European Parliament resolution of 17 December 2020 on the Multiannual Financial Framework 2021-2027, the Interinstitutional Agreement, the EU Recovery Instrument and the Rule of Law Regulation (2020/2923(RSP)

P9_TA(2020)0360 B9-0428/2020

The European Parliament,

–  having regard to Articles 2, 14, 15, 16 and 17 of the Treaty on the European Union (TEU) as well as Articles 295, 310, 311, 312, 322 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU),

–  having regard to the political agreement reached on 5 November 2020 on the Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on a general regime of conditionality for the protection of the Union budget (‘Rule of Law Regulation’),

–  having regard to the political agreements, including the joint and unilateral declarations, reached on 10 November 2020 on the Multiannual Financial Framework 2021-2027 (‘the MFF’), the Interinstitutional Agreement between the European Parliament, the Council and the Commission on budgetary discipline, on cooperation in budgetary matters and on sound financial management, as well as on new own resources, including a roadmap towards the introduction of new own resources (‘the IIA’) and the EU Recovery Instrument (‘EURI’),

–  having regard to the conclusions of the European Council adopted on 21 July 2020,

–  having regard to the European Parliament resolution on 23 July 2020,

–  having regard to the European Parliament letter on the Rule of Law by Group leaders to Mrs Angela Merkel, Chancellor of the Federal Republic of Germany and Presidency of the Council of the EU, and to Mrs Ursula von der Leyen, President of the European Commission, of 26 August 2020,

–  having regard to the European Parliament statement by the Conference of Presidents on long-term EU budget and Rule of Law of 18 November 2020,

–  having regard to the conclusions of the European Council adopted on 11 December 2020,

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

A.  whereas the European Union is a Union of values as enshrined in Article 2 TEU;

B.  whereas the COVID-19 outbreak has claimed thousands of lives in Europe and the world and has led to an unprecedented crisis with disastrous consequences for people, workers and businesses, and therefore requires an unprecedented response, especially after the second wave of COVID-19 and until the pandemic is effectively over;

C.  whereas the political debate within the European Council led to the delay of the entire process thus delaying the MFF, the IIA, the EURI and Rule of Law Regulation negotiations, adoption and implementation;

D.  whereas an effective Rule of Law Regulation and the introduction of new own resources were a pre-condition of the European Parliament to agree with the MFF package;

E.  whereas the Union’s co-legislators have been able to reach on unprecedented agreements during 2020;

1.  Welcomes the political agreements, including the joint and unilateral declarations, reached by co-legislators on 5 November 2020, on the Rule of Law Regulation and on 10 November 2020, on the MFF, the IIA and the EURI; highlights that those historical political agreements include, amongst others, the following provisions:

2.  Recalls the historic importance of the package and its potential with regards to secure a quick recovery from the COVID-19 pandemic and its social-economic effects and meet Union’s challenges for the next seven years, including the Green Deal, the digital transition and the protection of its values and of the money of EU taxpayers;

3.  Welcomes the outcome of the European Council endorsing the abovementioned political agreements at its meeting of 10 and 11 December 2020; welcomes that the Heads of State and Government have reached an agreement to allow for the MFF, the IIA, the EURI and the Rule of Law Regulation to enter into force on 1 January 2021; welcomes that the legal texts remain unchanged;

4.  Strongly regrets, however, that, due to the unanimity rule in the Council, the adoption of the entire package, including the new EU programmes for the period 2021-2027, cause unduly delay for the entire process; recalls that the content of the European Council conclusions on the Regulation on a general regime of conditionality for the protection of the Union budget is superfluous; recalls that the applicability, purpose and scope of the Rule of Law Regulation is clearly defined in the legal text of the said Regulation;

5.  Recalls that in accordance with Article 15(1) TEU, the European Council shall not exercise legislative functions; considers, therefore, that any political declaration of the European Council cannot be deemed to represent an interpretation of legislation as interpretation is vested with the European Court of Justice (CJEU);

6.  Recalls that the Commission and its President are elected by the European Parliament; recalls that in accordance with Article 17(1) TEU, the Commission shall ensure the application of the Treaties, and of measures adopted by the institutions pursuant to them; affirms, therefore, that the Commission shall, at any moment and in any circumstances, abide by law, dura lex sed lex;

7.  Recalls that in accordance with Article 17(3) TEU, the Commission shall be completely independent;

8.  Recalls that in accordance with Article 17(8) TEU, the Commission shall be responsible to the European Parliament; recalls that Parliament has several legal means at its disposal to make sure that the Commission respects its treaty obligation, including the discharge procedure, in order to assess the proper management of Union funds; stresses, furthermore, that Parliament has several legal and political means at its disposal to make sure that the law is enforced by everyone and by EU institutions in the first place; stresses that the conclusions of the European Council cannot be made binding on the Commission in applying legal acts;

9.  Stresses that co-legislators have agreed that the Regulation on a general regime of conditionality for the protection of the Union budget shall apply from 1 January 2021 and will have to be applied to all commitments and payments; recalls that the applicability of this Regulation cannot be subject to adoption of any guidelines, as the text agreed is sufficiently clear, and no implementing instruments are foreseen; expects the Commission, as the guardian of the Treaties, to ensure that the Regulation is fully applicable from the date agreed by the co-legislators and recalls that annulment of the Regulation or part of it is only possible by the CJEU; affirms that if a Member State seeks the annulment of the Regulation or the parts thereof, Parliament will defend its validity before the Court and expects the Commission to intervene in support of Parliament’s position; highlights, in such case, that Parliament will ask that the Court proceed in an expedited procedure; recalls Article 265 TFEU and states its readiness to make use of it;

10.  Takes the view that the need for full parliamentary involvement in the operation of Next Generation EU has to see the light; stresses that the ongoing trilogue has to provide a satisfactory outcome on this point;

11.  Takes the view that the overcoming of the hurdles posed by unanimity requirement in Council regarding the adoption of the MFF and own resources decision, among other instances, shall be addressed in the upcoming Conference on the Future of Europe;

12.  Instructs its President to forward this resolution to the Council, the European Council and the Commission.

European Parliament resolution of 17 December 2020 on the implementation of the Dublin III Regulation (2019/2206(INI))

P9_TA(2020)0361 A9-0245/2020

The European Parliament,

–  having regard to Article 78(2)(e) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU),

–  having regard to Article 80 of the TFEU, on the principle of solidarity and fair sharing of responsibility, including its financial implications, between the Member States,

–  having regard to Articles 1, 2, 3, 4, 18, 19 and 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union,

–  having regard to Articles 2, 3, 5, 8 and 13 of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (ECHR),

–  having regard to Article 14 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, adopted by the UN General Assembly in 1948,

–  having regard to the UN Global Compact on Refugees,

—  having regard to the 1951 Convention and the 1967 Protocol relating to the Status of Refugees (Geneva Convention),

—  having regard to Regulation (EU) No 604/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 June 2013 on establishing the criteria and mechanisms for determining the Member State responsible for examining an application for international protection lodged in one of the Member States by a third-country national or a stateless person (recast), known as the Dublin III Regulation(1),

—  having regard to Council Decisions (EU) 2015/1523 of 14 September 2015(2) and (EU) 2015/1601 of 22 September 2015(3) establishing provisional measures in the area of international protection for the benefit of Italy and of Greece,

–  having regard to the Commission proposal to the European Parliament and the Council (COM(2016)0270) to reform the Dublin III Regulation,

–  having regard to the negotiating mandate adopted by the Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs on 19 October 2017, which was approved in Plenary on 16 November 2017, and confirmed by the Conference of Presidents on 17 October 2019,

–  having regard to its resolution of 12 April 2016 on the situation in the Mediterranean and the need for a holistic EU approach to Migration(4),

–  having regard to the judgments of the Court of Justice of the European Union related to Regulation (EU) No 604/2013, in particular C-695/15 PPU Mirza (ECLI:EU: C:2016 :188), C-63/15 Ghezelbash (Grand Chamber) (*) (ECLI:EU:C:2016:409), C-155/15, Karim (ECLI:EU:C:2016:410), C-578/16 PPU C.K. and others (*) (ECLI:EU:C:2017:127), C-528/15 Al Chodor (ECLI:EU:C:2017:213), C-36/17 Ahmed (Order) (ECLI:EU:C:2017:273), C-490/16 A.S. (Grand Chamber) (ECLI:EU:C:2017 :585), C-646/16 Jafari (Grand Chamber) (*) (ECLI:EU:C:207:586), C-670/16 Mengesteab (Grand Chamber) (ECLI:EU:C:2017:587), C-60/16 Khir Amayri, ECLI:EU:C:2017:675, C-201/16 Shiri, (ECLI:EU:C:2017:805), C-360/16 Hasan (ECLI:EU:C:2018:35), C-647/16 Hassan (ECLI:EU:C:2018:368), C-213/17 X (ECLI:EU:C:2018:538), C-56/17 Fathi (ECLI:EU:C:2018:803), C-47/17 X (Grand Chamber) (ECLI:EU:C:2018:900), C-661/17 M.A. and others (Grand Chamber) (*) (ECLI:EU:C:2019:53), C-163/17 Jawo (Grand Chamber) (*) (ECLI:EU:C:2019:218), C-582/17 H. (Grand Chamber) (*) ECLI:EU:C:2019:280, and C-715/17, C-718/17 and C-719/17 Commission v Poland, Hungary and the Czech Republic,

—  having regard to the judgments of the European Court of Human Rights related to Regulation (EU) No 604/2013, and in particular Sharifi v. Austria of 5 December 2013 (Chamber judgment), Mohammadi v. Austria of 3 July 2014 (Chamber judgment), Sharifi and Others v. Italy and Greece of 21 October 2014 (Chamber judgment), and Tarakhel v. Switzerland of 4 November 2014 (Grand Chamber judgment), and ECtHR - M.S.S. v Belgium and Greece (GC), Application No. 30696/09, Judgement of 21 November 2011, related to Regulation (EC) No 343/2003 of 18 February 2003 (Dublin II),

—  having regard to the Commission’s European Agenda on Migration of 13 May 2015 (COM(2015)0240),

—  having regard to the so-called Malta Declaration of September 2019,

—  having regard to the study by the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees of August 2017 entitled ‘Left in Limbo’, on the implementation of the Dublin III Regulation,

—  having regard to the evaluation of the Dublin III Regulation of 2015 and the evaluation of the implementation of the Dublin III Regulation of 2016, carried out on behalf of the Commission by ICF International,

—  having regard to the European Court of Auditors’ Special Report 2019/24 of November 2019 entitled ‘Asylum, relocation and return of migrants: time to step up action to address disparities between objectives and results’,

—  having regard to the Commission communication entitled ‘COVID-19: Guidance on the implementation of relevant EU provisions in the area of asylum and return procedures and on resettlement’ (2020/C 126/02),

—  having regard to the report of the European Asylum Support Office of 2 June 2020 on COVID-19 emergency measures in asylum and reception systems,

–  having regard to the report entitled ‘Annual Report on the Situation of Asylum in the European Union’ of the European Asylum Support Office (EASO) of June 2020,

—  having regard to the implementation assessment by the European Parliament Research Service (EPRS) of the Dublin Regulation of January 2019, drawn up by Dr Amandine Scherrer of the Ex-Post Evaluation Unit of Parliament’s Directorate for Impact Assessment and European Added Value (first part) and by the research team of the European Council on Refugees and Exiles (ECRE), at the request of the Ex-Post Evaluation Unit (second part),

—  having regard to other studies commissioned by the European Parliament, in particular the EPRS’s implementation appraisal of the Dublin Regulation and asylum procedures in Europe by Gertrud Malmersjo and Milan Remáč of 2016, the study of the Policy Department for Citizens’ Rights and Constitutional Affairs (Directorate-General for Internal Policies) on the reform of the Dublin III Regulation by Francesco Maiani of June 2016, the EPRS study ‘The Cost of Non-Europe in Asylum Policy’ by Wouter van Ballegooij and Cecilia Navarra of October 2018, and the EPRS study on the reform of the Dublin system by Anja Radjenovic of March 2019,

—  having regard to the hearing of the Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs (LIBE) held on 19 February 2020,

—  having regard to the replies by Member State Parliaments on their work on the Dublin III Regulation provided through the automated European Centre for Parliamentary Research and Documentation system,

—  having regard to the answer provided by Germany to a list of five questions sent by the LIBE Chair and the rapporteur to all national authorities involved in the Dublin procedure,

—  having regard to the fact-finding journeys by the rapporteur to Bochum (Germany), Ter Apel (Netherlands), Bucharest (Romania), and Lampedusa (Italy),

–  having regard to Rule 54 of its Rules of Procedure, as well as to Article 1(1)(e) and Annex 3 of 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 letter from the Committee on Women’s Rights and Gender Equality,

—  having regard to the report of the Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs (A9-0245/2020),

A.  whereas 1 393 920 asylum seekers applied for international protection in EU+ countries in 2015 and 1 292 740 in 2016, a fourfold increase compared to 2012 (373 375 applications) and 2013 (464 515); whereas the number of applications for international protection in EU+ countries rose again between 2018 (665 920) and 2019 (738 425), equivalent to 0.13 % of the total population of the EU in 2019;

B.  whereas children account for almost half of the asylum requests filed in the EU, and about 17 700 unaccompanied minors lodged an application for international protection in 2019; whereas 86 % of them were boys, and 90 % were aged between 14 and 18;

C.  whereas a Member State that issues a visa to a third-country national is responsible for examining the application for international protection according to Article 12 of the Dublin III Regulation; whereas, according to Article 14 of the Dublin III Regulation, the application of a third country national or a stateless person who entered the territory of a Member State granting a visa waiver shall be examined by this Member State;

D.  whereas there were 145 000 decisions on Dublin requests in 2019; whereas the acceptance rate for decisions on Dublin requests was 62 % in 2019;

E.  whereas one-third of Member States hosted 90 % of asylum seekers between 2008 and 2017;

F.  whereas the criteria for establishing the responsibility of a Member State for an asylum application include, in hierarchical order, the family unit, the issuance of residence permits or visas, irregular entry or stay, and visa-waived entry; whereas, if none of these criteria apply, the Member State in which an asylum application was first made becomes the Member State responsible under Article 3(2); whereas, as a consequence of the disproportionate use of Article 13, according to which it is the responsibility of the Member State of first irregular entry to examine an asylum application, responsibilities are not distributed fairly among the Member States; whereas several ‘first-entry’ Member States in the Mediterranean, namely Greece, Italy, Malta, Cyprus and Spain, received a large proportion of first time applications, in particular during the 2015-16 crisis;

G.  whereas in 2018, Germany (82.8 million inhabitants, 18,6 % of total EU population) recorded the largest number of applications (184 180, or 28 % of total applications, equivalent to 0.22 % of its population), followed by France (66.9 million inhabitants, 15 % of total EU population) with 120 425 applications (19 % of total applications, equivalent to 0 18% of its population), Greece (10.74 million inhabitants, 2.4 % of total EU population) with 66 695 applications (11 % of total applications, 0.62 % of its population), Italy (60.48 million inhabitants, 13.6 % of total EU population) with 59 950 applications (10 % of total applications, 0.01 % of its population), and Spain (46.66 million inhabitants, 10.49 % of total EU population) with 52 700 applications (9 % of total applications, and 0.11 % of its population);

H.  whereas between 2016 and 2019, Germany and France issued by far the most Dublin requests (68 % of the EU total), while Spain, Estonia, Lithuania, Latvia, Slovakia, Bulgaria, Poland and Czech Republic issued few requests; whereas Spain issued almost no Dublin requests, despite a large and growing number of asylum applications; whereas there are significant differences between countries, with 54.6 % of transfers carried out from Greece, 42.2 % from Sweden, 11.2 % from Germany, 6.7 % from France, and 1.6 % from Italy between 2016 and 2019; whereas there is a significant information gap for a number of countries;

I.  whereas the Dublin III Regulation is based on the core assumption that asylum seekers are afforded equal rights across Member States, and that each claim gets a fair examination, wherever the claim is lodged in the EU; whereas this is far from being a reality;

J.  whereas Member States have made only very limited use of the dependent persons clause (Article 16) or the humanitarian and discretionary (Article 17) clause in the Regulation; whereas these clauses provide reasonable solutions for family reunification or relocations, including following disembarkations;

K.  whereas in most Dublin procedures the provisions on the hierarchy of criteria and the deadlines established are not properly implemented, and transfers are not carried out; whereas in situations involving children and families, these shortcomings are particularly harmful to the best interests of the child and the right of asylum seekers to family reunification;

L.  whereas data and studies on the implementation of the Dublin III Regulation highlight routine disregard for family provisions and incorrect application of the principle of the best interests of the child; whereas, for instance, in 2018, the family unit criterion was invoked in just 5 % of ‘take charge’ requests in France (out of 12 000) and in 3.7 % in Germany (out of 17 500), with even lower figures in Belgium, Sweden, Switzerland; underlines that in contrast Greece issued 79.3 % of its ‘take charge’ requests on the basis of the family unity criterion in 2018; whereas applications for family reunification are less frequently accepted (48 % of cases), compared to the average rate of acceptance for all procedures (67.6 %); whereas effective implementation of Articles 16 and 17 of the Regulation might ensure the effectiveness of asylum seekers’ right to family life and family unity;

M.  whereas there have been significant shortcomings in the implementation of the Dublin III Regulation, including during the high number of arrivals in 2015 and the COVID-19 pandemic, undermining trust between Member States and the right to international protection, and leading to violations of fundamental rights; whereas the Dublin III rules have proven to be unsuited to dealing with substantial influxes of migrants, resulting in a system that places excessive responsibility and burdens upon a few Member States;

N.  whereas the temporary solidarity mechanism for search and rescue in the Mediterranean agreed in the Malta Declaration, and signed on 23 September 2019 by Germany, France, Italy and Malta, was valid for a period of at least six months; whereas no other Member State joined this ad hoc agreement;

O.  whereas the preventive action provision (Article 33) has never been used;

P.  whereas Article 28 of the Dublin III Regulation allows detention as an exceptional measure ‘to secure transfer procedures’ if there is a ‘significant risk’ of the applicant absconding; whereas this definition remains unclear and its interpretation varies between Member State;

Q.  whereas there is lack of compliance on procedural guarantees and safeguards for asylum seekers, especially children; whereas the length of the procedures and the lack of predictable outcomes coupled with poor reception conditions and social precariousness have impacts on the well-being of asylum-seekers, who in many cases have undergone traumatic experiences back home and/or on their way to the EU;

R.  whereas the implementation of the Dublin III Regulation is closely linked to the implementation of other European asylum and migration policy files; whereas, in particular, flaws in the implementation of the recast Asylum Procedures Directive (2013/32/EU), the recast Reception Directive (2013/33/EU) and the recast Qualification Directive (2011/95/EU) have had an impact on the implementation of the Dublin III Regulation; whereas the Commission should do more to ensure Member States comply with these Directives, including through infringement procedures;

S.  whereas some of these flaws are inherent to the design of the Dublin Regulation and cannot be solved through better implementation alone;

T.  whereas information gaps prevent a comprehensive evaluation of the implementation of the Dublin III Regulation; whereas statistical information is not systematically and consistently provided by Member States, and not with the same level of detail or frequency; whereas key information gaps cover grounds for requests, duration of procedures, resources, withdrawn applications, failed transfers, appeals processes and detention;

U.  whereas on 6 November 2017 Parliament adopted a legislative Resolution on the Dublin IV recast proposal by a two-thirds majority;

Incorporating the principle of solidarity into the Common European Asylum System

1.  Considers that the current Dublin III Regulation imposes a disproportionate responsibility on a minority of Member States, in particular when high numbers of arrivals occur; considers that owing to their geographical location the first country of entry criterion in the Dublin III Regulation puts an unprecedented and disproportionate burden on frontline countries in terms of registration and reception of asylum seekers; points out that the Dublin III Regulation, as designed and implemented, has failed to guarantee its main objective, namely swiftly determining the Member State responsible for an asylum application, and thus to ensure a fair distribution of responsibility between Member States, and effective and swift access to asylum procedures;

2.  Stresses that the introduction of hotspots combined with the temporary relocation programme proposed by the Commission in 2015 was intended to facilitate the management of asylum applications when applicants enter EU territory, and was a pragmatic approach that levels out the flaws in the Dublin III Regulation that were becoming apparent at that time; recalls, further, the contribution of EU agencies such as EASO and Frontex to supporting Member States facing excessive burdens in the implementation of the asylum acquis, and stresses the need to improve cooperation between these agencies;

3.  Stresses that the inappropriate application of the hierarchy of criteria, in particular the excessive use of the first country of entry criterion and the ineffective execution of transfers, has increased the disproportionate responsibility borne by certain Member States, especially frontline Member States; takes the view that the EU therefore needs a sustainable solidarity mechanism which establishes fair rules for the allocation of responsibility between Member States in accordance with Article 80 of the TFEU, and in full respect of the fundamental right to safety and the protection of asylum seekers;

4.  Considers it essential to provide more resources and capabilities to frontline Member States, for instance via EASO, as long as Dublin is not reformed;

5.  Recalls that the right to asylum is a fundamental right; stresses that the asylum procedure serves to examine applications and grant international protection to applicants who qualify, while providing for a swift and fair decision for those who do not;

6.  Notes that, according to Article 24(4) of the Dublin III Regulation, Member States may either request to take back a person or carry out a return procedure in the case of persons whose application for international protection has been rejected by a final decision in a Member State; stresses that, in the context of the application of Article 24(4), the return of persons who do not qualify for international protection, especially on the basis of voluntary compliance, could help the functioning of EU migration policies;

7.  Welcomes the Council Decisions on relocation of 2015 and 2016 that were adopted as an urgent solidarity measure; expresses its disappointment at the Member States’ unfulfilled commitments to solidarity and responsibility sharing, while acknowledging the positive contribution of some Member States; recalls that the Commission did not follow Parliament’s call in its resolution of 18 May 2017 for a proposal to extend the relocation measures until the adoption of the reform of the Dublin III Regulation; stresses that ad hoc agreements on relocation are not a substitute for a harmonised and sustainable Common European Asylum System (CEAS);

8.  Deplores the fact that the Council, unlike Parliament, did not adopt a position on the Dublin IV recast proposal, and therefore blocked efforts to reform the Dublin III Regulation, in spite of its well-documented failings; takes the view that this blocking might be interpreted as a violation of the principle of mutual and sincere cooperation between the EU institutions in Article 13(2) of the TEU, and also in view of the fact that the Council has always sought unanimous agreement even though qualified majority is prescribed by the Treaties; finds it particularly regrettable that the Union still has the same set of rules which have proven to be ineffective in managing a high number of arrivals; calls for a swift reform of the CEAS;

9.  Notes that the mechanism for early warning, preparedness and crisis management in Article 33 has not been applied to date, not even during the high number of arrivals in 2015-16; notes, further, that the provisions in the Temporary Protection Directive that aimed to address temporary protection in case of mass influxes of displaced person unable to return to their country of origin have yet to be invoked;

10.  Considers that a solidarity-based mechanism in the EU should be established to ensure continuity of the fundamental right of asylum in the EU with a view to ensuring access to asylum and responsibility sharing among Member States; emphasises that the protection of asylum applicants’ fundamental rights should always remain at the centre of this mechanism; considers that such a mechanism should allow for the participation of civil society organisations providing professional assistance to people in need of international protection, particularly where this is of a legal nature;

11.  Underlines that the discretionary clause in Article 17, which enables a Member State to take responsibility for an asylum application, even if it has not been identified as the responsible Member State under the Dublin III Regulation, is used differently, rarely, and only by a few Member States; notes that Germany, the Netherlands and France accounted for the majority of cases in 2018; calls on all Member States to make better use of the discretionary clause in Article 17 to deal with challenging situations and humanitarian emergencies in the absence of a permanent solidarity mechanism; takes the view that the discretionary clauses of Article 17 should be used as a solidarity tool for responsibility sharing, in particular in situations of high numbers of arrivals by land and sea, or to transfer asylum seekers currently living in the hotspots in inhuman, degrading, unsanitary and unsafe conditions and without sufficient access to physical and mental health support;

12.  Takes the view that provisions on family unity, which are the first in the hierarchy of criteria for the establishment of responsibility, should be effectively implemented, and that the provisions on dependent persons (Article 16) and discretionary clauses (Article 17) could be used more widely to support family unity;

13.  Highlights the many challenges involved in implementing the Dublin III Regulation; notes the significant operational and technical support provided by EASO to Member State authorities in implementing the Dublin procedures, in particular in the hotspots;

14.  Calls on the Commission and the Member States to facilitate the work of EASO staff by allowing interviews of asylum seekers to be held in a language other than that of the country in which it is conducted while ensuring that the applicant is provided with interpretation in a language they understand; stresses the need for EASO to abide by the highest standards in its operational work, and to put the interests of applicants in need of international protection, including the best interests of the child, at the heart of its work; calls for the establishment of a European Asylum Agency, with sufficient financial and human resources, to support Member States with Dublin procedures; urges adequate organisation and staffing of European Dublin units in order to streamline and expedite the completion of Dublin-related procedures, and particularly to ensure the correct application of Chapter III of the Dublin III Regulation, which links an asylum-seeker to a particular Member State;

Protecting fundamental rights

15.  Points out that the protection of fundamental rights must be at the heart of all the measures taken to implement the Dublin III Regulation, including the protection of children, victims of trafficking, LGBTI persons and other vulnerable people; points out the human cost that the deficiencies of the CEAS is causing asylum seekers, whose mental health is already weakened by the traumas they have experienced in their country of origin and potentially along migratory routes;

16.  Recalls that asylum seekers have the right to be fully informed on procedures; regrets that the level of information provided to asylum seekers differs considerably between Member States; urges the Member States to guarantee that minors have tailored, child-friendly information and specific support; stresses that providing legal assistance and interpretation are key to ensuring applicants’ right to information;

17.  Points out that transfers of asylum seekers, and in particular of vulnerable people, minors and families, can result in violations of their human rights; reiterates that non-refoulement and human rights abuses are reason enough to suspend a transfer even when the destination country does not present systemic deficiencies; urges Member States to properly assess the risks to which applicants would be exposed in the Member State of destination; stresses in particular that transfers must be carried out in a way that under no circumstances exposes individuals to a risk of refoulement;

18.  Notes that, as set out in Article 28, detention of asylum seekers under the Dublin procedure may take place only as a last resort, only if it complies with the proportionality principle, and if no alternative and less coercive measure can be effectively implemented to ensure the transfer procedure can be carried out in cases where there is a significant risk of absconding; calls on Member States to make concrete efforts to find valid alternatives to detention;

19.  Considers that such detention shall be as brief as possible, and be for no longer than the time reasonably necessary to fulfil the administrative procedures required with due diligence until the transfer under this Regulation is carried out; stresses that in the absence of harmonised criteria for determining the risk of absconding, Member States have adopted divergent and sometimes controversial criteria; calls on the Member States and the Commission to clarify a ‘significant risk of absconding’;

20.  Urges the Member States and the Commission to clearly state that detention is never in the best interests of the child;

21.  Recalls that according to the European Court of Human Rights(5) it is unlawful to impose a detention measure on a minor without any consideration of their best interests, of their individual situation as unaccompanied minors if applicable, or without a proportionality assessment or without alternatives to detention being available;

22.  Stresses that the ultimate purpose of the protection of children, such as against child trafficking, shall always prevail, in order to ensure that children in migration have swift access to education, healthcare and appropriate accommodation; underlines that unaccompanied children should benefit from appropriate protection measures such as effective guardianship;

23.  Points out numerous and systematic deficiencies in compliance with the hierarchy of criteria; stresses that family unity is far from being the most frequent criterion applied, although it is at the top of the hierarchy in Chapter III of the Regulation; considers that Member States, based on the principle of mutual cooperation, should help the competent authorities and third country nationals in improving the establishment of existing proven family links in the procedure for determining the Member States responsible; calls on the Commission to ensure full compliance with the hierarchy of criteria;

24.  Regards it as essential to clarify the conditions for applying the family reunification criterion, and to give priority, as set out in Article 7(3) of the Regulation, to the application of Articles 8, 10 and 16 as the main criteria for determining the Member State responsible for examining an asylum application, in order to ensure the effectiveness of the right to family unity and quicker implementation of family reunification decisions; calls on the Commission and the Member States to harmonise the standard of proof required for family reunification in the direction of more achievable standards and requirements; points out that interpretations of what constitutes a ‘family’ vary across Member States, contributing to the lack of compliance with the hierarchy of criteria and the dysfunctionality of the system; calls therefore on the Commission to carefully monitor the sound application of the family-related definitions by Member States, as defined in Article 3 of the Regulation;

25.  Recalls that according to the Regulation the best interests of the child should be the primary consideration in all Dublin procedures and decisions concerning children; regrets that Member States apply different interpretations of the best interests of the child;

26.  Deplores that inadequate identification mechanisms and sometimes erroneous methods of age assessment often further exacerbate the situation of minors, causing delays or negatively affecting the outcome of Dublin procedures; notes that good practices have been developed in certain Member States, such as the use of specialised staff for unaccompanied minors or a multidisciplinary approach to determine age;

27.  Is seriously concerned that in many Member States due to practical challenges the appointment of a representative to assist unaccompanied minors in Dublin procedures is often delayed or is not guaranteed; notes also that in some countries these representatives are insufficiently informed about Dublin procedures, and that unaccompanied minors lack child-friendly support;

Simplify procedures, significantly reduce processing times and uphold the right to an effective remedy

28.  Stresses that the number of transfer procedures increased significantly in 2016-17, generating considerable human, material and financial costs; deplores, however, that transfers were carried out in only 11 % of cases, a further factor in the frequent overloading of asylum systems, which clearly demonstrates the lack of effectiveness of the Regulation; regards efforts to guarantee access to information and swift procedures for family reunification and the transfer of asylum seekers as essential;

29.  Highlights the important body of ECtHR and CJEU case law in recent years that has clarified the admissible grounds for preventing Dublin transfers, in particular any source of risk to the individual; notes in particular the increasing number of decisions by European and nationals courts to suspend transfers to Member States where an asylum seeker would be unfairly denied international protection (cases of indirect refoulement) or would be denied their rights in the Dublin procedure; deplores that asylum seekers are victims of inhuman or degrading treatment in certain Member States;

30.  Notes that shortcomings in the structural organisation and functioning of national asylum authorities, together with shortages of resources, have contributed to delays in Dublin procedures and hindered the application of the regulation; notes that while most countries have a single specialised authority for asylum, some Member States have chosen to share the responsibility between different authorities, creating practical complexities for asylum seekers in certain cases and divergences in the implementation of the Regulation;

31.  Stresses that the effectiveness of Dublin procedures also depends on the quality and staffing levels of each national asylum authority; notes important gaps between asylum authorities in terms of number of staff per asylum applicant; stresses that national Dublin units are understaffed while facing a significant increase in their workload; calls on the Member States to increase the resources for making Dublin III operational, particularly the number of asylum officers;

32.  Stresses the lack of cooperation and information sharing between Member States, which actively undermines the principle of EU solidarity, and directly contributes to the overburdening of systems in certain Member States;

33.  Stresses that the excessive and partly inappropriate application of the ‘irregular entry’ criterion puts a disproportionate burden on first entry countries, which often lack the resources and capacity to host and register asylum seekers; notes that ‘take back’ requests have been the predominant form of Dublin procedure used in recent years, meaning that most persons placed in a Dublin procedure have already applied for asylum in another Member State; notes that adequate measures to prevent secondary movements should apply to Member States in the Schengen Area, and also those outside it;

34.  Recalls that the time limits at each stage of the Dublin procedure are meant to keep the procedure short, and enable fast access to the asylum procedure; notes that there are still a lack of clarity and variations between Member States on the calculation of time limits and the time when the clock starts for each procedure; proposes the clarification and harmonisation of the conditions that trigger transfer procedures;

35.  Considers that in some cases the rules on transfer of responsibility under Dublin III undermine the efficiency of asylum procedures and the carrying out of transfers by increasing the danger of absconding; deplores the often spurious reasons adduced by Member States for refusing transfers; considers that these factors, among others, have contributed to the increase in the number of secondary movements by encouraging asylum-seekers to remain outside the system; calls on the Commission to revise the rules in order to improve the execution of transfers and do away with the transfer of responsibility in cases where an asylum seeker absconds, to foster trust between Member States, to monitor the situation and, where necessary, impose penalties on Member States which refuse transfers;

36.  Notes that the incorrect application of the rules on the hierarchy of criteria, particularly regarding family reunification and the situation of unaccompanied children, as well as the disproportionate use of the criterion of the first country of irregular entry also undermines asylum procedures; notes that these implementation gaps may encourage asylum seekers to remain outside the system; stresses that further harmonisation of the Member States’ asylum systems is key to a functioning Dublin III Regulation and to preventing secondary movements; calls on the Commission to propose a system which duly takes account of asylum seekers’ proven meaningful links to a Member State, such as previous legal residence or educational diplomas, and which ensures that the treatment of asylum seekers is equal in relative terms across the EU;

37.  Considers that providing asylum seekers with legal assistance for Dublin procedures, in particular in the hotspots, is fundamental to ensuring applicants are informed of their rights and obligations during a Dublin procedure; stresses that this would enhance rights-compliant procedures, simplify Dublin procedures, and improve decision-making; notes that a legal representative can ensure that each case file is complete and accurate, and contribute to reducing the rate of appeals and safeguarding the right to non-refoulement; notes with concern that some specific issues remain at national level, such as limited access to independent legal representatives in remote asylum centres, low rates of financial remuneration for legal assistance, a lack of adequate facilities for preparatory and private interviews, and inadequate provision of legal aid for applicants in detention centres; calls on the Member States and the Commission to increase the funds available for the provision of legal assistance during the Dublin procedure;

38.  Stresses that the quality and amount of information provided to the applicants during the Dublin procedure is far from satisfactory, varies significantly between countries, and in some cases, within countries; notes that different factors affect compliance with the right of information, such as the quality and clarity of information, access to an interpreter, the availability of translated documents, access to information in due time; recalls that the right to information under Article 4 of the Regulation is essential given the complex nature of Dublin procedures, and for guaranteeing access to a fair examination of an asylum application in the EU; underlines that gaps in this field can attributed to a lack of resources, but also result from deliberate policy choices in certain countries where very few legal representatives have been appointed; urges the Member States, with the support of the Commission and the EASO, to improve the information made available to asylum seekers on complex Dublin procedures, to ensure that it is clear and accessible to everyone, particularly with regard to family reunification, in accordance with Articles 4 and 26 of the Regulation, and access to an effective remedy and legal assistance, in accordance with Article 27;

39.  Calls on the Commission to assess the overall implementation of the CEAS, as well as any gaps and shortcomings in the Dublin III Regulation that lead to a disproportionate burden of responsibility being placed on countries at the external borders of the EU;

A single and rights-centred implementation of Dublin arrangements in asylum cases throughout the EU

40.  Stresses that the principle of a single EU asylum application cannot be upheld, a state of affairs at odds with the very purpose of the Dublin III Regulation; notes that implementation of this principle is hampered by various factors, meaning that there are multiple reasons for the submission of subsequent asylum applications; considers that the competent national authorities should share their relevant information, in particular on the granting and rejection of asylum applications, in a European database such as Eurodac, in order to speed up procedures and prevent multiple asylum applications, while protecting personal data; considers that registering all applicants and migrants crossing the borders irregularly is a priority;

41.  Notes that the extent of protection for asylum seekers varies greatly between Member States for certain nationalities, and that this can contribute to onward movement; considers that taking into account applicants’ individual needs in Dublin procedures would reduce secondary movements; believes that taking account of ‘proven meaningful links’ to a particular Member State is an effective approach to reducing secondary movements, and calls for this to be included as a criterion for relocation;

Strengthening governance and convergence between Member States

42.  Stresses that the Commission's network of Member States’ Dublin units has met only once or twice a year, and has not played an operational role; considers that the non-coordinated use of the EASO Dublin Units Network prevents the Dublin III Regulation from functioning effectively; notes however that the EASO Dublin Network has been more active, and that EASO has carried out a number of useful missions to support Member States in implementing the Dublin III Regulation, such as the production of guidance documents and analysis, the organisation of training courses, or the deployment of agents; urges closer cooperation between national asylum authorities in order to share information, foster the development of uniform and best practices, streamline transfers and contribute to preventing cases of multiple applications; proposes that EASO be given the task of drawing up enhanced governance arrangements for the application of the Dublin III Regulation, including a monthly operational dialogue between national authorities, and a platform for the exchange and sharing of information and best practices;

43.  Calls on the Commission and the Member States to include, among the sources used to monitor implementation of the Regulation, reliable, up-to-date information provided by non-state actors, in particular international organisations and NGOs;

44.  Notes that between 2008 and 2017 a significant number of asylum applications were lodged by third country nationals who travelled visa-free or with a short-term visa to enter the Schengen Area(6); notes, further, that some of these applications were submitted in a Member State other than the one for which the visa was issued; underlines that for subsequent Dublin procedures, it has been proven that the rules in Articles 12 and 14 are not sufficiently clear, thus hindering the determining of the Member State responsible; calls on the Commission to clarify how Articles 12 and 14 of the Regulation should be applied when determining what Member State should be responsible for an asylum application; proposes the evaluation, as one of the hierarchy of criteria, of the possible impact of visa-waived entry applications on the proper functioning of the Dublin system;

45.  Notes that bilateral agreements have been concluded between Member States to improve the efficiency of Dublin procedures or ensure the transfer of asylum seekers; underlines however that they have also proven to have an adverse effect, in certain cases weakening the achievement of the objectives of the Regulation at European level; urges the Commission and all Member States to rather take stock of the factors contributing to greater efficiency, to take joint and coordinated action to optimise the effective implementation of the Dublin III Regulation, and work towards harmonising the implementation of the Regulation;

46.  Notes that Member States may draw up preventive action plans, with the support of the Commission and in coordination with it, where the application of the Regulation may be jeopardised due to a substantiated risk of particular pressure on Member States’ asylum systems and/or to problems in the functioning of their asylum systems, in accordance with Article 33; notes that these preventive measures may take into account information from the Commission and EASO, and may lead to genuine and practical solidarity, in accordance to Article 80 of the TFEU, with Member States facing particular pressures on their asylum systems in general, including as a result of mixed migration flows, and with applicants, allowing for better preparedness in the event of a potential asylum crisis;

47.  Considers that the implementation of the Dublin III Regulation is not proving effective, because its primary objectives are not being met, namely swift and fair determination of the Member State responsible for an application for international protection; recalls that significant implementation gaps have been identified for a number of Dublin provisions; stresses that the implementation of the Regulation is highly inefficient in relation to the efforts, human resources and staff dedicated to it by the Member States;

48.  Calls on the Council to adopt qualified majority voting when reforming the Dublin III Regulation, and when acting with regard to Article 78(2) of the TFEU;

49.  Deplores the fact that the Commission has still not published its Article 46 assessment report; calls on the Commission to ensure that the Dublin III Regulation is implemented more effectively;

o
o   o

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

(1) OJ L 180, 29.6.2013, p. 31. (2) OJ L 239, 15.9.2015, p. 146. (3) OJ L 248, 24.9.2015, p. 80. (4) OJ C 58, 15.2.2018, p. 9. (5) EDAL, ECtHR - Rahimi v. Greece, Application No. 8687/08, Judgment of 5 July 2011: https://www.asylumlawdatabase.eu/en/content/ecthr-rahimi-v-greece-application-no-868708-1 (6) European Commission, European Migration Network, ‘Impact of Visa Liberalisation on Countries of Destination’, March 2019: https://ec.europa.eu/home-affairs/sites/homeaffairs/files/00_eu_visa_liberalisation_2019_synthesis_report_en_0.pdf

European Parliament resolution of 17 December 2020 on the implementation of the Return Directive (2019/2208(INI))

P9_TA(2020)0362 A9-0238/2020

The European Parliament,

–  having regard to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, adopted by the UN General Assembly in 1948,

–  having regard to the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child,

–  having regard to the European Convention on Human Rights,

–  having regard to the 1951 Convention and the 1967 Protocol relating to the Status of Refugees (Geneva Convention), and in particular the right to non-refoulement,

–  having regard to the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and in particular Articles 1, 3, 4, 6, 7, 18, 19, 20 and 47 thereof,

–  having regard to the Global Compact for Safe, Orderly and Regular Migration, adopted by the UN General Assembly on 19 December 2018,

–  having regard to the Twenty Guidelines on Forced Return, adopted by the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe on 4 May 2005,

–  having regard to Directive 2008/115/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 December 2008 on common standards and procedures in Member States for returning illegally staying third-country nationals(1) (‘the Return Directive’),

–  having regard to Regulation (EU) 2018/1860 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 28 November 2018 on the use of the Schengen Information System for the return of illegally staying third country nationals(2) (‘SIS return’),

–  having regard to Regulation (EU) 2020/851 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 June 2020 amending Regulation (EC) No 862/2007 on Community statistics on migration and international protection(3),

–  having regard to the judgments of the Court of Justice of the European Union related to Directive 2008/115/EC, including Cases C‑357/09 Kadzoev(4), C‑61/11 El Dridi(5), C‑534/11 Arslan(6), C-146/14 Mahdi(7), C‑554/13 Z. Zh.(8), C‑47/15 Sélina Affum(9), C-82/16 K.A. and Others(10) and C-181/16 Gnandi(11),

–  having regard to the judgments of the European Court of Human Rights related to Directive 2008/115/EC, including Amie and Others v. Bulgaria (application No 58149/08), N.D. and N.T. v. Spain (application Nos 8675/15 and 8697/15) and Haghilo v. Cyprus (application No 47920/12),

–  having regard to the Commission communication of 28 March 2014 on EU Return Policy (COM(2014)0199),

–  having regard to the Commission communication of 13 May 2015 on a European Agenda on Migration (COM(2015)0240),

–   having regard to the conclusions of the European Council summits of October 2016 and June 2018,

–  having regard to the Council’s non-binding common standards of 11 May 2016 for Assisted Voluntary Return (and Reintegration) Programmes implemented by Member States,

–  having regard to the Commission communication of 2 March 2017 on a more effective return policy in the European Union – a renewed Action Plan (COM(2017)0200),

–  having regard to Commission Recommendation (EU) 2017/432 of 7 March 2017 on making returns more effective when implementing the Directive 2008/115/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council(12),

–  having regard to Commission Recommendation (EU) 2017/2338 of 16 November 2017 establishing a common ‘Return Handbook’ to be used by Member States’ competent authorities when carrying out return related tasks(13),

–  having regard to the 2017 Synthesis Report of the European Migration Network entitled ‘The effectiveness of return in EU Member States: challenges and good practices linked to EU rules and standards’,

–  having regard to the Commission proposal for a directive of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 September 2018 on common standards and procedures in Member States for returning illegally staying third-country nationals (recast) (COM(2018)0634),

–  having regard to the Commission communication of 4 December 2018 on managing migration in all its aspects: progress under the European agenda on migration (COM(2018)0798),

–  having regard to the Commission communication of 16 April 2020 on COVID-19: Guidance on the implementation of relevant EU provisions in the area of asylum and return procedures and on resettlement (C(2020)2516),

–  having regard to its resolution of 12 April 2016 on the situation in the Mediterranean and the need for a holistic EU approach to migration(14),

–  having regard to its resolution of 5 April 2017 on addressing refugee and migrant movements: the role of EU External Action(15),

–  having regard to its position of 13 March 2019 on the proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council establishing the Asylum and Migration Fund(16),

—  having regard to the European Court of Auditors’ Special Report No 24/2019 of November 2019 entitled ‘Asylum, relocation and return of migrants: time to step up action to address disparities between objectives and results’,

–  having regard to the European Parliamentary Research Service’s (EPRS) Substitute Impact Assessment of March 2019 on the proposed recast Return Directive,

–  having regard to the EPRS’ European Assessment of June 2020 providing an evaluation of the implementation of the Return Directive and of the external dimension of the Return Directive,

–  having regard to the Frontex evaluation report 15 June 2020 on return operations in the 2nd semester of 2019,

–  having regard to the 4th Annual Report of Europol’s European Migrant Smuggling Centre of 15 May 2020,

–  having regard to the reports on the application of the Schengen acquis in the field of return produced in accordance with Council Regulation (EU) No 1053/2013 of 7 October 2013 establishing an evaluation and monitoring mechanism to verify the application of the Schengen acquis and repealing the Decision of the Executive Committee of 16 September 1998 setting up a Standing Committee on the evaluation and implementation of Schengen(17),

–  having regard to the Council of Europe’s handbook of 17 September 2019 entitled ‘Practical Guidance on Alternatives to Immigration Detention: Fostering Effective Results’,

–  having regard to the analysis of the Steering Committee for Human Rights (CDDH) of the Council of Europe of 7 December 2017 on Legal and practical aspects of effective alternatives to detention in the context of migration,

–  having regard to the Interinstitutional Agreement of 13 April 2016 between the European Parliament, the Council of the European Union and the European Commission on Better Law-Making(18),

–  having regard to its resolution of 30 May 2018 on the interpretation and implementation of the Interinstitutional Agreement on Better Law-Making(19),

–  having regard to Rule 54 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 Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs (A9-0238/2020),

A.  whereas the Commission has only assessed the implementation of the Return Directive once (in 2014), despite the legal obligation under Article 19 of that Directive to report on its application every three years, starting from 2013; whereas in 2015 the Commission published a communication setting out an action plan on returns; whereas in 2017 it issued a recommendation on making returns more effective when implementing the Return Directive and published a Return Handbook; whereas in September 2018, without carrying out an impact assessment, the Commission presented a proposal to recast the Return Directive to achieve a more effective and coherent return policy; whereas the European Parliament’s Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs (LIBE) mandated the EPRS to provide a substitute impact assessment on the proposed recast; whereas this assessment points to the lack of evidence that the recast proposal would lead to more effective returns;

B.  whereas the twofold objective of the Return Directive is to establish common rules concerning effective return in line with fundamental rights and the principle of proportionality; whereas in its recommendation on making returns more effective, the Commission focuses on the rate of returns as an indicator of the Return Directive’s effectiveness and recommends measures which may have the unwanted effect of limiting certain safeguards of that Directive, such as the right to appeal and to make use of longer detention periods; whereas sustainable returns and successful reintegration are important indicators in the assessment of the effectiveness of returns; whereas post-return monitoring is currently not sufficiently comprehensive and accurate; whereas evidence has emerged that not all returns are sustainable, especially in relation to unaccompanied minors, owing to a lack of a personal reintegration plan or support upon return;

C.  whereas the Commission has noted that Member States face several barriers to effective returns, of a procedural, technical and operational nature, inter alia the level of cooperation among all stakeholders involved, including with third countries; whereas identification of returnees and the need to obtain the necessary documentation from third countries has been identified by the Commission as one of the main reason for non-return;

D.  whereas the lack of harmonisation has a deep impact on return practices among Member States; whereas the evaluations carried out by the Commission when publishing its recommendation on making returns more effective indicated that 'the margins of discretion left to the Member States by the Return Directive led to an inconsistent transposition in national legislations, with a negative impact on the effectiveness of the Union return policy' and that 'a more effective implementation of that directive would reduce possibilities of misuse of procedures and remove inefficiencies, while ensuring the protection of fundamental rights as enshrined in the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union';

E.  whereas the Commission, in its action plan on return published in 2015, expressed the view that voluntary returns were the preferred option whenever possible; whereas - again, as stated by the Commission in its action plan - 'it is estimated that around 40 % of returns were voluntary departures, [up] from just 14 % in 2009'; whereas, according to the Commission's estimates, 300 000 people per year cannot be returned owing to administrative barriers, health issues or the risk of refoulement; whereas their situation should be addressed, including by granting them a legal status on humanitarian grounds;

F.  whereas data relating to the implementation of the Return Directive is publicly available through Eurostat but is not in all cases disaggregated and comparable; whereas more information may be provided with the implementation of Regulation (EU) 2018/1860 on the use of the Schengen Information System for the return of illegally staying third-country nationals (‘SIS return’) and with Regulation (EU) 2020/851 amending Regulation (EC) No 862/2007 on Community statistics on migration and international protection;

G.  whereas between 2014 and 2018 the number of irregular border crossings decreased from 1,82 million to 142 000; whereas Member States issued around 3 million first residence permits in 2019; whereas the number of asylum applications decreased from 1,29 million in 2015 to 698 000 in 2019; whereas in 2018, Member States issued 283 880 return decisions, of which 147 815 people returned;

H.  whereas Member States do not systematically share information on the return decisions or entry bans they issue, meaning that the mutual recognition of return decisions issued by Member States and their enforcement Union-wide is, in practice, impossible; whereas in order to increase the efficiency of readmissions, and in order to ensure the coherence of returns at a European level, formal EU agreements should take preference over bilateral agreements between Member States and third countries;

General observations

1.  Notes the lack of an implementation assessment from the Commission and calls on the Commission to carry out such an assessment, which was due in 2017, in compliance with Article 19 of the Return Directive and in line with the principle of better law-making;

2.  Reiterates the importance of an evidence-based common approach to guide coherent policy-making and well-informed public discourse and calls on the Commission to urge and support Member States to collect and publish qualitative and quantitative data on the implementation of the Return Directive, particularly data on entry bans and detention, as these are the categories currently not collected by Eurostat, and making use in particular of the newly available instruments such as SIS return and Regulation (EU) 2020/851 amending Regulation (EC) No 862/2007 on Community statistics on migration and international protection; invites Member States to collect statistics on this basis of Regulation (EU) 2020/851 as soon as possible and to participate in the associated pilot studies; notes with concern the lack of available data, including data disaggregated by gender and age, concerning the implementation of the Return Directive;

3.  Is concerned that since 2015, the number of return decisions enforced has been decreasing and notes that this number does not necessarily correspond to an increase or decrease in irregular entries; stresses that an effective return policy is one of the key elements of a well-functioning EU asylum and migration policy; notes that, according to the Commission’s statement, the return rate decreased from 46 % in 2016 to 37 % in 2017 and that this may not present the full picture, owing to the inherent margin of discretion that Member States have in the implementation of the Return Directive, notably difficulties in cooperation with third countries, the fact that some Member States issue more than one return decision to one person, that decisions are not withdrawn if the return does not take place owing to humanitarian reasons, that some people are not returnable as their return would violate the principle of non-refoulement, or that some people return voluntarily without their return being registered; underlines that not every return decision is followed by swift return and readmission procedures owing to practical and legal obstacles and notes with concern that this can cause serious strain, not only on local facilities, but on the people involved;

4.  Shares the Commission’s objective of improving the effective implementation of the Return Directive and the effectiveness of return procedures in the Member States; calls on the Commission to launch infringement procedures where justified; highlights that the effectiveness of the Return Directive should be measured by referring to the return rate as well as by the sustainability of returns and implementation of fundamental rights safeguards, the respect for procedural guarantees and the effectiveness of voluntary returns; stresses that the measuring of the effective implementation of the Return Directive should be further enhanced and further streamlined among Member States in order to strengthen the transparency and comparability of data;

5.  Notes that the Commission has stated that the lack of third-country identification and readmission of returnees is one of the main reasons for non-return; stresses the need to improve relations with third countries in a constructive migration dialogue based on equality, in order to ensure mutually beneficial cooperation for effective and sustainable returns;

6.  Takes note of the informalisation of cooperation with third countries; calls on the Member States to urge and enable the Commission to conclude formal EU readmission agreements coupled with EU parliamentary scrutiny and judicial oversight; stresses that incentives should be offered to facilitate cooperation; notes that the bilateral readmission agreements used pursuant to Article 6(3) of the Return Directive do not offer adequate procedural safeguards, including notification to the person concerned of an individual measure and information regarding available and effective remedies and recourse to appeal; notes that Member States face challenges in regularly ensuring the full occupancy of seats available for returnees in return operations using charter flights coordinated by Frontex; notes with concern that in some cases the option to carry out joint Frontex return operations is excluded by bilateral agreements between organising or participating Member States and non-EU countries of destination;

7.  Stresses the need for more cooperation on returns between the Member States, including information sharing and the application of Directive 2001/40/EC on the mutual recognition of decisions on the expulsion of third country nationals , in line with fundamental rights guarantees; underlines the need for support, including operational support, by the relevant Union agencies; stresses the need for increased cooperation between the Member States and Frontex;

8.  Calls on the Member States to allocate adequate capacity, including human resources and sufficient training, to authorities responsible for taking and implementing return decisions, and in doing so to invest in the quality of their decision-making and implementation;

9.  Stresses the importance of fair, swift and effective procedures for the return of third-country nationals staying irregularly on Union territory, including those whose applications have been rejected, with respect for the fundamental rights of the persons concerned;

Return decisions and voluntary departure

10.  Points to the importance in the Return Directive of ensuring migrants’ compliance with return decisions and recalls the key principle enshrined in that directive that voluntary returns should be prioritised over forced returns where there are no serious reasons to believe that this would undermine the purpose of a return procedure, as voluntary returns are more sustainable, less costly and cumbersome for states and more apt to respect the fundamental rights of the person concerned; calls on the Commission to continue considering voluntary returns as the preferred option over forced returns and to encourage Member States to develop an effective framework for access to voluntary return programmes;

11.  Calls on the Commission to continue to provide funding for and increase the resources available to assisted voluntary return programmes in order to encourage the use of such programmes with the ultimate aim of ensuring sustainable returns and reintegration;

12.  Highlights that under Article 7 of the Return Directive, a return decision shall, as a general rule, provide for an appropriate period for voluntary departure of between 7 and 30 days, which Member States shall extend where necessary, taking into account the specific circumstances of the individual case; points to the exceptions laid out in Article 7(4) of the Return Directive; notes that Member States’ national programmes to assist voluntary departure are sometimes insufficient in scope and means; recalls that Member States that offer this period for voluntary departure only following an application must inform the third-country nationals concerned of the possibility to submit such an application;

13.  Welcomes the provisions in several Member States which allow for individual circumstances to be duly taken into account and for extensions to a period for voluntary departure to be granted; recalls that, in cases where the Return Directive requires Member States to postpone removal, such as when it would violate the principle of non-refoulement, Article 14(2)of the Return Directive requires Member States to provide the persons concerned with written confirmation that the return decision will temporarily not be enforced;

14.  Stresses that a broad definition of the risk of absconding may lead to Member States refraining from granting a period for voluntary departure; recalls that lifting the voluntary departure period also leads to the imposition of an entry ban, which may further undermine voluntary departure; stresses the need for enhanced implementation of the current legal framework in order to step up successful voluntary returns;

15.  Calls on the Member States and Frontex to share information and best practices on successful and dignified voluntary returns, and to provide operational assistance among Member States, on request, to strengthen and improve the operational effectiveness of voluntary returns;

16.  Highlights the importance of providing individual case management and assistance, tailored to the individual circumstances and prospects of the returnee, with particular attention to unaccompanied minors;

Procedural safeguards

17.  Stresses that the Return Directive requires return and entry-ban decisions and decisions on removal to be individualised, clearly justified with reasons in law and in fact, issued in writing, and complete with information about available remedies and the relevant deadlines; stresses the importance of this information being provided in a language the person understands; expresses concerns regarding the lack of sufficient detail and justification in return decisions;

18.  Takes the view that unaccompanied children should not be returned unless it can be demonstrated that it is in the child's best interests, and that children should be informed in a child-friendly manner and in a language that they understand about their rights and the remedies available to them;

19.  Recalls that the principle of non-refoulement is binding on Member States in all circumstances, including for return procedures not falling within the scope of application of the Return Directive;

20.  Takes note of significant differences between Member States in the right to appeal, particularly regarding the type of appeal body and the appeal time-limits; stresses the need to guarantee the right to effective remedy, including by providing proper and accessible information and legal aid, including appropriate funds for the provision of legal assistance;

21.  Notes that the use of the optional clause in Article 2(2)(a) may lead to diminished implementation of safeguards at borders compared to the regular return procedure; urges Member States, therefore, to ensure procedural safeguards and respect for human rights and to apply the Return Directive to border situations;

22.  Highlights that the Return Directive allows for the temporary suspension of the enforcement of a removal, pending a review of a decision relating to return; underlines the need to ensure such suspensions in cases where there is a risk of refoulement; notes that in most countries, appeal against return is not automatically suspensive, which may diminish protection ; stresses that an automatic suspensive remedy would ensure that people are not returned before a final decision on the return procedure is taken; stresses that the best interests of the child must be the primary consideration for all decisions concerning children, including pending decisions relating to return;

23.  Recalls that Article 6(4) of the Return Directive provides Member States with the possibility to grant an autonomous residence permit on compassionate, humanitarian or other grounds to a third-country national staying irregularly on their territory; stresses the importance of successfully exhausting the options provided in the Return Directive to enforce return decisions, with an emphasis on voluntary return; notes, however, the limited use of Article 6(4) of the Return Directive and encourages Member States to expand the use of this clause; is concerned about the failure of Member States to issue a temporary residence permit where return has proven not to be possible, which often leaves unreturnable migrants unable to access their fundamental rights; underlines the fact that granting residence permits to individuals who cannot return to their country of origin could help to prevent protracted irregular stays and reduce vulnerability to labour exploitation and may facilitate individuals’ social inclusion and contribution to society; notes that this would also help to get people out of administrative limbo where they may be stuck; highlights, at the same time, that coordination within the Union is necessary in order to prevent onward irregular movements of persons subject to a return decision;

Entry bans

24.  Notes with concern the widespread automatic imposition of entry bans, which in some Member States are enforced alongside voluntary departure; stresses that this approach risks reducing incentives for voluntary return; calls on Member States to comply with the obligation of the Return Directive to consider withdrawing or suspending the ban in cases where a third-country national can demonstrate that he or she has left the territory of a Member State;

25.  Notes that the situation of a person may vary during the period imposed by an entry ban and that a person may find themselves at risk of persecution in the country they have been returned to; calls on Member States to lift the entry ban on the basis of humanitarian considerations in such cases; reiterates that an entry ban should not be automatically applied, but should instead be based on an individual assessment; calls on the Member States to have effective procedures in place for requesting the lifting of an entry ban, in which an individual assessment is guaranteed, where the best interests of the child are the primary consideration and the right to family life, the right to family reunification and the principle of proportionality are respected;

26.  Notes that although the threat of imposition of an entry ban may serve as an incentive to leave a country within the time period of voluntary departure, once imposed, entry bans may reduce the incentive to comply with a return decision and may increase the risk of absconding; calls on Member States to consider timing the imposition of entry bans in order to successfully carry out return decisions; stresses that the Return Directive has rules allowing for entry bans to be lifted and calls on Member States to make use of these when necessary;

27.  Stresses that entry bans may have disproportionate consequences in particular for families and children; welcomes the option introduced by some Member States to exempt children from the imposition of an entry ban, but stresses that children’s interests should also be a primary consideration when deciding on the (withdrawal of the) entry ban of their parents; calls on Member States to ensure family reunification and respect for the right to family life, including by applying this as a basis on which to refrain from imposing entry bans;

Detention and the risk of absconding

28.  Recalls that Article 3(7) of the Return Directive states that the 'risk of absconding' means the existence of reasons in an individual case which are based on objective criteria defined by law to believe that a third-country national who is the subject of return procedures may abscond; notes differences in the transposition into national legislations of the definition of the ‘risk of absconding’; highlights that in order to comply with Article 3(7) of the Return Directive, due consideration needs to be given to the individual circumstances of the person involved when identifying a risk of absconding to justify detention;

29.  Is concerned that the legislation of several Member States includes extensive and sometimes divergent lists of ‘objective criteria’ for defining the risk of absconding, among which general criteria such as a lack of money; is concerned that varying definitions of objective criteria for the assessment of the risk of absconding in the national legislation of Member States may result in inconsistent use of detention across the Union; regrets that these criteria are often applied in a more or less automatic way, while individual circumstances are of marginal consideration; stresses that this has led to detention being imposed in a systematic manner in many Member States; underlines the need for harmonisation in the definition and implementation of objective criteria to establish the risk of absconding;

30.  Stresses that, in line with international human rights law, detention must remain a measure of last resort and be prescribed by law and be necessary, reasonable and proportional to the objectives to be achieved, that it must last for the shortest time possible and that the decision to impose detention always has to be based on an assessment of the individual circumstances, in which the interests of the individual concerned have been taken into account;

31.  Reiterates that longer detention does not automatically increase the chance of return and is generally more costly than alternatives to detention, and adds that states should not automatically resort to the maximum period permissible under the Return Directive, and, furthermore, that they should ensure that all conditions for lawful detention are fulfilled throughout the detention period;

32.  Notes that the Return Directive establishes under which circumstances returnees may lawfully be detained; notes that detention is only possible if other sufficient but less coercive measures cannot be applied effectively in a specific case; expresses regret that in practice, very few viable alternatives to detention are developed and applied by Member States; calls on Member States, as a matter of urgency, to offer viable community-based alternatives to detention, which have a less negative impact on migrants, especially children and vulnerable people; calls on the Member States to report on the measures they take as an alternative to detention;

33.  Recalls that Member States should respect the mandates of relevant and competent national and international bodies, such as National Human Rights Institutions, ombudsman institutions and national preventive mechanisms, which conduct independent oversight of conditions of detention;

34.  Notes that a significant number of children are still detained in the European Union as part of return procedures, agrees with the UN Committee on the Rights of the Child, which has clarified that children should never be detained for immigration purposes, and detention can never be justified as in a child’s best interests also in line with the New York Declaration for Refugees and Migrants of 19 September 2016; calls on the Member States to provide adequate, humane and non-custodial alternatives to detention;

35.  Calls on the Commission to ensure that Member States and Frontex have monitoring bodies in place that are supported by a proper mandate, capacity and competence, a high level of independence and expertise, and transparent procedures; stresses that return monitoring should encompass all phases of return operations, with adequate resources; calls on the Commission and Member States to make use of existing independent monitoring bodies, such as national and international organisations and National Human Rights Institutions, by cooperating with or designating them as forced return monitoring systems; urges the Commission to ensure the establishment of a post-return monitoring mechanism to understand the fate of returned persons, where legally and practically possible, with particular attention for vulnerable groups, including unaccompanied minors and families; calls on the Member States to carry out proper handovers of child protection services among national authorities to ensure that returned children are taken care of and have access to national child protection services; highlights the need to follow up on the reintegration plans of returnees to ensure their effective implementation; calls on the Commission to facilitate the exchange of good practices between the Member States regarding post-return monitoring and to allocate sufficient funding for this purpose;

36.  Calls on the Member States to ensure the proper implementation of the Return Directive in all its aspects; calls on the Commission to continue monitoring this implementation and take action in the event of non-compliance;

o
o   o

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

(1) OJ L 348, 24.12.2008, p. 98. (2) OJ L 312, 7.12.2018, p. 1. (3) OJ L 198, 22.6.2020, p. 1. (4) ECLI:EU:C:2009:741. (5) ECLI:EU:C:2011:268. (6) ECLI:EU:C:2013:343. (7) ECLI:EU:C:2014:1320. (8) ECLI:EU:C:2015:377. (9) ECLI:EU:C:2016:408. (10) ECLI:EU:C:2018:308. (11) ECLI:EU:C:2018:465. (12) OJ L 66, 11.3.2017, p. 15. (13) OJ L 339, 19.12.2017, p. 83. (14) OJ C 58, 15.2.2018, p. 9. (15) OJ C 298, 23.8.2018, p. 39. (16) Texts adopted, P8_TA(2019)0175. (17) OJ L 295, 6.11.2013, p. 27. (18) OJ L 123, 12.5.2016, p. 1. (19) OJ C 76, 9.3.2020, p. 86.

European Parliament legislative resolution of 17 December 2020 on the Council position at first reading with a view to the adoption of a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Regulation (EU, Euratom) No 883/2013, as regards cooperation with the European Public Prosecutor's Office and the effectiveness of the European Anti-Fraud Office investigations (10008/1/2020 – C9-0393/2020 – 2018/0170(COD))

P9_TA(2020)0363 A9-0263/2020

(Ordinary legislative procedure: second reading)

The European Parliament,

–  having regard to the Council position at first reading (10008/1/2020 – C9‑0393/2020),

–  having regard to opinion No 8/2018 of the Court of Auditors(1),

–  having regard to the opinion of the Commission (COM(2020)0805),

–  having regard to its position at first reading(2) on the Commission proposal to Parliament and the Council (COM(2018)0338),

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

–  having regard to the provisional agreement approved by the committee responsible under Rule 74(4) of its Rules of Procedure,

–  having regard to Rule 67 of its Rules of Procedure,

–  having regard to the recommendation for second reading of the Committee on Budgetary Control (A9-0263/2020),

1.  Approves the Council position at first reading;

2.  Notes that the act is adopted in accordance with the Council position;

3.  Instructs its President to sign the act with the President of the Council, in accordance with Article 297(1) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union

4.  Instructs its Secretary-General to sign the act, once it has been verified that all the procedures have been duly completed, and, in agreement with the Secretary-General of the Council, to arrange for its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union;

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

(1) OJ C 42, 1.2.2019, p. 1. (2) Text adopted of 16.4.2019, P8_TA(2019)0383.

