair and therefore imperative grounds of urgency so require, the procedure provided for in Article 16b shall apply to delegated acts adopted pursuant to the first paragraph. The Commission shall take a decision within 15 working days of a request from a Member State."
   (b) The penultimate paragraph is deleted.

4.  Article 10 is amended as follows:

   (a) in paragraph 7, point (b) is deleted;
   (b) paragraph 13 is replaced by the following:"
13.  The Commission shall be empowered to adopt delegated acts in accordance with Article 16a concerning the measures provided for in paragraphs 3 and 9.
Where a delay in the imposition of measures would cause damage which would be difficult to repair and therefore imperative grounds of urgency so require, the procedure provided for in Article 16b shall apply to delegated acts adopted pursuant to this paragraph. The Commission shall take a decision within 10 working days of a request from a Member State."

5.  Article 10a is amended as follows:

   (a) paragraph 2a is deleted;
   (b) paragraph 3 is replaced by the following:"
3.  The Commission shall be empowered to adopt delegated acts in accordance with Article 16a concerning the measures provided for in paragraph 1, with the exception of the opening of consultations as provided for in paragraph 1(a).
Where a delay in the imposition of measures would cause damage which would be difficult to repair and therefore imperative grounds of urgency so require, the procedure provided for in Article 16b shall apply to delegated acts adopted pursuant to this paragraph."

6.  In Article 13(3), the second subparagraph is replaced by the following:"

The Commission shall decide to introduce an a priori or an a posteriori surveillance system. The Commission shall be empowered to adopt delegated acts in accordance with Article 16a concerning the imposition of the a priori surveillance system.

Where a delay in the imposition of measures would cause damage which would be difficult to repair and therefore imperative grounds of urgency so require, the procedure provided for in Article 16b shall apply to delegated acts adopted pursuant to the second subparagraph.

"

7.  Article 15 is amended as follows:

   (a) paragraph 3 is replaced by the following:"
3.  If the Union and the supplier country fail to arrive at a satisfactory solution within the period stipulated in Article 16 and if the Commission notes that there is clear evidence of circumvention, the Commission shall be empowered to adopt delegated acts in accordance with the procedure laid down in Article 16a to deduct from the quantitative limits an equivalent volume of products originating in the supplier country concerned.
Where a delay in the imposition of measures would cause damage which would be difficult to repair and therefore imperative grounds of urgency so require, the procedure provided for in Article 16b shall apply to delegated acts adopted pursuant to this paragraph."
   (b) paragraph 5 is replaced by the following:"
5.  In addition, where there is evidence of the involvement of the territories of third countries which are Members of the WTO but which are not listed in Annex V, the Commission shall request consultations with the third country or countries concerned in accordance with the procedure described in Article 16 in order to take appropriate action to address the problem. The Commission shall be empowered to adopt delegated acts in accordance with Article 16a to introduce quantitative limits against the third country or countries concerned or to counteract the situation referred to in paragraph 1.
Where a delay in the imposition of measures would cause damage which would be difficult to repair and therefore imperative grounds of urgency so require, the procedure provided for in Article 16b shall apply to delegated acts adopted pursuant to this paragraph."

7a.  In Article 16(1), the introductory part is replaced by the following:"

1.  The Commission, acting in accordance with the advisory procedure referred to in Article 17(1a), shall conduct the consultations referred to in this Regulation in accordance with the following rules:“.

[Am. 9]

8.  The following articles are inserted:

“Article 16a

Exercise of the delegation

1.  The power to adopt delegated acts is conferred on the Commission subject to the conditions laid down in this Article.

2.  The delegation of power referred to in Article 2(6), Article 6(2), Article 8, Article 10(13), Article 10a(3), Article 13(3), Article 15(3) and (5) and Article 19 of this Regulation, in Articles 4(3) of Annex IV, and in Article 2 and Article 3(1) and (3) of Annex VII to this Regulation shall be conferred on the Commission for an indeterminatea period of timefive years from ...(15). The Commission shall draw up a report in respect of the delegation of power not later than nine months before the end of the five-year period. The delegation of power shall be tacitly extended for periods of an identical duration, unless the European Parliament or the Council opposes such extension not later than three months before the end of each period. [Am. 10]

3.  The delegation of power referred to in Article 2(6), Article 6(2), Article 8, Article 10(13), Article 10a(3), Article 13(3), Article 15(3) and (5) and Article 19 of this Regulation, in Articles 4(3) of Annex IV, and in Article 2 and Article 3(1) and (3) of Annex VII to this Regulation may be revoked at any time by the European Parliament or by the Council. A decision of revocation shall put an end to the delegation of the power specified in that decision. It shall take effect the day following the publication of the decision in the Official Journal of the European Union or at a later date specified therein. It shall not affect the validity of any delegated acts already in force.

4.  As soon as it adopts a delegated act, the Commission shall notify it simultaneously to the European Parliament and to the Council.

5.  A delegated act adopted pursuant to Article 2(6), Article 6(2), Article 8, Article 10(13), Article 10a(3), Article 13(3), Article 15(3) and (5) and Article 19 of this Regulation, in Articles 4(3) of Annex IV, and in Article 2 and Article 3(1) and (3) of Annex VII to this Regulation shall enter into force only if no objection has been expressed either by the European Parliament or the Council within a period of two months of notification of that act to the European Parliament and the Council or if, before the expiry of that period, the European Parliament and the Council have both informed the Commission that they will not object. That period shall be extended by 2 monthsfour months at the initiative of the European Parliament or the Council. [Am. 11]

Article 16b

Urgency procedure

1.  Delegated acts adopted under this Article shall enter into force without delay and shall apply as long as no objection is expressed in accordance with paragraph 2. The notification of a delegated act to the European Parliament and to the Council shall state the reasons for the use of the urgency procedure.

2.  Either the European Parliament or the Council may object to a delegated act in accordance with the procedure referred to in Article 16a(5). In such a case, the Commission shall repeal the act without delay following the notification of the decision to object by the European Parliament or the Council.

"

8a.  In Article 17, paragraph 2 is replaced by the following:"

1a.  Where reference is made to this paragraph, Article 4 of Regulation (EU) No 182/2011 shall apply. The advisory committee shall deliver its opinion within one month of the date of referral. [Am. 12]

2.  Where reference is made to this paragraph, Article 5 of Regulation (EU) No 182/2011 shall apply. The examination committee shall deliver its opinion within one month of the date of referral.[Am. 13]

2a.  Where the opinion of the committee is to be obtained by written procedure, that procedure shall be terminated without result when, within the time-limit for delivery of the opinion, the chair of the committee so decides or a majority of committee members so request.“.

[Am. 14]

8b.  Article 17a is deleted. [Am. 15]

9.  Article 19 is replaced by the following:

“Article 19

The Commission shall be empowered to adopt delegated acts in accordance with Article 16a to amend the relevant Annexes where necessary to take into account the conclusion, amendment or expiry of agreements, protocols or arrangements with third countries or amendments made to Union rules on statistics, customs arrangements or common rules for imports

"

9a.  The following article is inserted:"

Article 19a

Report

1.  The Commission shall submit a biannual report to the European Parliament on the application of this Regulation.

2.  The report shall include information on the implementation of this Regulation.

3.  The European Parliament may, within one month after submission of the Commission's report, invite the Commission to an ad hoc meeting of its responsible committee to present and explain any issues related to the implementation of this Regulation.

4.  No later than six months after submitting its report to the European Parliament, the Commission shall make it public.“.

[Am. 16]

10.  In Article 4 of Annex IV, paragraph 3 is replaced by the following:

“3.  Where it is established that the provisions of this Regulation have been contravened, and in agreement with the supplier country or countries concerned, the Commission shall be empowered to adopt delegated acts in accordance with Article 16a of this Regulation concerning the amendment of the relevant Annexes to this Regulation, as necessary to prevent recurrence of such contravention.

Where a delay in the imposition of measures would cause damage which would be difficult to repair and therefore imperative grounds of urgency so require, the procedure provided for in Article 16b of this Regulation shall apply to delegated acts adopted pursuant to this paragraph.

"

11.  In Annex VII, Article 2 is replaced by the following:"

Article 2

The Commission shall be empowered to adopt delegated acts in accordance with Article 16a of this Regulation to subject re-imports not covered by this Annex to specific quantitative limits, provided that the products concerned are subject to the quantitative limits laid down in Article 2 of this Regulation.

Where a delay in the imposition of measures would cause damage which would be difficult to repair and therefore imperative grounds of urgency so require, the procedure provided for in Article 16b of this Regulation shall apply to delegated acts adopted pursuant to this paragraph.

"

12.  In Annex VII, Article 3 is amended as follows:

   (a) paragraph 1 is replaced by the following:"
1.  The Commission shall be empowered to adopt delegated acts in accordance with Article 16a of this Regulation to effect transfers between categories and advance use or carry-over of portions of specific quantitative limits from one year to another.
Where a delay in the imposition of measures would cause damage which would be difficult to repair and therefore imperative grounds of urgency so require, the procedure provided for in Article 16b of this Regulation shall apply to delegated acts adopted pursuant to this paragraph."
   (b) paragraph 3 is replaced by the following:"
3.  The Commission shall be empowered to adopt delegated acts in accordance with Article 16a of this Regulation to adjust the specific quantitative limits where there is a need for additional imports.
Where a delay in the imposition of measures would cause damage which would be difficult to repair and therefore imperative grounds of urgency so require, the procedure provided for in Article 16b of this Regulation shall apply to delegated acts adopted pursuant to this paragraph."

2.  Council Regulation (EC) No 517/94 of 7 March 1994 on common rules for imports of textile products from certain third countries not covered by bilateral agreements, protocols or other arrangements, or by other specific Community import rules(16)

As regards Regulation (EC) No 517/94, in order to ensure the appropriate functioning of the system for the management of imports of certain textile products not covered by bilateral agreements, protocols or other arrangements, or by other specific Union import rules, the power to adopt acts in accordance with Article 290 TFEU should be delegated to the Commission in respect of necessary changes to the annexes to that Regulation. Moreover, implementing powers should be conferred on the Commission to adopt the measures necessary for the implementation of that Regulation in accordance with Regulation (EU) No 182/2011.

Accordingly, Regulation (EC) No 517/94 is amended as follows:

-1.  The following recitals 22a, 22b and 22c are inserted:"

Whereas in order to ensure the appropriate functioning of the system for the management of imports of certain textile products not covered by bilateral agreements, protocols or other arrangements, or by other specific Union import rules, the power to adopt acts in accordance with Article 290 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union should be delegated to the Commission in respect of amending the Annexes, altering the import rules and applying safeguard measures and surveillance measures in accordance with this Regulation. It is of particular importance that the Commission carry out appropriate consultations during its preparatory work, including at expert level. The Commission, when preparing and drawing up delegated acts, should ensure a simultaneous, timely and appropriate transmission of relevant documents to the European Parliament and to the Council. The Commission should provide full information and documentation concerning its meetings with national experts within the framework of its work on the preparation and implementation of delegated acts. In this respect, the Commission should ensure that the European Parliament is duly involved, drawing on best practices from previous experience in other policy areas in order to create the best possible conditions for future scrutiny of delegated acts by the European Parliament; [Am. 17]

Whereas, in order to ensure uniform conditions for the adoption of several measures for the implementation of this Regulation, implementing powers should be conferred on the Commission. Those powers should be exercised in accordance with Regulation (EU) No 182/2011 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 February 2011 laying down the rules and general principles concerning mechanisms for control by Member States of the Commission's exercise of implementing powers*;[Am. 18]

Whereas the advisory procedure should be used for the adoption of surveillance measures given the effects of these measures and their sequential logic in relation to the adoption of definitive safeguard measures;[Am. 19]

* OJ L 55, 28.2.2011, p.13.

"

1.  In Article 3, paragraph 3 is replaced by the following:"

3.  Any textile product referred to in Annex V and originating in the countries indicated therein may be imported into the Union provided an annual quantitative limit is established by the Commission. The Commission shall be empowered to adopt delegated acts to amend the relevant Annexes in accordance with Article 25a concerning the establishment of such annual quantitative limits.

"

  2. Article 5 is amended as follows:
   (a) paragraph 1 is deleted; [Am. 20]
   (b) paragraph 2 is replaced by the following:"
2.  The Commission shall be empowered to adopt delegated acts in accordance with Article 25a concerning the measures required to adapt Annexes III to VII."
  2a. Article 7 is amended as follows:

[Am. 21]

[Am. 22]

   (a) in paragraph 1, the introductory part is replaced by the following:"
1.  Where it is apparent to the Commission that there is sufficient evidence to justify an investigation, with regard to the conditions of imports of products referred to in Article 1, the Commission shall:“;"
     (b) in paragraph 2, the first subparagraph is replaced by the following:"
“2.  In addition to the information supplied under Article 6, the Commission shall seek all information it deems to be necessary and, where appropriate, shall endeavour to check that information with importers, traders, agents, producers, trade associations and organisations.“."

2b.  In Article 8, paragraph 2 is replaced by the following:"

“2.  If the Commission considers that no Union surveillance or safeguard measures are necessary, it shall publish in the Official Journal of the European Union a notice that the investigations are closed, stating the main conclusions of the investigations.“.

"

[Am. 23]

2c.  Article 11 is amended as follows:

[Am. 25]

   a) in paragraph 1, points (a) and (b) are replaced by the following:"
     “(a) decide to introduce retrospective Union surveillance of certain imports, in accordance with the advisory procedure referred to in Article 25(1a);[Am. 24]
   (b) decide, for the purposes of monitoring the trend of these imports, to make certain imports subject to prior Union surveillance, in accordance with the advisory procedure referred to in Article 25(1a).”;
"
   b). in paragraph 2, points (a) and (b) are replaced by the following:"

[Am. 27]

     “(a) decide to introduce retrospective Union surveillance of certain imports, in accordance with the advisory procedure referred to in Article 25(1a); [Am. 26]
   (b) decide, for the purposes of monitoring the trend of these imports, to make certain imports subject to prior Union surveillance in accordance with the advisory procedure referred to in Article 25(1a).

3.  In Article 12, paragraph 3 is replaced by the following:
3.  The Commission shall be empowered to adopt delegated acts in accordance with Article 25a concerning measures referred to in paragraphs 1 and 2."

4.  Article 13 is replaced by the following:"

Article 13

Where imperative grounds of urgency so require in the case the Commission finds, upon its own initiative or on the request of a Member State, that the conditions set out in Article 12(1) and (2) are fulfilled and considers that a given category of products listed in Annex I and not subject to any quantitative restriction should be subject to quantitative limits or prior or retrospective surveillance measures, the Commission shall be empowered to adopt delegated acts in accordance with Article 25b to impose the measures referred to in Article 12(1) and (2).

"

4a.  In Article 15, the introductory part is replaced by the following:"

In accordance with the advisory procedure referred to in Article 25(1a), the Commission may, at the request of a Member State or on its own initiative, if the situation referred to in Article 12(2) is likely to arise:“.

[Am. 28]

5.  In Article 16,the third paragraph is replaced by the following:

“The Commission shall be empowered to adopt delegated acts in accordance with Article 25a concerning the measures referred to in the first paragraph.

Where a delay in the imposition of measures would cause damage which would be difficult to repair and therefore imperative grounds of urgency so require, the procedure provided for in Article 25b shall apply to delegated acts adopted pursuant to the third subparagraph.

"

6.  In Article 25, paragraphs 2, 3 and 4 are replaced by the following:"

1a.  Where reference is made to this paragraph, Article 4 of Regulation (EU) No 182/2011 shall apply. The advisory committee shall deliver its opinion within one month of the date of referral. [Am. 29]

2.  Where reference is made to this paragraph, Article 5 of Regulation (EU) No 182/2011 shall apply. The examination committee shall deliver its opinion within one month of the date of referral.[Am. 30]

3.  Where the opinion of the committee is to be obtained by written procedure, that procedure shall be terminated without result when, within the time limit for delivery of the opinion, the chair of the committee so decides or a majority of committee members so request.“;

[Am. 31]

7.  The following articles are inserted:

“Article 25a

1.  The power to adopt delegated acts is conferred on the Commission subject to the conditions laid down in this Article.

2.  The delegation of power referred to in Articles 3(3), 5(2), 12(3), 13, 16 and 28 shall be conferred on the Commission for an indeterminatea period of timefive years from ...(17). The Commission shall draw up a report in respect of the delegation of power not later than nine months before the end of the five-year period. The delegation of power shall be tacitly extended for periods of an identical duration, unless the European Parliament or the Council opposes such extension not later than three months before the end of each period. [Am. 32]

3.  The delegation of power referred to in Articles 3(3), 5(2), 12(3), 13, 16 and 28 may be revoked at any time by the European Parliament or by the Council. A decision of revocation shall put an end to the delegation of the power specified in that decision. It shall take effect the day following the publication of the decision in the Official Journal of the European Union or at a later date specified therein. It shall not affect the validity of any delegated acts already in force.

4.  As soon as it adopts a delegated act, the Commission shall notify it simultaneously to the European Parliament and to the Council.

5.  A delegated act adopted pursuant to Articles 3(3), 5(2), 12(3), 13, 16 and 28 shall enter into force only if no objection has been expressed either by the European Parliament or the Council within a period of two months of notification of that act to the European Parliament and the Council or if, before the expiry of that period, the European Parliament and the Council have both informed the Commission that they will not object. That period shall be extended by 2 monthsfour months at the initiative of the European Parliament or the Council. [Am. 33]

Article 25b

1.  Delegated acts adopted under this Article shall enter into force without delay and shall apply as long as no objection is expressed in accordance with paragraph 2. The notification of a delegated act to the European Parliament and to the Council shall state the reasons for the use of the urgency procedure.

2.  Either the European Parliament or the Council may object to a delegated act in accordance with the procedure referred to in Article 25a(5). In such a case, the Commission shall repeal the act without delay following the notification of the decision to object by the European Parliament or the Council.

"

7a.  The following article is inserted:"

Article 26a

1.  The Commission shall submit a biannual report to the European Parliament on the application of this Regulation.

2.  The report shall include information on the implementation of this Regulation.

3.  The European Parliament may, within one month of submission of the Commission's report, invite the Commission to an ad hoc meeting of its responsible committee to present and explain any issues related to the implementation of this Regulation.

4.  No later than six months after submitting its report to the European Parliament, the Commission shall make it public.“.

[Am. 34]

8.  Article 28 is replaced by the following:

“Article 28

The Commission shall be empowered to adopt delegated acts in accordance with Article 25a to amend the relevant Annexes where necessary to take into account the conclusion, amendment or expiry of agreements or arrangements with third countries or amendments made to Union rules on statistics, customs arrangements or common rules for imports

"

3.  Council Regulation (EC) No 953/2003 of 26 May 2003 to avoid trade diversion into the European Union of certain key medicines(18)

As regards Regulation (EC) No 953/2003, in order to add products to the list of products covered by that Regulation, the power to adopt acts in accordance with Article 290 TFEU should be delegated to the Commission in order to amend the Annex to that Regulation.

Accordingly, Regulation (EC) No 953/2003 is amended as follows:

-1.  Recital 12 is replaced by the following:"

(12)  In order to add products to the list of products covered by this Regulation, the power to adopt acts in accordance with Article 290 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union should be delegated to the Commission in respect of amending the Annexes. It is of particular importance that the Commission carry out appropriate consultations during its preparatory work, including at expert level. The Commission, when preparing and drawing up delegated acts, should ensure a simultaneous, timely and appropriate transmission of relevant documents to the European Parliament and to the Council. The Commission should provide full information and documentation concerning its meetings with national experts within the framework of its work on the preparation and implementation of delegated acts. In this respect, the Commission should ensure that the European Parliament is duly involved, drawing on best practices from previous experience in other policy areas in order to create the best possible conditions for future scrutiny of delegated acts by the European Parliament.

[Ams. 35 and 36]

1.  Article 4 is amended as follows:

   (a) paragraphs 3 and 4 are replaced by the following:

3.  The Commission shall be empowered to adopt delegated acts in accordance with Article 5 to determine whether a product fulfils the criteria set out in this Regulation.

Where a delay in action would cause damage which would be difficult to repair and therefore imperative grounds of urgency so require, the procedure provided for in Article 5a shall apply to delegated acts adopted pursuant to this paragraph.

4.  Where the requirements set out in this Regulation are fulfilled, the Commission shall be empowered to adopt delegated acts in accordance with Article 5 to add the product concerned to Annex I at the next following update. The applicant shall be informed of the decision of the Commission within 15 days.

Where a delay in action would cause damage which would be difficult to repair and therefore, imperative grounds of urgency so require, the procedure provided for in Article 5a shall apply to delegated acts adopted pursuant to this paragraph.

"

   (b) paragraph 9 is replaced by the following:"
9.  The Commission shall be empowered to adopt delegated acts in accordance with Article 5 to adjust Annexes II, III and IV where necessary in the light, inter alia, of the experience gained from its application or to respond to a health crisis.
Where a delay in action would cause damage which would be difficult to repair and therefore, imperative grounds of urgency so require, the procedure provided for in Article 5a shall apply to delegated acts adopted pursuant to this paragraph."

2.  Article 5 is replaced by the following:"

Article 5

1.  The power to adopt delegated acts is conferred on the Commission subject to the conditions laid down in this Article.

2.  The delegation of power referred to in Article 4 shall be conferred on the Commission for an indeterminatea period of timefive years from ...(19). The Commission shall draw up a report in respect of the delegation of power not later than nine months before the end of the five-year period. The delegation of power shall be tacitly extended for periods of an identical duration, unless the European Parliament or the Council opposes such extension not later than three months before the end of each period. [Am. 37]

3.  The delegation of power referred to in Article 4 may be revoked at any time by the European Parliament or by the Council. A decision of revocation shall put an end to the delegation of the power specified in that decision. It shall take effect the day following the publication of the decision in the Official Journal of the European Union or at a later date specified therein. It shall not affect the validity of any delegated acts already in force.

4.  As soon as it adopts a delegated act, the Commission shall notify it simultaneously to the European Parliament and to the Council.

5.  A delegated act adopted pursuant to Article 4 shall enter into force only if no objection has been expressed either by the European Parliament or the Council within a period of two months of notification of that act to the European Parliament and the Council or if, before the expiry of that period, the European Parliament and the Council have both informed the Commission that they will not object. That period shall be extended by 2 monthsfour months at the initiative of the European Parliament or the Council.

"

[Am. 38]

3.  The following article is inserted:"

Article 5a

1.  Delegated acts adopted under this Article shall enter into force without delay and shall apply as long as no objection is expressed in accordance with paragraph 2. The notification of a delegated act to the European Parliament and to the Council shall state the reasons for the use of the urgency procedure.

2.  Either the European Parliament or the Council may object to a delegated act in accordance with the procedure referred to in Article 5(5). In such a case, the Commission shall repeal the act without delay following the notification of the decision to object by the European Parliament or the Council.

"

4.  In Article 11, paragraph 2 is replaced by the following:"

2.  The Commission shall periodically report to the European Parliament and Council biannually on the volumes exported under tiered prices, including on the volumes exported within the framework of a partnership agreement agreed between the manufacturer and the government of a country of destination. The report shall examine the scope of countries and diseases and general criteria for the implementation of Article 3. [Am. 39]

3.  The European Parliament may, within one month of submission of the Commission's report, invite the Commission to an ad hoc meeting of its responsible committee to present and explain any issues related to the implementation of this Regulation. [Am. 40]

4.  No later than six months of submission of the report to the European Parliament and to the Council, the Commission shall make it public.“.

[Am. 41]

4.  Council Regulation (EC) No 673/2005 of 25 April 2005 establishing additional customs duties on imports of certain products originating in the United States of America(20)

As regards Regulation (EC) No 673/2005, in order to make the necessary adjustments to the measures provided for in that Regulation, the power to adopt acts in accordance with Article 290 TFEU should be delegated to the Commission in respect of those adjustments.

Accordingly, Regulation (EC) No 673/2005 is amended as follows:

-1.  Recital 7 is replaced by the following:

“(7) In order to make necessary adjustments to the measures provided for in this Regulation, the power to adopt acts in accordance with Article 290 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union should be delegated to the Commission in respect of amending the rate of the additional duty or the lists in Annexes I and II in accordance with this Regulation. It is of particular importance that the Commission carry out appropriate consultations during its preparatory work, including at expert level. The Commission, when preparing and drawing up delegated acts, should ensure a simultaneous, timely and appropriate transmission of relevant documents to the European Parliament and to the Council. The Commission should provide full information and documentation concerning its meetings with national experts within the framework of its work on the preparation and implementation of delegated acts. In this respect, the Commission should ensure that the European Parliament is duly involved, drawing on best practices from previous experience in other policy areas in order to create the best possible conditions for future scrutiny of delegated acts by the European Parliament.”.

[Am. 42]

1.  In Article 3, paragraph 3 is replaced by the following:

“3.  The Commission shall be empowered to adopt delegated acts in accordance with Article 4 to make adjustments and amendments under this Article.

Where, in the case of adjustments and amendments to the annexes, imperative grounds of urgency so require, the procedure provided for in Article 4a shall apply to delegated acts adopted pursuant to this paragraph.

"

2.  Article 4 is replaced by the following:"

Article 4

1.  The power to adopt delegated acts is conferred on the Commission subject to the conditions laid down in this Article.

2.  The delegation of power referred to in Article 3(3) shall be conferred on the Commission for an indeterminatea period of timefive years from ...(21). The Commission shall draw up a report in respect of the delegation of power not later than nine months before the end of the five- year period. The delegation of power shall be tacitly extended for periods of an identical duration, unless the European Parliament or the Council opposes such extension not later than three months before the end of each period. [Am. 43]

3.  The delegation of power referred to in Article 3(3) may be revoked at any time by the European Parliament or by the Council. A decision of revocation shall put an end to the delegation of the power specified in that decision. It shall take effect the day following the publication of the decision in the Official Journal of the European Union or at a later date specified therein. It shall not affect the validity of any delegated acts already in force.

4.  As soon as it adopts a delegated act, the Commission shall notify it simultaneously to the European Parliament and to the Council.

5.  A delegated act adopted pursuant to Article 3(3) shall enter into force only if no objection has been expressed either by the European Parliament or the Council within a period of two months of notification of that act to the European Parliament and the Council or if, before the expiry of that period, the European Parliament and the Council have both informed the Commission that they will not object. That period shall be extended by 2 monthsfour months at the initiative of the European Parliament or the Council.

"

[Am. 44]

3.  The following article is inserted:"

Article 4a

1.  Delegated acts adopted under this Article shall enter into force without delay and shall apply as long as no objection is expressed in accordance with paragraph 2. The notification of a delegated act to the European Parliament and to the Council shall state the reasons for the use of the urgency procedure.

2.  Either the European Parliament or the Council may object to a delegated act in accordance with the procedure referred to in Article 4(5). In such a case, the Commission shall repeal the act without delay following the notification of the decision to object by the European Parliament or the Council.

"

3a.  Article 7 is replaced by the following:"

Article 7

The Commission shall submit to the European Parliament and the Council a proposal to repeal this Regulation once the United States of America has fully implemented the recommendation of the WTO Dispute Settlement Body.“.

[Am. 45]

5.  Council Regulation (EC) No 1342/2007 of 22 October 2007 on administering certain restrictions on imports of certain steel products from the Russian Federation(22)

As regards Regulation (EC) No 1342/2007, in order to permit the effective administration through the adoption of adjustments to the restrictions on imports of certain steel products, the power to adopt acts in accordance with Article 290 TFEU should be delegated to the Commission in respect of amendments to Annex V.

Accordingly, Regulation (EC) No 1342/2007 is amended as follows:

-1.  The following recital is inserted:

“(10a) In order to permit the effective administration through the adoption of adjustments to the restrictions on imports of certain steel products, the power to adopt acts in accordance with Article 290 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union should be delegated to the Commission in respect of amendments to Annex V. It is of particular importance that the Commission carry out appropriate consultations during its preparatory work, including at expert level. The Commission, when preparing and drawing up delegated acts, should ensure a simultaneous, timely and appropriate transmission of relevant documents to the European Parliament and to the Council. The Commission should provide full information and documentation concerning its meetings with national experts within the framework of its work on the preparation and implementation of delegated acts. In this respect, the Commission should ensure that the European Parliament is duly involved, drawing on best practices from previous experience in other policy areas in order to create the best possible conditions for future scrutiny of delegated acts by the European Parliament.”.

[Am. 46]

1.  Article 5 is replaced by the following:

“Article 5

For the purposes of applying Article 3(3) and (4) and the second subparagraph of Article 10(1) of the Agreement, the Commission shall be empowered to adopt delegated acts in accordance with Article 31a of this Regulation to make the necessary adjustments to the quantitative limits set out in Annex V.

Where a delay in action would cause damage which would be difficult to repair and therefore, imperative grounds of urgency so require, the procedure provided for in Article 31b shall apply to delegated acts adopted pursuant to this Article.

"

2.  In Article 6, paragraph 3 is replaced by the following:"

3.  If the Union and the Russian Federation fail to arrive at a satisfactory solution and if the Commission notes that there is clear evidence of circumvention, the Commission shall be empowered to adopt delegated acts in accordance with Article 31a concerning adjustments to Annex V for the purpose of deducting from the quantitative limits an equivalent volume of products originating in the Russian Federation.

Where a delay in action would cause damage which would be difficult to repair and therefore, imperative grounds of urgency so require, the procedure provided for in Article 31b shall apply to delegated acts adopted pursuant to this paragraph.

"

3.  Article 12 is replaced by the following:"

Where a classification decision adopted in accordance with the Union procedures in force referred to in Article 11 involves a product group subject to a quantitative limit, the Commission shall, where necessary, initiate consultations without delay in accordance with Article 9, in order to reach agreement on any necessary adjustments to the corresponding quantitative limits provided for in Annex V. The Commission shall be empowered to adopt delegated acts in accordance with Article 31a concerning adjustments to Annex V for this purpose.

"

4.  The following articles are inserted after the heading of Chapter IV:"

Article 31a

1.  The power to adopt delegated acts is conferred on the Commission subject to the conditions laid down in this Article.

2.  The delegation of power referred to in Article 5, Article 6(3) and Article12 shall be conferred on the Commission for an indeterminatea period of timefive years from ...(23). The Commission shall draw up a report in respect of the delegation of power not later than nine months before the end of the five-year period. The delegation of power shall be tacitly extended for periods of an identical duration, unless the European Parliament or the Council opposes such extension not later than three months before the end of each period. [Am. 47]

3.  The delegation of power referred to in Article 5, Article 6(3) and Article12 may be revoked at any time by the European Parliament or by the Council. A decision of revocation shall put an end to the delegation of the power specified in that decision. It shall take effect the day following the publication of the decision in the Official Journal of the European Union or at a later date specified therein. It shall not affect the validity of any delegated acts already in force.

4.  As soon as it adopts a delegated act, the Commission shall notify it simultaneously to the European Parliament and to the Council.

5.  A delegated act adopted pursuant to Article 5, Article 6(3) and Article12 shall enter into force only if no objection has been expressed either by the European Parliament or the Council within a period of two months of notification of that act to the European Parliament and the Council or if, before the expiry of that period, the European Parliament and the Council have both informed the Commission that they will not object. That period shall be extended by 2 monthsfour months at the initiative of the European Parliament or the Council. [Am. 48]

Article 31b

1.  Delegated acts adopted under this Article shall enter into force without delay and shall apply as long as no objection is expressed in accordance with paragraph 2. The notification of a delegated act to the European Parliament and to the Council shall state the reasons for the use of the urgency procedure.

2.  Either the European Parliament or the Council may object to a delegated act in accordance with the procedure referred to in Article 31a(5). In such a case, the Commission shall repeal the act without delay following the notification of the decision to object by the European Parliament or the Council.

"

6.  Council Regulation (EC) No 1528/2007 of 20 December 2007 applying the arrangements for products originating in certain states which are part of the African, Caribbean and Pacific (ACP) Group of States provided for in agreements establishing, or leading to the establishment of, Economic Partnership Agreements(24)

As regards Regulation (EC) No 1528/2007, in order to make technical adaptations to the arrangements for products originating in certain states part of the African, Caribbean and Pacific (ACP) Group of States, the power to adopt acts in accordance with Article 290 TFEU should be delegated to the Commission in respect of technical amendments to that Regulation.

Accordingly, Regulation (EC) No 1528/2007 is amended as follows:

-1.  The following recital is inserted:"

(16a)  In order to adopt the provisions necessary for the application of this Regulation, the power to adopt acts in accordance with Article 290 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU) should be delegated to the Commission in respect of amending Annex I in order to add or to remove regions or states and in respect of introducing technical amendments to Annex II necessary as a result of application of that Annex. It is of particular importance that the Commission carry out appropriate consultations during its preparatory work, including at expert level. The Commission, when preparing and drawing up delegated acts, should ensure a simultaneous, timely and appropriate transmission of relevant documents to the European Parliament and to the Council. The Commission should provide full information and documentation concerning its meetings with national experts within the framework of its work on the preparation and implementation of delegated acts. In this respect, the Commission should ensure that the European Parliament is duly involved, drawing on best practices from previous experience in other policy areas in order to create the best possible conditions for future scrutiny of delegated acts by the European Parliament.“.

[Am. 49]

-1a.  Article 2 is amended as follows:

   (a) paragraph 2 is replaced by the following:

“2.  The Commission shall amend Annex I by means of delegated acts in accordance with Article 24a to add regions or states from the ACP Group of States which have concluded negotiations on an agreement between the Union and that region or state which at least meets the requirements of Article XXIV GATT 1994.“;

[Am. 50]

   (b) in paragraph 3, the introductory part is replaced by the following:

“3.  That region or state will remain on the list in Annex I unless the Commission adopts a delegated act in accordance with Article 24a amending Annex I to remove a region or state from that Annex, in particular where:“.

[Am. 51]

1.  In Article 4, paragraph 3 is replaced by the following:

The Commission, assisted by the Customs Code Committee established by Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 of 12 October 1992 establishing the Community Customs Code* shall monitor the implementation and application of the provisions of Annex II.

4.  The Commission shall be empowered to adopt delegated acts in accordance with Article [insert the number of the Article(s) laying down the procedure for the adoption of delegated acts, currently Articles 24a to 24c of proposal COM(2011) 82 final]Article 24a concerning technical amendments to Annex II necessary as a result of the application of that Annex. [Am. 52]

5.  Decisions on the management of Annex II may be adopted in accordance with the procedure referred to in Article 247 and 247a of Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92.

* OJ L 302, 19.10.1992, p. 1.

"

2.  Article 23 is replaced by the following:"

Article 23

Adaptation to technical developments

The Commission shall be empowered to adopt delegated acts in accordance with Article [insert the number of the Article(s) laying down the procedure for the adoption of delegated acts, currently Articles 24a to 24c of proposal COM(2011) 82 final]Article 24a concerning technical amendments to Articles 5 and 8 to 22 which may be required as a result of differences between this Regulation and agreements signed with provisional application or concluded in accordance with Article 218 TFEU with the regions or states listed in Annex I.

"

[Am. 53]

2a.  The following article is inserted:"

Article 24a

Exercise of the delegation

1.  The power to adopt delegated acts is conferred on the Commission subject to the conditions laid down in this Article.

2.  The delegation of power referred to in Article 2(2) and (3), Article 4(4) and Article 23 shall be conferred on the Commission for a period of five years from ...(25). The Commission shall draw up a report in respect of the delegation of power not later than nine months before the end of the five-year period. The delegation of power shall be tacitly extended for periods of an identical duration, unless the European Parliament or the Council opposes such extension not later than three months before the end of each period.

3.  The delegation of power referred to in Article 2(2) and (3), Article 4(4), and Article 23 may be revoked at any time by the European Parliament or by the Council. A decision to revoke shall put an end to the delegation of the power specified in that decision. It shall take effect the day following the publication of the decision in the Official Journal of the European Union or at a later date specified therein. It shall not affect the validity of any delegated acts already in force.

4.  As soon as it adopts a delegated act, the Commission shall notify it simultaneously to the European Parliament and to the Council.

5.  A delegated act adopted pursuant to Article 2(2) and (3), Article 4(4), and Article 23 shall enter into force only if no objection has been expressed either by the European Parliament or the Council within a period of two months of notification of that act to the European Parliament and the Council or if, before the expiry of that period, the European Parliament and the Council have both informed the Commission that they will not object. That period shall be extended by four months at the initiative of the European Parliament or the Council.“.

"

[Am. 54]

7.  Council Regulation (EC) No 55/2008 of 21 January 2008 introducing autonomous trade preferences for the Republic of Moldova and amending Regulation (EC) No 980/2005 and Commission Decision 2005/924/EC(26)

As regards Regulation (EC) No 55/2008, in order to permit the adjustment of the regulation, the power to adopt acts in accordance with Article 290 TFEU should be delegated to the Commission in respect of amendments required in light of changes in customs codes or for the conclusion of agreements with Moldova.

Accordingly, Regulation (EC) No 55/2008 is amended as follows:

-1.  The following recital is inserted:"

  “(12a) In order to permit the adjustment of this Regulation, the power to adopt acts in accordance with Article 290 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union should be delegated to the Commission in respect of amendments required in light of changes in customs codes or for the conclusion of agreements with Moldova. It is of particular importance that the Commission carry out appropriate consultations during its preparatory work, including at expert level. The Commission, when preparing and drawing up delegated acts, should ensure a simultaneous, timely and appropriate transmission of relevant documents to the European Parliament and to the Council. The Commission should provide full information and documentation concerning its meetings with national experts within the framework of its work on the preparation and implementation of delegated acts. In this respect, the Commission should ensure that the European Parliament is duly involved, drawing on best practices from previous experience in other policy areas in order to create the best possible conditions for future scrutiny of delegated acts by the European Parliament.”.

[Am. 55]

1.  Article 7 is replaced by the following:

“Article 7

Conferral of power

The Commission shall be empowered to adopt delegated acts in accordance with Article 8b in order to make the necessary amendments and adjustments to the provisions of this Regulation as a result of:

   (a) amendments to the Combined Nomenclature codes and to the TARIC subdivisions;
   (b) the conclusion of other agreements between the Union and Moldova.

"

2.  The following article is inserted:"

Article 8b

Exercise of the delegation

1.  The power to adopt delegated acts is conferred on the Commission subject to the conditions laid down in this Article.

2.  The delegation of power referred to in Article 7 shall be conferred on the Commission for an indeterminatea period of timefive years from ...(27). The Commission shall draw up a report in respect of the delegation of power not later than nine months before the end of the five-year period. The delegation of power shall be tacitly extended for periods of an identical duration, unless the European Parliament or the Council opposes such extension not later than three months before the end of each period. [Am. 56]

3.  The delegation of power referred to in Article 7 may be revoked at any time by the European Parliament or by the Council. A decision of revocation shall put an end to the delegation of the power specified in that decision. It shall take effect the day following the publication of the decision in the Official Journal of the European Union or at a later date specified therein. It shall not affect the validity of any delegated acts already in force.

4.  As soon as it adopts a delegated act, the Commission shall notify it simultaneously to the European Parliament and to the Council.

5.  A delegated act adopted pursuant to Article 7 shall enter into force only if no objection has been expressed either by the European Parliament or the Council within a period of two months of notification of that act to the European Parliament and the Council or if, before the expiry of that period, the European Parliament and the Council have both informed the Commission that they will not object. That period shall be extended by 2 monthsfour months at the initiative of the European Parliament or the Council.

"

[Am. 57]

2a.  The following article is inserted:"

Article 12a

Report

1.  The Commission shall submit a biannual report to the European Parliament on the application of this Regulation.

2.  The report shall include information concerning the implementation of this Regulation.

3.  The European Parliament may, within one month of submission of the Commission's report, invite the Commission to an ad hoc meeting of its responsible committee to present and explain any issues related to the implementation of this Regulation.

4.  No later than six months after submission of its report to the European Parliament, the Commission shall make it public.“.

[Am. 58]

8.  Council Regulation (EC) No 732/2008 of 22 July 2008 applying a scheme of generalised tariff preferences for the period from 1 January 2009 to 31 December 2011 and amending Regulations (EC) No 552/97, (EC) No 1933/2006 and Commission Regulations (EC) No 1100/2006 and (EC) No 964/2007(28)

As regards Regulation (EC) No 732/2008, in order for its Annexes to be adapted to developments, the power to adopt acts in accordance with Article 290 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union should be delegated to the Commission in respect of certain adjustments to the Annexes. It is of particular importance that the Commission carry out appropriate consultations during its preparatory work, including at expert level.

The Commission, when preparing and drawing up delegated acts, should ensure a simultaneous, timely and appropriate transmission of relevant documents to the European Parliament and Council.

Accordingly, Regulation (EC) No 732/2008 is amended as follows:

1.  In Article 10, paragraph 2 is replaced by the following:

“2.  The Commission shall be empowered to adopt delegated acts in accordance with Article 27a in order to decide, after having examined the request, whether to grant the requesting country the special incentive arrangement for sustainable development and good governance and to amend Annex I accordingly.

Where a delay in action would cause damage which would be difficult to repair and therefore, imperative grounds of urgency so require, the procedure provided for in Article 27b shall apply to delegated acts adopted pursuant to this paragraph.

"

2.  In Article 11, paragraph 8 is replaced by the following:"

8.  When a country is excluded by the UN from the list of the least-developed countries, it shall be withdrawn from the list of the beneficiaries of the arrangement. The Commission shall be empowered to adopt delegated acts in accordance with Article 27a in order to remove a country from the arrangement by amending Annex I and to establish a transitional period of at least three years.

"

3.  Article 25 is replaced by the following:"

Article 25

The Commission shall be empowered to adopt delegated acts in accordance with Article 27a in order to adopt amendments to the Annexes made necessary:

   (a) by amendments to the Combined Nomenclature;
   (b) by changes in the international status or classification of countries or territories;
   (c) by the application of Article 3(2);
   (d) if a country has reached the thresholds set out in Article 3(1).

"

4.  The following Articles 27a and 27b are inserted:"

Article 27a

Exercise of the delegation

1.  The power to adopt delegated acts is conferred on the Commission subject to the conditions laid down in this Article.

2.  The delegation of power referred to in Articles 10(2), 11(8) and 25 shall be conferred on the Commission for an indeterminate period of time.

3.  The delegation of powers referred to in Articles 10(2), 11(8) and 25 may be revoked at any time by the European Parliament or by the Council. A decision of revocation shall put an end to the delegation of the power specified in that decision. It shall take effect the day following the publication of the decision in the Official Journal of the European Union or at a later date specified therein. It shall not affect the validity of any delegated acts already in force.

4.  As soon as it adopts a delegated act, the Commission shall notify it simultaneously to the European Parliament and to the Council.

5.  A delegated act adopted pursuant to Articles 10(2), 11(8) and 25 shall enter into force only if no objection has been expressed either by the European Parliament or the Council within a period of 2 months of notification of that act to the European Parliament and the Council or if, before the expiry of that period, the European Parliament and the Council have both informed the Commission that they will not object. That period shall be extended by 2 months at the initiative of the European Parliament or the Council.

Article 27b

Urgency procedure

1.  Delegated acts adopted under this Article shall enter into force without delay and shall apply as long as no objection is expressed in accordance with paragraph 2. The notification of a delegated act to the European Parliament and to the Council shall state the reasons for the use of the urgency procedure.

2.  Either the European Parliament or the Council may object to a delegated act in accordance with the procedure referred to in Article 27a(5). In such a case, the Commission shall repeal the act without delay following the notification of the decision to object by the European Parliament or the Council.“

"

[Am. 59]

9.  Council Regulation (EC) No 1340/2008 of 8 December 2008 on trade in certain steel products between the European Community and the Republic of Kazakhstan(29)

As regards Regulation (EC) No 1340/2008, in order to permit the effective administration of certain restrictions, the power to adopt acts in accordance with Article 290 TFEU should be delegated to the Commission in respect of amendments to Annex V.

Accordingly, Regulation (EC) No 1340/2008 is amended as follows:

-1.  The following recital is inserted:"

  “(9a) In order to permit effective administration of certain restrictions, the power to adopt acts in accordance with Article 290 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union should be delegated to the Commission in respect of amendments to Annex V. It is of particular importance that the Commission carry out appropriate consultations during its preparatory work, including at expert level. The Commission, when preparing and drawing up delegated acts, should ensure a simultaneous, timely and appropriate transmission of relevant documents to the European Parliament and to the Council. The Commission should provide full information and documentation concerning its meetings with national experts within the framework of its work on the preparation and implementation of delegated acts. In this respect, the Commission should ensure that the European Parliament is duly involved, drawing on best practices from previous experience in other policy areas in order to create the best possible conditions for future scrutiny of delegated acts by the European Parliament.”.

[Am. 60]

1.  In Article 5, paragraph 3 is replaced by the following:

“3.  Should the Union and the Republic of Kazakhstan fail to arrive at a satisfactory solution and should the Commission note that there is clear evidence of circumvention, the Commission shall be empowered to adopt delegated acts in accordance with Article 16a in order to deduct from the quantitative limits an equivalent volume of products originating in the Republic of Kazakhstan and to amend Annex V accordingly.

Where a delay in action would cause damage which would be difficult to repair and therefore, imperative grounds of urgency so require, the procedure provided for in Article 16b shall apply to delegated acts adopted pursuant to this paragraph.

"

2.  The following articles are inserted:"

Article 16a

1.  The power to adopt delegated acts is conferred on the Commission subject to the conditions laid down in this Article.

2.  The delegation of power referred to in Article 5(3) shall be conferred on the Commission for an indeterminatea period of timefive years from ...(30). The Commission shall draw up a report in respect of the delegation of power not later than nine months before the end of the five-year period. The delegation of power shall be tacitly extended for periods of an identical duration, unless the European Parliament or the Council opposes such extension not later than three months before the end of each period. [Am. 61]

3.  The delegation of power referred to in Article 5(3) may be revoked at any time by the European Parliament or by the Council. A decision of revocation shall put an end to the delegation of the power specified in that decision. It shall take effect the day following the publication of the decision in the Official Journal of the European Union or at a later date specified therein. It shall not affect the validity of any delegated acts already in force.

4.  As soon as it adopts a delegated act, the Commission shall notify it simultaneously to the European Parliament and to the Council.

5.  A delegated act adopted pursuant to Article 5(3) shall enter into force only if no objection has been expressed either by the European Parliament or the Council within a period of two months of notification of that act to the European Parliament and the Council or if, before the expiry of that period, the European Parliament and the Council have both informed the Commission that they will not object. That period shall be extended by 2 monthsfour months at the initiative of the European Parliament or the Council. [Am. 62]

Article 16b

1.  Delegated acts adopted under this Article shall enter into force without delay and shall apply as long as no objection is expressed in accordance with paragraph 2. The notification of a delegated act to the European Parliament and to the Council shall state the reasons for the use of the urgency procedure.

2.  Either the European Parliament or the Council may object to a delegated act in accordance with the procedure referred to in Article 16a(5). In such a case, the Commission shall repeal the act without delay following the notification of the decision to object by the European Parliament or the Council.

"

10.  Council Regulation (EC) No 1215/2009 of 30 November 2009 introducing exceptional trade measures for countries and territories participating in or linked to the European Union’s Stabilisation and Association process(31)

As regards Regulation (EC) No 1215/2009, in order to permit the adjustment of the Regulation, the power to adopt acts in accordance with Article 290 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union should be delegated to the Commission in respect of amendments required in light of changes in customs codes or for the conclusion of agreements with the countries and territories covered by that Regulation. It is of particular importance that the Commission carry out appropriate consultations during its preparatory work, including at expert level.

The Commission, when preparing and drawing up delegated acts, should ensure a simultaneous, timely and appropriate transmission of relevant documents to the European Parliament and Council.

Accordingly, Regulation (EC) No 1215/2009 is amended as follows:

1.  Article 7 is replaced by the following:"

Article 7

Conferment of powers

The Commission shall be empowered to adopt delegated acts in accordance with the procedure referred to in Article 8b in order to make the necessary amendments and adjustments to the provisions of this Regulation as a result of:

   (a) amendments to the Combined Nomenclature codes and to the TARIC subdivisions;
   (b) the conclusion of other agreements between the Union and the countries and territories referred to in Article 1.

"

2.  The following Article 8b is inserted:"

Article 8b

Exercise of the delegation

1.  The power to adopt delegated acts is conferred on the Commission subject to the conditions laid down in this Article.

2.  The delegation of power referred to in Article 7 shall be conferred on the Commission for an indeterminate period of time.

3.  The delegation of powers referred to in Article 7 may be revoked at any time by the European Parliament or by the Council. A decision of revocation shall put an end to the delegation of the power specified in that decision. It shall take effect the day following the publication of the decision in the Official Journal of the European Union or at a later date specified therein. It shall not affect the validity of any delegated acts already in force.

4.  As soon as it adopts a delegated act, the Commission shall notify it simultaneously to the European Parliament and to the Council.

5.  A delegated act adopted pursuant to Article 7 shall enter into force only if no objection has been expressed either by the European Parliament or the Council within a period of 2 months of notification of that act to the European Parliament and the Council or if, before the expiry of that period, the European Parliament and the Council have both informed the Commission that they will not object. That period shall be extended by 2 months at the initiative of the European Parliament or the Council.

