Nomination of a Member of the Court of Auditors - Bettina Michelle Jakobsen
237k
59k
European Parliament decision of 7 July 2015 on the nomination of Bettina Michelle Jakobsen as a Member of the Court of Auditors (C8-0122/2015 – 2015/0803(NLE))
– having regard to Article 286(2) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, pursuant to which the Council consulted Parliament (C8‑0122/2015),
– having regard to Rule 121 of its Rules of Procedure,
– having regard to the report of the Committee on Budgetary Control (A8-0198/2015),
A. whereas Parliament’s Committee on Budgetary Control proceeded to evaluate the credentials of the nominee, in particular in view of the requirements laid down in Article 286(1) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union;
B. whereas at its meeting of 17 June 2015 the Committee on Budgetary Control heard the Council’s nominee for membership of the Court of Auditors;
1. Delivers a favourable opinion on the Council’s nomination of Bettina Michelle Jakobsen as a Member of the Court of Auditors;
2. Instructs its President to forward this decision to the Council and, for information, the Court of Auditors, the other institutions of the European Union and the audit institutions of the Member States.
Exercise of the Union’s rights under international trade rules ***I
European Parliament legislative resolution of 7 July 2015 on the amended proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council laying down Union procedures in the field of the common commercial policy in order to ensure the exercise of the Union’s rights under international trade rules, in particular those established under the auspices of the World Trade Organization (codified text) (COM(2015)0049 – C8-0041/2015 – 2014/0174(COD))
– having regard to the Commission's amended proposal to the European Parliament and the Council (COM(2015)0049),
– having regard to Article 294(2) and Article 207(2) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, pursuant to which the Commission submitted the proposal to Parliament (C8‑0041/2015),
– 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 10 December 2014(1),
– having regard to the Interinstitutional Agreement of 20 December 1994 - Accelerated working method for official codification of legislative texts(2),
– having regard to Rules 103 and 59 of its Rules of Procedure,
– having regard to the report of the Committee on Legal Affairs (A8-0203/2015),
A. whereas, according to the Consultative Working Party of the legal services of the European Parliament, the Council and the Commission, the proposal in question contains a straightforward codification of the existing texts without any change in their substance;
1. Adopts its position at first reading hereinafter set out;
2. Instructs its President to forward its position to the Council, the Commission and the national parliaments.
Position of the European Parliament adopted at first reading on 7 July 2015 with a view to the adoption of Regulation (EU) 2015/... of the European Parliament and of the Council laying down Union procedures in the field of the common commercial policy in order to ensure the exercise of the Union’s rights under international trade rules, in particular those established under the auspices of the World Trade Organization (codification)
(As an agreement was reached between Parliament and Council, Parliament's position corresponds to the final legislative act, Regulation (EU) 2015/1843.)
European Parliament legislative resolution of 7 July 2015 on the proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on protection against injurious pricing of vessels (codified text) (COM(2014)0605 – C8-0171/2014 – 2014/0280(COD))
– having regard to the Commission proposal to the European Parliament and the Council (COM(2014)0605),
– having regard to Article 294(2) and Articles 207(2) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, pursuant to which the Commission submitted the proposal to Parliament (C8‑0171/2014),
– having regard to Article 294(3) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,
– having regard to the Interinstitutional Agreement of 20 December 1994 - Accelerated working method for official codification of legislative texts(1),
– having regard to Rules 103 and 59 of its Rules of Procedure,
– having regard to the report of the Committee on Legal Affairs (A8-0202/2015),
A. whereas, according to the Consultative Working Party of the legal services of the European Parliament, the Council and the Commission, the proposal in question contains a straightforward codification of the existing texts without any change in their substance;
1. Adopts its position at first reading hereinafter set out;
2. Instructs its President to forward its position to the Council, the Commission and the national parliaments.
Position of the European Parliament adopted at first reading on 7 July 2015 with a view to the adoption of Regulation (EU) 2016/... of the European Parliament and of the Council on protection against injurious pricing of vessels (codification)
(As an agreement was reached between Parliament and Council, Parliament's position corresponds to the final legislative act, Regulation (EU) 2016/1035.)
Fishing opportunities in EU waters for fishing vessels flying the flag of Venezuela off the coast of French Guiana ***
244k
61k
European Parliament legislative resolution of 7 July 2015 on the draft Council decision on the approval, on behalf of the European Union, of the Declaration on the granting of fishing opportunities in EU waters to fishing vessels flying the flag of the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela in the exclusive economic zone off the coast of French Guiana (05420/2015 – C8–0043/2015 – 2015/0001(NLE))
– having regard to the draft Council decision on the approval, on behalf of the European Union, of the Declaration on the granting of fishing opportunities in EU waters to fishing vessels flying the flag of the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela in the exclusive economic zone off the coast of French Guiana (05420/2015),
– having regard to the draft Declaration on the granting of fishing opportunities in EU waters to fishing vessels flying the flag of the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela in the exclusive economic zone off the coast of French Guiana (05420/2015),
– having regard to the request for consent submitted by the Council in accordance with Article 43(2) and Article 218(6), second subparagraph, point (a)(v) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (C8–0043/2015),
– having regard to Rule 99(1), first and third subparagraphs, Rule 99(2) and Rule 108(7) of its Rules of Procedure,
– having regard to the recommendation of the Committee on Fisheries (A8-0195/2015),
1. Gives its consent to approval of the Declaration;
2. Instructs its President to forward its position to the Council and the Commission, and the governments and parliaments of the Member States and of the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela.
Draft amending budget No 3/2015: surplus from 2014
248k
66k
European Parliament resolution of 7 July 2015 on the Council position on Draft amending budget No 3/2015 of the European Union for the financial year 2015 - entering the surplus of the financial year 2014 (09765/2015 – C8-0161/2015 – 2015/2077(BUD))
– having regard to Article 314 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,
– having regard to Article 106a of the Treaty establishing the European Atomic Energy Community,
– having regard to Regulation (EU, Euratom) No 966/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 October 2012 on the financial rules applicable to the general budget of the Union and repealing Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1605/2002(1), and in particular Article 41 thereof,
– having regard to the general budget of the European Union for the financial year 2015, as definitively adopted on 17 December 2014(2),
– having regard to Amending budget No 1/2015, as definitively adopted on 28 April 2015(3),
– having regard to Council Regulation (EU, Euratom) No 1311/2013 of 2 December 2013 laying down the multiannual financial framework for the years 2014-2020(4),
– having regard to Council Regulation (EU, Euratom) 2015/623 of 21 April 2015 amending Regulation (EU, Euratom) No 1311/2013 laying down the multiannual financial framework for the years 2014-2020(5),
– having regard to the Interinstitutional Agreement of 2 December 2013 between the European Parliament, the Council and the Commission on budgetary discipline, on cooperation in budgetary matters and on sound financial management(6),
– having regard to Council Decision 2007/436/EC, Euratom of 7 June 2007 on the system of the European Communities' own resources(7),
– having regard to Draft amending budget No 3/2015, which the Commission adopted on 15 April 2015 (COM(2015)0160),
– having regard to the position on Draft amending budget No 3/2015 which the Council adopted on 19 June 2015 and forwarded to Parliament on the same day (09765/2015),
– having regard to Rules 88 and 91 of its Rules of Procedure,
– having regard to the report of the Committee on Budgets (A8-0219/2015),
A. whereas Draft amending budget No 3/2015 aims to enter in the 2015 budget the surplus from the 2014 financial year, amounting to EUR 1 435 million;
B. whereas the main components of that surplus are a positive outturn on income of EUR 1 183 million, an under-spending in expenditure of EUR 142 million, and exchange rate differences amounting to EUR 110 million;
C. whereas on the income side, the two main components are interest on late payments and fines (EUR 634 million) and a positive outturn on own resources (EUR 479 million);
D. whereas on the expenditure side, the under-implementation for Section III is particularly low with EUR 29 million for 2014 and EUR 6 million for 2013 carryovers, but increased to EUR 101 million for the other institutions;
E. whereas the very low under-implementation in Section III underlines the ongoing shortage of payment appropriations which will remain a key challenge in implementing the 2015 budget;
1. Takes note of Draft amending budget No 3/2015, as submitted by the Commission, which is devoted solely to the budgeting of the 2014 surplus, for an amount of EUR 1 435 million, in accordance with Article 18 of the Financial Regulation and of the Council's position thereon;
2. Recalls that in the framework of the 2015 budgetary negotiations, Council insisted on shifting the payments related to the mobilisation of the European Union Solidarity Fund (EUSF) in Draft amending budgets No 5/2014 and No 7/2014 to the 2015 budget for a total amount of EUR 126,7 million;
3. Considers that given the surplus as presented in Draft amending budget No 3/2015, those two 2014 Draft amending budgets, covering in total 7 EUSF cases, could have easily been paid for from the 2014 budget;
4. Regrets in general a tendency in Council not to honour its commitments towards countries in need which have fulfilled the conditions for the mobilisation of the EUSF, by not mobilising additional resources as provided for by the special instruments, but rather by taking money away from the existing programmes; welcomes however the fact that the Council did not follow this approach for Draft amending budget No 4/2015;
5. Recalls that the Commission presented with Draft amending budget No 3/2015 another Draft Amending Budget No 4/2015 linked to the mobilisation of the EUSF for Romania, Bulgaria and Italy for a total amount of EUR 66,5 million;
6. Recalls that the adoption of Draft amending budget No 3/2015 will reduce the share of the GNI contributions from Member States to the Union budget by EUR 1 435 million and will therefore more than compensate for their contribution to the financing of Draft amending budget No 4/2015; highlights therefore that the two dossiers are subject to a common calendar for adoption since they are strictly linked from a political point of view;
7. Underlines its willingness to adopt both Draft amending budget No 3/2015 and Draft amending budget No 4/2015 as soon as possible as presented by the Commission;
8. Approves the Council position on Draft amending budget No 3/2015;
9. Instructs its President to declare that Amending budget No 3/2015 has been definitively adopted and arrange for its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union;
10. Instructs its President to forward this resolution to the Council, the Commission, the Court of Auditors and the national parliaments.
Draft amending budget No 4/2015: mobilisation of the EU Solidarity Fund for Romania, Bulgaria and Italy
250k
67k
European Parliament resolution of 7 July 2015 on the Council position on Draft amending budget No 4/2015 of the European Union for the financial year 2015, accompanying the proposal to mobilise the European Union Solidarity Fund for Romania, Bulgaria and Italy (09767/2015 – C8-0162/2015 – 2015/2078(BUD))
– having regard to Article 314 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,
– having regard to Article 106a of the Treaty establishing the European Atomic Energy Community,
– having regard to Regulation (EU, Euratom) No 966/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 October 2012 on the financial rules applicable to the general budget of the Union and repealing Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1605/2002(1), and in particular Article 41 thereof,
– having regard to the general budget of the European Union for the financial year 2015, as definitively adopted on 17 December 2014(2),
– having regard to Amending budget 1/2015, as definitively adopted on 28 April 2015(3),
– having regard to Council Regulation (EU, Euratom) No 1311/2013 of 2 December 2013 laying down the multiannual financial framework for the years 2014-2020(4) (MFF Regulation),
– having regard to Council Regulation (EU, Euratom) 2015/623 of 21 April 2015 amending Regulation (EU, Euratom) No 1311/2013 laying down the multiannual financial framework for the years 2014-2020(5),
– having regard to the Interinstitutional Agreement of 2 December 2013 between the European Parliament, the Council and the Commission on budgetary discipline, on cooperation in budgetary matters and on sound financial management(6),
– having regard to Council Decision 2007/436/EC, Euratom of 7 June 2007 on the system of the European Communities' own resources(7),
– having regard to Draft amending budget No 4/2015, which the Commission adopted on 15 April 2015 (COM(2015)0161),
– having regard to the proposal for a decision of the European Parliament and of the Council on the mobilisation of the EU Solidarity Fund (floods in Romania, Bulgaria and Italy), which the Commission adopted on 15 April 2015 (COM(2015)0162),
– having regard to the position on Draft amending budget No 4/2015 which the Council adopted on 19 June 2015 and forwarded to Parliament on the same day (09767/2015),
– having regard to Rules 88 and 91 of its Rules of Procedure,
– having regard to the report of the Committee on Budgets (A8-0220/2015),
A. whereas Draft amending budget No 4/2015 relates to the mobilisation of the European Union Solidarity Fund (EUSF) for an amount of EUR 66 505 850 in commitment and payment appropriations in relation to two floods in Romania in spring and summer 2014, in respect of which applications for aid total EUR 8 495 950, floods in Bulgaria in July/August 2014, in respect of which applications for aid total EUR 1 983 600 and floods in Italy in October/November 2014, in respect of which applications for aid total EUR 56 026 300;
B. whereas the purpose of Draft amending budget No 4/2015 is to formally enter this budgetary adjustment into the 2015 budget;
1. Takes note of Draft amending budget No 4/2015, as submitted by the Commission, and of the Council's position thereon;
2. Stresses the urgent need to release financial assistance through the EUSF to the countries affected by these natural disasters, taking into consideration that the EUSF shows solidarity with the population in the region hit by disasters;
3. Recalls that in the framework of the 2015 budgetary negotiations Council insisted on shifting the payments related to the mobilisation of the EUSF in Draft amending budgets No 5/2014 and No 7/2014 to the 2015 budget for a total amount of EUR 126,7 million;
4. Considers that given the surplus as presented in Draft amending budget No 3/2015, those two 2014 Draft amending budgets, covering in total 7 EUSF cases, could have easily been paid for from the 2014 budget, taking into consideration that the EUSF aims to enable a rapid, efficient and flexible response to these emergency situations;
5. Regrets in general a tendency in Council not to honour its commitments to countries which have gone through a major disaster, thereby fulfilling the conditions for the mobilisation of the EUSF, by not mobilising additional resources as provided for by the special instruments, but rather by taking money away from other programmes; welcomes however the fact that the Council did not follow this approach for Draft amending budget No 4/2015;
6. Stresses in particular that the current critical situation on payments excludes the option of using any other source of financing than the one proposed by the Commission as outlined in the Draft amending budget no 4/2015; recalls that the EUSF is a special instrument for which corresponding appropriations are to be budgeted outside the corresponding Multiannual Financial Framework ceilings;
7. Recalls that the adoption of Draft amending budget No 3/2015 will reduce the share of the GNI contributions from Member States to the Union budget by EUR 1 435 million and therefore more than compensate their contribution to the financing of Draft amending budget No 4/2015; highlights therefore that the two dossiers are subject to a common calendar for adoption since they are strictly linked from a political point of view;
8. Underlines its willingness to adopt both Draft amending budgets as soon as possible as presented by the Commission;
9. Approves the Council position on Draft amending budget No 4/2015;
10. Instructs its President to declare that Amending budget No 4/2015 has been definitively adopted and arrange for its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union;
11. Instructs its President to forward this resolution to the Council, the Commission, the Court of Auditors and the national parliaments.
