European Parliament legislative resolution of 29 May 2018 on the proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Regulation (EU) 2016/1139 as regards fishing mortality ranges and safeguard levels for certain herring stocks in the Baltic Sea (COM(2017)0774 – C8-0446/2017 – 2017/0348(COD))

P8_TA(2018)0205 A8-0149/2018

(Ordinary legislative procedure: first reading)

The European Parliament,

–  having regard to the Commission proposal to Parliament and the Council (COM(2017)0774),

–  having regard to Article 294(2) and Article 43(2) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, pursuant to which the Commission submitted the proposal to Parliament (C8-0446/2017),

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

–  having regard to the opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee of 14 February 2018(1),

–  having regard to the undertaking given by the Council representative by letter of 8 May 2018 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 Fisheries (A8-0149/2018),

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 29 May 2018 with a view to the adoption of Regulation (EU) 2018/... of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Regulation (EU) 2016/1139 as regards fishing mortality ranges and safeguard levels for certain herring stocks in the Baltic Sea

(As an agreement was reached between Parliament and Council, Parliament's position corresponds to the final legislative act, Regulation (EU) 2018/976.)

(1) Not yet published in the Official Journal.

European Parliament legislative resolution of 29 May 2018 on the proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on statistics of goods transport by inland waterways (codification) (COM(2017)0545 – C8-0337/2017 – 2017/0256(COD))

P8_TA(2018)0206 A8-0154/2018

(Ordinary legislative procedure – codification)

The European Parliament,

–  having regard to the Commission proposal to the European Parliament and the Council (COM(2017)0545),

–  having regard to Article 294(2) and Article 338 (1) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, pursuant to which the Commission submitted the proposal to Parliament (C8‑0337/2017),

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

–  having regard to the Interinstitutional Agreement of 20 December 1994 - Accelerated working method for official codification of legislative texts(1),

–  having regard to Rules 103 and 59 of its Rules of Procedure,

–  having regard to the report of the Committee on Legal Affairs (A8-0154/2018),

A.  whereas, according to the Consultative Working Party of the legal services of the European Parliament, the Council and the Commission, the proposal in question contains a straightforward codification of the existing texts without any change in their substance;

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

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

Position of the European Parliament adopted at first reading on 29 May 2018 with a view to the adoption of Regulation (EU) 2018/... of the European Parliament and of the Council on statistics of goods transport by inland waterways (codification)

(As an agreement was reached between Parliament and Council, Parliament's position corresponds to the final legislative act, Regulation (EU) 2018/974.)

(1) OJ C 102, 4.4.1996, p. 2.

European Parliament legislative resolution of 29 May 2018 on the draft Council decision on the conclusion of an Agreement in the form of an Exchange of Letters between the European Union and the Swiss Confederation on the cumulation of origin between the European Union, the Swiss Confederation, the Kingdom of Norway and the Republic of Turkey in the framework of the Generalised System of Preferences (05882/2/2017 – C8-0241/2017 – 2016/0328(NLE))

P8_TA(2018)0207 A8-0151/2018

(Consent)

The European Parliament,

–  having regard to the draft Council decision (05882/2/2017),

–  having regard to the draft Agreement in the form of an Exchange of Letters between the European Union and the Swiss Confederation on the cumulation of origin between the European Union, Switzerland, Norway and Turkey in the framework of the Generalised System of Preferences of the European Union (05803/2017),

–  having regard to the request for consent submitted by the Council in accordance with Article 207(4) and Article 218(6), second subparagraph, point (a)(v) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (C8‑0241/2017),

–  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 International Trade (A8-0151/2018),

1.  Gives its consent to the conclusion of the agreement;

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

European Parliament legislative resolution of 29 May 2018 on the draft Council decision on the conclusion of an Agreement in the form of an Exchange of Letters between the European Union and the Kingdom of Norway on the cumulation of origin between the European Union, the Swiss Confederation, the Kingdom of Norway and the Republic of Turkey in the framework of the Generalised System of Preferences (05883/2/2017 – C8-0240/2017 – 2016/0329(NLE))

P8_TA(2018)0208 A8-0152/2018

(Consent)

The European Parliament,

–  having regard to the draft Council decision (05883/2/2017),

–  having regard to the draft Agreement in the form of an Exchange of Letters between the European Union and the Kingdom of Norway on the cumulation of origin between the European Union, Switzerland, Norway and Turkey in the framework of the Generalised System of Preferences of the European Union (05814/2017),

–  having regard to the request for consent submitted by the Council in accordance with Article 207(4) and Article 218(6), second subparagraph, point (a)(v) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (C8‑0240/2017),

–  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 International Trade (A8-0152/2018),

1.  Gives its consent to the conclusion of the agreement;

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

European Parliament legislative resolution of 29 May 2018 on the proposal for a Council decision on the conclusion, on behalf of the European Union, of the Agreement between the European Union and the Kingdom of Norway on administrative cooperation, combating fraud and recovery of claims in the field of Value Added Tax (COM(2017)0621 – C8-0407/2017 – 2017/0272(NLE))

P8_TA(2018)0209 A8-0147/2018

(Consultation)

The European Parliament,

–  having regard to the proposal for a Council decision (COM(2017)0621),

–  having regard to the Agreement between the European Union and the Kingdom of Norway on administrative cooperation, combating fraud and recovery of claims in the field of Value Added Tax (14390/2017),

–  having regard to Article 113 and Article 218(6), second subparagraph, point (b), and the second subparagraph of Article 218(8) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, pursuant to which the Council consulted Parliament (C8‑0407/2017),

–  having regard to Rules 78c and 108(8) of its Rules of Procedure,

–  having regard to the report of the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs (A8-0147/2018),

1.  Approves conclusion of the agreement;

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

European Parliament resolution of 29 May 2018 on the optimisation of the value chain in the EU fishing sector (2017/2119(INI))

P8_TA(2018)0210 A8-0163/2018

The European Parliament,

–  having regard to Articles 42 and 43(2) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU), establishing a common organisation of the markets in fishery products,

–  having regard to its resolution of 6 July 2017 on promoting cohesion and development in the outermost regions of the EU: implementation of Article 349 of the TFEU(1),

–  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, and in particular Article 35 thereof on the objectives of the common organisation of the markets,

–  having regard to Regulation (EU) No 1379/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 December 2013 on the common organisation of the markets in fishery and aquaculture products,

–  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, in particular Articles 11, 13, 41 to 44, 48, 63, 66, 68 and 70 to 73 thereof,

–  having regard to the mid-term strategy (2017-2020) of the General Fisheries Commission for the Mediterranean (GFCM) towards the sustainability of Mediterranean and Black Sea fisheries,

–  having regard to its resolution of 13 June 2017 on the status of fish stocks and the socio-economic situation of the fishing sector in the Mediterranean(2),

–  having regard to the Commission’s new strategy for ‘A stronger and renewed strategic partnership with the outermost regions of the European Union’ published on 24 October 2017 (COM(2017)0623),

–  having regard to its resolution of 12 May 2016 on traceability of fishery and aquaculture products in restaurants and retail(3),

–   having regard to its resolution of 27 April 2017 on the management of the fishing fleets in the outermost regions(4),

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

–  having regard to the report of the Committee on Fisheries (A8-0163/2018),

A.  whereas the EU fishing sector is facing ever-more difficult and complex challenges; whereas the status of resources and the increase in outgoings, particularly variations in the price of fuel, may have a decisive impact on fishermen’s incomes; whereas, in this context, downward variations in, and unfair allocation of, fishing quotas mean that local communities face complicated situations owing to the reduction in extractive activities and to the fact that the rules of fair competition are being infringed; whereas, in addition to the increase in transport costs, which result from the double impact of the rise in fuel prices, they face competition from imports of products from third countries; whereas although these and other problems are recognised, the causes of the worsening socio-economic situation in the fisheries sector have, in many cases, still to be tackled, one example being the inadequate first-sale price formation where fish is concerned;

B.   whereas the fishing sector plays a key role in supplying fish to the public and keeping the Member States’ food balances in equilibrium, as well as making a major contribution to the socio-economic well-being of coastal communities, local development, employment, the maintenance and creation of upstream and downstream economic activities, and the preservation of local cultural traditions;

C.   whereas small-scale, artisanal and coastal fishing account for 83 % of the fishing vessels active in the EU and 47 % of total employment in the EU fisheries sector; whereas Regulation (EU) No 1380/2013 states that ‘Member States should endeavour to give preferential access for small-scale, artisanal or coastal fishermen’ and given that this provision is not complied with;

D.   whereas compliance with EU regulations has been made mandatory by most distributors of fisheries and aquaculture products such as supermarkets; whereas the impact of such compliance on fishermen’s working conditions and incomes varies which can be unfair on smaller fishing vessels;

E.  whereas it is necessary to allow for the marked differences in terms of fleets, fleet segments, target species, fishing gear, productivity, consumer preferences, and per capita fish consumption in the EU countries, in addition to the specific features of the fishing industry resulting from its social structure, the forms of marketing, and the structural and natural inequalities among fishing regions;

F.  whereas, in order to gain a foothold in new market segments, traditional fishermen need financial aid and support;

G.  whereas the revenue generated and the salaries earned by fishing professionals are insecure, given the way in which the sector does business, the manner of first-sale price formation, and the irregular nature of fishing, all of which imply that the sector must continue to be supported by the necessary national and EU public funding;

H.  whereas analysing the key points in the value chain for fishery products may lead to fishermen and local producers retaining a larger share of the value generated with the opening up of new local markets and the engaging of local stakeholders, which could contribute positively to local communities, by creating a dynamic, profitable and sustainable economic activity;

I.  whereas Article 349 of the TFEU recognises the special economic and social situation of the outermost regions (ORs), which is compounded by structural factors (remoteness, insularity, small size, difficult topography and climate, dependence on a few products, etc.) the permanence and combination of which severely restrain their development and the value chain in fishing sector;

J.  whereas primary producers, while playing a key role in the value chain, do not always benefit from added value generated in the later stages thereof;

K.  whereas the common fisheries policy (CFP) was designed to strengthen the sustainability and competitiveness of the fisheries and aquaculture sector in the EU;

L.  whereas one way of guaranteeing that fishery products from the ORs are competitive is to ensure that the price of fish from those regions is not inflated as a result of transport costs when it reaches the main destination markets;

M.   whereas the EU is the world leader in the marketing of fishery and aquaculture products;

N.   whereas trade in fishery and aquaculture products is influenced by many factors, such as consumer preferences in different geographical areas;

O.  whereas the common market organisation (CMO) in fishery and aquaculture products aims to increase the transparency and stability of the markets, in particular as regards economic knowledge and understanding of the markets for EU fishery and aquaculture products along the supply chain;

P.   whereas Regulation (EU) No 1379/2013 on the common organisation of the markets in fishery and aquaculture products lays down in its Article 38 the obligation of indication of the catch or production area and, in the case of fishery products caught at sea, the name in writing of the sub-area or division listed in the FAO fishing areas;

Q.   whereas transparency is a means of ensuring the right of consumers to know, with maximum precision, the characteristics of the products that they purchase; whereas, this requires improvements in labelling, with the obligation to feature the same precise information on the origin of the fish both when sold fresh and in processed products;

R.  whereas the current sales dynamic does not allow fluctuations in production factor costs, fuel costs included, to be passed on in fish prices, and whereas average first-sale prices have not kept pace with the trend in end consumer prices;

S.  whereas the study published by the Department on Structural and Cohesion Policies in 2016 entitled ‘Small-scale fisheries markets: value chain, promotion and labelling’ clearly indicates that the labelling of EU fisheries products can confuse the consumer;

T.  whereas fishery producer organisations and aquaculture producer organisations (‘producer organisations’) play a key role in achieving the objectives and ensuring the correct management of the CFP and of the CMO;

U.   whereas the European Union is committed to safeguarding high quality standards in fisheries products in particular in the light of trade relations with the third countries;

V.   whereas the processing and canning industry plays an important role;

W.  whereas fisheries local action groups (FLAGs) are an essential part of the CFP in terms of drawing up and implementing integrated and multisectoral participative local development strategies that meet the needs of their local fishing area; whereas they are recognised to play a useful role in contributing to diversification in fishing activities;

X.  whereas fisheries supply chain does not exist in isolation and building cross-sectorial linkages is of paramount importance to develop innovative products to access new markets and enhance its promotion;

Y.  whereas there is a lack of structure and a lack of association in the fishing sector in some EU Member States;

Z.   whereas fisheries in the ORs face constraints of their own, recognised in Article 349 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, which also affect their structuring;

AA.  whereas inter-branch organisations (as already referred to in the CMO) have the potential to improve the coordination of marketing activities along the supply chain and to push forward with measures that are of interest for the whole sector;

AB.  whereas, since fish stocks are shared resources, their sustainable and efficient exploitation can, in certain instances, be better achieved by organisations composed of members from different EU States and regions and should therefore be approached and studied on region by region basis;

AC.   whereas the fishing sector is central to the socio-economic situation, employment, and the promotion of economic and social cohesion in the ORs, whose economies are affected by permanent structural constraints and which have few possibilities for economic diversification;

AD.  whereas the lack of young professionals is a hindrance for the modernisation and improvement of the sector, and presents a major threat to the survival of many coastal communities;

AE.  whereas the role of women in the fishing sector enjoys a very low profile, whereas although women often provide the backstage work, such as in logistical support or the bureaucracy associated with the activity, they also work as fisherwomen and masters in some fishing vessels;

AF.   whereas the landing obligation represents a real economic and social constraint, reducing financial viability and having an impact on the value chain which should be minimised;

AG.   whereas it is necessary to promote greater consumer awareness of the importance of healthy eating and sustainable production;

AH.   whereas diminishing first-sale fish prices and increasing fuel costs must also be considered as contributory factors regarding the worsening social and economic situation;

1.  Calls on the Commission and Member States, together with regional authorities, to set up groups of experts whose task will be to analyse and propose corrective measures in relation to the use of the various European Maritime and Fisheries Fund appropriations in order to identify the causes of non-implementation and the possible loss of funds and to ensure an adequate level of control and transparency and to require better management on the part of the relevant administrations;

2.  Urges Member States to comply with Regulation (EU) No 1380/2013 and to offer real preferential access to fishing opportunities to the EU’s small-scale and artisanal fleet;

3.  Calls on the Commission and Member States to take the necessary action to facilitate the creation of producer organisations, removing the bureaucratic hurdles in the procedure established and lowering the minimum production thresholds to encourage the entry of small producers; points out that it is also necessary to boost the activities of producer organisations, further empowering them and facilitating access to the necessary financial support so that they can carry out a wider variety of tasks in addition to day-to-day fisheries management, while respecting a framework defined by the objectives of the CFP, particularly for the ORs, which must be able to locally adapt the functioning of producer organisations and inter-branch organisations in their territories, which are characterised by remoteness, isolation, small size, the prevalence of small-scale fishing and a high degree of vulnerability to imports;

4.  Maintains that operational programmes must encourage producer organisations – by providing the necessary financial support – to market their products directly, working within the value chain, since this would enable them to exploit their production and increase the added value of fishery products;