Amendments adopted by the European Parliament on 17 December 2020 on the proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Regulation (EU) No 182/2011 laying down the rules and general principles concerning mechanisms for control by Member States of the Commission’s exercise of implementing powers (COM(2017)0085 – C8-0034/2017 – 2017/0035(COD))(1)

P9_TA(2020)0364 A9-0187/2020

(Ordinary legislative procedure: first reading)

Text proposed by the Commission   Amendment Amendment 1 Proposal for a regulation Recital 2 (2)  The system established by Regulation (EU) No 182/2011 has, overall, proven to work well in practice and struck an appropriate institutional balance as regards the roles of the Commission and the other actors involved. That system should therefore continue to function unchanged except for certain targeted amendments concerning specific aspects of procedure at the level of the appeal committee. These amendments are intended to ensure wider political accountability and ownership of politically sensitive implementing acts without, however, modifying the legal and institutional responsibilities for implementing acts as organised by Regulation (EU) No 182/2011. (2)  Regulation (EU) No 182/2011 has, overall, proven to work effectively in practice and struck an appropriate institutional balance as regards the roles of the Commission and the other actors involved. The main elements of the system can therefore continue to function unchanged. However, the level of added-value provided by Regulation (EU) No 182/2011 as regards an appropriate decision-making process has not been entirely satisfactory. Certain targeted amendments concerning specific aspects of procedure at the level of the appeal committee seem, therefore, to be necessary. These amendments are intended to ensure wider political accountability and ownership of politically sensitive implementing acts without, however, modifying the legal and institutional responsibilities for implementing acts as organised by Regulation (EU) No 182/2011. An additional objective of this amending act is to improve Union citizens' awareness of procedures related to implementing acts. In order to increase trust in the Union’s institutions and bodies, it is essential not only to inform Union citizens about decision-making but also to explain the reasons behind the decisions of those institutions and bodies. Amendment 2 Proposal for a regulation Recital 3 (3)  In a number of specific cases, Regulation (EU) No 182/2011 provides for referral to the appeal committee. In practice, the appeal committee has been seized in cases where no qualified majority, either in favour or against, was attained within the committee in the context of the examination procedure and thus no opinion was delivered. In the majority of cases this happened in relation to genetically modified organisms and genetically modified food and feed and plant protection products. (3)  In a number of specific cases, Regulation (EU) No 182/2011 provides for referral to the appeal committee. In practice, particularly in relation to genetically modified organisms, genetically modified food and feed and plant protection products, the appeal committee has been seized in cases where no qualified majority, either in favour or against, was attained within the committee in the context of the examination procedure and thus no opinion was delivered. Amendment 3 Proposal for a regulation Recital 3 a (new) (3a)  As a consequence, only a very limited number of cases have been referred to the appeal committee as provided for in Regulation (EU) No 182/2011 and are therefore concerned by this amending act. Amendment 4 Proposal for a regulation Recital 4 (4)  Experience has shown that, in the vast majority of cases, the appeal committee repeats the outcome of the examination committee and results in no opinion being delivered. The appeal committee has therefore not helped in providing clarity on Member State positions. (4)  Experience has shown that, in the vast majority of cases, the appeal committee repeats the outcome of the examination committee and results in no opinion being delivered. The appeal committee has therefore not helped in providing clarity on Member State positions, or to overcome the absence of opinions in the examination procedure. Regulation (EU) No 182/2011 provides that the Commission may in such cases adopt the draft implementing act, leaving it to the Commission to determine on behalf of the Member States the need and how to ensure the effective implementation of the legislation. Amendment 5 Proposal for a regulation Recital 5 (5)  Regulation (EU) No 182/2011 provides that the Commission may in such cases adopt the draft implementing act, thus giving the Commission discretion. deleted Amendment 6 Proposal for a regulation Recital 6 (6)  That discretion is, however, significantly reduced in cases relating to the authorisation of products or substances, such as in the area of genetically modified food and feed, as the Commission is obliged to adopt a decision within a reasonable time and cannot abstain from taking a decision. (6)  That discretion is, however, significantly reduced in cases relating to the authorisation of products or substances, such as in the area of genetically modified food and feed, as the Commission is obliged to adopt a decision within a reasonable time and cannot abstain from taking a decision. In this regard, the European Ombudsman pointed out in his decision on case 1582/2014 that the Commission must respect existing legal provisions regarding the deadlines set for the authorisation of genetically modified organisms. Amendment 7 Proposal for a regulation Recital 7 (7)  While the Commission is empowered to decide in such cases, due to the particular sensitivity of the issues at stake, Member States should also fully assume their responsibility in the decision-making process. This, however, is not the case when Member States are not able to reach a qualified majority, due to, amongst others, a significant number of abstentions or non-appearances at the moment of the vote. (7)  While the Commission has the competence to decide in such cases, due to the particular sensitivity of the issues at stake, Member States should also assume greater responsibility in the decision-making process. Where the basic act concerns the protection of the health or safety of humans, animals or plants, and Member States are not able to reach a qualified majority in favour of the draft implementing act providing for the grant of authorisation for a product or substance, that authorisation should be deemed to have been refused. Amendment 8 Proposal for a regulation Recital 8 (8)  In order to increase the added value of the appeal committee its role should therefore be strengthened by providing for the possibility of holding a further meeting of the appeal committee whenever no opinion is delivered. The appropriate level of representation at the further meeting of the appeal committee should be ministerial level, to ensure a political discussion. To allow the organisation of such a further meeting the timeframe for the appeal committee to deliver an opinion should be extended. (8)  In order to increase the added value of the appeal committee its role should therefore be strengthened by providing for the possibility of holding a further meeting of the appeal committee whenever no opinion is delivered. The appropriate level of representation at the further meeting of the appeal committee should be of a sufficiently high political level, such as ministerial level, to ensure a political discussion. To allow the organisation of such a further meeting the timeframe for the appeal committee to deliver an opinion should be extended. However, such extension should be for a short period only. Amendment 9 Proposal for a regulation Recital 10 (10)  The Commission should have the possibility, in specific cases, to ask the Council to indicate its views and orientation on the wider implications of the absence of an opinion, including the institutional, legal, political and international implications. The Commission should take account of any position expressed by the Council within 3 months after the referral. In duly justified cases, the Commission may indicate a shorter deadline in the referral. (10)  The Commission should have the possibility, in specific cases, to ask the European Parliament and the Council to indicate their positions and orientation on the wider implications of the absence of an opinion, including the institutional, legal, economic, political and international implications. The Commission should take account of any position expressed by the European Parliament and by the Council within 3 months after the referral. In duly justified cases, for reasons of urgency, the Commission may indicate a shorter deadline in the referral. The positions expressed by the European Parliament and by the Council should also be sent to the European Economic and Social Committee, and to the European Parliament and to the Council as appropriate, without undue delay. Amendment 10 Proposal for a regulation Recital 10 a (new) (10a)  Where it appears that it would be difficult to obtain positive opinions from the Member States in relation to several similar draft implementing acts, consideration should be given to reviewing the implementing powers conferred on the Commission in the relevant basic acts. Amendment 11 Proposal for a regulation Recital 11 (11)  Transparency on the votes of Member State representatives at the appeal committee level should be increased and the individual Member State representatives' votes should be made public. (11)  Transparency on the votes of Member State representatives throughout all stages of the advisory and examination procedures should be increased and the individual Member State representatives' votes should be made public. Where the act concerns particularly sensitive areas, such as the protection of consumers, the health or safety of humans, animals or plants, or the protection of the environment, case-specific detailed reasons for votes and abstentions should be given by each Member State representative. The Commission should also provide information on the composition of committees, including the persons present and the authorities and organisations to which those persons belong, as well as the agendas of the meetings and the documents and drafts of texts being discussed. Amendment 12 Proposal for a regulation Recital 11 a (new) (11a)  In order to enhance Union citizens’ awareness and understanding of the procedure and enhance the visibility thereof, reasons should be given by each Member State representative for his or her vote or abstention or for any absence of that representative. Amendment 13 Proposal for a regulation Recital 11 b (new) (11b)  The accessibility of the register should be further increased and changes to its content should be made in order to ensure that there is greater transparency concerning the decision-making process, in particular by adding more information as regards that process. Improving the search functions of the register to allow searches by policy area would be an essential element in that regard. Amendment 14 Proposal for a regulation Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 1 Regulation (EU) No 182/2011 Article 3 – paragraph 7 – subparagraph 6 "Where no opinion is delivered in the appeal committee pursuant to the second subparagraph of Article 6(3), the chair may decide that the appeal committee shall hold a further meeting, at ministerial level. In such cases the appeal committee shall deliver its opinion within 3 months of the initial date of referral."; "Where no opinion is delivered in the appeal committee pursuant to the second subparagraph of Article 6(3), the chair or a simple majority of the Member States may decide that the appeal committee shall hold a further meeting, at a sufficiently high political level, such as at ministerial level. In such cases the appeal committee shall deliver its opinion within 3 months of the initial date of referral."; Amendment 15 Proposal for a regulation Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 2 – point b Regulation (EU) No 182/2011 Article 6 – paragraph 3a "3a. Where no opinion is delivered in the appeal committee, the Commission may refer the matter to the Council for an opinion indicating its views and orientation on the wider implications of the absence of opinion, including the institutional, legal, political and international implications. The Commission shall take account of any position expressed by the Council within 3 months after the referral. In duly justified cases, the Commission may indicate a shorter deadline in the referral."; "3a. Where no opinion is delivered in the appeal committee, the Commission may refer the matter to the European Parliament and to the Council for opinions indicating their positions and orientation on the wider implications of the absence of opinion, including the institutional, legal, economic, political and international implications of the outcome of the vote in the appeal committee. The Commission shall take account of any position expressed by the European Parliament and by the Council within 3 months after the referral. In duly justified cases, for reasons of urgency, the Commission may indicate a shorter deadline in the referral. The positions expressed by the European Parliament and by the Council shall also be sent to the European Economic and Social Committee, and to the European Parliament and to the Council as appropriate, without undue delay."; Amendment 16 Proposal for a regulation Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 2 – point b a (new) Regulation (EU) No 182/2011 Article 6 – paragraph 4 a (new) (ba)   the following paragraph is inserted: “4a. By way of derogation from paragraph 3, where the basic act concerns the protection of the health or safety of humans, animals or plants and the draft implementing act provides for the grant of authorisation for a product or substance, that authorisation shall only be granted if the vote in accordance with paragraph 1 results in a positive opinion. The first subparagraph shall be without prejudice to the right of the Commission to propose a modified draft implementing act concerning the same subject matter.”; Amendment 17 Proposal for a regulation Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 2 – point b b (new) Regulation (EU) No 182/2011 Article 6 – paragraph 4 b (new) (bb)   the following paragraph is inserted: “4b. The Member State representatives shall provide reasons for their vote or abstention under paragraph 1 or for any absence from the vote. Where the act concerns particularly sensitive areas, such as the protection of consumers, the health or safety of humans, animals or plants, or the environment, the Member State representatives shall provide case-specific detailed reasons for their vote or abstention.”; Amendment 18 Proposal for a regulation Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 3 – point -a (new) Regulation (EU) No 182/2011 Article 10 – paragraph 1 – point b (-a)   in paragraph 1, point (b) is replaced by the following: (b)  the agendas of committee meetings; “(b) the agendas of committee meetings, including drafts of the texts to be decided upon and documents to be discussed;”; Amendment 19 Proposal for a regulation Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 3 – point -a a (new) Regulation (EU) No 182/2011 Article 10 – paragraph 1 – point c (-aa)  in paragraph 1, point (c) is replaced by the following: (c)  the summary records, together with the lists of the authorities and organisations to which the persons designated by the Member States to represent them belong; “(c) the summary records, together with the lists of the persons present at the meeting and the authorities and organisations to which those persons designated by the Member States to represent them belong;”; Amendment 20 Proposal for a regulation Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 3 – point a Regulation (EU) No 182/2011 Article 10 – paragraph 1 – point e "(e) the voting results including, in the case of the appeal committee, the votes expressed by the representative of each Member State;"; "(e) the voting results, including the votes expressed by each Member State representative and any abstentions, accompanied by the reasons for the vote or abstention as well as reasons for absence from the vote, and, where the act concerns particularly sensitive areas, such as the protection of consumers, the health or safety of humans, animals or plants, or the environment, the accompanying case-specific detailed reasons for the vote or abstention;"; Amendment 21 Proposal for a regulation Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 3 – point a a (new) Regulation (EU) No 182/2011 Article 10 – paragraph 3 (aa)  paragraph 3 is replaced by the following: 3.   The European Parliament and the Council shall have access to the information referred to in paragraph 1 in accordance with the applicable rules. “3. The European Parliament and the Council shall have access to the information referred to in paragraph 1 in accordance with applicable rules and without undue delay.”; Amendment 22 Proposal for a regulation Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 3 – point b Regulation (EU) No 182/2011 Article 10 – paragraph 5 "5. The references of all documents referred to in points (a) to (d), (f) and (g) of paragraph 1 as well as the information referred to in points (e) and (h) of that paragraph shall be made public in the register." "5. All documents and information referred to in paragraph 1 shall be made public in the register." Amendment 23 Proposal for a regulation Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 3 – point b a (new) Regulation (EU) No 182/2011 Article 10 – paragraph 5 a (new) (ba)  the following paragraph is added: “5a. The search functions of the register shall enable searches to be made by policy area.”; Amendment 24 Proposal for a regulation Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 3 a (new) Regulation (EU) No 182/2011 Article 11 (3a)  Article 11 is replaced by the following: Article 11 “Article 11 Right of scrutiny for the European Parliament and the Council Right of scrutiny for the European Parliament and the Council Where a basic act is adopted under the ordinary legislative procedure, either the European Parliament or the Council may at any time indicate to the Commission that, in its view, a draft implementing act exceeds the implementing powers provided for in the basic act. In such a case, the Commission shall review the draft implementing act, taking account of the positions expressed, and shall inform the European Parliament and the Council whether it intends to maintain, amend or withdraw the draft implementing act. Where a basic act is adopted under the ordinary legislative procedure, either the European Parliament or the Council may at any time indicate to the Commission that, in its view, a draft implementing act exceeds the implementing powers provided for in the basic act, or is in conflict with the objectives of the basic act. In such a case, the Commission shall review the draft implementing act, taking account of the positions expressed, and shall inform the European Parliament and the Council whether it intends to maintain, amend or withdraw the draft implementing act. In addition, where either the European Parliament or the Council considers it to be appropriate to review the conferral of implementing powers on the Commission in the basic act, it may, at any time, call on the Commission to submit a proposal to amend that basic act.” Amendment 25 Proposal for a regulation Article 2 – paragraph 1 This Regulation shall not apply to pending procedures on which the appeal committee has already delivered an opinion on the date of entry into force of this Regulation. This Regulation shall apply to procedures begun after the date of its entry into force.

(1) The matter was referred back for interinstitutional negotiations to the committee responsible, pursuant to Rule 59(4), fourth subparagraph (A9-0187/2020).

European Parliament resolution of 17 December 2020 on the draft Commission implementing decision authorising the placing on the market of products containing, consisting of or produced from genetically modified soybean MON 87751 × MON 87701 × MON 87708 × MON 89788, pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 of the European Parliament and of the Council (D069145/02 – 2020/2891(RSP))

P9_TA(2020)0365 B9-0411/2020

The European Parliament,

–  having regard to the draft Commission implementing decision authorising the placing on the market of products containing, consisting of or produced from genetically modified soybean MON 87751 × MON 87701 × MON 87708 × MON 89788, pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 of the European Parliament and of the Council (D069145/02),

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

–  having regard to the vote of the Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health referred to in Article 35 of Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003, on 26 October 2020, at which no opinion was delivered,

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

–  having regard to the opinion adopted by the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) on 25 September 2019, and published on 11 November 2019(3),

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

–  having regard to Rule 112(2) and (3) of its Rules of Procedure,

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

A.  whereas on 17 December 2015, Monsanto Europe N.V. on behalf of Monsanto Company, United States, submitted to the national competent authority of the Netherlands an application for the placing on the market of foods, food ingredients and feed containing, consisting of or produced from genetically modified (‘GM’) soybean MON 87751 × MON 87701 × MON 87708 × MON 89788, in accordance with Articles 5 and 17 of Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 (‘the application’); whereas the application also covered the placing on the market of products containing or consisting of GM soybean MON 87751 × MON 87701 × MON 87708 × MON 89788 (‘the stacked GM soybean’) for uses other than food and feed, with the exception of cultivation;

B.  whereas the stacked GM soybean is derived from crossing four genetically modified (‘GM’) soybean events (MON 87751 × MON 87701 × MON 87708 × MON 89788), confers tolerance to glyphosate-, glufosinate- and dicamba-containing herbicides and produces three insecticidal proteins (Cry1A.105, Cry2Ab2 and Cry1Ac) (also known as ‘Bt toxins’) which are toxic to certain lepidopteran (butterfly and moth) larvae(5);

C.  whereas previous assessments of the four single events of the stacked GM soybean, which have already been authorised, were used as a basis for the assessment of the four-event stacked GM soybean(6);

D.  whereas on 25 September 2019 EFSA adopted a favourable opinion, which was published on 11 November 2019(7);

Member State comments and additional points

E.  whereas Member State competent authorities submitted many critical comments to EFSA during the three-month consultation period(8); whereas those critical comments include concerns that no analysis has been done regarding glyphosate residues or glyphosate metabolites on the stacked GM soybean, that there has been no testing of the possible synergistic or antagonistic effects of the Bt toxins with the herbicide residues, that questions on the safety of the stacked GM soybean and derived food and feed remain unanswered, that the potential long-term reproductive or developmental effects of the food or feed have not been assessed and that, due to missing information, the safety of the stacked GM soybean cannot be fully assessed;

F.  whereas an independent scientific analysis has found that, inter alia, no final conclusion can be drawn regarding the safety of the stacked GM soybean, that the toxicological assessment and the environmental risk assessment are unacceptable and that the risk assessment does not fulfil requirements for assessing risks to the immune system(9);

Complementary herbicides

G.  whereas it has been shown that the cultivation of herbicide-tolerant GM crops results in a higher use of herbicides, due in large part to the emergence of herbicide-tolerant weeds(10); whereas, as a consequence, it has to be expected that crops of the stacked GM soybean will be exposed to both higher and repeated doses of complementary herbicides (glufosinate, dicamba and glyphosate), which will potentially lead to a higher quantity of residues in the harvest;

H.  whereas glufosinate is classified as toxic to reproduction 1B and thus meets the ‘cut-off criteria’ set out in Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council(11); whereas the approval of glufosinate for use in the Union expired on 31 July 2018(12);

I.  whereas a peer-reviewed study found that glyphosate accumulates in GM soybeans, with a corresponding negative impact on nutritional composition compared with non-GM soybeans(13); whereas a pilot project carried out in Argentina found surprisingly high levels of glyphosate residues on GM soybeans(14);

J.  whereas questions concerning the carcinogenicity of glyphosate remain; whereas EFSA concluded in November 2015 that glyphosate was unlikely to be carcinogenic and the European Chemicals Agency concluded in March 2017 that no classification was warranted; whereas, on the contrary, in 2015, the International Agency for Research on Cancer, the specialised cancer agency of the World Health Organization, classified glyphosate as a probable carcinogen for humans; whereas a number of recent scientific peer-reviewed studies confirm the carcinogenic potential of glyphosate(15);

K.  whereas a scientific study published in August 2020 found that use of dicamba can increase the risk of developing liver and intrahepatic bile duct cancers(16);

L.  whereas in GM plants, the way in which complementary herbicides are broken down by the plant, and the composition, and thus toxicity, of the break-down products (‘metabolites’) may be driven by the genetic modification itself(17);

M.  whereas, whilst it is stated in the EFSA opinion that ‘the assessment of herbicide residues relevant for this application has been investigated by the EFSA Pesticide Unit’, this is not sufficient since the combinatorial toxicity of the complementary herbicides and break-down products and their potential interaction with the stacked GM soybean itself have not been taken into account;

N.  whereas the lack of analysis of herbicide residues on the GM crops and potential health risks were raised by a number of Member State competent authorities as a concern in their comments on EFSA’s risk assessment;

Lack of maximum residue levels (‘MRLs’) and related controls

O.  whereas, under Regulation (EC) No 396/2005 of the European Parliament and of the Council(18), which aims to ensure a high level of consumer protection in relation to MRLs, the residues on imported crops of active substances which are not authorised for use in the Union, such as glufosinate, should be carefully controlled and monitored(19);

P.  whereas under the latest coordinated multiannual control programme of the Union (for the years 2020, 2021 and 2022), Member States are not obliged to measure glufosinate residues on any products, including soybean(20);

Bt proteins

Q.  whereas a number of studies show that side effects have been observed that may affect the immune system following exposure to Bt proteins and that some Bt proteins may have adjuvant properties(21), meaning that they can increase the allergenicity of other proteins that they come into contact with;

R.  whereas a minority opinion adopted by a member of the EFSA GMO Panel in the process of assessing a stacked GM maize and its sub-combinations found that, while unintended effects on the immune system have never been identified in any application where Bt proteins are expressed, they could ‘not be observed by the toxicological studies [...] currently recommended and performed for the safety assessment of GM plants at EFSA because they do not include the appropriate tests for this purpose’(22);

S.  whereas it cannot be concluded that consumption of the stacked GM soybean is safe for human and animal health;

Undemocratic decision-making

T.  whereas the vote on 26 October 2020 of the Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health referred to in Article 35 of Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 delivered no opinion, meaning that the authorisation was not supported by a qualified majority of Member States;

U.  whereas the Commission recognises that the fact that GMO authorisation decisions continue to be adopted by the Commission without a qualified majority of Member States in favour, which is very much the exception for product authorisations as a whole but which has become the norm for decision-making on GM food and feed authorisations, is problematic;

V.  whereas, in its eighth term, Parliament adopted a total of 36 resolutions objecting to the placing on the market of GMOs for food and feed (33 resolutions) and to the cultivation of GMOs in the Union (three resolutions); whereas, to date, Parliament has adopted eleven objections in its ninth term; whereas there was not a qualified majority of Member States in favour of authorising any of those GMOs; whereas despite its own acknowledgement of the democratic shortcomings, the lack of support from Member States and the objections of Parliament, the Commission continues to authorise GMOs;

W.  whereas, under Regulation (EU) No 182/2011, the Commission may decide not to authorise a GMO when there is no qualified majority of Member States in favour in the Appeal Committee(23); whereas no change of law is required in this respect;

Upholding the Union’s international obligations

X.  whereas Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 provides that GM food or feed must not have adverse effects on human health, animal health or the environment, and requires the Commission to take into account any relevant provisions of Union law and other legitimate factors relevant to the matter under consideration when drafting its decision; whereas such legitimate factors should include the Union’s obligations under the United Nations (UN) Sustainable Development Goals (‘SDGs’), the Paris Climate Agreement and the UN Convention on Biological Diversity (‘UN CBD’);

Y.  whereas a recent report by the UN’s Special Rapporteur on the right to Food found that, particularly in developing countries, hazardous pesticides have catastrophic impacts on health(24); whereas SDG Target 3.9 aims by 2030 to substantially reduce the number of deaths and illnesses from hazardous chemicals and air, water and soil pollution and contamination(25);

Z.  whereas EFSA found that the estimated operator exposure to glufosinate, classified as toxic to reproduction, when used for weed control in GM maize exceeded the acceptable operator exposure level even when personal protective equipment was used(26); whereas the risk of increased operator exposure is of particular concern in relation to herbicide-tolerant GM crops, given the higher volumes of herbicides used;

AA.  whereas deforestation is a major cause of biodiversity decline; whereas emissions from land-use and land-use change, mostly due to deforestation, are the second biggest cause of climate change after burning fossil fuels(27); whereas the Paris Climate Agreement and the Strategic Plan for Biodiversity 2011-2020 adopted under the UN CBD and the Aichi Biodiversity Targets promote sustainable forest management, protection and restoration efforts(28); whereas SDG 15 includes the target of halting deforestation by 2020(29); whereas forests play a multifunctional role that support the achievement of most SDGs(30);

AB.  whereas soya production is a key driver of deforestation in the Amazon, Cerrado and Gran Chaco forests in South America; whereas 97 % and 100 % of soya cultivated respectively in Brazil and Argentina is GM soya(31);

AC.  whereas the vast majority of GM soybeans authorised for cultivation in Brazil and Argentina are also authorised for import into the Union(32); whereas the stacked GM soybean is already authorised for cultivation in Brazil(33);

AD.  whereas an analysis by the Commission found that soya has historically been the Union’s number one contributor to global deforestation and related emissions, accounting for nearly half of the deforestation embodied in all Union imports(34);

AE.  whereas a recent peer-reviewed scientific study found that the Union is the region with the largest carbon footprint in the world associated with soya imports from Brazil, 13.8 % larger than that of China, the largest soya importer, due to a larger share of emissions from embodied deforestation(35); whereas another recent study found that approximately a fifth of the soya exported to the Union from Brazil’s Amazon and Cerrado regions, mostly for animal feed, may be ‘contaminated with illegal deforestation’(36);

AF.  whereas forest fires in the Amazon are driven by high levels of deforestation; whereas in a 2019 Communication, the Commission expressed its ambition to protect and restore the world’s forests(37); whereas the global protection of biodiversity, including forests, is a key objective of the Commission’s recently published EU Biodiversity Strategy(38);

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

2.  Considers that the draft Commission implementing decision is not consistent with Union law, in that it is not compatible with the aim of Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003, which is, in accordance with the general principles laid down in Regulation (EC) No 178/2002 of the European Parliament and of the Council(39), to provide the basis for ensuring a high level of protection of human life and health, animal health and welfare, and environmental and consumer interests, in relation to GM food and feed, while ensuring the effective functioning of the internal market;

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

4.  Welcomes the fact that the Commission finally recognised, in a letter of 11 September 2020 to Members, the need to take sustainability into account when it comes to authorisation decisions on GMOs(40); expresses its strong disappointment, however, that, on 28 September 2020, the Commission authorised another GM soybean for import(41) despite objections by Parliament and a majority of Member States;

5.  Calls on the Commission to move forward with the utmost urgency concerning the development of sustainability criteria, with full involvement of Parliament; calls on the Commission to provide information on how this process will be undertaken and in what timeframe;

6.  Urges the Commission, again, to take into account the Union’s obligations under international agreements, such as the Paris Climate Agreement, the UN CBD and the UN SDGs;

7.  Reiterates its call on the Commission to stop authorising GMOs, whether for cultivation or for food and feed uses, when no opinion is delivered by Member States in the Appeal Committee, in accordance with Article 6(3) of Regulation (EU) No 182/2011;

8.  Reiterates its call on the Commission not to authorise herbicide-tolerant GM crops until the health risks associated with the residues have been comprehensively investigated on a case-by-case basis, which requires a full assessment of the residues from spraying such GM crops with complementary herbicides, an assessment of the herbicide break-down products and any combinatorial effects, including with the GM plant itself;

9.  Reiterates its call on the Commission not to authorise the import for food or feed uses of any GM plant which has been made tolerant to a herbicide-active substance that is not authorised for use in the Union;

10.  Reiterates its call to EFSA to further develop and systematically use methods that permit the identification of unintended effects of stacked GM events, such as in relation to the adjuvant properties of Bt toxins;

11.  Reiterates its consternation that the Union’s high dependence on imports of animal feed in the form of soybeans causes deforestation in third countries(42);

12.  Welcomes the announcement of a legislative proposal from the Commission on ‘Measures to avoid or minimise the placing of products associated with deforestation or forest degradation on the EU market’ due by June 2021; in the meantime, given the urgency of tackling deforestation in the Amazon, Cerrado and Gran Chaco forests and the fact that the Union demand for GM soybeans contributes to deforestation in that region, reiterates its call on the Commission to immediately suspend the import of GM soybeans cultivated in Brazil and Argentina, using Article 53 of Regulation (EC) No 178/2002 if necessary, until effective legally binding mechanisms have been put in place to prevent the placing on the Union market of products associated with deforestation and related human rights violations;

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

(1) OJ L 268, 18.10.2003, p. 1. (2) OJ L 55, 28.2.2011, p. 13. (3) Scientific Opinion of the EFSA Panel on Genetically Modified Organisms on the assessment of genetically modified soybean MON 87751 × MON 87701 × MON 87708 × MON 89788 for food and feed uses, under Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 (application EFSA-GMO-NL-2016-128), EFSA Journal 2019;17(11):5847, https://doi.org/10.2903/j.efsa.2019.5847 (4) ––––––––––– In its eighth term, the Parliament adopted 36 resolutions objecting to the authorisation of GMOs. Furthermore, in its ninth term Parliament has adopted the following resolutions:European Parliament resolution of 10 October 2019 on the draft Commission implementing decision authorising the placing on the market of products containing, consisting of or produced from genetically modified maize MZHG0JG (SYN-ØØØJG-2), pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 of the European Parliament and of the Council (Texts adopted, P9_TA(2019)0028).European Parliament resolution of 10 October 2019 on the draft Commission implementing decision renewing the authorisation for the placing on the market of products containing, consisting of or produced from genetically modified soybean A2704-12 (ACS-GMØØ5-3) pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 of the European Parliament and of the Council (Texts adopted, P9_TA(2019)0029).European Parliament resolution of 10 October 2019 on the draft Commission implementing decision authorising the placing on the market of products containing, consisting of or produced from genetically modified maize MON 89034 × 1507 × MON 88017 × 59122 × DAS-40278-9 and genetically modified maize combining two, three or four of the single events MON 89034, 1507, MON 88017, 59122 and DAS-40278-9 pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 of the European Parliament and of the Council (Texts adopted, P9_TA(2019)0030).European Parliament resolution of 14 November 2019 on the draft Commission implementing decision renewing the authorisation for the placing on the market of products containing, consisting of or produced from genetically modified cotton LLCotton25 (ACS-GHØØ1-3) pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 of the European Parliament and of the Council (Texts adopted, P9_TA(2019)0054).European Parliament resolution of 14 November 2019 on the draft Commission implementing decision renewing the authorisation for the placing on the market of products containing, consisting of or produced from genetically modified soybean MON 89788 (MON-89788-1) pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 of the European Parliament and of the Council (Texts adopted, P9_TA(2019)0055).European Parliament resolution of 14 November 2019 on the draft Commission implementing decision authorising the placing on the market of products containing, consisting of or produced from genetically modified maize MON 89034 × 1507 × NK603 × DAS-40278-9 and sub-combinations MON 89034 × NK603 × DAS-40278-9, 1507 × NK603 × DAS-40278-9 and NK603 × DAS-40278-9 pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 of the European Parliament and of the Council (Texts adopted, P9_TA(2019)0056).European Parliament resolution of 14 November 2019 on the draft Commission implementing decision authorising the placing on the market of products containing, consisting of or produced from genetically modified maize Bt11 × MIR162 × MIR604 × 1507 × 5307 × GA21 and genetically modified maize combining two, three, four or five of the single events Bt11, MIR162, MIR604, 1507, 5307 and GA21 pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 of the European Parliament and of the Council (Texts adopted, P9_TA(2019)0057).European Parliament resolution of 14 May 2020 on the draft Commission implementing decision authorising the placing on the market of products containing, consisting of or produced from genetically modified soybean MON 87708 × MON 89788 × A5547-127, pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 of the European Parliament and of the Council (Texts adopted, P9_TA(2020)0069).European Parliament resolution of 11 November 2020 on the draft Commission implementing decision authorising the placing on the market of products containing, consisting of or produced from genetically modified maize MON 87427 × MON 89034 × MIR162 × NK603 and genetically modified maize combining two or three of the single events MON 87427, MON 89034, MIR162 and NK603, and repealing Commission Implementing Decision (EU) 2018/1111 pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 of the European Parliament and of the Council (Texts adopted, P9_TA(2020)0291).European Parliament resolution of 11 November 2020 on the draft Commission implementing decision authorising the placing on the market of products containing, consisting of or produced from genetically modified soybean SYHT0H2 (SYN-ØØØH2-5), pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 of the European Parliament and of the Council (Texts adopted, P9_TA(2020)0292).European Parliament resolution of 11 November 2020 on the draft Commission implementing decision authorising the placing on the market of products containing, consisting of or produced from genetically modified maize MON 87427 × MON 87460 × MON 89034 × MIR162 × NK603 and genetically modified maize combining two, three or four of the single events MON 87427, MON 87460, MON 89034, MIR162 and NK603, pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 of the European Parliament and of the Council (Texts adopted, P9_TA(2020)0293). (5) EFSA opinion, p. 11, https://efsa.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.2903/j.efsa.2019.5847 (6) EFSA opinion, p. 3, https://efsa.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.2903/j.efsa.2019.5847 (7) Idem. (8) Member State comments: http://registerofquestions.efsa.europa.eu/roqFrontend/questionLoader?question=EFSA-Q-2016-00009 (9) Testbiotech comment on EFSA’s assessment of genetically engineered soybean MON87751 x MON87701 x MON87708 x MON89788 for food and feed uses, under Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 (application EFSA-GMO-NL-2016- 128) by Bayer/Monsanto, December 2019, https://www.testbiotech.org/sites/default/files/Testbiotech_Comment_MON87751%20x%20MON87701%20x%20MON87708%20x%20MON89788_fin.pdf (10) See, for example, Bonny, S., ‘Genetically Modified Herbicide-Tolerant Crops, Weeds, and Herbicides: Overview and Impact’, Environmental Management, January 2016;57(1), pp. 31-48, https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26296738, Benbrook, C.M., ‘Impacts of genetically engineered crops on pesticide use in the U.S. -- the first sixteen years’, Environmental Sciences Europe 24, 24 (2012), https://enveurope.springeropen.com/articles/10.1186/2190-4715-24-24, and Schütte, G., Eckerstorfer, M., Rastelli, V. et al., ‘Herbicide resistance and biodiversity: agronomic and environmental aspects of genetically modified herbicide-resistant plants’, Environmental Sciences Europe 29, 5 (2017), https://enveurope.springeropen.com/articles/10.1186/s12302-016-0100-y (11) Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 October 2009 concerning the placing of plant protection products on the market and repealing Council Directives 79/117/EEC and 91/414/EEC (OJ L 309, 24.11.2009, p. 1). (12) https://ec.europa.eu/food/plant/pesticides/eu-pesticides-database/active-substances/index.cfm?event=as.details&as_id=79 (13) https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24491722 (14) https://www.testbiotech.org/sites/default/files/TBT_Background_Glyphosate_Argentina_0.pdf (15) See, for example, https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1383574218300887 https://academic.oup.com/ije/advance-article/doi/10.1093/ije/dyz017/5382278 https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0219610 and https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6612199/ (16) https://academic.oup.com/ije/advance-article-abstract/doi/10.1093/ije/dyaa066/5827818?redirectedFrom=fulltext (17) This is indeed the case for glyphosate, as stated in EFSA Review of the existing maximum residue levels for glyphosate according to Article 12 of Regulation (EC) No 396/2005, EFSA Journal 2018;16(5):5263, p. 12, https://www.efsa.europa.eu/fr/efsajournal/pub/5263 (18) Regulation (EC) No 396/2005 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 February 2005 on maximum residue levels of pesticides in or on food and feed of plant and animal origin and amending Council Directive 91/414/EEC (OJ L 70, 16.3.2005, p. 1). (19) See recital 8 of Regulation (EC) No 396/2005. (20) Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2019/533 of 28 March 2019 concerning a coordinated multiannual control programme of the Union for 2020, 2021 and 2022 to ensure compliance with maximum residue levels of pesticides and to assess the consumer exposure to pesticide residues in and on food of plant and animal origin (OJ L 88, 29.3.2019, p. 28). (21) For a review, see Rubio-Infante, N., Moreno-Fierros, L., ‘An overview of the safety and biological effects of Bacillus thuringiensis Cry toxins in mammals’, Journal of Applied Toxicology, May 2016, 36(5): pp. 630-648, http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/jat.3252/full (22) Application EFSA-GMO-DE-2010-86 (Bt11 × MIR162 × 1507 × GA21 maize and three sub combinations independently of their origin), Minority Opinion, Wal, J.M., Member of the EFSA GMO Panel, EFSA Journal 2018;16(7):5309, p. 34, https://efsa.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.2903/j.efsa.2018.5309 (23) The Commission ‘may’, and not ‘shall’, go ahead with authorisation if there is no qualified majority of Member States in favour at the Appeal Committee according to Article 6(3) of Regulation (EU) No 182/2011. (24) https://www.ohchr.org/EN/Issues/Environment/ToxicWastes/Pages/Pesticidesrighttofood.aspx (25) https://www.un.org/sustainabledevelopment/health/ (26) EFSA Conclusion regarding the peer review of the pesticide risk assessment of the active substance glufosinate, EFSA Scientific Report (2005) 27, 1-81, p. 3, https://efsa.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.2903/j.efsa.2005.27r (27) Communication of the Commission of 23 July 2019, ‘Stepping up EU action to Protect and Restore the World’s forests’, COM(2019)0352, p. 1. (28) Idem, p. 2. (29) See target 15.2: https://www.un.org/sustainabledevelopment/biodiversity/ (30) Communication of the Commission of 23 July 2019, ‘Stepping up EU action to Protect and Restore the World’s forests’, COM(2019)0352, p. 2. (31) International Service for the Acquisition of Agri-biotech Applications, ‘Global status of commercialized biotech/GM crops in 2017: Biotech Crop Adoption Surges as Economic Benefits Accumulate in 22 Years’, ISAAA Brief No. 53 (2017), pp. 16 and 21, http://www.isaaa.org/resources/publications/briefs/53/download/isaaa-brief-53-2017.pdf (32) Via a cross check of two databases in October 2020 (the Community register of GM food and feed (https://webgate.ec.europa.eu/dyna/gm_register/index_en.cfm) and ISAAA GM approval database ((http://www.isaaa.org/gmapprovaldatabase/)) it can be calculated how many GM soybean crops authorised for cultivation in Brazil and Argentina are also authorised for import into the Union. For Brazil: Out of 17 GM soybean crops authorised for cultivation, 12 are currently authorised for import into the Union whilst authorisation for import is pending for three of the GM soybeans. For Argentina: out of a total 15 GM soybean crops authorised for cultivation, 10 are currently authorised for import into the Union whilst authorisation for import is pending for three of the GM soybeans. (33) https://www.isaaa.org/gmapprovaldatabase/event/default.asp?EventID=438&Event=MON87751%20x%20MON87701%20x%20MON87708%20x%20MON89788 (34) Technical Report - 2013 - 063 of the Commission, ‘The impact of EU consumption on deforestation: Comprehensive analysis of the impact of EU consumption on deforestation’, study funded by the European Commission, DG ENV, and undertaken by VITO, IIASA, HIVA and IUCN NL, http://ec.europa.eu/environment/forests/pdf/1.%20Report%20analysis%20of%20impact.pdf, pp. 23-24: Between 1990 and 2008, the Union imported crop and livestock products embodying 90 000 km2 of deforestation. Crop products accounted for 74 000 km2 (82 %) of this, with oil crops having the largest share (52 000 km2). Soybeans and soya cake accounted for 82 % of this (42 600 km2), equivalent to 47 % of the Union’s total import of embodied deforestation. (35) Escobar, N., Tizado, E. J., zu Ermgassen, E. K., Löfgren, P., Börner, J., Godar, J., ‘Spatially-explicit footprints of agricultural commodities: Mapping carbon emissions embodied in Brazil’s soy exports’, Global Environmental Change, Volume 62, May 2020, 102067, https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0959378019308623 (36) Rajão, R., Soares-Filho, B., Nunes, F., Börner, J., Machado, L., Assis, D., Oliveira, A., Pinto, L., Ribeiro, V., Rausch, L., Gibbs, H., Figueira, D., ‘The rotten apples of Brazil’s agribusiness’, Science 17 July 2020, Volume. 369, Issue 6501, pp. 246-248, https://science.sciencemag.org/content/369/6501/246 (37) EU Communication on Stepping up EU Action to Protect and Restore the World’s Forests https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/HTML/?uri=CELEX:52019DC0352&from=EN (38) Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions: ‘EU Biodiversity Strategy for 2030: Bringing nature back into our lives’ May 2020 https://eur-lex.europa.eu/resource.html?uri=cellar:a3c806a6-9ab3-11ea-9d2d-01aa75ed71a1.0001.02/DOC_1&format=PDF (39) Regulation (EC) No 178/2002 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 28 January 2002 laying down the general principles and requirements of food law, establishing the European Food Safety Authority and laying down procedures in matters of food safety (OJ L 31, 1.2.2002, p. 1). (40) https://tillymetz.lu/wp-content/uploads/2020/09/Co-signed-letter-MEP-Metz.pdf (41) MON 87708 × MON 89788 × A5547-127. https://webgate.ec.europa.eu/dyna/gm_register/gm_register_auth.cfm?pr_id=100 (42) Idem.

European Parliament resolution of 17 December 2020 on the draft Commission implementing decision authorising the placing on the market of products containing, consisting of or produced from genetically modified maize MON 87427 × MON 89034 × MIR162 × MON 87411 and genetically modified maize combining two or three of the single events MON 87427, MON 89034, MIR162 and MON 87411 pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 of the European Parliament and of the Council (D069146/02 – 2020/2892(RSP))

P9_TA(2020)0366 B9-0413/2020

The European Parliament,

–  having regard to the draft Commission implementing decision authorising the placing on the market of products containing, consisting of or produced from genetically modified maize MON 87427 × MON 89034 × MIR162 × MON 87411 and genetically modified maize combining two or three of the single events MON 87427, MON 89034, MIR162 and MON 87411 pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 of the European Parliament and of the Council (D069146/02),

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

–  having regard to the vote of the Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health referred to in Article 35 of Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003, on 26 October 2020, at which no opinion was delivered,

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

–  having regard to the opinion adopted by the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) on 26 September 2019, and published on 7 November 2019(3),

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

–  having regard to Rule 112(2) and (3) of its Rules of Procedure,

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

A.  whereas, on 24 May 2017, Monsanto Europe N.V. submitted, on behalf of Monsanto company, United States, an application to the national competent authority of the Netherlands for the placing on the market of foods, food ingredients and feed containing, consisting of or produced from genetically modified maize MON 87427 × MON 89034 × MIR162 × MON 87411 (‘the stacked GM maize’) in accordance with Articles 5 and 17 of Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 (‘the application’); whereas the application also covered the placing on the market of products containing or consisting of the stacked GM maize for uses other than food and feed, with the exception of cultivation;

B.  whereas, in addition, the application covered the placing on the market of products containing, consisting of or produced from 10 sub-combinations of those single transformation events constituting the stacked GM maize;

C.  whereas four sub-combinations of the stacked GM maize have already been authorised; whereas the draft Commission implementing decision covers the remaining six sub-combinations;

D.  whereas the stacked GM maize is derived from crossing four genetically modified (‘GM’) maize events (MON 87427, MON 89034, MIR162 and MON 87411), confers tolerance to glyphosate-containing herbicides and produces four insecticidal proteins (Cry1A.105, Cry2Ab2, Vip3Aa20 and Cry3Bb1) which are also known as ‘Bt’ proteins and which are toxic to certain lepidopteran (butterflies and moths) and coleopteran insects(5);

E.  whereas previous assessments of the four single events and four of the sub-combinations of the stacked GM maize, which have already been authorised, were used as a basis for the assessment of the four-event stacked GM maize and the remaining six sub-combinations;

F.  whereas, on 26 September 2019, EFSA adopted a favourable opinion, which was published on 7 November 2019, in relation to that application;

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

Member State concerns and lack of experimental data on sub-combinations

H.  whereas Member States submitted many critical comments to EFSA during the three-month consultation period(6); whereas those critical comments include concerns that no analysis has been done regarding glyphosate residues or glyphosate metabolites on the stacked GM maize, that there has been no testing of the possible synergistic or antagonistic effects of the Bt proteins and of herbicide residues, that questions on the safety of the stacked GM maize and derived food and feed remain unanswered, that the potential long-term reproductive or developmental effects of the food or feed have not been assessed and that, due to missing information, the safety of the stacked GM maize cannot be fully assessed;

I.  whereas an independent scientific analysis has found that, inter alia, no final conclusion can be drawn regarding the safety of the stacked GM maize, that the toxicological assessment and the environmental risk assessment are unacceptable and that the risk assessment does not fulfil requirements for assessing risks to the immune system(7);

J.  whereas no experimental data was provided by the applicant for the currently unauthorised six sub-combinations of the stacked GM maize(8);

Lack of assessment of herbicide residues and break-down products

K.  whereas a number of studies show that herbicide-tolerant GM crops result in a higher use of ‘complementary’ herbicides, due in large part to the emergence of herbicide-tolerant weeds(9); whereas, as a consequence, it has to be expected that the stacked GM maize will be exposed to both higher and repeated doses of glyphosate, and that therefore a higher quantity of residues may be present in the harvest; whereas the stacked GM maize expresses two glyphosate-tolerant proteins, making it even more tolerant to higher dosages and repeated spraying;

L.  whereas questions concerning the carcinogenicity of glyphosate remain; whereas EFSA concluded in November 2015 that glyphosate was unlikely to be carcinogenic and the European Chemicals Agency concluded in March 2017 that no classification was warranted; whereas, on the contrary, in 2015, the International Agency for Research on Cancer, the specialised cancer agency of the World Health Organization, classified glyphosate as a probable carcinogen for humans;

M.  whereas in its scientific opinion of 26 September 2019, the EFSA Panel on Genetically Modified Organisms (EFSA GMO Panel) states that ‘the assessment of herbicide residues in maize herbicide-tolerant crops relevant for this application has been investigated by the EFSA Pesticides Unit’(10); whereas, according to an opinion delivered by the EFSA Pesticides Unit however, data on glyphosate residues on GM maize with EPSPS modifications(11) are insufficient to derive maximum residue levels and risk assessment values(12);

N.  whereas, again according to the EFSA Pesticides Unit, toxicological data allowing a consumer risk assessment to be performed for several break-down products of glyphosate relevant for GM glyphosate-tolerant crops are missing(13);

O.  whereas assessment of herbicide residues, and herbicide break-down products, found on GM plants, along with their potential interaction with Bt proteins, is considered outside the remit of the EFSA GMO Panel and is therefore not undertaken as part of the authorisation process for GMOs; whereas this is problematic, since the way in which complementary herbicides are broken down by the GM plant concerned, and the composition and thus toxicity of the break-down products (‘metabolites’), can be driven by the genetic modification itself(14);

Bt proteins

P.  whereas a number of studies show that side effects have been observed that may affect the immune system following exposure to Bt proteins and that some Bt proteins may have adjuvant properties(15), meaning that they can increase the allergenicity of other proteins that they come into contact with;

Q.  whereas a minority opinion adopted by a member of the EFSA GMO Panel in the process of assessing another stacked GM maize and its sub-combinations found that, while unintended effects on the immune system have never been identified in any application where Bt proteins are expressed, they could ‘not be observed by the toxicological studies [...] currently recommended and performed for the safety assessment of GM plants at EFSA because they do not include the appropriate tests for this purpose’(16);

R.  whereas it cannot be concluded that consumption of the stacked GM maize or its sub-combinations is safe for human and animal health;

Undemocratic decision-making

S.  whereas the vote on 26 October 2020 of the Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health referred to in Article 35 of Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 delivered no opinion, meaning that the authorisation was not supported by a qualified majority of Member States;

T.  whereas the Commission recognises that the fact that GMO authorisation decisions continue to be adopted by the Commission without a qualified majority of Member States in favour, which is very much the exception for product authorisations as a whole but which has become the norm for decision-making on GM food and feed authorisations, is problematic;

U.  whereas, in its eighth term, Parliament adopted a total of 36 resolutions objecting to the placing on the market of GMOs for food and feed (33 resolutions) and to the cultivation of GMOs in the Union (three resolutions); whereas, to date, Parliament has adopted eleven objections in its ninth term; whereas there was not a qualified majority of Member States in favour of authorising any of those GMOs; whereas despite its own acknowledgement of the democratic shortcomings, the lack of support from Member States and the objections of Parliament, the Commission continues to authorise GMOs;

V.  whereas, under Regulation (EU) No 182/2011, the Commission may decide not to authorise a GMO when there is no qualified majority of Member States in favour in the Appeal Committee(17); whereas no change of law is required in this respect;

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

2.  Considers that the draft Commission implementing decision is not consistent with Union law, in that it is not compatible with the aim of Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003, which is, in accordance with the general principles laid down in Regulation (EC) No 178/2002 of the European Parliament and of the Council(18), to provide the basis for ensuring a high level of protection of human life and health, animal health and welfare, and environmental and consumer interests, in relation to GM food and feed, while ensuring the effective functioning of the internal market;

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

4.  Welcomes the fact that the Commission finally recognised, in a letter of 11 September 2020 to Members, the need to take sustainability into account when it comes to authorisation decisions on GMOs(19); expresses its strong disappointment, however, that, on 28 September 2020, the Commission authorised another GM soybean for import(20) despite an objection by Parliament and a majority of Member States voting against;

5.  Calls on the Commission to move forward with the utmost urgency concerning the development of sustainability criteria, with full involvement of Parliament; calls on the Commission to provide information on how this process will be undertaken and in what timeframe;

6.  Urges the Commission, again, to take into account the Union’s obligations under international agreements, such as the Paris Climate Agreement, the UN Convention on Biological Diversity and the UN Sustainable Development Goals;

7.  Reiterates its call on the Commission to stop authorising GMOs, whether for cultivation or for food and feed uses, when no opinion is delivered by Member States in the Appeal Committee, in accordance with Article 6(3) of Regulation (EU) No 182/2011;

8.  Reiterates its call on the Commission not to authorise herbicide-tolerant GM crops until the health risks associated with the residues have been comprehensively investigated on a case-by-case basis, which requires a full assessment of the residues from spraying such GM crops with complementary herbicides, an assessment of the herbicide break-down products and any combinatorial effects, including with the GM plant itself;

9.  Reiterates its call on the Commission not to authorise any sub-combinations of stacked GM events unless they have been thoroughly evaluated by EFSA on the basis of complete data submitted by the applicant;

10.  Considers, more specifically, that to approve varieties for which no safety data have been provided, which have not been tested, or which have not even been created yet, runs contrary to the principles of general food law, as laid down in Regulation (EC) No 178/2002;

11.  Reiterates its call on EFSA to further develop and systematically use methods that permit the identification of unintended effects of stacked GM events, such as in relation to the adjuvant properties of Bt proteins;

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

(1) OJ L 268, 18.10.2003, p. 1. (2) OJ L 55, 28.2.2011, p. 13. (3) Scientific Opinion of the EFSA Panel on Genetically Modified Organisms on assessment of genetically modified maize MON 87427 × MON 89034 × MIR162 × MON 87411 and subcombinations, for food and feed uses, under Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 (application EFSA-GMO-NL-2017-144), EFSA Journal 2019;17(11):5848, https://doi.org/10.2903/j.efsa.2019.5848 (4) ––––––––––– In its eighth term, Parliament adopted 36 resolutions objecting to the authorisation of GMOs. Furthermore, in its ninth term Parliament has adopted the following resolutions:European Parliament resolution of 10 October 2019 on the draft Commission implementing decision authorising the placing on the market of products containing, consisting of or produced from genetically modified maize MZHG0JG (SYN-ØØØJG-2), pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 of the European Parliament and of the Council (Texts adopted, P9_TA(2019)0028).European Parliament resolution of 10 October 2019 on the draft Commission implementing decision renewing the authorisation for the placing on the market of products containing, consisting of or produced from genetically modified soybean A2704-12 (ACS-GMØØ5-3) pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 of the European Parliament and of the Council (Texts adopted, P9_TA(2019)0029).European Parliament resolution of 10 October 2019 on the draft Commission implementing decision authorising the placing on the market of products containing, consisting of or produced from genetically modified maize MON 89034 × 1507 × MON 88017 × 59122 × DAS-40278-9 and genetically modified maize combining two, three or four of the single events MON 89034, 1507, MON 88017, 59122 and DAS-40278-9 pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 of the European Parliament and of the Council (Texts adopted, P9_TA(2019)0030).European Parliament resolution of 14 November 2019 on the draft Commission implementing decision renewing the authorisation for the placing on the market of products containing, consisting of or produced from genetically modified cotton LLCotton25 (ACS-GHØØ1-3) pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 of the European Parliament and of the Council (Texts adopted, P9_TA(2019)0054).European Parliament resolution of 14 November 2019 on the draft Commission implementing decision renewing the authorisation for the placing on the market of products containing, consisting of or produced from genetically modified soybean MON 89788 (MON-89788-1) pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 of the European Parliament and of the Council (Texts adopted, P9_TA(2019)0055).European Parliament resolution of 14 November 2019 on the draft Commission implementing decision authorising the placing on the market of products containing, consisting of or produced from genetically modified maize MON 89034 × 1507 × NK603 × DAS-40278-9 and sub-combinations MON 89034 × NK603 × DAS-40278-9, 1507 × NK603 × DAS-40278-9 and NK603 × DAS-40278-9 pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 of the European Parliament and of the Council (Texts adopted, P9_TA(2019)0056).European Parliament resolution of 14 November 2019 on the draft Commission implementing decision authorising the placing on the market of products containing, consisting of or produced from genetically modified maize Bt11 × MIR162 × MIR604 × 1507 × 5307 × GA21 and genetically modified maize combining two, three, four or five of the single events Bt11, MIR162, MIR604, 1507, 5307 and GA21 pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 of the European Parliament and of the Council (Texts adopted, P9_TA(2019)0057).European Parliament resolution of 14 May 2020 on the draft Commission implementing decision authorising the placing on the market of products containing, consisting of or produced from genetically modified soybean MON 87708 × MON 89788 × A5547-127, pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 of the European Parliament and of the Council (Texts adopted, P9_TA(2020)0069).European Parliament resolution of 11 November 2020 on the draft Commission implementing decision authorising the placing on the market of products containing, consisting of or produced from genetically modified maize MON 87427 × MON 89034 × MIR162 × NK603 and genetically modified maize combining two or three of the single events MON 87427, MON 89034, MIR162 and NK603, and repealing Commission Implementing Decision (EU) 2018/1111 pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 of the European Parliament and of the Council (Texts adopted, P9_TA(2020)0291).European Parliament resolution of 11 November 2020 on the draft Commission implementing decision authorising the placing on the market of products containing, consisting of or produced from genetically modified soybean SYHT0H2 (SYN-ØØØH2-5), pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 of the European Parliament and of the Council (Texts adopted, P9_TA(2020)0292).European Parliament resolution of 11 November 2020 on the draft Commission implementing decision authorising the placing on the market of products containing, consisting of or produced from genetically modified maize MON 87427 × MON 87460 × MON 89034 × MIR162 × NK603 and genetically modified maize combining two, three or four of the single events MON 87427, MON 87460, MON 89034, MIR162 and NK603, pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 of the European Parliament and of the Council (Texts adopted, P9_TA(2020)0293). (5) EFSA opinion, p. 11. (6) Member State comments: http://registerofquestions.efsa.europa.eu/roqFrontend/questionLoader?question=EFSA-Q-2017-00442 (7) Testbiotech comment on EFSA’s assessment of genetically engineered maize MON 87427 ×MON 89034 × MIR162 × MON 87411 and subcombinations, for food and feed uses, under Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 (application EFSA-GMO-NL-2017-144) from Bayer/Monsanto, December 2019, https://www.testbiotech.org/sites/default/files/Testbiotech_Comment_MON87427%20x%20MON89034%20x%20MIR%20162%20x%20MON87411.pdf (8) EFSA opinion, p. 26. (9) See, for example, Bonny, S., ‘Genetically Modified Herbicide-Tolerant Crops, Weeds, and Herbicides: Overview and Impact’, Environmental Management, January 2016, 57(1), pp. 31-48, https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26296738, Benbrook, C.M., ‘Impacts of genetically engineered crops on pesticide use in the U.S. - the first sixteen years’, Environmental Sciences Europe 24, 24 (2012), https://enveurope.springeropen.com/articles/10.1186/2190-4715-24-24 and Schütte, G., Eckerstorfer, M., Rastelli, V. et al., ‘Herbicide resistance and biodiversity: agronomic and environmental aspects of genetically modified herbicide-resistant plants’, Environmental Sciences Europe 29, 5 (2017), https://link.springer.com/article/10.1186/s12302-016-0100-y (10) EFSA opinion, p. 8. (11) The stacked GM maize contains an EPSPS modification. (12) EFSA Review of the existing maximum residue levels for glyphosate according to Article 12 of Regulation (EC) No 396/2005 – revised version to take into account omitted data, EFSA Journal 2019;17(10):5862, p. 4, https://www.efsa.europa.eu/en/efsajournal/pub/5862 (13) EFSA Conclusion on the peer review of the pesticide risk assessment of the active substance glyphosate, EFSA journal 2015; 13(11):4302, p. 3, https://www.efsa.europa.eu/en/efsajournal/pub/4302 (14) This is indeed the case for glyphosate, as stated in EFSA Review of the existing maximum residue levels for glyphosate according to Article 12 of Regulation (EC) No 396/2005, EFSA Journal 2018;16(5):5263, p. 12, https://www.efsa.europa.eu/fr/efsajournal/pub/5263 (15) For a review, see Rubio-Infante, N., Moreno-Fierros, L., ‘An overview of the safety and biological effects of Bacillus thuringiensis Cry toxins in mammals’, Journal of Applied Toxicology, May 2016, 36(5): pp. 630-648, http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/jat.3252/full (16) Application EFSA-GMO-DE-2010-86 (Bt11 × MIR162 × 1507 × GA21 maize and three sub combinations independently of their origin), Minority Opinion, Wal, J.M., Member of the EFSA GMO Panel, EFSA Journal 2018;16(7):5309, p. 34, https://efsa.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.2903/j.efsa.2018.5309 (17) The Commission ‘may’, and not ‘shall’, go ahead with authorisation if there is no qualified majority of Member States in favour at the Appeal Committee according to Article 6(3) of Regulation (EU) No 182/2011. (18) Regulation (EC) No 178/2002 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 28 January 2002 laying down the general principles and requirements of food law, establishing the European Food Safety Authority and laying down procedures in matters of food safety (OJ L 31, 1.2.2002, p. 1). (19) https://tillymetz.lu/wp-content/uploads/2020/09/Co-signed-letter-MEP-Metz.pdf (20) MON 87708 × MON 89788 × A5547-127, https://webgate.ec.europa.eu/dyna/gm_register/gm_register_auth.cfm?pr_id=100

European Parliament resolution of 17 December 2020 on the draft Commission implementing decision renewing the authorisation for the placing on the market of products containing, consisting of or produced from genetically modified maize MIR604 (SYN-IR6Ø4-5) pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 of the European Parliament and of the Council (D069147/02 – 2020/2893(RSP))

P9_TA(2020)0367 B9-0414/2020

The European Parliament,

–  having regard to the draft Commission implementing decision renewing the authorisation for the placing on the market of products containing, consisting of or produced from genetically modified maize MIR604 (SYN-IR6Ø4-5) pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 of the European Parliament and of the Council (D069147/02),

–  having regard to Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 September 2003 on genetically modified food and feed(1), and in particular Articles 11(3) and 23(3) thereof,

–  having regard to the vote of the Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health referred to in Article 35 of Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003, on 26 October 2020, at which no opinion was delivered,

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

–  having regard to the opinion adopted by the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) on 2 July 2009, and published on 21 July 2009(3),

–  having regard to the opinion adopted by EFSA on 25 September 2019, and published on 7 November 2019(4),

–  having regard to its previous resolutions objecting to the authorisation of genetically modified organisms (‘GMOs’)(5),

–  having regard to Rule 112(2) and (3) of its Rules of Procedure,

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

A.  whereas Commission Decision 2009/866/EC(6) authorised the placing on the market of food and feed containing, consisting of or produced from genetically modified (‘GM’) maize MIR604; whereas the scope of that authorisation also covers the placing on the market of products containing or consisting of GM maize MIR604 for uses other than food and feed, with the exception of cultivation;

B.  whereas, on 26 July 2018, the authorisation holder, Syngenta Crop Protection NV/SA, on behalf of Syngenta Crop Protection AG, submitted to the Commission an application, in accordance with Articles 11 and 23 of Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003, for the renewal of that authorisation;

C.  whereas, on 2 July 2009, EFSA adopted a favourable opinion, which was published on 21 July 2009, in relation to the initial authorisation application;

D.  whereas, on 25 September 2019, EFSA adopted a favourable opinion, which was published on 7 November 2019, in relation to the renewal application;

E.  whereas the possible uses of GM maize MIR604 include the production of animal feed and food products, such as starch, syrups and oils(7);

F.  whereas GM maize MIR604 has been engineered to produce mCry3A, a synthetic insecticidal protein (also known as a ‘Bt toxin’) with enhanced toxicity (compared to the natural bacteria it is derived from) for targeting Western Corn rootworm and other related coleopteran maize pests, such as Northern Corn rootworm; whereas, in addition, GM maize MIR604 was engineered with the phosphomannose isomerase (PMI) gene from Escherichia coli (E. coli), which encodes the enzyme PMI as a selectable marker;

G.  whereas the combination of the two gene constructs was derived from stacking, but no assessment was made of the single parental plants, in contravention of Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 503/2013(8);

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

Member State concerns about the EFSA opinions

I.  whereas, during the consultation period in relation to the initial authorisation application, Member States submitted many critical comments to EFSA’s draft opinion(9); whereas those critical comments include concerns that an increase in allergenic activity due to mCry3A protein in food and feed from GM maize MIR604 cannot be excluded, that the data from field trials cannot be regarded as sufficient for market release, that OECD testing guidelines were not followed in the toxicological studies, as recommended by EFSA, and that the rat and a poultry feeding study with the whole GM maize MIR604 plant intended to demonstrate toxicological safety did not use toxicological endpoints;

J.  whereas, during the consultation period in relation to the renewal application, Member States again submitted many critical comments to EFSA’s draft opinion(10); whereas those critical comments include concerns that the monitoring approach implemented by the applicant is not fully in line with the requirements of Annex VII to Directive 2001/18/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council(11) and with EFSA recommendations, that the claim that GM maize MIR604 is as safe as conventional maize has not been substantiated, and that the proposed general surveillance of anticipated adverse effects is not sufficiently elaborated, as well as the comment that the Union has ratified the UN Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD), which makes it clear that both exporting and importing countries have international responsibilities regarding biological diversity;

Invalid toxicity studies

K.  whereas for the studies on acute toxicity and degradation in digestive fluids, mCry3A and PMI proteins produced in a recombinant E. coli strain were used; whereas both the mCry3A protein and the PMI protein produced in E. coli bacteria differ from the GM plant-produced proteins(12) raising doubts about the validity of these toxicity studies; whereas several Member States raised this as a concern(13);

L.  whereas, in general, little significance can be attributed to toxicological tests conducted with proteins in isolation, due to the fact that the effects of the protein in combination with the plant itself are not considered;

M.  whereas, for example, some plants, including maize, naturally produce proteinase inhibitors (PI) which have been shown to slow down the degradation of Bt toxins; whereas this results in much higher toxicity of the Bt toxin, if it is ingested together with the plant tissue, compared to the toxin in isolation; whereas a 1990 study, conducted by scientists at Monsanto, showed that even the presence of extremely low levels of PI enhanced the insecticidal activity of Bt toxins up to 20-fold(14); whereas this interaction has never been assessed, nor mentioned, by EFSA in its risk assessments of GM Bt plants;

N.  whereas it has been shown that factors which enhance the toxicity of the Bt proteins can also impact their selectivity(15): if efficacy of the Bt toxin on target organisms is increased, its selectivity may also be decreased and a wider range of non-target organisms may become susceptible; whereas, whilst no systematic research has been undertaken to date, several studies indicate the effects of PI combined with Bt toxins on non-target insects(16);

O.  whereas the risk of higher toxicity to humans and mammals, due to interaction between PI and Bt toxins in GM plants, is not known;

Questions of Bt adjuvanticity

P.  whereas a number of studies show that side effects have been observed that may affect the immune system following exposure to Bt proteins and that some Bt proteins may have adjuvant properties(17), meaning that they can increase the allergenicity of other proteins with which they come into contact;

Q.  whereas, whilst EFSA recognises that Cry1Ac(18) has been shown to act as an adjuvant, it concludes that as maize is not a common allergenic food, the adjuvant effect of Cry proteins, observed after high dosage intragastric or intranasal administration, is unlikely to raise any concerns regarding allergenicity(19); whereas, however, EFSA does not take into account the fact that maize produces PI(20) and a much slower degradation of the Bt proteins has to be assumed if it is ingested with the plant material, compared to its isolated form; whereas this difference can also enhance its adjuvanticity and renders studies using isolated proteins invalid; whereas no empirical studies were performed to investigate the actual immunogenicity of the Bt toxin produced by the GM plant; whereas the degradation in digestive fluids was tested by using the Bt protein in isolation;

Bt crops: effects on non-target organisms and increased resistance

R.  whereas, unlike the use of insecticides, where exposure is at the time of spraying and for a limited time afterwards, the use of Bt crops leads to continuous exposure of the target and non-target organisms to Bt toxins; whereas, with the exception of pollen, mCry3A proteins are found in all parts of GM maize MIR604(21);

S.  whereas the mCry3A gene as expressed by GM maize MIR604 has been modified in order to enhance toxicity to target insects(22), yet no effects on non-target organisms were evaluated in the risk assessment; whereas, a Member State comments that since ‘the native Cry3A toxin is active against Chrysomelidae(23), as a minimum requirement adverse effects on non-target Chrysomelidae should be included in the risk assessment’ and that ‘[s]ince import, transport and processing of MIR604 maize may result in the presence of accidental occurrence or release of MIR604 maize in the environment, potential adverse effects of the GM maize on non-target organisms must be considered’(24);

T.  whereas the assumption that Bt toxins exhibit a single target specific mode-of-action can no longer be considered correct and effects on non-target organisms cannot be excluded(25); whereas an increasing number of non-target organisms are reported to be affected in many ways; whereas 39 peer-reviewed publications that report significant adverse effects of Bt toxins on many ‘out-of-range’ species are mentioned in a recent overview(26);

U.  whereas combinatorial effects such as combination with PI may significantly contribute to the toxicity of Bt toxins; whereas the question of selectivity is especially relevant for synthetic Bt toxins, such as mCry3A, which may show lower selectivity in combination with higher toxicity; whereas EFSA still considers that Bt toxins only affect a narrow range of non-target organisms, not taking into account any combinatorial effects; whereas a wider range of non-target organisms might be exposed to Bt toxins via spillage, waste and manure;

V.  whereas the risk assessment did not consider the development of resistance in the target pests to the mCry3A protein, possibly resulting in the use of less environmentally safe pesticides or increased doses and number of applications to the GM crop in the country of cultivation; whereas, the US Environmental Protection Agency is proposing to phase out many current Bt corn hybrids, as well as some Bt cotton varieties, in the next three to five years, due to the growth in insect resistance to these crops(27);

W.  whereas, whilst it has been claimed that the use of Bt crops leads to a decrease in the use of insecticides, a recent study published in the United States(28) finds that ‘several analyses on the influence of Bt crops on pesticide-use patterns do not seem to have considered seed treatments and so may have overstated reductions in insecticide use (especially ‘area treated’) associated with Bt crops’; whereas the same study finds that neonicotinoid seed treatments are often used in conjunction with Bt maize and soybean crops, that ‘[t]his pattern of use may have unintended consequences, namely resistance in target pests, outbreaks of non-target pests, and pollution with detrimental effects cascading to wildlife’ and that ‘some of these effects have already emerged’; whereas the Union has banned the outdoor use of three neonicotinoids, including as seed coatings, because of their impact on honeybees and other pollinators(29);

Undemocratic decision-making

X.  whereas the vote on 26 October 2020 of the Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health referred to in Article 35 of Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 delivered no opinion, meaning that the authorisation was not supported by a qualified majority of Member States;

Y.  whereas the Commission recognises that the fact that GMO authorisation decisions continue to be adopted by the Commission without a qualified majority of Member States in favour, which is very much the exception for product authorisations as a whole but which has become the norm for decision-making on GM food and feed authorisations, is problematic;

Z.  whereas, in its eighth term, Parliament adopted a total of 36 resolutions objecting to the placing on the market of GMOs for food and feed (33 resolutions) and to the cultivation of GMOs in the Union (three resolutions); whereas, to date, Parliament has adopted eleven objections in its ninth term; whereas there was not a qualified majority of Member States in favour of authorising any of those GMOs; whereas despite its own acknowledgement of the democratic shortcomings, the lack of support from Member States and the objections of Parliament, the Commission continues to authorise GMOs;