"

[Am. 63]

(1) Position of the European Parliament of 22 November 2012.
(2) OJ L 184, 17.7.1999, p. 23.
(3) OJ L 55, 28.2.2011, p. 13.
(4) OJ L 275, 8.11.1993, p. 1.
(5) OJ L 67, 10.3.1994, p. 1.
(6) OJ L 135, 3.6.2003, p. 5.
(7) OJ L 110, 30.4.2005, p. 1.
(8) OJ L 300, 17.11.2007, p. 1.
(9) OJ L 348, 31.12.2007, p. 1.
(10) OJ L 20, 24.1.2008, p. 1.
(11) OJ L 211, 6.8.2008, p. 1.
(12) OJ L 348, 24.12.2008, p. 1.
(13) OJ L 328, 15.12.2009, p. 1.
(14) OJ L 275, 8.11.1993, p. 1.
(15)+ Date of entry into force of this Regulation.
(16) OJ L 67, 10.3.1994, p. 1.
(17)+ Please insert the date of entry into force of this Regulation
(18) OJ L 135, 3.6.2003, p. 5.
(19)+ Please insert the date of entry into force of this Regulation
(20) OJ L 110, 30.4.2005, p. 1.
(21)+ Please insert the date of entry into force of this Regulation
(22) OJ L 300, 17.11.2007, p. 1.
(23)+ Please insert the date of entry into force of this Regulation
(24) OJ L 348, 31.12.2007, p. 1.
(25)+Please insert the date of entry into force of this Regulation
(26) OJ L 20, 24.1.2008, p. 1.
(27)+Please insert the date of entry into force of this Regulation
(28) OJ L 211, 6.2.2008, p. 1.
(29) OJ L 348, 24.12.2008, p. 1.
(30)+Please insert the date of entry into force of this Regulation
(31) OJ L 328, 15.12.2009, p. 1.


Conservation of fishery resources through technical measures for the protection of juveniles of marine organisms ***I
PDF 799kWORD 1152k
Text
Consolidated text
Annex
Amendments adopted by the European Parliament on 22 November 2012 on the proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Council Regulation (EC) No 850/98 concerning the conservation of fishery resources through technical measures for the protection of juveniles of marine organisms and repealing Council Regulation (EC) No 1288/2009 (COM(2012)0298 – C7-0156/2012 – 2012/0158(COD))(1)
P7_TA(2012)0448A7-0342/2012

(Ordinary legislative procedure: first reading)

[Amendment 32]

AMENDMENTS BY THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT(2)
P7_TA(2012)0448A7-0342/2012
to the Commission proposal
P7_TA(2012)0448A7-0342/2012

------------------------------------------------------

REGULATION OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL
amending Council Regulation (EC) No 850/98 for the conservation of fishery resources through technical measures for the protection of juveniles of marine organisms and Council Regulation (EC) No 1434/98 specifying conditions under which herring may be landed for industrial purposes other than direct human consumption

THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,

Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular Article 43(2) thereof,

Having regard to the proposal from the European Commission,

After transmission of the draft legislative act to the national parliaments,

Having regard to the opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee(3),

Acting in accordance with the ordinary legislative procedure,

Whereas:

(1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 1288/2009 of 27 November 2009 establishing transitional technical measures from 1 January 2010 to 30 June 2011(4) and Regulation (EU) No 579/2011 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 8 June 2011(5) provide for the continuation of certain technical measures established in Council Regulation (EC) No 43/2009 of 16 January 2009 fixing for 2009 the fishing opportunities and associated conditions for certain fish stocks and groups of fish stocks, applicable in Community waters and, for Community vessels, in waters where catch limitation are required(6) on a transitional basis until 31 December 2012.

(2)  A new technical conservation measures framework is awaited pending the reform of the Common Fisheries Policy (CFP). The unlikelihood that such a new framework will be in place by the end of 2012 justifies the extension of the application of those transitional technical measures.

(3)  In order to ensure the continuation of proper conservation and management of marine biological resources, Council Regulation (EC) No 850/98(7) should be updated by incorporating the transitional technical measures into it.

(3a)  In order to ensure the continuation of proper conservation and management of marine biological resources in the Black Sea, minimum landing and mesh sizes for the turbot fishery as previously established in Union law should be incorporated into Regulation (EC) No 850/98.

(5)  The prohibition of highgrading in all ICES areas should be maintained in order to reduce the discarding of quota species.

(5a)  On the basis of consultations held in 2009 between the Union, Norway and the Faroe Islands, with a view to reducing unwanted catches, a prohibition on the releasing or slipping of certain species as well as a requirement to move fishing grounds when 10 % of the catch contains undersized fish should be introduced,.

(5b)  In the light of advice from the Scientific, Technical and Economic Committee for Fisheries (STECF), the restrictions on landing or retaining on board herring caught in ICES Division IIa should be maintained.

(6)  In the light of advice from STECF, an area closure for the protection of spawning herring in ICES Division VIa is no longer necessary to ensure the sustainable exploitation of that species, and that closure should therefore be repealed.

(7)  In the light of advice from STECF linking low sandeel availability to the poor breeding success of kittiwakes, an area closure in ICES Subarea IV should be maintained, except for a limited fishery each year to monitor the stock.

(8)  In the light of advice from STECF, it should be possible to authorise the use of gears that do not catch Norway lobster in certain areas where fishing for Norway lobster is prohibited.

(11)  In the light of advice from STECF, an area closure to protect juvenile haddock in ICES Division VIb should be maintained.

(11a)  In the light of advice from ICES and STECF, certain technical conservation measures in the waters west of Scotland (ICES Division VIa) to protect cod, haddock and whiting stocks should be maintained in order to contribute to the conservation of fish stocks.

(11b)  In the light of advice from STECF, the use of handlines and automated jigging equipment for saithe in ICES Division VIa should be allowed.

(11c)  In the light of advice from STECF on the spatial distribution of cod in ICES Division VIa which shows that a large majority of cod catches are caught north of 590N, the use of gillnets south of this line should be allowed.

(11d)  In the light of advice from STECF, the use of gillnets for lesser spotted dogfish in ICES Division VIa should be allowed.

(11e)  The appropriateness of the characteristics of gears in the derogation to fish with trawls, demersal seines or similar gears in ICES Division VIa should be periodically reviewed in the light of scientific advice with a view to their amendment or repeal.

(11f)  In the light of advice from STECF, an area closure to protect juvenile cod in ICES Division VIa should be introduced.

(11g)  The appropriateness of the prohibition on fishing for cod, haddock and whiting in ICES Subarea VI should be periodically reviewed in the light of scientific advice with a view to its amendment or repeal.

(11h)  In the light of advice from ICES and STECF, measures to protect cod stocks in the Celtic Sea (ICES Divisions VIIf, g) should be maintained.

(12)  In the light of advice from STECF, measures to protect spawning aggregations of blue ling in ICES Division VIa should be maintained.

(13)  Measures established in 2011 by the Northeast Atlantic Fisheries Commission (NEAFC) to protect redfish in international waters of ICES Subareas I and II should be maintained.

(14)  Measures established by NEAFC in 2011 to protect redfish in the Irminger Sea and adjacent waters should be maintained.

(15)  In the light of advice from STECF, fishing with beam trawl using electrical pulse current should continue to be allowed in ICES Divisions IVc and IVb south under certain conditions.

(16)  On the basis of consultations held in 2009 between the Union, Norway and the Faroe Islands, certain measures to restrict the catch handling and discharge capabilities of pelagic vessels targeting mackerel, herring and horse mackerel in the North-East Atlantic ▌should be implemented, on a permanent basis.

(17)  In the light of advice from ICES, technical conservation measures to protect adult cod stocks in the Irish Sea during the spawning season should be maintained.

(17a)  In the light of advice from STECF, the use of sorting grids in a restricted area in ICES Division VIIa should be allowed.

(18)  In light of advice from STECF, fishing with gillnets and entangling nets in ICES Divisions IIIa, VIa, VIb, VIIb, VIIc, VIIj, VIIk and ICES Subareas VIII, IX, X and XII east of 27°W in waters with a charted depth of more than 200m but less than 600m should only be allowed under certain conditions that provide protection for biologically sensitive deep-sea species.

(18a)  It is important to clarify the interaction between the different regimes applicable to fishing with gillnets, especially in ICES Subarea VII. More particularly, it should be made clear that the specific derogation for fishing with gillnets with a mesh size equal to or greater than 100mm in ICES Divisions IIIa, IVa, Vb, VIa, VIb, VIIb, c, j and k as well as the specific conditions related to that derogation, only applies in waters with a charted depth of more than 200 meters but less than 600 meters and that, consequently, the default rules concerning the mesh-size range and the catch composition set out in Regulation (EC) No 850/98 apply in ICES Divisions VIIa, VIId, VIIe, VIIf, VIIg and VIIh and in waters with a charted depth of less than 200 meters in ICES Divisions IIIa, IVa, Vb, VIa, VIb, VIIb, c, j and k.

(18b)  In the light of advice from STECF, the use of trammel nets in ICES Subarea IX in waters with a charted depth more than 200m but less than 600m should be allowed.

(19)  The use of certain selective gears should continue to be permitted in the Bay of Biscay in order to ensure the sustainable exploitation of the hake and Norway lobster stocks and to reduce discards of these species.

(20)  Restrictions on fishing in certain areas in order to protect vulnerable deep-sea habitats in the NEAFC Regulatory Area adopted by NEAFC in 2004 and in certain areas in ICES Divisions VIIc,j,k and ICES Division VIIIc, adopted by the Union in 2008 should remain in place.

(21)  In accordance with the advice of a joint Union/Norway Working Group on technical measures the weekend ban on fishing for herring, mackerel or sprat with trawls or purse seines in the Skagerrak and Kattegat no longer contributes to the conservation of pelagic fish stocks due to changes in fishing patterns Consequently, on the basis of consultations held between the Union, Norway and the Faroe Islands in 2011, this ban should be revoked.

(22)  For the sake of clarity and better regulation, some obsolete provisions should be deleted.

(22a)  In order to reflect changes in fishing patterns and adoption of more selective gears the mesh size ranges, target species and required catch percentages applicable in the Skagerrak and Kattegat should be maintained.

(23)  The minimum sizes for short-necked clam should be revised in the light of biological data.

(24)  A minimum size for octopus in catches taken in waters under the sovereignty or jurisdiction of third countries and situated in the region of the Fishery Committee for the Eastern Central Atlantic (CECAF) has been set in order to contribute to the conservation of octopus and in particular to protect juveniles.

(24a)  An equivalent measure to the minimum landing size for anchovy in terms of the number of fish per kg should be introduced, as this would simplify work on board vessels targeting this species and facilitate control measures ashore.

(25)  ▌Specifications for a sorting grid ▌to be used for reduction of the bycatch in fisheries for Norway Lobster in ICES Division IIIa, ICES Subarea VI and ICES Division VIIa should be maintained.

(26)  Specifications for square mesh panels to be used under certain conditions for fisheries with certain towed gears in the Bay of Biscay should be maintained.

(27)  ▌The use of 2m square-meshed panels by vessels with an engine power of less than 112 Kw in a restricted area in ICES Division VIa should be allowed.

(27a)  The term 'Community' used in the enacting terms of Regulation (EC) No 850/98 should be changed, following the entry into force of the Treaty of Lisbon on 1 December 2009.

(27b)  In order to ensure uniform conditions for the implementation of rules on the use of gears having equivalent high selectivity when fishing for Norway lobster in ICES Division VIa and of rules excluding specific fisheries of a Member State from the application of the prohibition to use gillnets, entangling or trammel nets in ICES Subareas VIII, IX, X where the level of shark bycatches and of discards is very low, implementing powers should be conferred on the Commission. Those powers should be exercised without applying Regulation (EU) No 182/2011(8).

(29)  Regulation (EC) No 850/98 should therefore be amended accordingly.

(29a)  Council Regulation (EC) No 1434/98 provides for specific conditions under which herring may be landed for industrial purposes other than direct human consumption. A specific derogation from the conditions for landing bycatches of herring in small meshed fisheries in ICES Division IIIa, Subarea IV, Division VIId and Union waters of ICES Division IIa, previously included in other Union acts, should be incorporated into that Regulation. Regulation (EC) No 1434/98 should therefore be amended accordingly,

HAVE ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

Article 1

Amendments to Regulation (EC) No 850/98

Regulation (EC) No 850/98 is hereby amended as follows:

(-1a)  The following article is inserted:"

Article 1a

In Article 4(2)(c), Article 46(1)(b) and in Annex I, footnote (5), the noun 'Community', or the corresponding adjective, is replaced by the noun 'Union', or the corresponding adjective, and any grammatical adjustments needed as a consequence of this replacement shall be made.

"

(-1b)  In Article 2, the following point is added:"

(i)  Region 9

All waters of the Black Sea corresponding to the geographical subarea 29 as defined in Annex I to Regulation (EU) No 1343/2011 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 December 2011 on certain provisions for fishing in the GFCM (General Fisheries Commission for the Mediterranean) Agreement area* and in Resolution GFCM/33/2009/2.

* OJ L 347, 30.12.2011,p. 44.

"

(-1c)  In Article 11(1), the following subparagraph is added:"

This derogation shall apply without prejudice to Article 34b(2)(c).

(-1d)  The following article is inserted:

Article 11a

In Region 9, the minimum mesh size for bottom set gillnets, when used to catch turbot, shall be 400 mm.

"

(1a)  Article 17 is replaced by the following:"

A marine organism is undersized if its dimensions are smaller than the minimum dimensions specified in Annex XII and Annex XIIa for the relevant species and the relevant geographical area.

"

(1b)  In Article 19, the following paragraph is added:"

4.  Paragraphs 2 and 3 shall not apply in Region 9.

"

(2)  The following title is inserted:"

TITLE IIIa

MEASURES TO REDUCE DISCARDING

Article 19a

Prohibition of highgrading

1.  Within Regions 1, 2, 3 and 4 the discarding, during fishing operations, of species subject to quota which can be legally landed shall be prohibited.

2.  The provisions referred to in paragraph 1 are without prejudice to the obligations set out in this Regulation or in any other Union legal acts in the field of fisheries.

Article 19b

Moving-on provisions and prohibition on slipping

1.  Within Regions 1, 2, 3 and 4, where the quantity of undersized mackerel, herring or horse mackerel exceeds 10 % of the total quantity of the catches in any one haul, the vessel shall move fishing grounds.

2.  Within Regions 1,2, 3 and 4 it is prohibited to release mackerel, herring or horse mackerel before the net is fully taken on board a fishing vessel resulting in the loss of dead or dying fish.

"

(3)  In Article 20(1), point (d) is deleted.

(3a)  The following article is inserted:"

Article 20a

Restrictions on fishing for herring in Union waters of ICES Division IIa

It shall be prohibited to land or retain on board herring caught in Union waters of ICES Division IIa in the periods from 1 January to 28 February and from 16 May to 31 December.

"

(4)  Article 29a is replaced by the following:"

Article 29a

Closure of an area for sandeel fisheries in ICES Subarea IV

1.  It shall be prohibited to land or retain on board sandeels caught within the geographical area bounded by the east coast of England and Scotland, and enclosed by sequentially joining with rhumb lines the following coordinates, which shall be measured according to the WGS84 system:

   the east coast of England at latitude 55o30'N,
   latitude 55o30'N, longitude 01o00'W,
   latitude 58o00'N, longitude 01o00'W,
   latitude 58o00'N, longitude 02o00'W,
   the east coast of Scotland at longitude 02o00'W.

2.  Fisheries for scientific investigation shall be allowed in order to monitor the sandeel stock in the area and the effects of the closure.

"

(5)  In Article 29b, paragraph 3 is replaced by the following:"

3.  By way of derogation from the prohibition laid down in paragraph 1, fishing with creels that do not catch Norway lobster shall be authorised in the geographical areas and during the periods set out in that paragraph.

"

(6)  The following articles are inserted:"

Article 29c

Rockall Haddock box in ICES Subarea VI

1.  All fishing of Rockall haddock, except with longlines, shall be prohibited in the areas enclosed by sequentially joining with rhumb lines the following coordinates, which shall be measured according to the WGS84 system:

   57o00' N, 15o00' W
   57o00' N, 14o00' W
   56o30' N, 14o00' W
   56o30' N, 15o00' W
   57o00' N, 15o00' W

Article 29d

Restrictions on fishing for cod, haddock and whiting in ICES Subarea VI

1.  It shall be prohibited to conduct any fishing activity for cod, haddock and whiting within that part of ICES Division VIa that lies to the east or to the south of those rhumb lines which sequentially join the following coordinates, which shall be measured according to the WGS84 system:

   54o30' N, 10o35' W
   55o20' N, 09o50' W
   55o30' N, 09o20' W
   56o40' N, 08o55' W
   57o00' N, 09o00' W
   57o20' N, 09o20' W
   57o50' N, 09o20' W
   58o10' N, 09o00' W
   58o40' N, 07o40' W
   59o00' N, 07o30' W
   59o20' N, 06o30' W
   59o40' N, 06o05' W
   59o40' N, 05o30' W
   60o00' N, 04o50' W
   60o15' N, 04o00' W

2.  Any fishing vessel present within the area referred to in paragraph 1 of this Article shall ensure that any fishing gears carried on board are lashed and stowed in accordance with Article 47 of Council Regulation (EC) No 1224/2009 of 20 November 2009 establishing a Community control system for ensuring compliance with the rules of the common fisheries policy *.

3.  By way of derogation from paragraph 1, it shall be permitted to conduct fishing activities within the area referred to in that paragraph using inshore static nets fixed with stakes, scallop dredges, mussel dredges, handlines, mechanised jigging, draft nets and beach seines, pots and creels, provided that:

   (a) no fishing gear other than inshore static nets fixed with stakes, scallop dredges, mussel dredges, handlines, mechanised jigging, draft nets and beach seines, pots and creels are carried on board or deployed; and
   (b) no fish other than mackerel, pollack, saithe and salmon, or shellfish other than molluscs and crustaceans are retained on board, landed or brought ashore.

4.  By way of derogation from paragraph 1, it shall be permitted to conduct fishing activities within the area referred to in that paragraph using nets with a mesh size of less than 55 mm, provided that:

   (a) no net of mesh size greater than or equal to 55 mm is carried on board; and
   (b) no fish other than herring, mackerel, pilchard/sardines, sardinelles, horse mackerel, sprat, blue whiting, boarfish and argentines are retained on board.

4a.  By way of derogation from paragraph 1, it shall be permitted to conduct fishing activities within the area referred to in that paragraph using gillnets of mesh size greater than 120 mm, provided that:

   (a) they are only deployed in the area south of 59oN;
   (b) the maximum length of gillnet deployed is 20 km per vessel;
   (c) the maximum soak time is 24 hours; and
   (d) no more than 5 % of the catch is made up of whiting and cod.

4b.  By way of derogation from paragraph 1, it shall be permitted to conduct fishing activities within the area referred to in that paragraph using gillnets with a mesh size that is greater than 90 mm, provided that:

   (a) they are only deployed within three nautical miles of the coastline and for a maximum of 10 days per calendar month;
  (b) the maximum length of gillnet deployed is 1000m;
   (c) the maximum soak time is 24 hours; and
   (d) at least 70% of the catch is made up of lesser spotted dogfish.

5.  By way of derogation from paragraph 1, it shall be permitted to fish for Norway lobster within the area set out in that paragraph provided that:

   (a) the fishing gear used incorporates a sorting grid in accordance with points 2 to 5 of Annex XIVa, or a square-mesh panel as described in Annex XIVc, or is another gear with equivalent high selectivity;
   (b) the fishing gear is constructed with a minimum mesh size of 80 mm;
   (c) at least 30 % of the retained catch by weight is Norway lobster.

The Commission shall on the basis of a favourable opinion by STECF adopt implementing acts, determining which gears are to be considered to have equivalent high selectivity for the purpose of point (a).

6.  Paragraph 5 shall not apply within the area enclosed by sequentially joining with rhumb lines the following coordinates, which shall be measured according to the WGS84 system:

   59o05' N, 06o45' W
   59o30' N, 06o00' W
   59o40' N, 05o00' W
   60o00' N, 04o00' W
   59o30' N, 04o00' W
   59o05' N, 06o45' W

7.  By way of derogation from paragraph 1, it shall be permitted to fish with trawls, demersal seines or similar gears within the area set out in that paragraph provided that:

   (a) all nets on board the vessel are constructed with a minimum mesh size of 120 mm for vessels with an overall length of more than 15 metres and of 110 mm for all other vessels;
   (c) where the catch retained on board includes less than 90 % saithe the fishing gear used incorporates a square mesh panel as described in Annex XIVc, and;
   (d) where the overall length of the vessel is less than or equal to 15 metres, regardless of the quantity of saithe retained on board, the fishing gear used incorporates a square-mesh panel as described in Annex XIVd.

7a.  No later than 1 January 2015 and no later than every two years thereafter, the Commission shall, in the light of scientific advice by STECF, assess the characteristics of gears specified in paragraph 7 and, where appropriate, submit to the European Parliament and to the Council a proposal for amendment of paragraph 7.

8.  Paragraph 7 shall not apply within the area enclosed by sequentially joining with rhumb lines the following coordinates, which shall be measured according to the WGS84 system:

   59o05' N, 06o45' W
   59o30' N, 06o00' W
   59o40' N, 05o00' W
   60o00' N, 04o00' W
   59o30' N, 04o00' W
   59o05' N, 06o45' W

8a.  From 1 January to 31 March, and from 1 October to 31 December each year, it shall be prohibited to conduct any fishing activity using any of the gears specified in Annex I to Council Regulation (EC) No 1342/2008 of 18 December 2008 establishing a long-term plan for cod stocks and the fisheries exploiting those stocks** in the area specified in ICES area VIa enclosed by sequentially joining with rhumb lines the following coordinates

   longitude 7o07 W, latitude 55o25 N,
   longitude 7o00W, latitude 55o25 N,
   longitude 6o50W, latitude 55o18 N,
   longitude 6o50 W, latitude 55o17 N,
   longitude 6°52 W, latitude 55°17 N,
   longitude 7°07 W, latitude 55°25 N,

Neither the master of a fishing vessel nor any other person on board shall cause or permit a person on board to attempt to fish for, land, tranship or have on board fish caught in the specified area.

9.  Each Member State concerned shall implement an onboard observer programme from 1 January to 31 December each year in order to sample the catches and discards of vessels benefiting from the derogations provided for in paragraphs 4a, 4b, 5 and 7. The observer programmes shall be carried out without prejudice to the obligations under the respective rules and shall aim to estimate cod, haddock and whiting catches and discards with a precision of at least 20 %.

10.  Member States concerned shall produce a ▌report on the total amount of catches and discards made by vessels subject to the observer programme during each calendar year and shall submit it to the Commission no later than ▌1 February of the following calendar year..

10a.  No later than 1 January 2015 and no later than every two years thereafter, the Commission shall assess the state of cod, haddock and whiting stocks in the area specified in paragraph 1 in the light of scientific advice by STECF and, where appropriate, submit to the European Parliament and the Council a proposal for the amendment of this Article.

Article 29e

Restrictions on fishing for cod in ICES Subarea VII

1.  From 1 February until 31 March each year, it shall be prohibited to conduct any fishing activity in ICES Subarea VII in the area which consists of ICES statistical rectangles: 30E4, 31E4, 32E3. This prohibition shall not apply within six nautical miles from the baseline.

2.  By way of derogation from paragraph 1, it shall be permitted to conduct fishing activities using inshore static nets fixed with stakes, scallop dredges, mussel dredges, draft nets and beach seines, handlines, mechanised jigging, pots and creels within the area and time periods referred to in that paragraph, provided that:

   (a) no fishing gear other than inshore static nets fixed with stakes, scallop dredges, mussel dredges, draft nets and beach seines, handlines, mechanised jigging, pots and creels are carried on board or deployed; and
   (b) no fish other than mackerel, pollack, salmon, or shellfish other than molluscs and crustaceans are landed, retained on board or brought ashore.

3.  By way of derogation from paragraph 1, it shall be permitted to conduct fishing activities within the area referred to in that paragraph using nets of mesh size less than 55 mm, provided that:

   (a) no net of mesh size greater than or equal to 55 mm is carried on board; and
   (b) no fish other than herring, mackerel, pilchard/sardines, sardinelles, horse mackerel, sprat, blue whiting, boarfish and argentines are retained on board.

Article 29f

Special rules for the protection of blue ling

1.  From 1 March to 31 May each year it shall be prohibited to retain on board any quantity of blue ling in excess of 6 tonnes per fishing trip in the areas of ICES Division VIa enclosed by sequentially joining with rhumb lines the following coordinates, which shall be measured according to the WGS84 system:

  (a) Edge of Scottish continental shelf
   59o58' N, 07o00' W
   59o55' N, 06o47' W
   59o51' N, 06o28' W
   59o45' N, 06o38' W
   59o27' N, 06o42' W
   59o22' N, 06o47' W
   59o15' N, 07o15' W
   59o07' N, 07o31' W
   58o52' N, 07o44' W
   58o44' N, 08o11' W
   58o43' N, 08o27' W
   58o28' N, 09o16' W
   58o15' N, 09o32' W
   58o15' N, 09o45' W
   58o30' N, 09o45' W
   59o30' N, 07o00' W
   59o58' N, 07o00' W
  (b) Edge of Rosemary bank

Not including the area enclosed by sequentially joining with rhumb lines the following coordinates, which shall be measured according to the WGS84 system:
   60o00' N, 11o00' W
   59o00' N, 11º00' W
   59º00' N, 09º00' W
   59º30' N, 09º00' W
   59º30' N, 10º00' W
   60º00' N, 10º00' W
   60o00' N, 11o00' W
   59o15' N, 10o24' W
   59o10' N, 10o22' W
   59o08' N, 10o07' W
   59o11' N, 09o59' W
   59o15' N, 09o58' W
   59o22' N, 10o02' W
   59o23' N, 10o11' W
   59o20' N, 10o19' W
   59o15' N, 10o24' W

2.  When entering and exiting the areas referred to in paragraph 1, the master of a fishing vessel shall record the date, time and place of entry and exit in the logbook.

3.  In either of the two areas referred to in paragraph 1, if a vessel reaches the 6 tonnes of blue ling:

   (a) it shall immediately cease fishing and exit the area in which it is present;
   (b) it may not re-enter either of the areas until its catch has been landed;
   (c) it may not return to the sea any quantity of blue ling.

4.  The observers referred to in Article 8 of Council Regulation (EC) No 2347/2002 of 16 December 2002 establishing specific access requirements and associated conditions applicable to fishing for deep-sea stocks *** who are assigned to fishing vessels present in one of the areas referred to in paragraph 1 shall, in addition to the tasks referred to in paragraph 4 ofthat Article, for appropriate samples of the catches of blue ling, measure the fish in the samples and determine the stage of sexual maturity of subsampled fish. On the basis of advice from STECF, Member States shall establish detailed protocols for sampling and for the collation of results.

5.  From 15 February to 15 April each year, it shall be prohibited to use bottom trawls, longlines and gillnets within an area enclosed by sequentially joining with rhumb lines the following coordinates, which shall be measured according to the WGS84 system:

   60o58.76' N, 27o27.32' W
   60o56.02' N, 27o31.16' W
   60o59.76' N, 27o43.48' W
   61o03.00' N, 27o39.41' W
   60o58.76' N, 27o27.32' W.

Article 29g

Measures for the redfish fishery in international waters of ICES Subareas I and II

1.  Directed fishing for redfish in the international waters of ICES Subareas I and II shall only be permitted within the period from 15 August to 30 November each year by vessels which have previously been engaged in the redfish fishery in the NEAFC Regulatory Area, as defined in Article 3(3) of Regulation (EU) No 1236/2010 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 December 2010 laying down a scheme of control and enforcement applicable in the area covered by the Convention on future multilateral cooperation in the North-East Atlantic fisheries****.

2.  Vessels shall limit their bycatches of redfish in other fisheries to a maximum of 1 % of the total catch retained on board.

3.  The conversion factor to be applied to the gutted and headed presentation, including the Japanese cut presentation, of redfish caught in this fishery shall be 1,70.

4.  By way of derogation from Article 9(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) No 1236/2010 masters of fishing vessels engaged in this fishery shall report their catches on a daily basis.

5.  In addition to the provisions of Article 5 of Regulation (EU) No 1236/2010, an authorisation to fish for redfish shall only be valid if the reports transmitted by vessels are in accordance with Article 9(1) of that Regulation and are recorded in accordance with Article 9(3) thereof.

6.  Member States shall ensure that scientific information is collected by scientific observers on board vessels flying their flag. As a minimum, the information collected shall include representative data on sex, age and length composition by depths. This information shall be reported to ICES by the competent authorities in the Member States.

7.  The Commission shall inform Member States of the date on which the of NEAFC Secretariat notifies the NEAFC Contracting Parties that the total allowable catch (TAC) has been fully utilised. Member States shall prohibit directed fishery for redfish by vessels flying their flag from that date.

Article 29h

Measures for the redfish fishery in the Irminger Sea and adjacent waters

1.  It shall be prohibited to catch redfish ▌in international waters of ICES Subarea V and Union waters of ICES Subareas XII and XIV except from 11 May to 31 December each year and only in the area enclosed by sequentially joining with rhumb lines the following coordinates, which shall be measured according to the WGS84 system (the “Redfish Conservation Area”):

   64°45' N, 28°30' W
   62°50' N, 25°45' W
   61°55' N, 26°45' W
   61°00' N, 26°30' W
   59°00' N, 30°00' W
   59°00' N, 34°00' W
   61°30' N, 34°00' W
   62°50' N, 36°00' W
   64°45' N, 28°30' W

1a.  Notwithstanding paragraph 1, a fishery for redfish may be permitted, by a Union legal act, outside the Redfish Conservation Area in the Irminger Sea and adjacent waters from 11 May to 31 December each year on the basis of scientific advice and provided that NEAFC has established a recovery plan in respect of redfish in that geographical area. Only Union vessels that have been duly authorised by their respective Member State and notified to the Commission as required under Article 5 of Regulation (EU) No 1236/2010 shall participate in this fishery.

2.  It shall be prohibited to use trawls with a mesh size of less than 100 mm.

3.  The conversion factor to be applied to the gutted and headed presentation, including the Japanese cut presentation, of redfish caught in this fishery shall be 1,70.

4.  Masters of fishing vessels engaged in the fishery outside the Redfish Conservation Area shall transmit the catch report provided for in Article 9(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) No 1236/2010 on a daily basis after the fishing operations of that calendar day have been completed. It shall indicate the catches on board taken since the last communication of catches.

5.  In addition to the provisions of Article 5 of Regulation (EU) No 1236/2010, an authorisation to fish for redfish shall only be valid if the reports transmitted by vessels are in accordance with Article 9(1) of that Regulation and are recorded in accordance with Article 9(3) thereof.

6.  The reports referred to in paragraph 5 shall be made in accordance with the relevant rules.

* OJ L 343, 22.12.2009, p. 1.

** OJ L 348, 24.12.2008, p. 20.

*** OJ L 351, 28.12.2002, p. 6.

**** OJ L 348, 31.12.2010, p. 17.

"

(6a)  In Article 30 the following paragraph is inserted:"

(1a)  Paragraph 1 shall not apply to Region 9.

"

(7)  The following article is inserted:"

Article 31a

Electric Fishing in ICES Divisions IVc and IVb

1.  By way of derogation from Article 31, fishing with beam trawl using electrical pulse current shall be allowed in ICES Divisions IVc and IVb south of a rhumb line joined by the following points, which shall be measured according to the WGS84 coordinate system:

   a point on the east coast of the United Kingdom at latitude 55o N,
   then east to latitude 55o N, longitude 5o E,
   then north to latitude 56o N,
   and finally east to a point on the west coast of Denmark at latitude 56o N.

2.  Electrical pulse fishing shall be allowed only when:

   (a) no more than 5 % of the beam trawler fleet per Member State use the electric pulse trawl;
   (b) the maximum electrical power in kW for each beam trawl is no more than the length in metres of the beam multiplied by 1,25;
   (c) the effective voltage between the electrodes is no more than 15V;
   (d) the vessel is equipped with an automatic computer management system which records the maximum power used per beam and the effective voltage between electrodes for at least the last 100 tows. It is not possible for non-authorised personnel to modify this automatic computer management system;
   (e) it is prohibited to use one or more tickler chains in front of the footrope.

"

(8)  The following article is inserted:"

Article 32a

Catch handling and discharge restrictions on pelagic vessels

1.  The maximum space between bars in the water separator on board pelagic fishing vessels targeting mackerel, herring and horse mackerel operating in the NEAFC Convention Area as defined in Article 3(2) of Regulation (EU) No 1236/2010 shall be 10 mm.

The bars shall be welded in place. If holes are used in the water separator instead of bars, the maximum diameter of the holes shall not exceed 10 mm. Holes in the chutes before the water separator shall not exceed 15 mm in diameter.

2.  Pelagic vessels operating in the NEAFC Convention Area shall be prohibited from discharging fish under their water line from buffer tanks or Refrigerated seawater (RSW) tanks.

3.  Drawings related to the catch handling and discharge capabilities of pelagic vessels targeting mackerel, herring and horse mackerel in the NEAFC Convention Area which are certified by the competent authorities of the flag Member States, as well as any modifications thereto shall be sent by the master of the vessel to the competent fisheries authorities of the flag Member State. The competent authorities of the flag Member State of the vessels shall carry out periodic verifications of the accuracy of the drawings submitted. Copies shall be carried on board the vessel at all times.

"

(9)  The following articles are inserted:"

Article 34a

Technical conservation measures in the Irish Sea

1.  From 14 February to 30 April, it shall be prohibited to use any demersal trawl, seine or similar towed net, any gillnet, trammel net, entangling net or similar static net or any fishing gear incorporating hooks within that part of ICES Division VIIa enclosed by:

   the east coast of Ireland and the east coast of Northern Ireland, and
   straight lines sequentially joining the following geographical coordinates:
   a point on the east coast of the Ards peninsula in Northern Ireland at 54o 30 N,
   54o30' N, 04o50' W,
   53o 15' N, 04o50' W,
   a point on the east coast of Ireland at 53o15' N.

2.  By way of derogation from paragraph 1, within the area and time period referred to in that paragraph:

  (a) the use of demersal otter trawls shall be permitted provided that no other type of fishing gear is retained on board and that such nets:
   are of the mesh size ranges 70-79 mm or 80-99 mm;
   are of only one of the permitted mesh size ranges;
   incorporate no individual mesh, irrespective of its position within the net, with a mesh size greater than 300 mm; and
   are deployed only within an area enclosed by sequentially joining with rhumb lines the following coordinates, which shall be measured according to the WGS84 system:
   53o30' N, 05o30' W
   53o30' N, 05o20' W
   54o20' N, 04o50' W
   54o30' N, 05o10' W
   54o30' N, 05o20' W
   54o00' N, 05o50' W
   54o00' N, 06o10' W
   53o45' N, 06o10' W
   53o45' N, 05o30' W
   53o30' N, 05o30' W
  (b) the use of any demersal trawl, seine or similar towed net with a separator panel or a sorting grid shall be permitted provided that no other type of fishing gear is retained on board and that such nets:
   comply with the conditions laid down in paragraph 2(a);
   in the case of a separator panel, are constructed in conformity with the technical details provided in the Annex of Council Regulation (EC) No 254/2002 of 12 February 2002 establishing measures to be applicable in 2002 for the recovery of the stock of cod in the Irish Sea (ICES) division VIIa)*; and
   in the case of sorting grids, are in accordance with points 2 to 5 of Annex XIVa to this Regulation.
  (c) the use of demersal trawl, seine or similar towed net with a separator panel or a sorting grid shall also be permitted within an area enclosed by sequentially joining with rhumb lines the following coordinates, which shall be measured according to the WGS84 system:
   53o45' N, 06o00' W
   53o45' N, 05o30' W
   53o30' N, 05o30' W
   53o30' N, 06o00' W
   53o45' N, 06o00' W

Article 34b

Use of gillnets in ICES Divisions IIIa, IVa, Vb, VIa, VIb, VIIb, c, j, k and ICES Subareas VIII, IX, X and XII east of 27o W

1.  Union vessels shall not deploy bottom set gillnets, entangling nets and trammel nets at any position where the charted depth is greater than 200 metres in ICES Divisions IIIa, IVa, Vb, VIa, VIb, VII b, c, j, k and ICES Subareas XII east of 27o W, VIII, IX and X.

3.  By way of derogation from paragraph 1 it shall be permitted to use the following gears:

  (a) Gillnets in ICES Divisions IIIa, IVa, Vb, VIa, VIb, VII b, c, j, k and ICES Subarea XII east of 27o W with a mesh size equal to or greater than 120 mm and less than 150 mm, gillnets in ICES Divisions VIIIa, b, d and ICES Subarea X with a mesh size equal to or greater than 100 mm and less than 130 mm and gillnets in ICES Divisions VIIIc and ICES Subarea IX with a mesh size equal to or greater than 80 mm and less than 110mm provided that:
   they are deployed in waters with a charted depth of less than 600 metres,
   they are no more than 100 meshes deep, and have a hanging ratio of not less than 0,5,
   they are rigged with floats or equivalent flotation,
   they each have a maximum length of 5 nautical miles, and the total length of all nets deployed at any one time does not exceed 25 km per vessel,
   the maximum soak time is 24 hours;
  (b) Entangling nets with a mesh size equal to or greater than 250 mm, provided that:
   they are deployed in waters with a charted depth of less than 600 metres,
   they are no more than 15 meshes deep, and have a hanging ratio of not less than 0,33,
   they are not rigged with floats or other means of floatation,
   they each have a maximum length of 10 km, and the total length of all nets deployed at any one time does not exceed 100 km per vessel,
   the maximum soak time is 72 hours;
  (c) Gillnets in ICES Divisions IIIa, IVa, Vb, VIa, VIb, VIIb, c, j, k and ICES Subarea XII east of 27o W with a mesh size equal to or greater than 100 mm and less than 130 mm, provided that:
   they are deployed in waters with a charted depth of more than 200 meters and less than 600 meters,
   they are no more than 100 meshes deep, and have a hanging ratio of not less than 0,5,
   they are rigged with floats or equivalent floatation,
   they each have a maximum length of 4 nautical miles, and the total length of all nets deployed at any one time does not exceed 20 km per vessel,
   the maximum soak time is 24 hours,
   no less than 85 % of the retained catch by weight is hake,
   the number of vessels participating in the fishery does not rise above the level recorded in 2008,
   prior to leaving port the master of the vessel participating in this fishery records in the log-book , the quantity and total length of gear carried on board the vessel. At least 15 % of departures shall be subject to inspection,
   as verified in the Union logbook for that trip at the time of landing the master of the vessel has on board 90 % of the gear, and
   the quantity of all species caught greater than 50 kg, including all quantities discarded greater than 50 kg, is recorded in the Union logbook.
  (ca) Trammel nets in ICES Subarea IX with a mesh size equal to or greater than 220 mm, provided that:
   they are deployed in waters with a charted depth of less than 600 metres,
   they are no more than 30 meshes deep, and have a hanging ratio of not less than 0,44,
   they are not rigged with floats or other means of floatation,
   they each have a maximum length of 5 km, and the total length of all nets deployed at any one time does not exceed 20 km per vessel,
   the maximum soak time is 72 hours.

4.  However, this derogation shall not apply in the NEAFC Regulatory Area..

4a.  All vessels deploying bottom set gillnets, entangling or trammel nets at any position where the charted depth is greater than 200 metres in ICES Divisions IIIa, IVa, Vb, VIa, VIb, VII b, c, j, k and ICES Subareas XII east of 27° W, VIII, IX and X, shall be issued with a fishing authorisation in accordance with Article 7 of Regulation (EC) No 1224/2009.

5.  Only one of the types of gear described in paragraph 3(a),▌ 3(b) or 3(d) shall be retained on board the vessel at any one time. Vessels may carry on board nets with a total length that is 20 % greater than the maximum length of the fleets that may be deployed at any one time.

6.  The master of a vessel with a fishing authorisation referred to in paragraph 4a shall record in the logbook the amount and lengths of gear carried by a vessel before it leaves port and when it returns to port, and shall account for any discrepancy between the two quantities.

8.  The competent authorities shall have the right to remove unattended gear at sea in ICES Divisions IIIa, IVa, Vb, VIa, VIb, VII b, c, j, k and ICES Subareas XII east of 27o W, VIII, IX and X, in the following situations:

   (a) the gear is not properly marked;
   (b) the buoy markings or VMS data indicate that the owner has not been located at a distance less than 100 nautical miles from the gear for more than 120 hours;
   (c) the gear is deployed in waters with a charted depth greater than that which is permitted;
   (d) the gear is of an illegal mesh size.

9.  The master of a vessel with a fishing authorisation referred to in paragraph 4a shall record in the logbook the following information during each fishing trip:

   the mesh size of the net deployed,
   the nominal length of one net,
   the number of nets in a fleet,
   the total number of fleets deployed,
   the position of each fleet deployed,
   the depth of each fleet deployed,
   the soak time of each fleet deployed,
   the quantity of any gear lost, its last known position and date of loss.

10.  Vessels fishing with a fishing authorisation referred to in paragraph 4a shall only be permitted to land in the ports designated by the Member States pursuant to Article 7 of Regulation (EC) 2347/2002.

11.  The quantity of sharks retained on board by any vessel using the gear type described in paragraph 3(b) and 3(d) shall be no more than 5 %, by live-weight, of the total quantity of marine organisms retained on board.

11a.  After consulting STECF, the Commission may adopt implementing acts excluding specific fisheries of a Member State, in ICES Subareas VIII, IX, X, from the application of paragraphs 1 to 10, where information provided by Member States shows that those fisheries result in a very low level of shark bycatches and of discards.

Article 34c

Condition for fisheries using certain towed gears authorised in the Bay of Biscay

1.  By way of derogation from the provisions laid down in Article 5(2) of Commission Regulation (EC) No 494/2002 of 19 March 2002 establishing additional technical measures for the recovery of the stock of hake in ICES Sub-areas III, IV, V, VI and VII and ICES Divisions VIIIa, b, d, e ** , it shall be permitted to conduct fishing activity using trawls, Danish seines and similar gears, with the exception of beam trawls, with a mesh size range of 70-99 mm in the area defined in Article 5(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 494/2002 if the gear is fitted with a square mesh panel in accordance with Annex XIVb.

2.  When fishing in ICES Divisions VIII a and b it shall be permitted to use a selective grid and its attachments in front of the codend and/or a square mesh panel with a mesh size equal to or more than 60 mm in the lower part of the extension piece in front of the codend. The provisions laid down in Articles 4(1), 6 and 9(1) of this Regulation and in Article 3(a) and (b) of Regulation (EC) No 494/2002 shall not apply to the section of the trawl where those selective devices are inserted.

Article 34d

Measures for the protection of vulnerable deep-sea habitats in the NEAFC Regulatory Area

1.  It shall be prohibited to conduct bottom trawling and fishing with static gear, including bottom set gillnets and bottom set longlines, within the areas enclosed by sequentially joining with rhumb lines the following coordinates, which shall be measured according to the WGS84 system:

Part of the Reykjanes Ridge:

   55o04.5327' N, 36o49.0135' W
   55o05.4804' N, 35o58.9784' W
   54o58.9914' N, 34o41.3634' W
   54o41.1841' N, 34o00.0514' W
   54o00' N, 34o00' W
   53o54.6406' N, 34o49.9842' W
   53o58.9668' N, 36o39.1260' W
   55o04.5327' N, 36o49.0135' W

Northern MAR Area:

   59o45' N, 33o30' W
   57o30' N, 27o30' W
   56o45' N, 28o30' W
   59o15' N, 34o30' W
   59o45' N, 33o30' W

Middle MAR Area (Charlie-Gibbs Fracture zone and Subpolar Frontal Region):

   53o30' N, 38o00' W
   53o30' N, 36o49' W
   55o04.5327' N, 36o49' W
   54o58.9914' N, 34o41.3634' W
   54o41.1841' N, 34o00' W
   53o30' N, 30o00' W
   51o30' N, 28o00' W
   49o00' N, 26o30' W
   49o00' N, 30o30' W
   51o30' N, 32o00' W
   51o30' N, 38o00' W
   53o30' N, 38o00' W

Southern MAR Area:

   44o30' N, 30o30' W
   44o30' N, 27o00' W
   43o15' N, 27o15' W
   43o15' N, 31o00' W
   44o30' N, 30o30' W

The Altair Seamounts:

   45o00' N, 34o35' W
   45o00' N, 33o45' W
   44o25' N, 33o45' W
   44o25' N, 34o35' W
   45o00' N, 34o35' W

The Antialtair Seamounts:

   43o45' N, 22o50' W
   43o45' N, 22o05' W
   43o25' N, 22o05' W
   43o25' N, 22o50' W
   43o45' N, 22o50' W

Hatton Bank:

   59°26' N, 14°30' W
   59°12' N, 15°08' W
   59°01' N, 17°00' W
   58°50' N, 17°38' W
   58°30' N, 17°52' W
   58°30' N, 18°22' W
   58°03' N, 18°22' W
   58°03' N, 17°30' W
   57°55' N, 17°30' W
   57°45' N, 19°15' W
   58°11.15' N, 18°57.51' W
   58°11.57' N, 19°11.97' W
   58°27.75' N, 19°11.65' W
   58°39.09' N, 19°14.28' W
   58°38.11' N, 19°01.29' W
   58°53.14' N, 18°43.54' W
   59°00.29' N, 18°01.31' W
   59°08.01' N, 17°49.31' W
   59°08.75' N, 18°01.47' W
   59°15.16' N, 18°01.56' W
   59°24.17' N, 17°31.22' W
   59°21.77' N, 17°15.36' W
   59°26.91' N, 17°01.66' W
   59°42.69' N, 16°45.96' W
   59°20.97' N, 15°44.75' W
   59°21' N, 15°40' W
   59°26' N, 14°30' W

North West Rockall:

   57o00' N, 14o53' W
   57o37' N, 14o42' W
   57o55' N, 14o24' W
   58o15' N, 13o50' W
   57o57' N, 13o09' W
   57o50' N, 13o14' W
   57o57' N, 13o45' W
   57o49' N, 14o06' W
   57o29' N, 14o19' W
   57o22' N, 14o19' W
   57o00' N, 14o34' W
   56o56' N, 14o36' W
   56o56' N, 14o51' W
   57o00' N, 14o53' W

South-West Rockall (Empress of Britain Bank):

   56o24' N, 15o37' W
   56o21' N, 14o58' W
   56o04' N, 15o10' W
   55o51' N, 15o37' W
   56o10' N, 15o52' W
   56o24' N, 15o37' W

Logachev Mound:

   55°17' N, 16°10' W
   55°34' N, 15°07' W
   55°50' N, 15°15' W
   55°33' N, 16°16' W
   55°17' N, 16°10' W

West Rockall Mound:

   57o20' N, 16o30' W
   57o05' N, 15o58' W
   56o21' N, 17o17' W
   56o40' N, 17o50' W
   57o20' N, 16o30' W

2.  Where, in the course of fishing operations in new and existing bottom fishing areas within the NEAFC Regulatory Area, the quantity of live coral or live sponge caught per gear set exceeds 60 kg of live coral and/or 800 kg of live sponge, the vessel shall inform its flag State, cease fishing and move at least 2 nautical miles away from the position that the evidence suggests is closest to the exact location where this catch was made.

Article 34e

Measures for the protection of vulnerable deep-sea habitats in ICES Divisions VIIc, j, k

1.  It shall be prohibited to conduct bottom trawling and fishing with static gear, including bottom set gillnets and bottom set longlines, within the areas enclosed by sequentially joining with rhumb lines the following coordinates, which shall be measured according to the WGS84 coordinate system:

Belgica Mound Province:

   51o29.4' N, 11o51.6' W
   51o32.4' N, 11o41.4' W
   51o15.6' N, 11o33.0' W
   51o13.8' N, 11o44.4' W
   51o29.4' N, 11o51.6' W

Hovland Mound Province:

   52o16.2' N, 13o12.6' W
   52o24.0' N, 12o58.2' W
   52o16.8' N, 12o54.0' W
   52o16.8' N, 12o29.4' W
   52o04.2' N, 12o29.4' W
   52o04.2' N, 12o52.8' W
   52o09.0' N, 12o56.4' W
   52o09.0' N, 13o10.8' W
   52o16.2' N, 13o12.6' W

North-West Porcupine Bank Area I:

   53o30.6' N, 14o32.4' W
   53o35.4' N, 14o27.6' W
   53o40.8' N, 14o15.6' W
   53o34.2' N, 14o11.4' W
   53o31.8' N, 14o14.4' W
   53o24.0' N, 14o28.8' W
   53o30.6' N, 14o32.4' W

North-West Porcupine Bank Area II:

   53o43.2' N, 14o10.8' W
   53o51.6' N, 13o53.4' W
   53o45.6' N, 13o49.8' W
   53o36.6' N, 14o07.2' W
   53o43.2' N, 14o10.8' W

South-West Porcupine Bank:

   51o54.6' N, 15o07.2' W
   51o54.6' N, 14o55.2' W
   51o42.0' N, 14o55.2' W
   51o42.0' N, 15o10.2' W
   51o49.2' N, 15o06.0' W
   51o54.6' N, 15o07.2' W

2.  All pelagic vessels fishing in the areas for the protection of vulnerable deep-sea habitats set out in paragraph 1 of this Article shall be on a list of authorised vessels and be issued with a ▌fishing authorisation in accordance with Article 7 of Regulation (EC) No 1224/2009 ▌. Vessels included in the list of authorised vessels shall carry on board exclusively pelagic gear.

3.  Pelagic vessels intending to fish in an area for the protection of vulnerable deep-sea habitats as set out in paragraph 1 of this Article shall give four hours advance notification of their intention to enter an area for the protection of vulnerable deep-sea habitats to the Irish Fisheries Monitoring Centre (FMC) as defined in Article 4(15) of Regulation (EC) No 1224/2009. They shall at the same time notify quantities of fish retained on board.

