European Parliament decision to raise no objections to the Commission Delegated Regulation of 12 June 2017 amending Regulation (EU) No 508/2014 of the European Parliament and of the Council as regards the distribution of funds under direct management among objectives of the Integrated Maritime Policy and the Common Fisheries Policy (C(2017)03881 – 2017/2743(DEA))

P8_TA(2017)0331 B8-0496/2017

The European Parliament,

–  having regard to the Commission delegated regulation (C(2017)03881),

–  having regard to the Commission’s letter of 1 September 2017 asking Parliament to declare that it will raise no objections to the delegated regulation,

–  having regard to the letter from the Committee on Fisheries to the Chair of the Conference of Committee Chairs of 5 September 2017,

–  having regard to Article 290 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,

–  having regard to Regulation (EU) No 508/2014 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 May 2014 on the European Maritime and Fisheries Fund and repealing Council Regulations (EC) No 2328/2003, (EC) No 861/2006, (EC) No 1198/2006 and (EC) No 791/2007 and Regulation (EU) No 1255/2011 of the European Parliament and of the Council(1), in particular Articles 14(4) and 126(5) thereof,

–  having regard to Regulation (EU) No 1380/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 December 2013 on the Common Fisheries Policy, amending Council Regulations (EC) No 1954/2003 and (EC) No 1224/2009 and repealing Council Regulations (EC) No 2371/2002 and (EC) No 639/2004 and Council Decision 2004/585/EC(2),

–  having regard to the recommendation for a decision of the Committee on Fisheries,

–  having regard to Rule 105(6) of its Rules of Procedure,

–  having regard to the fact that no objections have been raised within the period laid down in the third and fourth indents of Rule 105(6) of its Rules of Procedure, which expired on 12 September 2017,

1.  Declares that it has no objections to the delegated regulation;

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

(1) OJ L 149, 20.5.2014, p. 1. (2) OJ L 354, 28.12.2013, p. 22.

European Parliament legislative resolution of 13 September 2017 on the draft Council Decision on the conclusion, on behalf of the Union, of the Multilateral Agreement between the European Community and its Member States, the Republic of Albania, Bosnia and Herzegovina, the Republic of Bulgaria, the Republic of Croatia, the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, the Republic of Iceland, the Republic of Montenegro, the Kingdom of Norway, Romania, the Republic of Serbia and the United Nations Interim Administration Mission in Kosovo(1) on the establishment of a European Common Aviation Area (ECAA) (15654/2016 - C8-0098/2017 - 2006/0036(NLE))

P8_TA(2017)0332 A8-0260/2017

(Consent)

The European Parliament,

–  having regard to the draft Council decision (15654/2016),

–  having regard to draft Council Decision on the signature and provisional application of the Multilateral Agreement between the European Community and its Member States, the Republic of Albania, Bosnia and Herzegovina, the Republic of Bulgaria, the Republic of Croatia, the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, the Republic of Iceland, the Republic of Montenegro, the Kingdom of Norway, Romania, the Republic of Serbia and the United Nations Interim Administration Mission in Kosovo(2) on the establishment of a European Common Aviation Area (08823/2/2006),

–  having regard to the request for consent submitted by the Council in accordance with Article 100(2) and Article 218(6), second subparagraph, point (a) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (C8-0098/2017),

–  having regard to Rule 99(1) and (4) and Rule 108(7) of its Rules of Procedure,

–  having regard to the recommendation of the Committee on Transport and Tourism (A8-0260/2017),

1.  Gives its consent to conclusion of the agreement;

2.  Instructs its President to forward its position to the Council, to the Commission and to the governments and parliaments of the Member States and of the Republic of Albania, Bosnia and Herzegovina, the Republic of Bulgaria, the Republic of Croatia, the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, the Republic of Iceland, the Republic of Montenegro, the Kingdom of Norway, Romania and the Republic of Serbia, and to the United Nations Interim Administration Mission in Kosovo.

(1) * This designation is without prejudice to positions on status, and is in line with UN Security Council Resolution 1244 (1999) and the Opinion of the International Court of Justice on Kosovo's declaration of independence. (2) * This designation is without prejudice to positions on status, and is in line with UN Security Council Resolution 1244 (1999) and the Opinion of the International Court of Justice on Kosovo's declaration of independence.

European Parliament legislative resolution of 13 September 2017 on the draft Council implementing decision on subjecting N-(1-phenethylpiperidin-4-yl)-N-phenylacrylamide (acryloylfentanyl) to control measures (08858/2017 – C8-0179/2017 – 2017/0073(NLE))

P8_TA(2017)0333 A8-0284/2017

(Consultation)

The European Parliament,

–  having regard to the Council draft (08858/2017),

–  having regard to Article 39(1) of the Treaty on European Union, as amended by the Treaty of Amsterdam, and Article 9 of Protocol No 36 on transitional provisions, pursuant to which the Council consulted Parliament (C8‑0179/2017),

–  having regard to Council Decision 2005/387/JHA of 10 May 2005 on the information exchange, risk-assessment and control of new psychoactive substances(1), and in particular Article 8(3) thereof,

–  having regard to Rule 78c of its Rules of Procedure,

–  having regard to the report of the Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs (A8-0284/2017),

1.  Approves the Council draft;

2.  Calls on the Council to notify Parliament if it intends to depart from the text approved by Parliament;

3.  Asks the Council to consult Parliament again if it intends to substantially amend the text approved by Parliament;

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

(1) OJ L 127, 20.5.2005, p. 32.

European Parliament resolution of 13 September 2017 on EU political relations with India (2017/2025(INI))

P8_TA(2017)0334 A8-0242/2017

The European Parliament,

–  having regard to the EU-India Strategic Partnership, established in 2004 and to the India-EU Strategic Partnership Joint Action Plan of 7 September 2005,

–  having regard to the ‘EU-India Agenda for Action-2020’ adopted at the 13th EU-India Summit and to the Joint Statement of the same summit,

–  having regard to the EU Global Strategy for the Foreign and Security Policy of June 2016,

–  having regard to the Commission communication of 4 September 2001 entitled ‘Europe and Asia: A Strategic Framework for Enhanced Partnerships’ (COM(2001)0469),

–  having regard to Regulation (EU) No 234/2014 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 March 2014 establishing a Partnership Instrument for cooperation with third countries(1),

–  having regard to its recommendation of 28 October 2004 to the Council on EU-India relations(2),

–  having regard to its resolution of 29 September 2005 on EU-India relations: A Strategic Partnership(3),

–  having regard to its resolution of 24 September 2008 on the preparation of the EU-India Summit (Marseille, 29 September 2008)(4),

–  having regard to its previous resolutions on India, including the ones on cases of breaches of human rights, democracy and the rule of law,

–  having regard to its resolution of 2 February 2012 on EU foreign policy towards the BRICS and other emerging powers: objectives and strategies(5),

–  having regard to its resolution of 13 April 2016 on the EU in a changing global environment – a more connected, contested and complex world(6),

–  having regard to its resolution of 10 May 2012 on maritime piracy(7),

–  having regard to its resolution of 27 October 2016 on nuclear security and non-proliferation(8),

–  having regard to the mission of its Committee on Foreign Affairs to India of 21-22 February 2017,

–  having regard to the 11th Asia-Europe (ASEM) Summit, held in Ulaanbaatar on 15-16 July 2016, and of the 9th Asia-Europe Parliamentary Partnership (ASEP) meeting, held in Ulaanbaatar on 21-22 April 2016, and to the respective declarations adopted by both meetings,

–  having regard to Rule 52 of its Rules of Procedure,

–  having regard to the report of the Committee on Foreign Affairs and the position in the form of amendmentsof the Committee on Women’s Rights and Gender Equality (A8-0242/2017),

A.  whereas the EU and India are the world’s two largest democracies, which both draw on deep cultural histories and are jointly committed to the promotion of peace, stability, security, prosperity, sustainable development and social justice, as well as to the respect for human rights, fundamental freedoms, the rule of law and good governance;

B.  whereas the EU and India have built over the last two decades a Strategic Partnership founded on shared values and interests, given that they are natural partners and factors of stability in the present multipolar world; whereas this Strategic Partnership should be deepened, as it has a high potential for bringing about a new dynamic at international level, including at the UN, and for addressing issues such as the Sustainable Development Goals or people-to-people contacts;

C.  whereas at the 13th EU-India Summit, which took place on 30 March 2016 following a four-year gap, a new roadmap was adopted for the Strategic Partnership for the next five years;

D.  whereas a number of Joint Declarations were adopted at the 13th EU-India Summit: on a common agenda on migration and mobility, on an India-EU water partnership, on a clean energy and climate partnership and on the fight against terrorism;

E.  whereas the EU and India, as important economic and trade and investment partners, and with the EU being India’s most important trading partner, have been engaged since 2007 in negotiations for an ambitious free trade and investment agreement, which should be concluded as soon as possible; whereas the EU-India Agenda for Action-2020 reaffirms the commitment of both parties to establishing a stable economic climate which is favourable to the expansion of trade and economic cooperation;

F.  whereas increased coordination between the EU and its Member States regarding their relationship with India would further allow the Strategic Partnership to be strengthened;

G.  whereas India is a vibrant democracy and an open society with a free press and an active civil society; whereas the EU and India have regularly exchanged best practices regarding human rights and democracy, including on issues of freedom of expression and association and the rule of law, as well as on the treatment of migrants, the respect for minorities and the promotion of equality between women and men, as the EU has committed to doing;

The solid foundations of a valuable partnership

1.  Expresses full support for a stronger and deeper partnership between the EU and India rooted in their powerful political, economic, social and cultural links and founded on the shared values of democracy, the respect for human rights and pluralism and on mutual respect and common interests;

2.  Considers that enhanced political relations between the two partners could positively contribute to fostering regional and international cooperation in a world that faces multiple global challenges, such as security tensions, disrespect for international law, terrorism, extremism and radicalisation, transnational organised crime and corruption, unregulated migration and human trafficking, the effects of climate change, poverty, inequality and disrespect for human rights, as well as growing populism;

3.  Highlights the fact that as the world’s two largest democracies, the EU and India have a common responsibility to promote the cause of peace, the rule of law and human rights around the world, including through their enhanced cooperation at UN level;

4.  Believes that the relationship between the EU and India has grown significantly in quality and scope since the Joint Political Statement of 1993; highlights the importance of the EU-India Strategic Partnership established in 2004 and meant to acknowledge their close ties and to take their relations to a higher and more intensive level;

5.  Highlights that the partnership between the EU and India has not yet reached its full potential; considers that stronger political engagement is needed on both sides to make the relationship more dynamic and valuable for the challenges the two partners face at regional and international level; calls for investment in the strengthening of ties between EU27 and India to be stepped up; underlines the importance of a full assessment of the functioning of the strategic partnership in generating ideas about the possible ways to advance it;

A stronger partnership for the EU’s and India’s mutual benefit

6.  Welcomes the holding of the 13th EU-India Summit in Brussels on 30 March 2016; urges the EU and India to hold summits on an annual basis, as they committed to, given that such high-level meetings positively contribute to increasing cooperation, mutual understanding and reciprocal visibility;

7.  Welcomes the endorsement of the EU-India Agenda for Action-2020, which is a roadmap for intensifying the Strategic Partnership over the next five years; takes positive note of the numerous areas of cooperation re-launched in 2016, such as security, the fight against terrorism, migration and mobility, trade, the transfer of technology and culture, climate change, development, energy and water; calls for the effective implementation of the Agenda with clear steps and deadlines;

8.  Reiterates its support for the establishment of a comprehensive and ambitious free trade agreement (FTA) between the EU and India, which should be economically, socially and politically valuable for both sides; recalls that the EU is the world’s leading trading block and that India has one of the highest rates of GDP growth worldwide; equally recalls that the EU is India’s primary partner in terms of trade and investment and that import and export flows between the two are relatively balanced;

9.  Takes positive note of the fact that the EU and India are re-engaging in discussions on the ways to proceed with negotiations on an FTA, which is also known as a Broad-based Trade and Investment Agreement (BTIA); urges both sides, with a view to concluding the FTA as soon as possible, to proceed with the negotiations in a spirit of reciprocity and mutual benefit and by taking into account the international standards to which both sides have committed, including those set out within the framework of the World Trade Organisation (WTO) and International Labour Organisation, as well as the principle of corporate social responsibility; acknowledges that such an agreement, by being equally balanced towards the concerns of both sides, can ensure that measures benefit both European and Indian citizens, including by fighting poverty and promoting respect for human rights;

10.  Recommends the adoption at EU level of a consistent strategy for its relations with India, with clear priorities; draws attention to the importance of both the EU institutions and the Member States implementing such a strategy in a coherent and coordinated manner; considers that the EU’s priorities for India could also be defined in an updated strategy for EU-Asia relations;

11.  Welcomes the commitment of the European Investment Bank (EIB) to fostering long-term investment in India in infrastructure that is essential for economic, social and environmentally sustainable development; calls on the EIB to implement this commitment and strengthen its support for sustainable investment in India;

12.  Highlights the importance of interparliamentary structured dialogue for the functioning of the Strategic Partnership; encourages the Speaker of the Indian Parliament to form an India-Europe Friendship Group made up of parliamentarians from the Lok Sabha and Rajya Sabha and acting as a counterpart to the European Parliament Delegation for Relations with the Republic of India;

A broad agenda for cooperation on foreign and security policies

13.  Reiterates that in today’s international environment, both the EU and India face pressing security challenges, which require a diplomatic response coupled with strengthened deterrence, respect for international law and cooperation among democratic states;

14.  Emphasises the significant potential for increased synergies between the EU and India with regard to foreign and security policy; is convinced that regular and consistent dialogue can pave the way for mutual understanding and, consequently, for increased coordination between the EU’s and India’s foreign affairs agendas at regional and international level, including on topics on which different approaches were adopted in the past;

15.  Welcomes the commitment made in the EU-India Agenda for Action-2020 to set up forums for Foreign Policy and Security Consultations; underlines the added value of increasing the frequency and weight of high-level exchanges in the area of foreign affairs and security;

16.  Calls for the EU, together with the Member States, and India to pursue and strengthen their efforts in promoting effective, rule-based multilateralism at global level; urges the Vice-President of the Commission/High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy and the Council to support reform of the UN Security Council, including India’s bid for Permanent Membership; encourages the EU and India to coordinate as much as possible their positions and initiatives at UN level on issues where their cooperation could make a difference, but also in other international forums, such as the WTO;

17.  Acknowledges the valuable and intensified exchanges on issues of global concern taking place within the framework of the Asia-Europe Meeting – a multilateral cooperation forum that includes both the EU and India; supports regional integration processes in Asia, on both a political and economic level, as they can positively contribute to reducing the number of conflicts and to the prosperity of the region;

18.  Emphasises the significant added value of the cooperation between the EU and India in supporting democratic processes in Asia; underlines, moreover, the importance of the EU and India coordinating their humanitarian aid and development policies, in view of the high level of development activity undertaken by both sides in Asia, in order to positively contribute to the political, economic and social advancement in the countries concerned, including for minorities or stateless persons, such as Rohingyas; calls for dialogue to be stepped up to this effect;

19.  Notes the India-EU Joint Declaration on the fight against terrorism of 30 March 2016 aimed at reinforcing cooperation on preventing and countering radicalisation, violent extremism and terrorism; underlines the importance of pursuing cooperation between the EU’s and India’s security and law enforcement services under the existing arrangement within Europol; recommends facilitating the exchange of best practices and information between India and the EU, including with its Member States; encourages both sides to advocate together the adoption of the Comprehensive Convention on International Terrorism at UN level, as well as the increase of effectiveness of the UN terrorist designations;

20.  Stresses the importance of deeper cooperation between the EU and India for Afghanistan, namely: contributing to an Afghan-led and -owned peace and reconciliation process, to the construction of stable institutions and a functioning state, and to the emergence of a political and economic environment that will allow the consolidation of peace and security; encourages, in particular, enhanced political coordination on security and military questions, development support and measures for addressing the regional context; emphasises that the ‘Heart of Asia’-Process represents an important forum for regional confidence-building and political cooperation;

21.  Calls for renewed efforts of rapprochement and the restoration of good neighbourly relations between India and Pakistan through a comprehensive dialogue and possibly a step-by-step approach, starting with a discussion on technical issues and confidence-building measures, and ultimately leading to high-level political meetings; underlines the importance of the bilateral dimension in working towards the establishment of lasting peace and cooperation between India and Pakistan, which would positively contribute to the security and economic development of the region; underlines, moreover, the responsibility towards peace incumbent on both states as nuclear powers; calls for the EU to encourage and support the reconciliation process between India and Pakistan; stresses the utmost importance of combating terrorism, in all its forms and manifestations, including state-sponsored terrorism;

22.  Recommends further cooperation on universal disarmament, non-proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and nuclear security, objectives to which both the EU and India are committed; in this context, calls on all Member States to support India’s bid to accede to export control regimes such as the Nuclear Suppliers Group, the Missile Technology Control Regime, the Wassenaar Arrangement and the Australia Group; welcomes the fact that India has ratified the IAEA Additional Protocol;

23.  Welcomes the firm stance of both India and the EU on the illegal nuclear and ballistic missile programmes of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (DPRK), which constitute a threat to regional and international peace, and encourages further cooperation for ensuring wide implementation of the UN sanctions against the DPRK;

24.  Takes note of India’s concerns about China, particularly in view of the latter’s assertive policy in the South China Sea, substantial military modernisation, strategic relationship with Pakistan and unresolved border issues; considers that only genuine dialogue based on the principles of international law can contribute to overcoming those differences and building trust;

25.  Takes positive note of the support expressed at the 13th EU-India Summit by both sides for full implementation of the Minsk Agreement by all parties regarding the conflict in Eastern Ukraine; recalls that the EU has strongly condemned Russia’s aggressive actions and has a non-recognition policy of the illegal annexation of Crimea and Sevastopol; hopes that, through dialogue, the EU and India could further align their positions;

26.  Encourages the EU and India to further exchange views, both during summits and during their regular foreign affairs and security consultations, on the situation in the Middle East and on areas of possible cooperation which could improve the stabilisation of the region, including through measures at international level; draws attention, in particular, to the importance of cooperation for ensuring a lasting political solution in Syria under the existing UN-agreed framework in line with the Geneva Communiqué of 30 June 2012 and for supporting post-agreement reconstruction and reconciliation, once a credible Syrian-led and Syrian-owned political transition is underway;

27.  Stresses that the EU and India could enhance their cooperation and exchange of best practices with regard to the African countries in order to ensure that their development efforts are complementary;

28.  Stresses the significant mutual benefits the EU and India could draw from intensifying their cooperation in areas such as maritime security, cyber security and data protection, as well as migration and mobility;

29.  Underlines the fact that the EU and India share vital interests and stresses that they should increase cooperation in the area of maritime security, notably with regard to counter-piracy, but also to preserving peace and stability and securing the sea line of communication in the South China Sea and the Indian Ocean; recommends, therefore, the development of joint standard operating procedures in the area of maritime security and counter-piracy, as well as the development of a common understanding of the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea which takes into account the freedom of navigation, resolves all pending issues and identifies the most appropriate joint measures for cooperating within the framework of the convention;

30.  Welcomes the adoption of a Joint Declaration between the EU and India on a clean energy and climate partnership at the 13th EU-India Summit in March 2016; underlines the positive impact of India and the EU on negotiations towards the Paris Climate Agreement and the global leadership of both partners; urges both partners to step up their efforts to ensuring that all signatories implement the agreement; calls, in this regard, for the intensification of EU-India cooperation in the field of energy, and in the field of renewable energy in particular;

31.  Notes with interest the adoption of a Joint Declaration between the EU and India on a water partnership at the 13th EU-India Summit in March 2016; calls for the Union, therefore, to strengthen its cooperation with India and intensify its support for Indian sustainable water management projects such as ‘Clean Ganga’;

32.  Takes positive note of the Joint Declaration on a Common Agenda on Migration and Mobility, which aims to provide a framework for cooperation on promoting regular migration, preventing irregular migration and trafficking in human beings and maximising the development impact of mobility;

33.  Considers that people-to-people exchanges should be one of the main dimensions of the strategic partnership between the EU and India; underlines, in particular, the importance of enhancing exchanges in the field of education, culture and scientific research, including IT, and welcomes, therefore, the increase in the number of student exchanges under the Erasmus+ programme, which should be further expanded; equally takes positive note of the prospects for cooperation in skills’ development and within the framework of the ‘Make in India’ initiative, as stated in the Agenda for Action-2020, and underlines their importance for intensifying trade and social relations; calls for the equal inclusion of female students, scientists, researchers and professionals in these programmes;

A strengthened exchange on the human rights dimension of the partnership

34.  Welcomes the reaffirmed commitment to intensified exchanges on the human rights dimension of the EU-India Strategic Partnership, as citizens of both sides can benefit from enhanced cooperation on numerous human rights issues; stresses, in particular, the need to strengthen exchange and coordination between the two partners within the framework of the UN, including in implementing the recommendations made under the Universal Periodic Review on Human Rights; equally underlines the importance of Human Rights Dialogues; notes that no exchange has taken place since 2013, and urges that a dialogue be held as soon as possible;

35.  Recalls its long-standing opposition to capital punishment in all cases and under all circumstances; reiterates its call for an immediate moratorium on executions in India;

36.  Recalls that freedom of expression and association are an integral part of a vibrant democratic society; understands the need to take measures to increase the transparency of, and introduce limitations to, activities funded by foreign actors that may pose a risk to peace and stability or to internal security; expresses concern, however, about the effects on freedom of expression and association of the current Indian law on foreign participation in the funding of NGOs (Foreign Contribution Regulation Act);

37.  Acknowledges the significant efforts made by the Indian authorities with a view to combating all forms of discrimination, including caste-based discrimination; notes with concern, however, that caste-based discrimination continues to be a source of abuse, and encourages India’s authorities, therefore, to strengthen their efforts to eradicate this violation of human rights; encourages India, furthermore, to ensure full protection of minorities, in particular religious and ethnic ones, and underscores the importance of promoting tolerance for diversity in preventing intercommunal violence; welcomes the fact that India’s Supreme Court ordered to reinvestigate the trials of anti-Christian violence in 2008 and to adequately compensate the victims;

38.  Urges India to ratify the Convention against Torture and its optional protocol and the Convention for the Protection of All Persons from Enforced Disappearance;

39.  Considers that, in the context of the EU’s and India’s reaffirmed commitment to strengthening cooperation on human rights issues, women’s rights should be included on the agenda of Human Rights Dialogue between the two partners; welcomes the Indian Government’s commitment to improving women’s rights and introducing equality between women and men in policy programming, and encourages the Indian authorities to take further steps to investigate and prevent gender-based violence and promote gender equality; welcomes, moreover, the fact that the EU is funding projects in India addressing violence against women and children and recommends that this funding be maintained; calls for LGBTIQ rights to be improved and for section 377 of the Indian Penal Code to be repealed;

o
o   o

40.  Instructs its President to forward this resolution to the Vice-President of the Commission / High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy, the Council, the Commission, and the Government and Parliament of India.

(1) OJ L 77, 15.3.2014, p. 77. (2) OJ C 174 E, 14.7.2005, p. 179. (3) OJ C 227 E, 21.9.2006, p. 589. (4) OJ C 8 E, 14.1.2010, p. 69. (5) OJ C 239 E, 20.8.2013, p. 1. (6) Texts adopted, P8_TA(2016)0120. (7) OJ C 261 E, 10.9.2013, p. 34. (8) Texts adopted, P8_TA(2016)0424.

European Parliament resolution of 13 September 2017 on the proposal for a decision of the European Parliament and of the Council on the mobilisation of the European Union Solidarity Fund to provide assistance to Italy (COM(2017)0540 – C8-0199/2017 – 2017/2101(BUD))

P8_TA(2017)0335 A8-0280/2017

The European Parliament,

–  having regard to the Commission proposal to the European Parliament and the Council (COM(2017)0540 – C8‑0199/2017),

–  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 (A8-0280/2017),

1.  Notes that the decision represents the single highest ever mobilisation of the European Union Solidarity Fund;

2.  Notes that the maximum threshold of the advance laid down in Article 4a of Regulation (EC) No 2012/2002 as amended by Regulation (EU) No 661/2014 of the European Parliament and of the Council(4) might often represent an insufficient aid measure for those disasters which are classified as "major natural disasters"; stresses the need to consider a higher threshold for those specific first financial contributions in order to effectively and promptly face the damages caused by this category of disasters;

3.  Welcomes the decision as a sign of the Union’s solidarity with the Union citizens and regions hit by the natural disasters;

4.  Approves the decision annexed to this resolution;

5.  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;

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

ANNEX

DECISION OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL

on the mobilisation of the European Union Solidarity Fund to provide assistance to Italy

(The text of this annex is not reproduced here since it corresponds to the final act, Decision (EU) 2017/1599.)

(1) OJ L 311, 14.11.2002, p. 3. (2) OJ L 347, 20.12.2013, p. 884. (3) OJ C 373, 20.12.2013, p. 1. (4) Regulation (EU) No 661/2014 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 May 2014 amending Council Regulation (EC) No 2012/2002 establishing the European Union Solidarity Fund (OJ L 189, 27.6.2014, p. 143).

European Parliament resolution of 13 September 2017 on the Council position on Draft amending budget No 4/2017 of the European Union for the financial year 2017 accompanying the proposal to mobilise the European Union Solidarity Fund to provide assistance to Italy (11813/2017 – C8-0304/2017 – 2017/2109(BUD))

P8_TA(2017)0336 A8-0281/2017

The European Parliament,

–  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 2017, as definitively adopted on 1 December 2016(2),

–  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(3) (MFF Regulation),

–  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(4),

–  having regard to Council Decision 2014/335/EU, Euratom of 26 May 2014 on the system of own resources of the European Union(5),

–  having regard to Draft amending budget No 4/2017, which the Commission adopted on 26 June 2017 (COM(2017)0541),

–  having regard to the position on Draft amending budget No 4/2017 which the Council adopted on 4 September 2017 and forwarded to Parliament on the same day (11813/2017 – C8‑0304/2017),

–  having regard to Rules 88 and 91 of its Rules of Procedure,

–  having regard to the report of the Committee on Budgets (A8-0281/2017),

A.  whereas Draft amending budget No 4/2017 concerns the mobilisation of the European Union Solidarity Fund (EUSF) for an amount of EUR 1 196 797 579 in relation to the earthquakes that occurred in Italy between August 2016 and January 2017 in the regions of Abruzzo, Lazio, Marche and Umbria,

B.  whereas the amount of EUR 30 000 000 was already paid for this EUSF case by means of an advance from the 2016 Union budget,

C.  whereas that mobilisation represents the biggest ever mobilisation of the EUSF,

D.  whereas the purpose of Draft amending budget No 4/2017 is formally to enter the corresponding budgetary adjustment into the 2017 Union budget,

E.  whereas the Commission consequently proposes to amend the 2017 Union budget and to increase Article 13 06 01 'Assistance to Member States in the event of a major natural disaster with serious repercussions on living conditions, the natural environment or the economy' by EUR 1 166 797 579 both in commitment and payment appropriations,

F.  whereas, while the total amount available for the mobilisation of the EUSF at this stage of the year is EUR 293 971 080 less than the proposed amount, the Commission proposes to cover that difference from the annual amount available in 2018, in line with Article 10(2) of the MFF Regulation; whereas that possibility has never been used before,

G.  whereas the EUSF is a special instrument as defined in the MFF Regulation, and the corresponding commitment and payments appropriations are to be budgeted over and above the MFF ceilings,

H.  whereas the Commission proposes to fully redeploy the necessary payment appropriations within the 2017 Union budget and to replenish the negative reserve activated in Amending Budget No 1/2017 (EUR 70 402 434) from the budget lines for the 2007-2013 structural funds programmes,

1.  Stresses the urgent need to release financial assistance through the EUSF to the regions affected by the natural disasters; notes that creating synergies between all available Union instruments is of paramount importance, ensuring that resources are used effectively for reconstruction activities and all other necessary actions;

2.  Takes note of Draft amending budget No 4/2017, as submitted by the Commission;

3.  Approves the Council position on Draft amending budget No 4/2017;

4.  Instructs its President to declare that Amending budget No 4/2017 has been definitively adopted and arrange for its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union;

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

(1) OJ L 298, 26.10.2012, p. 1. (2) OJ L 51, 28.2.2017. (3) OJ L 347, 20.12.2013, p. 884. (4) OJ C 373, 20.12.2013, p. 1. (5) OJ L 168, 7.6.2014, p. 105.