5.   Calls on the Commission and the Member States to ensure that aid for health and safety on board should not be part of a competitive process and that an increased budget be assigned to the artisanal fisheries sector;

6.  Calls on the Commission and Member States to help and encourage producer organisations to include the value chain in production and marketing plans, with the aim of adapting supply to demand, securing a fair income for fishermen and ensuring that European consumers find products that meet their needs, taking account of differences; points out that, in this context, marketing strategies tailored to specific local features are an essential tool, must include the option of direct selling, and would embrace sectoral and/or product-based campaigns and help to improve consumer information and awareness, including marking and labelling that provides comprehensible information;

7.  Calls on the Commission, Member States, regional and local governments to empower small-scale fisheries by encouraging local consumption through direct and more specialised marketing, zero-kilometre channels of trade, including improved cooperation between the public sector and the fisheries sector through the supply of public establishments such as schools and hospitals with local fish products, as well as promotional campaigns that should also cooperate with private initiatives to promote local food products, such as the Slow Fish initiative, and to respect the seasonality of certain catches; at the same time invites the Commission and the Member States to support the cooperation between the fishing and tourism sectors and to draw up a list of good practices on experiences facilitating new forms of collaboration;

8.   Stresses that one of the foundations of these marketing strategies is the mandatory indication on labels of the origin of fishery products, both when sold fresh and processed;

9.   Calls for systems to be set up with a view to improving first-sale prices, so as to benefit fishermen by increasing the reward for their work, and promoting fair and proper distribution of added value along the sector’s value chain by reducing operating margins, raising the prices paid to producers, and limiting the prices paid by end consumers; reiterates that when there are serious imbalances within the chain, Member States should have the power to intervene, for instance by setting maximum operating margins for each agent in the chain;

10.   Calls on the Commission and the Member States to help the movement of EU small-scale fishers’ organisations with the development of a dedicated logo which guarantees: a fresh fish product, excellent quality, controlled health standards, compliance with km 0 requirements (favouring local products over products transported from far away), close to consumers, in-line with traditions, etc.;

11.   Notes that, for the purposes of transparency and to safeguard the rights of consumers, it will be necessary to revise the Annex to Regulation (EEC) No 1536/92 concerning the marketing of preserved products;

12.   Calls on the Commission and the Member States to put in place a system for the labelling of fish, both fresh and processed, clearly indicating the country of origin;

13.  Urges Member States to promote a greater degree of structure and association in the fishing sector;

14.  Urges the Commission to include a clause in trade agreements with third countries in relation to EU quality standards, requiring that imports comply with the same rules as EU fishing products;

15.  In order to ensure a level-playing field between imported and EU fisheries and aquaculture products, calls on the Commission and the Member States to strictly monitor the compliance of products imported into the Union with current EU safety, hygiene and quality requirements, as well as with Council Regulation (EC) No 1005/2008(5) on IUU fishing;

16.   Insists on a stricter implementation of the EU legislation on labelling and consumer information, both in retail markets and in the hotel, restaurant and catering sector (HORECA); believes this is important for all fisheries products, both imported and EU-produced; considers that the implementation of the Control Regulation (EC) No 1224/2009 should be reinforced to this end in all Member States and that regulations should be adapted to cover all stages of the supply chain;

17.   Encourages the Commission to conduct a study on the impact of imports on local fisheries;

18.  Calls on the Commission to allow appropriate use to be made of regionalisation, with particular attention to the ORs, and a differentiation of support instruments, and for it to be possible for these to be adapted to different types of producer organisations and their specific needs;

19.   Stresses the importance of developing policies enabling local coastal communities to offer integrated services, exploiting synergies arising from the various production sectors and likely to bring about and encourage development at the local level; insists therefore on combining funding from the CFP with other European programmes in the European Social Fund or the CAP; stresses that this combination of resources and programmes should support initiatives by local communities and entrepreneurs focused on rural development, improving living conditions, and helping to consolidate income and in particular to diversify sources of income;

20.   Considers it crucial for support for the transport of fish from the ORs, up until it reaches the international market, to be maintained and preferably increased so as to guarantee fair competition with products from other locations;

21.   Calls on the Commission to look into the possibility of creating, as soon as possible, a financial instrument specifically to provide support for fisheries, on the basis of POSEI for the agricultural sector in the ORs, with the capacity genuinely to enhance their fisheries potential believes that consideration should be given to the possibility of bringing together in this specific instrument, in particular, the provisions of Article 8 (State aid), Article 13(5) (Budgetary resources under shared management), Article 70 (Compensation regime), Article 71 (Calculation of the compensation), Article 72 (Compensation plan) and Article 73 (State aid for implementing compensation plans) of the Regulation (EU) No 508/2014 on the European Maritime and Fisheries Fund (EMFF);

22.   Considers that such local development plans for coastal communities should support new activities and businesses making it possible to bring high-quality raw materials, the communities’ specific transformation processes and their cultural and historical heritage all together in the value chain. Notes, moreover, that they should promote marketing mechanisms, such as the compulsory labelling of product origin, that help to raise the profile of these qualities in the marketplace and that ensure that the greater part of the income generated reverts to these communities;

23.   Stresses, further, the importance of the sea, of marine resources and of fisheries products in promoting cohesion and development in the ORs and in the implementation of Article 349 of the TFEU urges the Commission, in this context, to respect Article 349 of the TFEU, also in relation to fisheries, by fully reinstating the independent POSEI-Fisheries scheme, which was abolished as part of the reform of the current EMFF;

24.  Calls on the Commission, the Member States, and regional and local authorities to encourage the establishment of inter-branch organisations, as well as producer organisations and associations of producer organisations at transnational level (as envisaged in the CMO), based on biogeographical regions or at EU level; points out that this is an essential tool for empowering producer organisations and giving them greater negotiating power;

25.   Calls for this process to be fostered with special emphasis on gender policies, with a view to ensuring that women are adequately represented in these organisations. Notes that this would both reflect women’s current presence in the sector and help them play a greater role in it;

26.   Stresses the importance to strengthen the cooperation between science and fisheries to address the complicated dependencies and weaknesses in the value chain processes in order to improve and bring profit to the stakeholders;

27.  Calls on the Commission to expand, promote and generalise the use of the information provided by the EU Market Observatory for fisheries and aquaculture products (EUMOFA) so that all operators in the chain have transparent, reliable and up-to-date information for efficient business decision-making; urges the Commission accordingly to obtain updated information regarding the new challenges facing traders, such as online sales or changes in consumption habits;

28.   Points to the need for ambitious revision of the CMO for fishery products with a view to increasing its contribution to the sector’s income, market stability, and better marketing of fishery products and an increase in their added value;

29.   Asks the Commission to include fisheries products in its forthcoming proposal for regulations to combat unfair trade practices, which are a general problem in the food products sector;

30.   Urges the Commission to review the system for labelling fisheries products laid down in Regulation (EU) No 1379/2013, based on FAO fishing areas which were drawn up more than 70 years ago for reporting catches and not designed to provide consumer guidance, given that the system is confusing and not conducive to the provision of clear, transparent and straightforward information;

31.  Calls on the Commission and the Member States and regional and local authorities to look into the lack of professional qualifications in the fishing sector, and of young specialists in particular, so that training programmes for people working in the fishing sector can be guaranteed and tailored to the sector’s actual needs, thereby helping to modernise and improve the sector and retain the population in fishing communities as well as to create appropriate job opportunities in aquaculture, rural and coastal areas, in the ORs as well as regions depending on fisheries activities;

32.   Points to the importance of setting up home markets for traditional products of particular quality, to be backed up by fairs, small businesses, and the catering industry, as this would enhance the added value of local products and promote local development;

33.   Stresses the importance of drawing up specific digital skills training strategies focusing on management and, especially, sales as a basic tool to improve the position of producers in the value chain;

34.   Points out that these training plans must both cover traditional occupations practised within the sector, mainly by women, and specific plans focused on increasing women’s employability and entrepreneurship. Stresses that the inclusion of these features in accredited training courses must also have the consequent legal effects and improve the status of these professionals in the labour market;

35.   Calls on the Commission to consider better ways to promote the marketing of processed fishery products with higher added value, including canned products, following the example certain agricultural products, and programmes for the external promotion of EU fishery products, including their presentation at international competitions and fairs;

36.  Urges the Member States and regional authorities to help economic actors of the Fisheries sector in accessing the knowledge, networks and funding required to undertake innovative activities and design new products (‘novel foods’) in particular in the valuation of species already captured with little economic value, and involve research organisations and institutions, such as oceanographic institutes, in order to benefit from their extensive knowledge of the basic raw materials and their biological, nutritional and organoleptic properties; in an effort to avoid waste, maximize the value of fresh products and stimulate synergies between different parts of the value chain and make the sector more resilient;

37.   Asks Member States and local and regional authorities to work together to develop effective, specifically product-oriented consumer-information campaigns to raise awareness of issues such as the importance of consuming local fisheries products, to ensure that the sector’s impact on local employment and the social cohesion of coastal communities can be visualised, highlight the nutritional qualities of fresh fish and raise awareness of the need to include fisheries products in a healthy diet, etc.;

38.  Asks the Commission to propose a clear definition and sketch the foundations for a future European programme to support small-scale fishing that will help to improve the environmental and socio-economic sustainability of the fishing sector in the EU, that will make it possible to identify, differentiate and enhance the value of products from small-scale fishing in order to promote consumption of those products, and that will encourage new generations to work in the fishing sector so as to produce a generational renewal, ensuring decent quotas for small-scale fishermen and fisherwomen and greater control of resources, thereby increasing social cohesion in the EU’s coastal communities;

39.   Calls on the Commission to launch specific EU level public online consultations to collect data concerning the supply chain, market transparency issues, value sharing, labelling and consumer needs from broad range of stakeholders in the EU fishing sector;

40.  Calls on the Commission to explore the benefits that global value chains might offer for small-scale fishing and that might help it to integrate more easily into the global economy, increasing the added value of its products while making it possible to maintain its activity and that of local communities; stresses the importance of digital skills training to that end;

41.   Believes that the value chain of fisheries products is complex, going from producers through various middlemen to the retailer or restaurant; highlights that fish brokers and fish processors play an important role in the value chain; notes that, on average, the margin in the value chain is that only 10 % go to the producers, and the remaining 90 % are for the intermediaries; underlines that the shortening of the value chain, notably through the establishment of producer organisations which are key players through their production and marketing plans, is an initial vehicle to improving the income of the small-scale fishers, but also of getting a better product (probably at a better price) to the consumer;

42.   Stresses the importance of investing in young professionals in order to engage and empower the next generation of fishermen and calls for creating opportunities for young fishermen so that they develop new skills, build resilient businesses, be active members of their local communities and positively contribute to the value chain in the fishing sector;

43.  Calls on Member States and regional authorities to make use of the opportunities offered by FLAG support with a view to adapting operations to local needs in a large number of areas such as training and diversification of activities based on innovation, among many others and in assisting fishermen and members of local communities in accessing existing EU support programmes and funding;

44.   Calls on the Commission to investigate the possibility of establishing a process to make use of by-catches linked to the landing obligation in the economic and social interests of players in the value chain, especially fishermen, and by supporting local initiatives;

45.   Calls on the Member States and regional authorities to boost the transfer of information on existing support schemes and strengthen administrative support, for example by means of information platforms;

46.   Calls on the Commission to promote and support initiatives promoting greater selectivity in order to reduce by-catches and ultimately improve the financial viability of fisheries by targeting species that meet consumers’ expectations;

47.  Urges the Commission and Member States to include the gender approach in fisheries policies so that the significant role played by women in the EU fishing sector becomes more visible and so as to enhance their position;

48.  Calls on the Commission and Member States to create closer links between the world of work and schools, for example by providing for the inclusion of subjects relating to fisheries and aquaculture in the training courses offered by institutes of maritime technology;

49.   Calls on the Commission, the Member States and the regional authorities to pool their efforts to implement the activities proposed in this report with a view to making fishing activities more profitable;

50.  Instructs its President to forward this resolution to the Council, the Commission, the European Economic and Social Committee, the Committee of the Regions, the governments of the Member States, and the Advisory Councils.

(1) Texts adopted, P8_TA(2017)0316. (2) Texts adopted, P8_TA(2017)0255. (3) OJ C 76, 28.2.2018, p. 40. (4) Texts adopted, P8_TA(2017)0195. (5) Council Regulation (EC) No 1005/2008 of 29 September 2008 establishing a Community system to prevent, deter and eliminate illegal, unreported and unregulated fishing, amending Regulations (EEC) No 2847/93, (EC) No 1936/2001 and (EC) No 601/2004 and repealing Regulations (EC) No 1093/94 and (EC) No 1447/1999 (OJ L 286, 29.10.2008, p. 1).

European Parliament resolution of 29 May 2018 on the implementation of CAP young farmers’ tools in the EU after the 2013 reform (2017/2088(INI))

P8_TA(2018)0211 A8-0157/2018

The European Parliament,

–  having regard to Regulation (EU) No 1305/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 December 2013 on support for rural development by the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD) and repealing Council Regulation (EC) No 1698/2005(1),

–  having regard to Regulation (EU) No 1307/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 December 2013 establishing rules for direct payments to farmers under support schemes within the framework of the common agricultural policy and repealing Council Regulation (EC) No 637/2008 and Council Regulation (EC) No 73/2009(2),

–  having regard to Regulation (EU) 2017/2393 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 December 2017 amending Regulations (EU) No 1305/2013 on support for rural development by the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD), (EU) No 1306/2013 on the financing, management and monitoring of the common agricultural policy, (EU) No 1307/2013 establishing rules for direct payments to farmers under support schemes within the framework of the common agricultural policy, (EU) No 1308/2013 establishing a common organisation of the markets in agricultural products and (EU) No 652/2014 laying down provisions for the management of expenditure relating to the food chain, animal health and animal welfare, and relating to plant health and plant reproductive material(3),

–  having regard to the study on ‘Young farmers: Policy implementation after the 2013 CAP reform’ commissioned by its Policy Department B – Structural and Cohesion Policies – and presented at the ComAGRI meeting of 23 November 2017,

–  having regard to its hearing on the ‘Implementation of young farmers’ policies after the 2013 CAP reform’, which took place on 23 November 2017,

–  having regard to the European Court of Auditors Special Report No 10 /2017 on ‘EU support to young farmers should be better targeted to foster effective generational renewal’,

–  having regard to its resolution of 27 April 2017 on the state of play of farmland concentration in the EU: how to facilitate the access to land for farmers(4),

–  having regard to the study by the European Council of Young Farmers (CEJA) entitled ‘Young farmers are key in the future CAP’ published on 17 May 2017,

–  having regard to the European Committee of the Regions Opinion on ‘Supporting young European farmers’(5),

–  having regard to Rule 52 of its Rules of Procedure, as well as Article 1(1)(e) of, and Annex 3 to, the decision of the Conference of Presidents of 12 December 2002 on the procedure for granting authorisation to draw up own-initiative reports,

–  having regard to the report of the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development and the Opinion of the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Food Safety (A8-0157/2018),

A.  whereas in the EU only about 6 % of all people in charge of farms are younger than 35 years old and more than half are aged over 55, and whereas the disparities between Member States are wide;