AA.  whereas, under Regulation (EU) No 182/2011, the Commission may decide not to authorise a GMO when there is no qualified majority of Member States in favour in the Appeal Committee(30); whereas no change of law is required in this respect;

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

2.  Considers that the draft Commission implementing decision is not consistent with Union law, in that it is not compatible with the aim of Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003, which is, in accordance with the general principles laid down in Regulation (EC) No 178/2002 of the European Parliament and of the Council(31), to provide the basis for ensuring a high level of protection of human life and health, animal health and welfare, and environmental and consumer interests, in relation to GM food and feed, while ensuring the effective functioning of the internal market;

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

4.  Welcomes the fact that the Commission finally recognised, in a letter of 11 September 2020 to Members, the need to take sustainability into account when it comes to authorisation decisions on GMOs(32); expresses its strong disappointment, however, that, on 28 September 2020, the Commission authorised another GM soybean for import(33) despite an objection by Parliament and a majority of Member States voting against;

5.  Calls on the Commission to move forward with the utmost urgency concerning the development of sustainability criteria, with full involvement of Parliament; calls on the Commission to provide information on how this process will be undertaken and in what timeframe;

6.  Urges the Commission, again, to take into account the Union’s obligations under international agreements, such as the Paris Climate Agreement, the UN CBD and the UN Sustainable Development Goals, in the authorisation process;

7.  Reiterates its call on the Commission to stop authorising GMOs, whether for cultivation or for food and feed uses, when no opinion is delivered by Member States in the Appeal Committee, in accordance with Article 6(3) of Regulation (EU) No 182/2011;

8.  Calls on EFSA to finally accept the substantial differences between native Bt proteins and those expressed by synthetic transgenes in GM crop plants, and to widen its risk assessment in order to fully take into account all interactions and combinatorial effects between Bt toxins, GM plants and their constituents, residues from spraying with the complementary herbicides, the environment as well as impacts on health and food safety;

9.  Calls on EFSA to no longer accept toxicity studies based on isolated proteins which are likely to be different in structure and biological effects compared to those produced by the plant itself, and to require that all tests are carried out with tissue from the GM plant;

10.  Calls on EFSA to make sure that data from field trials or green houses cover a sufficiently broad range of agronomic and environmental conditions to assess the impact of all stress factors which have to be expected during cultivation on gene expression and plant composition;

11.  Calls on EFSA to make sure that the data from field trials or greenhouses cover a sufficiently broad range of different varieties to assess the impact of various genetic backgrounds on gene expression and plant composition;

12.  Calls on EFSA to request data on the impact of the consumption of food and feed derived from GM plants on the intestinal microbiome;

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

(1) OJ L 268, 18.10.2003, p. 1. (2) OJ L 55, 28.2.2011, p. 13. (3) Scientific Opinion of the EFSA Panel on Genetically Modified Organisms on application (Reference EFSA‐GMO‐UK‐2005‐11) for the placing on the market of insect‐resistant genetically modified maize MIR604 event, for food and feed uses, import and processing under Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 from Syngenta Seeds S.A.S on behalf of Syngenta Crop Protection AG, EFSA Journal 2009;7(7):1193, https://www.efsa.europa.eu/en/efsajournal/pub/1193 (4) Scientific Opinion of the EFSA Panel on Genetically Modified Organisms on assessment of genetically modified maize MIR604 for renewal authorisation under Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 (application EFSA-GMO-RX-013), EFSA Journal 2019;17(11):5846, https://www.efsa.europa.eu/en/efsajournal/pub/5846 (5) ––––––––––– In its eighth term, Parliament adopted 36 resolutions objecting to the authorisation of GMOs. Furthermore, in its ninth term Parliament has adopted the following resolutions:European Parliament resolution of 10 October 2019 on the draft Commission implementing decision authorising the placing on the market of products containing, consisting of or produced from genetically modified maize MZHG0JG (SYN-ØØØJG-2), pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 of the European Parliament and of the Council (Texts adopted, P9_TA(2019)0028).European Parliament resolution of 10 October 2019 on the draft Commission implementing decision renewing the authorisation for the placing on the market of products containing, consisting of or produced from genetically modified soybean A2704-12 (ACS-GMØØ5-3) pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 of the European Parliament and of the Council (Texts adopted, P9_TA(2019)0029).European Parliament resolution of 10 October 2019 on the draft Commission implementing decision authorising the placing on the market of products containing, consisting of or produced from genetically modified maize MON 89034 × 1507 × MON 88017 × 59122 × DAS-40278-9 and genetically modified maize combining two, three or four of the single events MON 89034, 1507, MON 88017, 59122 and DAS-40278-9 pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 of the European Parliament and of the Council (Texts adopted, P9_TA(2019)0030).European Parliament resolution of 14 November 2019 on the draft Commission implementing decision renewing the authorisation for the placing on the market of products containing, consisting of or produced from genetically modified cotton LLCotton25 (ACS-GHØØ1-3) pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 of the European Parliament and of the Council (Texts adopted, P9_TA(2019)0054).European Parliament resolution of 14 November 2019 on the draft Commission implementing decision renewing the authorisation for the placing on the market of products containing, consisting of or produced from genetically modified soybean MON 89788 (MON-89788-1) pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 of the European Parliament and of the Council (Texts adopted, P9_TA(2019)0055).European Parliament resolution of 14 November 2019 on the draft Commission implementing decision authorising the placing on the market of products containing, consisting of or produced from genetically modified maize MON 89034 × 1507 × NK603 × DAS-40278-9 and sub-combinations MON 89034 × NK603 × DAS-40278-9, 1507 × NK603 × DAS-40278-9 and NK603 × DAS-40278-9 pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 of the European Parliament and of the Council (Texts adopted, P9_TA(2019)0056).European Parliament resolution of 14 November 2019 on the draft Commission implementing decision authorising the placing on the market of products containing, consisting of or produced from genetically modified maize Bt11 × MIR162 × MIR604 × 1507 × 5307 × GA21 and genetically modified maize combining two, three, four or five of the single events Bt11, MIR162, MIR604, 1507, 5307 and GA21 pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 of the European Parliament and of the Council (Texts adopted, P9_TA(2019)0057).European Parliament resolution of 14 May 2020 on the draft Commission implementing decision authorising the placing on the market of products containing, consisting of or produced from genetically modified soybean MON 87708 × MON 89788 × A5547-127, pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 of the European Parliament and of the Council (Texts adopted, P9_TA(2020)0069).European Parliament resolution of 11 November 2020 on the draft Commission implementing decision authorising the placing on the market of products containing, consisting of or produced from genetically modified maize MON 87427 × MON 89034 × MIR162 × NK603 and genetically modified maize combining two or three of the single events MON 87427, MON 89034, MIR162 and NK603, and repealing Commission Implementing Decision (EU) 2018/1111 pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 of the European Parliament and of the Council (Texts adopted, P9_TA(2020)0291).European Parliament resolution of 11 November 2020 on the draft Commission implementing decision authorising the placing on the market of products containing, consisting of or produced from genetically modified soybean SYHT0H2 (SYN-ØØØH2-5), pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 of the European Parliament and of the Council (Texts adopted, P9_TA(2020)0292).European Parliament resolution of 11 November 2020 on the draft Commission implementing decision authorising the placing on the market of products containing, consisting of or produced from genetically modified maize MON 87427 × MON 87460 × MON 89034 × MIR162 × NK603 and genetically modified maize combining two, three or four of the single events MON 87427, MON 87460, MON 89034, MIR162 and NK603, pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 of the European Parliament and of the Council (Texts adopted, P9_TA(2020)0293). (6) Commission Decision 2009/866/EC of 30 November 2009 authorising the placing on the market of products containing, consisting of, or produced from genetically modified maize MIR604 (SYN-IR6Ø4-5) pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 of the European Parliament and of the Council (OJ L 314, 1.12.2009, p. 102). (7) EFSA 2009 opinion, p. 11. (8) Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 503/2013 of 3 April 2013 on applications for authorisation of genetically modified food and feed in accordance with Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 of the European Parliament and of the Council and amending Commission Regulations (EC) No 641/2004 and (EC) No 1981/2006 (OJ L 157, 8.6.2013, p. 1). (9) 3 Member States’ comments: http://registerofquestions.efsa.europa.eu/roqFrontend/questionLoader?question=EFSA-Q-2005-046 (10) 4 Member States’ comments: http://registerofquestions.efsa.europa.eu/roqFrontend/questionLoader?question=EFSA-Q-2018-00644 (11) Directive 2001/18/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 March 2001 on the deliberate release into the environment of genetically modified organisms and repealing Council Directive 90/220/EEC (OJ L 106, 17.4.2001, p. 1). (12) EFSA 2009 opinion, p. 12. (13) Member State comments, p. 8 and 14: http://registerofquestions.efsa.europa.eu/roqFrontend/questionLoader?question=EFSA-Q-2005-046 (14) MacIntosh, S.C., Kishore, G.M., Perlak, F.J., Marrone, P.G., Stone, T.B., Sims, S.R., Fuchs, R.L., ‘Potentiation of Bacillus thuringiensis insecticidal activity by serine protease inhibitors’, Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry 1990, 38, pp. 1145-1152. (15) See, for example, Then, C., ‘Risk assessment of toxins derived from Bacillus thuringiensis - synergism, efficacy, and selectivity’, Environmental Science and Pollution Research 2010, 17, pp. 791–797, https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-009-0208-3 (16) See, for example, Han, P., Niu, C.Y., Lei, C.L., Cui, J.J., Desneux, N., ‘Quantification of toxins in a Cry1Ac + CpTI cotton cultivar and its potential effects on the honey bee Apis mellifera L.’, Ecotoxicology 2010, 19, pp. 1452-1459, https://doi.org/10.1007/s10646-010-0530-z; Babendreier, D., Kalberer, N.M., Romeis, J., Fluri, P., Mulligan, E., Bigler, F., ‘Influence of Bt-transgenic pollen, Bt-toxin and protease inhibitor (SBTI) ingestion on development of the hypopharyngeal glands in honeybees’, Apidologie 2005, 36(4), pp. 585-594, https://doi.org/10.1051/apido:2005049; and Liu, X.D., Zhai, B.P., Zhang, X.X., Zong, J.M., ‘Impact of transgenic cotton plants on a non-target pest, Aphis gossypii Glover’, Ecological Entomology, 30(3), pp. 307-315, https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0307-6946.2005.00690.x (17) For a review, see Rubio-Infante, N., Moreno-Fierros, L., ‘An overview of the safety and biological effects of Bacillus thuringiensis Cry toxins in mammals’, Journal of Applied Toxicology 2016, 36(5), pp. 630-648, http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/jat.3252/full (18) Cry1Ac is one of only a few Bt toxins which have been investigated in detail by EFSA. (19) EFSA 2009 opinion, p. 16. (20) See recital M. (21) EFSA 2009 opinion, p. 8. (22) EFSA 2009 opinion, p. 7. (23) Beetle family, commonly known as leaf beetles. (24) See Member State comments, p. 24: http://registerofquestions.efsa.europa.eu/roqFrontend/questionLoader?question=EFSA-Q-2005-046 (25) See, for example, Hilbeck, A., Otto, M., ‘Specificity and combinatorial effects of Bacillus thuringiensis Cry toxins in the context of GMO environmental risk assessment’, Frontiers in Environmental Science 2015, 3:71, https://doi.org/10.3389/fenvs.2015.00071 (26) Hilbeck, A., Defarge, N., Lebrecht, T., Bøhn, T., ‘Insecticidal Bt crops - EFSA’s risk assessment approach for GM Bt plants fails by design’, RAGES 2020, p. 4, https://www.testbiotech.org/sites/default/files/RAGES_report-Insecticidal%20Bt%20plants.pdf (27) https://www.dtnpf.com/agriculture/web/ag/crops/article/2020/09/29/epa-proposes-phasing-dozens-bt-corn (28) Douglas, M.R., Tooker, J.F., ‘Large-Scale Deployment of Seed Treatments Has Driven Rapid Increase in Use of Neonicotinoid Insecticides and Preemptive Pest Management in U.S. Field Crops’, Environmental Science and Technology 2015, 49, 8, pp. 5088-5097, https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/es506141g (29) Neonicotinoids, https://ec.europa.eu/food/plant/pesticides/approval_active_substances/approval_renewal/neonicotinoids_en (30) The Commission ‘may’, and not ‘shall’, go ahead with authorisation if there is no qualified majority of Member States in favour at the Appeal Committee according to Article 6(3) of Regulation (EU) No 182/2011. (31) Regulation (EC) No 178/2002 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 28 January 2002 laying down the general principles and requirements of food law, establishing the European Food Safety Authority and laying down procedures in matters of food safety (OJ L 31, 1.2.2002, p. 1). (32) https://tillymetz.lu/wp-content/uploads/2020/09/Co-signed-letter-MEP-Metz.pdf (33) MON 87708 × MON 89788 × A5547-127, https://webgate.ec.europa.eu/dyna/gm_register/gm_register_auth.cfm?pr_id=100

European Parliament resolution of 17 December 2020 on the draft Commission implementing decision renewing the authorisation for the placing on the market of products containing, consisting of or produced from genetically modified maize MON 88017 (MON-88Ø17-3) pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 of the European Parliament and of the Council (D069148/02 – 2020/2894(RSP))

P9_TA(2020)0368 B9-0415/2020

The European Parliament,

–  having regard to the draft Commission implementing decision renewing the authorisation for the placing on the market of products containing, consisting of or produced from genetically modified maize MON 88017 (MON-88Ø17-3) pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 of the European Parliament and of the Council (D069148/02),

–  having regard to Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 September 2003 on genetically modified food and feed(1), and in particular Articles 11(3) and 23(3) thereof,

–  having regard to the vote of the Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health referred to in Article 35 of Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003, on 26 October 2020, at which no opinion was delivered,

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

–  having regard to the opinion adopted by the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) on 21 April 2009, and published on 6 May 2009(3),

–  having regard to the opinion adopted by EFSA on 29 January 2020, and published on 11 March 2020(4),

–  having regard to its previous resolutions objecting to the authorisation of genetically modified organisms (‘GMOs’)(5),

–  having regard to Rule 112(2) and (3) of its Rules of Procedure,

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

A.  whereas Commission Decision 2009/814/EC(6) authorised the placing on the market of food and feed containing, consisting of or produced from genetically modified (‘GM’) maize MON 88017; whereas the scope of that authorisation also covers the placing on the market of products, other than food and feed, containing or consisting of GM maize MON 88017 for the same uses as any other maize, with the exception of cultivation;

B.  whereas on 10 July 2018, Monsanto Europe N.V. on behalf of the authorisation holder Monsanto Company, United States, submitted to the Commission an application, in accordance with Articles 11 and 23 of Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003, for the renewal of that authorisation;

C.  whereas, on 21 April 2009, EFSA adopted a favourable opinion, which was published on 6 May 2009, in relation to the initial authorisation application;

D.  whereas, on 29 January 2020, EFSA adopted a favourable opinion, which was published on 11 March 2020, in relation to the renewal application;

E.  whereas GM maize MON 88017 has been engineered to produce Cry3Bb1, a synthetic insecticidal protein (also known as a Bt toxin) with enhanced toxicity, compared to the natural bacteria it is derived from, against coleopteran insect pests and the CP4 EPSPS protein providing tolerance to glyphosate(7);

F.  whereas the combination of the two gene constructs was derived from stacking, but no assessment was made of the single parental plants, in contravention of Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 503/2013(8);

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

Member State concerns about the EFSA opinions

H.  whereas, during the consultation period in relation to the initial authorisation application, Member States submitted many critical comments to EFSA’s draft opinion(9); whereas those critical comments include observations that little significance can be attributed to the acute toxicological tests which were undertaken with isolated proteins (i.e. not with the whole GM plant), that the proposed post-market environmental monitoring is too imprecise for a surveillance plan of unintended effects on human or animal health and the environment, that testing bacterial surrogate proteins should not substitute for testing the plant-expressed proteins, that the number of field seasons and locations is not adequate given the commercial use of the GMO, that further information is required to conclude on the risk assessment and that an increase in allergenic activity due to mCry3Bb1 protein in food and feed from GM maize MON 88017 cannot be excluded; whereas, furthermore, one Member State questioned the independence of the studies carried out for the purpose of the risk assessment, given that they were carried out by the applicant Monsanto;

I.  whereas, during the consultation period in relation to the renewal application, Member States again submitted many critical comments to EFSA’s draft opinion(10); whereas those critical comments include the observation that the monitoring plan based on consent given by Decision 2009/814/EC and the monitoring reports have fundamental shortcomings and are not in in line with Directive 2001/18/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council(11) or with relevant EFSA guidance, that the studies are not sufficient and that further experiments are needed to determine the exposure and subsequent effects and risks for non-target organisms from the exposure to Bt proteins via manure or sewage, and that due to missing information the environmental safety of GM maize MON 88017 cannot be fully assessed;

Complementary herbicides and lack of analysis of residues

J.  whereas it has been shown that the cultivation of herbicide-tolerant GM crops results in a higher use of herbicides, which is due in large part to the emergence of herbicide-tolerant weeds(12); whereas, as a consequence, it has to be expected that crops of the GM maize will be exposed to both higher and repeated doses of glyphosate, which will potentially lead to a higher quantity of residues in the harvest;

K.  whereas questions concerning the carcinogenicity of glyphosate remain; whereas EFSA concluded in November 2015 that glyphosate was unlikely to be carcinogenic and the European Chemicals Agency concluded in March 2017 that no classification was warranted; whereas, on the contrary, in 2015, the International Agency for Research on Cancer the specialised cancer agency of the World Health Organization, classified glyphosate as a probable carcinogen for humans; whereas a number of recent scientific peer-reviewed studies confirm the carcinogenic potential of glyphosate(13);

L.  whereas according to an opinion by the EFSA Pesticides Unit data on glyphosate residues on GM maize with EPSPS modifications(14) are insufficient to derive maximum residue levels and risk assessment values(15);

M.  whereas, again according to the EFSA Pesticides Unit, toxicological data allowing a consumer risk assessment to be performed for several break-down products of glyphosate relevant for GM glyphosate-tolerant crops are missing(16);

N.  whereas assessment of herbicide residues, and herbicide break-down products, found on GM plants, along with their interaction with Bt toxins, is considered outside the remit of the EFSA GMO Panel and is therefore not undertaken as part of the authorisation process for GMOs; whereas this is problematic, since the way in which complementary herbicides are broken down by the GM plant concerned, and the composition and thus toxicity of the break-down products (‘metabolites’), can be driven by the genetic modification itself(17);

Invalid toxicity studies

O.  whereas for the studies on acute toxicity and degradation in digestive fluids, the Cry3Bb1 and CP4 EPSPS proteins produced in a recombinant E. coli strain were used;

P.  whereas, in general, little significance can be attributed to toxicological tests conducted with proteins in isolation, due to the fact that the effects of the protein in combination with the plant itself are not considered;

Q.  whereas, for example, some plants, including maize, naturally produce proteinase inhibitors (PI) which have been shown to slow down the degradation of Bt toxins; whereas this results in much higher toxicity of the Bt toxin, if it is ingested together with the plant tissue, compared to the toxin in isolation; whereas a 1990 study, conducted by scientists at Monsanto, showed that even the presence of extremely low levels of PI enhanced the insecticidal activity of Bt toxins up to 20-fold(18); whereas this interaction has never been assessed, or mentioned, by EFSA in its risk assessments of GM Bt plants;

R.  whereas it has been shown that factors which enhance the toxicity of the Bt toxins can also impact their selectivity(19): if efficacy of the Bt toxin on target organisms is increased, its selectivity may also be decreased and a wider range of non-target organisms may become susceptible; whereas, whilst no systematic research has been undertaken to date, several studies indicate the effects of PI combined with Bt toxins on non-target insects(20);

S.  whereas the risk of higher toxicity to humans and mammals due to interaction between PI and Bt toxins in GM plants, is not known;

Questions of Bt adjuvanticity

T.  whereas a number of studies show that side effects have been observed that may affect the immune system following exposure to Bt toxins and that some Bt toxins may have adjuvant properties(21), meaning that they can increase the allergenicity of other proteins with which they come into contact;

U.  whereas the risk assessment performed by EFSA does not take into account the fact that maize produces PI(22) and therefore a much slower degradation of the Bt toxin has to be assumed if it is ingested with the plant material, compared to its isolated form; whereas this difference can also enhance its adjuvanticity and renders studies using isolated proteins invalid; whereas no empirical studies were performed to investigate the actual immunogenicity of the Bt toxin produced by the GM plant; whereas, the degradation in digestive fluids, which can be relevant for toxicity and adjuvanticity, was tested by using the Bt toxin in isolation;

Bt crops: effects on non-target organisms and increased resistance

V.  whereas, unlike the use of insecticides, where exposure is at the time of spraying and for a limited time afterwards, the use of Bt crops leads to continuous exposure of the target and non target organisms to Bt toxins;

W.  whereas the assumption that Bt toxins exhibit a single target specific mode-of-action can no longer be considered correct and effects on non-target organisms cannot be excluded(23); whereas an increasing number of non-target organisms are reported to be affected in many ways; whereas 39 peer-reviewed publications that report significant adverse effects of Bt toxins on many ‘out-of-range’ species are mentioned in a recent overview(24);

X.  whereas combinatorial effects such as combination with PI may significantly contribute to the toxicity of Bt toxins; whereas the question of selectivity is especially relevant for synthetic Bt toxins, such as Cry3Bb1, which may show lower selectivity in combination with higher toxicity; whereas EFSA still considers that Bt toxins only affect a narrow range of non-target organisms, not taking into account any combinatorial effects; whereas a wider range of non-target organisms might be exposed to Bt toxins via spillage, waste and manure;

Y.  whereas the risk assessment did not consider the development of resistance in the target pests to Bt toxins, possibly resulting in the use of less environmentally safe pesticides or increased doses and the number of applications to the GM crop in the country of cultivation; whereas, the US Environmental Protection Agency is proposing to phase out many current Bt corn hybrids, as well as some Bt cotton varieties, in the next three to five years, due to the growth in insect resistance to these crops(25);

Z.  whereas, whilst it has been claimed that the use of Bt crops leads to a decrease in the use of insecticides, a recent study published in the United States(26), found that ‘several analyses on the influence of Bt crops on pesticide-use patterns do not seem to have considered seed treatments and so may have overstated reductions in insecticide use (especially ‘area treated’) associated with Bt crops’; whereas the same study finds that neonicotinoid seed treatments are often used in conjunction with Bt maize and soybean crops, that ‘[t]his pattern of use may have unintended consequences, namely resistance in target pests, outbreaks of non-target pests, and pollution with detrimental effects cascading to wildlife.’ The study also found that ‘some of these effects have already emerged’; whereas the Union has banned the outdoor use of three neonicotinoids, including as seed coatings, because of their impact on honeybees and other pollinators(27);

AA.  whereas the Union is party to the UN Convention of Biological Diversity (‘UN CBD’), which obliges both importing and exporting countries to take biodiversity into account;

Undemocratic decision-making

AB.  whereas the vote on 26 October 2020 of the Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health referred to in Article 35 of Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 delivered no opinion, meaning that the authorisation was not supported by a qualified majority of Member States;

AC.  whereas the Commission recognises that the fact that GMO authorisation decisions continue to be adopted by the Commission without a qualified majority of Member States in favour, which is very much the exception for product authorisations as a whole but which has become the norm for decision-making on GM food and feed authorisations, is problematic;

AD.  whereas, in its eighth term, Parliament adopted a total of 36 resolutions objecting to the placing on the market of GMOs for food and feed (33 resolutions) and to the cultivation of GMOs in the Union (three resolutions); whereas, to date, Parliament has adopted eleven objections in its ninth term; whereas there was not a qualified majority of Member States in favour of authorising any of those GMOs; whereas despite its own acknowledgement of the democratic shortcomings, the lack of support from Member States and the objections of Parliament, the Commission continues to authorise GMOs;

AE.  whereas, under Regulation (EU) No 182/2011, the Commission may decide not to authorise a GMO when there is no qualified majority of Member States in favour in the Appeal Committee(28); whereas no change of law is required in this respect;

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

2.  Considers that the draft Commission implementing decision is not consistent with Union law, in that it is not compatible with the aim of Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003, which is, in accordance with the general principles laid down in Regulation (EC) No 178/2002 of the European Parliament and of the Council(29), to provide the basis for ensuring a high level of protection of human life and health, animal health and welfare, and environmental and consumer interests, in relation to GM food and feed, while ensuring the effective functioning of the internal market;

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

4.  Welcomes the fact that the Commission finally recognised, in a letter of 11 September 2020 to Members, the need to take sustainability into account when it comes to authorisation decisions on GMOs(30); expresses its strong disappointment, however, that, on 28 September 2020, the Commission authorised another GM soybean for import(31) despite an objection by Parliament and a majority of Member States voting against;

5.  Calls on the Commission to move forward with the utmost urgency concerning the development of sustainability criteria, with full involvement of Parliament; calls on the Commission to provide information on how this process will be undertaken and in what timeframe;

6.  Urges the Commission, again, to take into account the Union’s obligations under international agreements, such as the Paris Climate Agreement, the UN CBD and the UN Sustainable Development Goals, in the authorisation process;

7.  Reiterates its call on the Commission to stop authorising GMOs, whether for cultivation or for food and feed uses, when no opinion is delivered by Member States in the Appeal Committee, in accordance with Article 6(3) of Regulation (EU) No 182/2011;

8.  Reiterates its call on the Commission not to authorise herbicide-tolerant GM crops until the health risks associated with the residues have been comprehensively investigated on a case-by-case basis, which requires a full assessment of the residues from spraying such GM crops with complementary herbicides, an assessment of the herbicide break-down products and any combinatorial effects, including with the GM plant itself;

9.  Calls on EFSA to finally accept the substantial differences between native Bt toxins and those expressed by synthetic transgenes in GM crop plants, and to widen its risk assessment in order to fully take into account all interactions and combinatorial effects between Bt toxins, GM plants and their constituents, residues from spraying with the complementary herbicides, the environment as well as impacts on health and food safety;

10.  Calls on EFSA to no longer accept toxicity studies based on isolated proteins which are likely to be different in structure and biological effects compared to those produced by the plant itself, and to require that all tests are carried out with tissue from the GM plant;

11.  Calls on EFSA to make sure that data from field trials or green houses cover a sufficiently broad range of agronomic and environmental conditions to assess the impact of all stress factors which have to be expected during cultivation on gene expression and plant composition;

12.  Calls on EFSA to make sure that the data from field trials or green houses cover a sufficiently broad range of different varieties to assess the impact of various genetic backgrounds on gene expression and plant composition;

13.  Calls on EFSA to request data on the impact of the consumption of food and feed derived from GM plants on the intestinal microbiome;

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

(1) OJ L 268, 18.10.2003, p. 1. (2) OJ L 55, 28.2.2011, p. 13. (3) https://www.efsa.europa.eu/en/efsajournal/pub/1075 (4) Scientific Opinion of the EFSA Panel on Genetically Modified Organisms on the assessment of genetically modified maize MON 88017 for renewal authorisation under Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 (application EFSA‐GMO‐RX‐014). EFSA Journal 2020;18(3):6008, https://doi.org/10.2903/j.efsa.2020.6008. (5) ––––––––––– In its eighth term, the European Parliament adopted 36 resolutions objecting to the authorisation of GMOs. Furthermore, in its ninth term Parliament has adopted the following resolutions:European Parliament resolution of 10 October 2019 on the draft Commission implementing decision authorising the placing on the market of products containing, consisting of or produced from genetically modified maize MZHG0JG (SYN-ØØØJG-2), pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 of the European Parliament and of the Council (Texts adopted, P9_TA(2019)0028).European Parliament resolution of 10 October 2019 on the draft Commission implementing decision renewing the authorisation for the placing on the market of products containing, consisting of or produced from genetically modified soybean A2704-12 (ACS-GMØØ5-3) pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 of the European Parliament and of the Council (Texts adopted, P9_TA(2019)0029).European Parliament resolution of 10 October 2019 on the draft Commission implementing decision authorising the placing on the market of products containing, consisting of or produced from genetically modified maize MON 89034 × 1507 × MON 88017 × 59122 × DAS-40278-9 and genetically modified maize combining two, three or four of the single events MON 89034, 1507, MON 88017, 59122 and DAS-40278-9 pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 of the European Parliament and of the Council (Texts adopted, P9_TA(2019)0030).European Parliament resolution of 14 November 2019 on the draft Commission implementing decision renewing the authorisation for the placing on the market of products containing, consisting of or produced from genetically modified cotton LLCotton25 (ACS-GHØØ1-3) pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 of the European Parliament and of the Council (Texts adopted, P9_TA(2019)0054).European Parliament resolution of 14 November 2019 on the draft Commission implementing decision renewing the authorisation for the placing on the market of products containing, consisting of or produced from genetically modified soybean MON 89788 (MON-89788-1) pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 of the European Parliament and of the Council (Texts adopted, P9_TA(2019)0055).European Parliament resolution of 14 November 2019 on the draft Commission implementing decision authorising the placing on the market of products containing, consisting of or produced from genetically modified maize MON 89034 × 1507 × NK603 × DAS-40278-9 and sub-combinations MON 89034 × NK603 × DAS-40278-9, 1507 × NK603 × DAS-40278-9 and NK603 × DAS-40278-9 pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 of the European Parliament and of the Council (Texts adopted, P9_TA(2019)0056).European Parliament resolution of 14 November 2019 on the draft Commission implementing decision authorising the placing on the market of products containing, consisting of or produced from genetically modified maize Bt11 × MIR162 × MIR604 × 1507 × 5307 × GA21 and genetically modified maize combining two, three, four or five of the single events Bt11, MIR162, MIR604, 1507, 5307 and GA21 pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 of the European Parliament and of the Council (Texts adopted, P9_TA(2019)0057).European Parliament resolution of 14 May 2020 on the draft Commission implementing decision authorising the placing on the market of products containing, consisting of or produced from genetically modified soybean MON 87708 × MON 89788 × A5547-127, pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 of the European Parliament and of the Council (Texts adopted, P9_TA(2020)0069).European Parliament resolution of 11 November 2020 on the draft Commission implementing decision authorising the placing on the market of products containing, consisting of or produced from genetically modified maize MON 87427 × MON 89034 × MIR162 × NK603 and genetically modified maize combining two or three of the single events MON 87427, MON 89034, MIR162 and NK603, and repealing Commission Implementing Decision (EU) 2018/1111 pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 of the European Parliament and of the Council (Texts adopted, P9_TA(2020)0291).European Parliament resolution of 11 November 2020 on the draft Commission implementing decision authorising the placing on the market of products containing, consisting of or produced from genetically modified soybean SYHT0H2 (SYN-ØØØH2-5), pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 of the European Parliament and of the Council (Texts adopted, P9_TA(2020)0292).European Parliament resolution of 11 November 2020 on the draft Commission implementing decision authorising the placing on the market of products containing, consisting of or produced from genetically modified maize MON 87427 × MON 87460 × MON 89034 × MIR162 × NK603 and genetically modified maize combining two, three or four of the single events MON 87427, MON 87460, MON 89034, MIR162 and NK603, pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 of the European Parliament and of the Council (Texts adopted, P9_TA(2020)0293). (6) Commission Decision 2009/814/EC of 30 October 2009 authorising the placing on the market of products containing, consisting of, or produced from genetically modified maize MON 88017 (MON-88Ø17-3) pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 of the European Parliament and of the Council (OJ L 289, 5.11.2009, p. 25). (7) EFSA opinion, p. 7 https://www.efsa.europa.eu/en/efsajournal/pub/1075 (8) Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 503/2013 of 3 April 2013 on applications for authorisation of genetically modified food and feed in accordance with Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 of the European Parliament and of the Council and amending Commission Regulations (EC) No 641/2004 and (EC) No 1981/2006 (OJ L 157, 8.6.2013, p. 1). (9) First set of Member State comments: http://registerofquestions.efsa.europa.eu/roqFrontend/questionLoader?question=EFSA-Q-2005-280 (10) Second set of Member State comments: http://registerofquestions.efsa.europa.eu/roqFrontend/questionLoader?question=EFSA-Q-2018-00672 (11) Directive 2001/18/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 March 2001 on the deliberate release into the environment of genetically modified organisms and repealing Council Directive 90/220/EEC - Commission Declaration (OJ L 106, 17.4.2001, p. 1). (12) See, for example, Bonny, S., ‘Genetically Modified Herbicide-Tolerant Crops, Weeds, and Herbicides: Overview and Impact’, Environmental Management. January 2016;57(1), pp. 31-48, https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26296738, and Benbrook, C.M., ‘Impacts of genetically engineered crops on pesticide use in the U.S. -- the first sixteen years’, Environmental Sciences Europe 24, 24 (2012), https://enveurope.springeropen.com/articles/10.1186/2190-4715-24-24, and Schütte, G., Eckerstorfer, M., Rastelli, V. et al., ‘Herbicide resistance and biodiversity: agronomic and environmental aspects of genetically modified herbicide-resistant plants’, Environmental Sciences Europe 29, 5 (2017), https://enveurope.springeropen.com/articles/10.1186/s12302-016-0100-y (13) See, for example, https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1383574218300887, https://academic.oup.com/ije/advance-article/doi/10.1093/ije/dyz017/5382278, https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0219610, and https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6612199/ (14) The stacked GM maize contains an EPSPS modification. (15) EFSA Review of the existing maximum residue levels for glyphosate according to Article 12 of Regulation (EC) No 396/2005 – revised version to take into account omitted data, EFSA Journal 2019;17(10):5862, p. 4, https://www.efsa.europa.eu/en/efsajournal/pub/5862 (16) EFSA Conclusion on the peer review of the pesticide risk assessment of the active substance glyphosate, EFSA journal 2015;13(11):4302, p. 3, https://www.efsa.europa.eu/en/efsajournal/pub/4302 (17) This is indeed the case for glyphosate, as stated in EFSA Review of the existing maximum residue levels for glyphosate according to Article 12 of Regulation (EC) No 396/2005, EFSA Journal 2018;16(5):5263, p. 12, https://www.efsa.europa.eu/fr/efsajournal/pub/5263 (18) MacIntosh, S.C., Kishore, G.M., Perlak, F.J., Marrone, P.G., Stone, T.B., Sims, S.R., Fuchs, R.L. ‘Potentiation of Bacillus thuringiensis insecticidal activity by serine protease inhibitors’. J Agric Food Chem, 1990, 38: 1145-1152. (19) See, for example, Then, C. ‘Risk assessment of toxins derived from Bacillus thuringiensis: synergism, efficacy, and selectivity’. Environ Sci Pollut Res Int, 2010, 17, pp. 791–797. (20) See, for example, Han P, Niu CY, Lei CL, Cui JJ, Desneux N. ‘Quantification of toxins in a Cry1Ac + CpTI cotton cultivar and its potential effects on the honey bee Apis mellifera L.’ Ecotoxicology. 2010, 19, pp. 1452-1459. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10646-010-0530-z Babendreier, D., Kalberer,N.M., Romeis, J. Fluri, P., Mulligan, E. and Bigler, F., ‘Influence of Bt-transgenic pollen, Bt-toxin and protease inhibitor (SBTI) ingestion on development of the hypopharyngeal glands in honeybees’. Apidologie, 2005, 36 4, pp. 585-594, https://doi.org/10.1051/apido:2005049, and Liu, X.D., Zhai, B.P., Zhang, X.X., Zong, J.M. ‘Impact of transgenic cotton plants on a non-target pest, Aphis gossypii Glover’. Ecological Entomology, 30(3), pp. 307-315. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.0307-6946.2005.00690.x (21) For a review, see Rubio-Infante, N., Moreno-Fierros, L., ‘An overview of the safety and biological effects of Bacillus thuringiensis Cry toxins in mammals’, Journal of Applied Toxicology, May 2016, 36(5): pp. 630-648, http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/jat.3252/full (22) See recital Q. (23) See, for example, Hilbeck, A. and Otto, M.. ‘Specificity and combinatorial effects of Bacillus thuringiensis Cry toxins in the context of GMO risk assessment’. Frontiers Environmental Science 2015, 3:71. (24) Hilbeck, A., Defarge, N., Lebrecht, T., Bøhn, T, ‘Insecticidal Bt crops. EFSA’s risk assessment approach for GM Bt plants fails by design’, RAGES 2020, p. 4 https://www.testbiotech.org/sites/default/files/RAGES_report-Insecticidal%20Bt%20plants.pdf (25) https://www.dtnpf.com/agriculture/web/ag/crops/article/2020/09/29/epa-proposes-phasing-dozens-bt-corn (26) Douglas, M.R., Tooker, J.F., ‘Large-Scale Deployment of Seed Treatments Has Driven Rapid Increase in Use of Neonicotinoid Insecticides and Preemptive Pest Management in U.S. Field Crops’, Environmental Science and Technology 2015, 49, 8, pp. 5088-5097, https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/es506141g (27) Neonicotinoids,https://ec.europa.eu/food/plant/pesticides/approval_active_substances/approval_renewal/neonicotinoids_en (28) The Commission ‘may, and not ‘shall’, go ahead with authorisation if there is no qualified majority of Member States in favour at the Appeal Committee, according to Article 6(3) of Regulation (EU) No 182/2011. (29) Regulation (EC) No 178/2002 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 28 January 2002 laying down the general principles and requirements of food law, establishing the European Food Safety Authority and laying down procedures in matters of food safety (OJ L 31, 1.2.2002, p. 1). (30) https://tillymetz.lu/wp-content/uploads/2020/09/Co-signed-letter-MEP-Metz.pdf (31) MON 87708 × MON 89788 × A5547-127, https://webgate.ec.europa.eu/dyna/gm_register/gm_register_auth.cfm?pr_id=100

European Parliament resolution of 17 December 2020 on the draft Commission implementing decision renewing the authorisation for the placing on the market of products containing, consisting of or produced from genetically modified maize MON 89034 (MON-89Ø34-3) pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 of the European Parliament and of the Council (D069149/02 – 2020/2895(RSP))

P9_TA(2020)0369 B9-0416/2020

The European Parliament,

–  having regard to the draft Commission implementing decision renewing the authorisation for the placing on the market of products containing, consisting of or produced from genetically modified maize MON 89034 (MON-89Ø34-3) pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 of the European Parliament and of the Council (D069149/02),

–  having regard to Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 September 2003 on genetically modified food and feed(1), and in particular Articles 11(3) and 23(3) thereof,

–  having regard to the vote of the Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health referred to in Article 35 of Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003, on 26 October 2020, at which no opinion was delivered,

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

–  having regard to the opinion adopted by the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) on 3 December 2008 and published on 18 December 2008(3),

–  having regard to the opinion adopted by EFSA on 25 September 2019, and published on 07 November 2019(4),

–  having regard to its previous resolutions objecting to the authorisation of genetically modified organisms (‘GMOs’)(5),

–  having regard to Rule 112(2) and (3) of its Rules of Procedure,

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

A.  whereas Commission Decision 2009/813/EC(6) authorised the placing on the market of food and feed containing, consisting of or produced from genetically modified (‘GM’) maize MON 89034; whereas the scope of that authorisation also covers the placing on the market of products, other than food and feed, containing or consisting of genetically modified maize MON 89034 for the same uses as any other maize, with the exception of cultivation;

B.  whereas on 3 August 2018, Monsanto Europe N.V. on behalf of Monsanto Company, United States, submitted to the Commission an application, in accordance with Articles 11 and 23 of Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003, for the renewal of that authorisation;

C.  whereas, on 3 December 2008, EFSA adopted a favourable opinion, which was published on 18 December 2008, in relation to the initial authorisation application;

D.  whereas, on 25 September 2019, EFSA adopted a favourable opinion, which was published on 07 November 2019, in relation to the renewal application;

E.  whereas GM maize MON 89034 has been engineered to produce Cry1A.105 and Cry2Ab2, synthetic insecticidal proteins (also known as Bt toxins) with enhanced toxicity, compared to the natural bacteria they are derived from, to protect against specific lepidopteran pests(7);

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

Member State concerns about EFSA opinions

G.  whereas, during the consultation period in relation to the initial authorisation application, Member States submitted many critical comments to EFSA’s draft opinion(8); whereas those critical comments include concerns that the feeding study with broilers is not appropriate for assessing toxicological safety since it does not consider toxicological endpoints, that the applicant’s proposal for an environmental monitoring plan does not meet the objectives defined in Annex VII of Directive 2001/18/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council(9), that the combinatorial effects of both toxins were not studied, that an increase in the allergenic activity due to Cry1A.105 and Cry2Ab2 proteins in food and feed from GM maize MON 89034 cannot be excluded and that the conclusion as to substantial equivalence of GM maize MON 89034 and conventional maize are premature;

H.  whereas, during the consultation period in relation to the renewal application, Member States again submitted many critical comments to EFSA’s draft opinion(10); whereas those critical comments include the observation that the latest annual monitoring reports make no mention of the fact that wild populations of teosinte plants able to cross with maize have recently been recorded in Europe (in France), and that the monitoring plan based on consent given by Commission Decision 2005/635/EC(11) and the monitoring reports (2010 to 2018) have many deficiencies and are neither in line with Directive 2001/18/EC and the corresponding guidelines nor with EFSA guidance on the post-market environmental monitoring; furthermore many Member States reiterated their concerns regarding EFSA’s initial risk assessment(12);

Invalid toxicity studies

I.  whereas safety studies to assess acute toxicity and degradation in digestive fluids were conducted with Cry1A.105 and Cry2Ab2 proteins produced in an E. coli strain; whereas a Member State competent authority raised concerns about the lack of equivalence between the proteins expressed in E.coli and in MON 89034(13), raising doubts about the validity of those toxicity studies;

J.  whereas, in general, little significance can be attributed to toxicological tests conducted with proteins in isolation, due to the fact that the effects of the protein in combination with the plant itself are not considered;

K.  whereas, for example, some plants, including maize, naturally produce proteinase inhibitors (PI) which have been shown to slow down the degradation of Bt toxins; whereas this results in much higher toxicity of the Bt toxin, if it is ingested together with the plant tissue, compared to the toxin in isolation; whereas a 1990 study, conducted by scientists at Monsanto, showed that even the presence of extremely low levels of PI enhanced the insecticidal activity of Bt toxins up to 20-fold(14); whereas this interaction has never been assessed, or mentioned, by EFSA in its risk assessments of GM Bt plants;

L.  whereas it has been shown that factors which enhance the toxicity of the Bt toxins can also impact their selectivity(15): if efficacy of the Bt toxin on target organisms is increased, its selectivity may also be decreased and a wider range of non-target organisms may become susceptible; whereas, while no systematic research has been undertaken to date, several studies indicate the effects of PI combined with Bt toxins on non-target insects(16);

M.  whereas the risk of higher toxicity to humans and mammals, due to interaction between PI and Bt toxins in GM plants, is not known;

Questions of Bt adjuvanticity

N.  whereas a number of studies show that side effects have been observed that may affect the immune system following exposure to Bt toxins and that some Bt toxins may have adjuvant properties(17), meaning that they can increase the allergenicity of other proteins with which they come into contact;

O.  whereas while EFSA recognises that Cry1Ac(18) has been shown to act as an adjuvant, it concludes that, as maize is not a common allergenic food, the adjuvant effect of Cry proteins, observed after high dosage intragastric or intranasal administration, is unlikely to raise any concerns regarding allergenicity(19); whereas, however, EFSA does not take into account the fact that maize produces PI(20) and therefore a much slower degradation of the Bt toxins has to be assumed if it is ingested with the plant material, compared to its isolated form; whereas this difference can also enhance its adjuvanticity and renders studies using isolated proteins invalid; whereas no empirical studies were performed to investigate the actual immunogenicity of the Bt toxin produced by the GM plant; whereas degradation of the proteins in digestive fluids, which is also relevant for the assessment of potential allergenicity, was tested by using proteins produced in E.coli in isolation;

Bt crops: effects on non-target organisms and increased resistance

P.  whereas, unlike the use of insecticides, where exposure is at the time of spraying and for a limited time afterwards, the use of Bt GM crops leads to continuous exposure of the target and non-target organisms to Bt toxins;

Q.  whereas the assumption that Bt toxins exhibit a single target-specific mode-of-action can no longer be considered correct and effects on non-target organisms cannot be excluded(21); whereas an increasing number of non-target organisms are reported to be affected in many ways; whereas 39 peer-reviewed publications that report significant adverse effects of Bt toxins on many ‘out-of-range’ species are mentioned in a recent overview(22);

R.  whereas combinatorial effects such as combination with PI may significantly contribute to the toxicity of Bt toxins; whereas the question of selectivity is especially relevant for synthetic Bt toxins, such as Cry1A.105 and Cry2Ab2, which may show lower selectivity in combination with higher toxicity; whereas EFSA still considers that Bt toxins only affect a narrow range of non-target organisms, not taking into account any combinatorial effects; whereas a wider range of non-target organisms might be exposed to Bt toxins via spillage, waste and manure;

S.  whereas no effects on non-target organisms were evaluated in the risk assessment; whereas a Member State competent authority comments that ‘the studies are not sufficient to conclude that exposure of the environment and thus effects on non-target organisms will be negligible’ and ‘experimental evidence from the few studies available demonstrates that Bt toxins will be present in faeces of livestock fed with Bt crops. Consequently, for any market application of Bt crops, experiments should be presented in order to conclude on subsequent effects and risks for non-target organisms’(23);

T.  whereas the risk assessment did not consider the development of resistance in the target pests to Bt toxins, possibly resulting in the use of less environmentally safe pesticides or increased doses and the number of applications to the GM crop in the country of cultivation; whereas, the US Environmental Protection Agency is proposing to phase out many current Bt corn hybrids, as well as some Bt cotton varieties, in the next three to five years, due to the growth in insect resistance to such crops(24);

U.  whereas, while it has been claimed that the use of Bt crops leads to a decrease in the use of insecticides, a recent study published in the United States(25), finds that ‘several analyses on the influence of Bt crops on pesticide-use patterns do not seem to have considered seed treatments and so may have overstated reductions in insecticide use (especially ‘area treated’) associated with Bt crops’; whereas the same study finds that neonicotinoid seed treatments are often used in conjunction with Bt maize and soybean crops, that ‘[t]his pattern of use may have unintended consequences, namely resistance in target pests, outbreaks of non-target pests, and pollution with detrimental effects cascading to wildlife’ and that ‘some of these effects have already emerged’; whereas the Union has banned the outdoor use of three neonicotinoids, including as seed coatings, because of their impact on honeybees and other pollinators(26);

V.  whereas the Union is party to the UN Convention on Biological Diversity (‘UN CBD’), which makes it clear that both exporting and importing countries have international responsibilities regarding biological diversity;

Literature review

W.  whereas Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 503/2013(27) requires the applicant to undertake a literature review for the renewal procedure; whereas a literature search identified 285 publications, yet the applicant only selected five publications, after applying its own eligibility/inclusion criteria, that it considered relevant for food and feed safety assessment or molecular characterisation; whereas one Member State competent authority commented that the literature search did not adequately address potential adverse effects on human and animal health, since the following search terms were not included in the search: ‘toxicity’, ‘toxic’, ‘animal studies’, ‘toxic effects’, ‘adverse effects’ and ‘health effects’(28); whereas, in general, the literature reviews carried out by applicants for renewal of GMO authorisations are not of a high quality;

Undemocratic decision-making

X.  whereas the vote on 26 October 2020 of the Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health referred to in Article 35 of Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 delivered no opinion, meaning that the authorisation was not supported by a qualified majority of Member States;

Y.  whereas the Commission recognises that the fact that GMO authorisation decisions continue to be adopted by the Commission without a qualified majority of Member States in favour, which is very much the exception for product authorisations as a whole but which has become the norm for decision-making on GM food and feed authorisations, is problematic;

Z.  whereas, in its eighth term, Parliament adopted a total of 36 resolutions objecting to the placing on the market of GMOs for food and feed (33 resolutions) and to the cultivation of GMOs in the Union (three resolutions); whereas, to date, Parliament has adopted eleven objections in its ninth term; whereas there was not a qualified majority of Member States in favour of authorising any of those GMOs; whereas despite its own acknowledgement of the democratic shortcomings, the lack of support from Member States and the objections of Parliament, the Commission continues to authorise GMOs;

AA.  whereas, under Regulation (EU) No 182/2011, the Commission may decide not to authorise a GMO when there is no qualified majority of Member States in favour in the Appeal Committee(29); whereas no change of law is required in this respect;

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

2.  Considers that the draft Commission implementing decision is not consistent with Union law, in that it is not compatible with the aim of Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003, which is, in accordance with the general principles laid down in Regulation (EC) No 178/2002 of the European Parliament and of the Council(30), to provide the basis for ensuring a high level of protection of human life and health, animal health and welfare, and environmental and consumer interests, in relation to GM food and feed, while ensuring the effective functioning of the internal market;

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

4.  Welcomes the fact that the Commission finally recognised, in a letter of 11 September 2020 to Members, the need to take sustainability into account when it comes to authorisation decisions on GMOs(31); expresses its strong disappointment, however, that, on 28 September 2020, the Commission authorised another GM soybean for import(32) despite an objection by Parliament and a majority of Member States voting against;

5.  Calls on the Commission to move forward with the utmost urgency concerning the development of sustainability criteria, with full involvement of Parliament; calls on the Commission to provide information on how this process will be undertaken and in what timeframe;

6.  Urges the Commission, again, to take into account the Union’s obligations under international agreements, such as the Paris Climate Agreement, the UN CBD and the UN Sustainable Development Goals, in the authorisation process;

7.  Reiterates its call on the Commission to stop authorising GMOs, whether for cultivation or for food and feed uses, when no opinion is delivered by Member States in the Appeal Committee, in accordance with Article 6(3) of Regulation (EU) No 182/2011;

8.  Calls on EFSA to finally accept the substantial differences between native Bt toxins and those expressed by synthetic transgenes in GM crop plants, and to widen its risk assessment in order to fully take into account all interactions and combinatorial effects between Bt-toxins, GM plants and their constituents, residues from spraying with the complementary herbicides, the environment as well as impacts on health and food safety;

9.  Calls on EFSA to no longer accept toxicity studies based on isolated proteins which are likely to be different in structure and biological effects compared to those produced by the plant itself, and to require that all tests are carried out with tissue from the GM plant;

10.  Calls on EFSA to make sure that data from field trials or greenhouses cover a sufficiently broad range of agronomic and environmental conditions to assess the impact of all stress factors which have to be expected during cultivation on gene expression and plant composition;

11.  Calls on EFSA to make sure that the data from field trials or greenhouses cover a sufficiently broad range of different varieties to assess the impact of various genetic backgrounds on gene expression and plant composition;

12.  Calls on EFSA to request data on the impact of the consumption of food and feed derived from GM plants on the intestinal microbiome;

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

(1) OJ L 268, 18.10.2003, p. 1. (2) OJ L 55, 28.2.2011, p. 13. (3) Scientific opinion of the EFSA Panel on Genetically Modified Organism on the application (Reference EFSA‐GMO‐NL‐2007‐37) for the placing on the market of the insect‐resistant genetically modified maize MON89034, for food and feed uses, import and processing under Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 from Monsanto, https://www.efsa.europa.eu/en/efsajournal/pub/909 (4) Scientific opinion of the EFSA Panel on Genetically Modified Organisms on the assessment of genetically modified maize MON 89034 for renewal authorisation under Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 (application EFSA-GMO-RX-015), EFSA Journal 2019;17(11):5845, https://efsa.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.2903/j.efsa.2019.5845 (5) ––––––––––– In its eighth term, the European Parliament adopted 36 resolutions objecting to the authorisation of GMOs. Furthermore, in its ninth term Parliament has adopted the following resolutions:European Parliament resolution of 10 October 2019 on the draft Commission implementing decision authorising the placing on the market of products containing, consisting of or produced from genetically modified maize MZHG0JG (SYN-ØØØJG-2), pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 of the European Parliament and of the Council (Texts adopted, P9_TA(2019)0028).European Parliament resolution of 10 October 2019 on the draft Commission implementing decision renewing the authorisation for the placing on the market of products containing, consisting of or produced from genetically modified soybean A2704-12 (ACS-GMØØ5-3) pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 of the European Parliament and of the Council (Texts adopted, P9_TA(2019)0029).European Parliament resolution of 10 October 2019 on the draft Commission implementing decision authorising the placing on the market of products containing, consisting of or produced from genetically modified maize MON 89034 × 1507 × MON 88017 × 59122 × DAS-40278-9 and genetically modified maize combining two, three or four of the single events MON 89034, 1507, MON 88017, 59122 and DAS-40278-9 pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 of the European Parliament and of the Council (Texts adopted, P9_TA(2019)0030).European Parliament resolution of 14 November 2019 on the draft Commission implementing decision renewing the authorisation for the placing on the market of products containing, consisting of or produced from genetically modified cotton LLCotton25 (ACS-GHØØ1-3) pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 of the European Parliament and of the Council (Texts adopted, P9_TA(2019)0054).European Parliament resolution of 14 November 2019 on the draft Commission implementing decision renewing the authorisation for the placing on the market of products containing, consisting of or produced from genetically modified soybean MON 89788 (MON-89788-1) pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 of the European Parliament and of the Council (Texts adopted, P9_TA(2019)0055).European Parliament resolution of 14 November 2019 on the draft Commission implementing decision authorising the placing on the market of products containing, consisting of or produced from genetically modified maize MON 89034 × 1507 × NK603 × DAS-40278-9 and sub-combinations MON 89034 × NK603 × DAS-40278-9, 1507 × NK603 × DAS-40278-9 and NK603 × DAS-40278-9 pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 of the European Parliament and of the Council (Texts adopted, P9_TA(2019)0056).European Parliament resolution of 14 November 2019 on the draft Commission implementing decision authorising the placing on the market of products containing, consisting of or produced from genetically modified maize Bt11 × MIR162 × MIR604 × 1507 × 5307 × GA21 and genetically modified maize combining two, three, four or five of the single events Bt11, MIR162, MIR604, 1507, 5307 and GA21 pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 of the European Parliament and of the Council (Texts adopted, P9_TA(2019)0057).European Parliament resolution of 14 May 2020 on the draft Commission implementing decision authorising the placing on the market of products containing, consisting of or produced from genetically modified soybean MON 87708 × MON 89788 × A5547-127, pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 of the European Parliament and of the Council (Texts adopted, P9_TA(2020)0069).European Parliament resolution of 11 November 2020 on the draft Commission implementing decision authorising the placing on the market of products containing, consisting of or produced from genetically modified maize MON 87427 × MON 89034 × MIR162 × NK603 and genetically modified maize combining two or three of the single events MON 87427, MON 89034, MIR162 and NK603, and repealing Commission Implementing Decision (EU) 2018/1111 pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 of the European Parliament and of the Council (Texts adopted, P9_TA(2020)0291).European Parliament resolution of 11 November 2020 on the draft Commission implementing decision authorising the placing on the market of products containing, consisting of or produced from genetically modified soybean SYHT0H2 (SYN-ØØØH2-5), pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 of the European Parliament and of the Council (Texts adopted, P9_TA(2020)0292).European Parliament resolution of 11 November 2020 on the draft Commission implementing decision authorising the placing on the market of products containing, consisting of or produced from genetically modified maize MON 87427 × MON 87460 × MON 89034 × MIR162 × NK603 and genetically modified maize combining two, three or four of the single events MON 87427, MON 87460, MON 89034, MIR162 and NK603, pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 of the European Parliament and of the Council (Texts adopted, P9_TA(2020)0293). (6) Commission Decision 2009/813/EC of 30 October 2009 authorising the placing on the market of products containing, consisting of, or produced from genetically modified maize MON 89034 (MON-89Ø34-3) pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 of the European Parliament and of the Council (OJ L 289, 5.11.2009, p. 21). (7) EFSA first opinion, p. 21, https://efsa.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.2903/j.efsa.2019.5845 (8) Member States’ comments: http://registerofquestions.efsa.europa.eu/roqFrontend/questionLoader?question=EFSA-Q-2007-042 (9) Directive 2001/18/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 March 2001 on the deliberate release into the environment of genetically modified organisms and repealing Council Directive 90/220/EEC - Commission Declaration (OJ L 106, 17.4.2001, p. 1). (10) Member States’ comments: http://registerofquestions.efsa.europa.eu/roqFrontend/questionLoader?question=EFSA-Q-2018-00673 (11) Commission Decision 2005/635/EC of 31 August 2005 concerning the placing on the market, in accordance with Directive 2001/18/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council, of an oilseed rape product (Brassica napus L., GT73 line) genetically modified for tolerance to the herbicide glyphosate (OJ L 228, 3.9.2005, p. 11). (12) See recital G. (13) See Member State comments, p. 7: https://doi.org/10.2903/j.efsa.2009.1193 and Member State comments, pp. 27 : http://registerofquestions.efsa.europa.eu/roqFrontend/questionLoader?question=EFSA-Q-2018-00673 (14) MacIntosh, S.C., Kishore, G.M., Perlak, F.J., Marrone, P.G., Stone, T.B., Sims, S.R., Fuchs, R.L., ‘Potentiation of Bacillus thuringiensis insecticidal activity by serine protease inhibitors’, Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry 1990, 38, pp. 1145-1152. (15) See, for example, Then, C., ‘Risk assessment of toxins derived from Bacillus thuringiensis: synergism, efficacy, and selectivity’, Environmental Science Pollution Research 2010, 17, pp. 791–797. (16) See, for example, Han, P., Niu, C.Y., Lei, C.L., Cui, J.J., Desneux, N., ‘Quantification of toxins in a Cry1Ac + CpTI cotton cultivar and its potential effects on the honey bee Apis mellifera L.’, Ecotoxicology 2010,19, pp.1452-1459, https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10646-010-0530-z; Babendreier, D., Kalberer, N.M., Romeis, J., Fluri, P., Mulligan, E. and Bigler, F., ‘Influence of Bt-transgenic pollen, Bt-toxin and protease inhibitor (SBTI) ingestion on development of the hypopharyngeal glands in honeybees’, Apidologie 2005, 36(4), pp. 585-594, https://doi.org/10.1051/apido:2005049; and Liu, X.D., Zhai, B.P., Zhang, X.X., Zong, J.M., ‘Impact of transgenic cotton plants on a non-target pest, Aphis gossypii Glover’.Ecological Entomology, 30(3), pp. 307-315, https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0307-6946.2005.00690.x (17) For a review, see Rubio-Infante, N., Moreno-Fierros, L., ‘An overview of the safety and biological effects of Bacillus thuringiensis Cry toxins in mammals’, Journal of Applied Toxicology, May 2016, 36(5), pp. 630-648, http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/jat.3252/full (18) Cry1Ac is one of only several Bt toxins which have been investigated in detail by EFSA. (19) EFSA 1st opinion, p. 16, https://www.efsa.europa.eu/en/efsajournal/pub/909 (20) See recital K. (21) See, for example, Hilbeck, A. and Otto, M. ‘Specificity and combinatorial effects of Bacillus thuringiensis Cry toxins in the context of GMO risk assessment’, Frontiers in Environmental Science 2015, 3:71. (22) Hilbeck, A., Defarge, N., Lebrecht, T., Bøhn, T., ‘Insecticidal Bt crops. EFSA’s risk assessment approach for GM Bt plants fails by design’, RAGES 2020, p. 4, https://www.testbiotech.org/sites/default/files/RAGES_report-Insecticidal%20Bt%20plants.pdf (23) Member States’ comments, p. 16: http://registerofquestions.efsa.europa.eu/roqFrontend/questionLoader?question=EFSA-Q-2018-00673 (24) https://www.dtnpf.com/agriculture/web/ag/crops/article/2020/09/29/epa-proposes-phasing-dozens-bt-corn (25) Douglas, M.R., Tooker, J.F., ‘Large-Scale Deployment of Seed Treatments Has Driven Rapid Increase in Use of Neonicotinoid Insecticides and Preemptive Pest Management in U.S. Field Crops’, Environmental Science and Technology 2015, 49, 8, pp. 5088-5097, https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/es506141g (26) Neonicotinoids, https://ec.europa.eu/food/plant/pesticides/approval_active_substances/approval_renewal/neonicotinoids_en (27) Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 503/2013 of 3 April 2013 on applications for authorisation of genetically modified food and feed in accordance with Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 of the European Parliament and of the Council and amending Commission Regulations (EC) No 641/2004 and (EC) No 1981/2006 (OJ L 157, 8.6.2013, p. 1). (28) Member States’ comments, p. 1: http://registerofquestions.efsa.europa.eu/roqFrontend/questionLoader?question=EFSA-Q-2018-00673 (29) The Commission ‘may’, and not ‘shall’, go ahead with authorisation if there is no qualified majority of Member States in favour at the Appeal Committee, according to Article 6(3) of Regulation (EU) No 182/2011. (30) Regulation (EC) No 178/2002 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 28 January 2002 laying down the general principles and requirements of food law, establishing the European Food Safety Authority and laying down procedures in matters of food safety (OJ L 31, 1.2.2002, p. 1). (31) https://tillymetz.lu/wp-content/uploads/2020/09/Co-signed-letter-MEP-Metz.pdf (32) MON 87708 × MON 89788 × A5547-127, https://webgate.ec.europa.eu/dyna/gm_register/gm_register_auth.cfm?pr_id=100

European Parliament resolution of 17 December 2020 on the European Citizens’ Initiative ‘Minority SafePack – one million signatures for diversity in Europe’ (2020/2846(RSP))

P9_TA(2020)0370 B9-0403/2020

The European Parliament,

–  having regard to the European Citizens’ Initiative ‘Minority SafePack – one million signatures for diversity in Europe’ (ECIXXXX),

–  having regard to the Treaty on European Union (TEU), and in particular Articles 2, 3(3) and 11(4) thereof,

–  having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU), and in particular Articles 19, 24, 53(1), 63, 79(2), 107(3)(e), 108(4), 109, 118, 165(4), 167(5), 173(3), 177, 178 and 182(1) thereof,

–  having regard to Regulation (EU) 2019/788 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 April 2019 on the European Citizens’ Initiative(1) (‘the ECI Regulation’),

–  having regard to the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (‘the Charter’), and in particular to Articles 10, 21, 22 and 51 thereof,

–  having regard to the European Council conclusions of 21-22 June 1993 which established the requirements a country must fulfil in order to be eligible to join the European Union (the Copenhagen criteria),

–  having regard to Article 27 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and to the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, both of which were adopted by the UN General Assembly on 16 December 1966,

–  having regard to the Council of Europe Framework Convention for the Protection of National Minorities and the European Charter for Regional or Minority Languages, as well as the opinions of the relevant monitoring bodies,

–  having regard to the 1990 Copenhagen Document of the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE) and to the numerous thematic recommendations and guidelines on minority rights issued by the OSCE High Commissioner on National Minorities and the OSCE Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights (ODIHR),

–  having regard to its resolution of 13 November 2018 on minimum standards for minorities in the EU(2),

–  having regard to its resolution of 7 February 2018 on protection and non-discrimination with regard to minorities in the EU Member States(3),

–  having regard to its resolution of 11 September 2018 on language equality in the digital age(4),

–  having regard to its resolution of 11 September 2013 on endangered European languages and linguistic diversity in the European Union(5),

–  having regard to the Council Recommendation of 22 May 2019 on a comprehensive approach to the teaching and learning of languages(6),

–  having regard to the decisions and case law of the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU), in particular case T-646/13 (Minority SafePack – one million signatures for diversity in Europe v Commission)(7), and case T-391/17 (Romania v Commission)(8);

–  having regard to Commission Decision (EU) 2017/652 of 29 March 2017 on the proposed citizens’ initiative entitled ‘Minority SafePack — one million signatures for diversity in Europe’(9),

–  having regard to the public hearing of 15 October 2020 on the Minority SafePack European Citizens’ Initiative organised by the Committee on Culture and Education, the Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs and the Committee on Petitions,

–  having regard to the proposal of the Minority SafePack European Citizens’ Initiative (ECI) with regard to the legislative acts expected from the Commission based on the ECI, put forward to the Commission after the submission of the signatures and presented at Parliament during the public hearing,

–  having regard to Rule 222(8) of its Rules of Procedure,

A.  whereas pursuant to Article 2 TEU, the Union is founded on the values of respect for human dignity, freedom, democracy, equality, the rule of law and respect for human rights, including the rights of persons belonging to minorities;

B.  whereas Article 3(3) TEU states that the Union’s aim is to promote economic, social and territorial cohesion and solidarity among Member States, as well as to respect its rich cultural and linguistic diversity and ensure that Europe’s cultural heritage is safeguarded and enhanced;

C.  whereas Article 6 TFEU recognises that the EU has competences in the fields of culture and education to carry out actions to support, coordinate or supplement the actions of the Member States; whereas the Commission should engage actively with the Member States in these policy fields, which are also of major concern for persons belonging to minorities;

D.  whereas according to Article 10 TFEU, the Union must aim to combat discrimination based among others on racial or ethnic origin in defining and implementing its policies and activities;

E.  whereas Article 21(1) of the Charter states that any discrimination based on any ground such as sex, race, colour, ethnic or social origin, genetic features, language, religion or belief, political or any other opinion, membership of a national minority, property, birth, disability, age or sexual orientation, shall be prohibited;

F.  whereas Article 22 of the Charter states that the Union shall respect cultural, religious and linguistic diversity;

G.  whereas respect for cultural diversity is enshrined in Article 167 TFEU;

H.  whereas approximately 8 % of EU citizens belong to a national minority and approximately 10 % speak a regional or minority language; whereas they represent an essential element of the cultural wealth of the Union through their unique languages and cultures;

I.  whereas the general concept of minorities in Europe is covered by a wide range of terms in legal and academic language; whereas these social groups are often interchangeably referred to as national minorities, ethnic groups, traditional or autochthonous minorities, nationalities, inhabitants of constitutional regions, linguistic minorities, groups speaking lesser-used languages, language groups etc.; whereas in order to bypass the difficulty of carrying over the variety of terms used across Europe, the Council of Europe in its Framework Convention on the Protection of National Minorities, which still represents the highest international standard for minority protection in Europe, uses the term ‘national minority’; whereas the Minority SafePack ECI uses the term ‘national and linguistic minorities’ when referring to such minority groups;

J.  whereas most national and linguistic minorities face an accelerating trend of assimilation and language loss, which translates into a linguistic and cultural impoverishment within the EU and the loss of its diversity, something the EU is called required protect under the Treaties; whereas education is the main tool for the revitalisation and preservation of minority languages;

K.  whereas the UNESCO Atlas of the World’s Languages in Danger lists 186 languages from EU Member States as vulnerable or in danger and three additional languages as extinct;

L.  whereas the Minority SafePack ECI was submitted to the Commission on 15 July 2013, calling for EU action to support national and linguistic minorities in 11 areas;

M.  whereas on 13 September 2013, the Commission did not find this sufficiently substantiated to register the ECI; whereas the organisers of the ECI lodged an appeal at the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) and on 3 February 2017, the General Court of the CJEU delivered its judgment annulling the decision of the Commission;

N.  whereas in order to take the necessary measures to comply with the judgment of the General Court, the Commission reanalysed the legal admissibility of the ECI and through the adoption of Decision (EU) 2017/652, registered the initiative in nine of the 11 areas initially requested;

O.  whereas in line with Article 15 of the ECI Regulation, the Commission’s legal admissibility check is followed by an examination of the substance of the ECI after the successful collection of signatures; whereas the Commission sets out its legal and political conclusions on the ECI based on the EU Treaties;

P.  whereas in its judgment of 24 September 2019 in Case T-391/17, the General Court of the European Union confirmed the decision of the Commission to register the Minority SafePack ECI;

Q.  whereas between 3 April 2017 and 3 April 2018, 1 123 422 certified signatures were collected in the EU and the minimum national threshold was reached in 11 Member States;

R.  whereas the European Citizens’ Initiative is the first instrument for transnational participatory democracy in the world, enabling citizens to engage directly with the EU institutions;

S.  whereas Minority SafePack is the fifth out of only six successful ECIs so far;

T.  whereas pursuant to Article 14 of Regulation (EU) 2019/788, following the organisation of a public hearing, Parliament must assess the political support for individual ECIs; whereas Parliament held its public hearing on 15 October 2020, in accordance with Article 222 of its Rules of Procedure;

1.  Reiterates its strong support for the ECI instrument and calls for the full exploitation of its potential; highlights that the ECI is an exceptional opportunity for citizens to identify and articulate their aspirations and to ask for EU action; stresses that allowing citizens to play an active part in political processes that affect them is essential for bringing the European integration project closer to citizens;

2.  Points out that the new ECI Regulation came into force on 1 January 2020, and that it is of crucial importance that EU and national institutions do everything they can to make the relaunch of this EU participation instrument a success; highlights that the Commission should give due consideration to the requests expressed by over 1.1 million EU citizens through the Minority SafePack ECI;

3.  Recalls that the protection of persons belonging to minorities is an explicit founding value of the EU, together with democracy, the rule of law and respect for human rights, as set out in Article 2 TEU;

4.  Recalls that Article 3(3) TEU provides that the Union must respect its rich cultural and linguistic diversity, and ensure that Europe’s cultural heritage is safeguarded and enhanced; stresses that minority languages and cultures are an integral and inalienable part of the Union’s culture and heritage; underlines that the Union should encourage actions by Member States to ensure the protection of the rights of persons belonging to minorities;

5.  Reiterates its call on the Commission(10) to draw up, in line with the principle of subsidiarity, a common framework of EU minimum standards for the protection of rights of persons belonging to minorities, which are strongly embedded in a legal framework guaranteeing democracy, the rule of law and fundamental rights throughout the EU;

6.  Calls on the Member States to take all the necessary measures and to uphold the rights of persons belonging to minorities and ensure that these rights are fully respected;

7.  Believes that linguistic rights must be respected in communities where there is more than one official language, without limiting the rights of one group compared with another, in line with the constitutional order of each Member State and its national law; believes that the promotion of regional languages and the protection of language communities should respect the fundamental rights of all persons;

8.  Considers that the EU should continue to raise awareness for multilingualism throughout Europe through EU programmes, and actively promote the advantages of multilingualism;

9.  Recalls that there is no common definition of who can be considered a person belonging to a national or linguistic minority in the EU; underlines the need to protect all minorities, regardless of definition, and stresses that any definition should be applied in a flexible manner while respecting the principles of subsidiarity, proportionality and non-discrimination;

10.  Calls for mutually reinforcing cooperation between the EU and the Council of Europe in the area of protecting the rights of national and linguistic minorities; points out that such cooperation would offer the EU the possibility to build upon the achievements and experience of the Council of Europe while allowing the Council of Europe to increase the effectiveness of the implementation of its recommendations issued in relation to the Framework Convention for the Protection of National Minorities and the European Charter for Regional or Minority Languages; encourages the Member States to implement and ratify the Framework Convention for the Protection of National Minorities and the European Charter for Regional or Minority Languages;

On the nine ECI proposals

11.  Acknowledges that the protection of national and linguistic minorities is the primary responsibility of the Member States’ authorities; points out, however that the Union has a powerful role to play in supporting the Member States’ authorities in this endeavour; points out that a number of the Member States represent successful examples of respectful and harmonious coexistence of different communities, including in the areas of language and cultural revitalisation policies; calls on Member States to exchange best practices on the protection of and support for the rights of persons belonging to minorities, and calls on the EU to facilitate such exchanges;

12.  Is of the opinion that cultural and linguistic identity preservation measures for the benefit of persons belonging to national and linguistic minorities must aim at positive action, including in the areas of education, culture and public services;

13.  Expresses its concern about the alarming increase of hate crime and hate speech, motivated by racism, xenophobia or intolerance, directed at persons belonging to national and linguistic minorities in Europe; calls on the Commission and the Member States to launch anti-hate speech campaigns as well as to combat racism and xenophobia towards persons belonging to national and linguistic minorities;

14.  Recognises the contribution of national and linguistic minorities to the cultural heritage of the EU and highlights the role of media;

15.  Points out that linguistic diversity is a valuable component of Europe’s cultural wealth, which should be protected so as to ensure that regional or minority languages can be passed on from one generation to the next; expresses its strong concern about regional or minority languages that are exposed to the risk of extinction; underlines the need to take more action in this area; calls on the Commission and the Member States, therefore, to promote language learning throughout the EU, including the learning of minority languages; notes that the ECI calls for the establishment of a European language diversity centre with the aim of protecting the rich diversity of European languages;

16.  Calls on the EU and its Member States to take account of the needs of national and linguistic minorities when designing its funding programmes; considers that the protection of multilingualism and cultural diversity is a motor for regional development and innovation and therefore considers that the European Structural and Investment Funds and Cohesion Funds should take it into account; believes that funding from Horizon Europe for the study of cultural and linguistic diversity and its effect on economic development in the regions of the EU would allow for the better targeting of public policies for national and linguistic minorities;

17.  Acknowledges the role of language in culture; is concerned that cultural operators active in regional or minority languages may face an additional challenge in reaching wide audiences and accessing financial and administrative resources; calls on the Member States to take into account regional situations and develop measures to help cultural operators in expressing the freedom of culture, regardless of their linguistic or other specificities;

18.  Believes that every EU citizen should be able to enjoy culture and entertainment in his or her own language; points out that linguistic minorities are often too small or lack the institutional support to build up a comprehensive system of media services of their own; calls on the Commission in this regard to make an assessment and take the most appropriate measures to support the development of such media services; notes that since the submission of the Minority SafePack ECI to the Commission in 2013, essential copyright and audiovisual media services-related proposals have already adopted by the co-legislators; acknowledges the recently adopted Commission communication on the first short-term review of the Geo-blocking Regulation (COM(2020)0766), in which the Commission proposes a detailed stock-taking exercise for 2022, by when the full effects of the regulation will have become apparent; welcomes the Commission’s plan to engage in a dialogue with stakeholders on audiovisual content as part of its media and audiovisual action plan; stresses the need to ensure that minority language concerns are taken into consideration in future regulations;

19.  Points out that a large number of stateless people in the European Union belong to national and linguistic minorities; considers that, taking due account of the sovereignty and competences of Member States, positive measures could be and are being taken in this regard; points out that granting or withdrawing citizenship is a national competence;

20.  Expresses its support for the European Citizens’ Initiative ‘Minority SafePack – one million signatures for diversity in Europe’; calls on the Commission to act on it and to propose legal acts based on the Treaties and the ECI Regulation, and in accordance with the principles of subsidiarity and proportionality; points out that the initiative registered by the Commission calls for legislative proposals in nine distinct areas and recalls the request within the initiative that each individual proposal be verified and assessed on its own merit;

o
o   o

21.  Instructs its President to forward this resolution to the Commission, the Council, the European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights and the governments and parliaments of the Member States.