European Parliament resolution of 7 July 2015 on the proposal for a decision of the European Parliament and of the Council on mobilisation of the European Union Solidarity Fund, in accordance with point 11 of the Interinstitutional Agreement of 2 December 2013 between the European Parliament, the Council and the Commission on budgetary discipline, on cooperation in budgetary matters and on sound financial management (floods in Romania, Bulgaria and Italy) (COM(2015)0162 – C8-0094/2015 – 2015/2079(BUD))
– having regard to the Commission proposal to the European Parliament and the Council (COM(2015)0162 – C8‑0094/2015),
– having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 2012/2002 of 11 November 2002 establishing the European Union Solidarity Fund(1),
– having regard to Council Regulation (EU, Euratom) No 1311/2013 of 2 December 2013 laying down the multiannual financial framework for the years 2014-2020(2), and in particular Article 10 thereof,
– having regard to the Interinstitutional Agreement of 2 December 2013 between the European Parliament, the Council and the Commission on budgetary discipline, on cooperation in budgetary matters and on sound financial management(3), and in particular point 11 thereof,
– having regard to the letter from the Committee on Regional Development,
– having regard to the report of the Committee on Budgets (A8-0211/2015),
1. Approves the decision annexed to this resolution;
2. Instructs its President to sign the decision with the President of the Council and arrange for its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union;
3. Instructs its President to forward this resolution, including its annex, to the Council and the Commission.
ANNEX
DECISION OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL
on the mobilisation of the EU Solidarity Fund (floods in Romania, Bulgaria and Italy)
(The text of this annex is not reproduced here since it corresponds to the final act, Decision (EU) 2015/1180.)
– having regard to Directive 2010/40/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council on the framework for the deployment of Intelligent Transport Systems in the field of road transport and for interfaces with other modes of transport(1),
– having regard to Commission Regulation (EU) No 454/2011 on the technical specification for interoperability relating to the subsystem ‘telematics applications for passenger services’ of the trans-European rail system(2),
– having regard to Directive 95/46/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 24 October 1995 on the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data(3),
– having regard to the Commission communication entitled ‘Action Plan for the Deployment of Intelligent Transport Systems in Europe’ (COM(2008)0886),
– having regard to the 2011 Commission White Paper entitled ‘Roadmap to a Single European Transport Area – Towards a competitive and resource efficient transport system’ (COM(2011)0144),
– having regard to its resolution of 15 December 2011 on the Roadmap to a Single European Transport Area – Towards a competitive and resource efficient transport system(4),
– having regard to the Commission Staff Working Document entitled ‘Towards a roadmap for delivering EU-wide multimodal travel information, planning and ticketing services’ (SWD(2014)0194),
– having regard to the Action Plan on Urban Mobility (COM(2009)0490),
– having regard to the opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee,
– having regard to the opinion of the Committee of the Regions,
– having regard to Rule 52 of its Rules of Procedure,
– having regard to the report of the Committee on Transport and Tourism (A8-0183/2015),
A. whereas, despite ongoing efforts, the aim outlined in Initiative 22 in the 2011 White Paper(5) of enabling seamless multimodal door-to-door travel using intelligent systems for interoperable and multimodal scheduling, online reservation systems and smart ticketing has not yet been realised;
B. whereas most travellers continue to prefer individual transport, and whereas, given that creating EU-wide journey planners will not in itself be enough to achieve better integration of the various modes of transport, each of these transport modes needs to become more efficient, sustainable and user friendly, and that process will be significantly assisted by, inter alia, the adoption of the Fourth Railway Package to the extent that it would ensure equal access to infrastructure also for smaller operators, SMEs and start-ups, the adoption of the Regulation on air passengers’ rights and of a European waterways strategy and the implementation of the Single European Sky and TEN-T priority projects;
C. whereas, despite the Commission defining integrated ticketing as a combination of different transport methods into one single ticket, such a definition is not always shared by businesses and some service providers only aim to provide interoperable tickets, which hampers further developments in the sector;
1. Points out that EU-wide multimodal travel information, a cross-border integrated approach on journey planning and ticketing services, especially for long-distance travel are part of the answer to major challenges in the European transport sector, including those of sustainability, multimodality, improvement of safety in all transport modes, efficiency and economic viability, the creation of quality jobs and labour mobility and are therefore equally beneficial to society, the economy, the environment, social cohesion and the tourism industry;
2. Emphasises that EU-wide integrated multimodal travel information, planning and ticketing services provide European businesses, especially SMEs and start-ups, with opportunities for innovation and hence constitute a major contribution to a globally competitive European single market and the completion of a single European transport area;
3. Emphasises that EU-wide personal mobility is a prerequisite for the exercise of basic freedoms and that consumers should therefore be able to access comprehensive, accurate and neutral information regarding both timetables and connections about multimodal and cross-border transport links for seamless, facilitated door-to-door travel with high standards of comfort and to make the necessary reservations and payments online; welcomes incentives to encourage travellers to combine several available modes of transport; notes that in most of the Member States the option of purchasing tickets for national and cross-border journeys within the EU via the Internet or mobile application is still lacking; is of the opinion that geo-blocking should not be permitted;
4. Underlines the importance for users of getting one ticket for one multimodal journey and sees the enabling of fair and equal access to multimodal travel and traffic data and therefore the provision of comprehensive, easily accessible, neutral, reliable and real-time information for travellers as a prerequisite for integrated ticketing systems and emphasises that, in order to ensure that measures to that end are fair, it is of prime importance that they be accompanied by the internalisation of external costs for all modes of transport and by information on the environmental performance of the different modes;
5. Notes that consumers should at all times be given transparent pricing information; stresses therefore that reservation and payment systems should clearly indicate the total ticket price for any selected journey, including compulsory elements such as taxes and charges; emphasises the importance of innovative IT-based platforms that reduce reservation and transaction charges overall and underlines the importance of allowing for a variety of payment options for purchasing travel tickets; calls upon the EU and Member States to do more to restrict fees for the use of credit cards or other reasonable forms of payment for public transport services;
6. Emphasises that the incompatibility and inconsistency of data layers, the diversity and the missing interoperability of data formats and data exchange protocols undermine the existence of integrated multimodal information, planning and ticketing services in the EU and create additional costs; calls on the Commission to ensure that any regulatory action keeps up with the rapid developments in the transport sector and does not create an unnecessary burden;
7. Welcomes efforts in both the public and private sectors to introduce journey planners together with the required open standards and interfaces, but notes that many such services cover only specific regions or countries and that few are multimodal; calls therefore, as a first step, for transport services providers and providers of journey planners to build on existing synergies and to focus more closely on providing multimodal, cross-border journey planners with tailored ticketing arrangements, devoting particular attention to the language in which services are provided, taking into account the use of minority languages and linking long-distance and local transport including the ‘first and last mile’, i.e. by upgrading the different systems to develop their interoperability and enable communication between them; calls on the Commission to use the TEN-T corridors as a pilot project for the identification of passenger flows and the potential for multimodal information, travel planning and ticketing services;
8. Calls on the Commission to develop a repository of good practices for locally, regionally or nationally run projects, to serve as a basis for implementation of the latter across the EU;
9. Stresses that the ease and convenience of purchase using multimodal integrated ticketing systems will attract more passengers to public transport, which will increase their satisfaction and benefit public transport companies;
10. Calls on the Commission, with regard to multimodal integrated ticketing services, to take the measures necessary to create a clear framework, supporting and facilitating the efforts being made by the stakeholders and the competent authorities, the agreements they have already concluded and the innovative nature of the products and services on offer and in the event that no significant progress in creating integrated, interoperable multimodal, cross-border ticketing systems is made by 2020 calls on the Commission, building on the progress already made and the voluntary initiatives already introduced, to take legislative action by introducing minimum rules and a timetable;
11. Highlights the active role and the responsibility of local and regional authorities with regard to the ‘first and last mile’ of journeys; considers it essential that they be involved in implementing individual measures, in supervising their operation and in ensuring that the system as a whole functions effectively; taking the above points into account, calls on the competent authorities in the Member States
—
to introduce, by 2020 at the latest, in close cooperation with the representatives of the transport sector, national updated timetable and fare information systems on the basis of open interfaces linking the travel data for regional and local urban public transport operated by both private and publicly owned companies, and to continue updating such systems on a regular basis,
—
to ensure that, by 2020 at the latest, all forms of local public transport are equipped with intelligent systems relaying real-time information about the position of the transport vehicle and that the inclusion of such systems is a specification in calls for tender,
—
to make provision, by 2024 at the latest, on the basis of open interfaces, for the national timetable and fare information systems, with real-time information on local public transport operators’ timetables, to be networked on a cross-border basis and made accessible to operators, to providers of journey planners and to consumers;
12. Shares the Commission’s view that fair, open and equal access for all information, travel planning and ticketing service providers, including SMEs and start-ups, to comprehensive, multimodal real-time transport and travel data is a prerequisite for EU-wide multimodal travel information, planning and ticketing services, and calls on the Commission to circulate a proposal requiring all providers to make available, on fair and equal terms, all the information needed for putting in place more comprehensive services and thereby giving travellers a genuine and accessible choice between the most sustainable, best-value or fastest connections, without prejudice to the commercial interests of the service providers involved;
13. Emphasises that, in line with the EU’s competition policy, it is incumbent on the Commission to identify and counter any potential danger of multimodal information and ticketing providers’ monopolising information; adds that the Commission must also ensure that the share assigned to paying for the electronic ticketing service does not assume such proportions as to penalise passenger transport undertakings;
14. Urges that a platform for dialogue be established, involving all the representatives of the transport sector and competent authorities on a local, regional, national and European level, to develop feasible arrangements for the phased EU-wide introduction of interoperable electronic ticketing systems taking account of the entire journey cycle from planning to the purchasing of tickets and to identify and address the problems of distributing ticket-sales income in a proportionate manner and of cost-sharing in the event of disputes between contracted parties; is of the opinion that these solutions should be developed in a market-driven manner without burdening operators and passengers with disproportionate costs; calls on the Commission to strongly promote through EU co-financing synergies in this field between Trans-European Telecommunications and Transport networks;
15. Points out that European passenger rights are limited to the extent that they apply separately to each contract of carriage individually, but when a journey involves cross-border legs or multimodal transport, passenger rights cannot be guaranteed in the usual way and urges therefore the Commission to respond to Parliament’s call, in its resolution on the 2011 Roadmap(6), for a Charter of Passengers’ Rights covering all forms of transport by bringing forward a proposal for such a Charter, including a separate section on multimodal journeys with clear and transparent protection of passengers’ rights in the multimodal context taking account of the specific characteristics of each transport mode, and integrated multimodal ticketing, by the end of 2017;
16. Emphasises the crucial importance, in terms of social mobility, and considering the demographic change in Europe, of equal barrier-free access to transport for all and in particular for vulnerable people, and calls for more attention to be paid to the needs of people with disabilities or limited mobility as well as to the special requirements of elderly people in relation to access to travel information before and during journeys, ticketing options and reservation and payment systems, including the ability to reserve wheelchair spaces; welcomes the Commission’s European Accessibility Act Roadmap and the potential for legislative action to remove economic and social barriers facing people with disabilities; urges the Commission to tackle barriers to transport as part of its efforts to improve accessibility;
17. Underlines the importance of safeguarding different pricing models and payment options (allowances, discounts, etc.) so as to ensure that certain groups in society (the unemployed, retired, students, large families, people with low income and other disadvantaged social groups) may benefit from multimodal ticketing systems in the EU;
18. Notes that multimodal transport information systems should be user-friendly and hence complemented by updated map and geographical data;
19. Calls for the continuation of support for stakeholders for innovative problem solving, and therefore for the relevant sources of EU financing, e.g. the Shift2Rail Innovation Programme 4 under the Horizon 2020 programme and the Connecting Europe Facility, along with the structural funds to be not only maintained but developed; urges the European Investment Bank to make appropriate use of the European Fund for Strategic Investment in this regard;
20. Calls on the Commission to publish an easily accessible list with a regular evaluation of EU co-financed projects on ‘intermodal integrated ticketing’;
21. Highlights the vital role of global navigation satellite systems (GNSS) and, in particular, the Galileo European navigation satellite system, in dynamic data collection, enabling travellers to be informed about possible disruption and alternative travel options both before they set off and en route; stresses that the benefits of satellite systems must at all times be matched by sufficient data protection provisions;
22. Points out the need to reduce congestion and air pollution in urban areas and calls for the introduction of incentives to encourage the use of sustainable modes of transport across Europe, with the inclusion in travel information and journey-planning services of information about diverse mobility services, e.g. car sharing, carpooling, park-and-ride systems, bicycle rental systems, cycles lanes and footpaths;
23. Welcomes the increasing availability of integrated electronic ticketing systems in cities and other urban areas, such as inclusive digital ‘smartcard’ technologies that can be used across the different transport modes, and also for cross-border travel, but emphasises that technical solutions should be left to the market and not be imposed at European level;
24. Notes that permanently good network connections are one of the prerequisites for creating a passenger-friendly smart system capable of providing dynamic information on the traffic situation in real time; calls on the Commission therefore to prioritise facilitating, encouraging and supporting the wide availability of free or low-cost high-speed digital infrastructures, on all transport modes and at all transport interchanges, via the Connecting Europe Facility, Horizon 2020, EFSI and other relevant funding sources;
25. Underscores the importance of data protection, urges compliance with Directive 95/46/EC and calls for clear conditions to be laid down for the use and transmission of data, particularly in respect of personal data, which should be processed and used only in ‘anonymised’ form and only for the purposes of facilitating intermodal ticketing; outlines that the purchase and payment of tickets via mobile and internet applications should preferably be available without need of registration in the system;
26. Highlights the importance of journey planning, accessible multimodal information and clear and transparent ticketing, including through digital and online platforms, and the need for better access to public transport whilst travelling abroad in the EU and for encouraging the modernisation of sustainable transport services in order to attract tourists from within and outside the EU, since this will facilitate the entire journey planning process; highlights also the potential positive effects of an integrated ticketing system in terms of a better connection of all regions, particularly the most remote regions, such as the outermost regions;
27. Stresses the need for more and better promotion and showcasing of the more than a hundred multimodal journey planners that are already available in cities, regions and on the national level in the EU, and calls also for efforts promoting the interconnection of these services;
28. Instructs its President to forward this resolution to the Council and the Commission.
European Parliament resolution of 15 December 2011 on the Roadmap to a Single European Transport Area – Towards a competitive and resource efficient transport system (OJ C 168 E, 14.6.2013, p. 72.)