European Parliament resolution of 13 September 2017 on the proposal for a decision of the European Parliament and of the Council on the mobilisation of the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund (application from Finland – EGF/2017/002 FI Microsoft 2) (COM(2017)0322 – C8-0193/2017 – 2017/2098(BUD))

P8_TA(2017)0337 A8-0278/2017

The European Parliament,

–  having regard to the Commission proposal to the European Parliament and the Council (COM(2017)0322 – C8‑0193/2017),

–  having regard to Regulation (EU) No 1309/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 December 2013 on the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund (2014-2020) and repealing Regulation (EC) No 1927/2006(1) (EGF Regulation),

–  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 12 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) (IIA of 2 December 2013), and in particular point 13 thereof,

–  having regard to the trilogue procedure provided for in point 13 of the IIA of 2 December 2013,

–  having regard to the letter of the Committee on Employment and Social Affairs,

–  having regard to the letter of the Committee on Regional Development,

–  having regard to the report of the Committee on Budgets (A8-0278/2017),

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

B.  whereas the Union’s financial assistance to workers made redundant should be dynamic and made available as quickly and efficiently as possible;

C.  whereas Finland submitted application EGF/2017/002 FI/Microsoft 2 for a financial contribution from the EGF under the intervention criteria of point (a) of Article 4(1) of the EGF Regulation following 1 248 redundancies in Microsoft Mobile Oy and 11 suppliers and downstream producers in Finland operating in the economic sector classified under the NACE Revision 2 Division 62 (Computer programming, consultancy and other activities);

1.  Agrees with the Commission that the conditions set out in point (a) of Article 4(1) of the EGF Regulation are met and that Finland is entitled to a financial contribution of EUR 3 520 080 under that Regulation, which represents 60 % of the total cost of EUR 5 559 300;

2.  Notes that Finland submitted the application on 1 February 2017, and that, following additional information provided by Finland, its assessment was finalised by the Commission on 21 June 2017;

3.  Recalls that Microsoft acquired the mobile phone business of Nokia and that Microsoft Mobile Oy was established in 2014; notes that approximately 4700 Nokia employees were transferred to Microsoft Mobile Oy in Finland;

4.  Notes that the main reason for the redundancies at Microsoft Mobile Oy is the worldwide competition in the mobile phone sector and the consequent loss of market share by Microsoft Mobile Oy and its Windows-based operating system; notes that the decrease happened despite the fact that Microsoft Mobile Oy launched new mobile devices and invested into design, components and marketing;

5.  Acknowledges, with regret, the challenges faced by EU mobile phone manufacturers; considers that appropriate support needs to be offered so that the affected workers can retrain so as to be better placed to find jobs in related or expanding industrial sectors;

6.  Concludes that the redundancies are linked to the shift of manufacturing of mobile devices to lower wage countries; notes that the winners in the smartphone manufacture competition have been the US and Asia-based manufacturers using Android or iOS operating system;

7.  Recognises that the affected regions of Helsinki-Uusimaa, Länsi-Suomi and Etelä-Suomi have already experienced extensive redundancies by firms in the electronics and software sectors and that Länsi-Suomi and Etelä-Suomi have high regional unemployment rates (14,6 % and 17,5 % of the labour force respectively); notes that 1 000 out of 1 248 redundant workers eligible for the EGF contribution are expected to participate in the measures;

8.  Notes that 92,5% of the targeted beneficiaries are 30-54 years old and that many of the redundant workers are highly educated; notes that unemployment rates of highly educated people have increased considerably in all three regions; is concerned about the already difficult unemployment situation of highly skilled and educated people whose employment prospects would otherwise be traditionally good;

9.  Notes that Finland is planning six types of measures: (i) coaching measures and other preparatory measures, (ii) employment and business services, (iii) training, (iv) start-up grants, (v) pay subsidy, and (vi) allowances for travel and accommodation; notes that those actions constitute active labour market measures; notes that sufficient funds are allocated to control and reporting;

10.  Notes that the income support measures correspond to 26,74 % of the overall package of personalised measures, below the maximum 35 % set out in the EGF Regulation, and that these actions are conditional on the active participation of the targeted beneficiaries in job-search or training activities;

11.  Highlights the importance of active labour market measures supported by the EGF; notes that in previous EGF cases providing face-to-face services for redundant workers has proven to be extremely useful;

12.  Welcomes the use of the EURES network service to pass foreign job advertisements to Finnish jobseekers; welcomes the fact that the Finnish authorities are encouraging the redundant workers to fully benefit from their right to free movement;

13.  Understands that the EGF-funded training measures will be complementary to those financed by a fund set up by the company to help former employees start small businesses in the IT and other sectors; welcomes this initiative;

14.  Welcomes the fact that the Finnish authorities started providing the personalised services to the targeted beneficiaries on 12 July 2016, well ahead of the application for the EGF support for the proposed coordinated package;

15.  Welcomes the fact that consultations have taken place with stakeholders including representatives of the Centres for Economic Development (“ELY centres”), the Employment and Economic Development (“TE”) offices of the regions concerned, Microsoft, the Technology Industries of Finland, Trade Union Pro, the Union of Professional Engineers in Finland and the Finnish Funding Agency for Innovation;

16.  Recalls that the design of the coordinated package of personalised services supported by the EGF should anticipate future labour market perspectives and required skills and should be compatible with the shift towards a resource-efficient and sustainable economy;

17.  Recognises that the current application is a continuation of a series of previous applications from Finland following the decline of Nokia (EGF/2007/003 FI/Perlos, EGF/2012/006 FI/Nokia Salo, EGF/2013/001 FI/Nokia, EGF/2015/001 FI/Broadcom, EGF/2015/005 FI/Computer Programming, EGF/2016/001 FI/Microsoft and EGF/2016/008 FI/Nokia Network Systems);

18.  Notes that there is an on-going EGF intervention (EGF/2016/001 FI/Microsoft) targeted to support the employees made redundant from Microsoft earlier; stresses that the targeted beneficiaries of this proposal are separate from the beneficiaries of that case;

19.  Notes that the Finnish authorities have provided assurances that the proposed actions will not receive financial support from other Union funds or financial instruments, that any double financing will be prevented and that they will be complementary with actions funded by the Structural Funds;

20.  Recalls the importance of improving the employability of all workers by means of adapted training and the recognition of skills and competences gained throughout a worker's professional career; expects the training on offer in the coordinated package to be adapted not only to the needs of the dismissed workers but also to the actual business environment;

21.  Reiterates that assistance from the EGF must not replace actions which are the responsibility of companies by virtue of national law or collective agreements nor of measures for restructuring companies or sectors; notes that Finland has confirmed that the EGF contribution will indeed not replace them;

22.  Asks the Commission to ensure public access to the documents related to EGF cases;

23.  Approves the decision annexed to this resolution;

24.  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;

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

ANNEX

DECISION OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL

on the mobilisation of the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund following an application from Finland – EGF/2017/002 FI/Microsoft 2

(The text of this annex is not reproduced here since it corresponds to the final act, Decision (EU) 2017/1600.)

(1) OJ L 347, 20.12.2013, p. 855. (2) OJ L 347, 20.12.2013, p. 884. (3) OJ C 373, 20.12.2013, p. 1.

Amendments adopted by the European Parliament on 13 September 2017 on the proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Directive 2003/87/EC to continue current limitations of scope for aviation activities and to prepare to implement a global market-based measure from 2021 (COM(2017)0054 – C8-0028/2017 – 2017/0017(COD))(1)

P8_TA(2017)0338 A8-0258/2017

(Ordinary legislative procedure: first reading)

Text proposed by the Commission   Amendment Amendment 1 Proposal for a regulation Recital 2 a (new) (2a)  Environmental protection is one of the most important challenges facing the Union. Amendment 38 Proposal for a regulation Recital 3 (3)  A binding target of at least a 40% domestic reduction in economy-wide greenhouse gas emissions by 2030 compared to 1990 was set by the European Council of 23-24 October 2014. The Council meeting on 6 March 2015 formally approved this contribution of the Union and its Member States as their Intended Nationally Determined Contribution under the Paris Agreement. The European Council conclusions of October 2014 foresaw that the target should be delivered collectively by the Union in the most cost-effective manner possible, with the reductions in the Emissions Trading System (ETS) and non-ETS sectors amounting to 43% and 30% by 2030 compared to 2005 respectively. All sectors of the economy should contribute to achieving these emission reductions. (3)  A binding target of at least a 40% domestic reduction in economy-wide greenhouse gas emissions by 2030 compared to 1990 was set by the European Council of 23-24 October 2014. The Council meeting on 6 March 2015 formally approved this contribution of the Union and its Member States as their Intended Nationally Determined Contribution under the Paris Agreement. The European Council conclusions of October 2014 foresaw that the target should be delivered collectively by the Union in the most cost-effective manner possible, with the reductions in the Emissions Trading System (ETS) and non-ETS sectors amounting to 43% and 30% by 2030 compared to 2005 respectively. All sectors of the economy should contribute to achieving these emission reductions and in order to do so, the Commission should provide, inter alia, a platform for exchanging among Member States best practices and lessons learned in the sector of low-emission mobility. Amendment 2 Proposal for a regulation Recital 3 a (new) (3a)  A well-functioning, reformed EU ETS with an enhanced instrument to stabilise the market will be the main European instruments to achieve the 40% reduction target with a linear factor and free allocation beyond 2020. The auction share should be expressed as a percentage figure in the legislative act, to enhance planning certainty as regards investment decisions, to increase transparency, to minimise carbon leakage, and to render the overall system simpler and more easily understandable. Those provisions should be consistent with the Union’s climate objectives and its commitments under the Paris Agreement, and aligned with the 2018 Facilitative Dialogue, the first global stocktake in 2023, and subsequent global stocktakes every five years thereafter, intended to inform successive Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs). Amendment 39 Proposal for a regulation Recital 4 (4)  The Union and its Member States have been endeavouring to advance international agreement to reduce greenhouse gas impacts from aviation since 1997 and they have legislation in place since 2008 to limit the climate change impacts from aviation activities through the EU emissions trading system (EU ETS) that has been operating since 2005. In order to advance progress at the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO), the Union has twice adopted time-bound derogations to the EU ETS so as to limit compliance obligations to emissions from flights between aerodromes situated in the European Economic Area (EEA), with equal treatment on routes of aircraft operators wherever they are based. The most recent derogation from the EU ETS, Regulation (EU) No 421/2014 of the European Parliament and of the Council, limited compliance obligations to intra-EEA flights between 2013 and 2016, and envisaged potential changes to the scope of the system as regards activity to and from aerodromes situated outside the EEA from 1 January 2017 onwards following the review set out in that Regulation. (4)  The Union and its Member States have been endeavouring to advance international agreement to reduce greenhouse gas impacts from aviation since 1997 and they have legislation in place since 2008 to limit the climate change impacts from aviation activities through the EU emissions trading system (EU ETS) that has been operating since 2005. The Court of Justice ruled in its judgment of 21 December 20111a that the inclusion of extra-EEA flights in the EU ETS does not violate international law. In addition, since 2004 and 2008 the Member States have recommitted themselves to implementing the Single European Sky concept, taking account of the growth in the volume of air traffic in the coming years. In order to achieve progress with air traffic management, the implementation of SESAR (Single European Sky ATM Research) needs to be speeded up, and innovative technologies must be supported under the Clean Sky project. The introduction, through the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO), of the global market-based measure should contribute to further progress on aviation emissions reduction. In order to advance progress at the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO), the Union has twice adopted time-bound derogations to the EU ETS so as to limit compliance obligations to emissions from flights between aerodromes situated in the European Economic Area (EEA), with equal treatment on routes of aircraft operators wherever they are based. The most recent derogation from the EU ETS, Regulation (EU) No 421/2014 of the European Parliament and of the Council, limited compliance obligations to intra-EEA flights between 2013 and 2016, and envisaged potential changes to the scope of the system as regards activity to and from aerodromes situated outside the EEA from 1 January 2017 onwards following the review set out in that Regulation. _________________ 1a Judgment of the Court of Justice of 21 December 2011, Air Transport Association of America and Others v. Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change, C-366/10, ECLI:EU:C:2011:864. Amendment 4 Proposal for a regulation Recital 5 (5)  In the light of the resolution adopted at ICAO's 39th Assembly in October 2016 on the implementation of a global market-based measure from 2021 to offset international aviation emissions above 2020 levels, it is considered appropriate to continue the existing derogation pending further progress on the design elements and the implementation of the global market-based measure. In this regard, the adoption of Standards and Recommended Practices by ICAO to complement that Resolution and implement the global system is planned for 2018. However, its concrete operationalisation will require action by ICAO parties at domestic level. Also, governance arrangements must be developed by ICAO, including a registry system. In this context, the current derogation of the EU ETS obligations for flights to and from third countries should be extended, subject to the review on implementing the ICAO scheme, in order to promote momentum in ICAO and facilitate the operationalisation of the ICAO scheme. As a result of the extension of the derogation, the amount of allowances to be auctioned and issued for free, including from the special reserve, should be the same as would correspond to 2016, and should be proportional to the reduction of the surrender obligation. (5)  In the light of the resolution adopted at ICAO's 39th Assembly in October 2016 on the implementation of a global market-based measure from 2021 to offset international aviation emissions above 2020 levels, the adoption of Standards and Recommended Practices by ICAO to complement that Resolution and implement the global system is planned for 2018. However, its concrete operationalisation will require action by ICAO parties at domestic level. Also, governance arrangements must be developed by ICAO, including a registry system. In this context, the current derogation of the EU ETS obligations for flights to and from third countries should be extended until 2021 in order to promote momentum in ICAO and facilitate the operationalisation of the ICAO scheme. As a result of the extension of the derogation, the amount of allowances to be auctioned and issued for free, including from the special reserve, should be the same as would correspond to 2016, and should be proportional to the reduction of the surrender obligation. Amendment 5 Proposal for a regulation Recital 5 a (new) (5a)  50 % of allowances should be auctioned from 1 January 2021, while the total number of allocated allowances should be subject to the application of the linear reduction factor as provided for in Article 9 of Directive 2003/87/EC. Amendment 6 Proposal for a regulation Recital 5 b (new) (5b)  Revenues generated from the auctioning of allowances, or their equivalent in financial value, should be used to tackle climate change in the Union and in third countries, inter alia, to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, to adapt to the impacts of climate change in the Union and in third countries, especially developing countries, to fund research and development for mitigation and adaptation, including in the fields of aeronautics, air transport and sustainable alternative aviation fuels, to reduce emissions through low-emissions transport, and to cover the costs of administering the EU ETS. Special consideration should be given to Member States which use those revenues for co-financing research and innovation programmes or initiatives under the Ninth Research Framework Programme (FP9). Transparency on the use of revenues generated from the auctioning of allowances under Directive 2003/87/EC is fundamental to underpinning Union commitments. Amendment 7 Proposal for a regulation Recital 5 c (new) (5c)  Emission offsets under the global market-based measure comprise one element in ICAO's basket of measures to achieve the aspirational goal of carbon neutral growth from 2020 (CNG 2020) and should be complemented by advances in airframe and propulsion technologies. Continued funding for research strategies and programmes such as the Clean Sky Joint Technology Initiatives, Galileo, SESAR and Horizon 2020 will be essential to technological innovation and operational improvements in order to go beyond CNG 2020 and achieve sector-wide absolute emission reductions. Furthermore, it is important that Union legislation, such as Single European Sky, aimed at preventing the fragmentation of European airspace and consequently an increase in aviation CO2 emissions, is speedily and fully implemented by the Member States. Amendment 8 Proposal for a regulation Recital 6 (6)  Given that key features of the global market-based measure have yet to be developed and that its implementation depends on domestic legislation by States and regions, it is considered appropriate for a review to take place once there is clarity about the nature and content and of these legal instruments in advance of the start of ICAO's global market-based measure, and a report submitted to the European Parliament and Council. That report should consider any standards or other instruments adopted through ICAO, the actions taken by third countries to implement the global market-based measure to apply to emissions from 2021 and other relevant international developments (e.g. rules under UNFCCC and the Paris Agreement on carbon markets and accounting). That report should consider how to implement these instruments in Union law through a revision of the EU ETS. It should also consider the rules applicable to intra-EEA flights as appropriate. That report should be accompanied by a proposal as appropriate to the European Parliament and the Council consistent with ensuring the contribution of aviation to the Union's 2030 economy-wide greenhouse gas reduction commitment. (6)  Given that key features of the global market-based measure have yet to be developed and that its implementation depends on domestic legislation by participating States and regions, the Commission should report regularly to the European Parliament and to the Council on progress in the ICAO negotiations, in particular on relevant instruments adopted through ICAO, the actions taken by third countries to implement the global market-based measure to apply to emissions for the period 2021-2035, efforts to establish ambitious and binding measures to achieve the aviation industry’s long-term goal of halving aviation CO2 emissions relative to 2005 levels by 2050, and other relevant international developments (e.g. rules under UNFCCC and the Paris Agreement on carbon markets and accounting). Once there is clarity about the nature and content of the ICAO instruments, and in advance of the start of ICAO's global market-based measure, the Commission should present a report in which it should consider how to implement these instruments and make them consistent with Union law through a revision of the EU ETS. That report should further consider the rules applicable to intra-EEA flights, as appropriate. That report should be accompanied by a proposal as appropriate to the European Parliament and the Council consistent with ensuring the contribution of aviation to the Union's 2030 economy-wide greenhouse gas reduction commitment. Amendment 9 Proposal for a regulation Recital 6 a (new) (6a)  In order to ensure that existing and future Union domestic climate standards are respected, and without prejudice to the review as referred to in Article 28b of Directive 2003/87/EC, CORSIA should be implemented in, and made consistent with, Union law through the EU ETS. Amendment 41 Proposal for a regulation Recital 6 b (new) (6b)  Several legislative acts have been adopted at Union level which aim at preventing the fragmentation of European airspace in order to enhance the flow of air traffic and control of airspace usage, thereby reducing emissions. Within the Union, the CORSIA scheme should be viewed as part of the ICAO's so-called "basket of measures", alongside full implementation by Member States of Single European Sky legislation, SESAR, the use of GNSS for satellite-based navigation, and Joint Technology Initiatives such as Clean Sky I and Clean Sky II. . The Commission should also report to the European Parliament and to the Council on actions for the implementation of the GMBM taken by Member States to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from aviation, including information, with regard to the use of revenues, submitted by Member States in accordance with Article 17 of Regulation (EU) No 525/2013. Amendment 10 Proposal for a regulation Recital 6 c (new) (6c)  Although the technical rules for the ICAO global market-based measure are yet to be adopted by the ICAO Council, it is important that regulatory authorities and aircraft operators have information about monitoring, reporting and verification (MRV) requirements and emissions units eligible under the ICAO scheme as early as possible in order to facilitate preparation for the implementation of the ICAO scheme and the monitoring of CO2 emissions from 1 January 2019. Such MRV requirements should have a level of stringency that is consistent with the requirements for monitoring and reporting greenhouse gas emissions under Commission Regulation (EU) No 601/2012, and should ensure that the emissions reports submitted are verified in accordance with Commission Regulation (EU) No 600/2012. Amendment 11 Proposal for a regulation Recital 6 d (new) (6d)  While the confidentiality of the technical work in ICAO should be acknowledged, it is also important that ICAO member states, aircraft operators and civil society continue to be engaged in the ICAO’s work to implement the global market-based measure and that the ICAO reaches out to all stakeholders to inform them about progress and decisions in a timely manner. In order to achieve that, it might be necessary to revise the non-disclosure protocols for Members and Observers of the ICAO Committee on Aviation Environmental Protection (CAEP). Amendment 12 Proposal for a regulation Recital 7 (7)  In order to adopt non-legislative acts of general application to supplement or amend certain non-essential elements of a legislative act, the power to adopt acts in accordance with Article 290 of the Treaty should be delegated to the Commission to adopt measures for the monitoring, reporting and verification of emissions applicable to aircraft operators for the purpose of the global market-based measure being elaborated in ICAO. It is of particular importance that the Commission carries out appropriate consultations during its preparatory work, including at expert level, and that those consultations be conducted in accordance with the principles laid down in the Interinstitutional Agreement on Better Law-Making of 13 April 2016. In particular, to ensure equal participation in the preparation of delegated acts, the European Parliament and the Council receive all documents at the same time as Member States' experts, and their experts systematically have access to meetings of Commission expert groups dealing with the preparation of delegated acts. (7)  In order to adopt non-legislative acts of general application to supplement or amend certain non-essential elements of a legislative act, the power to adopt acts in accordance with Article 290 of the Treaty should be delegated to the Commission to adopt measures for the monitoring, reporting and verification of emissions applicable to aircraft operators for the purpose of the global market-based measure being elaborated in ICAO. It is of particular importance that the Commission carries out appropriate consultations during its preparatory work, in particular at expert level, and that those consultations be conducted in accordance with the principles laid down in the Interinstitutional Agreement on Better Law-Making of 13 April 2016. In particular, to ensure equal participation in the preparation of delegated acts, the European Parliament and the Council receive all documents at the same time as Member States' experts, and their experts systematically have access to meetings of Commission expert groups dealing with the preparation of delegated acts, in order to make the decision-making process more transparent and more efficient. Amendment 13 Proposal for a regulation Recital 7 a (new) (7a)  While the long-term goal should be to have a single global reduction scheme for tackling carbon emissions from aviation by the second phase of the ICAO scheme in 2024, in the event that the ICAO global market-based measure is insufficient to achieve the Union’s climate objectives and commitments under the Paris Agreement, other carbon mitigation options should also be explored. Amendment 14 Proposal for a regulation Recital 7 b (new) (7b)  Aviation also has an impact on climate through releases of nitrogen oxides, water vapour and sulphate and soot particles at high altitudes. The International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has estimated that the total climate impact of aviation is currently two to four times higher than the effect of its past carbon dioxide emissions alone. Pending scientific progress, all impacts of aviation should be addressed to the extent possible. Research on the formation of condensation trails, also known as contrails, their evolution into cirrus clouds, on the smaller direct effects of sulphate aerosols, soot, water vapour contrails and cirrus clouds, and on effective mitigation measures, including operational and technical measures, should also be promoted. Amendment 15 Proposal for a regulation Recital 9 a (new) (9a)  It is accepted that climate-damaging aviation emissions produce more than CO2 effects. Directive 2008/101/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council1a contained a Commission undertaking to submit an appropriate proposal on nitrogen oxides in 2008. Despite the technical and political difficulties involved, the Commission should speed up its work in that regard. __________________ 1a Directive 2008/101/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 19 November 2008, amending Directive 2003/87/EC so as to include aviation activities in the scheme for greenhouse gas emission allowance trading within the Community (OJ L 8, 13.1.2009, p. 3). Amendment 16 Proposal for a regulation Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point -1 (new) Directive 2003/87/EC Article 3c – paragraph 3 a (new) (-1)  In Article 3c, the following paragraph is added: “3a. The total quantity of allowances to be allocated to aircraft operators in 2021 shall be 10 % lower than the average allocation for the period from 1 January 2014 to 31 December 2016, and then decrease annually at the same rate as that of the total cap for the EU ETS referred to in the second subparagraph of Article 9 so as to bring the cap for the aviation sector more in line with the other EU ETS sectors by 2030. For aviation activities to and from aerodromes located in countries outside the EEA, the quantity of allowances to be allocated from 2021 onwards may be adjusted taking into account the ICAO global market-based measure to be implemented from 2021 to offset international aviation emissions above 2020 levels.” Amendment 36 Proposal for a regulation Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point -1 a (new) Directive 2003/87/EC Article 3d – paragraph 2 (-1a)  In Article 3d, paragraph 2 is replaced by the following: 2.  From 1 January 2013, 15 % of allowances shall be auctioned. This percentage may be increased as part of the general review of this Directive. 2.  “From 1 January 2021, 50 % of allowances shall be auctioned. This percentage may be increased as part of the general review of this Directive." Amendment 18 Proposal for a regulation Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point -1 b (new) Directive 2003/87/EC Article 3d – paragraph 3 – subparagraph 1 (-1b)  In Article 3d(3), the first subparagraph is replaced by the following: ‘A Regulation shall be adopted containing detailed provisions for the auctioning by Member States of allowances not required to be issued free of charge in accordance with paragraphs 1 and 2 of this Article or Article 3f(8). The number of allowances to be auctioned in each period by each Member State shall be proportionate to its share of the total attributed aviation emissions for all Member States for the reference year reported pursuant to Article 14(3) and verified pursuant to Article 15. For the period referred to in Article 3c(1), the reference year shall be 2010 and for each subsequent period referred to in Article 3c the reference year shall be the calendar year ending 24 months before the start of the period to which the auction relates.’ ‘The Commission is empowered to adopt delegated acts in accordance with Article [23] to supplement this Directive by laying down detailed arrangements for the auctioning by Member States of allowances not required to be issued free of charge in accordance with paragraphs 1 and 2 of this Article or Article 3f(8). The number of allowances to be auctioned in each period by each Member State shall be proportionate to its share of the total attributed aviation emissions for all Member States for the reference year reported pursuant to Article 14(3) and verified pursuant to Article 15. For the period referred to in Article 3c(1), the reference year shall be 2010 and for each subsequent period referred to in Article 3c the reference year shall be the calendar year ending 24 months before the start of the period to which the auction relates.’ Amendment 19 Proposal for a regulation Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point -1 c (new) Directive 2003/87/EC Article 3d – paragraph 3 – subparagraph 2 (-1c)  In Article 3d(3), the second subparagraph is deleted. Amendment 42 Proposal for a regulation Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point -1 d (new) Directive 2003/87/EC Article 3 d – paragraph 4 – subparagraph 1 (-1d)  In Article 3d(4), the first subparagraph is replaced by the following: 'It shall be for Member States to determine the use to be made of revenues generated from the auctioning of allowances. Those revenues should be used to tackle climate change in the Union and third countries, inter alia, to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, to adapt to the impacts of climate change in the Union and third countries, especially developing countries, to fund research and development for mitigation and adaptation, including in particular in the fields of aeronautics and air transport, to reduce emissions through low-emission transport and to cover the cost of administering the Community scheme. The proceeds of auctioning should also be used to fund contributions to the Global Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy Fund, and measures to avoid deforestation. ' ‘All revenues generated from the auctioning of allowances shall be used to tackle climate change in the Union and third countries, inter alia, to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, to adapt to the impacts of climate change in the Union and third countries, especially developing countries, to fund research and development for mitigation and adaptation, including in particular in the fields of aeronautics and air transport, to reduce emissions through low-emission transport and to cover the cost of administering the Union scheme and to fund common projects to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from the aviation sector, such as the SESAR Joint Undertaking and the Clean Sky Joint Technology Initiatives and any initiatives enabling the widespread use of GNSS for satellite-based navigation and interoperable capabilities within all Member States, in particular those improving air navigation infrastructure, the provision of air navigation services and the use of airspace. The proceeds of auctioning may also be used to fund contributions to the Global Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy Fund, and measures to avoid deforestation. Special consideration shall be given to Member States which use revenues for co-financing research and innovation programmes or initiatives under the Ninth Research Framework Programme (FP9). . Transparency on the use of revenues generated from the auctioning of allowances under this Directive is fundamental to underpinning Union commitments." Amendment 21 Proposal for a regulation Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point -1 e (new) Directive 2003/87/EC Article 12 – paragraph 3 (-1e)  In Article 12, paragraph 3 is replaced by the following: 3.  Member States shall ensure that, by 30 April each year, the operator of each installation surrenders a number of allowances, other than allowances issued under Chapter II, equal to the total emissions from that installation during the preceding calendar year as verified in accordance with Article 15, and that these are subsequently cancelled. "3. Member States shall ensure that, by 30 April each year, the operator of each installation surrenders a number of allowances, equal to the total emissions from that installation during the preceding calendar year as verified in accordance with Article 15, and that these are subsequently cancelled." Amendment 47 Proposal for a regulation Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point -1 f (new) Directive 2003/87/EC Article 12 – paragraph -3a (new) (-1f)  In Article 12, the following paragraph is inserted before paragraph 3a: “(-3a) In order to protect the environmental integrity of the EU ETS, aviation operators and other operators in the EU ETS may not use allowances that are issued from 1 January 2018 onwards by a Member State in respect of which there are obligations lapsing for aviation operators and other operators. The legal act referred to in Article 19 shall implement this paragraph.” Amendment 22 Proposal for a regulation Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point -1 - g (new) Directive 2003/87/EC Article 21 – paragraph 2 a (new) (-1g)  In Article 21, the following paragraph is added: “(2a) The report referred to in paragraph 2 shall, using data provided through the cooperation referred to in Article 18b, include a list of aircraft operators subject to the requirements of this Directive who have not opened a registry account.” Amendment 23 Proposal for a regulation Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 1 – point a – point i Directive 2003/87/EC Article 28a – paragraph 1 – point a (a)  all emissions from flights to and from aerodromes located in countries outside the European Economic Area (EEA) in each calendar year from 1 January 2013, subject to the review referred to in Article 28b". (a)  all emissions from flights to and from aerodromes located in countries outside the European Economic Area (EEA) in each calendar year from 1 January 2013 to 31 December 2020, subject to the review referred to in Article 28b". Amendment 24 Proposal for a regulation Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 1 – point a – point i Directive 2003/87/EC Article 28a – paragraph 1 – point b (b)  all emissions from flights between an aerodrome located in an outermost region within the meaning of Article 349 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU) and an aerodrome located in another region of the EEA in each calendar year from 1 January 2013, subject to the review referred to in Article 28b. (b)  all emissions from flights between an aerodrome located in an outermost region within the meaning of Article 349 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU) and an aerodrome located in another region of the EEA in each calendar year from 1 January 2013 to 31 December 2020, subject to the review referred to in Article 28b. Amendment 25 Proposal for a regulation Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 1 – point a – point i a (new) Directive 2003/87/EC Article 28a – paragraph 1 – point b a (new) ia.  the following point is inserted: “(ba) all emissions from flights between aerodromes located in the EEA and operated as a consequence of a flight as referred to in points (a) or (b) of this paragraph being diverted to an aerodrome located in the EEA in each calendar year from 1 January 2017, subject to the review as referred to in Article 28b.” Amendment 26 Proposal for a regulation Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 1 – point b – point i Directive 2003/87/EC Article 28a – paragraph 2 – subparagraph 1 From 1 January 2017, by way of derogation from Articles 3d to 3f and until amendments subsequent to the review referred to in Article 28b have entered into force, aircraft operators shall be issued, each year, the number of allowances that corresponds to the year 2016. From 2021 onwards that number of allowances shall be subject to the application of the linear factor in Article 9. From 1 January 2017 to 31 December 2020, by way of derogation from Articles 3d to 3f and until amendments subsequent to the review referred to in Article 28b have entered into force, aircraft operators shall be issued, each year, the number of allowances that corresponds to the year 2016. From 2021 onwards that number of allowances shall be subject to the application of the linear factor in Article 9. Amendment 27 Proposal for a regulation Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 1 – point b – point ii Directive 2003/87/EC Article 28a – paragraph 2 – subparagraph 3 ii.  the third subparagraph is deleted. ii.  the third subparagraph is replaced by the following: “As regards activity in the period from 1 January 2017 to 31 December 2020, Member States shall publish the number of aviation allowances allocated to each aircraft operator, by 1 September 2018.” Amendment 28 Proposal for a regulation Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 1 – point c Directive 2003/87/EC Article 28a – paragraph 4 4.  By way of derogation from Article 3d(3), the number of allowances to be auctioned by each Member State from 1 January 2013 shall be reduced to correspond to its share of attributed aviation emissions from flights which are not subject to the derogations provided for in points (a) and (b) of paragraph 1 of this Article. 4.  By way of derogation from Article 3d(3), the number of allowances to be auctioned by each Member State in respect of the period from 1 January 2013 to 31 December 2020 shall be reduced to correspond to its share of attributed aviation emissions from flights which are not subject to the derogations provided for in points (a) and (b) of paragraph 1 of this Article. Amendment 29 Proposal for a regulation Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 1 – point d a (new) Directive 2003/87/EC Article 28a – paragraph 8 (da)  paragraph 8 is deleted. Amendment 30 Proposal for a regulation Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 2 Directive 2003/87/EC Article 28b – paragraph 1 1.  The Commission shall report to the European Parliament and the Council on the relevant ICAO standards or other legal instruments as well as on domestic measures taken by third countries to implement the global market-based measure to be applied to emissions from 2021, and on other relevant international developments. 1.  The Commission shall, by 1 January 2019 and regularly thereafter, report to the European Parliament and the Council on the relevant ICAO standards and recommended practices (SARPs), ICAO Council-approved recommendations relevant to the global market-based measure or other legal instruments as well as on domestic measures taken by third countries to implement the global market-based measure to be applied to emissions from 2021, the implications of reservations by third countries and on other relevant international developments. The Commission shall also provide regular updates to the European Parliament and the Council on the establishment of a global registry and the development of the SARPs in accordance with the ICAO’s standards-making procedures. In line with the UNFCCC's 'Global stocktake', it shall also report on efforts to meet the aviation sector’s aspirational long-term emissions reduction goal of halving aviation CO2 emissions relative to 2005 levels by 2050. Amendment 31 Proposal for a regulation Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 2 Directive 2003/87/EC Article 28b – paragraph 2 2.  The report should consider ways for those ICAO instruments to be implemented in Union law through a revision of this Directive. The report shall also consider the rules applicable in respect of flights within the European Economic Area (EEA) as appropriate. 2.  By 1 March 2020, the Commission shall report to the European Parliament and the Council on the adequacy of those ICAO instruments and options for those ICAO instruments to be implemented in Union law through a revision of this Directive. The report shall also consider the rules applicable in respect of flights within the European Economic Area (EEA), as appropriate. The report shall also examine the ambition and overall environmental integrity of the global market-based measure including its general ambition in relation to targets under the Paris Agreement, level of participation, enforceability, transparency, penalties for non-compliance, processes for public input, quality of offset credits, monitoring, reporting and verification of emissions, registries, accountability and rules on the use of biofuels. In addition, the report shall consider whether the delegated act adopted under Article 28c(2) needs to be revised. Amendment 33 Proposal for a regulation Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 2 Directive 2003/87/EC Article 28b – paragraph 3 3.  The report may be accompanied by proposals, as appropriate to the European Parliament and the Council to amend, delete, extend or replace the derogations provided for in Article 28a, consistent with the Union economy-wide greenhouse gas emission reduction commitment for 2030. 3.  The report referred to in paragraph 2 of this Article shall be accompanied by proposals, as appropriate, to the European Parliament and the Council to amend, delete, extend or replace the derogations provided for in Article 28a, consistent with the Union economy-wide greenhouse gas emission reduction commitment for 2030 with the aim of ensuring full environmental integrity and effectiveness of Union climate action and reducing any ambiguity in advance of CORSIA becoming operational. Amendment 34 Proposal for a regulation Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 2 Directive 2003/87/EC Article 28c – paragraph 1 1.  The Commission shall adopt provisions for the appropriate monitoring, reporting and verification of emissions for the purpose of implementing the global market-based measure being elaborated in ICAO. Those provisions shall be based on the same principles as the Regulation referred to in Article 14 (1) and shall ensure that the emissions reports submitted are verified in accordance with Article 15. 1.  The Commission shall adopt provisions for the appropriate monitoring, reporting and verification of emissions for the purpose of implementing the global market-based measure being elaborated in ICAO. Those provisions shall be entirely consistent with the principles contained in the Regulation referred to in Article 14 (1) and shall ensure that the emissions reports submitted are verified in accordance with Article 15. Amendment 35 Proposal for a regulation Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 2 a (new) Directive 2003/87/EC Article 30 – paragraph 4 a (new) (2a)  In Article 30, the following paragraph is added: “(4a) By 1 January 2020, the Commission shall present an updated analysis of the non-CO2 effects of aviation, accompanied, if appropriate, by a legislative proposal on how best to address those effects.”