4.  Pelagic vessels fishing in an area for the protection of vulnerable deep-sea habitats as set out in paragraph 1 shall have an operational, fully functioning secure Vessel Monitoring System (VMS) which complies fully with the respective rules when present in an area for the protection of vulnerable deep-sea habitats.

5.  Pelagic vessels fishing in an area for the protection of vulnerable deep-sea habitats as set out in paragraph 1 shall make VMS reports every hour.

6.  Pelagic vessels who have concluded fishing in an area for the protection of vulnerable deep-sea habitats as set out in paragraph 1 shall inform the Irish FMC on departure from the area. They shall at the same time notify quantities of fish retained on board.

7.  Fishing for pelagic species in an area for the protection of vulnerable deep-sea habitats as set out in paragraph 1 shall be restricted to having onboard or fishing with nets with a mesh size in the range of 16-31 mm or 32-54 mm.

Article 34f

Measures for the protection of a vulnerable deep-sea habitat in ICES Division VIIIc

1.  It shall be prohibited to conduct bottom trawling and fishing with static gear, including bottom set gillnets and bottom set longlines, within the area enclosed by sequentially joining with rhumb lines the following coordinates, which shall be measured according to the WGS84 system:

El Cachucho:

   44o12' N, 05o16' W
   44o12' N, 04o26' W
   43o53' N, 04o26' W
   43o 53' N, 05o16' W
   44o12' N, 05o16' W

2.  By way of derogation from the prohibition set out in the paragraph 1, vessels that conducted fisheries with bottom set longlines in 2006, 2007 and 2008 targeting greater forkbeard may obtain from their fishing authorities a ▌fishing authorisation in accordance with Article 7 of Regulation (EC) No 1224/2009 that allows them to continue conducting that fishery in the area south of 44o00.00' N. All vessels having obtained this ▌fishing authorisation shall, regardless of their overall length, have in use an operational, fully functioning secure VMS which complies with the respective rules, when conducting fisheries in the area set out in paragraph 1.

* OJ L 41, 13.2.2002, p. 1.

** OJ L 77, 20.3.2002, p. 8.

"

(10)  Article 38 is deleted.

(11)  Article 47 is deleted.

(11a)  Annexes I, IV, XII and XIV to Regulation (EC) No 850/98 are amended in accordance with the Annex to this Regulation.

(11b)  Annexes XIIa, XIVa, XIVb, XIVc and XIVd are inserted in accordance with the Annex to this Regulation.

Article 2

Amendment to Regulation (EC) 1434/98

In Article 2 of Regulation (EC) 1434/98 the following paragraph is added:"

1a.  Paragraph 1 shall not apply to herring caught in ICES Division IIIa, Subarea IV, Division VIId and EU waters of ICES Division IIa.

"

Article 3

Entry into force

This Regulation shall enter into force on the third day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.

It shall apply from 1 January 2013.

This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.

Done at …,

For the European Parliament

The President

For the Council

The President

ANNEX

The Annexes to Regulation (EC) No 850/98 are amended as follows:

   (1) In Annex I, footnote 6 to the table is deleted.
   (2) In Annex IV, the table is replaced by the following:"

Towed gears: Skagerrak and Kattegat

Mesh size ranges, target species and required catch percentages applicable to the use of a single mesh size range


Species

Mesh size range (mm)

<16

16-31

32-69

35-69

70-89 (5)

≥90

Minimum percentage of target species

50% (6)

50% (6)

20% (6)

50% (6)

20% (6)

20% (7)

30% (8)

none

Sandeel (Ammodytidae) (3)

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

Sandeel (Ammodytidae) (4)

X

X

X

X

X

X

Norway pout (Trisopterus esmarkii)

X

X

X

X

X

X

Blue Whiting (Micromesistius poutassou)

X

X

X

X

X

X

Greater weever (Trachinus draco) (1)

X

X

X

X

X

X

Molluscs (except Sepia) (1)

X

X

X

X

X

X

Garfish (Belone belone) (1)

X

X

X

X

X

X

Gray gurnard (Eutrigla gurnardus) (1)

X

X

X

X

X

X

Argentine (Argentina spp.)

X

X

X

X

X

Sprat (Sprattus sprattus)

X

X

X

X

X

X

Eel (Anguilla Anguilla)

X

X

X

X

X

X

Common shrimp/Baltic shrimp (Crangon spp., Palaemon adspersus)(1)

X

X

X

X

X

X

Mackerel (Scomber spp.)

X

X

X

Horse mackerel (Trachurus spp.)

X

X

X

Herring (Clupea harengus)

X

X

X

Northern shrimp (Pandalus borealis)

X

X

X

Common shrimp/Baltic shrimp (Crangon spp., Palaemon adspersus) (2)

X

X

X

Whiting (Merlangius merlangus)

X

X

Norway lobster (Nephrops norvegicus)

X

X

All other marine organisms

X
   (1) Only within four miles from the baselines.
   (2) Outside four miles from the baselines.
   (3) From 1 March to 31 October in Skagerrak and from 1 March to 31 July in Kattegat.
   (4) From 1 November to the last day of February in Skagerrak and from 1 August to the last day of February in Kattegat.
   (5) When applying this mesh size range, the codend shall be constructed of square mesh netting with a sorting grid in accordance with Annex XIVa of this Regulation.
   (6) The catch retained on board shall consist of no more than 10 % of any mixture of cod, haddock, hake, plaice, witch, lemon sole, sole, turbot, brill, flounder, mackerel, megrim, whiting, dab, saithe, Norway lobster and lobster.
   (7) The catch retained on board shall consist of no more than 50 % of any mixture of cod, haddock, hake, plaice, witch, lemon sole, sole, turbot, brill, flounder, herring, mackerel, megrim, dab, saithe, Norway lobster and lobster.
   (8) The catch retained on board shall consist of no more than 60 % of any mixture of cod, haddock, hake, plaice, witch, lemon sole, sole, turbot, brill, flounder, megrim, whiting, dab, saithe and lobster.
"

(3)  The table in Annex XII is amended as follows:

   (a) the rows corresponding to the short-necked clam and the octopus are replaced by the following:"

Species

Minimum Size

Regions 1 to 5, except Skagerrak/Kattegat

Skagerrak/Kattegat

Short-necked clam ( Venerupis philippinarum)

35mm

Species

Minimum Size: Regions 1 to 5, except Skagerrak/Kattegat

Octopus (Octopus Vulgaris)

Whole area except waters under sovereignty or jurisdiction of Region 5: 750 grammes
Waters under sovereignty or jurisdiction of Region 5: 450 grammes (gutted)
"
   (b) the rows corresponding to anchovy are replaced by the following:"

Species

Minimum Size: Regions 1 to 5, except Skagerrak/Kattegat

Anchovy (Engraulis encrasicolus)

Whole area, except ICES Division IXa east of longitude 7° 23' 48“ W: 12 cm or 90 individuals per kilo
ICES Division IXa east of longitude 7° 23' 48“ W: 10 cm”
"

(4)  The following annex is inserted:"

ANNEX XIIa

MINIMUM SIZES FOR REGION 9

Species

Minimum Size: Region 9

Turbot (Psetta maxima)

45 cm

"

(5)  In Annex XIV, the following names are inserted in their corresponding alphabetical order of vernacular names:"

VERNACULAR NAME

SCIENTIFIC NAME

Boarfish

Capros aper

Greater forkbeard

Phycis blennoides

Redfish

Sebastes spp.

Sardinelles

Sardinella aurita

"

(6)  The following annexes are inserted:"

ANNEX XIVa

SPECIFICATIONS FOR A SORTING GRID

-1.  The species selective grid shall be attached in trawls with full square mesh codend with a mesh size equal to or larger than 70 mm and smaller than 90 mm. The minimum length of the codend shall be 8 metres. It shall be prohibited to use any trawl with more than 100 square meshes in any circumference of the codend, excluding the joining or the selvedges. The square mesh codend is required only in Skagerrak and Kattegat.

1.  The grid shall be rectangular. The bars of the grid shall be parallel to the longitudinal axis of the grid. The bar spacing of the grid shall not exceed 35 mm. It shall be permitted to use one or more hinges in order to facilitate its storage on the net drum.

2.  The grid shall be mounted diagonally in the trawl, upwards and backwards, anywhere from just in front of the codend to the anterior end of the untapered section. All sides of the grid shall be attached to the trawl.

3.  In the upper panel of the trawl there shall be an unblocked fish outlet in immediate connection to the upper side of the grid. The opening of the fish outlet shall have the same width in the posterior side as the width of the grid and shall be cut out to a tip in the anterior direction along mesh bars from both sides of the grid.

4.  It shall be permitted to attach in front of the grid a funnel to lead the fish towards the trawl floor and grid. The minimum mesh size of the funnel shall be 70 mm. The minimum vertical opening of the guiding funnel towards the grid shall be 15 cm. The width of the guiding funnel towards the grid shall be the grid width.

20121122-P7_TA(2012)0448_EN-p0000001.jpg

Schematic illustration of a size and species selective trawl. Entering fish are led towards the trawl floor and grid via a leading funnel. Larger fish are then led out of the trawl by the grid while smaller fish and Norway lobster pass through the grid and enter the codend. The full square mesh codend enhances escapement of small fish and undersized Norway lobster. The square mesh codend shown in the diagram is required only in Skagerrak and Kattegat.

ANNEX XIVb

CONDITIONS FOR FISHERIES WITH CERTAIN TOWED GEARS AUTHORISED IN THE BAY OF BISCAY

1.  Specifications of the top square mesh panel

The panel shall be a rectangular section of netting. There shall be only one panel. The panel shall not be obstructed in any way by either internal or external attachments.

2.  Location of the panel

The panel shall be inserted into the middle of the top panel of the rear tapered section of the trawl, just in front of the untapered section constituted by the extension piece and the codend.

The panel shall terminate not more than 12 meshes from the hand braided row of meshes between the extension piece and the rear tapered section of the trawl.

3.  Size of the panel

The length of the panel shall be at least 2 metres and the width of the panel at least 1 metre.

4.  Netting of the panel

The meshes shall have a minimum mesh opening of 100 mm. The meshes will be square meshes, i.e. all four sides of the panel netting shall be cut all bars.

The netting shall be mounted such that the bars run parallel and perpendicular to the longitudinal axis of the codend.

The netting shall be single twine. The twine thickness shall be not more than 4 mm.

5.  Insertion of the panel into the diamond mesh netting

It shall be permitted to attach a selvedge on the four sides of the panel. The diameter of this selvedge shall be no more than 12 mm.

The stretched length of the panel shall be equal to the stretched length of the diamond meshes attached to the longitudinal side of the panel.

The number of diamond meshes of the top panel attached to the smallest side of the panel (i.e. one metre long side which is perpendicular to the longitudinal axis of the codend) shall be at least the number of full diamond meshes attached to the longitudinal side of the panel divided by 0,7.

6.  The insertion of the panel into the trawl is illustrated below.

20121122-P7_TA(2012)0448_EN-p0000003.jpg

ANNEX XIVc

SQUARE MESH PANEL FOR VESSELS OF MORE THAN 15 METRES

1.  Specifications of the top square mesh panel

The panel shall be a rectangular section of netting. The netting shall be single twine. The meshes shall be square meshes, i.e. all four sides of the panel netting shall be cut all bars. The mesh size shall be equal or more than 120 mm. The length of the panel shall be at least 3 metres except when incorporated into nets towed by vessels of less than 112 kilowatts, when it shall be of at least 2 metres in length.

2.  Location of the panel

The panel shall be inserted into the top panel of the codend. The rearmost edge of the panel shall be no more than 12 metres from the codline as defined in Article 8 of Commission Regulation (EEC) No 3440/84 of 6 December 1984 on the attachment of devices to trawls, Danish seines and similar nets *.

3.  Insertion of the panel into the diamond mesh netting

There shall be no more than two open diamond meshes between the longitudinal side of the panel and the adjacent selvedge.

The stretched length of the panel shall be equal to the stretched length of the diamond meshes attached to the longitudinal side of the panel. The joining rate between the diamond meshes of the top panel of the codend and the smallest side of the panel shall be three diamond meshes to one square mesh for 80 mm codends, or two diamond meshes to one square mesh for 120 mm codends, except for edge bars of the panel from both sides.

ANNEX XIVd

SQUARE MESH PANEL FOR VESSELS OF LESS THAN 15 METRES

1.  Specifications of the top square mesh panel

The panel shall be a rectangular section of netting. The netting shall be single twine. The meshes shall be square meshes, i.e. all four sides of the panel netting shall be cut all bars. The mesh size shall be equal or more than 110 mm. The length of the panel shall be at least 3 metres except when incorporated into nets towed by vessels of less than 112 kilowatts, when it shall be of at least 2 metres in length.

2.  Location of the panel

The panel shall be inserted into the top panel of the codend. The rearmost edge of the panel shall be no more than 12 metres from the codline as defined in Article 8 of Regulation (EEC) No 3440/84.

3.  Insertion of the panel into the diamond mesh netting

There shall be no more than two open diamond meshes between the longitudinal side of the panel and the adjacent selvedge. The stretched length of the panel shall be equal to the stretched length of the diamond meshes attached to the longitudinal side of the panel. The joining rate between the diamond meshes of the top panel of the codend and the smallest side of the panel shall be two diamond meshes to one square mesh, except for edge bars of the window from both sides.

* OJ L 318, 7.12.1984, p. 23.

"

(1) The matter was referred back to the committee responsible for reconsideration pursuant to Rule 57(2), second subparagraph (A7-0342/2012).
(2)* Amendments: new or amended text is highlighted in bold italics; deletions are indicated by the symbol ▌.
(3) OJ C 351, 15.11.2012, p. 83.
(4) OJ L 347, 24.12.2009, p. 6.
(5) OJ L 165, 24.6.2011, p.1.
(6) OJ L 22, 26.1.2009, p.1.
(7) OJ L 125, 27.4.1998, p. 1.
(8) OJ L55, 28.2.2011, p.13


Removal of fins of sharks on board vessels ***I
PDF 194kWORD 20k
Resolution
Text
European Parliament legislative resolution of 22 November 2012 on the proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Council Regulation (EC) No 1185/2003 on the removal of fins of sharks on board vessels (COM(2011)0798 – C7-0431/2011 – 2011/0364(COD))
P7_TA(2012)0449A7-0295/2012

(Ordinary legislative procedure: first reading)

The European Parliament,

–  having regard to the Commission proposal to Parliament and the Council (COM(2011)0798),

–  having regard to Article 294(2) and Article 43(2) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, pursuant to which the Commission submitted the proposal to Parliament (C7-0431/2011),

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

–  having regard to the opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee of 28 March 2012(1),

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

–  having regard to the report of the Committee on Fisheries and the opinion of the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Food Safety (A7-0295/2012),

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 22 November 2012 with a view to the adoption of Regulation (EU) No .../2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Council Regulation (EC) No 1185/2003 on the removal of fins of sharks on board vessels

P7_TC1-COD(2011)0364


(As an agreement was reached between Parliament and Council, Parliament's position corresponds to the final legislative act, Regulation (EU) No 605/2013.)

(1) OJ C 181, 21.6.2012, p. 195.


Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction
PDF 114kWORD 21k
European Parliament resolution of 22 November 2012 on the declaration of acceptance by the Member States, in the interest of the European Union, of the accession of eight third countries to the 1980 Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction (2012/2791(RSP))
P7_TA(2012)0450B7-0497/2012

The European Parliament,

–  having regard to Articles 2(2), 3(2), 4(2)(j), 81(3), 216(1) and 218(6)(b) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,

–  having regard to the case law of the Court of Justice of the European Union, in particular Cases 22/70(1) and C-467/98(2) and Opinion 1/03(3),

–  having regard to the Commission proposals for Council decisions on the declaration of acceptance by the Member States, in the interest of the European Union, of the accession of Gabon(4), Andorra(5), the Seychelles(6), the Russian Federation(7), Albania(8), Singapore(9), Morocco(10) and Armenia(11) to the 1980 Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction,

–  having regard to the fact that the Council has not yet requested Parliament’s consent to these decisions,

–  having regard to the question put to the Commission on the declaration of acceptance by the Member States, in the interest of the European Union, of the accession of eight third countries to the 1980 Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction (O-000159/2012 – B7-0367/2012),

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

A.  whereas the Hague Convention of 25 October 1980 on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction is of great importance, as it establishes a system allowing participating states to cooperate in order to find a solution to international child abductions, by determining which courts are competent and which law is applicable when deciding where the child should reside;

B.  whereas the Convention thus provides for the speedy return of abducted children to their proper country of residence;

C.  whereas the Convention only applies between countries which have ratified or acceded to it;

D.  whereas the accession of new states must be accepted by those states which are already members in order for the Convention to apply between them;

E.  whereas the acceptance of accessions is therefore of the utmost importance;

F.  whereas the European Union has already exercised its internal competence in the field of international child abductions, in particular by means of Council Regulation (EC) No 2201/2003 concerning jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in matrimonial matters and the matters of parental responsibility(12);

G.  whereas it follows that the European Union has acquired exclusive external competence in the field of international child abduction;

H.  whereas, given that the Convention does not allow international organisations to become members, the European Union should empower the Member States to act in its interest when accepting the aforementioned accessions;

I.  whereas the Council should therefore take steps as quickly as possible to adopt the decisions proposed by the Commission, including by consulting Parliament immediately;

J.  whereas it appears that, despite the urgency of the matter and the clarity of the legal situation, the Council has decided to delay the consultation of Parliament and the adoption of the aforementioned decisions with a view to contesting the principle of those decisions on legal grounds;

1.  Addresses the following recommendations to the Council:

   (a) the Council should proceed immediately with the procedure for the adoption of the aforementioned proposed decisions;
   (b) to that end, it should consult Parliament on the eight proposed decisions;
   (c) in the interest of European citizens who would benefit from the adoption of those decisions, it should refrain from impeding the proper functioning of the European Union on spurious legal grounds;

2.  Instructs its President to forward this resolution to the Council and, for information, to the Commission and the Permanent Bureau of the Hague Conference on Private International Law.

(1) Case 22/70, Commission v Council (ERTA), [1971] ECR 263, paragraph 16.
(2) Case C-467/98, Commission v Denmark, [2002] ECR I-9519, paragraph 77.
(3) Opinion 1/03 on the competence of the Community to conclude the new Lugano Convention on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters, [2006] ECR I-1145, paragraph 126.
(4) COM(2011)0904.
(5) COM(2011)0908.
(6) COM(2011)0909.
(7) COM(2011)0911.
(8) COM(2011)0912.
(9) COM(2011)0915.
(10) COM(2011)0916.
(11) COM(2011)0917.
(12) OJ L 338, 23.12.2003, p. 1.


Forthcoming World Conference on International Telecommunications (WCIT-2012) of the International Telecommunications Union
PDF 116kWORD 24k
European Parliament resolution of 22 November 2012 on the forthcoming World Conference on International Telecommunications (WCIT-12) of the International Telecommunication Union, and the possible expansion of the scope of international telecommunication regulations (2012/2881(RSP))
P7_TA(2012)0451RC-B7-0498/2012

The European Parliament,

–  having regard to Directive 2009/140/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 November 2009(1) amending Directives 2002/21/EC on a common regulatory framework for electronic communications networks and services, 2002/19/EC on access to, and interconnection of, electronic communications networks and associated facilities, and 2002/20/EC on the authorisation of electronic communications networks and services,

–  having regard to Commission Directive 2009/136/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 November 2009(2) amending Directive 2002/22/EC on universal service and users’ rights relating to electronic communications networks and services, Directive 2002/58/EC concerning the processing of personal data and the protection of privacy in the electronic communications sector and Regulation (EC) No 2006/2004 on cooperation between national authorities responsible for the enforcement of consumer protection laws,

–  having regard to Directive 2002/77/EC of 16 September 2002(3) on competition in the markets for electronic communications networks and services,

–  having regard to its resolution of 17 November 2011 on the open internet and net neutrality in Europe(4),

–  having regard to its resolution of 15 June 2010 on ‘internet governance: the next steps’(5),

–  having regard to UN Human Rights Council resolution A/HRC/20/L13,

–  having regard to the Commission proposal for a Council decision establishing the EU Position for the review of the International Telecommunications Regulations to be taken at the World Conference on International Telecommunications or its preparatory instances (COM(2012)0430),

–  having regard to Rule 110(2) and (4) of its Rules of Procedure,

A.  whereas the International Telecommunication Regulations (ITRs) were adopted by the World Administrative Telegraphy and Telephone Conference in Melbourne in 1988 and have not been revised since;

B.  whereas the 27 Member States of the European Union are signatories to these ITRs;

C.  whereas the International Telecommunication Union (ITU) has called a meeting in Dubai from 3 to 14 December 2012, named the World Conference on International Telecommunications (WCIT), to agree to a new text for these ITRs;

1.  Calls on the Council and the Commission to ensure that any changes to the International Telecommunication Regulations are compatible with the EU acquis and further the Union’s objective of, and interest in, advancing the internet as a truly public place, where human rights and fundamental freedoms, particularly freedom of expression and assembly, are respected and the observance of free market principles, net neutrality and entrepreneurship are ensured;

2.  Regrets the lack of transparency and inclusiveness surrounding the negotiations for WCIT-12, given that the outcomes of this meeting could substantially affect the public interest;

3.  Believes that the ITU, or any other single, centralised international institution, is not the appropriate body to assert regulatory authority over either internet governance or internet traffic flows;

4.  Stresses that some of the ITR reform proposals would negatively impact the internet, its architecture, operations, content and security, business relations and governance, as well as the free flow of information online;

5.  Believes that, as a consequence of some of the proposals presented, the ITU itself could become the ruling power over aspects of the internet, which could end the present bottom-up, multi-stakeholder model; expresses concern that, if adopted, these proposals may seriously affect the development of, and access to, online services for end users, as well as the digital economy as a whole; believes that internet governance and related regulatory issues should continue to be defined at a comprehensive and multi-stakeholder level;

6.  Is concerned that the ITU reform proposals include the establishment of new profit mechanisms that could seriously threaten the open and competitive nature of the internet, driving up prices, hampering innovation and limiting access; recalls that the internet should remain free and open;

7.  Supports any proposals to maintain the current scope of the ITRs and the current mandate of the ITU; opposes any proposals that would extend the scope to areas such as the internet, including domain name space, IP address allocation, the routing of internet-based traffic and content-related issues;

8.  Calls on the Member States to prevent any changes to the International Telecommunication Regulations which would be harmful to the openness of the internet, net neutrality, the end-to-end principle, universal service obligations, and the participatory governance entrusted to multiple actors such as governments, supranational institutions, non-governmental organisations, large and small businesses, the technological community and internet users and consumers at large;

9.  Calls on the Commission to coordinate the negotiation of the revision of the ITRs on behalf of the European Union, on the basis of inclusively gathered input from multiple stakeholders, through a strategy that primarily aims at ensuring and preserving the openness of the internet, and at protecting the rights and freedoms of internet users online;

10.  Recalls the importance of safeguarding a robust best-effort internet, fostering innovation and freedom of expression, ensuring competition and avoiding a new digital divide;

11.  Stresses that the ITRs should state that the ITU recommendations are non-binding documents which promote best practices;

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

(1) OJ L 337, 18.12.2009, p. 37.
(2) OJ L 337, 18.12.2009, p. 11.
(3) OJ L 249, 17.9.2002, p. 21.
(4) Texts adopted, P7_TA(2011)0511.
(5) OJ C 236 E, 12.8.2011, p. 33.


Climate change conference in Doha (COP 18)
PDF 255kWORD 40k
European Parliament resolution of 22 November 2012 on the Climate Change Conference in Doha, Qatar (COP 18) (2012/2722(RSP))
P7_TA(2012)0452B7-0496/2012

The European Parliament,

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

–  having regard to the results of the United Nations Climate Change Conference held in Bali in 2007 and to the Bali Action Plan (Decision 1/COP 13),

–  having regard to the 15th Conference of the Parties to the UNFCCC (COP 15) and the 5th Conference of the Parties serving as the Meeting of the Parties to the Kyoto Protocol (COP/MOP 5), held in Copenhagen, Denmark, from 7 to 18 December 2009, and to the Copenhagen Accord,

–  having regard to the 16th Conference of the Parties to the UNFCCC (COP 16) and the 6th Conference of the Parties serving as the Meeting of the Parties to the Kyoto Protocol (COP/MOP 6), held in Cancún, Mexico, from 29 November to 10 December 2010, and to the Cancún Agreements,

–  having regard to the 17th Conference of the Parties to the UNFCCC (COP 17) and the 7th Conference of the Parties serving as the Meeting of the Parties to the Kyoto Protocol (COP/MOP 7), held in Durban, South Africa, from 28 November to 9 December 2011, and in particular to the decisions encompassing the Durban Platform for Enhanced Action,

–  having regard to the forthcoming 18th Conference of the Parties to the UNFCCC (COP 18) and the 8th Conference of the Parties serving as the Meeting of the Parties to the Kyoto Protocol (COP/ MOP8), to be held in Doha, Qatar, from 26 November to 8 December 2012,

–  having regard to the EU climate and energy package of December 2008,

–  having regard to Directive 2008/101/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 19 November 2008 amending Directive 2003/87/EC so as to include aviation activities in the scheme for greenhouse gas emission allowance trading within the Community(1),

–  having regard to its resolution of 4 February 2009 on ‘2050: The future begins today – Recommendations for the EU’s future integrated policy on climate change’,(2)

–  having regard to its resolutions of 25 November 2009 on the EU strategy for the Copenhagen Conference on Climate Change (COP 15)(3), of 10 February 2010 on the outcome of the Copenhagen Conference on Climate Change (COP 15)(4), of 25 November 2010 on the climate change conference in Cancun (COP 16)(5) and of 16 November 2011 on the climate change conference in Durban (COP 17)(6),

–  having regard to its resolution of 15 March 2012 on a Roadmap for moving to a competitive low carbon economy in 2050(7),

–  having regard to the Council Conclusions of 9 March 2012 on follow-up to the 17th  session of the Conference of the Parties (COP 17) to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) and the 7th session of the Meeting of the Parties to the Kyoto Protocol (CMP 7) (Durban, South Africa, 28 November - 9 December 2011),

–  having regard to the Council Conclusions of 15 May 2012 on ‘climate finance – fast start finance’,

–  having regard to the Council Conclusions of 18 July 2011 on EU Climate Diplomacy,

–  having regard to the November 2011 synthesis report of the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) entitled ‘Bridging the Emissions Gap’,

–  having regard to the joint statement of 20 December 2005 by the Council and the representatives of the governments of the Member States meeting within the Council, the European Parliament and the Commission on ‘European Union Development Policy: ’The European Consensus‘’, and in particular points 22, 38, 75, 76 and 105 thereof(8),

–  having regard to the United Nations Millennium Declaration of 8 September 2000, which set out the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) as objectives established jointly by the international community for the elimination of poverty,

–  having regard to the commitments made by the G20 summit in Pittsburgh of 24-25 September 2009 to phase out fossil fuel subsidies over the medium term and to provide targeted support to enable the poorest countries to adapt to climate change,

–  having regard to the 11th meeting of the Conference of the Parties (COP 11) on biodiversity, to be held in Hyderabad, India, from 8 to 19 October 2012,

–  having regard to oral questions O-000160/2012 –  B7-0364/2012 and O-000161/2012 – B7-0365/2012, tabled by the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Food Safety pursuant to Rule 115 of its Rules of Procedure, and to the statements by the Council and the Commission,

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

A.  whereas the decisions encompassing the Durban Platform for Enhanced Action (the Durban Package) recognise that climate change represents an urgent and potentially irreversible threat to human societies and the planet and thus has to be addressed at international level by all the Parties;

B.  whereas the Durban Package has in principle laid the foundation for a comprehensive, ambitious, legally binding international agreement involving all the Parties, to be reached by 2015 and implemented by 2020;

C.  whereas the Doha Conference (COP 18) must build on the momentum achieved in Durban in order to ensure that such a legally binding global agreement remains on track and will be delivered by 2015;

D.  whereas such a legally binding global agreement must be consistent with the principle of ‘common but differentiated responsibilities and respective capabilities’, but must recognise the need for all major emitters to adopt ambitious and sufficient targets and corresponding policy measures for the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions, reflecting evolving capabilities;

E.  whereas the Durban Package did not take sufficient note of the need for action in order to mitigate climate change by 2020, and whereas existing commitments and pledges are insufficient to meet the objective of limiting the overall global annual mean surface temperature increase to 2ºC as compared to pre-industrial levels (‘the 2ºC objective’), and whereas these issues must therefore be tackled as a matter of the utmost priority at the Doha Conference;

F.  whereas, according to scientific evidence presented by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the 2ºC objective requires that global emissions peak by 2015, be reduced by at least 50 % as compared with 1990 by 2050 and continue to decline thereafter; whereas the EU should therefore push for concrete actions by all major emitters and their effective implementation before 2020;

G.  whereas recent scientific findings suggest that the effects of climate change are more rapid and more pronounced than previously predicted, for instance in the Arctic region;

H.  whereas, according to the International Energy Agency (IEA), global energy demand is projected to increase by one third between 2010 and 2035; whereas the majority of the incremental demand and emissions will happen in emerging economies; whereas there are subsidies to a value of USD 400 billion supporting the wasteful consumption of fossil fuels;

I.  whereas decarbonisation in the energy sector and industry through the application of innovations would be advantageous for the EU as an early mover in the growing global market for energy-related goods and services;

J.  whereas worldwide innovation in the sustainable energy sector (at both production and user level) creates jobs, stimulates economic growth, increases energy independence, and cares for a cleaner world in which climate change is mitigated and sufficient energy supplies ensured;

K.  whereas investments in the energy sector very often have a lifetime of 30 years or more and the planning of new projects and policies takes a long time, a situation which accentuates the worldwide urgency of taking new steps in the field of energy;

L.  whereas more research is necessary with a view to useful innovations in the energy and transport systems;

M.  whereas, in order to demonstrate the seriousness of its efforts, and given its technological and economic capabilities, the EU should take a leading role in climate protection;

N.  whereas no legally binding agreement in 2015 will be possible in the absence of a consensus around equity in long-term global mitigation efforts;

O.  whereas, at COP 16 in Cancún (2010), developed countries committed themselves to providing, by 2020, USD 100 billion in ‘new and additional’ financing annually in order to address climate change needs in developing countries, but whereas there is so far no internationally agreed definition of what ’new and additional’ actually means;

P.  whereas after 2012, the last year of fast-start finance (USD 30 billion over three years committed in Copenhagen), there is no certainty as to how much climate finance will be delivered;

Q.  whereas globally around 20 % of greenhouse gas emissions come from deforestation and other forms of land use and land-use change, and whereas agro-forestry enhances CO2 mitigation effects through increased carbon storage and reduces poverty by diversifying the incomes of local communities;

R.  whereas the improvement of forest governance is a fundamental prerequisite to lasting reductions in deforestation;

Durban Platform for Enhanced Action

1.  Welcomes the establishment of the Ad Hoc Working Group on the Durban Platform for Enhanced Action and notes that Decision 1/CP.17 requires this group, as a matter of urgency, to start work on the development of a protocol, legal instrument or agreed outcome with legal force under the Convention, applicable to all the Parties, and to complete that work as early as possible and no later than 2015; notes further that its work must be informed by IPCC’s Fifth Assessment Report, which is due by 2014; also welcomes the process for Parties to increase their level of ambition pre-2020;

2.  Stresses that equity and common but differentiated responsibilities and respective capabilities (CBDRRC) need to be at the very heart of the Durban Platform for Enhanced Action for it to be able to deliver adequately for the climate;

3.  Notes that in parallel the Durban Package requires the Ad Hoc Working Group on Long-Term Cooperative Action (AWG-LCA) to achieve its agreed outcomes by the time of the Doha Conference;

4.  Stresses that the new legal instrument will need to ensure mitigation action in line with a global carbon budget consistent with maintaining climate change at below 2°C compared with preindustrial levels, along with the means for the required climate action in developing countries, as well as robust accounting, monitoring and reporting and a robust enforcement and compliance regime;

5.  Notes with great concern the obstructive stance of certain Parties at the Bonn talks of May 2012, but welcomes the small yet recognisable steps towards convergence achieved during the informal additional sessions held in Bangkok, Thailand, from 30 August to 5 September 2012;

6.  Calls for further clarity and agreement on comparability of effort and common accounting for non-Kyoto Protocol developed Parties before concluding the AWG-LCA;

7.  Stresses that the EU needs to lead by example, by implementing its commitments and demonstrating ambition on both mitigation and finance; believes, therefore, that it is the responsibility of all the EU institutions, in advance of the Doha Conference, to engage in intensive climate diplomacy and the building of international alliances to ensure that the commitments made in the Durban Package are honoured and that the UNFCCC process is streamlined towards a new multilateral regime to be agreed by 2015; emphasises that it is important to clarify how the Convention principles will be applied in a post-2020 framework so that all the Parties take on commitments; is of the opinion that the new market-based mechanism, defined at COP 17, is of particular importance in this regard and hopes that the AWG-LCA succeeds in developing modalities and procedures for this mechanism;

Kyoto Protocol – second commitment period

8.  Takes note of the decision of the Parties, as reflected in the Durban Package and covering a total of about 15 % of global emissions, which is why the EU has to intensify its efforts to find solutions for joint measures to bring all the main actors on board to agree, as an interim step, to a second commitment period of the Kyoto Protocol to begin on 1 January 2013, as a transition to a new, more effective and comprehensive legally binding international regime binding all the Parties, to enter into force by 2020;

9.  Takes note of the absence of the USA, Russia, Japan and Canada from the possible second commitment period of the Kyoto Protocol and of the uncertainty of Australia and New Zealand about joining it; notes, further, the continuing lack of emissions reduction targets for developing countries such as China, India, Brazil and Indonesia;

10.  Calls for the adoption in Doha of the necessary amendments so that the second commitment period of the Kyoto Protocol can start immediately on a provisional basis;

11.  Notes the pledge, contained in Decision 1/CMP.7 of the Durban Package, that the end date of the second commitment period will be decided at the Doha Conference, supports an eight-year commitment period that will end on 31 December 2020;

12.  Emphasises, within the current operational structure of the Kyoto Protocol, the need for quantified emission limitation or reduction objectives (QELROs), which were due to be submitted by the Parties by May 2012, to be adopted as amendments to the Kyoto Protocol at the Doha Conference, in accordance with Decision 1/CMP.7; calls on those Annex B Parties which have not yet done so to submit their QELROs, and welcomes the initial EU submission in this regard; stresses that the carry-over of assigned amount units (AAUs) to the second commitment period would undermine the integrity of the Kyoto Protocol; points out that if Member States are allowed to transfer AAUs, the Kyoto Protocol will have no real effect on climate mitigation;

13.  Welcomes the proposal of the Group of 77 and China effectively to contain and minimise the use of the surplus; notes that the EU has so far not put forward a proposal to address the surplus of AAUs; recalls that the Lisbon Treaty states that the Council of the European Union shall act by a qualified majority both for general measures (Article 16 TEU) and throughout the procedure when negotiating and entering into new international agreements (Article 218 TFEU);

14.  Reiterates its call for the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) to be reformed, establishing strict quality rules that guarantee that the associated projects are of a sufficiently high standard to help reduce emissions in a reliable, verifiable, real and supplementary way, contributing to the sustainable development of developing countries and preventing the inappropriate use of the mechanism by infrastructure projects whose carbon emissions are high; considers that in the future the CDM must be limited to Least Developed Countries (LDCs);

Mitigation gap

15.  Emphasises the urgent need for all the Parties, firstly, to implement their pledges and, secondly, to raise their ambition levels between now and 2020, in order to stay within the 2ºC objective; reiterates in particular the urgent need for progress in closing the ‘gigatonne gap’ between the scientific findings and the Parties’ current pledges and coming up with binding commitments and actions aimed at emissions reductions which are more ambitious than those contained in the Copenhagen Accord, based on the principle of ’common but differentiated responsibilities and respective capabilities’, meaning that poorer countries should – through financial and technological assistance, but also capacity-building measures – be enabled to make the direct transition to an advanced low-carbon energy and economic system; calls, in particular, on the Parties to take urgent measures, with effect by 2015 at the latest, to reduce emissions from international aviation and maritime transport, along with other relevant sectors, and to reduce hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs), black carbon, methane and other short-lived climate forcers, in order to close the gap with the 2ºC objective;

16.  Calls for a decision in Doha on quantifying the size of the global gap and continuously monitoring it in order to take the necessary action to bridge it;

17.  Urges the Commission and the Cypriot Presidency to find allies with a view to bridging the ‘gigatonne gap’, i.e. the difference between the current ambition levels and those required to keep global warming below 2°C;

18.  Recognises that the effective phase-out of fossil fuel subsidies would contribute significantly to closing the mitigation gap;

19.  Recalls that, according to the findings of the IPCC’s Fourth Assessment Report, industrialised countries need to reduce their domestic emissions by 25-40 % below 1990 levels by 2020, while developing countries as a group should achieve a substantial deviation below the currently predicted emissions growth rate, of the order of 15-30 %, by 2020; recalls, furthermore, that aggregate global emissions need to peak before 2020 and calls for an open discussion on more effective policy strategies to close the mitigation gap;

20.  Emphasises the need for a reliable scientific basis as provided by the IPCC, which has undergone a fundamental reform of its structure and procedures, and highlights, in this connection, the importance of the findings of the Fifth Assessment Report (IPCC AR5), due in 2014;

21.  Recalls that it is in the EU’s own interest to aim for a climate protection target of 30 % by 2020, thus creating sustainable growth, additional jobs and decreasing dependency on energy imports;

22.  Welcomes the proposed integration into EU legislation of the Cancún agreement for developed-country Parties to design low-carbon development strategies and emphasises the importance of providing financial and technical support for developing-country Parties to adopt and implement low-emission development plans; notes that these plans and strategies should outline policies and measures that include early domestic action to avoid the lock-in of carbon-intensive investments and infrastructure, together with short- and medium-term energy efficiency and renewable energy targets;

Climate finance

23.  Stresses the urgent need to avoid a financing gap after 2012 (when the fast-start finance period ends) and to work towards the identification of a path for securing climate funding from 2013 to 2020 from a variety of sources; believes that concrete commitments on financing during the 2013-2020 period are vital for speeding up transformation processes, avoiding fossil lock-ins in many developing countries and supporting developing countries’ efforts to mitigate and adapt to climate change; recalls that the majority of Member States have still not made any pledges for climate financing post-2013;

24.  Notes with concern that while developed countries have committed themselves to providing USD 100 billion a year for climate financing by 2020, there is so far no internationally agreed definition of what ‘new and additional’ actually means;

25.  Stresses that the measurement, verification and monitoring of climate funds, along with their additionality, are essential and require an internationally agreed definition; calls on the EU to develop a common approach to ensure that official development assistance (ODA) is not diverted away from existing development objectives, but is truly additional;

26.  Welcomes the activities of the work programme on long-term finance with regard to sources of long-term finance and the financing needs of developing countries and looks forward to the report of the co-Chairs to be discussed in Doha;

27.  Considers that finance for climate action in developing countries needs to address the negative impact of climate change already being felt today, to help develop resilience, in particular in the poorest and most vulnerable countries, and to contribute to closing the mitigation ambition gap before 2020 while at the same time contributing to sustainable development;

28.  Points out, in this connection, that innovative additional sources of financing (international financial transaction taxes and international air and sea transport duties) ought to be tapped;

29.  Calls on the Commission to ensure that such financing is new and additional, and further to promote innovative financing sources;

30.  Stresses the significant cost-saving and greenhouse gas emissions reduction potential of the removal of fossil fuel subsidies; calls for the adoption in Doha of plans to phase out fossil fuel subsidies in both developed and developing countries, with priority being given to Annex I countries;

31.  Welcomes the establishment of the Green Climate Fund (GCF) board and looks forward to a decision on the hosting of the GCF secretariat in Doha; notes that further decisions are required at the Doha Conference to bring the GCF into operation, as agreed in the Cancún Agreements, especially as regards its initial capitalisation, and stresses the need to mobilise financial support from the Parties in order to bring the GCF into operation; recognises that the Green Climate Fund is vital for the capacity of LDCs to mitigate and adapt to climate change, and that concrete financial commitments in this area are of the utmost importance;

32.  Stresses that the Cancún Agreements clearly specify that the funds provided to developing countries through the GCF should be ‘new’ and ’additional’ to existing development aid;

33.  Recalls that, while poor countries have contributed the least to the increasing concentration of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, they are the most vulnerable to the impact of climate change and have the least capacity to adapt;

34.  Stresses that ensuring policy coherence and mainstreaming the environment into development projects is at the core of an effective EU strategy for the mitigation of, and adaptation to, climate change;

35.  Calls on the EU and its Member States to support pro-poor interventions in developing countries that would raise the standard of living for the poorest; urges, in particular, the EU to ensure that finances will only be made available for the support of climate-friendly development paths, which implies the effective phase-out of direct or indirect EU support for fossil fuel industries (i.e. through guarantee loans from the EIB, export credit agencies, etc.) in line with the commitment made by the EU at the 2009 G20 summit in Pittsburgh;

36.  Stresses that the current economic crisis must not be used as a pretext for inaction or for refusing funding for adaptation measures in developing countries; points out that developing a low-carbon-emissions economy is actually an important step towards resolving the crisis;

37.  Calls for industrialised countries to provide developing countries with adequate financial and technological support for the application of sustainable, efficient technologies;

38.  Believes that these measures must respect the interests and priorities of developing countries, incorporating local knowledge, and enhance South-South cooperation and the role of small- and medium-scale agriculture, with due regard for nature and ecological balance;

39.  Stresses that financing for climate protection measures should be provided in the form of new, supplementary funding on top of existing development aid;

40.  Reminds the EU and its Member States that ODA represents vital funding for core development needs – such as health and education – that should not be redirected to climate finance; calls on the EU and its Member States to guarantee sufficient funds to achieve the MDGs, along with new and additional funds for climate change mitigation and adaptation;

Land use, land-use change and forestry (LULUCF)

41.  Welcomes the adoption of Decision 2/CMP.7 at the Durban Conference as an important step forward in introducing robust accounting rules for the LULUCF sector; notes that this decision provides for a two-year work programme to examine the need for more comprehensive accounting in order to ensure the environmental integrity of the sector’s contribution to emissions reductions;

42.  Recalls that both land-use change and agriculture are responsible for a significant share of greenhouse gas emissions in developing countries; calls on the EU to promote agro-forestry or organic agriculture, especially in LDCs, as they contribute to both climate change mitigation and poverty alleviation by enabling local communities to diversify their sources of income;

43.  Reiterates that the production of agro-fuels from food crops (such as oil seeds, palm oil, sugar cane, sugar beet and wheat) could potentially lead to huge demand for land and put people in poor countries whose livelihood depends on access to land and natural resources at risk;

44.  Considers it regrettable that the ‘sustainability criteria’ listed in the Renewable Energy Directive (RED) and the Fuel Quality Directive with regard to biofuels are limited in scope and insufficient to contain the negative effects of the expansion of agro-fuels, in particular through indirect land-use change (ILUC); calls on the EU to upgrade its sustainability and certification criteria with regard to biofuels in order to ensure consistency with its commitment to the fight against climate change and with its legal obligation of policy coherence for development, as enshrined in Article 208 of the Lisbon Treaty;

45.  Reiterates that increased use of biomass could lead to an intensification of forestry practices and a reduction in forest carbon stocks, which could jeopardise the EU objective of limiting the climate temperature increase to 2°C; asks the EU and its Member States only to accept agro-fuels that demonstrably reduce greenhouse gas emissions, pose no significant land-use issues, do not threaten people’s food security and do not risk conservation conflicts; urges the Commission, in this connection, to develop legally binding sustainability criteria for biomass, to incorporate ILUC calculations into the existing sustainability criteria for agro-fuels and to incorporate ILUC and carbon-debt calculations into the sustainability criteria for bioenergy;

Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation (REDD+)

46.  Welcomes the adoption in Durban of decisions relating to financing, safeguards and reference levels; believes that further progress must be made in Doha, in particular on the technical assessment of forest reference levels; notes, further, that REDD+ has an important role to play in reducing the mitigation gap by 2020;

47.  Stresses that, according to the UNFCCC framework, REDD+ will be financed by public money, and calls for the Parties to show a strong political commitment to developing innovative financing solutions;

48.  Opposes the trading of forest carbon and the inclusion of REDD+ in carbon markets, which would lead to an over-allocation of credits and a further decrease in the price of carbon;

49.  Emphasises that the successful implementation of REDD+ depends upon transparency and the development of robust monitoring systems;

50.  Recognises the importance of REDD+ in tackling emissions from forestry; insists that REDD+ should not undermine any advances made so far with Forest Law Enforcement, Governance and Trade (FLEGT), especially regarding forest governance and the clarification and recognition of customary tenures; calls on the EU to press for stronger and more detailed social, governance and environmental safeguards for REDD+ projects, including safeguard mechanisms ensuring that the rights of people living in the forests are not violated;

51.  Takes the view that the system of payment for forest protection needs to be a particularly stable and long-term one; emphasises that the destruction of forests would recommence if funding fell below a certain level;

International aviation and maritime transport

52.  Reiterates its calls for international instruments with global emissions reduction targets to curb the climate impact of international aviation and maritime transport; continues to stand behind the inclusion of aviation in the European emissions trading scheme (ETS);

53.  Calls for the Member States to use revenues from the auctioning of aviation allowances as contributions to the scaling-up of climate finance in developing countries from 2013;

Climate protection, especially in times of economic crisis

54.  Stresses that the current economic crisis vividly demonstrates the fact that only a sustainable economy can provide prosperity in the long term and that climate protection is one of the main pillars of such a sustainable economy; emphasises that it has never been so important to clarify the reasons for political action in the field of climate protection, i.e. to allow more people a high standard of living while securing resources and room for development, including for future generations;

55.  Reiterates that the challenge of climate change cannot be seen in isolation, but always needs to be addressed in the context of sustainable development, industrial policy and resource policy;

Structural reform

56.  Is of the opinion that one of the reasons for the success of the Durban Conference was that it laid a foundation for overcoming the former strict divisions between ‘Parties’ and ’observers’, between ‘developed countries’ and ’developing countries’ and between ‘Annex I countries’ and ’Non-Annex I countries’ and therefore asks all participants to strive towards achieving a new, holistic and more all-embracing structure for future negotiations;

57.  Is of the opinion that the current ‘pledge and review’ system will not bring about the fundamental changes needed in order to fight climate change in the long run and therefore urges all the Parties to consider other approaches as well;

58.  Stresses that there is no ‘silver bullet’ solution to climate change and therefore highlights the numerous possible ways to achieve the necessary emissions reductions and, even more importantly, the necessary consciousness shifts; welcomes, in that regard, the fact that many countries are already undertaking ambitious mitigation action and calls for the UNFCCC to provide a platform for increasing the transparency of what is happening on the ground;

Transformation toward a sustainable economy and industry

59.  Is concerned about global CO2 emissions from fossil fuel combustion reaching a record high in 2011, according to IEA data; recalls that the projected global increase in energy consumption will be based on the growth of all energy sources; considers, therefore, that the EU’s efforts to transform its economy into a sustainable economy must not falter, so that it can build on its competitive edge in sustainable technologies and expertise; believes that the EU should promote the international dissemination of environmentally friendly technologies, including in the fields of renewable energy, innovative and efficient fossil fuel technologies and, in particular, energy efficiency technologies;

60.  Calls for closer coordination between the Council, the Commission and the European External Action Service (EEAS) so as to enable the EU to speak with one coherent voice in international organisations such as the IEA, the International Renewable Energy Agency (IRENA), the International Partnership for Energy Efficiency Cooperation (IPEEC) and the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), and thus play a more active and influential role, particularly in pushing for sustainable energy policies and energy safety policies;

61.  Emphasises that many countries are taking steps towards the greening of the economy, for various reasons including climate protection, resource scarcity and efficiency, energy security, innovation and competitiveness; notes, for example, the investment programmes dedicated to energy transition in countries such as China and South Korea and calls on the Commission to analyse such programmes and their implications for EU competitiveness in the sectors concerned;

62.  Welcomes these moves and reiterates that internationally coordinated action would help to address the carbon leakage and competitiveness concerns of the relevant sectors, and in particular of energy-intensive sectors; calls for an agreement to ensure an international level playing field for carbon-intensive industries;

63.  Is concerned about the increasing level of so-called imported emissions, such that the emissions from imported goods are growing faster than production-based emissions are cut domestically; believes that if the EU could better monitor and raise awareness of the development of imported emissions, this might encourage industrial competitors to join a tighter carbon-emissions abatement regime in order to secure greater acceptance of their products on the EU market;

64.  Emphasises that the financial and budgetary crisis affecting the EU should not curb its level of ambition or that of its industries, consumers and Member States in respect of the international climate negotiations in Doha; considers that the EU’s effort to transform its economy must not falter, in order to avoid job leakage, and in particular green job leakage, and that the EU has to convince its partners worldwide, including China and the USA, of the benefits of joining an international agreement and of the fact that emission reductions are feasible without losing competitiveness and jobs, in particular if they are achieved collectively;