Draft amending budget No 1/2015: European Fund for Strategic Investments (EFSI)
255k
48k
European Parliament resolution of 7 July 2015 on the Council position on Draft amending budget No 1/2015 of the European Union for the financial year 2015, Section III – Commission, accompanying the proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on the European Fund for Strategic Investments and amending Regulations (EU) No 1291/2013 and (EU) No 1316/2013 (09876/2015 – C8-0172/2015 – 2015/2011(BUD))
– having regard to Article 314 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,
– having regard to Article 106a of the Treaty establishing the European Atomic Energy Community,
– having regard to Regulation (EU, Euratom) No 966/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 October 2012 on the financial rules applicable to the general budget of the Union and repealing Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1605/2002(1), and in particular Article 41 thereof,
– having regard to the general budget of the European Union for the financial year 2015, as definitively adopted on 17 December 2014(2),
– having regard to Amending budget No 1/2015 , as definitively adopted on 28 April 2015(3),
– having regard to Council Regulation (EU, Euratom) No 1311/2013 of 2 December 2013 laying down the multiannual financial framework for the years 2014-2020(4) (MFF Regulation),
– having regard to Council Regulation (EU, Euratom) 2015/623 of 21 April 2015 amending Regulation (EU, Euratom) No 1311/2013 laying down the multiannual financial framework for the years 2014-2020(5),
– having regard to the Interinstitutional Agreement of 2 December 2013 between the European Parliament, the Council and the Commission on budgetary discipline, on cooperation in budgetary matters and on sound financial management(6),
– having regard to Draft amending budget No 1/2015, which the Commission adopted on 13 January 2015 (COM(2015)0011),
– having regard to the position on Draft amending budget No 1/2015 which the Council adopted on 26 June 2015 and forwarded to Parliament on the same day (09876/2015 – C8‑0172/2015),
– having regard to Regulation (EU) 2015/1017 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 June 2015 on the European Fund for Strategic Investments, the European Investment Advisory Hub and the European Investment Project Portal and amending Regulations (EU) No 1291/2013 and (EU) No 1316/2013 — the European Fund for Strategic Investments(7),
– having regard to Rules 88 and 91 of its Rules of Procedure,
– having regard to the report of the Committee on Budgets and the opinions of the Committee on Industry, Research and Energy, the Committee on Transport and Tourism and the Committee on Regional Development (A8-0221/2015),
A. whereas Draft amending budget No 1/2015 aims to transpose the necessary changes to the budget nomenclature in line with the legislative agreement on the European Fund for Strategic Investments (EFSI) and to provide for the necessary reallocation of EUR 1 360 million in commitment appropriations and EUR 10 million in payment appropriations;
B. whereas for the provisioning of the EU guarantee fund in 2015, a total amount of EUR 1 350 million is being redeployed from the Connecting Europe Facility (EUR 790 million), Horizon 2020 (EUR 70 million) and ITER (EUR 490 million) in commitment appropriations;
C. whereas the Commission intends to offset the reduction for ITER by an equivalent increase over the period 2018-2020;
D. whereas the provisioning in commitment and payment appropriations of the European Investment Advisory Hub, amounting to EUR 10 million each, is fully redeployed from ITER (budget article 08 04 01 02);
E. whereas all additional appropriations to implement the EFSI in commitments and payments are fully redeployed, thus leaving the overall commitment and payment appropriations in the 2015 budget unchanged;
1. Takes note of Draft amending budget No 1/2015, as submitted by the Commission, and of the Council's position thereon;
2. Welcomes that a speedy agreement on the EFSI was made possible due to the determination of all institutions to ensure its launch as quickly as possible; while the outcome of the negotiations is better than the original Commission proposal, regrets the negative impact on Horizon 2020 and CEF;
3. Reiterates the role of the Union budget in creating added value by pooling resources and ensuring a high degree of synergies between the European Structural and Investment Funds and EFSI while enhancing the multiplying effect of Union contributions; supports the mobilisation of additional sources of private and public finance to fund investment on goals of a European dimension, in particular by addressing cross-border challenges in areas such as energy, environment and transport infrastructure;
4. Welcomes the fact that an additional EUR 1 000 million compared to the initial Commission proposal will be financed through the Global MFF margin for commitments, stemming from margins left available in the 2014 and 2015 budgets, thus reducing the redeployment from CEF and Horizon 2020; recalls that, according to Article 14 of the MFF Regulation, resources under the Global MFF Margin for commitments will only be made available as of 2016;
5. Regrets, however, in general the redeployment from CEF and Horizon 2020 as they are essential programmes for jobs and growths in Europe; intends therefore to remedy these redeployments in the upcoming annual budgetary procedures;
6. Points out that investment in research and transport is vital in order to strengthen the role and aim of the Union budget to stimulate growth, competitiveness and employment and to move towards the goals of the Europe 2020 strategy; recalls in this regard that the Horizon 2020 and the Connecting Europe Facility (CEF) programmes are key programmes under Heading 1a "Competitiveness for growth and jobs";
7. Affirms its willingness to adopt Draft amending budget No 1/2015 as modified by the Council in line with the legislative agreement on the EFSI, given its interest in launching the EFSI as quickly as possible;
8. Approves therefore the Council position on Draft amending budget No 1/2015;
9. Instructs its President to declare that Amending budget No 2/2015 has been definitively adopted and arrange for its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union;
10. Instructs its President to forward this resolution to the Council, the Commission, the Court of Auditors and the national parliaments.
Draft amending budget No 5/2015 - Responding to migratory pressures
257k
69k
European Parliament resolution of 7 July 2015 on the Council position on Draft amending budget No 5/2015 of the European Union for the financial year 2015 - Responding to migratory pressures (09768/2015 – C8-0163/2015 – 2015/2121(BUD))
– having regard to Article 314 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,
– having regard to Article 106a of the Treaty establishing the European Atomic Energy Community,
– having regard to Regulation (EU, Euratom) No 966/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 October 2012 on the financial rules applicable to the general budget of the Union and repealing Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1605/2002(1), and in particular Article 41 thereof,
– having regard to the general budget of the European Union for the financial year 2015, as definitively adopted on 17 December 2014(2),
– having regard to Amending budget No 1/2015, as definitively adopted on 28 April 2015(3),
– having regard to Council Regulation (EU, Euratom) No 1311/2013 of 2 December 2013 laying down the multiannual financial framework for the years 2014-2020(4) (MFF Regulation),
– having regard to Council Regulation (EU, Euratom) 2015/623 of 21 April 2015 amending Regulation (EU, Euratom) No 1311/2013 laying down the multiannual financial framework for the years 2014-2020(5),
– having regard to the Interinstitutional Agreement of 2 December 2013 between the European Parliament, the Council and the Commission on budgetary discipline, on cooperation in budgetary matters and on sound financial management(6),
– having regard to Draft amending budget No 5/2015, which the Commission adopted on 13 May 2015 (COM(2015)0241),
– having regard to the position on Draft amending budget No 5/2015 which the Council adopted on 19 June 2015 and forwarded to Parliament on the same day (09768/2015 – C8‑0163/2015),
– having regard to its resolution of 29 April 2015 on the latest tragedies in the Mediterranean and EU migration and asylum policies(7),
– having regard to the Commission communication of 13 May 2015 entitled "A European Agenda on Migration"(COM(2015)0240),
– having regard to Rules 88 and 91 of its Rules of Procedure,
– having regard to the report of the Committee on Budgets and the opinion of the Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs (A8-0212/2015),
A. whereas Draft amending budget No 5/2015 aims to reinforce the Union's resources to manage migration and refugee flows, following recent tragedies in the Mediterranean and the increase in the dimension of migratory flows;
B. whereas the increase in commitment appropriations amounts to EUR 75 722 000;
C. whereas the increase in payment appropriations amounting to EUR 69 652 000 is fully redeployed from the Galileo programme, leaving the overall level of payment appropriations in the 2015 budget unchanged;
D. whereas the increase proposed for the European Agency for the Management of Operational Cooperation at the External Borders (FRONTEX) amounts to a total of EUR 26,8 million in both commitment and payment appropriations, partially stemming from additional appropriations through Draft amending budget No 5/2015 and partially from redeployment within Chapter 18 02 (Internal Security) due to the closure of old files under the External Borders Fund;
E. whereas the financial burden related to the emergency has so far fallen mainly on the national budgets of the southern coastal states of the Union;
F. whereas in light of the macroeconomic forecast for the medium term and of the opposing demographic trends within the Union and in the neighbouring areas, particularly in West and Central Africa, the increase in migration to Europe cannot be considered to be a temporary phenomenon;
G. whereas Draft amending budget No 5/2015 also increases the staffing level of 3 agencies, namely 16 additional posts for FRONTEX, 4 posts for the European Asylum Support Office (EASO) and 3 posts for the European Police Office (Europol);
H. whereas, if migration flows are not managed in an effective and timely manner, they may lead to considerable costs in other policy areas;
1. Takes note of Draft amending budget No 5/2015, as submitted by the Commission, and of the Council's position thereon;
2. Welcomes the willingness of all institutions to increase the budget appropriations related to migration and asylum, given the obvious and urgent need;
3. Recalls that in its reading of the 2015 budget in October 2014, Parliament had already called for substantially higher appropriations on these budget lines and additional staff for the agencies concerned;
4. Regrets however the limited amount of the increases proposed in Draft amending budget No 5/2015, which do not correspond to the actual needs given the ongoing and probably worsening crisis in the Mediterranean, the growing risk of an increase in refugees from Ukraine and the necessity to address migratory challenges in general; underlines however the need for a strict control on the destination of those funds and consequently more transparency when it comes to contract and subcontract procedures, taking into account the various investigations concerning several abuses discovered in Member States;
5. Regrets the divisions which have emerged between Member States in the Council on the Commission proposal contained in the "European Agenda on Migration"; recalls that, due to the nature of the migration phenomenon, the emergency can be more effectively handled at Union level;
6. Considers that the relevant agencies should not be subject to reduction or redeployment of staff; considers that those agencies must allocate their staff appropriately with the aim of meeting their increasing responsibilities;
7. Stresses that, given the large number of arrivals on the Union’s southern shores, the increasing role EASO has to play in the management of asylum, and the clear call for support in frontloading reception conditions, the proposal to increase EASO staff by only 4 is clearly insufficient; therefore requests appropriate EASO staffing and budget for 2016 in order to allow EASO to effectively fulfil its tasks and operations;
8. Believes that the budgetary impact and the additional tasks of the measures presented as part of the EU Agenda on Migration and the EU Agenda on Security with regard to Europol should be assessed in detail by the Commission to allow the European Parliament and the Council to properly adjust Europol’s budgetary and staff needs; stresses the role of Europol in cross-border support for Member States and in information exchange; underlines the need to ensure an appropriate budget and level of staffing for Europol for 2016, in order to allow it to effectively fulfil its tasks and operations;
9. Asks the Commission to carry out, in the context of the mid-term review of the Multiannual Financial Framework, an evaluation, as precisely as possible, of the needs of the Asylum, Migration and Integration Fund until 2020; asks the Commission to make a proposal for an adequate increase and, as it occurs, an adjusted distribution of funding between the different programs and methods of implementation of the Fund, following the revision of the financial perspectives;
10. Expresses its intention to modify the budget nomenclature of the Asylum, Migration and Integration Fund in the interests of transparency and better control of the allocation of the annual appropriations between programs and means of implementation of the Fund, as specified in Regulation (EU) No 516/2014(8);
11. Notes furthermore that Draft amending budget No 5/2015 does not foresee additional overall payment appropriations in the 2015 budget, but only reverts once more to the redeployment of already existing resources;
12. Insists that the redeployment from Galileo needs to be duly compensated for in the 2016 budget;
13. Affirms nevertheless its willingness to adopt Draft amending budget No 5/2015 as soon as possible as presented by the Commission, given the urgency of the situation;
14. Approves therefore the Council position on Draft amending budget No 5/2015;
15. Instructs its President to declare that Amending budget No 5/2015 has been definitively adopted and arrange for its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union;
16. Instructs its President to forward this resolution to the Council, the Commission, the Court of Auditors and the national parliaments.
a.b.c.In accordance with Regulation No (EU) No 516/2014, the amount of global resources allocated to the Asylum, Migration and Integration Fund for 2014-2020 is EUR 3 137 million. This amount is allocated as follows:EUR 2 392 million for national programs (Article 19);EUR 360 million for specific actions listed in Annex II (Article 16), the resettlement programs (Article 17), the transfers (Article 18);EUR 385 million for the action of the Union (Article 20), emergency aid (Article 21), the European Migration Network (Article 22), technical assistance (Article 23).The current budget nomenclature doesn't correspond in any way to this allocation.