(1) The matter was referred back for interinstitutional negotiations to the committee responsible, pursuant to Rule 59(4), fourth subparagraph (A8-0258/2017).

Amendments adopted by the European Parliamenton 13 September 2017 on the proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on the inclusion of greenhouse gas emissions and removals from land use, land use change and forestry into the 2030 climate and energy framework and amending Regulation (EU) No 525/2013 of the European Parliament and the Council on a mechanism for monitoring and reporting greenhouse gas emissions and other information relevant to climate change (COM(2016)0479 – C8-0330/2016 – 2016/0230(COD))(1)

P8_TA(2017)0339 A8-0262/2017

(Ordinary legislative procedure: first reading)

Text proposed by the Commission   Amendment Amendment 1 Proposal for a regulation Recital -1 (new) (-1)  Protocol No 1 on the role of national parliaments in the European Union, annexed to the Treaty on European Union, to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union and to the Treaty establishing the European Atomic Energy Community, needs to be taken into account. Amendment 2 Proposal for a regulation Recital -1 a (new) (-1a)  Protocol No 2 on the application of the principles of subsidiarity and proportionality annexed to the Treaty on European Union and to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, needs to be taken into account. Amendment 3 Proposal for a regulation Recital 3 (3)  On 10 June 2016 the Commission presented the proposal for the EU to ratify the Paris agreement. This legislative proposal forms part of the implementation of the Union's commitment to economy-wide emission reductions as confirmed in the intended nationally determined reduction commitment of the Union and its Member States submitted to the Secretariat of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change ('UNFCCC') on 6 March 2015.10 (3)  On 5 October 2016, the Council ratified the Paris Agreement on behalf of the Union, following the consent given by the European Parliament on 4 October 2016. The Paris Agreement entered into force on 4 November 2016. This Regulation forms, in that regard, part of the implementation of the Union's commitment to economy-wide emission reductions as set out in the intended nationally determined reduction commitment of the Union and its Member States submitted to the Secretariat of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change ('UNFCCC') on 6 March 2015.10 The Union needs to continue to lead by example and increase its climate efforts to levels in line with the Paris Agreement's objective. __________________ __________________ 10 http://www4.unfccc.int/submissions/indc/Submission%20Pages/submissions.aspx 10 http://www4.unfccc.int/ndcregistry/pages/Party.aspx?party=EUU Amendment 4 Proposal for a regulation Recital 4 (4)  The Paris Agreement, inter alia, sets out a long-term goal in line with the objective to keep the global temperature increase well below 2°C above pre-industrial levels and to pursue efforts to keep it to 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels. In order to achieve this goal, the Parties should prepare, communicate and maintain successive nationally determined contributions. The Paris Agreement replaces the approach taken under the 1997 Kyoto Protocol which will not be continued beyond 2020. The Paris Agreement also calls for a balance between anthropogenic emissions by sources and removals by sinks of greenhouse gases in the second half of this century, and invites Parties to take action to conserve and enhance, as appropriate, sinks and reservoirs of greenhouse gases, including forests. (4)  The Paris Agreement, inter alia, sets out a long-term goal in line with the objective to keep the global temperature increase well below 2°C above pre-industrial levels and to pursue efforts to keep it to 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels which requires the world to enter into a period of negative levels of emissions, during which forests, agricultural land and wetland, including peatland, will play a central role. The Paris Agreement also aims to strengthen the global response to the threat of climate change, in the context of sustainable development and efforts to eradicate poverty, including by increasing the ability to adapt to the adverse impacts of climate change, and foster climate resilience and low greenhouse gas emissions development, in a manner that does not threaten food production. In the Paris Agreement, the Parties also recognise the fundamental priority of safeguarding food security and ending hunger, and the particular vulnerabilities of food production systems to the adverse impacts of climate change. In order to achieve the purpose of the Paris Agreement, it is necessary that the Parties increase their collective efforts to mitigate climate change and limit global warming. The Parties should prepare, communicate and maintain successive nationally determined contributions. The Paris Agreement replaces the approach taken under the 1997 Kyoto Protocol which will not be continued beyond 2020. The Paris Agreement also calls for a balance between anthropogenic emissions by sources and removals by sinks of greenhouse gases in the second half of this century, and invites Parties to take action to conserve and enhance, as appropriate, sinks and reservoirs of greenhouse gases, including forests. In the Paris Agreement, the Parties also acknowledge that adaptation action should follow a fully transparent approach, taking into account ecosystems, and be based on and guided by the best available science. Amendment 5 Proposal for a regulation Recital 4 a (new) (4a)  It is essential that forests are managed in a sustainable manner, in accordance with the principles of sustainable forest management developed under the Forest Europe process. That process defines sustainable forest management as the stewardship and use of forests and forest lands in a way, and at a rate, that maintains their biodiversity, productivity, regeneration capacity, vitality and their potential to fulfil, now and in the future, relevant ecological, economic and social functions, at local, national, and global levels, and in a manner that does not cause damage to other ecosystems. Such management also necessitates that the role of afforestation in this context be recognised. Amendment 6 Proposal for a regulation Recital 4 b (new) (4b)  To achieve the negative levels of emissions required to meet the Paris Agreement goals, the system for accounting in relation to land use, land use change and forestry ('LULUCF') needs to be robust. As removals through LULUCF are reversible, they should be treated as a separate pillar in the Union climate policy framework. Amendment 7 Proposal for a regulation Recital 5 (5)  The European Council of 23-24 October 2014 also acknowledged the multiple objectives of the agriculture and land use sector, with their lower mitigation potential as well as the need to ensure coherence between the Union food security and climate change objectives. The European Council invited the Commission to examine the best means of encouraging the sustainable intensification of food production, while optimising the sector's contribution to greenhouse gas mitigation and sequestration, including through afforestation, and to establish policy on how to include land use, land use change and forestry ('LULUCF') into the 2030 greenhouse gas mitigation framework as soon as technical conditions allow and in any case before 2020. (5)  The European Council of 23-24 October 2014 also acknowledged the multiple objectives of the agriculture and land use sector, with their lower mitigation potential as well as the need to ensure coherence between the Union food security and climate change objectives. In addition, the implementation of technology solutions in agriculture and forestry sectors contributes to enhancing production and reducing the environmental footprint. The European Council invited the Commission to examine the best means of encouraging the sustainable intensification of food production, while optimising the sector's contribution to greenhouse gas mitigation and sequestration, including through afforestation, and to establish policy on how to include land use, land use change and forestry ('LULUCF') into the 2030 greenhouse gas mitigation framework as soon as technical conditions allow and in any case before 2020. Amendment 8 Proposal for a regulation Recital 6 (6)  The LULUCF sector can contribute to climate change mitigation in several ways, in particular by reducing emissions, and maintaining and enhancing sinks and carbon stocks. In order for measures aiming in particular at increasing carbon sequestration to be effective, the long-term stability and adaptability of carbon pools is essential. (6)  The LULUCF sector is highly exposed and very vulnerable to climate change. At the same time, the sector has huge potential to provide long-term climate benefits and to contribute significantly to the achievement of Union and international long-term climate goals. The LULUCF sector contributes to climate change mitigation in several ways, in particular by reducing emissions, maintaining and enhancing sinks and carbon stocks. The sector also provides bio-materials that can, to a degree, substitute fossil- or carbon-intensive materials with renewable low-carbon biomass from forests. Regarding such substitution, the entire life cycle of those materials, from the production of the raw material to the processing and manufacturing stages should be taken into account. The bioeconomy, including material substitution such as in construction, and including bioenergy, plays an important role in the transition to a fossil-free economy. In order for measures aiming in particular at increasing carbon sequestration to be effective and in line with the Paris Agreement, sustainable forest and resource management and the long-term stability and adaptability of carbon pools are essential. As the LULUCF sector is characterised by long timeframes, long-term strategies are needed to make sustainable investments possible in the long run. Amendment 9 Proposal for a regulation Recital 6 a (new) (6a)   The Union should become a global leader in promoting and exporting research and investment in sustainable, advanced and innovative practices, techniques and ideas in the LULUCF sector, as well as in the dissemination of green technologies, in order to lower greenhouse gas emissions while preserving food production, thereby setting an example for its international partners, including developing countries. In this context, effective cooperation and partnership with private sector actors, especially with small and medium-sized enterprises, should be enhanced. Amendment 10 Proposal for a regulation Recital 6 b (new) (6b)  Prioritising funding for climate change research would enhance the role of the LULUCF sector in relation to climate change mitigation and adaptation. Particularly, boosting the Union's research and innovation programme, anticipated for the period 2021 - 2028, in the LULUCF sector would, inter alia, contribute to deepening and spreading the scientific and local communities’ knowledge of the performance of the sector, accelerating sustainable innovations, fostering transition to the digital era, modernising training and education, strengthening the resilience of the sector and monitoring biodiversity and human action. Amendment 11 Proposal for a regulation Recital 6 c (new) (6c)  Research into the role of dead wood, in particular above ground coarse woody debris and dead buried wood both in unmanaged and managed forests, should be strengthened to improve the accuracy of forest carbon accounting and in the calculation of the net ecosystem carbon balance. There is limited evidence available, but such evidence indicates that dead wood can constitute a large carbon pool and leaving deadwood on site could, inter alia, play a significant role in terms of biodiversity and be recognised as playing an important part in a greenhouse gas mitigation strategy. That indication is relevant considering that forest management can favour the removal of deadwood, for example for energy purposes, and any decision concerning the correct mitigation and adaptation should be informed and scientifically underpinned. Dedicated resources should be allocated to that research over the period 2017-2020. Amendment 12 Proposal for a regulation Recital 6 d (new) (6d)   The Union has made commitments to the United Nations' Sustainable Development Goals, which can only be met with proper forest management and a commitment to stall and reverse deforestation and drive forward reforestation. Amendment 13 Proposal for a regulation Recital 6 e (new) (6e)   A holistic approach to tropical deforestation should be ensured, taking into account all deforestation drivers, as well as the objective included in a declaration by the Commission in the UNFCCC negotiations to halt global forest cover loss by 2030 at the latest and to reduce gross tropical deforestation by at least 50 % by 2020 compared to current levels. Amendment 14 Proposal for a regulation Recital 6 f (new) (6f)   Forestry and forests should be managed responsibly and should make a real contribution to the economic development of a country, offering viable economic opportunities to farmers, provided that no deforestation of sensitive ecosystems occurs, that no plantations are established on peatland, that plantations are managed using modern agro-ecological techniques to minimise adverse environmental and social outcomes, and that land rights, the rights of indigenous communities as well as human rights and workers' rights are respected. Amendment 15 Proposal for a regulation Recital 6 g (new) (6g)  Advanced and sustainable management practices can contribute significantly to reducing greenhouse gas emissions in the LULUCF sector. The development of innovative practices and the use by landowners of advanced management practices, such as precision agriculture, precision forestry and agri-digitalisation should be promoted. Monitoring via geo-information and earth observation, as well as sharing best practice are potential means of helping Member States to reach their targets and should therefore be encouraged. Amendment 16 Proposal for a regulation Recital 6 h (new) (6h)  Agro-ecology facilitates a shift from linear food systems to circular systems that mimic natural cycles, and could reduce the carbon and ecological footprints of food and agriculture. It is important that agro-ecology as well as agro-forestry be promoted given their contribution to climate change mitigation. Amendment 17 Proposal for a regulation Recital 7 (7)  Decision No 529/2013/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council,11 as a first step, set out accounting rules applicable to greenhouse gas emissions and removals from the LULUCF sector and thereby contributed to policy development towards the inclusion of the LULUCF sector in the Union’s emission reduction commitment. This Regulation should build on the existing accounting rules, updating and improving them for the period 2021-2030. It should lay down the obligations of Member States in implementing those accounting rules and the obligation to ensure that the overall LULUCF sector would not generate net emissions. It should not lay down any accounting or reporting obligations for private parties. (7)  Decision No 529/2013/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council,11 as a first step, set out accounting rules applicable to greenhouse gas emissions and removals from the LULUCF sector and thereby contributed to policy development towards the inclusion of the LULUCF sector in the Union’s emission reduction commitment. This Regulation should build on the existing accounting rules, updating and improving them for the period 2021-2030. It should under any circumstances lay down the obligations of Member States in implementing those accounting rules and the obligation to ensure that the overall LULUCF sector would not generate net emissions. It should not lay down any accounting or reporting obligations for private parties including farmers and foresters and it is necessary that such obligations are avoided by Member States during implementation of this Regulation. __________________ __________________ 11 Decision No 529/2013/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 May 2013 on accounting rules on greenhouse gas emissions and removals resulting from activities relating to land use, land-use change and forestry and on information concerning actions relating to those activities (OJ L 165, 18.6.2013, p. 80) 11 Decision No 529/2013/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 May 2013 on accounting rules on greenhouse gas emissions and removals resulting from activities relating to land use, land-use change and forestry and on information concerning actions relating to those activities (OJ L 165, 18.6.2013, p. 80) Amendment 18 Proposal for a regulation Recital 7 a (new) (7a)  Agriculture and land use are sectors that have a direct and significant impact on the Union’s biodiversity and ecosystems services. For this reason, an important objective of policies affecting those sectors is to ensure that there is coherence with the Union’s biodiversity strategy objectives. In addition, other Union policies exist which can incentivise practices that go beyond the minimum legal requirements, surpass good standard practice and contribute to genuine adaptation to and mitigation of climate change, and maintenance of the carbon sink, as provision of public goods. Actions should be taken to implement and support activities relating to mitigation and adaptation approaches for the integral and sustainable management of forests and agricultural land. In spite of its recognised limited reduction potential as regards non-CO2 emissions, agriculture needs to deliver its fair share of contribution towards climate change mitigation. That can be achieved by encouraging, inter alia, improved cropping in order to increase the organic carbon content of soil. Member States and the Commission should ensure that there is coherence between the CAP and this Regulation. Amendment 19 Proposal for a regulation Recital 7 b (new) (7b)  Wetlands are the most effective ecosystems for storing CO2. The degradation of wetlands in the Union is therefore not only a problem for biodiversity, but is also a major climate problem. Conversely protecting and restoring wetlands could both enhance conservation efforts and reduce GHG emissions in the LULUCF sector. The IPCC Refinement to the 2006 Guidelines, coming up in 2019, should also be considered in that context. Amendment 20 Proposal for a regulation Recital 8 (8)  In order to determine accurate accounts of emissions and removals in accordance with the 2006 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change ('IPCC') Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories ('IPCC Guidelines'), the annually reported values under Regulation (EU) No 525/2013 for land use categories and the conversion between land use categories should be utilised, thereby streamlining the approaches used under the UNFCCC and the Kyoto Protocol. Land that is converted to another land use category should be considered in transition to that category for the default value of 20 years in the IPCC Guidelines. (8)  In order to determine accurate accounts of emissions and removals in accordance with the 2006 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change ('IPCC') Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories ('IPCC Guidelines'), the annually reported values under Regulation (EU) No 525/2013 for land use categories and the conversion between land use categories should be utilised, thereby streamlining the approaches used under the UNFCCC and the Kyoto Protocol. Land that is converted to another land use category should be considered in transition to that category for the default value of 20 years in the IPCC Guidelines. Given the Union's position as a climate leader, Member States should derogate from that default value only for afforested land and only in very limited circumstances justified under the IPCC Guidelines. The possibility for derogation takes into account the diverging natural and ecological circumstances between Member States and hence the differing characteristics of their forest land. Amendment 21 Proposal for a regulation Recital 9 (9)  Emissions and removals from forest land depend on a number of natural circumstances, age-class structure, as well as past and present management practices. The use of a base year would not make it possible to reflect those factors and resulting cyclical impacts on emissions and removals or their interannual variation. The relevant accounting rules should instead provide for the use of reference levels to exclude the effects of natural and country-specific characteristics. In the absence of the international review under the UNFCCC and the Kyoto Protocol, a review procedure should be established to ensure transparency and improve the quality of accounting in this category. (9)  Emissions and removals from forest land depend on a number of natural circumstances, age-class structure, as well as past and present management practices that differ substantially between the Member States. The use of a base year would not make it possible to reflect those factors and resulting cyclical impacts on emissions and removals or their interannual variation. The relevant accounting rules should instead provide for the use of reference levels to address the effects of natural and country-specific characteristics, such as the inability to manage forests in Croatia due to the occupation of its territory, the Croatian War of Independence, and wartime and post-war circumstances. The relevant accounting rules should also provide for coherence and requirements for sustainable forest management of Forest Europe (Ministerial Conference on the Protection of Forests in Europe). In the absence of the international review under the UNFCCC and the Kyoto Protocol, a transparent procedure should be established for the Member States to improve auditability and the quality of accounting in this category. Amendment 22 Proposal for a regulation Recital 9 a (new) (9a)  Emissions from harvested wood in the LULUCF sector have the potential to replace emissions in the ETS and effort sharing sectors and this Regulation can both highlight and account for it. Amendment 23 Proposal for a regulation Recital 10 (10)  When the Commission chooses to be assisted by an expert review team in accordance with Commission Decision (C(2016)3301) in the review of national forestry accounting plans, it should build on the good practice and experience of the expert reviews under the UNFCCC, including as regards participation of national experts and recommendations, and select a sufficient number of experts from the Member States. (10)  For the review of the national forestry accounting plans, an expert review team should be set up in accordance with Commission Decision (C(2016)3301). The expert review team should build on the good practice and experience of the expert reviews under the UNFCCC, including as regards participation of national experts and recommendations, and a sufficient number of experts from the Member States should be selected. The expert review team should consult the Standing Forestry Committee established by Council Decision 89/367/EEC, as well as stakeholders and civil society, on the review of the national forestry accounting plans. Amendment 24 Proposal for a regulation Recital 12 (12)  The increased sustainable use of harvested wood products can substantially limit emissions into and enhance removals of greenhouse gases from the atmosphere. The accounting rules should ensure that Member States accurately reflect in accounts the changes in the harvested wood products pool when they take place, to provide incentives for enhanced use of harvested wood products with long life cycles. The Commission should provide guidance on methodological issues related to the accounting for harvested wood products. (12)  The increased sustainable use of harvested wood products can substantially limit emissions by the substitution effect (considering the energy and CO2 intensity of other sectors, e.g. cement production accounts for roughly 8% of global CO2 emissions), and enhance removals of greenhouse gases from the atmosphere. The accounting rules should ensure that Member States accurately reflect in accounts the changes in the harvested wood products pool when they take place, in order to recognise and incentivise the enhanced use of harvested wood products with long life cycles rather than the use of harvested wood products for energy purposes. In order to further promote and include the positive substitution effect the Commission should, by means of a delegated act, include more products under the harvested wood product calculations. The Commission should provide guidance on methodological issues related to the accounting for harvested wood products. Amendment 25 Proposal for a regulation Recital 13 (13)  Natural disturbances, such as wildfires, insect and disease infestations, extreme weather events and geological disturbances that are beyond the control of, and not materially influenced by, a Member State, may result in greenhouse gas emissions of a temporary nature in the LULUCF sector, or may cause the reversal of previous removals. As reversal can also be the result of management decisions, such as decisions to harvest or plant trees, this Regulation should ensure that human-induced reversals of removals are always accurately reflected in LULUCF accounts. Moreover, this Regulation should provide Member States with a limited possibility to exclude emissions resulting from disturbances that are beyond their control from their LULUCF accounts. However, the manner in which Member States apply those provisions should not lead to undue under-accounting. (13)  Natural disturbances, such as wildfires, insect and disease infestations, extreme weather events and geological disturbances that are beyond the control of, and not materially influenced by, a Member State, may result in greenhouse gas emissions of a temporary nature in the LULUCF sector, or may cause the reversal of previous removals. As reversal can also be the result of management decisions, such as decisions to harvest or plant trees, this Regulation should ensure that human-induced reversals of removals are always accurately reflected in LULUCF accounts. Member States should be encouraged to invest in preventative actions, such as sustainable management practices, to reduce the risks associated with natural disturbances, thereby avoiding negative impacts on the forest carbon sink. Moreover, this Regulation should provide Member States with a limited possibility to exclude emissions resulting from disturbances that are beyond their control from their LULUCF accounts. However, the manner in which Member States apply those provisions should not lead to undue under-accounting. Amendment 26 Proposal for a regulation Recital 14 (14)  Depending on national preferences, Member States should be able to choose adequate national policies for achieving their commitments in LULUCF, including the possibility of compensating emissions from one land category by removals from another land category. They should also be able to cumulate net removals over the period 2021-2030. Trading among Member States should continue as an additional option to help compliance. Following the practice in the second commitment period of the Kyoto Protocol, there should also be a possibility for a Member State to use its overachievement under Regulation [] on binding annual greenhouse gas emission reductions by Member States from 2021 to 2030 for a resilient Energy Union and to meet commitments under the Paris Agreement and amending Regulation (EU) No 525/2013 of the European Parliament and the Council on a mechanism for monitoring and reporting greenhouse gas emissions and other information relevant to climate change in order to ensure its compliance with its commitment under this Regulation. (14)  Depending on national preferences, Member States should be able to choose adequate national policies for achieving their commitments in LULUCF, including the possibility of compensating emissions from one land category by removals from another land category. They should also be able to cumulate net removals over the period 2021-2030. Trading among Member States should continue as an additional option to help compliance. Following the practice in the second commitment period of the Kyoto Protocol, there should also be a possibility for a Member State to use its overachievement under Regulation [] on binding annual greenhouse gas emission reductions by Member States from 2021 to 2030 for a resilient Energy Union and to meet commitments under the Paris Agreement and amending Regulation (EU) No 525/2013 of the European Parliament and the Council on a mechanism for monitoring and reporting greenhouse gas emissions and other information relevant to climate change in order to ensure its compliance with its commitment under this Regulation without compromising the overall ambition level of Union greenhouse gas reduction targets. Member States should also be able to use up to 280 million tonnes of total net removals resulting from the combined accounting categories of deforested land, afforested land, managed cropland, managed grassland, managed wetland where applicable, and, subject to the delegated act to be adopted pursuant to Article 7(2) of Regulation (EU) [2017/... ] on binding annual greenhouse gas emission reductions by Member States from 2021 to 2030, managed forest land, in order to ensure their compliance with their commitments under Regulation (EU) [2017/... ]. Amendment 27 Proposal for a regulation Recital 15 (15)  In order to ensure efficient, transparent and cost-effective reporting and verification of greenhouse gas emissions and removals and of other information necessary to assess compliance with Member States' commitments, reporting requirements should be included in Regulation (EU) No 525/2013 by this Regulation, and compliance checks under this Regulation should take these reports into account. Regulation (EU) No 525/2013 should therefore be amended accordingly. These provisions may further be streamlined to take into consideration any relevant changes in respect of the integrated governance of the Energy Union for which a proposal is foreseen by the end of 2016 in the Commission’s work programme. (15)  In order to ensure efficient, transparent and cost-effective reporting and verification of greenhouse gas emissions and removals and of other information necessary to assess compliance with Member States' commitments, reporting requirements should be included in Regulation (EU) No 525/2013 by this Regulation, and compliance checks under this Regulation should take these reports into account. Regulation (EU) No 525/2013 should therefore be amended accordingly. These provisions may further be streamlined to take into consideration any relevant changes in respect of the proposal for a regulation on the governance of the Energy Union which the Commission submitted on 30 November 2016. Amendment 28 Proposal for a regulation Recital 15 a (new) (15a)   Under the UNFCCC, the Union and its Member States are required to develop, regularly update, publish and report to the Conference of the Parties national inventories of anthropogenic emissions by sources and removals by sinks of all greenhouse gases using comparable methodologies agreed by the Conference of the Parties. Greenhouse gas inventories are essential for monitoring the implementation of the decarbonisation dimension and for assessing compliance with climate-related legislation. The obligations of Member States to compile and administer national inventories are set out in the Commission proposal for a regulation on the governance of the Energy Union. Amendment 29 Proposal for a regulation Recital 17 (17)  To facilitate data collection and methodology improvement, land use should be inventoried and reported using geographical tracking of each land area, corresponding to national and EU data collection systems. The best use shall be made of existing Union and Member State programmes and surveys including the LUCAS Land Use Cover Area frame Survey and the European Earth observation programme Copernicus for data collection. Data management, including sharing for the reporting reuse and dissemination should conform to Directive 2007/2/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 14 March 2007 establishing an Infrastructure for Spatial Information in the European Community. (17)  To facilitate data collection and methodology improvement, land use should be expressly inventoried and reported using geographical tracking of each land area, corresponding to national and EU data collection systems. The best use shall be made of existing Union and Member State programmes and surveys including the LUCAS Land Use Cover Area frame Survey, the European Earth observation programme Copernicus, in particular through Sentinel-2, for data collection and the European satellite navigation systems Galileo and EGNOS, which can be used in support of land-use surveying. Data management, including sharing for the reporting reuse and dissemination should conform to Directive 2007/2/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 14 March 2007 establishing an Infrastructure for Spatial Information in the European Community. Amendment 30 Proposal for a regulation Recital 18 (18)  In order to provide for the appropriate accounting of transactions under this Regulation, including the use of flexibilities and tracking compliance, the power to adopt acts in accordance with Article 290 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union should be delegated to the Commission in respect of the technical adaptation of definitions, values, lists of greenhouse gases and carbon pools, the update of reference levels, the accounting of transactions and the revision of methodology and information requirements. These measures shall take into account the provisions in Commission Regulation (EU) No 389/2013 establishing a Union Registry. The necessary provisions should be contained in a single legal instrument combining the accounting provisions pursuant to Directive 2003/87/EC, Regulation (EU) No 525/2013, Regulation [] on binding annual greenhouse gas emission reductions by Member States from 2021 to 2030 for a resilient Energy Union and this Regulation. It is of particular importance that the Commission carry out appropriate consultations during its preparatory work, including at expert level conducted in accordance with the principles laid down in the Inter-institutional Agreement on Better Law-Making of 13 April 2016. In particular, to ensure equal participation in the preparation of delegated acts, the European Parliament and Council receive all documents at the same time as Member States' experts, and their experts have systematic access to meetings of Commission expert groups dealing with the preparation of delegated acts. (18)  In order to provide for the appropriate accounting of transactions under this Regulation, including the use of flexibilities and tracking compliance, the power to adopt acts in accordance with Article 290 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union should be delegated to the Commission in respect of the technical adaptation of definitions, values, lists of greenhouse gases and carbon pools, the update of reference levels, the accounting of transactions and the revision of methodology on the basis of the most recently adopted IPCC guidelines, including the 2013 IPCC Wetlands Supplementary Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories, and UNFCCC guidance and information requirements. These measures shall take into account the provisions in Commission Regulation (EU) No 389/2013 establishing a Union Registry. The necessary provisions should be contained in a single legal instrument combining the accounting provisions pursuant to Directive 2003/87/EC, Regulation (EU) No 525/2013, Regulation (EU) No .../... on binding annual greenhouse gas emission reductions by Member States from 2021 to 2030 for a resilient Energy Union and this Regulation. It is of particular importance that the Commission carry out appropriate consultations during its preparatory work, including at expert level conducted in accordance with the principles laid down in the Inter-institutional Agreement on Better Law-Making of 13 April 2016. In particular, to ensure equal participation in the preparation of delegated acts, the European Parliament and Council receive all documents at the same time as Member States' experts, and their experts have systematic access to meetings of Commission expert groups dealing with the preparation of delegated acts. Amendment 31 Proposal for a regulation Recital 19 (19)  This Regulation should be reviewed as of 2024 and every 5 years thereafter in order to assess its overall functioning. This review can also be informed by the results of the global stocktake of the Paris Agreement. (19)  Within six months of the 2018 Facilitative Dialogue under the UNFCCC, the Commission should publish a communication assessing the consistency of the Union’s climate and energy legislative acts with the goals of the Paris Agreement. This Regulation should be reviewed as of 2024 and every 5 years thereafter in order to assess its overall functioning. This review can also be informed by the results of the global stocktake of the Paris Agreement. Amendment 32 Proposal for a regulation Article 1 – paragraph 1 a (new) This Regulation does not lay down accounting or reporting obligations for private parties, including farmers and foresters. Amendment 33 Proposal for a regulation Article 1 – paragraph 1 b (new) This Regulation contributes to the achievement by the Union of the objectives of the Paris Agreement. Amendment 34 Proposal for a regulation Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point e a (new) (ea)  as of 2026, managed wetland: land use reported as wetland remaining wetland, and settlement, other land converted to wetland and wetland converted to settlement and other land. Amendment 35 Proposal for a regulation Article 2 – paragraph 2 2.  A Member State may choose to include managed wetland, defined as land use reported as wetland remaining wetland, and settlement, other land converted to wetland and wetland converted to settlement and other land, in the scope of its commitment pursuant to Article 4. Where a Member State chooses to do so, it shall account for emissions and removals from managed wetland in accordance with this Regulation. 2.  During the period from 2021 to 2025, a Member State may choose to include managed wetland in the scope of its commitment pursuant to Article 4. Where a Member State chooses to do so, it shall account for emissions and removals from managed wetland in accordance with this Regulation. Amendment 36 Proposal for a regulation Article 3 – paragraph 1 – point f a (new) (fa)  'forest reference level' means an estimate of the average annual net emissions or removals resulting from managed forest land within the territory of the Member State in the periods from 2021 to 2025 and from 2026 to 2030; Amendment 37 Proposal for a regulation Article 4 – paragraph 1 a (new) For the period after 2030, Member States shall endeavour to increase their removals so that they exceed their emissions. The Commission shall propose a framework for targets after 2030 which includes such increased removals, in line with the Union’s long-term climate objectives and the commitments made under the Paris Agreement. Amendment 38 Proposal for a regulation Article 5 – paragraph 1 1.  Each Member State shall prepare and maintain accounts that accurately reflect the emissions and removals resulting from the land accounting categories referred to in Article 2. Member States shall ensure the accuracy, completeness, consistency, comparability and transparency of their accounts and of other data provided under this Regulation. Member States shall denote emissions by a positive sign (+) and removals by a negative sign (-). 1.  Each Member State shall prepare and maintain accounts that accurately reflect the emissions and removals resulting from the land accounting categories referred to in Article 2 in accordance with the reporting guidance adopted by bodies of the UNFCCC or of the Paris Agreement for the period 2021-2030. Member States shall ensure the accuracy, completeness, consistency, comparability and transparency of their accounts and of other data provided under this Regulation. Member States shall denote emissions by a positive sign (+) and removals by a negative sign (-). Amendment 39 Proposal for a regulation Article 5 – paragraph 4 4.  Member States shall include in their accounts for each land accounting category any change in the carbon stock of the carbon pools listed in Annex I, section B. Member States may choose not to include in their accounts changes in carbon stocks for carbon pools where the carbon pool is not a source, except for above-ground biomass and harvested wood products on managed forest land. 4.  Member States shall include in their accounts for each land accounting category any change in the carbon stock of the carbon pools listed in Annex I, section B. Member States may choose not to include in their accounts changes in carbon stocks for carbon pools where the carbon pool is not a source, except for above-ground biomass, deadwood (above-ground and buried deadwood) on managed forest land and harvested wood products on managed forest land. Amendment 40 Proposal for a regulation Article 6 – paragraph 2 2.  By derogation from the requirement to apply the default value established in Article 5(3), a Member State may transition cropland, grassland, wetland, settlements and other land from the category of such land converted to forest land to the category of forest land remaining forest land after 30 years from the date of conversion. 2.  By derogation from the requirement to apply the default value established in Article 5(3), a Member State may transition cropland, grassland, wetland, settlements and other land from the category of such land converted to forest land to the category of forest land remaining forest land after 30 years from the date of conversion, if duly justified based on the IPCC Guidelines. Amendment 41 Proposal for a regulation Article 6 – paragraph 3 a (new) 3a.  Afforestation actions taking place in 2017-2030 on wetland, including peatland, the Natura 2000 network and habitats listed in Annex I to Directive 92/43/EEC, in particular natural and semi-natural grassland formations and raised bogs and mires and fens, and other wetland, including peatland, under applied gross-net accounting rules shall not appear in the Member State’s national accounting. Such areas shall only count, if applicable, for removals or emissions in the category of forested land after its transition to managed forest land in accordance with Article 5(3). Amendment 42 Proposal for a regulation Article 7 – paragraph 3 3.  Where a Member State chooses to include managed wetland in the scope of its commitment in accordance with Article 2, it shall notify that choice to the Commission by 31 December 2020 for the period 2021-2025 and by 31 December 2025 for the period 2026-2030. 3.  Where a Member State chooses to include managed wetland in the scope of its commitment in accordance with Article 2 during the period from 2021 to 2025, it shall notify that choice to the Commission by 31 December 2020. Amendment 43 Proposal for a regulation Article 7 – paragraph 4 4.  Member States that have chosen to include managed wetland in the scope of their commitments in accordance with Article 2 shall account for emissions and removals resulting from managed wetland, calculated as emissions and removals in the periods from 2021 to 2025 and/or from 2026 to 2030 minus the value obtained by multiplying by five the Member State’s average annual emissions and removals resulting from managed wetland in its base period 2005-2007. 4.  Member States shall account for emissions and removals resulting from managed wetland, calculated as emissions and removals in the periods from 2026 to 2030 minus the value obtained by multiplying by five the Member State's average annual emissions and removals resulting from managed wetland in its base period 2005-2007. Amendment 44 Proposal for a regulation Article 7 – paragraph 4 – subparagraph 1 a (new) Member States that have chosen to include managed wetland in the scope of their commitments in accordance with Article 2 during the period from 2021 to 2025 shall account for emissions and removals resulting from managed wetland, calculated as emissions and removals in the period from 2021 to 2025 minus the value obtained by multiplying by five the Member State’s average annual emissions and removals resulting from managed wetland in its base period 2005-2007. Amendment 45 Proposal for a regulation Article 7 – paragraph 4 a (new) 4a.  During the period from 2021 to 2025, Member States that have not chosen to include managed wetland in the scope of their commitments in accordance with Article 2 shall nevertheless report the emissions and removals from managed wetland to the Commission. Amendment 46 Proposal for a regulation Article 8 – paragraph 1 1.  Member States shall account for emissions and removals resulting from managed forest land, calculated as emissions and removals in the periods from 2021 to 2025 and from 2026 to 2030 minus the value obtained by multiplying by five its forest reference level. A forest reference level is an estimate of the average annual net emissions or removals resulting from managed forest land within the territory of the Member State in the periods from 2021 to 2025 and from 2026 to 2030. 1.  Member States shall account for emissions and removals resulting from managed forest land, calculated as emissions and removals in the periods from 2021 to 2025 and from 2026 to 2030 minus the value obtained by multiplying by five its forest reference level. Amendment 47 Proposal for a regulation Article 8 – paragraph 2 2.  Where the result of the calculation referred to in paragraph 1 is negative in relation to its forest reference level, a Member State shall include in its managed forest land accounts total net removals of no more than the equivalent of 3,5 per cent of the Member State’s emissions in its base year or period as specified in Annex III, multiplied by five. 2.  Where the result of the calculation referred to in paragraph 1 is negative in relation to its forest reference level, a Member State shall include in its managed forest land accounts total net removals of no more than the equivalent of 3,5 per cent of the Member State's emissions in its base year or period as specified in Annex III, multiplied by five. Member States may add to that figure of 3,5 % the amount of net removals for managed forest land accounts from wood panels, sawn wood and deadwood under the conditions set out in the second, third and fourth subparagraphs of this paragraph. Amendment 48 Proposal for a regulation Article 8 – paragraph 2 – subparagraph 1 a (new) Net removals from wood panels, as referred to in point (b) of Article 9, and sawn wood, as referred to in point (c) of that Article, may be separately accounted for outside of, and in addition to, the net removals figure for managed forest land accounts up to the level of 3 % of the Member State's emissions in its base year or period as specified in Annex III, multiplied by five. Amendment 49 Proposal for a regulation Article 8 – paragraph 2 – subparagraph 1 b (new) Net removals from the carbon pool category of deadwood may be separately accounted for outside of, and in addition to, the net removals figure for managed forest land accounts up to the level of 3 % of the Member State's emissions in its base year or period as specified in Annex III, multiplied by five. Amendment 50 Proposal for a regulation Article 8 – paragraph 2 – subparagraph 1 c (new) The combined figure of the net removals of 3,5 % in the first sub-paragraph, plus net removals for managed forest land accounts from wood panels, sawn wood and deadwood, shall not together exceed 7 % of the Member State's emissions in its base year or period as specified in Annex III, multiplied by five. Amendment 65 Proposal for a regulation Article 8 – paragraph 3 – subparagraph 2 The national forestry accounting plan shall contain all the elements listed in Annex IV, section B and include a proposed new forest reference level based on the continuation of current forest management practice and intensity, as documented between 1990-2009 per forest type and per age class in national forests, expressed in tonnes of CO2 equivalent per year. The national forestry accounting plan shall contain all the elements listed in Annex IV, section B and include a new forest reference level based on the continuation of current forest management practice in accordance with the best available data, as documented between 2000-2012 per forest type and per age class in national forests, expressed in tonnes of CO2 equivalent per year. An increase in harvest by a Member State, based on sustainable forest management practices and on national policies adopted up to the date of submission of the forest reference level, shall respect the following conditions: (a)  that managed forest land remains a sink of greenhouse gases; and (b)  that ways of maintaining or enhancing the sink and reservoirs of greenhouse gases by 2050, with a view to fulfilling the objective set out in Article 4.1 of the Paris Agreement, namely that of achieving a balance between anthropogenic emissions by sources and removals by sinks of greenhouse gases in the second half of this century, are outlined in a long-term low-emission strategy. The Commission may grant a derogation from the base period 2000-2012 upon submission of a reasoned request by a Member State, justifying that such a derogation is absolutely necessary for reasons of data availability, such as the timing of forest inventories. Amendment 52 Proposal for a regulation Article 8 – paragraph 3 – subparagraph 2 a (new) By way of derogation from subparagraph 2, the forest reference level for Croatia may be calculated to take account of the occupation of part of its territory from 1991 to 1998, and of the effects of the war and its aftermath on forest management practices on its territory, while excluding the impact of policies on the development of the forest sink. Amendment 53 Proposal for a regulation Article 8 – paragraph 3 – subparagraph 3 The national forestry accounting plan shall be made public and shall be subject to public consultation. The national forestry accounting plan shall be made public, including by way of publication via the internet, and shall be subject to public consultation. Amendment 54 Proposal for a regulation Article 8 – paragraph 4 4.  Member States shall demonstrate consistency between the methods and data used to establish the forest reference level in the national forestry accounting plan and those used in the reporting for managed forest land. At the latest at the end of the period from 2021 to 2025 or from 2026 to 2030, a Member State shall submit to the Commission a technical correction of its reference level if necessary to ensure consistency. 4.  Member States shall demonstrate consistency between the methods and data used to establish the forest reference level in the national forestry accounting plan and those used in the reporting for managed forest land. The data used shall be the most recent verified accounts of the land use and forest conditions. At the latest at the end of the period from 2021 to 2025 or from 2026 to 2030, a Member State shall submit to the Commission a technical correction of its reference level if necessary to ensure consistency, as well as to report positive inputs as a consequence of a sustainable forest management policy in force at the time it is determined. Amendment 55 Proposal for a regulation Article 8 – paragraph 5 5.  The Commission shall review the national forestry accounting plans and technical corrections and assess the extent to which the proposed new or corrected forest reference levels have been determined in accordance with the principles and requirements set out in paragraphs (3) and (4) as well as Article 5(1). To the extent that this is required in order to ensure compliance with the principles and requirements set out in paragraphs (3) and (4) as well as Article 5(1), the Commission may recalculate the proposed new or corrected forest reference levels. 5.  An expert review team, set up in accordance with Commission Decision (C(2016)3301, including Commission and Member States representatives, shall, in consultation with the Standing Forestry Committee and the Civil Dialogue Group on Forestry and Cork, review the national forestry accounting plans and technical corrections and assess the extent to which the new or corrected forest reference levels set by the Member States have been determined in accordance with the principles and requirements set out in paragraphs (3) and (4) of this Article as well as Article 5(1). The Commission may only recalculate the new or corrected forest reference levels in the event that the principles and requirements set out in paragraphs (3) and (4) of this Article as well as Article 5(1) have not been complied with. The Commission shall compile a synthesis report and shall make it publicly available. Amendment 56 Proposal for a regulation Article 8 – paragraph 5 – subparagraph 1 a (new) Member States shall provide to the Commission all data and information requested for carrying out the review and the assessment referred to in the first subparagraph. Amendment 57 Proposal for a regulation Article 8 – paragraph 6 6.  The Commission shall adopt delegated acts in accordance with Article 14 to amend Annex II in the light of the review carried out pursuant to paragraph (5) to update Member State forest reference levels based on the national forestry accounting plans or the technical corrections submitted, and any recalculations made in the context of the review. Until the entry into force of the delegated act, Member State forest reference levels as specified in Annex II shall continue to apply for the period 2021-2025 and/or 2026-2030. 6.  The Commission shall adopt delegated acts in accordance with Article 14 to amend Annex II in the light of the review and the assessment carried out by the expert review team pursuant to paragraph 5 of this Article to update Member State forest reference levels based on the national forestry accounting plans or the technical corrections submitted, and any recalculations made in the context of the review. Until the entry into force of the delegated acts, Member State forest reference levels as specified in Annex II shall continue to apply for the period 2021-2025 and/or 2026-2030. Amendment 58 Proposal for a regulation Article 9 – paragraph 1 a (new) The Commission shall adopt delegated acts in accordance with Article 14 in order to amend this Regulation by updating the categories of harvested wood products with additional products that have a carbon sequestration effect, based on IPCC Guidelines and ensuring environmental integrity, and by updating the default half-life values specified in Annex V for the purpose of adapting them to technical progress. Amendment 59 Proposal for a regulation Article 10 – paragraph 1 1.  At the end of the periods from 2021 to 2025 and from 2026 to 2030, Member States may exclude from their accounts for afforested land and managed forest land greenhouse gas emissions resulting from natural disturbances exceeding the average emissions caused by natural disturbances in the period 2001-2020, excluding statistical outliers ('background level') calculated in accordance with this Article and Annex VI. 1.  At the end of the periods from 2021 to 2025 and from 2026 to 2030, Member States may exclude from their accounts for managed forest land greenhouse gas emissions resulting from natural disturbances exceeding the average emissions caused by natural disturbances in the period 2001-2020, excluding statistical outliers ('background level') calculated in accordance with this Article and Annex VI. Amendment 60 Proposal for a regulation Article 11 – paragraph 5 a (new) 5a.  An assessment on the impacts of the flexibility mechanism set out in this Article shall be included in the report referred to in Article 15. Amendment 61 Proposal for a regulation Article 12 a (new) Article 12a The Commission shall report in 2027 and 2032 on the cumulative balance of emissions and removals from managed forest land in the Union in reference to average emissions and removals in the period from 1990 to 2009. If the cumulative balance is negative, the Commission shall make a proposal to compensate and remove the corresponding amount from Member States emission allocations under Regulation (EU) .../... of the European Parliament and of the Council1a. __________________ 1a Regulation (EU) .../... of the European Parliament and of the Council of ... on binding annual greenhouse gas emission reductions by Member States from 2021 to 2030 for a resilient Energy Union and to meet commitments under the Paris Agreement and amending Regulation (EU) No 525/2013 of the European Parliament and the Council on a mechanism for monitoring and reporting greenhouse gas emissions and other information relevant to climate change (OJ L ..., ..., p. ...). Amendment 62 Proposal for a regulation Article 14 – paragraph 2 2.  The power to adopt delegated acts referred to in Article 3, 5, 8, 10 and 13 shall be conferred on the Commission for an indeterminate period of time from the [date of entry into force]. 2.  The power to adopt delegated acts referred to in Article 3, 5, 8, 9, 10 and 13 shall be conferred on the Commission for an indeterminate period of time from the [date of entry into force]. Amendment 63 Proposal for a regulation Article 15 – paragraph -1 (new) Within six months of the 2018 Facilitative Dialogue under the UNFCCC the Commission shall publish a communication assessing the consistency of the Union’s climate and energy legislative acts with the goals of the Paris Agreement. Amendment 64 Proposal for a regulation Article 15 – paragraph 1 The Commission shall report to the European Parliament and to the Council by 28 February 2024 and every five years thereafter on the operation of this Regulation, its contribution to the EU's overall 2030 greenhouse gas emission reduction target and its contribution to the goals of the Paris Agreement, and may make proposals if appropriate. The Commission shall report to the European Parliament and to the Council by 28 February 2024 and every five years thereafter on the operation of this Regulation, its contribution to the EU's overall 2030 greenhouse gas emission reduction target and its contribution to the goals of the Paris Agreement. The reports shall, if appropriate, be accompanied by legislative proposals.