65.  Stresses the need to develop and implement urgently a holistic raw materials and resource strategy, including in relation to resource efficiency, in all sectors of the economy in both developed and developing countries, in order to achieve long-term sustainable economies, and calls on the EU and its Member States to lead by example in this regard; calls on the EU and its Member States to support developing countries at both national and local level by making available expertise on sustainable mining, increased resource efficiency and reuse and recycling;

66.  Considers that sectoral approaches combined with economy-wide caps in industrialised countries can contribute to climate action, competitiveness and economic growth; stresses the importance of adopting a sectoral approach to industrial emissions, in particular for emerging countries, in connection with international negotiations; hopes that such an approach might also be part of a post-2012 international framework for climate action;

67.  Notes that the prices of different energy sources play a major role in determining the behaviour of market actors, including industry and consumers, and notes that the inability of the current international policy framework fully to internalise external costs perpetuates unsustainable consumption patterns; further reiterates that a global carbon market would be a sound basis for achieving both substantial emission abatements and a level playing field for the industry; calls on the EU and its partners to find, in the immediate future, the most effective way of promoting links between the EU ETS and other trading schemes with the aim of achieving a global carbon market and ensuring greater diversity of abatement options, improved market size and liquidity, transparency and, ultimately, more efficient allocation of resources for the energy sector and industry;

Research and technology

68.  Considers it regrettable that the Rio+20 summit in Rio de Janeiro failed to achieve substantial progress on future key issues related to sustainability; deplores the lack of concrete targets, measurable activities and commitments by world leaders; takes note of the result of the Durban meeting, including the advancement of the Durban Platform, the continuation of the Kyoto Protocol, the establishment of the USD 100 billion Green Climate Fund and the further development of the Technology Executive Committee for the deployment of low-carbon technologies;

69.  Stresses that the development and deployment of breakthrough technologies hold the key to fighting climate change and, at the same time, convincing the EU’s partners worldwide that emissions reductions are feasible without losing competitiveness and jobs; calls for an international commitment to increase research and development (R&D) investment in breakthrough technologies in the relevant sectors; considers it essential that the EU lead by example by substantially increasing its expenditure devoted to research on climate-friendly and energy-efficient industrial and energy technologies, and that the EU develop close scientific cooperation in this field with international partners, such as the BRIC countries and the USA;

70.  Considers that innovation is key to maintaining global warming below 2°C and notes that there are different ways of encouraging innovation in a market-based economy; calls on the Commission to assess the various mechanisms for rewarding frontrunner businesses, which differ in their capacity to trigger innovation and to transfer and deploy technologies globally; calls for recognition of the right of developing countries to take full advantage of the flexibility afforded by the Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS);

71.  Highlights the importance of building closer cooperation between the EU and LDCs; considers that the EU should support efforts to enable LDCs to find partners and financing for investments in renewable energy and green technologies and calls on the Commission to come forward with ideas for common research programmes on alternative energy sources and for how the EU can encourage cooperation between developed and developing countries within various industrial sectors;

Energy, energy efficiency and resource efficiency

72.  Notes that a recent IEA analysis shows that improved efficiency offers the clearest path to better energy management in the decades ahead, offering a threefold return on investment in a climate-compatible 2050 pathway but requiring strong government policy action and incentives;

73.  Considers it regrettable that energy savings potential is not being tackled adequately, either internationally or in the EU; emphasises that energy savings facilitate job creation, economic savings, energy security, competitiveness and emissions cuts; calls on the EU to pay more attention to energy savings in international negotiations when discussing technology transfer, development plans for developing countries or financial assistance; emphasises that in order to be credible, the EU and its Member States must meet their own targets;

74.  Points out that across the globe an estimated 2 billion people continue to lack access to sustainable and affordable energy; stresses the need to address the energy poverty issue in accordance with climate policy objectives; notes that energy technologies are available which address both global environmental protection and local development needs;

75.  Considers it regrettable that the UNFCCC and the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) are not sufficiently coordinated, meaning that resources are wasted and valuable and complementary policy opportunities missed; stresses that various studies, including the TEEB (The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity) study, make it clear that preserving ecosystem services through sustainable practices is often cheaper than having to replace lost functions by investing in alternative heavy infrastructure and technological solutions; urges the EU and its Member States, accordingly, to link their climate change objectives closely to biodiversity protection objectives at the forthcoming COP 11 in Hyderabad;

76.  Stresses that it is necessary to promote greater access to, and the transfer of, environmentally sound technologies everywhere, but particularly in developing countries, in order to improve access to technological information, to produce and make available reliable data on existing patents and technology, to facilitate and increase the sharing, exchange and pooling of intellectual property rights through transparent and secure mechanisms and to develop new mechanisms dedicated to promoting research that do not prevent access to innovation; calls on the EU and its Member States, therefore, to address the issue of intellectual property rights with the aim of efficiently and speedily generating and disseminating innovations which are essential in order to face and fight climate change;

Climate diplomacy

77.  Stresses that the EU must continue to act constructively in international climate negotiations and that EU climate diplomacy needs to be further developed by all the EU institutions in advance of Doha, under the umbrella of the EEAS, with the aim of presenting a clearer EU profile on climate policy, bringing a new dynamic to the international climate negotiations and encouraging partners throughout the world, particularly the biggest emitters, to introduce binding, comparable and effective emissions reduction measures and appropriate climate change mitigation and adaptation measures;

78.  Considers it regrettable that the EU’s reduction target is not consistent with its adopted 2ºC objective and a cost-effective path to the 2050 greenhouse gas emissions reduction goal;

79.  Highlights the importance of (subglobal) alliances with the most progressive countries as a means of lending further impetus to the negotiation process and ensuring the adoption by the biggest emitters of ambitious and adequate targets for reducing greenhouse gas emissions;

80.  Stresses, in this context, the importance of the EU, as a major player, speaking with ‘one voice’ at the Doha Conference in seeking progress towards an international agreement, and of staying united in that regard;

81.  Calls on the Parties to recognise that legislators’ engagement with the negotiations is critical to achieving success in the intergovernmental process towards a global agreement in 2015, insofar as the advancement of the Parties’ national climate legislation creates the political conditions for the multilateral negotiations and can facilitate their overall level of ambition;

82.  Stresses the vital position of both ‘hosting nations’ – Qatar, as one of the world’s biggest producers of oil and gas, which is now seeing its resources diminishing but still has the highest global carbon emissions per capita, and South Korea, as a leader in ’green technologies’ and the first country in Asia to pass climate change legislation implementing cap-and-trade-policies – and encourages both countries (not currently covered by Annex I) to lead by example and help build new alliances;

83.  Expresses its concern that the informal practice of waiting for consensus among all Council delegations is delaying urgent climate action and consequently urges the Council to act on the basis of qualified majority voting at all times, in accordance with the Treaties, in particular for general acts under Article 16(3) TEU and specifically under Article 218(8) TFEU ‘at all stages of the procedure’ of reaching international agreements;

84.  Notes that the Commission has proposed a roadmap to a carbon-free Europe for 2050, which is a very ambitious, but achievable, target; reaffirms, in this connection, its commitment to the abatement of greenhouse gas emissions, even outside an international agreement;

85.  Notes that global warming highlights the interdependence of all countries; considers it necessary, therefore, to reach global agreement so as to avoid a catastrophic change that would dramatically affect all of humanity;

European Parliament delegation

86.  Believes that the EU delegation plays a vital role in climate change negotiations, and therefore finds it unacceptable that Members of the European Parliament have been unable to attend the EU coordination meetings at previous Conferences of the Parties; expects at least the Chair of the Parliament delegation to be allowed to attend the EU coordination meetings in Doha;

87.  Notes that, in accordance with the Framework Agreement concluded between the Commission and Parliament in November 2010, the Commission must facilitate the inclusion of Members of Parliament as observers in Union delegations negotiating multilateral agreements; recalls that, pursuant to the Lisbon Treaty (Article 218 TFEU), Parliament must give its consent to agreements between the Union and third countries or international organisations;

o
o   o

88.  Instructs its President to forward this resolution to the Council, the Commission, the governments and parliaments of the Member States and the Secretariat of the UNFCCC, with the request that it be circulated to all non-EU Contracting Parties.

(1) OJ L 8, 13.1.2009, p. 3.
(2) OJ C 67 E, 18.3.2010, p. 44.
(3) OJ C 285 E, 21.10.2010, p. 1.
(4) OJ C 341 E, 16.12.2010, p. 25.
(5) OJ C 99 E, 3.4.2012, p. 77.
(6) Texts adopted, P7_TA(2011)0504.
(7) Texts adopted, P7_TA(2012)0086.
(8) OJ C 46, 24.2.2006, p. 1.


Enlargement: policies, criteria and EU's strategic interest
PDF 306kWORD 35k
European Parliament resolution of 22 November 2012 on Enlargement: policies, criteria and the EU’s strategic interests (2012/2025(INI))
P7_TA(2012)0453A7-0274/2012

The European Parliament,

–  having regard to the Treaty on European Union (TEU), in particular its Articles 2, 21 and 49,

–  having regard to the proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on the Instrument for Pre-accession Assistance (IPA II) (COM(2011)0838/4),

–  having regard to the Presidency Conclusions of the Copenhagen European Council of 21-22 June 1993, of the Madrid European Council of 15-16 December 1995, of the Thessaloniki European Council of 19-20 June 2003 and of the Brussels European Council of 14-15 December 2006,

–  having regard to the Council Conclusions of 5 December 2011 on Enlargement and the Stabilisation and Association Process,

–  having regard to the renewed enlargement consensus adopted by the Council in 2006 and to the consolidated enlargement strategy implemented by the Commission thereafter,

–  having regard to the Commission communication of 20 February 2009 on ‘Five years of an enlarged EU – Economic achievements and challenges’ (COM(2009)0079/3),

–  having regard to its resolutions of 13 December 2006 on the Commission's communication on the Enlargement Strategy and Main Challenges 2006-2007(1), of 10 July 2008 on the Commission’s 2007 enlargement strategy paper(2), and of 26 November 2009 on the Commission’s 2009 enlargement strategy paper concerning the Western Balkan countries, Iceland and Turkey(3), as well as the Commission communications on the Enlargement Strategy of 2009-2010, 2010-2011 and 2011-2012,

–  having regard to its previous resolutions on the countries of the Western Balkans, Iceland and Turkey,

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

–  having regard to the report of the Committee on Foreign Affairs and the opinion of the Committee on Budgets (A7-0274/2012),

A.  whereas, in accordance with Article 49 TEU, any European state which respects and remains committed to the promotion of the values of human dignity, freedom, democracy, equality, the rule of law and respect for human rights, including the rights of persons belonging to minorities, may apply to become a member of the Union; whereas these values are the foundation of the European Union itself and guide its action on the international scene, and must be respected and upheld by all Member States;

B.  whereas enlargement has been part of the EU agenda since as early as the 1960s; whereas since the first enlargement in 1973, the EU has grown gradually, its membership rising from the six founding members to the current 27 (soon to be 28); whereas a number of other countries aspire to EU membership, as a guarantee for a secure, democratic and prosperous future;

C.  whereas the policy of integration over the past decade has shown that enlargement benefits the EU as a whole and allows it to be better positioned to address global challenges;

D.  whereas enlargement has been a successful process for the EU and Europe as a whole, in helping to overcome the divisions of the cold war, contributing to peace, stability and prosperity throughout Europe, enhancing conflict prevention, stimulating reforms and consolidating freedom, democracy, respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms and the rule of law, as well as the development of market economies and socially and ecologically sustainable development;

E.  whereas almost twenty years after the Copenhagen European Council of 1993, which affirmed the membership prospects of the countries of Central and Eastern Europe and laid down the accession criteria, the moment has come for a re-evaluation of the established related procedures and of enlargement policy as a whole, without prejudice to the ongoing negotiations;

F.  whereas the Copenhagen criteria have stood the test of time and remain at the centre of EU enlargement policy; whereas the consolidated enlargement strategy and the new focus on justice and home affairs, the rule of law and respect for fundamental rights are expected to be effective and efficient;

G.  whereas the European Parliament, through its annual resolutions on the candidate and potential candidate countries, contributes to improving the transparency and accountability of the enlargement process by echoing the opinions of the European citizens; whereas, following the entry into force of the Treaty of Lisbon, the role of Parliament has increased thanks to the recognition of co-legislative power, inter alia with regard to the Instrument for Pre-Accession Assistance (IPA);

H.  whereas the prospect of accession has a significant transformative impact on the political, socio-economic and cultural landscape of the countries wishing to join, and acts as a powerful incentive for pursuing the necessary political, economic and legislative reforms and the strengthening of peace, stability, reconciliation and good neighbourly relations; whereas thanks to this transformative power, enlargement is the essence of the EU’s soft power and an important element of its external action;

I.  whereas commitment, conditionality and credibility have been situated at the core of the accession process;

J.  whereas it is of the utmost importance that Member States continue to fully respect and uphold the accession criteria and fundamental rights, in order to strengthen the credibility and consistency of the enlargement process and avoid any kind of discrimination against potential new members;

K.  whereas a commitment to political, economic and legislative reforms is, first and foremost, in the best interests of the candidate and potential candidate countries and their citizens;

L.  whereas each country aspiring to EU membership has to be judged on its own merits in fulfilling, implementing and complying with the same set of criteria; whereas the pace of progress in the accession process should be determined by the extent of effective implementation and compliance with the EU accession criteria, as well as fulfilment of the priorities of the European and Accession Partnership and the negotiating framework; whereas the degree of compliance with the requirements for membership has to be assessed in the most fair and transparent fashion;

M.  whereas the enlargement process has a significant impact also on the EU itself, serving as an opportunity to better define its identity, goals, values and policies, and also as a suitable moment to better communicate these to its citizens;

N.  whereas, in line with the renewed consensus on enlargement of 2006, this process should be based on consolidation, conditionality and communication, combined with the EU’s capacity to integrate new members; whereas the integration capacity of the EU is a major consideration and a prerequisite for the sustainability of enlargement policy and the overall integration process; whereas this consideration has been a positive incentive for institutional deepening, as demonstrated by the consecutive treaty revisions that have accompanied the different waves of enlargement, extending the functions and activities of the Union;

O.  whereas true reconciliation between different nations and peoples, the peaceful resolution of conflicts and the establishment of good neighbourly relations between European countries are essential to sustainable peace and stability and contribute substantially to a genuine European integration process, therefore being of key importance to the enlargement process; whereas a number of candidate and potential candidate countries continue to have unresolved issues with their neighbours, and hence all affected parties should work overtly towards the resolution of bilateral tensions; whereas these issues should be resolved prior to accession;

General considerations

1.  Strongly supports the enlargement process and believes that enlargement needs to remain a credible policy, supported by the public both in the EU and in the candidate and potential candidate countries; underlines, therefore, the importance for the EU and the candidate and potential candidate countries of fulfilling all obligations, respecting all commitments and creating the conditions for ensuring the success of future enlargements, inter alia by assisting the countries concerned in their efforts to meet the criteria for EU accession;

2.  Acknowledges the benefits of the enlargement and accession process, both for the citizens of the candidate and potential candidate countries and for European citizens;

3.  Considers that the Copenhagen criteria continue to constitute a fundamental basis and should remain at the heart of enlargement policy; stresses that full and rigorous compliance with these criteria is imperative, that due attention should be paid to the social implications for the candidate and potential candidate countries, and that the Union’s integration capacity must be taken fully into account;

4.  Considers that the concept of integration capacity comprises four elements:

   (i) accession states should contribute to and not impair the ability of the Union to maintain momentum towards the fulfilment of its political objectives;
   (ii) the institutional framework of the Union should be able to deliver efficient and effective government;
   (iii) the financial resources of the Union should be sufficient to meet the challenges of economic and social cohesion and of the Union’s common policies;
   (iv) a comprehensive communication strategy should be in place to inform public opinion concerning the implications of enlargement;

5.  Stresses, however, that the Union is responsible for improving its integration capacity in the process of considering the legitimate European aspirations of candidate, potential candidate or potential applicant countries;

6.  Points out that the EU continues to be attractive, also because of its unique combination of economic dynamism with a social model, and regrets that this social dimension has been largely neglected in the enlargement process; invites the Commission to address this issue, especially in the framework of Chapter 19 (Social Policy and Employment), to foster positive social transformation in the future EU Member States and to pay due attention to social justice;

7.  Reminds that the acquis in the social field includes minimum standards in areas such as labour law, equal treatment of women and men, health and safety at work and anti-discrimination, and that the EU Treaties confirm commitment to the European Social Charter of 1961 and the Community Charter of the Fundamental Social Rights of Workers of 1989, while the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights also contains a number of fundamental social rights; stresses that failure to comply with the EU’s common basic social standards constitutes a form of social dumping, which is detrimental to European enterprises and workers and would effectively prevent a candidate state from participating in the single market; points out that social partners and in particular trade unions need targeted EU assistance in order to reinforce their capacities;

8.  Is of the view that the set of accession criteria should be adequately translated into clear, specific and measurable objectives in the IPA in order to clearly demonstrate the link between Union-funded policies in the enlargement countries and progress in meeting the general accession criteria;

9.  Recognises the need for the economies of accession countries to develop in the same direction as those of EU Member States in order to facilitate alignment; encourages the accession countries, accordingly, to formulate feasible and country-specific targets for each of the EU 2020 headline targets for a smart, sustainable and inclusive economy;

10.  Draws attention to the importance of the Madrid criteria (defined by the Madrid European Council of December 1995), which emphasised the ability of candidate countries to put EU rules and procedures into effect; also takes the view that the principle of strict conditionality requires that the progress of a candidate and/or potential candidate country in adopting and implementing reforms be effectively assessed on the basis of a clear set of criteria at every stage of the process, and that countries wishing to join the EU should be able to proceed from one stage to the next only once all the conditions have been met at each stage; stresses that, in order to enhance the credibility and effectiveness of the enlargement strategy, the Copenhagen criteria must be fully respected and complied with by Member States as well, in order to avoid requiring applicant countries to meet higher standards than those applying in some EU Member States; stresses the importance of defining the different stages more clearly, setting transparent and fair benchmarks throughout the process that translate the general membership criteria into concrete steps towards accession, and measuring whether the necessary requirements have been met, as well as of avoiding fixing or promising an accession date if negotiations have not yet been finalised; stresses that it should also be clear that a benchmark, once attained, should be sustained and that backsliding should elicit an appropriate response on the part of those setting the benchmarks;

11.  Stresses that the objective of the accession process is full EU membership;

12.  Calls on the Commission to maintain and further intensify its monitoring of progress in the accession process, as well as its assistance to candidate and potential candidate countries, so as to ensure that they achieve a high degree of preparedness which will benefit both them and the EU;

13.  Believes that, in order to maintain the credibility of the enlargement process, the EU’s integration capacity should be evaluated at an early stage and should be properly reflected in the Commission’s ‘opinion’ for each potential candidate state, outlining the major concerns in this regard and the possible ways to overcome them; is of the view that a comprehensive impact assessment should then follow; in this context, emphasises that a successful enlargement process requires that the EU should maintain the capacity to act, to develop, to take decisions democratically and efficiently, to have financial resources to support economic and social cohesion, and to pursue its political objectives;

Enlargement policies

14.  Welcomes the new negotiating approach for future negotiating frameworks, which prioritises issues related to the judiciary and fundamental rights, as well as to justice and home affairs; agrees that these should be tackled early in the accession process and that as a rule Chapters 23 and 24 should be opened accordingly on the basis of action plans, as they require the establishment of convincing track records; calls on the Commission to report to Parliament regularly on progress in these areas, and for the monthly pre-accession reports of the EU delegations to be available to the members of the Committee on Foreign Affairs upon request; notes, however, that this focus on the areas in question should not be to the detriment of the efforts and progress made in the other areas outlined in the individual enlargement agendas of the candidate and potential candidate countries;

15.  Considers it important to give adequate priority within enlargement policy to the building of an efficient, independent and impartial judicial system and a transparent democratic political system that can strengthen the rule of law; underlines, at the same time, the importance of all forms of freedom of expression and the need to ensure freedom of the media in law and in practice, as well as to effectively fight corruption and organised crime;

16.  Stresses that visa liberalisation is a good example of EU conditionality combining political and technical criteria with a desirable goal and tangible benefits; welcomes and supports, therefore, the efforts of the Commission and those of interested countries in this field;

17.  Calls on the Commission to simplify the administration procedure and reduce the administrative burden for the IPA funding, with the aim of making it more accessible to and enhancing the participation of smaller and non-centralised civil organisations, trade unions and other beneficiaries;

18.  Encourages greater participation by civil society, non-state actors and social partners, both from the candidate countries and the Member States, in the accession process; urges the Commission to keep up a continuous dialogue with them; calls on the candidate and potential candidate countries to ensure their involvement at all stages; stresses that civil society can work as an important engine of approximation with the EU, create bottom-up pressure for the advancement of the European agenda, improve the transparency of the process and strengthen public support for accession; stresses the importance of adequate financial support, inter alia via the Civil Society Facility, especially in order to enhance civil society’s capacities to monitor the implementation of the acquis; stresses the importance of cooperation between European civil society organisations and their counterparts in the candidate and potential candidate countries;

19.  Strongly emphasises the need to enhance administrative capacities and human resources in order to make them capable of transposing, implementing and enforcing the acquis; takes the view that processes in the framework of enlargement should not be merely ‘technical’, and stresses the need to make the screening process more connected to the realities on the ground; calls on the Commission, therefore, to involve NGOs, trade unions and major stakeholders, as appropriate, in this exercise;

20.  Calls, in recognition of the important role that social dialogue plays in EU decision-making, for greater emphasis on strengthening the capacities of social partners and the role of social dialogue within the enlargement process; asks, furthermore, for more attention to be paid to developing enforcement mechanisms such as labour inspection so as to protect workers and ensure respect for their social rights and health and safety standards, as well as combating exploitation, especially of undeclared workers;

21.  Calls for greater engagement of the European Economic and Social Committee (EESC) in the enlargement process; highlights its role in transmitting good practices to candidate and potential candidate countries, as well as in rallying civil society behind the cause of European integration in the EU; supports the further strengthening of dialogue between civil society organisations in the EU and the enlargement countries, and encourages greater cooperation between the EESC, the Commission and the European Parliament;

22.  Recalls that achieving sustainable economic recovery is a major challenge for most enlargement countries, and underlines the need to promote smart, sustainable and inclusive growth, in line with the Europe 2020 Strategy; calls for more support for small- and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs), given their critical role for socioeconomic progress in all enlargement countries, and urges the Commission to insist on priority reforms that create a favourable regulatory environment for innovative and high-potential SMEs; stresses, at the same time, the need for continued attention to the issues of a growing informal sector, high unemployment, and the integration of the most vulnerable members of society;

23.  Believes strongly in the need to promote a climate of tolerance and mutual respect, good neighbourly relations and regional and crossborder cooperation, as prerequisites for stability and as means of facilitating genuine and lasting reconciliation; considers that the prosecution of war crimes, the peaceful coexistence of different ethnic, cultural and religious communities, the protection of minorities and respect for human rights, as well as the reintegration and return of refugees and displaced persons, must remain essential elements of the EU accession process in regions with a history of conflict; in this respect, encourages the candidate and potential candidate countries that have yet to ratify the Framework Convention for the Protection of National Minorities to do so; suggests that in such cases the promotion of the teaching and learning of each other’s history, language and cultural heritage during and after the accession process would facilitate mutual understanding and contribute to historical reconciliation;

24.  Is of the opinion that gender equality and anti-discrimination should be given further priority within enlargement policy; stresses that equality between men and women is a fundamental right, a core value of the EU, and a key principle of its external action, as well as holding great potential for the achievement of the Europe 2020 objectives by contributing to growth and full employment; encourages, therefore, women’s participation in the accession process, and underlines the importance of mainstreaming gender equality policies; stresses that discrimination on all and any grounds is prohibited and that the EU assessments should include the rights of the LGBT community and the integration of minorities in political, social and economic life;

25.  Calls on the Commission to involve enlargement countries in its initiatives aiming at social inclusion, such as the EU Framework for National Roma Integration Strategies , to better mobilise the IPA to this end, and to urge enlargement countries, through the mechanism of the Stabilisation and Association Process (SAAP), to realise these goals; also calls on the enlargement countries to actively participate in the Decade for Roma Inclusion and to guarantee the fundamental rights of Roma, improve their social and economic position and ensure their access to housing;

26.  Takes the view that any acceding state should resolve its main bilateral problems and major disputes with neighbours, particularly those concerning territorial issues, before it can join the Union; recommends strongly that these issues be addressed as early as possible in the accession process, in a constructive and neighbourly spirit and preferably before the opening of accession negotiations, so that the latter are not negatively affected; in this regard, considers it essential to take account of the EU’s overall interests, its values, and the obligation to fully comply with the acquis and respect the principles on which the EU itself is founded;

27.  Calls on the EU to support efforts to resolve outstanding disputes, including border disputes, before accession; in line with the provisions of international law, the UN Charter and the relevant UN resolutions, as well as the Helsinki Final Act, encourages all parties to disputes whose continuation is likely to impair implementation of the acquis or endanger the preservation of international peace and security to engage constructively in their peaceful resolution and, if appropriate, in case of not being able to reach a bilateral agreement, to refer the matter to the International Court of Justice or to commit themselves to a binding arbitration mechanism of their choice or else work constructively within an intensive mediation mission; reiterates its call on the Commission and the Council to start developing, in accordance with the EU Treaties, an arbitration mechanism aimed at resolving bilateral and multilateral disputes;

28.  Welcomes initiatives such as the positive agenda on Turkey, the high-level accession dialogue with the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, and the structured dialogue on the rule of law with Kosovo(4); welcomes the aim of creating a fresh dynamic in the reform process, while stressing that these initiatives must in no way replace the formal negotiation procedures, but must be fully in line with the negotiating framework;

29.  Stresses the need for candidate and potential candidate countries to make improvements in the fields of democracy, human rights, and reconciliation processes, areas which should always be given priority in the enlargement process and reflected in the financial instruments; recalls, in this regard, the importance of financial assistance taking into account the need for to restore cultural heritage sites in conflict areas, bearing in mind the role this has in terms of building confidence and inclusiveness between different ethnic and religious communities;

30.  Stresses that EU enlargement policy is an instrument for modernisation, democratisation and stabilisation, and also has the aim of strengthening the EU, both internally and as a global player; calls on the Commission to undertake comprehensive impact assessments whenever it considers new applications for EU membership, and also when it recommends the opening or, in case of fundamentally changed circumstances, the closing of accession negotiations;

31.  Supports the Commission’s commitment to improving the quality of the accession process by making it more merit-based, benchmark-driven and transparent; takes the view that this will make the process fairer and more objectively measurable, thus further enhancing its credibility; in this context, recommends that the progress reports should be clearer in their assessments; stresses that the benchmarks should not set additional conditions for the candidate and potential candidate countries, but should translate the general membership criteria and the objectives of the EU’s pre-accession assistance into concrete steps and results with a view to accession, in full compliance with the negotiating framework;

32.  Emphasises the vital importance for the success of the accession process of the fight against corruption and organised crime; calls on the Commission to adopt a new approach to this issue by drawing the attention of the authorities of aspirant countries to individual instances of systemic corruption; calls on the Commission to cooperate closely with the Group of States against Corruption (GRECO) and with the anti-corruption bodies in the countries concerned; stresses that such a new approach would be highly beneficial for the image of the Union among the citizens of the aspirant countries and would potentially facilitate the fight against corruption;

33.  Urges the Commission to plan a non-decrease in real terms of overall funding for each beneficiary; notes that this calculation should be made taking into consideration the following: a) the ratio of overall programmed IPA assistance to each country’s GDP should not decrease in relative terms even if, in real terms, the denominator (GDP) for each beneficiary country has shown a cumulative increase over the period 2007-2013; b) the number of countries with access to funding through the future instrument is likely to decrease with the accession of Croatia, which would potentially change the comparative redistribution within the pool of funding; c) with the suggested changes to the new Instrument serving to remove differentiation between countries on the basis of their candidacy status, more countries will be able to access funding – hitherto inaccessible to non-candidate countries – earmarked for policy areas focusing on socioeconomic development; recommends, in this context, that no beneficiary be precluded from sufficient and fair access to funding due to limited EU resources, in particular as regards the policy area of institution-building;

34.  Recalls the need to accompany EU enlargement with a concerted and more effective and transparent communication policy involving all EU institutions, the governments and parliaments of the Member States, and representatives of civil society, with a view to triggering an open and frank debate on the consequences of enlargement, encompassing public opinion in both the EU Member States and the candidate countries; stresses that a communication policy of this kind should also be applied in the candidate countries, in cooperation with all actors;

35.  Is of the opinion that, in order to encourage support among EU citizens for further enlargement and the commitment of the citizens of the candidate and potential candidate countries to continuing with reforms, it is crucial to present clear and comprehensive information on the political, socioeconomic and cultural benefits of enlargement; considers it essential, in particular, to explain to the public how enlargement has brought new investment and export opportunities, and how it can contribute to attaining the EU’s objectives in terms of promoting conflict prevention, enhancing peaceful conflict resolution, tackling the economic crisis, creating jobs, facilitating the free flow of labour, protecting the environment and enhancing security and safety, while at the same time accelerating the reform agenda, facilitating access to financial resources and subsequently improving living conditions in the enlargement countries for the benefit of all European citizens, as well as reducing social and economic imbalances; stresses the need to target all sectors of society by promoting, inter alia, the inclusion, at secondary school level or the equivalent, of a specific curricular element on the background, objectives and functioning of the European Union as well as its enlargement processes; also stresses the need to target key opinion formers such as journalists, representatives of civil society, and socioeconomic actors and trade unions; is of the view that similar efforts by candidate and potential candidate countries should be encouraged and supported;

Prospects and the EU’s strategic interests

36.  Believes strongly that the EU can gain great strategic benefits through enlargement policy; emphasises that EU membership provides stability in the swiftly changing international environment, and that belonging to the European Union continues to offer the perspective of social development and prosperity; is of the opinion that enlargement is a long-term strategic interest of the EU, which cannot necessarily be measured in terms of short-term balance sheets; considers it important to take due account of its substantial and lasting value as representing soft but nevertheless essential power for the EU;

37.  Remains fully committed to the prospect of enlargement, and calls on the Member States to maintain the momentum of the enlargement process; stresses its conviction that with the Lisbon Treaty the EU can both pursue its enlargement agenda and maintain the impetus of deeper integration;

38.  Recalls that the process is not concluded with the simple transposition of the acquis, and stresses the importance of effective implementation and respect in the long term as regards both the acquis and the Copenhagen criteria; considers that in order to maintain the credibility of the accession conditions, EU Member States should also be assessed for their continued compliance with the EU’s fundamental values and the fulfilment of their commitments concerning the functioning of democratic institutions and the rule of law; calls on the Commission to work out a detailed proposal for a monitoring mechanism, building on the provisions of Article 7 TEU and Article 258 TFEU;

39.  Recalls that a streamlined, forward-looking enlargement policy could be a valuable strategic tool for the EU’s and the region’s economic development, and should aim to create budgetary synergies and enhanced coordination between the various measures and types of assistance provided by the EU, Member States and IFIs, as well as with the existing instruments, namely the IPA, by avoiding any potential overlap, duplications or gaps in funding, particularly in the context of a constrained budgetary environment;

40.  Notes that the global financial crisis and the difficulties of the eurozone have highlighted the interdependence of national economies, both within and beyond the EU; emphasises, therefore, the importance of further consolidating economic and financial stability and fostering growth, also in the candidate and potential candidate countries; in these difficult circumstances, stresses the need to provide adequate and better-targeted pre-accession financial assistance to candidate and potential candidate countries; notes the Commission’s proposal for a new IPA, including increased financial support for the financial perspective 2014-2020; stresses, in this regard, the need to simplify and speed up procedures, as well as to strengthen the administrative capacity of the beneficiary countries, in order to ensure a high level of participation in EU programmes and to enhance absorption capacity; points out that a comprehensive position of the European Parliament on the IPA will be presented in the course of the ordinary legislative procedure; highlights the importance of national fiscal stability and the increased focus at EU level on economic governance; recommends that the question of sound public finances be properly addressed in the accession process;

41.  Stresses that the goals of Europe 2020 are built around universal principles which have been a strong driver for economic wellbeing; recommends, therefore, that progress on flagship initiatives be included in the pre-accession dialogue and incentivised with additional funding; considers that a low-carbon growth model merits special attention and should be actively implemented during the enlargement process;

42.  Calls for continuous inter-donor dialogue and, where appropriate, the use of suitable structures for aid coordination and management; calls, in this context, for closer examination of the use of innovative financial instruments requiring coordination structures, such as, for example, the Western Balkans Investment Framework, which is complementary to the administrative structures for the IPA and has the goal of attracting, pooling and channelling support for priority areas; emphasises the financial and policy leverage potential of financing projects using a combination of funds – from the EU, the Member States or the IFIs – in a manner that ensures both strict concordance with best practice in terms of financial management and the coordination of key actors;

o
o   o

43.  Instructs its President to forward this resolution to the Council, the Commission, and the Governments and Parliaments of the Member States and of Albania, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Croatia, the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Iceland, Kosovo, Montenegro, Serbia and Turkey.

(1) OJ C 317 E, 23.12.2006, p. 480.
(2) OJ C 294 E, 3.12.2009, p. 60.
(3) OJ C 285 E, 21.10.2010, p. 47.
(4) This designation is without prejudice to positions on status, and is in line with UNSCR 1244/1999 and the ICJ Opinion on the Kosovo declaration of independence.


Situation in Gaza
PDF 117kWORD 22k
European Parliament resolution of 22 November 2012 on the situation in Gaza (2012/2883(RSP))
P7_TA(2012)0454RC-B7-0522/2012

The European Parliament,

–  having regard to the conclusions of the Foreign Affairs Council meeting of 19 November 2012,

–  having regard to the press statements by UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon of 18 and 19 November 2012,

–  having regard to the Council conclusions on the Middle East Peace Process of 14 May 2012, 18 July and 23 May 2011, and 8 December 2009,

–  having regard to the statements by High Representative Catherine Ashton of 12 November 2012 on the latest escalation of violence between Gaza and Israel, and of 16 November 2012 on the further escalation of violence in Israel and Gaza,

–   having regard to the ceasefire agreement of 21 November 2012,

–  having regard to the Fourth Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War of 1949,

–  having regard to the Charter of the United Nations,

–  having regard to the Interim Agreement on the West Bank and Gaza Strip of 18 September 1995,

–  having regard to the Oslo Accords (‘Declaration of Principles on Interim Self-Government Arrangements’) of 13 September 1993,

–  having regard to Rule 110(2) and (4) of its Rules of Procedure,

A.  whereas the recent escalation of violence has resulted in the loss of life and unacceptable suffering to the civilian population of both parties involved;

B.  whereas Egyptian Foreign Minister Mohamed Kamel Amr and US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton announced a ceasefire at a news conference in Cairo on 21 November 2012; whereas, according to this ceasefire, ‘Israel shall stop all hostilities in the Gaza Strip, land, sea and air including incursions and targeting of individuals’ while ‘all Palestinian factions shall stop all hostilities from the Gaza Strip against Israel, including rocket attacks and attacks along the border’;

C.  whereas Parliament has repeatedly expressed its support for the two-state solution with the State of Israel and an independent, democratic and viable State of Palestine living side by side in peace and security, and called for the creation of the conditions for the resumption of direct peace talks between the parties;

D.  whereas the blockade of, and the humanitarian crisis in, the Gaza Strip continues despite numerous calls by the international community for the opening of crossings for the flow of humanitarian aid, commercial goods and persons to and from Gaza, as also reiterated in the Council conclusions of 14 May 2012;

E.  whereas Parliament has repeatedly expressed its strong commitment to the security of the State of Israel; whereas the Council conclusions of 14 May 2012 also reiterated the fundamental commitment of the EU and its Member States to the security of Israel, condemned in the strongest terms violence deliberately targeting civilians, including rocket attacks from the Gaza Strip, and called for the effective prevention of arms smuggling into Gaza;

1.  Expresses grave concern about the situation in Gaza and Israel and considers deeply regrettable the loss of civilian life, including among women and children; welcomes the ceasefire agreement announced in Cairo and calls for its full implementation; stresses that all attacks must end immediately as they cause unjustifiable suffering among innocent civilians, and calls for an urgent de-escalation and cessation of hostilities; commends the efforts of Egypt and other actors to mediate for a sustainable ceasefire and welcomes the mission of the United Nations Secretary-General to the region;

2.  Strongly condemns the rocket attacks on Israel from the Gaza Strip, which Hamas and other armed groups in Gaza must cease immediately; stresses that Israel has the right to protect its population from these kinds of attacks, while pointing out that, in doing so, it must act proportionately and ensure the protection of civilians at all times; stresses the need for all sides fully to respect international humanitarian law, and that there can be no justification for the deliberate targeting of innocent civilians;

3.  Condemns the terrorist attack on a bus carrying civilians in Tel Aviv on 21 November 2012;

4.  Reiterates its strong support for the two-state solution on the basis of the 1967 borders, with Jerusalem as capital of both states, and with the State of Israel and an independent, democratic and viable State of Palestine living side by side in peace and security;

5.  Stresses again that peaceful and non-violent means are the only way to achieve a just and lasting peace between Israelis and Palestinians; calls again for the creation of the conditions for the resumption of direct peace talks between the two parties;

6.  Supports, in this connection, Palestine’s bid to become a UN non-member observer, and considers this an important step in making Palestinian claims more visible, stronger and more effective; calls, in this connection, on the EU Member States and the international community to find an agreement in this direction;

7.  Urges the EU and the Member States again to play a more active political role in the efforts aimed at achieving a just and lasting peace between Israelis and Palestinians; supports the High Representative in her efforts to create a credible perspective for relaunching the peace process;

8.  Reiterates its call for the lifting of the blockade of the Gaza Strip, conditional upon an effective control mechanism to prevent the smuggling of arms into Gaza, in recognition of Israel’s legitimate security needs; calls also for steps to be taken to allow the reconstruction and economic recovery of Gaza;

9.  Instructs its President to forward this resolution to the Council, the Commission, the Vice-President of the Commission / High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy, the governments and parliaments of the Member States, the EU Special Representative to the Middle East Peace Process, the President of the UN General Assembly, the governments and parliaments of the UN Security Council members, the Middle East Quartet Envoy, the Knesset and the Government of Israel, the President of the Palestinian Authority and the Palestinian Legislative Council.


Implementation of the Common Security and Defence Policy
PDF 345kWORD 51k
European Parliament resolution of 22 November 2012 on the implementation of the Common Security and Defence Policy (based on the Annual Report from the Council to the European Parliament on the Common Foreign and Security Policy) (12562/2011 – 2012/2138(INI))
P7_TA(2012)0455A7-0357/2012

The European Parliament,

–  having regard to the Annual Report from the Council to the European Parliament on the Common Foreign and Security Policy, in particular the part concerning the European Common Security and Defence Policy (CSDP) (12562/2011),

–  having regard to the report of the Vice-President of the Commission / High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy (VP/HR) to the Council of 23 July 2012 on the CSDP,

–  having regard to the Council conclusions of 23 July 2012 on the CSDP,

–  having regard to the Council conclusions of 1 December 2011 on the CSDP,

–  having regard to the Ghent Initiative on military capabilities launched at the informal meeting of EU defence ministers in September 2010,

–  having regard to Articles 2, 3, 24 and 36 of the Treaty on European Union (TEU),

–  having regard to paragraph 43 of the Interinstitutional Agreement of 17 May 2006 between the European Parliament, the Council and the Commission on budgetary discipline and sound financial management(1);

–  having regard to Title V TEU and to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,

–  having regard to the EU Strategy against the Proliferation of Weapons of Mass Destruction, as endorsed by the Council on 9 December 2003,

–   having regard to the Charter of the United Nations,

–  having regard to the European Security Strategy entitled ‘A Secure Europe in a Better World’, adopted by the European Council on 12 December 2003, and to the report on its implementation entitled ’Providing Security in a Changing World’, endorsed by the European Council on 11-12 December 2008,

–  having regard to its resolution of 10 March 2010 on the implementation of the European Security Strategy and the Common Security and Defence Policy(2),

–  having regard to its resolution of 23 November 2010 on civilian-military cooperation and the development of civilian-military capabilities(3),

–  having regard to its resolution of 11 May 2011 on the development of the common security and defence policy following the entry into force of the Lisbon Treaty(4),

–  having regard to its resolution of 14 December 2011 on the impact of the financial crisis on the defence sector in the EU Member States(5),

–  having regard to the Council conclusions of 15 October 2012 on the situation in Mali,

–  having regard to Rule 119(1) of its Rules of Procedure,

–  having regard to the report of the Committee on Foreign Affairs (A7-0357/2012),

A.  whereas significant changes are taking place in the geostrategic context in which the Common Foreign and Security Policy (CFSP) and the CSDP operate, owing in particular to the upheavals in the Middle East and North Africa (including revolutions, conflicts and/or regime change in Libya, Tunisia, Egypt and Syria), the emergence on the international scene of new players with regional or even global ambitions and the reorientation of US defence policy priorities towards the Asia-Pacific area;

B.  whereas, at the same time, threats and challenges to global security are growing because of uncertainties linked to the attitudes of states and non-state actors (such as terrorist organisations) engaged in programmes which dangerously encourage proliferation of weapons of mass destruction (including nuclear weapons), the escalation of local crises in the EU’s neighbourhood with major regional implications (such as the current Syrian conflict), the vagaries of the transition process in the Arab countries and its security dimension (for instance in Libya and the Sinai Peninsula), the evolution of the Afghan-Pakistan area in the light of the prospective withdrawal of NATO troops, and increased terrorist threats in Africa, in particular in the Sahel, the Horn of Africa and Nigeria;

C.  whereas climate change is widely recognised as being an essential driver and threat multiplier for global security, peace and stability;

D.  whereas the European Union must respond to these threats and challenges by speaking with one voice, thereby ensuring consistency, by acting in a spirit of solidarity between Member States and by making use of all the means and instruments at its disposal to secure peace and security for its citizens;

E.  whereas the CSDP, which forms an integral part of the CFSP, whose aims are set out in Article 21 TEU, endows the Union with an operational capability based on civilian and military means;

F.  whereas the CSDP needs to consolidate its contribution to peace and stability in the world through its missions and operations that form part of the EU’s comprehensive approach to a country or region, including through multilateral cooperation in and with international organisations – in particular the United Nations – and regional organisations, in compliance with the UN Charter;

G.  whereas disarmament and non-proliferation are integral parts of the CSDP, which must be emphasised in the EU’s political dialogue with third countries and international institutions, and constitute an obligation for EU Member States under international conventions and agreements; whereas such a commitment is fully in keeping with the CSDP’s goal of civil and military capacity-building;

H.  whereas the Lisbon Treaty has introduced major innovations which require the CSDP to be strengthened, but whereas these are still far from being fully exploited;

I.  whereas, since 2003, the EU has launched 19 civilian missions and 7 military operations under the European Security and Defence Policy and then the CSDP, and whereas 11 civilian and 3 military operations are currently under way;

A Strategic framework for the CSDP
A new strategic framework

1.  Stresses that the EU should be a global political player on the international scene in order to promote international peace and security, to protect its interests in the world and to ensure the security of its citizens; believes that the EU should be able to assume its responsibilities when confronted with international threats, crises and conflicts, especially in its neighbourhood; underlines, in this connection, the need for the EU to be consistent in its policies and faster and more efficient in taking up the aforementioned responsibilities;

2.  Emphasises, in this connection, the need for the EU to assert its strategic autonomy through a strong and effective foreign, security and defence policy enabling it to act alone if necessary; emphasises that this strategic autonomy will remain illusory without credible civilian and military capabilities; recalls that this strategic autonomy is being built with due respect for existing alliances, notably with regard to NATO, while maintaining a strong transatlantic link, as stressed in Article 42 TEU, and duly observing and reinforcing genuine multilateralism as a guiding principle of EU international crisis management operations;

3.  Is concerned about the prospect of the strategic decline facing the EU, not only through the downward trend in defence budgets due to the global and European financial and economic crisis, but also because of the relative and progressive marginalisation of its crisis management instruments and capabilities, in particular the military ones; notes also the negative impact of Member States’ lack of commitment in this regard;

4.  Believes that the Union has an important role to play as security provider for the Member States and its citizens; is convinced that it should seek to strengthen its security and that of its neighbourhood in order not to delegate it to others; insists that the EU must be able to contribute meaningfully to peacekeeping operations around the globe;

5.  Notes that, despite the continuing validity of its assertions and analyses, the European Security Strategy, which was drawn up in 2003 and reviewed in 2008, is beginning to be overtaken by events and is no longer sufficient to understand today’s world;

6.  Calls therefore, once more, on the European Council to commission from the VP/HR a White Paper on the security and defence of the EU, which will define the EU’s strategic interests in a context of changing threats, in the light of the Member States’ security capabilities, the capacity of EU institutions to act effectively in security and defence policy, and the EU’s partnerships, in particular with its neighbours and NATO, and which will take account of the changing threats and the development of relations with our allies and partners, but also with emerging countries;

7.  Stresses the importance of such a strategic framework, which will guide the EU’s external action and formulate clear priorities for its security policy;

8.  Notes that the White Paper should be based both on the concepts introduced by the 2003 and 2008 European Security Strategies and on the new security concepts that have emerged in recent years, such as the ‘responsibility to protect’, human security and effective multilateralism;

9.  Stresses the importance of conducting, within the European Defence Agency (EDA) and in cooperation with NATO, a technical review of the military strengths and weaknesses of the EU Member States; believes that the White Paper will form the basis of the EU’s future strategic approach and provide guidance on its medium- and long-term strategic planning of both the civilian and military capabilities to be developed and acquired from a CSDP perspective;

10.  Welcomes the Council conclusions of 23 July 2012 on the CSDP and the announcement of a European Council on defence issues to be held in the course of 2013; encourages the Member States and the President of the European Council to involve Parliament in the preparation of that Council meeting;

11.  Welcomes the report of the VP/HR on the main aspects and basic choices of the CFSP, which is partly devoted to security and defence issues; insists, however, on the need for a more ambitious vision of the future of the CSDP; calls on the Member States, with the support of the VP/HR, to use this instrument – enshrined in the Lisbon Treaty – to its full potential in a context in which many crises persist, including on Europe’s doorstep, and in which US-redefined engagement is increasingly evident;

12.  Welcomes the contribution made by the Weimar initiative, which was supported by Spain and Italy, to revitalising the agenda of the CSDP, along with the impetus it has given in the three key areas, namely institutions, operations and capabilities; calls for these countries to honour the commitment they have made to continue to uphold an ambitious vision of the CSDP, and views their actions as a model to be joined and followed by all other Member States;

The CSDP at the heart of a comprehensive approach

13.  Welcomes the Council conclusions of 23 July 2012 on the CSDP and the announcement that a joint communication on the comprehensive approach would be presented by the Commission and the VP/HR; reminds both the Commission and the VP/HR to engage with Parliament in this endeavour;

14.  Emphasises that the strength of the EU as compared with other organisations lies in its unique potential to mobilise the full range of political, economic, development and humanitarian instruments to support its civilian and military crisis management, missions and operations under the roof of a single political authority – the VP/HR – and that this comprehensive approach gives it a unique and widely appreciated flexibility and efficiency;

15.  Believes, however, that the implementation of the comprehensive approach has to ensure that the Union responds to specific risks with the appropriate civilian and/or military means; insists that the comprehensive approach should rely on the CSDP as much as it does on other external action instruments;

16.  Emphasises that the CSDP, through these operations, is the EU’s main crisis management instrument, lending political credibility and visibility to the Union’s actions while also allowing political control;

Implementation of the Lisbon Treaty

17.  Recalls that the Lisbon Treaty introduced a number of significant innovations in relation to the CSDP that have yet to be implemented; considers regrettable, in this connection, the neglect by the VP/HR of past parliamentary resolutions calling for more active and coherent advances in the implementation of the new instruments introduced under the Lisbon Treaty:

   the Council may entrust a mission to a group of states in order to preserve the Union’s values and serve its interests;
   permanent structured cooperation may be established between Member States that meet higher military capability criteria and have made more binding commitments in this matter in respect of the most demanding missions;
   a mutual defence clause and a solidarity clause were introduced by the Treaty;
   the EDA is entrusted with important tasks in terms of developing the military capabilities of Member States, including strengthening the industrial and technological base of the defence sector, formulating a European capabilities and armaments policy and implementing permanent structured cooperation;
   a start-up fund should be set up for preparatory activities for missions which are not charged to the Union budget;

18.  Urges the VP/HR to provide the necessary impetus to develop the potential of the Lisbon Treaty so that the EU enjoys the full range of possibilities for action on the international scene within the framework of its comprehensive approach, whether through its ‘soft power’ or through more robust actions where necessary, and always in accordance with the UN Charter;

19.  Calls on the Member States to work actively with the VP/HR and the Council to adopt the Lisbon Treaty provisions concerning the CSDP as part of their national defence strategies;

20.  Welcomes the extension of the missions that may be carried out within the framework of the CSDP as compared with the previous ‘Petersberg’ missions, as stipulated in Article 43 TEU; notes, however, that this ambition has not been reflected in the decisions taken since the creation of the EEAS;

Civilian and military operations

21.  Emphasises that so far the CSDP has contributed to crisis management, peacekeeping and the strengthening of international security; insists that the CSDP now needs to be able to intervene in all types of crisis, including in the context of high-intensity conflicts in its own neighbourhood, and to be ambitious enough to have a real impact on the ground;