Review of the implementation of the Dairy Package
302k
106k
European Parliament resolution of 7 July 2015 on prospects for the EU dairy sector – review of the implementation of the Dairy Package (2014/2146(INI))
– having regard to Regulation (EU) No 261/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 14 March 2012 amending Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 as regards contractual relations in the milk and milk products sector(1),
– having regard to Regulation (EU) No 1308/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 December 2013 establishing a common organisation of the markets in agricultural products and repealing Council Regulations (EEC) No 922/72, (EEC) No 234/79, (EC) No 1037/2001 and (EC) No 1234/2007(2),
– having regard to the Commission report of 13 June 2014 entitled ‘Development of the dairy market situation and the operation of the ‘Milk Package’ provisions’ (COM(2014)0354),
– having regard to the Commission report of December 2014 on the ‘Prospects for the EU agricultural markets and income 2014-2024’,
– having regard to Article 349 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union on the subject of the outermost regions of the EU,
– having regard to the Commission report of 10 December 2012 entitled ‘Evolution of the market situation and the consequent conditions for smoothly phasing-out the milk quota system – second ‘soft landing’ report’ (COM(2012)0741),
– having regard to its resolution of 11 December 2013 on maintaining milk production in mountain areas, disadvantaged areas and outermost regions after the expiry of the milk quota(3),
– having regard to its resolution of 8 March 2011 on the EU protein deficit: what solution for a long-standing problem?(4),
– having regard to its resolution of 17 September 2009 on the crisis in the dairy farming sector(5),
– having regard to the Commission communication of 15 July 2014 on tackling unfair trading practices in the business-to-business food supply chain (COM(2014)0472),
– having regard to Regulation (EC) No 247/2006(6), which establishes specific measures in the field of agriculture in favour of the outermost regions of the European Union
– having regard to Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 November 2012 on quality schemes for agricultural products and foodstuffs(7),
– having regard to the Commission proposal for a regulation of 13 January 2015 on the European Fund for Strategic Investments (COM(2015)0010),
– having regard to the Draft Opinion of the Committee of the Regions entitled ‘The future of the dairy industry’,
– having regard to the Memorandum of Understanding in respect of cooperation in agriculture and rural development within the EU between the European Commission and the European Investment Bank signed on 23 March 2015,
– having regard to Rule 52 of its Rules of Procedure,
– having regard to the report of the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development and the opinion of the Committee on Budgetary Control (A8-0187/2015),
A. whereas the ‘Milk Package’ came into force on 3 October 2012 and applies until 30 June 2020;
B. whereas, as decided in the 2003 Mid-Term Review of the CAP, dairy quotas will expire on 31 March 2015;
C. given the importance and topicality of the measures contained in the resolution of 11 December 2013 on maintaining milk production in mountainous areas, disadvantaged areas and the outermost regions of the Union after the expiry of the milk quota;
D. whereas the global dairy market is increasingly volatile, with the highest-ever price since records began noted in January 2014, followed by substantial drops in prices throughout the rest of 2014; whereas livestock farming and the input products used in dairy production are particularly vulnerable to the challenges of volatility, resulting in farm-gate prices that are below the costs of production;
E. whereas sustainable farming as a source of high-quality food can only be ensured if farmers receive adequate farm-gate prices which cover all the costs of sustainable production;
F. whereas the Russian ban on European dairy products since August 2014 has had a negative impact on the EU internal market, thus demonstrating the need to be prepared for the application of crisis-related market measures, irrespective of their nature, as well as the importance of securing diverse export markets for EU products, particularly as global demand for dairy products is predicted to increase, combined with ensuring a stable, solvent domestic market;
G. whereas the Milk Package brought in the possibility for Member States to introduce compulsory contracts to help producers and processors plan their production volumes, as well as to bolster the structuring of supply chains in view of the end of milk quotas, and whereas few Member States have made use of that prerogative so far;
H. whereas the Milk Package obliged Member States to recognise producer organisations and their associations and the crucial role that cooperatives continue to play, bearing in mind the need to improve the concentration of supply so as to provide producers with greater negotiating power;
I. whereas the Milk Market Observatory was established in April 2014 to improve monitoring of the dairy sector for both the Commission and the industry, and whereas its function needs to be strengthened so as to create within the sector an efficient crisis-warning system for dairy farms of various sizes, geographical locations and with differing production and distribution methods;
J. whereas the current safety net is too low to provide protection in the event of a fall in the price of milk;
K. whereas one of the main objectives of the common agricultural policy (CAP) is balanced territorial development, in economic, social and environmental terms; whereas this presupposes that agriculture will continue to be productive and sustainable in disadvantaged, outermost, remote or mountainous areas;
L. whereas the end of quotas will have a considerable negative impact on the outermost regions, particularly in the Azores, where dairy farming is the main economic activity, representing around 46 % of the regional economy;
M. whereas for a large number of dairy farms located in disadvantaged, outermost, insular, remote and mountainous areas the costs of production, collection and marketing of milk and dairy products outside their production area are much higher than in other areas, and whereas they cannot utilise the opportunities for growth created by the abolition of the quota to the same extent because of the natural constraints of these regions; for these reasons, such farmers could be threatened by a larger concentration of producers in the best-placed economic areas within the EU;
N. whereas compulsory declarations of delivered volumes of milk will apply from 1 April 2015;
O. whereas generational renewal, modernisation and investment are crucial for a functioning and sustainable European dairy sector;
P. whereas milk and, in particular, ‘protected designation of origin’ (PDO), ‘protected geographical indication’ (PGI) and ‘traditional specialties guaranteed’ (TSG) products produced throughout the EU significantly contribute to the success of the EU’s agri‑food industry and the prosperity of rural economies where small and medium-sized family farms predominate and where extensive milk production must be maintained, provides the raw material for large numbers of processors in the private and cooperative sectors, preserves a diverse European agri-food heritage, and plays a key role in Europe’s territorial and environmental configuration, as well as in the social sphere, with a multiplier effect on other business sectors such as tourism;
Q. whereas significant fines have been imposed on farmers and milk producers in some Member States for exceeding milk quotas during the last two quota years;
1. Recalls that a viable, sustainable and competitive dairy sector across the EU, with responsive tools allowing for fair remuneration of dairy farmers, is the goal of the Milk Package; stresses that the issues identified in the Milk Package remain a barrier to a sustainable, competitive and equitable milk market and a fair income for farmers;
2. Recalls the important role of dairy farming in terms of land management, rural employment and the economic, environmental and social development of numerous European agricultural regions;
3. Highlights the fact that dairy farmers, and in particular small-scale farmers, are particularly vulnerable to income variations and risks owing to high capital costs, the perishability of production, volatile dairy commodity prices and input and energy costs, and that a sustainable livelihood from dairy farming is an ongoing challenge, as production costs are frequently close to or above farm-gate prices;
4. Stresses that European farmers have to cope with high costs owing to the prices of items involved in production, such as livestock feed, and that, as a result of stringent European regulations on animal welfare and food safety, their competitiveness is reduced in comparison with other countries;
Impact of the Russian embargo and the current crisis in the dairy sector
5. Urges the Commission to reflect on the causes of the crisis and on measures to put in place to prevent future crises, as indicated in Articles 219, 221 and 222 of Regulation (EU) No 1308/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 December 2013 establishing a common organisation of the markets in agricultural products;
6. Urges the Commission to address, with further targeted market measures, the crisis currently affecting domestic dairy markets as a result of downward price pressure resulting from a lack of adequate crisis instruments, a dip in global demand, global price volatility and the Russian embargo, whilst recognising the first steps that have been taken thus far in addressing the impact of the Russian embargo;
7. Points out that the surplus of dairy products from certain Member States that have traditional commercial relations with Russia creates major imbalances on their domestic markets, leading to a sharp decrease in prices and causing local producers to become uncompetitive; calls upon the Commission in this regard to analyse the newly created situation and take priority action;
8. Recalls that the dairy crisis of 2009 occurred under the quota structure and because of the malfunctioning of the dairy products value chain, resulting in downward pressure on the price paid to producers; reminds the Commission that the delay in responding to the crisis forced many dairy farmers out of business, and expresses concern regarding the Commission’s capacity to respond rapidly and effectively to market crises; highlights the fact that the drop in prices at source that has affected livestock breeders was not reflected in consumer prices, which demonstrates the major imbalance between the different stakeholders in the dairy supply chain;
9. Regrets that Parliament’s request, which aimed, in the event of severe crises, to provide subsidies for farmers who voluntarily reduced their production, has been rejected by the Council; underlines the importance of reopening the debate on this crisis management tool;
10. Underlines that the abolition of quotas risks leading to an additional concentration of milk production to the advantage of the largest dairy farmers and to the detriment of the smallest farmers, without guaranteeing efficiency or income;
Challenges and opportunities for the dairy sector
11. Notes that the medium- and long-term prospects for the dairy sector in both domestic and global markets remain fluid with fluctuating demand, but at the same time emphasises that, as a key part of the agri-food industry, the dairy sector has significant long-term growth and job creation and development potential in rural areas, which should also be targeted under the new Investment Plan;
12. Stresses the importance of encouraging research and innovation in order to allow all producers and processors to adapt their apparatus and production techniques in response to economic, environmental and social expectations;
13. Highlights the important role that generational renewal has for the future of the milk sector and the significant opportunities for young farmers in dairying;
14. Calls on the Commission to establish new financing opportunities for Member States, including with the aid of the European Investment Bank (EIB), by means of which the dairy industry will be reformed; considers financial support, such as guarantee funds, revolving funds and investment capital, to be essential, along with resources provided by the EIB, in order to intervene at the level of structural and European investment funds, in particular in harmony with rural development; this would enable a multiplier effect to be achieved in terms of growth and income, as well as facilitating access to credit for dairy farmers; welcomes in this regard the financing opportunities presented to farmers in the dairy sector by the EIB’s new fund, which offers lower interest rates to facilitate on-farm investment and modernisation, while offering financing opportunities to young farmers to grow their businesses; further highlights the complementary nature of the European Fund for Strategic Investments financing, which would help to develop the milk sector by attracting private capital with a view to expense accountability and increased investment effectiveness;
15. Notes that the high degree of price volatility and recurring crises that are incompatible with major investments in livestock and the establishment of new producers are the main challenges facing the dairy sector; urges the Commission in consequence to consider measures to mitigate the risks arising from increased exposure to the world market, to monitor more closely the correct functioning of the single market in milk and milk products and to set up an action plan in order to show how it intends to mitigate these risks;
Maintaining a sustainable dairy sector in in disadvantaged, mountainous, insular and outermost regions
16. Commits to maintaining milk production, as dairy farming makes an important socio-economic contribution to agricultural and rural development across the EU, and emphasises its particular importance in disadvantaged mountainous, insular and outermost regions, where it is sometimes the only type of farming possible; adds that for these regions this sector is responsible for social, economic and territorial cohesion, the subsistence of many families, the organisation, occupation and protection of the territory and the maintenance of cultural and traditional practices and also, as dairy farming has shaped centuries-old cultural landscapes in these regions, creating an important basis for tourism; highlights the fact that in these regions the abandonment of milk production equates to the abandonment of agriculture;
17. Stresses that it is essential to create a transition mechanism in the outermost regions between the elimination of quotas and the liberalisation of the markets which makes it possible to protect farmers and the sector in these regions;
18. Requests that the safety-net measures be activated as specific indicators for dairy operations and businesses in mountainous regions, given the difference in production between mountainous dairy regions and other territories;
19. Expresses disappointment with the low levels of implementation of Milk Package measures in outermost regions and mountainous, insular and disadvantaged areas, and underlines that it is indispensable to maintain dairy farms as viable and competitive businesses in all of the territories of the Union; considers, in this respect, that these areas must be the focus of special attention and specific studies by the Commission and Member States and that the use of short supply chains, giving preference to local production in these specific cases, must be encouraged in order to ensure continued production in these regions and to avoid abandonment of the sector; urges the Commission and the Member States furthermore to improve and strengthen the milk distribution regimes in schools, favouring short supply chains and thereby enabling the distribution of production in these regions; highlights the fact that in these areas production costs are typically close to or above farm-gate prices and considers that the current uncertainties of the supply chain are particularly detrimental to these areas, which have the strongest barriers and reduced opportunities for economies of scale; recalls that farmers in these areas depend directly and exclusively on a small number of input suppliers and buyers for their agricultural production because of their geographic isolation; stresses that support for the setting-up and activities of producer organisations should better reflect the realities of these regions; stresses that it is necessary to carry out ambitious policies to support these regions with the aid of policies for rural development, the Investment Plan and the promotion and fine-tuning of CAP aid, as permitted by the latest reform; calls on the Commission, therefore, to encourage the Member States to implement such measures, in order to enable the preservation of milk production in these regions; urges the Commission to closely monitor the evolution of dairy production in these areas and to assess the economic impact of the end of quotas on dairy farms; believes that it is necessary to allocate additional resources to the POSEI programme so as to assist milk producers in adapting to the effects resulting from the deregulation of the markets and enabling them to maintain viable and competitive dairy production relative to the rest of the European area;
20. Emphasises the importance of using the voluntary quality term ‘mountain products’ in accordance with Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012; calls on the Commission to support this designation by promoting sales;
21. Emphasises the importance of the indigenous breeds of mountain cattle for dairy production in mountainous areas; calls on the Commission to take measures to strengthen the promotion of these mountain cattle breeds;
Price volatility and the end of milk quotas
22. Takes the view that EU dairy policy after the expiry of milk quotas must include means for making the most of the expansion opportunities for the EU economy in order to make milk production attractive to farmers, and considers that any future measures must strengthen its competitiveness and stability in order to facilitate sustainable growth and innovation in the agricultural sector and the quality of life in rural areas;
23. Acknowledges the decision to spread payment over three years as regards the final sums charged to farmers under the quota regime, but notes that significant funds have been removed from the dairy sector in the last quota year as a result of the implementation of the superlevy, and therefore recommends that this revenue remain within the CAP budget to strengthen the competitiveness of the dairy sector;
24. Calls on the Commission to present one or more regulatory tools to prevent and effectively manage new crises in the dairy sector, notably by facilitating the organisation of dairy production in terms of supply management; urges the Commission to engage in formal talks with all the stakeholders in the sector in order to achieve this;
25. Considers that stronger competition should be used as a means of ensuring territorial balance and more balanced remuneration for producers within the dairy value chain;
Implementation of the Milk Package
26. Highlights the fact that implementation of the Milk Package is still at an early stage; expresses disappointment, nevertheless, with the low levels of implementation of compulsory contracts, and therefore urges that these be extended to all Member States;. calls on the Commission to carry out an in-depth study of the obstacles to implementing the Milk Package and of measures that would ensure optimal use of tools made available to the Member States;
27. Regrets the fact that the milk package was not considered a priority in the Commission’s work programme for 2015, and requests that the Commission urgently insert this priority;
28. Regrets the fact that it is not clear from the report whether the Commission is satisfied with the implementation of the new regulatory tool and that the Commission does not quantify how many new producer organisations, participating Member States or collective negotiations are expected; notes that the effect of the new tools on milk prices is not clear either; calls in this connection for a precise list of the effects on milk prices and an accurate record of participating producer organisations;
29. Recommends that the Commission adopt clear objectives as regards producer organisations, contracts and collective negotiations;
30. Recalls that Regulation (EU) No 1308/2013 provides that ‘in order to ensure the viable development of production and a resulting fair standard of living for dairy farmers, their bargaining power vis-à-vis processors should be strengthened, which should result in a fairer distribution of added value along the supply chain’;
31. Notes that the contract model has not yet been implemented as envisaged, as dairy farmers are still in a weak market position, there are no minimum standards in the contracts and cooperatives are excluded from them;
32. Stresses that strengthening and improving contractual relations by expanding to include the entire sector, and in particular large-scale distribution, helps to ensure equitable distribution of earnings along the supply chain, allowing more value to be added, and reinforces the responsibility of stakeholders to take account of the market situation and respond accordingly; stresses the importance of risk management training and education as an integral part of the agricultural curriculum in order for farmers to cope with volatility and effectively use the risk management tools available;
33. Highlights the risk that the industry in any given Member State may introduce unfair clauses into contracts so as to offset the objective of stability in deliveries, which is necessary for ensuring the continued viability of dairy farms;
34. Notes that the sector could further explore the potential offered by longer-term integrated supply chain contracts, forwards contracts, fixed-margin contracts, and the opportunity to ‘lock in’ a milk price reflective of production costs for a set period of time; believes that the option to make use of new instruments in contractual relations should be available and that contract mediation tools must also be made available;
Role of producer organisations
35. Highlights the important role of producer organisations (POs) and their associations in increasing the bargaining power and influence producers have in the supply chain, as well as in research and innovation, and regrets the fact that there have only been limited moves towards setting up POs, particularly in the new Member States; considers that the rules for recognition of POs should be strengthened to increase more effectively the influence of producers in the negotiation of contracts; highlights that POs can benefit from financial support under Pillar II and urges further incentivisation at EU and Member State level, for example through making further information available and reducing the administrative burden on stakeholders wishing to create and join POs and to participate in different ways in their activities and to conduct educational activities among producers about POs as a tool for helping to address imbalances in the supply chain; considers it necessary to improve the capacity for regulation and organisation of the market by POs;