(1) The matter was referred back for interinstitutional negotiations to the committee responsible, pursuant to Rule 59(4), fourth subparagraph (A8-0262/2017).

European Parliament legislative resolution of 13 September 2017 on the proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Council Regulation (EC) No 1030/2002 laying down a uniform format for residence permits for third-country nationals (COM(2016)0434 – C8-0247/2016 – 2016/0198(COD))

P8_TA(2017)0340 A8-0065/2017

(Ordinary legislative procedure: first reading)

The European Parliament,

–  having regard to the Commission proposal to Parliament and the Council (COM(2016)0434),

–  having regard to Article 294(2) and Article 79(2)(a) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, pursuant to which the Commission submitted the proposal to Parliament (C8‑0247/2016),

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

–  having regard to the provisional agreement approved by the committee responsible under Rule 69f(4) of its Rules of Procedure and the undertaking given by the Council representative by letter of 15 June 2017 to approve Parliament’s position, in accordance with Article 294(4) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,

–  having regard to Rule 59 of its Rules of Procedure,

–  having regard to the report of the Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs (A8-0065/2017),

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

2.  Calls on the Commission to refer the matter to Parliament again if it replaces, substantially amends or intends to substantially amend its proposal;

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

Position of the European Parliament adopted at first reading on 13 September 2017 with a view to the adoption of Regulation (EU) 2017/… of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Council Regulation (EC) No 1030/2002 laying down a uniform format for residence permits for third-country nationals

(As an agreement was reached between Parliament and Council, Parliament's position corresponds to the final legislative act, Regulation (EU) 2017/1954.)

European Parliament resolution of 13 September 2017 on the draft Commission implementing decision authorising the placing on the market of products containing, consisting of, or produced from genetically modified soybean DAS-68416-4, pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 of the European Parliament and of the Council on genetically modified food and feed (D051451 – 2017/2780(RSP))

P8_TA(2017)0341 B8-0498/2017

The European Parliament,

–  having regard to the draft Commission implementing decision authorising the placing on the market of products containing, consisting of, or produced from genetically modified soybean DAS-68416-4, pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 of the European Parliament and of the Council on genetically modified food and feed (D051451),

–  having regard to Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 September 2003 on genetically modified food and feed(1), and in particular Articles 7(3), 9(2), 19(3) and 21(2) thereof,

–  having regard to the vote of the Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health referred to in Article 35 of Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003, of 12 June 2017, where no opinion was delivered,

–  having regard to Articles 11 and 13 of Regulation (EU) No 182/2011 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 February 2011 laying down the rules and general principles concerning mechanisms for control by Member States of the Commission’s exercise of implementing powers(2),

–  having regard to the opinion adopted by the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) on 26 January 2017 and published on 16 March 2017(3),

–  having regard to the proposal of 14 February 2017 for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Regulation (EU) No 182/2011 laying down the rules and general principles concerning mechanisms for control by Member States of the Commission’s exercise of implementing powers (COM(2017)0085, COD(2017)0035),

–  having regard to its previous resolutions objecting to the authorisation of genetically modified organisms(4),

–  having regard to the motion for a resolution of the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Food Safety,

–  having regard to Rule 106(2) and (3) of its Rules of Procedure,

A.  whereas on 25 January 2011, Dow AgroSciences Europe submitted an application for the placing on the market of foods, food ingredients and feed containing, consisting of, or produced from genetically modified DAS-68416-4 soybean to the national competent authority of the Netherlands in accordance with Articles 5 and 17 of Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003; whereas that application also covered the placing on the market of genetically modified soybean DAS-68416-4 in products consisting of it or containing it for uses other than food and feed as any other soybean, with the exception of cultivation;

B.  whereas on 26 January 2017, the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) adopted a favourable opinion in accordance with Articles 6 and 18 of Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003, which was subsequently published on 16 March 2017(5);

C.  whereas Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 specifies that genetically modified food or feed must not have adverse effects on human health, animal health or the environment and that the Commission shall take into account any relevant provisions of Union law and other legitimate factors relevant to the matter under consideration when drafting its decision;

D.  whereas numerous critical comments were submitted by Member States during the three-month consultation period(6); whereas the most worrying assessments found that, for example, ‘the current application and the presented risk assessment data do not provide sufficient information to exclude adverse effects on animal and human [health] unambiguously’, that ‘the data so far provided by the applicant are not sufficient to complete the evaluation of the application’ and ‘limited studies make it challenging to perform a complete risk assessment’;

E.  whereas Member States have criticised, inter alia: the lack of studies on the effect of genetically modified soybean on human and animal health, which is preventing the environmental risk assessment from being finalised; the choice and location of the field sites for the comparative assessment; the fact that the toxicological risk assessment cannot be completed because there was no appropriate toxicity text with plant material from DAS-68416-4 soybean; the lack of information on the complementary herbicides which may be used on the genetically modified crop and their metabolites; the fact that the nutritional assessment is supported by an industry study from which no scientific conclusions can be drawn; and the fact that the applicant’s proposal for an environmental monitoring plan does not meet the objectives defined in Annex VII to Directive 2001/18/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 March 2001 on the deliberate release into the environment of genetically modified organisms(7);

F.  whereas the DAS-68416-4 soybean expresses the aryloxyalkanoate dioxygenase-12 (AAD-12) protein, which confers tolerance to 2,4-dichlorophenoxyacetic acid (2,4-D) and other related phenoxy herbicides; whereas it also expresses the phosphinothricin acetyltransferase (PAT) protein, conferring tolerance to glufosinate ammonium-based herbicides;

G.  whereas independent research raises concerns about the risks of the active ingredient of 2,4-D as regards embryo development, birth defects and endocrine disruption(8); whereas although the approval of the active substance 2,4-D was renewed in 2015, information from the applicant as regards the potential endocrine properties is still outstanding(9);

H.  whereas glufosinate is classified as toxic to reproduction and thus falls under the exclusion criteria set out in Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 October 2009 concerning the placing of plant protection products on the market(10); whereas the approval of glufosinate expires on 31 July 2018(11);

I.  whereas a number of experts have voiced concerns about a breakdown product of 2,4-D, 2,4-Dichlorophenol, which may be present on imported DAS-68416-4 soybeans; whereas 2,4-Dichlorophenol is a known endocrine disruptor with reproductive toxicity;

J.  whereas owing to the fact that it is highly soluble in fats and oils, 2,4-Dichlorophenol is expected to accumulate in soy oil during the processing of soybeans; whereas the major soy product used by humans is soy oil, which is incorporated into, among many other products, some infant formulas(12);

K.  whereas the amount of 2,4-Dichlorophenol in a product may be higher than the amount of 2,4-D residue; whereas there is no Union maximum residue level (MRL) for 2,4-Dichlorophenol;

L.  whereas a recent UN report shows that pesticides are responsible for an estimated 200 000 acute poisoning deaths per year, of which 99 % occur in developing countries; whereas the Union has signed up to the sustainable development goals (SDGs), which include a commitment to substantially reduce the number of deaths and illnesses from hazardous chemicals and air, water and soil pollution and contamination by 2030 (SDG 3, target 3.9), for which one of the indicators is the mortality rate attributed to unintentional poisoning(13); whereas it has been shown that herbicide-tolerant genetically modified crops result in higher use of these herbicides than their conventional counterparts(14);

M.  whereas the Union is committed to Policy Coherence for Development, which aims to minimise contradictions and build synergies between different Union policies, including in the areas of trade, the environment and agriculture(15), in order to benefit developing countries and increase the effectiveness of development cooperation(16);

N.  whereas authorising the import of DAS-68416-4 soybean into the Union will undoubtedly lead to an increase in its cultivation in third countries, including in developing countries, and to a corresponding increase in the use of 2,4-D and glufosinate herbicides;

O.  whereas the development of genetically modified crops tolerant to several selective herbicides is mainly due to the rapid evolution of weed resistance to glyphosate in countries that have relied heavily on genetically modified crops;

P.  whereas the vote of the Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health, referred to in Article 35 of Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 of 12 June 2017, delivered no opinion; whereas 15 Member States voted against, while only 11 Member States – representing just 36,57 % of the Union population – voted in favour, with two Member States abstaining;

Q.  whereas on several occasions the Commission has deplored the fact that since the entry into force of Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 it has had to adopt authorisation decisions without the support of the Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health, and that the return of the dossier to the Commission for final decision, which is very much the exception for the procedure as a whole, has become the norm for decision-making on genetically modified food and feed authorisations; whereas this practice has also been deplored by President Juncker as not being democratic(17);

R.  whereas Parliament rejected the legislative proposal of 22 April 2015 amending Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 on 28 October 2015 at first reading(18) and called on the Commission to withdraw it and submit a new one;

S.  whereas, pursuant to recital 14 of Regulation (EU) No 182/2011, the Commission should, as far as possible, act in such a way as to avoid going against any predominant position which might emerge within the appeal committee against the appropriateness of an implementing act, especially on sensitive issues such as consumer health, food safety and the environment;

1.  Considers that the draft Commission implementing decision goes beyond the scope of the implementing powers provided for in Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003;

2.  Considers that the draft Commission implementing decision is not consistent with Union law in that it is not compatible with the aim of Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003, which is, in accordance with the general principles laid down in Regulation (EC) No 178/2002(19), to provide the basis for ensuring a high level of protection of human life and health, animal health and welfare, the environment and consumer interests in relation to genetically modified food and feed, whilst ensuring the effective functioning of the internal market;

3.  Calls on the Commission to withdraw its draft implementing decision;

4.  Calls on the Commission to suspend any implementing decision regarding applications for authorisation of genetically modified organisms until the authorisation procedure has been revised in such a way as to address the shortcomings of the current procedure, which has proven inadequate;

5.  Calls on the Commission not to authorise any herbicide-tolerant genetically modified plants (HT GMP) without full assessment of the residues from spraying with the complementary herbicides and their commercial formulations as applied in the countries of cultivation;

6.  Calls on the Commission not to authorise any HT GMP made resistant to a combination of herbicides, as is the case with soybean DAS-68416-4, without full assessment of the specific cumulative effects of the residues from spraying with the combination of the complementary herbicides and its commercial formulations as applied in the countries of cultivation;

7.  Calls on the Commission to request much more detailed testing of health risks relating to stacked events such as DAS-68416-4;

8.  Calls on the Commission to develop strategies for health risk assessment and toxicology, as well as for post-market monitoring, that target the whole food and feed chain and their mixtures as being present in the food and feed chain under practical conditions;

9.  Calls on the Commission to fully integrate the risk assessment of the application of the complementary herbicides and their residues into the risk assessment of HT GMP, regardless of whether the genetically modified plant is destined for cultivation in the Union or for import for food and feed;

10.  Calls on the Commission to fulfil its obligation of Policy Coherence for Development stemming from Article 208 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union;

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

(1) OJ L 268, 18.10.2003, p. 1. (2) OJ L 55, 28.2.2011, p. 13. (3) https://www.efsa.europa.eu/en/efsajournal/pub/4719 (4) ––––––––––– – Resolution of 16 January 2014 on the proposal for a Council decision concerning the placing on the market for cultivation, in accordance with Directive 2001/18/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council, of a maize product (Zea mays L., line 1507) genetically modified for resistance to certain lepidopteran pests (OJ C 482, 23.12.2016, p. 110).Resolution of 16 December 2015 on Commission Implementing Decision (EU) 2015/2279 of 4 December 2015 authorising the placing on the market of products containing, consisting of, or produced from genetically modified maize NK603 × T25 (Texts adopted, P8_TA(2015)0456).Resolution of 3 February 2016 on the draft Commission implementing decision authorising the placing on the market of products containing, consisting of, or produced from genetically modified soybean MON 87705 × MON 89788 (Texts adopted, P8_TA(2016)0040).Resolution of 3 February 2016 on the draft Commission implementing decision authorising the placing on the market of products containing, consisting of, or produced from genetically modified soybean MON 87708 × MON 89788 (Texts adopted, P8_TA(2016)0039).Resolution of 3 February 2016 on the draft Commission implementing decision authorising the placing on the market of products containing, consisting of, or produced from genetically modified soybean FG72 (MST-FGØ72-2) (Texts adopted, P8_TA(2016)0038).Resolution of 8 June 2016 on the draft Commission implementing decision authorising the placing on the market of products containing, consisting of, or produced from genetically modified maize Bt11 × MIR162 × MIR604 × GA21, and genetically modified maizes combining two or three of those events (Texts adopted, P8_TA(2016)0271).Resolution of 8 June 2016 on the draft Commission implementing decision as regards the placing on the market of a genetically modified carnation (Dianthus caryophyllus L., line SHD-27531-4) (Texts adopted, P8_TA(2016)0272).Resolution of 6 October 2016 on the draft Commission implementing decision renewing the authorisation for the placing on the market for cultivation of genetically modified maize MON 810 seeds (Texts adopted, P8_TA(2016)0388).Resolution of 6 October 2016 on the draft Commission implementing decision authorising the placing on the market of genetically modified maize MON 810 products (Texts adopted, P8_TA(2016)0389).Resolution of 6 October 2016 on the draft Commission implementing decision concerning the placing on the market for cultivation of genetically modified maize Bt11 seeds (Texts adopted, P8_TA(2016)0386).Resolution of 6 October 2016 on the draft Commission implementing decision concerning the placing on the market for cultivation of genetically modified maize 1507 seeds (Texts adopted, P8_TA(2016)0387).-– Resolution of 6 October 2016 on the draft Commission implementing decision authorising the placing on the market of products containing, consisting of, or produced from genetically modified cotton 281-24-236 × 3006-210-23 × MON 88913 (Texts adopted, P8_TA(2016)0390).-– Resolution of 5 April 2017 on the draft Commission implementing decision authorising the placing on the market of products containing, consisting of, or produced from genetically modified maize Bt11 × 59122 × MIR604 × 1507 × GA21, and genetically modified maizes combining two, three or four of the events Bt11, 59122, MIR604, 1507 and GA21 (Texts adopted, P8_TA(2017)0123).-– Resolution of 17 May 2017 on the draft Commission implementing decision authorising the placing on the market of products containing, consisting of, or produced from genetically modified maize DAS-40278-9 (Texts adopted, P8_TA(2017)0215).Resolution of 17 May 2017 on the draft Commission implementing decision authorising the placing on the market of products containing, consisting of, or produced from genetically modified cotton GHB119 (BCS-GHØØ5-8) (Texts adopted, P8_TA(2017)0214). (5) https://www.efsa.europa.eu/en/efsajournal/pub/4719 (6) Annex G – Member States’ comments and GMO Panel responses: http://registerofquestions.efsa.europa.eu/roqFrontend/questionLoader?question=EFSA-Q-2011-00052 (7) OJ L 106, 17.4.2001, p. 1. (8) http://www.pan-europe.info/sites/pan-europe.info/files/public/resources/reports/pane-2014-risks-of-herbicide-2-4-d.pdf (9) Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2015/2033 of 13 November 2015 renewing the approval of the active substance 2,4-D in accordance with Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council concerning the placing of plant protection products on the market, and amending the Annex to Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 540/2011 (OJ L 298, 14.11.2015, p. 8). (10) OJ L 309, 24.11.2009, p. 1. (11) http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/HTML/?uri=CELEX:32015R0404&from=EN (12) Member State consultation document, pp. 31-32. http://registerofquestions.efsa.europa.eu/roqFrontend/questionLoader?question=EFSA-Q-2011-00052 (13) https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/sdg3 (14) https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs00267-015-0589-7 (15) Commission communication of 12 April 2005 entitled ‘Policy Coherence for Development: Accelerating progress towards attaining the Millennium Development Goals’ (COM(2005)0134). (16) https://ec.europa.eu/europeaid/policies/policy-coherence-development_en (17) See, for example, the opening statement at the plenary of Parliament included in the political guidelines for the next Commission (Strasbourg, 15 July 2014) and the State of the Union Address 2016 (Strasbourg, 14 September 2016). (18) Texts adopted, P8_TA(2015)0379. (19) OJ L 31, 1.2.2002, p. 1.