B.  whereas these figures have not changed significantly over the last decade, with the percentage of young farmers shrinking and the ageing of the farming population being a major problem; whereas the generational renewal situations in agriculture vary widely from one Member State to another and thus call for a flexible and diversified approach;

C.  whereas everywhere, for more than 50 years, agricultural development supported by the common agricultural policy (CAP) has favoured enlargement, concentration of holdings and strong capitalisation of production assets, making it difficult for some holdings to be passed on and/or accessible to young people, owing to the amounts of capital required in order to take them over;

D.  whereas the ageing of the agricultural workforce is especially acute in livestock-raising sectors, particularly sheep and goat farming, owing to existing limits on its profitability;

E.  whereas in the 2007-2013 period, the number of young farmers in the EU as a whole decreased from 3,3 to 2,3 million, and the area of farms cultivated by young farmers decreased during that period from 57 to 53 million hectares;

F.  whereas, in the light of demographic changes such as depopulation and the ageing of the population in rural areas, it is essential to create opportunities for agriculture as a modern and attractive industry to encourage young people to pursue careers in farming;

G.  whereas there is stiff competition for access to land between young people wishing to take up farming and farmers who are already well established, and in some cases, even between young people and investment firms which have started to take an interest in agriculture;

H.  whereas in the future a whole agricultural development model based on family farms is at risk;

I.  whereas the CAP retains a crucial role in this regard;

J.  whereas generational renewal in agriculture is a problem combining two aspects, namely difficulties experienced by the younger generation in entering farming and difficulties in leaving it for the current generation of farmers, and whereas the shortage of young people pursuing careers in farming is jeopardising the economic and social sustainability and growth of rural areas, as well as the EU’s food self-sufficiency and food security; whereas a satisfactory economic situation is the first condition for making farming attractive;

K.  whereas the most recent reform of the CAP has confirmed and introduced a series of tools which can be combined and adapted to national circumstances in the Member States, particularly the mandatory payment for young farmers under the first pillar (EUR 6,9 billion payable to 180 000 young farmers) and, under the second pillar, measures such as start-up aid, access to finance and credit, or the possibility of establishing a thematic sub-programme for young farmers (EUR 2,6 billion);

L.  whereas in the EU not all Member States have a genuine policy relating to setting up in agriculture and not all of them use all the instruments that the CAP offers to support young farmers, especially the second-pillar measure on ‘business start-up aid for young farmers’;

M.  whereas young women taking over the responsibility of managing a farming business represent only a small proportion of young farmers, but are not a homogeneous group and thus have different needs when starting this career;

N.  whereas generational renewal should be one of the key priorities for the future CAP, providing a common policy framework for national tailor-made strategies, and whereas encouraging generational renewal is an indispensable prerequisite for preserving agriculture across the EU and for keeping rural areas attractive and alive, notably by fostering the diversity of farms and promoting sustainable family farming;

O.  whereas access to land has been identified as one of the main barriers to young farmers and new entrants, persisting for years and requiring genuine solutions; whereas access to land tends to be obstructed notably by, on the one hand, the loss of agricultural land through soil sealing, urban development, tourism, infrastructure projects, changes of use and the spread of desertification caused by climate change, and, on the other hand, by the concentration of land; whereas speculative price rises pose serious and increasingly alarming problems for new entrants and young farmers in many Member States; whereas the current supports, while facilitating access to finance or capital, do not address the substantial issue of gaining access to land in order to establish a new farm;

P.  whereas new entrants such as young farmers are particularly vulnerable to price volatility and whereas they encounter additional difficulties in gaining access to funding from banks or other credit programmes, owing to a lack of financial assets to be used as security;

Q.  whereas EU support for young farmers should be better targeted in order to ensure generational renewal and combat the decline in and concentration of holdings;

R.  whereas despite the EU support measures, there are still challenges to be faced in the context of installation of young farmers and the generational renewal in the EU agricultural sector;

S.  whereas among new entrants women are identified as the primary farmer at greater rates than in the agricultural sector in general;

T.  whereas the demographic picture in some regions of the EU is very unbalanced, with few or no young people living there;

U.  whereas young farmers and new entrants represent important sources of innovation and entrepreneurship within agriculture, bringing benefits such as the introduction of new knowledge or techniques, the development of new business models based on end-users, the development of more sustainable farming systems, the development of new organisational models (e.g. share farming, pre-financing, crowdsourcing), the increase of connections between farming and the local community, and the adaptation of traditional knowledge to develop business innovations (e.g. artisanal food production);

V.  whereas major parts of the mountain regions face particular difficulties owing to lower investment rates, specific conditions and difficult relief, which discourages young people from remaining or starting businesses in these regions;

W.  whereas this sets as a prerequisite considering a more flexible approach for national and/or regional authorities when applying the mechanism of ‘young farmer’ in the countries with such regions;

X.  whereas new entrants tend to operate smaller farms and therefore struggle to access inputs at competitive prices and to produce the quantities required to achieve economies of scale;

Y.  whereas 80 % of CAP subsidies are distributed to only 20 % of EU farms, and the actual distribution of subsidies could be even more unequal, as the available statistics do not make it possible to establish anything about the ownership and control of farms;

Z.  whereas the ‘Young Farmers Manifesto’, launched in 2015 by the European Council of Young Farmers, calls for: access to land and credit through public support measures; regulation to curb unfair trading practices in the food supply chain; measures to reduce income volatility for young farmers; and support for investment and access to land in order to safeguard and protect soils and optimise land use by young farmers for food production;

AA.  whereas young farmers are the key to a sustainable, diversified and inclusive agricultural sector and promoting their access to farming will help safeguard future food production and protect the environment and rural landscapes;

AB.  whereas the extreme price volatility of agricultural products is a major disincentive to those who would like to set up a farming business, often leading them to focus on niche products with safer profit margins;

AC.  whereas EU law recognises the concepts of ‘young farmers’ and ‘farmers commencing their agricultural activity’;

AD.  whereas the concentration of land is a process which is intensifying considerably; whereas between 2005 and 2015 the number of farms decreased by around 3,8 million while their average size grew by 36 %;

AE.  whereas the Cork 2.0 Declaration of 6 September 2016 expresses concerns about rural exodus and youth drain, and the need to ensure that rural areas and communities (countryside, farms, villages, and small towns) remain attractive places to live and work by improving access to services such as schools, hospitals, including maternity services, broadband and recreational amenities, together with opportunities for rural citizens to foster entrepreneurship in traditional rural domains as well as new sectors of the economy;

AF.  whereas generational renewal depends above all on a real desire on the part of (EU and national) elected politicians and the relevant professionals, and particularly on older people; whereas that desire presupposes an ambitious and coherent overall policy – which is not genuinely the case today – involving both CAP tools and various national policy instruments in areas as diverse as land, financing, land tenure modes and farm structure policies, taxation, law of succession, pension schemes, training, etc.;

AG.  whereas nowadays, young farmers in the EU are competing in a rapidly evolving agricultural sector; whereas innovation, research and precision agriculture have the potential to improve agricultural yields while at the same time allowing for better management of resources;

AH.  whereas the number of applications submitted for the measure regarding the setting up of young people in farming under the second pillar of the CAP has, in some Member States, exceeded the value of the total farming start-ups provided for in the 2014-2020 programming period;

AI.  whereas young farmers, who, like all other farmers in the EU, produce and place their products on the single European market, do not enjoy the same business or borrowing conditions across all Member States;

AJ.  whereas initiatives such as ‘EU Action for Smart Villages’ have been set up;

AK.  whereas rural areas need to be kept populated, with both younger people of working age and older people;

Recommendations

Budget and access to finance

1.  Advocates maintaining a strong CAP with a view to the forthcoming reform, given that this would constitute the most attractive incentive for young people wishing to engage in an agricultural activity;

2.  Asks for implementation of the recent decisions taken in Regulation (EU) 2017/2393 and that the support to the ‘Young Farmer Scheme’ should continue by increasing the maximum level of national funding allocation beyond 2 % for compulsory payments (under the first pillar) and by increasing the support rate under the second pillar in order to encourage generational renewal; highlights that the reinforcement of a start-up aid measure for young farmers (young farmer grants) should be considered in any future CAP;

3.  Welcomes the fact that, under Regulation (EU) 2017/2393, Member States have the possibility of increasing the allocation to young farmers under the first pillar by up to 50 % of the existing thresholds (previously 25 %); recommends that the period in which a farm can benefit from this support be extended in order to encourage generational renewal; welcomes also the decision to review, through Regulation (EU) 2017/2393, the limit placed on access to the support provided for under the first pillar, increasing it from five to ten years from the establishment of the business;

4.  Welcomes the option for young farmers, provided for by Regulation (EU) 2017/2393, to receive rural development aid for their first farming business, even when they set up business jointly with other farmers, whether they be over 40, with a view to greater generational turnover, or young farmers, by multiplying the support;

5.  Notes that CAP instruments for young farmers should be targeted to young farmers’ specific needs, including their economic and social needs;

6.  Recommends that the support be varied also in accordance with the age of the young farmers and their level of training;

7.  Welcomes the creation of an agricultural guarantee instrument, proposed by the Commission and the European Investment Bank (EIB) in March 2015, which should make it easier for young farmers to access credit; recommends that access to finance be improved through subsidised interest rates on loans for new entrants, also from private financial operators, in particular by implementing financial instruments to disburse interest-free loans for the investments of young farmers; calls for improved cooperation with the EIB and the European Investment Fund to foster the creation of financial instruments dedicated to young farmers across all Member States;

8.  Considers it necessary to promote new forms of participatory financing in agriculture and those already observed within the EU on land piggybacking, which can be combined with these new financial instruments;

9.  Recommends that assessments of the creditworthiness of farms by banks and credit institutions be improved, also by developing the CAP financial instruments;

10.  Recommends making the opportunities offered in the European Structural and Investment Funds, in addition to CAP support, to design and implement financial instruments synergistically in the form of loan, guarantee or equity funds in order to provide access to finance to young farmers, more accessible; notes that a robust farm business plan is usually an essential component for obtaining funding and believes that the norms of prudent lending should apply; stresses the need for mediation for farmers and therefore recommends that supports should be accompanied by qualified and independent financial advisory services;

11.  Underlines the need for better promotion of the Young Farmer Scheme by the Member States and calls for enhanced cooperation between national, regional and local authorities in order to disseminate the information on the support tools for young farmers;

12.  Calls on the Commission to propose support measures for investments in smart farming, to increase the access of young farmers to technological advancements;

Administration and simplification of the implemented measures

13.  Welcomes the fact that CAP reform 2014-2020 introduced new measures to support young farmers in setting up farms; expresses concern that the level of administrative burdens often inhibits the take-up of these measures; notes that the overall administration of the direct payments and Rural Development Programme measures is perceived as very complex and difficult, especially for new entrants who are not familiar with the payment system; recommends making a greater effort to simplify procedures and reduce the time required for payment approval;

14.  Welcomes the amendments supporting young people brought in by Regulation (EU) 2017/2393, improving their access to financial instruments and providing for an increase in the single payment under the first pillar;

15.  Calls for consultancy support to be made systematically available, particularly for young people who are not from rural areas;

16.  Congratulates the Commission on its intention to deepen the measures promoting generational renewal in the forthcoming reform of the CAP, but considers that these new initiatives should be covered by a sufficient EU budget, since otherwise they will fail to provide the desired incentive effect;

17.  Is disappointed at the lack of coordination between payments for young farmers and the set-up support measure, which are managed by different authorities;

18.  Calls on the Commission to develop a more holistic approach enabling greater synergies between pillar I and pillar II supports, and stresses that the latter should be implemented by all Member States;

19.  Notes that most newly set-up farms are placed in a competitive environment with fast-changing conditions; recommends giving EU farmers more flexibility to respond to changing conditions on the markets in their business plans; believes that changes in the payment instalments should be considered;

20.  Notes that Member States have the possibility to apply further instruments through both pillars of the CAP and encourages those Member States with specific geographical challenges, such as mountainous or, in some cases, less-favoured regions, to consider introducing a multiplying factor (e.g. 2), which takes into account the number of harvests per year or the range of cultures which can be grown there, when granting support to young farmers who want to operate in these regions, in order to incentivise activities in these regions in an attempt to combat the demographic challenges there;

21.  Points out that unfair trading practices in the food supply chain, whose imposition enables the buyer and/or processor or trader to exploit their significant negotiating power in relation to their suppliers, pose a serious threat to the stability of farmers’ businesses; calls on the Commission to adopt adequate regulation at EU level;

22.  Calls on the Member States to make the necessary regulatory changes to ensure that aid to help young people join the farming sector and to improve agricultural holdings for young people is classed as a capital grant and not a current subsidy in all national legislation;

23.  Recognises that farmers must be able to remain in charge of their land and that if a farm is to work well it must be free and flexible in the same way as any other type of business;

24.  Stresses that payments to young farmers should not be delayed, but made periodically and predictably to prevent them from falling into debt, thus hampering their projects;

25.  Urges that a result-driven approach be taken, which stimulates the development of new innovations and better resource management, thereby empowering motivated young farmers;

26.  Stresses that to be economically viable a farm must be able to expand in order to attain a critical size commensurate with the economic reality of the market;

27.  Stresses the need to take into account the diversity of territories, in particular the difficult areas, which require tailored support;

Access to land and countering ‘land-grabbing’

28.  Notes that access to land is one of the main barriers to young farmers and new entrants to farming in the EU and is limited by the low supply of land for sale or rent in many regions, as well as by the competition from other farmers, investors and residential users, and problems in obtaining financing; believes that the circumstances limiting access to land in each Member State should be further studied; considers that the land access problem is exacerbated by the current direct payment structure, which may lead to higher land rental costs and purchase prices, requires minimal active use of the land and allocates subsidies largely on the basis of land ownership; believes that some farmers, whether owners or tenants, are incentivised to remain active in order to continue to benefit from subsidies by using service providers to enhance their land or by doing the minimum of work on their land; recommends increasing the activity levels required, taking into account new farming models, when allocating payments targeting support towards the achievement of particular outcomes (e.g. real working time spent farming, taking into account also new innovations, production of specific environmental or social goods), and prohibiting the combining of subsidies with the payment of a retirement pension, for which there is no justification;

29.  Recalls that, in order to achieve sustainable agriculture, young farmers must be able to invest and acquire agricultural land, as well as to obtain new or second-hand machinery and optimise their farming techniques;

30.  Stresses that owners must be free to sell to whoever they want and calls on the Commission to facilitate the transfer of land, and succession in particular, in order to make it easier for young people to set up;

31.  Calls on the Commission and the Member States to take measures to combat farmland speculation, given that access to land is the biggest problem faced by young and new farmers;

32.  Calls on the Commission to establish recommendations at European Union level to encourage more active national policies on access to land based on best practices;

33.  Calls on the Member States to give new entrants and young farmers priority in the access to farmland, by making full use of regulatory instruments that have already been implemented successfully in some Member States, in line with the Commission Interpretative Communication on the Acquisition of Farmland and European Union Law(6); considers, in this respect, that Member States could develop tools such as land banks to further facilitate access to land and to chart unused land available for young farmers;