36. Defends the need to improve the provisions of the Milk Package with a view primarily to setting up producer organisations with a greater capacity for management and negotiation on the market;
37. Notes that the establishment of POs could be promoted by providing proactive political support to encourage farmers to regard POs as appropriate instruments;
38. Emphasises the importance of facilitating information exchanges and dialogue with producers and producer organisations (POs) in order to enable them to take into account market developments and to anticipate crises;
39. Insists on the need for producer organisations to be of an adequate size and to be legally linked to the output of their farmer members, since merely representative POs have no real capacity to ensure compliance with the contracted quality and quantity conditions and lack interest in acting as serious negotiators with the industry;
40. Calls for greater support for the establishment of independent producer organisations through more widespread information mechanisms and support for management activities, so as to encourage farmers to see them as effective instruments and participate therein;
41. Invites the Commission to promote the interprofessional management tools set out in Regulation (EU) No 1308/2013 establishing a common organisation of the markets;
42. Underlines the role of cooperatives in providing long-term stability for their members; asks the Commission to facilitate sharing of best practice;
43. Notes the significance of establishing Interbranch Organisations for ensuring transparency and sharing of best practice;
44. Reminds the Commission of the importance of transparency across the whole supply chain if the sector is to encourage stakeholders to respond to market signals; notes the increased importance of accurate and timely information in the post-quota market;
Strengthening the Milk Market Observatory
45. Welcomes the establishment of the Milk Market Observatory (MMO) and emphasises its importance in disseminating and analysing market data, and calls for an increased role for the MMO; recommends the definition of a market index comprising trends in product quotations, milk prices and production costs; recommends that the Commission take the necessary action to ensure that the MMO is in a position to, on the one hand, produce accurate data in real time and, on the other, communicate earlier and more frequent warnings, crisis anticipation and recommended actions based on market analysis and predictive tools to the Commission, Member States and relevant stakeholders when the market index falls below a certain level, and when the market situation so requires; considers that the information provided by the MMO should involve updates on market and price trends, data on production costs and the interactions between beef and milk production, consumption, stock situation, prices and exchanges of imported or exported milk at European level; notes that it is equally useful to integrate the monitoring of production costs and of international markets in order to identify any trends and seize export opportunities; stresses that the data should be easily accessible and user-friendly for all stakeholders;
46. Underlines the importance of Member States providing the relevant information to the MMO and of the MMO publishing the monthly data it receives in a timely manner for the benefit of all stakeholders, and recommends that the Commission consider additional means of ensuring this information is received on time; calls on the Commission to specify the rules for data transmission by Member States in order to ensure that the information is comparable at European level;
47. Calls on the Commission to set up comprehensively equipped separate structures for data acquisition for all agricultural sectors;
CAP measures and the dairy industry
48. Notes that, under Pillar I, optional coupled support is a tool available to assist the dairy sector, while under Pillar II producers can avail themselves of advisory services to support business decisions and sound financial management – if necessary, Member States can use insurance measures such as the Income Stabilisation Tool and can also determine the grouping and targeting within the sector of rural development measures with a higher level of aid;
49. Calls on the sector to investigate the development of further insurance tools when the market is strong, in order to curb milk price volatility and so as not to deprive European dairy farms of income; stresses the need to study the possibility of incorporating tools aimed at risk management, such as programmes based on the protection of margins, into Pillar 1 of the CAP;
50. Emphasises that, in applying Regulation (EU) No 1307/2013, a number of Member States opted for an incomplete and slow internal convergence process, once more favouring lowland farming, which has good working conditions;
51. Defends the need to review the requirements for triggering the income stabilisation mechanism available within Rural Development, as it considers the demand for losses of 30 % for accessing Community aid to be excessive;
Potential for the EU dairy sector on the world market
52. Points out that global dairy demand is predicted to grow by 2 % per annum, offering opportunities for products of EU origin, but stresses that these export opportunities must be balanced by a stable domestic market, the latter representing more than 90 % of the dairy product market in Europe; notes, however, that the market is increasingly dominated by dried dairy products;
53. Points out that the EU remains the first agricultural importer in the world and that growth in milk production for exports is reliant on the import of feed and fodder;
54. Underlines that bilateral trade negotiations may represent strategic opportunities for the EU dairy sector, in connection with which it calls on the Commission to engage more in opening new markets in third countries and removing trade barriers, and urges the Commission to take due regard of ‘protected designation of origin’ (PDO), ‘protected geographical indications’ (PGI) and ‘traditional speciality guaranteed’ (TSG) concerns during trade negotiations, subject to the preservation and enhancement of European quality and health and safety standards in production and in the supply of products to consumers;
55. Stresses the continuing need to identify and develop new markets, increase the EU global market share, secure fair access for EU exporters and stimulate sustainable export growth; calls on the Commission, in this regard, to take the necessary action and to participate more actively in the identification of new export markets; takes the view that future opportunities must be explored by improving commercial relations with third countries and dynamising the dairy industry, and emphasises the importance of being aware of the consumption trends on these markets in order to build the capacity for timely responses to future changes;
56. Notes furthermore that EU companies face competition from a few powerful global exporters (including New Zealand, the United States and Australia) which have historically had access to Asian markets and which have a decisive influence on the price of dairy products on the global market;
Promotion and quality schemes
57. Points out that the dairy sector could benefit from increased promotion initiatives on domestic and third-country markets under new Promotional Measures and urges producers to participate in the new campaigns after the entry into force in 2016 of the new regulations on promotion, taking into account that an increase in EU financial support is planned;
58. Stresses that the need for the sector’s greatest potential for creating value does not lie solely in the production of unprocessed products and considers that full use should be made of research measures to develop innovative high-value dairy products in high-growth markets, such as medicinal nutritional products and nutritional products for infants, the elderly and athletes;
59. Notes that the European Innovation Partnership for Agricultural Productivity and Sustainability (EIP-AGRI) under the Horizon 2020 programme can support innovative projects contributing to a sustainable and highly productive dairy sector in order to meet the global demand in high-value dairy products;
60. Underlines the importance of reinforcing the aid scheme for the distribution of milk in educational establishments, encouraging the participation of POs and giving priority to local dairy products and short supply chains, with a view to contributing to the promotion of healthy eating habits among European consumers;
61. Notes that the sector has so far not engaged with the ‘protected designation of origin’ (PDO), ‘protected geographical indications’ (PGI) and ‘traditional speciality guaranteed’ (TSG) schemes in a meaningful and equal manner across all Member States; calls on the Commission to simplify access to, and the administrative requirements for the approval of, these schemes for small producers and businesses, to reduce the administrative burden associated with the application process, retaining them as the quality benchmark for European products, unquestioned among EU export markets, and to undertake targeted promotion of marketing activities for these products;
62. Calls on the Commission to simplify the rules concerning the regulation of supply of cheese with a ‘protected designation of origin’ or ‘protected geographical indication’, in particular as regards the minimum conditions required for the approval of those schemes;
63. Urges the Commission to publish as soon as possible the report referred to in Article 26 of Regulation (EU) No 1169/2011 on the provision of food information to consumers, in relation to an impact analysis of the implementation of the mandatory indication of country of origin or place of provenance of milk and dairy products; regrets that the Community Executive has not yet prepared this report, which was to be submitted by 31 December 2014;
Managing risk in the dairy sector
64. Stresses that existing ‘safety-net’ measures such as public intervention and private storage aid alone are not sufficient tools for addressing persistent volatility or a crisis in the milk sector; adds that the intervention prices are too low, have no connection with current market prices any more and have proved to be ineffective in guaranteeing adequate and stable farm-gate prices in the long term;
65. Reminds the Commission of its obligation under Article 219 of Regulation (EU) No 1308/2013 not only to address actual market disturbance, but also to take immediate action to prevent it, including in cases where action would prevent such threats from materialising, continuing or turning into a more severe or prolonged disturbance, or where delaying immediate action would threaten to cause or aggravate the disturbance or would increase the extent of the measures which would later be necessary to address the threat or disturbance or would be detrimental to production or market conditions;
66. Calls on the Commission to engage with stakeholders in the sector and to implement more responsive and realistic safety-net provisions based on the recommendations of the MMO, which provide safety in crises in which a substantial decrease in milk prices and a simultaneous substantial rise in commodity prices have a severe impact on the margin of revenue for farmers; calls for the intervention to be updated to reflect production costs and adapted as the market changes;
67. Calls on the Commission to implement more responsive and realistic safety-net provisions, and for the intervention price to better reflect real production costs and real market prices, and to be adapted as the market changes; asks the Commission, therefore, to immediately adapt the intervention prices; acknowledges, furthermore, that the export refund should be restored temporarily in the case of a market crisis based on objective criteria;
68. Calls on the Commission to work together with stakeholders to fix indicators on production costs which take into account energy costs, fertilisers, animal feed, salaries, rent and other key input costs, and to revise the reference prices accordingly; calls on the Commission, furthermore, to work together with stakeholders to define a market index comprising the trend in product quotations, milk prices and production costs;
69. Underlines that current experience of the Russian embargo shows that it is desirable to have guidelines that are discussed between the Member States, the Commission and Parliament and which serve as a guide for the activation of measures;
70. Underlines the importance of a more responsive and realistic crisis instrument, and recommends that the Commission, together with Parliament, as co-legislator, engage with the sector on the possibility of using risk-management instruments such as the futures markets to take advantage of the volatility in the sector in order to increase its competitiveness; considers that new income stabilisation instruments should also be studied, such as income insurance or implementing a dairy Margin Protection Programme;
71. Requests that the Commission, in cooperation with the Member States and participants from the dairy sector, develop effective and appropriate instruments to safeguard against sudden significant falls in the price of milk;
Unfair trading practices in the dairy supply chain
72. Stresses that dairy producers, especially small-scale dairy producers, are particularly vulnerable to imbalances in the supply chain, in particular owing to fluctuating demand, rising production costs and decreasing farm-gate prices, but also to the economic priorities in each Member State; considers that the downward pressure on prices by retailers from own-brand labelling and the persistent use of liquid milk as a ‘loss leader’ by retailers undermines the work and investment of producers in the dairy sector and devalues the end product for the consumer; defends the need to introduce codes of good practice among the various participants in the food supply chain; stresses the need to find mechanisms that effectively protect farmers from abuse by industry and distributors and their dominant position in the retail market, and asks the Commission to present its proposal on the containment of unfair trading practices as soon as possible and to consider a sector-specific approach to competition law and unfair trading practices;
73. Considers that unfair commercial practices severely restrict the sector’s ability to invest and adapt, and that it is necessary to combat them at both EU and Member State level;
74. Notes that dairy producers will be in an even weaker position without a crisis programme, while the milk industry and large corporate food groups will get more power;
75. Calls for wider inclusion of dairy farmers and their organisations into food supply chain management mechanisms, groups and initiatives;
o o o
76. Instructs its President to forward this resolution to the Council and the Commission.
External impact of EU trade and investment policy on public-private initiatives
279k
98k
European Parliament resolution of 7 July 2015 on the external impact of EU trade and investment policy on public-private initiatives in countries outside the EU (2014/2233(INI))
– having regard to Article 208 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,
– having regard to Directive 2014/23/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 February 2014 on the award of concession contracts(1),
– having regard to Directive 2014/24/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 February 2014 on public procurement and repealing Directive 2004/18/EC(2),
– having regard to Directive 2014/25/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 February 2014 on procurement by entities operating in the water, energy, transport and postal services sectors and repealing Directive 2004/17/EC(3),
– having regard to the respective opinions of the Committee on International Trade on the proposal for a directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on public procurement (COM(2011)0896), on the proposal for a directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on procurement by entities operating in the water, energy, transport and postal services sectors (COM(2011)0895), and on the proposal for a directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on the award of concession contracts (COM(2011)0897),
– having regard to the Commission’s communications entitled ‘Mobilising private and public investment for recovery and long term structural change: developing Public Private Partnerships’ (COM(2009)0615), ‘A Stronger Role of the Private Sector in Achieving Inclusive and Sustainable Growth in Developing Countries’ (COM(2014)0263), ‘Europe 2020: A strategy for smart, sustainable and inclusive growth’ (COM(2010)2020), ‘Trade, Growth and World Affairs – Trade Policy as a core component of the EU’s 2020 strategy’ (COM(2010)0612), ‘Towards a job rich recovery’ (COM(2012)0173) and ‘A renewed EU strategy 2011-2014 for Corporate Social Responsibility’ (COM(2011)0681),
– having regard to its resolution of 27 September 2011 on a New Trade Policy for Europe under the Europe 2020 Strategy(4), of 6 February 2013 on Corporate social responsibility: promoting society’s interests and a route to sustainable and inclusive recovery(5), and of 26 October 2006 on public-private partnerships and Community law on public procurement and concessions(6),
– having regard to the 2010 report by EIM for the Commission entitled ‘Internationalisation of European SMEs’,
– having regard to paragraph 5 of the Commission’s communication entitled ‘Strategy for equality between women and men 2010-2015’ (COM(2010)0491), to the UN Women’s Empowerment Principles launched in March 2010, to the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights and the Foreign Affairs Council conclusions of 8 December 2009, and to paragraph 46 of the final document of the United Nations Conference on Sustainable Development (Río+20),
– having regard to the OECD Recommendation of May 2012 on Principles for Public Governance of Public-Private Partnerships(7), the 1997 OECD Convention on combating bribery of foreign public officials in international business transactions and the OECD Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises, updated in May 2011(8),
– having regard to the relevant ILO Conventions,
– having regard to the UN Economic Commission for Europe’s 2008 Guidebook on Promoting Good Governance in Public-Private Partnerships(9),
– having regard to the UN Commission on International Trade Law (UNCITRAL) Legislative Guide on Privately Financed Infrastructure Projects of 2001(10), and to the papers presented at the UNCITRAL International Colloquium on Public-Private Partnerships (PPPs) held in Vienna on 2 and 3 May 2013,
– having regard to the CAF report of 2010 entitled ‘Infraestructura pública y participación privada: conceptos y experiencias en América y España’,
– having regard to the ‘Public-Private Partnerships Reference Guide: Version 2.0’ of July 2014 produced by the Asian Development Bank (ADB), the Inter-American Development Bank (IDB), the World Bank Group and the Public-Private Infrastructure Advisory Facility (PPIAF)(11),
– having regard to Rule 52 of its Rules of Procedure,
– having regard to the report of the Committee on International Trade and the opinions of the Committee on Development and the Committee on the Internal Market and Consumer Protection (A8-0182/2015),
A. whereas countries’ societies and economic structures, and the dynamism thereof, benefit from environments which allow interaction between the public and private sectors, and cooperation between public and private entities, for example through joint initiatives and ventures;
B. whereas, although public-private partnerships (PPPs) are a long-term tool used in government policies at international, national, regional and local level, there is no internationally recognised definition and comprehensive regulatory framework for them; whereas in practice PPPs are understood to refer to a ‘broad and varied spectrum of cooperative relationships between public actors (governments, agencies, and international organisations, or a combination thereof) and private actors (companies or not-for-profit entities)’ and usually imply supply by the private sector of infrastructure or assets traditionally provided by governments;
C. whereas PPPs are important as a vehicle for economic growth, innovation, competitiveness and job creation, both in the single market and abroad, and have a strategic role in modernising infrastructure, in particular energy, water, road and digital infrastructure; whereas EU companies are well equipped to compete for and operate such arrangements;
D. whereas PPP arrangements may take various forms, and single market legislation sets high procedural standards; whereas this legislation was revised and consolidated in Directives 2014/24/EU and 2014/25/EU on public procurement, in Directive 2014/23/EU on concessions, and in guidance on institutionalised PPPs;
E. whereas public-private partnerships for the provision of infrastructure, goods and basic services are technically complex;
F. whereas the global economic crisis has severely affected all mature, emerging and developing countries since 2007, and has had an impact on budgetary policies and on the access of both institutional and private entities, especially SMEs, to the funds needed to carry out projects, affecting the development of infrastructure and other capital-intensive projects and the provision of basic services;
G. whereas a growing number of governments, owing to public budgetary constraints exacerbated by the economic and public debt crisis, are adopting innovative solutions such as PPPs which, if implemented appropriately, can help improve the costs, effectiveness, efficiency and quality of public services and ensure the timely delivery of public infrastructure, by an appropriate involvement of public and private actors;
H. whereas the positive impact of PPPs is derived from improved delivery of projects, a good benefit-cost ratio, the possibility for long-term financing of costs, the stimulus provided for innovation and research, and a more flexible and skilled management environment;
I. whereas the liberalisation of trade and investment is not an end in itself but a tool which should create wealth and help improve the quality of life for the world’s population, and whereas there is, in this context, an opportunity to develop innovative policies – together with new instruments, such as the newly designed financial instruments, and a network of free trade agreements useful to third-country governments for guaranteeing the provision of infrastructures, goods and services of general interest – while providing or paving the way for further participation by EU companies in investment projects abroad that bring together private companies and public entities;
J. whereas PPPs are characterised by a long life-cycle, sometimes extending from 10 to 30 years, and whereas the life-cycle of PPPs should be meaningful and consistent with the pursued objectives in terms of work, goods and services to be provided, without artificially distorting competition or creating higher costs and an unnecessary burden for public administrations and tax-payers;