European Parliament resolution of 13 September 2017 on the draft Commission implementing regulation amending Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2016/6 as regards feed and food subjected to special conditions governing the import of feed and food originating in or consigned from Japan following the accident at the Fukushima nuclear power station (D051561/01 – 2017/2837(RSP))

P8_TA(2017)0342 B8-0502/2017

The European Parliament,

–  having regard to draft Commission implementing regulation amending Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2016/6 as regards feed and food subjected to special conditions governing the import of feed and food originating in or consigned from Japan following the accident at the Fukushima nuclear power station (D051561/01),

–  having regard to Regulation (EC) No 178/2002 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 28 January 2002 laying down general principles and requirements of food law, establishing the European Food Safety Authority and laying down procedures in matters of food safety(1), and in particular to Article 53(1)(b)(ii) thereof,

–  having regard to Articles 11 and 13 of Regulation (EU) No 182/2011 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 February 2011 laying down the rules and general principles concerning mechanisms for control by Member States of the Commission’s exercise of implementing powers(2),

–  having regard to the motion for a resolution of the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Food Safety,

–  having regard to Rule 106(2) and (3) of its Rules of Procedure,

General comments

A.  whereas Implementing Regulation (EU) 2016/6 currently requires that consignments of a number of foodstuffs, including mushrooms, fish and fishery products, rice and soybeans, originating in or consigned from any part of Japan be accompanied by a valid declaration from the Japanese authorities attesting that the products comply with the maximum contamination limits in force in Japan (Article 5(1) and (2)); whereas the draft Commission implementing regulation (the ‘draft proposal’) now only requires that a limited list of food and feed from twelve prefectures, listed in Annex II, be accompanied by such a declaration; whereas the draft proposal also deletes a number of food and feed categories from Annex II;

B.  whereas, similarly, under Article 10 of the draft proposal official controls, namely documentary checks on all consignments and random identity checks and random physical checks including laboratory analysis for the presence of caesium-134 and caesium-137, would now only be required for food and feed listed in Annex II; whereas the draft proposal maintains a low frequency of controls at import (recital 12);

C.  whereas Implementing Regulation (EU) 2016/6, once amended as proposed by the Commission, will no longer require that Member States inform the Commission every three months, through the Rapid Alert System for Food and Feed, of all analytical results;

D.  whereas the draft proposal maintains unchanged the existing Annex I to Implementing Regulation (EU) 2016/6, which sets out the maximum permitted levels as provided for in Japanese law for different food and feed categories(3); whereas verification of compliance with the maximum limits for food and feed categories in Annex I is not required under Implementing Regulation (EU) 2016/6 or the draft proposal for its amendment, whether in the form of documentation provided by the Japanese authorities or of checks and sampling at the EU’s borders; whereas there is therefore no guarantee that those foods and feedstuffs will comply with the maximum limits for radioactive contamination;

E.  whereas the draft proposal is based on occurrence data provided by the Japanese authorities for 2014, 2015 and 2016 (more than 132 000 data on radioactivity in feed and food other than beef, and more than 527 000 data on radioactivity in beef); whereas, while the changes in the draft proposal are based on a detailed analysis of the aforementioned data, neither this analysis nor a link to the raw data are provided in the text;

F.  whereas it is therefore very difficult to verify whether the measures proposed are sufficient to protect the health of Union citizens;

G.  whereas, however, even without the analysis on which the Commission has based its proposal, there are sufficient reasons to believe that this proposal could lead to an increase in exposure to radioactive contaminated food with a corresponding impact on human health;

H.  whereas the chairman of the Tokyo Electric Power Company (TEPCO) has officially requested permission from the Japanese Government to dump into the Pacific Ocean almost one million tonnes of highly radioactive water which was used to cool the nuclear plant’s damaged reactors; whereas this could, if authorised, have a severely negative impact on the food safety levels of fisheries products harvested off the coast of Japan;

Specific comments in relation to Annex II

I.  whereas the Japanese prefectures which are currently covered by Annex II (Fukushima, Miyagi, Akita, Yamagata, Nagano, Gunma, Ibaraki, Tochigi, Chiba, Iwate, Yamanashi, Shizuoka and Niigata) are all exposed to radioactive fallout from the nuclear disaster that occurred at the Fukushima power station in 2011;

J.  whereas, without justification, the draft proposal deletes from Annex II rice and derived products from Fukushima prefecture; whereas this means that there will no longer be any requirement to sample and analyse those products on entry into the Union nor any obligation on the Japanese authorities to attest to their compliance with maximum radioactive contamination levels; whereas one of the rice-derived products removed from Annex II is rice used in baby food and food for young children(4); whereas for the groups concerned, given their particular vulnerability to radiation exposure, no level of contamination would be acceptable; whereas under the Japan-EU Free Trade Agreement exports of rice from Japan could increase; whereas, as evacuation orders have recently been lifted, it is likely that the cultivation of rice will resume in contaminated paddies;

K.  whereas while recital 7 of the draft proposal states that only rice and products derived therefrom originating in Fukushima prefecture will be removed from Annex II, Annex II is also amended so as to now allow, without controls, sampling or analysis, the import into the Union of seven fish species (including Atlantic and Pacific bluefin tuna and mackerel), as well as crustaceans and molluscs, which are caught or harvested in the waters of Fukushima;

L.  whereas, under the proposal, seven fish species (including Atlantic and Pacific bluefin tuna and mackerel), crustaceans (such as lobsters and shrimps) and molluscs (such as clams and mussels) will also be removed from Annex II for six other prefectures, namely Miyagi, Iwate, Gunma, Ibaraki, Chiba and Tochigi; whereas no justification or explanation is given for this reduction in controls, and no explanation is provided as to why, for example, those species are now considered safe enough to import into the Union without controls while others are not;

M.  whereas under the proposal Annex II will no longer cover any products originating from Akita prefecture (it currently covers five products from Akita – mushrooms, Aralia, bamboo shoots, Japanese royal fern and koshiabura (an edible wild plant) – and all of their derived products); whereas no justification or explanation is given for this reduction in controls;

N.  whereas Annex II will no longer cover Aralia, bamboo and Japanese royal fern originating from Yamagata; whereas no justification or explanation is given for this reduction in controls;

O.  whereas Annex II will no longer cover Japanese royal fern, bracken and ostrich fern from the five prefectures of Iwate, Gunma, Ibaraki, Chiba and Tochigi; whereas no justification or explanation is given for this reduction in controls;

P.  whereas the only addition to Annex II is ‘fish and fishing products’ from Nagano prefecture; whereas no justification for this tightening of controls is given; whereas systematic controls were lifted for this prefecture in December 2011; whereas in March 2014 certain wild edible plants were again added to Annex II;

Specific comments in relation to Annex I

Q.  whereas the draft proposal maintains unchanged the existing Annex I to Implementing Regulation (EU) 2016/6, which sets out the maximum permitted levels as provided for in Japanese law; whereas verification of compliance with the maximum limits for food and feed categories in Annex I is not required under Implementing Regulation (EU) 2016/6 or the draft proposal for its amendment, whether in the form of documentation provided by the Japanese authorities or of checks and sampling at the EU’s borders; whereas there is therefore no guarantee that those foods and feedstuffs do not exceed the maximum limits for radioactive contamination;

R.  whereas since 1 April 2012 the maximum limits in force in Japan, and hence those listed in Annex I, have not been revised downwards; whereas these limits should be reduced, in particular in relation to foodstuffs for vulnerable groups such as milk and food for infants and babies;

S.  whereas six years on from the disaster, it is highly questionable whether the Union should be allowing into its food chain (even in theory – given that there is no legal obligation for controls at Union borders) products with the following maximum levels of caesium-134 and caesium-137: 50Bq/kg for food intended for babies and infants (such as infant formula, follow-on formula and baby food), as well as milk and milk‑based drinks, 10 Bq/kg for mineral water, similar drinks and tea brewed from unfermented leaves, and 100 Bq/kg for all other foods;

1.  Considers that the draft Commission implementing regulation exceeds the implementing powers provided for in Regulation (EC) No 178/2002;

2.  Considers that the draft Commission implementing regulation is not consistent with Union law in that it is not compatible with the aim and general principles laid down in Regulation (EC) No 178/2002 of providing the basis for ensuring a high level of protection of human life and health, animal health and welfare, the environment and consumer interests;

3.  Calls on the Commission to withdraw its draft implementing regulation and to submit a new draft to the committee by the end of 2017 at the latest;

4.  Calls on the Commission, when drafting its new proposal, to, inter alia:

5.  Calls on the Commission, pending the drafting of its new proposal, to put in place emergency measures, as required under Article 53 of Regulation (EC) No 178/2002, to ensure the highest possible levels of protection of human health;

6.  Calls on the Commission to immediately make publicly available, including on the Union’s Rapid Alert System for Food and Feed, the analysis on which it based its draft proposal, as well details of the control system put in place by the Japanese authorities, with justifications for its relevance and effectiveness;

7.  Calls on the Commission to provide an up-to-date picture of the radiological situation in Japan since 2011, as well as comprehensive year-by-year overviews for the period 2011‑2017 of the radioactive matter released into both the atmosphere and the Pacific Ocean from the Fukushima nuclear power plant, so that a thorough analysis can be conducted with regard to food safety;

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

(1) OJ L 31, 1.2.2002, p. 1. (2) OJ L 55, 28.2.2011, p. 13. (3) ‘Foods for infants and young children’, ‘Milk and milk-based drinks’, ‘Mineral water and similar drinks and tea brewed from unfermented leaves’ and ‘Other food’, as well as feed intended for cattle, horses, pigs, poultry and fish. (4) Falling within CN code 1901.

European Parliament resolution of 13 September 2017 on the Council position on Draft amending budget No 3/2017 of the European Union for the financial year 2017 increasing the budgetary resources of the Youth Employment Initiative to pursue the reduction of youth unemployment across the European Union and updating the staff establishment plans of the decentralised agency ACER and the joint undertaking SESAR2 (11812/2017– C8-0303/2017 – 2017/2078(BUD))

P8_TA(2017)0343 A8-0282/2017

The European Parliament,

–  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 2017, as definitively adopted on 1 December 2016(2),

–  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(3) (MFF Regulation),

–  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(4),

–  having regard to the Special Report 5/2017 of the European Court of Auditors “Youth unemployment – have EU policies made a difference? An assessment of the Youth Guarantee and the Youth Employment Initiative”,

–  having regard to Council Decision 2014/335/EU, Euratom of 26 May 2014 on the system of own resources of the European Union(5),

–  having regard to Draft amending budget No 3/2017, which the Commission adopted on 30 May 2017 (COM(2017)0288),

–  having regard to the position on Draft amending budget No 3/2017 which the Council adopted on 4 September 2017 and forwarded to Parliament on the same day (11812/2017 – C8‑0303/2017),

–  having regard to Rules 88 and 91 of its Rules of Procedure,

–  having regard to the report of the Committee on Budgets (A8-0282/2017),

A.  whereas Draft amending budget No 3/2017 relates to the provision of EUR 500 million of additional commitment appropriations to the Youth Employment Initiative (YEI) as agreed by the European Parliament and the Council in their agreement on the budget 2017, as well as to an amendment of the establishment plans of the decentralised agency ACER and the joint undertaking SESAR2, without incurring any changes to the overall budget or the total number of posts;

B.  whereas the European Parliament and the Council invited the Commission to propose an amending budget in 2017 in order to provide EUR 500 million for the YEI in 2017 financed by the Global Margin for Commitments, as soon as the technical adjustment provided for in Article 6 of the MFF Regulation is adopted;

C.  whereas, following the adoption of the technical adjustment, the Commission consequently proposes to amend the Union budget for 2017 and increase Article 04 02 64 ‘Youth Employment Initiative’;

D.  whereas in the context of the mid-term revision of the Multiannual Financial Framework (MFF), the European Parliament and the Council have agreed on a top-up of EUR 1,2 billion for the YEI for the years 2017-2020 and the European Parliament underlined in its statement linked to the mid-term MFF revision that that limit is of political nature without any legal implications;

E.  whereas in the context of the mid-term revision of the MFF, the Commission also underlined in its statement, that consideration should be given to increase the funding for YEI beyond the amount of EUR 1,2 billion agreed by using margins available under the Global Margin for Commitments in accordance with Article 14 of the MFF Regulation;

F.  whereas the requirement for the 2017 reclassification exercise is necessary for both the decentralised agency ACER and the joint undertaking SESAR2;

1.  Stresses as a matter of priority the urgent need to further increase Union’s financial commitment in the fight against the youth unemployment through additional funding for the YEI;

2.  Regrets the delay, due to the blockage and late approval by the Council of the mid-term MFF revision, in the modification of the Union budget for 2017 to increase the YEI as agreed during the 2017 annual budgetary procedure;

3.  Takes note of Draft amending budget No 3/2017, as submitted by the Commission;

4.  Calls on the Commission and Member States to ensure swift reprogramming of the relevant operational programmes in order to ensure that the whole additional YEI envelope of EUR 500 million is fully and efficiently committed by the end of 2017; furthermore, calls on Member States to perform gap assessments and market analyses prior to setting up the schemes in order to optimise the benefits of the YEI;

5.  Takes note of the modifications of the establishment plans of the decentralised agency ACER and of the joint undertaking SESAR2; notes that those modifications do not change the total number of posts and that they can be financed within the bodies’ annual budget for this year; agrees that the reclassification of the AD15 post for the joint undertaking SESAR2 is ad personam and will expire at the end of the mandate of the current Executive Director;

6.  Approves the Council position on Draft amending budget No 3/2017;

7.  Instructs its President to declare that Amending budget No 3/2017 has been definitively adopted and arrange for its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union;

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

(1) OJ L 298, 26.10.2012, p. 1. (2) OJ L 51, 28.2.2017. (3) OJ L 347, 20.12.2013, p. 884. (4) OJ C 373, 20.12.2013, p. 1. (5) OJ L 168, 7.6.2014, p. 105.

European Parliament resolution of 13 September 2017 on arms export: implementation of Common Position 2008/944/CFSP (2017/2029(INI))

P8_TA(2017)0344 A8-0264/2017

The European Parliament,

–  having regard to the principles enshrined in Article 21 of the Treaty on European Union (TEU), notably the promotion of democracy and the rule of law and the preservation of peace, prevention of conflicts and strengthening of international security,

–  having regard to Council Common Position 2008/944/CFSP of 8 December 2008 defining common rules governing control of exports of military technology and equipment(1) (hereinafter ‘the Common Position’),

–  having regard to the 17th(2) and 18th(3) EU Annual Reports, drawn up according to Article 8(2) of the Common Position,

–  having regard to Council Decision (CFSP) 2015/2309 of 10 December 2015 on the promotion of effective arms export controls(4) and Council Decision (CFSP) 2017/915 of 29 May 2017 on Union outreach activities in support of the implementation of the Arms Trade Treaty(5),

–  having regard to the updated Common Military List of the European Union adopted by the Council on 6 March 2017(6),

–  having regard to the User’s Guide to the Common Position defining common rules governing the control of exports of military technology and equipment,

–  having regard to the EU Strategic Framework and Action Plan on Human Rights and Democracy of 25 June 2012 and point 11(e) thereof, and to the EU Action Plan on Human Rights and Democracy (2015-2019) of 20 July 2015 and point 21(d) thereof,

–  having regard to the Arms Trade Treaty (ATT) adopted by the UN General Assembly on 2 April 2013(7), which entered into force on 24 December 2014,

–  having regard to Council Decision 2013/768/CFSP of 16 December 2013 on EU activities in support of the implementation of the Arms Trade Treaty, in the framework of the European Security Strategy(8),

–  having regard to Directive 2009/43/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 May 2009 simplifying terms and conditions of transfers of defence-related products within the Community(9),

–  having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 428/2009 of 5 May 2009 setting up a Community regime for the control of exports, transfer, brokering and transit of dual-use items(10), as amended by Regulation (EU) No 599/2014 of 16 April 2014, and to the list of dual-use goods and technology in its Annex I (hereinafter ‘Dual-Use Regulation’),

–  having regard to Regulation (EU) 2016/2134 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 November 2016 amending Council Regulation (EC) No 1236/2005 concerning trade in certain goods which could be used for capital punishment, torture or other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment(11),

–  having regard to its previous resolutions on the matter, in particular those of 17 December 2015(12) on implementation of the Common Position, of 25 February 2016 on the humanitarian situation in Yemen(13), of 14 December 2016 on the Annual Report on human rights and democracy in the world and the European Union’s policy on the matter 2015(14), and of 27 February 2014 on the use of armed drones(15),

–  having regard to its resolution of 4 July 2017 on private security companies(16),

–  having regard to Rules 52 and 132(2) of its Rules of Procedure,

–  having regard to the report of the Committee on Foreign Affairs (A8-0264/2017),

A.  whereas the inherent right of individual or collective self-defence is laid down in Article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations;

B.  whereas the latest data(17) show that international transfers of major weapons between 2012-2016 reached their highest volume for any five-year period since the end of the Cold War, and were 8,4 % higher than the figure for the 2007-2011 period;

C.  whereas arms exports and transfers have an impact on human security, human rights, democracy, good governance and socio-economic development; whereas arms exports also contribute to circumstances that force people to flee from their countries; whereas this calls for a strict, transparent, effective and commonly accepted and defined arms control system;

D.  whereas the latest figures(18) show that exports from the EU28 amounted to 26 % of the global total in 2012-2016, which makes the EU28 collectively the second largest arms supplier in the world after the USA (33 %) and followed by Russia (23 %); whereas, according to the most recent report by the Working Party on Conventional Arms Exports (COARM), EU countries were granted arms export licences with a total value of EUR 94,40 billion in 2014;

E.  whereas the latest figures(19) show that arms exports to the Middle East rose by 86 % and accounted for 29 % of global exports between 2012-2016;

F.  whereas the latest official EU data indicate that the Middle East was the most significant region in terms of arms exports for the EU-28 in 2015, with a total of EUR 78,8 billion in authorised arms exports licences;

G.  whereas some arms transfers from EU Member States to unstable and crisis-prone regions and countries were used in armed conflicts or for internal repression; whereas some of these transfers were reportedly diverted into the hands of terrorist groups, for example in Syria and Iraq; whereas, in some cases, the arms exported to certain countries, for example Saudi Arabia, have been used in conflicts such as that in Yemen; whereas such exports clearly violate the Common Position and thus highlighting the necessity for better scrutiny and transparency;

H.  whereas there is no standardised verification and reporting system providing information as to whether, and to what extent, individual Member States’ exports violate the eight criteria, and whereas there are no sanction mechanisms either, should a Member State engage in exports which are clearly not compatible with the eight criteria;

I.  whereas investigations by the Bonn International Conversion Centre (BICC) have revealed that in Germany alone in 2015, for example, 4 256 arms export licences were issued for exports to 83 countries that were rated problematic with a view to the Common Position(20);

J.  whereas both the global and regional security environment has dramatically changed, especially with regard to the Union’s southern and eastern neighbourhood, and this highlights the urgent need to improve methodologies with regard to producing information for export licensing risk assessments and to make them more secure;

K.  whereas some Member States have recently signed strategic agreements on military cooperation including transfers of large quantities and high-quality military technology with non-democratic countries in the Middle East and North African region;

L.  whereas, as enshrined in the Lisbon Treaty, eradicating poverty is the primary objective of EU development policy, and whereas this is also one of the priorities of the EU’s external action in seeking to build a more stable and prosperous world; whereas supplying weapons to countries in conflict, as well as enabling the spread of violence, curtails those countries’ development potential;

M.  whereas the industrial landscape of defence in Europe is a sector of key importance and is, at the same time, characterised by overcapacities, duplication and fragmentation, which acts as a brake on the competiveness of the defence industry and which has led to expanding export policies;

N.  whereas the European Parliament resolution of 25 February 2016 on the humanitarian situation in Yemen called on the Vice-President of the Commission / High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy (VP/HR) to launch an initiative to impose an EU arms embargo on Saudi Arabia;

O.  whereas the situation in Yemen has since further deteriorated also due to military action carried out by the Saudi-led coalition; whereas some Member States have stopped providing arms to Saudi Arabia because of its actions in Yemen while others have continued supplying military technology contrary to criteria 2, 4, 6, 7 and 8;

P.  whereas the European Parliament resolution of 14 December 2016 on the Annual Report on human rights and democracy in the world and the European Union’s policy on the matter 2015 stressed that human rights should be a priority, and called on the Member States to agree to move towards a more modern, flexible and human rights-based export policy, especially in relation to countries with proven track records of violent internal repression and human rights violations;

Q.  whereas the EU Global Strategy for the Foreign and Security Policy should serve to improve policy coherence on arms export control;

1.  Notes that states have the legitimate right to acquire military technology for the purposes of self-defence; underlines that maintaining a defence industry serves as part of the self-defence of the Member States; recalls that one of the motivations behind the establishment of the Common Position was to prevent European weaponry from being used against Member States’ armed forces as well as to prevent human rights abuses and the prolongation of armed conflict; reiterates that the Common Position is a legally binding framework that sets minimum requirements which Member States have to apply in the field of arms export controls, and that it includes the obligation to assess a request for an export licence against all eight criteria listed in it;

2.  Notes that the development of defence equipment is an important tool for the defence industry and that the yet to be developed competitive and innovative European Defence Technological and Industrial Base should serve as an instrument for guaranteeing the security and defence of Member States, Union citizens and contribute to the implementation of the Common Foreign and Security Policy (CFSP) and in particular the Common Security and Defence Policy (CSDP); calls on the Member States to overcome the current lack of efficiency in defence spending due to duplication, fragmentation, lack of interoperability and to aim for the EU to become a security provider also by better controlling arms exports; reiterates that Article 10 of the Common Position states that considerations of economic, commercial and industrial interests by Member States must not affect the application of the eight criteria regulating arms exports;

3.  Notes, however, that military technology does at times reach destinations and end users that do not meet the criteria of the Common Position; is concerned that the proliferation of weapon systems in wartime and in situations with significant political tension, may disproportionately affect civilians; is alarmed at the global arms races and at military approaches to solving political conflict and turmoil; underlines that conflicts should be solved by diplomatic means as a priority;

4.  Urges the Member States and the European External Action Service (EEAS) to significantly improve the consistency of the implementation of the Common Position in order to enhance the security of civilians who are suffering because of conflict and human rights abuses in third countries, the security of the Union and its citizens, and create a level playing field for EU companies; stresses, in this regard, that a consistent implementation of the Common Position is essential for the EU’s credibility as a values-based global actor;

5.  Encourages countries in the process of attaining candidate status, or countries otherwise wishing to engage themselves on the path of EU accession, to apply the provisions of the Common Position; welcomes the fact that Albania, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Canada, Georgia, Iceland, the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Montenegro and Norway have aligned themselves with the criteria and principles of the Common Position and are thereby also pursuing further alignment with the CFSP and CSDP; calls on Member States to cooperate closely with third countries that have made a formal commitment to upholding the criteria of the Common Position especially with a view to improving the exchange of information and ensuring greater transparency in the granting of licences; calls furthermore on the EEAS to especially encourage European countries to align with the Common Position to ensure a securer wider European area;

6.  Calls on the Member States and the EEAS to cooperate closely to prevent risks arising from the diverting and stockpiling of weapons, such as illegal arms trafficking and smuggling; stresses the risk of weapons exported to third countries re-entering the EU via arms smuggling and trafficking;

7.  Notes the high degree of liability for the Union in terms of the security risk from the absence of a stronger support and commitment from the EU on the decommissioning of the many arms stockpiles still existing in Bosnia and Herzegovina, Albania and Ukraine;

8.  Believes that the export licensing risk assessment methodology should incorporate a precautionary principle and that Member States, in addition to assessing whether specific military technology might be used for internal repression or other undesired ends (functional approach), should also assess risks based on the overall situation in the country of destination (principled approach);

9.  Notes that in the context of Brexit, it would be important for the United Kingdom to remain bound by the Common Position and to apply its operative provisions as other European third countries do;

10.  Asks the Member States and the EEAS to develop a dedicated strategy to provide formal protection for whistle-blowers reporting practices by organisations and companies in the weapons industry that breach the criteria and principles set out in the Common Position;

11.  Stresses the importance of coherence between all the Union’s export control regimes, especially as regards the interpretation of the control criteria; reiterates in addition the importance of coherence between export control and other foreign policy instruments, as well as trade instruments, such as the Generalised System of Preferences and the Conflict Minerals Regulation;

12.  Reiterates the detrimental effect that the uncontrolled export of cyber-surveillance technologies by EU companies can have on the security of the EU’s digital infrastructure and on human rights; stresses, in this regard, the importance of a rapid, effective and comprehensive update of the EU’s Dual-Use Regulation and calls on the Council to adopt an ambitious timeline on this issue;

13.  Stresses the importance of effectively limiting arms exports to private security companies as an end user, and that any such licence be granted only when, after thorough diligence checks, it is determined the private security company in question has not participated in human rights violations; emphasises that accountability mechanisms must be put in place in order to ensure the responsible use or arms by private security companies;

Implementation of the Common Position criteria

14.  Notes that according to the Annual Reports, criterion 1 was invoked 81 times for denials in 2014 and 109 times in 2015;

15.  Reiterates its call on the VP/HR to launch an initiative aimed at imposing an EU arms embargo on countries that are accused of serious breaches of international humanitarian law, notably with regard to the deliberate targeting of civilian infrastructure; stresses once again that the continued licensing of weapons sales to such countries constitutes a breach of the Common Position;

16.  Notes that according to the Annual Reports, criterion 2 was invoked 72 times for denials in 2014 and 89 times in 2015; deplores the fact that the data reveal the lack of a common approach to the situation in Syria, Iraq and Yemen in particular; encourages the Member States and the EEAS to embark on a discussion on the extension of criterion 2 to include democratic governance indicators, as such assessment criteria could help establish further safeguards against the unintended negative consequences of exports; believes, furthermore, that a more principled approach to risk assessment would focus on overall respect of international humanitarian and human rights law by the recipient;

17.  Believes that exports to Saudi Arabia are non-compliant with at least criterion 2 regarding the country’s involvement in grave breaches of humanitarian law as established by competent UN authorities; re-iterates its call from 26 February 2016 on the urgent need to impose an arms embargo on Saudi Arabia;

18.  Notes that according to the Annual Reports, criterion 3 was invoked 99 times for denials in 2014 and 139 times in 2015; stresses the need, within the context of criterion 3, to assess recent arms transfers by Member States to non-state actors, including the provision of technical assistance and training, in light of the 2002 Joint Action 2002/589/CFSP on the European Union’s contribution to combating the destabilising accumulation and spread of small arms and light weapons (SALW);

19.  Notes that according to the Annual Reports, criterion 4 was invoked 57 times for denials in 2014 and 85 times in 2015; deplores the fact that military technology exported by the Member States is being used in the conflict in Yemen; urges the Member States to comply with the Common Position in a consistent manner on the basis of a thorough long-term risk assessment;

20.  Notes that according to the Annual Reports, criterion 5 was invoked 7 times for denials in 2014 and 16 times in 2015; recalls that this criterion refers to the security interests of Member States and allied nations, while recognising that these interests cannot affect considerations of the criteria on respect for human rights and on regional peace, security and stability;