(1) OJ L 130, 17.5.2019, p. 55. (2) OJ C 363, 28.10.2020, p. 13. (3) OJ C 463, 21.12.2018, p. 21. (4) OJ C 433, 23.12.2019, p. 42. (5) OJ C 93, 9.3.2016, p. 52. (6) OJ C 189, 5.6.2019, p. 15. (7) ECLI:EU:T:2017:59. (8) ECLI:EU:T:2019:672. (9) OJ L 92, 6.4.2017, p. 100. (10) European Parliament Resolution of 13 November 2018 on minimum standards for minorities in the EU (OJ C 363, 28.10.2020, p. 13).

European Parliament resolution of 17 December 2020 on a strong social Europe for Just Transitions (2020/2084(INI))

P9_TA(2020)0371 A9-0233/2020

The European Parliament,

–  having regard to Articles 3 and 5 of the Treaty on European Union (TEU),

–  having regard to Articles 9, 151, 152, 153, 156, 157, 162 and 168 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU),

–  having regard to Protocols 1, 8 and 28 to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,

–  having regard to the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, and in particular Title IV (Solidarity) thereof,

–  having regard to the European Pillar of Social Rights (EPSR), proclaimed by the European Council, the European Parliament and the European Commission in November 2017,

–  having regard to the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development,

–  having regard to the Paris Agreement reached at COP21 in 2015, and specifically its preamble ‘urging Parties, in implementing their policies and measures, to promote a just transition of the workforce and the creation of decent work and quality jobs in accordance with nationally defined development priorities and strategies’,

–  having regard to the ILO conventions and recommendations, in particular the Labour Inspection Convention of 1947 (No 81), the ILO Centenary Declaration (2019) and the ILO Guidelines of February 2016 for a just transition towards environmentally sustainable economies and societies for all,

–  having regard to the UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), in particular goals 1, 3, 4, 5, 8, 10 and 13,

–   having regard to the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (UNCRPD) and its entry into force in the EU on 21 January 2011, in accordance with Council Decision 2010/48/EC of 26 November 2009 on the conclusion by the European Community of the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities,

–   having regard to the UN Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women,

–   having regard to Council Directive 2000/78/EC of 27 November 2000 establishing a general framework for equal treatment in employment and occupation(1) (Employment Equality Directive),

–   having regard to Council Directive 2000/43/EC of 29 June 2000 implementing the principle of equal treatment between persons irrespective of racial or ethnic origin(2),

–  having regard to the Commission proposal for a Council directive on implementing the principle of equal treatment between persons irrespective of religion or belief, disability, age or sexual orientation (COM(2008)0426) and Parliament’s position thereon of 2 April 2009(3),

–  having regard to the Commission communication of 14 January 2020 entitled ‘A strong and social Europe for just transitions’ (COM(2020)0014),

–  having regard to the Commission communication of 11 December 2019 on the European Green Deal (COM(2019)0640),

–  having regard to the Commission communication of 27 May 2020 entitled ‘Europe’s moment: Repair and Prepare for the Next Generation’ (COM(2020)0456),

–  having regard to the Commission communication of 27 May 2020 entitled ‘The EU budget powering the recovery plan for Europe (COM(2020)0442),

–  having regard to the Commission communication of 27 May 2020 entitled ‘Adjusted Commission Work Programme 2020’ (COM(2020)0440),

–  having regard to the Commission proposal of 28 May 2020 for a Council regulation establishing a European Union Recovery Instrument to support the recovery in the aftermath of the COVID-19 pandemic (COM(2020)0441),

–  having regard to its resolution of 19 June 2020 on European protection of cross-border and seasonal workers in the context of the COVID-19 crisis(4),

–  having regard to the Commission report of 17 June 2020 on the impact of demographic change (COM(2020)0241),

–  having regard to the opinion of the European Committee of the Regions of 18 January 2017 entitled ‘The EU response to the demographic challenge’ (2017/C017/08),

–  having regard to the Commission communication of 19 February 2020 entitled ‘Shaping Europe’s digital future’(COM(2020)0067),

–  having regard to the Commission proposal of 1 July 2020 for a Council recommendation on vocational education and training (VET) for sustainable competitiveness, social fairness and resilience (COM(2020)0275),

–  having regard to the Commission staff working document of 1 July 2020 accompanying the proposal for a Council recommendation on ‘A Bridge to Jobs - reinforcing the Youth Guarantee’ (SWD(2020)0124),

–  having regard to its legislative resolution of 10 July 2020 on the proposal for a Council decision on guidelines for the employment policies of the Member States(5),

–  having regard to its legislative resolution of 8 July 2020 on the proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Regulation (EU) No 1303/2013 as regards the resources for the specific allocation for the Youth Employment Initiative(6),

–  having regard to its resolution of 10 October 2019 on employment and social policies of the euro area(7),

–  having regard to its legislative resolution of 4 April 2019 on the proposal for a Council decision on guidelines for the employment policies of the Member States(8),

–  having regard to the report of the Committee on Employment and Social Affairs on the European Semester for economic policy coordination: employment and social aspects in the Annual Sustainable Growth Strategy 2020,

–  having regard to the Commission communication of 17 December 2019 on the Annual Sustainable Growth Strategy 2020 (COM(2019)0650),

–  having regard to the proposal for a joint employment report from the Commission and the Council of 17 December 2019 accompanying the communication on the Annual Sustainable Growth Strategy 2020,

–  having regard to Council Decision (EU) 2019/1181 of 8 July 2019 on guidelines for the employment policies of the Member States(9),

–  having regard to its resolution of 13 March 2019 on the European Semester for economic policy coordination: employment and social aspects in the Annual Growth Survey 2019(10),

–  having regard to the ‘Political Guidelines for the next European Commission 2019-2024: A Union that Strives for More’, presented by Commission President Ursula von der Leyen,

–  having regard to the opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee of 23 January 2019 on ‘Social dialogue for innovation in digital economy’(11),

–  having regard to the Commission’s Spring 2020 Economic Forecast of 6 May 2020,

–  having regard to the opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee of 18 September 2020 on ‘Decent minimum wages across Europe’,

–  having regard to the opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee of 15 July 2020 on ‘Recovery plan for Europe and the Multiannual Financial Framework 2021-2027’,

–  having regard to the opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee of 11 December 2019 on ‘Common Minimum Standards in the field of unemployment insurance in EU Member States – A concrete step towards the effective implementation of the European Pillar of Social Rights’(12),

–  having regard to the study by the European Foundation for the Improvement of Living and Working Conditions (Eurofound) entitled ‘COVID-19: Policy responses across Europe’,

–  having regard to the Joint Research Centre Technical Report entitled ‘The COVID confinement measures and EU labour markets’, published in 2020 and, in particular, to its analysis of the most recent evidence available of the patterns of telework in the EU,

–  having regard to the revised European Social Charter and to the Turin Process, launched in 2014 with the aim of strengthening the treaty system of the European Social Charter within the Council of Europe as well as its relationship with the law of the European Union,

–  having regard to Rule 54 of its Rules of Procedure,

–  having regard to the opinions of the Committee on Culture and Education and the Committee on Women’s Rights and Gender Equality,

–  having regard to the report of the Committee on Employment and Social Affairs (A9-0233/2020),

A.  whereas sustainable development is a fundamental objective of the European Union; whereas the social market economy is based on two complementary pillars, namely the enforcement of competition and robust social policy measures, which should lead to the achievement of full employment and social progress; whereas the three pillars of sustainable development are the economic, the social and the environmental; whereas sustainable development is based, among other things, on full employment and social progress; whereas this is a fundamental objective of the European Union laid down in Article 3(3) TEU; whereas up till now priority has been given to economic and environmental sustainability;

B.  whereas there are emerging challenges that Europe is facing, such as increasing inequalities between generations, diminished social, health, economic and environmental opportunities and resources, territorial disparities, and unequal access to fundamental social and health services, jobs and business opportunities and social infrastructure; whereas reducing inequalities is a shared responsibility of the EU and the Member States; whereas inequalities (of income and of opportunities) have risen in a majority of Member States since the 2008 economic crisis, challenging both the sustainability and inclusiveness of growth and social cohesion, and in this context progress towards the EU 2020 targets has been difficult;

C.  whereas there is a strong and assumed need for just transitions, in Europe and the world, to sustainable resource exploitation, lowering of CO2 emissions and strong protection of the environment, in order to safeguard the livelihoods, security, health and prosperity of future generations; whereas the transitions towards a stable and sustainable green and environment-friendly economy and social dimension will require cooperation between public and private actors, and must be accompanied by a process of reindustrialisation, modernisation of the industrial base and strengthening of the internal market; whereas the green, digital and demographic transitions affect European regions, sectors, workers and population groups in different ways and these transitions will require significant reskilling and labour reallocation in order to prevent job destruction in affected sectors;

D.  whereas the European regions where there is the greatest need for a sustainable transition are generally also those with high levels of poverty and exclusion; whereas decisive measures and investment are needed for a speedy recovery that should focus on mitigating the economic and social effects of the pandemic, restart economic activity, fostering sustainable development, the green transition and the digital transformation, and implementing the principles of the European Pillar of Social Rights in order to achieve more effective and stronger welfare states; whereas an internationally competitive Europe must be based on a strong social Europe in order to create a path to sustainable growth, quality jobs and robust social welfare systems for all;

E.  whereas Eurofound research reveals the complexity of the social dimension of the European Union and suggests complementing the Social Scoreboard accompanying the European Pillar of Social Rights with additional indicators covering job quality, social justice and equal opportunities, robust social welfare systems and fair mobility;

F.  whereas the Europe 2020 strategy was launched in 2010 for the promotion of smart, sustainable and inclusive growth; whereas the implementation of the Lisbon strategy should have given more priority to sustainability and inclusiveness rather than growth;

G.  whereas, as stated in Article 151 TFEU, the Union and the Member States, having in mind fundamental social rights such as those set out in the European Social Charter signed in Turin on 18 October 1961 and in the 1989 Community Charter of the Fundamental Social Rights of Workers, have as objectives the promotion of employment, improved living and working conditions so as to make possible their harmonisation while the improvement is being maintained, as well as proper social protection, dialogue between management and labour, the development of human resources with a view to lasting high employment, and the combating of exclusion; whereas initiatives originating from the European Pillar of Social Rights are a shared responsibility between the EU and the Member States, which have different social systems and traditions; whereas, therefore, such initiatives should protect national collective bargaining systems, offering higher levels of protection; whereas fundamental rights, proportionality, legal certainty, equality before the law and subsidiarity are general principles of EU law and as such must be respected;

H.  whereas women are under-represented in economic and political leadership positions deciding on the policy responses to COVID-19; whereas women should be included in decision-making to bring in more perspectives, knowledge and experience, which would lead to better policy outputs;

I.  whereas social welfare systems contribute to guaranteeing a decent life; whereas those systems include social security, healthcare, education, housing, employment, justice and social services for disadvantaged groups, and play a key role in achieving social sustainable development, promoting equality and social justice and ensuring the right to social protection as enshrined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1948); whereas social protection policies are vital elements of national development strategies to reduce poverty and vulnerability across the life cycle and to support inclusive and sustainable growth;

J.  whereas social dialogue and collective bargaining are key instruments for employers and trade unions in order to establish fair wages and working conditions, and strong collective bargaining systems increase Member States’ resilience in times of economic crisis; whereas societies with strong collective bargaining systems tend to be wealthier and more equal; whereas the right to collective bargaining is an issue that concerns all European workers, which can also have crucial implications for democracy and the rule of law, including respect for fundamental social rights; whereas collective bargaining is a European fundamental right and the EU institutions are bound by Article 28 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights to respect it; whereas, in this context, policies that respect, promote and strengthen collective bargaining and the position of workers in wage-setting systems play a critical role in achieving a high standard of working conditions;

K.  whereas collective bargaining is a key instrument to promote rights at work; whereas, according to OECD data, over the last decades both trade union density and collective bargaining coverage have significantly declined; whereas collective bargaining coverage has been decreasing in 22 of the EU’s 27 Member States since 2000; whereas the quality of work and of the working environment is higher on average in countries with well-organised social partners and a large coverage of collective agreements; whereas collective bargaining, provided it has a wide coverage and is well coordinated, fosters good labour market performance;

L.  whereas, according to Eurofound, collective bargaining has come under pressure and the recession of 2008 has resulted in its decentralisation; whereas, while every sixth worker in the EU is estimated to be covered by a collective wage agreement, there is difficulty in obtaining reliable evidence in the form of more in-depth coverage data as regards collective bargaining and collective agreements across the EU; whereas, according to data provided by the European Trade Union Institute (ETUI), the average level of union membership across the EU is around 23 %, with a great variety in union membership rates between Member States, ranging from 74 % to as low as 8 %; whereas the membership of employers’ organisations and the share of the markets they represent vary significantly as well;

M.  whereas social investment is about investing in people in order to improve their living conditions; whereas key policy areas for social investment include social security, healthcare, long-term care, education, housing, employment, justice and social services for disadvantaged groups; whereas well-designed social policies strongly contribute to sustainable development and growth as well as to protecting people from poverty and acting as economic stabilisers;

N.  whereas the poverty rate is predicted to increase as one of the effects of the COVID-19 pandemic; whereas women, young people, older people, persons with disabilities and large families are more endangered by this development; whereas the number of single-person households and older people living alone is increasing; whereas single-person households are at greater risk of poverty and social exclusion, and, particularly, older women are at higher risk of poverty than older men if they live alone; whereas lone parent households are at high risk of poverty and deprivation, and have difficulties budgeting due to single incomes and lower employment rates; whereas an increasing number of young adults are now relying on the parental home to protect them from poverty, but 29 % of households with three generations are at risk of poverty and 13 % are severely deprived;

O.  whereas gender discrimination in the home and on the labour market can result in an unequal distribution of resources, making women more vulnerable to poverty and social exclusion than men; whereas if they fall into poverty, women have less chance of getting out of it;

P.  whereas both horizontal and vertical labour market segregation in the EU are still significant, with women over-represented in less profitable sectors; whereas in particular women with precarious contracts have been affected by the COVID-19 pandemic, as they were the first to lose their jobs, resulting in financial consequences for their families and for their economic independence, as well as leading to them receiving insufficient social security protection in times of crisis;

Q.  whereas in 2018 there were nearly 109 million persons at risk of poverty or social exclusion in the EU-27, equivalent to 21,7 % of the total population, with 23 million being children(13); whereas the EU did not reach its 2020 target to reduce the number of people at risk of poverty or social exclusion by at least 20 million; whereas the number of people at risk of poverty or social exclusion is likely to increase within the Union as a result of the COVID-19 crisis; whereas homelessness has increased by 70 % consistently in most Member States over the past decade, with at least 700 000 people being without shelter on any given night in the EU; whereas COVID-19 has demonstrated that homelessness represents both a social and a public health crisis(14); whereas about one-fifth of people in the EU are at risk of severe indebtedness and many do not receive the social benefits to which they are entitled under their national systems;

R.  whereas one in five workers in the EU holds a poor quality job; whereas it is expected that in the next decade, job polarisation and non-standard forms of employment will increase further and there will be more jobs at the higher and lower ends of the skills spectrum(15); whereas technological change and the use of artificial intelligence might alter the labour market significantly; whereas this leads to further disparities in earnings; whereas labour demand has consistently been weakest in the middle of the job-wage distribution, most noticeably during the periods of recession and employment contraction between 2008 and 2013, partly due to employment shifting from the manufacturing and construction sectors to services; whereas this trend is likely to be further reinforced by the pandemic; whereas low-skilled jobs will always be essential for societies and must offer decent pay and conditions; whereas digitalisation can create chances and opportunities for upskilling, but does not necessarily improve working conditions or create new quality jobs for all;

S.  whereas there is hardly any transition from fixed-term to permanent employment contracts; whereas 60 % of workers are trapped involuntarily in fixed-term employment; whereas transition rates are particularly low in countries with high levels of fixed-term employment; whereas even public administrations have too often relied on temporary workers to replace civil servants, with more precarious working conditions;

T.  whereas research by Eurofound on ‘new forms of employment’ shows that emerging and increasingly important employment forms which deviate from traditional employer-employee relationships and/or are characterised by non-traditional work organisation and work patterns, tend to be less covered by social protection, social dialogue and collective bargaining; whereas, as such employment forms are also found to be more intensively used during economically challenging times, interventions should be considered to counter the expected labour market crisis resulting from the COVID-19 pandemic;

U.  whereas the unemployment rate is over 7 %, and the youth unemployment rate has risen to 17 % and is expected to increase further due to COVID-19(16), concerning especially women and workers in low-skilled positions; whereas the euro area unemployment rate is expected to increase from 8,3 % in 2020 to about 9,3 % in 2021, with substantial differences among Member States(17); whereas the unemployment rate of specific groups, such as persons with disabilities, ethnic minorities like the Romani people, young people and elderly people, can be significantly higher; whereas according to Eurofound’s survey ‘Living, Working and COVID-19’, the COVID-19 crisis has had a dramatic impact on the labour market, with 8 % of employees and 13 % of the solo self-employed becoming unemployed since the onset of the pandemic; whereas the impact of the crisis has also been felt by those who remained in the labour market with a considerable decrease in hours worked, which is reflected in loss of income and concerns over future labour market participation and financial insecurity;

V.  whereas according to Eurostat, in 2018 there were 8,3 million underemployed part-time workers in the EU-28, 7,6 million persons were available to work but not looking for a job, and another 2,2 million were looking for jobs without being able to start working within a short time period; whereas in total 18,1 million persons experienced something resembling unemployment in the EU-28 in 2018;

W.  whereas the fight against unemployment of young people as well as the elderly remains one of the greatest challenges at regional level in the EU;

X.  whereas the COVID-19 crisis has brought to light abuses regarding the rights of cross-border, frontier and seasonal workers and the precariousness of their situation, with low levels of social protection and social security coordination; whereas there is therefore a need for stronger regulation, more efficient monitoring and effective enforcement of decent working conditions, as well as housing conditions and health and safety at work; whereas the Temporary Agency Work Directive has to be improved in this aspect;

Y.  whereas the gap in employment participation between men and women was 11,7 % in 2019; whereas this differential has a huge economic cost for the EU, corresponding to EUR 320 billion per year, or 2,37 % of EU GDP; whereas the COVID-19 crisis disproportionately affects women’s labour and social situation, with 26,5 % of women being in precarious jobs, representing 60 % of part-time workers; whereas women are more affected than men by the difficulties arising from the COVID-19 pandemic, owing to the employment sectors in which they are prevalent and the burden of caring for children and the elderly, which still weighs particularly heavily on their shoulders;

Z.  whereas persons with disabilities and the elderly are particularly susceptible to the COVID-19 crisis; whereas they are likely to suffer disproportionately and to have particular support needs that must be taken into account from the very outset when responding to the pandemic, with research showing that these groups are at high risk of developing mental health problems;

AA.  whereas Europe’s regions are facing long-term demographic trends, from longer life expectancy to lower birth rates, ageing societies, shrinking workforce, smaller households and increasing urbanisation; whereas Europe’s declining share of the global population, with it being expected to account for less than 4 % by 2070, will bring challenges; whereas rural and peripheral areas are strongly affected by demographic changes;

AB.  whereas the pandemic has particularly affected the elderly, in some cases aggravating the situation of those who are isolated; whereas the elderly are most at risk of lack of access to the internet and modern technologies, and are consequently at a higher risk of exclusion, including digital exclusion;

AC.  whereas the crisis has resulted in rising urban poverty, affecting more middle-income households and creating new at-risk groups, and is leading to deepening territorial inequalities, exacerbating social disadvantages in deprived urban areas as well as unequal access to public services and generating increasing demand for social services and social infrastructure at local level, at a time when local budgets are overstretched;

AD.  whereas research based on the 2015 European Working Conditions Survey shows that twice as many regular teleworkers report working in excess of the 48 hours stipulated in EU legislation and resting for less than 11 hours between working days, as compared to those working on their employers’ premises; whereas almost 30 % of such teleworkers report working in their free time every day or several times a week, compared to below 5 % of office-based workers; whereas regular teleworkers are also more likely to report suffering from work-related stress, being affected by sleep disorders and struggling to reconcile work and family responsibilities;

AE.  whereas as a result of COVID-19 and the measures to tackle it, namely confinement and teleworking, women in abusive relationships have become permanently exposed to violence, which has increased the number of cases of violence against women; whereas one consequence of confinement has been an explosion in gender-based and intra-family violence, by around 30 % in some European countries; whereas, in total, more than 243 million women between the ages of 15 and 49 have experienced sexual and/or physical violence worldwide in the past 12 months;

AF.  whereas the pressure on women has increased further; whereas the new forms of work imposed, which are extendable and come at the expense of the separation between work and private life, have led during confinement to an explosion of new forms of psychological and sexual harassment, both online and offline; whereas the vast majority of companies and governments have not put in place any measures to counter these phenomena;

1.  Highlights that the EU has embarked on a transition towards a low-carbon, climate-neutral, resource-efficient and circular economy that must ensure the highest levels of social justice, increasing wellbeing, social progress, security, prosperity, equality and inclusion and leaving no one behind; believes that sustainable development is deeply rooted in the European project and European values, and that social sustainability is a fundamental prerequisite for fair and inclusive green, digital and demographic transitions; insists that, in order to reduce inequalities, these processes must be framed in a transition that can offer social opportunities and shared prosperity; stresses that social justice, decent work with living wages, equal opportunities, fair mobility and robust social welfare systems are essential elements in the just transition to a sustainable and social Europe;

2.  Believes that this recovery period must be the time for reforms fully committed to the implementation of the UN 2030 Agenda and its 17 Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), based on solidarity, integration, social justice, a fair distribution of wealth, gender equality, high-quality public social welfare systems, quality employment and sustainable growth - a model that ensures equality and social protection, takes into consideration the needs of vulnerable groups, enhances participation and citizenship and improves living standards for all; considers this to be the best way for an EU to emerge from this crisis that is more sustainable, more resilient and fairer for the next generation;

3.  Emphasises that progress towards a sustainable, fair and inclusive social Europe requires a strong shared commitment, both to the advancement of the UN 2030 Agenda and to the implementation and materialisation of the principles and rights contained in the European Pillar of Social Rights; highlights that an ambitious political agenda with identifiable, feasible, sustainable, clear and mandatory targets and indicators of social sustainability must be designed; points out that the next EU Social Summit planned for May 2021 in Porto would be the perfect opportunity for adoption of this agenda at the highest political level by the leaders of the 27 Member States and of the European Council, the European Parliament and the European Commission; calls for the involvement of social partners throughout the process;

Governance framework for social progress

4.  Considers that the Porto agenda should take a double approach, i.e. it should focus on the social sustainability part of the EU’s Sustainable Development 2030 Agenda, while at the same time paving the way for the materialisation of the EPSR principles through adopting an Action Plan as well as serving as a follow-up to the Lisbon strategy, setting ambitious and mandatory targets and instruments defining the road to social progress and sustainability; believes that this agenda could contain the strategic framework for a sustainable, fair and inclusive social Europe for 2030;

5.  Stresses that the goals of a new agenda for a strong social Europe must focus on protecting everyone and especially the most vulnerable and on making the recovery inclusive and socially just, and that these goals must be reinforced through mandatory enforceability, taking into account national specificities and needs and mirroring economic and environmental obligations whose observance is linked to access to European funds; considers that, in this sense, EU and Member States’ policy actions, programmes and reforms should be designed in a way that would contribute to the achievement of these mandatory objectives and that legal protection should imply that actions, policies, programmes or reforms that could have a potential negative impact on or hamper the progress towards the achievement of these objectives should be prevented;

6.  Is convinced that a governance framework for a social and sustainable Europe should be anchored in the following reforms: the integration of the EPSR and a social progress protocol in the Treaties, protecting social rights at the same level as economic freedoms in the single market, and the adoption of a Sustainable Development and Social Progress Pact making social and sustainable targets mandatory, in order to achieve the UN SDGs; considers that, additionally, the Semester process should follow the Community method and be agreed between the Council and the European Parliament, while more social policy areas should fall under the qualified majority decision process, in particular non-discrimination, social protection of workers (apart from cross-border situations), protection of workers whose employment contract has been terminated, the representation and collective defence of the interests of workers and employers, and conditions of employment for third-country nationals legally residing in the EU;

Financial means for a strong social and sustainable Europe

7.  Calls on the Member States to make full use of flexibility in the application of EU rules on public finances and fiscal policies, in order to accommodate exceptional spending so as to prevent and mitigate the social consequences of the COVID-19 pandemic crisis, strengthen social welfare systems, and finance quality jobs, public services, the fight against poverty and the green and digital transitions; welcomes NextGenerationEU, the EU’s recovery plan; stresses that just green and digital transitions can only be achieved with appropriate support for education and social care and healthcare infrastructure, in order to ensure social fairness, social cohesion and prosperity for all; is concerned that, in the current crisis, social welfare systems are experiencing unprecedented pressure and that related public expenditure will increase exponentially; underlines that the expenditure for the crisis measures should not come at the expense of the least well-off, but should be borne fairly; stresses, therefore, that in order to fuel the recovery, the EU’s investment effort through the Recovery Plan must have a strong social dimension, strengthening social welfare systems and investing in social security, access to healthcare and education, affordable housing, employment, justice and social services for vulnerable groups, in order to combat the social impact of the crisis; considers that investment in education, well-designed progressive tax and benefit systems, social investment and the provision of quality public and social services are essential levers for preventing the transfer of disadvantage from one generation to the next; stresses the importance of the implementation of the EPSR in the context of the European Recovery Plan and the Recovery and Resilience Facility, at the same level as the Green Deal and the digital transition; calls, therefore, for the upcoming reforms linked to the recovery package to include upward social convergence as one of the main objectives of the national reform programmes, including through financial support; in this sense, believes that the new Porto 2030 targets should be supported in the Recovery Plan, alongside the economic and environmental targets;

8.  Highlights that social investment in the recovery package should match the Porto Agenda targets in ambition, in order to provide the necessary financial support as well; believes that specific Social Progress Plans (SPPs) should outline how the Porto Agenda targets and the EPSR principles will be implemented, the size of the social investments, the areas in question, and the progress results aimed for;

9.  Recalls that short-time work schemes are an effective tool to safeguard jobs during an economic crisis; welcomes the establishment of the Instrument for Temporary Support to Mitigate Employment Risks in an Emergency (SURE) as an emergency measure to support Member States’ short-time work schemes in the context of the COVID-19 crisis; underlines that this is a key instrument to support national short-time work schemes, thus making it possible to safeguard jobs and skills and to preserve a large proportion of wages and incomes; invites the Commission to carefully evaluate the performance of this temporary instrument and examine the possible introduction of a permanent special instrument in this respect, to be activated – upon request by Member States – in case of any unexpected crisis that leads to a steady rise in expenditure for short-time work schemes and similar measures; calls on the Commission and the Member States to ensure that financial assistance is provided only to undertakings that are not registered in the countries listed in the common EU list of third-country jurisdictions for tax purposes or in Annex 1 of the Council conclusions on the revised EU list of non-cooperative jurisdictions for tax purposes; calls on the Commission and the Member States to ensure that beneficiaries comply with the fundamental values enshrined in the Treaties, and that companies receiving public financial support protect workers, guarantee decent working conditions, respect trade unions and applicable collective agreements, pay their share of taxes, and refrain from share buybacks or paying out bonuses to management or dividends to shareholders; stresses the importance of combining short-time work programmes with education and professional training for the affected workers;

10.  Welcomes the announcement by the President of the European Commission proposing an EU Unemployment Benefit Reinsurance Scheme, and urges the Commission to present its proposal; calls for this instrument to protect all types of workers, reduce pressure from external shocks on public finances, and safeguard national unemployment benefit systems during crises that lead to a sudden rise in expenditure; calls for this proposal to cover EMU countries with the possibility of non-EMU countries also joining;

11.  Welcomes the introduction of a Just Transition Fund; stresses that broad social acceptance of environmental protection and climate action measures is vital for their effective implementation; urges Member States to effectively involve social partners, regional and local government and civil society in the elaboration of Territorial Just Transition Plans; recalls that climate change and the subsequent structural changes are already having a severe impact on many European regions and their people; stresses that the creation of green and decent jobs is crucial in order to achieve an inclusive and balanced job market to accompany the fair and just transition towards a renewables-based, highly resource- and energy-efficient, circular and carbon-neutral economy and to make sure no one is left behind; insists on increasing the amount put forward in May 2020 for the Just Transition Fund by the Commission in its amended proposal; calls for the fund to have sufficient financial means to support regions in transition and to ensure that new quality jobs are created and that social cohesion is the guiding principle for providing support under the fund; stresses that the revised European Globalisation Adjustment Fund is pivotal in supporting social plans for workers hit by restructuring, and calls on the Commission and the Member States to agree to a substantially increased budget for this instrument as part of the broader European Just Transition financial support; calls for sustainable and ambitious use of the funds available in order to support those regions which are most vulnerable and are lagging behind, by using transitional measures where needed; recalls the importance of eligible projects being consistent with the climate neutrality objective for 2050 and its intermediate steps up to 2030, as well as with the European Pillar of Social Rights;

12.  Stresses the changes that just transition brings to the labour market and the distribution of the new green jobs; calls on the Commission and the Member States to develop strategies to ensure women’s access to new green jobs and to reduce the gender gap in employment in the renewable energy sector;

13.  Recalls that, before the COVID-19 pandemic, more than 100 million Europeans were struggling with poverty and material deprivation on a daily basis and that the situation will deteriorate further as a result of the crisis; recognises the crucial role of all European funds and programmes in the social area and the even more essential role the future ESF+ and the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund (EGF) will play in the next 7 years; stresses that the recovery efforts should boost jobs and growth and the resilience and fairness of our societies, and should be complemented by a strong social dimension, addressing social and economic inequalities and the needs of those hit hardest by the crisis, particularly vulnerable and disadvantaged groups, such as those in poverty, the unemployed, the elderly, young people, persons with disabilities, single parents, mobile workers and migrants; welcomes the Commission’s undertaking to mobilise the EGF in response to the impact of the COVID-19 crisis on the social and economic level, and stresses that extending the scope of the EGF to digital and green transitions will require sufficient funding for the years to come; calls on the Member States to make full use of this fund in order to accompany the displaced workers in these transitions;

14.  Is concerned that in the context of the recovery from the COVID-19 outbreak, the need to tackle poverty, including child poverty, will become imminent in the coming years; underlines that Member States should allocate at least 5 % of the European Social Fund (ESF+) resources under shared management to support activities under the European Child Guarantee (ECG); stresses that it is essential that a separate budget of EUR 3 billion is created for the first year of its implementation, with the EU suffering the consequences of the COVID-19 pandemic, which will have an ever greater impact on children as the most vulnerable group among the most disadvantaged, and that a total of at least EUR 20 billion is invested in the ECG in the period 2021-2027; urges that this be complemented by a comprehensive Anti-Poverty Strategy including measures ensuring decent and affordable housing and tackling homelessness; recalls that any strategy to eradicate child poverty must take into account the reality of single parenthood and families with large numbers of children, given that single-parent households and households with many children are among the vulnerable groups in society; also underlines that Member States should allocate at least 3 % of the ESF+ resources under shared management, in order to tackle food and material deprivation as well as supporting the social inclusion of the most deprived;

15.  Highlights that the COVID-19 crisis has already left many people jobless, especially young people who find themselves more often in precarious employment; welcomes in this context the Commission’s plans to strengthen the European Youth Guarantee, and calls on the Commission and the Member States to make the fight against youth unemployment a priority; highlights that it is necessary that Member States continue to invest sufficient ESF+ resources in measures to support youth employment and that they must therefore allocate at least 15 % of their ESF+ resources under shared management to targeted actions and structural reforms to support quality youth employment; recalls the need for a binding, more effective and inclusive Youth Guarantee that provides remunerated traineeships, apprenticeships, and internships, for all groups of people not in education, employment or training (NEETs), within a clear quality criteria framework governing the Youth Guarantee; condemns the practice of unpaid internships when not related to the obtention of educational qualifications, as a form of exploitation of young workers and a violation of their rights; calls on the Commission to put forward a legal framework for an effective and enforceable ban on such unpaid internships, traineeships and apprenticeships;

The Porto Agenda: targets and proposals

16.  Believes that the Porto Agenda, as a strong Social Europe agenda for sustainable development, should encompass economic, social and environmental wellbeing indicators and should cover the following areas: decent work, social justice and equal opportunities, robust social welfare systems and fair mobility; considers that, in order to achieve more tangible results, this new agenda should combine quantitative and qualitative targets and should be anchored in a rights-based approach;

17.  Calls on the Commission and the Member States to actively tackle the digital divide in access to public services, many of which have been digitalised during COVID-19, by ensuring EU financial support for social innovation at local level for making public services more easily accessible, including capacity-building and the scaling up of innovative bottom-up initiatives for e-inclusion and data literacy, so as to ensure that all citizens have access to high-quality, accessible and user-friendly services of general interest;

1.Decent work and sustainable and inclusive labour markets

18.  Notes that decent wages are a key element of fair working conditions and for a thriving social market economy, and that wage levels should enable workers to meet their needs and those of their families; believes that every worker in the EU should receive a wage which ensures at least a decent standard of living; believes that strengthened collective bargaining is the best way to promote decent wages within the EU; calls on the Commission to identify barriers to collective bargaining within the EU and takes note of the proposal for a directive on minimum wages and collective bargaining; underlines that this directive should contribute to eliminating in-work poverty and promote collective bargaining, in line with national traditions and with due respect for the autonomy of national social partners and well-functioning collective bargaining models; reiterates its call on the Commission to carry out a study on a living wage index, in order to estimate the cost of living and the approximate income needed to meet a household’s basic needs for each Member State and region, since this could serve as a reference tool for social partners; insists that statutory minimum wages are set at a level above a decency threshold, with the full involvement of social partners, as this contributes to eliminating in-work poverty, guaranteeing an income for every worker above the poverty level while taking into account the variations in costs of living within Member States; calls for a coordinated approach at EU level in order to achieve real wage growth, avoid the downward spiral of unhealthy labour cost competition, and increase upward social convergence for all;

19.  Calls on the Commission and the Member States, together with social partners, to commit to reaching collective bargaining coverage of 90 % by 2030 in those national systems that combine statutory and social partners’ regulation of employment and working conditions; stresses that collective bargaining contributes to the social market economy, as aimed for in the Lisbon Treaty; reiterates that the European treaties, which explicitly protect the autonomy of social partners, and the self-regulatory systems in place in some Member States, must be protected in order for social partners to regulate autonomously, ensuring strong legitimacy and collective agreement coverage progress; calls on the Member States to remove any national legislation that hampers collective bargaining, including by ensuring trade unions’ access to workplaces for the purpose of organising; underlines that reforms in Member States should not negatively affect collective bargaining and that it needs to be promoted at sectoral level, including by supporting the capacity-building of social partners; urges the Commission and the Member States to fully involve social partners in European policymaking, including in the European Semester process; believes that the proposed targets would contribute to the eradication of in-work poverty and to ensuring fair wages for European workers;

20.  Calls on the Commission to revise the European public procurement directive in order to establish preferential treatment for companies complying with collective bargaining agreements; also calls on the Commission to strengthen the social clause and exclude from tenders companies which have engaged in criminal activities or union-busting or have refused to participate in collective bargaining, ensuring that public money is used to invest in those engaged in Just Transitions with the aim of promoting collective agreements and increasing trade union densities; considers furthermore that all EU financial support to undertakings should be made conditional on their compliance with the applicable working and employment conditions and/or employer obligations resulting from the relevant collective agreements; urges the Commission and the Member States to ensure that public service institutions, whether privately or publicly managed, provide decent working conditions for their staff, respecting in particular the freedom to negotiate and conclude collective sectoral or company-level agreements and the right to adequate wages;

21.  Notes with great concern the high level of youth unemployment in a number of Member States and the fragility of young workers’ employment contracts, particularly in sectors seriously impacted by COVID-19; calls for a reinforced Youth Guarantee Instrument with the objective of reducing long-term and youth unemployment by at least 50 % by 2030, also including criteria for quality job creation in line with the Sustainable Development Goal 8 of the UN’s 2030 Agenda; believes it is time to make the Youth Guarantee both binding for all Member States and inclusive, including active outreach measures towards long-term NEETs and young persons from disadvantaged socio-economic backgrounds, such as young persons with disabilities and young Romani people;

22.  Stresses that a European agenda for quality jobs is not only a question of decency, but is also good for the economy as it improves productivity and boosts internal demand; considers that a quality job must include a living wage, job security and access to social protection, lifelong learning opportunities, good working conditions in safe and healthy workplaces, reasonable working time with a good work-life balance, and trade union representation and bargaining rights; calls on the Commission to include the overall objective of raising work quality at the European level in the Semester process and the Social Scoreboard, with a view to guiding and assessing the contribution of employment policies across Member States to the implementation of the SDGs and the EPSR; calls on the Member States to give the social and employment-related Country Specific Recommendations, especially those issued in the wake of the COVID-19 crisis, the same importance as they give to the economic and budgetary ones;

23.  Calls on the Commission and the Member States to ensure the revision of the EU Employment Guidelines no later than one year after their adoption in 2020, in order to take into account the COVID-19 crisis and its social and employment consequences, and to respond better to similar future crises; insists that, in order to strengthen democratic decision-making, the European Parliament must be involved in defining the Integrated Guidelines for Growth and Jobs, on an equal footing with the Council; calls on Eurofound to contribute to the measurement of job quality in different contractual and employment settings and to provide policy-relevant analyses to assist the improvement of job quality and make work sustainable;

24.  Is concerned about the increased number of workers in precarious and non-standard forms of employment, bogus self-employed and workers with zero-hour contracts, including in national public administrations; calls on the Commission and the Member States to work towards the objective of eliminating involuntary temporary and involuntary part-time employment by 2030 and towards the target of 80 % of jobs created being middle- or high-paying and concentrated in sustainable sectors; urges the Commission and the Member States to eliminate the practices of zero-hour contracts and bogus self-employment;

25.  Calls on the Member States to commit to eliminating work-related deaths and reducing work-related illnesses by 2030; urges the Commission to come up with a new Occupational Health and Safety strategy, tackling both physical and mental health of workers, in order to achieve this aim; believes that this strategy must include the revision of the health and safety framework directive in order to protect workers during emergency situations like pandemics, as well as ambitious legislative proposals on musculoskeletal and stress-related disorders, in cooperation with social partners; calls on the Commission to continue to update the Carcinogens and Mutagens Directive (CMD) and propose Binding Occupational Exposure Limit Values (BOELs) for a minimum of an additional 50 substances by 2024, and to include substances with damaging effects on the reproductive system in the Directive and introduce stricter limit values on harmful substances such as carcinogens and mutagens; stresses that the EU must follow up on the European Framework for Action on Mental Health; notes that one of the targets is also the prevention of cancer, as 40 % of cancers are considered to be preventable; calls on the Commission to present an ambitious Beating Cancer Plan to help reduce the suffering caused by this disease; calls for the role of the European Agency for Safety and Health at Work to be strengthened in order to promote healthy and safe workplaces across the Union and further develop initiatives to improve workplace prevention in all sectors of activity;

26.  Calls on the Commission to present a strategic EU care agenda as a further step forward in qualitatively empowering the healthcare sector in the EU, including personal and household services workers; reiterates that the care agenda needs also to reflect the situation of the 100 million informal carers in the EU, who provide 80 % of long-term care but remain mostly unrecognised; calls on the Commission, in coordination with the Member States, to develop a regulatory framework that guarantees quality care services, including assessing new opportunities in the healthcare sector benefiting consumers and patients, while respecting the role of public and private institutions in the provision of services to citizens and ensuring decent working conditions for carers;

27.  Acknowledges that fair, socially sustainable work and real employee participation in shaping working conditions are more important than ever, in digital platforms as in all other sectors, and that workers must have democratic influence over the governance of work; underlines that the benefits of digitalisation must be shared broadly and equitably and that workers in the digital sector must enjoy the same rights and working conditions as those in other sectors; calls on the Commission to propose a directive on decent working conditions and rights in the digital economy, covering all workers, including non-standard workers on atypical contracts, workers in platform companies and the self-employed; calls on the Commission to ensure in this directive that platform businesses comply with the existing national and European legislation, to clarify the employment status of platform-based workers through the rebuttable assumption of an employment relationship and to safeguard their working conditions, social protection and health and safety, as well as their right to organise, to be represented by trade unions and to negotiate collective agreements, including for the self-employed; urges the Commission to come up with a targeted revision of EU competition law so as to allow collective price-setting for the precarious self-employed, in order to ensure a better balance in bargaining power and a fairer internal market;

28.  Stresses that the COVID-19 pandemic has underlined the importance of digital solutions, particularly teleworking; urges the Commission to present a directive on minimum standards and conditions for fair teleworking, to protect the health and safety of workers and to ensure decent working conditions, including its voluntary nature, respect for working hours, leave, work-life balance and other digital rights at work such as the right to disconnect, the protection of workers’ privacy, including through remote monitoring or any other tracking, and the prohibition of microchip implants on workers and of the use of artificial intelligence in recruitment processes, while taking into consideration the European Social Partners Framework Agreement on Digitalisation;

29.  Calls on the Commission to introduce a new framework directive on workers’ information, consultation and participation for European company forms, including subcontracting chains and franchises, and for companies that use European company mobility instruments, in order to establish minimum standards including on anticipation of change and restructuring, in particular at company level; also calls for a revision of the European Works Council (EWC) directive to ensure inter alia proper enforcement, access to justice and effective sanctions for violation of the rules and improve the functioning of the special negotiating body, including a transnational information and consultation process, to be properly conducted and completed before any decisions are taken; calls on the Commission to promote employee share ownership, as a tool to enhance the inclusion of workers by improving democracy at work, while reducing inequality as well as the risk of job losses during downturns;

30.  Calls on the Commission and the Member States to establish the necessary conditions and requirements in order to have at least 80 % of corporations covered by sustainable corporate governance agreements by 2030, establishing strategies agreed with workers in order to positively influence environmental, social and economic development through governance practices and market presence, improve directors’ accountability as regards integrating sustainability into corporate decision-making, and promote corporate governance practices that contribute to company sustainability, with reference inter alia to corporate reporting, board remuneration, maximum wage ratio difference, board composition and stakeholder involvement;

31.  Calls for a directive on binding human rights, due diligence and responsible business conduct, including workers’ rights such as the right of association, the right to collective bargaining and the right to health and safety, social protection and good working conditions, establishing mandatory due diligence covering companies’ activities and their business relationships, including supply and subcontracting chains; stresses that this directive should ensure the full involvement of trade unions and workers’ representatives in the whole due diligence process and should guarantee the right to reach collective agreement at the relevant levels on the due diligence policies; underlines that both national labour inspectorates and the European Labour Authority (ELA) must be able to conduct joint inspections throughout the chain, open to filing complaints, and able to offer support for compliance, in relation to all EU companies and companies wanting to access the internal market; calls on the Commission to insist on the ratification of ILO Conventions 81 (labour inspection) and 129 (labour inspection in agricultural sector) by all trading partners of the EU;

32.  Encourages the Commission to take into account the specificity of social economy enterprises, which are proving to be very important for society during the pandemic, and to evaluate the development of specific programmes and financial instruments; calls on the Commission to update its framework for the establishment and development of cooperatives and social economy enterprises, which by their nature place a stronger emphasis on fair working conditions and empowerment of workers;

33.  Underlines that effective enforcement is essential for the protection of workers and implementation of social rights; regrets that most Member States are falling behind on their commitment to the ILO Labour Inspection Convention with regard to the number of labour inspectors; insists that Member States increase their enforcement capacity so as to achieve a ratio of at least one labour inspector per 10 000 employed persons, by 2030 at the latest;

2.Social justice and equal opportunities

34.  Stresses that eradicating child poverty and ensuring wellbeing and equal opportunities for children must be among the highest priorities for Europe; calls on the Commission and the Member States to speed up the adoption and implementation of the European Child Guarantee so that by 2030 every child in the EU has full access to quality and free healthcare, education and childcare, is living in decent housing and receives adequate nutrition; notes that this policy must be integrated with other measures targeting poverty and family policy in order to lead to well-rounded policy cycles able to offer opportunities for social inclusion to children and their families, including national and local strategies to fight child poverty, taking into account the specific challenges faced by different groups of children in need at local level;

35.  Condemns the use of the pandemic as a pretext for some governments to backslide on some of the fundamental rights of workers and women; recalls the inalienable right to access to healthcare, as well as the right to have self-determination over one’s own body; highlights, therefore, that reproductive healthcare, contraception and abortion rights must be guaranteed, including by an extension of the legal timeframe for an abortion;

36.  Welcomes the Council conclusions on strengthening minimum income protection to combat poverty and social exclusion; invites the Commission to further develop on these conclusions, proposing a framework for minimum income schemes, with the purpose of safeguarding the right to a decent life and eradicating poverty and addressing the questions of adequacy and coverage, including a non-regression clause; underlines that every person in Europe should be covered by a minimum income scheme and that pensions should ensure an income above the poverty line;

37.  Calls on the Member States and the Commission to commit to eliminating the gender pay gap, which is currently 16 % - and the resulting pension gap - with a 0 % target for 2030, by championing the principle of equal pay for equal work for women and men; calls on the Commission to urgently present a legal framework on pay transparency, as originally promised for its first 100 days, including pay transparency reporting and information on pay levels; reiterates that the gender pension gap also results from inadequate pension schemes which do not appropriately take into account periods of maternity or parental leave; calls on the Commission and the Member States to take long-term measures to reduce the high unemployment rates among women and ensure women’s participation in the labour market, to ensure equal participation and opportunities for men and women in the labour market, and to introduce initiatives to promote women’s access to finance, female entrepreneurship and women’s financial independence;

38.  Calls on the Commission to introduce concrete measures applying to both public and private sectors with due account taken of the specificities of small and medium-sized enterprises, such as the clear definition of criteria for assessing the value of work, gender-neutral job evaluation and classification systems, gender pay audits and reports to guarantee equal pay, workers’ entitlement to request full pay information and right to redress, and clear targets for companies’ equality performance; calls furthermore for improved access to justice and the introduction of stronger procedural rights to combat pay discrimination; calls on the Commission to promote the role of the social partners and of collective bargaining at all levels (national, sectoral, local and company) in the upcoming pay transparency legislation; calls on the Commission to include strong enforcement measures for those failing to comply, such as penalties and sanctions for employers that violate the right to pay equality;

39.  Calls on the Member States to unblock the Women on Boards directive and to adopt an ambitious position in Council in order to address the considerable imbalance between women and men in decision-making at the highest level; calls on the Commission and the Member States to commit to eliminating the glass ceiling effect on the boards of listed companies by introducing the objective of reaching at least 40 % representation of women in senior management positions;

40.  Calls on the Commission to put forward a post-2020 European Disability Strategy covering all the provisions of the UNCRPD and containing ambitious, clear and measurable targets, planned actions with clear timeframes and dedicated resources, as well as being backed by an adequate and sufficiently resourced monitoring mechanism with clear benchmarks and indicators also emphasising the need to achieve full accessibility of goods and services, including the built environment, inclusive education and the labour market and to the use of artificial intelligence, in order to enable persons with disabilities to participate fully in society, as well as a commitment to the finalisation of the process of deinstitutionalisation of long-term care facilities; calls on the Member States to use resources available from the Cohesion Fund, the ERDF as well as the ESF in particular, in order to improve accessibility to public spaces for persons with special needs, including persons with disabilities, persons with children, and the elderly, who still encounter the problem of social exclusion;

41.  Urges that the gender perspective be incorporated into the upcoming 2021 strategy on disability and equality, with due attention being paid to improved access to the labour market through targeted measures and actions;

42.  Supports the promotion of inclusive and accessible education, including broadband internet access, and vocational and digital training, including for vulnerable groups and people with disabilities, in order to allow particularly low-skilled and older workers to retrain and learn new skills; supports the creation of EU-wide apprenticeship possibilities; calls on the Commission and the Member States to step up efforts towards the further inclusion of people with disabilities in the labour market by removing barriers using the opportunities that digital work offers for their inclusion and creating incentives for their employment; recalls that according to Eurofound, just one in three workers with limiting chronic and rare diseases have their workplaces suitably adapted; calls on the Commission and the Member States to continue their work of fostering the employment, maintenance at work and reintegration into the labour market of people with disabilities and chronic diseases in Europe;

43.  Welcomes the new EU skills agenda; highlights the importance of access to training and reskilling of workers in industries and sectors that need to undergo fundamental changes with a view to a green and digital transition; highlights that qualifications and certified competences provide added value to workers, improving their position in the labour market, and can be transferred in labour market transitions; calls for public policy on skills to be oriented to the certification and validation of qualifications and competences; stresses that skills-based compensation systems should be established in companies accessing public funds for upskilling workers and in agreement with workers’ representatives, as this system would ensure that there is a return on that public investment; stresses that the European skills strategy for sustainable competitiveness, social equity and resilience must guarantee the right to lifelong learning for all and in all areas;

3.Robust social welfare systems

44.  Notes that the current investment in social infrastructure in the EU has been estimated at approximately EUR 170 billion per year and that the Commission estimates the investment needed at EUR 192 billion, with health and long-term care accounting for 62 % of that investment (affordable housing, EUR 57 billion; health, EUR 70 billion; long-term care, EUR 50 billion; education and lifelong learning, EUR 15 billion); calls on the Commission and the Member States to dedicate to the implementation of the EPSR principles a proportion of the Recovery and Resilience Facility that is equivalent to the investments in environmental and digital priorities; insists that gender equality is taken into account in the allocation of RRF resources;

45.  Calls on the Commission to monitor the European strategy for gender equality 2020-2025, and invites the Member States to adopt national gender equality strategies based on the European strategy, as an important component of the socio-economic measures taken in the wake of the COVID-19 crisis;

46.  Stresses, moreover, the need for the Commission and the Member States to collect better and more harmonised data on the number of homeless people in Europe, as this constitutes the basis of any effective public policy;

47.  Stresses that the EU and its Member States have an obligation to ensure universal access to decent, safe and affordable housing, in line with the UN’s Agenda 2030, in particular Goal 11 and in accordance with fundamental rights such as those defined in Articles 16, 30 and 31 of the European Social Charter and in the European Pillar of Social Rights; calls in that regard on all Member States to ratify the revised European Social Charter; highlights that investment in social, decent and affordable housing is crucial in order to guarantee and improve quality of life for all; calls on the Commission and the Member States to maximise efforts as regards investing in affordable housing to cover the housing needs of the low- and middle-income groups (the three bottom quintiles), ensuring that at least 30 % of all newly built houses constitute affordable housing for both of these income groups, and to eliminate energy poverty by 2030 through supporting energy efficiency investment by low-income households; calls on the Member States to prioritise renovation in their recovery and resilience plans; urges the Commission to come up with an ambitious action plan to progressively eradicate homelessness by 2030, including a European-wide ‘Housing First’ approach; calls on the Commission to propose an EU framework for national homelessness strategies; calls on the Commission and the Member States to ensure minimum standards for quality housing for cross-border and seasonal workers, which should be decoupled from their remuneration, as well as ensuring decent facilities, tenant privacy and written tenancy contracts enforced by labour inspectorates and establishing standards in this regard;

48.  Insists that all workers are included in the social security system and entitled to unemployment benefits, paid sick leave, maternity, paternity and parental leave, accident insurance and protection against unfair dismissal;

49.  Is concerned about the imbalances in healthcare quality and access across the EU that the COVID-19 crisis has laid bare; recalls that poorer people tend to live on average 6 years less than wealthier people and that persons with disabilities often face difficulties in accessing healthcare; highlights the need to address the social, economic and environmental determinants of health in order to tackle these health inequalities; calls on the Commission to develop common indicators and methodologies to monitor health, as well as the performance and accessibility of healthcare systems, with a view to reducing inequalities, identifying and prioritising areas in need of improvement and obtaining increased funding; calls on the Commission to analyse how the different national social welfare systems are covering social welfare needs during the current crisis, in order to identify strengths and weaknesses regarding access to and provision of services and social protection, and to ensure a mechanism for the monitoring and evaluation of social welfare systems in Europe, in order to verify their degree of resilience when they undergo shocks of different degrees of severity and study in what way they can be made more resilient and robust to resist future crises;

50.  Highlights that universal access to public, solidarity-based and adequate retirement and old age pensions must be granted to all; acknowledges the challenges faced by Member States in strengthening the sustainability of pension systems, but stresses the importance of safeguarding solidarity in pension systems by strengthening the revenue side; underlines the importance of public and occupational pension systems which provide an adequate retirement income above the poverty threshold and allow pensioners to maintain their standard of living; believes that the best way to ensure sustainable, safe and adequate pensions for women and men is to increase the overall employment rate and provide more quality jobs across all ages, improve working and employment conditions, and commit the necessary public spending; believes that pension system reforms should focus among other aspects on the effective retirement age and reflect labour market trends, birth rates, the health and wealth situation, working conditions and the economic dependency ratio; considers that these reforms must also take account of the situation of millions of workers in Europe, particularly women, young people and the self-employed, who are being adversely affected by insecure, precarious employment, periods of involuntary unemployment and reduced working time; calls on the Commission and the Member States to take into account the particular situation of elderly workers on the labour market, and to intensify their efforts towards active and healthy ageing by counteracting discrimination against the elderly in employment and developing job market inclusion programmes for citizens aged over 55, with lifelong learning as a key priority;

51.  Is concerned at the way the COVID-19 pandemic has further deepened the vulnerability, isolation, and risk of poverty and social exclusion of the elderly population; stresses that the pandemic has proven the need for a EU model which promotes and safeguards the dignity and fundamental rights of the elderly; calls on the Commission to present a plan to ensure the mental health, dignity and wellbeing of people, including the elderly, by supporting adequate quality healthcare and care services, investing in community-based services, health prevention and promotion, social protection, and decent and affordable housing and infrastructure, as well as supporting social economy projects including co-housing and cooperative housing, health and wellness programmes, adult day care and long-term care, and protecting the role and working conditions of caregivers, also fostering intergenerational solidarity; calls on the Member States to provide equal access to affordable, preventive and curative healthcare of good quality as enshrined in the European Pillar of Social Rights, including medical and care services and facilities which do not discriminate on grounds of age;

52.  Welcomes the recent Commission report on the impact of demographic change on different groups in society and on areas and regions disproportionately affected in Europe; calls on the Commission and the Member States to commit more of the resources available under the ERDF to improving transport and telecommunications infrastructure in areas with a high ageing population, as well as primarily rural areas and areas suffering from depopulation;

4.Fair mobility

53.  Calls on the Commission to revise the Temporary Work Agency (TWA) Directive in order to establish a legal framework to ensure decent working conditions and equal treatment for intra-EU seasonal workers and mobile workers on fixed-term contracts with temporary work agencies or any other type of labour market intermediary, including recruiting agencies; calls on Member States to strengthen enforcement and combat the practices of malicious temporary work agencies; stresses that this legal framework could include: a ban on labour market intermediaries who do not comply with the TWA Directive operating in the single market, a guaranteed minimum wage by collective agreement or by law, a guaranteed minimum number of hours per week/month that the employer cannot deduct under any heading from the minimum wage or wages laid down by collective agreement, no deductions from wages in the case of part-time contracts, guaranteed equal treatment for any person who, in the Member State concerned, is protected as a worker working in the same company/sector, a requirement that all temporary work agencies operating in the internal market are listed on a European register and are certified to operate in the single market, sanctions on companies using fraudulent recruitment practices and trafficking people for labour exploitation, and access to information on employment contracts and labour rights in a language that the worker can understand; calls on the Commission and Member States to end direct payments under the common agricultural policy to beneficiaries who do not comply with national and European labour law, ILO conventions and applicable collective bargaining agreements;

54.  Highlights that freedom of movement of workers in the EU is a fundamental freedom and an integral part of the internal market’s success; stresses that the free movement of services must be achieved without undermining workers’ rights and social rights; considers that the free movement of services goes hand in hand with the free and fair mobility of workers providing those services, and that the internal market benefits when the rules on working conditions are upheld and the health and safety of mobile workers is protected; notes that there are grey areas and legal loopholes with some workers exercising this freedom in precarious conditions and often through fraudulent recruitment agencies and labour market intermediaries; calls on the Commission and Member States to guarantee decent working conditions and equal treatment for all mobile workers in the EU;

55.  Calls for an EU approach to end labour cost competition and increase upward social convergence for all; calls on the Commission and the Member States to ensure fair and decent working conditions for mobile, cross-border, and seasonal workers in the EU and that they enjoy equal access to employment and opportunities in other Member States and equal levels of social protection as provided in Article 45.2 TFEU; calls for practices relating to posted workers also to be taken into account; urges the Member States to ensure adequate social security coordination, including through the revision of Regulation (EC) No 883/2004 on the coordination of social security systems(18) and strengthening the portability of rights; calls for further promotion of the digitalisation of social security systems; calls on the Member States and the Commission to ensure the protection of all affected workers in cases of transfers of undertakings, and to assess the need for a revision of the Directive on Transfer of Undertakings;

56.  Underlines that the practices of establishing subsidiaries or creating subcontracting chains with the aim of reducing social security, avoiding employers’ obligations and contributions without creating effective social insurance coverage in practice, are detrimental to both the protection of workers and the sustainability of welfare systems and have to be addressed by the Commission and the Member States; calls on the Commission and the Member States, with a view to fairness in the internal market, to take legislative measures to end abusive subcontracting, as well as to ensure general joint and several liability throughout the whole subcontracting chain in order to protect workers’ rights and their claims over issues such as wage arrears, non-payment of social contributions, bankruptcy, disappearances and ‘letterbox subcontractors’ who do not pay as agreed;

57.  Calls on the Commission to strongly enforce the social clause of the existing EU public procurement directive and to examine the need to revise that directive in order to strengthen social clauses in public contracts, requiring economic operators and subcontractors to fully respect workers’ right to collective bargaining, and to set conditions for the full implementation of the applicable sectorial collective agreements and the working conditions described therein, while at the same time respecting national labour market traditions and models; calls for this revision to exempt all social and welfare services from the procurement obligations and establish a European exclusion mechanism to exclude primary contractors and subcontractors who repeatedly engage in unfair competition and tax fraud; calls on the Member States to ensure compliance, monitoring and enforcement;

58.  Is concerned about the large amounts of tax revenue foregone due to large-scale tax avoidance; calls on the Council to speed up the negotiations on legislation regarding public country-by-country reporting and a common consolidated corporate tax base, and to revise the criteria for both the Code of Conduct Group for business taxation and the EU list of non-cooperative jurisdictions;

59.  Welcomes the establishment of the European Labour Authority (ELA); calls for the ELA to be fully operational as soon as possible; calls on it to undertake the continuous exchange of information on best practices with the respective labour authorities of the Member States and enforcement of tentative inspections; stresses that in order for the ELA to be effective in combating illegal practices and the exploitation and abuse of workers, it should be facilitated to carry out controls and impose penalties on non-compliant companies; underlines that this also necessitates a broadened mandate of the Authority, covering EU legislative acts such as, for example, Directives 2008/104/EC(19), 2014/36/EU(20) and 2009/52/EC(21) of the European Parliament and of the Council, as well as the relevant legislation on occupational safety and health; believes the ELA and national inspectorates should be required to conduct a joint or concerted inspection when cases of abuse are brought to its attention by a national social partner; urges the Commission, therefore, to include these aspects in the evaluation of the ELA’s mandate foreseen for 2024 and to involve stakeholders with profound knowledge of different labour market models in the work and evaluations of the ELA; considers furthermore that the management of the ELA should follow the same tripartite structure as other agencies and thus allow for increased representation, including voting rights, of social partners in the Management Board;

60.  Invites the Commission to put forward, following a proper impact assessment, a proposal for a digital EU social security number, as it announced in 2018, in order to foster and protect workers’ mobility, also having the potential of establishing a control mechanism for both individuals and relevant authorities to ensure that workers are covered and social security is paid in accordance with obligations, such as a personal labour card, and that EU rules on labour mobility and social security coordination are enforced in a fair and effective way; believes moreover that workers and their representatives and inspectorates must have up-to-date access to information about their employers and their wage entitlements and labour and social rights, in accordance with the sectorial collective agreement or national legislation where applicable and in line with data protection criteria;

61.  Invites the Commission to study the possibilities of enabling third-country national workers to obtain work permits in the EU, under the precondition that all safeguards in national and EU labour law are effectively ensuring protection and decent working conditions for third-country nationals too and that this will not result in labour market distortions; asks the Commission to conduct an extensive investigation into the trends characterising posted third-country nationals with regard to their working conditions, and emphasises the need for possible policy measures at EU or national level based on the outcome of the investigation; is deeply concerned at the current increase in the share of third-country nationals in sectors with a reputation for precarious working conditions and cases of abuse; underlines that third-country nationals are often more vulnerable for exploitation and therefore need protection; highlights that this includes abusive practices such as bogus posting, bogus self-employment, fraudulent subcontracting and recruiting agencies, letter-box companies and undeclared work; calls on the Commission and the Member States to ensure compliance with applicable laws and rules on employment conditions when dealing with third-country nationals, in order to eliminate abuses, and calls on the Member States to implement the protective elements of Directive 2009/52/EC, ensuring accessible and effective complaint mechanisms making it possible to effectively claim back due wages and social security contributions;

o
o   o

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

(1) OJ L 303, 2.12.2000, p. 16. (2) OJ L 180, 19.7.2000, p. 22. (3) OJ C 137 E, 27.5.2010, p. 68. (4) Texts adopted, P9_TA(2020)0176. (5) Texts adopted, P9_TA(2020)0194. (6) Texts adopted, P9_TA(2020)0180. (7) Texts adopted, P9_TA(2019)0033. (8) Texts adopted, P8_TA(2019)0337. (9) OJ L 185, 11.7.2019, p. 44. (10) Texts adopted, P8_TA(2019)0202. (11) OJ C 159, 10.5.2019, p. 1. (12) OJ C 97, 24.3.2020, p. 32. (13) https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/documents/2995521/10163468/3-16102019-CP-EN.pdf/edc3178f-ae3e-9973-f147-b839ee522578 (14) https://www.feantsa.org/public/user/Resources/resources/Rapport_Europe_2020_GB.pdf (15) Eurofound (2018), Upward convergence in the EU: Concepts, measurements and indicators, Publications Office of the European Union, Luxembourg. Eurofound (2017), Sixth European Working Conditions Survey – Overview report (2017 update), Publications Office of the European Union, Luxembourg. (16) Unemployment statistics: Eurostat, July 2020. (17) European Economic Forecast, Autumn 2020, European Commission, https://ec.europa.eu/info/sites/info/files/economy-finance/ip136_en.pdf (18) OJ L 166, 30.4.2004, p. 1. (19) Directive 2008/104/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 19 November 2008 on temporary agency work (OJ L 327, 5.12.2008, p. 9). (20) Directive 2014/36/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 February 2014 on the conditions of entry and stay of third-country nationals for the purpose of employment as seasonal workers (OJ L 94, 28.3.2014, p. 375). (21) Directive 2009/52/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 June 2009 providing for minimum standards on sanctions and measures against employers of illegally staying third-country nationals (OJ L 168, 30.6.2009, p. 24).