K. whereas EU trade policy should neither encourage nor discourage the sovereign decision on whether or not to use a PPP, but, once the decision has been taken, the EU has an obligation to ensure that our large, medium-sized and small enterprises and micro-enterprises have the best possible access to procurement markets in the partner country, bringing added value to the local community, in line with the principles of openness, participation, accountability, effectiveness and policy coherence;
L. whereas the fact that the private sector may undervalue social infrastructure and the cover it provides, the considerable costs associated with providing infrastructure, the position of some sectors as natural monopolies or their strategic importance mean that in many cases open competition and privatisation are not the most suitable policy option where the public interest must prevail;
M. whereas the purpose of PPPs is therefore to combine the best of both worlds – the provision of services and infrastructure of general interest, but through enhanced participation by the private sector rather than through privatisation processes;
N. whereas many emerging and developing countries face a mismatch between the dynamism of private businesses and the lack of reliable public infrastructure; whereas such gaps (which are striking in India or Brazil) have undermined potential growth, limiting export/import capacities or disturbing production lines owing to the absence of sufficient port infrastructure, deficiencies in internal transport (railways, freight or highways) or dysfunctional power generation units and power distribution grids; whereas these gaps also have a negative impact on human welfare (owing to scarcity of sewage and water distribution networks); whereas PPPs allow integrated solutions whereby a partner or a consortium provides ‘building’ (construction, engineering and architecture services), ‘financing’ (injection of private funds, at least to pre-finance a project) and ‘exploitation’ (maintenance, surveillance and management services);
O. whereas intergovernmental organisations have also used PPPs to devote aid to least‑developed countries through partnerships operating in the field of development and cooperation: the World Bank, regional reconstruction banks, the Food and Agriculture Organisation, the World Health Organisation and the UN Children’s Fund (UNICEF), to name but a few, have used PPPs to implement actions; whereas, as regards geographical focus, the USA, Australia, Japan, Malaysia, Singapore, the United Arab Emirates and other Asian and Latin American countries (led by Chile) have experience of PPPs; whereas OECD countries (Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Italy, Ireland, the Netherlands, Portugal and Spain) also have relevant legislation; whereas the UK has the most developed programme in respect of PPPs (with the Private Finance Initiative accounting for around 20 % of public investment); whereas the EU leads the PPP infrastructure market, concentrating more than 45 % of the nominal value of PPPs;
P. whereas PPPs have been used in the context of the Structural Funds, enlargement, the trans‑European networks, Joint Technology Initiatives, Europe 2020, R&D (factories for the future, energy‑efficient buildings, the green vehicles initiative, the sustainable process industry, photonics, robotics, high-performing computing, and 5G networks), e-learning, research projects with universities and other programmes in the health field (such as the innovative medicines initiative); whereas the European Investment Bank and the European PPP Expertise Centre have carried out projects in the EU, its neighbourhood and beyond; whereas the EU has also contributed through the Global Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy Fund; whereas the European Fund for Strategic Investments intends to support a number of PPPs in the EU, in which companies from trading partners may participate;
Q. whereas the EU has hitherto kept its public procurement markets wide open to international competition and has put in place rules seeking to ensure genuine and fair competition on the single market and to enable international investors to compete on an equal footing; whereas inside the EU there is no discrimination on grounds of foreign ownership or control, and whereas companies from abroad may set up a local base in order to participate in PPPs;
R. whereas EU free trade agreements include provisions which pave the way for companies to bid in PPPs via market access and pre-establishment; whereas the treatment and possibilities open in respect of Korea, Colombia/Peru, Central America, Singapore and Canada (and Vietnam and Japan) are defined differently and specifically; whereas there has to be a relatively flexible approach as regards negotiations with different partners; whereas, however, the aim must continue to be to help foster social and economic development, environmental sustainability, democracy and good governance, the observance of human rights and the promotion of internationally recognised standards of protection, as well as the creation of decent jobs; whereas, at the multilateral level, the General Agreement on Trade in Services (GATS) and the Agreement on Government Procurement (GPA) also establish a number of commitments, as may other plurilateral instruments such as the Trade in Services Agreement (TiSA); whereas the environment in the EU is therefore becoming more competitive;
Background
1. Stresses the need to stimulate decent job creation, competitiveness and productivity inside the EU and in third countries through innovative policies and new instruments designed to encourage the activity of economic actors in order to re-launch sustainable growth, including through investments outside the Single Market; believes that PPPs could be – as one of several options – a potential source of growth for EU companies and, at the same time, be useful for our partner third countries, as these PPPs could provide infrastructures, goods and services of general interest;
2. Recalls that PPPs should bring high added value to citizens and consumers, ensure quality services and/or goods, and provide concrete competitive and economic advantages for public administrations, both at government and local level, while avoiding creating additional burdens or losses for the public sector;
3. Urges the Commission to promote a definition of PPPs that can gain international recognition as a long-term relationship between public entities and private investors geared to the provision of high-quality, accessible public services and infrastructures on the basis of terms and conditions clearly laid down in contracts, compliance with which may easily be assessed by means of indicators ensuring that such compliance is rewarded with fair and appropriate remuneration;
4. Notes that both SMEs and larger companies alike can provide unique private-sector know-how, experience and good practices, as well as networks involving public authorities in non-EU countries, effectively helping to deliver on sustainable development policies; considers that SMEs can best achieve their potential if they create networks and perform at the global level, and enter markets outside Europe, inter alia through PPPs; calls, in this respect, on the Commission to promote and encourage the formation of consortia and other forms of cooperation between large companies and SMEs in order to facilitate access for the latter to PPP-projects;
5. Stresses that the development of PPPs must take into account, in particular, the challenges for EU-based SMEs competing on international markets under a PPP, and the need to ensure that SMEs gain concrete, fair and reciprocal access, notably in the utilities sectors, as set out in Directive 2014/25/EU; highlights, in this respect, the importance of specific rules allowing for cluster or grouped tendering by SMEs and the use of open and transparent subcontracting chains;
Challenges
6. Considers it regrettable that, so far, the EU has kept its government procurement markets largely open to international competition, while EU companies still face substantial barriers abroad; calls on the Commission to guarantee that EU trade agreements contain instruments for our companies, especially SMEs, to compete abroad on equal terms with foreign national companies; demands as well clear regulation of, and easy access to information concerning, tenders and awarding criteria, and the lifting of discriminatory and unjustified trade barriers in the field of government procurement, services or investment (such as fiscal discrimination, regulatory barriers to the establishment of branches or subsidiaries, and restrictions on access to financing); calls on our partner countries to apply principles of open government in order to guarantee transparency and avoid conflicts of interest, and to use PPPs practice with caution, taking into account not only cost-benefit analyses and the viability of the projects, but also the financial and technical capacity of public authorities to supervise services or infrastructure delivery in line with general public interest;
7. Acknowledges that PPP-related challenges can be overcome through principles of good governance, such as transparency and clarity of rules, where the following issues are key: the award, execution and evaluation of projects from the initial stages; the modelling and definition of risk-transfer (in particular, the evaluation of medium- and long-term cost-effectiveness); the participation of stakeholders and civil society organisations; the fight against corruption and fraud; the financial and technical capacity of the responsible administration to adequately plan and supervise the implementation of contracts; and the reinforcement of legal certainty, within a framework that guarantees exercise by the public authorities of their legitimate power; invites the Commission and the Member States (which are vital parties in this regard) to promote these principles and the related good practices beyond our borders;
8. Recalls that PPPs are characterised by their high value and technical complexity, and by the parties’ long-term commitment; notes that they consequently require appropriate levels of both flexibility and procedural safeguards to ensure transparency, non-discrimination and equal treatment;
9. Recalls that there are a number of inherent risks in infrastructure projects (in particular those relating to building, the environment, telecommunications and energy networks), and that the government, through PPPs, transfers part of the risk to the private contractor so that both can reap the benefits but also share the risks and responsibilities of such projects; stresses, furthermore, that adequate risk sharing is essential in order to reduce the costs of a project and ensure its successful implementation and viability;
10. Recalls that the delivery of high-quality, accessible and cost-effective services to the public, both inside and outside the EU, is an essential condition to ensure successful implementation and viability of PPPs; recalls that the complex choice of models and contracts has an impact on a project’s evolution; warns that, at some stages, PPPs have been used merely to achieve the objective of complying formally with public-deficit objectives; highlights the need for an adequate institutional framework combining political commitment, good governance and adequate underlying legislation to guarantee that PPPs offer better quality and broad coverage of services to the citizens; stresses, in this regard, the importance of an adequate evaluation of the profile and past experiences of the companies involved to determine the quality of the services they have provided and whether their business conduct has been responsible;
Involving the private sector in development
11. Stresses that EU trade, investment and development policies are interlinked and that Article 208 of the Lisbon Treaty establishes the principle of policy coherence for development, requiring that the objectives of development cooperation be taken into account in policies that are likely to affect developing countries; emphasises as well the importance of ensuring that EU investment policies are oriented to financial choices that include a real assessment of the social impact;
12. Stresses the increasing potential of PPPs, as one option among others, to foster innovative solutions and mobilise long-term private finance and domestic resources for development objectives, given that massive investments are required in developing countries – in terms of infrastructure, water supply and energy – that the public sector will not be able to provide on its own, and the majority of which would profit from private sector involvement; believes that PPPs can also generate innovation in technologies and business models, and build mechanisms for holding the private sector accountable; points, however, to instances in which the participation of the private sector in PPPs in some developing countries has not delivered the expected results; notes that, in consequence, a contribution of technical assistance is needed to reinforce the legal and institutional frameworks in which PPPs are developed, in particular as regards the capacity to evaluate, plan and supervise the execution of such projects in a proper manner, and provide the option for public partners to claim compensation from private companies in case of contractual non-compliance;
13. Notes that PPPs are high on the development agenda and are increasingly being promoted as a means of closing the infrastructure financing gap in developed and developing countries alike;
14. Urges the Commission – as it has indicated its wish to extend considerably the use of blending in future years – to implement the recommendations made in the European Court of Auditors Special Report on the use of blending, and to evaluate the mechanism of blending loans and grants, particularly in terms of development and financial additionality, transparency and accountability;
15. Calls on EU bodies to encourage EU companies participating in PPPs in third countries, in particular in less-developed countries, to work in accordance with the principle of policy coherence, in line with existing OECD Guidelines for multinationals, so that development cooperation objectives are taken into consideration; calls on the Commission to encourage sustainable investments, taking into account development objectives by prioritising the long-term development of domestic economies in particular, and to promote projects focused on environmental protection, poverty reduction, education, waste management or the use of renewable energies, for instance;
16. Stresses that in the area of development aid, PPPs are an effective way to spend European funds while supporting EU priorities and coherence with other policies; calls for greater Commission involvement and investment in the development PPPs, and for PPPs to be used as a vehicle to allow the extension of the Union’s limited development budget;
17. Underlines the fact that private investment and finance are likely to be the key engine for sustainable growth, which is projected to be approximately 5 % in developing countries in the coming years; recognises that such private funding can help support local economies and companies and provide decent jobs, and therefore lead to poverty eradication, provided that foreign direct investment is properly regulated and linked to concrete improvements in the partner countries’ economies, e.g. through technology transfers and training opportunities for the local labour force; considers, under these circumstances, that PPPs may benefit the LDCs, as the disproportionate investment risk does not sufficiently incentivise private investments; emphasises that future PPPs within the post-2015 development agenda should pursue poverty reduction and other sustainable development goals, and should be aligned with partner countries’ national development plans;
18. Notes that properly structured and efficiently implemented, PPPs can bring many benefits, including innovation, greater efficiency in the use of resources, and quality assurance and scrutiny; notes as well that PPPs in developing countries need to be assessed on the basis of their capacity to deliver development outcomes, and that a fair distribution of the risk burden between public and private sectors is needed; stresses that PPPs in developing countries have until now mostly been concentrated in the energy and telecommunications sectors while private engagement in social infrastructure remains rare; encourages, therefore, those PPPs that have as their primary objective the achievement of sustainable development goals;
19. Calls for increased technical assistance – including the training of local staff and sharing of technology – to the governments of the partner countries in order to boost their capacity to claim ownership of the PPPs and assume their share of responsibility for the management of PPP projects, i.a. by helping them set up banking systems and tax administrations capable of providing financial governance for, and managing, public and private funds; points out that past experience shows that poorly negotiated PPP contracts can, in some instances, add to state indebtedness, and calls for the regulatory framework on responsible financing to be set up; calls on the Commission to consider the possibility of providing developing countries with technical assistance and advice on how to prepare and implement EU standards on their markets;
20. Strongly supports the effective and comprehensive dissemination and implementation of the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights (UNGPs) within and outside the EU, and emphasises the need to take all necessary policy and legislative measures to address gaps in the effective implementation of the UNGPs, including in the area of access to justice;
21. Stresses that development agencies must ensure that public development finance is used to support local economic networks in developing countries and is not diverted to promote private firms and multinationals from the donor countries; stresses, in particular, that PPPs should be aimed at building the capacity of domestic micro, small and medium-sized enterprises;
22. Recalls that the European Union is committed to promoting gender equality and ensuring gender mainstreaming in all its actions; calls for the gender dimension be integrated into the planning and delivery of PPPs, e.g. by using gender-disaggregated data and analyses for targeted investments, and by establishing in contracts key performance indicators for benefits to women; calls, in this context, for increased support to local SMEs, and especially to female entrepreneurs, so as to enable them to gain from private, sector-led growth;
Potential tools to enable EU companies to engage in PPPs outside the EU
23. Calls on the Commission to work towards gaining substantial market access commitments internationally in the World Trade Organisation (WTO), and in ongoing bilateral negotiations with third countries, in a positive and reciprocal approach that allows for international competition, in order to redress asymmetries between the EU and other trading partners as regards the level of openness of government procurement markets; asks the Commission to work to eliminate administrative, procedural and technical barriers that prevent EU companies from taking part in foreign PPPs;
24. Calls on the Commission, while negotiating trade and investment agreements with other countries, to support the dismantling of barriers for EU companies, in particular SMEs, so that they can enter PPPs in these countries and support the professional mobility of EU citizens in these states, and so that they can compete on equal footing with domestic companies and companies from third countries;
25. Calls on the Commission to monitor EU businesses abroad, to draw conclusions on success stories, models and good practices, with a view to drawing up guidelines, and to consider creating virtual documentation centres or observatories to facilitate access for EU companies, especially SMEs, to information on PPP opportunities; calls on the Commission to encourage the creation of user-friendly platforms and networks so as to promote a structured dialogue between stakeholders, and to provide technical support as regards the legal framework and expected challenges; asks the Commission to undertake a study on the effects of the Union’s FTAs and their implementation on access to foreign PPPs by EU companies; believes that such a study could give insight into the concrete impacts of FTAs in the PPP field and, eventually, allow the identification of barriers that have not yet been addressed;
26. Calls on the Commission to promote the use of clear and comprehensive accounting rules at international level in order to reduce the uncertainties associated with PPPs, while, at the same time, promoting sound budgetary policies and project sustainability;
27. Calls on the Commission to ensure that EU-backed bodies such as the European Agency for Small and Medium-sized Enterprises (EASME) and the Enterprise Europe Network (EEN) can also access and share information with SMEs on how to enter PPPs in states outside the EU, and on how to promote small and medium-sized companies’ participation in PPPs in third countries;
28. Underlines that to attract cross-border private-sector funds into PPPs, it is paramount to provide sufficient assurances that these long-term investments will benefit from a clear, stable and secure environment with good governance, legal certainty, transparency, equal treatment, non-discrimination and effective dispute settlement; calls on the Commission and the Council to work together to this end in the competent international fora, and in international financial institutions, so as to ensure that the necessary legal framework in this area exists and is transparent, democratic, inclusive, effective and cost-efficient;
PPPs outside the EU: new jobs and growth opportunities for EU companies
29. Is convinced that increased participation by EU companies in large-scale international PPPs could lead to substantial benefits in terms of the creation of decent jobs, productivity, competitiveness, technological capabilities and innovation development in the EU; recalls that the 2010 Commission study on the ‘Internationalisation of European SMEs’ highlights the positive link between internationalisation and innovation in terms of products, services and processes;
30. Stresses that the work in this area must take into account, in particular, the challenges for EU-based SMEs in competing on international markets as parts of PPPs, and the need to ensure that SMEs gain concrete and fair access; highlights, in this regard, the importance of specific rules allowing for cluster or grouped tendering by SMEs and the use of open and transparent subcontracting chains; believes that SMEs should be encouraged to take part either as sub-contractors or as part of consortiums tendering for contracts;
31. Recalls the achievements made in the EU through the use of PPPs, in infrastructure development as well as in vanguard fields of technology, research, e-learning and other high-added-value sectors, and encourages the Commission to identify those projects which have yielded the best results in the EU, and to promote participation by all types of EU companies, especially SMEs, in such initiatives abroad;