34.  Believes it is important to have a derogation for young farmers set at the current limit of 10 % for land purchase as laid down in Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) No 480/2014 of 3 March 2014 on structural funds and in the Guidelines for State aid;

35.  Calls for more aid to be directed towards isolated or less populated areas, or areas affected by insufficient generational renewal;

36.  Asks the Commission to support the sharing of best practices on access to land in the Member States;

37.  Calls on the Commission to produce an evaluation of the direct and indirect impact of land and farmland repurchase by non-EU residents on the availability and price of farmland;

38.  Proposes that, as part of their national policies, the Member States should encourage farm and farm management advisory services to support and facilitate land mobility and succession planning services;

39.  Calls on all the Member States to introduce assistance for the transfer of farms in an effort to support farm managers over the age of 55 and without successors, who can find themselves in a precarious situation when the time comes to retire, on the condition that they hand over all or part of their farms to one or more young person(s);

40.  Urges the Member States to set up mechanisms to guarantee shared ownership of agricultural holdings, with a special emphasis on young women in order to ensure their rights are upheld;

41.  Takes the view that the definition of an active farmer must not result in any administrative burdens over and above those arising from the latest reform, or limit access to farming for young people by imposing excessive conditions;

42.  Notes that in many Member States the generational renewal and the access of young people to agricultural land is hindered by late succession; considers that the current CAP no longer lacks incentives for older farmers to pass their businesses to younger generations; recommends reconsidering the implementation of measures that would motivate older holders to pass their farms to young farmers, such as the ‘farm-exit scheme’ and other incentives for retirement, so that land does not all fall into the hands of neighbouring farms; points out the need for legal structures such as the ‘Groupements Agricoles d'Exploitation en Commun’ (GAEC), which can help young people to set up business together and ease the transfer between generations;

43.  Calls on the Commission and the Member States to stimulate the use of the possibilities under rural development to support the new actions to foster land mobility, such as land banks, farmland matching initiatives and other initiatives promoted at local level to encourage access to land for the new entrants;

44.  Considers that young farmers throughout the Union should have access to loans under the same conditions and interest rates, and that these should not vary; calls, in this regard, on the Commission, together with the European Investment Bank, to establish appropriate support measures and lending facilities for young farmers;

45.  Asks for the promotion of new models of collaboration between generations of farmers through partnership, agricultural machinery cooperatives, long-term leasing and other long-term arrangements, farm-to-farm arrangements and funds for national or regional organisations engaged in promoting and facilitating matching services between young and old farmers (such as land mobility services);

46.  Points out that greater and stronger organisation of farmers, through the establishment of cooperatives and the formation of producer organisations (POs) in sectors regulated at EU level by the Common Market Organisation (CMO) Regulation, may help farming become more profitable and help protect farmers’ income, particularly that of young farmers, by accompanying production choices and making the most of the features of rural areas; adds that a structural reform of POs, to make them stronger, more responsible and more efficient, and greater aggregation, can make an effective contribution, first and foremost to protecting and increasing the sector’s profitability over time;

47.  Notes the differences between the situations of generation renewal within the family and new entrants; believes that vocational training and courses must be adapted to those who plan to take over the family business or to those who plan to start a new business, according to their needs;

48.  Stresses that young women should be encouraged to take on the responsibility of management in agriculture and should be given adequate support in terms of access to land, credit and further knowledge of rules and regulations;

49.  Believes that the choice as to whether to regulate access to farmland and set incentives or restrictions to that end belongs to the Member States, particularly when it comes to tackling the EU’s land-grabbing phenomenon and encouraging young farmers to set up business;

50.  Calls on the Commission, together with the Member States and stakeholders, to further develop the recently adopted communication on the land market criterion system to ensure that EU law genuinely maintains a level playing field for all potential buyers of land – including positive discrimination in favour of EU farmers – and that it becomes absolutely clear to the Member States, in the context of the four fundamental freedoms, what land market regulation measures are permitted so as to enable farmers to obtain land more easily to use for agricultural and forestry purposes; calls on the Commission to suspend the current infringement proceedings aimed at assessing the compatibility with EU law of Member States’ laws on the sale of agricultural land until the final communication containing the aforementioned criteria is published;

51.  Takes the view that national land, urban and land-use planning (e.g. transport infrastructure) policies should take account of the practices of land waste and abandonment, and bring this land back into the agricultural sector so as to make more farmable land available to young farmers setting up;

52.  Welcomes the Commission Interpretative Communication on the Acquisition of Farmland and European Union Law, but points out that the communication does not reflect sufficiently on how to regulate share purchases by corporate groups, which are often active transnationally; calls on the Commission to update the communication in this respect;

53.  Highlights the importance of coherence between local, national and EU measures for young farmers; calls on Member States to facilitate generational renewal through, for example, inheritance and taxation laws, rules on access to land, territorial planning and farm succession strategies;

54.  Calls on the Member States to provide women with fair access to land with a view to encouraging them to settle in rural areas and play a full and active role in the agricultural sector;

55.  Calls on the Commission to finance a study on the current state of land concentration in the EU that takes into account the phenomenon of corporate groups with subsidiaries that acquire and control land via share deals, and that analyses the risks that land concentration poses, not only as regards access to land for young farmers and new entrants, but also as regards food supply, employment, the environment, soil quality and rural development in general;

56.  Takes the view that the EU should have land quality laws, given that land quality is deteriorating as a result of unsuitable agricultural development; points out that this land deterioration affects the land market and land prices, but also reduces the production capacity of lands passed on to future generations of farmers;

57.  Notes that the current CAP payments system, and decoupled payments in particular, does not promote the transfer of farmland and does not adequately protect young farmers from agricultural price volatility, to which they are more exposed for clear reasons owing to the fact that they are starting out and lack practical experience or may have limited financial instruments available to them;

Training, innovation and communication

58.  Notes that there is a need to modernise and give greater value to the vocational training provided in rural regions, with the active involvement of national advisory services; believes that access to the European Social Fund should be facilitated and an increased budget given to vocational training in rural areas;

59.  Underlines the most recent EU initiative, the European Solidarity Corps, which creates opportunities for young people to volunteer or work on projects in the field of natural resources, and across different areas such as agriculture, forestry and fisheries;

60.  Recommends advocating that these young people join cooperatives, which would necessarily provide them with important advice on marketing, production and other aspects related to their farm;

61.  Stresses the need for a review of criteria with a view to fostering young people’s incorporation into a society over which they have no control, with the aid young people receive being proportional to their importance in society;

62.  Calls on the Commission and the Member States to offer more opportunities for training and advice for potential and confirmed young farmers, including agribusiness start-up skills and farming, technological, new technological and entrepreneurial skills such as marketing, networking, communication, innovation, multifunctionality and diversification, and financial expertise;

63.  Calls on the Commission and the Member States to offer more training opportunities and more opportunities and incentives for international mobility; encourages the setting up of an Erasmus-type scheme associated with vocational training to improve young farmers’ skills and experience, also with regard to new technologies and new business models, and to enable an efficient and effective transfer of knowledge;

64.  Considers it important to foster the extension of networks of researchers, academics, managers and young European farmers who are interested in identifying new models of economic development to find innovative solutions to the social and market needs that are emerging from the new rural business world;

65.  Calls on the Commission and the Member States to make information available to young farmers and new entrants on innovative and non-conventional approaches that are best suited to starting a new farm, such as the development of new business models based on end-users, the development of more sustainable farming systems, the development of new organisational models (e.g. share farming, pre-financing, crowdsourcing), the increase of connections between farming and the local community, and the adaptation of traditional knowledge to develop business innovations (e.g. artisanal food production);

66.  Calls, in order to minimise the number of companies going out of business, for a mechanism to monitor or advise businesses with a view to providing continued support for young people in decision-making, for at least the first three years of their companies’ activity;

67.  Calls on the Commission and the Member States to encourage initiatives such as the French ‘Demain je serai paysan’, which aims to promote farming as a career among young people and to give them all the information they need to get the relevant training and set up their farms;

68.  Takes the view that a welcoming environment should be created for young people in the farming industry, via collective and solidarity-based structures such as the joint farming groups of an agricultural enterprise (farmers’ societies), cooperatives for the use of communal agricultural equipment, cooperatives for the processing and marketing of agricultural products, labour-sharing groups, replacement services, mutual assistance groups, agricultural extension and innovation groups, farmers’ and consumers’ associations, networks between agricultural and non-agricultural actors (LEADER), etc.; stresses that these kinds of organisation help professionals to share experience, advice and certain expenses, which is important for the budget and revenue of young people, who often have to pay significant start-up costs;

69.  Points to the importance of young people in rural areas having access to the same services and infrastructure (e.g. high-speed bandwidth, schools and pre-schooling, roads, etc.) as young people living in towns; deems it essential, therefore, to ensure that young farmers in rural areas are in a position to develop their farms and support their families;

70.  Calls for women’s entrepreneurial spirit and initiatives to be encouraged, in particular through the promotion of female ownership, networks of female young farmers, new entrants and entrepreneurs, and provision in the financial sector for facilitating access for rural businesswomen to investment and credit, thus enabling them to develop businesses from which they can make a stable living;

71.  Takes the view that generational renewal depends on the attractiveness of the farming profession, but in particular on its capacity to generate an income for those who wish to make a living from it; stresses that, for agriculture to be viable, the CAP must allow for a certain level of market regulation, in particular when the markets are not functioning well and are causing crises; points out that the current deregulation of markets is having a negative impact on the development of agriculture, is turning young people away from agriculture, and is having a serious impact on the young people who have already set up farms and have huge debts as a result of their start-up costs;

Public services

72.  Considers that developing modern agro-ecological agricultural practices and new business models will make agriculture more attractive to young farmers; highlights that young farmers must be trained and skilled in the latest technologies to tackle, in particular, current and future environmental challenges; stresses the need to support innovative and non-conventional approaches such as agro-ecology, new business models based on end-users, digital farming technology and smart solutions, and urges the Commission to ensure that any future CAP reflects this;

73.  Notes that young farmers represent a considerable potential for innovation and diversification in that they tend to have greater skills and managerial ability and be more inclined to enter new markets, develop new production methods and make the best use of technological advancements and innovation in the agriculture sector, which may, in particular, help to tackle the environmental challenges facing agriculture; considers it necessary, therefore, to provide critical support to young people wishing to introduce innovative production techniques and processes, such as precision agriculture and conservation systems, which aim to enhance the cost-effectiveness and environmental sustainability of the farming sector; asks the Commission to step up research into the use of technologies and farming practices enabling sustainable farming with a low environmental impact; stresses that creating new jobs and safeguarding them, and promoting innovation and digitisation in the area of agricultural training are essential for the competitiveness of farming in the EU;

74.  Highlights that farmers require access to infrastructure, affordable and high-quality public facilities, and services, including healthcare, education, high-speed broadband, assistance, training, cultural services, post offices, public transport and better roads; notes that the same conditions and standard of living should be ensured for young people living in rural areas as for those living in urban areas, so as not to increase further the rural exodus and the territorial divide;

75.  Asks the Commission and the Member States to make a firm commitment to setting up direct marketing channels that will allow young farmers to sell their products in local markets in a more sustainable way and with a greater benefit;

76.  Points out that, for smallholder farming and rural areas to develop further in a sustainable way, a generational change is required;

77.  Calls on the Commission to develop a Rural Agenda, which must include coordinated measures under the various EU, national, regional and local rural development policies;

78.  Highlights that the CAP needs smart approaches, as these new solutions make rural life and villages attractive to young people;

Measures to stop the rural exodus

79.  Considers it necessary to offer young farmers long-term prospects so as to stop the rural exodus, and calls on the Commission and the Member States to look into new initiatives for establishing the infrastructure necessary to support new entrepreneurs and their families in rural areas;

80.  Recommends, in this respect, that consideration be given to harmonising measures under rural development programmes and the first pillar of the CAP, EU cohesion policy measures and measures at national, regional and local level, in order to improve their effectiveness;

81.  Points out that innovation is not just a matter of farming techniques and new machinery but also includes development of new business models, including sales and marketing tools, training and collection of data and information;

82.  Calls on the Commission to orient direct payments towards small-scale holdings and agro-ecological farming in the upcoming CAP reform, as this will disproportionately benefit younger and new entrant farmers;

83.  Points out that rural areas should also have services that alleviate the pressures of farming, such as professional counselling, financial advice and advice on farm management;

84.  Stresses the need to provide broadband connections in rural and remote areas; welcomes the various initiatives in the area of ‘smart villages’, the ultimate objective of which must be to create new job opportunities and provide employment for young people in rural areas, either in the form of supplementary activities on farms or in non-farm activities (social care, mobility, healthcare, tourism, energy); considers that ever greater productivity in agriculture and the falling prices of agricultural produce will make it increasingly difficult to generate sufficient income from the basic agricultural activity, especially on small farms;

85.  Believes that any successful strategy for generational renewal and supporting young farmers should take a holistic approach to facilitate young farmers’ access to land, finance, advisory services and training, and take into account intergenerational renewal for the benefit of young and older farmers; stresses that this should make farming, which is vital for humanity, an attractive occupation to young farmers and wider society;

86.  Notes that strong support for young farmers and the development of new economic activities in the EU agricultural sector are essential for the future of rural areas and must be furthered as part of the new, post-2020 CAP;

The environment and sustainability

87.  Calls on the Commission to ensure greater consistency between environmental measures and to ensure that these measures are harmonised; reiterates that young farmers need measures that are clear and easy to put into practice;

88.  Believes that, in order to preserve settlement of rural areas and ensure a similar standard of living for people living there compared with urban areas, regulatory and administrative barriers urgently need to be removed so as to enable farm operators to carry out supplementary agricultural and non-agricultural activities, mainly in the social care, healthcare, tourism, mobility of the elderly and energy sectors, thereby providing an appropriate income for farm operators and their families and reducing the risk of rural depopulation;

89.  Calls for a new dialogue with society about the future of the agrifood industry so as to produce a realistic picture of what farming involves and improve knowledge of what it means to be a farmer and how food is produced;

Other

90.  Calls on the Commission and the Member States to take measures to secure farmers’ incomes in the face of various climate, health and economic risks and thus make farms more resilient, in particular by introducing new risk management tools and strengthening existing ones;

91.  Draws attention to the specific characteristics of the EU’s Outermost Regions, whose unique environmental, climate and health situations are very different to those of the European continent, and calls therefore, as provided for under Article 349 TFEU, for greater account to be taken of these regions and of their specific needs and assets in the implementation and development of CAP instruments for young farmers, including in terms of access to funding;

92.  Emphasises that small and family undertakings operating under difficult conditions and seeking additional sources of revenue should be supported to an even greater extent, for example through the funding of advisory services or innovative business models;

93.  Recommends that generational renewal must also take account of intergenerational renewal for the benefit of young and older farmers; notes the importance of farmers drawing up a farm succession plan and notes the need for a transitional payment to facilitate this succession;

o
o   o

94.  Instructs its President to forward this resolution to the Council and the Commission, the European Court of Auditors, and to the governments and parliaments of the Member States.