European Parliament resolution of 17 December 2020 on sustainable corporate governance (2020/2137(INI))

P9_TA(2020)0372 A9-0240/2020

The European Parliament,

–  having regard to the 2011 UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights (UNGPs)(1),

–  having regard to the UN Sustainable Development Goals(2),

–  having regard to the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises(3),

–  having regard to the OECD Due Diligence Guidance for Responsible Business Conduct(4) and for Responsible Business Conduct for Institutional Investors(5),

–  having regard to the International Labour Organization (ILO) Tripartite Declaration of Principles Concerning Multinational Enterprises and Social Policy(6),

–  having regard to the Paris Agreement, adopted on 12 December 2015(7),

–  having regard to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) 2018 Special Report on Global Warming of 1.5ºC(8),

–  having regard to the Commission proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council of 4 March 2020 establishing the framework for achieving climate neutrality and amending Regulation (EU) 2018/1999 (European Climate Law) (COM(2020)0080),

–  having regard to Regulation (EU) No 517/2014 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 April 2014 on fluorinated greenhouse gases and repealing Regulation (EC) No 842/2006(9),

–  having regard to the EU Action Plan: Financing Sustainable Growth (COM(2018)0097),

–  having regard to the European Green Deal (COM(2019)0640),

–  having regard to the adjusted Commission Work Programme for 2020 (COM(2020)0440),

–  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(10) (‘the Accounting Directive’),

–  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(11) (‘the Non-Financial Reporting Directive’ – NFRD),

–  having regard to Directive (EU) 2016/943 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 8 June 2016 on the protection of undisclosed know-how and business information (trade secrets) against their unlawful acquisition, use and disclosure(12),

–  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(13) (‘the Shareholders’ Rights Directive’),

–  having regard to Directive (EU) 2019/1937 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 October 2019 on the protection of persons who report breaches of Union law(14),

–  having regard to Regulation (EU) 2019/2088 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 November 2019 on sustainability‐related disclosures in the financial services sector(15) (‘the Disclosure Regulation’),

–  having regard to Regulation (EU) 2020/852 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 June 2020 on the establishment of a framework to facilitate sustainable investment, and amending Regulation (EU) 2019/2088(16) (‘the Taxonomy Regulation’),

–  having regard to the Commission Guidelines on non-financial reporting (methodology for reporting non-financial information)(17) and to the Commission Guidelines on non-financial reporting: Supplement on reporting climate-related information(18),

–  having regard to the Final Report of the High Level Forum on the Capital Markets Union entitled ‘A new vision for Europe’s capital markets’(19),

–  having regard to the study drawn up for the Commission in July 2020 on directors’ duties and sustainable corporate governance,

–  having regard to the UN’s Protect, Respect and Remedy Framework for Business and Human Rights of 2008(20),

–  having regard to the study drawn up for the Commission in May 2020 entitled ‘Improving financial security in the context of the Environmental Liability Directive’(21),

–  having regard to the Oslo Principles on Global Obligations to Reduce Climate Change(22),

–  having regard to the recommendations of the Task Force on Climate-related Financial Disclosures of June 2017,

–  having regard to Rule 54 of its Rules of Procedure,

–  having regard to the opinions of the Committee on International Trade and the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Food Safety,

–  having regard to the report of the Committee on Legal Affairs (A9-0240/2020),

A.  whereas the European Union is founded on the values stated in Article 2 of the Treaty on the European Union and whereas its environmental policy is based on the precautionary principle, as stated in Article 191(2) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union;

B.  whereas in a corporate context, a sustainability approach implies that companies take due consideration of general societal and environmental concerns, such as the rights of their employees and respect for planetary boundaries, in order to address the most pressing risks posed to these by their activities;

C.  whereas the multiple international initiatives promoting sustainable corporate governance are voluntary, instruments of soft law only and have largely proven to be ineffective in changing corporate behaviour towards sustainability; whereas the study drawn up for the Commission on directors’ duties and sustainable corporate governance pursuant to the Sustainable Finance Action Plan underlines the benefits of clarifying directors’ obligations vis-à-vis sustainability and long-term considerations; highlights the problems associated with short-termism and recalls the need for companies to incorporate long-term interests to keep the EU on track to meeting its own sustainability commitments; whereas the study clearly points to the need for the adoption of EU legislation in this regard;

D.  whereas during the last legislative term, the EU undertook a number of initiatives in an effort to foster transparency and long-termism in financial and economic activities, such as the Shareholders’ Rights Directive, the Action Plan for Financing Sustainable Growth, the Disclosure Regulation and the Taxonomy Regulation; whereas this trend had started, inter alia, with the adoption of the Non-Financial Reporting Directive (NFRD); whereas the disclosure of non-financial information is necessary to measure, monitor and manage undertakings’ performances and their long-term impact on society and the environment;

E.  whereas the NFRD is intertwined with sustainable corporate governance and has been a significant step forward in promoting non-financial reporting in the EU; whereas it nonetheless presents serious shortcomings that need to be addressed in order to make it more useful to investors and stakeholders;

F.  whereas according to the European Green Deal, companies and financial institutions need to step up their disclosure of climate and environmental data so that investors are fully informed about the sustainability of their investments; whereas the Commission has committed to reviewing the NFRD to this end; whereas according to its adjusted Work Programme for 2020, the Commission intends to put forward a proposal reviewing the NFRD in the first trimester of 2021;

G.  whereas stakeholders have often expressed the view that the non-financial information provided by companies pursuant to the NFRD is insufficient, unreliable and not comparable; whereas those tasked with preparing this information have expressed confusion at the plethora of voluntary reporting frameworks and have called for legal clarification and standardisation; whereas the disclosure of more complete and reliable information is necessary in order to reduce any potential adverse impacts on the climate, environment and society; whereas improvements in non-financial reporting could increase companies’ accountability and enhance trust in them; whereas these improvements should not create unfair competitive imbalances; whereas disclosure obligations should therefore take into account administrative costs and should be proportionate to the size of the company and consistent with other legislation applicable to business activities, such as the respect for trade secrets and the protection of whistleblowers;

H.  whereas the study drawn up for the Commission on directors’ duties and sustainable corporate governance demonstrates the increasing tendency of publicly listed companies in the EU to focus on the short-term interests of their shareholders; whereas the study proposes several legislative options at EU level that would significantly improve corporate sustainability; whereas there is a need to adopt a legislative framework for European companies, while fully respecting the principle of proportionality and avoiding an excessive administrative burden for European companies; whereas this framework must ensure compliance with and improve legal certainty in the internal market and should not create competitive disadvantages;

I.  whereas a sustainability approach to corporate governance comprises both human rights and environmental protection; whereas a legal requirement to disclose information related to environmental, social and employee issues and human rights, bribery and corruption should be considered an aspect of the ‘corporate responsibility to respect’ as defined in the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights;

J.  whereas the Paris Agreement aims to contain the rise in the average temperature of the planet well below 2°C above pre-industrial levels and to pursue efforts to limit the temperature increase to 1,5°C above pre-industrial levels;

K.  whereas the growing global competition for access to natural resources often results in unsustainable corporate exploitation of the natural and human environment;

L.  whereas corporate governance has a key role to play in delivering the EU’s commitments to implement the UN Sustainable Development Goals and the Paris Agreement;

M.  whereas climate change poses serious risks to food security, namely to the availability, accessibility and utilisation of food and the stability of food systems; whereas women farmers currently account for 45-80 % of all food production in developing countries, which are disproportionately affected by climate change and environmental degradation;

N.  whereas the Aarhus Convention establishes a number of environmental rights for the public and for associations, including the right to access environmental information, the right to participate in environmental decision-making and access to justice;

O.  whereas in 2017 the UN Aarhus Convention Compliance Committee found the EU in violation of the Aarhus Convention for not allowing members of the public to challenge decisions of the EU institutions before the EU courts;

P.  whereas the Commission has raised ambitions for the 2019-2024 period by setting out an agenda for the European Green Deal, affirming that ‘Europe must lead the transition to a healthy planet’;

Q.  whereas company directors have the legal and statutory duty to act in the interest of their company; whereas this duty has been the subject of different interpretations in different jurisdictions and the interest of the company has often been equated with the financial interests of the shareholder; whereas what is considered to be the interest of the company should also incorporate the interests of relevant stakeholders, including employees, and wider societal interests; whereas a narrow interpretation of this duty with an excessive focus on short-term profit maximisation is detrimental to the company’s long-term performance and sustainability, and hence the long-term interests of its shareholders;

R.  whereas the consistency of EU legislation on sustainable corporate governance should be achieved through the establishment of concrete obligations and incentives to act and not only to report information; whereas an additional framework defining company boards’ duties in terms of sustainability is therefore necessary;

S.  whereas in order to make corporate governance in the EU more sustainable, transparent and accountable, the Commission should, in addition to the proposals to review the NFRD, introduce new legislation on due diligence and directors’ duties; whereas if due diligence obligations and directors’ duties are to be covered by a single legislative instrument, they should be clearly separated in two different parts; whereas those obligations and duties are complementary but not interchangeable, nor is one subordinate to the other;

Non-financial reporting obligations

1.  Calls on the Commission, when proposing new action in the field of company law and corporate governance, to strike the proper balance between, on the one hand, the need to ease short-term pressure on corporate directors and promoting the integration of sustainability concerns into corporate decision-making, and, on the other hand, the need for sufficient flexibility, while ensuring harmonisation; stresses the importance of strengthening the role of directors in pursuing the long-term interests of companies in future action at EU level and of engendering a culture within companies’ governing bodies that takes into account and implements sustainable corporate governance;

2.  Welcomes the Commission’s commitment to reviewing the NFRD; highlights that such revision should be fully consistent with the requirements imposed by the Disclosure Regulation and the Taxonomy Regulation; calls on the Commission to take into account the recommendations included in this resolution;

3.  Reiterates its call for an enlargement of the scope of the NFRD to cover all listed and non-listed large undertakings established in EU territory, as defined in Article 3(4) of the Accounting Directive; stresses that in order to provide a level playing field, non-financial reporting obligations should also apply to non-EU companies operating in the EU market; invites the Commission to identify high-risk sectors of economic activity with a significant impact on sustainability matters that could justify the inclusion of small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) in those sectors within the scope of the NFRD; considers, to this end, that the Commission should draw on external independent expertise to provide an indicative, non-exhaustive and regularly updated list of conflict-affected and high-risk areas as well as specific guidance for SMEs; considers, in particular, that investments and sectors often linked to illegal business activities, such as environmental crimes, illegal wildlife trade, corruption or financial crime, should be specifically targeted; stresses that a review of the NFRD is also needed to give financial market participants access to the relevant data in order to carry out the obligations of the Disclosure Regulation;

4.  Emphasises that sustainable corporate governance constitutes an important pillar, which allows the EU to achieve an economy that is both resilient and sustainable, to enhance the level playing field in order to maintain and boost EU companies’ international competitiveness and protect EU workers and businesses from unfair competition from third countries, and can therefore be beneficial to EU trade and investment policy, if it is adequately measured and proportionate;

5.  Notes that the COVID-19 pandemic has exposed the vulnerabilities of global supply chains, and has shown that the voluntary rules alone are not enough, as witnessed, for instance in the garment sector where production was disrupted during the crisis, leading to negative effects throughout the supply chain; notes that businesses with better defined environmental, social and governance practices and risk mitigation processes are weathering the crisis better; recognises that OECD has stated(23) that companies taking proactive steps to address the risks related to the COVID-19 crisis in a way that mitigates adverse impacts on workers and supply chains are likely to build more long-term value and resilience and to improve their viability in the short term and their prospects for recovery in the medium to long term;

6.  Notes that the Taxonomy Regulation establishes a series of environmental objectives, namely on climate change, the use and protection of water and marine resources, the transition to a circular economy, pollution prevention and control, and on biodiversity and ecosystems; considers that the concept of environmental matters in the NFRD should be interpreted in line with the Taxonomy Regulation and include all forms of pollution; invites the Commission to take the recommendations of the Task Force on Climate-related Financial Disclosures into account and promote the development of innovative accounting techniques that reflect the value of ecosystems; considers it equally important to define with precision the other sustainability matters to which the NFRD refers, such as the concepts of social and employee matters, respect for human rights, and anti-corruption and bribery; believes that employee matters could encompass the disclosure of companies’ salary policies, which could include showing wages by decile and gender pay gaps;

7.  Considers that sustainable corporate governance is key to the long-term direction of undertakings to align their activities to the achievement of the EU’s overall environmental objectives as laid down in the European Green Deal, as well as the EU’s commitment to reduce its greenhouse gas emissions as it moves towards the 2050 climate neutrality target; underlines that all sectors should contribute to reaching that target;

8.  Considers that the definition of materiality should refer to any relevant environmental, human rights and governance impacts on society as a whole, beyond value creation and matters relating to the pure financial performance of companies; calls for this definition to be revised in line with the double materiality principle introduced by the NFRD and further explained in the Commission Guidelines on reporting climate-related information; considers that materiality should be assessed in a process involving relevant stakeholders;

9.  Observes that the NFRD gives companies within its scope significant flexibility to disclose relevant information in the way they consider most useful; notes that companies may currently rely, at their discretion, on a number of different frameworks; observes that they are still uncertain about how best to comply with their disclosure obligations; considers it necessary to set up a comprehensive EU framework, with due regard for the principle of proportionality, to cover the full gamut of sustainability issues relevant to comprehensive non-financial reporting; highlights, in this regard, that the EU legislative framework should ensure that the disclosures are clear, balanced, understandable, comparable among companies within a sector, verifiable and objective, and include time-bound sustainability targets; stresses that this framework should also include mandatory standards, both general and sector-specific; welcomes, in this regard, the Commission’s commitment to supporting a process to develop EU non-financial reporting standards; stresses that specific mandatory reporting obligations and standards should be set in the NFRD review, with the appropriate involvement of all stakeholders concerned, such as civil society, environmental organisations and social partners;

10.  Considers that non-financial statements should be set out in the annual management report in order to avoid additional burdens for companies; welcomes the commitment undertaken by the Commission in its Capital Markets Union Action Plan (COM(2020)0590) to putting forward a legislative proposal by the third quarter of 2021 for a publicly accessible, EU-wide online digital platform that provides free access to both the financial and non-financial information reported by companies; considers that this platform should allow users to compare the data disclosed by companies, by including categories such as themes, sectors, countries, turnover and number of employees;

11.  Notes that the NFRD excludes non-financial statements from the requirement of content assurance to which financial statements of companies are otherwise subject; considers that non-financial statements should be subject to a mandatory audit, depending on the size and field of activity of the company concerned; considers that the assurance service provider, subject to requirements of objectivity and independence, should conduct its audit in accordance with the future EU framework; stresses, in the light of the foregoing, the need to address the inherent wrong incentives in statutory auditing by reviewing the Statutory Audit Directive(24); affirms that this would also be an opportunity to address the quasi-monopoly of the ‘Big Four’ accountancy companies, which typically audit the largest listed companies;

12.  Highlights that workers’ representatives should be involved in defining the process for reporting non-financial information and in verifying information, in particular regarding social sustainability goals and issues related to the supply production chain, including outsourcing and subcontracting;

13.  Highlights the importance of introducing an obligation requiring certain EU companies to produce, on an annual basis, a country-by-country report for each tax jurisdiction in which they operate; calls on the Council to adopt its general approach as soon as possible in order to start negotiations with Parliament on the Commission’s proposal for a directive amending Directive 2013/34/EU as regards disclosure of income tax information by certain undertakings and branches (COM(2016)0198);

14.  Believes that the EU should make every effort to ensure that the free trade agreements they negotiate include clauses requiring the partner states to lay down comparable obligations for their companies, with a view to avoiding any new means of distorting competition;

Directors’ duty of care and additional measures to make corporate governance more sustainability-oriented

15.  Stresses the importance of diversity and inclusiveness in companies, which leads to better business performance; calls on the Council to adopt its general approach as soon as possible in order to start negotiations with Parliament on the Women on Boards Proposal(25), which sets out to put an end to the pervasive imbalance between women and men at the highest levels of company decision-making; calls on the Commission to examine additional proposals to improve gender balance among senior managers and those holding influential positions in companies;

16.  Underlines the need for greater employee involvement in company decision-making processes in order to better integrate the long-term objectives and impacts of their companies; invites the Commission to look into the possibility of revising the European Works Council Directive(26) and establishing a new framework on employees’ information, consultation and involvement in European companies;

17.  Stresses that the ecological transition and the rise of digitalisation will have profound repercussions on the labour force; considers, therefore, that any sustainable corporate governance should recognise and guarantee effectively the right of employees to continuing vocational training and lifelong education during their working hours;

18.  Notes that companies are not abstract entities detached from today’s environmental and social challenges; considers that companies should make a more active contribution to sustainability as their long-term performance, resilience and even their survival may depend on the adequacy of their response to environmental and social matters; stresses, in this regard, that the duty of care of directors towards their company should be defined not only in relation to short-term profit maximisation by way of shares, but also sustainability concerns; notes the major role of executive directors in defining a company’s strategy and overseeing its operations; considers that executive directors’ legal duties to act in the interest of their company should be understood as a duty to integrate long-term interests and sustainability risks, impacts, opportunities and dependencies into their company’s overall strategy; stresses that this duty of prioritisation could entail a shift towards sustainable investments from non-sustainable investments;

19.  Calls on the Commission to present a legislative proposal to ensure that directors’ duties cannot be misconstrued as amounting solely to the short-term maximisation of shareholder value, but must instead include the long-term interest of the company and wider societal interests, as well as that of employees and other relevant stakeholders; believes, in addition, that such a proposal should ensure that members of the administrative, management and supervisory bodies, acting within the competences assigned to them by national law, have the legal duty to define, disclose and monitor a corporate sustainability strategy;

20.  Stresses, with regard to the ongoing revision of the Environmental Liability Directive(27), that companies should possess financial securities for environmental liability for environmental harm inflicted on individuals and ecosystems;

21.  Considers that companies’ sustainability strategies should identify and address, in accordance with their due diligence obligations, on the one hand, material issues in line with the non-financial reporting requirements, and, on the other hand, the significant impacts that those companies could have on environmental, climate, social and employee matters, and the implications for human rights, bribery and corruption arising from their business models, operations and supply chains, including outside the EU; considers that the duty of care that directors owe to their company also requires abiding by the duty not to harm ecosystems and to protect the interests of relevant stakeholders, including employees, who may be adversely impacted by the company’s activities;

22.  Believes that the scope of the future legislation should cover all listed and non-listed large undertakings established in EU territory, as defined in Article 3(4) of the Accounting Directive; stresses that in order to provide a level playing field, this legislation should also apply to non-EU companies operating in the EU market; invites the Commission to identify high-risk sectors of economic activity with a significant impact on sustainability matters that could justify applying it to SMEs in those sectors; further considers that, following the impact assessment the Commission is currently undertaking, the sustainability strategies should include measurable, specific, time-bound and science-based targets as well as transition plans aligned with the EU’s international commitments on the environment and climate change, in particular the Paris Agreement, the Convention on Biological Diversity and international agreements addressing deforestation; believes that the strategies could also include an internal policy on a fair salary based on living wage per country, a policy on gender equality, and a policy ensuring employees’ rights are better integrated in business activities; underlines that the content of these internal policies should be determined by the companies themselves, with due consideration for and in consultation with their employees; considers that these policies should take into account sector-specific and/or geographical matters and the rights of persons belonging to particularly vulnerable groups or communities; considers that linking the variable part of the remuneration of executive directors to the achievement of the measurable targets set in the strategy would serve to align directors’ interests with the long-term interests of their companies; calls on the Commission to further promote such remuneration schemes for top management positions;

23.  Notes that some Member States have introduced the concept of ‘loyalty shares’ in their legislation, whereby long-term shareholding is rewarded through voting rights and tax advantages; calls on the Commission to consider the introduction of new mechanisms to promote sustainable returns and the long-term performances of companies; highlights that retained earnings can contribute to building adequate reserves;

24.  Considers that the Shareholders’ Rights Directive should also be amended in order to incentivise ‘patient’ shareholder behaviour, in particular by rewarding long-term shareholding through voting rights and tax advantages;

25.  Expresses concern that certain international investment agreements such as the Energy Charter Treaty place the financial interests of multinational corporations above environmental and climate priorities; urges the Commission to take swift action to ensure that existing and future trade investment agreements are fully aligned with EU environmental and climate objectives and to come forward with proposals to counteract corporate land grabbing and deforestation in the upcoming review of the NFRD;

26.  Considers that, in the process of defining and monitoring their sustainability strategies, companies should have the duty to inform and consult relevant stakeholders; believes that the concept of a stakeholder should be interpreted broadly and include all persons whose rights and interests may be affected by the decisions of the company, such as employees, trade unions, local communities, indigenous peoples, citizens’ associations, shareholders, civil society and environmental organisations; considers it essential, moreover, to consult national and local public authorities dealing with the sustainability of economic affairs, in particular those responsible for employment and environmental public policies;

27.  Considers that this engagement should take place, depending on the size and field of activity of the company concerned and with an exemption for small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) not operating in high-risk sectors, sectors which should be defined by the Commission, by means of advisory committees comprising stakeholders’ representatives or spokespersons, including employees as well as independent experts, with the overall aim of providing advice on the content and implementation of the company’s sustainability strategy; considers that these advisory committees should have the right to request, if approved by a large majority, an independent audit should reasonable concerns be raised over the proper implementation of the sustainability strategy;

28.  Believes that companies that receive State aid, EU funding, or other public money or companies that carry out redundancy plans should aim to retain their workers’ jobs and offer them protection, adjust the remuneration of their directors accordingly, pay their fair share of taxes, implement their sustainability strategy in line with the objective of reducing their carbon footprint, and refrain from paying out dividends or offering share buy-back schemes aimed at remunerating shareholders;

o
o   o

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

(1) https://www.ohchr.org/documents/publications/guidingprinciplesbusinesshr_en.pdf (2) https://www.un.org/sustainabledevelopment/sustainable-development-goals/ (3) http://mneguidelines.oecd.org/guidelines/ (4) https://www.oecd.org/investment/due-diligence-guidance-for-responsible-business-conduct.htm (5) https://mneguidelines.oecd.org/RBC-for-Institutional-Investors.pdf (6) https://www.ilo.org/wcmsp5/groups/public/---ed_emp/---emp_ent/---multi/documents/publication/wcms_094386.pdf (7) https://unfccc.int/files/essential_background/convention/application/pdf/english_paris_agreement.pdf (8) https://www.ipcc.ch/2018/10/08/summary-for-policymakers-of-ipcc-special-report-on-global-warming-of-1-5c-approved-by-governments/ (9) OJ L 150, 20.5.2014, p. 195. (10) OJ L 182, 29.6.2013, p. 19. (11) OJ L 330, 15.11.2014, p. 1. (12) OJ L 157, 15.6.2016, p. 1. (13) OJ L 132, 20.5.2017, p. 1. (14) OJ L 305, 26.11.2019, p. 17. (15) OJ L 317, 9.12.2019, p. 1. (16) OJ L 198, 22.6.2020, p. 13. (17) OJ C 215, 5.7.2017, p. 1. (18) OJ C 209, 20.6.2019, p. 1. (19) https://ec.europa.eu/info/sites/info/files/business_economy_euro/growth_and_investment/documents/200610-cmu-high-level-forum-final-report_en.pdf (20) http://www.undocs.org/A/HRC/8/5 (21) https://ec.europa.eu/environment/legal/liability/pdf/Final_report.pdf (22) https://climateprinciplesforenterprises.files.wordpress.com/2017/12/osloprincipleswebpdf.pdf (23) http://www.oecd.org/coronavirus/policy-responses/covid-19-and-responsible-business-conduct-02150b06/#:~:text=A%20responsible%20business%20conduct%20(RBC,both%20government%20and%20business%20response (24) OJ L 158, 27.5.2014, p. 196. (25) Proposal for a directive of the European Parliament and of the Council of 14 November 2012 on improving the gender balance among non-executive directors of companies listed on stock exchange and related measures (COM(2012)0614). (26) OJ L 122, 16.5.2009, p. 28. (27) OJ L 143, 30.4.2004, p. 56.

European Parliament resolution of 17 December 2020 on the Council Recommendation on vocational education and training (VET) for sustainable competitiveness, social fairness and resilience (2020/2767(RSP))

P9_TA(2020)0373 B9-0400/2020

The European Parliament,

–  having regard to Articles 165 and 166 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,

–  having regard to the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, in particular Article 14 thereof on the right to education,

–  having regard to the UN 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development and to the Sustainable Development Goals, in particular Goal 4 and its targets,

–  having regard to the European Pillar of Social Rights proclaimed by the Council, Parliament and the Commission in November 2017, and in particular principles 1 on education, training and lifelong learning and 4 on active support to employment thereof,

–  having regard to the Commission proposal for a Council Recommendation of 1 July 2020 on vocational education and training (VET) for sustainable competitiveness, social fairness and resilience (COM(2020)0275) and to the accompanying staff working document (SWD(2020)0123),

–  having regard to the Commission report of October 2017 entitled ‘Mapping of VET graduate tracking measures in EU Member States’,

–  having regard to the Recommendation of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 June 2009 on the establishment of a European Quality Assurance Reference Framework for Vocational Education and Training (EQAVET)(1),

–  having regard to the Recommendation of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 June 2009 on the establishment of a European Credit System for Vocational Education and Training (ECVET)(2),

–  having regard to the Council conclusions of 16 June 2020 on countering the COVID-19 crisis in education and training,

–  having regard to the Council resolution of 8 November 2019 on further developing the European Education Area to support future-oriented education and training systems(3),

–  having regard to the Council Recommendation of 15 March 2018 on a European Framework for Quality and Effective Apprenticeships(4),

–  having regard to the Commission communication of 1 July 2020 on a European Skills Agenda for sustainable competitiveness, social fairness and resilience (COM(2020)0274) and to the accompanying staff working documents (SWD(2020)0121) and (SWD(2020)0122),

–  having regard to the Commission communication of 1 July 2020 on Youth Employment Support: a Bridge to Jobs for the Next Generation (COM(2020)0276),

–  having regard to the Commission proposal for a Council Recommendation of 1 July 2020 entitled ‘A Bridge to Jobs – Reinforcing the Youth Guarantee’ and replacing Council Recommendation of 22 April 2013 on establishing a Youth Guarantee (COM(2020)0277),

–  having regard to the Commission communication of 30 September 2020 on achieving the European Education Area by 2025 (COM(2020)0625) and to the accompanying staff working document (SWD(2020)0212),

–  having regard to the Commission communication of 30 September 2020 on the Digital Education Action Plan 2021-2027 – Resetting education and training for the digital age (COM(2020)0624) and to the accompanying staff working document (SWD(2020)0209),

–  having regard to the Commission communication of 17 January 2018 on the Digital Education Action Plan (COM(2018)0022),

–  having regard to the policy framework for European cooperation in education and training (ET 2020),

–  having regard to the European Framework for Personal, Social and Learning to Learn Key Competence (LifeComp),

–  having regard to the synthesis report by the European Centre for the Development of Vocational Training (Cedefop) of 15 April 2020 based on information provided by the Cedefop community of apprenticeship experts and entitled ‘How are European countries managing apprenticeships to respond to the COVID-19 crisis?,

–  having regard to the Cedefop report of 2020 entitled ‘Vocational education and training in Europe, 1995-2035 – Scenarios for European vocational education and training in the 21st century’,

–  having regard to the series of seven Cedefop research papers entitled ‘The changing nature and role of vocational education and training in Europe’,

–  having regard to the Cedefop publication of 2013 entitled ‘Benefits of vocational education and training in Europe for people, organisations and countries’,

–  having regard to its resolution of 8 October 2020 on the Youth Guarantee(5),

–  having regard to its resolution of 12 June 2018 on modernisation of education in the EU(6),

–  having regard to its resolution of 14 September 2017 on a new skills agenda for Europe(7),

–  having regard to its resolution of 19 January 2016 on skills policies for fighting youth unemployment(8),

–  having regard to its resolution of 12 April 2016 on Erasmus+ and other tools to foster mobility in VET – a lifelong learning approach(9),

–  having regard to its resolution of 8 June 2011 on European cooperation in vocational education and training to support the Europe 2020 strategy(10),

–  having regard to its legislative resolution of 20 May 2008 on the proposal for a decision of the European Parliament and of the Council repealing Council Decision 85/368/EEC on the comparability of vocational training qualifications between the Member States of the European Community(11),

–  having regard to the study of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development of 6 May 2020 entitled ‘VET in a time of crisis: Building foundations for resilient vocational education and training systems’,

–  having regard to the questions to the Council and the Commission on the Council Recommendation on vocational education and training (VET) for sustainable competitiveness, social fairness and resilience (O‑000068/2020 – B9‑0027/2020 and O‑000069/2020 – B9‑0028/2020),

–  having regard to Rules 136(5) and 132(2) of its Rules of Procedure,

–  having regard to the motion for a resolution of the Committee on Employment and Social Affairs,

A.  whereas vocational education and training (VET) is an essential part of European education and lifelong learning systems, equipping young people and adults with the knowledge, know-how, skills and competences they need for employment; whereas VET accounts for about half of upper secondary graduates in the European Union; whereas VET could be crucial to for addressing the challenges caused by the accelerating macro trends and future transitions, and could be key to filling the widening skills gap in the EU labour market;

B.  whereas according to Cedefop, around two thirds of Europeans (68 %) think that vocational education at upper secondary stage has a positive image in their country, while just under a quarter (23 %) say it has a negative image(12);

C.  whereas education and training also play a central role in integrating people into society and promoting participation in the political process, thereby helping to build inclusion as well as democratic and active citizenship;

D.  whereas VET can boost students’ and workers’ professional development, company performance, competitiveness, research and innovation and is a central aspect of successful employment and social policy;

E.  whereas VET in Europe is highly diverse and not equally attractive for all learners; whereas national systems and initiatives need to be more compatible and interconnected at EU level; whereas the Commission and the policies of the EU can play an important role in supporting and coordinating Member States’ actions on VET at EU level; whereas the role of transnational and national VET providers’ networks and partnerships is crucial in the dissemination of the VET policy agenda and EU best practice;

F.  whereas initial vocational education and training (IVET) is no longer only considered a vocational pathway, but an alternative pathway to the academic route that contains many elements of an academic education which can, ultimately, lead to a tertiary level, university education; whereas in countries where the dual system is well established the vocational pathway has always combined practical experience in the workplace with academic study in the classroom;

G.  whereas continuing vocational education and training (CVET) is key to achieving the social and economic objectives of the EU; whereas CVET improves the participation of adults in lifelong learning, reinforces their employability and increases employment in Europe;

H.  whereas European VET systems are facing important challenges; whereas these systems need to be equipped with the capacity to adapt to the rapidly evolving green and digital transitions, technological developments, occupational changes and the shift towards more highly skilled jobs, changing labour market needs, meeting current skills shortages and averting future ones, new business models, new forms of work organisation, demographic trends, cohesion and infrastructural developments; whereas Member States and EU institutions need to step up their efforts and their support to create the best possible conditions for VET in order to adapt quickly to these challenges and skills needs in the labour market;

I.  whereas countries with well-designed vocational training programmes find it easier to avoid youth unemployment, even in times of crisis; whereas according to analysis by the IZA Institute of Labor Economics, countries with a dual vocational training system coped better with the economic crisis of 2008 and its effects on young people in the labour market; whereas the youth unemployment rate in countries without a dual VET system increased significantly at the time(13);

J.  whereas despite efforts being made to establish a coordinated European Qualifications Framework and the development of national qualifications frameworks, numerous mobile workers in the EU have difficulties in having their skills and training recognised and finding equivalent employment in other Member States;

K.  whereas the dual system usually does not provide for the possibility to continue the education process at all levels; whereas the dual system must be flexible and be able to respond to the changes in the labour market and new, as yet unknown jobs;

L.  whereas internships and vocational training with foreign employers within the Erasmus+ programme have a significant impact on supporting students and graduates of vocational and technical schools to find employment and to develop the competences required in the labour market, including language, professional language and social skills;

M.  whereas the COVID-19 pandemic has put vocational education and training activities, as well as standard education in general, under serious strain, interrupting learning in both workplaces and the classroom; whereas the pandemic has been particularly disruptive to work-based learning, including apprenticeships and training schemes with often significantly decreasing numbers of attendance, offers and new students; whereas the consequences of the COVID-19 crisis also present an opportunity to launch a digital and technological revolution in VET, which can break physical barriers, where possible, and significantly increase its reach and impact on expected results;

N.  whereas in many sectors apprenticeship training is massively affected by company closures and short-time working;

O.  whereas it is likely that young people will suffer disproportionately from the consequences of the economic crisis triggered by the COVID-19 pandemic in terms of unemployment; whereas in August 2020, having risen rapidly in the previous months, youth unemployment stood at 17,6 % in the EU and 18,1 % in the Euro area (compared to 14,1 % and 15,4 % respectively in August 2019) and whereas it is expected to rise further in the near future and keep many young people trapped in precarious and non-standard forms of employment or inactivity with insufficient social protection; whereas the EU must make youth unemployment and those not in education, employment or training (NEETs) one of the top political priorities to avoid creating another ‘lost generation’ as a consequence of the current crisis, which will also have a detrimental effect on the mental health and lives of millions of young people; whereas VET is a key factor for preparing learners for democratic societies and successfully entering and participating in the labour market;

P.  whereas the recent socio-economic developments and the crisis triggered by the COVID-19 pandemic have increased social inequalities and accentuated the need to make VET systems not only more efficient but also more accessible and inclusive with respect to vulnerable groups and people in rural or remote areas; whereas equal opportunities for all are key; whereas access to computers, a broadband connection, digital support and other technological learning tools is crucial, not only for VET providers but also students, in order to avoid deepening inequalities and ensure that no one is left behind;

Q.  whereas 60 million adults in the EU are low-qualified; whereas according to Cedefop, there are 128 million adults in the EU who have a low level of education, low digital skills or low cognitive skills or who have a medium-high level of education but are at risk of skill loss and skill obsolescence and therefore in need of upskilling and reskilling; whereas well-designed and inclusive VET systems are of strategic importance to increase the competences and skills of all learners and support access to quality job opportunities;

R.  whereas in 2017, 4,3 % of pupils in lower secondary education in the EU followed vocational programmes, with this share reaching 47,8 % for upper secondary education and 92 % for post-secondary non-tertiary education; whereas in 2017, 46,7 % of all graduates from vocational programmes in upper secondary education in the EU were female(14);

S.  whereas in VET as in education, the COVID-19 crisis has highlighted some challenges and limitations of distance learning in technical and content-related areas;

T.  whereas distance learning risks increasing dropout rates for vulnerable learners and must therefore remain a complement rather than an alternative to conventional learning;

U.  whereas there is neither an agreed definition nor a common understanding of micro-credentials in VET at EU level; whereas micro-credentials should be conceived as complementary to full qualifications and recognised as a proof of meaningful and high-quality achievements, based on standards on delivery mode, assessment procedure and duration;

V.  whereas in 2015, almost one third (30,5 %) of all companies with 10 or more people employed in the EU-28’s business economy provided IVET, although this proportion varied greatly across the Member States(15);

W.  whereas in 2015, 72,6 % of companies employing 10 or more people in the EU-28 provided CVET to their staff; whereas this marked an increase on 2005 and 2010, when the corresponding shares were 59,7 % and 65,7 %(16);

X.  whereas the impact of IVET and CVET on labour market outcomes often reflects direct or indirect aggregate individual productivity effects; whereas the main outcomes stressed by countries are higher participation in the labour market, lower unemployment, the opportunity to acquire a qualification for all categories which did not previously have one, and the chance to advance in a professional hierarchy; whereas through lifelong learning, individuals can improve their work opportunities and qualification levels, which leads to higher remuneration and greater economic and social outputs, such as economic autonomy, and can also enhance psychological wellbeing(17);

Y.  whereas IVET and CVET have a direct impact on generational changes and the situation of families;

Z.  whereas IVET and CVET help to make companies and innovation more effective;

1.  Underlines that VET, particularly through its focus on practice and work-based learning, plays a vital role in a labour market that is geared towards a just transition and in constant change; underlines that VET, if geared towards quality, can offer relevant and high-quality knowledge, skills and competences at all levels in companies of all sizes and sectors and for people in both initial and continuing education tailored to their individual needs; stresses that VET is important for filling skills gaps in the EU labour market, for equipping young students with the skills they need to get into employment, and for upskilling and reskilling workers to align their competences with employers’ needs, which is particularly important for SMEs and new investments in the economy; stresses, in addition, the need to foster personal development skills to help individuals grow both personally and professionally in order to maximise their potential;

2.  Calls for VET to be coordinated with formal and traditional education systems and integrated as a policy area within the scope of all education policies, at EU and Member State level, without being consigned to the background or made only a secondary priority; calls on the Commission and the Member States to ensure that VET and classical education are complementary and equal in priority;

3.  Recalls the importance, moreover, of approaching VET as a fundamental tool for promoting integration and inclusion for the development of a more cohesive society;

4.  Emphasises the urgent need to modernise and significantly expand VET policies to make them more inclusive, accessible, resilient, attractive and effective in supporting fair employment, human capital development and active participation in society; considers that VET policies should equip people with good basic skills and key competences to enable them to adapt to current and future socio-economic and labour market developments and the opportunities of and challenges posed by the digital and green transitions, demographic change and all other macro trends, and should deliver on the objectives of the European Green Deal; stresses the key role of VET policies in upskilling and reskilling all workers to deal with these key transitions better;

5.  Recalls that VET contributes to competitiveness and social cohesion; underlines the need to increase investment in human capital and skills and to deliver a skills base relevant to working life;

6.  Recalls that the containment measures put in place to halt the spread of the COVID-19 pandemic have put European VET systems under serious strain and its learners in precarious situations; stresses that the disruption to VET is exacerbating pre-existing education inequalities by reducing the opportunities for many of society’s most vulnerable people, who need to be supported by sustainable investment and effective non-financial measures in the sector; stresses, in this respect, that particular attention should be given to ensuring equal access to high-quality VET, including in remote or rural areas where distance learning could be hampered by a lack of internet coverage;

7.  Underlines that it is crucial to provide the necessary financial means, technical assistance and guidance to ensure access to digital devices and e-learning solutions for VET providers, teachers, trainers and students; encourages Member States to promote flexible education models and support for distance learners by means such as e-resources, e-materials, free online training and – most importantly – equipment and broadband internet for all schools and households; stresses that public authorities should pay special attention to and incentivise solutions for households that do not have access to computers and a good broadband connection, so as to prevent a digital divide and an increase in inequalities in an education sector in which many disadvantaged students are enrolled;

8.  Fears a dramatic decline in the number of apprenticeship training places for next autumn given the potential reduction in training activities in many sectors that the COVID-19 crisis could entail; underlines that this lack of training opportunities for young people could also lead to an intensification of the shortage of skilled labour in some areas in the medium term; calls on Member States and regions to consider how alternative supra-company training could be sensibly expanded in order to bridge the looming gap in apprenticeship training places;

9.  Calls for a quality guarantee ensuring that people who finished their training and/or education during the COVID-19 crisis can fill any gaps in their training by (re-)taking courses from their traineeship or apprenticeship even after obtaining their degree and/or finishing their traineeship or apprenticeship, which might have had to be cancelled or curtailed or fallen short in some other way while anti-COVID-19 measures were in place;

10.  Welcomes the proposal for a Council Recommendation on VET for sustainable competitiveness, social fairness and resilience; supports the proposal’s overall aims to modernise EU policy on VET and confirm VET’s central role in the lifelong learning continuum and in the rapid adaptation to a rapidly changing labour market; welcomes the efforts to simplify VET governance, to develop an internationalisation strategy and to secure more European cooperation and mobility opportunities for learners and teachers; highlights the key role of skills reaching all kinds of workers in the transition to a green and digital economy;

11.  Welcomes the proposal’s quantitative objectives, namely that – by 2025 – the share of employed graduates should be at least 82 %, 60 % of recent graduates from VET should benefit from exposure to work-based learning during their VET, and 8 % of learners in VET should benefit from a learning mobility abroad; invites Member States to encourage learning pathways including work-based learning; recalls that specific targets can help Member States in setting goals and making VET policies more inclusive and adapted to labour market needs; calls on the Commission to report to Parliament and the Council every five years on the implementation of the recommendation;

12.  Calls on the Commission to expand worthwhile mobility programmes for apprentices, such as ErasmusPro, by strengthening synergies between European Social Fund Plus (ESF+) and Erasmus+ programmes and by ensuring adequate resources in the 2021-2027 programming period; calls on the Member States to set a more ambitious target on learning mobility abroad for VET students; recalls that in similar initiatives under the ET2020 framework and Erasmus programme for higher education, the target on mobility for higher education graduates was set at 20 % for 2020; underlines that increased mobility opportunities can help to expand apprentices’ personal, educational and professional networks and make VET more attractive, rather than it being perceived as a second choice, and unlock the mobility potential of VET, which can, in turn, contribute to the success of the future Erasmus+ programme;

13.  Calls on the Commission to include an indicator on skills gaps in the Social Scoreboard, in line with the aims and implementation of the European Pillar of Social Rights, which could be useful for VET national policymakers to identify where more efforts are required and to coordinate better at EU level, tracking skills gaps evolutions and progress, and incentivising upward convergence among the Member States;

14.  Stresses that well-targeted awareness-raising campaigns and youth-friendly communication channels, such as social media, can play a decisive role in reaching out to young people to raise the profile of VET and make it more attractive; underlines the crucial role of schools, especially primary and lower secondary, in communicating the possibilities offered by VET, making VET more attractive and doing more to guide young students on these professional paths;

15.  Calls on the Member States and the Commission to work with stakeholders to devise an EU online platform on VET, as requested by many VET providers and policymakers in a recent EU survey(18), which should be promoted as soon as possible; supports the idea that such a platform could offer opportunities for networking and exchanging good practices and could provide digital solutions, including for work-based learning, and all the available material for online learning in a safe, quality-assured and multilingual environment; underlines that a VET platform can be the link between the platforms of Centres of Vocational Excellence (CoVEs) at EU level; suggests that the platform should be linked to an EU web portal on VET, open to contributions from stakeholders, in order to bring visibility to the activities and services provided by CoVEs to their ecosystems, to showcase the wealth of opportunities offered by VET to learners at national and EU levels, and to step up communication efforts and increase the attractiveness of VET;

16.  Calls on the Commission to explore the idea of an EU web job portal specifically dedicated to traineeship and apprenticeship opportunities around the EU, gathering together all similar existing EU initiatives in a more visible, comprehensive and user-friendly fashion; considers that this instrument, if adequately publicised through the appropriate channels, can become a focal point for young Europeans, education institutions, and companies around the EU; is of the opinion that the portal could be connected to VET, help to guide youth talent where most required by labour market needs, increase EU mobility, tackle youth unemployment, and bridge current and future skills gaps; considers that such an initiative could be supported by the Youth Guarantee and Erasmus+ programmes to amplify the impact of those programmes, and could be complementary and connected with other EU initiatives such as the European Job Mobility Portal (EURES), Europass and a future EU VET portal;

17.  Calls on the Member States and the Commission to analyse and provide support and solutions for the requests made by VET stakeholders in the recent EU survey undertaken by the Commission between March and May 2020 on the challenges and impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on vocational education and training; supports, in particular, in addition to the creation of a common EU platform for VET, the development of virtual reality simulation systems and other digital tools for VET education with the aid of research projects and test phases, the creation of vocational online open courses (VOOC), virtual European projects such as Erasmus virtual, an EU YouTube channel on VET for the general public, European training weeks, and, furthermore, making ESF and the future ESF+ more flexible and able to fund educational technology, training for teachers and trainers, and the implementation of e-learning;

18.  Underlines that the disruption to the provision of VET caused by the COVID-19 pandemic has had a considerable educational and social impact on VET students, in particular from disadvantaged backgrounds, and poses difficult challenges for students who work best under direct guidance and in the presence of a teacher; highlights that this should not only be seen as a problem but that it also provides a unique opportunity to modernise VET systems through technological innovations in fields such as virtual reality, artificial intelligence, Industry 4.0 and the Internet of Things, as well as an increased use of online and distance learning, hybrid apprenticeships and alternative assessment; highlights that such reforms could ultimately contribute to making VET systems stronger, more responsive, and more resilient than before the COVID-19 crisis and equip students and workers for the skills and jobs of tomorrow; notes, at the same time, that advanced digital skills for teachers, trainers and students is a key prerequisite for high-quality online learning;

19.  Underlines the urgent need to adopt all the necessary measures to reduce the number of student drop-outs from VET, to reinforce the inclusiveness and quality of VET, to ensure equal access to quality apprenticeships for all young and adult learners and to guarantee equal access and the right to employee training for all workers in all companies of all sizes and sectors, with a specific focus on SMEs;

20.  Welcomes the idea of developing virtual mobility opportunities to overcome the constraints of COVID-19 and encourages Member States and VET providers to facilitate location-less learning opportunities, including in the future, allowing students in remote and rural areas or abroad to access courses around the EU without location constraints, where feasible;

21.  Recalls that the involvement of all the relevant actors in the policy design and delivery of VET helps to ensure that VET addresses the skills needs in the labour market and contributes to better policy implementation; calls on the Member States, therefore, to cooperate closely with all the relevant stakeholders such as social partners, enterprises, including MSMEs, social economy enterprises, such as cooperatives and non-profit organisations, VET providers and their associations, VET students, VET student unions, research centres, civil society organisations, public and private employment services, guidance practitioners and local and regional authorities to coordinate at EU level for better interconnections between different systems and to exchange best practices; calls for the setting-up of local eco-systems, including the aforementioned stakeholders, in order to reinforce the quality, quantity, inclusiveness and reputation of VET as a positive choice; underlines the need to actively promote among potential applicants the employment opportunities linked to VET and to direct students towards sectors lacking employees with VET qualifications; stresses that a strong connection between VET and the world of work is essential; stresses that the training offered should cater to local challenges and needs;

22.  Maintains that a strong educational foundation that provides students with broad knowledge and basic skills in literacy, numeracy and communication, digital skills and soft skills, such as critical thinking, problem solving and emotional intelligence, serves as the basis for further learning and on-the-job training and is key for young people’s futures as both workers and individuals, enabling them to adapt to changing demands throughout their professional lives;

23.  Highlights the need for a transparent common definition of micro-credentials; believes that micro-credentials can be only complementary to full qualifications and must be quality assured, accredited and based on standardised delivery mode, assessment procedure and duration; underlines the paramount importance of well-defined quality requirements of micro-credentials providers;

24.  Recalls the intrinsic value of education beyond its role towards the labour market; calls on the Member States to put more emphasis on the role of education beyond the needs of the labour market, taking into account the development of knowledge and skills that support personal development, wellbeing and active citizenship;

25.  Calls on the Member States to design, with the involvement of social partners, quality and inclusive VET systems and adult learning policies with a view to improving skills and competences of low-qualified adults, both workers and unemployed people, who need urgent support to access quality jobs;

26.  Supports the establishment and promotion of representative structures for VET learners at all levels in order to give VET learners a voice in the management of VET schemes and thereby help to improve the quality of VET programmes;

27.  Supports the proposed promotion of CoVEs bringing together a wide range of VET stakeholders and local partners; underlines that such centres can be drivers for innovation, quality and inclusiveness and facilitate the exchange of good practices, foster mutual learning and help improve the quality and provision of VET across the EU; calls on the Member States to ensure solid investment in the development of these centres and all VET institutions and recalls that support for CoVEs through the Erasmus+ programme requires an ambitious programme budget; calls on the Member States to take further measures to bring together and involve the relevant stakeholders in order to help increase the relevance and quality of the education in these centres and to better match the supply and demand of skills and support employers in finding vocational training facility solutions; calls on the Member States to make CoVEs the driving force for the development of joint European VET qualifications, curricula and diplomas; calls on the Member States, furthermore, to foster regional cooperation strategies with a view to devising cross-border programmes aimed at facilitating the mobility of learners and workers and improving territorial and regional cooperation, including through the European Qualifications Framework;

28.  Strongly believes that all pupils should have access to a balanced, rigorous and cognitively demanding, knowledge-based curriculum, as this is the best possible preparation for both vocational and academic studies, guaranteeing that young people who have opted for a VET programme have done so because that was their choice or vocation rather than due to low achievement or an inability to pursue other academic options; underlines that digital and green skills should be integrated across educational curricula, recognising that they are basic skills for all learners; recalls Cedefop’s assertion that adapting curricula and including environmental awareness, with an understanding of sustainable development and business efficiency, is better than devising completely new training programmes;

29.  Calls on the Member States to ensure appropriate funding for VET policies, both at national and EU level, in order to guarantee the investments needed to make VET systems more modern, resilient, attractive and inclusive; underlines the need for increased funding for VET mobility for learners and teachers, including in Erasmus+; calls on the Member States to develop incentives to help SMEs encourage VET learners to take part in European mobility; underlines the need for increased funding for training centres to finance dedicated teams tasked with the practical organisation of mobility; calls on the Commission to organise an EU-wide campaign targeting SMEs to underline the benefits to their prosperity of incoming and outgoing vocational mobility;

30.  Underlines the need to develop more programmes like e-Twining and the Electronic Platform for Adult Learning in Europe (EPALE), which serve to promote networking and inter-school cooperation; recalls that these projects can assist in the implementation of core curricula and help to encourage students who are reluctant to learn remotely to participate;

31.  Calls on the Member States to devote specific attention to the continuous training and professional development of teachers and trainers in VET to enable them to fulfil their increasingly multi-functional roles and responsibilities as drivers for quality and innovation in education; recalls that is important that VET teachers have high-quality digital skills and the right technological equipment at their disposal to be able to fully embrace the opportunities offered by digital education and to help equip students with the skills required by the digital transition; underlines that the representatives of the branches and companies cooperating within VET must have pedagogical competences; calls on the Member States and the Commission to better develop the opportunity for VET teachers to also carry out research throughout their career, as this could allow them to exchange and stimulate best practices and help to realise the full potential of the European Research Area;

32.  Calls on the Member States to promote the dual VET model, which could make it much easier for young people to get into the labour market, especially when compared to general education, as training that combines structured workplace learning with theory leads to certified skills that are relevant to employers and transferable to the labour market; underlines, in this context, the potential of digital solutions, which can make a positive contribution to an effective dual system;

33.  Urges the Member States, when devising VET, to take better advantage of the development of the green jobs sector, to create highly skilled apprenticeships to provide young people with specialised knowledge and training, and to help tackle the high levels of youth unemployment;

34.  Encourages the Member States and regional and local authorities to integrate sustainable development and environmental competences and skills into training and education systems, in particular by strengthening VET systems and by encouraging research centres to develop technologies, projects and patents for green products, in collaboration with new green companies; encourages exchanges of ideas between research centres and networks of companies and professionals; recalls the importance of science, technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM) skills and the need to ensure that more women study STEM subjects;

35.  Calls on the Member States to improve skills anticipation systems to better identify emerging changes and skills needs so that VET systems are better informed about where investments in skills are needed and are more responsive to changing labour market needs, and to ensure that education, training and lifelong learning is a right for all; stresses that VET will be more effective if it is based on solid skills forecasting enabling skills gaps to be anticipated and identified and vocational and lifelong training programmes to be tailored to a future-oriented labour market; believes that VET programmes should be made more flexible and adaptable to match and resist labour market fluctuations and enable intelligent and targeted orientation of VET learners, for initial training as well as for upskilling and reskilling adult learners, in order to reduce skills mismatches and skill obsolescence;

36.  Calls for the establishment of paid educational leave policies in line with the ILO Paid Educational Leave Convention, which allows workers to attend training programmes during working hours and at no personal cost, in order to promote lifelong learning;

37.  Calls on the Member States, regional governments and local authorities to adopt and implement, together with the social partners and training providers, skills development and anticipation strategies with the aim of improving generic, sectoral and occupation-specific skills; notes that these strategies should include a thorough assessment of the type and level of jobs to be created and the requisite skills and knowledge, leading to the anticipation and identification of skills gaps and targeted vocational and lifelong training programmes focusing on matching skills and jobs, with the aim of increasing employment;

38.  Welcomes the recommendation that VET providers should get an appropriate degree of autonomy, flexibility, support and funding; recalls that financial and strategical independence of VET providers is important to rapidly adapt to changes in skills demands and to the opportunities of and challenges posed by the digital and green transitions; calls on the Member States to step up their efforts to create qualified training programmes in sectors that lack an adequate workforce, such as the health and care sectors, agriculture, construction, the environmental sector and the circular economy;

39.  Calls on the Member States to put greater emphasis on making VET systems more inclusive and accessible to all throughout their working lives, including vulnerable groups, such as persons with disabilities, NEETs, older workers, the long-term unemployed, low-qualified and low-skilled adults, displaced workers, minorities and ethnic groups, people with migrant backgrounds, refugees, and people with fewer opportunities because of their geographical location; calls for concrete measures to ensure that people from disadvantaged socio-economic backgrounds, who often find themselves in a vicious circle of poverty, have access to VET in line with the European Pillar of Social Rights; encourages Member States facing demographic decline to ensure that younger people benefit from VET programmes in particular as a pathway to quality employment; underlines that preventive actions such as skills assessments and careers and vocational guidance may reduce the number of NEETs in the longer term and address the needs of companies and sectors suffering from skills shortages;

40.  Welcomes the suggestion that VET systems should play an equally important role for adults in need of continuous upskilling and reskilling; calls on the Commission to adopt a holistic approach to VET and adult learning encompassing formal, non-formal and informal learning; calls on the Member States to make VET more attractive and accessible to adult learners and to forge stronger links and closer cooperation between VET for adults and non-formal adult learning in order to promote key competences, including good basic skills, digital skills, and transversal, green and other life skills which provide strong foundations for resilience, lifelong employability, social inclusion, active citizenship and personal development; stresses that efforts to improve the image and inclusiveness of VET programmes need to be accompanied by efforts to strengthen their educational value and to increase the quality and respect for apprentices’ social and labour rights;

41.  Stresses the importance of reaching people in rural and remote areas and making VET accessible and designed for people working in agriculture, fisheries, forestry and other jobs in those regions, and to provide them with all the necessary skills, including green and digital skills, to better grasp present and future opportunities offered by the green and blue economy and enable them to make an important contribution to the preservation of the environment;

42.  Underlines that work-based learning and the promotion and implementation of the dual VET system should be priorities of the new Erasmus programme;

43.  Calls on the Member States, in line with the EU Strategy for Gender Equality, to continue to address gender bias and gender-stereotypical choices by ensuring and encouraging the equal participation of women in vocational training for what are usually traditional ‘male’ professions and of men in ‘female’ professions; calls for the gender dimension to be reinforced in efforts to modernise VET systems and to make learning both at and outside work more accessible to women employees and those with family care duties, not least in sectors where women are under-represented, notably the digital, STEM and green sectors, in order to combat gender segregation in education and employment and combat gender stereotypes;

44.  Calls on the Commission and the Member States, when making the transition to the green economy, to take account of the needs of women and girls for better lifelong learning opportunities, especially in fields which have considerable potential for providing a significant number of new green jobs, such as science, research, engineering, digital technology and new technologies, with the aim of strengthening women’s position in society, eliminating gender stereotypes and delivering jobs which fully correspond to women’s particular needs and skills;

45.  Calls on the Member States to promote VET participation through campaigns emphasising the benefits to the individual and the employer and by providing incentives, including long-standing incentives, to cover some of the costs to employers of apprenticeships; recognises the significance of initiatives such as WorldSkills competitions, which make a key impact in terms of the positive image of VET, the promotion of new jobs and new skills, attracting young people to VET careers, adapting VET systems to the modern economy, and boosting cooperation between education, employers and the labour market;

46.  Welcomes the objective of the European Education Area of developing a genuine European learning space where high-quality and inclusive education and training is in no way hampered by borders; considers that the recommendation should fulfil this aim;

47.  Welcomes the proposal to enhance the flexibility of VET programmes, to use micro-credentials and to increase the permeability with other educational sectors, as this increased flexibility enables VET programmes to be customised to individual needs, while respecting full qualifications; notes that this initiative also allows transfers of recognition and the accumulation of learning outcomes; welcomes, in this respect, the idea of European vocational core profiles and of integration with the Europass platform, including with future individual learning accounts, which should serve to facilitate recognition of qualifications and mobility; underlines that curricula need to establish the basis to enable people to transfer between academic and vocational routes, including the competences they obtain; stresses that the qualification structure needs to allow for comparability; underlines that curricula also need to provide for the future employability of the individual by anticipating skill needs over the medium to long term; calls on the Member States to encourage the further modularisation of VET in order to build more bridges between education and training systems; stresses the importance of the ECVET system, which has provided better recognition of learning outcomes obtained during mobility periods; calls on the Member States to consider the development of the ECTS credit points system for VET; calls on the Member States to ensure that VET programmes can create higher skill levels;

48.  Welcomes the framework provisions of EQAVET and calls for an assessment of their implementation; welcomes the integration of the EQAVET framework and elements addressing the shortcomings of its implementation into the recommendation, specifically in relation to quality standards, and the inclusion of key principles of ECVET to support flexibility and mobility, developed in the framework of other instruments such as Erasmus+;

49.  Welcomes all possible synergies and a greater role for VET under the Youth Guarantee, in view of its effectiveness in easing the transition to the labour market for young people at risk of unemployment and social exclusion;

50.  Calls on the Member States to strengthen language learning in VET systems as the lack of proficiency in this area is a major impediment to mobility, while a good command of several languages is of added value on labour markets;

51.  Underlines that any improvement to the provision of VET needs to be accompanied by improvements to the access to information, advice and guidance services in an accessible format for all adult learners and students from an early age;

52.  Stresses that apprenticeships are a vital part of VET programmes; urges Member States to make further efforts to ensure high-quality, diversified and tailored apprenticeships, including fair remuneration, that are aligned with the principles of the European Pillar of Social Rights, in particular the right to fair and equal treatment regarding working conditions, including ensuring a working environment adapted to the needs of persons with disabilities, access to social protection and training; calls on the Commission, in this regard, to review the European Framework for Quality and Effective Apprenticeships; calls on the Member States to encourage VET mobility by easing national administrative prerequisites for VET foreign students; encourages the Commission and the Member States to work towards the creation of a European Apprenticeship Statute;

53.  Stresses the importance of ensuring that the objectives of the recommendation are aligned with the current policy and legislative framework in the context of the Recovery Plan for Europe, with particular regard to investment in skills, education and training through the Recovery and Resilience Facility and REACT-EU, as well as the European Skills Agenda, the Digital Education Action Plan, the European Education Area, Erasmus+ and the Youth Guarantee;

54.  Underlines the need to improve the tracking of VET graduates, as a better understanding of their performance in the labour market is one of the key ways of assessing and improving the quality and relevance to the labour market of VET, alongside forecasts on the supply and demand of skills;

55.  Calls on the Commission and the Member States to increase the resources allocated to the digitalisation of VET programmes and to graduate tracking;

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

(1) OJ C 155, 8.7.2009, p. 1. (2) OJ C 155, 8.7.2009, p. 11. (3) OJ C 389, 18.11.2019, p. 1. (4) OJ C 153, 2.5.2018, p. 1. (5) Texts adopted, P9_TA(2020)0267. (6) OJ C 28, 27.1.2020, p. 8. (7) OJ C 337, 20.9.2018, p. 135. (8) OJ C 11, 12.1.2018, p. 44. (9) OJ C 58, 15.2.2018, p. 65. (10) OJ C 380 E, 11.12.2012, p. 67. (11) OJ C 279 E, 19.11.2009, p. 119. (12) Cedefop, European public opinion survey on vocational education and training, 2017. (13) Eichhorst, W., Does vocational training help young people find a (good) job?, IZA Institute of Labor Economics. (14) Eurostat, Vocational education and training statistics, data extracted in September 2020. (15) Eurostat, Vocational education and training statistics, data extracted in September 2020. (16) Eurostat, Vocational education and training statistics, data extracted in September 2020. (17) Cedefop, The benefits of vocational education and training, 2011. (18) Commission survey for European Vocational Skills Week 2020, 9-13 November 2020.

European Parliament legislative resolution of 17 December 2020 on the proposal for a decision of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Decision No 445/2014/EU establishing a Union action for the European Capitals of Culture for the years 2020 to 2033 (COM(2020)0384 – C9-0275/2020 – 2020/0179(COD))

P9_TA(2020)0374 A9-0201/2020

(Ordinary legislative procedure: first reading)

The European Parliament,

–  having regard to the Commission proposal to Parliament and the Council (COM(2020)0384),

–  having regard to Article 294(2) and Article 167(5) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, pursuant to which the Commission submitted the proposal to Parliament (C9‑0275/2020),

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

–  after consulting the Committee of the Regions,

–  having regard to the provisional agreement approved by the committee responsible under Rule 74(4) of its Rules of Procedure and the undertaking given by the Council representative by letter of 25 November 2020 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 Culture and Education (A9-0201/2020),

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 17 December 2020 with a view to the adoption of Decision (EU) 2020/… of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Decision No 445/2014/EU establishing a Union action for the European Capitals of Culture for the years 2020 to 2033

(As an agreement was reached between Parliament and Council, Parliament's position corresponds to the final legislative act, Decision (EU) 2020/2229.)