o o o
32. Instructs its President to forward this resolution to the Council, the Commission and the European Investment Bank.
– having regard to the Commission report on the implementation of the provisions concerning producer organisations, operational funds and operational programmes in the fruit and vegetables sector since the 2007 reform (COM(2014)0112),
– having regard to the Council conclusions of 16 June 2014 on the aforementioned Commission report,
– having regard to Regulation (EU) No 1308/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 December 2013 establishing a common organisation of the markets in agricultural products(1),
– having regard to its resolution of 11 March 2014 on the future of Europe’s horticulture sector – strategies for growth(2),
– having regard to the study entitled ‘The EU fruit and vegetables sector: Overview and post 2013 CAP perspective’, carried out under the auspices of the European Parliament in 2011,
– having regard to the two studies entitled ‘Towards new rules for the EU’s fruit and vegetables sector’, which were carried out by the Assemblée des Régions Européennes Légumières et Horticoles (AREFLH) and the University of Wageningen respectively for a European Parliament workshop held on 22 January 2015,
– having regard to the Commission communication on tackling unfair trading practices in the business-to-business food supply chain (COM(2014)0472),
– having regard to the study entitled ʻComparative analysis of risk management tools supported by 2014 (US) Farm Bill and the CAP 2014-2020’, which was carried out under the auspices of the European Parliament in 2014,
– having regard to Rule 52 of its Rules of Procedure,
– having regard to the report of the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development and the opinion of the Committee on Budgetary Control (A8-0170/2015),
A. whereas since the 1990s Union policy for the fruit and vegetable sector has been centred on strengthening the role of producer organisations (POs);
B. whereas the 2007 reform aimed to strengthen the fruit and vegetable producer organisations (POs) by providing a wider range of tools to make it possible, among other measures, to prevent and manage market risks, as well as enhancing and concentrating supply, improving quality and competitiveness, adapting supply to match the market, and providing technical support for environment-friendly production;
C. whereas producer organisations are subject to a number of restrictions compared to private commercial firms, such as restrictions on the use of investments relating to the revenue structure or the need to sell;
D. whereas it is essential to support the fruit and vegetable sector throughout the entire territory of the Union, given its importance in terms of added value and employment, and given the health benefits that it presents through healthy and balanced diets;
E. whereas Union support for POs and for associations of producer organisations (APOs) is aimed at strengthening the competitiveness of the sector, supporting innovation, increasing productivity, enhancing promotion, improving the bargaining position of farmers and restoring balance in the food supply chain, whilst also integrating environmental concerns in the production and marketing of fruit and vegetables and giving due consideration to the situation of individual producers;
F. whereas incentives were created to encourage mergers between POs and between associations of producer organisations (APOs), as well as transnational cooperation, in order to develop the bargaining power of POs in the distribution chain;
G. whereas, at EU-level, the majority of fruit and vegetable producers are small or medium-sized holdings;
H. whereas, according to a 2011 study on the fruit and vegetable (F&V) regime carried out for the European Parliament, POs should be encouraged since ‘collective action at producer level and effective coordination within the chain appear to be pre-conditions for any successful strategy in coping with declining relative producer prices’;
I. whereas POs and APOs in the fruit and vegetable sector may set up an operational fund to finance operational programmes approved by the Member States;
J. whereas such funds are financed by contributions from the PO’s members or the PO itself and by EU financial assistance, and this cofinancing fosters commitment on the part of beneficiaries and helps ensure that they make good use of the assistance, as well as having a multiplier effect;
K. whereas financial support under the old common agricultural policy (CAP) for the investments of newly established F&V POs, ceased by the reform of 2013, was of crucial importance, especially in the central, eastern and southern European Member States, overseas territories and islands;
L. noting:
(a)
the increase in the organisation rate, the share of the total value of EU fruit and vegetable production marketed by POs and APOs in 2010 being about 43 % (34 % in 2004);
(b)
the improved attractiveness of POs, the share of total fruit and vegetable producers that are members of POs having increased from 10,4 % in 2004 to 16,5 % in 2010; and
(c)
the increased attractiveness of APOs as demonstrated by the rapid rise in the number of APOs, coupled with the substantial increase in the number and share of POs that are members of APOs;
M. whereas these figures for the Union as a whole are averages reflecting highly divergent situations between Member States – or even markedly different situations within individual Member States; whereas these situations, which reflect different starting points in the drive towards setting up POs, are attributable to historical factors based on the greater or lesser degree of willingness shown by farmers in setting up POs, to the structure of agricultural holdings, to different market conditions and administrative barriers, to the inadequacy of the support currently being provided and also to the fact that in many Member States this sector is dominated by small producers;
N. whereas the public consultation on policy options and their impact assessment, carried out by the Commission between 4 June and 9 September 2012, concerning the review of the EU regime for the fruit and vegetable sector, reveals that the majority of respondents are in favour of the regime continuing, subject to some specific refinements;
O. whereas the regions in which producers have achieved the highest levels of competitiveness, profitability, internationalisation, quality, and environmental sustainability are those in which the degree of organisation of production is the highest;
P. whereas the organisation rate among producers remains low on average and considerably below the EU average in certain Member States, although this general assertion is subject to qualification depending on the degree of modernisation of the production and marketing of each area; whereas the suspension and de-recognition of POs, which causes uncertainty among producers, is a factor that contributes to the low average;
Q. whereas, although national financial aid (Regulation (EU) No 1308/2013) has been an important financial instrument in terms of concentrating supply, there is a need to enhance its effectiveness;
R. whereas the role played by POs in opening up new markets, promoting consumption or investing in innovation has a very positive impact on the F&V sector as a whole;
S. whereas, in the EU, the F&V sector accounts for 18 % of the total value of agricultural production, uses only 3 % of the cultivated land and is worth more than EUR 50 billion;
T. whereas the F&V supply chain has an estimated turnover of more than EUR 120 billion, with approximately 550 000 employees and acts as an economic multiplier at European level, stimulating both demand and the creation of added value in other economic sectors;
U. whereas the total EU agricultural area cropped with F&V fell by 6 % between 2003 and 2010, indicating that farmers have switched to other crops or, in many cases, have given up farming; whereas, according to the 2015 AREFLH study, this decline was greater in southern Europe than in northern Europe;
V. whereas the volume of fruit and vegetable production has also fallen in recent years, whilst its value has tended to remain stable in real terms, reaching EUR 48,25 billion in 2012, despite which it has not been able to offer farm gate prices in line with production costs and wages;
W. whereas the deficit in consumption represents a major problem for the fruit and vegetable sectors, with the last few years having witnessed a loss of production; recalling the data from Freshfel Europe which indicate that consumption of fresh fruit and vegetables in the EU-28 stood at 387 g a day per capita in 2012, a decrease of 8,7 % as compared with the average for the 2007-11 period; whereas this decline seems to reflect long-term trends towards greater consumption of processed foods and the impact of the economic crisis;
X. whereas there are 22 million overweight children within the European Union, while adolescents are consuming on average just 30 % to 50 % of the recommended daily allowance of fruit and vegetables;
Y. whereas the World Health Organisation (WHO) recommends a minimum daily intake of 400 g of fruit and vegetables for the prevention of chronic diseases such as heart diseases, cancer, diabetes and obesity, the latter in particular among children; whereas, to date, only four EU Member States have met this recommendation;
Z. whereas in 2012 the EU had a trade deficit in F&V, largely due to the fact that it imports significantly more fruit than it exports, because of high production costs;
AA. whereas the 2015 AREFLH study points out that the EU market is relatively open to imports, whilst European exports face considerable tariff and non-tariff barriers in trading partners, which prevents exports from diversifying; whereas, although imports from third countries compete directly with similar EU products, the same environmental, food safety and social standards are not, in some instances, applied in their cultivation;
AB. whereas market crises occur frequently in the F&V sector since even small production surpluses can cause sharp falls in producer prices; whereas F&V are mostly perishable products and must therefore be sold quickly, leaving farmers in this sector in a structurally weak bargaining position vis-à-vis major retailers and processors;
AC. whereas the crisis caused by the Russian ban has had, and will in future have, significant negative effects on the F&V sector, with producers in this sector sustaining some of the greatest losses; whereas the importance of the existence of strong POs organised in such a way as to be able to collectively deal with unexpected and adverse situations must be underlined, supported by adequate Community instruments adapted to the severity of each crisis or, if necessary, by activating the exceptional measures envisaged in Regulation (EU) No 1308/2013;
AD. whereas the Commission’s report recognises that the F&V regime’s crisis prevention instruments have been little used since the 2007 reform and that they have proven insufficient to mitigate the consequences of serious crises such as that of E. coli or the current one resulting from the Russian ban; whereas, in the majority of cases, apart from withdrawals from the market, they are administratively difficult to apply due to the unclear regulations in that respect;
AE. whereas the School Fruit Scheme, under which a number of local and seasonal fruits and vegetables are used, has attracted interest and been successful;
AF. whereas the possibility of making the repayment of capital and interest on loans taken out to finance crisis prevention and management measures eligible for EU financial aid has, under the operational programmes, been an important instrument for managing market uncertainty;
AG. whereas the Commission’s report identifies complexity of rules and lack of legal certainty as weaknesses of the current F&V regime; whereas Commissioner Hogan has committed himself to improving the regime in the first year of his term, taking into account cultural differences and contrasts in market realities between different Member States and the need to boost competitiveness and the innovative strength of the sector;
AH. whereas the University of Wageningen study concludes that diverging interpretations of EU implementing legislation have created legal uncertainty for national administrations and POs, resulting in an increased administrative burden and fear of risk taking and creating disincentives for the setting up of POs;
AI. whereas clear and predictable audit procedures are essential for the functioning of the F&V regime; whereas overlap in consecutive audits should be avoided and follow-up audits should not be carried out before clearance of accounts has given a definite decision on a previous audit, in order to ensure that Member States do not have to make larger corrections than are necessary;
AJ. whereas Regulation (EU) No 1308/2013 establishing a common organisation of the markets in agricultural products has already taken account of a number of elements featuring in the Commission communication, and whereas the rules currently in place in the European Union need to be stabilised;
AK. whereas proportionality should play an essential part in reducing legal uncertainty within the F&V regime, ensuring that a PO as a whole is not prejudiced by the infringements of single offenders;
AL. whereas POs frequently encounter difficulties in finding and training managers with the necessary skills for carrying out commercial activities in the competitive environment of the agribusiness sector; whereas the Commission’s report states that spending on training and advisory services by POs has been low;
AM. whereas the farming population in the EU-28 is ageing rapidly and whereas, on average, there is only one farmer under 35 for every nine farmers over the age of 55;
1. Welcomes the Commission’s report, which provides a balanced picture of the evolution of the F&V regime since the 2007 reform, confirms the validity of the basic organisational structure for this sector and identifies areas where progress has been achieved, such as the increased concentration of POs that is improving the sector’s positioning in the food supply chain, whilst also referring to problems that persist;
2. Is of the opinion that support must compensate for the negative consequences – from the market point of view – of the restrictions imposed on producer organisations;
3. Welcomes the measures in the EU F&V regime which are intended to increase market orientation among EU growers, encourage innovation, promote F&V, increase growers’ competitiveness and improve marketing, product quality and the environmental aspects of production, through the provision of support to POs, PO associations and the recognition of inter-branch organisations, also promoting the formation of clusters that will generate new income streams, to be channelled into new investments;
4. Welcomes the fact that the new CAP retains the F&V regime, while acknowledging that existing instruments have not always been effective, as recognised by the Commission in its public consultation document entitled ‘A Review of the EU Regime for the Fruit and Vegetables Sector’, and therefore supports the work of the Newcastle Group aimed at improving the F&V regime, which should take account of the specific nature of the legal arrangements governing cooperatives in the Member States, so as not to limit the creation of new POs, while respecting the fact that growers may opt to remain outside the PO system;
5. Calls on the Commission to intensify efforts to tackle unfair trading practices (UTPs) in the food supply chain which negatively impact producer returns, depress incomes and threaten the viability and sustainability of the sector; considers that unfair trading practices and the pressure exerted on producers, whether or not they are associated, by the large retail chains, are the main obstacle to F&V farmers earning a decent income; points out that the weakness of their position is compounded by the fact that their products are perishable; considers that the problems cited, such as the abandonment of land or the ageing of the population of active farmers, will only disappear when the profits from production are sufficient to guarantee the future of the profession and attract young labour;
6. Invites the Commission to establish clear EU rules governing the principles of good practice in the food supply chain to ensure a common interpretation of the rules as regards unfair trading practices;
7. Invites the Commission to promote measures to encourage direct marketing of PO products; believes that direct marketing is an alternative to the large retail sector and its underlying values regarding the relationship to food, agriculture and the environment; considers that direct marketing prices are kept lower than large retail sector prices precisely because of the elimination of intermediaries and of the costs linked to logistics; considers, in this connection, that a shortening of the chain guarantees farmers a fair return and makes it possible to combat unfair trading practices;
8. Notes that many Member States have introduced measures to tackle UTPs and calls for an EU-coordinated response to strengthen the functioning of the internal market for agricultural produce;
9. Stresses the importance of maintaining European quality standards for fresh fruit and vegetable products in order to guarantee consistently high quality in the supply chain for the benefit of the final consumer;
10. Urges the Commission to clarify how it intends to apply Article 209(1) of Regulation (EU) No 1308/2013 establishing a common organisation of the markets in agricultural products, so as to promote more legal certainty on how to achieve the objectives set out in Article 39 of the TFEU, in strict compliance with Article 101 of the TFEU as regards competition;
11. Notes that the degree of organisation of the sector, as measured by the share of the total value of F&V production marketed by POs, has steadily increased in recent years in the Union as a whole, but that this increase can be attributed to only some of the Member States;
12. Emphasises that, despite this increase, the degree of organisation among producers remains low on average, and considerably below the EU average in certain Member States, and that addressing this problem is crucial for the future of the F&V regime, not least by alleviating significant regional imbalances; further emphasises that this low level of organisation is not helped by the complexity of PO rules which has resulted in the suspension and de-recognition of POs in some Member States; therefore calls on the Commission to reverse this decline by simplifying the scheme’s rules to make POs more attractive to join;
13. Points to the need to improve the organisation rate in the sector, bearing in mind that it is clearly higher in regions where production and marketing are more modernised and geared to export, while it is weakest in countries that have not had an opportunity to use operational funds for many years;
14. Considers it vital to contemplate putting instruments in place for managing crises, and the successful initiatives launched by certain POs in that respect need to be clearly identifiable so that they can be replicated elsewhere whenever it is possible; to this end, calls on the Commission to facilitate the awareness and knowledge of such pioneering POs;
15. Recalls that POs are tools that are made available to producers to help them collectively organise themselves on the market so that they can safeguard their income, and that POs are particularly useful in production areas that send their produce to consumer areas, but are not greatly used by certain producers or in certain local or niche markets;