(1) OJ L 347, 20.12.2013, p. 487. (2) OJ L 347, 20.12.2013, p. 608. (3) OJ L 350, 29.12.2017, p. 15. (4) Texts adopted, P8_TA(2017)0197. (5) OJ C 207, 30.6.2017, p. 57. (6) OJ C 350, 18.10.2017, p. 5.

European Parliament legislative resolution of 29 May 2018 on the proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on establishing a multi-annual plan for demersal stocks in the North Sea and the fisheries exploiting those stocks and repealing Council Regulation (EC) No 676/2007 and Council Regulation (EC) No 1342/2008 (COM(2016)0493 – C8-0336/2016 – 2016/0238(COD))

P8_TA(2018)0212 A8-0263/2017

(Ordinary legislative procedure: first reading)

The European Parliament,

–  having regard to the Commission proposal to Parliament and the Council (COM(2016)0493),

–  having regard to Article 294(2) and Article 43(2) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, pursuant to which the Commission submitted the proposal to Parliament (C8‑0336/2016),

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

–  having regard to the official notification of 29 March 2017 by the United Kingdom government, pursuant to Article 50 of the Treaty on European Union, of its intention to withdraw from the European Union;

–  having regard to the opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee of 14 December 2016(1),

–  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 7 March 2018 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 Fisheries (A8-0263/2017),

1.  Adopts its position at first reading hereinafter set out(2);

2.  Approves the joint statements by Parliament and the Council annexed to this resolution, which will be published in the L series of the Official Journal of the European Union together with the final legislative act;

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

4.  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 29 May 2018 with a view to the adoption of Regulation (EU) 2018/... of the European Parliament and of the Council establishing a multiannual plan for demersal stocks in the North Sea and the fisheries exploiting those stocks, specifying details of the implementation of the landing obligation in the North Sea and repealing Council Regulations (EC) No 676/2007 and (EC) No 1342/2008

(As an agreement was reached between Parliament and Council, Parliament's position corresponds to the final legislative act, Regulation (EU) 2018/973.)

ANNEX TO THE LEGISLATIVE RESOLUTION

JOINT STATEMENTS

Joint Statement by the European Parliament and the Council on prohibited species

The Regulation to be adopted on the basis of the Commission proposal on the conservation of fishery resources and the protection of marine ecosystems through technical measures (2016/0074(COD)) should contain provisions, inter alia, on the species for which fishing is prohibited. For that reason the two institutions have agreed not to include a list concerning the North Sea in this Regulation (2016/0238(COD)).

Joint Statement by the European Parliament and the Council on control

The European Parliament and the Council will include the following control provisions in the upcoming review of the Control Regulation (Regulation (EC) No 1224/2009) where relevant to the North Sea: prior notifications, logbook requirements, designated ports, and other control provisions.

(1) OJ C 75, 10.3.2017, p. 109. (2) This position replaces the amendments adopted on 14 September 2017 (Texts adopted, P8_TA(2017)0357).

European Parliament legislative resolution of 29 May 2018 on the proposal for a directive of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Directive 96/71/EC of The European Parliament and of the Council of 16 December 1996 concerning the posting of workers in the framework of the provision of services (COM(2016)0128 – C8-0114/2016 – 2016/0070(COD))

P8_TA(2018)0213 A8-0319/2017

(Ordinary legislative procedure: first reading)

The European Parliament,

–  having regard to the Commission proposal to Parliament and the Council (COM(2016)0128),

–  having regard to Article 294(2), and Article 53(1) and Article 62 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, pursuant to which the Commission submitted the proposal to Parliament (C8-0114/2016),

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

–  having regard to the reasoned opinions submitted, within the framework of the Protocol No 2 on the application of the principles of subsidiarity and proportionality, by the Bulgarian Parliament, by the Czech Chamber of Deputies and the Czech Senate, by the Danish Parliament, by the Estonian Parliament, by the Croatian Parliament, by the Latvian Parliament, by the Lithuanian Parliament, by the Hungarian Parliament, by the Polish Sejm and the Polish Senate, by the Romanian Chamber of Deputies and the Romanian Senate and by the Slovak Parliament, asserting that the draft legislative act does not comply with the principle of subsidiarity,

–  having regard to the opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee of 14 December 2016(1),

–  having regard to the opinion of the Committee of the Regions of 7 December 2016(2),

–  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 11 April 2018 to approve Parliament’s position, in accordance with Article 294(4) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,

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

–  having regard to the report of the Committee on Employment and Social Affairs and the opinions of the Committee on the Internal Market and Consumer Protection and of the Committee on Legal Affairs (A8-0319/2017),

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

2.  Takes note of the statement by the Commission annexed to this resolution;

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

4.  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 29 May 2018 with a view to the adoption of Directive (EU) 2018/... of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Directive 96/71/EC concerning the posting of workers in the framework of the provision of services

(As an agreement was reached between Parliament and Council, Parliament's position corresponds to the final legislative act, Directive (EU) 2018/957.)

ANNEX TO THE LEGISLATIVE RESOLUTION

STATEMENT BY THE COMMISSION

Article 3(7), second subparagraph, of Directive 96/71/EC as amended by the Directive adopted today, lays down that allowances specific to the posting shall be considered to be part of remuneration, unless they are paid in reimbursement of expenditure actually incurred on account of the posting, such as expenditure on travel, board and lodging. It also provides that “[t]he employer shall, without prejudice to point (h) of the first subparagraph of paragraph 1, reimburse the posted worker for such expenditure in accordance with the national law and/or practice applicable to the employment relationship”.

The Commission understands that the “national law and/or practice applicable to the employment relationship” is in principle the national law and /or practice of the home Member State, unless otherwise determined in accordance with EU rules on private international law. In the light of the Court's judgment in Case C-396/13 (paragraph 59), reimbursement also covers the situation where the employer defrays costs of the workers without the latter having first to pay them and then seek to have them reimbursed.

The Commission notes that the Directive adopted today foresees that, because of the highly mobile nature of work in international road transport, the revised rules on posting will apply to that sector only from the date of application of a legislative act amending Directive 2006/22/EC as regards enforcement requirements and laying down specific rules with respect to Directive 96/71/EC and Directive 2014/67/EU for posting drivers in the road transport sector.

The Commission calls on the European Parliament and the Council to adopt that act swiftly in order to adapt the rules to the specific needs of posted workers in the sector while ensuring proper functioning of the internal road transport market.

Until the date of application of the sector-specific legislative act, Directive 96/71/EC and Directive 2014/67/EU remain in force in road transport. These legislative acts do not apply to road transport operations which do not constitute posting.

The Commission will continue to closely monitor the proper enforcement of the current rules in particular in the road transport sector and where appropriate take action.

(1) OJ C 75, 10.3.2017, p. 81. (2) OJ C 185, 9.6.2017, p. 75.

European Parliament legislative resolution of 29 May 2018 on the proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council laying down management, conservation and control measures applicable in the Convention Area of the South Pacific Regional Fisheries Management Organisation (SPRFMO) (COM(2017)0128 – C8-0121/2017 – 2017/0056(COD))

P8_TA(2018)0214 A8-0377/2017

(Ordinary legislative procedure: first reading)

The European Parliament,

–  having regard to the Commission proposal to Parliament and the Council (COM(2017)0128),

–  having regard to Article 294(2) and Article 43(2) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, pursuant to which the Commission submitted the proposal to Parliament (C8‑0121/2017),

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

–  having regard to the opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee of 31 May 2017(1),

–  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 21 March 2018 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 Fisheries (A8-0377/2017),

1.  Adopts its position at first reading hereinafter set out(2);

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 29 May 2018 with a view to the adoption of Regulation (EU) 2018/... of the European Parliament and of the Council laying down management, conservation and control measures applicable in the South Pacific Regional Fisheries Management Organisation (SPRFMO) Convention Area

(As an agreement was reached between Parliament and Council, Parliament's position corresponds to the final legislative act, Regulation (EU) 2018/975.)

(1) OJ C 288, 31.8.2017, p. 129. (2) This position replaces the amendments adopted on 16 January 2018 (Texts adopted, P8_TA(2018)0001).

European Parliament resolution of 29 May 2018 on sustainable finance (2018/2007(INI))

P8_TA(2018)0215 A8-0164/2018

The European Parliament,

–  having regard to the G20 commitment to sustainable growth under the German presidency from 1 December 2016 to 30 November 2017, with particular reference to the statement: ‘we will continue to use all policy tools – monetary, fiscal and structural – individually and collectively to achieve our goal of strong, sustainable, balanced and inclusive growth, while enhancing economic and financial resilience’,

–  having regard to the Sustainable Development Goals set by the United Nations, in particular the commitment to take action to combat climate change and its impact and to ensure sustainable consumption and production,

–  having regard to the Commission’s commitment to sustainable investment in this regard in the Capital Markets Union (CMU) plan and specifically the findings of the High-Level Expert Group (HLEG) on Sustainable Finance,

–  having regard to the HLEG interim report of July 2017 entitled ‘Financing a Sustainable European Economy’, which outlines the tension between short-term profit seeking behaviour and the need for long-term investment in order to meet the environmental, social and governance (ESG) targets, and in particular to point 5 on the financial system and policy framework risks succumbing to the ‘tragedy of the horizon’ on page 16,

–  having regard to the Commission communication of 8 June 2017 on the Mid-Term Review of the Capital Markets Union Action Plan (COM(2017)0292),

–  having regard to the HLEG final report of January 2018 entitled ‘Financing a Sustainable European Economy’,

–  having regard to page 14 of the HLEG interim report, which states that Europe’s investors have a combined exposure to carbon-intensive sectors of roughly 45 % and that less than 1 % of global institutional investors are green infrastructure assets,

–  having regard to the fact that prudential frameworks, in particular Directive 2009/138/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 November 2009 on the taking-up and pursuit of the business of Insurance and Reinsurance (Solvency II)(1), and accounting rules for investors discourage a long-term approach, and that prudential rules require a level of capital proportional to the level of risk over a one-year horizon and only take financial risk into consideration for the calculation of capital requirements,

–  having regard to Article 173 of French Law No 2015-992 of 17 August 2015 on Energy Transition for Green Growth,

–  having regard to both the speech of 22 September 2016 by Mark Carney, Governor of the Bank of England and Chair of the Financial Stability Board, and the Carbon Trackers Initiative report of 2015, with particular reference to the fact that the combined market capitalisation of the top four US coal producers had fallen by over 99 % since the end of 2010,

–  having regard to the Luxembourg-EIB Climate Finance Platform established in September 2016,

–  having regard to page 9 of the E3G discussion paper of May 2016 entitled ‘Clean Energy Lift Off – Capitalising Europe’s Energy Union’, with particular reference to the fact that from 2008 to 2013 the top 20 energy utilities in Europe saw over half of their EUR 1 trillion market value wiped out,

–  having regard to Carbon Tracker Initiative reports of 2015 and 2016, which indicate that another USD 1,1 to USD 2 trillion fossil fuel capex is at risk of stranding, with USD 500 billion in the Chinese power sector alone,

–  having regard to the OECD ‘Recommendation of the Council on Common Approaches for Officially Supported Export Credits and Environmental and Social Due Diligence’ (the ‘Common Approaches’), which recognises ‘the responsibility of Adherents to implement the commitments undertaken by the Parties to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change’ and ‘the responsibility of Adherents to consider the positive and negative environmental and social impacts of projects, in particular in sensitive sectors or located in or near sensitive areas, and the environmental and social risks associated with existing operations, in their decisions to offer official support for export credits’,

–  having regard to the OECD Responsible Business Conduct for Institutional Investors guidelines of 2017, in particular page 13, which states that ‘investors, even those with minority shareholdings, may be directly linked to adverse impacts caused or contributed to by investee companies as a result of their ownership in, or management of, shares in the company causing or contributing to certain social or environmental impacts’,

–  having regard to the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development (EBRD)’s Green Economy Transition approach (GET), which aims to mitigate and/or build resilience to the effects of climate change and other forms of environmental degradation, with particular reference to EBRD documents linking transition impact and the environment, including, where appropriate, changes in the project’s assessment methodology,

–  having regard to the OECD paper of 2017 entitled ‘Responsible Business Conduct for Institutional Investors: Key Considerations for Due Diligence under the OECD Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises’,

–  having regard to the 2018 report by the High-Level Task Force on Investing in Social Infrastructure in Europe entitled ‘Boosting Investment in Social Infrastructure in Europe’,

–  having regard to the French Corporate Duty of Vigilance Law of 27 March 2017, and in particular Articles 1 and 2 thereof,

–  having regard to Directive 2014/95/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 October 2014 amending Directive 2013/34/EU as regards disclosure of non-financial and diversity information by certain large undertakings and groups(2) (Non-Financial Reporting Directive – NFRD), and in particular Articles 19 and 19a of Directive 2013/34/EU and Recitals 3, 6, 7 and 8 of Directive 2014/95/EU,

–  having regard to Directive (EU) 2017/828 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 May 2017 amending Directive 2007/36/EC as regards the encouragement of long-term shareholder engagement(3) (the Shareholder Rights Directive),

–  having regard to Directive (EU) 2016/2341 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 14 December 2016 on the activities and supervision of institutions for occupational retirement provision (IORPs)(4) (the IORPs Directive),

–  having regard to Directive 2013/34/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 June 2013 on the annual financial statements, consolidated financial statements and related reports of certain types of undertakings, amending Directive 2006/43/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council and repealing Council Directives 78/660/EEC and 83/349/EEC(5),

–  having regard to Regulation (EU) 2017/2402 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2017 laying down a general framework for securitisation and creating a specific framework for simple, transparent and standardised securitisation, and amending Directives 2009/65/EC, 2009/138/EC and 2011/61/EU and Regulations (EC) No 1060/2009 and (EU) No 648/2012(6) (the STS Regulation)

–  having regard to Article 8(4) of Regulation (EU) No 1286/2014 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 November 2014 on key information documents for packaged retail and insurance-based investment products (PRIIPs)(7) (the PRIIPs Regulation), which states that when a packaged retail and insurance-based investment product has a demonstrated environmental or social objective, the manufacturer has to demonstrate to the potential retail investor and wider stakeholders how those objectives are met throughout the investment process,

–  having regard to the suggestion from Triodos Bank of ‘model mandates’ which contain the requirement of full integration of environmental, social and governance factors in investment decisions, active engagement and voting on these issues, the choice of sustainable benchmarks, less frequent but more meaningful reporting by asset managers and a long-term oriented fee and pay structure,

–  having regard to the British Government’s reinterpretation of fiduciary duty, which weakens the link to maximum returns and allows for ethical and environmental issues to be considered,

–  having regard to the pioneering role played by the European Investment Bank (EIB) by issuing the world’s first green bond and becoming the world’s largest issuer of green bonds as of January 2018,

–  having regard to the Principles for Positive Impact Finance developed by the United Nations Environment Programme Finance Initiative (UNEP FI),

–  having regard to the Committee of the Regions opinion of 10 October 2017 on ‘Climate finance: an essential tool for the implementation of the Paris Agreement’ highlighting the role of local and regional governments in enhancing the investment pipeline for achieving the objectives of the Paris Agreement,

–  having regard to the UNEP Inquiry into the Design of a Sustainable Financial System,

–  having regard to the Climate Bonds Initiative report of 2017, which shows how bonds are being used to transition to a low-carbon global economy,