European Parliament resolution of 17 December 2020 on forced labour and the situation of the Uyghurs in the Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Region (2020/2913(RSP))

P9_TA(2020)0375 RC-B9-0432/2020

The European Parliament,

–  having regard to its previous resolutions and reports on the situation in China, in particular those of 19 December 2019 on the situation of the Uyghurs in China (China Cables)(1), of 18 April 2019 on China, notably the situation of religious and ethnic minorities(2), of 4 October 2018 on mass arbitrary detention of Uyghurs and Kazakhs in the Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Region(3), of 12 September 2018 on the state of EU-China relations(4), and of 15 December 2016 on the cases of the Larung Gar Tibetan Buddhist Academy and Ilham Tohti(5), of 10 March 2011 on the situation and cultural heritage in Kashgar (Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Region, China)(6), and of 26 November 2009 on China: minority rights and application of the death penalty(7),

–  having regard to its resolution of 26 November 2020 on the EU Trade Policy Review(8),

–  having regard to the Sakharov Prize 2019 awarded to Ilham Tohti, a Uyghur economist fighting peacefully for the rights of China’s Uyghur minority,

–  having regard to Council Regulation (EU) 2020/1998(9) and to Council Decision (CFSP) 2020/1999 of 7 December 2020 concerning restrictive measures against serious human rights violations and abuses(10),

–  having regard to the remarks by the Vice-President of the Commission / High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy (VP/HR) Josep Borrell following the Foreign Affairs Council of 7 December 2020,

–  having regard to the Council conclusions of 1 December 2020 on human rights and decent work in global supply chains

–  having regard to the remarks by Council President Charles Michel after the EU-China leaders’ meeting of 14 September 2020,

–  having regard to the joint statement of President Michel and President von der Leyen on defending EU interests and values in a complex and vital partnership following the 22nd EU-China summit that took place on 22 June 2020,

–  having regard to the UN experts’ call of 26 June 2020 for decisive measures to protect fundamental freedoms in China,

–  having regard to the joint statement of the 21st EU-China summit of 9 April 2019,

–  having regard to the joint communication from the Commission and the Vice-President of the Commission / High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy of 12 March 2019 entitled ‘EU-China – A strategic outlook’ (JOIN(2019)0005),

–  having regard to the EU guidelines on the promotion and protection of freedom of religion or belief, adopted by the Foreign Affairs Council on 24 June 2013,

–  having regard to the statement of 26 October 2018 by the Spokesperson of the European External Action Service on the situation in Xinjiang,

–  having regard to the joint communication from the Commission and the High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy of 12 March 2019 entitled ‘EU-China – A strategic outlook’ (JOIN(2019)0005),

–  having regard to the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, which stipulates that ‘no one shall be held in slavery or servitude’ and that ‘no one shall be required to perform forced or compulsory labour’,

–  having regard to the EU Strategic Framework and Action Plan on Human Rights and Democracy of 25 June 2012, which puts the protection and promotion of human rights at the heart of all EU policies,

–  having regard to the EU Guidelines on the death penalty, on torture and other cruel treatment, on freedom of expression online and offline and on human rights defenders,

–  having regard to Article 36 of the Constitution of the People’s Republic of China, which guarantees all citizens the right to freedom of religious belief, and to Article 4 thereof, which upholds the rights of minority ethnicities,

–  having regard to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights of 16 December 1966, which China signed in 1998, but which it has never ratified,

–  having regard to the Protocol of 2014 to the International Labour Organization (ILO) Forced Labour Convention of 1930, which has not been signed by China,

–  having regard to the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights of 2011,

–  having regard to the reports of the Australian Strategic Policy Institute (ASPI) entitled ‘Uyghurs for sale – “Re-education”, forced labour and surveillance beyond Xinjiang’ and ‘Cultural erasure – Tracing the destruction of Uyghur and Islamic spaces in Xinjiang’ published in 2020, as well as its ‘Xinjiang Data Project’,

–  having regard to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights of 1948,

–  having regard to Rule 144(5) and 132(4) of its Rules of Procedure,

A.  whereas the promotion of and respect for human rights, democracy and the rule of law should remain at the centre of the long-standing relationship between the EU and China, in line with the EU’s commitment to upholding these values in its external action and China’s expressed interest in adhering to them in its own development and international cooperation;

B.  whereas the situation in Xinjiang, where more than 10 million Muslim Uyghurs and Kazakhs live, has rapidly deteriorated, particularly since the launch of the Chinese Government’s ‘Strike Hard against Violent Terrorism’ campaign in 2014, and whereas Uyghurs and other primarily Muslim ethnic minorities in the Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Region have been subjected to arbitrary detention, torture, egregious restrictions on religious practice and culture, and a digitalised surveillance system so pervasive that every aspect of daily life is monitored – through facial recognition cameras, mobile phone scans, the large-scale illegal collection, aggregation and processing of personal data, and an extensive and intrusive police presence; whereas there has been a general strengthening of the Chinese regime and a toughening of the treatment of minorities, in particular of Uyghurs, Tibetans and Mongolians, with the aim of assimilating them through the imposition of the Chinese majority lifestyle and communist ideology; whereas predictive policing platforms such as the Integrated Joint Operation Platform have been extensively used by the police to track suspicious individuals based on everyday, lawful and non-violent behaviour;

C.  whereas according to credible reports, more than one million people, are, or have been, detained in what are being called ‘political re-education’ centres, in the largest mass incarceration of an ethnic minority population in the world today; whereas the internment camp system in the Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Region is expanding, with more than 380 suspected detention facilities having been newly built or expanded since 2017, and at least 61 detention sites newly constructed or expanded between July 2019 and July 2020;

D.  whereas the suffering of the Uyghurs also extends to the younger generation; whereas according to reports, young children have been sent to state-run orphanages even if only one of their parents has been detained in the internment camps; whereas according to research findings, by the end of 2019, over 880 000 Uyghur children had been placed in boarding facilities; whereas credible research shows that the Chinese authorities have implemented an official scheme of targeted birth prevention measures against Uyghur women in an effort to reduce Uyghur birth rates; whereas, as part of this scheme, the Chinese authorities are systematically subjecting Uyghur women of childbearing age to forced abortions, intrauterine injections and sterilisation, with 80 % of all new intrauterine device (IUD) placements in China in 2018 performed in the Uyghur region, despite the fact that it makes up only 1.8 % of China’s population; whereas such measures to prevent births within the Uyghur population could meet the criteria for belonging to the worst crimes against humanity;

E.  whereas in August 2018, the UN Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination challenged the Government of the People’s Republic of China over abuses in Xinjiang, including the establishment of mass arbitrary detention camps; whereas in September 2018, during her first ever speech in the role, the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights Michelle Bachelet noted the ‘deeply disturbing allegations of large-scale arbitrary detentions of Uyghurs and other Muslim communities, in so-called re-education camps across Xinjiang’;

F.  whereas the new regulations on religious affairs in China that took effect on 1 February 2018 are more restrictive towards religious groups and activities, and force them to fall more closely into line with party policies; whereas freedom of religion and conscience has reached a new low point since the start of the economic reforms and the opening up of China in the late 1970s; whereas China is home to one of the largest populations of religious prisoners; whereas credible reports have revealed the deliberate and systematic destruction of mosques, churches and other places of worship, mostly since 2017, reducing their numbers to the lowest level since the Cultural Revolution;

G.  whereas China has not yet ratified four of the eight ILO Fundamental Conventions, namely Convention no 87 on Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to Organise, Convention no 98 on the Right to Organise and Collective Bargaining, Convention no 29 on Forced Labour and Convention no 105 on the Abolition of Forced Labour; whereas China has ratified Convention no 111 on Discrimination (Employment and Occupation) and Convention no 100 on Equal Remuneration; whereas WTO agreements allow for the adoption of trade measures relating to the products of prison labour;

H.  whereas, in parallel to the ‘Strike Hard Campaign against Violent Terrorism’, labour transfer programmes have increased since 2014, suggesting they have become a political priority for the Chinese Government as a tool of poverty alleviation in the Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Region; whereas there are several credible reports of forced Uyghur labour in production chains in the clothing, technology and automotive sectors, including the March 2020 report of the ASPI, which identified 27 factories in nine Chinese provinces that are using the labour of at least 80 000 Uyghurs transferred from Xinjiang between 2017 and 2019; whereas these factories supply at least 82 global brands, including those owned by many European multinational companies;

I.  whereas China is one of the world’s largest cotton producers, with the Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Region accounting for over 20 % of global cotton production; whereas China is the largest producer and exporter of yarn, and the largest producer and exporter of textiles and apparel; whereas the Chinese Government plans to double manufacturing capacity in the Uyghur Region by 2025, with apparel and textiles forming a key element of that plan; whereas three Uyghur regions alone mobilised at least 570 000 persons into cotton-picking operations through the government’s coercive labour training and transfer scheme in 2018 alone; whereas Xinjiang’s total labour transfer of ethnic minorities into cotton picking likely exceeds that figure by several hundred thousand, making forced labour an intrinsic and generalised characteristic of cotton harvesting in the Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Region; whereas 84 % of Chinese cotton comes from the Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Region, which means that the yarn, textiles and garments made with Chinese cotton are at extraordinarily high risk of being tainted with forced and prison labour, whether manufactured in China or anywhere else in the world;

J.  whereas more than 80 international brand-name corporations have been reported to allegedly profit directly or indirectly from Uyghur forced labour in their supply chains; whereas the current context of oppression prevents independent investigations and audits from being conducted in the Uyghur region;

K.  whereas no reliable means are available to companies to verify that any workplace in the Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Region is free of forced labour or to prevent the use of forced labour in these workplaces in line with the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights and human rights due diligence standards;

L.  whereas under the current EU legislation (either at EU or national levels), companies have no legal responsibility to take action to prevent themselves from contributing to human rights abuses in their supply chains; whereas the EU Non-Financial Reporting Directive imposes a reporting obligation on companies, but does not require them to take steps to prevent harm in their supply chains or allows for them to be held accountable;

M.  whereas on the occasion of his hearing in its Committee on International Trade, Executive Vice‑President Dombrovskis indicated that combating forced labour is a priority for the EU and that, also in the framework of the EU-China Comprehensive Agreement on Investment, EU investment will have to respect the relevant ILO conventions on forced labour;

N.  whereas its Committee on Legal Affairs is currently working on an initiative on ‘corporate due diligence and corporate accountability’; whereas the Council published its conclusions on human rights and decent work in global supply chains on 1 December 2020, which call on the Commission to table a proposal for an EU legal framework on sustainable corporate governance, including cross-sector corporate due diligence obligations along global supply chains; whereas the Commission announced that it will put forward a legislative proposal on ‘Sustainable Corporate Governance’ in the second quarter of 2021, which will address the need for human rights due diligence across value chains;

O.  whereas the Council has adopted a decision and a regulation establishing the EU global human rights sanction regime which enables the EU to impose restrictive measures on targeted individuals, entities and bodies, including states and non-state actors, responsible for, involved in or associated with serious human rights violations and abuses worldwide, including slavery;

P.  whereas the US Congress passed the Uyghur Human Rights Policy Act in 2019; whereas on 22 September 2020, the US House of Representatives adopted the Uyghur Forced Labor Prevention Act that imposes various restrictions related to the Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Region, including by prohibiting certain imports from Xinjiang and imposing sanctions on the individuals and entities responsible for human rights violations there;

Q.  whereas China has made progress in the economic and social fields, but is dismally failing to guarantee basic international standards of human rights and fundamental freedoms;

R.  whereas in its Strategic Framework on Human Rights and Democracy, the EU pledged to step up its efforts to promote human rights, democracy and the rule of law across all aspects of its external action, and to place human rights at the centre of its relations with all third countries, including its strategic partners;

1.  Strongly condemns the government-led system of forced labour, in particular the exploitation of Uyghur, ethnic Kazakh and Kyrgyz, and other Muslim minority groups, in factories both within and outside of internment camps in Xinjiang, as well as the transfer of forced labourers to other Chinese administrative divisions, and the fact that well‑known European brands and companies have been benefiting from the use of forced labour; calls on the relevant actors from the private sector to assess their engagements in Xinjiang, to exercise their corporate responsibility, to conduct independent audits of human rights compliance in their full supply chains, and to terminate business relations where these are found to abet human rights violations or, where it is impossible to ascertain whether there have been violations, either directly or indirectly, through the activity of one of their suppliers or business relationships on their value chain in China;

2.  Is deeply concerned about the increasingly oppressive regime that many religious and ethnic minorities, in particular the Uyghurs and the Kazakhs, are facing, which violate their human dignity, as well as their rights to freedom of cultural expression and religious belief, to freedom of speech and expression, and to peaceful assembly and association; deplores the worsening human rights situation across mainland China and in Hong Kong, and demands that the Chinese authorities respect fundamental freedoms;

3.  Deeply deplores the ongoing persecution and the serious and systematic human rights violations that amount to crimes against humanity; urges the Chinese Government to put an immediate end to the practice of arbitrary detention without charge, trial or conviction for criminal offences of members of the Uyghur and other Muslim minorities, to close all camps and detention centres, and to immediately and unconditionally release those detained; calls on the Chinese authorities to cease government‑sponsored programmes of forced labour and mass sterilisation; calls on the Chinese authorities in the Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Region to provide information about the location and medical conditions of those detained, and to immediately release them if there is no evidence of actual criminal activity;

4.  Strongly condemns the extensive use of digital surveillance technologies to monitor and control the population in Xinjiang, and the most recently revealed tests of facial recognition software which could send ‘Uyghur alarms’ to government authorities when its camera systems identify members of the Uyghur minority; regrets the fact that China is not complying with its own commitments entered into by adhering to the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development principles on human-centred artificial intelligence and by having subscribed to the G20 declaration of June 2019, and calls on the Commission and the Member States to continue calling on China to adhere to its own commitments in this regard;

5.  Calls on the Chinese authorities to allow free, meaningful and unhindered access to Xinjiang province, and unrestricted access to the internment camps for journalists and international observers, including to EU officials, following President Xi Jinping’s invitation during the EU-China Summit of 14 September 2020, to the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, the EU Special Representative for Human Rights and the mandate holders of the UN Human Rights Council Special Procedures; calls for the EU and the Member States to continue insisting on the establishment of a UN fact-finding mission to Xinjiang and the appointment of a Special Envoy;

6.  Requests China to allow a mission from the European Parliament to Xinjiang on the condition that it is given free and unrestricted access, while guaranteeing confidentiality and safety for the local population;

7.  Strongly condemns the reported massive campaign by the Chinese Communist Party to suppress Uyghur birth rates in Xinjiang, and calls on the Chinese authorities to put an immediate end to any measures aimed at preventing births in the Uyghur population, including forced sterilisations, abortions or sanctions against birth control violations;

8.  Urges the Chinese Government to ratify and implement ILO Convention n°29 on Forced Labour, ILO Convention n°105 on the Abolition of Forced Labour, ILO Convention n°87 on Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to Organise and ILO Convention n°98 on the Right to Organise and to Collective Bargaining; urges China to ratify the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights;

9.  Expresses deep concern over reports concerning the harassment of Uyghurs abroad by the Chinese authorities in order to force them to act as informants against other Uyghurs, return to Xinjiang or remain silent about the situation there, sometimes by detaining their family members; calls on the Commission and all EU Member States to investigate these reports as a matter of urgency, to ensure the protection of members of the Xinjiang diaspora, and to expedite asylum requests from Uyghurs and other Turkic Muslims; welcomes the decision taken by Germany and Sweden to suspend the return of all ethnic Uyghurs, Kazakhs or other Turkic Muslims to China in view of the risk of arbitrary detention, torture or other ill-treatment;

10.  Calls on the Commission and the Member States to start a dialogue with states where Uyghurs are at risk of deportation to China to prevent such deportations from occurring; calls on members of the Council to suspend their extradition treaties with the People’s Republic of China, to prevent the extradition of Uyghurs, citizens of Hong Kong, Tibetans, or Chinese dissidents in Europe to stand political trial in the People’s Republic of China;

11.  Calls on the EU to proactively work towards an independent UN inquiry on China with a view to ensuring accountability for the crimes committed;

12.  Express its deep concern at the Chinese state’s measures to ensure the ‘comprehensive supervision’ of Xinjiang through the installation of Skynet electronic surveillance in major urban areas and GPS trackers in all motor vehicles, the use of facial recognition scanners at checkpoints and train and petrol stations, using software based on artificial intelligence camera systems aimed at identifying Uyghurs and other members of ethnic minority groups, and the blood collection campaign by Xinjiang police in order to further expand China’s DNA database; expresses deep concern at the latest revelations concerning a list containing details of more than 2 000 Uighur detainees held in Aksu prefecture between 2016 and 2018; expresses further concerns that China is exporting such technologies to authoritarian regimes around the world; calls for the EU and the Member States to monitor the acquisition and development of these technologies, and the activity of their providers, and to refrain from giving them access to EU and national public funding and public procurement;

13.  Criticises the procurement of thermal cameras from Hikivision by Parliament’s administration and by the Commission; insists on the introduction of a circumspect procurement policy that takes human rights concerns duly into account; urges Parliament’s administration and its President to immediately sever any direct or indirect business relationship with Hikivision, and to improve the transparency of its procurement activities;

14.  Calls on the Chinese authorities to immediately and unconditionally release the Uyghur scholar and Sakharov Prize 2019 winner Ilham Tohti, and to ensure, in the meantime, that he has regular and unrestricted access to his family and the lawyers of his choice, and that he is not subjected to torture or other ill-treatment; calls for an immediate, effective and impartial investigation into the alleged torture of Ilham Tohti and for those responsible to be brought to justice;

15.  Welcomes the inclusion in the Commission’s Work Programme for 2021 of a legislative initiative on mandatory human rights supply chain due diligence legislation; calls on the Commission to adopt relevant legislative proposals during the second quarter of 2021 at the latest and as planned, comprising three distinct, yet mutually reinforcing proposals on directors’ duties and sustainable corporate governance, on corporate human rights and environmental due diligence, and on the reform of the Non-Financial Reporting Directive; is of the view that, in order to effectively address the issue of forced labour and other human rights violations in companies’ supply chains, such legislation should also include a prohibition of placing the relevant goods on the EU market; recalls, in this respect, its position in its recent resolution on the Trade Policy Review, calling for complementary measures, such as banning the import of products linked to severe human rights violations such as forced labour or child labour;

16.  Calls on the Member States, in accordance with their competences and national circumstances, to step up their efforts to effectively implement the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights, including through new or updated National Action Plans containing a mix of voluntary and mandatory measures;

17.  Is of the opinion that the Comprehensive Agreement on Investment with China must include adequate commitments to respect international conventions against forced labour; considers, in particular, that China should therefore ratify ILO Conventions 29 and 105;

18.  Welcomes the recent agreement reached by the co-legislators on the reform of the EU Dual Use Regulation on the grounds of national security and human rights considerations;

19.  Urges the Commission, the Council and the Member States to take all necessary measures to persuade the Chinese Government to close the camps and to end all human rights violations in Xinjiang and in other places, such as Tibet; calls for the EU and its Member States to reiterate this message to the Chinese Government on every occasion and at the highest levels; regrets the fact that the approach taken and the tools used by the EU so far have not yielded tangible progress in China’s human rights record, which has only deteriorated over the last decade; urges the Commission to devise and implement a holistic EU strategy with a view to securing genuine progress on human rights in China; urges the Chinese authorities to continue to implement the national reforms required to ratify the 1966 International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, which was signed by China in 1998, and to implement the recommendations of UN human rights bodies;

20.  Welcomes the adoption of the EU Global Human Rights Sanctions Regime on 7 December 2020; calls on the Member States and the High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy to swiftly evaluate the adoption of sanctions against the Chinese officials and state-led entities, such as Xinjiang Production and Construction Corporation, responsible for devising and implementing the policy of mass detention of Uyghurs and other Turkic Muslims in Xinjiang, for the use of forced labour, and for orchestrating the severe repression of religious freedom, freedom of movement and other basic rights in the region and in other places, such as Tibet;

21.  Calls on the Council and Commission to implement the package of measures agreed in July, including the creation of a ‘lifeboat scheme’ for oppressed people in China, following the further deterioration in human rights and fundamental freedoms;

22.  Reiterates its support for the forthcoming EU-US Dialogue on China, and urges that human rights should feature prominently on its agenda; calls for greater coordination among democracies in implementing sanctions and other measures to address human rights violations in mainland China and Hong Kong, as well as the geopolitical challenges posed by the People’s Republic of China;

23.  Instructs its President to forward this resolution to the Council, the Commission, the Vice President of the Commission / High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy, and the Government and Parliament of the People’s Republic of China.

(1) Texts adopted, P9_TA(2019)0110. (2) Texts adopted, P8_TA(2019)0422. (3) OJ C 11, 13.1.2020, p. 25. (4) OJ C 433, 23.12.2019, p. 103. (5) OJ C 238, 6.7.2018, p. 108. (6) OJ C 199 E, 7.7.2012, p. 185. (7) OJ C 285 E, 21.10.2010, p. 80. (8) Texts adopted, P9_TA(2020)0337. (9) OJ L 410 I, 7.12.2020, p. 1. (10) OJ L 410 I, 7.12.2020, p. 13.

European Parliament resolution of 17 December 2020 on Iran, in particular the case of 2012 Sakharov Prize Laureate Nasrin Sotoudeh (2020/2914(RSP))

P9_TA(2020)0376 RC-B9-0440/2020

The European Parliament,

–  having regard its previous resolutions on Iran, in particular that of 13 December 2018 on Iran, notably the case of Nasrin Sotoudeh(1), and that of 17 September 2019 on the situation of women’s rights defenders and imprisoned EU dual nationals(2),

–  having regard the statement of the United Nations Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR) of 9 December 2020 on Iran, requesting the release of Nasrin Sotoudeh,

–  having regard to the statement of the Spokesperson of the European External Action Service (EEAS) of 12 December 2020 on the execution of Mr Ruhollah Zam,

–  having regard the statement of the OHCHR of 25 November 2020 calling on Iran to halt the execution of Ahmadreza Djalali,

–  having regard the statement of the UN Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in the Islamic Republic of Iran of 26 October 2020 urging accountability for violent protest crackdowns and his report of 21 July 2020 on the situation of human rights in the Islamic Republic of Iran,

–  having regard to the 5th European Union – Iran High Level Dialogue of 9 December 2020,

–  having regard to the EU Guidelines on Human Rights Defenders,

–  having regard to the EU Guidelines on the Death Penalty, on Torture and on Freedom of Expression,

–  having regard to the awarding of the Sakharov Prize for Freedom of Thought to Nasrin Sotoudeh in 2012,

–  having regard to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights of 1948,

–  having regard to Rule 144(5) and 132(4) of its Rules of Procedure,

A.  whereas Nasrin Sotoudeh, the winner of the 2012 Sakharov Prize for Freedom of Thought, is an Iranian lawyer, human rights activist and political prisoner who, over the past 15 years, has fought for the rights of women, children, religious minorities, journalists and artists, as well as those facing the death penalty, and as a result, has been continuously targeted and harassed by the Iranian authorities and has been arrested and imprisoned several times; whereas her prosecution and the charges brought against her demonstrate the grave extent to which the Iranian judiciary is criminalising human rights activism;

B.  whereas Nasrin Sotoudeh has been arbitrarily detained since 13 June 2018 for representing women who protested against Iran’s mandatory hijab law and was sentenced in absentia in March 2019 to 33 years in prison and 148 lashes; whereas UN experts have on numerous occasions raised serious concerns that her current detention is arbitrary and called for her release;

C.  whereas Nasrin Sotoudeh was temporarily released on 7 November 2020 following a positive test for COVID-19; whereas she was ordered to return to Qarchak prison, a women’s detention centre in Teheran known for cruel and inhuman detention conditions, on 2 December 2020; whereas this decision on the part of the Iranian authorities may have life-threatening consequences for her and further extends her arbitrary imprisonment in violation of Iran’s obligations under international human rights law;

D.  whereas Nasrin Sotudeh’s family, relatives and friends, notably her husband Reza Khandan, have been targeted by the Iranian authorities with the aim of silencing them and stopping any campaigning for the release of Nasrin Sotoudeh;

E.  whereas the arrest of Nasrin Sotoudeh is part of an intensified crackdown against women’s rights defenders in Iran; whereas women’s rights defenders who have actively campaigned to enhance women’s empowerment and rights have suffered harassment, arbitrary arrests and detentions, and their rights to a fair trial due process have been violated;

F.  whereas Ahmadreza Djalali, an Iranian-Swedish medical doctor and academic and professor at VUB University in Belgium and Universita degli Studi del Piemonte Orientale in Italy who was sentenced to death on spurious espionage charges in October 2017, has reportedly been transferred to solitary confinement in preparation for his execution, despite widely held findings which confirm that his trial was grossly unfair and that his conviction was based on a forced confession extracted under torture; whereas he has received threats from Iranian officials to kill him and his family in Sweden and Iran; whereas in a letter written from Evin political prison, he wrote that the reason behind his detention was that he objected to spying for Iran against European institutions; whereas Dr Djalali was informed on 24 November 2020 that his execution was imminent;

G.  whereas on 12 December 2020, journalist Ruhollah Zam was executed by hanging following a rushed Supreme Court decision of 8 December 2020 to uphold his capital sentence for vague charges of ‘corruption on earth’, which were supported by forcibly extracted confessions; whereas Mr Zam, who had been granted asylum in France in 2009 and ran a popular Telegram channel critical of the Iranian authorities, was lured to Iraq and kidnapped and taken to Iran by Iranian authorities; whereas his execution for exercising his right to freedom of expression constitutes a blatant violation of international human rights law;

H.  whereas the EU national and prominent French-Iranian academic Fariba Adelkhah, a research director at Sciences Po University Paris, has been arbitrarily detained since June 2019 at Evin prison;

I.  whereas EU-Iranian dual nationals continue to be arrested, with arrest followed by prolonged solitary confinement and interrogations, with a lack of due process, no access to a fair trial and long prison sentences based on vague or unspecified ‘national security’ and ‘espionage’ charges; whereas Iran does not recognise dual nationality, thereby limiting the access foreign embassies have to their dual nationals being held there;

J.  whereas Iranian courts fall short in providing due process and fair trials, with denial of access to legal counsel, particularly during the investigation period, and denial of consular, UN or humanitarian organisation visits; whereas sentences by the Iranian judiciary are often based on vague or unspecified national security and espionage charges; whereas there are no independent mechanisms for ensuring accountability within the judiciary, and serious concerns remain over the politicisation of judges;

K.  whereas civil society protests in Iran against poverty, inflation, corruption and political authoritarianism have been met by the Iranian authorities with severe repression; whereas the Iranian intelligence service has intensified its crackdown on civil society workers and human rights defenders, lawyers, environmental activists, women’s rights defenders, students, journalists, teachers, truck drivers and peaceful activists;

L.  whereas UN human rights experts have called on Iran to guarantee the rights of human rights defenders and lawyers who have been jailed for publicly supporting protests against the mandatory wearing of the hijab in Iran and have reiterated grave concerns with regard to the continuing executions of juvenile offenders in Iran;

M.  whereas there have been numerous reports regarding the inhuman and degrading conditions in prisons and the refusal to provide adequate access to medical care during detention with the aim of intimidating, punishing, or coercing detainees, in contravention of the UN Standard Minimum Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners;

N.  whereas dozens of human rights defenders, journalists, lawyers, and activists continue to remain behind bars for peaceful activism and have been excluded from clemency and temporary releases implemented during the COVID-19 pandemic to reduce overcrowding in prisons;

O.  whereas the UN Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in the Islamic Republic of Iran, in his annual report delivered to the UN General Assembly on 21 July 2020, was dismayed by Iran’s continued use of the death penalty and its high execution figures and affirmed that reports received demonstrate a continued trend of restricting freedom of expression and ongoing discrimination against minorities and women;

P.  whereas in this same report, the UN Special Rapporteur affirms that despite clear evidence that Iranian security forces used excessive and lethal force which caused the deaths of over 300 people, including women and children, at protests in November 2019, nearly one year on, the Iranian authorities have failed to conduct an investigation compliant with international standards;

Q.  whereas the use of death sentences against protesters has been increasing, with a pattern of so-called confessions extracted under torture, after which protesters are executed without their lawyers or family members being informed, as was the case for wrestling star Navid Afkari, murdered by execution on 12 September 2020 for charges he fully denied; whereas his brothers remain in prison and have received very lengthy sentences for having participated in anti-government protests;

R.  whereas Parliament adopted a resolution calling for the establishment of an EEAS StratCom unit dedicated to the Middle East, notably Iran;

S.  whereas mass surveillance technologies are being used to quell online and street protests, including through online censorship; whereas state media have run disinformation campaigns against protesters and human rights defenders, with the involvement of leading national figures, with the aim of distorting the November 2019 protests;

1.  Strongly condemns the arbitrary detention, sentencing and, recently, return to prison of woman human rights defender and lawyer Nasrin Sotoudeh, and calls on the authorities of the Islamic Republic of Iran to immediately and unconditionally release her, as a matter of urgency, and allow her to receive the healthcare she requires;

2.  Strongly condemns the execution on 12 December 2020 of French-based journalist Ruhollah Zam, editor of the Amad News Telegram channel, and on 12 September 2020 of wrestler Navid Afkari; expresses its deepest condolences to their families, friends and colleagues; calls on the EU and its Member States’ institutions to provide more effective protection to Iranian nationals residing in the EU who are subjected to harassment and threats from Iranian intelligence services;

3.  Calls on Iran to immediately halt the imminent execution of Swedish-Iranian academic Ahmadreza Djalali, release and compensate him, and stop threatening his family in Iran and Sweden; strongly condemns, furthermore, his torture, arbitrary detention and death sentence; notes that Dr Djalali was told on 24 November 2020 that the prosecution authorities had issued an order to carry out the sentence and that he was moved to solitary confinement in section 209 of Evin prison; reiterates its calls for urgent interventions by the Vice-President of the Commission / High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy (VP/HR) and EU Member States, aimed at halting any plans to execute Ahmadreza Djalali, quashing his death sentence and securing his immediate release;

4.  Calls on all EU Member States to jointly make public statements and undertake diplomatic initiatives to monitor unfair trials and visit prisons where human rights defenders and other prisoners of conscience are being detained, including EU nationals in Iran, in line with the EU Guidelines on Human Rights Defenders;

5.  Calls on the Government of Iran to immediately and unconditionally release the hundreds of people arbitrarily detained for peacefully exercising their rights to freedom of opinion and expression including protesters, journalists, media workers, political dissidents, artists, writers and human rights defenders, including lawyers, women’s rights defenders, labour rights activists, minority rights activists, conservationists, anti-death penalty campaigners and others including those demanding truth, justice and reparation for the mass extrajudicial executions of the 1980s; emphasises that, pending their release, the Iranian authorities must guarantee their physical and mental;

6.  Urges Iran to immediately drop all charges and lift all travel restrictions on all European-Iranian dual nationals who are subjected to arbitrary detention and other restrictive measures, such as in the cases of Fariba Adelkhah, Nahid Taghavi, Kameel Ahmady and Nazanin Zaghari-Ratcliffe; reiterates its demand for the immediate and unconditional release of Kamran Ghaderi, Massoud Mossaheb and Morad Tahbaz, who are currently being detained in Iranian prisons, and denounces, once again, the continuing practice of imprisonment of EU-Iranian dual nationals by the Iranian judiciary following unfair trials, and their lack of access to consular support;

7.  Expresses concern at the physical assault and forcible transfer, on 13 December 2020, of the woman human rights defender Golrokh Iraee to Evin prison; calls for the immediate clarification of her situation and reiterates its demand for her release;

8.  Condemns in its strongest terms the crackdown on the rights to freedom of expression, association and peaceful assembly; urges the Iranian authorities to ensure the full implementation of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, to which it is a party, and to ensure the right of all detainees to due process and a fair trial, including the right to be represented by a lawyer of their own choosing;

9.  Condemns the restrictions on civic space, the use of the death penalty as a weapon of political repression, the amputations, floggings and other cruel and inhuman punishments included in Iran’s penal code, the cruel and inhuman detention conditions, confessions obtained through torture or ill-treatment and the trial of civilians before revolutionary courts; denounces the use of the death penalty as a deterrent against peaceful dissent human rights activism and the right to exercise freedom of expression; calls on the Iranian Government to declare an immediate moratorium on all pending executions with a view to the full abolition of the death penalty;

10.  Notes the advances made by Iranian women in the fields of education, science and research, exemplified by the fact that the majority of students in Iranian universities are women; urges the Islamic Republic of Iran to eliminate, in law and in practice, all forms of discrimination and other human rights violations against women and girls; strongly supports the Iranian women and human rights defenders who keep on defending human rights despite the difficulties and personal repercussions they are facing;

11.  Calls on the Iranian authorities to address all forms of discrimination against persons belonging to ethnic and religious minorities, including Christians and Baha’i, and LGBTI persons, and to immediately and unconditionally release all those imprisoned for exercising their right to freedom of religion or belief or sexual orientation;

12.  Calls for the establishment of a UN-led inquiry into the crimes under international law and other serious human rights violations committed during the protests of November 2019 and January 2020; urges the EU and its Member States to adopt targeted restrictive measures against the officials responsible for those abuses;

13.  Strongly supports the aspirations of the Iranian people who want to live in a free, stable, inclusive and democratic country which respects its national and international commitments on human rights and fundamental freedoms; calls on the Iranian authorities to ensure independent and impartial investigations into all of the deaths that occurred at these protests, into all of those suspected of bearing criminal responsibility for the killing of protesters, and into all cases of victims being subjected to ongoing enforced disappearances and extrajudicial executions; calls on the Iranian authorities, furthermore, to exhume and return the remains of the victims to their families, to identify and prosecute the perpetrators, and to provide effective remedies for the victims;

14.  Welcomes the adoption of the Human Rights Sanctions Mechanism, the so-called Magnitsky Act, by the Council as an important EU instrument to sanction violators of human rights; calls for targeted measures against Iranian officials who have committed serious human rights violations including the recent executions of Ruhollah Zam and Navid Afkari and the arbitrary detention of dual and foreign nationals in Iran, as well as of those involved in gross human rights abuses, including judges who have sentenced to death journalists, human rights defenders, political dissidents and activists;

15.  Considers that further targeted sanctions will be necessary if the Iranian authorities do not free Dr Djalali, as the EU and its Member States are requesting;

16.  Calls on the Council to raise human rights violations as a core component of its bilateral cooperation with Iran, in line with the Joint Statement agreed by the VP/HR and the Iranian Foreign Minister in April 2016; calls on the EEAS to continue including human rights, particularly the situation of human rights defenders, in the context of the EU-Iran High Level Dialogue and strongly calls on the Iranian authorities to halt all acts of intimidation and reprisals against human rights defenders for communicating with EU and UN officials;

17.  Calls on the EEAS and EU Member States to fully support the laureates of the Sakharov Prize through their diplomatic and consular representations and by establishing an internal interinstitutional task force in support of Sakharov Prize laureates who are at risk; is of the view that support for laureates at risk should be enhanced on the part of EU delegations;

18.  Requests that the EEAS strengthen its capabilities to counter Iranian interference and disinformation on European soil; urges the Iranian authorities to lift their censorship of online services and content and to desist from using Internet shutdowns that are incompatible with international human rights;

19.  Calls on the EU and its Member States to address the particular vulnerability of women human rights defenders through adequate protection measures that shield them from the specific and gendered risks they are exposed to;

20.  Calls on the Iranian authorities to extend a standing invitation to the visit of all Special Procedures of the UN Human Rights Council and to cooperate in a proactive manner; urges them to ensure particularly that the UN Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in the Islamic Republic of Iran is allowed to enter the country;

21.  Instructs its President to forward this resolution to the Council, the Commission, the European External Action Service, the Vice-President of the Commission / High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy, the governments and parliaments of the Member States, the Supreme Leader of the Islamic Republic of Iran, the President of the Islamic Republic of Iran, and the Members of the Iranian Majlis.

(1) OJ C 388, 13.11.2020, p. 127. (2) Texts adopted, P9_TA(2019)0019.

European Parliament resolution of 17 December 2020 on the implementation of the EU water legislation (2020/2613(RSP))

P9_TA(2020)0377 B9-0401/2020

The European Parliament,

–  having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular Article 191 thereof,

–  having regard to Directive 2000/60/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council establishing a framework for Community action in the field of water policy(1) (‘Water Framework Directive’ – WFD),

–  having regard to Council Directive 91/271/EEC of 21 May 1991 concerning urban waste-water treatment(2) (‘Urban Waste Water Treatment Directive’ – UWWTD),

–  having regard to Directive 2006/118/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2006 on the protection of groundwater against pollution and deterioration(3) (‘Groundwater Directive’),

–  having regard to Directive 2007/60/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 October 2007 on the assessment and management of flood risks(4) (‘Floods Directive’),

–  having regard to Council Directive 91/676/EEC of 12 December 1991 concerning the protection of waters against pollution caused by nitrates from agricultural sources(5) (‘Nitrates Directive’),

–  having regard to Directive 2008/105/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 December 2008 on environmental quality standards in the field of water policy, amending and subsequently repealing Council Directives 82/176/EEC, 83/513/EEC, 84/156/EEC, 84/491/EEC, 86/280/EEC and amending Directive 2000/60/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council(6) (‘Environmental Quality Standards Directive’),

–  having regard to Regulation (EU) 2020/741 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 May 2020 on minimum requirements for water reuse(7),

–   having regard to Directive 2008/56/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 June 2008 establishing a framework for community action in the field of marine environmental policy (Marine Strategy Framework Directive)(8),

–  having regard to Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 December 2006 concerning the Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation and Restriction of Chemicals (REACH), establishing a European Chemicals Agency, amending Directive 1999/45/EC and repealing Council Regulation (EEC) No 793/93 and Commission Regulation (EC) No 1488/94 as well as Council Directive 76/769/EEC and Commission Directives 91/155/EEC, 93/67/EEC, 93/105/EC and 2000/21/EC(9) (the REACH Regulation),

–  having regard to Directive 2010/75/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 24 November 2010 on industrial emissions (integrated pollution prevention and control)(10),

–  having regard to the Commission report of 10 December 2019 on the Fitness Check of the Water Framework Directive and the Floods Directive and its executive summary of the same date thereon,

–  having regard to the Commission evaluation of 13 December 2019 of the Council Directive 91/271/EEC of 21 May 1991, concerning urban waste-water treatment and the executive summary of the same date thereon,

–  having regard to the Commission proposal of 1 February 2018 for a directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on the quality of water intended for human consumption (recast) (COM(2017)0753),

–  having regard to the proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on the establishment of a Programme for the Union’s action in the field of health – for the period 2021-2027 and repealing Regulation (EU) No 282/2014 (“EU4Health Programme”) (COM(2020)0405),

–  having regard to its resolution of 28 November 2019 on the climate and environment emergency(11),

–  having regard to the European Environment Agency (EEA) report of 4 December 2019 entitled ‘The European environment – state and outlook 2020: Knowledge for transition to a sustainable Europe,

–  having regard to the Commission communication of 11 December 2019 on the European Green Deal (COM(2019)0640),

–  having regard to the Commission communication of 10 March 2020 entitled ‘A New Industrial Strategy for Europe’, and in particular section 2.2 thereof entitled ‘An industry that paves the way to climate-neutrality’ (COM(2020)0102),

–  having regard to the EU Biodiversity Strategy for 2030(12),

–  having regard to the Farm to Fork Strategy(13),

–  having regard to the 7th Environment Action Programme(14),

–  having regard to the Commission communication of 14 January 2020 on the Sustainable Europe Investment Plan and the European Green Deal Investment Plan (COM(2020)0021),

–  having regard to the Commission communication of 11 March 2020 entitled ‘A new Circular Economy Action Plan for a cleaner and more competitive Europe’ (COM(2020)0098),

–  having regard to the Commission communication of 27 May 2020 entitled ‘Europe’s moment: Repair and Prepare for the Next Generation’ (COM(2020)0456),

–  having regard to the Commission communication of 11 March 2019 entitled ‘European Union Strategic Approach to Pharmaceuticals in the Environment’ (COM(2019)0128),

–  having regard to the Paris Agreement,

–  having regard to the study by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) of May 2020 entitled ‘Financing Water Supply, Sanitation and Flood Protection - Challenges in EU Member States and Policy Options’,

–  having regard to the UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), particularly SDG 6 on clean water and sanitation(15) and SDG 14 on the conservation and sustainable use of the oceans, seas and marine resources,

–  having regard to the global assessment report of the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES) of May 2019 on biodiversity and ecosystem services,

–   having regard to Commission report of November 2019 entitled ‘Evaluation of the Impact of the CAP on Water’,

–  having regard to the UN Resolution 64/292 of 28 July 2010, which recognises the human right to water and sanitation,

–  having regard to the Court of Justice judgment of 28 May 2020 in Case C-535/18, IL and others v Land Nordrhein-Westfalen,

–  having regard to the Court of Justice judgment of 1 July 2015 in Case C-461/13, Bund für Umwelt und Naturschutz Deutschland e.V. v Bundesrepublik Deutschland (the Weser Case),

–  having regard to the European Citizens’ Initiative ‘Right2Water’ and the Parliament report on the follow-up to the European Citizens’ Initiative Right2Water,

–  having regard to the opinion of the Committee of the Regions of 2 July 2020 on the Fitness Check of the Water Framework Directive, Groundwater Directive, Environmental Quality Standards Directive and Floods Directive(16),

–  having regard to opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee of 12 December 2018 on ‘Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on minimum requirements for water reuse (rolling programme)’(17),

–  having regard to the questions to the Council and to the Commission on implementation of the EU water legislation (O-000077/2020 – B9‑0077/2020 and O-000078/2020 – B9‑0078/2020),

–  having regard to Rules 136(5) and 132(2) of its Rules of Procedure,

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

A.  whereas water is essential for life and water management plays a vital role in the preservation of the EU’s ecosystem services, as well as in resource use and economic production; whereas the EU has to produce effective responses to the current water challenges and manage existing water resources efficiently, as they directly affect human health, the environment, its quality and ecosystems, energy production, agriculture and food security;

B.  whereas water is an essential element in the food cycle; whereas it is necessary that ground and surface water is of good quality and available in sufficient quantities in order to achieve a fair, healthy, environmentally friendly and sustainable food system as described in the Farm to Fork Strategy; whereas clean and sufficient water is an essential element in implementing and achieving a real circular economy in the EU;

C.  whereas water represents great value for the EU economy and whereas the EU’s water-dependent sectors generate 26 % of the EU’s annual gross added value, making it crucial to ensure continued availability of good-quality water, in sufficient quantities to serve all uses;

D.  whereas the WFD established a framework to protect 110 000 bodies of surface water in the EU, aiming to achieve ‘good ecological and chemical status’ by 2015, to protect 13 400 bodies of groundwater in the EU, aiming to achieve ‘good quantitative and chemical status’ by the same deadline, and to protect drinking water resources pursuant to Article 7(2); whereas the Fitness Check found significant shortcomings in the implementation of EU water legislation, the objectives of which are unlikely to be achieved by the final 2027 deadline unless all required implementation efforts are immediately initiated in the Member States and unless water-related sectoral policies are aligned with WFD requirements; whereas water management planning and programmes of measures (PoMs) should continue beyond the 2027 deadline, leading to further improvement of water quality and quantity;

E.  whereas 74 % of the area of bodies of groundwater is in good chemical status and whereas 89 % is in good quantitative status; whereas the gross nitrogen balance in the EU was reduced by 10 % between 2004 and 2015(18);

F.  whereas good chemical status has been achieved for only 38 % of surface water and just 40 % is in good ecological status or potential, and whereas the status of 16 % of surface water is still unknown because of a lack of data; whereas 81 % of surface water would achieve good chemical status if it were not polluted by ubiquitous, persistent bioaccumulative and toxic substances (uPBTs), such as mercury; whereas only one of the four WFD freshwater indicators analysed by the EEA has shown progress in the last 10-15 years(19);

G.  whereas according to the ‘one out, all out’ principle, water status is considered good only if all elements of the assessment are considered good, which does not reflect improvements in individual parameters of water quality; whereas good status depends not only on mitigation measures to address current pressures, but also on restoration measures to address pressures from the past and on timely preventive measures against emerging threats(20);

H.  whereas the effectiveness of the WFD and the achievement of its objectives depends upon its implementation and enforcement by the competent authorities in the Member States, on ensuring adequate funding, including through EU financial instruments, on the implementation of other pieces of EU legislation, and on better integration of water objectives in other policies; whereas stakeholder involvement is key to effective implementation;

I.  whereas Article 7(3) of the WFD stipulates that the Member States must ensure that the bodies of water used for producing drinking water are protected with the aim of avoiding deterioration in their quality; whereas the Fitness Check clearly states that little progress has been made on protected areas for drinking water;

J.  whereas it is of crucial importance to tackle chemical and other causes of pollution in surface water and groundwater at source as a priority as it is the most sustainable, effective and cost-effective measure, alongside implementing the polluter-pays principle;

K.  whereas the WFD spells out the need to protect waters used for the abstraction of drinking water; whereas drinking water operators should be able to rely on high-quality water resources so that citizens do not have to pay for expensive treatments; whereas it is therefore necessary to reduce pollution at the source;

L.  whereas the 2019 IPBES global assessment report on biodiversity and ecosystem services names water pollution as an important threat to global biodiversity; whereas freshwater biodiversity is among the most threatened in Europe and whereas water pollution has a negative impact on flora and fauna; whereas European wetlands, which serve as natural carbon sinks, have decreased by 50 % since 1970 and whereas freshwater species have declined by 83 % since then;

M.  whereas climate change is a major threat for water resources around the world, both in terms of high and low quantities of water; whereas healthy and resilient freshwater ecosystems are better able to mitigate the effects of and adapt to climate change;

N.  whereas the WFD does not include specific provisions to address climate change impacts; whereas in its communication on the European Green Deal, the Commission nevertheless acknowledges that natural functions of ground and surface water must be restored; whereas the Fitness Check found that the WFD ‘is sufficiently prescriptive with regard to the pressures to be addressed, and yet flexible enough to reinforce its implementation as necessary with regard to emerging challenges not mentioned in the Directive such as climate change, water scarcity and pollutants of emerging concern’;

O.  whereas urban areas are constantly growing and increasing pressure on waste water treatment plants; whereas the main and partly unregulated point source of water pollution in the EU is the discharge of untreated or inadequately treated urban and/or industrial waste water; whereas the UWWTD was not initially designed to treat the release of chemical substances, pharmaceutical residue or microplastics into bodies of water; whereas the UWWTD was effective in reducing targeted pollutants to bodies of water by reducing the loads of biochemical oxygen demand, nitrogen and phosphorus in treated waste water across the EU; whereas nevertheless, more attention should be paid to both existing and emerging sources of pollution; whereas another main diffuse source of water pollution is agriculture, due to releases of nutrients, pesticides, antibiotics and other pollutants into drainage basins and rivers; whereas water-related provisions of the current CAP have been insufficient to help achieve the objectives of the WFD; whereas diffuse pollution is an obstacle to the implementation of the polluter pays principle;

P.  whereas one third of European countries suffer from water scarcity i.e. they have less than 5 000 m3 of water per head annually(21); whereas, in the event of conflicts over the allocation of water resources, the safeguarding of the human right to water must take priority; whereas 13 Member States declared that they are at risk of desertification at the UN Convention to Combat Desertification(22);

Q.  whereas water abstraction puts significant pressure on EU water sources; whereas about a quarter of water diverted from the natural environment in the EU is used for agriculture; whereas an agreement on the new regulation on minimum requirements for water reuse was reached, which will facilitate the use of treated urban waste water for agricultural irrigation;

R.  whereas there are situations in which entities managing bodies of water are financed from activities that deteriorate the chemical and ecological status of bodies of water, impeding the achievement of the objectives of the WFD; whereas in such situations, conflicts of interest are hard to avoid and they keep the entities managing bodies of water going in vicious circles, making them dependant on activities that deteriorate bodies of water;

S.  whereas 60 % of river basins are in transnational regions, which makes effective transboundary cooperation crucial; whereas 20 European countries depend on other countries for more than 10 % of their water resources, with five countries relying on over 75 % of their resources coming from abroad via rivers; whereas non-compliance with the UWWTD in border regions causes deterioration of cross-border WFD bodies of water, which makes it impossible to reach WFD goals in the receiving Member State;

T.  whereas river connectivity, from small streams through to estuaries and deltas, is crucial for migratory species of fish, the life stages of which are a cornerstone of the respective ecosystems and the food chain, and which are gaining increasing socio-cultural value in fishing communities;

U.  whereas the overall energy consumption of the water sector in the EU is significant and needs to be more efficient in order to contribute to the goals of the Paris Agreement, the EU’s 2030 climate goals and its goal to achieve carbon neutrality in 2050;

V.  whereas hydropower has the potential to decarbonise electricity generation to a certain extent and can therefore contribute to reaching the EU’s climate and energy targets under the Paris Agreement; whereas hydropower needs to be seen in a holistic manner, including its effects on hydromorphological conditions and habitats; whereas, compared to wind power and solar-generated electricity, hydropower is less volatile and therefore helps to keep the power supply constant and the grid stable; whereas pumped hydro storage accounts for more than 90 %(23) of the EU’s energy storage capacity; whereas the European Union should support Member States engaging in environmentally friendly hydropower projects, that at the same time do not pose threats to the health of local communities;

W.  whereas structural changes to bodies of water are the main pressures on their status(24); whereas hydromorphology affects 40 % of bodies of surface water consisting of physical alterations (26 %), dams, barriers and locks (24 %), hydrological alterations (7 %) or other hydromorphological alterations (7 %); whereas there are currently over 21 000 hydropower plants in Europe; whereas no comprehensive EU action has been taken to remove obsolete dams and weirs, despite evidence that EU coordination in this matter would provide added value;

X.  whereas the human right to water and sanitation was recognised as a human right by the UN General Assembly on 28 July 2010;

Y.  whereas the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women and the Convention on the Rights of the Child, among other international conventions and agreements, explicitly recognise the right to water and sanitation and oblige state parties to take appropriate measures in this regard;

Z.  whereas one million people in Europe have no access to water and eight million have no sanitation(25), whereas globally 844 million people do not have safe access to safe drinking water(26), and whereas a third of the world’s population lacks basic sanitation; whereas the European Citizen’s Initiative (ECI) Right2Water collected over 1,8 million signatures in March 2014; whereas Right2Water asked for guaranteeing water and sanitation for all in the EU and globally, better access to drinking water for the public and more transparency on the quality of water, as well as enshrining the right to water in EU legislation; whereas the Commission has adopted its communication in response to the ‘Right2Water initiative’(27); whereas in its resolution of 8 September 2015 on the follow-up to the European Citizens’ Initiative Right2Water, Parliament criticised the Commission for failing to meet the initiative’s demands and called on the Commission to recognise universal access and human right to water(28);

AA.  whereas studies show that the testing of waste water can act as an early warning system to predict or locate outbreaks of COVID-19, thus playing an important role in the fight against the pandemic;

1.  Welcomes the success of the WFD in setting up an adequate governance framework for integrated water management, as well as its success in improving water quality, or in some cases at least in slowing down the deterioration of water quality;

2.  Rejects any attempt to treat water as a commodity (as with the trading of water futures on the New York Stock Exchange); deplores the implications of the commodification of nature, with essential public goods opened up for speculation, denying the universal right to their use;

3.  Welcomes the assessment of the Commission that the WFD is fit for purpose, but notes that its implementation needs to be improved and speeded up by involving relevant competent authorities from the Member States and by further integrating WFD objectives in sectoral policies, particularly in agriculture, transport and energy, to ensure that all bodies of surface and ground water are in good status by 2027 at the latest;

4.  Stresses that no revision of the WFD is necessary; calls on the Commission to declare that the WFD will not be revised, in order to end legal uncertainty; calls on the Commission to continue to propose updates to the annexes as necessary;

5.  Strongly regrets that half of the bodies of water in the EU have still not attained good status and that the objectives of the WFD have not yet been reached, mainly due to inadequate funding, particularly slow implementation, insufficient enforcement, lack of implementation of the precautionary and polluter-pays principles, and broad use of the exemptions of the directive in many Member States, and also regrets that integration of environmental objectives in sectoral policies has been insufficient;

6.  Stresses the need to restore and improve water quality; notes that, to improve the status of bodies of water, it is vital that all levels of government and authorities in the Member States be involved and cooperate in mainstreaming the WFD goals in policy, legislation and WFD measures; recalls the non-deterioration principle, whereby Member States are required to implement the measures necessary to prevent deterioration of the status of water bodies; calls on the Member States to urgently take the necessary measures to ensure implementation, enforcement and compliance with the WFD, through, inter alia, the third River Basin Management Plans (RBMPs), which are to be adopted by the Member States in 2021; urges the EU, its Member States and regional authorities to ensure that the next RBMPs are adopted on time, respecting the requirements concerning public consultation; calls on the Commission to increase the availability of funding and provide the necessary support to the Member States in the implementation of the WFD;

7.  Draws attention to the OECD study that estimates that an additional EUR 253 billion needs to be spent in the EU water sector before 2030 to maintain or achieve full compliance with relevant water legislation(29); calls on the Commission, the Council, the Member States and, where applicable, regional authorities to identify and secure the necessary funds and financial instruments for infrastructure that does not harm the environment or negatively affect public health, but also to identify infrastructures that perform poorly and are not up to standard and to tackle the issue of contaminants of emerging concern and other societal challenges; stresses the need to provide financial support for sustainable innovative methods and particularly nature-based solutions, such as carbon-neutral or lagoon-based treatment infrastructure, restoration of wetlands and flood-plains, rewetting drained peat-lands, while having due regard to public-private partnerships; highlights the importance of adjusting existing funding and financing streams related to water management and other related land uses such as agriculture, including subsidies, shifting from traditional engineering measures to nature-based solutions;

8.  Calls on the Member States to take all necessary action, including the securing of the necessary funds and human resources and of the necessary expertise, to achieve full compliance with the WFD as soon as possible, and in any case no later than 2027; calls on the Commission to issue recommendations to the Member States to ensure the 2027 deadline is met; calls on the Commission to support the Member States in the implementation of the water directives with technical assistance and appropriate training, by sharing good practices and expertise to ensure the WFD goals are reached, and by promoting professional exchange programmes between Member States; calls on the Commission to provide guidance on the consequences of Court of Justice judgment in case C-461/13 for the implementation of the WFD; calls on the Commission to offer clear guidance on the application of exemptions pursuant to Article 4(4)(c) after 2027;

9.  Calls on the Member States to identify the implementation measures that are needed to ensure bodies of water are in good status and design the PoMs on the basis of the best available evidence; calls on the Member States and the Commission to make publicly available the PoMs of Member States and the respective evaluations to improve the share of good practices and strategies and to improve public access to information;

10.  Considers that the ‘one-out, all-out’ principle should remain intact; calls on the Commission to elaborate complementary reporting methodologies (such as distance to target, implemented measures and progress made on individual quality parameters) that provide an opportunity to better assess progress towards good water status; highlights the importance of transparency and provision of comprehensive information to the public on the quality and quantity of water in the EU;

11.  Deplores the use of exemptions for over half of the EU’s bodies of water, with limited justification; calls on the Commission and the Member States to update the guidance documents for the use of exemptions in order to limit this practice to only fully justified cases, so that it no longer hinders the achievement of the WFD’s environmental objectives; calls on the Commission to swiftly and systematically pursue infringement proceedings when exemptions are not justified;

12.  Regrets that the application of the cost recovery principle, which provides that all water users effectively and proportionately participate financially in the recovery of the costs of water services, remains low to non-existent in several Member States, especially with regard to households, industry and agriculture; stresses that water use in some parts of the EU threatens the quantitative status of bodies of water beyond the level of maintained ecological flow; calls on Member States and their regional authorities to implement adequate water pricing policies and fully apply the cost recovery principle for both environmental and resource costs, in line with the WFD, and also apply the polluter pays principle; recalls that the cost-recovery principle may be applied with regard to its social, environmental and economic effects, as well as the geographic and climatic conditions of the regions affected; calls on the Commission to enforce this principle; emphasises, however, that the right to water and sanitation must be ensured, with everyone having access to affordable and good-quality water services;

13.  Calls on the Commission to take strict and swift action against infringements by Member States to ensure that all Member States fully comply with water legislation, and in particular with the WFD, as soon as possible and no later than 2027; urges the Commission to also take strict and swift actions on open infringement cases related to systemic violations of EU water legislation; calls on the Commission to strengthen its resources in relation to infringement procedures in general, and EU environmental legislation in particular;

14.  Notes that climate change has and will continue to have a significant negative impact on freshwater sources with droughts leading to depleted river flows and higher concentrations of pollutants, notably in ‘closed’ water zones, and intense rainfall leading to increased urban and agricultural run-off; recalls that the more frequent incidence of extreme climatic phenomena, such as cyclones and storms, leads to an increase in the salinity of freshwater and coastal waters; emphasises that rising temperatures lead to increased water stress, impacting the environment, several economic sectors that depend on high water abstraction and use, as well as quality of life; underlines that the resilience of water ecosystems, flooding and water scarcity and their impact on food production should be duly taken into account in the upcoming EU climate adaptation strategy according to Article 2(1) (b) of the Paris Agreement, and also in the WFD implementation process (RBMPs);

15.  Suggests that the Commission support the Member States in sharing and facilitating knowledge and best practices of the different climate adaptation efforts at regional and local level in the EU;

16.  Underlines that rivers and wetlands are most at risk even though they are considered to be the largest providers of ecosystem services; recalls that wetlands, like marine and coastal ecosystems, play a fundamental role in regulating water and the climate, and provide services through their natural ecosystems and resources, and the development of economic or cultural activities, which all depend on water resources being in good ecological shape; stresses that wetlands are carbon sinks and climate stabilisers at a global level, play an important role in mitigating floods and droughts, provide clean water, protect coastlines, recharge groundwater aquifers, maintain great geodiversity, play an essential role in the countryside and provide recreational and cultural services for society; urges, therefore, the Commission and the Member States to adopt measures to reduce the use of aquifers, plan urban development away from floodplains and respect biodiversity linked to rivers and wetlands;

17.  Stresses that the efficient use of water is an important contribution to the EU’s climate goals as it can save energy used for the pumping of water, reduce the amount of chemicals used to treat water and reduce water stress; notes that there are high leakage rates from pipes in some Member States which is not acceptable in terms of climate change goals and resource efficiency efforts; welcomes that under the new Drinking Water Directive, the Commission will evaluate leakage rates and set threshold values that will trigger action in the respective Member States; also welcomes the new obligation for large water suppliers to make leakage rates transparent;

18.  Notes that all over the EU, bodies of water used for the production of drinking water face new and old pressures which cause an increased need for purification treatment efforts by water suppliers; calls on the Member States to fully implement Article 7(3) of the WFD and to take all necessary measures to halt the deterioration of bodies of water for the abstraction of water intended for human consumption;

19.  Welcomes the evidence that the directives have led to reduced chemical pollution in EU waters; considers nevertheless that there is an urgent need for improvement in the area of chemicals; notes that the Commission has identified unexpected differences between Member States, mainly in how the list of priority substances is updated and how the combined effects of mixtures are taken into account; notes further that the Priority Substances Directive so far barely includes substances relevant to drinking water provision; points out that considerable differences in approaches to classification, assessment and reporting methods make EU-wide comparisons and analysis challenging;

20.  Calls on the Commission to take all necessary measures in order to achieve good chemical status and to take decisive EU-wide action when Member States fail to meet the environmental quality standards for priority substances that fall within the scope of EU legislation; stresses that substances relevant to production of drinking water, such as Per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) and relevant pharmaceuticals, should be added to the list of priority substances; considers that pollutants of emerging concern and mixed toxicity can and should be addressed within the framework of the WFD and its specific ‘daughter’ directives; calls on the Commission to update and add relevant substances in the annexes of the Priority Substances Directive and the Groundwater Directive, in order to make it possible to reach the goals of the WFD and to better protect drinking water resources; calls on the Commission to align the implementation of water legislation with the Chemical Strategy for Sustainability and with the Biodiversity Strategy so that freshwater bodies and their ecosystems are adequately protected, to set a timeline for phasing out all non-essential uses of PFAS and to stimulate the development of safe and non-persistent alternatives for all uses of PFAS; urges the Commission to finance research on and the development of strategies to tackle uPBTs, with the aim of improving the quality of bodies of water and reducing the risks for animal and human health and the environment; recommends the development of new guidelines on improved monitoring methods and reporting for chemical mixtures as well as cocktail effects; calls for a more extensive use of the watch list to monitor potential water pollutants and determine the risk they pose to the aquatic environment; calls on the Commission to speed up its work on the development of methods for assessing and managing chemical mixtures and to complement its work by introducing a mixture assessment factor;

21.  Notes that microplastics are estimated to have been persistent in freshwater for centuries and that current water treatment plants do not filter these particles completely; welcomes, therefore, the decision to develop a methodology for the monitoring of microplastics and the establishment of a watch-list in the revised Drinking Water Directive; urges the Commission and the Member States to increase source-control measures to achieve a non-toxic environment and circular economy; stresses that reducing emissions at source would alleviate the pressure on ecosystems and reduce the cost of water treatment; calls for decisive action at EU, Member State and regional level to tackle pollutants of emerging concern, such as PFAS, microplastics, endocrine-disrupting chemicals and pharmaceuticals through a holistic approach, starting with control at source measures and, as a last resort, complementary end-of-pipe solutions; calls on the Commission and the Member States to fully apply a life cycle approach to pollutants, while implementing the polluter pays principle, also through innovative instruments such as Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) schemes, in order to finance treatment solutions;

22.  Highlights the importance of stepping up actions to address eutrophication of both fresh and salt waters caused by nitrogen and phosphorus from all sources, including from agriculture and untreated or inappropriately treated waste water; recalls that eutrophication weakens the environmental status of water bodies and makes them more vulnerable to invasive alien species; urges all farmers to use the Farm Sustainability Tool for Nutrients, which facilitates better management and reduces nutrient leakage in ground and surface water; calls on the Member States to properly identify areas vulnerable to nitrate pollution and to fully implement and enforce the measures adopted under the Nitrates Directive;

23.  Highlights that the current biodiversity crisis should be fully addressed by Member States when it comes to the implementation of water policies, with stressors on water ecosystems minimised and degraded ecosystems restored; underlines the importance of the new 2030 Biodiversity Strategy; recalls that in the implementation of the WFD, full consistency should be ensured with the new Biodiversity Strategy, the Nature Directives and other environmental legislation;

24.  Welcomes the Commission’s commitment in the context of its Biodiversity Strategy for 2030 to restore 25 000 km of free-flowing rivers in the EU through the removal of barriers and the restoration of flood-plains, and to establish an EU-wide methodology and provisions to map and assess the condition of ecosystems and ensure they are in a good condition; notes that there are currently 21 000 hydropower plants in the EU and that hydropower and small hydro stations provide the largest share of renewable energy in the EU; takes note of the developments in low-impact hydropower; points out, however, that the construction of dams can negatively affect habitats and create major pressure on surface water; recalls that the WFD imposes strict criteria for the protection of hydromorphological conditions; calls on the Commission and the Member States to ensure that strict assessments of the impacts of resulting alterations on water quality and quantity and ecosystems are carried out and that the objectives of the WFD are respected in all existing and potential new hydropower projects; therefore urgently calls on the Commission to consult all relevant directorate-generals, including the Directorate-General for Energy, when assessing the environmental impact of hydropower plants and to take their recommendations into account;

25.  Calls on the Member States and the Commission to take all necessary action to minimise pressures on bodies of surface water in order to restore natural functions of rivers and protect ecosystems; calls on the Member States to refrain from building hydropower stations and avoid other building projects which would lead to significant hydromorphological pressures on water in protected areas; considers that EU subsidies and public finance in areas other than protected ones should only be granted to new hydropower plants for which the overall benefits clearly outweigh the overall negative impacts;

26.  Commends the fact that, according to the 10th biennial report on the Member States’ implementation of the UWWTD(30), collection and treatment of urban waste water has improved over the last decade in the EU, and the fact that the UWWTD has delivered on the reduction of pollution loads, thereby contributing to the improvement of water quality; regrets nevertheless the fact that full compliance with the UWWTD has still not been achieved, as some Member States are still very far from their targets; supports the view of the Commission that more needs to be done to address remaining pollution, contaminants of emerging concern, energy use and sludge management as well as governance issues; regrets furthermore that the evaluation of the UWWTD does not analyse effectiveness regarding discharges of industrial waste water into collecting systems and urban waste water treatment plants (UWWTP);

27.  Calls on the Commission to take the above into account when revising the UWWTD; urges the Commission to support the Member States with the implementation of the directive by enabling sustainable water financing and incentivising the development and deployment of innovative waste water technologies; calls on the Commission to carefully examine how the UWWTD requirements on the design, construction and expansion of UWWTP at all stages of technical development interact with the WFD obligation of non-deterioration, in order to ensure coherence between the two pieces of legislation and the treatment of urban waste water, while preserving all incentives to take proper technical treatment measures; encourages the Commission to take legislative action, if necessary; stresses that measures aiming above all at rectifying the problem at source are vital to tackling pollutants of emerging concern; emphasises that a future revision of the UWWTD should also take the new challenges that such pollutants pose into account;

28.  Points out that the UWWTD and the WFD do not adequately address the problems stemming from climate change, such as storm water overflows, urban run-off and flooding in agglomerations, nor do they address the impacts of insufficiently treated waste water on the recipient body of water; believes that monitoring and controlling the effect of increasing storm water overflows and urban run-off should be better addressed by the EU, its Member States and regional authorities, since this significantly pollutes receiving bodies of surface and ground water;

29.  Insists that, when assessing the environmental impact of hydropower installations, a holistic approach is needed, including the societal benefits of providing emission-free electricity and the contribution of hydropower and pumped hydro storage to securing the energy supply, and adverse effects on surface waters and habitats; underlines in this respect the contribution that electricity generated by hydropower plants can make to reaching the EU’s climate and energy targets and the EU’s commitments under the Paris Agreement, but considers that this should not be achieved to the detriment of surface waters and the protection of habitats; acknowledges that there are ways and technologies to lower the impact on the environment and aquatic wildlife; points out that there is great potential to increase the efficiency of existing river power plants;

30.  Notes that the shift from road freight to inland waterways should be fully consistent with the non-deterioration principle of the WFD, as well as with other environmental legislation, including the Birds and Habitats Directives, and should go hand-in-hand with support for sustainable, alternative fuels and technology and inland navigation such as shore-to-ship power supply, in order to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and other pollutants and avoid a deterioration in the ecological and chemical status of bodies of water and a degradation of air quality, as well as to avoid stress on water ecosystems, protect biodiversity and strive for a zero-pollution environment;

31.  Notes the high energy consumption in the water sector; calls on the Commission to consider energy-efficient measures and the possibility to use treated waste water as an ‘onsite’ source of renewable energy; calls on the Commission to push for energy-efficient improvements in waste water treatment plants, so as to recognise and harness the energy-saving potential of the sector; points out that according to the Commission’s evaluation of the UWWTD, the potential energy savings amount to between 5 500 GWh and 13 000 GWh annually;

32.  Recognises that total water abstraction in Europe has decreased by more than 20 % over the last 15 years; notes nevertheless that eight countries can be considered water-stressed(31), representing 46 % of Europe’s population, that the number of water-stressed countries is constantly increasing, and that about a quarter of the water diverted from the natural environment in the EU is used for agricultural purposes(32); notes the potential of water reuse to create a circular economy for water resources and reduce direct extraction from bodies of water and groundwater; welcomes the agreement on the new Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on minimum requirements for water reuse, which will facilitate the use of treated urban waste water for agricultural irrigation; supports the continued modernisation of irrigation infrastructure through innovation and new technologies;

33.  Underlines the importance of finding synergies between flood risk assessments and disaster prevention and preparedness planning under the Union Civil Protection Mechanism; calls on the Commission, the Member States and, where applicable, regional authorities to develop drought management strategies, particularly with a view to ensuring the provision of drinking water and ensuring food production, as part of the RBMPs and Flood Risk Management Plans, and integrating digitalised monitoring, control and early warning systems for the state of vegetation and its response to drought in order to support effective and data-based decisions on protection, response and communication measures; calls on the Commission and the Member States to put floodplain and wetland restoration, as well as protection of bodies of groundwater, at the heart of the aforementioned plans as bodies of water and ecosystems in good condition are essential to reducing the negative impact of both droughts and floods;