21.  Notes that according to the Annual Reports, criterion 6 was invoked 6 times for denials in 2014, while no denial was notified for 2015; expresses its concern over reports of the diversion of arms exports by Member States to non-state actors, including terrorist groups, and warns that these weapons could be used against civilians, within and outside of EU territory; reiterates the importance of tighter controls over such arms exports in order to honour international commitments concerning the fight against terrorism and organised crime;

22.  Is concerned about possible diversions of exports to Saudi Arabia and Qatar to armed non-states actors in Syria who commit serious violations of human rights law and humanitarian law, and calls on COARM to address the matter with urgency; acknowledges that most of the arms in the hands of insurgents and terrorist groups have come from non-European sources;

23.  Notes that according to the Annual Reports, criterion 7 was invoked 117 times for denials in 2014 and 149 times in 2015; expresses its concern, inter alia, over the alleged diversions of exports of SALW from European countries to certain destinations from which these exports were diverted in order to supply non-state actors and other end-uses non-compliant with the Common Position in countries such as Syria, Iraq, Yemen and South Sudan; points to the urgent need to base assessments of the risk of diversion on more than just an acceptance of commitments made by a recipient state in an end-user certificate; highlights the need for effective mechanisms of post-shipment controls to ensure that arms are not being re-exported to unauthorised end users; highlights the potential role that the EEAS could play in supporting Member States’ efforts in this area;

24.  Notes that according to the Annual Reports, criterion 8 was invoked once for denials in 2014, while no denial was notified for 2015; recognises that better implementation of criterion 8 would constitute a decisive contribution to the EU’s Policy Coherence on Development objectives and the UN’s Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), in particular SDG 16.4; calls on Member States and the EEAS to update the User’s Guide to Council Common Position 2008/944/CFSP in this respect and to focus on the potential development harm done by the use of arms;

25.  Calls on the Member States and the EEAS to add a new criterion to the Common Position in order to ensure that, when granting authorisations, due account is taken of the risk of corruption concerning the relevant exports;

Boosting the exchange of information among the Member States

26.  Calls on the Member States and the EEAS to improve consistency in the implementation of the Common Position and to strengthen mechanisms for exchange of information by making available qualitatively and quantitatively better information for export licensing risk assessments based on a secured and extensive digitalisation of the current system, as follows:

27.  Welcomes the intention of COARM to involve the EEAS more systematically when preparing discussions on the situation in countries of destination and potential end users; insists on the importance of regular consultation of the Working Party on Human Rights (COHOM) in this process;

28.  Notes that effective information exchange and cooperation also require meetings of policy, licensing and enforcement staff and encourages provisions of sufficient resources to this end; believes that a crucial factor in strengthening the implementation of the Common Position lies in expanding relevant capacities of Member States; calls on the Member States and the EEAS to increase the number of personnel working on export-related issues both at national and EU level; encourages the establishment of EU funds to be used for capacity-building among licensing and enforcement officials in Member States;

29.  Stresses the need to develop an approach to address situations where Member States make a different interpretation of the 8 criteria of the Common Position for exports of products that are essentially alike, to similar destinations and end users, in order to preserve the level playing field and the EU’s credibility abroad; believes that it is also time to consider a stronger role for EU institutions with regard to the licensing process at Member State level, in particular with regard to such situations; calls on the Member States to support the creation of an arms control supervisory body under the auspices of the VP/HR; considers that an opinion should be issued to Member States that plan to grant a licence which has been denied by another Member State or Member States;

30.  Stresses the urgent need to enhance the role of EU Delegations in assisting Member States and the EEAS with their export licensing risk assessments and the implementation of end-user controls, post-shipment controls and on-site inspections;

31.  Urges Member States to create a provision in the Common Position to make sure that an EU embargo against a third country would automatically revoke licences that had already been granted for goods covered by the embargo;

32.  Urges all Member States to continue to lend assistance to non-EU countries in drafting, updating, and implementing, where appropriate, legislative and administrative measures so as to ensure that an export control system for weapons and military technology is established;

Strengthening compliance with reporting obligations

33.  Finds regrettable the very late publication of the 17th EU Annual Report, which took place at least 17 months after the licences were issued or the exports took place; finds regrettable, moreover, that the 18th EU Annual Report was only made public in March 2017;

34.  Criticises the violations of the eight criteria by Member States; considers that a uniform and consistent application of the eight criteria should be promoted; notes the lack of provisions on sanctions for Member States that fail to comply with the eight criteria when granting licences and advises Member States to make provision for arrangements to conduct independent checks; believes that it is time to launch a process leading to a mechanism which sanctions those Member States which do not comply with the Common Position;

35.  Recalls that according to Article 8(2) of the Common Position, all Member States are obliged to report on their arms exports, and calls on all Member States to comply with their obligations; regrets that the number of Member States making full submissions to the EU Annual Report via disaggregated data on licences and actual exports was 21 for the 17th Annual Report and only 20 for the 18th; asks all Member States, including the three main arms-exporting Member States, France, Germany and the UK, which have not made full submissions, to provide a full set of data regarding their past exports with a view to the next annual report;

36.  Calls for a more standardised and timely reporting and submission procedure to be guaranteed, by setting a strict deadline for submitting data of no later than January following the year in which the exports took place, and by setting a fixed publication date of no later than March following the year of exports;

37.  Takes the view that the Common Position should be complemented by a regularly updated, publicly accessible list, with detailed reasons, providing information on the extent to which exports to particular recipient countries are, or are not, in line with the eight criteria;

38.  Considers that a standardised verification and reporting system should be established to provide information as to whether, and to what extent, individual EU Member States’ exports violate the eight criteria;

39.  Urges all the Member States to comply fully with their reporting obligations set out in the Common Position; stresses that high-quality data on actual deliveries is essential for understanding how the eight criteria are applied; calls on the Member States and the EEAS to explore how to use data generated by customs authorities, including by creating specific customs codes for military goods;

40.  Recognises that all EU Member States are signatories to the ATT; calls for universalisation of the ATT and for more focus to be placed on those countries that are not signatories, including Russia and China; also commends the outreach efforts regarding the ATT and supports its effective implementation;

Modernising related tools

41.  Urges revision of the Common Military List and the lists annexed to the Dual-Use Regulation so as to ensure full coverage of all relevant unmanned systems; recalls its resolution of 27 February 2014 on the use of armed drones, and in particular paragraph 2(c) which called for armed drones to be included in relevant arms control regimes;

42.  Encourages the Member States to undertake a more detailed examination of licensed production by third countries and to ensure stronger safeguards against undesired uses; demands the strict application of the Common Position regarding licensed production in third countries; encourages the Member States to consider the third country’s attitude and status with regard to the ATT when deciding on transfers that would enhance the manufacturing and/or export capacity of that country as regards military equipment;

43.  Finds that the implementation of Directive 2009/43/EC simplifying terms and conditions of transfers of defence-related products within the Community should be in consistent with the implementation of the Common Position, including spare parts and components; notes that the Common Position is non-restrictive in scope and, accordingly, the eight criteria also apply to exports within the EU;

44.  Is concerned about cybersecurity challenges, particularly the breakthroughs in hacking methods used to access information and data of national licensing authorities; urges the Member States and the Commission to invest sufficient funds in technology and human resources to train individuals in specific cybersecurity programmes and methods in order to prevent and address these cybersecurity challenges;

The role of parliaments and public opinion

45.  Notes that not all EU national parliaments scrutinise governmental licensing decisions by, inter alia, producing annual arms exports reports, and, in this regard, calls for a general increase in parliamentary and public oversight; points to the European Parliament’s Rules of Procedure, which provide for the possibility of regular responses to the EU Annual Reports on Arms Exports;

46.  Welcomes regular consultations with national parliaments, arms export control authorities, industry associations and civil society as central to meaningful transparency; calls on COARM, all the Member States and the EEAS to enhance dialogue with civil society and consultations with national parliaments and arms export control authorities; encourages national parliaments, civil society and academia to exercise independent scrutiny of the arms trade, and calls on the Member States and the EEAS to support such activities, including by financial means;

o
o   o

47.  Instructs its President to forward this resolution to the Council, the Commission, the Vice-President of the Commission / High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy and the governments and parliaments of the Member States.

(1) OJ L 335, 13.12.2008, p. 99. (2) OJ C 163, 4.5.2016, p. 1. (3) OJ C 153, 16.5.2016, p. 1. (4) OJ L 326, 11.12.2015, p. 56. (5) OJ L 139, 30.5.2017, p. 38. (6) OJ C 97, 28.3.2017, p. 1. (7) Arms Trade Treaty, UN, 13-27217. (8) OJ L 341, 18.12.2013, p. 56. (9) OJ L 146, 10.6.2009, p. 1. (10) OJ L 134, 29.5.2009, p. 1. (11) OJ L 338, 13.12.2016, p. 1. (12) Texts adopted, P8_TA(2015)0472. (13) Texts adopted, P8_TA(2016)0066. (14) Texts adopted, P8_TA(2016)0502. (15) OJ C 285, 29.8.2017, p. 110. (16) Texts adopted, P8_TA(2017)0289. (17) ‘Trends in international arms transfers, 2016’ (SIPRI Fact Sheet, February 2017). (18) Ibid. (19) Ibid. (20) 2016 report on arms exports, Gemeinsame Konferenz Kirche und Entwicklung (GKKE) (Joint Conference on Church and Development), p. 54.

European Parliament resolution of 13 September 2017 on EU political relations with Latin America (2017/2027(INI))

P8_TA(2017)0345 A8-0268/2017

The European Parliament,

–  having regard to the Treaty on European Union (TEU), and in particular Title V thereof on EU external action,

–  having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU), and in particular Part Five, Titles I-III and V thereof (Common Commercial Policy, Development Cooperation and Humanitarian Aid, and International Agreements),

–  having regard to the Council’s conclusions of 17 October 2016 on the Global Strategy on the European Union’s Foreign and Security Policy,

–  having regard to the Commission communication of 30 September 2009 entitled ‘The European Union and Latin America: Global Players in Partnership’ (COM(2009)0495),

–  having regard to the strong cultural, linguistic, political and historical ties established partly as a result of decades of intense migration between EU Member States and Latin American and Caribbean (LAC) countries,

–  having regard to the EU annual report on human rights and democracy in the world in 2015 (Country and Regional Issues),

–  having regard to the declarations of the summits of Heads of State or Government of Latin America and the Caribbean and the European Union held to date and, in particular, the Declaration of the second EU-Community of Latin American and Caribbean States (CELAC) summit, held in Brussels from 10-11 June 2015 under the theme ‘Shaping our common future: working together for prosperous, cohesive and sustainable societies for our citizens’, which adopted the political declaration entitled ‘A Partnership for the next generation’,

–  having regard to the EU-CELAC Civil Society Forum Declaration of 11 May 2015 entitled ‘Equality, rights and democratic participation for the peoples of Europe and Latin America and the Caribbean’,

–  having regard to the joint communiqué of the first EU-CELAC Ministerial Inter-Summit Meeting, held in Santo Domingo (Dominican Republic) between 25 and 26 October 2016,

–  having regard to the declaration adopted at the 25th Ibero-American Summit of Heads of State and Government, held in Cartagena de Indias (Colombia) between 28 and 29 October 2016 entitled ‘Youth, Entrepreneurship and Education’,

–  having regard to the political declaration of the fifth summit of the Heads of State or Government of CELAC held in Punta Cana (Dominican Republic) on 25 January 2017,

–  having regard to its resolution of 20 January 2016 in support of the peace process in Colombia(1),

–  having regard to its resolutions on Venezuela, in particular those of 8 June 2016(2) and 27 April 2017(3) on the situation in Venezuela,

–  having regard to its non-legislative resolution of 5 July 2017 on the draft Council decision on the conclusion, on behalf of the European Union, of the Political Dialogue and Cooperation Agreement between the European Union and its Member States, of the one part, and the Republic of Cuba, of the other part(4),

–  having regard to its resolution of 23 October 2014 on the disappearance of 43 teaching students in Mexico(5),

–  having regard to the resolutions of the Euro-Latin American Parliamentary Assembly (EuroLat), in particular those of 22 September 2016 on trade aspects of the various EU-LAC negotiations currently being conducted(6), on combating poverty as part of the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) in the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development(7), on the financing of political parties in the European Union and Latin America(8), and on the economic and financial relations with the People’s Republic of China from the perspective of the EU-LAC Bi-regional Strategic Partnership(9), and of 29 March 2014 on femicide in the European Union and Latin America(10),

–  having regard to the EuroLat recommendation of 22 September 2016 on migration, development and the economic crisis(11),

–  having regard to its resolution of 5 May 2010 on the EU strategy for relations with Latin America(12),

–  having regard to the Declaration by the European Parliament, the Council of the European Union and the European Commission on point (ii) of point (b) of Article 5(2) of Regulation (EU) No 233/2014 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 March 2014 establishing a financing instrument for development cooperation for the period 2014-2020,

–  having regard to Regulation (EU) No 233/2014 of 11 March 2014 establishing a financing instrument for development cooperation for the period 2014-2020,

–  having regard to ILO Convention 169 on Indigenous and Tribal Peoples, in particular Article 14 thereof on the rights of ownership and possession of the peoples concerned over the lands they traditionally occupy,

–  having regard to its resolution of 13 June 2013 on the role of the EU in promoting a broader Transatlantic Partnership(13),

–  having regard to the recommendations made in the European Court of Auditors Special Report on the effectiveness of blending regional investment facility grants with financial institution loans to support EU external policies,

–  having regard to Rule 52 of its Rules of Procedure,

–  having regard to the report of the Committee on Foreign Affairs and the opinion of the Committee on Development (A8-0268/2017),

A.  whereas the Latin American and Caribbean region (LAC) constitutes a key partner for the EU when it comes to jointly facing current global challenges, such as the eradication of poverty, access to drinking water, universal respect for human rights, peace and security, socioeconomic development, lack of good governance, sustainability, the fight against climate change, the digital transformation and managing migration;

B.  whereas the EU-LAC partnership is founded on close historical and cultural ties, extensive people-to-people exchanges, strong and growing trade and investment flows and shared values such as democracy, human rights and the rule of law;

C.  whereas the 33 LAC countries have diverse political, economic and cultural realities that require different approaches within a coherent and consistent framework in the context of EU external action, while always defending EU values on democracy and human rights;

D.  whereas the long-lasting partnership between the EU and LAC countries is founded on historical, cultural, human and economic ties, which must not be taken for granted and should be more horizontally oriented, common principles and values, including respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms, the rule of law, international peace and security, and a shared support for a multilateral system of global governance based on common norms and dialogue;

E.  whereas the EU and LAC countries together make up a third of the total population of the members of the United Nations and account for around 25 % of global GDP;

F.  whereas stepping up the political dialogue and cooperation on migration, climate change, energy and countering organised crime as well as investing in deeper socio-economic ties through visa facilitation, student exchanges and research cooperation are priorities for the EU external action with LAC countries;

G.  whereas the Bi-regional Strategic Partnership between the European Union and Latin America and the Caribbean that was launched in June 1999 to strengthen relations between the two regions is not yet a consolidated achievement;

H.  whereas the LAC region has undergone significant changes in the past decade, such as the elevation of a large part of the population to the middle class through economic reforms and social policies, greater redistribution of the wealth generated in the countries in the region, allowing for improved access to education, health and decent housing, as well as the overall consolidation of democracy, but also the end of the commodities super-cycle that made millions of people at risk of falling back into poverty;

I.  whereas, after a decade of impressive economic growth, the end of the cycle of high prices for raw materials, on which the majority of LAC countries depend, combined with the economic slowdown in China, which is now their second largest trading partner after the US, has led to economic stagnation and even recession in various countries in the region, jeopardising much of the progress made and leaving millions of people at risk of falling back into poverty;

J.  whereas in some Latin American countries there is strong public demand for greater democracy and participation and for sustainable economic policies;

K.  whereas the rule of law reflected in a stable legal framework with the guarantee of legal certainty is crucial for attracting the investments needed to promote economic recovery;

L.  whereas respect for the rule of law and for a stable legal and political framework enables the two regions to exercise a free enterprise and supportive investment environment that include safeguards of the principle of legal certainty;

M.  whereas high inflation levels hinder growth and must therefore be addressed immediately; whereas reliable exchange rates are vital for a country’s economic development; whereas it is vital to implement an industrial policy that increases productivity, diversifies the economy and attracts investments;

N.  whereas the Association Agreements between the EU and LAC countries help to improve the political and trade dialogue as well as the investment climate, opening up the service sector and public procurement markets and allowing the implementation of infrastructure projects;

O.  whereas it is of high importance that Latin America and the EU develop a shared agenda;

P.  whereas the EU has experienced major shifts in recent years, namely the economic crisis, the challenges linked to Brexit and the refugee crisis;

Q.  whereas the main geopolitical shifts currently in play in LAC countries, marked by the increasing presence, among other things, of Asian states seeking economic partnership in the region, require the EU to reinforce its position as a truthful ally to its partners in the LAC region, not only in terms of economic exchange, but as a partner in social progress and in the defence of common values;

R.  whereas current the EU-Mexico Global Agreement, the EU-Chile Association Agreement and the EU-Mercosur Interregional Framework Cooperation Agreement entered into force in 1997, 2003 and 1999 respectively; whereas, due to their importance to the EU and LAC countries, ongoing negotiations on updating these agreements need an ambitious impetus in order to achieve the most modern and progressive outcome;

S.  whereas the EU is the main source of development assistance, as reflected in the Development Cooperation Instrument (DCI) 2014-2020, the main investor and one of the main trading partners with the LAC region, and whereas European cooperation is strong as a result of financial and triangular cooperation;

T.  whereas the Commission is drafting a new development agenda as part of the 2030 Agenda, and whereas the concept of sustainable development must be applied in and include all the countries in Latin America (including middle-income countries), and whereas that new approach must take account of other criteria in addition to per capita income;

U.  whereas LAC countries have been systematically relegated to second place when defining the main priorities of the EU’s external policy, despite the obvious cultural and linguistic ties that historically link it to the LAC countries, and despite the need to find new allies in the face of its growing loss of geopolitical influence in the world;

V.  whereas the Atlantic region as a whole – including the EU, North America, Central America, South America and the countries along the Atlantic coast of Africa – is very important, as is the need for cooperation between the Atlantic regions and countries, to enable them all to address the shared challenges faced by this very large area;

W.  whereas the next WTO Ministerial Conference is to be held in Buenos Aires in December 2017, and whereas parliamentary delegations from the member countries will also be meeting at that conference;

X.  whereas the implementation of the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development ensures universal access to information and protection of freedom of expression;

Y.  whereas the 10 best countries in terms of energy governance and 20 % of the world’s oil reserves are in Latin America;

Z.  whereas two Latin American countries, Mexico and Brazil, have been identified as strategic partners of the EU;

1.  Underlines that the EU-LAC bi-regional partnership is based on common principles, values and interests such as democracy, human rights, peace and solidarity, the rule of law and an independent judiciary as well as a commitment to uphold them in a horizontal relationship and has become critical to the advancement of the bi-regional and cooperation exchanges; stresses that in the wake of the economic crisis, the EU and LAC countries are facing common challenges in the areas of sustainable economic growth and the fight against unemployment, digital transformation, social inclusion and gender equality, while at the same time sharing common values;

2.  Highlights the fact that the new geopolitical scenario reinforces the LAC region as a strategic priority and opportunity for the EU’s foreign policy, as both regions share a common vision of the world based on multilateralism, dialogue, sustainability, the rule of law, respect for human rights and inclusive open societies; acknowledges the positive and rich diversity of actors in the relations between EU and LAC countries, including states, cities and local entities as well as universities, civil society, corporations and the European Economic and Social Committee; calls for further coordination of the agreements, cooperation actions and high-level political contacts;

3.  Considers the expansion of political and economic cooperation and the building of stronger partnerships with LAC countries to be crucial at bi-regional, sub-regional and bilateral level as complementary actions; stresses the need for this cooperation to contribute effectively to the consolidation of economic growth via sustainable socio-economic development policies while ensuring social inclusion, civil liberties and human rights and the reduction of poverty; believes that the EU-LAC partnership and the association agreements should take into account the economic differences between the regions and be mindful of not worsening existing asymmetries; notes that the presence of European companies is very important for the national economies of the countries of Latin America and stresses that their activities must be subject to existing rules and monitoring processes;

4.  Underlines the importance of the EU-CELAC summits as an instrument of the strategic bi-regional partnership as a new framework for political dialogue; calls for the EU and for CELAC to also reinforce this partnership and political dialogue within the framework of its thematic dialogues and main initiatives, such as the Joint Initiative on Research and Innovation, the Structured Dialogue on Migration and the Coordination and Cooperation Mechanism on Drugs and by working on clearly identified common interests in order to jointly address key global challenges in the areas of good governance, economic growth, social cohesion, culture, innovation and the environment in multilateral forums, such as the United Nations, the G-20, and the WTO;

5.  Reiterates the EU and the LAC’s commitment to stepping up cooperation on the global agenda and advocates a multilateral approach in the WTO as the basis for an open trading system, based on predictable, more inclusive rules that are effective in achieving the objectives of reducing poverty and promoting sustainable development, and are also transparent and democratic, with an enhanced parliamentary dimension;

6.  Reiterates its support for regional integration in the LAC region, and stresses the need for greater coordination between the different regional integration schemes in the region, while respecting differences in the pace of integration; recommends enhanced dialogue, cooperation and the exchange of best practices with CELAC, Mercosur, the Andean Community of Nations (ACN), the Central American Integration System (SICA) and the Pacific Alliance, to increase dialogue on areas of common interest and to make its institutional framework stronger; recommends enhancing regional initiatives on political dialogue, cooperation and the exchange of best practices such as the Union of South American Nations (UNASUR), the Organisation of American States (OAS), and the Caribbean Community (CARICOM) to advance democracy in South America; stresses the importance of boosting interparliamentary cooperation between the EU and LAC, in particular between the European Parliament and the various regional parliaments, through exchanges of political and institutional experience and knowledge; welcomes the dialogue recently launched between Mercosur and the Pacific Alliance with a view to gradual convergence and a scale up in the context of consulting on future regional and global challenges;

7.  Stresses that political stability, economic rules and institutional strength guaranteeing respect for the rule of law and transparency are cornerstones of an environment that attracts long-term investment, through legal certainty; emphasises that such a legal framework requires strong democratic institutions and responsible economic planning as well as efforts to strengthen political dialogue and economic partnerships within the region and with external partners; recalls, in this context, that the partnership with the EU plays a central role;

8.  Highlights how dynamic the Pacific Alliance – comprising Chile, Colombia, Mexico and Peru – is, and calls for the Vice-President / High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy (VP/HR) to look into the possibility of the EU participating in the Alliance as an observer, as a number of EU Member States already do;

9.  Stresses that current global challenges, including human rights, peace, security, the fight against corruption and impunity, lack of good governance, socioeconomic sustainable development, the eradication of poverty, the digital transformation, mass migration, gender equality, cybersecurity, organised crime and terrorism, drug trafficking, climate change, geopolitical shifts, inequality within countries and across borders, informal work and growing unemployment, offer new opportunities and cooperation channels for the EU-LAC partnership to operate strategically where a common vision and agenda should be shared;

10.  Stresses that even having experienced a significant economic development, which has led to poverty and inequality levels falling, inequality remains a significant obstacle to the LAC region’s development, where 175 million people are living in poverty and exclusion, especially women and minors; stresses that economic growth, inclusive social development, the fair distribution of wealth and the universal provision of essential public services are the key to addressing this issue;

11.  Recalls that the goal of eradicating poverty and reducing inequality must be addressed through economic, social cohesion and inclusion policies, increased work opportunities, access to education, and highlights the need to protect all its citizens and enlarge the middle class irrespective of the effects of economic cycles, to consolidate the achievements on improving the living conditions, including through the establishment of social protection floors, and to respect democratic values and human rights;

12.  Underlines the need to integrate economies into global value chains, based on a circular economic model, and to recognise the importance of developing bilateral and multilateral commercial agreements as an effective tool that can contribute to tackling common global challenges, while promoting decent work and social dialogue among other things, as drivers of sustainable development; stresses the importance of creating conditions allowing the economies of both regions to diversify, making them less dependent and vulnerable on global cyclical variations; highlights the importance of promoting the transfer of scientific and technological knowledge, enhancing human capital and diversifying employment, to which end it is essential to increase investment in education, training and skills;

13.  Welcomes the protocol of 11 November 2016 on the accession of Ecuador to the EU’s Free Trade Agreement with Colombia and Peru signed by the EU, its Member States, Ecuador, Colombia and Peru; recalls that this agreement removes high customs tariffs and technical barriers to trade, liberalises service markets, opens public procurement markets and includes obligations concerning fast and efficient dispute resolution mechanisms;

14.  Points out that the EU is the largest foreign investor in LAC and its second largest trading partner, creating a bidirectional economic relation based on the values of quality, social responsibility, job creation, technology transfer and research and innovation;

15.  Encourages further public and private partnerships to foster economic development, entrepreneurship, growth and foreign investment; stresses the need for combating the informal economy and the underdevelopment and low competitiveness of SMEs; calls for facilitating and improving mobility between both regions, while ensuring the mutual consistency of labour rights and enhancing the coordination of the social security systems;

16.  Stresses the need to develop sustainable and effective tax systems in both regions, together with an appropriate tax culture, including the establishment of effective general accounting offices that could foster economic growth and the development of welfare states providing and assuring public goods and services, such as access to public education, health, social protection infrastructure and security to all citizens, and reiterates that tax havens and tax avoidance are detrimental to economic and social development, progress and prosperity and the proper functioning of economic and social redistributive policies;

17.  Stresses that economic growth and trade are key elements in achieving sustainable development but are not sufficient to reduce poverty, inequality and exclusion; calls for effective policies that contribute to reducing these issues through diversified, sustainable and inclusive growth, with a strong emphasis on social issues, institutional support and respect for human rights;

18.  Takes the view that achieving the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) must be the foremost objective of cooperation between Latin America and the Caribbean (LAC) and the EU; urges the Union to boost budget support programmes;

19.   Supports the Commission’s new development agenda as part of the 2030 Agenda; reiterates that the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development and the Sustainable Development Goals should be the main tools of EU-LAC cooperation, including all dimensions of economic, social and sustainable development, and not limited to poverty eradication; underlines that the EU must continue supplying official development assistance to all LAC countries, including the middle and higher income countries that no longer qualify for bilateral development cooperation under the differentiation principle, on the basis of a new approach, beyond per capita income; strongly requests that the Commission continue, on an exceptional basis and in accordance with the DCI Regulation, to provide bilateral cooperation to middle and higher income countries during the complete validity of the financing instrument for development cooperation for the period 2014-2020 and beyond, in order to continue support for their efforts in the face of current challenges;

20.  Urges better coordination between policies and programmes supporting the LAC region, as well as the outermost regions and overseas countries and territories; calls for political commitments made at EU-LAC regional summits to be met and accompanied by the allocation of the necessary financial resources;

21.  Calls on the Commission to identify the instruments available and endow them with sufficient resources, taking suitable action to align them with the principles of effectiveness, appropriability, harmonisation, mutual responsibility, accountability and alignment with LAC countries’ development strategies, to help LAC to address the challenges facing it and to prepare itself for a possible future reduction in official development assistance (ODA); calls for such instruments to incorporate the transferring of know-how and training, and to assist in fiscal and public finance management reforms that contribute to boosting growth and to the provision of high-quality public services;

22.  Calls on the Commission to apply enforceable criteria on development effectiveness principles to its blending programmes, particularly in terms of ownership, alignment with partner countries, development and financial additionality, transparency and accountability;

23.  Points out that as a result of its geographical and geological characteristics LAC is highly vulnerable to natural disasters, and that this situation is aggravated as a result of climate change, which must be addressed globally in accordance with the principle of common but differentiated responsibility; calls on the Commission and the LAC countries to tackle the underlying causes, take climate-resilience measures and adopt risk-prevention strategies and protocols for a speedy mobilisation of humanitarian assistance in the event of emergencies;

24.  Urges the effective implementation of gender equality, the empowerment of women, and policies in favour of the inclusion of women in all spheres of political, economic and social life, with a view to enhancing their active participation in society, strenuously combating femicides, guaranteeing their physical and psychological security, facilitating equal access to the job market, land ownership, and employment, and ensuring their sexual and reproductive health and rights; stresses the importance of improving the lives of girls and women; highlights that access to education is therefore vital and could lead to social and economic transformation; welcomes the 1994 Inter-American Convention on the Prevention, Punishment and Eradication of Violence Against Women (‘Belém do Pará Convention’), and calls for the secretariat in its follow-up mechanism, MESECVI, to be given a more significant role; welcomes the entry into force in 2016 of the Council of Europe’s Istanbul Convention, and calls on countries in both regions that have not yet done so to sign up to it;

25.  Considers public policies, in particular on health, education and training, as well as private initiatives, opening up opportunities for the nearly 30 million young people not in employment, education or training to be fundamental; stresses that development programmes must tackle high levels of conflict, violence, organised crime and homicides, which affect young people and adolescents in particular and are one of the main challenges for LAC countries;

26.  Reiterates the importance of quality work and education opportunities being available for young people, as they embody the future hopes for, and are a key factor in, the continent’s long-term political stability; encourages further cooperation with economic funds in the form of bilateral university participation, scholarships, knowledge exchange, and international mobility between EU and LAC students, in particular through boosting the Erasmus+ programme as part of the higher-education partnership with CELAC, launched in 2015; notes with satisfaction that in 2015, the Erasmus+ program was successfully launched offering 6 200 mobility possibilities and 3 500 scholarships mostly for CELAC students until 2020; points out the need to advance the full and mutual recognition of university degrees and to strengthen bi-regional cooperation in the quality and accreditation system;

27.  Points out the key role of EU-CELAC cooperation in the field of science, technology and innovation and the importance of creating a EU-CELAC common research area to strengthen the cooperation on mobility of researchers and professors;

28.  Underlines the fundamental importance of children's rights and the need for strict compliance, by all EU-LAC countries, with the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child;

29.  Encourages further cooperation in the area of promoting technological development and enhancing the population's access to information and communication technologies in order to adapt our societies to the digital transformation;

30.  Highlights the general trend and common challenges of the last decade on advancing freedoms and social rights, and the great efforts made to draw up inclusive public policies to protect vulnerable groups and to distribute wealth and economic growth on an equal basis, which has made a decisive contribution to lifting almost 60 million Latin Americans out of poverty in the past 15 years; calls on the authorities to respect and guarantee democratic principles, fundamental rights, the freedoms and safety of all citizens, including religious minorities, indigenous people, environmental activists, the LGTBI community, disabled citizens, forcibly displaced and stateless people, and populations in rural areas; underlines the importance of ensuring freedom of assembly, association and expression both online and offline;