–  having regard to the UNEP Inquiry report of 2016, which finds that several national financial regulators are already performing or preparing sustainability assessments and such initiatives should be rapidly mainstreamed at EU level, and with reference to the point that such analyses should build on standardised climate scenarios, including one in which a rise in global temperatures is kept well below 2 °C,

–  having regard to the recommendation in the HLEG final report of January 2018 that the Commission should conduct a sustainability test on all financial legislative proposals,

–  having regard to the midterm review of the CMU (COM(2017)0292) and to the Commission’s clear statement that it ‘supports alignment of private investments with climate, resource-efficiency and other environmental objectives, both through policy measures and public investment’ (COM(2016)0601),

–  having regard to the Bundesbank report of April 2017 and the Bank of England Quarterly Bulletin of 2014 Q4, which state that most money in circulation is created by the private banking sector when banks make loans,

–  having regard to Article 2(1)(c) of the Paris Agreement on the need to make ‘finance flows consistent with a pathway towards low greenhouse gas emissions and climate-resilient development’,

–   having regard to the UNISDR and CRED report entitled ‘The Human Cost of Weather-Related Disasters 1995-2015’, which found that 90 % of major disasters recorded in this period caused by natural hazards were linked to climate and weather and that, globally, disasters cause USD 300 billion in economic damage every year(8),

–  having regard to the Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction 2015-2030, and to Priority 3 thereof on ‘Investing in disaster risk reduction for resilience’, including paragraph 30 stating the need ‘to promote, as appropriate, the integration of disaster risk reduction considerations and measures in financial and fiscal instruments’,

–  having regard to the Financial Stability Board report of June 2017 entitled ‘Recommendations of the Task Force on Climate-related Financial Disclosure’,

–  having regard to the work of the European Systemic Risk Board (ESRB) on the risks of stranded assets and the need for European ‘carbon stress tests’,

–  having regard to the European Court of Auditors Special Report No 31/2016, which found that, despite the EU making a political commitment under the current budgetary period 2014-2020 to spend one euro in every five (20 %) on climate-related purposes, it was not on track to meet that commitment, since current programming would account for only around 18 %,

–  having regard to the EIB 2016 Statistical Report of 27 April 2017, which shows that EIB support for climate action continues to reflect the different market contexts across the EU and did not reach the level of 20 % in 16 EU Member States in 2016, and that while climate action investment in 2016 was predominantly located in the EU’s stronger economies, the EIB financed renewable energy projects in 11 Member States and energy efficiency projects in 18 Member States in 2016,

–  having regard to the report of the High-Level Task force on Investing in Social Infrastructure in Europe, which estimates the minimum gap in social infrastructure investment in the EU at EUR 100-150 billion per year and a total gap of over EUR 1,5 trillion in 2018-2030,

–  having regard to its resolution of 8 February 2018 on the Annual Report on the Financial Activities of the European Investment Bank(9),

–  having regard to its resolution of 6 February 2018 on the European Central Bank Annual Report for 2016(10),

–  having regard to its resolution of 14 November 2017 on the Action Plan on Retail Financial Services(11),

–  having regard to the EIB Investment Report 2017/2018,

–  having regard to its resolution of 2 July 2013 on innovating for sustainable growth: a bioeconomy for Europe(12),

–  having regard to the European Commission Circular Economy Package of 2015 and Parliament’s resolution of 9 July 2015 on resource efficiency: moving towards a circular economy(13),

–  having regard to the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights and the responsibility to Protect, Respect and Remedy,

–  having regard to the UN 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development and the Sustainable Development Goals,

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

–  having regard to the report of the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs (A8-0164/2018),

A.  whereas financial markets can and should play a vital role in facilitating the transition to a sustainable economy in the EU which extends beyond climate transition and ecological issues and also concerns social and governance issues; whereas there is an urgent need to address related market failures; whereas the environmental, economic and social challenges are closely intertwined; whereas according to the HLEG report of July 2017, the funding gap to deliver Europe’s decarbonisation efforts is almost EUR 180 billion, excluding other sustainable development goals;

B.  whereas the environmental transition must act as an incentive to enhance solidarity and cohesion; whereas sustainable finance can be a means to address societal challenges with a view to long-term inclusive growth and to promote citizens’ wellbeing; whereas criteria on investment in climate change mitigation seem most promising and can be a good starting point; whereas sustainable finance goes beyond climate and green investments and should also take social and governance criteria on board as a matter of urgency;

C.  whereas a predictable and stable regulatory system for climate change related investments is of the utmost importance to foster private sector involvement in climate finance; whereas the European Union can set a standard for a sustainable financial system by introducing a credible and comprehensive framework, the details of which should be phased in through specific legislative initiatives;

D.  whereas a shift in mindset of all the stakeholders is needed, which requires cross-cutting legislation from the Commission; whereas institutional and retail investors are showing increased interest in investing in products observing ESG criteria;

E.  whereas increased transparency of ESG-related data on companies is needed to prevent ‘green-washing’;

F.  whereas impact evaluation should be part of the taxonomy of sustainable financial products; whereas expertise is growing in how to calculate the impact of investments in ESG goals;

The need to provide an appropriate policy framework to mobilise capital required for a sustainable transition

1.  Stresses the potential of a faster sustainable transition as an opportunity for orienting capital markets and financial intermediaries towards long-term, innovative, socially friendly, environmentally sound and efficient investments; acknowledges the current trend of divestment from coal, but points out that further endeavours are required for divesting from other fossil fuels; underlines the importance of European banks and capital markets gaining from the advantages of innovation in this area; notes that ESG benefits and risks are often not adequately integrated in prices and that this provides market incentives to unsustainable and short-termist geared finance for certain market participants focused on fast returns; stresses that a well-designed political, supervisory and regulatory framework to govern sustainable finance, taking into account the diverse opportunities of the EU regions, is needed; notes that such a framework could help to mobilise capital at scale for sustainable development and enhance market efficiency to channel capital flows towards assets that contribute to sustainable development; calls on the Commission to come forward with an ambitious legislative framework, recognising the proposals put forward in the Commission Action Plan on Sustainable Finance;

The role of the financial sector as regards sustainability and the policies required for correcting market failures

2.  Stresses that the financial sector as a whole and its core function of allocating capital as efficiently as possible to the benefit of society should, in line with the EU’s objectives, be governed by the values of equity and inclusiveness and the principle of sustainability and should include ESG indicators and the cost of non-action in investment analyses and investment decisions; notes that inaccurate assessment or misleading presentation of climate and other environmental risks of financial products can constitute a risk to market stability; emphasises the instrumental role of economic, fiscal and monetary policy in fostering sustainable finance by facilitating capital allocation and the reorientation of investments towards more sustainable technologies and businesses, and towards decarbonised, disaster-resilient and resource-efficient economic activities which are able to reduce the current need for future resources and are thereby capable of meeting goals related to EU sustainability and to the Paris Agreement; acknowledges that an appropriate and increasing price for greenhouse gas emissions is an important component in a functioning and efficient environmental and social market economy by correcting current market failures; notes that the price in the European carbon market has been unstable; calls on the Commission and the Member States to work towards phasing out direct and indirect subsidies for fossil fuels;

Stranded assets and related systemic risks

3.  Underlines that although value is still attached to carbon assets on the balance sheets of undertakings, this value will need to follow a downward trend if a transition to a low-carbon society is to be achieved; emphasises therefore the substantial systemic risks that stranded carbon and environmentally harmful assets represent to financial stability if these assets are not duly priced in a timely fashion according to their long-term risk profile; stresses the need for the identification, assessment, and prudent management of exposures, and, after a transitional period, proportionate mandatory reporting, and progressive disposal of these assets as essential to the orderly, balanced and stable transition to climate-positive and resource-efficient investments; recommends extending the stranded assets concept to include fundamental ecological systems and services;

4.  Calls for the introduction of European ‘carbon stress tests’ as proposed by the European Systemic Risk Board (ESRB) in 2016 for banks and other financial intermediaries to be able to determine the risks related to such stranded assets; welcomes the ESRB proposals for developing climate-resilient prudential policies, such as specific capital adjustment based on the carbon intensity of individual exposures assessed to be excessively applied to the overall investment in assets deemed highly vulnerable to an abrupt transition to the low-carbon economy; points to the pending revision of the regulations establishing the European supervisory authorities (ESAs) as an opportunity to consider the role of the ESAs in investigating and developing standards for assessing carbon- and other environment related risks, their disclosure and inclusion in the internal bank risk-assessment process while taking into account existing sustainability reporting requirements by institutions; calls on the Commission to put forward legislative proposals in this respect;

Financing public investments required for the transition

5.  Emphasises that reforming the financial system, so that it actively contributes to accelerating the ecological transition, will require the cooperation of the public and private sectors; emphasises in this regard the instrumental role of fiscal and economic policy in providing the right signals and incentives; calls on the Member States, in coordination with the Commission, the ESAs and the EIB, to assess their national and collective public investment needs and to fill the potential gaps to ensure that the EU is on track to meet its climate change goals within the next five years, as well as the UN Sustainable Development Goals by 2030; underlines the role that national promotional banks and institutions can play in this regard; suggests coordinating this process at European level and establishing a system to track actual financial flows towards sustainable public investments within the framework of an EU Observatory on Sustainable Finance; welcomes innovative financial tools integrating sustainability indicators, which could facilitate this process, such as publicly issued green bonds; welcomes the clarification provided by Eurostat on the treatment of energy performance contracts in national accounts, as the treatment clarified may unlock considerable public capital flows towards a sector that currently accounts for three quarters of the EU’s 2030 clean energy investment gap; asks the Commission to further explore the idea of a qualified treatment for public investments related to ESG goals so as to spread the cost of these projects over the life-cycle of related public investment;

Sustainability indicators and taxonomy as an incentive for sustainable investments

6.  Calls on the Commission to lead a multi-stakeholder process, including both experts in climate science and financial-sector participants, to establish by the end of 2019 a robust, credible and technology-neutral sustainability taxonomy based on indicators that disclose the full impact of investments on sustainability and allow for comparison of investment projects and companies; emphasises the need to develop such sustainability indicators as a first step in the process of developing an EU sustainability taxonomy and to incorporate these indicators into integrated reporting; points out that the development of the sustainability taxonomy should be followed by the following additional legislative proposals: an overarching, mandatory due diligence framework including a duty of care to be fully phased-in within a transitional period and taking into account the proportionality principle, a responsible investment taxonomy, and a proposal to integrate ESG risks and factors into the prudential framework of financial institutions;

7.  Notes that sustainability indicators already exist, but that the current voluntary reporting frameworks lack harmonisation; calls therefore for the Commission to build its sustainability taxonomy on a harmonised list of sustainability indicators based on the existing work by, among others, the Global Reporting Initiative (GRI), the UN-supported Principles for Responsible Investment (UN PRI), the Commission itself, the OECD, and the private sector, and in particular the existing Eurostat resource efficiency indicators; recommends that these indicators be included in the taxonomy in a dynamic way and with clear guidance to investors about the time limits by when certain standards must be reached; recommends that the Commission also consider weighting indicators according to the urgency of addressing them at any given time; underlines that the taxonomy should strike the right balance between commitment and flexibility, which means that the framework should, within a transitional period, be mandatory and standardised, but should also be regarded as an evolving tool which can take on board emerging risks and/or risks that have yet to be mapped in a proper way;

8.  Sees the inclusion of ready-made quantitative indicators and qualitative judgments about climate and other environmental risks as an important step towards a responsible investment taxonomy that is compliant with the UN Sustainable Development Goals, international human rights law, and international humanitarian and labour laws; underlines that minimum standards on ESG risks and factors should include minimum social standards for such investments encompassing workers’ rights, health and safety standards, and the exclusion of resources derived from conflict regions or without prior informed consent by affected communities, as well as minimum governance standards encompassing EU requirements for corporate governance and reporting, matching EU standards for financial reporting, and EU standards for action against money-laundering, corruption and tax transparency;

Green Finance Mark

9.  Calls on the Commission to lead a multi-stakeholder process to establish by the end of 2019 a ‘Green Finance Mark’, through a legislative initiative, to be granted to investment, equity and pension products that have already achieved the highest standards in the sustainability taxonomy to guide the investment decision of those who prioritise sustainability above all other factors; recommends that this ‘Green Finance Mark’ should include minimum standards for ESG risks and factors aligned with the Paris Agreement and the do-no-harm principle in accordance with ESG risk analysis, and activities that are demonstrably achieving a ‘Positive Impact’ as defined by the UN Environment Programme Finance Initiative (UNEP FI); notes that an important function of the taxonomy, and a Green Finance Mark, is to enhance the risk assessment by financial-market participants by producing a scaled, market-based rating; welcomes innovations by market actors, such as credit rating agencies, in developing and administering such a market-based rating;

The integration of sustainable finance criteria in all legislation related to the financial sector

10.  Notes the recent inclusion of sustainability issues in the PRIIPs (packaged retail and insurance-based investment products) and STS (simple, transparent and standardised) Regulations, as well as in the Shareholder Rights Directive and the NFRD; stresses the need to ensure adequate regulatory consideration of the risks associated with green and sustainable assets; welcomes the inclusion in the IORPs Directive of recognition of stranded assets, as well as the extension of the prudent person principle and a reference to the UN principles for responsible investment; asks for the appropriate and proportionate integration of sustainable finance indicators in all new and revised legislation related to the financial sector, via an omnibus proposal or specific proposals; calls for common guidelines in order to harmonise the definition of ESG factors and their introduction in all new and revised legislation;

11.  Calls on the Commission, in this regard, to use the power defined in Regulation (EU) No 1286/2014 to deliver, as soon as possible and before developing the sustainability taxonomy, a delegated act to specify the details of the procedures used to establish whether a packaged retail- and insurance-based investment product targets specific environmental or social objectives; calls also for a proportionate mandatory due diligence framework based on the 2017 OECD Guidelines for Responsible Business Conduct for Institutional Investors, requiring investors to identify, prevent, mitigate and account for ESG factors after a transitional period; upholds that this pan-European framework should be based on the French Corporate Duty of Vigilance Law for companies and investors, including banks; calls also for a direct reference to ESG criteria in ‘product oversight and governance’ (POG) in all new and revised legislation, including legislation currently under discussion; welcomes the recommendation of the Commission’s High-Level Expert Group on Sustainable Finance to embed the ‘Think Sustainability First’ principle throughout the EU’s decision-making, implementation and enforcement process;

Sustainability risks within the prudential framework of capital adequacy rules

12.  Notes that sustainability risks can also carry financial risks, and that they should therefore be reflected, where substantial, in capital requirements and in the prudential consideration of banks; therefore asks the Commission to adopt a regulatory strategy and a roadmap aimed inter alia at measuring sustainability risks within the prudential framework and to promote the inclusion of sustainability risks in the Basel IV framework to ensure sufficient capital reserves; stresses that any capital adequacy rules must be based on and must fully reflect demonstrated risks; aims to initiate an EU pilot project within the next annual budget to begin developing methodological benchmarks for that purpose;