22.  Notes that 14 operations are currently under way, 11 of which are civilian and 3 military; welcomes the launch of three new civilian operations in the summer of 2012, in the Horn of Africa (EUCAP Nestor), Niger (EUCAP Sahel Niger) and South Sudan (EUAVSEC South Sudan), and the planning of a civilian mission to support border controls in Libya and a training mission in Mali; considers that these missions are a first sign that the CSDP’s agenda is being revitalised; underlines the importance of improving the framework for learning lessons from missions and operations;

23.  Considers it regrettable, however, that the EU does not take full advantage of CSDP military tools, even though a number of crises might have warranted a CSDP intervention, including those in Libya and Mali; stresses the need to consider providing assistance in the field of security sector reform to the Arab Spring countries, especially those in North Africa and the Sahel region; encourages, in this context, the intensification of ongoing planning for possible military operations and, at the same time, calls for a re-evaluation of ongoing missions;

24.  Calls also on the Member States to back up their statements with actions and to use existing means, protocols and accords in order to put their capabilities at the disposal of the CSDP, for example in the form of battlegroups or joint task forces;

The Western Balkans

25.  Recalls and welcomes the political, strategic and symbolic importance of the EU engagement in the Western Balkans, which has contributed to peace and security in the region; points out, however, that this region continues to face a number of challenges that represent a credibility test for the Union; calls on the VP/HR and on the Council to reassess the EU’s security contribution in the Western Balkans, with a particular focus on strengthening the rule of law, protecting minority communities and fighting organised crime and corruption;

26.  Welcomes the results of the first civilian EUPM mission in Bosnia and Herzegovina, which ended on 30 June 2012 and which, in parallel with the EUFOR Althea operation, has contributed to the dialogue between the constituent entities of the country and to the consolidation of the rule of law;

27.  Notes that the EUFOR Althea operation in Bosnia and Herzegovina, which was launched in 2004, has seen a steady decline in its staff complement; supports, therefore, the closure of this mission and advocates a new type of EU assistance in the field of capacity-building and training for the armed forces of Bosnia and Herzegovina;

28.  Supports the role played by the EULEX Kosovo mission, which is operating in a difficult political environment, and welcomes the extension of its mandate for another two years, until 14 June 2014;

29.  Highlights its positive role in helping Kosovo to combat organised crime at all levels and to establish the rule of law and a judicial, police and customs apparatus free from all political interference, in line with international and European best practices and standards; takes note of the reconfiguration and downsizing of the mission, considering them to be a clear sign of the progress achieved so far;

30.  Stresses, however, that much remains to be done if EULEX is to accomplish fully the missions assigned to it and enjoy the full confidence of Kosovo’s population, especially the Serb community; calls on the mission to strengthen its activities on the north of Kosovo and to engage more thoroughly in the investigation and prosecution of high-level corruption cases;

31.  Calls on the EULEX Special Investigative Task Force to continue to investigate with the greatest care and rigour the questions raised by the Council of Europe report on the veracity of allegations of organ trafficking; calls on EULEX to implement, with the full support of its contributing states, a witness protection programme – including, for instance, witness relocation measures – so that rigorous judicial proceedings can establish the facts;

32.  Notes that the presence of KFOR remains essential in order to ensure security in Kosovo, and that many questions continue to be raised about the effectiveness and future of coordination between the NATO military mission and the EU civilian mission; calls, therefore, on the VP/HR to report regularly on the progress of the EULEX mission, the extension of whose mandate until 14 June 2014 is welcomed, as well as on the results achieved and relations with the NATO military apparatus;

The Horn of Africa

33.  Welcomes the new EU strategy for the Horn of Africa, which implements the comprehensive approach in order to tackle piracy and its underlying causes, and the leading role played by the Union in relation to security issues in the region, which enhances the EU’s visibility and credibility in crisis management; welcomes the activation of the EU Operations Centre in May 2012 to support the CSDP missions in the Horn of Africa;

34.  Notes that currently three operations (EUNAVFOR Atalanta, EUTM Somalia and EUCAP Nestor) are being deployed for the benefit of the region and stresses the need to continue to coordinate the EU’s intervention with efforts by the international community, first and foremost the African Union (AU), to ensure that Somalia has a functioning and democratic state; considers that the EU Operations Centre leads to more effective coordination in the context of the strategy for the Horn of Africa;

35.  Recommends, in view of the developments in the political and security situation in Somalia, that the Member States and the VP/HR, in consultation with the legitimate authorities of Somalia, the AU, the Intergovernmental Authority on Development (IGAD) and the US, look into the possibility of launching a process of security sector reform (SSR);

36.  Welcomes the launch of the EUCAP Nestor mission and urges Tanzania to accept that mission, which aims to build up maritime defence capabilities in Djibouti, Kenya and the Seychelles and to support the rule of law in Somalia (initially in Puntland and Somaliland) by developing an accountable coastal police force and a judiciary showing full respect for the rule of law, transparency and human rights;

37.  Demands that the EUCAP Nestor mission be coordinated with other initiatives relating to maritime security, such as MARSIC and MASE, which are financed by the Instrument for Stability and the European Development Fund, respectively; recommends the extension of the EUCAP Nestor mission to other countries as soon as they meet the necessary conditions;

38.  Pays tribute to the vital contribution made by the EUNAVFOR Atalanta operation in combating piracy in the Gulf of Aden and the western Indian Ocean and its humanitarian contribution to ensuring maritime safety by protecting World Food Programme ships and other vulnerable vessels, and approves the extension of its mandate until December 2014; approves also the extension of the scope of this mission to include Somalia’s coastal zone and territorial and inland waters; calls on the Member States to provide adequate air and sea resources for this operation and encourages commercial vessels to continue to apply best navigational practices so as to reduce the risk of attack; welcomes the contribution by the Netherlands to Operation Atalanta in the form of an on-board protection team intended to ensure the safety of humanitarian convoys and encourages other Member States to make this type of contribution;

39.  Declares that piracy is akin to organised crime and that it is important, for the sake of freedom of trade and the protection of an essential maritime passage, to disrupt the economic profitability of this activity and to tackle the root causes of piracy through long-term engagement fostering good governance and self-sustaining, legitimate economic opportunities for the population; calls on the Commission and the Council to take all necessary measures to ensure the traceability of the financial flows generated by this activity and to facilitate exchanges of information between EUNAVFOR Atalanta and Europol;

40.  Highlights the positive role played by the EUTM mission in Somalia, in close cooperation with Uganda, the AU and the US, in training more than 3 000 Somali recruits – some 2 500 of whom have already been reintegrated into the Somali security forces – while also fostering the rule of law; considers that the mission has contributed in particular to improving the situation in and around Mogadishu by strengthening the Somali and AMISOM security forces; urges that the mission’s efforts be concentrated on establishing accountable, transparent command and control structures and a financial framework which would provide for regular payment of salaries, and on minimising the number of defections by trained soldiers;

41.  Approves the extension of the mandate of the EUTM Somalia mission until December 2012 and the focus placed on the command and control capabilities, specialised capabilities and self-training capabilities of the Somali national security forces with a view to transferring responsibility for training to local players; notes that the EU will be obliged to pursue its training efforts beyond 2012 and, in this context, calls on the EEAS to explore the possibility, once the security situation in Somalia allows it, of transferring all or part of this training to those parts of Somalia that are under the control of the authorities, in the light of the improvement in the security situation; recommends that the EUTM Somalia mission be allowed closer involvement in the process of recruiting and integrating personnel who have received this military training;

42.  Emphasises that the EUTM operation model, which, for a relatively modest outlay in terms of funding, material and human resources, has given the EU a major regional role in East Africa, could be replicated in other areas, particularly the Sahel;

The Sahel

43.  Expresses its utmost concern at the development of a zone of instability in the Sahel, characterised by the interconnected nature of criminal activities, particularly the trafficking of drugs, weapons and people, and armed operations by radical terrorist groups which are undermining the territorial integrity of states in the region and whose actions could lead to the establishment of a permanent zone of lawlessness in part of the territory of Mali and to its spreading to neighbouring countries, thereby heightening the threat there to European interests and European nationals, who have already been the victims of murder and kidnapping; stresses, therefore, the need to support a stable government in Mali in order to prevent the disintegration of the country and the wide-ranging spillover effect it could have in terms of the proliferation of crime and conflict;

44.  Emphasises the security threat that this poses for Europe as a whole; calls, in this context, on the VP/HR and on the Council rapidly and fully to implement the EU strategy for the Sahel adopted in March 2011 and to take appropriate security measures, if necessary by having recourse to CSDP missions, to help states in the region strengthen their capabilities in the fight against organised cross-border crime and terrorist groups;

45.  Welcomes the launch of the EUCAP Sahel Niger mission designed specifically to help Niger deal with these security challenges; notes that this mission falls squarely within the framework of the overall strategy for the Sahel, but considers it regrettable that it involves only one country while other countries in the region, especially Mali, have a pressing and vital need to build up their capabilities and respond to threats to their territorial integrity;

46.  Welcomes the unanimous adoption by the UN Security Council, on 12 October 2012, of resolution 2071 on Mali; notes that it directly calls upon regional and international organisations, including the EU, to provide ‘coordinated assistance, expertise, training and capacity-building support to the Armed and Security Forces of Mali in order to restore the authority of the State of Mali’; calls also for the UN Security Council to adopt a further resolution formally authorising the deployment of a new African mission, to be launched with the support of the international community on the same model as the support provided to AMISOM in Somalia;

47.  Welcomes the Council conclusions of 15 October 2012 on the situation in Mali, which request, as a matter of urgency, that work continue on planning a possible CSDP military operation, in particular by developing a crisis management concept relating to the reorganisation and training of the Malian defence forces;

48.  Welcomes the decision taken by the ECOWAS Heads of State and Government on 11 November 2012 to provide a stabilisation force of at least 3 200 troops, with a one-year intervention mandate;

49.  Calls for planning to continue for an operation to support, in conjunction with ECOWAS, the restructuring of the Malian armed forces in order to improve the effectiveness of the country’s security forces and enable it to regain control over its territory;

Libya

50.  Welcomes the past humanitarian aid and civil protection activities of the Commission and the Member States, in support of UN organisations, in Libya and neighbouring countries; believes, however, that the Libyan crisis could have been the appropriate opportunity for the EU to demonstrate its ability to act in a more comprehensive manner, including militarily if necessary, in full compliance with UN Security Council resolutions, when faced with a major crisis in its immediate neighbourhood which directly affects the stability of its environment; considers it regrettable that the lack of common political will among Member States and an ideological reluctance to see the Union deploy its own capabilities have relegated it to playing a secondary role; takes note of the reluctance of some members of the UN Security Council to authorise the EU to launch its humanitarian military operation in Libya;

51.  Calls on the VP/HR to draw all the appropriate lessons from the crisis in Libya, both regarding the decision-making process within the EU and regarding NATO military intervention, in terms of capabilities, but also – and most importantly – of political consistency and solidarity between Member States and the relationship between the EU and its CSDP, on the one hand, and NATO, on the other;

52.  Believes that the EU has an important role to play in the process of institutional transition in Libya, in particular in the demobilisation and integration of members of revolutionary brigades, the reorganisation of the armed forces and assistance in controlling land and sea borders; considers it regrettable that the EU contribution in the security sector is slow to materialise, and that difficulties in planning and implementing this contribution are leaving the field open to bilateral initiatives of doubtful visibility and consistency; supports the acceleration of planning for a civilian mission to assist border controls;

South Sudan

53.  Notes the launch of the EUAVSEC South Sudan mission to strengthen the security of the Juba airport; wonders, however, about the wisdom of having recourse to a CSDP mission to secure that airport, given that such a mission could have been carried out by the Commission through its Instrument for Stability;

Democratic Republic of the Congo

54.  Emphasises the importance of the Democratic Republic of the Congo for peace and stability in Africa and supports the action of MONUSCO to protect the civilian population in the east of the country;

55.  Welcomes the EU’s efforts within the framework of its two missions – EUSEC RD Congo and EUPOL RD Congo – to consolidate the rule of law in this country; notes, however, that the two missions are too small given the magnitude of their respective tasks, and that the active collaboration of the Congolese authorities is needed in order to achieve tangible results;

Afghanistan

56.  Welcomes the EUPOL Afghanistan mission, which aims to establish a civilian police force and a judicial system in order to allow Afghans to shoulder most of the responsibility for these tasks in the context of the reconstruction of the Afghan state; stresses that this mission, which is due to remain there until 31 May 2013 and could be extended until 31 December 2014, forms part of the overall efforts by the international community to allow Afghans to take control of their destiny after the withdrawal of NATO troops in 2014; calls on the VP/HR and on the Council to hold in-depth discussions, also involving Parliament, on the progress of the Union’s comprehensive arrangements and on the EUPOL mission, especially in the context of post-2014 Afghanistan;

The Palestinian Territories

57.  Considers that the EUPOL COPPS Palestinian civilian police training mission, whose purpose is to assist the Palestinian Authority in building the institutions of a future Palestinian state in the fields of law enforcement and criminal justice, under Palestinian management and in accordance with best international standards, is a success; notes that this mission forms part of EU efforts to establish a Palestinian state which co-exists peacefully with Israel;

58.  Deplores the fact that the EUBAM Rafah mission has suspended its operations since Hamas took control of the Gaza Strip, along with the reduction in its staff complement, while stressing that its continued presence in the region demonstrates the willingness of the EU to contribute to any action that might facilitate the dialogue between Israelis and Palestinians; considers it regrettable that the Israeli Government has not authorised the head of the EUPOL COPPS mission also to head the EUBAM Rafah mission and that the headquarters of this mission is located in Tel Aviv and not in East Jerusalem;

Georgia

59.  Emphasises the positive role played by the EUMM Georgia observation mission, particularly in supporting dialogue and the restoration of confidence-building measures between the parties, but considers it regrettable that this mission is still not allowed to visit the occupied territories of Abkhazia and South Ossetia, where Russia has been recognised as an occupation force by the European Parliament, NATO, the Council of Europe and some Member States;

Iraq

60.  Notes that the EUJUST LEX-Iraq mission, whose mandate has been extended until 31 December 2013, is the first EU integrated ‘rule of law’ mission aimed at contributing to the establishment of a professional criminal justice system in Iraq based on the rule of law; notes, however, that Iraq is still far from being stabilised, as evidenced by the regular attacks in the country, a situation aggravated by a highly uncertain regional context;

Learning from experience

61.  Notes the importance of learning from the experience of missions and operations conducted within the framework of the CSDP and commends the work done in this direction by the Crisis Management Planning Directorate of the EEAS and by the EUMS; calls on the VP/HR to report regularly to Parliament on the results of this work;

62.  Considers the experience gained from civilian missions and operations to be of particular relevance; points out that the EU has undertaken extensive work in this area which has yielded admirable results; believes that the added value of EU civilian operations ought to be taken into consideration in the coordination of efforts with our partners and allies in the context of international crisis management;

Capabilities and structures for conducting operation

63.  Notes that EU military operations still suffer all too often from problems of force generation, and that the credibility of the CSDP is at stake in the absence of credible capabilities; calls, therefore, on the Member States to remain mobilised to provide quality personnel and equipment;

64.  Notes that the crisis management structures within the EEAS remain under-staffed, on both the civilian and the military sides, which affects their ability to respond and contributes to a degree of marginalisation of the CSDP; calls on the VP/HR to address this situation as soon as possible; emphasises the direct link that must exist between the VP/HR and the CSDP crisis management structures;

Civilian personnel and capabilities

65.  Highlights the difficulties faced by the Member States in providing a sufficient number of qualified and trained staff for civilian CSDP missions; calls on the Commission and the EEAS to explore ways of assisting the Member States with regard to increasing the numbers of police, judges and highly specialised personnel in the field of public administration to be deployed with civilian CSDP missions;

66.  Notes the extension of the Civilian Headline Goal 2010 beyond that date and welcomes the adoption of a multiannual civilian capability development programme; calls on the Member States, particularly the ministries concerned, to mobilise in order to implement it;

67.  Underlines the need to develop – complementary to those capacities mentioned in the context of the Civilian Headline Goal which refer to police, judges and highly specialised personnel in the field of administration – more effective mediation guidelines and capacities in order to provide adequate resources for mediation in a timely and coordinated manner;

68.  Notes with concern that in some Member States the identification, coordination and deployment of civilian personnel for CSDP missions still suffers from the use of differing national practices and criteria; calls for more coordination among Member States and the identification of best practices in this regard;

69.  Regrets, in this regard, the neglect by the VP/HR and the Member States of past parliamentary resolutions calling for sufficient and competent civilian personnel and substantial capabilities; recalls, in this connection, the Council conclusions of 21 March 2011 on the priorities regarding civilian CSDP capabilities and considers that they are still just as relevant, namely:

   to draw in sufficient numbers of qualified and trained personnel;
   to develop adequate enablers for missions including a finalised goalkeeper; more flexible preparatory measures; better mechanisms for equipping civilian missions (including the establishment of a permanent warehouse solution);
   to pursue the implementation of preparatory activities for civilian missions, in accordance with the relevant provisions of the TEU;
   to strengthen the assessment of impact and implementation of lessons learned;
   to strengthen cooperation with third countries and international organisations;

Military personnel and capabilities

70.  Notes that the EU is currently facing significant financial constraints and that the Member States, for financial, budgetary and political reasons alike, both related and unrelated to the eurozone crisis, are undergoing a phase of reducing or, at best, maintaining their levels of defence spending; highlights the potential negative impact of these measures on their military capabilities and, therefore, on the ability of the EU to assume its responsibilities effectively in the areas of peacekeeping, conflict prevention and the strengthening of international security;

71.  Takes note of the increasing military and weapons capacities in Asia and especially China; calls for wider-ranging dialogue with the region, stressing security and defence issues;

72.  Emphasises that the proliferation of external operations in recent years, whether in Iraq, Afghanistan or Africa, including Libya, has represented, and continues to represent, a significant financial burden for those states that have participated – or are still participating – in these operations; notes that these costs have a direct impact on the attrition and premature wear and tear of equipment, but also on the willingness of states to engage in CSDP operations, given the constraints on their budgets and capabilities;

73.  Stresses that, in terms of absolute value, spending in the combined European defence budgets of all Member States compares favourably with that of the major emerging powers and that the problem is thus less a budgetary than a political one, ranging from the definition of a European industrial and technological base to the pooling of certain operational capabilities; points out that EU-wide consortia, joint initiatives and proposals for mergers of European businesses could contribute to the development of a European defence industry;

74.  Notes that military action in Libya, which was initiated by France and the United Kingdom with the support of the US and subsequently pursued by NATO, has highlighted the ability of some European states to engage in high-intensity conflicts, but also the problems they face in conducting such activities over a period of time, due in particular to a lack of basic capabilities such as air-to-air refuelling, intelligence-gathering and precision-guided weaponry;

75.  Recalls its resolution of 14 December 2011 on the impact of the financial crisis on the defence sector in the EU Member States and emphasises that its recommendations are relevant for developing the military capabilities of the Member States in a spirit of resource-sharing and -pooling;

76.  Welcomes bilateral agreements such as the Franco-British treaty on military cooperation and calls on other Member States to consider such bilateral or multilateral agreements on military cooperation and integration as an important cost-saving tool that can avoid duplication and constitute a grassroots build-up process for the CSDP and the future of EU security integration;

77.  Welcomes the initial progress made by the EU’s ‘pooling and sharing’ initiative and pays tribute to the work of the EDA, which has identified 11 priority areas for action; stresses in particular the progress achieved in four areas: air-to-air refuelling, maritime surveillance, medical support and training; calls, however, for this initiative to be provided with a strategic framework;

78.  Considers it regrettable, however, that the pooling and sharing initiative has not yet filled any of the gaps identified in the Headline Goal 2010; takes note of the Member States’ reluctance to shoulder the burden to be a lead nation for one of the 300 suggested pooling and sharing projects presented by the EUMS in April 2011;

79.  Calls on the Member States, ahead of the European Council on defence issues scheduled for next year, to take stock of existing capabilities within the EU and to make the initiative ultimately sustainable in order to start a European defence planning process;

80.  Welcomes the EDA’s proposal to develop a voluntary code of conduct on pooling and sharing in order to facilitate cooperation between Member States in the acquisition, use and shared management of military capabilities;

81.  Supports in particular the project for mid-air refuelling, which also has an acquisition component; expresses disappointment in this connection, however, at the expected limited result of the endeavour, in that it will merely renew existing capabilities instead of creating new ones; insists that the Member States should maintain the European character of this initiative and believes that the Organisation for Joint Armament Cooperation (OCCAR) would be well-placed to manage the acquisition component;

82.  Welcomes the agreement signed on 27 July 2012 between the European Defence Agency and the OCCAR, which will allow the institutionalisation of the relationship between the two agencies, the establishment of more integrated cooperation in respect of military capability development programmes, and exchanges of classified information;

83.  Recalls that the war in Libya has also highlighted the lack of reconnaissance drones in the European armed forces and notes that in Europe there are currently two rival MALE (Medium Altitude Long Endurance) drone projects; notes also Franco-British cooperation over UCAVs (Unmanned Combat Air Vehicles), which would benefit from not being exclusive, but open to other European partners;

84.  Considers that the establishment of the European Air Transport Command (EATC) is a concrete example of successful pooling and sharing and stresses that the creation of an A400M fleet within this structure would greatly enhance the projection capabilities of the EU and its Member States; encourages all participating states to contribute all available transport means to the EATC; encourages non-participating Member States to take part in the EATC;

85.  Calls on the Commission, the Council, the Member States and the EDA to consider the adoption of innovative solutions for increasing the EU’s projection capabilities, particularly as part of a twin-track approach: a public-private partnership in the field of air transport, built around a small fleet of A400Ms, would allow both the delivery of humanitarian aid for disaster relief and the transport of equipment and personnel as part of CSDP missions and operations;

86.  Insists that the building-up of European capabilities should also result in the consolidation of the industrial and technological base of Europe’s defence industry; recalls, in this connection, the importance of the principle of European preference and the relevance of a European Buying Act;

87.  Notes that the financial and budgetary crisis facing the EU and its Member States will lead to a loss of expertise unless a major programme is launched at European level on a bilateral or multilateral basis, and may also lead to the disappearance of a highly specialised industrial fabric; stresses that medium-sized European companies in the defence industry have also been affected by the economic and financial crisis, and that they contribute to the economy and provide jobs in some Member States;

88.  Welcomes the Commission’s proposal under Horizon 2020 for future EU-financed civil-military research and procurement in support of CSDP missions; notes with concern the reduction in the appropriations allocated to research and technology, which in the long term will affect the ability of Europeans to maintain a credible defence capability relying on the whole range of armaments and military equipment; reminds the Member States of their commitment to increase the allocation for defence-related research and technology to at least 2% of the defence budget and recalls that investment in research and defence technologies has had important results with civilian applications;

89.  Welcomes the recent initiatives and projects relating to cyber defence; urges the Member States to engage even more closely with the EDA in developing defence capabilities, notably of a cyber nature, especially with a view to trust-building and pooling and sharing; welcomes the fact that cyber defence will be one of the EDA’s priorities in the area of defence research and technology;

90.  Welcomes the EDA’s efforts to maintain a European Defence Technological and Industrial Base (EDTIB) and the Barnier / Tajani initiative to create a task force within the Commission which will be responsible for preserving and developing this strategic tool, whose function is to ensure the autonomy of the EU and its Member States in the field of defence; asks the Commission to keep Parliament informed of the task force’s ongoing work and calls on it to involve Parliament in future;

91.  Calls on the Member States fully to implement the Defence Procurement Directive (2009/81/EC(6)) in order to achieve greater interoperability of equipment and to combat market fragmentation, which often benefits third countries;

92.  Welcomes the Commission’s industrial policy communication of 10 October 2012 entitled ‘A Stronger European Industry for Growth and Economic Recovery’, which acknowledges that the defence sector suffers from a strongly national dimension and announces the development of a comprehensive strategy for supporting the competitiveness of the defence industry;

93.  Stresses the relevance of the capability development plan drawn up by the EDA; calls on the Member States better to integrate it into their national planning and to be more willing to buy into EDA projects;

94.  Takes the view that the Council and the Member States should further support those of the Union’s capabilities that could lead to cost savings through pooling, in particular the EDA, the EU Satellite Centre and the European Security and Defence College;

95.  Urges the Council and the Member States to provide the EDA with adequate funds and qualified staff so that it is able to perform all the tasks assigned to it by the Lisbon Treaty; stresses that this must be taken into account in the context of the next multiannual financial framework;

A space policy to underpin the CSDP

96.  Emphasises that, if the EU is to enjoy decision-making and operational autonomy, it must have adequate satellite resources in the fields of space imagery, intelligence-gathering, communications and space surveillance; considers that these areas could be further shared and pooled in comparison with existing agreements, either on a bilateral basis or in conjunction with the EU Satellite Centre in respect of the Helios, Cosmo-SkyMed and SAR-Lupe programmes; hopes that the MUSIS programme, which is due to replace the present generation of observation satellites, will prove to be a model of cooperation both between European countries and with the EEAS and the Union’s political-military bodies;

97.  Calls on the Council and the Commission, in this context, to explore the possibility of an EU financial contribution to fund future space imaging satellite programmes so as to allow the Union’s political-military bodies and the EEAS to ‘task’ satellites and obtain, upon request and according to their own needs, satellite images of regions in crisis or regions in which a CSDP mission is to be deployed;

98.  Reiterates the need for Union funding of the GMES project, which should become a key infrastructure of the EU, like the Galileo programme;

Strengthening the rapid response capability

99.  Notes that, despite the changes made to the ATHENA mechanism, Parliament’s previous resolutions and the EU battlegroup deployment doctrine, as demanded in the Weimar letter for example, none of the battlegroups have so far been deployed, even though they could act as a ‘force of first entry’ until relieved by other forces better equipped for the long haul;

100.  Believes that this undermines the credibility of the battlegroups as an instrument and of the CSDP in general, since they could already have been deployed; encourages the Member States to remain mobilised and to meet their commitments in respect of this instrument, bearing in mind that, given the financial and manpower investment in the battlegroups, their lack of use in the face of several windows of opportunity has become a liability;

101.  Reiterates that the ATHENA mechanism should be further adjusted to increase the proportion of common costs, thus ensuring fairer burden-sharing in military operations and overcoming a disincentive for Member States to take on leadership roles in CSDP missions;

102.  Supports the process of reviewing crisis management procedures, which should be concluded before the end of the year and facilitate the more rapid deployment of civilian and military CSDP operations; believes that the crisis management procedures should be reserved for CSDP operations and not include other instruments, which would risk making those procedures more cumbersome; supports also a review of funding procedures so as to move towards greater flexibility and speed in the mobilisation of funds;

Structures and planning

103.  Believes that the role entrusted to the Operations Centre of coordinating missions in the Horn of Africa is a first step towards the creation of a European planning and operations conduct capability which is properly staffed and endowed with sufficient means of communication and control; considers it regrettable, however, that the Centre is neither permanent nor the central point for planning and conducting civilian missions and military operations;

104.  Reiterates its call for the creation of an EU Operational Headquarters (OHQ) for operational planning and the conduct of civilian missions and military operations within the EEAS, if necessary through permanent structured cooperation;

105.Notes the willingness expressed by the Council in its conclusions of December 2011 to strengthen forward planning capabilities; supports the extension of the powers of the EUMS in this regard; believes that the Operations Centre could also support the EUMS in this task;

106.  Notes with interest the division of the Situation Centre into two new entities, the ‘Situation Room’, on the one hand, and the ’Intelligence Centre’ or INTCEN, on the other, and welcomes the fact that the latter will have to expand if the Member States wish to develop the CFSP and CSDP;

107.  Advocates the creation of posts of temporary or permanent security expert in the most significant EU delegations for the CSDP in order better to relay security issues; calls for consideration of the preventive role such posts could play in security matters and early warning systems;

Partnerships
EU / NATO

108.  Notes that the EU and NATO, which are united by a strategic partnership reaffirmed at the Chicago summit, are both active in a number of theatres, such as Kosovo, Afghanistan and the fight against piracy in the Gulf of Aden and the Indian Ocean; recalls, in this context, the importance of good cooperation between the EU and NATO;

109.  Considers that EU civilian and military capacity-building will also benefit NATO and help to create synergies between the two organisations;

110.  Notes that the impasse linked to the dispute between Turkey and Cyprus has not prevented the two organisations from conducting a political dialogue through appropriate channels, working together through ‘staff-to-staff’ contacts or coordinating their activities; calls, nevertheless, for a resolution of this dispute in order to improve cooperation between the two organisations;

111.  Welcomes cooperation between the EU and NATO in the area of military capabilities, particularly in order to avoid any duplication between the initiative of pooling and sharing EU capabilities and NATO‘s Smart Defence initiative;

112.  Underlines the importance of practical cooperation in the area of cyber security and cyber defence, building on the existing complementarity in defence capability development, and emphasises the need for closer coordination in this regard, especially in relation to planning, technology, training and equipment;

113.  Expresses disappointment at the development of civilian crisis management structures within NATO, given that this represents an unnecessary duplication of capabilities already present and well-developed in the EU;

EU / AU

114.  Welcomes the cooperation between the EU and the AU with a view to maintaining peace and stability on the continent of Africa; notes that the EU is contributing to the establishment of a blueprint for peace and security in Africa, and, to this end, supports the peace efforts of the AU and of African regional organisations such as ECOWAS in combating instability, insecurity and the threat of terrorism from the Horn of Africa to the Sahel;

115.  Recalls that the EU remains the largest contributor to AMISOM’s budget and stresses the need for a strategic vision of the future of that operation;

EU / UN

116.  Welcomes the good cooperation that has developed between the EEAS and the UN Department of Peacekeeping Operations; notes that the EU, with its battlegroups, could provide a force of first entry for urgent peacekeeping operations until relieved by a UN force;

EU / OSCE

117.  Underlines the importance of the cooperation between the EU and the OSCE in regions of common interest and on issues such as conflict prevention, crisis management, post-conflict rehabilitation, and promotion and strengthening of the rule of law; expresses satisfaction that the scope of this cooperation has broadened and deepened in recent years, but calls for closer coordination and synergy in addressing crises and conflicts, avoiding duplication of efforts and developing cost-efficient approaches;

EU / third countries

118.  Underlines the continued relevance of a strong transatlantic link and welcomes the cooperation between the EU and the US in respect of crisis management operations, including EUTM Somalia, EUNAVFOR Atalanta, EULEX Kosovo and EUPOL Afghanistan;

119.  Welcomes the framework agreements signed so far by the EU with a dozen third countries to enable their participation in civilian and military operations conducted within the framework of the CSDP;

o
o   o

120.  Instructs its President to forward this resolution to the Vice-President of the Commission / High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy, the Council, the Commission, the governments and parliaments of the Member States, the Secretary-General of NATO, the President of the NATO Parliamentary Assembly, the Secretary-General of the United Nations, the Chairman-in-Office of the OSCE and the President of the OSCE Parliamentary Assembly.

(1) OJ C 139, 14.6.2006, p. 1.
(2) OJ C 349 E, 22.12.2010, p. 63.
(3) OJ C 99 E, 3.4.2012, p. 7.
(4) Texts adopted, P7_TA(2011)0228.
(5) Texts adopted, P7_TA(2011)0574.
(6) OJ L 216, 20.8.2009, p. 76.


EU mutual defence and solidarity clauses: political and operational dimensions
PDF 236kWORD 33k
European Parliament resolution of 22 November 2012 on the EU’s mutual defence and solidarity clauses: political and operational dimensions (2012/2223(INI))
P7_TA(2012)0456A7-0356/2012

The European Parliament,

–  having regard to Article 42(7) of the Treaty on European Union (TEU) and to Article 222 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU),

–  having regard to Articles 24 and 42(2) TEU, Articles 122 and 196 TFEU and Declaration 37 on Article 222 TFEU,

–  having regard to the Charter of the United Nations, and in particular to the provisions of its Chapter VII and Article 51,

–  having regard to the European Security Strategy adopted by the European Council on 12 December 2003, and to the report on its implementation endorsed by the European Council on 11-12 December 2008,

–  having regard to the Internal Security Strategy for the European Union endorsed by the European Council on 25-26 March 2010,

–  having regard to the European Union Counter-Terrorism Strategy adopted by the European Council on 15-16 December 2005,

–  having regard to Articles 4 and 5 of the North Atlantic Treaty,

–  having regard to the Strategic Concept for the Defence and Security of the Members of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation, adopted at the NATO Summit in Lisbon on 19-20 November 2010,

–  having regard to the decision to dissolve the Western European Union,

–  having regard to the Council conclusions of 30 November 2009 on a Community framework on disaster prevention within the EU,

–  having regard to the Commission communication of 26 October 2010 entitled ‘Towards a stronger European disaster response: the role of civil protection and humanitarian assistance’ (COM(2010)0600),

–  having regard to the Commission communication of 22 November 2010 entitled ‘The EU Internal Security Strategy in Action: Five steps towards a more secure Europe’ (COM(2010)0673),

–  having regard to the concept note on ‘Arrangements for Crisis Coordination at EU political level’ endorsed by Coreper on 30 May 2012(1),

–  having regard to its resolutions of 22 May 2012 on the European Union’s Internal Security Strategy(2), of 14 December 2011 on the impact of the financial crisis on the defence sector in the EU Member States(3), of 27 September 2011 on ‘Towards a stronger European disaster response: the role of civil protection and humanitarian assistance’(4), and of 23 November 2010 on civilian-military cooperation and the development of civilian-military capabilities(5),

–  having regard to the 2009 EU CBRN Action Plan(6) and to its resolution of 14 December 2010 on strengthening chemical, biological, radiological and nuclear security in the European Union - an EU CBRN Action Plan(7),

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

–  having regard to the report of the Committee on Foreign Affairs and the opinions of the Committee on Constitutional Affairs and of the Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs (A7-0356/2012),

A.  whereas the security of EU Member States is indivisible and all European citizens should have the same security guarantees and an equal level of protection against both traditional and non-conventional threats; whereas the defence of peace, security, democracy, human rights, the rule of law and freedom in Europe, which are indispensable for the wellbeing of our peoples, must remain a core goal and responsibility of European countries and of the Union;

B.  whereas the current security challenges include numerous complex and changing risks, such as international terrorism, the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction (WMD), states in disintegration, frozen and unending conflicts, organised crime, cyberthreats, the scarcity of energy sources, environmental deterioration and associated security risks, natural and man-made disasters, pandemics and various others;

C.  whereas the EU recognises an international order founded on effective multilateralism on the basis of international law, and this is an expression of Europeans’ conviction that no nation can face the new threats on its own;

D.  whereas security and combating international terrorism are considered as a priority for the EU; whereas a joint response and a common strategy are needed from all Member States;

E.  whereas in recent decades natural and man-made disasters, and in particular climate-driven disasters, have increased in frequency and scale, and a further increase is expected with the aggravation of climate change;

F.  whereas the progressive framing of a common defence policy which aims at a common defence is reinforcing the European identity and the strategic autonomy of the EU; whereas, at the same time, a stronger and more capable European defence is essential for consolidating the transatlantic link, in a context of structural geostrategic changes accelerated by the global economic crisis, and in particular at a time of ongoing US strategic repositioning towards Asia-Pacific;

G.  whereas the 21 EU Member States which are also members of NATO may consult each other whenever their territorial integrity, political independence or security is threatened, and are in any case committed to collective defence in the event of an armed attack;

H.  whereas, while Member States retain the primary responsibility for the management of crises within their territory, serious and complex security threats, from armed attacks to terrorism to natural or CBRN disasters to cyberattacks, increasingly have a crossborder nature and may easily overwhelm the capacities of any single Member State, making it vital to provide for binding solidarity among Member States and for coordinated response to such threats;

I.  whereas the Treaty of Lisbon introduced Article 42(7) TEU (‘mutual defence clause’ or ’mutual assistance clause’(8) ) and Article 222 TFEU (‘solidarity clause’) to address such concerns, but almost three years after the treaty entered into force there are still no implementation arrangements to bring these clauses to life;

General considerations

1.  Urges the Member States, the Commission and the Vice-President/High Representative to make full use of the potential of all relevant Treaty provisions, and in particular the mutual defence clause and the solidarity clause, in order to provide all European citizens with the same security guarantees against both traditional and non-conventional threats, based on the principles of indivisibility of security and of mutual solidarity among Member States, and taking into account the need for increased cost efficiency and a fair burden-sharing and division of costs;

2.  Reiterates the need for the Member States and the Union to develop a policy anchored in prevention, preparedness and response with respect to all major security threats, notably as identified in the European Security Strategy, the Internal Security Strategy and the regular reports of the EU Counter-terrorism Coordinator to the Council;

3.  Stresses the need for the Member States and the Union to perform regular joint threat and risk assessments, based on the joint analysis of shared intelligence and making full use of existing structures within the EU;

4.  Notes the new strategic concept of NATO which, in addition to maintaining its role as a military alliance, aims to build up its capacity to act as a political and security community, working in partnership with the EU; notes the complementarities existing between NATO’s goals and those laid down in Article 43 TEU; warns, therefore, against the costly duplication of effort between the two organisations and the consequent waste of resources, and urges much closer and more regular political collaboration between the EU High Representative and the Secretary-General of NATO for the purposes of risk assessment, resource management, policy planning and the execution of operations, both civil and military;

5.  While reaffirming that the protection of territorial integrity and of the citizens remains at the core of defence policy, urges the Council to emulate the approach of NATO, which caters for the inevitable circumstances where preventing external threats is required in order to promote the security interests of the allies and the projection of force is needed;

6.  Reaffirms that the use of force by the EU or its Member States is only admissible if legally justified on the basis of the UN Charter; underlines, in this context, the inherent right of individual or collective self-defence; reiterates its attachment to respect for the Oslo Guidelines on the use of foreign military and civil defence assets in disaster relief; emphasises that the prevention of conflicts, attacks and disasters is preferable to dealing with their consequences;

7.  Points out the wide array of instruments available to the Union and the Member States for facing exceptional occurrences in a spirit of solidarity; recalls the utility of the legal bases of Article 122 TFEU for economic and financial assistance to Member States in severe difficulties, and of Article 196 TFEU for measures in the field of civil protection;

8.  Recalls the commitment to systematically develop mutual political solidarity in foreign and security policy in accordance with Article 24 TEU; notes the possibilities provided by the Treaty of Lisbon for enhanced cooperation in CFSP, including the consignment of specific tasks and missions to clusters of states, as well as the concept of permanent structured cooperation in military matters;

9.  Stresses that the purpose of the mutual defence and solidarity clauses is not to replace any of these instruments, but to provide an umbrella framework in view of situations of extraordinary threat or damage, and in particular when response will require high-level political coordination and the involvement of the military, in accordance with the principles of necessity and proportionality;

10.  Calls on the Commission and the Vice-President/High Representative, before the end of 2012, to make their joint proposal for a Council Decision defining the arrangements for the implementation of the solidarity clause according to the provisions of Article 222(3) TFEU, clarifying in particular the roles and competences of the different actors; calls, in the interest of coherence, for the Political and Security Committee and the Standing Committee on Internal Security to submit a joint opinion on the implementation of the solidarity clause, taking into account the political and operational dimensions of both clauses, including liaison with NATO; notes that the Council should act by qualified majority voting concerning non-military aspects of mutual aid and assistance; underlines the necessity, in this context, of keeping Parliament fully informed;

Mutual defence clause
Scope

11.  Reminds the Member States of their unequivocal obligation of aid and assistance by all the means in their power if a Member State is the victim of armed aggression on its territory; stresses that, while large-scale aggression against a Member State appears improbable in the foreseeable future, both traditional territorial defence and defence against new threats need to remain high on the agenda; recalls also that the Treaty stipulates that commitments and cooperation in the area of mutual defence shall be consistent with commitments under NATO, which, for those states which are members of it, remains the foundation of their collective defence and the forum for its implementation;

12.  Points out, at the same time and as being equally important, the need to be prepared for situations involving non-NATO EU Member States or EU Member States’ territories that are outside the North Atlantic area and are therefore not covered by the Washington Treaty, or situations where no agreement on collective action has been reached within NATO ; also, in this connection, stresses the need to be able to use NATO’s capabilities as foreseen in the Berlin Plus agreement;

13.  Takes the view that even non-armed attacks, for instance cyberattacks against critical infrastructure, that are launched with the aim of causing severe damage and disruption to a Member State and are identified as coming from an external entity could qualify for being covered by the clause, if the Member State’s security is significantly threatened by its consequences, while fully respecting the principle of proportionality;

Capacities

14.  Emphasises the need for European countries to possess credible military capabilities; encourages Member States to step up their efforts in terms of collaborative military capability development, notably through the complementary ‘Pooling and Sharing’ and ‘Smart Defence’ initiatives of the EU and NATO, which represent a critically important way ahead in times of restrained defence budgets, privileging European and regional synergies rather than a short-sighted national approach; in this context, repeats its call for the work of the European Defence Agency to be fully made use of and taken into account by national defence ministries, and encourages the Member States and the EEAS to continue the debate with a view to establishing the permanent structured cooperation foreseen in the Treaty of Lisbon;

15.  Considers that, in order to consolidate their cooperation, both NATO and the EU should concentrate on strengthening their basic capabilities, improving interoperability, and coordinating their doctrines, planning, technologies, equipment and training methods;

16.  Reiterates its call for the systematic harmonisation of military requirements and for a harmonised EU defence planning and acquisition process, matching up to the Union’s level of ambition and coordinated with the NATO Defence Planning Process; taking into account the increased level of security guarantees provided by the mutual defence clause, encourages the Member States to consider multinational cooperation in the area of capability development, and, where appropriate, specialisation, as core principles of their defence planning;

Structures and procedures

17.  Invites the Vice-President/High Representative to propose practical arrangements and guidelines for ensuring an effective response in the event that a Member State invokes the mutual defence clause, as well as an analysis of the role of the EU institutions should that clause be invoked; takes the view that the obligation to provide aid and assistance, expressing political solidarity among Member States, should ensure a rapid decision in Council in support of the Member State under attack; considers that consultations in line with the requirement of Article 32 TEU would serve this purpose, without prejudice to the right of each Member State to provide for its self-defence in the meantime;

18.  Takes the view that, where collective action is taken to defend a Member State under attack, it should be possible to make use of existing EU crisis management structures where appropriate, and in particular that the possibility of activating an EU Operational Headquarters should be envisaged; stresses that a fully-fledged permanent EU Operational Headquarters is needed to ensure an adequate level of preparedness and rapidity of response, and reiterates its call on the Member States to establish such a permanent capacity, building on the recently activated EU Operations Centre;

Solidarity clause
Scope

19.  Recalls that, if a Member State is the victim of a terrorist attack or of a natural or man-made disaster, the Union and the Member States have an obligation to act jointly in a spirit of solidarity to assist it, at the request of its political authorities, and that the Union shall in such cases mobilise all the instruments at its disposal, including the military resources made available by the Member States; recalls also the Union’s obligation to mobilise all the instruments at its disposal to prevent terrorist threats in the EU and to protect democratic institutions and the civilian population from any terrorist attack;

20.  Calls for an adequate balance between flexibility and consistency as regards the types of attacks and disasters for which the clause may be triggered, so as to ensure that no significant threats, such as attacks in cyberspace, pandemics, or energy shortages, are overlooked; notes that the clause could also cover serious incidents occurring outside the Union having a direct and substantial impact on a Member State;

21.  Stresses the need for Member States to invest in their own security and disaster response capabilities and not to excessively rely on the solidarity of others; emphasises the primary responsibility of Member States for civil protection and security in their territory;

22.  Takes the view that the solidarity clause should be invoked in situations that overwhelm the response capacities of the affected Member State or require a multisector response involving a number of actors, but that once a Member State has decided to invoke the clause, it should not be a matter for debate for the others to offer assistance; stresses that solidarity also entails an obligation to invest in adequate national and European capabilities;

23.  Considers that the solidarity clause can provide the impetus for enhancing the EU’s leverage among European citizens, offering tangible evidence of the benefits of increased EU cooperation in terms of crisis management and disaster response capabilities;

Capacities and resources

24.  Stresses that the implementation of the solidarity clause should form an integral part of a permanent EU crisis response, crisis management and crisis coordination system, building on the existing sectoral instruments and capabilities and providing for their effective mobilisation in order to deliver a coordinated multisector response when needed; stresses that, in principle, implementation should not lead to the creation of ad hoc tools;

25.  Points out the fundamental role of the Civil Protection Mechanism as a key solidarity-based instrument for European rapid response to a wide spectrum of crises; supports the broad lines of the Commission’s proposal to strengthen the mechanism(9), building on the 2010 Commission communication ‘Towards a stronger European disaster response’ and drawing inspiration from the 2006 Barnier report;

26.  Notes the ongoing work to implement the Internal Security Strategy, in particular in the areas of counterterrorism, the fight against cybercrime and increasing resilience to crises and disasters; stresses that the implementation of the solidarity clause is not only a matter of setting up procedures for the moment a major crisis happens, but is fundamentally about capacity-building, prevention and preparedness; recalls the relevance of crisis management exercises, tailored for specific contingencies covered by the clause;

27.  Notes that the creation of a voluntary pool of pre-committed civil protection assets would greatly improve EU preparedness and make it possible to identify existing gaps to be addressed; emphasises the importance of joint gap analyses to focus everyone’s efforts efficiently and to make sure that each Member State contributes its fair share;

28.  Considers that, in the case of high-cost assets, in particular those for lower-probability risks, it makes sound economic sense for Member States to identify solutions for the common investment in and joint development of such necessary tools, especially in the current context of the financial crisis; in the light of this, recalls the need to build on the expertise and experience of both the Commission and the European Defence Agency, as well as of other EU agencies;

29.  Highlights the importance of ensuring that solidarity is underpinned by adequate EU-level funding mechanisms offering a sufficient degree of flexibility in emergencies; welcomes the proposed increased level of cofinancing under the Civil Protection Mechanism, in particular for transport costs; notes the provisions for emergency assistance under the proposed Internal Security Fund;

30.  Recalls that the Solidarity Fund can provide financial assistance after a major disaster; recalls also that further Union financial assistance may be granted by the Council pursuant to Article 122(2) TEU, when a Member State is in difficulties or is seriously threatened with severe difficulties caused by natural disasters or exceptional occurrences beyond its control;

31.  Recalls that, under the provisions of Article 122(1) TEU, the Council may decide on measures to address a difficult economic situation in a spirit of solidarity, in particular if severe difficulties arise in the supply of certain products, notably in the area of energy; stresses the importance of seeing this provision as part of a comprehensive Union solidarity toolbox for addressing new major security challenges, such as those in the area of energy security and security of supply of other critical products, especially in cases of politically motivated blockades;

Structures and procedures

32.  Stresses that the EU needs to possess capable crisis response structures with 24/7 monitoring and response capacity, able to provide early warning and up-to-date situation awareness to all relevant actors; notes the existence of a multitude of EU-level monitoring centres, and that this raises questions of efficient coordination in the event of complex, multidimensional crises; notes the establishment of the Situation Room within the European External Action Service, as well as the existence of a number of sectoral monitoring centres within Commission departments and specialised EU bodies; draws attention, in particular, to the Monitoring and Information Centre of DG ECHO, the Strategic Analysis and Response Capability of DG HOME, the Health Emergency Operations Facility of DG SANCO, and the situation room of Frontex;

33.  Reiterates the need to avoid unnecessary duplication and to ensure coherence and effective coordination in action, all the more so given the current scarcity of resources; notes the different schools of thought as to the way of rationalising these multiple monitoring capacities, some based on the idea of a central ‘one-stop shop’, and others favouring better interlinking of the specialised facilities;

34.  Takes the view that the wide array of potential crises, from floods to CBRN attacks or disasters, inevitably requires a wide spectrum of specialised services and networks, the merging of which would not necessarily lead to greater efficiency; considers, at the same time, that all specialised services at EU level should be integrated within a single secured information system, and invites the Commission and the Vice-President/High Representative to work on strengthening the ARGUS internal coordination platform;

35.  Highlights the need for political coordination in the Council in cases of severe crises; notes the review of the EU Emergency and Crisis Coordination Arrangements (CCA), and welcomes the agreement within the Council on the new CCA conceptual framework, making use of regular Council procedures, and notably of COREPER, instead of ad hoc structures; stresses that responding at EU political level in a coherent, efficient and timely way to crises of such a scale and nature requires only one single set of arrangements; considers, therefore, that the new CCA should also support the solidarity clause;

36.  Encourages efforts to rationalise and better integrate the plethora of web-based platforms for communication and information-sharing on emergencies, including the CCA webpage, ARGUS, the Common Emergency Communication and Information System (CECIS) and the Health Emergency & Diseases Information System (HEDIS), in order to allow an uninterrupted, free and effective flow of information across sectoral and institutional boundaries; notes the decision taken within the Council to reinforce the CCA webpage in order to use it as the future web platform for crisis situations requiring political coordination at EU level;

37.  Urges the development of common situation awareness, which is essential in dealing with major multisector crises, when rapid and comprehensive updates need to be provided to the political authorities; welcomes the focus of the CCA review on developing an Integrated Situational Awareness and Analysis (ISAA) for EU institutions and Member States, and calls on the Council to ensure timely implementation; points out that common situation awareness is hardly possible without a culture of information-sharing, and that the development of such a culture is hardly possible without a clear division of roles;

38.  Welcomes the planned upgrade of the Monitoring and Information Centre to create a European Emergency Response Centre, stressing that this should form one of the pillars of the interconnected EU rapid response system; takes the view that the coordination responsibility for multisector crises needs to be established on a case-by-case basis, in accordance with the ‘centre of gravity’ principle;

39.  Points out that, in the current global environment where interdependencies are multiplying, major crises on a scale that would justify the triggering of the solidarity clause are likely to be multidimensional and have an international dimension, with respect to third-country nationals affected by them or to international action needed to respond to them; stresses the important role to be played by the EEAS in such cases;

40.  Invites the Member States to enhance their capacities for providing and receiving assistance, as well as to exchange best practices on ways to streamline their national crisis coordination procedures and the interaction of their national crisis coordination centres with the EU; takes the view that the planning and conduct of appropriate EU-wide crisis response exercises, involving national crisis response structures and the appropriate EU structures, should also be considered;

41.  Considers it essential to create the necessary procedural and organisational links between relevant Member State services, in order to ensure the proper functioning of the solidarity clause following its activation;

42.  Stresses that any decision-making process in Council following a request for assistance under the solidarity clause must not be detrimental to EU reactivity, and that crisis response through the existing mechanisms, such as the Civil Protection Mechanism, must be able to start immediately, irrespective of any such political decision; points out the fact that the use of military assets to support civil protection operations is already possible on operational level without the activation of the solidarity clause, as evidenced by the successful cooperation between the Commission and the EU Military Staff on past operations in Pakistan or Libya;

43.  Highlights the need to detail the democratic procedure to be applied when the solidarity clause is invoked, which should also ensure accountability for decisions taken and include the proper involvement of the national parliaments and of the European Parliament; stresses the importance of preventing any disproportionate use of the clause at the expense of fundamental rights;

44.  Notes that the European Parliament and the Council, as the EU legislators and budgetary authorities, should be kept informed of the situation ‘on the ground’ in the case of a disaster or attack that triggers the solidarity clause, as well as of its origins and possible consequences, so that a thorough and unbiased assessment based on up-to-date and concrete information can be carried out for future reference;

45.  Recalls that the solidarity clause requires the European Council to regularly assess the threats facing the Union; takes the view that such assessments need to be coordinated with NATO and should be carried out on at least two distinct levels, i.e. on a longer-term basis in the European Council, in a process which should also feed strategic thinking to be reflected in future updates of the European Security Strategy and the Internal Security Strategy, and also through more frequent comprehensive overviews of current threats;

46.  Considers that threat assessments must be complemented with risk assessments analysing threats in the light of existing vulnerabilities and thus identifying the most pressing capability gaps to be addressed; recalls that within the implementation of the Internal Security Strategy, the EU should establish by 2014 a coherent risk management policy linking threat and risk assessments to decision-making; recalls also that by the end of 2012 the Commission should prepare, on the basis of national risk analyses, a cross-sectoral overview of the major natural and man-made risks that the EU may face in the future; encourages the Member States to share their national risk assessments and risk management plans, to enable a joint appraisal to be made of the situation;

47.  Stresses that the resulting joint multihazard assessments need to use the capacities of the EU Intelligence Analysis Centre, building on shared intelligence and integrating inputs from all EU bodies involved in threat and risk assessment, such as the relevant Commission departments (including DG HOME, DG ECHO and DG SANCO) and Union agencies (Europol, Frontex, the European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control and others);

o
o   o

48.  Instructs its President to forward this resolution to the Vice-President/High Representative, the Council, the Commission, the parliaments of the Member States, the NATO Parliamentary Assembly and the Secretary-General of NATO.