31.  Underlines the need to guarantee the rights and safety of religious minorities and the LGTBI community; urges LAC governments to pass laws and take measures capable of protecting human rights defenders and journalists against the persecution, threats, defamation campaigns, arbitrary arrest, torture, forced disappearance and murder of which they are frequently the target; calls for the rights and interests of indigenous peoples and populations in rural areas to be safeguarded in the face of development projects with a major environmental impact and the operations of extractive industries, implementing prior consultation and consent mechanisms in such cases;

32.  Regrets the attacks against democratically elected opposition leaders, journalists, human rights defenders, in particular those working on environmental issues, and their lawyers; calls on the authorities to take all the necessary measures to guarantee their physical and psychological integrity and to ensure immediate, thorough and impartial investigations in order to bring those responsible to justice in accordance with international standards;

33.  Reiterates that the active involvement and consultation of civil society and NGOs during the negotiation and implementation process of trade or association agreements should be guaranteed;

34.  Highlights the need for agreements to make reference to the right to freedom of expression and freedom of assembly in the LAC countries;

35.  Encourages EU Member States to consider adopting legislation providing for the possibility of the freezing of assets and visa restrictions targeting individuals who have been involved in serious human rights violations;

36.  Reiterates that policies and practices on migration must guarantee respect for human rights, with special attention given to women and vulnerable groups such as minors, the elderly and disabled people, while keeping in mind the challenges related to the protection of borders and the non-criminalisation of migrants; stresses the need for a comprehensive approach aimed at recognising the economic and social contribution of migrant workers for hosting countries, the significance of transit countries and the importance of establishing legal paths for citizenship in the host countries, and giving special consideration to displaced persons in need of asylum; calls for measures to facilitate and improve mobility between the countries, while ensuring the coherence of labour rights and enhancing the coordination of social security systems;

37.  Urges the LAC countries to make sure that social, environmental and labour rights are fully respected; calls for full and effective implementation of the ILO conventions and the respect for core labour standards, which, inter alia, include the freedom of association and the right to collective bargaining; highlights, furthermore, the need to ensure the elimination of all forms of forced or compulsory labour;

38.  Highlights the challenges both regions face in terms of defence and security, which include terrorism and the fight against drug trafficking and organised crime, and encourages continued efforts to strengthen defence and security cooperation through police and military coordination, paying particular attention to information sharing; urges Latin American countries to participate in EU crisis management and peacekeeping missions, as they are already doing in Colombia and Chile; encourages the fostering of further military cooperation for developing special emergency aid corps for natural and humanitarian disasters; calls for further cooperation in maritime security, disarmament, non-proliferation and arms control;

39.  Calls for unequivocal respect for the principle of the territorial integrity of states;

40.  Deplores the cuts in humanitarian aid and rejects the fact that these continue to occur in the areas most in need of this aid (Northern Triangle of Central America, Haiti and Colombia), as well as in areas particularly affected by the impact of climate change and natural disasters;

41.  Condemns the action taken by the governments of some countries which have refused to accept international humanitarian assistance, thereby making it impossible for those countries’ most basic needs to be addressed; calls on the VP/HR to urge the relevant authorities to allow the entry of such assistance and to put forward an assistance plan for each country;

42.  Calls on the EU to strive to support LAC countries suffering endemic violence, with unacceptable rates of homicide, extrajudicial execution and forced disappearances, since without security there can be no genuine prosperity, dignity and happiness; urges LAC countries to take steps to put an end to prison overcrowding and improve prison conditions, to guarantee that the physical and psychological integrity of detainees is safeguarded, to investigate and punish torture and ill-treatment and to promote the more humane treatment of prisoners so as to prevent the mutinies that regularly occur in prisons and that result in loss of life;

43.  Highlights the need to step up cooperation among all countries in the Atlantic region in the fight against drug trafficking, also involving the countries concerned in West Africa, which are a major hub for consignments of drugs between Latin America and Europe;

44.  Asks the EU to support the Central American countries afflicted by organised crime that threatens their social and political structures;

45.  Emphasises the need for the EU to continue supporting the Central America Security Strategy (CASS) and the Caribbean Security Strategy;

46.  Stresses the urgent need to step up efforts to combat corruption, tax fraud and impunity, as these are among the main obstacles preventing development, to ensure respect for the rule of law, the holding of free and transparent elections, the separation of powers and equal access to an independent, impartial and professionalised judicial system, to support good governance, to address institutional weaknesses and to strengthen administration; acknowledges the work carried out by EUROsociAL in this area;

47.  Calls on the EU and LAC countries to address and combat the problem of corruption through measures ranging from prevention to law enforcement and criminal prosecution, the effective implementation of multilateral and international anti-corruption conventions, and points out that the existence of corruption undermines not only social and economic welfare and social equality, but also political legitimacy and good governance; stresses that the absence of an independent judiciary and public administration fosters distrust in public institutions, undermining the rule of law and fuelling violence; underlines that transparency, free media and civic participation are necessary to strengthen the fight against corruption; takes into consideration that new international provisions to push for the end of tax havens should be introduced, such as the automatic exchange of tax information and the lifting of bank secrecy;

48.  Calls for further cooperation on environmental issues, a major mutual interest, with special emphasis on the energy transition and decarbonisation process, which will have an impact on the economies of both regions; highlights the need to support research on and the deployment of renewable energies, the protection of nature, forest management, and policies to address the causes and consequences of climate change in a region that is acutely affected by its effects, taking into account the rights of local and indigenous communities in areas where natural resources are extracted; stresses the need to further support initiatives such as EUROCLIMA or the RIOCC, in line with the Lima Agenda on sustainable development, environment, climate change and energy; recognises the common need to implement an energy transition in order to successfully fulfil the Paris Agreements; underlines the need for further investment and cooperation between EU-LAC institutions and companies to commonly address the energetic transition, de-carbonisation and the improvement of the basic infrastructures; stresses the importance of improving governance and judicial procedures to protect forests and to expand agro-ecological farming practices;

49.  Considers it crucial to speed up EU-Mercosur negotiations in order to get a comprehensive, balanced and mutually beneficial association agreement, as referred to in the European Council conclusions of 9 March 2017, so as to make it possible to complete the network of agreements in force between the EU and Latin America; stresses the need to end the negotiations and to achieve a final agreement to be ratified by the European Parliament before the end of the current term which will contribute positively to economic growth and employment creation in both economic areas as well as strengthening the historical, cultural, political and cooperation relationships and trust between our peoples;

50.  Highlights the importance of speeding up the ongoing negotiations for the updating of the EU-Mexico Global Agreement, and calls for that agreement to be concluded by the end of 2017; points out the importance of finalising the updated EU-Chile Association Agreement before the first trimester of 2018; calls on the Member State parliaments that have not yet done so to ratify the EU-Central America Association Agreement;

51.  Stresses the importance of Ecuador's recent accession to the Multisectoral Agreement with Colombia and Peru and recalls that the door is also open for Bolivia should it decide to participate; welcomes the implementation of the short-stay Schengen visa waiver for Peru and Colombia; requests, in this context, the same visa waiver for Ecuador; points out that these actions contribute to improving the EU's economic and cultural ties with those countries;

52.  Stresses the vital importance of systematically including rules on corporate responsibility and clauses safeguarding human rights and social rights in association, trade and investment agreements between the EU and LAC countries;

53.  Points out that Mexico and Brazil have been identified as strategic partners of the EU and calls for Argentina to be granted this status as an outstanding player in the region, and as a member of Mercosur and the G20, and for the institutional relations framework to be renewed;

54.  Recognises the importance of the Ibero-American summits, the operating mechanisms of which have been strengthened over the past few years, and, at the same time, highlights the role that the Ibero-American General Secretariat (SEGIB) plays in supporting the rotating presidency; highlights the added value that it brings to the overall partnership between the two regions as a forum for dialogue, coordination and cooperation; calls, in that regard, for the establishment of a cooperation mechanism – that could take the form of a memorandum of understanding or a framework cooperation agreement between the Commission and/or the EEAS and SEGIB – that is able to optimise the relationship and place it on a more structured, orderly and systematic footing between the two bodies; welcomes the fact that, at the most recent summit, close attention was paid to important areas including youth, education and entrepreneurship;

55.  Reiterates that the EuroLat Assembly and the Parliamentary Delegations are very successful and useful forums for the parliamentary dimension of the strategic partnership, and for political dialogue between the EU and LAC countries, including civil society, whose role should be reinforced, as well as being important in terms of transmitting citizens' demands to the EU-CELAC summits; stresses the importance of ensuring the visibility and dissemination of its discussions and conclusions, both via interaction with EU-CELAC summits and national and regional institutional channels;

56.  Underlines the role of the EU-Latin America and Caribbean Foundation as an international organisation, and calls for the agreement establishing it to be swiftly ratified by all of its sixty-two members, which would play an important role in supporting the bi-regional partnership, and requests the establishment of permanent channels of cooperation between the Foundation and the EuroLat Assembly;

57.  Supports an increase of the external lending mandate of the European Investment Bank for Latin America in order to maintain and develop operations to respond to the need for financing priority areas, such as climate change mitigation, the development of social, economic and environmental infrastructure and support for SMEs;

58.  Calls for better and multilateral coordination of the EU Member States in the Inter-American Development Bank (BID) and the Development Bank of Latin America (CAF), in order to maximise their economic impact in the development programs for LAC countries;

59.  Reiterates its support for the peace process in Colombia, which is decisive for the future of Colombians and for stabilisation in the region of which this country is a part, and undertakes to support the Colombian Government in its implementation; stresses, in this regard, the importance of involving the whole of Colombian society, in particular victims and civil society organisations, as well as forcibly displaced people, and of leaders of the government guaranteeing the safety and protection of human rights activists and community leaders; urges the EU and its Member States to continue their political and financial support, including through the DCI Regulation, in particular Article 5(2) thereof, and the EU Trust Fund for Colombia, and supports the role of the VP/HR’s Special Envoy for Colombia; express its wish that the National Liberation Army would also commit to the ongoing peace process; welcomes the fact that, under UN supervision, the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC) have completed the handover of individual weapons; supports the new mission established by the UN Security Council in order to help FARC members reintegrate into society; welcomes the bilateral ceasefire agreement between the National Liberation Army and the Government of Colombia;

60.  Expresses its grave concern at the seriously deteriorating situation as regards democracy, human rights and the socio-economic situation in Venezuela, in a climate of growing political and social instability; calls on the Venezuelan Government to safeguard the separation and independence of branches of government and to restore full constitutional authority to the National Assembly; calls furthermore on the Venezuelan Government to ensure the immediate and unconditional release of all political prisoners and to present as soon as possible an electoral calendar that will allow free and transparent electoral processes to take place; calls on the international community, the regional actors and the VP/HR to promote and support a broad national agreement as the only possible solution; asks the VP/HR to actively explore other measures to constructively promote the political stabilisation of the country; rejects, in this context, any attempt to divert its constitutionally recognised powers to any other body; strongly condemns the elections to a Constituent Assembly of 30 July 2017 as being in breach of the separation of powers and respect for citizens’ rights to freely express their political opinion through democratically elected and legitimate institutions; recalls that the European Parliament, along with many other international actors, does not recognise those elections or any actions and decisions taken by the newly established Assembly due to its lack of legitimacy, and regrets the violent circumstances resulting in many people being killed and injured; expresses its grave concerns about the illegal prosecution and repression of democratically elected members of the National Assembly; rejects the dismissal of the Prosecutor General Luisa Ortega Diaz and her political persecution, as well as all of the members of the Supreme Court appointed by the legitimate National Assembly of Venezuela; fully supports the ICC investigations into the extensive crimes and acts of repression perpetrated by the Venezuelan regime, and calls for the EU to play an active role in this regard; calls on the VP/HR and the European Council to give consideration to the freezing of assets, as well as placing restrictions on access to EU territory for all those involved in the serious violations of human rights in Venezuela, including the members of the non-recognised Constituent Assembly;

61.   Welcomes the signing on December 2016 of the Political Dialogue and Cooperation Agreement between the EU and Cuba; stresses the importance of speeding up its implementation, which can have a positive impact on the overall EU-CELAC partnership; points out that the political dialogue and cooperation agreement should contribute to improving the living conditions and social rights of Cuban citizens, progress towards democracy, and the respect for and promotion of fundamental freedoms; emphasises that its validity will depend on the effective implementation by the Cuban Government of the human rights provisions established in the agreement and on the basis of European Parliament resolutions;

62.  Instructs its President to forward this resolution to the Council and the Commission and to the governments and parliaments of the CELAC countries.

(1) Texts adopted, P8_TA(2016)0016. (2) Texts adopted, P8_TA(2016)0269. (3) Texts adopted, P8_TA(2017)0200. (4) Texts adopted, P8_TA(2017)0297. (5) OJ C 274, 27.7.2016, p. 28. (6) http://www.europarl.europa.eu/intcoop/eurolat/assembly/plenary_sessions/montevideo_2016/adopted_docs/trade_en.pdf (7) http://www.europarl.europa.eu/intcoop/eurolat/assembly/plenary_sessions/montevideo_2016/adopted_docs/poverty_en.pdf (8) http://www.europarl.europa.eu/intcoop/eurolat/assembly/plenary_sessions/montevideo_2016/adopted_docs/pparties_en.pdf (9) http://www.europarl.europa.eu/intcoop/eurolat/assembly/plenary_sessions/montevideo_2016/adopted_docs/china_en.pdf (10) http://www.europarl.europa.eu/intcoop/eurolat/assembly/plenary_sessions/athens2014/adopted_docs/femicide/1026102en.pdf (11) http://www.europarl.europa.eu/intcoop/eurolat/assembly/plenary_sessions/montevideo_2016/adopted_docs/migration_en.pdf (12) OJ C 81 E, 15.3.2011, p. 54. (13) OJ C 65, 19.2.2016, p. 120.

European Parliament resolution of 13 September 2017 on corruption and human rights in third countries (2017/2028(INI))

P8_TA(2017)0346 A8-0246/2017

The European Parliament,

–  having regard to the United Nations Convention against Corruption (UNCAC), which entered into force on 14 December 2005(1),

–  having regard to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the UN Declaration on Human Rights Defenders,

–  having regard to the Charter of the United Nations,

–  having regard to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights,

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

–  having regard to the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) Convention on Combating Bribery of Foreign Public Officials in International Business Transactions, and to the 2009 Recommendation of the Council for Further Combating Bribery, the 2009 Recommendation on the Tax Deductibility of Bribes to Foreign Public Officials and other related instruments(2),

–  having regard to the EU Strategic Framework on Human Rights and Democracy adopted in 2012 and the Action Plan on Human Rights and Democracy (2015-2019) adopted by the Foreign Affairs Council on 20 July 2015,

–  having regard to the EU Guidelines on Human Rights Defenders as adopted at the 2914th General Affairs Council meeting of 8 December 2008(3),

–  having regard to the UN Resolution on Transforming our world: the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development, adopted by the UN General Assembly on 25 September 2015(4),

–  having regard to the report of the European Investment Bank (EIB) entitled ‘Policy on preventing and deterring prohibited conduct in European Investment Bank activities’ (‘EIB Anti-Fraud Policy’) adopted on 8 November 2013(5),

–  having regard to the Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights: Implementing the United Nations ‘Protect, Respect and Remedy’ Framework(6),

–  having regard to the Council conclusions on business and human rights of 20 June 2016(7),

–  having regard to its resolution of 25 October 2016 on corporate liability for serious human rights abuses in third countries(8),

–  having regard to its resolution of 25 October 2016 on the fight against corruption and follow-up of the CRIM resolution(9),

–  having regard to its resolution of 6 July 2016 on tax rulings and other measures similar in nature or effect(10),

–  having regard to its resolution of 25 November 2015 on tax rulings and other measures similar in nature or effect(11),

–  having regard to its resolution of 8 July 2015 on tax avoidance and tax evasion as challenges for governance, social protection and development in developing countries(12),

–  having regard to its resolution of 11 June 2015 on recent revelations on high-level corruption cases in FIFA(13),

–  having regard to its resolution of 23 October 2013 on organised crime, corruption, and money laundering: recommendations on action and initiatives to be taken(14),

–  having regard to its resolution of 8 October 2013 on corruption in the public and private sectors: the impact on human rights in third countries(15),

–  having regard to the Council of Europe Criminal Law Convention on Corruption, the Council of Europe Civil Law Convention on Corruption, and to resolutions (98) 7 and (99) 5, adopted by the Council of Europe’s Committee of Ministers on 5 May 1998 and 1 May 1999 respectively, establishing the Group of States against Corruption (GRECO),

–  having regard to the Jakarta Statement on Principles for Anti-Corruption Agencies, adopted on 26-27 November 2012(16),

–  having regard to the Panama Declaration on the Seventh Annual Conference and General Meeting of the International Association of Anti-Corruption Authorities (IAACA), adopted on 22-24 November 2013,

–  having regard to the UN General Assembly resolution on national institutions for the promotion and protection of human rights adopted on 17 December 2015 and the Human Rights Council resolution on national institutions for the promotion and protection of human rights adopted on 29 September 2016(17),

–  having regard to the final report of the United Nations Human Rights Council Advisory Committee on the issue of the negative impact of corruption on the enjoyment of human rights of 5 January 2015(18),

–  having regard to the African Union Convention on Preventing and Combating Corruption (AUCPCC)(19),

–  having regard to the UN Global Compact initiative to base strategies and measures on universal principles of human rights, employment, the environment and fighting corruption(20),

–  having regard to Transparency International’s annual Corruption Perceptions Index,

–  having regard to Rule 52 of its Rules of Procedure,

–  having regard to the report of the Committee on Foreign Affairs and the opinions of the Committee on Development and the Committee on International Trade (A8-0246/2017),

A.  whereas corruption is a complex global phenomenon, affecting both North and South, that can be defined as the abuse of entrusted power for individual, collective, direct or indirect private gain, which poses a serious threat to the public interest and social, political and economic stability and security by undermining public trust and the efficiency and effectiveness of institutions, and the values of democracy and human rights, ethics, justice, sustainable development and good governance;

B.  whereas corruption can range from small-scale efforts to influence individuals, public officials or the implementation of public services, to large-scale attempts to subvert political, economic and/or legal systems, and in order to promote and fund terrorism, encourage extremism, decrease tax revenues and support organised crime networks;

C.  whereas corruption is caused by the failure of political, economic and judicial systems to provide robust, independent oversight and accountability;

D.  whereas reducing corruption is vital for economic growth, poverty reduction, wealth creation, education, welfare, healthcare, infrastructure development and conflict resolution, as well as to build trust in institutions, business and politics;

E.  whereas in many countries corruption not only constitutes a significant systemic obstacle to the realisation of democracy, respect for the rule of law, political freedom and sustainable development, and of all civil, political, economic, social and cultural human rights, but may also cause many human rights violations; whereas corruption is one of the most neglected causes of human rights violations as it fuels injustice, inequality, inter alia as regards financial and economic resources, impunity, arbitrary action, political and religious extremism and conflict;

F.  whereas corruption, by threatening the consolidation of democracy and enforcement of human rights, and by undermining state authorities, may lead to social upheaval, including violence, civil protest and major political instability; whereas corruption remains a systematically overlooked catalyst of conflict in developing countries, leading to widespread violations of human rights, including international humanitarian law, and the impunity of perpetrators; whereas the status quo of corruption and illicit enrichment in positions of state power has led to power-grabbing and the perpetuation of kleptocrats in power;

G.  whereas in many countries high levels of corruption lead to low rates of human, social and economic development, low levels of education and other public services, limited civil and political rights, little or no political competition and freedom of the media both online and offline, and deficiencies in the rule of law;

H.  whereas corruption has an impact on the enjoyment of human rights, has specific negative repercussions and disproportionately affects the most disadvantaged, marginalised and vulnerable groups in society, such as women, children, persons with disabilities, the elderly, the poor, indigenous people or people belonging to minorities, namely by barring them from equal access to political participation, public and social programmes and services, justice, safety, natural resources, including land, jobs, education, health and housing; whereas corruption also affects progress towards ending discrimination, gender equality and women’s empowerment, by limiting the capacity of women to claim their rights; whereas corruption distorts the size and composition of government expenditure, seriously harming the state’s capacity to fully harness all available resources in order to secure economic, social and cultural rights, the proper functioning of democracy and the rule of law, and the development of a common ethic;

I.  whereas the UN Sustainable Development Goal (SDG) 16 focuses on peace, justice, the building of strong institutions and the fight against corruption; whereas in order to achieve SDG 16 universally, the EU needs to urgently and directly address diverse issues in which corruption plays a key role, ranging from human rights violations to poverty, hunger and injustice;

J.  whereas addressing corruption requires concerted efforts to tackle both high-level corruption and petty corruption in third countries and EU Member States, having regard, on a case-by-case basis, to the hierarchical patronage, reward systems and clientelism in power structures, which often link corruption crimes and impunity at the highest level to petty corruption directly affecting the lives of the population and their access to basic services;

K.  whereas corruption cannot be tackled without strong political commitment at the highest level, regardless of the prowess, skill and willingness of national oversight and law enforcement bodies;

L.  whereas the economic consequences of corruption are extremely negative, especially in terms of its impact on increasing poverty and inequality among the population, the quality of public services, security, access to comprehensive healthcare and to a high standard of education, infrastructure, socio-economic opportunities for individual and economic emancipation, particularly economic growth, job creation and employment opportunities, and in terms of discouraging entrepreneurship and loss of investment;

M.  whereas, for example, corruption costs the EU between EUR 179 billion and EUR 990 billion in GDP terms per year(21);

N.  whereas, according to the World Bank, about USD 1 trillion is paid each year in bribes around the world and the total economic loss from corruption is estimated to be many times that number;

O.  whereas organised crime, which is a serious problem in many countries and has a cross-border dimension, is often linked to corruption;

P.  whereas acts of corruption and human rights violations typically involve the misuse of power, lack of accountability, the obstruction of justice, the use of improper influence and the institutionalisation of various forms of discrimination, clientelism, and the distortion of market mechanisms; whereas corruption shows a strong correlation with deficiencies in the rule of law and good governance, and whereas it often undermines the effectiveness of the institutions and entities entrusted with ensuring checks and balances and respect for democratic principles and human rights, such as parliaments, law enforcement authorities, the judiciary and civil society; whereas in countries where the rule of law is undermined by corruption, both the implementation and strengthening of legal frameworks are impeded by corrupt judges, lawyers, prosecutors, police officers, investigators and auditors;

Q.  whereas corruption and human rights violations are a phenomenon involving a lack of integrity of conduct and failing authorities, and whereas the credibility and legitimacy of public and private organisations can only be guaranteed if their day-to-day management is based on a culture of strict integrity;

R.  whereas practices such as electoral fraud, illicit funding of political parties, cronyism or the perceived disproportionate influence of money in politics erode confidence and trust in political parties and elected representatives, the electoral process and governments, undermine democratic legitimacy and public trust in politics and may significantly weaken civil and political rights; whereas inadequate regulation and a lack of transparency and monitoring of political financing can create opportunities for undue influence and interference in the conduct of public affairs; whereas corruption allegations can also be used as a political instrument in order to discredit the reputation of politicians;

S.  whereas corruption in the judicial sector breaches the principles of equality, non-discrimination, access to justice and the right to a fair trial and to an effective remedy, which are instrumental in the enforcement of all other human rights and in preventing impunity; whereas the absence of an independent judiciary and public administration fosters distrust in public institutions, undermining respect for the rule of law and occasionally fuelling violence;

T.  whereas it is difficult to measure corruption as it usually involves illegal practices that are deliberately covered up, although some mechanisms to identify, monitor, measure and combat corruption have been developed and implemented;

U.  whereas new technologies such as distributed ledgers or open source investigation techniques and methodologies offer new opportunities to increase the transparency of governmental activities;

V.  whereas strengthening the protection of human rights, and the principle of non-discrimination in particular, is a valuable instrument in combating corruption; whereas fighting corruption through criminal law and private law means taking repressive and remedial measures; whereas the promotion and strengthening of human rights, the rule of law and good governance are essential components of successful and sustainable anti-corruption strategies;

W.  whereas creating synergies between the criminal justice approach and the human rights-based approach to tackling corruption could result in addressing the collective and general effects of corruption and could prevent a systemic erosion of human rights as a direct or indirect impact of corruption;

X.  whereas international anti-corruption efforts have an evolving institutional and legal framework but a significant implementation gap exists due to lack of political will or of robust enforcement mechanisms; whereas a human rights approach to anti-corruption efforts would provide a paradigm shift and could contribute to closing this implementation gap by using existing national, regional and international mechanisms to monitor compliance with human rights obligations;

Y.  whereas the United Nations Convention against Corruption is the only legally binding universal anti-corruption instrument, covering five main areas: preventive measures, criminalisation and law enforcement, international cooperation, asset recovery, and technical assistance and information exchange;

Z.  whereas existing international obligations are good mechanisms for taking appropriate and reasonable measures in order to prevent or punish corruption in the public and private sectors, in particular under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, and other relevant human rights instruments;

AA.  whereas the judiciary, ombudsmen, and national human rights institutions (NHRIs) as well as civil society organisations play a vital role in addressing corruption and their potential can be boosted by close cooperation with national and international anti-corruption agencies;

AB.  whereas action should be taken to combat corruption by improving transparency, accountability and measures to fight impunity within states and by prioritising the development of strategies and specific policies which not only fight corruption but also help to develop and/or build up public policies in this regard;

AC.  whereas both civil society and the private sector can play a determining role in shaping institutional reform to strengthen transparency and accountability; whereas lessons can be learned from the experience of human rights movements in raising civil society’s awareness of the adverse consequences of corruption and in building alliances with state institutions and the private sector in support of anti-corruption efforts;

AD.  whereas the absence of free media, both online and offline, not only restricts the fundamental right to freedom of expression, but also creates favourable conditions for opaque practices, corruption and misbehaviour to flourish; whereas independent media and a diverse and pluralistic media landscape play an important role in ensuring transparency and scrutiny, by reporting, investigating and exposing corruption and increasing public awareness of the link between corruption and human rights violations; whereas defamation laws, such as the criminalisation of acts deemed to be ‘defamation’, are in place in several countries, including EU Member States, possibly undermining freedom of speech and the media and dissuading whistleblowers and journalists from denouncing corrupt activity;

AE.  whereas many civil society organisations, including anti-corruption associations and human rights associations, trade unions, investigative journalists, bloggers and whistle-blowers expose corruption, fraud, mismanagement and human rights violations despite laying themselves open to the risk of retaliatory measures, including at the workplace, libel or defamation charges and to personal danger; whereas lack of protection against reprisals, libel and defamation laws and lack of independent and credible investigation can all deter people from speaking out; whereas the EU has a duty to protect them, in particular by offering public support, including by attending and observing trials of human rights defenders and making the most effective use of its instruments such as the European Instrument for Democracy and Human Rights (EIDHR); whereas ensuring compliance with, and proper implementation of, existing legislation is indispensable; whereas those exposing corruption should be entitled to have the confidentiality of their identity maintained, subject to fair trial guarantees; whereas whistle-blowers should be granted international protection from prosecution;

AF.  whereas the fight against corruption should also include measures to eradicate organised crime, tax havens, money laundering, tax evasion and illicit financial flows, as well as the schemes enabling them, as they hinder the sustainable development, progress, prosperity and accountability of the countries;

AG.  whereas many third countries do not yet have the capacity to exchange tax information with EU countries and thus do not receive any information from EU countries on their citizens who are potentially evading tax;

AH.  whereas EU funds to third countries, including in emergency situations, need to be properly monitored through clear checks and balances in the beneficiary countries in order to prevent opportunities for corruption that might emerge, to expose any abuses and to reveal corrupt officials;

AI.  whereas controlling corruption and illegal financial flows is a political matter, which needs to be tackled comprehensively, worldwide and across borders (G20, UN, OECD, WB, IMF);

AJ.  whereas the International Forum for Sports Integrity (IFSI) held in Lausanne, Switzerland, in February 2017 promoted collaboration between governments, international sports bodies, and other organisations in order to tackle corruption in sport;

1.  Calls for collective action to be taken at national and international level to prevent and combat corruption, given that corruption spreads across borders and that enhanced cooperation between countries and between regions needs to be encouraged alongside the work of civil society organisations in the fight against corruption; calls on states to be actively engaged within international fora to discuss and reach joint decisions on good practices and policies suited to the specific situation in each region, with a view to tackling corruption as an interlinked, complex and cross-cutting phenomenon that obstructs political, economic and social development and fuels international crime, including terrorism-related activities;

2.  Resolves to prepare a regular updating report on corruption and human rights during every legislative term;

3.  Believes that the fight against corruption must involve a partnership approach between the public and private sectors and warns that failure to do so will entrench poverty, inequality and reputational damage, reduce external investment, undermine the life opportunities of young people, and fail to break the link between corrupt practices and terrorism;

4.  Is concerned about the lack of implementation and enforcement of the existing national and international anti-corruption instruments such as the UN Convention against Corruption, the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights (Ruggie Guidelines), the Council of Europe’s Criminal Law Convention on Corruption and the OECD Anti-Bribery Convention; calls on the signatory countries to apply them in full in order to better protect their citizens; pledges to work with international partners to increase the number of states opting to strengthen democratic processes and build accountable institutions;

5.  Is concerned about the harassment, threats, intimidation and reprisals suffered by members of civil society organisations, including anti-corruption associations and human rights movements, journalists, bloggers and whistle-blowers who expose and denounce corruption cases; calls on the authorities to take all necessary measures to guarantee their physical and psychological integrity and to ensure immediate, thorough and impartial investigations in order to bring those responsible to justice in accordance with international standards;

6.  Urges the participants of the 2016 London Anti-Corruption Summit to fulfil the commitments made to address the causes of corruption and methods needed to promote transparency, as well as to provide support for those most affected;

7.  Recalls that the development of an EU external anti-corruption strategy is essential to combat corruption and financial crime effectively;

8.  Emphasises that States are bound to fulfil their human rights obligations under the terms of the United Nations Convention against Corruption, and encourages those countries which have yet to do so to become party to it; underlines that States are responsible for preventing and, ultimately, reacting to any negative impact of corruption in their jurisdiction;

9.  Acknowledges the responsibility of political stakeholders and of business operators to respect human rights and tackle corruption; stresses the need to integrate a human rights perspective into anti-corruption strategies in order to implement compulsory and effective preventive policies relating to matters such as transparency, laws on access to public information, whistleblower protection and external controls;