Disclosure

13.  Emphasises that disclosure is a critical enabling condition for sustainable finance; welcomes the work of the Taskforce on Climate-related Financial Disclosure (TCFD) and calls on the Commission and the Council to endorse its recommendations; calls for the incorporation of the cost of non-action on climate, environmental and other sustainability risks in disclosure frameworks; suggests that the Commission include proportional and mandatory disclosure in the framework of the revision of the Accounting Directive, the NFRD, the Capital Requirements Directive and Capital Requirements Regulation as from 2020, which would include a transposition period in which companies could prepare for implementation; notes that Article 173 of the French Energy Transition Bill offers a possible template for the regulation of mandatory climate risk disclosure by investors; calls for the consideration of an enlargement of the scope of application of the NFRD; stresses, in this respect, that the reporting framework requirements should be proportionate with regard to the risks incurred by the institution, its size and degree of complexity; recommends that the type of disclosure currently required under the PRIIPs regulation and through the Key Information Document should be extended to all retail financial products;

Fiduciary duty

14.  Notes that fiduciary duties are already embedded in the Union’s financial regulatory framework, but insists that they should be clarified in the course of defining, establishing and testing a robust and credible sustainable taxonomy, encompassing key investment activities, including investment strategy, risk management, asset allocation, governance and stewardship for all actors across the investment chain, including asset managers and independent investment consultants or other investment intermediaries; recommends that fiduciary duty should be extended to encompass a mandatory ‘two-way’ integration process whereby all actors across the investment chain, including asset managers and independent investment consultants or other investment intermediaries, are required to integrate financially material ESG factors into their decisions, including the cost of non-action, as well as considering the non-financially material ESG preferences of clients and beneficiaries or the ultimate end-investors, who should be proactively asked about their timeframe and sustainability preferences; calls for the incorporation of the cost of non-action on climate, environmental and other sustainability risks to become part of the risk management and due diligence assessment of company boards and public authorities, and part of the fiduciary duty of investors;

Model contracts for ESG identification

15.  Calls on the European Supervisory Authorities (ESAs) to develop guidelines for model contracts between asset owners and asset managers, independent investment consultants and other investment intermediaries which would clearly incorporate the transmission of the beneficiary interest as well as clear expectations as regards the identification and integration of ESG risks and factors, with a view to avoiding, reducing, mitigating and compensating for those risks; calls on the EU institutions to ensure the allocation of adequate resources to the ESAs in the context of the pending revision of the ESAs regulation; calls for the incorporation of the cost of non-action on climate and other sustainability risks in all future EU legislation and legislative revisions and funding impact assessments;

Stewardship

16.  Asks that active and accountable stewardship form an integral part of the legal duties of investors and that an account of stewardship activities be made available to beneficiaries and the public through, inter alia, the public and mandatory disclosure of major holdings, engagement activities, the use of proxy advisers and the use of passive investment vehicles; recommends that passive funds, led by index-based investment, should be encouraged to disclose their stewardship activities and the extent to which the use of passive indexing and benchmarking allows for the proper identification of ESG risks in investee companies; considers that index providers should be asked to provide details of the exposure of widely used and referenced benchmarks to climate and sustainability parameters;

Need to develop further ESG reporting requirements in the framework of the NFRD

17.  Notes an insufficient degree of convergence in ESG reporting within the framework of the NFRD and the need for harmonisation with the aim of fostering more consistency, and for defining the most appropriate ESG metrics for disclosure, using sustainability and resource-efficiency indicators; calls on the Commission to create an EU-wide multi-stakeholder group including representatives of the financial services industry, academia and civil society to assess and propose an appropriate list of metrics, including a list of indicators measuring sustainability impacts and covering the most significant sustainability risks; is of the opinion that such reform should include the requirement of third-party audited reporting;

Green bonds

18.  Notes that green bonds represent only a fraction of the investment market and one that is insufficiently regulated, and, as a result, is a part of the market that is vulnerable to the risk of misleading marketing and that the EU currently lacks a unified standard for green bonds, which should build on a forthcoming EU sustainable taxonomy; notes that such green bonds should be verified and supervised by public authorities, and should include periodic reporting on the environmental impacts of the underlying assets; underlines that green bonds should also include reverse environmental impact and support a decrease in the use of fossil fuel assets; underlines that green bonds should exclude certain sectors – especially in relation to the activities that have the a significant negative impact on climate – and should not breach core social and human rights standards; suggests that the development of the standard for an EU green bond should take place in full transparency with a specific Commission working group subject to regular scrutiny by the European Parliament; calls on the Commission to regularly assess the impact, effectiveness and supervision of the green bonds; calls in that respect for a legislative initiative to incentivise, promote and market a European public issuance of green bonds by existing and future European institutions such as the EIB, in order to finance new sustainable investments;

Credit-rating agencies

19.  Notes that credit-rating agencies (CRAs) do not sufficiently integrate the impact of disruptive ESG risks and factors in issuers’ future credit-worthiness; calls for the adoption of EU standards and supervision regarding the integration of ESG indicators in ratings for all credit-rating agencies operating in the EU; points out that the underlying insufficient competition among these firms and their narrow economic focus have still not been fully addressed; calls for the establishment of an accreditation process for a ‘Green Finance Mark’ by certifying agents supervised by the European Securities and Markets Authority (ESMA); recommends mandating ESMA to require CRAs to incorporate sustainability risks into their methodologies; where these are likely to be manifested in future, requests the Commission, in this regard, to put forward a revision of the CRA Regulation; emphasises the importance of sustainability research provided by sustainability indexes and ESG rating agencies in providing all financial actors with the necessary information for their reporting and fiduciary duty, in implementing the shift towards a more sustainable financial system;

Labelling systems for financial services

20.  Suggests that the Commission establish a binding and proportionate labelling system, which should be voluntary during a transition period, for institutions offering retail bank accounts, investment funds, insurance and financial products, indicating the extent to which underlying assets are in conformity with the Paris Agreement and ESG goals;

ESAs mandate

21.  Intends to further clarify the mandate of the ESAs and of national competent authorities in the context of the pending revision of the ESA regulations to include and monitor ESG risks and factors thereby rendering financial market activities more consistent with sustainability objectives; in that respect is of the opinion that ESMA should:

underlines, in this context, that the ESAs should have sufficient financial resources to carry out their mission; encourages the ESAs to cooperate on these issues with the relevant agencies and international organisations;

The role of the EIB as regards sustainable finance

22.  Stresses the example-setting role EU institutions should play when it comes to making finance sustainable; notes that although 26 % of all EIB financing has targeted climate action and although the EIB pioneered the green bond market in 2007 and is on track to reach its announced commitment in the regard, it is still financing carbon-intensive projects and so there is still room for improvement; urges the EIB, therefore, to adapt and prioritise its future lending so as to be compatible with the Paris Agreement and a 1,5 °C climate limit; calls on the EIB lending operations and the European Fund for Strategic Investments (EFSI) Regulation to be strengthened and rebalanced so that they cease to invest in carbon-intensive projects and prioritise resource-efficient and decarbonising projects alongside other innovative sectors and immaterial undertakings; advises that the EIB is in a position to provide more risk capital for the green transition in a regionally balanced way; is of the opinion that further measures should be undertaken within that perspective, including inter alia in interaction with EU financial instruments in the next Multiannual Financial Framework;

The role of the ECB as regards sustainable finance

23.  Acknowledges the independence of the ECB and its primary mandate as being to preserve price stability, but recalls that the ECB as an EU institution is also bound by the Paris Agreement; is therefore concerned about the fact ‘that 62,1 % of ECB corporate bond purchases take place in the sectors [...] which are responsible for 58,5 % of euro area greenhouse gas emissions’(14) and notes that this programme directly benefits mostly large corporations; recommends the ECB to explicitly take into account the Paris Agreement and ESG goals in its guidelines orienting its purchase programmes; underlines that such guidelines may act as a pilot for establishing a future ESG-oriented investment policy consistent with high standards on an EU sustainable taxonomy;

Other issues

24.  Underlines that a meaningful offer of sustainable financial products may also have positive effects on the enhancement of European social infrastructure, understood as the set of initiatives and projects aimed at creating public value by boosting investment and innovation in the sectors which are strategic and crucial to the wellbeing and resilience of people and communities, such as education, healthcare and housing;

25.  Welcomes the work by the HLEG, which offers valuable building blocks to work towards a new standard for a sustainable financial sector; insists, however, on the need to actively involve the banking sector, which due to its dominance of the European financial landscape still holds the key to making finance more sustainable;

26.  Underlines that the methodology used in order to track climate-related spending leads to inconsistency across programmes, allowing for projects with doubtful environmental and climate benefits to be qualified as climate-related expenditure (e.g. the greening component of the common agricultural policy);

27.  Highlights that all widely used financial benchmarks do not consider ESG factors in their methodology; calls for the development of one or more European sustainability benchmarks, using the European sustainability taxonomy, to measure the performance of European issuers on the basis of ESG risks and factors;

28.  Calls for the analysis and encouragement of private initiatives, such as the EeMAP project on ‘green mortgages’, in order to assess and demonstrate under what conditions green assets may entail a reduction of risk for investments while at the same time enhancing environmental sustainability;

29.  Calls on the EU to actively promote the inclusion of the sustainability indicators in the International Financial Reporting Standards framework at international level;

30.  Highlights that corporate governance should promote long-term sustainable value creation, for instance through loyalty shares for long-term shareholders and including ESG in remuneration packages for directors and the board; notes that the clarification of directors’ duties in this respect would support sustainable investors in their engagement with boards;

31.  Calls for the introduction of a mandatory environmental liability insurance for all commercial and public activities as a precondition for the deliverance of authorisation permits;

32.  Highlights that sustainable finance requires a clarification of European companies’ directors’ duties concerning long-term sustainable value creation, ESG matters, and systemic risks, as part of the directors’ overarching duty to promote the success of the company;

33.  Calls on the European supervisory authorities to formulate guidelines on the collection of statistics on the identification and integration into financing of ESG risks and calls for statistics to be published wherever possible;

34.  Calls on national banking and financial market authorities to draw up clear and concise instructions on how the new taxonomy and other changes associated with this legislation can be implemented without this generating avoidable costs and delays;

35.  Upholds the view that that pricing measures can deliver a critical contribution in closing the EUR 180 billion funding gap to deliver Europe’s decarbonisation efforts, by shifting investment towards long-term sustainable goals;

36.  Notes that SMEs are often forgotten in discussions concerning sustainable finance, despite their innovative nature; notes in this context the vast potential of digitalisation and green FinTech; recommends that the Commission consider mechanisms to enable SMEs to bundle projects in order to allow them access to the green bond market;

37.  Stresses the importance of the social component of sustainable finance; notes the potential for the development of new financial instruments especially dedicated to social infrastructures, such as social bonds, as endorsed by the Social Bond Principles (SBP) 2017;

38.  Emphasises that the identification, management and disclosure of ESG risks are integral parts of consumer protection and financial stability and should thus fall under the mandate and supervisory duties of the ESAs; asks the ESRB to actively pursue research on the interplay of ESG factors and systemic risk, beyond climate change;

39.  Recalls that Parliament has called for the introduction of an EU savings account for the financing of the green economy in its resolution of 14 November 2017 on the Action Plan on Retail Financial Services;

40.  Demands that all future EU spending must be Paris-compatible with objectives relating to the decarbonisation of the economy being included in the legal instruments regulating the operation of European Structural and Investment Funds (including cohesion funds), funds for external action and development cooperation and other instruments outside the Multiannual Financial Framework such as EFSI;

41.  Calls on the Commission to conduct a feasibility study into how supervisors and regulators might better reward mandates that include long-term perspectives;

42.  Calls on the European Insurance and Occupational Pensions Authority (EIOPA) to provide best practice and guidelines on how providers of occupational pension schemes and private pension products engage with beneficiaries pre-contractually and throughout the life of the investment; calls on EIOPA to provide guidelines on best practice, such as the UK Environmental Agency Fund, for engaging with beneficiaries and retail clients and ascertaining their financial and non-financial interests;

43.  Takes note of the recommendation made by the HLEG for an EU observatory on sustainable finance, which should be created to track, report and disclose information on EU sustainable investments and should be set up by the European Environment Agency in cooperation with the ESAs; recommends, with a view to strengthening the example-setting function of the European Union, that this observatory also take on a role in tracking, supporting and disclosing information on sustainable investments of EU funds and EU institutions, including EFSI, the EIB and the ECB; asks the observatory to report on its activities to Parliament;

44.  Recommends that the EIB work with small market participants and community cooperatives to undertake bundling of small-scale renewable energy projects to enable them to be eligible for EIB funding and as part of the Corporate Sector Purchase Programme;

45.  Concurs with the HLEG that it is of paramount importance to empower and connect Europe’s citizens with sustainable finance issues; underlines the need to improve access to information on sustainability performance and to promote financial literacy;

46.  Calls on the Commission and the Member States to ensure policy coherence between financial and non-financial sectors; recalls that sustainable financial policy needs to be accompanied by coherent policy choices in other sectors such as energy, transport, industry, and agriculture;

47.  Calls on the Commission to publish a regular progress report on the issues covered in this resolution;

48.  Calls on the Commission and the Member States to use the EU’s influence to demonstrate leadership on sustainable finance and raise sustainability standards in finance at global level, including through bilateral agreements with third countries, at multilateral political forums such as the UN, G7 and G20 and in international standard-setters such as the International Organisation of Securities Commissions (IOSCO);

o
o   o

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

(1) OJ L 335, 17.12.2009, p. 1. (2) OJ L 330, 15.11.2014, p. 1. (3) OJ L 132, 20.5.2017, p. 1. (4) OJ L 354, 23.12.2016, p. 37. (5) OJ L 182, 29.6.2013, p. 19. (6) OJ L 347, 28.12.2017, p. 35. (7) OJ L 352, 9.12.2014, p. 1. (8) UN Office for Disaster Risk Reduction https://www.unisdr.org/files/46796_cop21weatherdisastersreport2015.pdf (9) Texts adopted, P8_TA(2018)0039. (10) Texts adopted, P8_TA(2018)0025. (11) Texts adopted, P8_TA(2017)0428. (12) OJ C 75, 26.2.2016, p. 41. (13) OJ C 265, 11.8.2017, p. 65. (14) Sini Matikainen, Emanuele Campiglio and Dimitri Zenghelis, ‘The climate impact of quantitative easing’, Grantham Institute on climate change and the environment, May 2017.