(1) 10207/12.
(2) Texts adopted, P7_TA(2012)0207.
(3) Texts adopted, P7_TA(2011)0574.
(4) Texts adopted, P7_TA(2011)0404.
(5) OJ C 99 E, 3.4.2012, p. 63.
(6) Council conclusions of 12 November 2009, 15505/1/09 REV.
(7) OJ C 169 E, 15.6.2012, p. 8.
(8) Hereinafter referred to as the ‘mutual defence clause’, although no name is given to the clause in ’the Treaty. Cf., in particular, the mutual defence commitment contained in Article V of the Modified Brussels Treaty, which its signatories consider covered by Article 42(7) TEU (Statement of the Presidency of the Permanent Council of the WEU of 31 March 2010).
(9) See: Proposal for a Decision of the European Parliament and of the Council on a Union Civil Protection Mechanism (COM(2011)0934).


Cyber security and defence
PDF 153kWORD 33k
European Parliament resolution of 22 November 2012 on Cyber Security and Defence (2012/2096(INI))
P7_TA(2012)0457A7-0335/2012

The European Parliament,

–  having regard to the report on implementation of the European Security Strategy endorsed by the European Council on 11 and 12 December 2008,

–  having regard to the Council of Europe Cybercrime Convention, Budapest of 23 November 2001,

–  having regard to the Council conclusions on Critical Information Infrastructure Protection of 27 May 2011 and the previous Council’s conclusions on cyber security,

–  having regard to the Commission’s ‘Digital Agenda for Europe’ of 19 May 2010 (COM(2010)0245),

–  having regard to Council Directive 2008/114/EC of 8 December 2008 on the identification and designation of European critical infrastructures and the assessment of the need to improve their protection(1),

–  having regard to the recent Commission Communication on the creation of a European Cybercrime Centre as a priority of the Internal Security Strategy (COM(2012)0140),

–  having regard to its resolution of 10 March 2010 on the implementation of the European Security Strategy and the Common Security and Defence Policy(2),

–  having regard to its resolution of 11 May 2011 on the development of the common security and defence policy following the entry into force of the Lisbon Treaty(3),

–  having regard to its resolution of 22 May 2012 on the European Union‘s Internal Security Strategy(4),

–  having regard to its resolution of 27 September 2011 on the proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Regulation (EC) No 1334/2000 setting up a Community regime for the control of exports of dual-use items and technology(5),

–  having regard to its resolution of 12 June 2012 on critical information infrastructure protection – achievements and next steps: towards global cyber-security(6),

–  having regard to the resolution of the UN Human Rights Council of 5 July 2012 entitled ‘The promotion, protection and enjoyment of human rights on the Internet’(7), which recognises the importance of human rights protection and the free flow of information online,

–  having regard to the conclusions of the Chicago Summit of 20 May 2012,

–  having regard to Title V of the EU Treaty,

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

–  having regard to the report of the Committee on Foreign Affairs (A7-0335/2012),

A.  whereas in today‘s globalised world, the EU and its Member States have become crucially reliant on safe cyber space, on a secure use of information and digital technologies and on resilient and reliable information services and associated infrastructures;

B.  whereas information and communication technologies are also used as tools of repression; whereas the context in which they are used determines to a great extent the impact these technologies can have as a force either for positive developments or for repression;

C.  whereas cyber challenges, threats and attacks are growing at a dramatic pace and constitute a major threat to the security, defence, stability and competitiveness of the nation states as well as of the private sector; whereas such threats should not therefore be considered future issues; whereas a majority of highly visible and disruptive cyber incidents are now of a politically motivated nature; whereas the vast majority of cyber incidents remain primitive, threats to critical assets become increasingly sophisticated and warrant in-depth protection;

D.  whereas cyberspace, with its nearly two billion globally interconnected users, has become one of the most potent and efficient means of advancing democratic ideas and organising people as they seek to realise their aspirations for freedom and to fight against dictatorships; whereas the use of cyberspace by undemocratic and authoritarian regimes poses an increasing threat to individuals‘ rights to freedom of expression and association; whereas it is therefore crucial to ensure that cyberspace will remain open to the free flow of ideas, information and expression;

E.  whereas there are numerous obstacles of a political, legislative and organisational nature in the EU and its Member States to the development of a comprehensive and unified approach to cyber defence and cyber security; whereas there is a lack of common definition, standards and common measures in the sensitive and vulnerable area of cyber security;

F.  whereas sharing and coordination within the EU institutions and with and between Member States, as well as with outside partners is still insufficient;

G.  whereas clear and harmonised definitions of ‘cyber security’ and ’cyber defence’ are lacking at EU and international levels; whereas the understanding of cyber security and other key terminology varies considerably among different countries;

H.  whereas the EU has not yet developed coherent policies of its own regarding critical information infrastructure protection which requires a multidisciplinary approach thus enhancing security while respecting fundamental rights;

I.  whereas the EU has proposed various initiatives to tackle civilian level cybercrime, including the establishment of a new European Cybercrime Centre, yet lacks any concrete plan at the level of security and defence;

J.  whereas building trust and confidence between the private sector and law enforcement authorities, defence and other competent institutions is of utmost importance in the fight against cybercrime;

K.  whereas trust and mutual confidence in the relations between state and non-state actors is a prerequisite for reliable cyber security;

L.  whereas the majority of cyber incidents in both the public and private sectors remain unreported due to the sensitive nature of the information and possible damage to the image of the companies involved;

M.  whereas a large number of cyber incidents occur due to lack of resilience and robustness of private and public network infrastructure, poorly protected or secured databases and other flaws in the critical information infrastructure; whereas only few Member States consider the protection of their network and information systems and associated data as part of their respective duty of care which explains the lack of investment in state-of-the-art security technology, training and the development of appropriate guidelines, whereas a large number of Member States depend on security technology from third countries and should increase their efforts to reduce this dependency;

N.  whereas the majority of perpetrators of high level cyber attacks that threaten national or international security and defence are never identified and prosecuted; whereas there is no internationally agreed form of response to a state-backed cyber attack against another state, nor an understanding of whether this could be considered a casus belli;

O.  whereas the European Network and Information Security Agency (ENISA) is being engaged as a facilitator for Member States to support the exchange of good practices in the area of cyber security by recommending how to develop, implement and maintain a cyber security strategy; and has a supportive role in National Cyber Security Strategies, National Contingency Plans, organising Pan-European and International exercises on Critical Information Infrastructure Protection (CIIP), and development of scenarios for national exercises;

P.  whereas only 10 EU Member States had, as of June 2012, officially adopted a National Cyber Security Strategy;

Q.  whereas cyber defence is one of the top priorities of the EDA, which has set up, under the Capabilities Development Plan, a project team on cyber security with the majority of Member States working to collect experiences and propose recommendations;

R.  whereas investments in cyber security and defence research and development are crucial for advancing and for maintaining a high level of cyber security and defence; whereas defence expenditure on research and development has decreased instead of reaching the agreed 2% of overall defence expenditure;

S.  whereas raising awareness and educating citizens on cyber security should constitute the basis of any comprehensive cyber security strategy;

T.  whereas a clear balance has to be established between security measures and citizens’ rights in accordance with the TFEU, such as the right to privacy, data protection and freedom of expression; with neither being sacrificed in the name of the other;

U.  whereas there is an increasing need to better respect and protect individuals‘ rights to privacy as stipulated in the EU Charter and Article 16 TFEU; whereas the need to secure and defend cyberspace at a national level for institutions and defence bodies, while important, should never be used as an excuse to in any way limit rights and freedoms in cyber and informational space;

V.  whereas the global and borderless nature of the internet requires new forms of international cooperation and governance with multiple stakeholders;

W.  whereas governments increasingly rely on private players for the security of their critical infrastructure;

X.  whereas the European External Action Service (EEAS) has not yet proactively included a cyber security aspect in its relations with third countries;

Y.  whereas the Instrument for Stability is so far the only EU programme which is designed to respond to urgent crises or global/transregional security challenges, including cyber security threats;

Z.  whereas responding jointly – through the EU-US working group on cyber security and cybercrime – to cyber security threats is one of the priority issues in EU-US relations;

Actions and coordination in the EU

1.  Notes that cyber threats and attacks against government, administrative, military and international bodies are a rapidly growing menace and occurrence in both the EU and globally, and that there are significant reasons for concern that state and non-state actors, especially terrorist and criminal organisations, are able to attack critical information and communication structures and infrastructures of EU institutions and members, with the potential to cause significant harm, including kinetic effects;

2.  Underlines, therefore, the need for a global and coordinated approach to these challenges at the EU level through the development of a comprehensive EU cyber security strategy which should provide a common definition of cyber security and defence and of what constitutes a defence-related cyber attack, a common operating vision and should take into account the added value of the existing agencies and bodies; as well as good practices from those Member States which already have national cyber security strategies; stresses the crucial importance of coordination and creating synergies at the Union level to help combine different initiatives, programmes and activities, both military and civilian; emphasises that such a strategy should ensure flexibility and be updated on a regular basis to adapt it to the rapidly changing nature of cyberspace;

3.  Urges the Commission and the High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy to consider the possibility of a serious cyber attack against a Member State in their forthcoming proposal on the arrangements for the implementation of the Solidarity Clause (Article 222 TFEU); takes, furthermore, the view that although cyber attacks endangering national security still need to be defined by common terminology, they could be covered by the Mutual Defence Clause (Article 42.7 TEU), without prejudice to the principle of proportionality;

4.  Emphasises that CSDP must ensure that forces on EU military operations and civilian missions are protected against cyber attacks. Underlines that cyber defence should be made an active capability of CSDP;

5.  Stresses that all EU cyber security policies should be based on and designed to ensure maximum protection and preservation of digital freedoms and respect for human rights online; believes the Internet and ICTs should be included in the EU’s foreign and security policies in order to advance this effort;

6.  Calls on the Commission and Council to unequivocally recognise digital freedoms as fundamental rights and as indispensable prerequisites for enjoying universal human rights; stresses that Member States should aim never to endanger their citizens‘ rights and freedoms when developing their responses to cyber threats and attacks and should have adequate legislative differences between civilian and military level cyber incidents; calls for caution in applying restrictions on the ability of citizens to make use of communication and information technology tools;

7.  Calls on the Council and the Commission, together with the Member States, to elaborate a White Paper on Cyber Defence establishing clear definitions and criteria separating levels of cyber attacks in the civilian and military spheres, according to their motivation and effects, as well as levels of reaction, including the investigation, detection and prosecution of perpetrators;

8.  Sees a clear need to update the European Security Strategy with a view to identifying and finding means of pursuing and prosecuting individual, network-related and state-supported cyber attackers;

EU level

9.  Stresses the importance of horizontal cooperation and coordination on cyber security within and between EU institutions and agencies;

10.  Stresses that new technologies challenge the way in which governments perform traditional core tasks; reaffirms that defence and security policies ultimately lie in the hands of government, including adequate democratic oversight; takes note of the increasingly important role of private actors in executing security and defence tasks often without transparency, accountability or democratic oversight mechanisms;

11.  Stresses that governments need to abide by the basic principles of international public and humanitarian law, such as respect for state sovereignty and human rights, when using new technologies in the scope of security and defence policies; points to the valuable experience of EU Member States, such as Estonia, in defining and designing cyber security policies as well as cyber defence;

12.  Recognises the need for an assessment of the overall level of cyber attacks against EU information systems and infrastructure; highlights, in this context, the need for continuous assessment of the degree of preparedness of EU institutions to tackle potential cyber attacks; places particular emphasis on the need to strengthen critical information infrastructure;

13.  Stresses, likewise, the need to provide information on vulnerabilities, alerts and warnings of fresh threats to information systems;

14.  Notes that recent cyber attacks against European information networks and governmental information systems have caused considerable economic and security damage, the extent of which has not been adequately assessed;

15.  Calls on all the EU institutions to develop their cyber security strategies and contingency plans with regard to their own systems in the shortest time possible;

16.  Calls on all EU institutions to include in their risk analysis and crisis management plans the issue of cyber crisis management; calls, furthermore, on all EU institutions to provide awareness-raising training on cyber security to all their staff; suggests conducting cyber exercises once a year similarly to emergency exercises;

17.  Underlines the importance of the efficient development of the EU Computer Emergency Response Team (EU-CERT) and of national CERTs as well as the development of national contingency plans in the event that action needs to be taken; welcomes the fact that, by May 2012, all EU Member States have set up national CERTs; urges the further development of national CERTs and an EU-CERT capable of being deployed within 24 hours if needed; stresses the need to look into the feasibility of public-private partnerships in this field;

18.  Recognises that ‘Cyber Europe 2010’, the first pan-European exercise on critical information infrastructure protection, which was carried out with the involvement of various Member States and led by ENISA, proved to be a helpful action and an example of good practices; stresses also the need to create the Critical Infrastructure Warning Information Network at European level as soon as possible;

19.  Emphasises the importance of pan-European exercises in preparation for large-scale network security incidents, and the definition of a single set of standards for threat assessment;

20.  Calls on the Commission to explore the necessity and feasibility of an EU Cyber Coordination post;

21.  Considers that, given the high level of skill required both to adequately defend cyber systems and infrastructures and to attack them, the possibility of developing a ‘white hat’ strategy between the Commission, Council and Member States should be considered;, notes that the potential for ‘brain drain’ in these cases is high and that, notably, minors convicted of such attacks have a high potential for both rehabilitation and integration in defence agencies and bodies;

European Defence Agency (EDA)

22.  Welcomes the recent initiatives and projects relating to cyber defence, especially on gathering and mapping relevant cyber security and defence data, challenges and needs and urges Member States to cooperate more, also at military level, with the EDA on cyber defence;

23.  Underlines the importance for Member States of close cooperation with the EDA on developing their national cyber defence capabilities; believes that building synergies, pooling and sharing at European level are crucial for effective cyber defence at European and national level;

24.  Encourages the EDA to deepen its cooperation with NATO, national and international centres of excellence, the European Cybercrime Centre at Europol contributing to faster reactions in the event of cyber attacks and especially with the Cooperative Cyber Defence Centre of Excellence (CCDCOE) and to concentrate on capacity building and training as well as on exchange of information and practices;

25.  Observes with concern that only one Member State achieved the level of 2% expenditure on defence research and development by 2010, and that five Member States spent nothing on R&D in 2010; urges the EDA, together with Member States, to pool resources and to effectively invest in collaborative research and development, with particular regard to cyber security and defence;

Member States

26.  Calls on all Member States to develop and complete their respective national cyber security and defence strategies without further delay and ensure a solid policy-making and regulatory environment, comprehensive risk management procedures and appropriate preparatory measures and mechanisms; calls on ENISA to assist the Member States; expresses its support to ENISA in developing a Good Practice Guide on good practices and recommendations on how to develop, implement and maintain a cyber security strategy;

27.  Encourages all Member States to create designated cyber security and cyber defence units within their military structure, with a view to cooperating with similar bodies in other EU Member States;

28.  Encourages the Member States to introduce specialised courts at regional level geared to ensuring that attacks on information systems are punished more effectively; stresses the need to encourage the adaptation of national laws so that they can be adjusted to developments in techniques and uses;

29.  Calls on the Commission to continue to work on a coherent and efficient European approach to avoid redundant initiatives, encouraging and supporting Member States in their efforts to develop cooperation mechanisms and to enhance the exchange of information; is of the opinion that a minimum level of obligatory cooperation and sharing should be established between the Member States;

30.  Urges the Member States to develop national contingency plans and to include cyber crisis management in crisis management plans and risk analysis; further underlines the importance of adequate training on essential cyber security for all staff in public entities and, in particular, of providing suitable training for members of judicial and security institutions within the training bodies; calls on ENISA and other relevant bodies to assist Member States in ensuring the pooling and sharing of resources, as well as avoiding duplication;

31.  Urges the Member States to make research and development one of the core pillars of cyber security and defence and to encourage the training of engineers specialised in protecting information systems; calls on the Member States to live up their commitment to increase defence expenditure on research and development to at least 2%, with particular regard to cyber security and defence;

32.  Calls on the Commission and Member States to come forward with programmes to promote and raise awareness among both private and business users in general safe use of the Internet, information systems and communication technologies; suggests the Commission launch a public pan-European education initiative in this regard, calls on the Member States to include education on cyber security in school curricula from the earliest possible age;

Public-Private Cooperation

33.  Underlines the crucial role of meaningful and complementary cyber security cooperation between the public authorities and the private sector, both at EU and national level, with the aim of generating mutual trust; is aware that further enhancing the reliability and efficiency of the relevant public institutions will contribute to the building of trust and to the sharing of critical information;

34.  Calls on private sector partners to consider ‘security-by-design’ solutions when designing new products, devices, services and applications, and incentives for those designing new products, devices, services and applications with security-by-design as a central feature; calls for minimum transparency standards and accountability mechanisms to be established with regard to cooperation with the private sector to prevent and combat cyber attacks;

35.  Highlights that the protection of critical information infrastructure is included in the EU Internal Security Strategy in the context of raising levels of security for citizens as well as businesses in cyberspace;

36.  Calls for the establishment of a permanent dialogue with these partners on the best use and resilience of information systems and the sharing of responsibility required for the safe and proper functioning of these systems;

37.  Is of the view that Member States, EU institutions and the private sector, in cooperation with ENISA, should take steps to increase the security and integrity of information systems, to prevent attacks and to minimise the impact of attacks; supports the Commission in its efforts to come forward with minimum cyber security standards and systems of certifications for companies as well as providing the right incentives to stimulate private sector efforts to improve security;

38.  Calls on the Commission and on the Member States’ governments to encourage the private sector and civil society actors to include cyber crisis management in their crisis management plans and risk analysis; calls, furthermore, for the introduction of awareness-raising training on essential cyber security and cyber hygiene for all members of their staff;

39.  Calls on the Commission, in cooperation with Member States and relevant agencies and bodies, to develop frameworks and instruments for a rapid information exchange system that would ensure anonymity when reporting cyber incidents for the private sector, enable public actors to be kept constantly up to date and provide assistance when needed;

40.  Emphasises the need for the EU to facilitate the development of a competitive and innovative market for cyber security in the EU in order to better enable SMEs to operate in this field which will contribute to boosting economic growth and creating new jobs;

International cooperation

41.  Calls on the EEAS to take a proactive approach to cyber security and to mainstream the cyber security aspect in all of its actions, especially in relation to third countries; calls for the speeding up of cooperation and exchange of information on how to tackle cyber security issues with third countries;

42.  Stresses that the completion of a comprehensive EU cyber security strategy is a precondition to establishing the sort of efficient international cooperation on cyber security that the cross-border nature of cyber threats necessitates;

43.  Calls on those Member States which have not yet signed or ratified the Council of Europe Convention on Cybercrime (Budapest Convention) to do so without further delay; supports the Commission and the EEAS in their efforts to promote the Convention and its values among third countries;

44.  Is aware of the need for an internationally agreed and coordinated response to cyber threats; calls, therefore, on the Commission, EEAS and Member States to take the lead in all fora, and especially at the United Nations, with efforts to achieve broader international cooperation and final agreement on defining a common understanding of norms of behaviour in cyber space and also to encourage cooperation with a view to developing cyber weapons control agreements;

45.  Encourages exchanges of knowledge in the field of cyber security with BRICS countries and other countries with emerging economies, with the aim of exploring possible common responses to growing cyber crime and cyber threats and attacks; at both civilian and military levels;

46.  Urges the EEAS and the Commission to take a proactive approach within the relevant international forums and organisations, notably the UN, the OSCE, the OECD and the World Bank, with the aim of applying existing international law and achieving consensus on norms for responsible state behaviour on cyber security and defence, and by coordinating the positions of the Member States with a view to promoting the EU’s core values and policies in the field of cyber security and defence;

47.  Calls on the Council and the Commission, as part of their dialogues, relations and cooperation agreements with third countries, particularly those providing for cooperation or exchange in the field of technology, to insist on minimum requirements for preventing and fighting cyber criminality and cyber attacks; and on minimum standards in information system security;

48.  Calls on the Commission to facilitate and assist third countries, if needed, in their efforts to build their cyber security and cyber defence capabilities;

Cooperation with NATO

49.  Reiterates that, on the basis of their common values and strategic interests, the EU and NATO have a special responsibility and capacity to address the increasing cyber security challenges more efficiently and in close cooperation by looking for possible complementarities, without duplication and with respect for their respective responsibilities;

50.  Underlines the need to pool and share on a practical level, considering the complementary nature of the EU and NATO approach to cyber security and defence; emphasises the need for closer coordination, especially concerning planning, technology, training and equipment with regard to cyber security and defence;

51.  Building on the existing complementary activities in defence capability development, urges all relevant bodies in the EU dealing with cyber security and defence to deepen their practical cooperation with NATO with a view to exchanging experience and learning how to build resilience for EU systems;

Cooperation with the United States

52.  Believes that the EU and the US should deepen their mutual cooperation to counter cyber attacks and cybercrime, since this was made a priority of the transatlantic relationship following the 2010 EU-US Summit in Lisbon;

53.  Welcomes the creation, at the November 2010 EU-US Summit, of the EU-US Working Group on Cyber-Security and Cyber-Crime, and supports its efforts to include cyber security issues in the transatlantic policy dialogue;

54.  Welcomes the joint establishment, by the Commission and the US Government, under the umbrella of the EU-US Working Group, of a common programme and roadmap towards joint/synchronised trans-continental cyber exercises in 2012/2013; takes note of the first Cyber Atlantic exercise in 2011;

55.  Underlines the need for both the US and the EU, as the biggest sources of both cyber space and users, to work together for the protection of their citizen’s rights and freedoms to use this space; underlines that while national security is a paramount objective, cyber space should be secured but also protected;

o
o   o

56.  Instructs its President to forward this resolution to the Council, the Commission, the HR/VP, EDA, ENISA and NATO.

(1) OJ L 345, 23.12.2008, p. 75.
(2) OJ C 349 E, 22.12.2010, p. 63.
(3) Texts adopted, P7_TA(2011)0228.
(4) Texts adopted, P7_TA(2012)0207.
(5) Texts adopted, P7_TA(2011)0406.
(6) Texts adopted, P7_TA(2012)0237.
(7) http://www.ohchr.org/EN/HRBodies/HRC/RegularSessions/Session20/Pages/ResDecStat.aspx.


Role of the Common Security and Defence Policy in case of climate-driven crises and natural disasters
PDF 205kWORD 34k
European Parliament resolution of 22 November 2012 on the role of the Common Security and Defence Policy in case of climate-driven crises and natural disasters (2012/2095(INI))
P7_TA(2012)0458A7-0349/2012

The European Parliament,

–  having regard to Title V of the Treaty on European Union, and in particular to Articles 42 and 43,

–  having regard to Article 196 of the Treaty of the Functioning of the European Union on civil protection and Article 214 on humanitarian aid,

–  having regard to the Council conclusions on EU Climate Diplomacy of 18 July 2011(1),

–  having regard to the EEAS-COM Joint Reflection Paper on Climate Diplomacy of 9 July 2011(2),

–  having regard to the 2008 joint report presented by the High Representative Javier Solana and the European Commission to the European Council on Climate Change and International Security and its follow-up recommendations(3),

–  having regard to the Commission’s report entitled ‘For a European civil protection force: Europe Aid’ of May 2006,

–  having regard to the Council Decision of 8 November 2007 establishing a Community Civil Protection Mechanism(4), to the Commission Communication ‘Towards a stronger European disaster response: the role of civil protection and humanitarian assistance’ of 26 October 2010 (COM(2010)0600) and to its resolution of 27 September 2011(5),

–  having regard to the Proposal for a Decision of the European Parliament and the Council on a Union Civil Protection Mechanism of 20 December 2011 (COM(2011)0934),

–  having regard to the 2008 Commission Communication on the European Union and the Arctic Region (COM(2008)0763) and to its resolution of 20 January 2011 on a sustainable EU policy for the High North(6),

–  having regard to its resolution of 14 December 2011 on the impact of the financial crisis on the defence sector in the EU Member States(7),

–  having regard to the Conclusions of the October 2011 Berlin conference entitled ‘From Climate negotiations to Climate diplomacy’ and of the March 2012 London Conference entitled ‘A 21st century dialogue on Climate and Security’,

–  having regard to the July 2011 UN Security Council presidency statement on Climate Change and International Security(8),

–  having regard to the 2011 and 2012 reports of the United Nations Environment Programme entitled ‘Livelihood security: Climate change, conflict and migration in the Sahel’(9),

–  having regard to UN documents on Human Security and on Responsibility to protect(10),

–  having regard to the UN Guidelines on the Use of Foreign Military and Civil Defence Assets in Disaster Relief (Oslo Guidelines)(11) and to the Inter-Agency Standing Committee (IASC) Guidelines on the Use of Military and Civil Defence Assets to Support United Nations Humanitarian Activities in Complex Emergencies (MCDA Guidelines),

–  having regard to the Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament and the Council (SEC(2007)0781, SEC(2007)0782, COM(2007)0317)and the joint Statement on ‘Towards a European Consensus on Humanitarian Aid’ (12),

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

–  having regard to the report of the Committee on Foreign Affairs (A7-0349/2012),

General considerations

1.  Notes the impact of climate change on global security, peace and stability;

2.  Regrets that, in the last four years, the issue of climate change as the biggest threat to global security has become overshadowed in the public debate by the economic and financial crisis, which also constitutes an immediate global threat;

3.  Considers that the increase in extreme weather events in recent years represents an escalating cost to the global economy, not only for developing countries but for the world at large, both as a direct cost in terms of rebuilding and aid and as an indirect cost in terms of increases in insurance and higher prices for products and services; stresses that these events also represent an aggravation of threats to international peace and human security;

4.  Points out that natural disasters, exacerbated by climate change, are highly destabilising, particularly for vulnerable states; notes, however, that so far no case of conflict can be exclusively attributed to climate change; stresses that populations with deteriorating access to freshwater and foodstuffs caused by natural catastrophes exacerbated by climate change are forced to migrate, thus overstretching the economic, social and administrative capabilities of already fragile regions or failing states, thereby creating conflict and having a negative impact on overall security; recalls that these events create competition between communities and countries for scarce resources;

5.  Recognises that complex crises can be predicted, and should be prevented by applying a comprehensive approach including policy areas that make full use of the tools available within the Common Foreign and Security Policy (CSFP), the Common Security and Defence Policy (CSDP) and the policies for humanitarian and development aid; notes also that NATO was at the heart of the first international answer to environmental security challenges in 2004, when the Alliance joined five other international agencies(13) to form the Environment and Security Initiative (ENVSEC) to address environmental issues that threaten security in vulnerable regions;

6.  Recognises the importance of critical infrastructure which provides support for CSDP;

7.  Recognizes that, while addressing Climate Change through a security nexus can be positive, it is but one component of EU action on climate change, which attempts to use political and economic tools to mitigate and adapt to climate change;

8.  Points out that in its external action strategies, policies and instruments the EU should take into consideration the effects of natural disasters and climate change on international security; recalls, furthermore, that, in connection with both natural and other disasters, it is important to devote special attention to women and children, who are particularly vulnerable in crises;

9.  Recalls, in this regard, the Commission’s mandate for humanitarian aid and civil protection, and emphasises the need to further develop and strengthen existing instruments;

10.  Reiterates the importance of Disaster Risk Reduction in this regard, to reduce the impact of crises on vulnerable populations;

11.  Notes that it is essential to integrate the analysis of the impact of climate-driven crises, and consequent natural disasters, into CSDP strategies and operational plans before, during and after any natural or humanitarian crises that might emerge, and to create mitigation back-up plans aimed at the regions most at risk, while respecting the humanitarian principles set out in the Lisbon Treaty; calls, also, for practical cooperation, such as cooperation exercises;

12.  Stresses that building an effective response to the security implications of climate change must not only enhance conflict prevention and crisis management but also improve analysis and early warning capabilities;

13.  Recalls that the Lisbon Treaty requires the Union to develop civilian and military capabilities for international crisis management across the entire range of tasks outlined in its Article 43, in particular conflict prevention, humanitarian and rescue tasks, military advice and assistance tasks, peace-keeping and post-conflict stabilisation; is, at the same time, of the opinion that duplication of instruments should be avoided and that a clear distinction should be made between instruments within and outside the scope of the CSDP, in accordance with Articles 196 and 214 TFEU; recalls the need to avoid any duplication with well established instruments for humanitarian aid and civil protection which are outside the remit of the CSDP;

14.  Recognises that military structures have capacities and assets in environmental intelligence, risk assessment, humanitarian assistance, disaster relief and evacuation that have a crucial role to play in early warning, climate-related crisis management and disaster response;

15.  Points out that the Lisbon Treaty has introduced new provisions (Articles 21-23, 27, 39, 41(3), 43-46 TEU), notably those related to the start-up fund in Article 41(3), and that these still need to be implemented;

16.  Points out that the EU should further engage with the UN, the African Union (AU) and the OSCE, including in the context of ENVSEC, in order to share analysis and cooperatively address the challenges of climate change;

17.  Highlights the value of civilian-military synergies in crises such as those in Haiti, Pakistan and New Orleans; takes the view that these synergies proved how military forces can provide a valuable contribution to climate-driven crises and natural disasters by providing direct and timely assistance to the stricken areas and populations;

18.  Welcomes the fact that climate change has become more and more central to the global security debate, notably since 2007 when the UN Security Council first debated on climate change and its implications for international security; applauds the efforts of the EU and its Member State governments to raise the issue within the UN Security Council in July 2011 and in the Foreign Affairs Council conclusions on Climate Diplomacy;

The need for political will and action

19.  Calls on the Vice-President of the Commission / High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy (VP/HR), being responsible for the conduct of the Union’s Common Foreign and Security Policy, to:

   (a) whenever deemed appropriate, take into account of climate change and natural disasters and their security and defence ramifications when analysing crises and threats to conflicts;
   (b) assess which countries and/or regions are potentially at greatest risk of conflict and instability as a result of climate change and natural disasters; make a list of such countries/regions; provide, as part of the annual CFSP reports, information on the implementation of EU policies and instruments that aim at addressing these challenges in the listed countries/regions;
   (c) enhance the EU’s practical ability to ensure conflict prevention, crisis management and post-crisis reconstruction; closely coordinate efforts with the Commission and EU development policy regarding the need to assist partner countries when it comes to resilience against climate change and other dimensions of adapting to climate change;
   (d) adapt, in close cooperation with the Commission, the EU’s long-term planning of civilian and military capacities and capabilities accordingly;

20.  Considers that the EU has to present a list of the challenges it faces in areas such as the Arctic, Africa, the Arab World, and the Himalayas and the Tibetan Plateau (‘the Third Pole’), notably the potential for conflicts over water supplies;

21.  Stresses the importance of continuing and enhancing the EU’s development and humanitarian aid that aims at adaptation, mitigation, response, resilience, relief and post-crisis development in relation to climate-driven crises and natural disasters; notes the importance of initiatives such as disaster risk reduction, and the linking of relief, reconstruction and development, and calls on the Commission to mainstream these programmes and actions into its humanitarian aid and, in particular, its development aid; welcomes the proposed greater role of the EU’s Civil Protection Mechanism, especially outside of the European Union;

22.  Welcomes the UNDP, UNEP, OSCE, NATO, UNECE and REC(14) Environment and Security Initiative (ENVSEC), which aims at addressing the challenges linked to human security and the natural environment by offering countries in Central Asia, Caucasus and South-East Europe their combined pool of expertise and resources; notes that the overall performance of ENVSEC is still limited but that it has so far served as an important tool for institutional coordination and as an entry point for facilitating mainstreaming processes;

23.  Underlines that the EU should work with key regions at risk, and with the most vulnerable states, to strengthen their capacity to cope; highlights that the EU could further integrate adaptation and resilience to climate change into EU regional strategies (for example the EU-Africa Strategy, the Barcelona Process, the Black Sea Synergy, the EU-Central Asia Strategy and the Middle East action plan);

24.  Calls on the VP/HR and the Commission to mainstream the potential effects of climate change on security into the most important strategies, policy documents and financial instruments for external action and CSDP;

25.  Draws attention to the fact that energy security is closely related to climate change; considers that energy security must be improved by reducing the EU’s dependence on fossil fuels such as those imported from Russia via pipelines; recalls that these pipelines will become vulnerable to disruption by the melting of the permafrost, and highlights that the transformation of the Arctic represents one major effect of climate change on EU security; stresses the need to address this risk multiplier through a reinforced EU strategy for the Arctic, and through an enhanced policy of EU-generated renewable energies and energy efficiency that significantly reduces the Union’s reliance on external sources and thereby improves its security position;

26.  Calls on the European Defence Agency (EDA) and the Member States’ armed forces to develop green and energy-conscious technologies, exploiting fully the potential offered by renewable energy sources;

27.  Welcomes the recent attempts to strengthen coordination between NATO and EU in the field of capability development; recognises the strong need to identify the mutual advantages of cooperation while respecting the specific responsibilities of both organisations; stresses the need to find and create synergies when it comes to ‘pooling and sharing’ projects and ’smart defence’ projects (NATO) that could be implemented in response to natural disasters and climate-driven crises;

28.  Calls on the VP/HR, as a matter of utmost urgency, to use the full potential of the Lisbon Treaty to put forward proposals for the implementation of the start-up fund (Article 41(3) TEU) with regard to possible future pooling and sharing projects, joint capabilities and a joint, permanent, pool of equipment for civilian crisis operations;

The need for a new spirit: strategic and conceptual challenges

29.  Notes that the negative impact of climate change and natural disasters on peace, security and stability could be integrated in all strategic CFSP/CSDP documents that serve as guidelines for the planning and conduct of individual policies and missions;

30.  Notes that early-assessment and fact-finding capabilities should ensure that the EU responds to crises using the most appropriate means available, deploying multidisciplinary teams at the earliest time possible, which would be composed of civilian, military and civil-military experts;

31.  Underlines that EU access to accurate and timely analysis will be crucial to efforts to respond to and predict climate change insecurity, with CSDP capacities being a good source of information in this regard; the EU should take steps to further develop capacities for data collection and information analysis through structures such as EU Delegations, the EU Satellite Centre and the EU Situation Room;

32.  Considers that early warning and early preventive action with regard to the negative consequences of climate change and natural disasters depend on adequate human resources and methodology with regard to data collection and analysis; notes that the relevant EEAS units which deal with security, and the relevant Commission’s services and geographical desks, should integrate analysis of the impact of natural disasters on international security and political stability in their work; recommends training of EEAS and Commission staff in monitoring the impact of natural disasters on crisis development and political stability and security; calls for the development of common criteria for analysis, risk assessment and the setting-up of a joint alert system;

33.  Encourages the relevant EEAS and Commission bodies to enhance the coordination of situation analysis and policy planning with regard to – and the systematic exchange of information on – issues related to climate change and natural disasters; urges the relevant EEAS bodies to use available channels of communication and information exchange with the relevant Commission bodies, notably ECHO, but also with UN agencies and programmes as well as with NATO; points out that the civilian and military structures tasked with responding to climate change-driven crisis and natural disasters should cooperate closely with all civil society, humanitarian and non-governmental organisations;

34.  Urges the Commission to develop contingency plans for the EU’s response to the effects of natural disasters and climate-driven crises occurring outside the Union that have direct or indirect security implications on the Union (e.g. climate-driven migration);

35.  Strongly welcomes the steps taken in 2011 at the level of the EU Foreign Ministers under the Polish Presidency, and at the UN Security Council under the German Presidency, to elaborate the interaction between climate change and its security implications;

36.  Considers that adaptions and modifications addressing the implications of climate change and natural disasters could be made to the main CSDP policy documents, including the EU Concept for Military Planning at the Political and Strategic level(15) , the EU Concept for Military Command and Control(16) , the EU Concept for Force Generation(17) and the EU Military Rapid Response Concept(18), as well as to documents that are relevant for civilian CSDP missions, such as the EU Concept for Comprehensive Planning, the EU Concept for Police Planning and the Guidelines for Command and Control Structure for EU Civilian Operations in Crisis Management(19);

37.  Is of the opinion that civilian and military capabilities should be developed in such a way as to allow their deployment in response to natural disasters and climate-driven crises; believes that special attention should be paid to the development of military capabilities and, in particular, to the process of pooling and sharing; calls for a greater role of the EDA in this matter;

The need for institutional creativity: instruments and capabilities

38.  Reiterates that effective responses to crises such as natural disasters often need to be able to draw on both civilian and military capabilities, and require closer cooperation between these two assets; recalls that it is vital to define the niche-specific capabilities and gaps where military capacity could provide added value;

39.  Stresses the need to elaborate a specific list of military and civilian CSDP capabilities that have special relevance both in responses to climate change and natural disasters and in CSDP missions; stresses that, when elaborating this list, particular attention should be given to the work of the Consultative Group on the Use of Military and Civil Defence Assets; notes that such assets include, inter alia, engineering capacities such as the ad hoc construction and operation of port/airport infrastructure, air and sea operational management and transport, mobile hospitals including intensive care, communication infrastructure, water purification and fuel management; invites the Council and the EDA, as part of the 2013 review of the capabilities development programme, to reconcile the current catalogues of civilian and military capabilities with those required in order to meet the challenges of climate change, and to put forward the necessary proposals to remedy any existing deficiencies in those catalogues;

40.  Stresses the need to explore, on the basis of already existing capacities such as the EU Battle Groups and the European Air Transport Command, the possibility of creating further joint capabilities that are relevant for operations which respond to the impact of climate change or natural disasters;

41.  Stresses the need to explore ways of improving energy efficiency and environmental management within the armed forces at home and abroad by exploiting, among others, the potential offered by renewable energy sources; recalls that the armed forces of a single EU Member State consume the energy of a large European city and that military structures, therefore, should be equally innovative in reducing their ecological footprint; welcomes the report ‘Greening the Blue Helmets: Environment, Natural Resources and UN Peacekeeping Operations’, released in May 2012 by UNEP, the United Nations Department for Peacekeeping Operations (UNDPKO) and the United Nation Department of Field Support (UNDFS); points to the fact that, for several years, the US(20) armed forces have been actively seeking to increase energy independence by using sustainable energy sources and increasing energy efficiency in all army operations and infrastructure; welcomes, in this respect, the recent EDA project GO GREEN, which aims at significantly improving energy efficiency and the use of renewable energy sources; underlines the need also to develop guidelines for best practises in the field of resource efficiency and the monitoring of environmental management for CSDP missions;

42.  Stresses the need also to bring the broader developments in the field of the European defence industrial base into line with the specific requirements of climate-driven crises and natural disasters; calls for an enhanced role for the EDA, in close cooperation with the EU Military Committee in this process; calls on both CSDP bodies to make sure that procurement programmes and capability development programmes devote adequate financial means and other resources to the specific needs of responding to climate change and natural disasters;

43.  Calls on the military to shoulder its responsibilities in the domain of environmental sustainability and on technical experts to find ways for green action, from reducing emissions to improving recyclability;

44.  Underlines the need for maintaining and further strengthening a comprehensive approach within the context of the next multiannual financial perspective 2014-2020 in order to mitigate and respond to natural disasters and climate-driven crises through the use of all relevant instruments at the Union’s disposal; welcomes the Commission proposal for a renewed Instrument for Stability, which already takes into account the negative impact of climate change and natural disasters on security, peace and political stability;

45.  Requests that the financial implications of such proposals be identified and also be considered in the EU’s budget review;

46.  Calls on the VP/HR to send experts on climate security to the EU Delegations of the most affected countries and regions in order to strengthen the capacity of the Union when it comes to early warning and information about possible upcoming conflicts;

47.  Calls on the EEAS to strengthen the coordination between the Union and its neighbouring states in the field of climate-driven crisis response capability development;

48.  Calls on the EEAS to advocate consideration of climate change and environment protection aspects in the planning and implementation of military, civil-military and civilian operations worldwide;

49.  Welcomes the idea of creating a post for a UN special envoy for climate security;

50.  Calls for coordination mechanisms to be established between the EU as a whole and those Member States which may in the future act in accordance with the provisions of permanent structured cooperation to ensure the consistency of their actions with the EU’s comprehensive approach in this field;

51.  Is of the opinion that studies on the impact of natural disasters and climate-driven crises on international and European security should be included in the curriculum of the European Security and Defence College;

52.  Calls for the EU to examine the security implications of climate change in dialogue with third countries, especially with key partners such as India, China and Russia; stresses that a truly effective response will require a multilateral approach and joint investment with third countries, and that the EU could build cooperation with third country militaries with joint development and training missions;

o
o   o

53.  Instructs its President to forward this resolution to the Vice-President of the Commission / High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy, the Council, the Commission, the parliaments of the EU Member States, the NATO Parliamentary Assembly, the Secretary-General of NATO, the UN General Assembly and the UN Secretary-General.