34.  Notes that one area in which the WFD was viewed by stakeholders as ineffective is managing the effects of droughts(33); calls on the Member States to devote more efforts to addressing climate change and the new (over-) abstraction problems that might arise in river basins, including those not historically facing abstraction challenges(34); notes that a holistic approach to water management and climate adaptation could make responses more efficient and reduce the impact of extreme events; calls for the full integration of climate change considerations into the implementation of the directive and also highlights the potential of nature-based solutions in this regard; reiterates that sufficient public spending should be ensured for the objectives of the WFD and the required adaptations;

35.  Suggests that droughts and water scarcity be addressed by prioritising the abstraction of water for the production of drinking water over other uses, in order to ensure the fulfilment of the human right to water, and by implementing solutions to collect rainwater and flood waves for later use, including inter alia rainwater collection projects in the design of buildings and infrastructure, underground storage basins, dual water distribution systems in homes and projects for the reuse of disused quarries, where deemed suitable; encourages research on and investment in measures that help to combat droughts and water scarcity;

36.  Stresses the need for alignment of the common agricultural policy (CAP), the Drinking Water Directive(35), the Nitrates Directive, the Plant Protection Products Regulation(36) and REACH with the WFD regarding the need for increased water protection measures and the efficient use of water in agriculture; underlines the necessity for a considerable increase in funding for environmental and climate change measures in both pillars of the CAP, as well as for additional financing of targeted ecological measures in the framework of the CAP revision, in order to ensure sustainable water management and to improve soil quality; urges the Member States to integrate and implement in their CAP strategic plans a reduction in fertiliser use and the use and risks of pesticides, and to implement water-related elements in their systems of conditionality; calls on the Commission to make freshwater pollution and over-abstraction priority topics in CAP-related recommendations to Member States; finally, calls on the Commission to ensure the WFD is also implemented via the cohesion policy (the Common Provisions Regulation(37), the European Regional Development Fund/the Cohesion Fund(38)) and in line with policy objective 2 of the CPR;

37.  Welcomes the targets for reducing the use and risks of pesticides by 50 % by 2030 and for reducing the loss of nutrients from fertilisers, as established in the Farm to Fork and Biodiversity Strategies, the decision to revise the Directive on the sustainable use of pesticides and the inclusion of improved nutrient management in the objectives of the new CAP strategic plans and of the two strategies; calls for the translation into legislation of the above-mentioned targets and objectives, as well as the upcoming zero-pollution action plan; highlights the urgent need to reduce the impact of pesticides on drinking water resources by fully addressing their protection in the (re-) approval of active substances and the (re-)authorisation of pesticides;

38.  Calls on the Commission to improve the homogenisation of standards and reduce the wide range of thresholds within Member States in the Groundwater Directive;

39.  Calls on the Commission and the Member States to enhance the synergies between water and biodiversity policies by introducing appropriate measures to better protect small water bodies and groundwater ecosystems in the context of river basin management, including reporting requirements, guidance and projects;

40.  Encourages the Commission and the Member States to better integrate the Flood Risk Management Directive in policies on prioritising nature-based solutions and adjust funding streams accordingly; highlights the importance of managing catchment areas in an integrated and holistic manner;

41.  Asks the Commission and the Member States to put in place an integrated approach based on the WFD and the Marine Strategy Framework Directive, given that 97.3 % of water resources on earth come from the oceans, and that groundwater, continental, transitional, coastal and marine waters are linked by the water cycle and the link between land and sea;

42.  Calls for increased action with sufficient funding to improve fish migration throughout the EU; calls, where applicable, for river connectivity to be included within the technical screening criteria developed in the context of the EU green taxonomy for sustainable activities and to consider energy and transport-related projects sustainable only when comprising nature-like fish-ways;

43.  Notes that ‘sustainable use and protection of water and marine resources’ belongs to one of the six environmental goals of the EU taxonomy for sustainable finance; therefore encourages its use in navigating public and private investments to ensure the protection of water bodies;

44.  Calls on the Commission and the Member States to take all necessary measures in the next water planning cycle to facilitate the conservation and restoration of aquatic ecosystems, promote nature-based solutions, involve the financial sector through the promotion of sustainable investments and promote capacity building and education on green growth;

45.  Calls on the Commission to assist and support the Member States in the cross-border coordination of WFD bodies of water; calls on the Member States to prioritise WFD measures and UWWTD implementation in cross-border regions and improve cooperation in international water basins;

46.  Urges the Commission to streamline and improve monitoring systems for water quality and environmental pollutants, collecting, inter alia, data on the main sources of emission of dangerous substances, including radioactive and pesticide residues and metabolites, biocides, pharmaceutical residues, chemicals of concern - such as PFAS - and microplastics, as well as other pollutants of emerging concern in EU bodies of water, and to apply the use of the latest, most effective available techniques; urges the Commission to adopt guidelines for harmonised standards for monitoring networks and data reporting; calls on the Commission to facilitate in its Zero Pollution Action Plan the use of non-invasive monitoring methods and bioindicators in order to minimise the exposure of humans and wildlife to contaminants in the air, soil and water; urges the Member States to make use of their complete monitoring networks when reporting data to the Commission;

47.  Calls on the Commission, the Member States and water providers to mainstream digitalisation and enhance the use of management and metering data for evidence-based decision-making both at regulatory and consumption level; calls for digitally enabled water technologies to allow for distance monitoring and reporting on water quality, leakages, use and resources;

48.  Notes the potential of digitalisation and artificial intelligence in improving the management and monitoring of bodies of water, creating better data and analysing evidence to support decision-makers, given that they could greatly contribute to the quick identification of small changes in water quality that could represent a threat to bodies of water, evaluation of best practices and identification of the most cost-effective measures;

49.  Calls on the Member States to create legal frameworks that avoid situations in which the entities managing bodies of water are financed from activities that deteriorate their chemical and ecological status; calls on the Member States to clearly separate the entities in charge of management and those in charge of assessing the status of bodies of water;

50.  Stresses the need to homogenise water data and create mandatory reporting standards for Member States to boost data transparency; calls on the Commission to continue improving WISE (the Water Information System for Europe) to make it a user-friendly information tool for everyone in the EU, providing information on the quantity, quality and availability of water resources, in addition to benchmarking the management of bodies of water;

51.  Notes that, according to the fitness report, there is room for improvement in both the accessibility of information on water policies and quality, and in its level of detail; calls on the Member States and the Commission to remedy this and provide EU residents with clear, comprehensive and easily available information; calls furthermore for greater transparency and therefore for a significant improvement in public consultation, public awareness and education on water and on the links between water, ecosystems, sanitation, health, food safety, food security and disaster prevention, for inter-sectoral dialogue between economic operators, water providers, the general public, authorities and civil society organisations to be fostered, and for access to justice under both the Environment Impact Assessment (EIA) Directive and the WFD to be ensured in line with the case law of the Court of Justice;

52.  Welcomes the fact that the EU responded partially to Right2Water in the recast of the Drinking Water Directive by inserting a new article on access to water and more transparency on its quality to improve health and the environment; calls on the Member States to fully implement and enforce the WFD in order to ensure access to water for all and fully respond to Right2Water;

53.  Calls on the Member States and water providers to systematically use testing for COVID-19 in waste water as an early warning system to support the fight against the pandemic;

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

(1) OJ L 327, 22.12.2000, p. 1. (2) OJ L 135, 30.5.1991, p. 40. (3) OJ L 372, 27.12.2006, p. 19. (4) OJ L 288, 6.11.2007, p. 27. (5) OJ L 375, 31.12.1991, p. 1. (6) OJ L 348, 24.12.2008, p. 84. (7) OJ L 177, 5.6.2020, p. 32. (8) OJ L 164, 25.6.2008, p. 19. (9) OJ L 396, 30.12.2006, p. 1. (10) OJ L 334, 17.12.2010, p. 17. (11) Texts adopted, P9_TA(2019)0078. (12) Commission communication of 20 May 2020 entitled ‘EU Biodiversity Strategy for 2030: Bringing nature back into our lives’ (COM(2020)0380). (13) Commission communication of 20 May 2020 entitled ‘A Farm to Fork Strategy for a fair, healthy and environmentally-friendly food system’ (COM(2020)0381). (14) Decision No 1386/2013/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 November 2013 on a General Union Environment Action Programme to 2020 ‘Living well, within the limits of our planet’ (OJ L 354, 28.12.2013, p. 171). (15) Contained in Resolution 70/1 adopted by the UN General Assembly on 25 September 2015 entitled ‘Transforming our world: the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development’. (16) OJ C 324, 1.10.2020, p. 28. (17) OJ C 110, 22.3.2019, p. 94. (18) https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php/Agri-environmental_indicator_-_gross_nitrogen_balance (19) European Environment Agency report of 4 December 2019 entitled ‘The European environment – state and outlook 2020: Knowledge for transition to a sustainable Europe’. (20) Commission executive summary of 10 December 2019 of the Fitness Check of the Water Framework Directive and the Floods Directive. (21) https://www.eea.europa.eu/publications/92-9167-025-1/page003.html (22) European Court of Auditors background paper of June 2018 entitled ‘Desertification in the EU’. (23) Commission study of March 2020 on energy storage – Contribution to the security of the electricity supply in Europe, p. 20. (24) https://ec.europa.eu/info/news/implementation-report-water-framework-directive-and-floods-directive-questions-and-answers-2019-feb-26_en (25) https://www.right2water.eu/documents (26) World Health Organization and the United Nations Children’s Fund, Progress on Drinking Water, Sanitation and Hygiene: 2017 Update and SDG Baselines, World Health Organization and the United Nations Children’s Fund, Geneva, 2017, p. 3. (27) Commission communication of 19 March 2014 entitled ‘European Citizens’ Initiative “Water and sanitation are a human right! Water is a public good, not a commodity!”’ (COM(2014)0177). (28) OJ C 316, 22.9.2017, p. 99. (29) http://www.oecd.org/environment/financing-water-supply-sanitation-and-flood-protection-6893cdac-en.htm (30) Tenth Commission report of 10 September 2020 on the implementation status and programmes for implementation (COM(2020)0492). (31) https://www.eea.europa.eu/archived/archived-content-water-topic/water-resources/water-abstraction (32) https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php/Archive:Agri-environmental_indicator_-_water_abstraction (33) Fitness Check of the Water Framework Directive and the Floods Directive, p. 66. (34) Fitness Check of the Water Framework Directive and the Floods Directive, p. 199. (35) Council Directive 98/83/EC of 3 November 1998 on the quality of water intended for human consumption (OJ L 330, 5.12.1998, p. 32). (36) Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 October 2009 concerning the placing of plant protection products on the market and repealing Council Directives 79/117/EEC and 91/414/EEC (OJ L 309, 24.11.2009, p. 1). (37) Regulation (EU) No 1303/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 December 2013 laying down common provisions on the European Regional Development Fund, the European Social Fund, the Cohesion Fund, the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development and the European Maritime and Fisheries Fund and laying down general provisions on the European Regional Development Fund, the European Social Fund, the Cohesion Fund and the European Maritime and Fisheries Fund and repealing Council Regulation (EC) No 1083/2006 (OJ L 347, 20.12.2013, p. 320). (38) Commission proposal of 29 May 2018 for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on the European Regional Development Fund and on the Cohesion Fund (COM(2018)0372).

European Parliament resolution of 17 December 2020 on the EU Security Union Strategy (2020/2791(RSP))

P9_TA(2020)0378 B9-0421/2020

The European Parliament,

–  having regard to the Treaty on European Union (TEU), in particular Articles 2 and 3 thereof, and to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU), in particular Articles 4, 16, 67, 70-72, 75, 82-87 and 88 thereof,

–  having regard to the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the EU, in particular Articles 6, 7, 8, 11, 14, 21 and 24 thereof,

–  having regard to the Commission communication of 24 July 2020 on the EU Security Union Strategy (COM(2020)0605),

–  having regard to the Commission communication of 24 July 2020 on the EU strategy for a more effective fight against child sexual abuse (COM(2020)0607),

–  having regard to the Commission communication of 24 July 2020 on the 2020-2025 EU action plan on firearms trafficking (COM(2020)0608),

–  having regard to the Commission communication of 24 July 2020 on the EU Agenda and Action Plan on Drugs 2021-2025 (COM(2020)0606),

–  having regard to the Commission communication of 9 December 2020 entitled ‘A Counter-Terrorism Agenda for the EU: Anticipate, Prevent, Protect, Respond’ (COM(2020)0795),

–  having regard to its resolution of 19 September 2019 on the state of implementation of the Union’s anti-money laundering legislation(1),

–  having regard to its resolution of 10 July 2020 on a comprehensive Union policy on preventing money laundering and terrorist financing – the Commission’s Action Plan and other recent developments(2),

–  having regard to its resolution of 12 December 2018 on the findings and recommendations of the Special Committee on Terrorism(3),

–  having regard to its resolution of 19 September 2019 on the importance of European remembrance for the future of Europe(4),

–  having regard to its resolution of 19 June 2020 on the anti-racism protests following the death of George Floyd(5),

–  having regard to its resolution of 26 November 2019 on children’s rights on the occasion of the 30th anniversary of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child(6),

–  having regard to the ruling of the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) of 6 October 2020 in Joined Cases C-511/18 La Quadrature du Net and Others, C-512/18 French Data Network and Others and C-520/18 Ordre des barreaux francophones et germanophone and Others,

–  having regard to the case law of the CJEU on mass surveillance and data retention,

–  having regard to the Commission communication of 12 September 2018 on a Europe that protects: an initiative to extend the competences of the European Public Prosecutor’s Office to cross-border terrorist crimes (COM(2018)0641),

–  having regard to recent Europol reports(7),

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

–  having regard to the motion for a resolution of the Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs,

A.  whereas the Union’s security policy must remain grounded in the values upon which the EU was founded and which are enshrined in Article 2 of the TEU, including the principles of democracy, individual freedoms and the rule of law, and the Charter of Fundamental Rights; whereas the right to security as laid down in Article 6 of the Charter refers to security from unreasonable arrests, searches and other state interventions; whereas the European project is based on the idea of an open society; whereas any limitation on the exercise of these rights and freedoms must be provided for by law, and respect the essence of those rights and freedoms; whereas, subject to the principle of proportionality, limitations may be made only if they are necessary and genuinely meet objectives of general interest recognised by the Union or the need to protect the rights and freedoms of others;

B.  whereas the new EU Security Union Strategy should provide the appropriate responses for effectively addressing existing and emerging challenges in a rapidly changing European landscape of security threats; whereas the Commission has identified cybercrime, including identity theft, and cybersecurity, hybrid threats, disinformation, terrorist attacks and organised crime ranging from trafficking in human beings to trade in firearms to drug trafficking and financial, economic and environmental crime as the main challenges;

C.  whereas there was a downward trend in terms of numbers of terrorist attacks in the EU in 2019, but the EU has recently witnessed new terrorist attacks; whereas several attacks committed by right-wing extremists were not officially recognised as terrorist attacks(8); whereas the threat of jihadi terrorism remains high and whereas the threat of right-wing terrorism has been increasing in recent years; whereas the threat of left-wing terrorism continues to manifest itself in some Member States; whereas terrorism in all its forms and manifestations must be condemned and addressed; whereas the internet is one of the most frequently used instruments by terrorist organisations to spread terrorist content(9), recruit new members and incite violence;

D.  whereas according to a Commission report published on 30 September 2020(10), major gaps in the implementation of Directive (EU) 2017/541(11) have been reported in the majority of Member States;

E.  whereas new forms of organised criminal activity continue to emerge in Europe, exploiting changing societal vulnerabilities, with most organised crime groups involved in multiple criminal activities; whereas the profits of organised crime groups in the EU are estimated at EUR 110 billion per year, but only around 1 % of these profits are confiscated(12); whereas there is a strong link between organised crime and corruption;

F.  whereas in 2019, the Commission opened infringement procedures against 23 Member States for failing to comply with Directive 2011/93/EU of 13 December 2011 on combating the sexual abuse and sexual exploitation of children and child pornography(13); whereas Member States have made progress in implementing the directive but challenges remain, notably with regard to prevention, criminal law, and protection, support and assistance for victims; whereas online sexual coercion and extortion of children, as well as sexual exploitation on the basis of explicit material produced by children themselves, is facilitated by the widespread availability of online devices; whereas a growing number of children and teenagers are falling victim to online grooming;

G.  whereas sexual exploitation continues to be the most prevalent purpose behind trafficking in human beings in the EU, while an increase in trafficking for labour exploitation has been reported in several Member States(14); whereas the number of convictions and prosecutions remains low in relation to the reported number of victims; whereas digital technologies, social media and internet services are major tools used to recruit trafficking victims;

H.  whereas according to reports by the European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug Addiction (EMCDDA) and Europol, the illicit drugs market in the EU, which is increasingly complex, adaptive and innovative, has an estimated retail value of around EUR 30 billion per year, and trafficking in illicit drugs represents a major source of income for organised crime groups, which may have links to other illegal activities and terrorism; whereas illicit drugs trafficking is becoming a driver for increasing violence and corruption and can have wide-ranging negative impacts on society; whereas drugs-related deaths in Europe appear to be stable at more than 9 000 fatalities every year(15) and whereas drug use remains an important public health issue;

I.  whereas in 2019 Europol continued to provide Member States with operational analysis and process contributions, as well as proactive support for high-profile investigations covering the three areas which pose a continuous threat to the internal security of the Union, namely cybercrime, serious and organised crime, and terrorism;

J.  whereas in 2019, the Prüm Network had over 9.2 million DNA profiles available for comparison across all the databases of the Member States, with more than 2.2 million DNA searches made in that year; whereas, furthermore, there were almost 400 000 fingerprint searches yielding 10 000 verified hits, and more than 16 million vehicle registration data searches(16);

K.  whereas judicial cooperation in criminal matters is one of the foundations of the Union area of freedom, security and justice, and is based on the principle of mutual recognition of judgments and judicial decisions; whereas mutual recognition needs to be based on mutual trust between Member States; whereas the investigation of many crimes requires electronically-stored evidence (‘e-evidence’); whereas the competent authorities often face practical difficulties in obtaining the relevant data from service providers in cross-border investigations owing to the ineffectiveness of the existing instruments, such as mutual legal assistance agreements and the European Investigation Order; whereas existing procedures can be lengthy and the relevant data has often been deleted by the time the request reaches the service provider; whereas the co-legislators are currently discussing a legislative package on e-evidence;

L.  whereas the implementation of the Procedural Safeguards Directive(17), whose purpose is to ensure the fairness of criminal proceedings, has not been satisfactory, to the detriment of mutual trust and cooperation between judicial authorities;

M.  whereas the CJEU has on several occasions ruled that blanket data retention and mass surveillance of electronic communications or of travel data is not compliant with the Charter of Fundamental Rights; whereas in its ruling on joined cases C-511/18, C-512/18 and C520/18, the CJEU upheld the case law from Tele2, concluding that only a targeted retention of data limited to specific persons or a specific geographical area is allowed; whereas the court also specified, however, that IP addresses assigned to the source of a communication may be subject to generalised and indiscriminate retention for the purpose of combating serious crime and serious threats to public security, subject to strict safeguards;

N.  whereas the implementation of the Victims’ Rights Directive(18) has not been satisfactory, owing in particular to incomplete and/or incorrect transposition(19);

O.  whereas the COVID-19 crisis has significantly exacerbated certain crimes, such as the production and distribution of child sexual abuse material online, with reports estimating that such material has increased by 25 % in some Member States; whereas between 70 % and 85 % of children who have suffered abuse know their abuser, and the vast majority are victims of people they trust; whereas reports of domestic violence, especially against women and children, have increased significantly during this period; whereas the pandemic has proven to have a considerable impact on the landscape of serious and organised crime throughout Europe in areas such as cybercrime, goods counterfeiting, fraud and organised property crime(20); whereas the crisis causes delays and hinders access to justice, assistance and support, as well as aggravating prison conditions; whereas the crisis has aggravated the situation of migrants, making them more vulnerable to abuse by criminals, and caused smuggling routes to shift;

1.  Welcomes the publication of the new EU Security Union Strategy and highlights the need for the effective implementation and evaluation of existing EU legislation in this area; agrees with the Commission that where gaps in the regulatory and enforcement framework have been identified, follow-up is needed in the form of legislative and non-legislative initiatives; stresses, furthermore, that measures in the framework of the Security Union Strategy must be sufficiently flexible to respond to constantly changing circumstances and criminal organisations changing their modus operandi;

2.  Stresses that any new legislative proposal must be accompanied by a thorough and comprehensive impact assessment, including on the impact on fundamental rights and risks of discrimination; highlights the key role of the EU Fundamental Rights Agency (FRA) in evaluating respect for fundamental rights;

3.  Highlights that terrorism, irrespective of its nature, aims to threaten democratic societies in Europe and targets European values; deplores the many victims, particularly of jihadi attacks and right-wing extremism, over the past few years; emphasises the important work of law enforcement authorities, which have helped to foil many attacks; notes, however, that the terrorist threat in the EU remains high; urges the Commission to ensure the full and swift implementation of Directive (EU) 2017/541 on combating terrorism in all Member States; welcomes the new EU counter-terrorism agenda put forward by the Commission on 9 December 2020, which promotes a joined-up approach based on existing work and the new initiatives announced therein to anticipate, prevent, protect and respond to terrorist threats, which are based on various drivers such as those mentioned in the Europol TE-SAT 2020 report; believes that the measures and action included therein, in particular on coordination, intensified cooperation at national, regional and international level and information exchange between Member States’ competent authorities, on terrorism financing, on countering radicalisation offline and online, on prevention and education, on the fight against hate speech, racism and intolerance, and on protection, assistance and support for the victims of terrorism, will contribute to countering the threat posed by terrorism more effectively in the future;

4.  Calls on the Commission and the Member States to implement a holistic approach to preventing and countering radicalisation, which should combine security, education, social, cultural and anti-discrimination policies, and involve all the relevant stakeholders, including the Radicalisation Awareness Network (RAN), grassroots community initiatives and grassroots community work, community-oriented policing, language and values integration, and lifelong education; reiterates its call on the Commission to use EU funds more effectively to this end, and to develop methodologies to assess the effectiveness of the relevant programmes;

5.  Stresses that education, including the development of critical thinking, digital and online safety skills, is critical for medium- and long-term prevention and key to reducing radicalisation and disenfranchisement, which leads to criminal activity;

6.  Reiterates that, while not the only factor, online terrorist content has proven to be a catalyst for the radicalisation of individuals and young people in particular, some of whom have committed terrorist offences as defined in Directive (EU) 2017/541; considers that the fight against social inequalities is crucial to tackling the root causes of radicalisation; stresses the need to swiftly identify and completely remove terrorist content online on the basis of clear legal provisions, including human review and appropriate and robust safeguards to ensure full respect for fundamental rights and constitutional standards; underlines that, although some progress has been made in this regard, companies need to be far more engaged in this process; calls for transparent mechanisms to be established in order to enable online terrorist content to be identified and reported swiftly, and to enable EU citizens to flag up such content; considers the proposal for a Regulation on preventing the dissemination of terrorist content online(21) recently agreed on between Parliament and the Council to be an important instrument in this regard and calls for its full implementation as soon as it starts to apply; emphasises the need to strengthen the capabilities of Europol’s EU Internet Referral Unit (EU IRU);

7.  Recalls that freedom of religion and freedom of expression are fundamental rights enshrined in Articles 10 and 11 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights; calls for the EU and its Member States to uphold these fundamental rights in the light of the recent religiously motivated terrorist attacks;

8.  Welcomes the agenda for tackling organised crime announced by the Commission; reiterates its previous calls for the revision of Council Framework Decision 2008/841/JHA of 24 October 2008 on the fight against organised crime(22), and the need to establish a common definition of organised crime; considers that this common definition should also take into account the use of violence, corruption or intimidation by criminal groups to obtain control of economic activities or public procurement, or to influence democratic processes; believes that organised criminal groups can be more efficiently dismantled by depriving them of the profits from crime; stresses, in this regard, the need for further measures on freezing and confiscating assets, including on non-conviction based assets, and calls on the Member States to step up cooperation and information exchange in this regard; notes that emerging criminal activities such as environmental crime, organised property crime or trafficking in cultural goods should not be overlooked, as they often provide funding for other criminal activities;

9.  Welcomes the Commission communication of 7 May 2020 on an Action Plan for a comprehensive Union policy on preventing money laundering and terrorist financing, which sets out further improvements in the EU’s response to these crimes, in particular in the enforcement and implementation of existing legislation; reiterates the need for better cooperation between administrative, judicial and law enforcement authorities within the EU, and in particular the Member States’ Financial Intelligence Units (FIUs), including through FIU.net; believes that the visibility of current cooperation models in the security area such as the European Multidisciplinary Platform Against Criminal Threats (EMPACT) should be increased; believes that the EU should lead the way on much needed Financial Action Task Force (FATF) reforms; believes that the Anti-Money Laundering Directive must be thoroughly evaluated and, if necessary, reviewed;

10.  Reiterates its call on the EU institutions and the Member States to resolutely fight systemic corruption and to devise effective instruments for preventing, combating and sanctioning corruption and fighting fraud, as well as regularly monitoring the use of public funds; calls therefore on the Commission to immediately resume its annual anti-corruption monitoring and reporting, which should cover all Member States and the EU institutions, agencies and bodies; stresses, therefore, that EU funding under the new MFF and the Recovery Plan must be effectively prevented from being used for corruption and fraud by organised crime groups;

11.  Recalls that Member States with residence and citizenship by investment schemes often facilitate corruption and money laundering, thereby importing security risks into the Union; welcomes the infringement procedures launched by the Commission(23) in this regard; reiterates its call on the Commission to fully use its right of legislative initiative to put forward a legislative proposal to ban or regulate these schemes;

12.  Stresses the need to step up efforts at Union and national level to address the evolving phenomenon of child sexual abuse online and offline, including to prevent, detect and report child sexual abuse, to take down child sexual abuse material online, and to improve the investigation and prosecution of related offences; takes note of the Commission communication of 24 July 2020 on the EU strategy for a more effective fight against child sexual abuse; takes note, further, of the Commission’s intention to present a new comprehensive legislative proposal requiring service providers to detect and report child sexual abuse online before June 2021; expects this proposal to be in full compliance with fundamental rights and accompanied by a thorough impact assessment;

13.  Stresses that these measures need to be complemented by a public awareness campaign designed in cooperation with all relevant stakeholders, including children’s rights organisations, which educates children, their parents, and teachers on dangers online; calls for better protection of children, including their personal data and privacy, on the internet, and asks Member States to support current networks and campaigns active in this field;

14.  Calls on the Member States to fully implement Directive 2011/93/EU, and to provide appropriate human and financial resources to fully apply it as a matter of urgency; deplores the fact that the criminal code in several Member States provides for very light penalties for engaging in sexual activities with a child, which do not constitute an effective deterrent(24); calls on the Member States to reassess these penalties, and to make the necessary legislative changes to swiftly bring their legal codes into line with the provisions of Directive 2011/93/EU; urges the Commission to assess whether this directive needs to be strengthened by including provisions on the protection of victims, support for them, and prevention of these offences;

15.  Reminds the Commission of its call for the designation of an EU representative for children’s rights, who should serve as a point of reference for all EU matters and policy related to children; welcomes the Commission’s decision to include in the EU strategy of 24 July 2020 for a more effective fight against child sexual abuse the creation of a European centre to prevent and counter child sexual abuse, as requested by Parliament in its resolution of 26 November 2019 on children’s rights, as a focal point for a coordinated and multi-stakeholder European approach, including law enforcement, prevention and assistance to victims of child sexual abuse;

16.  Stresses that end-to-end encryption contributes to citizens’ privacy, including protecting children on the internet, contributes to the security of IT systems, and that it is indispensable for investigative journalists and whistle-blowers, among others, wishing to report wrongdoing; points out that backdoors may severely compromise the strength and efficiency of encryption, and may be abused by criminals and non-EU external state actors seeking to destabilise our society; points to the fact that criminals swiftly adapt to new developments and exploit emerging technologies for illicit purposes; calls, therefore, on Member States and the EU Agency for Law Enforcement Training (CEPOL) to provide high quality training in relevant areas to law enforcement authorities; calls on the Commission to assess whether a regulatory solution could be found to enable lawful and targeted law-enforcement access to needed data while complying with fundamental rights;

17.  Highlights that disinformation, especially when amplified by new technologies such as artificial intelligence and deep fakes, whether deployed by state or non-state actors, can represent a threat to democracy and security; calls on the Commission to make combating disinformation an integral part of our Security Union Strategy, including by allocating adequate funding; takes note of the European Democracy Action Plan, which addresses the challenge of disinformation as a potential threat to internal security; recalls the importance of awareness-raising campaigns to inform citizens about the fact that such disinformation techniques are used;

18.  Acknowledges that countering hybrid threats that aim to weaken social cohesion and undermine trust in institutions, as well as enhancing EU resilience, are an important element of the Security Union Strategy; stresses, in this regard, the need for stronger cooperation between the Member States and for better coordination at EU level, between all the actors, in order to counter these threats; welcomes the key measures for countering hybrid threats set out by the Commission, and stresses the need to mainstream hybrid considerations into broader policymaking;

19.  Stresses that new and evolving technologies permeate all aspects of security, and create novel security challenges and threats; highlights the importance of secured critical infrastructure, including digital and communication infrastructure; calls on the Commission to proactively plan for the research, development and deployment of new technologies for ensuring EU internal security, with full respect for fundamental rights and European values; underlines that the EU must not fund technologies that violate fundamental rights;

20.  Highlights that 5G infrastructure is a strategic component of future European security and a key component of European strategic resilience; calls on the Commission to draft a plan for building European 5G, including funding for its development in Europe and a plan to phase out and replace 5G technology from third countries which do not respect fundamental rights and European values;

21.  Notes that organised criminal smuggling is often intertwined with other forms of organised crime; expects the 2021-2025 EU Action Plan against Migrant Smuggling to propose actions to improve the capacity to prevent, identify, investigate and prosecute criminal smuggling networks; takes the view that among its key aspects, the Action Plan should address the use of social media platforms and online messaging platforms used by smugglers for advertising services and recruiting customers; believes that particular attention should be paid to unaccompanied minors, who constitute a highly vulnerable group and face various risks, including violence, abuse, and exploitation, along migration routes towards and within the EU(25); takes note of the role of EU agencies and entities, notably Europol’s Migrant Smuggling Centre (EMSC); calls on Member States to comply with international law when dealing with humanitarian assistance to people in distress at sea in line with the Commission’s 2020 guidance;

22.  Welcomes the adoption of the 2020-2025 EU action plan on firearms trafficking, including proper indicators and reporting provisions and encompassing South-East European partners (Western Balkans, Moldova and Ukraine), while stepping up cooperation with countries in the Middle East and North Africa; welcomes the Commission’s intention to introduce systematic and harmonised data collection on firearms seizures;

23.  Calls for swift implementation of the preparatory action proposed by Parliament on efficient monitoring of the darknet at EU level, and calls on the Member States and Commission to look into further actions to prevent the trafficking of firearms in the darknet;

24.  Welcomes the Commission proposal to confirm the Union and Member States’ commitment to protecting citizens’ health and security from drug-related threats through the adoption of a new EU Agenda on Drugs for the next five years; takes the view that Union drug policy should continue to pursue an integrated, balanced, multidisciplinary, evidence- and human rights-based approach, and be closely coordinated with the Union’s external action; insists that Union action on illicit drugs should devote comparable attention and resources to both the supply and demand side of the phenomenon, and calls for an increased focus on rehabilitation and prevention in the EU action plan, including by means of awareness-raising campaigns dedicated especially to children and young people;

25.  Supports the participation of civil society and other relevant stakeholders in the ongoing discussions on the Commission communication on the EU Agenda and Action Plan on Drugs 2021-2025; takes the view that the Union and national responses to drugs-related challenges should be designed with the widest possible involvement of those concerned, including drug users; calls for the extension of the mandate of the EMCDDA to cover multiple addictions;

26.  Takes note of the Commission’s legislative proposal of 9 December 2020(26) to strengthen the mandate of Europol within the mission and tasks of the agency as laid down in the Treaty with a view to enable it to better fulfil its role as a hub for the exchange of information on law enforcement and for cooperation in the fight against terrorism and serious and organised crime in the EU and to provide Europol with the relevant tools for cooperating more effectively with all the relevant partners; stresses that such changes should be accompanied by enhanced political accountability, as well as enhanced judicial control and parliamentary scrutiny, with a strong focus on accountability, transparency and respect for fundamental rights; stresses that the revision of Europol’s mandate should fully align the agency’s data protection regime with Regulation (EU) 2018/1725(27); demands that the evaluation of the current legal framework for Europol’s mandate is presented as provided for by Article 68 of the current Europol Regulation;

27.  Takes note of the possible modernisation of the legislative framework of the Prüm decisions; acknowledges the shortcomings and potential improvements identified by various experts, and attributed, inter alia, to insufficient data quality; recalls the importance of publicly available and accurate data regarding the use of Prüm, and calls on the Commission to gather this data from all participating Member States in order to properly evaluate the current Prüm framework and to allow for meaningful democratic scrutiny; demands that any new proposal contains the obligation for Member States to provide this data to the Commission, which must be used for regular and publicly available review reports; demands, further, that the proposal is accompanied by a thorough impact assessment, covering fundamental rights implications, which should demonstrate whether there would be added value in automatic data exchange, as well as whether any additional categories of biometric data are needed; stresses that any new solution has to respect the principles of necessity and proportionality, as well as the EU acquis on data protection, and provide for robust safeguards to protect fundamental rights;

28.  Highlights that the Advanced Passenger Information (API) Directive(28) has contributed to more efficient border controls and the identification of persons posing security threats; notes the Commission’s intention to propose a new version of the API Directive to be compliant with Treaty of Lisbon provisions and the data protection acquis; expects this revision to be accompanied by a thorough impact assessment, including fundamental rights implications;

29.  Recalls that important EU legislative initiatives have been finalised in recent years in order to detect criminals at its external borders and to improve the efficiency of police cooperation with the aim of contributing to a high level of security within the area of freedom, security and justice of the Union; recalls, further, that these initiatives include a new architecture for EU information systems and their interoperability, and that attention should now be focused on their timely implementation, with full respect for fundamental rights;

30.  Stresses that sufficient capacity for information processing by law enforcement is a vital part of the entire chain of security efforts in the Union as a whole; points out that insufficient capacity in one or more Member States seriously weakens the effectiveness of EU security policies; calls on the Commission to do everything in its competence to ensure adequate capacity for processing information in the Member States;

31.  Acknowledges Eurojust’s work in supporting and coordinating the work of national judicial authorities in investigating and prosecuting transnational crime; calls for increased efforts to promote mutual trust among judicial authorities, including through the effective implementation of the Procedural Roadmap Directives, and to facilitate and accelerate the exchange of information and communication in the judicial sector in the European Union; stresses that judicial cooperation in criminal matters is lagging behind in digitalisation; calls on the Commission and the Member States to provide judicial authorities with financial support to secure adequate analytical standards and appropriate digital tools, to facilitate and accelerate their cooperation, and allow for secure exchange of information; welcomes the Commission communication of 2 December 2020 on the digitalisation of justice in the EU, and the proposal for a regulation on a computerised system for communication in cross-border civil and criminal proceedings (e-CODEX system);

32.  Points out that judicial cooperation between Member States and the mutual recognition of judicial decisions and judgments should be improved, including by means of a timely and correct implementation of judicial cooperation instruments in criminal matters; points out that certain developments in the rule of law situation in several Member States have impacted this exchange of information and police and judicial cooperation in general; stresses, in this regard, that mutual trust relies on a common understanding of the EU values enshrined in Article 2 of the TEU, including the rule of law, which independent judiciaries and the fight against corruption are essential components of;

33.  Reiterates its call for further action to improve the training of law enforcement on strategies to fight against racism and discrimination, and to prevent, identify and ban racial and ethnic profiling and violence; calls on the Member States to invest in this field, and cooperate with CEPOL and the European Judicial Training Network; underlines that there is a continued need for training on trends in radicalisation, terrorism and money laundering;

34.  Welcomes the establishment of the European Public Prosecutor’s Office (EPPO); calls for its independence to be preserved, and for its effective functioning in national judicial procedures to be ensured; is concerned that the Commission has committed a significant omission by not taking into account the EPPO’s role in enhancing our Security Union: calls for the assessment of a potential extension of the EPPO’s mandate in line with Article 83 of the TFEU, once the EPPO is fully operational;

35.  Calls on the Member States to ensure the full and correct implementation of the Victims’ Rights Directive and other EU rules on victims’ rights; welcomes the adoption of the Victim’s Rights Strategy and the creation of the post of Commission Coordinator for Victims’ Rights; reiterates its call for special attention to be paid to vulnerable victims, and for the possibility of compensation to be paid out of seized and confiscated assets and the proceeds of crimes; reiterates its call for sustainable funding for victim support services to be ensured;

36.  Reiterates the need for effective protection and assistance to vulnerable victims of trafficking, including their reintegration into society, with particular attention for unaccompanied minors; highlights the need for law enforcement personnel to be trained in the psychological aspects of trafficking, and for a gender- and child-friendly approach that implements anti-discrimination legislation;

37.  Stresses that gender equality is a crucial aspect for combating radicalisation, reducing domestic violence, and for preventing sexual abuse and child abuse; calls on the Commission to include measures to support gender equality as an important prevention component of its security strategy, and calls on the Council to activate the passerelle clause by adopting a unanimous decision to identify violence against women and girls (and other forms of gender-based violence) as one of the areas of crime defined in Article 83(1) of the TFEU; calls on the Commission and Member States to prioritise the fight against domestic violence by providing support services, establishing specialised law enforcement units and prosecuting these crimes; calls on the Commission and Member States to provide updated data on this; calls for the EU and the Member States to ratify the Istanbul Convention;

38.  Regrets the systematic lack of full and timely implementation of EU security measures by the Member States; considers that security measures must not only be implemented to the letter of the law, but also to the spirit; notes that if security measures are systematically not being implemented fully and on time, they risk being void, may not result in more security, and therefore no longer fulfil the requirements of necessity and proportionality; calls on the Commission to start infringement procedures immediately after transposition deadlines or after a breach has been identified;

39.  Stresses the importance of evidence of the effectiveness of current EU security measures; points out that the extent to which the restriction of fundamental rights can be considered necessary and proportionate depends on the effectiveness of these policies, proven by publicly available quantitative and qualitative evidence; regrets the fact that the Commission has so far only made available anecdotal evidence about security measures, but no quantitative evidence;

40.  Calls on the Commission to regularly evaluate current security policies and agreements, and bring them into line with CJEU case law where necessary; takes the view that the passenger name record (PNR) agreements with the USA and Australia must be urgently amended to be compliant with CJEU case law, and considers the Commission’s refusal to act accordingly a grave omission;

41.  Is concerned about the outsourcing of some activities from law enforcement agencies to the private sector, and calls for better oversight over any private-public cooperation in the field of security; regrets the lack of transparency on EU funding for private companies establishing security systems or parts thereof;

42.  Is deeply concerned by the lack of resources allocated to some EU agencies acting in the field of justice and home affairs (JHA) to comply fully with their mandate; calls for proper funding and staffing of EU agencies and bodies in the field of JHA in order for the EU to deliver on the Security Union Strategy;

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

(1) Texts adopted, P9_TA(2019)0022. (2) Texts adopted, P9_TA(2020)0204. (3) OJ C 388, 13.11.2020, p. 42. (4) Texts adopted, P9_TA(2019)0021. (5) Texts adopted, P9_TA(2020)0173. (6) Texts adopted, P9_TA(2019)0066. (7) European Union Terrorism Situation and Trend Report (TE-SAT) 2020, published on 23 June 2020; Internet Organised Crime Threat Assessment (IOCTA) 2020, published on 5 October 2020; ‘Exploiting isolation: Offenders and victims of online child sexual abuse during the COVID-19 pandemic’, published on 19 June 2020. (8) Europol, TE-SAT 2020, p. 66. (9) Based on Europol TE-SAT 2020, p. 24. (10) Commission report of 30 September 2020 based on Article 29(1) of Directive (EU) 2017/541 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 March 2017 on combating terrorism (COM(2020)0619). (11) OJ L 88, 31.3.2017, p. 6. (12) EU Security Union Strategy, p. 19. (13) OJ L 335, 17.12.2011, p. 1. (14) Commission staff working document accompanying the third report on the progress made in the fight against trafficking in human beings (2020) as required under Article 20 of Directive 2011/36/EU on preventing and combating trafficking in human beings and protecting its victims, p. 3 (SWD(2020)0226). (15) EMCDDA, European Drug Report 2020: Trends and Developments, September 2020, p. 66. (16) Deloitte Consulting & Advisory CVBA, Study on the Feasibility of Improving Information Exchange under the Prüm Decisions, May 2020, p. 7. (17) OJ L 132, 21.5.2016, p. 1. (18) OJ L 315, 14.11.2012, p. 57. (19) Commission report of 11 May 2020 on the implementation of Directive 2012/29/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 October 2012 establishing minimum standards on the rights, support and protection of victims of crime, and replacing Council Framework Decision 2001/220/JHA, p. 9 (COM(2020)0188). (20) Europol, How COVID-19-related crime infected Europe during 2020, 12 November 2020. (21) COM(2018)0640. (22) OJ L 300, 11.11.2008, p. 42. (23) Infringement procedures against Cyprus and Malta of 20 October 2020 regarding their investor citizenship schemes, also referred to as ‘golden passport’ schemes. (24) Commission report of 16 December 2016 assessing the extent to which the Member States have taken the necessary measures in order to comply with Directive 2011/93/EU of 13 December 2011 on combating the sexual abuse and sexual exploitation of children and child pornography, p. 8 (COM(2016)0871). (25) European Migrant Smuggling Centre (Europol), Fourth Annual Activity Report – 2020. (26) Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Regulation (EU) 2016/794, as regards Europol’s cooperation with private parties, the processing of personal data by Europol in support of criminal investigations, and Europol’s role on research and innovation (COM(2020)0796). (27) OJ L 295, 21.11.2018, p. 39. (28) Council Directive 2004/82/EC of 29 April 2004 on the obligation of carriers to communicate passenger data (OJ L 261, 6.8.2004, p. 24).

European Parliament resolution of 17 December 2020 on the need for a dedicated Council configuration on gender equality (2020/2896(RSP))

P9_TA(2020)0379 B9-0402/2020

The European Parliament,

–  having regard to Articles 2 and 3(3) of the Treaty on the European Union and Articles 8, 10, 19, 153(1)(i), 157 and 236 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU),

–  having regard to Articles 21 and 23 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union,

–  having regard to Article 2(1) of the Council’s Rules of Procedure,

–  having regard to the Commission proposal of 2 July 2008 for a Council directive on implementing the principle of equal treatment between persons irrespective of religion or belief, disability, age or sexual orientation (Anti-Discrimination Directive) (COM(2008)0426),

–  having regard to Directive 2006/54/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 5 July 2006 on the implementation of the principle of equal opportunities and equal treatment of men and women in matters of employment and occupation(1),

–  having regard to the Commission proposal of 14 March 2012 for a directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on improving the gender balance among non-executive directors of companies listed on stock exchanges and related measures (Women on Boards Directive) (COM(2012)0614),

–  having regard to the Council of Europe Convention on preventing and combating violence against women and domestic violence (Istanbul Convention), which entered into force on 1 August 2014,

–  having regard to the Commission proposal of 4 March 2016 for a Council decision on the conclusion, by the European Union, of the Council of Europe Convention on preventing and combating violence against women and domestic violence (COM(2016)0109),

–  having regard to its resolution of 28 November 2019 on the EU’s accession to the Istanbul Convention and other measures to combat gender-based violence(2),

–  having regard to its resolution of 30 January 2020 on the gender pay gap(3),

–  having regard to its resolution of 23 October 2020 on Gender Equality in EU’s foreign and security policy(4),

–  having regard to its resolution of 19 June 2020 on the anti-racism protests following the death of George Floyd(5),

–  having regard to the Gender Equality Index 2020 of the European Institute for Gender Equality (EIGE), published on 28 October 2020,

–  having regard to the EIGE report of 19 November 2020 on gender inequalities in care and pay in the EU,

–  having regard to the Council conclusions of 10 December 2019 entitled ‘Gender-Equal Economies in the EU: The Way Forward’,

–  having regard to the Council conclusions of 2 December 2020 on tackling the gender pay gap,

–  having regard to the European Pillar of Social Rights and, in particular, principles 2, 3, 9 and 15 thereof,

–  having regard to the UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) agreed in 2015, in particular goals 5 and 8,

–  having regard to the Commission communication of 5 March 2020 entitled ‘A Union of Equality: Gender Equality Strategy 2020-2025’ (COM(2020)0152),

–  having regard to the joint communication from the Commission and the High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy of 25 November 2020 entitled ‘EU Gender Action Plan (GAP) III – An ambitious agenda for gender equality and women’s empowerment in EU external action’ (JOIN(2020)0017),

–  having regard to the Commission communication of 12 November 2020 entitled ‘Union of Equality: LGBTIQ Equality Strategy 2020-2025’ (COM(2020)0698),

–  having regard to the Commission communication of 18 September 2020 entitled ‘A Union of equality: EU anti-racism action plan 2020-2025’ (COM(2020)0565),

–  having regard to the Commission communication of 7 October 2020 entitled ‘A Union of Equality: EU Roma strategic framework for equality, inclusion and participation’ (COM(2020)0620),

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

A.  whereas gender equality is a fundamental value and a key objective of the EU; whereas the right to equal treatment and non-discrimination is a fundamental right enshrined in the Treaties and in the Charter of Fundamental Rights, and should be fully respected;

B.  whereas Article 8 TFEU lays down the principle of gender mainstreaming under which the Union should aim to eliminate inequalities, and to promote equality, between men and women in all its activities;

C.  whereas discrimination on the basis of gender and gender identity often intersects with discrimination on other grounds, such as race, colour, ethnic or social origin, genetic features, language, religion or belief, political or any other opinion, membership of a national minority, property, birth, disability, age or sexual orientation, triggering double and multiple discrimination; whereas a horizontal, intersectional perspective and gender mainstreaming in EU policies are essential in achieving gender equality and equality in general;

D.  whereas a horizontal, intersectional perspective is essential in any gender equality policy in order to recognise and address these multiple threats of discrimination; whereas EU policies have not taken an intersectional approach thus far and have focused mostly on the individual dimension of discrimination, which does not address its institutional, structural and historical dimensions; whereas intersectional analysis not only allows us to understand structural barriers, but also provides evidence on which to set benchmarks and steer a path towards strategic and effective policies against systemic discrimination, exclusion and gender inequalities;

E.  whereas according to the EIGE Gender Equality Index 2020, no EU country has yet fully achieved equality between women and men; whereas the EU’s progress on gender equality is still slow, with the index score improving on average by one point every two years; whereas at this rate, it will take over 60 years for the EU to reach gender equality;

F.  whereas gender-based violence in all its forms constitutes discrimination and a violation of human rights entrenched in gender inequality, which it helps to perpetuate and reinforce; whereas gender-based violence is one of the biggest obstacles to achieving gender equality; whereas a 2014 survey by the Fundamental Rights Agency (FRA) showed that one in three women have experienced physical or sexual violence since the age of 15, that 55 % of women have faced one or more forms of sexual harassment and that, on average, one woman dies every two and a half days as a result of domestic violence; whereas a life free from violence is a prerequisite for equality; whereas there are approximately 3 500 femicides in the EU every year linked to domestic violence(6); whereas gender-disaggregated and gender-sensitive data of a comparable nature are essential in order to reflect the full extent of gender-based violence, make inequalities visible and create targeted policies; whereas gender-disaggregated and gender-sensitive data are still lacking in different areas of EU and Member State policy;

G.  whereas according to the latest figures from the Commission, the EU gender gap in hourly pay is 16 %, although this varies significantly across Member States; whereas the gender pay gap rises to 40 % when employment rates and overall labour market participation are taken into account; whereas the situation is even worse when women retire, as their pensions are worth about 37 % less than men’s as a consequence of the gender pay gap, among other factors; whereas the employment rate in the EU, which varies significantly across Member States, was still higher for men (79 %) than for women (67,4 %) in 2018; whereas 31,3 % of employed women aged 20-64 in the EU worked on a part-time basis in 2018, compared with 8,7 % for men; whereas women are overrepresented in the informal economy, involuntary part-time work, and precarious and low-paid jobs;

H.  whereas unpaid care and domestic work is mostly carried out by women, which has an impact on employment and career progression and contributes to the gender employment, pay and pension gaps; whereas estimates show that in the care sector, 80 % of services are provided by informal carers who are mostly women (75 %), including migrant women;

I.  whereas women are therefore still underrepresented and suffer various forms of discrimination in the labour market, and whereas the goal is to provide them with the same opportunities in the workplace as men in order to reduce those gaps;

J.  whereas according to the Commission communication of 14 January 2020 on a strong social Europe for just transitions (COM(2020)0014), improved childcare and long-term care services are a means to ensure that care responsibilities are shared more equally between women and men, with a view to facilitating women’s participation in the labour market on an equal footing with men;

K.  whereas gender gaps and structural barriers persist in many areas, restricting women and men to their traditional roles and limiting women’s opportunities to fully benefit from their fundamental right of equality in employment, work and pay;

L.  whereas women are underrepresented in decision-making positions, including in the economic sector, and gender parity in elected bodies is far from being achieved; whereas according to the EIGE, less than a third of all parliamentarians in the EU are women; whereas most decision-making bodies lack expertise in gender equality;

M.  whereas stereotypical views of gender roles contribute to gender inequalities and help to perpetuate gender-based violence; whereas it is in the interest of society as a whole to counter gender inequalities, and whereas the participation of men in efforts to counter gender inequality and gender-based violence is crucial;

N.  whereas access to sexual and reproductive healthcare and rights is essential to achieving gender equality; whereas the denial of sexual and reproductive health and rights (SRHR) is a form of gender-based violence; whereas Parliament has addressed SRHR in its newly adopted EU4Health Programme, with a view to ensuring timely access to goods that are needed for the safe provision of SRHR;

O.  whereas positive progress has been achieved in the EU, but there is still room for improvement, as we witness a serious backlash against gender equality and women’s rights, including within the area of SRHR; whereas this regression must be countered and gender equality and women’s rights protected at the highest political level;

P.  whereas the COVID-19 pandemic has had a disproportionate impact on women and girls as a result of existing inequalities that lead to, among other issues, an exponential increase in gender-based violence and higher labour market drop-out; whereas the incorporation of a gender perspective at all stages of the response to the COVID-19 crisis is essential;

Q.  whereas occupying as they do the most precarious jobs in our society, women have been hardest hit during the COVID-19 pandemic by partial unemployment, the risk of losing their jobs and forced telework owing to the lack of childcare; whereas one fifth of women in the EU were already at risk of poverty or social exclusion(7); whereas women also constitute 85 % of single-parent families, which are even more at risk of precariousness and increased poverty; whereas 500 million people(8) in the world are expected to fall into poverty in the coming months, most of them women; whereas poverty and social exclusion have structural causes that need to be eradicated and reversed, in particular through policies on employment, housing, mobility and access to public services;

R.  whereas the COVID-19 crisis has shown the importance of EU integration and of strengthening cooperation and dialogue between Member States, exchanging solutions and delivering EU-level actions and coordinated responses, including in the field of gender equality;

S.  whereas for the first time ever, gender mainstreaming will be a horizontal priority in the multiannual financial framework 2021-2027, following an agreement between Parliament and the Council, and should be accompanied by impact assessments of each legislative and policy proposal and gender-responsive monitoring and evaluation of programmes, including by tracking the funds dedicated to gender equality; whereas the implementation of gender budgeting should also be monitored at the highest political level in the Recovery and Resilience Facility and the main EU funding programmes; whereas gender equality and the fulfilment of women’s and girls’ rights are preconditions for economic recovery and inclusive sustainable development;

T.  whereas eight years since its approval, the Istanbul Convention has not yet been ratified by all Member States, or by the EU; whereas the Istanbul Convention is the most important existing international tool to prevent and combat gender-based violence;

U.  whereas in several resolutions, such as its resolution of 28 November 2019 on EU accession to the Istanbul Convention and other measures to combat gender-based violence, Parliament called on the Council to activate the ‘passerelle clause’ enshrined in Article 83(1) TFEU in order to include gender-based violence in the list of Eurocrimes; whereas Parliament has, on many occasions, called for a directive to prevent and combat gender-based violence;

V.  whereas seven years since the Commission put forward its proposal and Parliament adopted its position at first reading, no agreement has yet been reached on the directive on improving the gender balance among non-executive directors of companies listed on stock exchanges and related measures (Women on Boards Directive), and the proposal has been blocked in the Council ever since;

W.  whereas twelve years since its proposal by the Commission, no agreement has yet been reached on the Council directive on implementing the principle of equal treatment between persons irrespective of religion or belief, disability, age or sexual orientation, and the proposal has been blocked in the Council ever since;

X.  whereas in its conclusions of 10 December 2019 entitled ‘Gender-Equal Economies in the EU: The Way Forward’, the Council stressed that ‘while old challenges remain, new ones are emerging. Objectives set for gender equality have not been fully achieved’ and called on the Commission and the Member States to ‘strengthen gender equality [...] by actively promoting high-level political dialogue on gender equality issues at EU level, and at the highest political level’;

Y.  whereas high-level political dialogue and dialogue at EU level has proven to be efficient in reducing disparities between Member States and promoting European integration in most policy areas; whereas a structured dialogue at the highest political level is essential to protect and promote women’s rights and gender equality through the adoption of gender-responsive Union legislation;

Z.  whereas the role of the Council as co-legislator of the EU is essential; whereas Council configurations must be designed to respond to current political challenges and priorities; whereas the lack of a dedicated Council configuration on gender equality increases the risk of adopting gender-blind legislation;

AA.  whereas the current Commission has shown a strong commitment to the advancement of gender equality in its President’s political guidelines and through subsequent actions;

AB.  whereas gender equality issues are currently addressed at the Employment, Social Policy, Health and Consumer Affairs Council level, which does not properly reflect all aspects to be tackled;

AC.  whereas Parliament has already called for the establishment of a new Council configuration of ministers and secretaries of state in charge of gender equality;

AD.  whereas several presidencies of the Council of the European Union have made positive efforts to organise informal meetings for ministers and secretaries of state in charge of gender equality and to put gender equality issues on programme agendas; whereas this practice must be institutionalised through a permanent dedicated forum;

AE.  whereas united action is essential in order to upwardly converge and harmonise women’s rights in Europe through a strong pact between Member States, by sharing and implementing the most ambitious Union legislation and the implementation of best practices currently in force in the EU;

AF.  whereas while there is a Commissioner exclusively responsible for equality and Parliament has a committee dedicated to Women’s Rights and Gender Equality, there is no specific Council configuration on gender equality and ministers and secretaries of state in charge of gender equality have no dedicated and formalised forum for discussion;

AG.  whereas the European Council, acting by qualified majority, has the right to establish (or amend) the list of configurations in which the Council meets, other than those of the General Affairs Council and of the Foreign Affairs Council;

1.  Regrets that the ministers and secretaries of state in charge of gender equality have no dedicated institutional forum to ensure that Member State representatives regularly meet, discuss, legislate, take political decisions and exchange best practices; stresses that bringing together ministers and secretaries of state in charge of gender equality will provide for a better focused and more efficient forum for cooperation, ensuring stronger integration of gender equality into EU strategies and policy processes, a coherent approach and coordination of all related policies;

2.  Stresses the importance of gathering ministers and secretaries of state in charge of gender equality in one dedicated, formal forum in order to deliver common and concrete measures and legislation to address the challenges in the field of women’s rights and gender equality and ensure that gender equality issues are discussed at the highest political level, taking into account the distinct forms of discrimination that racialised women, women belonging to ethnic, religious and linguistic minorities, older women, women with disabilities, Roma women, LBTI women, refugee and migrant women, and women at risk of social exclusion suffer;

3.  Stresses the importance of the political signal expressed through the establishment of a Council configuration on gender equality; affirms that a specific Council configuration on gender equality, allowing ministers and secretaries of state in charge of gender equality to regularly meet and discuss, will strengthen gender mainstreaming in Union legislation, as well as dialogue and cooperation between Member States, the exchange of best practices and legislation, and the capacity to deliver common responses to EU-wide problems, and will contribute to narrowing the gaps between Member States and harmonising the protection of women’s rights and gender equality in Europe via an intersectional approach;

4.  Underlines that a specific Council configuration on gender equality would represent a key element in unblocking the negotiations on the main files related to gender equality, namely the ratification of the Istanbul Convention, the adoption of the directive on improving the gender balance among non-executive directors of companies listed on stock exchanges and related measures (Women on Boards Directive), and the Council directive on implementing the principle of equal treatment between persons irrespective of religion or belief, disability, age or sexual orientation (Anti-Discrimination Directive), and in boosting other gender issues that should be addressed in the coming years, such as adding gender-based violence to the list of Eurocrimes and the adoption of a future directive on gender-based violence;

5.  Calls on the Council and the European Council to establish a Council configuration on gender equality in order to facilitate gender mainstreaming across all EU policies and legislation;

6.  Calls on the European Council to act by qualified majority and amend the list of configurations in which the Council meets, in accordance with Article 236 TFEU and Article 2(1) of the Council’s Rules of Procedure;

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

(1) OJ L 204, 26.7.2006, p. 23. (2) Texts adopted, P9_TA(2019)0080. (3) Texts adopted, P9_TA(2020)0025. (4) Texts adopted, P9_TA(2020)0286. (5) Texts adopted, P9_TA(2020)0173. (6) https://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/BRIE/2018/630296/EPRS_BRI(2018)630296_EN.pdf (7) Eurostat, 2018. (8) According to NGOs (Oxfam) and the UN.

European Parliament decision of 17 December 2020 on amendments to the Rules of Procedure in order to ensure the functioning of Parliament in extraordinary circumstances (2020/2098(REG))

P9_TA(2020)0380 A9-0194/2020

The European Parliament,

–  having regard to Rules 236 and 237 of its Rules of Procedure,

–  having regard to the report of the Committee on Constitutional Affairs (A9-0194/2020),

1.  Decides to amend its Rules of Procedure as shown below;

2.  Stresses that the sanitary crisis caused by the Covid-19 pandemic has revealed that its Rules of Procedure require more developed procedures in order to ensure the unlimited functioning of Parliament in different types of extraordinary circumstances;

3.  Underlines the importance of the temporary measures adopted, in compliance with the rule of law, by its President and its governing bodies in the current sanitary crisis, in order to cope with such extraordinary circumstances; stresses that there were no alternatives to those measures in order to guarantee the continuity of Parliament’s business as required by the Treaties, and that they allowed Parliament to carry out its legislative, budgetary and political control functions during the crisis in accordance with the procedures provided for by the Treaties;

4.  Stresses that those temporary measures were fully justified and that they ensured the validity of all votes taken during their period of application;

5.  Recalls the importance of ensuring, to the best of its ability, reasonable accommodation for Members with disabilities and their staff while Parliament is operating under extraordinary circumstances;

6.  Considers that the amendments shown below should be adopted by means of the alternative electronic voting system in accordance with the current temporary measures adopted by its President and its governing bodies for allowing it to function during the sanitary crisis caused by the Covid-19 pandemic;

7.  Decides that these amendments shall enter into force on 1 January 2021, but that they shall apply only from 18 January 2021, in order for the President and the Conference of Presidents to have the legal basis for adopting and approving in advance a decision under new Rule 237a(2), first subparagraph, so that the new provisions can be applied in full from the first day of their application, namely, at the opening of the first ordinary part-session of 2021;

8.  Instructs its President to forward this decision to the Council, to the Commission and to the national parliaments, for information.

Present text   Amendment Amendment 1 Parliament's Rules of Procedure Title XIII a (new) TITLE XIIIa: EXTRAORDINARY CIRCUMSTANCES Amendment 2 Parliament's Rules of Procedure Rule 237 a (new) Rule 237 a Extraordinary measures 1.  This Rule applies to situations in which Parliament, due to exceptional and unforeseeable circumstances beyond its control, is hindered from carrying out its duties and exercising its prerogatives under the Treaties, and a temporary derogation from Parliament’s usual procedures, set out elsewhere in these Rules, is necessary in order to adopt extraordinary measures to enable Parliament to continue to carry out those duties and to exercise those prerogatives. Such extraordinary circumstances shall be considered to exist where the President comes to the conclusion, on the basis of reliable evidence confirmed, where appropriate, by Parliament’s services, that for reasons of security, or safety or as a result of the non-availability of technical means it is, or will be, impossible or dangerous for Parliament to convene in accordance with its usual procedures as set out elsewhere in these Rules and its adopted calendar. 2.  Where the conditions set out in paragraph 1 are fulfilled, the President may decide, with the approval of the Conference of Presidents, to apply one or more of the measures referred to in paragraph 3. If it is impossible, due to reasons of imperative urgency, for the Conference of Presidents to convene in person or virtually, the President may decide to apply one or more of the measures referred to in paragraph 3. Such a decision shall lapse five days after its adoption unless approved by the Conference of Presidents within that period. Following a decision by the President, approved by the Conference of Presidents, Members or a political group or groups reaching at least the medium threshold may, at any time, request that some or all of the measures provided for in that decision be submitted individually to Parliament for approval without debate. The vote in plenary shall be placed on the agenda of the first sitting following the day on which the request was tabled. No amendments may be tabled. If a measure fails to obtain a majority of the votes cast, it shall lapse after the end of the part-session. A measure approved by the plenary may not be the subject of a further vote during the same part-session. 3.  The decision referred to in paragraph 2 may provide for all appropriate measures in order to address the extraordinary circumstances referred to under paragraph 1, and in particular for the following measures: (a)  postponement of a scheduled part-session, sitting or meeting of a committee to a later date and/or cancellation or limitation of meetings of inter-parliamentary delegations and other bodies; (b)  displacement of a part-session, sitting or meeting of a committee from Parliament’s seat to one of its working places or to an external place, or from one of its working places to Parliament’s seat, to one of Parliament’s other working places or to an external place; (c)  holding a part-session or a sitting on the premises of Parliament in whole or in part in separate meeting rooms allowing for appropriate physical distancing; (d)  holding a part session, sitting or meeting of bodies of Parliament under the remote participation regime laid down in Rule 237c; (e)  in the event that the ad hoc replacement mechanism laid down in Rule 209(7) fails to provide sufficient remedies to address the extraordinary circumstances under consideration, temporary replacement of Members in a committee by political groups, unless the Members concerned oppose such temporary replacement. 4.  A decision referred to in paragraph 2 shall be limited in time and shall state the reasons on which it is based. It shall enter into force upon its publication on Parliament’s website or, if circumstances prevent such publication, upon its being made public by the best available alternative means. All Members shall also be informed individually of the decision without delay. The decision may be renewed by the President in accordance with the procedure under paragraph 2 once, or more than once, for a limited time. A decision to renew shall state the reasons on which it is based. The President shall revoke a decision adopted under this Rule as soon as the extraordinary circumstances referred to in paragraph 1 that gave rise to its adoption have disappeared. 5.  This Rule shall be applied only as a last resort, and only measures that are strictly necessary to address the extraordinary circumstances under consideration shall be selected and applied. When applying this Rule, due account shall be taken, in particular, of the principle of representative democracy, of the principle of equal treatment of Members, of the right of Members to exercise their parliamentary mandate without impairment, including their rights stemming from Rule 167 and their right to vote freely, individually and in person, and of Protocol No 6 on the location of the seats of the institutions and of certain bodies, offices, agencies and departments of the European Union, annexed to the Treaties. Amendment 3 Parliament's Rules of Procedure Rule 237 b (new) Rule 237b Disturbance of the political balance in Parliament 1.  The President may, with the approval of the Conference of Presidents, adopt measures necessary to facilitate the participation of Members or of a political group concerned if, on the basis of reliable evidence, the President comes to the conclusion that the political balance in Parliament is severely impaired because a significant number of Members or a political group cannot take part in Parliament’s proceedings in accordance with its usual procedures, as set out elsewhere in these Rules, for reasons of security or safety, or as a result of the non-availability of technical means. The sole aim of such measures shall be to allow the remote participation of Members concerned by the application of selected technical means under Rule 237c(1) or by other appropriate means serving the same purpose. 2.  Measures under paragraph 1 may be adopted for the benefit of a significant number of Members if exceptional and unforeseeable circumstances beyond their control occurring in a regional context lead to their non-participation. Measures under paragraph 1 may also be adopted for the benefit of members of a political group if that group has requested them where the non-participation of that group results from exceptional and unforeseeable circumstances beyond that group’s control. 3.  Rule 237a(2), second and third subparagraphs, and the rules and principles laid down in Rule 237a(4) and (5) shall apply accordingly. Amendment 4 Parliament's Rules of Procedure Rule 237 c (new) Rule 237 c Remote participation regime 1.  Where the President decides in accordance with Rule 237a(3), point (d), to apply the remote participation regime, Parliament may conduct its proceedings remotely inter alia by permitting all Members to exercise certain of their parliamentary rights by electronic means. Where the President decides in accordance with Rule 237b that selected technical means under the remote participation regime are to be used, this Rule shall apply only to the extent necessary and only to the Members concerned. 2.  The remote participation regime shall ensure that: –  Members are able to exercise their parliamentary mandate, including, in particular, their right to speak in plenary and in the committees, to vote and to table texts, without impairment; –  all votes are cast by Members individually and in person; –  the remote voting system enables Members to cast ordinary votes, roll call votes and secret ballots and to verify that their votes are counted as cast; –  a uniform voting system is applied for all Members, regardless of whether they are present or not on Parliament’s premises; –  Rule 167 is applied to the greatest extent possible; –  the information technology solutions made available to Members and their staff are ‘technology neutral’; –  participation of Members in parliamentary debates and votes takes place using secure electronic means that are managed and supervised by Parliament’s services directly and internally. 3.  When taking the decision referred to in paragraph 1, the President shall determine whether that regime applies to the exercise of Members’ rights in plenary only, or also to the exercise of Members’ rights in Parliament’s committees and/or other bodies. The President shall also determine in his or her decision how rights and practices which cannot be exercised appropriately without the physical presence of Members are adapted for the duration of the regime. These rights and practices concern, inter alia: –  the manner in which attendance at a sitting or meeting is counted; –  the conditions under which a request for a check of the quorum is made; –  the tabling of texts; –  requests for splits and separate votes; –  the allocation of speaking time; –  the scheduling of debates; –  the presentation of, and the objection to, oral amendments; –  the order of votes; –  the deadlines and time limits for the setting of the agenda and for procedural motions. 4.  For the purposes of the application of the provisions of the Rules relating to quorum and voting in the Chamber, Members who are participating remotely shall be deemed to be physically present in the Chamber. By way of derogation from Rule 171(11), Members who have not spoken in a debate may, once per sitting, hand in a written statement, which shall be appended to the verbatim report of the debate. The President shall, where necessary, determine the manner in which the Chamber may be used by Members during the application of the remote participation regime, and in particular the maximum number of Members who can be physically present. 5.  Where the President decides in accordance with paragraph 3, first subparagraph, to apply the remote participation regime to committees or other bodies, paragraph 4, first subparagraph, shall apply, mutatis mutandis. 6.  The Bureau shall adopt measures concerning the operation and security of the electronic means used under this Rule, in accordance with the requirements and standards laid down in paragraph 2. Amendment 5 Parliament's Rules of Procedure Rule 237 d (new) Rule 237d Holding of a part-session or a sitting in separate meeting rooms Where the President decides in accordance with Rule 237a(3), point (c), to allow a part-session or a sitting to be held, in whole or in part, in more than one meeting room, including, where appropriate, the hemicycle, the following rules shall apply: –  the meeting rooms used in this context shall be considered to collectively constitute the Chamber; –  the President may, if necessary, determine the manner in which the respective meeting rooms can be used, in order to ensure that physical distancing requirements are respected.