European Parliament resolution of 29 May 2018 on the 2017 EU Justice Scoreboard (2018/2009(INI))

P8_TA(2018)0216 A8-0161/2018

The European Parliament,

–  having regard to the Treaty on European Union, in particular Articles 2, 6 and 7 thereof,

–  having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, in particular Articles 70, 85, 86, 258, 259 and 260 thereof,

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

–  having regard to its relevant resolutions in the areas of the rule of law and justice,

–  having regard to the communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Central Bank, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions of 10 April 2017 entitled ‘The 2017 EU Justice Scoreboard’ (COM(2017)0167),

–  having regard to the 2017 European Commission Joint Research Centre study entitled ‘The judicial system and economic development across EU Member States’(1),

–  having regard to the 2017 US Chamber Institute for Legal Reform Survey entitled ‘The Growth of Collective Redress in the EU’(2),

–  having regard to the Gender Statistics Database of the European Institute for Gender Equality (EIGE)(3),

–  having regard to reports by the European Commission for Democracy through Law (Venice Commission), in particular its Rule of Law Checklist(4),

–  having regard to its resolution of 12 March 2014 on evaluation of justice in relation to criminal justice and the rule of law(5),

–  having regard to Milieu’s 2011 ‘Comparative study on access to justice in gender equality and anti-discrimination law’(6),

–  having regard to the Council of Europe’s Recommendation on judges: independence, efficiency and responsibilities (CM/Rec(2010)12)(7),

–  having regard to the 2017 European Parliament Policy Department for Citizens’ Rights and Constitutional Affairs study entitled ‘Mapping the Representation of Women and Men in Legal Professions Across the EU’(8),

–  having regard to the annual evaluation reports on European judicial systems drawn up by the Council of Europe’s European Commission for the Efficiency of Justice (CEPEJ)(9),

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

–  having regard to the report of the Committee on Legal Affairs and the opinion of the Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs (A8-0161/2018),

A.  whereas independent, efficient and quality justice systems are key to upholding the rule of law, the fairness of judicial proceedings and the trust of citizens and businesses in the legal system, ensuring that individuals and businesses can fully enjoy their rights; whereas an effective justice system is inseparable from judicial independence, supporting economic growth, defending fundamental rights and underpinning the proper application of EU law; whereas justice is a value in and of itself, in particular as regards citizens’ access to justice and respect for the right to a fair trial;

B.  whereas the Commission has published the 2017 EU Justice Scoreboard, an informative, comparative, non-binding tool assessing in principle the effectiveness, independence and quality of national justice systems, in order to pinpoint any shortcomings, identify good practice and progress and better define Member States’ justice policies, focusing for that purpose on the parameters of justice systems that contribute to an improved business, investment and consumer climate in the Union;

C.  whereas the fifth EU Justice Scoreboard analyses in particular issues relating to public access to legal proceedings, the independence of the judiciary as perceived by individuals and the business sector, current use of information and communication technologies (ICT) in the justice system and the operation of national justice systems in specific areas relating to the single market and the business sector, while also presenting an initial overview of the functioning of national criminal justice systems in enforcing EU anti-money laundering legislation;

D.  whereas the 2017 EU Justice Scoreboard does not present an overall ranking of national justice systems and does not intend to put one system before another;

E.  whereas on the other hand the Justice Scoreboard should be a useful handbook offering an overview of best practices to be used by Member States in the area of civil, commercial and administrative justice;

F.  whereas much data regarding certain Member States is still unavailable; whereas there are discrepancies in the quantity and specific content of data provided by certain Member States;

G.  whereas the 2017 EU Justice Scoreboard focuses mainly on civil, commercial and administrative justice, but also presents an initial overview of the functioning of national systems when applying EU anti-money laundering legislation in criminal justice;

H.  whereas this non-binding exercise has the merits of identifying both positive and negative trends and of offering a forum for peer learning and exchange of best practices across the Union to promote and guarantee compliance with the rule of law;

I.  whereas providing information about the justice system in a user-friendly manner is a prerequisite to access to justice;

J.  whereas justice systems must be adapted to meet the new challenges faced by the EU;

General observations

1.  Underlines that justice affirms the rule of law in society and ensures everyone’s right to a fair trial by an independent and impartial court; calls on the Member States to ensure that any justice reform upholds the rule of law and complies with EU standards on judicial independence; encourages the Commission, in this regard, to continue monitoring national justice reforms in the framework of the European Semester, which also draws on information from the EU Justice Scoreboard; calls furthermore on the Commission to develop new criteria for better assessing the conformity of judicial systems with the rule of law, drawing in particular on the Venice Commission’s Rule of Law Checklist;

2.  Calls on the Commission to gather more precise information on the way in which violations of the rule of law and threats to fundamental rights, including corruption, discrimination and breaches of privacy, freedom of thought, conscience, religion, expression, assembly and association, are being dealt with;

3.  Recalls the request made in its resolution of 25 October 2016 on an EU mechanism on democracy, the rule of law and fundamental rights, and reiterates its request to the Commission to submit a proposal for the conclusion of a Union Pact for Democracy, the Rule of Law and Fundamental Rights (DRF Pact); calls on the Commission to bundle existing reports, including the Justice Scoreboard, until the DRF Pact is in place;

4.  Takes note of the 2017 EU Justice Scoreboard with great interest and calls on the Commission to further promote this exercise in accordance with the Treaties and in consultation with the Member States;

5.  Emphasises that the establishment of a separate Justice Scoreboard in criminal matters will make a fundamental contribution to creating a common understanding of EU legislation in the field of criminal law among judges and prosecutors, thus strengthening mutual trust;

6.  Calls on the Commission to take into account the fight against corruption, and considers the inclusion of this issue in the Justice Scoreboard to be a priority;

7.  Supports the aim of this exchange and stresses that an independent, efficient, high-quality justice system could give businesses incentives to develop and invest at national and cross-border level, while at the same time protecting citizens’ fundamental rights, and enforcing the rights of consumers and workers, thus boosting their economic contribution;

8.  Notes the importance of judicial benchmarking for cross-border mutual trust, for effective cooperation between justice institutions and for the creation of a common judicial area and a European judicial culture; encourages the Commission, therefore, to continue developing concrete indicators to assess, in practice, the upholding of EU values such as the rule of law and respect for fundamental rights;

9.  Believes that such a comparison must be based on objective criteria and evidence that is accurately compiled, compared and analysed while taking individual constitutional and legal frameworks into account; stresses the importance of ensuring equality of treatment between all Member States when impartially assessing their justice systems;

10.  Welcomes the Commission’s efforts to assess, for the first time, certain aspects of criminal justice relating to the fight against money laundering, and recommends that the Commission take the measures necessary to encourage the Member States to provide data on the length of judicial proceedings in this area, in view of the entering into force of the Fourth and, subsequently, the Fifth Anti-Money Laundering Directive;

11.  Welcomes the efforts of the Commission to present measurable data and draw concrete conclusions on how Member States have improved or may yet improve the quality and efficiency of their justice systems, especially as regards the status and appointment of judges, their independence, and gender balance; notes that the data gap has continued to decrease, in particular for indicators relating to the efficiency of justice systems; regrets, however, that there are still instances where, though applicable or available, no data have been provided by some Member States for certain categories; calls, therefore, on Member States to intensify their efforts to make data comparable and to fully collaborate with the Commission by supplying the data requested; stresses that the Member States must continue to reduce the data gap in order to achieve their priorities for efficient justice systems; calls on the Member States to cooperate closely with the CEPEJ and the Commission, especially via the informal group of national experts from ministries and respective justice systems, in order to fill the persisting data gaps under some categories of the Justice Scoreboard;

12.  Calls on the Member States to examine the results of the 2017 Justice Scoreboard closely and to determine what lessons need to be drawn therefrom, and to consider whether national measures need to be adopted to correct any irregularities regarding the quality, efficiency and independence of their national justice systems;

13.  Notes that many Member States have maintained their efforts to improve the effectiveness of their national justice systems through the introduction of reforms; welcomes the fact that a significant number of new reforms have been announced in respect of legal aid, alternative dispute resolution (ADR) methods, court specialisation and judicial maps;

Efficiency

14.  Underlines the importance of efficient and timely proceedings in accordance with Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights and Article 47 of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights; highlights, furthermore, the importance of quick and efficient proceedings in matters of consumer protection, intellectual property and data privacy rights; notes with concern that such proceedings are still too lengthy in some Member States; points out that a large backlog of pending cases might also make citizens and businesses less willing to trust the judicial system, as well as decrease legal certainty, trust being the cornerstone of respect for the rule of law;

15.  Encourages Member States to invest in the use and continued development of ICT tools in their judicial systems, in an effort to make them more accessible, more comprehensible and easier to use for all EU citizens, especially those with any form of disability and vulnerable groups, including national minorities and/or migrants; emphasises the benefit of ICT systems for cross-border cooperation between the Member States’ judicial authorities and at national level in reducing costs for all stakeholders involved, and also in terms of improving the overall efficiency and quality of justice systems, for example through electronic submission of claims, the possibility of monitoring and conducting proceedings online and electronic communication between courts and lawyers; regrets the fact that the full potential of ICT systems has not yet been reached throughout the whole of the EU; welcomes the transparency in most Member States regarding the publication of court rulings; underlines that availability of online information in a user-friendly manner contributes significantly to the accessibility of justice for citizens and businesses; calls on the Member States to publish all court rulings online as this will help citizens and businesses become better acquainted with the judicial system as well as make it more transparent; notes furthermore that this could facilitate the consistency of case law;

16.  Highlights the need to intensify and diversify the scope of training offered to judges, as this is also a basis for an efficient, independent and impartial judicial system; underlines in particular the need for training in the fields of gender roles, norms and stereotypes, judicial ethics, IT skills, judicial management, mediation, and communication with parties and with the press; underlines furthermore the importance of adequate training in EU law and in the different EU cooperation structures, such as Eurojust; notes that specific areas of EU law, such as copyright and privacy legislation, may require understanding not just of the law but also of technological developments; notes that the specialisation of judges and courts seems to have a positive effect on efficiency as well as on the quality of justice systems; asks the Commission to examine this issue further in next year’s exercise; underlines that continuous and systematic training of judges and other legal experts is needed to ensure coherent and high-quality application and efficient enforcement of law; calls on the Member States to invest more in the development of judicial training and continuous education for legal professionals, such as judges, including in other Member States, with the aim of exchanging experiences and best practices;

17.  Encourages the Member States and the EU institutions to support the further development of mediation at EU level; calls on the Commission to assess systematically the impacts of mediation in the EU judicial systems;

Quality

18.  Calls on the Commission to add collective redress procedures to next year’s comparative exercise on accessibility factors of justice systems, as it believes access to justice and efficient dispute resolution to be of prime importance; considers these procedures a major tool in order to strengthen consumer, environmental and health protection in the EU as a whole, in areas where large numbers of applicants are directly affected; considers that collective redress procedures facilitate citizens’ access to justice and efficient dispute resolution and consequently eliminate unreasonable barriers, notably for citizens living below the poverty threshold or involved in cases with a cross-border dimension;

19.  Notes that most Member States require parties to pay a court fee when initiating legal proceedings; stresses that the availability of legal aid and the level of court fees have a key impact on access to justice, a fundamental right in the EU, in particular for citizens in poverty, and underlines the role of legal aid in guaranteeing that weaker parties can have access to justice on equal terms; highlights that legal aid for consumers below the poverty threshold remains an essential balancing factor; points out that the difficulty in obtaining legal aid could be a major deterrent where the court and/or legal fees represent a significant share of the value of the claim; considers that legal aid should be linked to the poverty threshold in the Member States; maintains that legal costs should, in general, be further lowered, for example by making use of national electronic e-Justice portals; calls on Member States to improve the user-friendliness of online information enabling citizens to determine whether they are eligible for legal aid, including accessible online information for persons who are visually impaired;

20.  Calls on the Commission to introduce, before the close of next year’s exercise, a new indicator on access to justice for any groups which could possibly be underprivileged or discriminated against, in order to identify any possible obstacles;

21.  Stresses the need to address the still existing gender balance disparities and considerable ratio gaps among judges, namely in higher instance courts/supreme courts, at both national and EU level; takes note with regret of the recent negative development in the proportion of female professional judges in some Member States;

22.  Highlights that there is still much to do in terms of gender equality in the judicial professions across Europe, not least as regards access to the office of judge, and in terms of gender stereotypes, transparency in appointments, reconciliation between work and non-work responsibilities or the existence of mentoring practices; emphasises the clear discrepancy between the proportions of female professionals at lower levels of the judiciary (including non-judicial officers) and at the higher court and prosecution levels; urges the Member States to direct efforts, particularly in the field of higher education, towards women in the judicial professions, and to encourage a positive attitude towards female judges;

23.  Recalls the 2015 Joint Statement by the European Parliament and the Council(10) stating that Member States should, to the greatest possible extent and in view of the objective of achieving equality between men and women laid down in Article 3 of the Treaty on European Union, ensure an equal presence of women and men when appointing candidates as judges at the General Court of the Court of Justice of the European Union; urges the Member States to set a good example in this regard;

24.  Underlines that, while over half of the Member States increased expenditure on the judicial system per inhabitant in 2015, the determination of financial resources is still mostly based on historical costs instead of actual workload or number of court requests;

25.  Welcomes the increased use of alternative dispute resolution mechanisms in most Member States, in particular that of the European online dispute resolution (ODR) platform for consumers and traders;

26.  Takes note of the lack of data availability in the field of matrimonial matters and matters of parental responsibility; encourages the Commission to include such data in the EU Justice Scoreboard when made available by the Member States, possibly as a mid-term objective to be put in place after completion of the review of Council Regulation (EC) No 2201/2003 concerning jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in matrimonial matters and matters of parental responsibility;

Independence

27.  Underlines that independence, quality and efficiency are key elements for an effective justice system, which is in turn central for the rule of law, the fairness of judicial proceedings and the trust of citizens and businesses in the legal system; emphasises, furthermore, that independence of the judiciary is an integral part of democracy; considers that an independent judicial system relies, on the one hand, on the lack of interference or pressure from government and politics or from parties with vested economic interests and, on the other hand, on effective guarantees provided by the status and position of judges and on their financial situation; stresses that sufficient autonomy must be ensured to shield prosecutorial authorities from undue political influence; calls on the Commission, therefore, to include a section devoted to the status of public prosecutors and their autonomy in the Scoreboard; further invites the Commission to continue assessing legal safeguards for judicial independence, including in cooperation with the networks of the Supreme Courts and the Councils for the Judiciary;

28.  Points out the importance of impartial, i.e. free from arbitrary executive discretion, and comprehensive mechanisms for the appointment, evaluation, transfer or dismissal of judges;

o
o   o

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

(1) http://publications.jrc.ec.europa.eu/repository/bitstream/JRC104594/jrc104594__2017_the_judicial_system_and_economic_development_across_eu_member_states.pdf (2) http://www.instituteforlegalreform.com/uploads/sites/1/The_Growth_of_Collective_Redress_in_the_EU_A_Survey_of_Developments_in_10_Member_States_April_2017.pdf (3) http://eige.europa.eu/gender-statistics/dgs (4) http://www.venice.coe.int/webforms/documents/default.aspx?pdffile=CDL-AD(2016)007-e (5) OJ C 378, 9.11.2017, p. 136. (6) Milieu Ltd (2011), ‘Comparative study on access to justice in gender equality and anti-discrimination law’, Synthesis report, DG Justice of the European Commission, Brussels. (7) https://wcd.coe.int/ViewDoc.jsp?p=&Ref=CM/Rec(2010)12&Language=lanEnglish&Ver=original&BackColorInternet=C3C3C3&BackColorIntranet=EDB021&BackColorLogged=F5D383&direct=true (8) http://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/STUD/2017/596804/IPOL_STU(2017)596804_EN.pdf. (9) https://www.coe.int/t/dghl/cooperation/cepej/evaluation/default_en.asp (10) OJ C 436, 24.12.2015, p. 1.