16. Stresses in this context that it is important to increase the overall level of support to POs and to provide stronger incentives both for the merging of existing POs in APOs and the creation of new ones in both a national and international context, while calling for the investment of the aid provided to set up new POs to be monitored to ensure that it is effectively invested in ways that will increase the income of the member producers;
17. Considers it regrettable that, in certain Member States, the rate of organisation into POs is extremely low and recommends that Member States prioritise insisting on the promotion of the association of producers; calls on the Commission to analyse the particularities of those Member States where producer organisation is low;
18. Calls on the Commission in this context to restore financial support for the investments of newly established F&V POs; considers that, without this support, it is extremely difficult for the established organisations to obtain the state recognition needed for their operation; considers, therefore, that support is one of the most efficient tools to develop organisations and increase the rate of organisation;
19. Invites the Commission, as part of simplification of the CAP, to further strengthen the effectiveness of producer organisations in terms of concentrating supply, particularly as regards their central marketing role in the F&V supply chain;
20. Considers it essential to provide benefits for POs that decide to take young members; stresses that POs may provide an opportunity for promoting generational renewal in the agricultural sector;
21. Calls on the Commission to ensure the rapid and harmonised implementation of the provisions relating to fruit and vegetables on the one hand, and to producer organisations and interbranch organisations on the other, as defined in Regulation (EU) No 1308/2013;
22. Reiterates its deep concern at the fact that currently only 7,5 % of EU farmers are under 35 years of age and believes that well-functioning POs attracting young people can play a part in reversing this unsustainable demographic trend;
23. Notes the need to provide incentives to raise the level of research and innovation in POs; considers that more innovation will enable POs to become more competitive and able to deal with the killer diseases that are damaging European agriculture;
24. Stresses the need to help POs increase their exports and be involved in researching new foreign markets;
25. Considers it necessary to make producer organisations more attractive by reducing red tape and improving the support given to these groups by the European Union, as well as making improvements to crisis management mechanisms;
26. Urges the Commission, in its upcoming review of implementing legislation and as part of its ‘simplification’ agenda, to increase legal certainty for national administrations, POs and APOs and to reduce the administrative burden imposed on them; stresses that this review should not change the basic architecture of the fruit and vegetables regime or be detrimental to the interests or earnings of producers in the sector;
27. Notes with concern that PO rules are open to wide interpretation by the Commission’s auditors, which leads to a high degree of uncertainty and can leave Member States at risk of disallowance and judicial review; stresses, also, that audit procedures and financial corrections must be carried out in a more timely manner and within an agreed audit time period;
28. Asks the Commission to considerably reduce the processing period during which the compliance checks are carried out;
29. Asks the Commission, also with the aim of increasing the system’s legal certainty, to rationalise the controls and focus them on monitoring the actual execution of each action or measure that is approved as part of the operational programme as well as the cost allocated to them, clearly establishing what is being controlled and who is responsible for carrying out the control;
30. Asks the Commission to apply the principle of proportionality in relation to penalties and to ensure that audits are concluded within a set time limit in order to increase legal certainty for POs and their members;
31. Points out that the conditions for applying for the assistance regime and justifying applications are excessive and imprecise, and are subject to multiple checks by a range of administrative bodies that are often neither consistent nor precise, leading certain types of partners to abandon the regime and certain POs to decide not to submit operational programmes; considers it vital in this context to clarify the European legislation on the recognition of POs in order to guarantee the legal security of the regime and prevent uncertainty among producers;
32. Urges the Commission to clarify the rules for the establishment of transnational (associations of) POs and in particular the rules regarding responsibility and liability, in order to create legal certainty for the national administrations and POs involved;
33. Calls for the duties of interbranch organisations to be broadened, especially in the generic fields of communication and information and that of educating the citizen-consumer, in particular in relation to food;
34. Emphasises the role of interbranch organisations in improving the internal dialogue within a sector;
35. Is concerned that the largest POs (about 18 % of all POs with a turnover of more than EUR 20 million) receive about 70 % of EU financial assistance;
36. Considers that reducing complexity, including in the rules for creating new POs in a national and international context, should be the first step in making them more attractive for farmers, without that signifying a devaluation of the PO structure to the detriment of their ability to act effectively in the market; requests that the Commission identify additional measures for increasing the attractiveness of POs, in particular in Member States with a low level of organisation;
37. Calls on the Commission to apply the principle of proportionality with care, by ensuring that errors made by individuals are not recovered from all members of a PO;
38. Considers that any simplification of the recognition procedure should not be to the detriment of national regulations certifying the conditions required of F&V POs, such as those applied to cooperatives;
39. Calls on the Commission in its review of the fruit and vegetables regime to reduce the administrative burden for POs by abolishing mid-term evaluations carried out by national authorities; notes that these evaluations often duplicate the questions asked of national authorities in its annual reporting and provide no obvious benefit; further calls on the Commission, as part of its aim to cut red tape, to reduce the amount of information it requests from national authorities and POs in annual reports, and to ensure that only data which is actually used by the Commission to monitor the scheme’s effectiveness is collected;
40. Urges the Commission to revisit Delegated Regulation (EU) No 499/2014 of 11 March 2014, which introduced more complex checks on POs, including disproportionate penalties for failing to meet complex recognition criteria; stresses the need for proportionality in relation to penalties if we are to encourage new growers to join the scheme and prevent existing members from rethinking their participation;
41. Considers that the competitiveness of POs depends greatly on their management; urges the Commission to develop existing actions or set up new ones, including training measures and initiatives for the exchange of good practices, which can improve the management of POs and their competitive position in the food supply chain and to ensure an enhanced role for market oriented behaviour within POs; stresses that POs should be managed by people with marketing skills who are capable of dealing with crisis situations in the agricultural sector;
42. Recommends that the Commission focus on PO-integrated production and distribution models, and calls on the local and regional authorities to make available logistics and outlet support for the products of POs in the regions;
43. Calls on the Commission to take the necessary steps to enable producer organisations to fully play their part as instruments for increasing the income of producers;
44. Invites the Commission to consider extending the provisions for funding crisis prevention and management measures (eligibility of the repayment of capital and interest on loans for financial aid) and also for achieving the other objectives pursued by the operational programmes of producer organisations and their associations;
45. Urges the Commission to create actions for the transfer of administrative and structural ‘know-how’ concerning the way in which POs are organised, from Member States with a high level of POs to those with a low level of POs;
46. Observes that environment-friendly practices must be continuously and rigorously pursued and that continuing to fund such practices from one operational programme to another must therefore be encouraged, and the scope of intervention expanded to include producers whose plots of land adjoin those farmed by members of a producer organisation;
47. Considers that associations of producer organisations (AOPs) could play an important role in increasing the bargaining power of farmers, and urges the Commission to reinforce incentives for setting up APOs, at both national and European levels, strengthening their capacity to act from a legal perspective, and provide for the possibility of bringing producers who are not members of POs under their umbrella, in order to envisage a greater role for them in the future; stresses that APOs are in a position not only to bring about the effective concentration and enhancement of supply, but also to evince greater efficiency in the management of interventions because of the coordination role they are called to play on the operational level;
48. Considers that interbranch organisations need to be encouraged in order to ensure better organisation of the fruit and vegetables sector; considers that such organisations can play an important role in creating added value and sharing it between the different parts of the sector, and also as regards quality, sustainable enhancement of production, and market and crisis management;
49. Considers that associations of producer organisations (APOs) could play an important role in anticipating and managing short-term crises; stresses the benefits of being able to have producers who are not members of POs join such associations voluntarily, in order to make the collective actions of producers even more efficient;
50. Stresses the importance of ensuring that the structure and functioning of POs and APOs are based on the principles of independence and democracy, in order to enhance mutual trust among producers and combat unfair trading practices and opportunistic behaviour;
51. Is adamant that third-country production methods for exports to the EU must provide European consumers with the same guarantees in terms of health, food safety, animal welfare, sustainable development and minimum social standards as those required of EU producers; considers that this means that, in any agreements signed with third countries, the EU must abide by a criterion of genuine reciprocity as regards access to the market and compliance with the production regulations governing EU producers;
52. Emphasises the need to make it easier for producers to gain access to third-country markets; calls on the Commission to increase its efforts to support exporters of fruit and vegetables to overcome the increasing number of non-tariff barriers, such as some third-country phytosanitary standards that make export from the EU difficult, if not impossible;
53. Is of the opinion that, in order to achieve fairer competition with imports to the Community market, and with a view to reciprocity in plant health standards, the EU should strengthen the import control regime to put it on an equal footing with that applied by the large majority of its trading partners;
54. Welcomes the new horizontal regulations for promoting agricultural products adopted recently and the objective of increasing the funds allocated to finding new markets mainly in third countries, and encourages the Commission to continue working to improve the promotion instrument in the coming years;
55. Urges the Commission to intensify its efforts in trade negotiations with third countries for the removal of the tariff and plant health barriers imposed on European productions, thereby making it possible to open up new markets for Community fruit and vegetables;
56. Urges the Commission to identify the reasons for the minimal take-up of crisis prevention and management (CPM) instruments (only 16 % of POs used this resource, which represented only 2,8 % of total aid), which are only adapted to coping with minor seasonal crises, and to consider how the situation can be improved, taking into account examples of best practice and experience among existing POs;
57. Asks the Commission always to use preference for local products as the first crisis management measurement in order to promote and protect the single European market and the consumption of Europe’s own products; suggests that the Commission should be closely preoccupied with risk management tools, which are absolutely necessary for ensuring the agricultural production of POs;
58. Urges the Commission to devise a better coordinated mechanism for market withdrawals in crisis situations, in order to prevent market crises from turning into serious and lengthy disturbances resulting in significant falls in income for F&V farmers;
59. Stresses that the use of the withdrawal mechanism has proved to be limited and considers that crisis management measures should be reviewed including by: increasing the percentage of Union financial assistance, adjusting the withdrawal prices, taking into account the production costs, increasing the volumes that can be withdrawn, and improving the support, in terms of transportation and packaging, for the free distribution of fruits and vegetables with a view to providing the flexibility to adapt support to the form and severity of each crisis;
60. Asks the Commission to consider making contributions to mutual funds eligible as CPM measures in order to provide better protection for farmers in case of market crises which cause substantial drops in income, but considers that these funds must never come from the budget item allocated to agriculture and rural development by the Commission when the crisis is caused by issues unconnected with the sector, such as the Russian ban; believes that, in such cases, the Commission should look for other budget items and allocate them to mitigating the negative effects on the F&V sector;
61. Considers that producers should not have to bear the cost of crises caused by circumstances that are unconnected with the agricultural sector, such as the Russian ban on EU exports, which has seriously affected many European F&V producers and has even worsened market crisis situations such as that experienced by the stone fruits sector; asks that in such circumstances Community support measures be kept in place for as long as necessary until the normal market situation is fully re-established;
62. Emphasises that, through their operational programmes, POs can make important contributions to achieving environmental goals and improving food safety standards; welcomes the scheme’s environmental objectives but calls on the Commission to allow POs to adapt their operational programmes to suit their level of maturity as well as to target their funds on a broader range of measures aimed at increasing the sector’s overall competitiveness; stresses that a greater focus on measures aimed at innovation and added value has the most potential to improve producer incomes and thereby make POs more attractive to join;
63. Urges the Commission to reinforce the aid scheme in place for distributing fruit, vegetables and milk in schools, given the importance of promoting healthy and balanced diets from a very young age, and to bring young consumers closer to local producers;
64. Considers it crucial to improve the effectiveness of the Community regulations currently in place for protecting plants against the introduction of harmful organisms originating from outside the EU; points out that such organisms are becoming increasingly common in the EU due to rising levels of trade and are very often having a detrimental effect on the fruit and vegetables sector;
65. Considers that, as in other sectors (such as olive growing), producer organisations could be given a role in guaranteeing and coordinating the complementarity and coherence of the various EU support regimes, thus ensuring greater transparency of the system to prevent cases of double funding;
66. Urges the Commission to establish guidelines or policy rules clarifying the conditions under which POs can be temporarily granted a derogation from Article 101(1) of the TFEU on the basis of Article 222 of Regulation (EU) No 1308/2013 which provides POs with an opportunity to take measures in order to stabilise the sector during periods of severely imbalanced markets;
67. Emphasises the importance of short supply chains and calls on the Commission and the Member States to encourage the development of local markets for the distribution of fruit and vegetables;
68. Urges the Commission to intensify research and monitoring in relation to the threat posed to fruit and vegetable production in the EU by invasive species such as spotted-winged drosophilia;
69. Deplores the following weaknesses identified in the setting-up of some national strategies: too large a number of objectives, lack of precise predefined targets for the different objectives, and in particular the very low operational effectiveness of crisis prevention and management instruments, in connection mainly with harvest insurance, promotion and communication and product withdrawal, chiefly because these must be financed to the detriment of other structural measures and aid for withdrawals is in many cases not sufficient, and also because of the considerable amount of red tape involved; deplores the fact that those instruments can cope only with individual market crises and are insufficient to manage large-scale crises such as the current one caused by the Russian embargo;
70. Sees a need to establish preventive measures to help POs understand and correctly calculate and use predefined performance indicators, and stresses that in many cases there is an excessive number of performance indicators, which makes the procedure extremely difficult for both POs and the administration; believes that in this context it would be much more useful to have fewer but more significant indicators;
71. Believes that encouraging healthier eating habits goes hand in hand with understanding more about farming and how food is produced and supports, in this context, the objective of strengthening the educational dimension of school vegetable, fruit and milk programmes and calls for the earliest possible adoption of the Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Regulation (EU) No 1308/2013 and Regulation (EU) No 1306/2013 as regards the support programme for supplying fruits and vegetables, bananas and milk in educational institutions; stresses, in this connection, the importance of POs’ participation in the school fruit scheme as a way to encourage a short supply chain and the consumption by children of local and seasonal fruit and vegetables;
72. Considers that the key to analysing the situation of the F&V production sector is the evolution of the income of the sector’s farmers and asks the Commission, therefore, to undertake a study focusing on this point in order to ascertain whether the measures adopted, such as the strengthening of POs, have really been effective;
73. Calls on the Commission to draw up an urgent youth employment plan for the agricultural sector to prevent the ageing of the profession and the consequent abandonment of land and production;
74. Instructs its President to forward this resolution to the Council and the Commission.