European Parliament legislative resolution of 17 December 2020 on the proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on certain aspects of railway safety and connectivity with regard to the cross-border infrastructure linking the Union and the United Kingdom through the Channel Fixed Link (COM(2020)0782 – C9-0379/2020 – 2020/0347(COD))

(Ordinary legislative procedure: first reading)

The European Parliament,

–  having regard to the Commission proposal to Parliament and the Council (COM(2020)0782),

–  having regard to Article 294(2) and Article 91(1) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, pursuant to which the Commission submitted the proposal to Parliament (C9-0379/2020),

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

–  after consulting the European Economic and Social Committee,

–  after consulting the Committee of the Regions,

–  having regard to the undertaking given by the Council representative by letter of 2 December 2020 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 and 163 of its Rules of Procedure,

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 17 December 2020 with a view to the adoption of Regulation (EU) 2020/… of the European Parliament and of the Council on certain aspects of railway safety and connectivity with regard to the cross-border infrastructure linking the Union and the United Kingdom through the Channel Fixed Link

(As an agreement was reached between Parliament and Council, Parliament's position corresponds to the final legislative act, Regulation (EU) 2020/2222.)

European Parliament resolution of 17 December 2020 on the EU strategy on adaptation to climate change (2020/2532(RSP))

P9_TA(2020)0382 B9-0422/2020

The European Parliament,

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

–  having regard to the Agreement adopted at the 21st Conference of the Parties to the UNFCCC (COP21) in Paris on 12 December 2015 (the Paris Agreement),

–  having regard to the EU strategy on adaptation to climate change of April 2013 and its accompanying staff working documents,

–  having regard to the Commission report of 12 November 2018 on the implementation of the EU strategy on adaptation to climate change (COM(2018)0738),

–  having regard to the UN Environment Programme’s Adaptation Gap Report 2018,

–  having regard to the Commission communication of 11 December 2019 on the European Green Deal (COM(2019)0640),

–  having regard to the Commission proposal of 4 March 2020 for a regulation establishing the framework for achieving climate neutrality and amending Regulation (EU) 2018/1999 (European Climate Law) (COM(2020)0080),

–  having regard to the Commission communication of 20 May 2020 entitled ‘EU Biodiversity Strategy for 2030: Bringing nature back into our lives’ (COM(2020)0380),

–  having regard to the Commission communication of 20 May 2020 entitled ‘A Farm to Fork Strategy for a fair, healthy and environmentally-friendly food system’ (COM(2020)0381),

–  having regard to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s (IPCC) special report on global warming of 1.5 °C, its fifth assessment report (AR5) and its synthesis report thereon, its special report on climate change and land, and its special report on the ocean and cryosphere in a changing climate,

–  having regard to the Global Assessment on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services published by the Intergovernmental Science Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IBPES) on 31 May 2019,

–  having regard to European Court of Auditors special report no. 33/2018 entitled ‘Combating desertification in the EU: a growing threat in need of more action’,

–  having regard to the Global Commission on Adaptation’s flagship report of 2019 entitled ‘Adapt Now: A Global Call for Leadership on Climate Resilience’,

–  having regard to the EU’s seventh Environment Action Programme to 2020 and its vision for 2050,

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

–  having regard to its resolution of 16 January 2020 on the 15th meeting of the Conference of Parties (COP15) to the Convention on Biological Diversity(1),

–  having regard to its resolution of 15 January 2020 on the European Green Deal(2),

–  having regard to its resolution of 28 November 2019 on the climate and environment emergency(3),

–  having regard to the European Environment Agency (EEA) indicator-based report of 25 January 2017 entitled ‘Climate change, impacts and vulnerability in Europe 2016’,

–  having regard to the EEA indicator assessment of 2 April 2019 entitled ‘Economic losses from climate-related extremes in Europe’,

–  having regard to the EEA report of 4 September 2019 entitled ‘Climate change adaptation in the agriculture sector in Europe’,

–  having regard to the EEA report of 4 December 2019 entitled ‘The European environment  state and outlook 2020: knowledge for transition to a sustainable Europe’,

–  having regard to the scientific opinion of the Commission’s independent Group of Chief Scientific Advisors of 29 June 2020 on adaptation to climate-change-related health effects,

–  having regard to the EEA report of 8 September 2020 entitled ‘Healthy environment, healthy lives: how the environment influences health and well-being in Europe’,

–  having regard to the UN Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction 2015-2030,

–  having regard to Directive 2000/60/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 October 2000 establishing a framework for Community action in the field of water policy(4),

–  having regard to Regulation (EU) 2020/741 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 May 2020 on minimum requirements for water reuse(5),

–  having regard to the Cancun Adaptation Framework,

–  having regard to the Warsaw International Mechanism for Loss and Damage associated with Climate Impacts,

–  having regard to Directive 2007/60/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 October 2007 on the assessment and management of flood risks(6),

–  having regard to its resolution of 8 September 2015 on the follow-up to the European Citizens’ Initiative Right2Water(7),

–  having regard to European Court of Auditors special report no 33/2018 entitled ‘Combating desertification in the EU: a growing threat in need of more action’,

–  having regard to the European Court of Auditors special report no 25/2018 entitled ‘Floods Directive: progress in assessing risks, while planning and implementation need to improve’,

–  having regard to the Commission’s Projections of economic impacts of climate change in sectors of the EU based on bottom-up analysis (PESETA) reports, in particular the 2018 and 2020 PESETA III and IV reports,

–  having regard to the question to the Commission on EU strategy on adaptation to climate change (O-000075/2020 – B9‑0075/2020),

–  having regard to Rules 136(5) and 132(2) of its Rules of Procedure,

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

A.  whereas the observed climate changes are already having wide-ranging impacts on ecosystems (and biodiversity in particular), social and economic sectors (deepening inequality) and human health; whereas it is important to prevent the emergence of multiple and often interacting threats to ecosystems and wildlife, including habitat loss and degradation; whereas the effects of climate change are continuing to be registered globally and in the EU, and whereas there is further evidence that future climate change will increase the number of extreme climate-related events in many EU regions, as well as in third countries, and trigger invasions of infectious disease carriers that could lead to the re-emergence of infectious diseases previously eliminated in the EU; whereas adaptation to climate change is not only in the EU’s economic interest, but is also imperative for the public’s well-being;

B.  whereas Member States, regions and sectors in the EU are, and are projected to be, affected differently by climate change; whereas coastal and island regions are particularly vulnerable to the impacts of climate change; whereas adaptive capacity significantly differs between EU regions, and the adaptive capacity of the EU’s island and outermost regions is limited; whereas adaptation strategies should also encourage a shift to sustainable development in vulnerable areas, such as islands, building on environmentally friendly and nature-based solutions; whereas the Mediterranean area will suffer more from the effects of heat-related human mortality, water scarcity, desertification, habitat loss and forest fires;

C.  whereas coral reefs and mangroves, which are essential natural carbon sinks, are at risk because of climate change;

D.  whereas soil health is a key factor in mitigating the effects of desertification, as soil is the largest carbon reservoir and the backbone of all ecosystems and crops, having significant water retention capacity and playing an important role in improving societal resilience to environmental change;

E.  whereas the water sector, agriculture, fisheries, forestry and terrestrial and marine biodiversity are strongly linked, and are also related to changing land-use patterns and population change; whereas climate change impacts in other parts of the world may affect the EU through trade, international financial flows, public health, migration and security;

F.  whereas overall energy consumption in the water sector in the EU is significant and needs to be more efficient in order to contribute to the goals of the Paris Agreement and the climate goals of the EU for 2030 and to achieve carbon neutrality in 2050;

G.  whereas the Water Framework Directive (WFD) does not include specific provisions to address the impacts of climate change; whereas in its communication on the European Green Deal, the Commission nevertheless acknowledges that the natural functions of ground and surface water must be restored;

H.  whereas buildings are responsible for approximately 40 % of energy consumption and 36 % of CO2 emissions in the EU, and whereas their deep, including staged deep, renovation is therefore crucial to achieving the EU’s 2050 net-zero greenhouse gas emissions objective;

I.  whereas the EEA has estimated that weather- and climate-related extremes accounted for EUR 426 billion in monetary terms between 1980 and 2017 in the EU-28 Member States, and has said that damage costs from climate change are expected to be high, even if the Paris Agreement is implemented; whereas these costs should be taken into account in the cost-benefit analysis of the measures to be implemented; whereas climate-resilient investments can limit the adverse effects of climate change and thus reduce the cost of adaptation; whereas the impacts of climate change outside of the EU are likely to have economic, social and political repercussions on the EU in numerous ways, including through trade, international financial flows, climate-induced displacement and security; whereas the necessary climate change adaptation investments have not yet been assessed or incorporated into the multiannual financial framework (MFF) climate figures;

J.  whereas climate change and its impacts can be substantially reduced by an ambitious global mitigation policy compatible with the mitigation goal of the Paris Agreement; whereas current emission reduction commitments are not sufficient to achieve the goals of the Paris Agreement and will result in global warming of more than 3 °C above pre-industrial levels;

K.  whereas adaptation to climate change is necessary to anticipate and cope with current and future adverse effects of climate change and to prevent or reduce short-, medium- and long-term risks from climate change; whereas a robust EU adaptation strategy is fundamental to preparing vulnerable regions and sectors; whereas collective international efforts, inter alia on sustainable development, biodiversity and disaster risk reduction, should be better integrated in the new strategy;

L.  whereas mechanisms for funding adaptation measures to address loss and damage or climate-induced displacement will be more effective if women, including grass roots women, are able to fully participate in design process, decision-making and implementation; whereas taking women’s knowledge, including local and indigenous knowledge, into account can lead to advances in disaster management, boost biodiversity, improve water management, enhance food security, prevent desertification, protect forests, ensure a swift transition to renewable energy technologies and support public health;

M.  whereas health hazards related to climate change will affect people, particularly some vulnerable groups (elderly people, children, outdoor workers and homeless people); whereas these hazards are, inter alia, increasing morbidity and mortality due to extreme weather events (heatwaves, storms, floods, wildfires) and emerging infectious diseases (whose spread, timing and intensity are affected by changes in temperature, humidity and rainfall); whereas changes in ecosystems might also increase the risk of infectious diseases;

N.  whereas according to the World Health Organization, projected climate change will cause approximately 250 000 additional deaths a year by 2030;

O.  whereas the restoration of ecosystems, such as forests, grasslands, peat-lands and wetlands, leads to positive change in the carbon balance of the respective land use system and is both a mitigation and an adaptation measure;

P.  whereas investing in the prevention of environmental disasters can effectively improve adaptation to climate change and reduce the frequency and intensity of climate-related extreme weather events;

Q.  whereas, according to the 2019 IPCC special report on climate change and land, the conservation of high-carbon ecosystems has an immediate positive impact with respect to climate change; whereas the positive impact of restoration and other measures related to land use systems is not immediate;

R.  whereas the objective of achieving a good ecological status for bodies of water is of crucial importance for adaptation, with the ecological status of bodies of water being under increasing pressure from the changing climate;

General observations

1.  Emphasises that adaptation is necessary for the Union as a whole and for all countries and regions in order to minimise adverse and irreversible impacts of climate change, while implementing at the same time ambitious mitigation measures to pursue efforts to contain global warming below 1.5 °C compared to pre-industrial levels, make full use of the opportunities for climate-resilient growth and sustainable development and maximise the co-benefits with other environmental policies and legislation; in this context, stresses its unwavering commitment to the global goal for adaptation as defined in the Paris Agreement;

2.  Recognises that EU cities and regions are already faced with wide-ranging adverse effects of climate change, such as extreme rainfall, floods and droughts, and that these phenomena represent environmental, economic and safety risks for local communities and businesses; considers that the upcoming strategy should reflect this urgency and propose appropriate measures in this regard;

3.  Suggests that the reactive nature of the European Union Solidarity Fund be complemented by proactively planned adaptation to climate change, which will reduce the vulnerability of the EU territory and its inhabitants by increasing adaptive capacity and reducing its sensitivity;

4.  Expresses its support to the Global Commission on Adaptation for its work in drawing attention to adaptation;

5.  Calls for a renewed and improved focus on adaptation; is therefore pleased that the Commission will present a new strategy as a key component of the EU’s climate policy and asks it to present the strategy without delay; considers it an opportunity to show that the EU is a global leader in building global climate resilience through increased financing, as well as promoting science, services, technologies and practices for adaptation; considers that the new strategy should be an integral part of the European Green Deal, with the aim of building a resilient EU through the creation and upholding of systems with highly adaptive and responsive capacity in a rapidly changing climate by boosting sustainable economic development, safeguarding quality of life and public health, ensuring water and food security, respecting and protecting biodiversity, turning to clean energy sources and ensuring climate and social justice; welcomes the enhanced governance regime of adaptation under the European Climate Law;

6.  Welcomes the Commission’s evaluation of the EU strategy on adaptation to climate change of November 2018 and takes note of its conclusion that the wide-ranging objectives of the strategy have not been completely fulfilled, but that progress has been made towards all of its individual actions; believes in this regard that the goals set in the new strategy need to be more ambitious in order for the EU to be prepared for the projected adverse effects of climate change;

7.  Calls for adaptation to climate change to be taken into account when building and renovating existing infrastructure, in all sectors and in spatial planning, and calls for effective climate-proofing of spatial planning, buildings, all relevant infrastructure and other investments, in particular through ex ante examination to assess the capacity of projects to cope with medium- to long-term climate impacts in different global temperature rise scenarios, in order to know whether or not they are eligible for Union funding and to ensure that EU funds are being spent efficiently on long-lasting, climate-compatible projects; calls for a reform of engineering standards and practice across the EU to integrate physical climate risks;

8.  Emphasises that green infrastructure contributes to adaptation to climate change through the protection of natural capital, the conservation of natural habitats and species, good ecological status, water management and food security;

9.  Regrets the fact that the 2013 strategy fails to properly address the urgency of implementing adaptation measures; welcomes the strengthened governance for action on adaptation as part of the European Climate Law, and calls for the new strategy to include binding and quantifiable goals both at EU and Member State level, the identification of priority areas and investment needs, including an assessment of the extent to which EU investments contribute to reducing the overall climate vulnerability of the Union, a more frequent review process, with clear goals, a proper assessment, and indicators informed by the latest science to measure progress in its implementation; recognises the need to keep measures and plans continuously up-to-date in an unprecedented changing world; therefore calls on the Commission to regularly review and update the new strategy in line with the relevant provisions of the European Climate Law;

10.  Notes also that progress on the number of local and regional adaptation strategies has been more limited than expected, with differences between Member States; encourages the Member States to incentivise and assist regions in implementing adaptation plans and taking action; underlines that adaptation strategies should take due account of territorial specificities and local knowledge; calls on the Commission to ensure that all EU regions are prepared to tackle the impacts of climate change through adaptation; recognises in this context the value of the Covenant of Mayors, which has increased cooperation on adaptation at local level, and of the permanent national multi-level climate and energy dialogues, as envisaged in the Regulation on the Governance of the Energy Union and Climate Action; calls for an enhanced role for adaptation in the European Climate Pact;

11.  Highlights the importance of managing physical climate risks and calls for the integration of mandatory climate risk assessments into the EU strategy on adaptation to climate change, including of national adaptation plans;

12.  Calls for public procurement to serve as an example of the use of climate-friendly materials and services;

13.  Highlights the importance of further promoting climate adaptation in regions and cities in the new strategy, for example by promoting legislative frameworks requiring adequate adaptation strategies and monitoring at regional and city level after proper consultation with the relevant stakeholders including civil society and youth organisations, trade unions and local businesses, accompanied by financial incentives to aid their implementation; stresses that special attention should be paid to enhancing the preparedness and adaptive capacity of the most vulnerable geographical areas such as coastal areas, islands and outermost regions, which are particularly impacted by climate change through natural disasters and extreme weather disturbances; regrets the fact that there was a strong lack of a gender perspective in the Commission’s 2013 adaptation strategy and insists on a gender perspective that fully considers the vulnerability of women and girls and also upholds gender equality in participation;

14.  Stresses the need to improve cross-border cooperation and coordination on climate adaptation, as well as in rapid response to climate disasters; in this context, calls on the Commission to support the Member States in sharing knowledge and best practices on the different climate adaption efforts at regional and local level;

15.  Highlights the need for Member States, regions and cities to build their adaptive capacity to reduce vulnerabilities and the social impacts of climate change; calls for the Commission and the EU agencies to provide the necessary capacity-building and training, and a framework for the proper exchange of information and best practices across local, sub-national and national authorities;

16.  Emphasises that adaptation strategies should also encourage a change of model in vulnerable areas, such as islands, based on environmentally friendly and nature-based solutions, and should enhance self-sufficiency to ensure better living conditions, including sustainable and local agriculture and fishery practices, sustainable management of water, greater use of renewable energy, etc., in line with the SDGs, in order to foster their resilience and the protection of their ecosystems;

17.  Notes the further need for mapping of the impacts of climate change, for example in the occurrence of natural hazards; welcomes, therefore, the EU Observatory for Climate Change and Health’s Climate-ADAPT project, which has already been launched, and encourages the Commission to further develop and expand the project to cover further sectors;

18.  Highlights the important synergies and potential trade-offs between climate change mitigation and adaptation; stresses the fact that the evaluation of the current adaptation strategy has established the need for further emphasis to be placed on the link between adaptation and mitigation in policies and plans; notes that synergistic approaches to these issues are essential as a result both of the urgency of the climate and environmental crises, and of the need to protect human health and strengthen the resilience of ecological and social systems, making sure that no one is left behind; stresses that while common efforts are vital to ensure effective action on mitigation owing to its global transboundary nature, particular attention also has to be paid to the impacts of climate change and the costs of adaptation for each region, particularly those regions that are facing the double challenge of contributing to the global mitigation effort while bearing the increasing costs of dealing with climate-related impacts;

19.  Believes that the adverse effects of climate change could potentially exceed the adaptive capacities of Member States; is, therefore, of the opinion that the Member States and the Union should work together to avert, minimise and address loss and damage associated with climate change, as provided for in Article 8 of the Paris Agreement; recognises the need to further develop measures to address loss and damage;

20.  Recognises that the impacts of climate change are transboundary in nature, affecting, for example, trade, migration and security; urges the Commission, therefore, to ensure that the new strategy is holistic and covers the whole range of climate impacts;

21.  Stresses that the EU must be ready for climate-induced displacement and recognises the need for adequate measures to be taken to protect the human rights of populations under threat from the effects of climate change;

Nature-based solutions and green infrastructure

22.  Recalls that climate change and its impacts affect not only humans, but also biodiversity and marine and terrestrial ecosystems, and that according to the landmark IPBES report, climate change is currently the third most important direct driver of biodiversity loss worldwide, and sustainable livelihoods will be vital for mitigating dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system and adapting to it; calls, therefore, on the Commission and the Member States to ensure greater coherence between the implementation of the adaptation and biodiversity conservation measures emanating from the biodiversity strategy for 2030;

23.  Encourages the development of a truly coherent and resilient Trans-European Nature Network, consisting of ecological corridors to prevent genetic isolation, allow for species migration and maintain and enhance healthy ecosystems, while permitting the development of traditional, yet climate-proofed infrastructure;

24.  Stresses the importance of using sustainable nature-based adaptation solutions, of the conservation and restoration of marine and terrestrial ecosystems that can simultaneously contribute to climate mitigation and adaptation, the protection of biodiversity and combating different types of pollution; calls for the new strategy to include ambitious action plans on stepping up the use of such solutions, with adequate funding, including from the MFF, InvestEU and the Recovery and Resilience Facility, and proposes looking into the portfolios of available financial products and improving the terms of financing to remedy the current sub-optimal investment situation; further calls for good use to be made of the LIFE programme, allowing it to act as a catalyst for innovation in adaptation and to become a space to experiment, develop and pilot solutions to build up the Union’s resilience to climate risk;

25.  Highlights the need to assess and make further use of the potential of forests, trees and green infrastructure in climate adaptation and in the provision of ecosystem services such as, for example, trees in urban areas, which can even out extreme temperatures, in addition to providing other benefits, such as improving air quality; calls for more trees to be planted in cities, for support to be given to sustainable forest management and for an integrated response to forest fires, including, for example, adequate training for the fire fighters involved in combating them, in order to protect the EU’s forests against the destruction caused by extreme climate events; highlights that all adaptation measures for reforestation and agriculture should be based on the latest scientific knowledge and should be implemented with full respect for ecological principles;

26.  Notes that identifying the forest areas which have remained closest to their natural state and should therefore be given particular protection, was one of the priorities of the second EU environmental action programme of 1977; further notes that, while no action has been taken as yet, the EU also made this a priority in the Biodiversity Strategy for 2030; calls on the Commission to align the future EU climate adaptation strategy with the objectives of the EU Biodiversity Strategy, particularly with regard to the strict protection of all primary forests and its conservation and restoration objectives;

27.  Highlights the role of intact forest ecosystems(8) in overcoming environmental stressors, including changes to the climate, thanks to their inherent properties which enable them to maximise their adaptive capacity, and which include evolutionary lineages that are uniquely adapted to survive major seasonal temperature changes and landscape-level disturbances over time;

28.  Underlines that several technologies enable trees to be replanted; understands that, in some instances, construction works conducted in cities may entail the destruction of green areas, and supports, in this context, the replanting of trees, giving them a new life in new well-designed places;

29.  Calls on the Commission and the Member States to classify green infrastructure as belonging to the category of critical infrastructure for the purposes of programming, funding and investments;

30.  Notes that certain components of green infrastructure also suffer under increased heat and other stressful conditions, and that in order for them to create not only physical, but also physiological cooling effects, we need to provide them with favourable conditions, soil and moisture to thrive in urban areas; highlights, therefore, the role of proper green urban planning which takes the needs of the various components of green infrastructure into account and not merely the planting of trees;

31.  Recognises the role of the oceans in adapting to climate change, and stresses the need to ensure and promote healthy and resilient seas and oceans; recalls that the IPCC special report entitled ‘The Ocean and Cryosphere in a Changing Climate’ specifies that climate mechanisms depend on the health of the ocean and marine ecosystems, which are currently affected by global warming, pollution, the overexploitation of marine biodiversity, acidification, deoxygenation and coastal erosion; highlights that the IPCC also points out that the ocean is part of the solution to mitigate and adapt to the effects of climate change, and underlines the necessity of reducing greenhouse gas emissions and pollution in ecosystems, as well as of enhancing natural carbon sinks;

32.  Points out that the degradation of coastal and marine ecosystems threatens the physical, economic and food security of local communities and the economy at large, and weakens their ability to provide critical ecosystem services such as food, carbon storage and oxygen generation, as well as to support nature-based solutions to climate change adaptation;

33.  Warns that certain coastal zones may come under great pressure due to rising sea levels and the intrusion of saline water into both the coastal aquifers used for the abstraction of drinking water and into sewers, as well as due to extreme weather, which may have consequences such as crop failure, the contamination of bodies of water, damage to infrastructure, and forced displacement; encourages the development of green infrastructure in coastal cities, which are generally located near wetlands, to preserve biodiversity and coastal ecosystems, as well as to strengthen the sustainable development of the economy, tourism and coastal landscapes, which also help to improve resilience to climate change in these vulnerable areas which are particularly affected by rising sea levels;

34.  Supports initiatives, including the development of urban strategies and better spatial planning, to use the potential of roofs and other infrastructure, such as parks, urban gardens, green roofs and walls, air filter appliances, cool pavements, penetrable concrete and other measures that can contribute to cooling high urban temperatures, the retention and reuse of rainwater and the production of food, while reducing air pollution, improving quality of life in cities, reducing risks to human health and protecting biodiversity, including pollinators; believes that infrastructure such as roads, parking lots, train tracks and power and drainage systems, among others, need to be made biodiversity- and climate-proof;

35.  Acknowledges that assessments by public authorities of the impact of spatial plans and urban development on the water system could provide planning authorities with the necessary advice on ways to build without causing problems for the water system; calls on the Member States to embed these assessments in their approach; calls on the Member States to draw up flood hazard and flood risk maps in accordance with Article 6 of Directive 2007/60/EC on the assessment and management of flood risks, thereby reducing the impact of floods;

36.  Recalls that climate change has an impact on both water quantity and its quality, as lower flow in bodies of water means less dilution of harmful substances which are a threat to biodiversity, human health and the drinking water supply; calls, therefore, for better water management in urban and rural areas, including the creation of sustainable drainage through improved land planning, which safeguards and recovers natural flowing systems and natural water retention measures to help moderate flooding and droughts, facilitate groundwater recharge and ensure the availability of water resources for the production of drinking water; emphasises that adaptation measures in water management should be consistent with measures to enhance sustainability and circularity in farming, foster the energy transition and conserve and restore ecosystems and biodiversity; in this respect, calls for a strong link between the upcoming zero pollution action plan on water, air and soil and the new EU climate adaptation strategy;

37.  Calls on the Member States and the Commission to fully implement Directive 2000/60/EC, which establishes a framework for Community action in the field of water policy, improving the quality of waters upstream; notes that measures to retain and abstract water from bodies of water upstream has an impact on bodies of water downstream – also across borders – which might hamper the economic development of downstream areas and limit the availability of drinking water resources; calls for coherent policy measures across areas in order to contribute to reaching at least good ecological status of bodies of water in the EU, and stresses the crucial importance of ensuring WFD-compliant ecological flows and a significant improvement in freshwater ecosystem connectivity;

38.  Calls on the Commission and the Member States to further promote water reuse in order to prevent allocation conflicts between different uses of water, while providing sufficient availability of water resources for the production of drinking water, essential to fulfilling the human right to water;

39.  Notes the high energy consumption in the water sector; calls on the Commission to consider energy-efficient measures and the possibility of using treated waste water as an ‘on-site’ source of renewable energy; notes that the current Urban Waste Water Treatment Directive has not been revised since its adoption in 1991; calls on the Commission to revise the Urban Waste Water Treatment Directive in order to make sure that it contributes positively to the Union’s climate and environmental goals;

Adaptation measures and consistency

40.  Emphasises the need to mainstream climate adaptation in, and maximise the co-benefits with, all relevant EU policies towards a more sustainable future, such as agriculture and food production, forestry, transport, trade, energy, environment, water management, buildings, infrastructure, industrial, maritime and fisheries policies, as well as cohesion policy and local development, and social policies, and the need to ensure that other European Green Deal initiatives are consistent with climate adaptation and mitigation measures;

41.  Calls on the Commission to thoroughly assess the climate and environmental impact of all relevant legislative and budgetary proposals, and to ensure that they are fully aligned with the goal of limiting global warming to below 1.5 °C;

42.  Regrets the fact that EU policies allowed for climate and environmentally harmful subsidies in the period 2014-2020, which contributed to the reduced resilience of EU ecosystems; urges that the applicable rules across all policy areas should prevent such use of public resources;

43.  Calls on the Commission to adopt an ambitious approach to the upcoming renovation wave and adopt proper initiatives securing staged and deep renovations with a strong cost-effective focus; welcomes, in this context, Commission President Ursula von der Leyen’s ambition to set up a ‘European Bauhaus’ bringing together engineers, architects and other personnel from the buildings sector as stressed during the State of the Union speech on 16 September 2020 in the European Parliament;

44.  Calls for the new strategy to be consistent with global action and agreements such as the Paris Agreement, the SDGs and the Convention on Biological Diversity; asks the Commission to identify actions that promote and facilitate adaptation outside of the EU in the new strategy, in particular in least developed countries and small island states which are the most severely impacted by climate change and rising sea levels, and to step up its technical assistance for and the sharing of best practices with developing countries as part of its external action;

45.  Calls for the new adaptation strategy to promote and develop adaptation solutions with third countries, especially in the parts of the world most vulnerable to and affected by climate change; emphasises, in addition, the need for effective and targeted capacity-building in developing countries, the diffusion of technologies for climate adaptation, and the responsibilities that exist throughout supply chains;

46.  Calls for the Commission to adequately and swiftly address desertification and land degradation, problems that already affect most countries in the Union and have emerged as one of the most visible consequences of climate change, and to develop a methodology and indicators to assess their extent; also highlights the need to address soil sealing; recalls the findings of the European Court of Auditors’ special report entitled ‘ Combating desertification in the EU: a growing threat in need of more action’, in particular the need to enhance the EU legal framework for soil, to step up actions towards delivering the commitment made by Member States to achieve land degradation neutrality in the EU by 2030 at the latest, and to better address the underlying causes of desertification, in particular unsustainable agricultural practices; regrets the lack of a specific EU policy and action in this regard; calls, therefore, on the Commission to present an EU strategy to combat desertification within the framework of the adaptation strategy; calls for sufficient funding for combating desertification and land degradation;

47.  Acknowledges the unequal impacts of climate change, and the fact that the adverse impacts will not only vary between Member States, but also, more importantly, between regions, affecting their respective needs for adaptation measures; calls, therefore, on the Commission to draw up guidance for Member States and regions to help them target their adaptation measures in the most effective manner;

48.  Stresses the need to enhance the preparedness and adaptive capacity of geographical areas with a high exposure to climate change, such as the island and outermost regions of the EU;

49.  Recognises that the adverse impacts of climate change will particularly affect poor and disadvantaged groups within society, as they tend to have more limited adaptive capacities and are more dependent on climate-sensitive resources; stresses that climate change adaptation efforts need to address the nexus between climate change and the wide-ranging socio-economic sources of vulnerability, including poverty and gender inequality;

50.  Calls for reinforced social protection systems to protect the most vulnerable regions and people against the adverse impacts of climate change, as well as for the identification of vulnerable groups in the design of fair adaptation policies at all relevant governance levels;

51.  Highlights that the selection of adaptation measures should be carried out on the basis of a multi-criteria analysis through efficiency, effectiveness, financial cost, consistency with mitigation, an urban perspective, etc.; calls on the Commission to develop a definition of climate-proofing as a way to ensure that all measures are effective and fit for purpose;

52.  Highlights the risk of maladaptation to climate change and the associated costs thereof; calls, therefore, on the Commission to develop indicators to measure whether the Union is meeting the targets on adaptation, based on projected impacts;

53.  Encourages the development of common methodologies and approaches to monitor and evaluate the effectiveness of adaptation actions, while recognising that climate change impacts and adaptation actions are local and context-specific;

Financing

54.  Calls for increased funding at all governance levels and for the mobilisation of public and private investments in adaptation; recalls its position calling for a climate-related spending target of 30 % and a biodiversity-related spending target of 10 % in the next MFF 2021-2027 and Next Generation EU, which should contribute to both climate mitigation and adaptation; calls for climate resilience to be considered as a key criterion in all relevant EU funding; considers that the European Investment Bank (EIB), as a climate bank, should also fund climate adaptation measures(9); calls on the EIB, as the EU’s climate bank, to properly deliver the EU’s financing for adaptation to climate change and to commit to an enhanced level of ambition on adaptation in its Climate Bank Roadmap, and calls for increased incentives for SMEs, which can play a key role in developing innovative sustainable solutions for adaptation; stresses that the next MFF and the Recovery Fund should neither lead to increased pressure on ecosystems, nor to their reduced connectivity, nor to their overexploitation as only the sustainable use of nature will allow the Union to adapt to and mitigate dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system(10); calls for adequate financial support for the implementation of the protection and restoration targets of the EU Biodiversity Strategy; stresses the need to make the financing of adaptation to climate change inclusive and gender-responsive;

55.  Regrets the fact that the EU’s tracking methodology for climate funding does not differentiate between mitigation and adaptation, and that climate earmarking has been difficult to track, being used more as an accounting tool than an actual support for policy planning; calls for the climate earmarking system to be policy-specific and include monitoring criteria that allow for comparisons across EU funds, differentiating between climate mitigation and adaptation across all EU budget instruments;

56.  Encourages better use of the EU Solidarity Fund as a ‘build back better’ funding mechanism that also provides incentives for adaptation and forward-looking planning;

57.  Acknowledges that adaptation has a cost; notes, however, that the cost of inaction is expected to be far greater; insists on the importance of making investments in adaptation as, in addition to saving lives and protecting the environment, preventive actions can be more cost-effective; emphasises the principle of prevention and calls on the Commission to develop approaches to ensure that the costs arising from a failure to take adaptation measures are not passed on to the general public, and to enforce the ‘polluter pays’ principle, giving adaptation responsibilities to the polluter; calls for the EU and the Member States to ensure that public investments are climate-proof and, at the same time, provide incentives for green and sustainable private investments to act as a catalyst for systemic changes; believes that the ‘do no harm’ principle should be explicit in the upcoming adaption strategy, in particular to prevent negative impacts on biodiversity, and avert maladaptation;

58.  Welcomes the Commission’s proposal to extend the scope of the EU Solidarity Fund to cover public health emergencies such as pandemics;

Awareness-raising, adaptation knowledge and research

59.  Underlines the importance of raising awareness about the effects of climate change, such as extreme weather events, including on health and on the environment, and about the need for adaptation, as well as its benefits, not only among decision makers, but also through appropriate and continuous information and educational activities at all stages and in all areas of life; regrets, in this context, the fact that budget cuts have been made to important programmes such as EU4health and Erasmus;

60.  Recognises that the priority knowledge gaps have not been closed and that new gaps have emerged; calls, therefore, on the Commission to further identify and fill knowledge gaps, also in relation to critical sectors, in order to ensure informed decision-making, by further developing tools such as Climate-ADAPT and the European Institute of Innovation and Technology Climate and Knowledge and Innovation Community (EIT Climate-KIC); in this regard, stresses the importance of better knowledge sharing between Member States, which remains insufficient, and of improved coordination on issues such as international river basins, flood defences, building codes and construction in potential high-risk zones; calls on the Commission to create an adaptation analysis and modelling forum to improve the use of climate change impact and adaptation models for policy-making;

61.  Highlights the large amount of innovation that underpins projects and measures for climate change adaptive measures, such as technology development, digital services, etc., and stresses the need for the EU to support the development and deployment of such initiatives;

62.  Stresses the importance of supporting research and innovation through the Horizon Europe programme and other financing mechanisms in the areas of climate adaptation, nature-based solutions, green technologies and other solutions that can help in the fight against climate change and extreme weather phenomena; recalls also the potential of Horizon Europe to foster the climate resilience of EU citizens, thereby contributing to adaptation also through societal transformation; regrets, in this context, the fact that massive cuts have been made to the budgets in the field of research and innovation to programmes such as Horizon Europe, as these cuts will diminish the EU’s competitiveness in cutting-edge technologies and solutions for climate mitigation and adaptation; recalls the fundamental role that researchers play in combating global warming and stresses, in this regard, the importance of close scientific collaboration between international partners; notes that the agricultural European Innovation Partnership (EIP-AGRI) can be an important tool for developing new technologies and practices for climate adaptation in agri-food systems;

63.  Stresses the importance of basing the adaptation measures on the latest scientific knowledge and accessible data; takes note, in this context, of the work already carried out by EU programmes such as COPERNICUS, and emphasises the role of enforced data collection in ensuring the most accurate projections possible; calls for an increase in research and development to find innovative solutions for adaptation and for targeted support to digital innovations that exploit the power of digitalisation for sustainable transformation;

64.  Notes that the effects of climate change on health will increase and that, according to the European Environment Agency (EEA) Report on Health and Climate Change, and the Lancet Countdown, these impacts are only now beginning to be considered; stresses, therefore, the importance of further studying the impact of climate change on human health and calls for investment in research in this area, for cross-sectoral cooperation on risk assessment and surveillance, and increased awareness and capacity in the health sector, including at local level, and for the sharing of best practices and the latest knowledge on the risks posed by climate change to human health, through EU programmes such as Horizon Europe and the LIFE programme; calls for the data that is collected to be channelled into the European Health Data Space;

65.  Calls on the Commission to take into account in its strategy the need to ensure that Member States have climate-resilient health systems, capable of anticipating and responding to the consequences of climate change for health, particularly for the most vulnerable people, by fully engaging the health community in the design of the instruments for adaptation; stresses that this should include prevention programmes, plans on adaptive measures and awareness-raising campaigns on the effects of climate change on health, such as death, injury, the increased risk of food- and water-borne disease resulting from extreme temperatures, floods and fires, as well as effects emanating from disrupted ecosystems, bringing risks of diseases, changed pollen seasons and allergies; calls on the Commission also to provide the necessary resources for the maintenance and further development of the vector-borne disease surveillance network and entomological surveillance, and its proper implementation in the Member States;

Early warning and rapid response

66.  Calls for the new strategy to put a stronger focus on crisis prevention and preparedness planning, and management and disaster response, including in the event of pandemics, exploiting all synergies with the reinforced Union Civil Protection Mechanism and with the active involvement of EU agencies such as the EEA and the European Centre for Disease Control and Prevention (ECDC); is of the opinion that the Member States should coordinate the creation of these preparedness plans with the Union Civil Protection Mechanism through its Emergency Response Coordination Centre; calls on the Commission to develop guidelines on urban heat emergencies and to encourage the exchange of best practices between Member States in this context;

67.  Urges the Member States to develop adequate prevention and rapid response plans for climate disasters such as heatwaves, floods and drought, which take into account the specificities of the regions, such as border or coastal regions, and include mechanisms for cross-border action, ensuring shared responsibilities and solidarity between the Member States and with third countries; insists on the need to adopt an adaptation strategy for territories and cities exposed to the consequences of climate change, based on a new innovative ecosystem approach to risk prevention and management, in particular by identifying fall-back areas, flood retention areas, natural protections and, in cases where they are essential, artificial protections;

68.  Requests national, regional and local authorities to establish timely early warning systems and prepare appropriate tools to respond to extreme weather events and other negative impacts of climate change, as well as pandemics;

o
o   o

69.  Instructs its President to forward this resolution to the Commission.

(1) Texts adopted, P9_TA(2020)0015. (2) Texts adopted, P9_TA(2020)0005. (3) Texts adopted, P9_TA(2019)0078. (4) OJ L 327, 22.12.2000, p. 1 (5) OJ L 177, 5.6.2020, p. 3. (6) OJ L 288, 6.11.2007, p. 27. (7) OJ C 316, 22.9.2017, p. 99. (8) Watson, J. E. M. et al..: ‘The exceptional value of intact forest ecosystems’, Nature, Ecology and Evolution, Vol. 2, No 4, Macmillan Publishers Limited, London, 2018. (9) European Parliament resolution of 23 July 2020 on the conclusions of the extraordinary European Council meeting of 17-21 July 2020, Texts adopted, P9_TA(2020)0206. (10) IPBES, Global Assessment Report on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services, 2019.

European Parliament resolution of 17 December 2020 on the outcome of the Committee on Petitions’ deliberations during 2019 (2020/2044(INI))

P9_TA(2020)0383 A9-0230/2020

The European Parliament,

–  having regard to its previous resolutions on the outcome of the Committee on Petitions’ deliberations,

–  having regard to Articles 10 and 11 of the Treaty on European Union (TEU),

–  having regard to Articles 24 and 227 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU), which reflect the importance the Treaty attaches to the right of EU citizens and residents to bring their concerns to the attention of Parliament,

–  having regard to Article 228 TFEU on the role and functions of the European Ombudsman,

–  having regard to Article 44 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union concerning the right to petition the European Parliament,

–  having regard to the provisions of the TFEU relating to the infringement procedure and, in particular, to Articles 258 and 260 thereof,

–  having regard to Rules 54 and 227(7) of its Rules of Procedure,

–  having regard to the report of the Committee on Petitions (A9-0230/2020),

A.  whereas following the European elections which took place from 23 to 26 May 2019 and the constitution of the new Parliament on 2 July 2019, the Committee on Petitions held its constitutive meeting on 10 July 2019;

B.  whereas in 2019 Parliament received 1 357 petitions, which represents an increase of 11,23 % on the 1 220 petitions submitted in 2018 and reveals that despite the European election recess period, EU citizens and residents continued to exercise their right to petition;

C.  whereas in 2019 the number of users supporting one or more petitions on Parliament’s Petitions Web Portal increased as compared to 2018 and reached a total of 28 075; whereas the number of clicks in support of petitions was 31 679;

D.  whereas of the petitions submitted in 2019, 41 were co-signed by one or more citizens, 8 by more than 100 citizens and 3 by more than 10 000 citizens;

E.  whereas the number of petitions remained modest in relation to the total population of the EU; whereas the overall number of petitions received indicates that greater efforts and appropriate measures are necessary to raise citizens' awareness on the right to petition; whereas citizens in exercising the right to petition expect that the EU institutions will provide added value in finding a solution to their problems;

F.  whereas of the 1 357 petitions submitted in 2019, 938 were declared admissible, 406 were declared inadmissible and 13 were withdrawn; whereas the relatively high percentage (30 %) of inadmissible petitions in 2019 reveals that there is still a widespread lack of clarity about the EU’s fields of activity; whereas in this sense, it is necessary to address this problem with information campaigns dedicated to clarifying the competences of the Union as well as the procedure for submitting petitions to the European Parliament;

G.  whereas the criteria for the admissibility of petitions are laid down in Article 227 TFEU and Rule 226 of Parliament’s Rules of Procedure, which require that petitions must be submitted by EU citizens or residents directly affected by matters falling within the European Union’s fields of activity;

H.  whereas the right to petition the European Parliament is one of the fundamental rights of EU citizens; whereas the right to petition offers EU citizens and residents an open, democratic and transparent mechanism for addressing their elected representatives directly, and is therefore an important element of active citizens' participation in the EU’s fields of activity;

I.  whereas democratic governance based on transparency, effective protection of fundamental rights and the inclusion of EU citizens’ requests in the EU political agenda are needed in order to increase citizens' direct participation and to improve the quality of the EU decision-making process; whereas a democratic and transparent governance should be also considered a cornerstone for enhancing the effectiveness and citizen-friendliness of the work of the Committee on Petitions;

J.  whereas the right to petition should enhance Parliament’s responsiveness to complaints and concerns relating to respect for EU fundamental rights and compliance with EU legislation in the Member States; whereas petitions are, among other things, a very useful source of information on instances of misapplication or breaches of EU law; whereas petitions enable Parliament and other EU institutions to assess the transposition and application of EU law and its impact on EU citizens and residents, and to detect shortcomings and inconsistencies of EU law undermining the goal of ensuring full protection of citizens' fundamental rights;

K.  whereas citizens usually turn to the Committee on Petitions as a last resort when other bodies and institutions are deemed to be unable to resolve their concerns;

L.  whereas Parliament has long been at the forefront of the development of the petitions process internationally and has the most open and transparent petitions process in Europe, allowing petitioners to participate in its activities;

M.  whereas each petition is carefully examined by the Committee on Petitions; whereas each petitioner has the right to receive a reply and information on the decision on admissibility and follow-up actions taken by the committee, within a reasonable period of time and in their own language or in the language used in the petition;

N.  whereas the activities of the Committee on Petitions are based on the input and contributions received from petitioners; whereas the information provided by the petitioners along with the expertise delivered by the Commission, the Member States and other bodies are essential for the work of the committee; whereas admissible petitions often provide valuable input for the work of other parliamentary committees and intergroups;

O.  whereas a considerable number of petitions are discussed publicly in meetings of the Committee on Petitions; whereas petitioners are frequently invited to present their petitions and play a full part in the discussion, thereby contributing actively to the work of the committee; whereas in 2019, the Committee on Petitions held 9 ordinary committee meetings, where 250 petitions were discussed with 239 petitioners present, while 126 petitioners participated actively by taking the floor; whereas the role of the committee in empowering European citizens is an important contribution to reinforcing the image and authority of Parliament;

P.  whereas the main subjects of concern raised in petitions submitted in 2019 pertained to environmental matters (in particular, issues concerning pollution, protection and preservation and waste management), fundamental rights (notably the rights of the child, voting rights and EU citizens’ rights, in particular in the context of Brexit), constitutional affairs (in particular questions related to the European elections and to the UK’s withdrawal from the EU), health (in particular issues relating to healthcare and to the impact of hazards and toxic substances), transport (notably air and rail passengers’ rights, cross-national connections and seasonal time changes), the internal market (in particular questions relating to consumers’ rights and freedom of movement of persons), employment (in particular access to the job market and precarious contracts), and culture and education (in particular access to education for children with disabilities and harassment at school), in addition to many other areas of activity;

Q.  whereas 73,9 % of the petitions received (1 003 petitions) in 2019 were submitted via Parliament’s Petitions Web Portal, as compared to 70,7 % (863 petitions) in 2018;

R.  whereas in 2019 the Petitions Web Portal was further developed into a responsive web design version, compliant with the new ‘look and feel’ of the European Parliament’s website (Europarl); whereas it has therefore become more user-friendly and accessible for citizens, who can now use it on any device, optimised to apply the European standard EN 301 549; whereas it is also partially compliant with the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG) 2.1 level AA standard; whereas the new privacy statement has been uploaded in all language versions in the email templates and on the registration page, and audio Captcha for registration of user accounts has been enabled; whereas the Petitions Web Portal and ePetition have been further integrated by improving their synchronisation mechanism; whereas a large number of individual support requests have been handled successfully;

S.  whereas it should be noted that owing to the European election recess period, no fact-finding visits took place for petitions for which an inquiry was ongoing during 2019; whereas the committee carried out the follow-up assessments of a number of previous fact-finding visits and adopted the reports on two which took place in 2018; whereas a number of fact-finding visits have been scheduled for 2020;

T.  whereas the Committee on Petitions considers the European Citizens’ Initiative (ECI) to be an important instrument of participatory democracy, which enables citizens to become actively involved in shaping the Union’s policies and legislation; whereas there has been a lack of effective communication concerning the ECI;

U.  whereas the media play a key role in any democratic system and provide more transparency to the process of the Committee on Petitions; whereas a quality press is an essential element for the whole European Union; whereas there is confusion in some European media as regards the role and powers of the Committee on Petitions;

V.  whereas under the Rules of Procedure, the Committee on Petitions is responsible for relations with the European Ombudsman, who investigates complaints of maladministration within the institutions and bodies of the European Union; whereas in 2019 the Committee on Petitions played a key role in the organisation of the election of the European Ombudsman by holding a public hearing of the candidates under Rule 231 of the Rules of Procedure; whereas on 18 December 2019 Emily O’Reilly was re-elected European Ombudsman for the 2019-2024 parliamentary term;

W.  whereas its resolution of 17 January 2019 on the Ombudsman’s strategic inquiry OI/2/2017 on the transparency of legislative discussions in the preparatory bodies of the Council of the EU(1) expressed support for the Ombudsman in her inquiry and called on the Council to take all measures necessary to implement as swiftly as possible the recommendations of the Ombudsman; whereas the Council has not responded either to the Ombudsman or to Parliament’s resolution, and has not taken any steps towards implementation;

X.  whereas in 2019 the relations between the Committee on Petitions and the European Ombudsman were further strengthened, as demonstrated by the active participation of the Ombudsman in the meetings of the committee; whereas following its resolution of 12 February 2019 on Regulations and general conditions governing the performance of the Ombudsman’s duties(2), Emily O’Reilly took part in the committee’s meeting of 2 April 2019 for an exchange of views on her proposed new prerogatives, and presented her Annual Report for 2018 to the Committee on Petitions at its meeting on 4 September 2019;

Y.  whereas the Committee on Petitions is a member of the European Network of Ombudsmen, which also includes the European Ombudsman, national and regional ombudsmen and similar bodies of the Member States, the candidate countries, and other European Economic Area countries, and which aims to promote the exchange of information about EU law and policy and to share best practices;

Z.  whereas the activities of the Petitions Network should be improved by ensuring a more effective cooperation among committees dealing with petitions; whereas the Petitions Network should strengthen the dialogue and collaboration with the Commission and other EU institutions aiming at guaranteeing that issues raised by citizens in petitions are adequately addressed and resolved;

AA.  whereas in her political guidelines for the European Commission 2019-2024, President von der Leyen committed to respond with a legislative act to resolutions of Parliament based on Article 225 TFEU, with a view to giving Parliament a stronger role in initiating EU legislation; whereas the Committee on Petitions should play a strategic role in creating a direct connection between Parliament’s right of legislative initiative and the issues raised by citizens through petitions;

1.  Recalls that the Committee on Petitions, as the only committee directly communicating with the citizens, must enhance its key role in defending and promoting the rights of EU citizens and residents within the committee’s competences, ensuring that petitioners’ concerns and complaints are examined in timely fashion and resolved, through an open, democratic, agile and transparent petition process and a strengthened cooperation and dialogue with other EU institutions and national, regional and local authorities, and by avoiding a biased or politicised response to the petitioners;

2.  Regrets that petitioners are still not sufficiently informed about the grounds for declaring a petition inadmissible; emphasises the importance of a continuous information campaign and public debate on the Union’s fields of activity aimed at raising public awareness of the right to petition the European Parliament, providing clearer and more detailed information about the powers of the EU; stresses the need to adopt, as a matter of urgency, all necessary measures in order to implement a democratic EU governance based on transparency, enhanced protection of fundamental rights, and direct citizens' inclusion in the EU decision-making processes; considers it essential to find a way of better promoting the right to petition and making citizens aware of this right; proposes that information campaigns in the European Union be stepped up in order to ensure that EU citizens have better knowledge of the EU’s competences and clarify the perception of the role of the Committee on Petitions in public opinion;

3.  Calls for a more active press and communications service and a more active social media presence, in order to enhance the visibility of the work of the committee as well as to increase its responsiveness to public concerns and EU debates, by also highlighting those cases and success stories in which an issue raised by a petitioner was resolved with the support of the Committee on Petitions;

4.  Proposes to carry out campaigns and outreach events targeting journalists and the media in order to prevent vague information and thus improve the relationship between the Committee on Petitions and the media; underlines that the media play a key role in reaching out to European citizens concerning the day-to-day work of the Committee on Petitions and can contribute through their activities to improving European citizens’ knowledge of the work of the Committee on Petitions; stresses that it is the EU’s task to encourage the provision to European citizens of accurate information;

5.  Points out that petitions offer the opportunity to the European Parliament and other EU institutions to maintain a direct dialogue with EU citizens and legal residents who are affected by misapplication or breaches of EU law or by inconsistencies in EU legislation, and to fix problems which have been detected; welcomes, therefore, the fact that petitions are the entrance door of citizens in the European institutions; stresses the need for enhanced cooperation between the Committee on Petitions and lead committees, the EU institutions and national, regional and local authorities, on inquiries or proposals regarding implementation of and compliance with EU law;

6.  Considers that in order to ensure that petitions are passed to the relevant and competent authorities, it is necessary to improve cooperation with national parliaments, Member State governments, relevant national institutions and Ombudsmen;

7.  Recalls that petitions provide a valuable contribution to the Commission’s role as guardian of the Treaties; reiterates that good cooperation between the Committee on Petitions and the Commission is crucial and that faster answers from the Commission are essential in the process of handling petitions; welcomes, in this regard, the commitment made by the Commission Vice-President for Interinstitutional Relations and Foresight, Maroš Šefčovič, during his hearing as commissioner-designate, to further improve the Commission’s handling of petitions and to ensure the submission of accurate answers within the three-month deadline; reiterates its call on the Commission to ensure transparency and access to documents in the framework of the EU Pilot procedures in relation to petitions received, and of the EU Pilot and infringement procedures that have already been concluded;

8.  Calls on the Commission to commit to a more active involvement with the Committee on Petitions in order to ensure that petitioners receive a precise response to their requests and complaints regarding the implementation of EU law;

9.  Considers that the Commission should not place the responsibility to act on a petitioner alone when there is a problem detected with the application or breach of EU law; believes that the Commission must check whether national authorities are taking steps to solve the problem mentioned in the petition and must be ready to intervene in case of inefficiency of actions of national authorities;

10.  Stresses that transparency and public access to the documents of all EU institutions, including the Council, should be the rule in order to ensure the highest level of protection of the democratic rights of citizens; points out that the current Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001(3) no longer reflects the actual situation; calls on the Commission to submit a proposal for a recast of the 2001 Regulation, with a view to enhancing transparency and accountability by promoting good administrative practice;

11.  Notes that the Committee on Petitions frequently receives complaints about rule of law violations by certain authorities; recalls that ensuring the effective, equal and uniform application of EU law is crucial for upholding the rule of law, which is one of the founding values of the Union and its Member States, pursuant to Article 2 TEU; while respecting the subsidiarity principle, calls on the Commission to respect the commitments made in its communication of 17 July 2019 entitled ‘Strengthening the rule of law within the Union: A blueprint for action’ (COM(2019)0343), in order to promote a culture of respect for the rule of law, reinforce cooperation with national authorities, and ensure an effective common response to actual threats within the Union;

12.  Urges the Commission to take steps to ensure that the interpretation of the scope of Article 51 is as coherent and broad as possible; recalls that the expectations of most petitioners in relation to the rights conferred on them by the Charter are high and go beyond their current scope of application;

13.  Believes that cooperation with other committees of Parliament is essential for the comprehensive treatment of petitions; notes that in 2019, 65 petitions were sent to other committees for opinion and 351 for information, and that 38 opinions and 9 acknowledgements of taking petitions into consideration in their work were received from other committees; also notes that in 2018, 47 petitions were sent to other committees for opinion and 660 for information, and that 30 opinions and 38 acknowledgements of taking petitions into consideration in their work were received from other committees; recalls that petitioners are informed of decisions to request opinions from other committees for the treatment of their petitions; therefore underlines the importance of the contribution of other committees in enabling Parliament to respond more swiftly and efficiently to citizens’ concerns;

14.  Trusts that the petitions network is a useful tool for raising awareness of the issues brought up in petitions and facilitating the treatment of petitions in other committees to which they are sent for opinion or for information; notes that there is a need for ensuring an adequate follow-up of petitions in parliamentary and legislative work; stresses that the petitions network could be considered as a strategic tool to foster the right of legislative initiative of the European Parliament enshrined in Article 225 TFEU, thus addressing the shortcomings and inconsistencies of EU law highlighted in petitions in order to ensure full protection of citizens' rights; believes that regular meetings of the petitions network are key for enhancing cooperation between parliamentary committees through exchange of information and sharing of best practices among the network members; stresses that a closer liaison between the committees may also improve efficiency as regards planning hearings and parliamentary studies on the same subjects; advocates drafting a mechanism to enable the Committee on Petitions to be directly involved in the legislative process;

15.  Draws attention to the key annual reports adopted by the Committee on Petitions in 2019, notably the Annual Report on the Committee on Petitions’ activities in 2018(4) and the Annual Report on the European Ombudsman’s work in 2018(5);

16.  Notes that the Committee on Petitions has expressed its opinion on important issues raised in petitions by contributing to parliamentary and legislative reports, notably on the implementation of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union in the EU institutional framework(6) and on the proposal for a directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on discontinuing seasonal changes of time and repealing Directive 2000/84/EC(7);

17.  Underlines that many petitions have led to legislative or political action, whether in the form of reports or motions for resolutions, or of preliminary rulings or infringement procedures;

18.  Takes note that the environment was the main area of concern for petitioners in 2019; points in this regard to the motion for a resolution pursuant to Rule 227(2) on waste management, adopted on 21 March 2019 by the Committee on Petitions and on 4 April 2019 in plenary(8); stresses that waste management is one of the main global socio-economic and environmental challenges, and reiterates its call to maximise prevention, reuse, separate collection and recycling with a view to boosting the transition towards a circular economy; reiterates its call on the Commission to use the full potential of the early warning system as laid down in the revised waste directives; draws attention to the final report of the fact-finding visit to Valledora (Italy), adopted on 11 April 2019, and calls on the competent national, regional and local authorities to ensure the full and consistent implementation of all recommendations contained therein;

19.  Draws attention to the hearing on ‘Climate Change Denial’ which the Committee on Petitions held on 21 March 2019 jointly with the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Food Safety; believes that the Committee on Petitions must continue to counter climate denialism, including by promoting the adoption of effective and dissuasive sanctions against interest groups lobbying the EU institutions whose activities are directly or indirectly related to climate change denial; stresses that it is of paramount importance to ensure that the future work of the Committee on Petitions guarantees a specific focus on climate change with a view to strengthening the overall activities of the EU institutions aimed at consistently implementing the European Green Deal and the Paris Agreement;

20.  Points to the studies on ‘Cross-border nuclear safety, liability and cooperation in the European Union’ and ‘Endocrine Disruptors: From Scientific Evidence to Human Health Protection’, which the Committee on Petitions commissioned as a follow-up to a significant number of petitions raising concerns over these matters and which were presented at its meetings on 20 February 2019 and on 2 April 2019; regrets the fact that environmental rules are not always correctly implemented in the Member States, as described in numerous petitions; stresses the importance of delivering on EU citizens’ expectations on the protection of the environment, and therefore urges the Commission, together with the Member States, to ensure the correct implementation of EU legislation in this field; is convinced that the Commission must step up its activities to make sure that environmental assessments conducted by Member States for the authorisation of infrastructure projects concerning which petitioners have highlighted serious risks for human health and the environment are based on accurate and comprehensive analyses in full compliance with EU law;

21.  Is seriously concerned about the severe health damage suffered by citizens - the highest negative impact being registered among children - who live in areas where huge amounts of carcinogenic substances are produced; strongly believes that the Commission must make full use of and consistently implement the provisions of Annex XIV to Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 (REACH) regarding substances subject to authorisation as being carcinogenic, persistent and bio-accumulative, ensuring their substitution by non-toxic alternative substances, including by promoting industrial processes with this in view;

22.  Draws attention to the large number of petitions on Brexit submitted in 2019, mostly calling for the protection of EU citizens’ rights before and after Brexit; welcomes the excellent work done by the Committee on Petitions, which by giving voice to the concerns raised by these petitioners contributed to ensuring that citizens’ rights remained one of Parliament’s main priorities in the Brexit negotiations; stresses that there are many citizens – both in the EU and in the United Kingdom – who, in view of the uncertainty of a no-deal Brexit, have turned to the Committee on Petitions because of the fear of seeing their rights endangered due to the lack of agreement; points out that in order to preserve the rights enjoyed by EU citizens resident in a Member State other than their own, it can be helpful to have appropriate legislation in case the Member State changes its status vis-à-vis the EU;

23.  Recalls the specific role of protection played by the Committee on Petitions within the EU in the framework of the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities; points to the committee’s important ongoing work in connection with petitions concerning issues relating to disabilities; notes that the number of petitions on disability decreased in 2019 in comparison with the previous year; notes however, that accessibility and discrimination remain among the main challenges faced by persons with disabilities; recalls that in 2019 the Committee on Petitions paid specific attention to the discussion of petitions on inclusive education for disabled children; calls for a new skills agenda, to be positioned at the very heart of Europe, and for concrete proposals on how to foster inclusiveness and facilitate the recognition and portability of skills within Europe;

24.  Welcomes the fact that in 2019 the Committee on Petitions dealt with citizens’ concerns regarding transparency and accountability of the EU institutions, as raised in several petitions; recalls in this regard that at its meeting of 2 April 2019 the committee hosted a workshop on ‘Conflicts of Interest - Integrity, Accountability and Transparency in the EU institutions and agencies’, which examined the achievements reached in relation to conflicts of interest, integrity, accountability, transparency, codes of conduct and revolving doors in the EU institutions and agencies; points to the important contribution made to the debate by the European Ombudsman, who gave a keynote speech on achievements and challenges for EU institutions;

25.  Calls for the swift adoption of legal reforms aimed at dealing with lack of transparency of the EU decision-making process, conflicts of interest, and all ethical issues at EU level that affect the legislative process in relation to matters raised by citizens through petitions;

26.  Draws attention to the majority support that the plenary of Parliament gave to the resolution of 17 January 2019 on the strategic investigation OI/2/2017 of the European Ombudsman on the transparency of legislative discussions in the preparatory bodies of the Council of the European Union(9); recalls that the Council, as co-legislator, is an indispensable institution for the citizens of the Union; regrets the fact that numerous Council discussions and meetings still take place behind closed doors; invites the Council to implement a policy of greater transparency in order to improve citizens' trust in public institutions; encourages the Council to publicise certain meetings and documents more widely in order to achieve a better communication with European citizens and with national parliaments;

27.  Acknowledges the outcome of the public hearing held by the Committee on Petitions on 12 November 2019 on the US Foreign Account Tax Compliance Act (FATCA) and its extraterritorial impact on EU citizens; deplores the fact that the Commission and Council seem to value international relations with the US more than the rights and interests of EU citizens, particularly in the case of FATCA, and calls on them to assume their responsibility and take immediate and meaningful action in support of the citizens concerned, as called for by Parliament in its resolution of 5 July 2018 on the adverse effects of the US Foreign Account Tax Compliance Act on EU citizens(10);

28.  Points to the important ongoing work of the Committee on Petitions aimed at ensuring the protection of animal welfare in the EU, as demonstrated by the significant number of petitions on this topic discussed in its meetings in 2019; believes it is of paramount importance to launch a new EU strategy on animal welfare to bridge all the existing gaps and ensure full and effective protection of animal welfare through a clear and comprehensive legislative framework that is fully in line with the requirements of Article 13 TFEU; draws attention to the public hearing on ‘Revaluation of the wolf population in the EU’, which the Committee on Petitions held on 5 December 2019 jointly with the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Food Safety and in association with the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development, in order to give voice to citizens’ concerns about the legal framework for the protection of the wolf as well as the impact of wolves and other large carnivores such as the brown bear population on the environment and rural communities; emphasises that in the framework of the Habitats Directive large carnivores are protected species in most of the Member States; calls on the Member States to make better use of the tools under the existing EU legislation to address possible conflicts concerning the conservation of protected large carnivores; invites the Commission to present as soon as possible an updated EU guidance on species protection rules in order to achieve a satisfactory coexistence between people and large carnivores in affected areas;

29.  Considers it essential that citizens are able to be involved directly in the initiation of legislative proposals; stresses that the ECI is a fundamental instrument for active citizenship and public participation; welcomes the adoption on 17 April 2019 of the new rules for the ECI, which bring a number of structural and technical improvements aimed at making this instrument more user-friendly and accessible and facilitating increased participation of EU citizens in the legislative process of the Union; notes the significant number of new ECIs registered by the Commission in 2019, which shows that citizens are seizing the opportunity to use participatory instruments to have a say in policymaking and lawmaking processes; calls for more dissemination campaigns on the role of the ECI in order to promote the use of this resource by European citizens; regrets that so far the majority of successful ECIs did not end with a legislative proposal by the Commission; encourages the Commission to approach ECIs as openly and responsively as possible in order to make this instrument a real success of European participatory democracy in the eyes of the citizens; therefore calls on the Commission to initiate a legislative proposal on the basis of any successful ECI that was supported by the European Parliament;

30.  Recalls that relations with the European Ombudsman are one of the responsibilities conferred by Parliament’s Rules of Procedure on the Committee on Petitions; welcomes Parliament’s fruitful cooperation with the European Ombudsman, as well as its involvement in the European Network of Ombudsmen; underlines the excellent relations between the European Ombudsman and the Committee on Petitions; notes the key role played by the Committee on Petitions in ensuring that the public hearings of the candidates in the framework of the election procedure for the European Ombudsman in 2019 were conducted in a transparent and efficient manner;

31.  Appreciates the European Ombudsman’s regular contributions to the work of the Committee on Petitions throughout the year; firmly believes that the Union’s institutions, bodies and agencies must ensure consistent and effective follow-up to the recommendations of the Ombudsman;

32.  Recalls that the Petitions Web Portal is an essential tool for ensuring a smooth, efficient and transparent petition process; welcomes, in this regard, its alignment with the ‘look and feel’ of the European Parliament’s website (Europarl); recalls that since the end of 2017, documents such as agendas, minutes and communications from the Committee on Petitions have been automatically uploaded to the portal, providing citizens with a portal which is more responsive, transparent and accessible; stresses that efforts must be continued to make the portal more accessible to persons with disabilities, including developments which allow petitioners to submit petitions in the EU's national sign languages, in order to ensure that all citizens of the Union can exercise their right to petition the European Parliament as contained in Articles 20 and 24 TFEU and in Article 44 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union; suggests ensuring more visibility for the Petitions Web Portal on the European Parliament’s website; is of the opinion that the right to petition is directly linked to the institution’s activities and deserves a visible and easily accessible place on the EP’s website; calls for investigation into how to prevent the use of stolen or fake identities;

33.  Underlines that, although the number of people supporting one or more petitions on Parliament’s Petitions web portal has increased by comparison with 2018, some petitioners are still reporting technical problems with supporting several petitions;

34.  Underlines that the ePetitions instrument is an important database for the Committee on Petitions to function, but calls for the improvement and modernisation of the interface in order to make it easier to use and more accessible;

35.  Congratulates the secretariat of the Committee on Petitions for handling petitions efficiently and with great care, in accordance with the committee’s guidelines and the petitions lifecycle in the EP administration;

36.  Instructs its President to forward this resolution and the report of the Committee on Petitions to the Council, the Commission, the European Ombudsman, the governments and parliaments of the Member States, and the Member States’ committees on petitions, national Ombudsmen or similar competent bodies.

(1) OJ C 411, 27.11.2020, p. 149. (2) OJ C 449, 23.12.2020, p. 182. (3) Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 May 2001 regarding public access to European Parliament, Council and Commission documents (OJ L 145, 31.5.2001, p. 43). (4) Report adopted on 22 January 2019. (5) Report adopted on 12 November 2019. (6) Opinion adopted on 21 January 2019. (7) Opinion adopted on 20 February 2019. (8) Texts adopted, P8_TA(2019)0338. (9) Texts adopted, P8_TA(2019)0045. (10) OJ C 118, 8.4.2020, p. 141.