(1) http://ec.europa.eu/clima/events/0052/council_conclusions_en.pdf
(2) http://eeas.europa.eu/environment/docs/2011_joint_paper_euclimate_diplomacy_en.pdf
(3) http://www.consilium.europa.eu/uedocs/cms_data/docs/pressdata/en/reports/99387.pdf
(4) OJ L 314, 1.12.2007, p. 9.
(5) Texts adopted, P7_TA(2011)0404.
(6) OJ C 136 E, 11.5.2012, p. 71.
(7) Texts adopted, P7_TA(2011)0574.
(8) http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2011/sc10332.doc.htm
(9) www.unep.org/disastersandconflicts
(10) Paragraphs 138 and 139 of the 2005 UN World Summit Outcome Document, the UN Security Council resolution of April 2006 (S/RES/1674), the report by UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-Moon on ‘Implementing the Responsibility to Protect’ of 15 September 2009 and the Resolution adopted by the UN General Assembly on the responsibility to protect (A/RES/63/308) of 7 October 2009
(11) http://www.unhcr.org/refworld/docid/47da87822.html
(12) Joint Statement by the Council and the Representatives of the Governments of the Member States meeting within the Council, the European Parliament and the European Commission (2008/C 25/01)
(13) The United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP), the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE), the United Nations Economic Commission for Europe (UNECE) and the Regional Environment Centre for Central and Eastern Europe (REC).
(14) The United Nations Development Programme (UNDP), the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE), North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO), the United Nations Economic Commission for Europe (UNECE) and the Regional Environment Centre for Central and Eastern Europe (REC).
(15) http://register.consilium.europa.eu/pdf/en/08/st10/st10687.en08.pdf
(16) 10688/08 - classified.
(17) http://register.consilium.europa.eu/pdf/en/08/st10/st10690.en08.pdf
(18) http://register.consilium.europa.eu/pdf/en/09/st05/st05654.en09.pdf
(19) doc 13983/05- doc. 6923/1/02 - doc. 9919/07.
(20) Powering America’s Defence: Energy and the Risks to National Security, May 2009. http://www.cna.org/sites/default/files/Powering%20Americas%20Defense.pdf


Negotiations for an EU-Kazakhstan enhanced partnership and cooperation agreement
PDF 245kWORD 35k
European Parliament resolution of 22 November 2012 containing the European Parliament’s recommendations to the Council, the Commission and the European External Action Service on the negotiations for an EU-Kazakhstan enhanced partnership and cooperation agreement (2012/2153(INI))
P7_TA(2012)0459A7-0355/2012

The European Parliament,

–  having regard to the Partnership and Cooperation Agreement establishing a partnership between the European Communities and their Member States, of the one part, and Kazakhstan, of the other part, which entered into force on 1 July 1999(1),

–  having regard to the negotiations authorised by the Council on 24 May 2011 and opened in Brussels in June 2011 on an enhanced EU-Kazakhstan Partnership and Cooperation Agreement,

–  having regard to its resolutions on Kazakhstan, in particular that of 15 March 2012(2) and that of 17 September 2009 on the case of Yevgeny Zhovtis(3), and to that of 7 October 2010 on the World day against the death penalty(4),

–  having regard to its resolution of 15 December 2011 on the state of implementation of the EU Strategy for Central Asia(5),

–  having regard to the EU Strategy for a New Partnership with Central Asia: ‘The European Union and Central Asia: Strategy for a New Partnership’, adopted by the European Council on 21-22 June 2007, and to the progress reports of 24 June 2008 and 28 June 2010,

–  having regard to the EU’s statements on Kazakhstan in the OSCE Permanent Council, of 3 November and 22 December 2011 and 19 January, 26 January and 9 February 2012, and to the statements by EU HR/VP Catherine Ashton on the events in the Zhanaozen district of 17 December 2011 and on the 15 January 2012 parliamentary elections in Kazakhstan (made on 17 January 2012),

–  having regard to the statement of preliminary findings and conclusions of the OSCE/ODIHR-led mission observing the 15 January 2012 parliamentary elections,

–  having regard to the statement on the media situation in Kazakhstan made by the OSCE Representative on Freedom of the Media on 25 January 2012,

–  having regard to the general provisions on the Union’s external action laid down in Article 21 TEU, and the procedure for the conclusion of international agreements set out in Article 218 TFEU,

–  having regard to the commitments made by the High Representative in her letters of 24 November 2011 and 11 May 2012 concerning a mechanism to monitor the implementation of the EU-Turkmenistan PCA and in particular of its Article 2,

–  having regard to paragraph 23 of its resolution of 16 February 2012 on the 19th Session of the UN Human Rights Council(6),

–  having regard to the new EU Strategic Framework and Action Plan on Human Rights and Democracy adopted by the EU foreign ministers, and to the conclusions adopted at the 3179th Foreign Affairs Council meeting of 25 June 2012,

–  having regard to the statement to the European Parliament on Kazakhstan delivered on behalf of High Representative Catherine Ashton by the Danish Foreign Minster, Villy Søvndal, on 14 March 2012 (A 122/12),

–  having regard to Rules 90(4) and 48 of its Rules of Procedure,

–  having regard to the report of the Committee on Foreign Affairs and the opinion of the Committee on International Trade (A7-0355/2012),

A.  whereas the EU and Kazakhstan aspire to deepen and broaden their relations; whereas the peoples of the EU and Kazakhstan should benefit mutually from closer cooperation; whereas the conclusion of the new PCA negotiation should provide a comprehensive framework for cooperation based on human and democratic rights, as well as opportunities for socio-economic development and for the necessary political and economic reforms; whereas social and economic development are closely interconnected;

B.  whereas although the suspension of the application of any PCA has been used only rarely and partially by the Council, it remains a viable option in case of serious and documented breaches of human rights;

C.  whereas Kazakhstan has played a positive role in Central Asia, making efforts to develop good neighbourly relations with bordering countries, resume regional cooperation and resolve all bilateral issues by peaceful means;

D.  whereas Parliament, in order to be able to fulfil its function of political scrutiny, needs to have available to it full information allowing it to closely follow developments in Kazakhstan and the implementation of the PCA in line with its recommendations and resolutions;

E.  whereas Kazakhstan has been admitted to the Venice Commission of the Council of Europe; whereas during the negotiations for an enhanced PCA the EU and Kazakhstan need to find a common language on human rights and democracy;

F.  whereas Kazakhstan held the OSCE chair in 2010; whereas the commitments made to bring media law into line with international standards, liberalise registration requirements for political parties by the end of 2008, and incorporate the recommendations of the OSCE’s Office of Democratic Institutions and Human Rights (ODIHR) into the electoral law, still need to be fulfilled;

G.  whereas, notwithstanding the Kazakh government’s stated ambition to strengthen Kazakhstan’s democratic process and to conduct elections in line with international standards, the general elections held on 15 January 2012 were deemed by the OSCE not to be in line with its standards, given widespread voting irregularities and the failure to provide the necessary conditions for the conduct of genuinely pluralistic elections;

H.  whereas after the tragic events of December 2011 in Zhanaozen, opposition parties, independent media, trade unions, activists and human rights defenders have become targets of repression, including detentions without proven violation of law which could be considered as politically motivated;

I.  whereas there is an ongoing open and constructive dialogue between MEPs, official representatives of Kazakhstan, representatives of civil society and NGOs on issues of mutual interest;

J.  whereas the Kazakh authorities have recently undertaken important efforts in terms of cooperation with NGOs in West Kazakhstan, in order to improve the situation for the inhabitants of the region, and in particular for workers on strike;

K.  whereas 37 people have been put on trial on charges of organising or participating in mass unrest, and 34 of these have been convicted, of whom 13 will serve time in prison, among them prominent leaders and activists from the oil workers’ strike, including Talgat Saktaganov, Roza Tuletaeva and Maksat Dosmagambetov; whereas in July 2012 the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, Navi Pillay, following her two-day visit to Kazakhstan, called on the authorities to authorise an independent international investigation into the events of Zhanaozen, their causes and their aftermath;

L.  whereas the International Monitoring Mission of Civic Solidarity concludes in its preliminary report that the Zhanaozen trials cannot be considered as compliant with fair trial standards, and that the investigation into the events of December 2011 was neither full nor independent; whereas the accused and some witnesses were victims of violations of their rights during the pre-trial stage, including the alleged use of torture, denial of access to an attorney, intimidation, and fabrication of evidence; whereas the defendants’ testimony offered at their trials concerning ill-treatment and torture during their pre-trial detention was not fully, impartially and thoroughly investigated in a manner capable of holding the perpetrators responsible;whereas on 7 October 2012, Aleksandr Bozhenko, a witness to the tragic events in Zhanaozen, was killed;

M.  whereas Vladimir Kozlov, the leader of the opposition party ALGA, has been found guilty of ‘inciting social discord’, ‘calling for the forcible overthrow of the constitutional order’ and ‘creating and leading an organised group with the aim of committing crimes’, and has been sentenced to seven and a half years in prison; whereas Akzhanat Aminov, an oil worker from Zhanaozen, and Serik Sapargali, a civil society activist, have been convicted on similar charges and have been handed down a five-year and four-year suspended sentences respectively;

N.  whereas on 17 February 2012 the President of Kazakhstan signed several laws aimed at improving the legal basis for labour relations, workers’ rights and social dialogue and strengthening the independence of the judiciary; whereas despite these attempts, the right of individuals to associate, to organise and to register independent trade unions, the right to collective bargaining and the right to strike are not being fully respected, and a fully independent judiciary is not in place; whereas the amendments to the Labour Code, in particular amended articles 55, 74, 266, 287, 289, 303, and 305, mark a regression in the field of labour relations, workers’ rights and social dialogue and a breach of the conditions laid down in ILO and other international conventions;

O.  whereas the EU is a key trading partner for Kazakhstan and the biggest investor in the country; whereas Kazakhstan has clearly expressed its wish to approximate to the EU’s standards and its social and economic models, which will entail a thorough reform of the Kazakh state and public administration;

P.  whereas Kazakhstan plays an important role in securing regional stabilisation, and can become a bridge between the EU and the whole Central Asian region;

Q.  whereas Kazakhstan has achieved significant results in the areas of poverty reduction, public health and education;

R.  whereas the EU is heavily dependent on imports of mined phosphate rock in order to sustain its agriculture and technical production; whereas Kazakhstan supplies many countries with white phosphorus and the Commission initiated an anti-dumping procedure against imports of white phosphorus from Kazakhstan in December 2011;

1.  Welcomes Kazakhstan’s political will and practical engagement to further deepen partnership with the EU and the opening of the negotiations for an EU-Kazakhstan partnership and cooperation agreement (PCA);

2.  Addresses the following recommendations to the Council, the Commission and the HR/VP, calling on them to:

On the conduct of the negotiations

Political dialogue and cooperation

Human rights and fundamental freedoms

Economic cooperation

Other provisions

o
o   o

   (a) ensure that this new PCA is a comprehensive framework for the further development of relations, addressing all priority areas, including: human rights, the rule of law, good governance, and democratisation; youth and education; economic development, trade and investment; energy and transport; environmental sustainability and water; and combating common threats and challenges;
   (b) ensure that the EU’s engagement is consistent with other Union policies and for the principle of ‘more for more’ to be applied, with particular emphasis on supporting political, legal, economic and social reforms;
   (c) work closely with Kazakhstan in order to promote regional cooperation and the improvement of neighbourly relations in the Central Asia region and ensure that the PCA contains provisions for regional cooperation within the Central Asia region, inter alia by support for confidence-building measures where appropriate, particularly in such areas as water and resource management, border management, the fight against extremism and counter-terrorism; recommends that this cooperation should foster exchanges of experiences and take on board the recommendations of civil society organisations;
   (d) seek Kazakhstan’s support with a view to ensuring swift progress towards the establishment of a regular EU-Central Asia High Level Security Dialogue in a regional format, in order to tackle common challenges and threats;
   (e) cooperate with Kazakhstan and other Central Asian states, as well as with local, regional and international actors, in order to promote security and development in Afghanistan;
   (f) reinforce the EU’s action in the fields of education, the rule of law, the environment and water, inter alia through newly established support platforms and targeted assistance, as well as bringing local NGOs and Civil Society Organisations (CSOs) into the EU’s dialogue with the Kazakh government in those areas where this is appropriate and possible; calls, given the current difficulties in registering NGOs and CSOs, for this dialogue not to be limited to those which are officially registered;
   (g) stimulate Kazakhstan to work together with its neighbours in order to come to a common solution on the status of the Caspian Sea;
   (h) support policy reforms and institutional capacity-building through targeted technical assistance (exchange of experts);
   (i) ensure that the PCA incorporates clauses and benchmarks relating to the protection and promotion of human rights as enshrined in the Constitution of Kazakhstan, drawing to the fullest possible extent on the standards laid down by the Council of Europe (Venice Commission), the OSCE and the UN to which Kazakhstan has committed itself;
   (j) urge the Kazakh authorities to make every effort to improve the human rights situation in their country;
   (k) emphasise that progress in the negotiation of the new PCA must be linked to the progress of political reform; urge Kazakhstan to maintain its declared commitment to further reforms, in order to build up an open and democratic society including an independent civil society and opposition and respecting fundamental rights and the rule of law; adequate assistance on the EU’s part for implementing the reforms;
   (l) express deep concern over the detentions without proven violation of law which could be considered as politically motivated, which show disregard of Parliament’s resolution of 15 March 2012 demanding the release of all persons detained on politically motivated charges;
   (m) call on the Kazakh authorities, in this regard, to promptly and impartially investigate all allegations of torture and ill-treatment in connection with the Zhanaozen violence and hold the perpetrators accountable, repeal the vague criminal charge of ‘inciting social discord’, release from pre-trial detention the opposition activists who are held on this basis, and review the legislation on freedom of assembly in order to bring it into conformity with Kazakhstan’s international obligations on freedom of assembly;
   (n) express great concern with regards to the lawsuit introduced on 20 November 2012 by Kazakhstan's Prosecutor General demanding unregistered opposition party Alga, Khalyk Maidany association and a number of opposition media outlets to be banned as extremist; strongly underlines that the legitimate fight against terrorism and extremism should not be used as an excuse to ban opposition activity and hinder freedom of expression;
   (o) express deep concern at the sentencing of Vladimir Kozlov, Akzhanat Aminov and Serik Sapargali, after a trial with numerous procedural shortcomings, with the effect of further limiting political freedom in Kazakhstan for the opposition; call on the Kazakh authorities to grant Kozlov, Aminov and Sapargaly a fair and transparent appeal process;
   (p) insist that Kazakhstan further translates its Human Rights Action Plan into legislation and continues to implement it in full, drawing on the recommendations of the Venice Commission and making use of EU technical assistance under the Rule of Law initiative;
   (q) call on Kazakhstan, as a member of the Venice Commission, to demonstrate its commitment to Council of Europe standards by cooperating with the Venice Commission, including by submitting specific draft laws and recently adopted laws for comments to the Venice Commission and implementing the recommendations of the Commission;
   (r) insist that the Kazakh authorities make binding commitments to bring the legal system fully into line with international standards and ensure that implementation facilitates true media freedom, freedom of expression and association, freedom of religion and belief and the independence of the judiciary in Kazakhstan;
   (s) insist on improved access to justice, judicial independence, and the return of the control and management of penitentiaries to the Ministry of Justice;
   (t) urge Kazakhstan to release , without further delay, prisoners convicted on political grounds and end politically motivated arrests and convictions carried out on the basis of the vague criminal charge of ’inciting social discord’;
   (u) urge the Kazakh authorities to amend Article 164 of Kazakhstan’s Criminal Code on ‘inciting social discord’ so as to bring it into line with international human rights law;
   (v) insist that Kazakhstan should reconsider the restrictive amendments to the administrative code and the recent law on religion, and put an end to the arbitrary raids, interrogations, threats and fines directed against minority religious groups;
   (w) start negotiations on visa facilitation between the EU and Kazakhstan, since this would provide tangible benefits for economic, cultural and scientific exchanges and further promote people-to-people contacts;
   (x) insist that Kazakhstan comply with the recommendations of the UN Committee Against Torture and the 2009 recommendations of the UN Special Rapporteur on Torture; call on Kazakhstan to ensure the participation of independent NGOs in consultations on the upcoming reform of the Criminal Code and the Criminal Procedural Code;
   (y) call on Kazakhstan to sign and ratify the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court;
   (z) insist on establishing independent civil society platforms to contribute to inclusive exchanges in a number of sectors, in order to ensure that the aspirations and voices of civil society are heard and seek means of providing financial assistance for this goal;
   (aa) step up and strengthen the annual human rights dialogues with a view to achieving tangible improvements, inter alia by setting concrete benchmarks to measure progress, and report back to the EP;
   (ab) intensify and broaden the scope of the exchange programmes in education and culture; encourage and support legal training for local and regional officials and members of law enforcement bodies to bring them up to EU standards; encourage and support Kazakhstan in taking the lead in the formation of a special educational programme, to include both academic and vocational training, between the EU and Central Asian countries;
   (ac) highlight the fact that the conclusion of the new PCA negotiation will have a positive impact on the deepening of economic cooperation between EU and Kazakh companies, including SMEs;
   (ad) encourage legislation in conformity with WTO rules, including on local content requirements under the Agreement on Trade Related Investment Measures (TRIMs), paving the way for structural reforms and the creation of a working market economy; and provide Kazakhstan with qualified technical assistance in order to pave the way for subsequent structural reforms, increased competitiveness, and the creation of a social market economy;
   (ae) call for the removal of tariff and non-tariff barriers in order to extend trade, particularly trade in services and foreign investment; support the ambition of harmonising standards in trade in goods beyond the conditions set by the WTO, since this would also lead to a broadening of trade opportunities;
   (af) emphasise the importance of EU-Kazakhstan energy cooperation, particularly in terms of the efforts to develop the trans-Caspian energy route; ensure continued emphasis by the EU on support for enhancing energy security and sustainable energy development, and attracting investment for energy projects of common and regional interest;
   (ag) ensure that Kazakhstan’s participation in the Russian-led Customs Union and the Eurasian Economic Union does not constitute a barrier to trade or to economic and financial cooperation with the EU, or to fulfilling its obligations arising from WTO membership, and is not an obstacle to closer cooperation between the EU and Kazakhstan; points out that competition will result if the conclusion of the enhanced partnership and cooperation agreement is delayed; be ready to assist Kazakhstan’s efforts to promote modern economic institutions, should such efforts be undertaken;
   (ah) encourage the Kazakh government to demonstrate its renewed commitment to the Extractive Industries Transparency Initiative (EITI) by removing all legal or regulatory obstacles to its successful implementation and allowing independent civil society organisations to participate fully in the initiative;
   (ai) include a chapter on the convergence of Kazakhstan’s standards and regulatory systems with those of the EU, particularly in the sectors and key areas where trade between the EU and Kazakhstan holds great potential;
   (aj) stress that water issues in the region remain one of the main sources of tension and potential conflict, and underlines the importance of a regional approach in order to protect and properly manage shared water resources; in this context, reiterate the importance of the countries of the region signing and ratifying without delay the Espoo and Århus Conventions and fostering the involvement of local actors in decision-making;
   (ak) step up its technical assistance to Kazakhstan in the field of water conservation and management of water resources in general, in the framework of the EU Water Initiative for Central Asia, with a view also to improving relations between upstream and downstream countries in the region and reaching sustainable water-sharing agreements;
   (al) support and assist Kazakhstan in its efforts to save the Aral Sea in the framework of the action programme of the International Fund for Saving the Aral Sea;
   (am) assist Kazakhstan in the adoption of effective mitigation measures and cleaning-up programmes of radioactive waste and radioactive pollution in the Semey/Semipalatinsk region;
   (an) welcome Kazakhstan’s actions for a nuclear weapons-free world and its leadership in the global nuclear disarmament process and in favour of a comprehensive ban on nuclear tests;
   (ao) draw attention to the critical situation as regards democracy, the rule of law (including the fight against corruption) and human rights and fundamental freedoms, especially workers’ rights, which also creates unfair competitive advantage; stress, in view of this situation, that a binding trade and sustainable development chapter must be included in the trade title of the new agreement;
   (ap) insist on the introduction of an effective dispute settlement regime to ensure that the agreement reached will be respected;
   (aq) stress that a strong services and establishment chapter and convergence of Kazakhstan towards EU standards and regulatory systems (including SPS, TBT and IPR) would lead to increased trade flows and investment, which would favour the modernisation and diversification of Kazakhstan’s economy; underline the importance of improving licensing procedures in Kazakhstan in order to facilitate services and investment;
   (ar) encourage Kazakhstan’s efforts to remove all non-tariff barriers which have up till now hampered the development of trade and investment in the country;
   (as) focus economic and trade-related assistance to Kazakhstan on the development of SMEs and support for business intermediary organisations;
   (at) in the light of recent allegations of corruption against EU-based corporations operating in Kazakhstan, include stronger and binding provisions in relation to corporate social responsibility;
   (au) consider it of utmost importance that European-based corporations respect ILO standards on trade union rights as well as environmental and health and safety standards when operating in Kazakhstan, and particularly in the extractive sector of the economy;
   (av) ensure in the negotiations that the use of dumping practices in connection with phosphorus production and export is categorically ruled out, as the interests of European producers are allegedly being harmed by dumped imports and it is impossible to retrieve and recycle phosphorus from secondary phosphorus streams;
   (aw) ensure an adequate presence of economic and trade specialists in the EU Delegation in Kazakhstan;
   (ax) consult the EP regarding the provisions on parliamentary cooperation; enhance the role of Parliament, Parliamentary Cooperation Committees and inter-parliamentary meetings as means to monitor the negotiation and implementation of partnership agreements; encourage Parliament’s efforts to promote dialogue and regular bilateral and multilateral parliamentary cooperation;
   (ay) ensure that the new PCA refers to respect for democratic principles, fundamental and human rights and the principle of the rule of law as ‘essential elements’ of the agreement, so that failure to observe them by any of the parties would result in the adoption of measures which could eventually lead to the suspension of the agreement;
   (az) include, together with the Kazakh authorities, clear benchmarks and binding deadlines for the implementation of the new PCA, and provide for a comprehensive monitoring mechanism, including regular reports to the EP, which would also apply in advance of Cooperation Council meetings;
  (ba) establish a comprehensive monitoring mechanism between Parliament and EEAS once the Agreement is concluded, so as to allow for comprehensive and regular information on the implementation of the PCA, and in particular of its objectives; this mechanism should contain the following elements:
   (i) provision to the EP of information on the objectives pursued by EU actions and positions, and on all issues relating to Kazakhstan;
  (ii) provision to the EP of information benchmarking the results of actions undertaken by the EU and Kazakhstan, highlighting the evolution in the situation of human rights, democracy and the rule of law in the country, in particular through:
   allowing access under the appropriate confidentiality procedures to the relevant EEAS internal documents;
   granting Parliament observer status in the briefing meetings ahead of meetings of the Cooperation Council, and access to documents provided to the Council and Commission;
   involvement of civil society in the preparation of this information and the assessment of the situation;
   (bb) encourage the EU negotiating team to continue its close cooperation with the EP, providing ongoing information supported by documentation on the progress of the negotiations pursuant to Article 218(10) TFEU, which states that Parliament shall be immediately and fully informed at all stages of the procedure;
   (bc) provide sufficient EU funding for a comprehensive and sustainable cooperation with the Central Asian countries, including for the successful implementation of the new PCA with Kazakhstan;

3.  Instructs its President to forward this resolution containing the European Parliament’s recommendations to the Council, the Commission, the HR/VP and the Government and Parliament of the Republic of Kazakhstan.

(1) OJ L 196, 28.7.1999, p.1; OJ L 248, 21.9.1999, p. 35.
(2) Texts adopted, P7_TA(2012)0089.
(3) OJ C 224 E, 19.8.2010, p. 30.
(4) OJ C 371 E, 20.12.2011, p. 5.
(5) Texts adopted, P7_TA(2011)0588.
(6) Texts adopted, P7_TA(2012)0058.


Small-scale and artisanal fisheries and CFP reform
PDF 171kWORD 37k
European Parliament resolution of 22 November 2012 on small-scale coastal fishing, artisanal fishing and the reform of the common fisheries policy (2011/2292(INI))
P7_TA(2012)0460A7-0291/2012

The European Parliament,

–  having regard to the reform of the common fisheries policy (CFP),

–  having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU), and in particular Articles 43(2) and 349 thereof,

–  having regard to Article 349 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union on measures taking account of the special characteristics and constraints of the outermost regions,

–  having regard to the Commission Green Paper entitled ‘Reform of the Common Fisheries Policy’ (COM(2009)0163),

–  whereas the future EMFF should guarantee the right of local populations to fish, for family consumption, in accordance with specific customs and to maintain their traditional economic activities,

–  having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 2371/2002 of 20 December 2002 on the conservation and sustainable exploitation of fisheries resources under the common fisheries policy,(1)

–  having regard to the regulation applicable to the European Fisheries Fund (EFF), namely Council Regulation (EC) No 1198/2006(2) laying down the detailed rules and arrangements regarding Community structural assistance in the fisheries sector,

–  having regard to its resolution of 15 December 2005 on ‘women’s networks: fishing, farming and diversification’,(3)

–  having regard to its resolution of 15 June 2006 on inshore fishing and the problems encountered by inshore fishermen,(4)

–  having regard to its resolution of 2 September 2008 on fisheries and aquaculture in the context of Integrated Coastal Zone Management in Europe,(5)

–  having regard to its resolution of 16 February 2012 on the contribution of the common fisheries policy to the production of public goods(6),

–  having regard to its resolution of 25 February 2010 on the Green Paper on reform of the Common Fisheries Policy,(7)

–  having regard to the new proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on the Common Fisheries Policy (COM(2011)0425),

–  having regard to the proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on the European Maritime and Fisheries Fund, repealing Council Regulation (EC) No 1198/2006 and Council Regulation (EC) No 861/2006 and Council Regulation No XXX/2011 on integrated maritime policy (COM(2011)0804),

–  having regard to the new proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on the common organisation of the markets in fishery and aquaculture products (COM(2011)0416),

–  having regard to the communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions entitled ‘Reform of the Common Fisheries Policy’ (COM(2011)0417),

–  having regard to the communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions on the external dimension of the Common Fisheries Policy (COM(2011)0424),

–  having regard to the report from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions on reporting obligations under Council Regulation (EC) No 2371/2002 of 20 December 2002 on the conservation and sustainable exploitation of fisheries resources under the Common Fisheries Policy (COM(2011)0418),

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

–  having regard to the report of the Committee on Fisheries and the opinions of the Committee on Regional Development and the Committee on Women’s Rights and Gender Equality (A7-0291/2012),

A.  whereas small-scale fishing – comprising artisanal fishing and some types of coastal/inshore fishing, shellfishing and other traditional extensive aquaculture activities such as the natural breeding of molluscs in inshore waters – has a very diverse territorial, social and cultural impact in mainland and island areas and in the outermost regions, and has specific problems that set it apart from large-scale fishing and from intensive or industrial aquaculture;

B.  whereas, for the purposes of the new Fisheries Policy Regulation, it is necessary to define what should be understood as artisanal fishing, and to take account of the repercussions that this type of fishing will have for funding under the new European Maritime and Fisheries Fund;

C.  whereas the artisanal or coastal fleet is vital for maintaining and creating employment in coastal regions and helps ensure the EU’s self-sufficiency in terms of food, as well as the development of coastal areas and the supply of fishery products to the European market;

D.  whereas some 80% of fishing in the Community is carried out by vessels under 15 metres, making this fleet segment the leading player in the CFP; whereas the CFP must provide an adequate, sufficient and necessary response to the problems which, despite the successive measures made available to the Member States, continue to be faced by a large part of the small-scale fishing sector;

E.  whereas the coastal and artisanal fishing sector has ageing vessels that should be made safer and modernised, or even replaced with new vessels that are more energy efficient and are compliant with safety standards;

F.  whereas there is a scarcity of statistical data and indicators at European level in terms of social, economic and territorial cohesion, and it is necessary to promote indicators that provide socio-economic, scientific and environmental data which reflect the geographical, environmental and socio-economic diversity of this type of fishing;

G.  whereas the absence of reliable scientific data remains a serious problem in terms of seeking to achieve sustainable management of most fish stocks;

H.  whereas in defining a fisheries policy, in addition to essential environmental objectives relating to the conservation of fisheries resources, social and economic objectives must also be considered, as they have been neglected, particularly in the case of small-scale fishing;

I.  whereas the current centralised management of the CFP frequently produces guidelines that are divorced from reality, poorly understood by the sector (which is not involved in discussing or developing them), and difficult to implement, producing results that are often the opposite of those intended;

J.  whereas management models based on transferable fishing rights cannot be considered as measures for tackling overfishing and overcapacity;

K.  whereas a compulsory reduction in the fleet achieved exclusively through market instruments, such as transferable fishing concessions (TFC), could lead to the prevalence of operators that are more competitive from a purely economic point of view, to the detriment of the operators and sectors of the fleet that have a lower environmental impact and create more (direct and indirect) employment;

L.  whereas the economic and social crisis is particularly affecting the fisheries sector, and in this context small-scale fishing may be more vulnerable owing to its low capitalisation; whereas it is important to ensure the economic and social stability of small-scale fishing communities;

M.  whereas its structural weaknesses mean that small-scale coastal or artisanal fishing is exposed to certain types of economic shock (such as rapidly rising fuel prices or lack of access to credit) and to rapid changes in the availability of resources;

N.  whereas the specific characteristics of small-scale fishing constitute an aspect that must be taken into account in the future CFP, but at the same time must not be the sole focus of the social dimension of the reform, given the severe crisis currently affecting the entire sector;

O.  whereas first-sale fish prices are not keeping pace with the current significant rise in production costs, particularly for fuel, and in many cases are either stagnant or falling, thus adding to the crisis facing the sector;

P.  whereas the market does not fully remunerate the positive social and environmental externalities associated with small-scale fishing; whereas society as a whole does not recognise or remunerate the activities associated with fishing which constitute the sector’s multifunctional aspect and produce public goods by, inter alia, stimulating the coastline, gastronomy, museology and recreational angling, to the benefit of society as a whole;

Q.  whereas the future European Maritime and Fisheries Fund (EMFF) should fully take into account the specific problems and needs of artisanal and small-scale fishing, both in coastal and inland areas, as well as the consequences for both men and women of the implementation of the measures included in the future reform;

R.  whereas the specific diseases that affect women working in the artisanal fishing sector are not recognised as occupational diseases;

S.  whereas creating exclusion zones contributes to the development of responsible practices, to the sustainability of both coastal marine ecosystems and traditional fishing activities, and to the survival of fishing communities;

T.  whereas small-scale coastal fishing and artisanal fishing have very different characteristics which vary from country to country and coast to coast;

U.  whereas the importance of small-scale fisheries for the protection of minority languages in isolated, coastal areas cannot be ignored;

V.  whereas the level of association and organisation of small-scale fishing professionals is insufficient and unequal in the various Member States;

W.  whereas Article 349 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union refers to the need to promote policies specific to the outermost regions, particularly in the fisheries sector;

1.  Considers that small-scale fishing comprises artisanal fishing and some types of coastal/inshore fishing, shellfishing and other traditional extensive aquaculture activities such as the natural breeding of molluscs in inshore waters;

2.  Stresses that small-scale fishing, by reason of its characteristics and its weight within the sector, has a pivotal role to play in achieving what should be the fundamental objectives of any fisheries policy: ensuring fish supplies to the public and the development of coastal communities, and promoting employment and improved living standards for fishing professionals, within a context of ensuring that resources are sustainable and are properly conserved;

3.  Considers that the specific characteristics of the small-scale fishing segment should not under any circumstances be used as an excuse to exclude this segment from the general framework of the CFP, although that policy should be sufficiently flexible to enable management systems to be adapted to the specific characteristics and problems of artisanal fishing;

4.  Points out that the specific characteristics of small-scale fishing vary greatly from one Member State to another, and that opting for the lowest common denominator has rarely proved a constructive approach to European decision-making;

5.  Believes that the starting-point should be a generic definition of artisanal fishing that prevents the widely varying circumstances to be found in the fisheries sector, depending on fishing grounds, type of stocks fished and any other features specific to a given local area, from resulting in non-fulfilment of the objectives of simplification, legislative clarity and non-discrimination; also believes that the CFP should include measures allowing a degree of flexibility in scientifically proven cases in which fishing would not be possible without certain adjustments being made to the general rules;

6.  Draws attention to the need to take due account of the existing scientific studies on small-scale fishing; notes that some of those studies present proposals for a definition of ‘small-scale fishing’, as in the case of the PRESPO project for sustainable development of artisanal fisheries in the Atlantic area, which proposes an approach based on numerical descriptors for the definition and segmentation of European artisanal fishing fleets;

7.  Considers that the definition of small-scale fishing should take account of a range of national and regional characteristics and differences in terms of governance, including, inter alia, respect for an artisanal tradition rooted in the area, with family involvement in both the ownership and activities of fisheries undertakings; stresses that it is important to formulate definition criteria that are flexible and/or can be combined and adapted in a balanced way to the diversity of small-scale fishing existing in the EU;

Local management

8.  Considers that the over-centralised model of fisheries management that has characterised the CFP over the last 30 years has been a failure, and that the current reform must bring about meaningful decentralisation; believes the reform of the CFP must create conditions that allow for local, regional and national specificities; stresses that local management, backed up by scientific knowledge and consultation and participation of the sector in defining, implementing, co-managing and evaluating policy, is the management type that best meets fishing needs and provides the greatest incentives for preventive behaviour among fishermen;

9.  Considers that Regional Advisory Councils (RACs), in the new context of a decentralised and regionalised CFP, should play a much greater role in the future Common Fisheries Policy;

10.  Considers it vital to strengthen the role of the advisory committees and to consider collaboration and co-management of resources, thus making it possible to preserve the nature of these committees, with their value enhanced so that they become a management forum, without decision-making powers but in which stakeholders from the sector and NGOs would participate, thereby permitting the addressing of horizontal questions concerning the specific issue of artisanal fishing;

11.  Considers that the imposition of a single model for all the Member States, such as transferable fishing concessions (TFCs), does not constitute an appropriate solution, in view of the huge diversity that characterises fishing in the EU;

12.  Considers it advantageous to have different models of fisheries management available to Member States and/or regions under a voluntary system, where they are free to choose for themselves within the framework of a regionalised CFP;

13.  Strongly rejects the mandatory implementation of TFCs for any type of fleet; believes that the decision as to whether or not to adopt TFCs and which sectors of the fleet to include in this scheme should be left to the Member States in agreement with the competent regions, taking account of the diversity of situations and the opinions of stakeholders; believes it is already possible for Member States to establish a system of transferable fishing concessions in their national legislation;

14.  Draws attention to the fact that the TFC system cannot be seen as an infallible measure for resolving problems of overfishing and excess capacity; stresses that a regulatory approach that can make the required adjustments to fishing capacity is always a possible alternative to a market approach;

15.  Considers that, once the general management objectives have been set out, the Member States and the competent regions should be given flexibility to decide on the management rules best suited to achieving these objectives within the framework of regionalisation, specifically as regards the right of access to fisheries resources and taking account of the specific characteristics of their fleets, fisheries and resources;

16.  Notes the importance of ensuring that all relevant interested parties are involved in the development of policies concerning small-scale coastal fishing and artisanal fishing;

17.  Draws attention to the importance of taking into account not only the quantity of the fleet but also its cumulative impact on resources and the selectivity and sustainability of its fishing methods; considers that the future CFP should encourage the increased sustainability of the fleet in environmental, economic and social terms (state of repair and safety, habitability, working conditions, energy efficiency, fish storage, etc), by promoting the progressive prevalence of sectors and operators that use selective fishing techniques and fishing gear with less impact on resources and the marine environment, and that benefit the communities of which they are part in terms of generating jobs and of the quality of those jobs; defends a sustainable balance between protecting existing fisheries resources in maritime areas and protecting the local socio-economic fabric that depends on fishing and shellfishing;

Characteristics of the fleet

18.  Rejects a general and indiscriminate reduction in the capacity of the fleet and emphasises that, where necessary it cannot be adjusted solely and obligatorily on the basis of market criteria; considers that such adjustments must be based on an ecosystemic approach, in which the specific decisions relating to managing the small-scale fleet are taken at regional level, respecting the subsidiarity principle, ensuring a tailored fishing regime that gives priority of access to resources and protects the small-scale fleets, and ensuring that communities are involved; calls for a study of the state of the fleet capacity in the EU to be carried out as a matter of urgency;

19.  Rejects any general reduction in the capacity of a given fleet solely and obligatorily on the basis of market criteria and imposed by a potential and unwanted enforcement of transferable fishing concessions;

20.  Highlights the importance of further research in the field of social, economic and territorial cohesion; points to the need for statistics and indicators at European level that would provide reliable and sufficiently pertinent socio-economic, scientific and environmental data, including broad assessment of fish stocks and catches in both professional and recreational fishing, and calls for the provision of sufficient resources to achieve this; believes such data should also reflect the full range of geographical, cultural and regional differences;

21.  Urges the Commission to conduct an assessment of EU fleet capacity so as to enable the most appropriate decisions to be taken;

22.  Calls on the Commission to monitor and adjust fleet capacity ceilings for Member States so that they are in line with reliable data and technical advances are taken into account;

23.  Points out that the management of small-scale fishing is made more demanding and challenging by the large number of vessels involved and the wide variations in techniques and fisheries; stresses that the availability of information is crucial for effective management, and that more and better information on small-scale fishing is needed;

24.  Urges the Commission to work with the Member States, the RACs and stakeholders to improve the characterisation of small-scale fishing and to map its distribution in the EU for the purposes of fisheries management; urges the Commission, in particular and in conjunction with the Member States, to conduct an exhaustive and rigorous study of the size, characteristics and distribution of the different small-scale fishing sectors, analysing as rigorously as possible where, when and how they fish, in order to identify fleet segments in which there is overcapacity and the causes thereof;

25.  Points out that currently the Community cofinances no more than 50% of the budget for gathering, processing and distributing biological data, which is used to support knowledge-based management; calls, accordingly, for the Community to increase its efforts in this area by raising the maximum permissible level for cofinancing;

26.  Warns of the need to deepen understanding of the current position of recreational fishing and its development, including its economic, social and environmental impact; draws attention to situations in which recreational fishing goes beyond its scope and competes illegitimately with professional fishing in the catching and marketing of fish, causing a reduction in market quotas at local and regional level and lowering first-sale prices;

Supporting measures

27.  Recognises that the new EMFF has been designed to enable the coastal and artisanal fleet sectors in particular to obtain funding; recognises that, on the basis of the general framework facilitated by the EMFF, the Member States have to set their funding priorities in such a way as to respond to the specific problems of this sector and support the local and sustainable management of the fisheries concerned;

28.  Advocates the need to maintain a fund that retains the principal of greater support for cofinanced activities in the outermost regions, as well as preserving the specific compensation instruments for the extra costs associated with fisheries activity and the distribution of fisheries products, considering the structural limitations that affect the fisheries sector in these regions;

29.  Emphasises that, given the precarious situation and decline of some coastal communities that depend on fishing, as well as the lack of alternatives for economic diversification, the existing instruments, funds and mechanisms should be reinforced in order to ensure cohesion in terms of employment and ecological sustainability; believes there should be specific acknowledgment of this in the new CFP and MFF framework; also emphasises the need to focus on greater co-management and involvement of the artisanal fishing sector in decision-making, by promoting local and regional strategies and crossborder cooperation in this field, encompassing development, research and training projects and with the appropriate EMFF, ESF and ERDF funding;

30.  Calls on the Member States to take account of the importance of the economic, social and cultural roles of women in the fishing industry, so that women can have access to social benefits; emphasises that the active participation of women in fishing-related activities helps firstly to preserve specific cultural traditions and practices, and secondly to ensure the survival of their communities, thereby safeguarding the cultural diversity of the regions concerned;

31.  Considers that the rules on implementing the future EMFF should make it possible to finance actions, inter alia in the following areas:

   improving safety, living conditions and on-board working conditions, improving catch preservation, and making vessels more economically and environmentally sustainable (selection of techniques, energy efficiency, etc) while not increasing their fishing capacity;
   investment in more sustainable fishing gear;
   promotion of young people’s increased involvement in the sector’s activities and keeping them involved, through a special incentive scheme in response to the employment and sustainability challenges the sector is facing, as well as through start-up packages aimed at securing the entry of a new generation of fishermen into small-scale fisheries;
   construction of specialised fishing ports and specific facilities for the landing, storage and sale of fishery products;
   support for associations, organisations and cooperatives of the sector’s professionals;
   promotion of quality policies;
   promotion of the cohesion of the economic and social fabric of the coastal communities most dependant on small-scale fishing, with a particular focus on the outermost regions, in order to stimulate those coastal regions’ development;
   support for sustainable shellfishing practices, inter alia by offering assistance to those carrying out this activity, many of them women, who suffer from work-related diseases;
   support for the promotion and marketing of artisanal fishery and extensive aquaculture products, through the creation of a European label to distinguish and identify European artisanal fishery and shellfish products, provided they comply with good sustainability practices and the principles of the Common Fisheries Policy;
   support for education and marketing campaigns to make consumers and young people aware of the value of consuming fish from small-scale fisheries, including the positive effects on the local economy and the environment;
   allocation of financing under the European Maritime and Fisheries Fund in such a way as to make the fisheries sector more women-friendly by redesigning the sector and providing suitable facilities (such as changing-rooms on boats or in ports);
   support for associations of women such as net-makers, port workers and packers;
   vocational training, including training for women working in the fisheries sector, aimed at improving their access to managerial and technical jobs related to fishing;
   enhancing women's role in fishing, in particular by granting support for activities carried out on land, for related professionals and for activities associated with fishing, both upstream and downstream;

32.  Stresses that access to funds from the future EMFF should favour projects offering integrated solutions that benefit coastal communities as a whole, rather than those that benefit only a small number of operators; considers that access to EMFF funds should be guaranteed for fishermen and their families and not just for shipowners;

33.  Stresses that the common organisation of the market (COM) in fishery and aquaculture products should contribute to enabling a greater output of small-scale fishing, market stability, improved marketing of fisheries products and an increase in their value added; expresses concern at the possibility of abolition of the still-existing public market regulation instruments, public regulatory bodies and supports for storage on land, and calls for an ambitious reform that enhances the COM’s instruments for achieving its goals;

34.  Proposes the creation of a European label rewarding small-scale fishery products obtained in accordance with the principles of the CFP, in order to encourage best practice;

35.  Advocates the creation of mechanisms that ensure recognition of the so-called externalities generated by small-scale fishing that are not remunerated by the market, in terms of both the environment and the economic and social cohesion of coastal communities;

36.  Considers it important to promote a fair and adequate distribution of value added along the sector's value chain;

37.  Calls for strict monitoring and certification of fisheries products imported from third countries to ensure that they originate from sustainable fisheries and that they meet the same requirements that Community producers have to comply with (e.g. with regard to labelling, traceability, phytosanitary regulations and minimum sizes);

38.  Advocates the creation (within the framework of the EMFF or of other instruments) of specific and temporary support mechanisms to be implemented in emergencies such as natural or man-made disasters (oil slicks, water pollution, etc), fishing stoppages imposed by plans for restoring stocks or restructuring, or sudden short-term increases in fuel prices;

39.  Calls on the Commission and the Member States to take steps to ensure that women benefit from equal pay and other social and economic rights, including insurance covering the risks to which they are exposed by working in the fisheries sector and recognition of their specific disorders as occupational diseases;

40.  Recognises that temporary fishing bans, otherwise known as biological rest periods, are an important and proven means of conserving fishery resources, as well as being an essential instrument for sustainably managing specific fisheries; recognises that establishing fishing bans during specific critical phases in the life-cycle of a species allows stocks to develop in a way that is compatible with fishing outside the rest period; believes is fair and necessary under these circumstances to financially compensate fishermen during the inactivity period, specifically through the EMFF;

41.  Calls on the Commission and the Member States to contemplate ways of achieving positive discrimination in favour of small-scale fishing as against large-scale fishing and fleets of a more industrialised nature, while ensuring that the management of fisheries as a whole is effective and sustainable; considers that spatially segregating different fishing techniques and thus defining areas reserved exclusively for small-scale fishing, is one of the options for consideration;

42.  Calls on the Commission and the Member States to take steps to promote and achieve greater recognition, both legal and social, for the work of women in the fisheries sector, and to ensure that women who work full- or part-time for family undertakings or assist their spouses, thereby contributing to their own economic sustainability and that of their families, receive legal recognition or social benefits equivalent to those enjoyed by people with self-employed status, in particular by applying Directive 2010/41/EU, and that their social and economic rights are guaranteed, including equal pay, the right to unemployment benefit if they lose their jobs (temporarily or permanently), the right to a pension, work-life balance, access to maternity leave, access to social security and free healthcare, and workplace health and safety, as well as other social and economic rights including insurance covering risks at sea;

43.  Advocates retaining the special access regime for small-scale fisheries within the twelve-mile zone;

44.  Considers it necessary to involve small-scale fishing, in particular, in exchanges on the spatial planning of the twelve-mile zone, where there are generally more usages and offshore wind turbines, as well as gravel extraction and marine protected areas, often having to exist alongside fishing activities in the same zone;

45.  Draws attention to the need for greater involvement and participation of small-scale fishing professionals in the management, definition and implementation of fisheries policies; underlines the importance of giving greater support to fishermen’s groups and professional organisations that are willing to share responsibility for applying the CFP, with a view to further decentralising the policy; urges small-scale fisheries operators either to join existing producers’ organisations or form new such organisations;

o
o   o

46.  Instructs its President to forward this resolution to the Council, the Commission, the European Economic and Social Committee, the Committee of the Regions, the Governments of the Member States and the Regional Advisory Councils.

(1) OJ L 358, 31.12.2002, p. 59.
(2) OJ L 223, 15.8.2006, p. 1.
(3) OJ C 286 E, 23.11.2006, p. 519.
(4) OJ C 300 E, 9.12.2006, p. 504.
(5) OJ C 295 E, 4.12.2009, p. 1.
(6) Texts adopted, P7_TA(2012)0052.
(7) OJ C 348 E, 21.12.2010, p. 15.


External dimension of the common fisheries policy
PDF 169kWORD 41k
European Parliament resolution of 22 November 2012 on the external dimension of the Common Fisheries Policy (2011/2318(INI))
P7_TA(2012)0461A7-0290/2012

The European Parliament,

–  having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU),

–  having regard to the Commission communication of 13 July 2011 on the External Dimension of the Common Fisheries Policy (the Communication) (COM(2011)0424),

–  having regard to the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea of 10 December 1982 (UNCLOS),

–  having regard to the 1995 Agreement for the Implementation of the Provisions of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea of 10 December 1982 relating to the Conservation and Management of Straddling Fish Stocks and Highly Migratory Fish Stocks,

–  having regard to the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) Code of Conduct for Responsible Fisheries, adopted in October 1995 by the FAO Conference (the Code of Conduct),

–  having regard to the Convention on Access to Information, Public Participation in Decision-Making and Access to Justice in Environmental Matters, adopted in June 1998 in Aarhus,

–  having regard to the FAO International Plan of Action for the Management of Fishing Capacity, endorsed by the FAO Council in November 2000 (IPOA-Capacity),

–  having regard to the FAO Report on the State of the World Fisheries and Aquaculture 2010,

–  having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1005/2008 of 29 September 2008 establishing a Community system to prevent, deter and eliminate illegal, unreported and unregulated fishing (IUU Regulation)(1) and Council Regulation (EC) No 1006/2008 of 29 September 2008 concerning authorisations for fishing activities of Community fishing vessels outside Community waters and the access of third country vessels to Community waters (the Fishing Authorisations Regulation)(2),

–  having regard to the Commission proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on the Common Fisheries Policy (the Basic Regulation) (COM(2011)0425),

–  having regard to its resolution of 17 November 2011 on combating illegal fishing at the global level - the role of the EU(3),

–  having regard to its resolution of 25 February 2010 on the Green Paper on the reform of the Common Fisheries Policy(4),

–  having regard to its resolution of 8 July 2010 on the arrangements for importing fishery and aquaculture products into the EU with a view to the future reform of the CFP(5),

–  having regard to its resolution of 12 May 2011 on the EU-Mauritania Fisheries Partnership Agreement(6),

–  having regard to its resolution of 14 December 2011 on the future Protocol setting out the fishing opportunities and financial compensation provided for in the Fisheries Partnership Agreement between the European Community and the Kingdom of Morocco(7),

–  having regard to the conclusions adopted at the meeting of the Agriculture and Fisheries Council on 19–20 March 2012 on the external dimension of the CFP,

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

–  having regard to the report of the Committee on Fisheries and the opinions of the Committee on Development and of the Committee on International Trade (A7-0290/2012),

A.  whereas two-thirds of the world's oceans lie beyond areas under national jurisdiction, where any comprehensive and exhaustive legal regime for fisheries management must be based on the 1982 UN Convention on the Law of the Sea and relevant legal instruments; whereas sustainable management of fisheries is of strategic importance to coastal communities dependent on fishing and to food security;

B.  whereas 85 % of the few fish stocks globally for which information is available are either fully exploited or overexploited, according to the most recent assessment by the FAO, even though the FAO 2010 report points to progress in the recovery of overexploited stocks and marine ecosystems around the world due to the implementation of good management practices;

C.  whereas the EU is one of the main fishing players with a strong presence and significant activities in all the world’s oceans through a combination of fleet activities, investments by EU nationals, bilateral fisheries agreements and participation in all of the major Regional Fisheries Management Organisations (RFMOs) while encouraging good practice and respect for human rights;

D.   whereas the EU is one of the most important markets for fishery products and the biggest importer in the world of fish products, consuming 11 % of the world’s fish production in terms of volume and importing 24 % of fishery products in terms of value, even though it only accounts for 8 % of the world’s catch (2 % when considering solely foreign waters);

E.  whereas quotas in RFMOs have been primarily based on historical catches, which led to preferential access for developed countries to global fish stocks; whereas they must now take account of fishing by coastal developing countries which have depended upon adjacent fisheries resources for generations, a fact which must be respected by the EU;

F.  whereas the EU has to seek policy coherence for development on the basis of Article 208(1) of the TFEU, according to which ‘The Union shall take account of the objectives of development cooperation in the policies that it implements which are likely to affect developing countries’;

G.  whereas the EU must equally apply all of its other policies in relation to non-member countries - including fishing, health, trade, employment, environment, common foreign policy objectives and the fulfilment of the 2020 European Strategy - in a consistent and coordinated way;

H.  whereas, in order to ensure sustainable fishing, there is in many cases a need to improve data on fish stocks that the EU is fishing, or which are destined for the EU market, in terms of their status, and to ensure that information on total removals by local fleets and other third country fleets is available;

I.  whereas rigorous scientific studies will be required in order to determine in which fisheries fleet overcapacity is occurring or may occur;

J.  whereas the CFP must provide a tool that enables the EU to demonstrate to the world how fishing can be practised as a responsible activity and how to promote improvement of the international management of fisheries applying European fleet management standards;

K.  whereas the EU must assume a key role in mobilising the international community in the campaign against IUU fishing;

1.  Welcomes the Commission’s Communication and the many positive proposals it includes for encouraging the sustainability of the EU’s overall fishing and related activities outside EU waters, including the outermost regions; considers, however, that the scope of the document is not broad enough, being too concentrated on bilateral agreements and multilateral organisations and that it should take an integrated approach to other activities seeking to procure products destined for the EU market;

2.  Insists on the need for the EU to work on the basis that Union policy coherence converges on improving the governance of international fishing;

3.  Considers it of major importance to coordinate foreign policy and cooperation policy for the purpose of establishing sustainable fishing agreements, and to provide the necessary synergies to make a more effective contribution to the development of associated third countries;

4.  Considers that the size of the EU market for fisheries products and the geographical range of activities by EU-flagged and EU-owned vessels impose a high level of responsibility on the Union for ensuring that its fisheries’ ecological footprint and socio-economic impact are sustainable, providing high quality fisheries products to consumers in Europe and other countries where European fisheries and related products are marketed, and contributing to the social and economic fabric of coastal fishing communities both inside the EU and elsewhere;

5.  Believes that fishing by EU interests inside and outside Union waters, and fishery products destined for the EU market, should be based upon the same standards in terms of ecological and social sustainability and transparency, and that these same principles must be defended and required of third countries, both bilaterally and multilaterally; and considers that the discard ban should be applied, in parallel to its introduction in EU waters, to the same species, with monitoring by CCTV and observers, with appropriate derogations to avoid price fluctuations for locally consumed produce;

6.  Recalls the need for EU policies to be coherent with the development objectives as set out in Article 208 TFEU; notes that such coherence requires coordination not only within the Commission itself but also within Member States’ governments, and between the Commission and the governments of the individual Member States;

7.  Reiterates that for the purpose of improving coherence of its decisions, the actions of the EU must incorporate the aspects relating to its policies on trade, health, employment, neighbourhood, the environment, maritime policy, foreign policy and the fulfilment of the 2020 European strategy;

8.  Recalls that the IPOA-Capacity (International Plan of Action for the Management of Fishing Capacity) committed the EU, no later than 2005, to develop and implement a system for the management of fishing capacity; requests the Commission to explain why it appears to be pursuing contradictory approaches to the management of capacity by proposing a freeze in certain RFMOs while proposing to remove the main regulatory limits to capacity within the EU’s fleets; requests the Commission to promote bilateral and multilateral mechanisms for the adjustment of fishing capacity to the available resources, which are identified as necessary for the sustainable exploitation of resources by all fleets that operate in these areas;

9.  Considers that the objectives and principles of the external dimension of the CFP should be enshrined in the Basic Regulation;

General Provisions

10.  Underlines that the maintenance of the present fishing agreements and the search for new fishing opportunities in third countries must be a priority objective of external fishing policy, recognising that when the EU fleet ceases to operate in the fisheries of a third country, such fishing rights are normally redistributed among other fleets that have much lower standards of conservation, management and sustainability than those advocated and defended by the EU;

11.  Urges the Commission to support clearly defined principles and objectives for environmentally, economically and socially sustainable fisheries on the high seas and in waters under national jurisdiction at all international forums to which the EU is a party, and to rapidly and effectively implement decisions made there;

12.  Stresses that the EU should develop a specific strategy in the field of fisheries and management of living marine resources, involving all non-European Mediterranean coastal states;

13.  Urges the Commission to drive forward the global and multilateral agenda promoting sustainable fisheries and the conservation of marine biodiversity, while transforming its dialogues with countries such as the USA, Japan, Russia and China and other third countries with a strong fishing presence in the world’s oceans, into effective partnerships to address crucial issues such as the eradication of illegal, unreported and unregulated (IUU) fishing, the reduction of both over-fishing and fleet capacity where necessary, and the strengthening of high seas control and governance in line with the principles of UNCLOS and other relevant instruments;

14.  Urges the Commission to promote international law, notably UNCLOS and participation in ILO conventions and to monitor compliance with these rules; encourages the Commission to cooperate with third countries in all appropriate forums, especially in RFMOs;