10.  Recommends that the EU steps up support for international instruments to increase transparency in economic sectors most prone to human rights abuses and corruption;

11.  Supports the establishment of modern, transparent and effective policy and legal frameworks for the management of natural resources and believes such measures can serve as powerful weapons against corruption; welcomes in this sense the Extractive Industries Transparency Initiative (EITI) and calls on the EU to upgrade its support to help resource-rich countries implement it as a powerful global tool in promoting the transparency and accountability of the management of revenues from natural resources; believes that the establishment of an effective legal framework to ensure the proper application of the EITI principles by the companies and other stakeholders involved in the oil, gas and mining sector supply chains is a crucial measure that should be fostered by the EU;

12.  Recommends that, in tackling and curbing illegal financial capital flows from Africa, special attention should be devoted to those capital flows which result from the extraction of ores and minerals from mines in conflict areas;

13.  Notes that corruption is a complex phenomenon that is rooted in a wide variety of economic, political, administrative, social and cultural factors, and power relations, and recalls, therefore, that development policy, in order to contribute to the fight against corruption, while focusing on the reduction of poverty and inequalities, and on better integration, must also promote human rights, democracy, the rule of law and public social services, in order to boost good governance and build social capital, social inclusion and social cohesion, taking into account cultural and regional particularities;

14.  Stresses that one of the most effective ways to prevent corruption is to reduce state intervention and bureaucratic intermediation and to put forward simpler regulations;

Considerations on corruption and human rights in EU bilateral relations

15.  Underlines the need to mainstream the principle of local and democratic ownership of projects financed under EU assistance programmes to ensure a minimum standard of transparency; highlights that the EU external financial instruments should be based on anti-corruption norms, on conditionality focused inter alia on results and including clear milestones, indicators and annual reporting of progress, and on commitments made by partner countries in order to enhance the absorption of the EU financial support;

16.  Recalls the need for permanent monitoring of EU-funded projects and that recipient country authorities should be held accountable if EU funds are not used appropriately, and stresses the need to involve local CSOs and human rights defenders in monitoring the implementation of the contracts; further emphasises the need for any contractor receiving EU funds to fully disclose all requested information, including its beneficial ownership and corporate structure;

17.  Recommends that the EU and other international grant and loan providers conduct audits on grants, loans and assistance packages, and perform rigorous due diligence on recipient governments and organisations to avoid providing ‘rents’ to kleptocratic authorities and organisations controlled by them and their associates; takes the view, in this context, that peer reviews should also be encouraged;

18.  Highlights the crucial importance of anti-corruption agenda during the process of EU accession negotiations;

19.  Calls on the EU to include an anti-corruption clause alongside human rights clauses in agreements with third countries that should require monitoring and consultations and, as a last resort, to impose sanctions or suspend such agreements in the event of serious and/or systemic corruption leading to serious human rights violations;

20.  Calls on the EU to develop principles to combat grand corruption as a crime in national and international law, address ongoing cases of impunity for grand corruption by stronger enforcement of anti-corruption laws, and implement reforms to close the systemic gaps in national legal frameworks that allow the proceeds of grand corruption to cross borders and evade the oversight of national financial regulators and tax authorities;

21.  Stresses the need to pay particular attention to the continuous and structured monitoring and evaluation of the effective implementation of the UNCAC in EU Member States and countries with which the EU has or is planning to have any agreement;

22.  Calls on the Commission, the European External Action Service and the Member States, taking into account the body of EU law in the area of combating corruption, to take the lead internationally and to promote the fight against corruption among the EU’s partner countries;

23.  Calls on the EU to promote anti-corruption measures and effective mechanisms for public participation and public accountability – including the right to access to information and implementation of open data principles – in all relevant human rights dialogues and consultations with third countries and to finance projects that aim for the establishment, implementation and enforcement of these measures;

24.  Stresses the importance of open source investigation with regard to anti-corruption research; calls on the EU to adequately fund organisations that work on open source investigation and digital collection of evidence of corruption, in order to expose corrupt officials and ensure accountability;

25.  Calls on the EU to fund research into distributed ledger applications which could be used to improve the transparency of sales of government assets, track and trace donor money in EU foreign aid, and help address voter fraud;

26.  Welcomes the persistent efforts under the Development Cooperation Instrument and the Neighbourhood Programming Instrument to establish and consolidate independent and effective anti-corruption institutions;

27.  Calls on the EEAS and the Commission to devise joint programming on human rights and combatting corruption, in particular initiatives for improving transparency, fighting impunity and strengthening anti-corruption agencies; considers that these efforts should include supporting national human rights institutions with a proven record of independence and impartiality to act also in corruption cases, including through investigative capacity to establish links between corruption and human rights violations, cooperation with anti-corruption agencies and referrals to prosecution or law enforcement agencies; calls, furthermore, on the EU and the Member States to step up their judicial cooperation programmes with third countries so as to promote the exchange of best practices and effective tools in the fight against corruption;

28.  Calls on the EU to continue supporting anti-corruption institutions established in third countries with a proven track record of independence and impartiality, such as the Guatemalan International Commission against Impunity (CICIG), as well as initiatives aimed at sharing information, exchanging best practices and enhancing capacity building; urges these countries to provide the institutions with all the necessary tools, including investigative power, in order to be effective in their work;

29.  Calls on the Commission and the EEAS to channel further funds to assist with enacting and implementing protection programmes addressed to civil society organisation members, including anti-corruption associations and human rights movements, journalists, bloggers and whistle-blowers that expose and denounce corruption cases and human rights violations; insists that any future update of the EU guidelines on Human Rights Defenders (HRDs), development aid or any guidance note on their implementation should include explicit references and measures to foster human rights protection and combat corruption in order to make it easier for people, without fear of reprisal, to report suspected acts of corruption, and to support communities that have suffered from it; welcomes the Commission’s recently launched consultation process on whistle-blower protection; stresses that human rights focal points in EU delegations should also pay special attention to these target groups and maintain close contact with local CSOs and human rights defenders, ensuring their international visibility and protection, thereby also triggering safe channels for reporting wrongdoing;

30.  Stresses that oversight bodies, local enforcement officers and prosecutors with a track record of independence and impartiality, as well as whistle-blowers and witnesses of specific cases, should all benefit from assistance and support from the EU through representation on the ground and by inviting them to take part in training programmes in Europe; emphasises that, whenever appropriate, this support should be made public;

31.  Calls on EU Delegations to make use of demarches and public diplomacy at local and international level to denounce cases of corruption and impunity, in particular when they lead to serious human rights violations; further calls on EU Delegations and Member States’ embassies to include reports on corruption (be it systemic analysis or specific cases) in briefings to the EEAS and Member States;

32.  Recommends that the EEAS and EU Delegations include a specific benchmark on the link between corruption and human rights in the Human Rights and Democracy Country Strategy papers whenever appropriate and, moreover, that this matter be treated as one of the priorities for EU special representatives when carrying out their tasks; asks namely that the EU address corruption directly in programming and country strategy papers and link any budget support to third countries with concrete reforms towards transparency and other anti-corruption measures;

33.  Recommends that the European Endowment for Democracy and the EU’s comprehensive HRD mechanism (protectdefenders.eu) should focus specific programmes on the protection of anti-corruption activists who also contribute to upholding human rights;

34.  Calls on the EU to set up grievance mechanisms whereby people affected by its external actions can complain about human rights abuses and corruption cases;

35.  Reiterates its call made in previous resolutions that the EU should bring the Magnitsky sanctions list against the 32 Russian state officials responsible for the death of Russian whistle-blower Sergei Magnitsky to the Council as soon as possible for its adoption, and impose targeted sanctions against these officials such as an EU-wide visa ban and a freezing of the financial assets that they hold inside the European Union;

36.  Encourages EU Member States to consider adopting legislation with a view to establishing clear criteria allowing for blacklisting and the imposition of similar sanctions against third country individuals and their family members who have committed serious human rights violations or have been responsible for, or complicit in, ordering, controlling or otherwise directing acts of significant corruption, including the expropriation of private or public assets for personal gain, corruption related to government contracts or the extraction of natural resources, bribery, or the facilitation or transfer of ill-gotten assets to foreign jurisdictions; stresses that criteria for inclusion on the list should be built up on the basis of well-documented, converging and independent sources and convincing evidence, allowing for mechanisms of redress for those targeted; highlights the importance of this list being public in order to feed into the information needed by obliged entities to perform, among other things, customer due diligence under the EU Anti-Money Laundering Directive(22);

37.  Calls on the EU to comply with the principle of policy coherence for development (Article 208 TFEU) and to actively contribute to the reduction of corruption, and to fight impunity directly and explicitly through its external policies;

38.  Calls on the EU to enhance the transparency and accountability of its Official Development Assistance in order to comply effectively with the standards set out in the International Aid Transparency Initiative (IATI) and with internationally agreed development effectiveness principles; calls on the EU also to develop a strong holistic risk management system to prevent development aid from contributing to corruption in recipient countries, i.e. by linking budget support to clear anti-corruption objectives; to this end, stresses the need to set up robust mechanisms to monitor budget support implementation;

39.  Calls on the Commission, in order to eradicate high-level corruption, to pay attention in the context of budget support to the transparency of operations involving privatisation and deals of public assets, notably land, and to participate in OECD support programmes for developing countries in corporate governance of state-owned enterprises;

40.  Calls on the Commission to support developing countries fighting tax evasion and avoidance by helping them to build balanced, efficient, fair and transparent tax systems;

41.  Maintains that the EU, as the world’s leading donor, should promote forms of linkage whereby the supply of EU external aid would be subject to fiscal reforms aimed at increasing transparency, making data more accessible and encouraging approaches pursued jointly with other donors;

42.  Stresses the profound negative impact of corruption on trade and its benefits, economic development, investment and public procurement processes, and urges the Commission to take into consideration this link in all trade agreements and to include enforceable human rights and anti-corruption clauses therein;

43.  Points out that trade policy contributes to the protection and promotion of the values for which the EU stands, as set out in Article 2 of the Treaty on European Union, including democracy, the rule of law, respect for human rights, fundamental rights and freedoms, and equality; stresses that consistency between the Union’s external and internal policies is vital, particularly in relation to combating corruption; underlines that in this regard European legislators have a particular role to play when facilitating trade relations, as they have to avoid these serving as a gateway for corruption practices;

44.  Views trade agreements as a key mechanism for promoting anti-corruption measures and good governance; welcomes the measures that the EU has already taken to combat corruption in its trade policy, for instance through GSP+, sustainable development chapters and the inclusion of commitments to ratify international anti-corruption conventions with trading partners; reaffirms the aim stated in the Trade for All Strategy to include ambitious provisions on anti-corruption in all future trade agreements; in this regard, calls for commitments in future trade agreements to multilateral anti-corruption conventions such as the UNCAC and the OECD Anti-bribery Convention and for horizontal provisions to be included as part of a comprehensive approach and to be integrated into existing trade agreements during revision;

45.  Stresses that signatory parties of trade agreements should take measures to promote the active participation of the private sector, civil society organisations and domestic advisory groups in the implementation of anti-corruption programmes and clauses in international trade and investment deals; believes that whistle-blower protection should be considered for inclusion in future trade deals once an EU-wide system is in place;

46.  Recognises the importance of providing clear guidance and support for businesses to create effective anti-corruption compliance procedures within their operations, particularly for SMEs through special provisions in trade agreements to enable them to tackle corruption; stresses that there is no one-size-fits-all approach to compliance; calls on the Commission to consider developing assistance to capacity-building projects on combating corruption, such as best practice sharing and training to help States and the business sector overcome any challenges they may come across in this field;

47.  Welcomes the entry into force of the WTO Trade Facilitation Agreement in February 2017 which provides measures to combat corruption in global trade; believes, however, that passing or reforming legislation is in itself insufficient and that implementation is the key; points out that legislative reform needs to be accompanied by training of the judiciary, public access to information and transparency measures, and calls on the EU Member States to cooperate on these matters in their fight against corruption; also points out that trade agreements could help in monitoring domestic reform in relation to anti-corruption policies;

48.  Calls on the Commission to negotiate enforceable anti-corruption and anti-money-laundering provisions in all future trade agreements, with effective monitoring of the implementation of anti-corruption provisions; calls on the Member States, to that end, to support the inclusion of anti-corruption provisions in negotiating mandates, in line with the Commission’s proposals in draft mandates submitted to them; welcomes the presence of anti-corruption provisions in the negotiating mandate on modernising the EU-Mexico agreement; calls on the Commission to continue the efforts to combat corruption through enhanced transparency in trade agreements negotiations and the inclusion of provisions aimed at greater regulatory cooperation and integrity of customs procedures and global value chains (GVCs); believes that cooperation clauses must be in place to tackle corruption, such as exchange of information, and administrative and technical assistance, with the purpose of sharing and promoting best practices that will contribute to strengthening the rule of law and respect for human rights; encourages the Commission to set clear and relevant conditions and performance indicators allowing better assessment and demonstration of results;

49.  Points out the importance of maintaining ongoing and regular dialogue with EU trade partners throughout the implementation of agreements in order to ensure that the agreements generally, as well as the anti-corruption provisions, are monitored and implemented properly; notes the Commission’s proposal in its Trade for All Strategy to introduce mechanisms for consultation in cases of systemic corruption and failures of governance, and calls on the Commission to envisage suspending the benefits of an agreement in such cases of systemic corruption and failure to comply with anti-corruption commitments or with international standards in the field of anti-corruption, such as the OECD Common Reporting Standard, the OECD Action Plan on Base Erosion and Profit Shifting, the central register of beneficial ownership and FATF recommendations; calls on the Commission to set clear and relevant conditions and performance indicators allowing better assessment and demonstration of results; calls, furthermore, on the Commission to respond firmly, proportionally and quickly where the beneficiary government fails to comply with what has been agreed; calls on the Commission to set up consultation mechanisms with trading partners in cases of systemic corruption and to provide exchanges of expertise to assist countries implementing anti-corruption measures;

50.  Notes that trade deals must include mandatory and enforceable human rights clauses ensuring that private companies and state authorities respect human rights and the highest social and environmental standards, which are essential to fight corruption;

Development of EU intelligence on corruption networks and intermediaries

51.  Calls on the EEAS to lead on the formation of task forces between Member States’ embassies and EU Delegations in third countries, through which diplomatic officials can analyse and share information on the structure and operation of local corrupt networks to the highest level of power and build enough intelligence to prevent the collusion of the EU with kleptocratic regimes; believes that such information should be conveyed to EU institutions through diplomatic and safe channels; suggests, additionally, that EU Delegations and Member States’ embassies foster close contacts with the local population, namely through regular dialogue with genuine and independent civil society organisations, journalists and human rights defenders, in order to gather reliable information on local corruption, crucial enablers and officials arrested;

52.  Takes the view that corporations should also report to EU bodies whenever they are asked for bribes and/or required to invest in third countries using local intermediaries or shell companies as partners;

53.  Stresses that, in light of the information gathered, country-specific guidelines should be shared with civil and military deployments and EU donor agencies to raise awareness of the risks involved in dealing with local contractors, private security companies and service providers whose beneficial owners might be linked with human rights violations and corrupt networks;

Internal-external coherence

54.  Believes that the EU can only become a credible and influential leader in the fight against corruption if it addresses the problems of organised crime, corruption and money laundering within its own borders in an adequate manner; regrets in this context that the Commission decided not to follow up its 2014 EU anti-corruption report, providing a new analysis of corruption within the EU Member States, which would have also reinforced the EU’s credibility to promote an ambitious anti-corruption agenda in its external policies; stresses that the Commission and other EU institutions should undertake regular, ambitious and rigorous reporting and self-assessment in line with the provisions of the UN Convention against Corruption and its review mechanism, and invites the Commission to present further policy and legislative initiatives to combat corruption and push for greater integrity and transparency in Member States;

55.  Notes that decriminalisation of corruption in any EU Member State would diminish public policy credibility and also erode the EU’s ability to push for an ambitious anti-corruption agenda worldwide; supports closer cooperation between EU Member States and the European Court of Auditors;

56.  Reiterates its request to Member States to amend their criminal laws, where necessary, to establish the jurisdiction of national prosecutors and courts to investigate and try crimes of bribery or embezzlement of public funds, regardless of where the crime occurred, as long as the proceeds of those criminal activities are found in the Member State in question or have been laundered there, or the person has a ‘close connection’ with the Member State, namely through citizenship, residence or beneficial ownership of a company headquartered or with subsidiaries in the Member State;

EU contribution to a human rights-based approach to anti-corruption at multilateral fora

57.  Calls on the EU Member States to launch a discussion at UN level on strengthening standards on the independence and the mandates of anti-corruption agencies, drawing on the experience of the OHCHR, the International Coordinating Committee for National Human Rights Institutions and UN bodies, in particular the Human Rights Council (HRC), with regard to NHRIs (Paris Principles);

58.  Stresses the need to strengthen links between anti-corruption agencies and NHRIs based on the mandate of NHRIs to address corruption as a potential source of direct and indirect human rights violations;

59.  Recalls its request to the EU Member States to support the establishment of a UN Special Rapporteur on financial crime, corruption and human rights with a comprehensive mandate, including an objectives-oriented plan and a periodic evaluation of the anti-corruption measures taken by States; calls on the EU Member States to take the lead in mobilising support among HRC Member States, and to become joint sponsors of a resolution that will bring about the mandate;

60.  Calls for the UN to adopt a standard-setting instrument on illicit financial flows so as to make for greater effectiveness;

61.  Emphasises the need to step up national and international corruption-related communication and awareness-raising campaigns targeting citizens’ participation in order to highlight the fact that corruption has a negative impact on human rights and leads, inter alia, to social inequalities, lack of social justice and increased levels of poverty; encourages the EU to develop and implement specific programmes on the existing criminal and procedural laws and grievance mechanisms; stresses that education and impartial, independent public information play a crucial role in teaching social skills and principles of integrity which serve the public interest and contribute to the rule of law and the social and economic development of a society;

62.  Recommends that examination of the issue of corruption as a cause of human rights violations, as well as a result of human rights abuses and a weak rule of law, be integrated into the universal periodic review as a way to tackle corruption and promote transparency and best practice; stresses the role that civil society could play in contributing to this process;

63.  Encourages a deepening of international commitments to put tackling corruption at the heart of the UN Sustainable Development Goals as a mechanism for fighting global poverty;

Corruption and Trafficking in Persons

64.  Is concerned that trafficking of humans can be facilitated through the corruption of actors holding different levels of entrusted power, such as police, customs officers, border control authorities and immigration services, who can ignore, tolerate, participate in and organise trafficking of persons;

65.  Stresses, in this regard, the importance of anti-corruption actions, such as fostering transparency and accountability in administrations, by introducing a mainstream mechanism to combat corruption and ensuring better coordination of anti-trafficking strategies;

66.  Underlines the prominent role that can be played by gender-sensitive approaches when developing policies to combat corruption within the field of the trafficking of persons;

Business and human rights

67.  Encourages all UN Member States, in particular EU members, to fully implement the UN Guiding Principles on business and human rights and to include specific commitments on anti-corruption measures in their national action plan on human rights (as required under the EU’s Action Plan on Human Rights and Democracy) or to enact specific anti-bribery legislation;

68.  Welcomes the fact that some EU Member States’ National Action Plans make references to corruption and, in this sense, suggests specific measures to prevent and punish corrupt practices and bribery that may lead to human rights violations; recommends that the EU supports additional measures to promote the adoption and implementation of compliance, anti-bribery/anti-corruption codes and standards in companies, and that those bidding for public contracts should have in place a robust anti-bribery and anti-corruption code and good tax governance principles; is of the view that misuse of public funds, illicit enrichment or bribery should be punishable by specific additional sanctions under criminal law, in particular when they lead directly to human rights violations caused by the act of corruption;

69.  Welcomes the revised Accounting Directive on disclosure of non-financial and diversity information(23) regarding reporting requirements of large companies and groups, including on their efforts related to human rights and anti-corruption; encourages companies to disclose all relevant information in line with the forthcoming guidance note to be issued by the Commission;

70.  Renews its call on all states and the EU to engage actively and constructively in the on-going work of the UN’s open-ended intergovernmental working group on transnational corporations and other business enterprises with respect to human rights, with a view to producing a legally binding instrument to prevent, investigate, seek redress and have access to remedy when human rights violations, including those resulting from corruption, occur; calls on States to do everything necessary to enable civil proceedings for damages against those who commit acts of corruption, in accordance with Article 35 of the UNCAC;

71.  Calls on the EU and its Member States to apply the OECD Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises;

Land grabbing and corruption

72.  Remains concerned about the situation with respect to land grabbing as a result of corrupt practices by corporations, foreign investors, national and international State actors, officials and authorities; underlines that corruption enables land grabbing, often with forced evictions, by, inter alia, granting third parties tainted control of land without the consent of the people who live on that land;

73.  Highlights that surveys show that corruption is widespread in land administration and is increasingly tainting all phases of land deals, resulting in a wide range of adverse human rights impacts, ranging from forced displacement of communities without adequate compensation to the killing of land defenders(24); notes with concern, furthermore, that there is a risk of human rights violations intensifying in a context of rising demand for food, fuel and commodities and increasing large-scale land investments in developing countries;

74.  Recalls that the financial sector has a key role to play in preventing corrupt practices that facilitate land grabbing in particular; reiterates that banks and financial institutions should undertake ‘customer due diligence’ to combat money laundering linked to corruption and ensure that the investors they support take effective human rights due diligence measures; calls on the EU and its Member States to require disclosure of details about companies’ land acquisitions in third countries and to upgrade their support to developing countries to ensure effective implementation of the Voluntary Guidelines on Responsible Governance of Tenure of Land, Fisheries and Forests (VGGT) as a means to address corruption in land deals;

Elections and functioning of democratically elected bodies

75.  Emphasises that one of the objectives of the fight against corruption should be to put an end to grave abuses that distort democracy and political processes and to promote an independent, impartial and effective judiciary; calls for political parties to be strengthened in their role as channels of democratic representation and political participation by being efficiently equipped; notes in this sense that the regulation of political financing, including the identification of donors and other financial sources, is therefore central to the preservation of democracy;

76.  Notes with concern that electoral fraud and corruption linked to electoral processes and the functioning of elected representative bodies and assemblies seriously undermine trust in democratic institutions and weaken civil and political rights by preventing equal and fair representation and by calling into question the rule of law; notes the positive role of election observation missions in contributing to the proper conduct of elections and supporting electoral law reform; encourages further cooperation with specialised international bodies such as the Council of Europe or the OSCE in this field;

77.  Underlines the specific need to uphold the highest possible ethical and transparency standards in the functioning of international organisations and regional assemblies in charge of protecting and promoting democracy, human rights and the rule of law, by linking up institutions and professions around the world to build capacity and foster a shared culture of integrity; underlines the need to promote transparent practices by elaborating codes of conduct and specific transparency measures to prevent and investigate any fraud or misconduct;

78.  Stresses the need for lobbying to be strictly regulated in accordance with the principles of openness and transparency, with a view to ensuring that all interest groups have equal access to decision-makers and ending corruption and the risk of human rights violations; calls for the EU and the Member States to identify and condemn all forms of hidden, unethical and illegal lobbying; calls for the EU to promote transparent decision-making and legislative processes, both in the Member States and in relations with third countries;

79.  Strongly denounces, following the recent ‘Azerbaijani Laundromat’ revelations, attempts by Azerbaijan and other autocratic regimes in third countries to influence European decision-makers through illicit means; calls for a comprehensive Parliament investigation into the abovementioned allegations and, more broadly, into the influence exerted by such regimes; calls for the adoption by Parliament of robust measures to prevent the occurrence of such corruption, which would undermine the credibility and legitimacy of Parliament’s work, including on human rights;

Large sporting events and links with human rights violations and corruption

80.  Remains concerned about serious human rights violations, including labour rights and high-level corruption linked to major international sporting events and the related large-scale infrastructure projects; encourages cooperation between sporting governing bodies and international anti-corruption agencies and NGOs in order to establish transparent and verifiable commitments on human rights by organisers of large sporting events and those bidding to host them; stresses that these criteria should be part of award criteria to host such events;

81.  Is of the opinion that large international nongovernmental sports federations, too, must play their role in combating and stemming corruption and should step up their efforts to do so, that those federations should also acknowledge that they have a human rights responsibility, and that government anti-corruption agencies should therefore be given greater powers to investigate cases of corruption, and impose penalties, in connection with large international nongovernmental sports federations;

82.  Believes high-level corruption in sports administration, match fixing, procurement, endorsement deals, site selection, illegal betting and doping, and the involvement of organised crime, have damaged the credibility of sporting bodies;

83.  Believes that integrity in sport can contribute to the global development agenda and good governance internationally;

Tax havens

84.  Urges the implementation of zero-tolerance policies towards tax havens and money laundering, raising international standards of transparency, and encourages deeper international cooperation to determine the ownership of secretive shell companies and trusts used as conduits for evading tax, fraud, illicit trade, capital flows, money laundering and to benefit ‎from corruption;

85.  Strongly advocates the implementation of public country-by-country reporting standards in Europe and in third countries, whereby multinational corporations should be required to submit reports with basic financial information for each jurisdiction in which they operate in order to prevent corruption and tax avoidance;

86.  Recalls the EU’s responsibility in combatting tax evasion by transnational corporations and individuals and in addressing the scourge of illicit financial flows from developing countries which greatly hamper their ability to harness sufficient resources to fulfil human rights obligations;

87.  Welcomes European-led initiatives to develop a global exchange of beneficial ownership information to bolster the effectiveness of Common Reporting Standards which can help expose financial wrongdoing;

88.  Encourages global cooperation to track down stolen assets and return them safely to their legitimate owners; reiterates that the EU has a duty to help third countries to repatriate ill-gotten assets stashed in EU Member States’ financial systems and real estate, and to prosecute perpetrators, enablers and intermediaries; urges the EU to prioritise this issue of great relevance in third countries going through democratisation processes, namely by addressing legal barriers and the lack of willingness to cooperate by financial centres; stresses, in this regard, the importance of de-linking seizure of assets from conviction in the requesting state for the purposes of providing mutual legal assistance and proceeding with prosecutions where sufficient evidence of wrongdoing exists;

89.  Recalls that corruption is closely related to activities such as money laundering, tax evasion and illicit trade; stresses, in this light, that transparency should be the cornerstone of all anti-corruption strategies;

90.  Stresses that the EU must promote the fight against tax havens, banking secrecy and money laundering, the lifting of excessive professional secrecy, the achievement of public country-by-country reporting for all multinational enterprises, and public registries of beneficial owners of companies as a priority in all relevant international fora; points out that most of the tools to fight tax avoidance and evasion are suitable to combat corruption and money laundering;

Freedom of media

91.  Underlines the great importance of independent media, both online and offline, in the fight against corruption and in denouncing human rights violations; calls on the Commission to address and counter the possible negative impact of defamation laws in third countries and reiterates its call on all Member States to consider decriminalising defamation and merely using civil lawsuits as means of protecting one’s reputation; underlines that digital security is an important element for the protection of activists; highly recommends that the transparency of media ownership and sponsorship be ensured through national legislation;

92.  Calls for greater prominence to be given to respect for media freedom, in view of its importance, in the EU’s international relations with third countries; believes that political dialogue and cooperation conducted by the EU with third countries with a view to securing media reforms should be open, transparent and subject to scrutiny; calls, in this context, for the EU to ensure that EU projects in third countries serve, inter alia, to uphold media freedoms and involve civil society organisations; calls for the EU publicly to condemn the introduction of laws placing restrictions on media freedoms and the activities of civil society organisations;

93.  Promotes the values of an open and secure internet in raising awareness of corrupt practices by individuals, organisations and governments, and expresses concern that those seeking to restrict online freedoms do so in order to avoid accountability;

94.  Insists that public contracting should be fair, accountable, open and transparent in order to prevent and expose the theft or misuse of taxpayers’ money;

95.  Points out that, in all forums for dialogue with third countries, including bilateral forums, the EU should emphasise how important it is to uphold the right of access to public information; emphasises, in particular, the need to set standards ensuring both the fullest and the swiftest possible access to such information, as speed of access is of key importance in efforts to uphold human rights and combat corruption; calls for the EU to promote access to public information in both Member States and third countries;

o
o   o

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

(1) https://www.unodc.org/unodc/en/treaties/CAC/ (2) http://www.oecd.org/daf/anti-bribery/ConvCombatBribery_ENG.pdf (3) http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=URISERV%3Al33601 (4) http://www.un.org/ga/search/view_doc.asp?symbol=A/RES/70/1&Lang=E (5) http://www.eib.org/attachments/strategies/anti_fraud_policy_20130917_en.pdf (6) http://www.ohchr.org/Documents/Publications/GuidingPrinciplesBusinessHR_EN.pdf (7) http://www.consilium.europa.eu/en/press/press-releases/2016/06/20-fac-business-human-rights-conclusions/ (8) Texts adopted, P8_TA(2016)0405. (9) Texts adopted, P8_TA(2016)0403. (10) Texts adopted, P8_TA(2016)0310. (11) Texts adopted, P8_TA(2015)0408. (12) OJ C 265, 11.8.2017, p. 59. (13) OJ C 407, 4.11.2016, p. 81. (14) OJ C 208, 10.6.2016, p. 89. (15) OJ C 181, 19.5.2016, p. 2. (16) https://www.unodc.org/documents/corruption/WG-Prevention/Art_6_Preventive_anti-corruption_bodies/JAKARTA_STATEMENT_en.pdf (17) http://nhri.ohchr.org/EN/AboutUs/Governance/Resolutions/A.HRC.RES.33.15%20EN.pdf (18) http://www.ohchr.org/EN/HRBodies/HRC/RegularSessions/Session28/Documents/A_HRC_28_73_ENG.doc (19) http://www.eods.eu/library/AU_Convention%20on%20Combating%20Corruption_2003_EN.pdf (20) https://www.unglobalcompact.org/what-is-gc/mission/principles (21) http://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/STUD/2016/579319/EPRS_STU%282016%29579319_EN.pdf (22) OJ L 141, 5.6.2015, p. 73. (23) OJ L 330, 15.11.2014, p. 1. (24) Olivier De Schutter, ‘Tainted Lands: Corruption in Large-Scale Land Deals’, in International Corporate Accountability Roundtable & Global Witness (November 2016). https://www.globalwitness.org/en/campaigns/land-deals/tainted-lands-corruption-large-scale-land-deals/