15.  Believes that the EU should launch an initiative at UN level to set up a global catch and traceability documentation scheme for all major fish species that enter international trade, founded on the principle of flag State responsibility and compatible with the IUU regulation, as a key tool to strengthen compliance with existing conservation and management measures and combat IUU fishing so as to promote responsible consumption;

16.  Calls for the Commission to be more vigorous in applying Council Regulation (EC) No 1005/2008 on IUU fishing, particularly in relation to the contracting parties of the RFMOs that do not actively collaborate in establishing and applying the principal mechanisms of the campaign against IUU fishing;

17.  Considers that the EU should be active within the UN system to explore means for the global community to address:

   the need for more regionalised and integrated global ocean governance, regarding both living marine resources and other resources,
   pollution and the impacts of climate change on the oceans, including the protection and rehabilitation of precious blue carbon sinks, and
   social standards and working conditions;

18.  Notes the importance of the negotiations in the World Trade Organisation (WTO) on subsidy discipline in the fisheries sector, and calls on the EU to play a more active role in these discussions;

19.  Notes the need to create mechanisms for promoting fishery products that are sustainably sourced from an ecological perspective, and fair from a social perspective, within the EU and beyond;

20.  Notes that one of the priority objectives of the external dimension of the CFP must be to guarantee the future of the European long-distance fleet, particularly in so far as it holds fishing rights that have served as the basis for the economic and social development of the countries in which it operates;

Bilateral Fisheries Agreements

21.  Considers that bilateral fisheries agreements, or Sustainable Fisheries Agreements (SFA) as the Commission proposes to call them, negotiated between partners and equitably implemented, should be based on responsible and sustainable exploitation of resources by EU vessels and be of benefit to both parties, facilitating the provision of economic resources, technical and scientific expertise and support for improved fisheries management and good governance to the third country, while enabling the continuation of fishing activities that are socio-economically important and a source of supply for the EU and for the markets of certain developing countries, for both fresh and processed products;

22.  Calls for the EU to aim at concluding, as soon as possible, Sustainable Fisheries Cooperation Agreements with neighbouring countries where the EU provides funding and technical support in order to achieve a more concerted and coherent policy, with the aim of achieving a harmonised and sustainable fisheries policy in all shared sea basins, thereby increasing the effectiveness of the CFP in all the regions concerned; calls for these agreements to be concluded in the spirit of fair and equitable cooperation and respect for human rights, and to aim at sharing responsibilities fairly between the Union and the respective partner country;

23.  Calls for the EU, in order to improve both cooperation with neighbouring countries and the management of shared stocks, to seek to conclude sustainable fisheries cooperation agreements with these countries which should aim not at obtaining fishing rights for EU vessels but at achieving a situation where the EU could provide funding and technical support with the aim of attaining comparable sustainable management rules as the EU in the third partner country;

24.  Recalls that in evaluating the impact of what are now called Sustainable Fisheries Agreements (SFAs), it is important to correctly distinguish between the aid directed at developing the fisheries sector in third countries and that which results from paying for fishing rights;

25.  Regrets, however, that EU bilateral agreements have not always achieved the above-mentioned potential benefits, and highlights the need to conduct impact assessments for the outermost regions, whenever these are involved, taking account of Article 349 of the Treaty, while recognising that much improvement has been made since the previous reform; considers that improved scientific stock assessment, transparency, compliance with objectives, benefits for the local population, and improving governance of fisheries are key for successful agreements;

26.  Welcomes the intention of the Commission to include several provisions in future bilateral agreements, including: respect for the principle of limiting access to resources that are scientifically demonstrated to be surplus for the coastal State in line with the provisions of UNCLOS; safeguarding human rights in line with international agreements on human rights; and an exclusivity clause, though this must be strengthened and formally recognised through agreements, ensuring in all cases the strictest respect for democratic principles;

27.  Considers that EU bilateral agreements must respect not only Article 62 of UNCLOS regarding surplus stocks but also Articles 69 and 70 on the rights of landlocked and geographically disadvantaged states within the region, especially with respect to the nutritional and socio-economic needs of local populations;

28.  Takes the view that the clause on human rights must be implemented without discrimination and must apply equally to all countries, not only to fishing agreements but also to trade agreements; considers that through the WTO we must work towards penalising production in countries that have yet to recognise human rights or use child labour in manufacturing production, as well as discriminating against women by not rewarding or recognising their activities and their economic contribution in fisheries and aquaculture;

29.  Encourages implementation of integrated ecosystem-based management in new and existing agreements;

30.  Considers that the increased contribution made by undertakings to future fishing agreements must be in line with a greater capacity to influence the individual sector under the technical measures and standards that the Commission negotiates in such agreements;

31.  Considers that the Fishing Authorisations Regulation should be amended so that EU-flagged vessels which have temporarily left the register of a Member State to seek fishing opportunities elsewhere are not allowed to benefit for a period of 24 months from fishing opportunities under the SFA or the protocols in force at the time when they left the register if they subsequently return to an EU register; considers that the same should apply to temporarily reflagging while fishing under RFMOs;

32.  Considers that the currently used social clause should be strengthened to include respect for International Labour Organisation (ILO) Convention 188, ILO Recommendation 199 on work in fishing, as well as the eight ILO Fundamental Conventions(8), and ensure that working conditions for crew members domiciled outside the EU and working on board vessels flying an EU flag should be equal to those of workers domiciled in the EU;

33.  Believes that SFAs should contribute to sustainable development in third partner countries and encourage the local private sector, with a particular emphasis on small-scale fisheries and SMEs, and to this end calls for the increased employment of local fishermen and the development of local, sustainable processing industries and marketing activities;

34.  Encourages the Commission in its endeavours to obtain increasingly complete and reliable data from the coastal state on the total amount of fishing, including catches, occurring in its waters, as a requirement for the difficult task of identifying surplus and preventing over-exploitation; notes that the EU fisheries and development policies could promote the necessary improvements in the capacity of third countries to provide such information;

35.  Calls, furthermore, on the Commission to promote greater transparency in establishing the scale of exploitation of fish stocks in waters under the jurisdiction of coastal states;

36.  Reaffirms that, in accordance with the principle of respecting the traditional link between coastal communities and the waters they have historically fished, EU vessels should not compete with local fishermen for the same resources or on the local markets, and that cooperation between local and EU operators should be facilitated, hence stressing the need for an accurate calculation of the surplus;

37.  Believes that the EU must make increased efforts to help provide third countries with which it negotiates bilateral agreements with sufficient data and information for reliable stock assessments, and that providing European funding for a scientific research vessel in regions where the EU fleet is active would considerably strengthen scientific analyses on fish stocks, which is a prerequisite for any SFA;

38.  Requests that the research campaigns conducted by vessels of different Member States in areas that are fished by the EU fleet be encouraged as much as possible and conducted in cooperation with the coastal states concerned, including providing access for local scientists; calls for greater cooperation among the Member States and the Commission in this regard, and for increased funding to expand scientific research in waters outside the EU;

39.  Believes that, at the same time, efforts should be increased to obtain the necessary data from third countries with which the EU has bilateral fishing agreements, in order to assess the effectiveness of the agreement and whether conditions are met, e.g. that it should benefit the local population;

40.  Highlights the importance of the joint scientific groups responsible for providing scientific opinions on the state of fishing resources on the basis of the best information available in order to avoid overfishing, given that the fishing sector, and particularly the artisanal fishing sector, plays a major role in safeguarding food security in many developing countries; insists that those groups should have appropriate financial, technical and human resources to enable them to carry out their tasks and work together with the RFMOs;

41.  Calls upon the Commission to promote the strengthening of targeted scientific and technical cooperation in general in SFAs, including by enhancing the role of the Joint Scientific Committees; also calls for efforts to be made to create harmony among the sanitation and hygiene conditions of the EU and third countries;

42.  Fully supports the concept of decoupling financial compensation for access to fisheries resources from sectoral support for development; firmly insists that shipowners should pay a fair and market-based portion of the costs when acquiring access rights in the framework of a bilateral fisheries agreement; requests that a detailed analysis be made of the portion to be paid by shipowners for a fishing authorisation, including potential catches and operating costs; believes that improved supervision of sectoral support is imperative, including the possibility of suspension of payments in cases of failure to fulfil commitments by the coastal state;

43.  Insists that the financial item intended to provide sectoral support must be more effective and achieve increased, improved-quality results, in particular by focusing on scientific research, data collection and the monitoring and management of fishing activities;

44.  Calls on the Commission to ensure that allocations for sectoral support in the framework of the SFAs are aimed at supporting the administrative and scientific capacity of third countries and assisting small and medium-sized enterprises, strengthen the EU’s development cooperation objectives, and are in line with the signatory country’s national development plan; calls for such allocations not to replace the cooperation on fisheries provided for in other agreements or cooperation instruments, but, rather, complement it in a coherent, transparent, effective and better targeted fashion;

45.  Urges the Commission, during the negotiations on SFAs, to seek to ensure that the coastal state dedicates a minimum part of the sectoral support for development granted under the SFA to projects which have as their objective the recognition, promotion and diversification of women’s role in the fisheries sector, ensuring the application of the principle of equal treatment and opportunities for women and men concerning in particular training and access to funding and loans;

46.  Believes that sectoral support for development must be taken into consideration when taking the relevant decisions for the future;

47.  Insists that the Commission closely monitor the implementation of bilateral agreements, with annual reports being sent to Parliament and the Council, and that evaluations performed by external, independent experts be sent to the co-legislators in due time prior to the negotiation of new protocols, all of which should be in the public domain, subject to the relevant data protection rules and available in at least three official languages of the EU;

48.  Underlines the need for Parliament to be adequately involved in the preparation and negotiating process and the long-term monitoring and assessment of the functioning of bilateral agreements according to the provisions of the TFEU; insists that Parliament be immediately and fully informed on an equal footing with the Council at all stages of the procedure related to FPAs, pursuant to Articles 13(2) and 218(10) TFEU; recalls its conviction that Parliament should be represented by observers at the Joint Committee meetings envisaged in fisheries agreements, and insists that civil society, including both EU and third country fisheries representatives, also attend as observers in those meetings;

49.  Supports the introduction of scientific audits to evaluate fish populations prior to negotiating agreements and calls for the third country to provide notification of the fishing effort of the fleets of other countries in its waters in order for these objectives to be effective;

50.  Is convinced that full transparency on catches, payments and implementation of sectoral support will be an indispensable tool for developing responsible and sustainable fishing based on good governance, the fight against the improper use of EU support and against corruption;

51.  Emphasises, too, the need to improve transparency both during the negotiation and the lifetime of the Fisheries Agreements, on behalf of both the EU and third countries;

52.  Insists that Member States report catches to coastal states on a daily basis and comply fully with rules applicable in the waters of partner countries;

53.  Strongly believes that the Commission should make sure that negotiations with third countries envisaging new agreements or protocols to bilateral fishery agreements are initiated well in advance of the expiry date of such provisions; in this context, underlines the importance of the early involvement of Parliament to avoid the provisional application of such provisions which lead to irreversible faits accomplis which do not serve the interest of the EU or of the third country;

54.  Believes that the European fishing industry should take over a considerable financial share of the costs when acquiring access rights to non-EU fishing zones in the framework of a bilateral or multilateral fisheries agreement;

55.  Believes that there should be a regional approach to the negotiation and implementation of the EU’s bilateral agreements, particularly in those concerning the tuna boat fleet, and, where appropriate, a clear link between the terms they contain and the management measures and performance of the relevant RFMOs;

56.  Feels compelled to express its unease to the Commission, at regional level, regarding the clear reversal of policy in measures concerning the hiring of seafarers, since in the majority of cases there is a reversion to the unsustainable policy of contracting these crew members by their nationality, rather than by their origin in ACP countries in general;

57.  Takes the view that bilateral conventions should be introduced to encourage Union fisheries investments in countries where at present there are no association agreements, because there are no excess fishing opportunities, and to contribute as a result towards sustainable fishing; also considers that, in these cases, coordination between European development funding and the funding of bilateral agreements should be a top priority;

Regional Fisheries Management Organisations (RFMOs)

58.  Urges the EU to take the lead in strengthening RFMOs in order to improve their performance, including through regular reviews by independent bodies of the extent to which they achieve their objectives, and to ensure that the recommendations made in such reviews are rapidly and fully implemented; urges that the EU work to ensure that all RFMOs have an effective compliance committee, and believes that proven cases of lack of compliance by states must lead to dissuasive, proportionate and non-discriminatory sanctions, including reductions in quotas, effort, capacity allowed, etc.;

59.  Calls on the Commission to allocate greater funding to the RFMOs, since they have a crucial role to play in combating illegal, undeclared and unregulated fishing;

60.  Considers that the EU should work towards an improved system of decision-making in RFMOs so as to move beyond the ‘lowest common denominator’ approach that can result from consensus, while recognising the need for debate before resorting to voting where no consensus is achievable; considers that multiannual plans should be promoted;

61.  Takes the view that the Union must coordinate its fisheries and development policies better and engage in systematic, long-term and in-depth dialogues and partnerships with other flag, market and coastal states in order to achieve improved fisheries management and food security worldwide;

62.  Calls on the Commission to take the lead to promote the creation of a comprehensive network of coverage of RFMOs so that all high seas fisheries are effectively managed with the ecosystem and precautionary approaches that foster the conservation of resources; to that end, recalls its support for the establishment of new RFMOs where none exist and an increase in the competence of existing RFMOs by a revision of their conventions;

63.  Notes that as a consequence of climate change and shifts in distribution of species, new fishing grounds are opening up in Arctic waters; considers that the EU should take initiatives to ensure that fishing operations are effectively managed (by existing RFMOs or the creation of a new one) for sustainable management and conservation of stocks in these waters; believes that fishing should initially be restricted to allow for scientific assessments of Arctic stocks and the fisheries they can sustainably support;

64.  Notes that the Black Sea would profit from a new RFMO, and urges the Commission to propose its creation;

65.  Believes that RFMOs must develop sustainable management systems, aiming to keep stocks above MSY, that provide for a transparent and equitable resource allocation using incentives based upon environmental and social criteria, as well as historical catches, to obtain fishing opportunities, thus including both the legitimate rights / aspirations of developing states as well as the expectations of fleets that have sustainably fished in those waters, while ensuring that management and conservation measures are fully implemented by all members;

66.  Is firmly opposed to the EU promoting the adoption of Transferable Fishing Concession (TFC) schemes in RFMOs; considers that any system of rights-based management adopted in RFMOs should not jeopardise the livelihood of dependent fishing communities in developing countries;

67.  Believes that good governance will be brought about through the involvement of all parties concerned, from preparing the policies through to their introduction;

68.  Requests that a detailed assessment be conducted of the fishing capacity of EU fleets authorised to fish outside EU waters, using reliable indicators of the ability of vessels to catch fish, considering advances in technology and taking as their basis the recommendations of the 1999 FAO Technical Consultation on the measurement of fishing capacity(9); believes that the EU should identify the RFMOs where there are problems of overcapacity, and ensure freezing and adjustment of fleet capacity with special consideration for the rights of coastal countries;

Other Aspects of the External Dimension

69.  Believes that even though the external activities of EU businesses may exceed the external dimension of the common fisheries policy, trade activities and the private agreements between EU shipowners and third countries, including those conducted under the framework of bilateral cooperation policies, must be legitimately respected and protected as long as they are conducted within the framework of international law;

70.  Considers that European fisheries investments should be included as a third component in the external dimension of the CFP, together with fishing agreements and the RFMOs, and that the CFP must encourage sustainable external fisheries investment;

71.  Believes that the CFP must promote strategies for Corporate Social Responsibility, in order to fully assume our social responsibilities in line with the EU Strategy 2011–2014 for Corporate Social Responsibility;

72.  Believes that information on private agreements between EU shipowners and third countries, as well as on joint ventures in third countries, including the number and type of vessels operating under such agreements and joint ventures, as well as their catches, should continue to be provided by the Member State to the Commission and made publicly available, subject to individual and commercial data protection rules, as laid down by the Fishing Authorisations Regulation;

73.  Calls on the EU to promote a global and multilateral agenda that will incorporate responsibility as part of developing sustainable fisheries activity;

74.  Calls upon the Commission and the Member States to give serious consideration to methods for creating strong incentives for EU-flagged vessels to remain on the EU register unless they are to be reflagged to states in good standing in all relevant RFMOs; considers that the best way to achieve this is to ensure that there is fair competition between EU flags and the flags of non-EU states by requiring the same standards in terms of ecological and social sustainability from third countries, both bilaterally and multilaterally, as well as by the use of market-related measures;

75.  Expresses its impatience with the Commission for not having added vessels to be included on the EU IUU list other than those listed by the RFMOs, nor having proposed a list of non-cooperating countries, despite the IUU Regulation having been in force for over two years, and urges it to do so as soon as possible; insists on the need to seek support from our principal partners in order to eradicate IUU fishing in all oceans;

76.  Insists that the Commission, rather than third countries, be the authority to grant phyto-sanitary certificates to third country vessels that allow the direct export of fishery products to the EU;

77.  Points to the need to adopt an individually tailored approach to management of EU external fleet capacity ceilings, working together with the RFMOs, and to take into account the different context in which this segment of the fleet operates;

78.  Encourages banks and other lending institutions to incorporate assessments of the economic, social and environmental sustainability of activities, and not simply their short-term profitability, prior to granting access to capital;

79.  Believes that the EU’s trade policy should also contribute to ensuring sustainable fishing worldwide through promoting adherence to the relevant international conventions and agreements relating to fisheries governance in the framework of preferential trade agreements;

80.  Calls on the Commission to ensure that fair, transparent and sustainable trade in fish is strengthened in the EU’s bilateral and multilateral trade agreements;

81.  Considers that, at the same time, incentives should be drawn up for third countries that do not share EU standards to adopt good practices, and where applicable to establish trade measures such as banning imports of illegal, unreported and unregulated (IUU) fish products, and of aquaculture and fisheries products that do not comply with human rights and the United Nations conventions on employment (ILO) and navigation (IMO);

82.  Urges the Commission to promote international collaboration against IUU fishing and to examine whether any possibility exists vis-à-vis the two other countries that together with the EU form the principal fisheries markets in the world, namely the USA and Japan, so that one way of completing this action would consist in the application of a Unique Identifying Number for all vessels to ensure the total traceability of the product in an entirely transparent way;

83.  Underlines that serious and systematic infringement by a partner country of the objectives adopted by RFMOs or any international arrangements to which the EU is party concerning the conservation and management of fishery resources can lead to a temporary withdrawal of preferential tariffs; calls on the Commission to regularly report to Parliament on the implementation of the provisions related to fisheries conservation and management included in its proposal for the revised scheme of generalised tariff preferences (GSP);

84.  Considers that the EU must ensure that products imported through international trade comply with rules and regulations that are identical to those for EU products;

85.  Calls on the Commission to ensure that fish and fishery products from third countries meet the same sanitary and hygiene conditions and come from sustainable fisheries, and thus to create a level-playing field between EU and non-EU countries’ fisheries;

86.  Calls on the Commission to further streamline EU policy regarding development, trade and fisheries policy objectives;

87.  Insists that bilateral and multilateral trade agreements negotiated by the EU should:

   be accompanied by economic, social and environmental impact assessments with respect to the threat of over-exploitation of resources, for both non-EU and EU countries, taking into account the networks already created by pre-existing agreements,
   respect rules of origin,
   require traceability of the product to ensure it comes from legal and sustainable fisheries,
   not undermine the IUU Regulation or other provisions of the CFP,
   include provisions to ensure that only fisheries products coming from well-managed fisheries are traded,
   not lead to increased trade, which would result in over-exploitation and depletion of resources,
   ensure that unsustainably caught products do not enter the EU market,
   include provisions for suspension and review of the payment of the financial contribution as well as provisions on the suspension of the implementation of the protocol in the event of a breach of essential and fundamental human rights provisions, as laid down for example in Article 9 of the Cotonou Agreement, or non-compliance with the ILO Declaration of Fundamental Principles and Rights at Work;

88.  Recalls that due to the different legislations of many of the EU’s trade partners, the issue of rules of origin and their cumulation is a controversial and sensitive subject in trade negotiations; calls on the Commission, therefore, to give specific consideration to the matter and to negotiate balanced solutions which do not penalise the EU fishery sectors;

89.  Welcomes the Commission’s proposals for trade-related measures such as import restrictions on fish and fishery products to be applied to countries allowing non-sustainable fishing while ensuring their compatibility with the rules of the WTO;

90.  Urges the EU to develop and implement ocean- and sea-based regional strategies, particularly for those in which sustainable fisheries can only be guaranteed through international cooperation;

o
o   o

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

(1) OJ L 286, 29.10.2008, p. 1.
(2) OJ L 286, 29.10.2008, p.33.
(3) Texts adopted, P7_TA(2011)0516.
(4) OJ C 348E, 21.12.2010, p.15.
(5) OJ C 351E, 2.12.2011, p.119.
(6) Texts adopted, P7_TA(2011)0232.
(7) Texts adopted: P7_TA(2011)0573.
(8) The Forced Labour Convention, 1930 (No 29), the Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to Organise Convention, 1948 (No 87), the Right to Organise and Collective Bargaining Convention, 1949 (No 98), the Equal Remuneration Convention, 1951 (No 100), the Abolition of Forced Labour Convention, 1957 (No 105), the Discrimination (Employment and Occupation) Convention, 1958 (No 111), the Minimum Age Convention, 1973 (No 138), the Worst Forms of Child Labour Convention, 1999 (No 182).
(9) ftp://ftp.fao.org/docrep/fao/007/x4874e/x4874e00.pdf.


Elections to the European Parliament in 2014
PDF 112kWORD 21k
European Parliament resolution of 22 November 2012 on the elections to the European Parliament in 2014 (2012/2829(RSP))
P7_TA(2012)0462B7-0520/2012

The European Parliament,

–  having regard to Articles 10 and 17 of the Treaty on European Union,

–  having regard to Articles 10 and 11 of the Act concerning the election of the members of the European Parliament by direct universal suffrage annexed to the Council decision of 20 September 1976, as amended(1),

–  having regard to the statement by the Commission of 22 November 2012 on the elections to the European Parliament in 2014,

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

A.  whereas citizens are directly represented at Union level by Members of the European Parliament;

B.  whereas political parties at European level contribute to forming European political awareness and to expressing the will of the citizens of the Union;

C.  whereas the President of the European Commission is elected by Parliament on a proposal from the European Council, acting by a qualified majority, which must take into account the result of the elections to Parliament and which must have held the appropriate consultations before making its nomination;

D.  whereas the Commission, as a body, shall be responsible to the European Parliament;

E.  whereas the new Parliament needs sufficient time to organise itself in advance of the election of the Commission President;

F.  whereas for the new Commission to be ready to take office on 1 November 2014, the election of the Commission President should take place at Parliament’s constituent part-session in July 2014;

G.  whereas Parliament votes its consent to the appointment of the whole college of Commissioners after having heard the candidates proposed by the Council, in common accord with the President-elect, on the basis of suggestions made by the Member States;

1.  Urges the European political parties to nominate candidates for the Presidency of the Commission and expects those candidates to play a leading role in the parliamentary electoral campaign, in particular by personally presenting their programme in all Member States of the Union; stresses the importance of reinforcing the political legitimacy of both Parliament and the Commission by connecting their respective elections more directly to the choice of the voters;

2.  Calls for as many members of the next Commission as possible to be drawn from Members of the European Parliament, to reflect the balance between the two chambers of the legislature;

3.  Calls on the future President of the Commission to ensure that a gender balance is achieved in the European Commission; recommends that each Member State propose both a female and a male candidate for the next College of Commissioners;

4.  Considers, in view of the new arrangements for the election of the European Commission introduced by the Treaty of Lisbon and the changing relationship between Parliament and the Commission which will stem from them as from the elections in 2014, that reliable majorities in Parliament will be of paramount importance for the stability of the Union’s legislative procedures and the good functioning of its executive, and therefore calls on the Member States to establish in their electoral law, in accordance with Article 3 of the Act concerning the election of the representatives of the Assembly by direct universal suffrage, appropriate and proportionate minimum thresholds for the allocation of seats so as to duly reflect the citizens’ choices, as expressed in the elections, while also effectively safeguarding the functionality of Parliament;

5.  Asks the Council to consult Parliament on holding the elections on either 15-18 May or 22-25 May 2014;

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

(1) Council Decision 76/787/ECSC, EEC, EURATOM (OJ L 278, 8.10.1976, p. 1) as amended by Council Decision 93/81/Euratom, ECSC, EEC (OJ L 33, 9.2.1993, p. 15) and by Council Decision 2002/772/EC, EURATOM (OJ L 283, 21.10.2002, p. 1).


Human rights situation in Iran, particularly mass executions and the recent death of the blogger Sattar Beheshti
PDF 123kWORD 24k
European Parliament resolution of 22 November 2012 on the human rights situation in Iran, particularly mass executions and the recent death of the blogger Sattar Beheshti (2012/2877(RSP))
P7_TA(2012)0463RC-B7-0500/2012

The European Parliament,

–  having regard to its previous resolutions on Iran, in particular those concerning human rights,

–  having regard to the statement of 23 October 2012 by the Vice-President of the Commission/High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy (VP/HR) on ten recent executions in Iran,

–  having regard to the statement of 11 November 2012 by the spokesperson of the VP/HR on the death in custody of the Iranian blogger Sattar Beheshti,

–  having regard to the report of 13 September 2012 by the UN Special Rapporteur on the Situation of Human Rights in Iran,

–  having regard to the release from prison of Pastor Youcef Nadarkhani in September 2012,

–  having regard to UN General Assembly resolutions 62/149 of 18 December 2007 and 63/168 of 18 December 2008 on a moratorium on the use of the death penalty,

–  having regard to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR), the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (CERD) and the Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC), to all of which Iran is a party,

–  having regard to Rule 122(5) and to Rule 110(4) of its Rules of Procedure,

A.  whereas the current human rights situation in Iran is characterised by an ongoing pattern of systematic violations of fundamental rights; whereas human rights defenders (in particular women’s, children’s and minority rights activists), journalists, bloggers, artists, student leaders, lawyers, trade unionists and environmentalists continue to live under severe pressure and the constant threat of arrest;

B.  whereas the blogger Sattar Beheshti, who criticised the Iranian regime on the internet, was arrested on 30 October 2012 by the specialised cyber police unit – known as Fata – for alleged cyber crimes, and died in custody; whereas the exact circumstances of his death are not yet established, and whereas several reports indicate that he died as a result of torture in an Iranian detention facility;

C.  whereas members of the family of Sattar Beheshti living in Iran have been threatened with arrest if they speak to the media about his death or file a lawsuit against the alleged torture culprits;

D.  whereas the death of Sattar Beheshti is another tragic example of the systematic and ongoing torture, ill-treatment and denial of basic rights to which prisoners of conscience in Iran are routinely subjected while security and intelligence agents operate in an atmosphere of complete impunity;

E.  whereas, after several days of silence on the death of Sattar Beheshti, the Iranian judiciary’s Human Rights Council declared its commitment to review all aspects of the case and to prosecute with vigour all persons involved in the case;

F.  whereas Iranian Deputy Parliamentary Speaker Mohammad Hasan Abutorabifard declared on 11 November 2012 that the Iranian Parliament’s Committee on National Security and Foreign Policy would investigate the case;

G.  whereas the UN Special Rapporteurs on the situation of human rights in Iran, on summary executions, on torture and on freedom of expression have welcomed the Iranian Parliament’s and judiciary’s decisions to investigate Mr Beheshti’s death, while also noting that a number of cases have been reported in Iran in which detainees allegedly died in custody as a result of mistreatment or torture, lack of medical attention or neglect;

H.  whereas on 22 October 2012 Saeed Sedighi and nine other men were executed on charges of drug offences; whereas most of these men did not receive a fair trial and were subjected to torture during their detention;

I.  whereas, following Mr Sedighi’s execution, the authorities warned his family members not to speak to the media and barred them from holding a public funeral ceremony after his burial;

J.  whereas a dramatic increase in executions, including of juveniles, has been recorded in Iran in recent years, with over 300 executions registered since the beginning of 2012; whereas the death penalty is regularly imposed in cases where the accused are denied their due-process rights and for crimes that do not fall into the category of ‘most serious crimes’ under international standards;

K.  whereas the Iranian authorities continue their efforts to build a ‘halal internet’, effectively denying Iranians access to the World Wide Web, and to use information and communication technologies to crack down on fundamental freedoms, such as the freedoms of expression and assembly; whereas Iran restricts internet freedom by putting limits on available bandwidth by developing state-run servers and specific internet protocols (IPs), internet service providers (ISPs) and search engines, and by blocking international and domestic social networking sites;

L.  whereas the 2012 Sakharov Prize for Freedom of Thought has been awarded to two Iranian activists, the lawyer Nasrin Sotoudeh and the film director Jafar Panahi; whereas Nasrin Sotoudeh is serving a jail sentence for her work to highlight human rights abuses in Iran and has embarked on a hunger strike after being refused family visits; whereas Jafar Panahi is appealing a six-year jail sentence, a 20-year ban on film-making and a travel ban imposed on him;

1.  Expresses grave concern over the steadily deteriorating human rights situation in Iran, the growing number of political prisoners and prisoners of conscience, the continuously high number of executions, including of juveniles, the widespread torture, unfair trials and exorbitant sums demanded for bail, and the heavy restrictions on freedom of information, expression, assembly, religion, education and movement;

2.  Is deeply concerned about the death in prison of Sattar Beheshti; urges the Iranian authorities to conduct a thorough enquiry into the case, in order to establish the exact circumstances of his death;

3.  Is deeply concerned by the reports indicating that Sattar Beheshti was tortured in prison; urges the Iranian authorities to ensure that an inquiry is held in each case of alleged torture and cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment in detention facilities, and that perpetrators are held accountable for their acts; recalls that the use of corporal punishment – which amounts to torture – is incompatible with Article 7 of the ICCPR;

4.  Strongly condemns the use of the death penalty in Iran and calls on the Iranian authorities to institute a moratorium on executions pending the abolition of the death penalty, in accordance with UN General Assembly Resolutions 62/149 and 63/168; urges the Iranian Government to prohibit the execution of juveniles and to consider commuting all capital sentences for juveniles currently facing a death sentence; urges the Iranian Government to publicise statistics on the death penalty and facts on the administration of justice in death penalty cases;

5.  Deeply deplores the lack of fairness and transparency of the judicial process and the denial of due-process rights in Iran; calls on the Iranian authorities to guarantee a stringent respect of fair trial and due process to all detainees, as stipulated in the ICCPR;

6.  Urges the Iranian authorities to release all political prisoners and prisoners of conscience, including Nasrin Sotoudeh, co-Sakharov Prize winner together with Jafar Panahi, and to allow them to come to the European Parliament in December 2012 to collect their prizes; expresses its concern about the deteriorating health condition of Nasrin Sotoudeh; calls on Iran’s judiciary and prison authorities to end the mistreatment of Nasrin Sotoudeh; expresses its sympathy and full solidarity with the requests of Nasrin Sotoudeh; calls on Iran’s authorities to allow all prisoners access to lawyers of their choice, necessary medical care and family visits, to which they are entitled under international human rights law, and to treat them with dignity and respect;

7.  Calls on the Iranian authorities to accept peaceful protest and to address the numerous problems facing the Iranian people;

8.  Calls on the Iranian authorities to guarantee religious freedom in accordance with the Iranian constitution and the ICCPR;

9.  Urges the Iranian authorities to demonstrate that they are fully committed to cooperating with the international community in improving the human rights situation in Iran, and calls on the Iranian Government to fulfil all its obligations, both under international law and under the international conventions it has signed;

10.  Believes that a visit by a special UN Rapporteur may help to establish an overview of the human rights situation in Iran; notes with concern that Iran has not accepted any visits by UN special rapporteurs or by the High Commissioner for Human Rights since 2005; calls on Iran to honour its stated intention to allow a visit during 2012 by the UN Special Rapporteur for Human Rights in Iran, Dr Ahmed Shaheed;

11.  Calls on the Commission, in close cooperation with Parliament, to make effective use of the new Instrument for Democracy and Human Rights in order to support democracy and respect for human rights in Iran, including freedom of expression online;

12.  Calls on EU Representatives and the VP/HR to encourage the Iranian authorities to re-engage in a human rights dialogue; reaffirms its readiness to engage in a human rights dialogue with Iran at all levels on the basis of the universal values enshrined in the UN Charter and in international conventions;

13.  Supports the EU’s dual-track approach to Iran (combining sanctions with diplomacy) but, at the same time, is concerned about the negative effects of wide-reaching sanctions against Iran on the Iranian people, including a rise in inflation and a shortage of necessary items, in particular medicine;

14.  Calls on the Council to reinforce targeted measures against Iranian individuals and entities, including state institutions, that are responsible for or involved in grave human rights violations and restrictions of fundamental freedoms, particularly through the misuse of ICTs, the internet and media censorship; calls on the Commission and the Member States to ensure that all assets in the EU, including real estate, belonging to Iranians targeted by the restrictive measures are seized and frozen;

15.  Instructs its President to forward this resolution to the Vice-President of the Commission / High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy, the Council, the Commission, the governments and parliaments of the Member States, the UN Secretary-General, the UN Human Rights Council and the Government and Parliament of the Islamic Republic of Iran, and to have this resolution translated into Farsi.


Situation in Burma, particularly the continuing violence in Rakhine State
PDF 122kWORD 24k
European Parliament resolution of 22 November 2012 on the situation in Burma/Myanmar, particularly the continuing violence in Rakhine State (2012/2878(RSP))
P7_TA(2012)0464RC-B7-0503/2012

The European Parliament,

–  having regard to its previous resolutions on Burma/Myanmar, in particular those of 20 April 2012(1) and 13 September 2012(2),

–  having regard to the report of 24 August 2012 by the UN Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in Burma/Myanmar,

–  having regard to Council decision 2012/225/CFSP of 26 April 2012,

–  having regard to the statement by President Thein Sein to the Burmese Parliament of 17 August 2012 concerning the situation in Rakhine State,

–  having regard to the statement by the UN Secretary-General of 25 October 2012 on the situation in Burma/Myanmar’s Rakhine State,

–  having regard to the statement by the spokesperson of the High Representative Catherine Ashton of 26 October 2012 on the renewed violence in Rakhine State in Burma/Myanmar,

–  having regard to the Joint Declaration signed on 3 November 2012 by the President of the European Commission, Jose Manuel Barroso, and the Minister of the Office of the President of Myanmar, Mr U Aung Min, at the Burma/Myanmar Peace Centre in Yangon,

–  having regard to the appeal by the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, Navi Pillay, to the Government of Burma/Myanmar of 9 November 2012, asking it to take the necessary steps towards granting the Rohingya citizens’ rights and equal treatment,

–  having regard to the letter from President Thein Sein to UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon of 16 November 2012, in which the President of Burma/Myanmar pledged to consider granting citizenship to the stateless Rohingya Muslims,

–  having regard to the 1951 UN Convention on the Status of Refugees and the 1967 Protocol thereto,

–  having regard to Articles 18 to 21 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) of 1948,

–  having regard to Article 25 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) of 1966,

–  having regard to the declarations by various representatives of the Burmese Government and opposition, including Aung San Suu Kyi, denying the Rohingya ethnic minority citizens’ rights and minimising the responsibility of the state authorities in the recent violent clashes,

–  having regard to the declaration by Burma/Myanmar’s National Human Rights Commission of August 2012, stating that the persecution of Rohingya and the events in Rakhine State do not pertain to its responsibility,

–  having regard to Rule 122(5) and 110(4) of its Rules of Procedure,

A.  whereas since early 2011 the Burmese Government has taken significant steps to restore civil liberties, yet the recent atrocities in Rakhine State underline the enormous difficulties still to be overcome;

B.  whereas the situation in Rakhine State remains tense, with at least 110 000 people having been forced to flee their homes since June 2012, and with 89 people killed and more than 5 300 homes and religious buildings destroyed since violence reignited in October;

C.  whereas most of the displaced are Rohingya, living in camps in unacceptable conditions, with severe overcrowding, alarming levels of child malnutrition, totally inadequate water supply and sanitation, almost no schooling available and without adequate humanitarian access;

D.  whereas a state of emergency, which allows the introduction of martial law, has been in place in Rakhine State since the communal clashes began in June 2012, and in late October 2012 the Government declared a curfew in the affected areas and deployed additional security forces – measures which have so far failed to stop the violence;

E.  whereas discrimination against the Rohingya minority persists; whereas local authorities have reportedly been complicit in the attacks against Rohingya and are pursuing an active policy of expelling them from the country; whereas the international community has urged the Burmese Government to review its 1982 Citizenship Law to ensure that the Rohingya are no longer stateless and the roots of longstanding discrimination against the Rohingya population are dealt with;

F.  whereas Rakhine is the second-poorest state in Burma/Myanmar, itself one of the least developed countries in the world, and poverty and repression have played a role in fuelling the communal violence, as have the bitter historical memories of both communities;

G.  whereas on 31 October 2012 three UN experts expressed their deep concern over continuing intercommunal violence in Rakhine State and called on the Government to address urgently the underlying causes of the tension and conflict between the Buddhist and Muslim communities in the region;

H.  whereas the Government of Burma/Myanmar set up an investigative commission in August 2012, without including a representative of the Rohingya community, to look into the causes of the outbreak of sectarian violence and make proposals on how to put an end to it, but so far its work has been ineffective;

I.  whereas, in the face of persistent violence, an estimated one million Rohingya have fled to neighbouring countries over the years, with some 300 000 seeking refuge in Bangladesh and 92 000 in Thailand, as well as an estimated 54 000 unregistered asylum-seekers in nine camps along the Thai-Myanmar border;

J.  whereas at least 4 000 people have fled by boat to Sittwe, the capital of Rakhine State, where the government has separated Muslims, including Rohingya, from the rest of the population and relocated them to camps; and whereas at least 3 000 Rohingya are believed to have fled by sea to the Burma-Bangladesh border, where Bangladeshi security forces have been ordered since June to push back all persons approaching the border;

K.  whereas European Commission President Jose Manuel Barroso offered Burma EUR 78 million in EU development aid during his visit to the Burmese capital, Nay Pyi Taw, and underlined that the EU stands ready to mobilise EUR 4 million for immediate humanitarian aid, provided access to the affected areas is guaranteed;

1.  Is alarmed at the resurgence of ethnic violence in Rakhine, which has caused many deaths and injuries, destruction of property and displacement of local populations, and expresses its concern that the intercommunal clashes may put at risk the country’s transition to democracy and could have wider repercussions across the entire region;

2.  Acknowledges the continuing political and civil rights reforms that are taking place in Burma, but urges the authorities to intensify their efforts, including through the release of the remaining political prisoners, and to address intercommunal violence and its consequences as a matter of urgency;

3.  Believes that the current upsurge in communal violence in Rakhine State is a consequence of longstanding discriminatory policies against the Rohingya; stresses that little has been done so far either to prevent or to address the root causes of communal tension and ethnic discrimination;

4.  Notes the Government’s assertions that it would carry out a full and independent investigation into the events and take action against the instigators of the violence; calls on the Government of Burma/Myanmar to take immediate measures to put an end to ethnic violence and discrimination and to bring the perpetrators of the violent clashes and other related abuses in Rakhine State to justice;

5.  Calls on all parties to find durable ways to resolve the issues between the communities, and renews its call on political forces to take a clear stand in favour of a pluralist society with an inclusive dialogue with local communities;

6.  Calls on the Government of Burma/Myanmar to end discriminatory practices against the Rohingya; reiterates its earlier calls for amendment or repeal of the 1982 Citizenship Law to ensure that the Rohingya have equal access to Burmese citizenship;

7.  Urges the Burmese authorities to take more vigorous action on the issues of citizens’ rights, notably access to education, work permits and freedom of movement for the Rohingya minority;

8.  Calls on the Government of Burma/Myanmar to provide UN agencies and humanitarian NGOs, as well as journalists and diplomats, with unhindered access to all areas of the country, including Rakhine State, and to give unrestricted access to humanitarian aid for all affected populations; further calls on the Burmese authorities to improve conditions in the Rohingya displacement camps as a matter of urgency;

9.  Calls on the EU and the Member States to provide humanitarian assistance and support the Burmese Government in its efforts to stabilise the situation and more rapidly implement reform programmes in ways which embed the rule of law, respect for human rights and political freedom;

10.  Welcomes the proposals made by the Rule of Law Committee of the Burmese Parliament and urges the Government to swiftly implement legislative, institutional, and policy reforms to end serious human rights violations in areas affected by ethnic and other armed conflicts and to tackle the ongoing impunity for human rights abuses, particularly where they are committed by state forces;

11.  Welcomes the release on 17 September 2012 of 514 prisoners, including 90 political prisoners, and the release on 19 November 2012 of 66 prisoners, including at least 44 political prisoners, in an amnesty that coincided with the visit of US President Obama to Burma/Myanmar; calls on the Burmese Government to release all remaining prisoners of conscience, clarify exactly how many remain in detention and take steps to ensure the reintegration of released prisoners into society;

12.  Welcomes the Council conclusions on Burma/Myanmar of 23 April 2012, which include the suspension of restrictive measures imposed on the Government, with the exception of the arms embargo, and the EU’s wish to continue its support to the country’s transition; whereas human rights issues are central to the EU’s concerns: assisting the reform process, contributing to economic, political and social development and establishing the rule of law and fundamental freedoms, in particular freedom of expression and assembly; welcomes in this connection the recent visit of the President of the European Commission and the immediate increase in the Commission’s humanitarian funding for 2012 to help the people of Rakhine State;

13.  Instructs its President to forward this resolution to the Government and Parliament of Burma/Myanmar, the EU High Representative, the Commission, the parliaments and governments of the Member States, the Secretary General of ASEAN, the ASEAN Intergovernmental Commission on Human Rights, the Secretary General of the Commonwealth, the UN Special Representative for Human Rights in Burma/Myanmar, the UN High Commissioner for Refugees and the UN Human Rights Council.

(1) Texts adopted, P7_TA(2012)0142.
(2) Texts adopted, P7_TA(2012)0355.


Situation of migrants in Libya
PDF 121kWORD 23k
European Parliament resolution of 22 November 2012 on the situation of migrants in Libya (2012/2879(RSP))
P7_TA(2012)0465RC-B7-0504/2012

The European Parliament,

–  having regard to the 1951 UN convention relating to the Status of Refugees and the 1967 Protocol thereto,

–  having regard to Libya’s ratification on 25 April 1981 of the African Union Convention Governing the Specific Aspects of Refugee Problems in Africa,

–  having regard to the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights and the Protocol thereto on the establishment of an African Court on Human and Peoples’ Rights, as ratified by Libya on 26 March 1987 and 19 November 2003 respectively,

–  having regard to its previous resolutions on Libya, in particular that of 15 September 2011(1),

–  having regard to the ENP Package on Libya of 15 May 2012,

–  having regard to its resolution of 14 June 2012 on human rights and the security situation in the Sahel region(2),

–  having regard to the Foreign Affairs Council Conclusions of 23 July 2012,

–  having regard its resolution of 12 September 2012 on the Annual Report from the Council to the European Parliament on the Common Foreign and Security Policy(3),

–  having regard to the statements by the Vice-President of the Commission / High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy (VP/HR) of 19 July 2012 and 3 November 2012 on Libya,

–  having regard to the Report of the Secretary-General on the United Nations Support Mission in Libya, adopted on 30 August 2012,

–  having regard to Rules 122(5) and 110(4) of its Rules of Procedure,

A.  whereas Libya held its first democratic and free elections in July 2012 in a remarkably peaceful and orderly manner; whereas the country witnessed the first peaceful transfer of power in its history on 9 August 2012, from the National Transitional Council to the General National Congress, tasked with adopting a constitution and other essential legislative reforms;

B.  whereas the first Libyan government formed following democratic elections in over fifty years was sworn in on 14 November 2012;

C.  whereas Libya faces a post-revolutionary period, full of challenges ranging from security (disarmament, demobilisation and reintegration (DDR) of the revolutionary militias and reform of the national army, police, border and other state security forces), national reconciliation, transitional justice, and the enforcement of the rule of the law and of respect for human rights, to the need to embark on many other reforms of crucial importance to building democratic institutions and a democratic state;

D.  whereas, historically, Libya has relied on migrant workers in sectors including health, education, agriculture, hospitality and cleaning services; whereas Libya is still a major hub for asylum-seekers and refugees fleeing conflict in Africa, Asia and the Middle East;

E.  whereas the authorities’ capacity to control the arrival of people through most of the 4 378 km of Libya’s land boundaries is extremely limited;

F.  whereas between 1,5 and 2,5 million foreigners worked in Libya during the rule of Colonel Gaddafi; whereas, from the beginning of the liberation on 17 February 2011, many migrants were forced into mercenary groups under Gaddafi’s rule and a large proportion of them are now in detention without trial or have fled the country; whereas, according to the International Organization for Migration (IOM), some 800 000 migrants had already fled the country towards neighbouring countries by the end of November 2011, but many have returned or arrived in the meantime;

G.  whereas human rights abuses and violations are committed regularly in Libya against migrants, asylum seekers and refugees, and whereas undocumented foreigners continue to be at risk of exploitation, racism, arbitrary detention, beatings and torture, including while in detention;

H.  whereas foreigners in Libya are still particularly vulnerable to abuse because of the security vacuum, the proliferation of weapons, the absence of national legislation on asylum and on migrant workers, the inadequate judicial system and weak governance; whereas foreign nationals, including pregnant women, women with young children and unaccompanied children held alongside adults, are held at a plethora of detention facilities that are specially designed for irregular migrants or held directly by militias;

I.  whereas recent reports issued by the International Federation for Human Rights, Migreurop, Amnesty International and Justice Without Borders for Migrants (JWBM), based on a number of investigations in Libya in June 2012, highlight repeated mistreatment of migrants held in eight detention centres in Kufra, Tripoli, Benghazi and the Nafusa Mountain region;

J.  whereas Libya has not yet ratified the 1951 UN Convention relating to the Status of Refugees;

K.  whereas the UNHCR, though now present, does not yet have a legal status in Libya;

L.  whereas some Member States have resumed talks with Libya on migration control;

M.  whereas a fully functioning and democratic government in Libya is a prerequisite for the negotiation by the EU, the UN and other international partners of any cooperation agreements with Libya;

1.  Welcomes the inauguration of the first Libyan Government deriving its legitimacy from democratic elections and encourages the members of the government to act decisively in order to build the foundations of a democratic, accountable and functioning state structure in Libya; calls on all international actors, in particular the EU, to stand ready to assist the Libyan Government and the General National Congress (GNC) in this daunting task;

2.  Calls on Libya to adopt and enact legislation in line with its international obligations, in particular with regard to ensuring respect for universal human rights; acknowledges, however, that such efforts will require time, given that the new elected government has just been sworn in; recognises that overcoming the disastrous legacy of the oppressive Gaddafi regime will require determined action and proper training, until fully accountable rights-based legal, judicial and security systems are in place;

3.  Expresses its concern about the particularly vulnerable security and human rights situation of foreigners currently in Libya, especially those coming from sub-Saharan and Eastern Africa in search of work or political asylum and those still in prison; is concerned, in particular, at the living conditions and treatment of migrant detainees in detention centres, particularly in Kufra, Tripoli, Benghazi and the Nafusa Mountain region;

4.  Expresses deep concern about the extreme conditions of detention to which foreign persons, including women and children, are subjected – many of them victims of sexual and gender-based violence – and about their lack of recourse to an adequate legal framework and protection, causing indefinite detention and no possibility of appeal against deportation;

5.  Urges the Libyan authorities to protect all foreign nationals, regardless of their immigration status, from violence, exploitation, threats, intimidation and abuse;

6.  Calls on the Government of Libya and the GNC to forward appropriate legislation and instructions to all national and local structures in order to ensure fair treatment, non-discrimination and necessary protection for all refugees, asylum seekers and migrants, with special attention to the security and rights of women and children;

7.  Expects the new Libyan authorities to ratify without delay the 1951 UN Convention relating to the Status of Refugees and the 1967 Protocol thereto, and adopt asylum legislation consistent with international law and standards;

8.  Calls on the new Libyan authorities immediately to grant legal status to the UNHCR and facilitate its work; encourages closer cooperation between the EU, the UNHCR and other UN agencies involved in the post-conflict situation;

9.  Calls on the new Libyan authorities to facilitate the work of any organisations which may help to protect and support asylum seekers, refugees and migrants;

10.  Invites Libya to enact legislation in order to regulate the entry and stay of foreign nationals in the country, including a functioning asylum system; calls on the EU to provide Libya, its neighbour, with technical and political assistance in this task, including measures to improve the current detention facilities;

11.  Invites Libya to enact a legal status for migrant workers in Libya, affording them full protection as regards respect for their human rights, including labour rights, in accordance with the relevant ILO standards;

12.  Calls on the EU and its Members States to act considerately when negotiating future cooperation agreements and migration control agreements with the new Libyan authorities, ensuring that such agreements include effective monitoring mechanisms for the protection of the human rights of migrants, refugees and asylum seekers;

13.  Calls on foreign companies working in Libya, in particular European companies, to ensure full compliance with their corporate social responsibilities (CSR) as a principled policy throughout their activities, ensuring enactment of CSR in particular towards migrant workers;

14.  Instructs its President to forward this resolution to the Vice-President of the Commission / High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy, the Libyan Government and GNC, the UN Secretary General, the Arab League and the African Union.

(1) Texts adopted, P7_TA(2011)0386.
(2) Texts adopted, P7_TA(2012)0263.
(3) Texts adopted, P7_TA(2012)0334.

Legal notice - Privacy policy